Quote from: powercat on September 21, 2012, 06:29:44 AM

Hi Wayne
Sorry about the confusion, there's a lot of it about and we still have a lot of debate
about how your device works.
So it would be nice if you could give us an update as to when Mark Dansie will be verifying the device.

I will not be emailing you privately as you came to this open forum to tell everyone about this device
I think it only fair that you continue in that way.(open)

It is only my opinion and no doubt you will have a lot of excuses as to why Mark Dansie won't be coming soon,
or excuses about not answering the question in the first place.

All the best

Thanks PC,

One thing is for sure -
Many can now answer questions regarding the function and understanding of our technology.
"Open Forum" or not - that is why Stefan invited me.

It is your choice to follow along or not - or to get involved or not - I respect your decision.

What we  have shared - is an enormous amount - and invested a great deal of time explaining (and I have put up with loads of ego dripping trolls).

p.s - regarding private conversation - It is not a nefarious fact that some people get involved at a deeper level - it is their own desire, willingness, time and energy.


Oh .....  I already told you that I will share the Validation findings good or bad - see you then.

Back to the fun   

We are  having an adventure in this new field of discovery!

Best to you as well!
Wayne

@Red_Sunset - Thanks for a great lead-in

QuoteHistory is the best proof and history tends to repeat itself.  I always believed after reading about the multitude of FE attempts through the centuries that the solution must be so simple and so ingenious that the simplicity itself prevents its discovery, not its complexity.

- The things I've read - - but not read
- Seen  - - but not seen
- And thought - - but not....
Real glad I haven't tried to come off as a genius type.
Work has been dizzying lately but with the second U glued up and leak tested I just had to give it one quick "trip around the block" before getting ready for work this morning.

Dumped some water into the channels, closed the vents and started trying to lift the same 15lb weight.
Huh - what the .. ?
Why is the head 5 inches higher, didn't I just add another lifting surface?
Shouldn't it be easier to lift, not harder?

Had to start getting ready for work - maybe that's when the coffee kicked in...

How many times have I seen the numbers in spreadsheets and even thought through the process of INCREASING pressure as layers are added - and it still surprised me.

Dufus....

We see, hear, read and think as we are conditioned.
Good Grief!
Dale

Recorded data from a 3 layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) single ZED as shown in previous photos and posts.  The input is a gravity fed funnel tube that enters the bottom of the Pod chamber.  A separate air line that also enters the bottom of the Pod chamber was used to achieve the set up conditions.  Set up was done to create the maximum lift potential along a stroke of 10 mm with enough lee way to barely allow for not blowing skirts.  The entire load (pre and work load) are very near the maximum of the "ideal lift" potential.

Lift mass is 1217 grams (digital scale accurate to  +/-1 gram).
Lift stroke is 10.0 mm (digital indicator accurate to +/- .01mm).
Input water mass is 74 grams (same digital scale and repeated several times).

Methodology was to cause the ZED to maintain an initial and measureable height (to  +/-.02mm) with the load weight in place.  A cup holding the water that would be introduced through the funnel was then weighed.  Water was then introduced by pouring and finally dripping from an eye dropper from this cup into the funnel until the ZED had stroked exactly 10.00 mm with some small error in the last digit as reported by the digital indicator.  The table on which the ZED was set up was tapped to induce small vibrations to (hopefully) eliminate the majority of stiction effects from the measurements.  The repeatability of this experiments leads me to believe that the tapping was adequate in the range of accuracy that is being reported.

The weight of the cup and remaining water was weighed again.  The difference was the same reported 74 grams through several runs.

The Head rise in the fill tube from start of lift to end of lift was ~ 10 mm (using a ruled tape measure and eyeballing the meniscus).  This is as expected at least.

At the top of the stroke the lift mass was removed.  Unfortunately this causes the ZED to stroke further and is not exactly how Wayne's system operates.  But I am thinking it is not a functional difference for testing purposes but I am requesting opinions.

The new higher ZED height is noted from the digital indicator and water is vented from the bottom of the Pod chamber back into the cup that was used to fill the system at the beginning of the cycle until approximately 10mm of ZED lift has again sunk.  The same lift mass is then reinstalled (which again causes the ZED stroke to change and is not exactly the same way Wayne's system operates.  Comments are encouraged).  More water is either vented or added through the funnel until the initial cycle starting condition is again achieved. 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Two other recorded values of possible interest are:

The change in ZED stroke when the lift mass is removed or added when at the bottom lift position:  3.8 mm.
Head change in the fill tube for the same:  165mm  +/- 1 or 2 mm.

M.

@m

QuoteAt the top of the stroke the lift mass was removed.  Unfortunately this causes the ZED to stroke further and is not exactly how Wayne's system operates.  But I am thinking it is not a functional difference for testing purposes but I am requesting opinions.

The head on mine (at fewer layers) drops a lot if I remove part of the lift weight without locking the riser so the ability to recover any head pressure / volume is reduced - so far, not a lot.

One thing I probably missed in those cycle numbers:
Total head change at 10mm from start of lift to end; what about the head reduction needed to sink without the load?
Will it sink loaded by reducing the head by that same 10mm?

Raising / lowering 1200 grams 10mm by moving 74grams the same distance would seem,,, IMPRESSIVE.

What's next?
Dale

Quote from: wildew on September 21, 2012, 06:24:42 PM
Raising / lowering 1200 grams 10mm by moving 74grams the same distance would seem,,, IMPRESSIVE.

Well it would be if it was that simple!  But the 74 grams of water is flowing down the tube and into the bottom of the Pod chamber...  Only the additional 10mm of head pressure that is the final result in the input tube (that is equal to the 10 mm rise in the ZED) is evident at the end.  So I'm not sure what is going on is so impressive yet.  But it is very interesting, none the less.  And so it is reported regardless.

So did the 74 grams of input water only move "up" 10 mm?

M.