Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Try this one for a net zero then.

Nice try. 
pod diameter   2.5   mm
pod height   600   mm
annular gap   1   mm
riser thickness   0.0001   mm
wall thickness   100   mm
prefill height   45   mm
added water height   74.5   mm

Uplift distance   0.004146277   mm
Total uplift force   4.941396569   N
State 1 Energy   0.076691615   J
State 2 Energy   0.07700894   J
State 3 Energy   0.076998696   J


Your cell D248:  99.99966175885%
ST2_ST3_INTERNAL_ENERGY_LOSS   0.0000102441987   J
ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed   0.0000102441641   J
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS   0.01330261%   

Spill_piston_rise_time   0.5   second
Spill_acceleration_constant   3.31702E-05   m/s2
Spill_initial_force   4.941379855   N
Spill_force_rate   -1191.763167   N/mm
Spill_piston_area   121745163.638209   mm2
Spill_piston_diameter   12450.33159   mm
Spill_water_energy   0.0000102   J
Spill_payload_mass   0.503880515   kg
ST2_ST3_EXT_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY   99.999662%   

This is getting quite tedious.  Keep fooling around with the numbers to your heart's content.  At this point you might consider hiring monkeys.

You do manage to keep proving that the best ZED is no ZED at all.  Whether it is  a 60m high ZED that moves by 24nm, or a 600mm high ZED that moves by 4um you are finding that the results only approach unity when the ZED does essentially nothing.  And that is what it is good for.

[TinselKoala]

The huge losses are to be seen in the investor's bank balance.... and the answer to "where did they go" is into Travis's pockets.

It should be clear that as you  make more and more idealizations, like neglecting viscosity, fluid friction, the mass and sizes of moving parts, compressibility and so on, you reduce those huge losses further and further. Unfortunately.... what you need is a _gain_, not smaller losses, and nowhere in the Zed system is there any room for an energy _gain_.  Except of course that Flow Assist coming from outside the system.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

The one big thing that you are not mentioning is the simple part where you said there would be these HUGE losses,, where are they exactly,, where did the go?

I am looking at one right now that has a 2.25mm uplift with a 99.816139457% spillway and a 4.279323203% ST2_ST3 percent energy loss with

1.6225831 external loss
1.6195998 external work performed

1.6312784666 input

0.0086953533 left in state 3 above state 1

This pretty much blows your massive losses out of the water.

Next is to limit the lift and have a weight holding it down, then have it lift while more input is provided,, then we will be talking about the whole ZED.

Here we have an output that is just under the input for the worse case for a ZED, if this is the worse case then what might change when the best case is put forward??

This little test has come out way better than you thought it could.  I would think that that might give you reason to re-think things,, a 99.46% lift,, going from zero pressure up to lift and then popping instead of lifting,, not being at a held pressure brought up to lift pressure and then put to work,, with no pop.

Webby you continue to try and take things out of context.  Get a new schtick.  This one is just tiresome. 

The "ideal ZED" is better than any "real ZED" could ever be.  And the "ideal ZED" is beaten by a brick.  A ZED of any kind will never be 100% efficient.  Much less will any ZED ever deliver a femtoJoule of excess energy no matter what absurd coefficients you feed to Excel.  Let me know if you ever come up with anything that actually suggests overunity.  Try to be more clever than coming up with obvious numerical round off error of nJ out of MJ.

I have proven that the "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy even if one implements Mondrasek's twitchy spillway.  In examples you have contrived the piston has had 12m+ widths and submicron travels.  It is the ZED that is the obvious ridiculous contrivance.  You have only made it more so.  Perhaps someday you will get back to your false claim that you could move the "air" between charged and uncharged columns without losing a large percentage of the energy.  Mondrasek's spillway concept will not help you there.  It in fact does not resemble anything that exists in a ZED.  Nor does it resemble anything that you proposed.

The supposed magic of a ZED was in the Russian Dolls of Ignorance.  We see that there was never any magic there.  The rings very ineffectively emulate a much simpler and comparatively tiny and cheap compression spring.  Faced with that reality, now you appeal that there is some other magic hidden somewhere else in this stupid contraption contrived to perpetrate an investment fraud.  Great for you.  If you want to keep believing silly fantasies then go jump down whatever rabbit hole you like in search of Snap and Crackle.  How long you want to keep up your village idiot routine is entirely up to you.

[MarkE]

The huge losses are to be seen in the investor's bank balance.... and the answer to "where did they go" is into Travis's pockets.

It should be clear that as you  make more and more idealizations, like neglecting viscosity, fluid friction, the mass and sizes of moving parts, compressibility and so on, you reduce those huge losses further and further. Unfortunately.... what you need is a _gain_, not smaller losses, and nowhere in the Zed system is there any room for an energy _gain_.  Except of course that Flow Assist coming from outside the system.

Don't you mean "cash flow assist"?  "Howdy neighbor:  The name is Wayne and getting the money from your wallet is my game.  Now, step right up and see the three opaque cups.  I place your hundred dollars under one of the cups and all you have to do to win is keep you eye on the cups and tell me which one the hundred dollars is under.  Pay attention as I move the cups and oh, is that a super model?  Don't think sinful thoughts! God wouldn't like that.  Now, all you have to do is tell me which cup has your money, and the hundred dollars will be yours. Oh, I am sorry, you picked the wrong cup.  But, I think your luck is changing.  Just praise Jesus and let's open another door of opportunity.  If you will just hand me another $100. I will again place it under one of the cups and you'll have another chance to win $100.  God says this is your lucky day."

[MarkE]

This is a reason that when I build my little testbeds and stuff I do not accept just a 100% thing,, measurement errors and all sorts of things can get you to around 100%,, so I shoot for more than that.

Like with this tool MarkE made,, 100.12%?? that is well within rounding errors and should only be used to show that there is merit for further investigation,,that is what I am doing with.

My lifts with TBZED, measurement errors would be there, so even when I had numbers that showed a greater lift value I did not take them as absolute proof, I did however find them to be encouraging to continue testing, and with that, getting in a whole bunch of lifts that were 75% or better, leaving all that fluid still under pressure inside to use for something else.

You really must enjoy playing the village idiot.   Some people act clueless and some people are clueless.  I don't know why you would want to be either one.  Yet you insist.