Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

ST1 => ST2 2.0984mJ of Energy enters the system.  Please note that the Energy is added by a non-specified input mechanism.

The stipulated act of pumping water into the pod chamber is somehow non-specific to you?

ST2 => ST3 1.6510mJ of Energy (maximum) exits the system during the lift.

Using the spill mechanism yes, 1.651 is delivered as useful output.

ST3 => ST1 0.2022mJ of Energy exits the system during this reset phase.  Please note that this Energy could be recovered by a non-specified collection mechanism.

No, almost all could be recovered with an idealized collection mechanism.

Energy Out/Energy In = (1.6510mJ + 0.2022mJ)/2.0984 = 88.3%.

Beware assumptions! 

[MarkE]

That is funny Mark,, I remember Mondrasek saying that we should NOT need to include an actual device and you insisting on there being one.

Here YOU are saying, look see, there it is with all its loss,, see, see I told you so,, see,,


You put that loss in there,, YOU decided it must be a real world thing,,


Edit,, I messed up the quote

As usual Tom, you are confused as to even the point of discussion.  Mondrasek insisted that a mechanism could be devised that would extract all the internal energy loss going from State 2 to State 3.  He proposed his spillway gizmo as an example.  The spillway gizmo like any mechanism cannot extract all the internal energy loss.  The mechanism will not move, even with zero friction if the force transfer functions of the ST2 => ST3 risers and the payload identically match.  The payload transfer function must exhibit a lower force at least initially or the machine does not move.  The faster that one wants the machine to be able to cycle, the greater the required acceleration of the spill pan, and the greater that force difference must be, resulting in lower and lower efficiencies of the already absurd machine.

[powercat]

A couple of classic quotes, and some new ones showing how things have progressed to the current situation

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 30, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
The Zydro Energy expands the understanding of science - and shows that a mechanical super conservative device can be built.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 06:35:37 PM
So what have we been doing for four years........ you will know soon enough.

Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 04:32:45 PM
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:57:19 PM
Third - It is maturity - and the understanding that Super Conservative Net Energy Systems do not require OU

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!
Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.

Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
You are not wrong about me being over optimistic, you are not wrong about me being imperfect.

[MarkE]

In the real world you are correct,, but in an ideal world the force of acceleration can be recovered as well,, it must, or else energy has left the system unaccounted for.

It was you who said a mechanism must be presented and Mondrasek complied with the spillway.

Analyzing an ideal something and a practical something are two different somethings,, even I know that

LOL.  Tom, even in an idealized world without friction, there is no acceleration without force.  "Idealized" does not mean "anything that I want something to be".  It means that certain real world behaviors that are not important to the problem being analyzed are disregarded.  When evaluating the idealized energy efficiency of some process, the process must be specified.  Otherwise one can simply declare:  "We will ignore all loss mechanisms in the process.  Therefore the process will be 100% efficient."

Of course I said a mechanism must be presented.  And yes Mondrasek came up with the giant pizza pan.  You or anyone else who would like to take a stab at designing a more complex pizza pan that can do better than the "simple" rectangular cross-section pan is welcome to put their hand to it.  One could for example attempt to devise one with a transfer function that would result in an initial fixed lift force that transitions to a net down force in such a way that the velocity is ideally almost zero by the end of the travel. 

[MarkE]

MarkE,

I am wondering on the riser weight energy.

Is that input cost returned when the risers go back down, as in a reduction from the input cost?

Or, is it included within the return from state 3 to state 1 value already?  meaning that to take it out of the input cost AND then use the full return to state 1 would be double dipping.

Mondrasek has specified the machine as cycling ST1 => ST2 => ST3 => ST1.  The GPE of the riser does not change during the ST1 => ST2 transition and has no impact on the input energy added there.  The GPE increases during the ST2 => ST3 transition, taking away from useful work that otherwise would have gone to the output.  The GPE falls identically back during the ST3 = > ST1 transition. 

You might want to join me in reminding Mondrasek to check his assumptions in his energy calculations.