Big try at gravity wheel

[TinselKoala]

Examine the diagram. How can it move at all, there is a triangular bracket shown connecting the crosspiece across the bags, to the vertical member.

Also the geometry is wrong, there needs to be a crosshead or the kind of shape that's on the head of an oilfield pumpjack, so that the arcs travelled by the rocking members are translated into straightline, axial lifts and sinks on the bags. The larger model also suffered from this gross inefficiency and I think that's why it groaned like a sick whale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCEcjJxPZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kt9vOFzAjQ

I told all this to Travis back in the old thread and he wasn't aware of crossheads. If he now uses anything like a crosshead or a jack head... he owes me bigtime because it was my suggestion that brought them to his attention.

[MarkE]

That is part of my homework.

I understand exactly what you are talking about, I have no problems that the usual outcome is as you describe.

Even with that understood, the energy converted into "heat" or whatever waste product that happens, is a process that can be utilized.  I am not arguing that the normal conditions are false, I am arguing that there are methods to minimize that loss.

The bag that the ZED is connected to will expand, or extend, when the pressure inside the ZED is allowed to do so.  When that bag is converting that volume and pressure into a change in distance with force, aka pressure,, aka whatever is the "correct" term, that bag is now what is providing the input to the lever connected to the pole, weigh, tube and other bag, and it is that change in distance with prejudice, it is that input that pushes the lever arm and that arm moves the pole, weight and tube as well as compress the other bag squeezing the fluid out of that bag and into the other ZED.

It takes a certain amount of input to move the pole, weight and tube, any more input can then be used to compress the other bag, that is left over input from the pole, weight and tube NOT providing enough resistance against the input.  If designed correctly these two resistances can exactly match the input that the bag can provide and the force curve that it can provide it with.

In other words, the lifted ZED is applying its stored potential against an external resistance and NOT directly against another column of fluid\air.  It is more like the cap lighting a diode than charging another cap, or spinning up an electric motor,, losses sure, but they are very small when compared to the direct inverse interaction.

Webby, the basic problems are such:  Even in the best case which the junk pile from Chickasha does not even begin to approximate energy/matter is conserved and gravitational fields are conserved.  Beyond that, each thing that HER / Zydro do is lossy.  Loss multiplied by loss yields more loss.  The air transfer problem is a a classic one and there is no way of getting around the conserved volume.  In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much.  You do not have such an option here alternately emptying and filling the cylinders.  Work out any scheme that you like, and then walk through the states performing the calculations for each.  The ZED is not only not over unity, it is very inefficient.

[TinselKoala]

I would suggest that you email Mark D. and ask him about those things that your are deluding to

The word is "allude" but I like your version much better.   

I've been in communication with Mark Dansie for quite some time, and I consider him a good personal friend and I hope he feels the same about me, although I haven't heard from him in the past few weeks. If you want to know his feelings about what Travis told him and what he saw and concluded, you can find Gary Hendershot's Smart Scarecrow shows where Mark is interviewed and tells what he can tell, and how he felt about it.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

A lever is a lever, even if that lever is run by a hydraulic jack.  this is simple and VERY self evident.  If what you are saying is correct then all jacks require twice the input energy than what we get from the output.


'In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much.'

Kind of like a ZED,, a smaller change in pressure by leaving some of the weight on the risers,, less volume to bring them up to charge pressure due to the nested risers,, lots of things that for some reason you choose to ignore.

I am currently slowly changing the filler, a static part, into a pod, an interactive part.  In this step the percent of volume needed to bring the system up to pressure is 1\3 the total volume that will be moved.

This may not seem like anything big, but it impacts the equalization in a noticeable way,, you loose less without having any secondary interaction to get rid of the exchange losses.  Use both methods,, think about it,,,

Webby either you do the math or you don't.  Hand waving does not cut it.  And yes a lever is a lever is a lever and that is self evident.  It is as self evident as a conserved volume by definition doesn't change.  I have been very specific that the loss is a result of starting with one volume filled and equalizing to another volume.  I will not play straw man with you. 

So feel free to detail any method that you like for getting the air volume from the charged cylinder to the empty cylinder, keeping track of the input work you have to add along the way.  Eventually, you will see that the problem is starting with one full and one empty.  If the problem continues to elude you, then you may consider a simple "U" tube filled half way with water.  It takes real work to force the water all into one side.  Let go and the water redistributes to equal volume in each side.  If the energy were the same in both states then we should be able to get the water to spontaneously move from the equalized condition to one side full or the other.  But, we can't.  Dream up any machinery you want to try and go from full on one side to full on the other. 

You have yet to show your work for any claims you make for a ZED.  Of course I ignore extraordinary claims that consist of handwaving.  When you make a claim that can be checked then I will evaluate it.

[MarkE]

TK,

I do not want to mess up the other thread,, so I will say this here,, if you do not mind

The stored energy in the "pressure" of the incompressible fluid is not in the fluid "pressure" but in the change of position resulting in the applied input.

When the input is applied the water stands up in a tall column and that raises the GPE of that water column and that is where energy is stored, so you are correct that the "fluid" does not store it internally per-say but the fluid standing up stores it by virtue of it standing up.

There is no stored energy in the fluid due to the pressure.  There is stored energy in the GPE.  It is easy to get mislead focusing on the pressure.  If I have a 1x1x1 m box of water on the ground, then the pressure is 9789Pa, and the work that it took to fill that box works out to the same value as half the pressure times the volume.  If I lift that whole box by 1m the pressure does not change, but yet I just had to perform twice as much work as when I filled the box.  Integrating F*ds gives the correct answer every time.  Pressure values only give the right results under special circumstances.