Quote from: Xaverius on October 30, 2012, 11:39:26 PM
Gravity is an integral of space-time.  Einstein said that space-time flows similar to a river, in one direction.  The direction is determined by the second law of thermodynamics.

Not at all and you may be implying relativistic concepts and that does not apply here.

This is gravity:  F = Gm1m2/r^2 where G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N (m/kg)^2

Gravity is just two or more masses attracted to each other by gravitational attraction as indicated by the formula above.

The ZED is nothing more than masses moving up an down in the gravity field of the Earth.  The higher they go the more gravitational potential energy they have, the lower they go the less gravitational potential energy they have.  The gravity field is conservative and it's absolutely metaphysically impossible to move up and then back down to your original position in a gravity field and end up with a net gain in energy.

You can model the masses moving up and down in potential energy like capacitors going up and down in electrical potential energy.  Masses and capacitors are as dead as a doornail.

You can also model any compressed air or the fluid pressure accumulator like springs that can be compressed for an increase in potential energy or decompressed for a decrease in potential energy.  Springs can be viewed like inductors.  Springs and inductors are as dead as a doornail.

So the ZED can be looked as a bunch of dead masses interacting with a bunch of dead springs in a conservative gravity field where it is impossible to gain any energy in the gravity field.  The masses and springs can store and release energy but they can't create any energy.

If the arrangement of masses and springs could create energy then a schematic diagram with an accompanying timing diagram could be posted that explains exactly how that is done.  A working model could also be demonstrated.  That would change the world completely and it would be so big that none of us could even imagine what would happen.  It would be so big that it would be beyond any one person or any one company's business plan.  The thing to do would be to open source it immediately for the benefit of all mankind.

However, this is not the next Iron Man movie, this is real life and we are still waiting for that energy saviour that recognizes that his own personal financial goals are completely and totally insignificant with respect to the benefit that such an alleged system could bring to all of mankind.  The end of famine and the building of housing and establishment of hygienic living conditions and access to medical care for every single person on Earth for sure.  Possibly even the end to all war.

The only catch is that it actually has to work and be demoed to the public for all to see and make measurements.  It's a big catch.

Quote from: Xaverius on October 30, 2012, 11:39:26 PM
Gravity is an integral of space-time.  Einstein said that space-time flows similar to a river, in one direction.  The direction is determined by the second law of thermodynamics.

Quote from: MileHigh
The only catch is that it actually has to work and be demoed to the public for all to see and make measurements.  It's a big catch.

Xaverius & MileHigh, (& Seamus, & Fletcher, & PowerCat & all)

Physics book theory is known, good and well.
We know that a OU concept must take what is written to a new level (let it be an expansion or exception level). 
Message #2789 on page #186 addresses this possibility in a practical theoretical way.
What is your opinion and analysis of possibilities assuming we can technically master the reduced piston area in case #2 in the same enclosure?. 
Your technical learned comments will be more beneficial to this forum than general comments and physics theory recalls.

So what is your opinion, reasoning, view and on what basis do you take that position?

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 30, 2012, 08:45:40 PM
@Red: If you are going to mention me and describe my activities, I would appreciate it if you would get your facts straight. Certainly, were I to visit Mister Wayne in Chickasaw, on my own dime and my own time, I would consider myself a representative of this forum, and of course would not be willing to sign an NDA, since the whole idea is to let the forum know what's going on. And the circumstances under which I would sign an NDA, and who would be paying my salary in that circumstance, were discussed in PMs between MrWayne and me. ...............................................................

