Quote from: MT on September 05, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
Hi all,
The key is in the use of another ZED! ZED by itself have perfect unity. The trick is that you inject volume V of water into it using energy A. He performs work producing energy B. And A=B. But you still have water at potential in it! Think about it! Look at water levels in after lift of step.

You just need to feed it another ZED2. This will get precharge step of ZED2 done completely and Lifting step partially for free! To fill the rest of water you still need energy C. But C is definitely less than A. In ideal I would say 50% less. Still ZED2 produces energy A and its waters can feed ZED1 closing the loop.

I hope this will open some eyes. I understood it this morning 5am and still thinking about its implications. Show me other system that you inject something (water) into it, it does work and still return water that can perform some work and by "accident" same water can be fed to another system starting its lift. Veery clever. Maybe Bessler figured it out how to do it without water.
Starting a bit to regret my recent investment in solar system.

big thanks Mr Wayne,
Marcel

After more than a year of strange claims and weird contributions by the ZED proponents, this is the first statement making a bit of sense.

All the talk about "pressure"!

Now we learn, the OU argument hovers around a pressure to be found in a system after water has been injected.

We learn, that the energy put in by injecting water is equal to the energy put out by rising a weight. (Well, what else did you expect?)

We learn, the mysterious "overpressure" then has to be fed to an other ZED. This explains the need to switch electric valves in an orchestrated manner.

Now, it has to be carefully studied what this "over pressure" really means and whether it can really do work.

May be TinselKoala can find this "overpressure" in his rig? (TKs rig is the only one that seems to be clearly specified and he seems to know what he is talking about, in stark contrast to the ZED proponents, whom it took more than a year to state a bit more clearly what they claim.)

And the ZED proponents could finally show how and where the water is pumped in and how and where they measure this "overpressure" after the weight (the risers) reach the final position.

The ZED proponents could finally define what "one stroke" of a ZED really means:

- Where are the risers before the water is pumped in?
- Exactly where is the water pumped in?
- Where are the risers after the water is pumped in?
- How is the movement of the risers constricted?
- Where exactly is the "over pressure" measured after the water is pumped in?
- Where is the "over pressure" led out to an other ZED?

Please answer these questions by help of a one, two or three riser system, whichever shows this "over pressure". A drawing would be extremely helpful. It would be helpful to show this with the least complicated system of risers. It would be helpful to explain how exactly the movement of the risers is constricted.

Why did we have to wait more than a year to learn the most basic things about a ZED? This is why I do not like this thread! This is strange! This is weird! This is not the right way to present an OU claim! I call this double talk! And I almost have no hope that we ever get clear and comprehensible answers!

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Yes, I am annoyed. One year of discussion for nothing. ZED proponents speak up or shut up. We can not talk about a system that is not clearly disclosed. If you do not want to disclose it, then say so.

Quote from: MT on September 05, 2012, 01:32:51 AM
................................................  Also Michel said ZED by itself is in principle perfect unity. It is how it interacts with outside makes him over 100%. That statement from Michel is contradicting what Mr Wayne said that 3riser is consistently overunity but I see it now with all respect to Mr Wayne and his team as a small of diversion.
regards, Marcel

Hi Marcel,
I think the contradiction comes from having different viewing angles or it was said in a different context.
There is the view of the Zed just as a "Layered buoyancy device" or as a "Complete System", this makes a difference.
To make it perhaps more confusing, most of the physical references made in previous pages were about the demo model version (which is already an old version zed).  A lot has been learned by Wayne's team in the meantime and from what I gather and certain things that I deduced myself, several improvements can be made which changes the capabilities of the device that make it different from the old one.
The theoretical advantage of the layered buoyancy device increases as the number of layers increase, there is no doubt about that. The statement of "perfect unity" was maybe only 98% correct, the purpose was to clarify the detail that made it "over perfect unity". 
Understanding comes from analyzing, to understand the pod, you need to look at all details within, all parameters that conspire or contradict each other, surface ratio's, pressure ratio's ...ect. and observe their relationships as you change one parameter, watch the response changes in the others, the key is to find mutual beneficial relationships and optimize those to bring the cost down. Do not focus on trying to create new energy, try to demand the greatest discount for your energy purchase. You cannot stay focused on one point only, as you analyze more from within, the familiarity will unfold the whole picture to you in due time.
The sim should assist a great deal in that and maybe reveal some new dynamic ratio changes
Also be very clear on the understanding of buoyancy, a clear view of standard & paradox Archimedes relationships is very helpfull
Good luck, Michel

Quote from: conradelektro on September 05, 2012, 03:24:15 AM
................................................
P.S.: Yes, I am annoyed. One year of discussion for nothing. ZED proponents speak up or shut up. We can not talk about a system that is not clearly disclosed. If you do not want to disclose it, then say so.

