Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

...........................
That's not what I said, I said you are addicted to this thread, you only ever post in this thread,
do you ever look at  anything else on the forum ?

PowerCat,
Yes I look at many interesting idea's on this site, but over the years, I never came across an idea as ingenious as this one that looks so innocent at first.  One that when looking more, had a logical and plausible theory that in progression revealed more than was provided by the inventor. That was a good sign.
The tell tale was that the inventor hid details by using shaded explanations, and not always in logical sequence (the way I saw it at he time) but when you read all his posts in one document, you see the missing connections in a later post.  If you have nothing, you do not hide or present something as was done in Wayne's thread.  I could easy understand Wayne's precautions as he explained HIS invention, because he was parting with his brainchild idea onto a public website (no so easy)
After going in deeper over a period of 2-3 months, it became clear that Wayne never lied but he did on many occasions reveal only partial details, a incomplete truth (I do not think this was intentional, rather he was to close to the device).   
The knowledge that Wayne acquired over several years can not be assimilated in 1 day, for me it took many weeks because it requires a lot of visualization because I had never seen a zed neither had a model to test with.
My initial conclusions were similar than most of you, could not see where the OU came in, until the light came on.  It is important to read with comprehension of the details and looks for requirements in-line with the objective of the device.
Like you all do, the first question where is the energy coming from, once you discover and see that clearly. You realize it is possible.  My purpose and intent is to translate the principle to an other force field, and produce a device that is not limited by the cycle speed limitations of a buoyancy device.
Time will tell.

[TinselKoala]

Red said,

"Nowhere do I see a question that hasn't been answered in this forum,  the only request that has been refused is actual life data."

And I say, for about the umpteenth time....

Where is the "simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself"? How was the clear overunity determined, what was the ratio of input to output work or energy, and WHY CAN IT NOT BE DEMONSTRATED?

Oh... I guess this must qualify as "actual life data". Sorry for asking... so many times.

Red, gravity is a conservative field of force. Buoyancy is just an effect of gravity by another name, worked through displacement of water. This means that there is nothing that "flows" in the force of gravity, and the gravitational potential energy of any object depends ONLY on its height above a reference, not at all on the simple or complicated path that it took to get there or how much work went into getting it there in the first place. This set of facts has been proven countless times and in fact the existence of experiments like Gravity Probe B and the ballistic trajectory that spacecraft take on their journeys, to name only two of countless many...  RULE OUT any possible "loophole" in that set of facts. That is why Mister Wayne's device cannot work as advertised, and why it always stops running after a while when it's not receiving outside power. You've been told all of this before. Unless and until Mister Wayne or someone else provides _actual experimental evidence_ that gravity can provide useful work in a repeating cycle, using buoyancy, airpressure, bollard springs, jello, silly putty or even magnets...... we really do have to trust what we actually do know about how the world works..... and it's a fact that a closed path in a gravitational field yields zero gain in potential/kinetic energy unless work is done on the system from outside. The Zed, with its complicated pressure and buoyancy chambers, is a complicated Red Herring (should have been your alias, too) that serves quite well, apparently, to fascinate the terrestrial primates into forgetting that pigs cannot fly no matter how hard they flap the cardboard wings.

[powercat]

PowerCat,
Yes I look at many interesting idea's on this site, but over the years, I never came across an idea as ingenious as this one that looks so innocent at first.  One that when looking more, had a logical and plausible theory that in progression revealed more than was provided by the inventor. That was a good sign.The tell tale was that the inventor hid details by using shaded explanations, and not always in logical sequence (the way I saw it at he time) but when you read all his posts in one document, you see the missing connections in a later post.  If you have nothing, you do not hide or present something as was done in Wayne's thread.  I could easy understand Wayne's precautions as he explained HIS invention, because he was parting with his brainchild idea onto a public website (no so easy)After going in deeper over a period of 2-3 months, it became clear that Wayne never lied but he did on many occasions reveal only partial details, a incomplete truth (I do not think this was intentional, rather he was to close to the device).   The knowledge that Wayne acquired over several years can not be assimilated in 1 day, for me it took many weeks because it requires a lot of visualization because I had never seen a zed neither had a model to test with.My initial conclusions were similar than most of you, could not see where the OU came in, until the light came on.  It is important to read with comprehension of the details and looks for requirements in-line with the objective of the device.Like you all do, the first question where is the energy coming from, once you discover and see that clearly. You realize it is possible
My purpose and intent is to translate the principle to an other force field, and produce a device that is not limited by the cycle speed limitations of a buoyancy device.
Time will tell.

This is purely based on your belief where are the successful replications that show clear overunity,
Where is the Scientific Data that show your belief is right,
You entirely base your belief on Wayne's Words I have shown you that Wayne cannot be trusted on his word,
but since you don't have to believe in reality.... facts or verification to post on this forum
we will continue to hear your words of blind faith without actually ever seeing any proof from you.

Now if you're going to take some of Wayne ideas and make your own unique device,
I wish you all the best of luck and hope you don't make any claims you can't prove.

[mondrasek]

Using the latest data I presented for an entire stroke cycle while recording Input Volume, Input Pressure, and Stroke Position, I believe it is possible now to calculate expected performance of a twin ZED system of two identical two layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) ZEDs of the construction I have been testing.

The overall head change throughout a complete cycle for the single ZED was ~224 g/cm².  If a first ZED at its highest head value (top of stroke) is then attached to a second equal ZED construction at its lowest head value (bottom of stroke) via their input water connections, they would equalize to the same average head pressure of ~112 g/cm².  This would also require that ~15 ml of water leave the first ZED and enter the second ZED.

So to finish the cycle by lowering the first ZED completely (with no lift mass in place) and raising the second ZED (with the 1000 g lift mass in place) now requires an additional 112 g/cm² head and (87-15) 72 ml of water to transfer to the second ZED.

Lift Mass = 1000 g
Pressure Increase = (from 114 mm rise in input tube 'manometer') 11.2 g/cm²
Volume = 72 ml ( or cm³)
Stroke = 0.7 cm

This gives a comparative piston value of 72 cm³/0.7 cm = 103 cm².
At the measured volume that comparative piston would be able to lift 103 cm² x 11.2 g/cm² = 1150 g. 
Since my lift mass was only 1000 g this is underunity at 1000/1170 = 87.0%.

Does this make sense?

M.

[Red_Sunset]

I'd be more than happy to start from the bottom up. If there was even on hint that the underlying theory of the conservation of energy was wrong I'd be eager to find it.

Can you describe the  'first simple point of discovery' that I should consider?  I'm intensely interested for surely a Nobel prize is I the offing for the person who can elucidate how this machine breaks fundamental laws .

Since we are talking about principles,
We can start with that simple hypothetical example I presented to you a while ago. You can have the Nobel prize (shared with Wayne).