Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mondrasek]

And if that weren't enough... I still believe the automatic bollard is showing the same "anomaly" that you think you have found. Nobody has "done the math" to prove me wrong about that. Why not? Do you deny that the 300 pound bollard can be raised to its full height, and lowered back down again, with just a few pound-feet of work? Reducing the input, getting the big output, subtracting the input from the output to get the "net" gain in work .... it's all there in the automatic bollard. So?

Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short:  What big output?  You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force!  In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.

With mine and LarryC's analyses we find that the force in to force out relationship is not equal.  These forces can be calculated also as pressures.  And the average of those pressure * the volume they are affecting (work and/or energy) is also not equal.

My analysis also shows that a 2-layer ZED of the chosen dimensions results in P_inV_in>P_outV_out or underunity.  Just like the published results from MY physical ZED build and test data.  A build that failed miserably to follow one of the recommended relationships for the dozen or so design variable not fixed by the choice of building material I used:  the height of the ZED I built and tested was NOT ~ 3 times the diameter.  It is my belief, from observations of my physical build, that a taller ZED height to diameter ratio is a critical design factor when optimizing performance.  You can see that I corrected that ratio in this mathematical model.

Have you seen published data on any other tested ZED models?  How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?  You are by far our resident master replicator/experimental physicist.  But you passed on building a true representation of the ZED as Wayne described.  I was very disappointed, but understand if you have no interest, or if it is a bit more complicated to do that you can actually take on right now (not intending to imply anything negative there at all).  It is, in fact, quite complicated.  Especially when you have not even figured out what dimensions are supposed to allow for what type of performance.  Which was the case when I built.  But I think I may have found the solution to that with this analysis.  But still, to analyze the affect of changing all the dimension variables to find the best configuration is a daunting task by hand.  It screams for a solution by simulation.  Maybe by CD-adapco?  I know I couldn't do it with the tools I have!

[mrwayne]

Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere.

I have placed you on ignore out of respect.


---------- Your "incontrovertible fact"  only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.

Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.

I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.

Back to ignore

Good Day.

[TinselKoala]

Well, Wayne old boy, you who are still paying electric bills on your home and shop... I will return your "respect" by ignoring your BS and I'll just focus on your lack of evidence to support your silly claims. And maybe I'll come and visit you... when you are safely tucked away in prison.

[TinselKoala]

Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short:  What big output?  You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force!  In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.

How can you say that? A three hundred pound bollard is lifted by its full height of four feet, which represents 1200 pound-feet of work! Yet the input was only, say, 5 pounds of manual lift over that same distance, or 20 pound-feet of work, for a "net gain" of 1180 pound-feet of work. DO THE MATH.


Sorry, just pointing out that your evidence is the same as mine. The auto bollard is easy to see through because it's just a spring (the preload) and the single weight, plus the usual latches. The ZEDs, being so full of Red Herrings, are more difficult to see through, but they do the same thing. And you will note that the automatic bollard's performance can be described in _exactly_ the same terms that Travis has been using, lo these past years. Reduce the input, get a large "net" output. 

But the ZEDs fail in the same way as the bollard, they just sort the variables differently. The ZEDs amplify force at the expense of distance travelled, as you yourself have found and admitted freely, but the output work will be less than the input work, because of the inevitable losses. Nobody has ever shown anything different, in a real system.

How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?

Rather, all valid experimentation has failed _to confirm Travis's claims_, a far different thing than saying that the valid experimentation has simply failed. The experiments have provided valid data that fails to support Travis.... this is a failure of Travis's theories, not the experiment.

And it's easy to say, because we are still here discussing the issue, right? And nobody is running their homes or shops using the output of any ZED system, are they? QED. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

ETA: I can absolutely guarantee you this: If you show me some system that you can sit on a table top that genuinely produces 153.94 (not 153.95? Not 154? Are you sure?) percent OverUnity, I can use that to make a self running machine in a short time. Couldn't you? Couldn't any competent engineer?  So where are these self-runners? I still think that my Heron's Fountain with TinselZed is the closest thing to a self-runner that any of you lot have produced. Again... please correct me if I am wrong, but do provide references and evidence.
While we are on the subject of math, the Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of 100 mL, elevated by 20 cm,  will run for, say, a minute. How long will a Heron's Fountain with reservoirs of ten thousand liters, elevated by five meters, run?

[mrwayne]

What about what Larry and Monderask have presented.

Any problem other than can't work.

Wayne