Quote from: wildew on September 30, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
RE: Post #2411 by MRWayne on: September 25, 2012

I don't think I've seen this responded to during the original challenge or last week - here are my current numbers.31.5"2" head - not clear on volume* pod is 4.5" x 10.5"
* inner retainer wall is 4.75
Area under POD: 17.7 sq in
Area of GAP: 1.8 sq in         
24 lb
.75" lift of 24 Lb takes 13 fluid ounces max head is 32.5"
Added 8Lb to the completely unloaded riser
9.5" head barely floating - 17.5" at full lift
Same volume, 13 fluid ounces.
? Add the 8Lb to the previous max lift of 24Lb ? ( wouldn't lift )

Dale

Hello Dale,
I will convert your numbers later after work..
Since a question has arose...
Here is what I am looking for to evaluate your builds -

Starting position .....at the near floating state of the riser - neutral = bottom of stroke - but not on the floor - and high enough not to hit the bottom (floor) when the (work) load is added. I think you said 8 pounds.

Adding the eight pounds will increase the pressure of the system and sink it a little as the heads are increased by the weight.

Now - the recharge is added next - recharge is the value from nearly floating unloaded to nearly floating loaded.

It does make a difference if adding the load sinks the risers a bit - in relationship to the starting point of the stroke - but that is work created by the weight and will be paid for in returning to the end of stroke (you could set your Zed up so that it could not sink - but this complicates the simplicity.

So I need the volume you added to get the loaded Zed to near float and the new pressure - how much water and how much pressure did it take to get from a nearly floating riser set up to a nearly floating loaded riser set up.

This will let me evaluate your pod - to riser weight - to gap relationship - it is very possible to set them up wrong. - one replicator had to redo his pod - it was only 3/4 of an inch - and it is key to balance the function of the system - he repaired it - and his system is working fine now - over unity.

I have seen here on this forum - where the load is confused with the Ideal - Ideal is the max - non stroking lift possible - you have to back away from the ideal in order to have stroke (without blowing skirts)
How far you back away - is directly related to the maximum load you need to engage.

I have offered a short cut - to riser weight (not the load) but the weight of the riser that is never removed. Take the ideal lift and divide by three - rough set up for your riser weight.

Next - to determine your load to lift - it will have to be less than the difference between the Ideal and your riser weight -
So if your Ideal max is say 30 pounds - make your riser weigh 10 pounds - and then set your load to about 10 pounds - this will give you the ability to stroke safely - to determine how far - add the load and and (water and head) until your set up begins to blow the skirts (water or air) and then note the travel - then back off from it. (reset your set up again).

On that note - if you blow your skirts - water or air during testing - any further testing is invalid - until you reset.

The Next piece of the puzzle - once you determined your safe stroke length -

Reset the system to the recharged state and then record pv and then increase the pv until the end of your stroke - record and report the new pv and the stroke length.

Finally - with the load (work removed) - but not allowing the Risers to pop up from the stored head - record the pressure removed from this end of load stroke - to return to neutral, record the volume. subtract the two and you have your pressure increase to stroke.

Use the pressure prior to recharge (neutral), and the difference pressure at the end of the load stroke - to determine the pressure increase needed to lift the load.

The volume cost is also the volume increase during the same states.

Lets say your load was 10 psi, if your pressure increase is .215 and your stroke is .75 inches, and your volume was 27 cubic inches.

Here is the method - 27/.75 = 36 this give you a comparative piston value - 27 cubic inches could lift (in a frictionless position with a surface area of 36 inches a stroke of .75 inches.

Now multiply the pressure difference of .215 x 36 = you could lift 7.75 pounds (roughly)
Now compare your 7.75 to your actual lift of 10 pounds the same difference.

10/7.75 = 129%

That's not bad - and does not account for the exhaust pressure - or the work that could be performed by that energy that must be removed to complete the cycle - "No" the person that thinks it takes more energy to sink??? they have someone else's patent I think.

p.s. these results - I used as an example - are real numbers from one of our replicators.


Latest TK and MH slander...

On that note: I am turning the page on them.

I was very patient with the insults and slander from a few special people on this forum - in the attempt to give them the time to catch up.

Since they do not add substance - or can not add substance - and pervert the truth to suit their position and Ego - the page is turned.

The slander is recognized as carrying out "jihad"  against overunity - nothing more - symbolism, protectionism, turn the page.
I have respect for Kanshi - I think Kanshi was "used" and is being used again - smart but misled.

She put effort into her work - more than I have seen from ME, TK, and mh.

It would have been better if she had looked at our system and not what ME had convoluted it to represent.

She posted her evaluation of the Archimedes' buoyancy system - she had been completely misled to the function and operation of our system. She did not represent the Zed technology at all.

This is not the first time effort was put in to mislead those following our actual progress - it has been ongoing.

Tk tries with his fountain and bollord and they both completely missed the principle of our system - you replicators know far more..

