Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

  How much energy would be converted to sound by Niagara Falls?
                   John.

[MarkE]

How was it lost to heat,, it just fell.

"How was it (uninitialized pronoun) lost to heat,,"
"it(another unitialized pronoun) just fell."

You've used two pronouns and did not initialize either one.  Do they refer to one thing that was lost to heat, and also fell?  Do they refer to two different things?  There is no way to really know. 

If you are wondering how it is that energy gets lost to heat, you can always look that up.  Any fluid flow across a pressure drop loses energy to heat at a power that is the product of the mass flow rate and the pressure drop.  Do you own a pump of any kind?  Have you ever wondered where the energy goes when the pump runs?

In the first example of the graphic the pressure drop starts out high and works its way to zero.  The receiving column charges quickly.  In the second example, the pressure drop is always small.  The receiving column charges much more slowly.  First example:  higher power and shorter time.  Second example:  lower power and longer time.  You can do the calculus and find out that the energy lost to heat is the same.  Guess how much it is.  Hint, hint.

[MarkE]

Grammer Police  LoL,,

Speeeling next

No, you refuse to speak in plain English.

I understand what you are saying MarkE, and when those conditions are there you are correct, I do not know how many times I need to say that.

I am saying that what you do to take the work back out is not the same as ways I would employ,, why waste what you do not need to.

You claimed to already have built a machine that is not subject to these limitations.  You have never produced a diagram or intelligible description of such a machine.  One may reasonably conclude that since in many weeks you have been unable to articulate a mechanism you claim that you have already built, that you have been FoS the entire time.

You want to know what that method is,  I am not talking about that I am talking about the simple thing that forces applied over a distance can be converted into a different force\distance relationship than what was used to make it.

There we go again, complete unintelligible crapola.

I know you understand this.

You know that I understand what?  No, I do not even attempt to decode gobbledygook.

Is the weight on the end of a lever pressure?

No, weight is the force of gravity on some mass.  Pressure is force per unit area.

[orbut 3000]

Almost frictionless fluid transfer.

[MarkE]

We can agree on something then.

Why are you so interested in an old device?

There it is: Pure diversion.  You can't support your claims so now you attempt to dodge by asking why I care about them.  Maybe you forgot that your claims concerning the equalization loss are from another thread and it was you who recently resurrected them here.

I have shared actual photos of that device to those I choose to share my information with, they have also seen other methods that can be readily adapted to fit this need,, this is just a lever system with a twist,, not rocket science or electronics,, both of which I am not very good at.

It has been your claim that your device is not subject to the N*(X/N)² loss problem.  You have completely failed to show any evidence that you did so, or that you have any knowledge of any means to do so.  A lever won't get around the problem.  The obvious conclusion is that your claims are false.

Mechanical things like this are not that hard for me, they are kind of fun.  If this is some "revolutionary" device that would be news to me and a lot of other people.

There's nothing revolutionary, there is only your prevarication.

Variable geometry levers, and variable ratio levers are not new, stop thinking of using the pressure of the water and think about using the weight of the water,, simple,, well the pressure  would be used but that is no different than an arm with a weight falling down around a pivot, rotating,, BTDT, posted a picture of one of many testbeds.

10:1-1:10, variable, easy and simple,, a CVT does it all the time.

You've had many opportunities to support your claims.  You've failed to do so.  The conclusion is that your claims are false.

I used to know a guy who was into snow mobile racing,, they use CVT's, some cars nowadays use them as well,, variable gear ratios,, simple.

That's good for him, and completely irrelevant.

The loss problem from the falling pressure\weight as the water falls trying to lift a small thing\weight first growing to a large thing\weight,, that only needs a variable gear set lever system so that the first step, when it is large, moves more of the small first.

You can keep saying "No it isn't."  You've offered no evidence in the many weeks that you have been doing so.  Your claims have no merit and will continue to have no merit so long as you fail to support them with actual evidence.  Flailing your arms about does not create evidence for your claims.