Conradelektro, 
This saying should say it all

Give a hungry man a fish and he will eat for a day,  teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry again

Quote from: see3d on September 04, 2012, 07:55:43 PM

Based on the preliminary sim results that I shared, the sweet spot being limited to a short stroke is caused by the destruction of virtual water with longer strokes (relative to the total height). 

I love that term "virtual" water.  To me, that is just the imaginary head added to the head via extra air pressure.  The PSI of the air gets added to the weight of the water times the height of the water head.  As such, a negative PSI causes the destruction of virtual water... LOL

The sweet spot is after we have created some virtual water, and before the rising stroke destroys more than we created.  It is a negative feedback loop.

That is why it is important to me to have a careful real world check on the sim to verify this mechanism.

--------------------------------

I wanted to point out that I do realize that it would be stupid for me to build my sim model and operate it in a mode that had negative air PSI when it is so simple to avoid it.  If for some reason I wanted to have a long stroke in this short ZED, then I would just open an air valve at the top of the ZED when I got down to zero PSI as it approached the top of the stroke.  With the air valve open, the operation of the ZED reverts to a zero layer for the Pod area (Buoyancy only), for any additional input force.  Since my starting and sunk PSI is zero (with no input force or load force applied), I could just remove the output load, then the input force, and the Riser would naturally sink back to the bottom.  This can all be mechanically sequenced in a small model.

Hi .. I can't really imagine what you are conveying here - is this property of negative PSI you observe in your sim peculiar to compressible air or would it still happen with non compressible fluids ?

It appears to me that the 3 gaps form a system like a barometer which is a weight of fluid in a tube with a vacuum at the top - I talked about it being a type of syphon before but it has properties of both perhaps.

I would look closely at your transfer volumes & ratios between each concentric gap - obviously as fluid or air transfers from a gap of least radius to the the next of larger radius the same volume transferred will fill less of the next gap volume which is larger [assuming gap sizes are constant] - this variable transfer rate & gap volume is probably already factored in your sim but could be what is causing your pressure findings ?

One method to test this in the sim is to recalculate the gap sizes/volumes so that the same volume is transferred consistently [& transfer rate] from gap to gap as radius increases etc.

Just some thoughts.


---------------------


Yes Conrad .. some of this does seem very strange for an open source site - especially not giving a schematic to work to for the builders - it almost invites failure IMO.

Quote from: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 04:59:24 AM
Yes Conrad .. some of this does seem very strange for an open source site - especially not giving a schematic to work to for the builders - it almost invites failure IMO.

Gents,
You surprise me in several ways,
I thought this was a forum where members can share information on a common interest topic on their own terms in the OU domain. They can reveal information to the limits set by themselves and are not obligated to any request or inquiry to reveal data that is still considered restricted from their viewpoint.
I looked around on this site to find a definition or guideline on "what can and what can not be posted", "how a topic should be handled", I couldn't find anything.
Questions
** Where does the definition "open source site" come from ?
** What says it is an obligation to give a schematic to work to for the builders
** Where does it say that anything must be build to start of with,  what about a theoretical concept development discussion ?
** Where does it say all must be revealed, meaning any partial disclosure, no matter how juicy is not allowed?

Let's get some perspective here.
The invention revealed here (let it be a limited disclosure) is owned by a company with it's main business asset being certain intellectual property surrounding the Zed system.  Lets assume it was General Electric to introduce a new novel concept, do you think they would provide you the blueprints and test data ? ( let throw it the summary analysis with it). I do not think so.

What is the alternative?
The alternative would be, no information whatsoever about the Zed apart from a distant article in a newspaper.  Be happy to receive what you got and "do not look a gifted horse in the mouth".
This is the way the inventor wanted to reveal is invention and his OU concept. It obviously didn't match your high home-delivery expectations, but I am sure there are many more out there who were very happy with the info and the level it was delivered at.  If the concept didn't make sense to you in this forum, than obviously was not meant for you at this point in time. 

Regards, Michel