Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[Pirate88179]

Not to sound redundant.... but how then do you get that low pressure fluid, after the interaction with something along the lines of a motor.... how do you get it back into the Zeds?

Easy, employ the principle of inertial translinear transference.  This requires 0 energy input and, in fact, actually adds 10% back into the closed system.    So, the more you transfer, the more energy is added to the system.  This principle was first developed to be used with bricks.

Bill                       

[MarkE]

Not to sound redundant, but the pressure can leave the system when the fluid under pressure interacts with something along the lines of a motor.

Webby, output is what actually exits the device or system being evaluated.  If it does not come out, it is not output.

[MarkE]

Easy, employ the principle of inertial translinear transference.  This requires 0 energy input and, in fact, actually adds 10% back into the closed system.    So, the more you transfer, the more energy is added to the system.  This principle was first developed to be used with bricks.

Bill                       

I first heard of this transference principle in 1974.  It gave Peter Boyle a somewhat more sophisticated way of expressing himself.

[mondrasek]

I conceded the ID vs OD point earlier.  The math you see before you reflects OD.

MarkE, sorry, I missed that.  Once I head home for the evening I rarely commit myself to reading this forum with complete attention.  I should have looked for that correction.  I appreciate that you rolled that into your calculations that you openly posted prior to my comment.

So, why have you not returned yet to the 3-layer ZED Analysis and calculated the Work that the outer riser could perform during it's lift from State 2 to State 3?  That is necessary to complete the Analysis of that system that I CLAIM shows the OU potential.

The recent "side track" Analysis of the no-pod, single riser system was only intended to simplify the SUT so that its operation and proper Analysis method could be more easily understood.  There was never any chance that it would turn out OU, right? 

However, I think it proved that the system is behaving NON-CONSERVITIVELY.  Is this correct?  I mean, we have an IDEAL system, so E_in should = E_out, right?

We have been told by Mr. Wayne Travis both in his Patent App., and here in this forum, that it takes several layered risers in a ZED system to achieve OU.  Specifically he has made a CLAIM to the effect that a single 3-layer ZED can clearly show this OU.

My COMPLETE Analysis of the 3-layer model we have worked through together so far DOES show OU.  I would like to know if when you complete your Analysis of the same by finally adding the calculation for the Work the system performs when lifting from State 2 to State 3, do you also end up with results that show OU?

[MarkE]

MarkE, sorry, I missed that.  Once I head home for the evening I rarely commit myself to reading this forum with complete attention.  I should have looked for that correction.  I appreciate that you rolled that into your calculations that you openly posted prior to my comment.

So, why have you not returned yet to the 3-layer ZED Analysis and calculated the Work that the outer riser could perform during it's lift from State 2 to State 3?

First, those numbers are easy enough for you to extract from the spreadsheet.  Second, I have posted them here anyway in post #733.  I might ask that you show your work that yields OU, because there is nothing that should lead to that, and my numbers with readily audited derivations don't show it.

That is necessary to complete the Analysis of that system that I CLAIM shows the OU potential.

The recent "side track" Analysis of the no-pod, single riser system was only intended to simplify the SUT so that its operation and proper Analysis method could be more easily understood.  There was never any chance that it would turn out OU, right? 

Of course there wasn't.  If it makes the mechanics easier to discuss, that's fine.  It did create a fair amount of extra work, but I have captured that work and audited it.  The efficiency killer remains:  N*(X/N)².  In this case, N extends over 1.0 by virtue of the riser wall thickness.  If you drive that to zero then given a load with a matching force versus distance function as the riser, then you can theoretically get out what you put in with the caveat that the power is zero, because with epsilon for the net up force it literally takes forever to transition from State 2 to State 3.  Anything that we do to address that harms the efficiency.  That leaves us in the position of having made extraordinary hypothetical accommodations for the "ideal ZED" and it is still outperformed by a brick.

However, I think it proved that the system is behaving NON-CONSERVITIVELY.  Is this correct?  I mean, we have an IDEAL system, so E_in should = E_out, right?

Why would you think that?  The math keeps showing under unity performance despite all the unrealizable idealized stipulations we have applied.  A real system will only be less efficient.  If Y < X, and X < 1, then Y is also less than 1.

We have been told by Mr. Wayne Travis both in his Patent App., and here in this forum, that it takes several layered risers in a ZED system to achieve OU.  Specifically he has made a CLAIM to the effect that a single 3-layer ZED can clearly show this OU.

Wayne Travis's patent application has not been examined.  His statements are false as shown by this exercise.  Here we have given virtually every benefit to the device and it is still under unity.  And it will remain under unity unless someone can show non conservative gravitational behavior.  That will not result from any proper application of math that follows first principles.

My COMPLETE Analysis of the 3-layer model we have worked through together so far DOES show OU.

Where?  AFAIK you have yet to share your work.

I would like to know if when you complete your Analysis of the same by finally adding the calculation for the Work the system performs when lifting from State 2 to State 3, do you also end up with results that show OU?

Again, I already posted that, and the result is under unity.

Post #733 quoted for your convenience below.  Feel free to check my work, it uses the same r3 revision of the spreadsheet that has been posted for some time.  But, I really think it is about time for you to show your work that you keep saying yields an OU result.

Magluvin does seem to claim that there is no boost.  But it is quite possible that Magluvin is mistaken.  It is possible that the circuit is a booster, and Magluvin did not recognize it. It is also possible that MileHigh made a mistake.  We will have to see what Magluvin comes up with for history.

Meanwhile back in Zydro-land Mondrasek came up with a fairly clever scheme to try and harvest as much of the energy as possible going from State 2 to State 3.  Let's apply that to the three riser "ideal ZED":

From the spreadsheet:
ST2UPTOTALUPF   1.195618   N   Total uplift force at the end of State 2
ST2_3KFORCE   -0.479825   N/mm   Total Rate of Force Change / mm
ST3_UPLIFT   2.491781   mm   Up Lift Distance

From these we can calculate the size of the water pan necessary:
Water_pan_area =-ST2_3KFORCE/(G0*pWater*(m_per_mm³)) = 49,107 mm²
Water_pan_diameter = 249.8mm
Water_pan_depth = ST3_UPLIFT = 2.49178mm

Energy imparted pushing water up over the spillway:
=0.5*-ST2_3KFORCE/m_per_mm*((ST3_UPLIFT*m_per_mm)²) = 1.490mJ  That's right a quarter meter diameter pan to deliver ~1.5mJ

The energy that will be required to return to State 2, is the same as the internal loss going from State 2 to State 3:  1.903mJ.
The idealized efficiency of the State 2 <=> State 3 cycle is therefore:  1.490mJ / 1.903mJ = 78.3%.  This is better than the single riser case.  But still way short of what we can do with an electric motor directly moving the payload.

Since the single riser and triple riser examples demonstrate different idealized efficiencies, is there some configuration of the idiotic ZED that can at least theoretically compete with a brick?  Or is there an upper limit on the idealized efficiency that can be realized that is well below the idealized 100% of a brick?

Looking at comments in the old thread there was talk by the HER/Zydro proponents of: "capturing" 15in³ hydraulic fluid at 640psi pressure 3.7 times a minute.  There was also some talk talk of 30in³.  If we take the larger number it means that there is 15W power being expended.  Given the tiny energies we see in the "ideal ZED" it is not surprising that the real ZEDs have very low power density, seeing how they slowly raise and lower weights.  And there is no sign of any surplus energy from those machines at all.