Quote from: see3d on August 17, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
TK,

My comment about complicating the issue is only in regards to my simulation.  I don't want to mix what I am doing with what anybody else is doing at this stage.  AFTER the simulation is regarded as an accurate description of the statics, THEN we can apply what we have learned to the other efforts.  To do so before that is a meaningless exercise bound to generate false conclusions.

Oh, no, I think I understand what you are doing with the sim. You want "us" meaning the skeptics, to approve your sim as being correct mathematically and structurally, and then you will bring out the input parameters -- which you probably already have waiting in the wings --  that show overunity performance.

But I would like you to take a _real_ system that is simple and already confirmed to be clearly overunity by itself, by MrWayne and his engineers, and put +those+ parameters into your sim. If you get the same overunity result as MrWayne using the parameters from a Known Real System that is clearly overunity by itself, then we'll know that your sim is working right.

Right?

Quote from: neptune on August 17, 2012, 02:39:52 PM
(snip) Let us assume worst case scenario and say below. In that case, yes a small amount of work would be needed to return the fluid to the system.
        Please bear in mind that I am engaged here in a genuine attempt to help you. If you would rather I desisted, just say so.

1) I believe the reservoir tank can be clearly seen in MrWayne's slideshow on the website. It's at the bottom of the system, underneath the electronic control box, isn't it? I don't have the photo in front of me right now, but isn't it the big rectangular box that has steel casters on the bottom but is slightly elevated off the floor by the framework of the apparatus?
2)Why should I rather you desisted? I need all the help I can get, to dig this hole deeper, and you are helping immensely.
3) Perhaps it is just a question of semantics, but in my hands-on experience, generators are DC devices and alternators are... well... AC devices.

MrWayne: may we please have the spec on the generator/alternator that appears in the photos?

@Tk.
1.Having looked at the photographs on Mr Wayne` site, It would appear that the object to which you refer is indeed the hydraulic reservoir. That would mean that a small amount of work is consumed in drawing oil back into the production rams.
2. I am here to help you understand what is being claimed. If you want help with hole digging, I am not your man. I am here to help you make an unbiased assessment of the technology.
3.Rather than get involved in semantics, I prefer to rely on what Wayne has already said, and if you want to call it a generator that is OK. Perhaps Wayne will enlighten us as to the exact type of machine, and its specification.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
1) I believe the reservoir tank can be clearly seen in MrWayne's slideshow on the website. It's at the bottom of the system, underneath the electronic control box, isn't it? I don't have the photo in front of me right now, but isn't it the big rectangular box that has steel casters on the bottom but is slightly elevated off the floor by the framework of the apparatus?
2)Why should I rather you desisted? I need all the help I can get, to dig this hole deeper, and you are helping immensely.
3) Perhaps it is just a question of semantics, but in my hands-on experience, generators are DC devices and alternators are... well... AC devices.

MrWayne: may we please have the spec on the generator/alternator that appears in the photos?

I am sorry for the delay - very busy testing.
Several Points --
For TK

The drawing Larry has shown is the dimensions of my unit - do with it what you like.

Second - It is called a wind generator - from Windynations - 500watt A/C three phase. We rectify it to DC - the voltage locks into the CPU batteries. I have no idea if you can run it backwards - I assume so.

Normally a hydraulic motor can function as both pump or motor - until you drop below certain sizes - at least with this supplier - this particular motor can not be a pump.

The Reservoir for the return fluid is at the highest point in the system to avoid air trapping and suction.

See3D is going about this the right way - step by step - because poor Skeptics throw the baby away - over minutiae - like the cost of the oil returning to the reservoir - or the ambient temperature change effect on the accumulator.

Again: I am not here to convince you of anything - quit trying to force the issue - if you are not interested in learning - or you already know everything or you consider it a trick to show you step by step the understanding of the process - - you are free to move on.

For Seamus (3),

I think I understood part of what you stated - about seeing the potential - your conclusion is a bit premature - as See3d warned it would be if you jumped to the end too early. I am glad you are following his demonstration.

To the rest of you who answer the repeat questions - Thank you - Thank you very Much - I will comment if I see a wrong turn.

To those of you who would like to be on our Z.E.D. update list - Email Sandy at jwtravis5@peoplepc.com and ask - she will add you.

Thank you again, and in our future - a breath of fresh air - might just become a forgotten phrase - this is good.
Back to the Lab!

Wayne

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 17, 2012, 02:43:08 PM
Oh, no, I think I understand what you are doing with the sim. You want "us" meaning the skeptics, to approve your sim as being correct mathematically and structurally, and then you will bring out the input parameters -- which you probably already have waiting in the wings --  that show overunity performance.

But I would like you to take a _real_ system that is simple and already confirmed to be clearly overunity by itself, by MrWayne and his engineers, and put +those+ parameters into your sim. If you get the same overunity result as MrWayne using the parameters from a Known Real System that is clearly overunity by itself, then we'll know that your sim is working right.

Right?

TK,

You are too funny.  I am not trying to lead anyone into a "trap".  How can I show a convincing O/U case when I don't even have the formulas right at this point by my own admission.  I would not be a very clever adversary now would I?  LOL

Besides, my ego is not big enough to care if I won.  My nature is more collaborative than competitive.

I am offering a different approach to learning how the ZED operates, myself included.  One that is based on math and scientific principles from the ground up.  I am being open and inviting anyone who is capable of contributing to this opportunity to do something constructive towards learning the scientific truth along with me. 

What I am doing with the single layer sim is what I had ask for from some skeptics on another site before I came here.  A couple of skeptics told me that it was a trivial exercise.  One said that he would generate the transfer curves for me.  Weeks later he said he had them but would not show me the pictures.  Do skeptics lie?  I then started my own effort to create the simulation for my own enlightenment before I replicate.  It is not a trivial matter as far as I can tell. 

I am not accustomed to blind replication.  I have been designing and building things for over 50 years (I started young with tin can robots and simple computers).  I generally do a paper design (or a CAD design now days) and do a math model if required.  I get to know what the tradeoffs are and get an intuitive grasp of them before materials are wasted.  I optimize in simulations rather than build a hundred prototypes.

I am looking to the capable skeptics and believers to help me generate a sim that is scientifically accurate.  That is my first goal.  I am sharing the process.  I have no hidden agenda other than the truth.  I have stated before that I am taking a neutral attitude -- neither trying to prove O/U nor trying to disprove it.  My goal is scientific accuracy in a simulation.

However, even if my sim is deemed accurate by consensus, and shows either O/U or not, it still does not constitute a proof of either.  The simulator is an attempt at a visualization of a theory.  A theory is not a proof.  If an experiment does not agree with the theory, the theory is bogas and has to be revised. 

You are right that the ultimate test of the sim will be how it matches up to experimental builds.  If it does not match, then either the experiment had bad measurements, or the sim is wrong.  Multiple experiments are best. 

The sim needs to start out being consistent with math and science first.  Then it needs to be compared to experiment. I could hardly put in numbers from Wayne's 3 layer ZED when I am still working on getting 1 layer accurate.

It would be good if you are able to help with the first objective of having a mathematically and scientifically consistent sim.  I can't imagine that would not benefit everyone.

~Dennis