Quote from: parisd on September 05, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
See3d, Tks for the link.

In your ZED there are no surface 1 surface 2, ... which exist in Wayne Zed, I initialy thought that the vertical force on these surfaces were helping to lift the riser.

These surfaces are quite large (a disk of larger diameter than the pod itself in Wayne drawing, a small annulus in yours). Is your drawing according Wayne latest drawings?

I discover riser legs in your drawing, interesting.

parsid, My drawing is not the same as Wayne's in the details.  Mine is simplified to make it easier for the math to simulate, and designed for a small table top demonstration.  I try to be self consistent in my terminology, but it may not perfectly match what others call things.  For instance, some have separate risers for each layer.  I only have one Riser-Pod combination part for any number of layers in the sim.  I call the whole moving part a Riser, and refer to the Pod as the inside most closed bottom cylinder feature of the Riser.

It can be confusing when 5 conversations are going on at once in a single thread.  I hope this helps clear thing up for you.

Dont be too happy with efficiency close but below 100%, 98% efficiency does not mean we need 2% input to run it, it means 2% of the input is lost. 100% is a usual thing, a simple electric heater is 100% efficient all the electrical energy is transformed in heat. If you lift a mass with a fluid, no viscosity to fight, no friction, no heat generated, you should expect exactly 100% efficiency (i.e all the energy you put in lifting the mass becomes available as potential energy for this mass), but where do we go with that ?

We have to look and explain the more than 100% claimed for the ZED and I have not seen it explained by equations up to now, I have seen numbers (1 layer 104%, 3 layers 160%, 6 layers 300%) no physical explanation only spreadsheet with small portion of equations and lots of numerical values difficult to verify and guess what like probably most of you I have not taken the time to verify any of them.

We should avoid numerical values and demonstrate OU by maths and physics equations. I have not tried to understand the 104% of a simple layer ZED but I am trying to understand how external layers give an additional 196% (if 6 layers), these are just columns of water and air compressed on top of them, they cannot bring any extra efficiency certainly not 196%, unless someone explain us how (not with numerical values, please).

I am more septical today than few days ago (was open especially after reading about the Archimede anomaly that says "you can lift a mass with less water that the volume of the mass").

The ZED by itself does not seems to be a sophisticated machine, if there is OU so easily capturable, it would have been done since centuries.

Quote from: Artist_Guy on September 05, 2012, 08:47:34 AM

Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc

Quote from: parisd on September 05, 2012, 02:38:38 PM
if there is OU so easily capturable, it would have been done since centuries.

Airplanes and Penicillin DO seem so simple now,, don't they... 

Different Subject: One thought recently made me chuckle a bit; the whole "conservation of gravity bit" - I'm not a scientist or engineer but if Newton's laws of gravity were in any way shape or form based on having an apple fall out of a tree.... What energy source raised the apple to that dangerous elevation?

Quote from: wildew on September 05, 2012, 03:13:57 PM
an apple fall out of a tree.... What energy source raised the apple to that dangerous elevation?

Hi Dale,
I would venture to say that the apple transformed light (sun) energy to gravitational energy
Michel

Wayne had previously mentioned that the Risers could be bolted together and wildew recently stated he would have a single top plate. Say what?

So attached is a single top plate zed example. The size of the air/water channels are exaggerated for visual clarity. Can't call it a 3 Riser anymore, must be a 3U. Sounds familiar 

Regards, Larry