Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[Marsing]

hi larry

did  you scale the pod height ,water height, .. etc  in this picture?

[mondrasek]

Uh-huh. So what part of pumping fluid into a hydraulic accumulator and getting it back out is "overunity"? You get the same work out from an accumulator as you put into it, minus losses. Did you check out the PDF file I linked to up above (or maybe in the other thread, this is pretty silly having this discussion in two threads.) I think, based on that PDF, that hydraulic systems are pretty darn well understood, and in fact in that PDF you will find illustrations of every individual piece of any Zed system that I have ever seen diagrammed, with the proper equations to compute pressures, volumes, flow rates..... and, after page 33, ENERGIES. 

So to get more work out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, you will need to supply some outside source. It really sounds to me like you need to get more _volume_ out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, and that situation will not last very long.... and the longest _confirmed_ reported run of any of Travis's devices that I can find is only about four hours.

It is obvious that the need for "flow assist" means that the output of the single Zed is not OU. So where does the pressure for the "flow assist" come from ON THE INITIAL CYCLE? The only possible places I can identify are from the pre-charge, which will eventually run out, or from outside the system. And the "flow assist" only resets the second zed back to the start condition, right? So _where_ is the excess whatever coming from? Do the zeds create fluid volume out of nothing?

That's why I asked my question about the Heron's Fountain that was ignored. If a small Heron's Fountain with 100 mL reservoirs will pump a head to, say, 10 cm above the highest level in the reservoirs, and continue doing that for, say, about a minute, as mine do.... what would happen if you had reservoirs of 10,000 liters, elevated by 5 meters above your reference level? How long would you expect it to run, pumping a head of, say, 1 meter? Long enough to impress the money, er, "heck" out of the observers? I've had educated people accuse me of faking Heron's Fountain runs on the tabletop system, it is so unbelievable to them.

TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input.  And that is what I started this thread to check for.  You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems.  Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).  The purpose of the analysis I posted (and original intent of this thread) was to determine if that is, in fact, true.  Simply put I am testing:

Does an Ideal ZED behave identically to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder?

My first attempt at the analysis was found to be erroneous.  MarkE pointed out that the way I was calculating the Energy input was incorrect.  So I modified the model so that I could use the simplest correct method (that I have learned so far). 

The results of the corrected analysis have still not shown the expected relationship of Energy in = Energy out.  And so I have asked for anyone to double check my math and the method of the analysis.  MarkE has agreed to do so.  I also welcome anyone else to take a look at it.  Because until an error is found I have to believe the results of the math and physics.  And that is showing that the ZED is not a conservative system.  And after you explained the error in my "open system" theory, I have no theory to support how that can be.  Only that the math and physics appear to show that unexpected behavior.

[TinselKoala]

Really, it seems to me that the "flow assist" is only making up the losses, so that the system will reset to the start state. Next cycle, more losses. Where does the extra energy for the flow assist really come from?

(Watch out.... when you "quote" me, Travis's employee LarryC won't be able to ignore what I wrote, and he has already descended into flaming and ad-hominem abuse directed at MarkE. We don't want to overpressure his abuse accumulator, his head will a splode.)

Have you taken a look at the pdf with all the hydraulic formulae in it? Do your calculations of events and performance of parts jive with the calculations in that pdf?

[TinselKoala]

Mondrasek said:

TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input. 

That seems right to me, unless extra energy is added from outside. Since the  Zed system on the first cycle needs "flow assist" for the system to reset to the start state.... well, that in itself proves that the single Zed is not OU enough to complete the action on its own.

And that is what I started this thread to check for.  You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems.  Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).

No, a _compound_ hydraulic cylinder, full of Red Herrings swimming around inside, all of which will be found to obey real physics.

But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true? After all, you have a direct line into Travis's engineering department through Employee LarryC. Don't you?

[mondrasek]

But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true?

The single 3-layer ZED is EXACTLY what I posted as the logical progression of my analysis.  I was hoping that someone would have first examined my work on the 2-layer.  The 2-layer was found, by the methods outlined in this thread, to be non-conservative and under unity.  The 3-layer was found, by those same methods, to be over unity.

To be honest, I am baffled that no one has followed through on a double check of my math and methods.  MarkE said he would, but decided to check out LarryC's latter postings of his spreadsheets instead.  Which is okay, since that examination was helpful to me as well.  MarkE outlined in that exchange a method that I have been able to use as a further triple check point in my own work.

MarkE has told me privately that he would still check my work if I send it to him, which I intend to do next week.  It is on my laptop at work, not here at home.  I would prefer that he do his own math rather than check mine so that I did not unintentionally influence him to follow an incorrect step.  But I do believe that he would find any mistakes sooner or later.