Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Webby you are missing some critical information:

How far below the water surface is the bottom of the apparatus?  In order to get air into the annular gap you have to lift an equivalent volume of water as air you inject by the distance from the annular opening to your source of air at the surface.

Taking the false optimistic assumption that the air does not compress:  Let's say that the water height is 300mm.  Then in order to pump in enough air to fill the 15mm dia x 15mm high cylinder of air and the annular gap of 135mm x 15mm-14.23mm dia, you have to displace 2.65E3 + 2.39E3 cu mm =  5.04 cu cm =  5.04 gms water by 300mm which requires 14.8mJ work.

Taking into account that the air does compress you will actually have to perform more work.

[MarkE]

When you do and interpret the measurements you are doing it on a basic multi-layer piston,  not a ZED.  You are not able to following all required process sequences to achieve OU with a simple setup.
Please REMEMBER the statements made and confirmed in previous posts in this thread, do take that into account to do JUSTICE to your measurements and the device.
What you should be able to observe is constant volume for a given stroke distance, regardless of the lift force, in both directions.

« on: February 02, 2014, 09:03:59 AM »
1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
   ** To be understood as a simple hydro piston, a multi-layer device shown in pictures with water columns height in the various levels, you have a very efficient hydro lift device.
A ZED can be understood as a complete system used in a dual configuration with a second ZED, and provides the ability to achieve OU and loop capability due to cost saving ability.

3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
  **   This should be understood as a process that changes the lift parameters between the up & down stroke which is synonymous to high & low pressure range

« on: February 01, 2014, 09:51:11 PM »
Nature: The natural process process flow takes the system through its cycle. The natural expected flow path which is by standard ~symmetrical .

Technology:  The un-natural flow path. If you would leave the natural primary process to its own devices, it would never follow the desired path.  It requires a subsystem that interferes with he primary natural process in order to steer it in a predetermined path.


Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 01, 2014, 07:57:13 AM »
Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible.  By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before,  very true.  But so is the riser.  Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne.  The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows.  The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED

And some more statements further back..
Good luck

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance on a ZED or any ZED-like device you choose to try and show a gain in energy over a closed cycle.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset, anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance on a ZED or any ZED-like device you choose to try and show a gain in energy over a closed cycle.

MarkE,
"anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance"
Nooop, my desires to do so have shrunken drastically since I do not see anybody with the faintest interest.  Only attitude seen, kill it before it gets out of the starting blocks.
1.. I made invitations
2.. Tried a fresh approach, trying to decouple this multi-layer piston from the Wayne Travis legacy
3.. I laid down the ground work with simple yes/no questions, to establish a level playing field. An idea provided by Fletcher's post before.
4.. The premise to continue building slowly step by step.
An open forum with concept, discussion, calculations ...ect,

What do we get, only more drivel, accusations, pink pony's, sparrows with broken wings,  Wayne this,..., Wayne that ..... The heritage of all the bad things our forefathers did became the main topic communication.
If you can not come to the table, no agreement is possible, no matter how thorough or diligent it is presented.
The issue is not a technical issue, it is an emotional one, clash of ego's,  clash for control.

No point to continue, I just regret that I brought up the concept (let it be that it was only to stress the similarity between Renato & Wayne's concepts,  we never got that far, a super storm overtook us).
There is so much to learn,  although I don't think mankind is ready yet !
If we can not lay down the past in this forum to look towards the future in a new way, what hope is there to expect something different on a national or world level.

I have already moved on,  just keeping a passive glance on further developments here.
Good Luck

Red_Sunset


   

[MarkE]

MarkE,
"anytime you like you can get back to performing an actual energy balance"
Nooop, my desires to do so have shrunken drastically since I do not see anybody with the faintest interest.  Only attitude seen, kill it before it gets out of the starting blocks.
1.. I made invitations
2.. Tried a fresh approach, trying to decouple this multi-layer piston from the Wayne Travis legacy
3.. I laid down the ground work with simple yes/no questions, to establish a level playing field. An idea provided by Fletcher's post before.
4.. The premise to continue building slowly step by step.
An open forum with concept, discussion, calculations ...ect,

What do we get, only more drivel, accusations, pink pony's, sparrows with broken wings,  Wayne this,..., Wayne that ..... The heritage of all the bad things our forefathers did became the main topic communication.
If you can not come to the table, no agreement is possible, no matter how thorough or diligent it is presented.
The issue is not a technical issue, it is an emotional one, clash of ego's,  clash for control.

No point to continue, I just regret that I brought up the concept (let it be that it was only to stress the similarity between Renato & Wayne's concepts,  we never got that far, a super storm overtook us).
There is so much to learn,  although I don't think mankind is ready yet !
If we can not lay down the past in this forum to look towards the future in a new way, what hope is there to expect something different on a national or world level.

I have already moved on,  just keeping a passive glance on further developments here.
Good Luck

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset it's too bad that you now declare that you have no interest in performing energy balances.  That could be that you don't think anyone would pay attention to actual evidence of the supposed physics shattering discovery that you have been promoting for over two years.  Or it could be that the dreaded Men In Black have gotten to you and are forcing you to discredit your ideas.  Or it could be that you know as well as anyone else that any competently performed energy balance will not show the energy surplus you keep claiming.  I'll take door number three.

[mondrasek]

Webby you are missing some critical information:

How far below the water surface is the bottom of the apparatus?  In order to get air into the annular gap you have to lift an equivalent volume of water as air you inject by the distance from the annular opening to your source of air at the surface.

Taking the false optimistic assumption that the air does not compress:  Let's say that the water height is 300mm.  Then in order to pump in enough air to fill the 15mm dia x 15mm high cylinder of air and the annular gap of 135mm x 15mm-14.23mm dia, you have to displace 2.65E3 + 2.39E3 cu mm =  5.04 cu cm =  5.04 gms water by 300mm which requires 14.8mJ work.

Taking into account that the air does compress you will actually have to perform more work.

I think we should understand the 14.8mJ of energy you describe to be the "pre-charge" energy.  Which is supposedly not lost during the cycle.  If so, it is a manufacturing cost, and not part of the energy balance analysis of an operational cycle.

Of course, if this "pre-charge" energy is lost during the cycle, then it could be driving the device.

Cheers,

M.