Yes, well, this part
225/115.7 = 144.5 %
is certainly wrong; my calculator agrees with fletcher's when I do the division 225/115.7 and gives me closer to 1.94, or 194 %. An embarrassment of riches, as I said before.

But garbage in, garbage out, anyway. Where do the numbers come from in the first place?

Now, when I was addressing see3d about nesting systems, perhaps I wasn't using the right image. You have a single layer Zed, analyzed to give ... what, now, 194 percent OU? So you take this system and call it a POD.... and use it as a pod in a second Zed constructed around it. So now you have a two layer Zed, the inner one analyzed to give 194 percent OU and the outer one, constructed just the same only bigger and with an active OU Zed inside it instead of an inert pod. So the outer one should also give an OU percent boost as well, right?

So by the time you've gotten to 5 layers, you have 1.94⁵ = about 27 1/2. You've even beaten Rosemary Ainslie.... with a COP of over 27. It will take some mighty groaning huge losses... to what, heat?... to keep your usable output down to 36 watts.

No no no - the 194% was not a single riser & pod - it was a 4 or 5 layer model by the look of the picture that went with Mr Sunsets math   

Quote from: fletcher on September 03, 2012, 11:03:42 PM
No no no - the 194% was not a single riser & pod - it was a 4 or 5 layer model by the look of the picture that went with Mr Sunsets math   

Ah, I see... but so what? It can still be put into a "black box" or rather a black cylinder, and called a "superZed", can't it .... then it can be used as the riser in the center of an outer superZed...... etc. etc.

I mean, I can certainly stack levers, or water heads in a loopy hose, in this way. Why not Zeds? If a Zed layer is OU, and a nest of five Zed layers is even more OU, why can I not nest some nests of Zeds and get even _more_ OU?

That would be the Rushin Egg ZED.

Why not, yes, you can stack levers & loopy water heads - Pascal's hydraulics multiplies force doesn't it !

What we [& I mean that in terms of all not yet convinced] should understand is that we are not supposed to fully understand - the exception is see3d building his sim from the ground up & taking an impartial view & hopefully sharing his findings where the Inputs & Outputs can be questioned - he is prepared to let the chips fall where they may - we are supposed to build & make our mistakes along the way, & learn from those.

Your call for the obvious OU 3 layer single ZED with relevant empirical information & Input & Output data capable is the logical way forward - you may have to wait for the replicators or Mondrasek to finish first.

Quote from: fletcher on September 04, 2012, 12:33:37 AM
That would be the Rushin Egg ZED.

Why not, yes you can stack levers & loopy water heads - Pascal's hydraulics multiplies force doesn't it.

What we [& I mean that in terms of all not yet convinced] is that we are not supposed to fully understand - the exception is see3d building his sim from the ground up & taking an impartial view & hopefully sharing his findings where the Inputs & Outputs can be questioned - we are supposed to build & make our mistakes along the way, & learn from those.

Your call for the obvious OU 3 layer single ZED with relevant empirical information & Input & Output data capable is the logical way forward - you may have to wait for the replicators or Mondrasek to finish first.

Sure, you're right. But what if they don't find OU? That would just prove that they didn't understand the principle and didn't build correctly, wouldn't it? Building an overunity device on your tabletop is evidently sort of an "entrance exam": Only those who can do this, or simulate it with a complex chain of spreadsheet reasoning, are allowed into the inner sanctum.

There is more "back channel" communication happening on this project, between the various participants, than in any other thread I can think of. You've got all kinds of compartmentalized information being shared by pairs and triplets of people through PMs and emails, not necessarily overlapping.... nobody, not even MrWayne, knows the full extent of this hidden layer of Zedspeak happening behind the scenes of the open-source forum thread.  It's veritably Steornish in its onion-like layering and pungent odor.
The closed circle of table-top waterpump contestants is a virtual clone of Steorn's SKDB cult-club. I wish them the best of luck.... and I'm sure that if one of them is actually successful they will sleep on it for a night or two, letting the real implications set in, before they decide to inform MrWayne and collect their measly ten thousand dollars and special trophy plaque for solving his problems for him.

One reason I am so skeptical of the spreadsheet modellers and the engineers who MrWayne says confirm his claims, is that "I have been here before" in a manner of speaking. I am talking about the work of P Graneau and his claim of overunity water arcs. He had a math model based on standard conservation of momentum, he had perhaps thousands of experimental trials, reams of data, years of research, papers published in physics journals and his model made sense. Only problem was that experiments never showed the actual  7-fold increase in energy his model showed should be there. Why not?  Welllllll.... it was because of this: even though his _model_ was correctly executed, and consistent with conventional physics, and looked valid on its face, and returned internally consistent results..... it was the wrong model. In the final end, a more complex model based on underwater shock fronts turned out to describe the existing data and make predictions consistent with experimental results... and showed no overunity. Moral of the story: Your spreadsheets and drawings could be themselves correct and consistent, all ducks properly marching in line..... and they could still be wrong. Epicycles.
And the only way to tell the difference between epicycles and a more correct model is to refine the input data. Part of this is to gather the _correct_ data in the first place, to the proper degree of precision necessary. Another part is to analyze the data correctly... using the right model. Yet another part is to see if your model can predict future data gathered under different initial conditions.... this is a robust test of a model, and this is where Graneau's program -- along with many others -- broke down.