Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

The device was supposed to be completely finished months ago, wasn't it? So since there is no new data, no videos of it running... what is there to be interested in? I would love to see a video of it running, but I'm not holding my breath. Are you?

No, it indicates that the Travis material has more "meat" to it, and has defenders like yourself who try to justify Travis's claims and who are willing to discuss it. Travis is trying to make money, and he's presented several bogus demonstrations where things move, at least. We haven't seen anything but still photos of a non-moving but very complicated and expensive object from the Ribiero crew. And that's all we will ever see of it, too. After all, it has been "completed" for a couple of months now, hasn't it?

TK,
So you don't separate concept theory from physical implementation ?
1..  You see a believable video demonstration of a ZED and/or Renato's device. what difference would that make, you still don't understand how they got it to work ?
2..  In opposition, you understand how it works and how it could work.  That the physical device is not build yet, sure would leave some doubt but knowing that it can work, it is just a matter of engineering technology to finalize the last step.
3..  A physical implementation can take on many different approaches to achieve the design objective.

So from my viewpoint, notwithstanding  that the physical implementation of an idea is the cherry proof on top of the idea, it will always be secondary to the idea concept itself.
So without the working concept idea, you are nowhere because it is primary, so why this obsession with the demo proof ?

Red_Sunset

[conradelektro]

   Renato's just waiting for the 50kw motor and 500:1 reduction gearbox to see if it
   will rotate, then he's in business!
                                 John.

Is this a joke or real information?

If it is real, we are in for a many year discussion. It is not trivial to measure if a machine which is driven by a 50 kw motor puts out more than 50 kw.

Even if the 50 kw motor is switched of after some time, the machine could keep moving for hours with that enormous initial boost.

Greetings, Conrad

[minnie]

    Sorry, it was meant to be a joke and I never imagined anyone would take it seriously.
    I honestly believe it'll take a fair bit of cranking up.
                         John.

[MarkE]

MarkE,
A rough calculation from back in time, 3 Sept 2012
////////////////
Gravity powered devices / Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.   It might help you some !
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:16:07 AM »
..........................................
Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.

Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod)  = 4902

Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
                                 =  26031/4902
                                 = 5.31

Assigning area ratios as efficiency is a very strange thing to do because area is not a conserved quantity.  I hope you are not just tossing out calculations just for appearance.

Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
                                 =  4902/26031
                                 = 18.8%

Virtual displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume  - Pod volume
                         = 195.23 â€" 36.78
                         = 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes

Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
                             = 36.76 / 195.23
                             = 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match

Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes. 

Are we back to the silly claim that Archimedes' Principle does not apply to all cases of any body immersed in a fluid?  Such was a silly claim made in the videos where it has been shown that the videos did nothing of the kind.

There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water.  Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3”
                                 = (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
                                 = 75 + 150
                                 = 225 KgMtr

NET OUPUT = Load
                        = 150 KgMtr

RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
                                          = 75 KgMtr


GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs  (input referenced to zero level)
              = 198 + 99
              = 297 KgMtr
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference  (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)

GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input  (absolute efficiency)
                                         = 225 / 297
                                         = 75.7 %

REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs   (Effective operational efficiency)
                                   = 150 / 97
                                   = 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay

Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way.   The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.

Red_Sunset

In the normal world efficiency is a measure of result versus cost.  It applies very well to conserved quantities such as energy.  Under the restrictive condition of continuous average power, efficiency also makes sense.  Efficiency has little or no meaning comparing quantities that are not conserved:  discontinuous power, force, distance, area, volume, color hue, color saturation, relative humidity, barometric pressure, etc, etc.

[MarkE]

MarkE, thanks for taking the time to write all that up, but it was not necessary.  I do understand all those concepts and didn't mean to have you go through that effort.

You missed my point that was made after my train of thought that you again summarized in your post.  That point was:

To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance.  Or not, of course.  One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke.  This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.

Later I also explained that I believe this is a way to possibly test the assertion that the ZED stroke can be simplified to a simple hydraulic cylinder.  If it can, your logic and analysis, and that of the Japanese Engineering class, are correct for that substitution.  But if a ZED does not act exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, those analyses are in error (but the assertion that the ZED systems is OU is in no way proved).  I'm interested to know if you, and anyone else, agree?  I also welcome anyone who would like to do these maths as I don't look forward to doing them myself!  But I would only go that far if it were agreed that such a mathematical analysis is a valid test.

M.

Mondrasek, your assertion sounds like:  "To get surplus energy out of a ZED it would need to be shown that the underlying mechanism can produce such a surplus."  In a world of linear superposition, we can decompose machines into their elements.  What TinselKoala's demonstrations have shown is that each of the elements is unable to produce a surplus.  What proponents of the ZED claim but have never successfully shown is that the whole of a ZED magically takes a series of under unity processes and generates an over unity result.  For series processes that is mathematically impossible.  Multiply any quantity by a value between zero and one and the result is a smaller quantity.  Where there some pneumatic or hydraulic process that is over unity, that process is the thing that people should want to find.  People promoting Wayne Travis' and HER's claims have routinely made representations that are outright false, claiming among other things that Archimedes' Principle can somehow be cheated.  Red_Sunset just returned to that same theme that was claimed by Tom Miller in the aquarium videos that visibly refuted his statements.

There are basically three phenomena at work in the ZED:  Hydraulic piston, pneumatic spring, and buoyancy.  Each of these phenomena have been shown countless times to obey conservation of energy in the ideal case and to be lossy in all real cases.  What the Japanese engineering class did correctly was reduce the machine to those elements and group like elements which is completely valid.  If we place two air pockets between three hydraulic pistons, we can reduce the whole thing to one hydraulic piston and one air pocket and get the same net results, which they did.