@ All,
Here is the last update:
In recap: We are balancing the two sytems - one of thelast things needed.July 4, 2012 Hello Men, I hope you and your families celebrate Independence day!
Mark, Enjoy Denver - I pray you are not there long lol.
Thank you Rick for helping with the Poppet valve issue, The time you saved is very much appreciated, let Auggie - I put the data collection on hold until we work through these last issues.
Bullet recap - fixed leaks - repaired poppet's - isolated components - removing weights today - improved set up procedure - two repairs this morning then expected to be run ready - by this evening - will keep you informed.
Details:
Our Monday run - with the Poppet valves removed - we were able to extract an existing issue that (we were unaware of) - the low pressure valves were not tightened to the the same torque as the high pressure - and when we isolated two of the production cylinders - we were able to suck air into the system from those low pressure fittings (the fittings were not low pressure - just the way they were treated at install).
So - we also spent four hours tightening Stainless compression fittings.  With the Hydraulics clean of air - we ran Tuesday morning and with all the noise out of the way - we were able to determine that Zed two had 80 pounds more weight than Zed one - that made a .4 (tenths) of a pound gain difference - which is significant since the two Z.E.D.'s are connected - and the value works both ways (an increased load one direction - and unequal free flow in the other.   We determined which way to go (Add more on one or remove weight from the other)  The Equalization of the system is the lateral transfer of the Head from side to side - over 50% is moved freely - when the system is not balanced at least roughly close  - you have one direction working better than the other - this results in extra input having to be input on the heavy side and extra - uncaptured energy on the other side (we don't capture a different value per Z.E.D. at least on this model - and the staging program having to compensate - and the cycle time increased.   We will be removing the weight from Zed 2 this morning.   Yesterday -We replaced the Poppet valves and installed isolation valves (in case of trouble) and for future trouble shooting. We will bleed the system this morning while the lids and weight are removed.   We have two last repairs to make to improve the set up  and the extended run times - a simple air trap installation prior to the pump, and to unkink the air line to riser three (adds about 20 minutes to the set up) - while the lid is off today.   I am looking for "equal" or balanced data out of our run tonight. The set up to run procedure continues to improve, requiring less time and more accurate - while Terry replumbed the Poppet valves - the rest of us worked on the setup with the assist operation engaged - we are very close - this will make the set up a 1,2,3, simple process.
Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution LLC
mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
p.s.
We resolve our issues and refine and the process recording understanding to support others.

@Wayne. Sounds like you are still finding small problems, but it also sounds like your team is on the case and you are progressing by leaps and bounds. We share your frustration, but all we can do is wait, in the knowledge that victory is inevitable.
      Larry asked if anyone heard a loud crack, like something breaking. I did not hear a crack. To me it was more of a thunderous roar! Even so it was but a tiny taste of the storm to come.
       I too had thought, in my thought experiments, about using a column of water as an input pump. The only practical problem here, is that as soon as we start to draw water from the column, the pressure falls, making calculation difficult . If we wanted to use this idea for practical experiments, the problem could be reduced by using a wide column, or a wide tank on top of the vertical pipe.
       Another obvious thing about model making. As soon as we try to make a model much larger than say 6" diameter, the weight of the weights quickly becomes too large to handle easily. So build it small unless you own a fork lift truck.

@LarryC. Re your post 808. In a sense, this is just a thought experiment, as in real life, all the water would sink to the bottom, and all the air move to the top. Unless the tube was quite narrow, or the air and water pockets were separated by frictionless pistons . So this is really an "equivalent circuit" of a ZED. You say that the ZED beats the hydraulic ram because it has greater surface area. If you tried to "improve" a hydraulic ram by increasing the piston surface area, what would happen? Well the lifting force would be greater but the stroke length , for a given input volume and pressure would be less. However, its output, as in force X distance would remain the same. So to be really honest, and I always try to be honest, I can not see how more surface area alone would cause the ZED to be more efficient then a hydraulic ram.
         There is something subtle going on here. Someone [might be Webby1] described the ZED as " fed in series, discharged in parallel." Might this have a bearing on what is going on . Another hint dropped by Wayne might be relevant. He said[paraphrased] That the secret of the ZED lies not in its greater output, but in its lower input.

Quote from: Seamus101 on July 03, 2012, 03:25:26 PM
No, I won't stop mentioning gravity modification. Because buoyancy is a function of gravity and gravity is a conservative field this machine could not function as claimed unless it caused some modification of the nature of gravity. Obviously that is not the case, so we can only deduce that the machine does not work as claimed. To put it in simple terms water does not flow up hill.

@Seamus101, first let me apologize if the contents of this post are not 100% correct with regards to my description of logic.  It's been a long time since I had to argue in philosophical terms and I am sure I am making mistakes.

Also, let me salute you for your tenacity.

I believe your argument goes as such:  Buoyancy is a function of Gravity (true).  AND Gravity is a Conservative Field of Force (true).  AND a Conservative Field of Force cannot produce Work (ASSUMPTION).  Therefore, the only explanation for the Zed to function would be that Gravity is being Modified.

There is absolutely no proof, Physics Law, or otherwise, that concludes that a Conservative Field of Force cannot produce Work.  That ASSUMPTION is only what has been shown by historical evidence (so far) and therefore mostly taught to students.  It is NOT, however, a known fact, and therefore cannot be used to prove any subsequent claims if used as part of a logical progression.

Thanks,

M.

Quote from: neptune on July 04, 2012, 01:12:06 PM
@LarryC. Re your post 808. You say that the ZED beats the hydraulic ram because it has greater surface area. If you tried to "improve" a hydraulic ram by increasing the piston surface area, what would happen? Well the lifting force would be greater but the stroke length , for a given input volume and pressure would be less. However, its output, as in force X distance would remain the same. So to be really honest, and I always try to be honest, I can not see how more surface area alone would cause the ZED to be more efficient then a hydraulic ram.

Hi Neptune,

Thanks, but the premise was to have the same input volume and PSI for both systems and show the lift force difference. So if the hydraulic ram had an increased surface area, than for a ZED to have the same input volume it's pod's retainer wall would have to be increased to the same surface area. Again, it would have greater lift.

Regards, Larry