I watched the video that TK re-posted from Mile High. It is a testiment to determination and having the proper balance/diversity of thoughts to challenge but not stifle, and support but not worship.

It also reminds me of one of my friends - Wayne. He might have been a little crazy suggesting that he could make energy. We all know what happens in most of these stories. So he hired a professional mechanical engineer from a local electric co-op to prove himself wrong. The engineer's job was to prove the energy device did NOT work.  The engineer probably thought he would politely watch, explain some basic physics, collect his fee and be home in time for dinner. He was sure that with science on his side that the device could easily be disproved. Instead, they argued and argued. Did Wayne fire him for arguing or disagreeing with him. No. And so they continued to argue.

The engineer is Kevan Riley. I have met him. Wayne and Kevan are indeed the "Odd Couple" (old US TV show). In fact I understand they still argue and call each other stubborn as they continue to develop the ZED today.

Wayne then decided that in addition to a local expert he would try to get the best international expert/skeptic on Free Energy he could find, to prove that his concept and machine did NOT work. He contacted Mark in Australia and offered to fly him over to the US and examine his machine. After several visits the skeptic declared " I am totally convinced that the device self runs and produces excess power."

At that point Wayne opened up his device to doubters or supporters across the world to come see his invention. If you traveled to Chickasha and signed the NDA, he would give you a review of the IP and the machine.

Then into the internet forums... 

Inviting challenge is a strength that I have seen Wayne embrace.

Tom

@Greenhiker. Nice review of that video. I said much the same thing, but you were better able to explain its relevance by referring to people you know and have met. I was amazed that Milehigh drew our attention to it. He seems to have drawn different conclusions from it than you or I.
       When it comes to moving forward with experiments, we all play our part using whatever skills and experience we have.I would not know a sim if it jumped up and bit me. But I can see that See3d is right in all that he is saying, and that sims are the answer for optimisation. At the moment I am spending a little time using primitive tools and recycled materials. I am just experimenting to see what would work and what would not as regards construction. At least I am learning. I have little money but lots of time, so it keeps me busy and occupied if nothing else.
      Respect to the pioneers like Webby and Mondrasek. If they succeed then it will motivate others to spend time and money.

@see3d: No argument from me; sims, like any other tool, are useful for what they are designed for. And like many tools they can also be "bent" into different service, like using your knife for a screwdriver.
I'd also like to point out that I myself very rarely tell people that they should not bother even building or trying their ideas.... although if they are old and moldy and unoriginal as rotten cheese I will sometimes try to do so. Far more often I might say that the idea won't work but the inventor should definitely build it, if only in order to _prove me wrong_. In fact I've issued that very challenge several times in this forum before.... and I don't believe anyone has done it yet. Let's hope webby or mondrasek or someone else will come up with actual numbers from a working model that will finally prove me (and, incidentally, all thermodynamics textbooks) wrong, and we can all retire and go home and watch the revolution on the internet. ETA: And, of course, let's hope that the plastic model's behaviour can be simulated or modelled in the spreadsheet.

@GreenHiker: The last I heard from or about Mark Dansie was that he was NOT totally convinced " yet ". I can't speak for him, but after all, he was supposed to be doing another site visit with "reinforcements" and that visit had to be postponed indefinitely because some new problem kept... and I believe is still keeping.... the device from running itself for more than 4 hours... the longest reported run that I am aware of. I don't think he'd be bothering with all that, nor experiencing this delay if he were bothering with it, if he were totally convinced as you allege. So it appears that your set of "facts" and mine are at variance. Of course, we know which set I'm going to be believing, until I'm given some evidence to the contrary. For example, I understand that site visitors get the whole, confusing spiel, certainly... but do they get to see a machine run itself overnight?

@Webby: I have already said how impressed I am with your build and your cooperative attitude. Like mondrasek says, my humor is an acquired taste and many people just don't get it or have enough patience to deal with it. You seem to be holding up well, thanks for that.
I wouldn't worry about the minor flaws you have listed, as long as you can get repeatable results. This is why it's important to do a number of runs, say 20 or so,  under the exact same conditions, so that simple statistics can be run on the collected results. If we can get a low variance (technically a small standard deviation with respect to the value of the mean) that will mean that you and your device are performing consistently and reliably. If that can be assured, then systematic sources of constant error can be tracked down and eliminated, or even compensated for mathematically and left in place.

 

Quotemy number 3 riser likes to suddenly shift over to one side and get stuck, even with the other risers off it does not move back very easily,,, that is a strange thing but it happens.

