Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE is the one spinning things around in circles, he is hung up on another device .

Then on the other hand I am going in circles because I keep having to go back and say the same things all over again and then get accused of changing things,,,

So if sticking to ones words is not genuine then so be it,

Hmm, let's see: the OP by Mondrasek was a request for others to evaluate his analysis that he thought showed over unity in his Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".  I have built a model that faithfully represents the physics and shows that Mondrasek was mistaken:  Even the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED" is fundamentally an under unity device.

It is you who resurrected the discussion from the "Big try at a gravity wheel" thread regarding your claimed mechanism's losses.  I showed the physical basis and math for those losses in the old thread and here.  You have claimed to possess but have never shown any viable way to get around those losses.  You have repeated this arm waving in lieu of any actual supporting evidence exercise of yours for many weeks.

The short recap is this:  HER/Zydro have never supported their false over unity claims with any evidence.  You have never claimed that you ever obtained better than 75% efficiency.  The Mondrasek, Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED" has been proven fundamentally lossy.  No one, including you have shown any evidence of over unity from anything that HER/Zydro has proposed or built. 

[MarkE]

MarkE,

The reason I think the ZED can work is because I did report better than 75% numbers from TBZED.

No one, not you, not Wayne Travis, nor any other proponent of HER/Zydro's false over unity claims has ever shown any evidence in theory or practice of over unity.  Full stop.

Your tool shows that the input to output can readily be above 75% and it can leave the pod chamber with a positive R1 pressure, meaning the system will collapse back into state 1.

The tool shows what the math and physics show:  The Mondrasek, Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy.  It offers no possibility of the over unity that HER/Zydro falsely claim.

This of course does not show any OU, but it does show that the losses due to pressure equalization can be small.

Now you again try and compare apples and oranges.  The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" does not shuttle fluid from one charged column to an uncharged column.  It's fun to watch you work so hard to try and make a purse out of the sow's ear.  It has been the bull shit claim of Wayne Travis and the other liars promoting the HER/Zydro fraud that nesting inverted cylinders would somehow cheat 2000 year old hydrostatics and produce an over unity result.  The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" exercise has completely disproven those false claims.

With a continued input volume with lift, instead of the pop, the volume to bring the system up to equal pressure is far less than 1\2 of the total volume used, creating a small impact on any pressure equalization losses.

There it is again:  When backed into a corner you resort to nonsense gobbledygook hand waving.  You freely mix independent terms in a physically meaningless word salad.  Who is that nonsense supposed to impress?

It would be sad if I were the only person playing with this tool YOU created.

The tool has served its purpose.  It doesn't matter if it is used many times or never again.

I have chosen to reduce the riser wall thickness since I can not leave a weight on the risers, so the state 1X condition is not there, with this I can have the system make the pop and leave state 3 above state 1 by a small value ensuring the reset to state 1 from state 3.

Don't forget Snap and Crackle or they will feel left out.  What you cannot do no matter how hard you try is make either the "ideal ZED" or any "real ZED" over unity, despite HER/Zydro's false claims and your never ending protests.

I asked that as long as there is a positive pressure in the pod chamber, if the system will return, and you said yes.  I am not talking about a positive up force on the pod, but under r1.

Positive pressure on the floor of the pod chamber will cause fluid to run out if the valve under the pod chamber is opened.  In the example you offered, the pressure on the pod chamber floor was negative. But don't let facts get in your way now.  Keep on doing everything that you can to misrepresent as has been your habit.

I CAN set this up so that the output is small but leave state 3 well above state 1, in this condition the pressure equalization WOULD be an issue and WOULD require some sort of intervening mechanism, or it could be such a small percentage of volume needed to bring another system up to equal pressure that those losses are small.

You cannot get more energy out than you have to put in to complete any number of integer cycles, including one.

2.44cc in the original setup condition is all that is needed to build the pressure, then what if another 4.88cc were added for the lift.  Ball park, that would be 1.22cc needed to equalize.

There you go again:  You avoid talking about energy.  You want to misdirect to pressure or volume, just so long as you avoid energy.  It is really fun to see how hard you squirm and twist to avoid evaluating energy in a falsely claimed free energy scheme.

[MarkE]

Whatever MarkE.

Here is a 94% lift and recovery from your spreadsheet.

Let me see here,, this is water falling down, and that is supposed to loose 50%.

I suppose that this does not count because it is not OU, never mind that it is a little better than 50% for water falling back down and lifting something.

What ever MarkE.

This is using 1\2 of the remaining energy in the system after the lift.

A 5.5% shortfall

I see, you are intent on more and more misdirection and misquotation.  I give you points for persistence.

Of course no result that shows under unity is any good for the HER/Zydro fraud supporters such as yourself.  HER/Zydro's bull shit claim is that the Russian Dolls of Ignorance provide a means to get over unity.  Since, we have proven with mathematics and physics that their bull shit claim cannot even be true given all the unreal advantages we have afforded the "ideal ZED", then no "real ZED" can use the Russian Dolls of Ignorance to realize over unity either. 

You have a lossy system.  You can not make it up in volume.  HER/Zydro's claims are as false now as when they first made them.  They know their claims to be false, as you know their claims to be false, as we all know them to be false, as their burned investors likely wish they knew them to be false before they considered investing in Wayne Travis' fraud.  If you want to keep promoting a fraud, that is your personal choice to make.

[minnie]

   
  Mark,
         what would be the efficiency of a good quality compression spring?
          Thankyou  John.

[MarkE]

   
  Mark,
         what would be the efficiency of a good quality compression spring?
          Thankyou  John.

Minnie, in terms of internal energy stored and released each cycle: a high quality spring made with music wire or stainless steel can be 99.99% or more efficient.