Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

To All;

The Word ideal In our ZED, is merely the MAX calculated static condition with the Risers At the lowest position and the pressure differentials at the highest point.

Going from lowest to highest is a simple exercise with no benefits.

In my previous post, I outlined the process in which to utilize the Calcs to determine stroke and select the load.

And then the states in which to operate a full cycle.

......................

All of this information was shared Two years ago, and then again last year.

And the result was the same as last night - pages and pages of disruption without a brain.

Except Energyliberia.

.......................

Since the inception of the NET Energy producing system - We worked hard to develop the systems, business, contact, and friendships.

I have put up with the nonsense from TK and his bandwagon now for two years for this reason.

Now we are hiring, we have Turn Key funding. We have selected 18 of our start up of 27 members.

We are hiring now, and we have temporary offices while our world class LEED building is being built.

.............................

We have Patent application pending in almost every county - some granted - some being exercised.

If you are interested in Clean and Green energy future - that has the only Alternative ON DEMAND CAPABILITY:

Welcome, our door has been open.

Wayne Travis

ZydroEnergy.com

[mrwayne]

So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?

If the timing was of production was precisely that of Hydro assist - yes - it is not.

Production occurs after full precharge - and free flow to precharge requires Hydro assist - in the old model (the one in discussion)..

And with the new model - no hydro assist. Better Bird.

Wayne

[mondrasek]

So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?

MarkE, please look at the ZED in State 3.  There is still a positive water head on the pod and each riser!  Therefore there is still much buoyant Force to be resolved.  Ego, the ZED could NOT come to rest in this condition.  It must stroke further if unrestrained.  This proves that the ASSUMPTION that Energy in is equal to Energy out was wrong.  Unless you have some other way to resolve the remaining buoyant Force without more stroke?

[mrwayne]

Mark:

That is very funny indeed.  Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill

I realize you did not mean this seriously;

But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.

That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.

SO check in never check out - exactly

Wayne

[TinselKoala]

I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.

If you have too many Red Herrings, things start to smell pretty fishy. Besides, a three-pronged teeter-totter is clearly just too weird.