Quote from: wildew on September 23, 2012, 11:26:25 AM
@M - did I read this correctly?Can that be converted to .159 Lbs lifted 6.5 inches for input and 2.7Lbs lifted .4 inches for output?
Or 1.03 in/lb input for 1.08 in/lb output?
Same methodology I'm trying to use for mine but do not know that it's the proper way to analyze this type of I/O

Dale, I think you read it correctly and, if your conversions are correct, then yes, that is another way to look at it.  I am not sure which is the correct way to look at it myself and am waiting on the Physicists to explain the data.  I am only trying to present data that was requested repeatedly in the thread.  So if the experiment does not mimic what Wayne is doing I am not concerned.  What does concern me is if the experiment correctly answers any of the questions that have been asked and helps us all understand the ZED better.

M.

Quote from: wildew on September 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM

Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed.
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

Dale

Dale,
I think we have a misunderstanding, the following is a statement, not a question "Measure the water in the measuring tube vertically with reference to the inside bottom of the zed."

What do you mean with
POD level is 4.5"
Difference then is 19"

My meaning of the statement was, to use the inside bottom of the Zed as the zero reference for vertical measurements in the tube. I hope mondrasek has the correct understanding.

When you measure the height level in the tube, from what reference point on the zed did you start measuring to the water level in the upper region the tube?

Michel

Quote from: Red_Sunset on September 23, 2012, 01:02:35 PM

I see the following data that doesn't fit the picture the way it is supposed to fit.

The tube says 48mm head and what you see inside the zed is more,  pls check to make sure. Remember in the U-bend of the risers, you can have positive or negative head. Also make sure you ascertain the head height as "postive - negative" = actual head  (positive and negative are the opposite sides of the u=-bend.)
Things should add up correctly.

RS, I'll try to get to your second question in a bit.  But for now...Welcome to the wacky world of ZED!  Here are a couple pics where I have relocated the ZED a bit so that the fill tube could be in the shot.  You should be able to see the 5 different water levels in the ZED.  They are all above the level in the input tube when this ZED is fully unloaded.

M.

On my side I am still waiting physics equations proving OU in the ZEDs, can find only numerical values without the physics explanation behind or only partial explanation, no verification possible, does not work like this in physics world nor in engineering.

If the physics equations have not been drawn then the ZED project is not enough advanced, the experimental demonstration can only be relevant if providing extra energy during not hours but days or weeks without failure and generating not 36 watts but probably few kilowatts to be consumed in real time by heaters or lamps or anything else (the assumption that more than 36 watts should be generated is based on huge size of the ZED and the claimed overunity (>300%) )

Quote from: seamus103 on September 20, 2012, 06:00:45 PM

There is also no jewel waiting to be discovered here, so I'm not going to waste my time.
Just  show some experimental evidence that it does and then we can proceed.

Quote from: mondrasek on September 23, 2012, 01:27:53 PM
RS, I'll try to get to your second question in a bit.  But for now...Welcome to the wacky world of ZED!  Here are a couple pics where I have relocated the ZED a bit so that the fill tube could be in the shot.  You should be able to see the 5 different water levels in the ZED.  They are all above the level in the input tube when this ZED is fully unloaded.
M.

I can see clearly what you are saying, strange.
I would have expected the tube to indicate a sizable height above the zed at any time. Considering the heads add up together to a certain pressure height. There would be some liquid adhesion creep but that wouldn't explain the difference.

To really understand it is to monitor this relationship from the start, as the risers are inserted.

Equalization should find it equilibrium, so something is not the way we expect it to be. This should be clear before too much value is being put on these measurements

Michel