TinselKoala,
I didn't have all the facts, only what was written in previous posts. Thanks for expanding the facts.
My point was, for the purpose of verifying that the zed system works, you had the opportunity and no NDA would stop you from saying that it didn't work. 
And the self interest factor for seeing it work was low (compared to your posted comments)

Quote from: MT on October 30, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
...............................................
I learned this fact from Michel's latest compilation of MrWayne posts #2789. Paragraph starts with Part two: ...  we raised our pump ...  I would say pumping at precharge level gets better COP but still to get over 100% per device you need to have two devices interacting together. How exactly is this achieved I'm still figuring out but dual setup seems essential from info posted sofar. Marcel 

Quote from: Wildew
A new acronym? MLBD
1. I've read that 5 times and still don't quite follow - dense. Added volume for a length equal to stroke distance? Please clarify.
2. How would you approach that design decision process?
Dale 

Marcel & Wildew, 
The differentiation to be made is, "are we looking at a device (component) or looking at a System (multiple devices/components)?".  This is the reason why I referred to MLBD is for the same reason. The multi layer riser assembly is only a device/component of a system called the Zed (??).  This terminology has been used at random, which can be confusing.
From my viewpoint and for clarity, the ZED is a system containing two MLBD.(Wayne might disagree with this)
The Zed system relies on saving input costs, this clearly can not be done with one MLBD. As Marcel mentioned to elevate the input would equate to the same as a dual MLBD system (a ZED system, where the alternate Zed provides or absorbs exhaust savable energies).
This doesn't mean that the device characteristics cannot be measured on a standalone MLBD.  When the device is build, certain characteristics are designed in with a specific performance in mind. You obviously hoped to design and build something better than the standard buoyancy pod.  It is these characteristics we want to verify for performance with a specific test protocol in mind and compare them to the standard buoyancy pod to see which changed characteristics you can take great advantage of.
What is your expected calculated weight lift expectation for a volume input at various pressures. What is your stroke displacement pod water ratio to a unity volume?  How does that compare to a unity system?

The water in the riser cavities (U-bends) is free water.  How much free water area you use determines your benefit ratio as compared to unity. The water in the pod area is paid water, the more water you use there, the more you pay.  The two together add to equal the theoretical unity of the MLBD. This is just one of the aspects of the MLBD, but a critical one.
With paid water you could stroke to the absolute distance limit, what is limiting your stroke distance is the unpaid water because its volume remains unchanged (the disadvantage of the non payment). The limit is the point where ONE of the free waters doesn't no longer support the stroke displacement distance.  What makes it more complicated is that for best efficiency you want to stroke at full force (full head) which also uses already max. water.  Your best capability is the match of both, force and distance within the designed capability of the device.
From my viewpoint, I would look for how the device matches the expected theoretical & calculated design characteristics.  The design process would be initially a theoretical simulation of the device, a manual animation on paper.
I hope this helps.

@R_S
From the referenced post:

QuoteLIFT Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We lift a weight of 1000kg to a height of 1meter,
Potential energy created in the weight= 1000KgMeter

To do the lift we use an hydraulic lifter with piston lift area of 1SquareMeter. This does not require  to fill a  ram cavity of 1mtr x 1mtr  with 1000 liters (kg) of fluid.  The multi layer lifter design reduces the fluid input and pressure requirements.  The effective energy input to lift is reduced to a level below 100% according to the design
Fluid energy input is  >1000kg x 1mtr =  >1000KgMtr

Reduces fluid input and pressure but the symbols ">" show greater than?

Quote
DESCEND Case #2, the Travis Special (a theoretical example for explanation only)
We descend the weight of 1000kg back to down to base level (distance = 1Mtr),
Potential energy released by the weight = 1000KgMeter

For doing the descend we have the ability to use an effective different lift area, we choose to descend the weight with an extreme effective reduced piston lift area of 0.1SquareMeter (as an example only). The ram cavity remains unchanged at 1000 liter (kg) of fluid (the pressure is now 10x more, 10.000kg/SqMtr or 1kg/SqCm).
The fluid output is exhausted at 10x the standard pressure, containing 10x the energy level.
Fluid energy output is 10.000Kg/SqMtr x 1mtr = 10.000KgMtr

It appears that what you're try to say is that the lift takes (more or less) input energy than standard hydraulics and the energy returned by the sinking weight is the same. That the real benefit - and what we are searching for - is the energy stored in the fluid being returned during the sink?

Just trying to be clear
Dale