Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

Started by mondrasek, February 13, 2014, 09:17:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

MarkE

Quote from: mondrasek on March 08, 2014, 07:50:53 AM
I said I don't want to be influenced by the METHOD you used to calculate those values.  I have double checked your calculated values (by whatever method you use) with the results from my own and find they agree on the 3-layer model.  They did not on the no-pod, single layer and that is how we found some miss in your spreadsheet.  I did not look at how you originally calculated that value or what you changed it to recently.  For this reason:

Remember when we were figuring out the proper way to account for the Energy that leaves the system when the riser lifts?  I figured it could be calculated simply two different ways:

1)  As the integral of the buoyant Force * the change in the riser height
or
2)  The amount of Energy that exists in the water on top of the piston that is push up and "disappears" during the lift.

Both of those methods are correct and yield correct results.

But we have both seen that one can choose the wrong equation and get the wrong results.  If I looked at your equations, I might be influenced to do things by that method (rather than a separate and equally valid method that yields a good double check for both of us), or actually follow down the path of using the wrong method (not saying you would ever intentional use the wrong method).  So it is best to only share methods when the results are first compared and found to be in agreement or not, I think.
You claim an extraordinary result: calculated free energy.  You asked for help finding the error in your method.  Yet, even now weeks later you still have not published your method.  So let's see your method and the equations that you use in your attempt to execute that method.  I have already published. 

mondrasek

Quote from: MarkE on March 08, 2014, 07:29:03 AM
Show the process by which you solve for State 3.  Algebra and some descriptive text is fine.
MarkE, I have never solved for the correct final State 3 lift height.  I have solved for a State 3 calculated from an Energy balance (drawings are on page 2 IIRC) that still showed a positive total buoyant Force.  Due to the presence of this Force I concluded that the ZED could not stop in this state, must lift further, and therefore was breaking the law of COE in favor of OU.  It is very similar to how you initially solved for a State 3 based on a Vin = Vout relationship and also learned that it resulted in a condition where the ZED must also lift further due to the remaining sum positive buoyant Force.

I have openly stated on several occasions that I did not know how to calculate for the correct final State 3 lift height, and that I believed that would require iterations or calculus that I was not prepared to delve into.  But I will make a correction:  It does not require iterations or calculus.  That was a mistake on my part and came from my previous attempts (two years ago) to do this type of analysis without the assumption of the air being incompressible.  So yes, it can be done algebraically.  But I have not done that, nor do I intend to do it this weekend.  I would gladly start by accepting that you have done that, and done it correctly.  If so, you can publish the numbers for the water heights in each annulus, and the lift height, and I would be happy to work from there.  If not, I will show the results of my false State 3 calculations next week.  Or if you insist, I can work them up from the diagrams I posted on page 2.  But please be clear that my State 3 is not, and has never been said to be, a correct final State where the sum of the buoyant forces is zero.

TinselKoala

Quote from: webby1 on March 08, 2014, 08:15:43 AM
Not to sound redundant,, by putting that low pressure fluid into the production ram as it is going down.  That ram needs no pressure fluid when it goes down.
Uh-huh, right. Can you provide a dimensioned drawing and some pressure measurements or calculations that show this process?

I mean, I can wave my hands about too, and the draft from them can be channeled through my TK Vor-TKs device to produce energy from the breezes. That Vor-TKs needs no air pressure to operate. You know I'm honest because I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster every mealtime and before I go to bed at night. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no self-running Zed machine in honest Wayne Travis's stable? Nothing, you say.... and you would be right, because nobody has ever seen my Vor-TKs and nobody has ever seen a "production ram" on a Travis device that needed no pressure fluid when it goes down.

mondrasek

MarkE, would it be okay with you to show how I would evaluate your State 3 shown here?

minnie

  Oh Webby,
                please don't spend the rest of your life looking for something that
  isn't there.
          Go back to the see-saw and just take a few grams off of one side and
  try to think of a way to get it back in balance-without doing any work!
                       John