Actually, this is the behaviour I expect with small gaps and no mechanical separation/alignment system, and this is why I have been suspicious of the "self-centering" that has been claimed. I'd like to see that self-centering demonstrated by itself somehow, since I think surface tension and capillary effect will do what you have described: reduce the gap on one side until the cylinders are touching, and keep it there.

It could also be a result of having the center of mass of the riser above its center of pressure, making it unstable when "upright" so that it wants to tip over and stay tipped over, once it's high enough. You could try reducing the weight of the top somehow and moving the weight to the bottom skirt, keeping the same weight and volume overall.

Quote from: fletcher on September 09, 2012, 03:58:38 PM
Marcel .. what Red proposes is technically correct, @ 5 PSI.

Basically it can be analysed two ways.

1. what is the energy of 10 kgs dropped free fall for 3.5 meters i.e. mgh, which equals the PE of 10 kgs at 3.5 meters.

In this instance we imagine the water entering the bottom of the ZED chamber - then all we have to know is that the water content will rise height 'h' by area 'A' - so without losses the PE of 10 kgs will exactly equal the raised PE of the vessel.

2. the second way is to use Bernoulli's fluid equations - what these say, paraphrased, is that the same packet/volume of water dropped from the same height of 3.5 meters will have kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2 = mgh or 1/2pVv^2 = pVgh.

The thought experiment that goes with this is a packet of water dropping from a height of 3.5 meters will have so much KE & that is the same energy as required for it to enter the chamber against the water pressure & 5 PSI - this is why you can calculate the horizontal distance a jet of water shoots from a ruptured tank if you have a large surface area & know the height, because both have the same KE & you can calculate the velocity by reducing mgh = 1/2mv^2 to v = sqrt2gh.

What does all this mean in the context of the ZED & Red's helpful hints ?

That the ZED by design requires a volume of water to be squeezed up the sides of the Pod/Riser so a lot less volume creates a larger pressure head [ P =pgh ] - that means our normal mgh calcs aren't so useful - what you have to consider is that as you raise the 'h' by injecting fluid you increase pgh = P which also has to be overcome with force x distance - so you chase your tail - you inject fluid & the PSI increases, you inject some more & the PSI increases some more - and because you are squeezing it around the Pod/Riser [less volume for more head] the PSI at entry point increases rapidly - this has to be overcome.

The upshot IINM is that you have to keep lifting the input height of the 10 liters of water higher & higher than the 3.5 meters to get a stroke completed [ i.e. more energy required ] - IMO, the only way to determine the input energy is f x d taken by experiments to see the true relationship - this will also account for any viscous & drag losses without complex equations.

Just my opinions.

Hi,
Should say I'm overwhelmed by number of posts in last 1.5 day. Had couple of hours time today available but used much of it to just follow what others are saying. Yeah it was nice sunny day in nederland, here you better use or you sit another 2months inside.

I'll be short, day is nearing end

@webby1, TK
thanks for posting numbers so TK calculated 85%. After work done with such 85% efficiency, there is still water in risers. Can you guess how much work you can get out of it?
You also posted some indications how pressures behave under 1, 2, 3 or 4 risers. If I remember correctly you mentioned pressures increases with each added riser. This would suggest more work can be done with same input. I need to reread your post ...

@TK
Man, you can speak a lot    About your post about springs, just scanned it, will read it again. For me is spring (sort of accumulator) similar to lever with a weight on one side. ZED is different. If you have a can with archimedes pod in it. You add water doing work, pod rises doing work but water is not spent and it can still flow out and do work D. You  may say this extra work D is just energy not spent in rising pod, hopefully calculations show how it is.

@TK, neptune
There was discussion about the ABCD diagram, it is just ideal case. Neptune looking at it as I do from ZED point of view, TK from logical where it I agree it does not make sense. In reality I think 100% cannot be achieved as there are losses. Losses make B smaller. Can that smaller B than finish fillup C of second ZED? I think they achieved it.

@Michel, fletcher
Thank you for response. So you are saying I can use PE to calculate work done to get water in at bottom. So I'll show what my problem is. See attached picture.

PE in precharge step is (4+3+2+1) * 2 = 20
PE after rise (5+4+3+2+1)*2 + 20*1 = 30 + 20 = 50

Now since pod is displacing 80l of water from precharge to end of stroke, it can raise 80kg (ok in reality should be something 79.99kg but lets think ideal) over 10cm=0.1m , work done 80.
Ein = 50
Eout = 80 ? WTF (hope you are not offended by use of this word)

Cycle can be repeated by just draining water which causes pod to fall down.

I hope you see my problem? I'm getting OU in just a simple pod experiment but there is something not correct, it is just too good to be true. I do not see what. Probably something as in the TK story about the night clerk.

respect,
Marcel