Quote from: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 10:40:08 PM
................................................................
And how can you say that I haven't produced anything of value. From me, you have the workings of the automatic bollard and you now understand that you are doing just the same thing with your springy precharge or setup or however you want to use the terms that Mister Wayne clearly defined some time ago. From me, you have the see-saw analogy, which, if you actually study what is happening in the animation, you will see describes exactly what is happening in the animation. The only difference is that in the animation "something" is driving the exchange of effective weight from side to side and this effective weight isn't being consumed... as if the kids aren't eating the apple.  If you cannot see the utter validity and limpidity of that analogy then I submit to you that YOU don't really understand the system, and I challenge you to explain just where the power comes from to offset the continual losses in the real mechanical system without a depletion of some stored energy or supplied power. You cannot.
From me you have the insistence on the use of common units, realistic precision in your measurements and calculations, and the importance of repeatable long series of data points under controlled conditions. From me you have pink unicorns that are invisible and you have the kids Zed and Dez. And you have my suggestion that Mond light up his system with LEDs.  That alone is a contribution of deep significance and importance. Meanwhile.... from Red we have a bunch of words and from Mister Wayne we have... confirmation that MD isn't an investor.
And what we do NOT have is any information about "validation" or who is going to see what, when.

TinselKoala,
I took my prophets robe off,  do I think that the end of the world is near?  The question is, can we ignore Niburu ?
Tinsel, I am not familiar with the good work you have done in the past, any reference from me is directly related to the Zed.  I do not compare the zed with bollards, fountains or ballistic apples. I do not assume a springy precharge. An animation is for me a "presumed" model of the actuality in order to explain the actuality easier and better.
And you do not need to challenge me where the power comes from,  it would be better and more productive to challenge yourself because that would produce lasting benefit.

With due respect, I am not questioning your "contributions of deep significance and importance",  I am only questioning your objectivity in relation to the zed, which is marred and influenced by personal disturbances between you and Wayne.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on November 10, 2012, 01:34:24 AM


I am only questioning your objectivity in relation to the zed, which is marred and influenced by personal disturbances between you and Wayne.

Yes, the Mr. Wayne that had the simple 3 times O.U. device (not shown nor proven) but then branched out to have others build another device that, if done correctly, "should" work.  This has made no sense to me from the start.  I think TK has only been pointing out the obvious, or rather, what should be obvious to an impartial observer.

Bill

Quote from: Red_Sunset on November 09, 2012, 10:28:02 PM
Wayne has always been too truthful, even on his animation.

I know you follow Wayne blindly and you decide to ignore the evidence that he is not to be trusted, so if
you continue to make statements like that I will feel obliged to show everyone a list of broken promises

Wayne Travis is a liar and I am showing the evidence.

Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts

Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review

Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.

Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.

Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world

Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released

Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: mrwayne on August 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Our OU is not and has not been the question - simple phisics can show it over and over

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!

Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.

Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend

Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation?
Me too.

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 08:56:30 PM
I really  need to get this straight.

Several times, it has seemed to me that you have said that you can put a weight on at the bottom, lift it to the top, and then slide it off horizontally onto a platform, say. Then without adding any weight back, you somehow cause the sink to happen and you recover the input you used to lift up the weight.
Right?
So now you are back at the bottom of the cycle and you've recovered the work you put in. But you've got a weight sitting up on top of the platform where it wasn't, before.

Is this what you've said you can do, or not? Where did I get the idea that you said this?
#3069

And there have been other times when you've said a similar thing, about removing an added weight at the top, achieving sink and recovering back to the start position, but with your added weight left behind at the top.

So.... please clear up my misconception about this. Because as I've said before, if you are really doing this..... then you can lift an arbitrary amount of weight in small increments, work free, then recover all that added _free energy_ by letting the weights slide back down through some generator like a waterwheel, a cuckoo clock escapement, you name it.

TK, I am doing exactly what you (and I) describe in that I am lifting a weight and removing at the top.  The system is then reset while leaving that weight up.  HOWEVER, I am NOT doing that FOR FREE.  That is the point of the efficiency calculations.  And in #2999 I explain how using the data collected I believe the best that could be achieved from a dual setup of the exact type of two layer ZED I have constructed is an efficiency of 87%.  This is clearly UNDERUNITY.

My point has and remains to be that I do not understand how the see-saw analogy is correct for a dual ZED system.  This is because it apparently ignores the hydraulic capture and assist sub system.  I have been asking you (and the rest of the forum) if that analogy is in fact a correct one.

Twice now I have stated my questions.  And twice you have not addressed the questions about the analogy but instead redirected to these questions about "lifting the world for free" which I have never claimed or even brought up.  If I wished to be disrespectful I might make a statement like, "Since you refuse to discuss the validity of the analogy it is obviously incorrect."  But that is not my intent at all.  I am just trying to understand how the hydraulic capture system is properly accounted for in the see-saw analogy or if you have left that part out intentionally or by oversight.

M.

Ok, Mond, calm down, sheesh.

So you are not lifting the weight "for free". The lifted weight has added gravitational potential energy, from where it started, to where you slid it off at the top. Now you sink and recover, back to the start of a cycle. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here as well--- you are doing a "cycle" I hope, finishing at the same "everything" as before the lift, just before you slide another weight on at the bottom.
And this is not happening "for free". You have to put some energy in, and this energy in that you have to put in to "reset everything" is more than the gain in GPE from the slid-off weight at the top.
Am I right so far?

And you've somehow been able to generalise this to a dual Zed system and compute a max efficiency of 87 percent. Not 86 or 88 percent, but 87 percent. Fine, I dunno how you did that without knowing the details of how the Zeds are coupled, but fine, your eyes are no doubt sharper than mine.  My problem was with my understanding of the lifting and sliding off of the weights in the previous step. But now that we know that the cycle, done that way, is clearly not work-free and you cannot gain energy that way..... fine. It's rather nice to have it all stated explicitly in one place, isn't it?

Now.... the see-saw analogy as I have presented it does not have any system for extracting usable work. It does incorporate the transfer of _effective weight_ by tossing the apple, just as the horizontal and vertical rams do on top of the animated zeds. The difference being that the animated zeds do it not by transferring actual weight between the two "children" but by doing it virtually: using the "travis effect" by removing some of the buoyancy-producing displaced water and stacking it as weight on top of the riser assembly, which increases the effective weight of the riser by moving water from the surroundings to the top of the riser. 

Now... just what exactly is the "hydraulic capture" system that you are talking about? If one hooks a hydraulic pump and ratchet to the fulcrum point of the see saw, or arrange some pistons underneath the seats, one can easily use the motion resulting from tossing the apple back and forth to pump hydraulic fluid around. Just not a lot or with much pressure.

But what's the point of stretching the analogy further? There is no demonstration, remember, that there is some kind of hydraulic capture system that does anything like contribute power or energy to the system, anyway. Is there?