Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

Started by mondrasek, February 13, 2014, 09:17:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

MarkE

Quote from: webby1 on March 18, 2014, 02:18:35 PM
I will address this one.

The non BS numbers show that in the worst case of using a ZED the lift to output is almost 1:1, that is something that natures tyranny does not allow, that is what you have said many times and I agree with, and yet here it is not fully in force.
What is not fully in force?  An under unity result is fully in force.  The only way to reach unity is to convert to a brick and do nothing.

MarkE

Quote from: webby1 on March 18, 2014, 02:44:22 PM
The water columns are falling and as such should that not mean by the tyranny of nature that there should only be 1\2 that force for the output work?
Grass is growing.  Children are playing.  A plane from Malaysia is still missing.

You have the equations that you need to satisfy to meet the conserved volume and conserved energy requirements.  It's up to you to describe machinery you claim to have already developed that can satisfy the simultaneous requirements.

MarkE

Quote from: webby1 on March 18, 2014, 03:29:18 PM
I do not need those equations since I am not using a +P*V to change a -P*V directly.

I am allowing water to fall and move something, that is a very simple thing, and if you think that all the energy I can get back is 1\2 the work it took to lift the water, then I think you are mistaken.
You keep saying that.  The problem for you is that those equations simply describe what the relationship is between volume and energy in the two columns.  You are free to introduce some third agent to act as a go between.  Then you will have to satisfy its constraints.  It's been months now, and you still haven't described anything that works.

MarkE

Quote from: webby1 on March 18, 2014, 03:56:06 PM
Do I only get 1\2 the work back out of the water column falling or do I get it all back.

Why are you dodging this simple question.
If you take two columns of water of equal diameters where one is empty and one is filled to some level and you equalize them then your ending equalized state has half the energy of your starting state.

Magluvin

Quote from: MarkE on March 18, 2014, 05:29:11 PM
If you take two columns of water of equal diameters where one is empty and one is filled to some level and you equalize them then your ending equalized state has half the energy of your starting state.

But at the starting point, there are no columns completely filled or empty. And each water connected water column are different volumes. The outer larger and the inner smaller. So it is not a good comparison. Like the equal size capacitors, a full dump from one to the other, yes, 50% loss. But these are not equal size, none of the water columns are. So no 50% loss.  ;)

Mags