Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

@mondrasek: If you are able to start at state A at the bottom, then put a weight on at the bottom, lift it, remove the weight at the top, sink and recover back to the original state A without input of further work, leaving the lifted weight at the top... what is preventing you from lifting all the weight in the world, work free, a little at a time? There is either something wrong with how you are describing what you are doing, or with how I am interpreting your description... or you already have a COP infinity device in your workshop.

If what I calculated in #2999 is correct then I only have a maximum COP of 87% possible.  And that is *if* I were to construct a second identical ZED to what I have tested and hooked the two together.  So that is preventing me from lifting all the weight in the world.  That is also something I did not say was happening.

My question was only about the correctness of the see-saw analogy for a twin ZED system.  If the ZED was not coupled to the hydraulic capture system, then I can understand the see-saw analogy.  Then it is just two ZEDs, doing no work, oscillating back and forth.  Just like a see-saw.

But in the dual ZED setup, each rising ZED is lifting considerably more weight than the falling one.  This does not happen without diverting some of the previous lift back into the system (supposedly).  And if it required that ALL of the previous lift be returned to the system, then I could agree that we can have an oscillator again.  But much more complicated than a simple see-saw?  So my question is, is it a correct analogy to ignore the hydraulic capture and feedback system entirely or is that also properly accounted for in the simple see-say analogy?

M.

[LarryC]

Just Rambling,

The typical thought of using gravity in a system is that the work captured from a weight falling is equal to the amount of work it takes to lift the weight back up to its starting point.  That is that the work to reset the weight is a loss and nothing but a loss to the system.

This is not the case in a ZED.  After setup the first initial input fluid into the pod chamber leverages the force of gravity to increase the pressure value that can be utilized within the pod chamber, the more pressure in the more work out.  After the leverage is achieved gravity being gravity and being relentless in wanting to pull things down still tries to pull the water back down to an even value, to do that it tries to push the air up and out of the way, since the air has no place to go except to push on the horizontal surface of the riser and the horizontal surface of the next inside water column, gravity then is assisting in the lift process as well as the increases in input pressure to allow a greater lift,, IE more work out.

At the end of lift gravity is still gravity and is still trying to pull the water, risers and sink weight down, so when the water is allowed to exit the system gravity can now express its force over the water and move the air which moves the water, so on and so forth, and pushes the water back out of the pod chamber under pressure free of charge to me and free for me to use.  At the end of the sink I must stop the risers from being pulled down any further than the start position, gravity will try and remove all that it can.

Been enjoying laughing at the post by the misleaders, but yours is just excellent logic, webby.

Thanks, Larry

[TinselKoala]

If what I calculated in #2999 is correct then I only have a maximum COP of 87% possible.  And that is *if* I were to construct a second identical ZED to what I have tested and hooked the two together.  So that is preventing me from lifting all the weight in the world.  That is also something I did not say was happening.

My question was only about the correctness of the see-saw analogy for a twin ZED system.  If the ZED was not coupled to the hydraulic capture system, then I can understand the see-saw analogy.  Then it is just two ZEDs, doing no work, oscillating back and forth.  Just like a see-saw.

But in the dual ZED setup, each rising ZED is lifting considerably more weight than the falling one.  This does not happen without diverting some of the previous lift back into the system (supposedly).  And if it required that ALL of the previous lift be returned to the system, then I could agree that we can have an oscillator again.  But much more complicated than a simple see-saw?  So my question is, is it a correct analogy to ignore the hydraulic capture and feedback system entirely or is that also properly accounted for in the simple see-say analogy?

M.

I really  need to get this straight.

Several times, it has seemed to me that you have said that you can put a weight on at the bottom, lift it to the top, and then slide it off horizontally onto a platform, say. Then without adding any weight back, you somehow cause the sink to happen and you recover the input you used to lift up the weight.
Right?
So now you are back at the bottom of the cycle and you've recovered the work you put in. But you've got a weight sitting up on top of the platform where it wasn't, before.

Is this what you've said you can do, or not? Where did I get the idea that you said this?

In my little test setup I simulate this by adding a weight to the ZED at the bottom of stroke that it must lift while rising.  That weight is removed at the top of stroke.  So in the see-saw analogy don't you need to hand a sack of apples to the child that is at the bottom and have that lift with them to the top where you would remove it again?

#3069

And there have been other times when you've said a similar thing, about removing an added weight at the top, achieving sink and recovering back to the start position, but with your added weight left behind at the top.

So.... please clear up my misconception about this. Because as I've said before, if you are really doing this..... then you can lift an arbitrary amount of weight in small increments, work free, then recover all that added _free energy_ by letting the weights slide back down through some generator like a waterwheel, a cuckoo clock escapement, you name it.

[wildew]

or 2, prove your case by providing some experimental evidence.

@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.

Larry has posted many spreadsheets, no one has really debated or discussed them.
At times there have been comments like "I don't know how to read them", or - "what"? But they've been largely ignored.

M. posted some data a couple of days ago, it was also not discussed.
I posted data that was the result of a test requested by TK, also ignored.

What the forum lately has consisted of is a RS vs. TK vs. you - with NOTHING of any substance provided by either side. Yes, please, lets get back on topic with data presented that either supports or refutes the claims.

Dale

[Red_Sunset]

@seamus103 - I completely agree with you there.
Larry has posted many spreadsheets, no one has really debated or discussed them.
At times there have been comments like "I don't know how to read them", or - "what"? But they've been largely ignored.
M. posted some data a couple of days ago, it was also not discussed.
I posted data that was the result of a test requested by TK, also ignored.
What the forum lately has consisted of is a RS vs. TK vs. you - with NOTHING of any substance provided by either side. Yes, please, lets get back on topic with data presented that either supports or refutes the claims.
Dale

Wildew & all,
It is clear that no matter how much priming is done, the core principle of the Zed has been stared into the eye but has not been discovered to date.
Why ?  because this forum is being misled by see-saw's with boys eating apples
The whole phenomenon of the zed OU contains a certain amount of IP, that has not been understood.
Xaverius is trying to solve the key point but misses the key.  Only until that keypoint is understood will everything clarify.  Neither Tinsel nor Seamus can see the key effect.  Your data will not really help you, because your systems are too small and you can not measure precise enough because the unenhanced effect is not big enough.
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.  Can you identify all components on the Zed animation and explain why each component is there for ?  There is a pointer in the picture to the effect.
You can follow Seamus and TinselKoala, I guarantee you that you will never arrive (you are being sucked into a black hole).
The choice is yours!