Big try at gravity wheel

[mondrasek]

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.

And so another "proof" of the claim that the ZED is correctly modeled by a simple hydraulic cylinder adds nothing in support of your position?  You appear to keep trying to dissuade me (or anyone for that matter) from doing the maths that can neither prove OU, or support you claim.  That, sir, I do not understand at all!

I would think that you would say something like, "By all means!   Please do the maths!"  Even if you do not add the implied, "It will only again confirm everything I have said!"

Again, I do not understand your position or hesitation at all.

Is the mathematical test I proposed a valid one?  If not, why? 

There are two question in the previous sentence.  Will you answer them simply?

Cheers,

M.

[fletcher]

Thank you Red for your previous input on my 'notes' a few pages back - we are back to where it ended 2 years ago on the original HER thread - all positions have been consistent.

......................................................................

ATEOTD :

'Energy' is defined as the 'Capacity to do Work' - this in the mechanical sense for the HER & RAR illustrations.

'Energy' is the "currency" for mechanical analysis & budgeting purposes, including OU potential.

If Mr Wayne has a machine that doesn't consume fuel or introduce another form of environmental energy into the system, & this machine is self-sustaining whilst doing work, then we have a few possibilities.

1. that induced pressure changes & how the derivative forces are applied can lead to 'un-equilibrium of forces' [ectropy] in a closed system - all other known systems reach an equilibrium of forces [entropy] - sustained ectropy as a natural state would suggest that WEEP is a physics fallacy.

It also suggests that Mr Wayne has found & harnessed a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.

2. that gravity force is not conservative.

3. that gravity acceleration is not constant.

4. that a gravity field/gradient is an energy gradient where energy can be extracted to do work [see 2. & 3.]

- add to list as you see fit -

FWIW :

Webby wonders whether buoyancy lift is the same as hydraulic lift - a hydraulic lift that uses weight force to depress a plunger & lift a piston & load elsewhere relies on Pascal's Law of undiminished pressure transfer - as long as the Effort weight force can raise the Load weight force, & as long as the plunger lengths are sufficiently long, & as long as the volume of fluid transferred is equal in volume, then we see that there is no net gain or loss in the Pe of the system as far as the Effort to Load is concerned, with the addition of a small activation force to cause movement - work is performed however.

Since there is no change in system Pe then it is the same as Archimedes Law of Flotation where average density & Pe is constant - i.e. adding a weight force to increase pressure in a hydraulic situation is the same as adding more head to a system.

IMO, both lift capabilities are the same.

It is simple to remember that Flotation is a function of gravity & occurs where gravity force acts on both the fluid [or air] medium & the lesser density object in it with an equal acceleration & the higher density fluid sinks down below the lesser density object floating it.

Just my opinions.

[MarkE]

And so another "proof" of the claim that the ZED is correctly modeled by a simple hydraulic cylinder adds nothing in support of your position?  You appear to keep trying to dissuade me (or anyone for that matter) from doing the maths that can neither prove OU, or support you claim.  That, sir, I do not understand at all!

I would think that you would say something like, "By all means!   Please do the maths!"  Even if you do not add the implied, "It will only again confirm everything I have said!"

Again, I do not understand your position or hesitation at all.

Is the mathematical test I proposed a valid one?  If not, why? 

There are two question in the previous sentence.  Will you answer them simply?

Cheers,

M.

Mondrasek I encourage anyone who think that HER's claims have a chance to do the energy balance math.  That means computing energy values, not stopping at comparing things like area or force as some have done.  What I have pointed out is that once the math is done by anyone who does it all the result will not show over unity because the overall process is the product of a series of under unity processes.

[Red_Sunset]

Thank you Red for your previous input on my 'notes' a few pages back - we are back to where it ended 2 years ago on the original HER thread - all positions have been consistent.
......................................................................

It also suggests that Mr Wayne has found & harnessed a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.

2. that gravity force is not conservative.

3. that gravity acceleration is not constant.

4. that a gravity field/gradient is an energy gradient where energy can be extracted to do work [see 2. & 3.]

Fetcher,
Your theoretical viewpoint and Maxwell's equations are based on, and describe a symmetrical and unified universal system universe (the objective of Maxwell in the first place), the natural flow of he universe has confirmed this by observation for more than 150 yrs since Maxwell made that same conclusion.
What Travis developed is not a symmetrical device, it give you the capability to modify natural ratio without having to change key parameters. With those key differences, the same rules therefore do not exactly apply here.
Your reaction will be Woooowh, stop here.

Ok, lets step back and agree first on some very basic premises, if you can not agree, then there is no point to go further.
Please provide your answers to each line item.

1..  In hydraulics, same as in buoyancy, the force applied to a piston or float object is directly related to the H area ?
Yes or no
2..  The total force developed is the "force = area * pressure"
yes or no
3..  The energy required for a certain PE is  "Energy = force * distance = area * pressure * distance"
yes or no
4..  Now we have a hydraulic/hydro type device that has several lift area's of varying sizes, each with their associated pressure columns. 
      a.. The pressure stack is a serial stack
      b.. The displacement area is a integrated volume area (volume shares are overlaid)
      c..  The device is operated over a fixed distance due to pre-provisioning.
      d.. With a fixed lift distance, so is the displacement volume
      e..  The displacement volume area is a virtual subset of the overall displacement volume.
Yes or no
5.. Energy requirement with a constant stroke volume is dependent on input pressure.
Yes or no

So this is the magical device,  what is magical about it ?
To be continued after we find some common ground

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

Fetcher,
Your theoretical viewpoint and Maxwell's equations are based on, and describe a symmetrical and unified universal system universe (the objective of Maxwell in the first place), the natural flow of he universe has confirmed this by observation for more than 150 yrs since Maxwell made the same conclusion.
The Travis developed is not a symmetrical device, it give you the capability to modify natural ratio without having to change key parameters. With those key differences, the same rules therefore do not exactly apply here.
Your reaction will be Woooowh, stop here.

Ok, lets step back and agree first on some very basic premises, if you can not agree, then there is no point to go further.
Please provide your answers to each line item.

1..  In hydraulics, same as in buoyancy, the force applied to a piston or float object is directly related to the area ?
Yes or no
2..  The total force developed is the "force = area * pressure"
yes or no
3..  The energy required for a certain PE is  "Energy = force * distance = area * pressure * distance"
yes or no
4..  Now we have a hydraulic/hydro type device that has several lift area's of varying sizes, each with their associated pressure columns. 
      a.. The pressure stack is a serial stack
      b.. The displacement area is a integrated volume area (volume shares are overlaid)
      c..  The device is operated over a fixed distance due to pre-provisioning.
      d.. With a fixed lift distance, so is the displacement volume
      e..  The displacement volume area is a virtual subset of the overall displacement volume.
Yes or no
5.. Energy requirement with a constant stroke volume is dependent on input pressure.
Yes or no

So this is the magical device,  what is magical about it ?
To be continued after we find some common ground

Red_Sunset

Why not just measure the energy in the purported magic energy machine?  Only three outcomes are possible:  More is measured going in than comes out, or the same amount is measured going in as coming out, or less is measured going in than coming out.