Quote3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.

Indeed.  But then you need the fairies to push the pod back down for the next cycle, don't you?

Quote from: mondrasek on July 21, 2012, 10:37:52 AM
@Seamus101

1)  I was addressing Fletcher.

2)  My comments about Internet access in NZ were intended as a joke.  Fletcher would get that.

3)  The Pod is in a separate annulus of water and rises for the same reason that the Riser does:  Buoyancy.  No fairies need be involved.

4)  We understand that you do not believe the ZED system can operate as explained.  Repeatedly stating that fact adds nothing towards understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread.  It only aids in interupting.  You have been asked to take discussions that do not pertain to understanding the Invention that was presented at the beginning of this thread elsewhere.  Regretfully, I ask again.

M.

Hello Monderask, and Stefan,
In the Z.E.D. Lab - We have overcome the troubles that delayed us and are moving forward.
To that point:
As you know - several people "posing as intelligent, protectors of their belief" continue to interupt with uniformed opinions, statements and slander -
Since they demonstrate the inability to do their due diligence and lack the ability to self moderate  - I ask that you address this as moderator.
I have been very generous here on your site.
I will not waste this precious time "watching or participate" as those Baiters try to suppress the discussion.
As you have noticed - when the attack on me failed - they started attacking the rest of the group.
To the final point -
There are several very good forums currently discussing the Zed Technology intellectually and the impact - I am not  participating in those forums - yet.

They do not tolerate "Baiters" seeking attention.
Baiters never show proof - and never apologize for bad behaviour, mistakes, or ignorance -and they have to have the last word even it is just an insult.
Several of the Baiter created new user names - you can look into the histroy and see that they only post here - on this one link. Others are known as loud mouths in your community forums - not adding to the discussion - just proping themself up - until they are taken down and resurface.
The Baiters only serve themself at your "Stefans" expense - you are loosing me.
Stefan, please decide if you want the Inventor of our FE device to answer questions and share - or not.
Wayne Travis

Quote from: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:46:37 AM
Hello Larry,
That quote was a general statement - not intended as a control number -  Please let me be a little more clear, and forgive me of the statement.
The exact movement of each layer in relationship  to the pod is related to both the clearance and pressure between each additional layer
So you must consider if you matched the volumetric clearances - or if you adjusted the volume metric clearances for the pressure.
(This example is of equal clearnaces - not matched volumes - not the best method - but what is in our data model)

Now since we push down - to cause an upward movement of the next layer - the differential pressure is increased at twice the rate as the volume - directly in the first inner layer and while the next layer is (under lower pressure) is pushed down - and the differential changes twice the downward movement, and so on.

In our Little model (5.0 to 8psi) - a 1 inch push in the pod is against all three layers - this results in a .68 downward push - or 1.36 inch differential in the first (inner) layer.

The Next layer pushes down .40 with a .80 differential and the next layer pushes down with .28 with a differential of .52

SO - 1 Inch in the pod results in a differential change of:

Pod - 1 (this movement is direct)
Layer 1.36
Layer .80
Layer .40
Total  3.56 differential

This value changes with layers - higher pressure means more differential between layers. (Partially -where the Non Linear comes from).

p.s. We have our Data collection Model are up and running - free energy.

Mark says to ignore the Baiters -

Mark has now given our crew some homework and a few simplafiying steps to take and changes to make - I will let you know how things go.

Wayne

Thanks Wayne,

Additional information from you always helps. In my next example, I was going to add air compression and how it has a combined effect the more layers you have. With my previous example I just wanted to make sure everyone understood the basics, before my next example to show the difference in Input volume and obvious time of input as the number of Layers increase.

In your little model, what is the Pod Height, Pod Diameter, Material thickness, Clearance?

The attached water height calculator based on Outside retainer water drop used 71,30,.25,.20. It used .28 for the drop as I was confused about your .28 diff is .52, not .56, then the .40 on the total differential. 

The water input is set to ideal, so that would be part of the small difference if you are starting from Initial Pre-charge. In playing with this calculator, I noted that it can get the same total differential with different water layer values as long as you balance it properly. The calculator used volumes based on each air/water gap square inches and calculates from outer water to inner, which forces the water/air column's to align based on the previous channel air expansion/compression.

I wasn't sure about releasing this one again , since I corrected it, as it is quite confusing. It shows a lot of extra calculations that could have been part of the formula's, but it helped me to better understand the parts that make up the whole.

The calculator xls is attached last.


Edit: Added new fields to calculator and changes to the xls file.


Regards, Larry

Wayne:

Mondrasek gave an answer, but it was only half an answer.  Hence the comment.  I asked you a while back what the output from your device was and how you measured it and you were unable to answer that question.  How is that possible?

And yet again you play the "wounded butterfly" and pout.  People have legitimate concerns about your whole proposition and that's life for you.  Be a man and don't call 911 like somebody took your parking spot.  You know nowadays they arrest people for making bogus 911 calls.

I won't be surprised if you implode and disappear after your "real demo."

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 10:47:00 AM
Indeed.  But then you need the fairies to push the pod back down for the next cycle, don't you?

MH, if you would simply READ and TRY to understand this concept instead of coming back time and again with your own preconceptions of what is going on, you might realize that no further explanation was necessary.

It has be explained in the patent and discussed time and time again in this thread that the water that is used to create the buoyancy in the Pod and Riser in one ZED is then EXHAUSTED to the other ZED.  Allowing the water to freeflow from the "high" pressure ZED to the "low" pressure ZED requires no additional input energy.  And this is how the elevated ZED Pod begins to attain it's neutral buoyancy and then negative buoyancy condition where it will again drop.

And YES, additional energy is necessary to accumulate the rest of the water from that "high" pressure ZED and introduce additional water to the "low" pressure ZED in order to complete a full cycle.  And that additional energy is a fraction of the energy produced by the lift of one ZED.

MH, I really wish you would read and try to understand rather than standing on "principals."  Or go have your "principals" discussion in a thread intended for that purpose.  If you refuse to read and try to understand, then please don't bother posting.  It is like the sighted trying to tell the blind how to see.  Or vice versa.

M.