Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Nope,, that part I get,, I am confused because the 1.905mJ to push down on the risers returns 3.802mJ to lift the piston moving the water,, so that is 1.905mJ in for 3.802mJ out,, that is what is confusing.  The cost to fill the pizza pan,, well is that a real cost to run the system in a cycle,, what if you had flowing water to refill the pizza pan? then there is no cost in doing that,, what if something else from the environment was refilling the pizza pan,, again then that cost to cycle the "ideal ZED" is reduced by that 1.901mJ.

Any of these of course means that there is more energy being added, just not by the operator of the "ideal ZED", more like a dam or a river flowing, so the cost needs to be included for an energy balance but not as a cost to the thing running the system.

No it does not.  You do not get the 3.802mJ without adding at least 1.901mJ to the 1.905mJ input to make the transition from State 3 to State 2.

1.901mJ was input to the system by pumping the water out of the reservoir into the pan.  That was over and above the 1.905mJ input to the system loading the "spring" going from State 2 to State 3. 

If you fill the pan by letting water run down from some greater height, then you lose the difference in potential energy of the water coming from that height.  Suppose for instance that the infinite reservoir was at the spillway height.  Then filling the pan would have reduced the gravitational potential energy of the water by exactly the 1.901mJ that the water gains by being lifted to the top of the spillway. 

Do you get it yet?  Gravity is conservative.  Wayne is a liar.  You are acting as though you do not have even a very basic grasp on physics.  Wayne Travis claims you are an expert.  What does that say about Wayne's supposed experts?

[Pirate88179]

I am sorry to say that this is getting beyond rediculous now.  Mark (and TK) have bent over backwards attempting to describe real physics using well accepted math principles.   Still, there seems to be a clinging on to something that Wayne has that might actually be overunity.

Well, his website (Now) does not claim overunity so, what is the conversation about then?  I really don't know what else Mark can type to make it more clear than he already has.

I admire Mark for doing what he has done here but, I think the time has come to let the man apply his efforts to something that actually might have some promise.

I thank you Mark for all you have done here, free of charge, to help to educate the rest of us.

Bill

[MarkE]

They still publish their basic lies on the hydroenergyrevolution website under the "Company Vision" tab.

[orbut 3000]

Go ahead and let the water run from the spillway back to the reservoir, and you lose all of the work that you added.

But, just as a torque experiment, what happens if you add a CVT and then let the water spill over the CVT.
Wouldn't you have a wet CVT for free, then?
Just askin'.

[MarkE]

But, just as a torque experiment, what happens if you add a CVT and then let the water spill over the CVT.
Wouldn't you have a wet CVT for free, then?
Just askin'.

Yes, you would have a wet CVT.  Unless you are into wet CVT competitions it won't be very exciting.  Like the many machines that grace the museum of unworkable devices you will have something that consumes (more specifically converts to waste heat) a non-zero portion of the input energy.

The gyrations of late that the HER/Zydro proponents have put themselves through in their futile efforts to continue the suggestion that there is anything legitimate to Wayne Travis' fraud is nothing short of amazing.