I did  explain to Kanshi that she was not representing our system - she responded by showing and posting the seven stages of buoyancy - and her analysis of it -  which only demonstrated she completely missed the mark in comparison to the ZED.

Her work would be good to explain why other buoyancy attempts never amounted to Over Unity and how ours compares - yet when she began to model ours - and had to "restate" the efficiency gain our system was having - she dropped out of the conversation.

You see, Kanshi had very forcefully pointed at me as misleading referencing the layering efficiency gain - she said that adding layers would only reduce efficiency  - down to less than 15% I think she said.

She also never understood or accounted for the reuses of the same displacement - ME had challenged the idea as if I was claiming to put two objects in the same place at the same time - that was foolishness to her. 

Here is my key point - you can count on TK, Seamus, and mh to misguide and others to mislead - it has been done repeatedly.

You - have for 165 pages, I have them on my ignore list - you do as you wish - I am turning the page closed on them.

This frees up time for those who are actually trying to understand - and report actual findings.

I have also turned the page on Powercat - Calling me a liar - I did reschedule an important test - his decision to call it a lie - is a poor evaluation of events.
Missing a "personal" deadline - is not making excuses, it is not lying - I would rather put a quality product out - even if that means rescheduling - Period - page turned.
It was the right decision - and has been well worth the extra effort and time.

I thank Kanshi for her hard work - next time - talk to the inventor about the function - before trying to evaluate a system - save you time and effort. 

The Chapter for discussion on the TBZEDs is open until the replications are done - We will move on to the next part of the input reduction process after that.
@ Replication teams.
Great work on the replications - and thank you for the letters, I will be evaluating the challange at the single TBZED level and I have decided to send HER shares to all four teams - I will reserve the Cash Award - until the two teams (that have currently notified me)  have had time to build the fully functional models.

Again..... Great work.

Wayne Travis

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 30, 2012, 06:42:10 PM
What is amazing is the way that you present your data.

You state a "nonlinear analysis" and you show an unlabeled graph and a data table, all of which show perfectly linear relations.

Only AFTER I point out what I see, do you then tell us that your published data table is incomplete and that the x-axis in your graph goes far beyond what you have shown in the table, and that the "nonlinear" relationship only occurs between two derived variables, over the full data set.

This of course would only be important to people who are actually trying to communicate, rather than obfuscate, their results.

Thanks TK, we always enjoy your irrational rants and attempts to shift the blame to the one who brings up your issue technique. 
So I’ll drop my Jumping to conclusion statement about you and just show the facts as they occurred, so others can make up their own mind.

Reply #2472 on: September 30, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
My post.
Reply #2473 on: September 30, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
TK response to Webby
Reply #2474 on: September 30, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
TK response to my post.

When my post came out, TK would seem to be busy with a review and response to Webby’s post.
Then in 3 minutes and 3 seconds, TK had completed his analysis of my post and responded with his incorrect assumption.
Does anyone else believe that they could do proper due diligence of my post and respond correctly in 3:03?

Regards, Larry

Quote from: LarryC on October 01, 2012, 12:06:49 PM

Thanks TK, we always enjoy your irrational rants and attempts to shift the blame to the one who brings up your issue technique. 
So I’ll drop my Jumping to conclusion statement about you and just show the facts as they occurred, so others can make up their own mind.

Reply #2472 on: September 30, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
My post.
Reply #2473 on: September 30, 2012, 01:01:07 AM
TK response to Webby
Reply #2474 on: September 30, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
TK response to my post.

When my post came out, TK would seem to be busy with a review and response to Webby’s post.
Then in 3 minutes and 3 seconds, TK had completed his analysis of my post and responded with his incorrect assumption.
Does anyone else believe that they could do proper due diligence of my post and respond correctly in 3:03?

Regards, Larry

Your argument is bogus. What "due diligence" is needed to understand that 1) your data table does NOT list measurement number and  is incomplete, and 2) your first set of graphs has unlabeled axes, and 3) makes the claim of nonlinear relationships but shows no such thing?
If you want to pretend to be showing data in graphs, you should learn the common conventions for doing so. Unlabeled axes and incomplete data tables are no-nos. You may not be able to evaluate graphical information and data tables quickly.... that doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulty. Some of us may have been evaluating data, graphing data and presenting it formally for many years.
And PSI and SI are not the same thing.

Irrational rant, Larry? Tell me just what part of my statement is rant, and what part is irrational. Did you label your axes in some way I can't see? Did you include the full data table? Did you illustrate your "non-linear" relationship IN ANY WAY, by graphs or data, in the first post to which I responded?
No, you did not.

Slander, MrWayne? Really? You are accusing me of slandering you? That's amazing, since you don't even read my posts.... and since I've spoken to no one about you at all.

What do you think of that, CuriousChris?

Excellent Post MrWayne!
Thank you for the patience.
A little work I have to do....

Dale