Quote from: webby1 on March 17, 2014, 08:03:23 AM
I would not be so sure

For starters, this analysis for the "ideal ZED" is a wonderful starting point for a real ZED, the difference is that this "ideal ZED" is only using the "pop" of the risers and not the actual lift,,

Then you are acting stupid.  Come up with some collateral evidence.  Sticking your fingers in your ear and saying:  "Na na na, I don't believe you" is just stupid.

Quote from: webby1 on March 17, 2014, 11:54:25 AM
Evidence for what exactly?

The real ZED does not allow any "pop" and that is all this system is doing.

This "ideal ZED" lifts and drops water inside the "Russian Dolls of Ignorance" just as a "real ZED" does.  It demonstrates that contrary to HER/Zydros bald-faced lies, the nesting does nothing to alter the conservative nature of gravity.  Nor does it change buoyancy into a behavior that can be switched "on" and "off".  The nesting simply repackages at incredible disadvantages the transfer function of a compression spring.  There is no magic behind this curtain.  You may appeal to magical behavior all you want.  It's up to you to offer evidence.  That you have not done.  No one who has ever supported HER/Zydro has ever shown any evidence of over unity that has held up under scrutiny.  Mondrasek said he thought he had over unity results.  He never showed his work, but has conceded so that claim is out.

Quote

I now have a condition where the spillway is over 100%

Granted, and this needs to be *emphasized*, the conditions are *extreme*, almost no movement at all and extremely high pod height and thin riser wall thickness.  Less then 5% loss in B228, 0% loss in B227 and over 100.1% in B302.

One of your comments was that any movement makes a loss, but when I almost remove that movement there is a gain in the spillway, and when I compare state 1 with state 3 and use the spillway output it seems to be showing a gain,, but the system loss still shows as 0.0% loss.

You are free to show the conditions you claim.

Quote

The real ZED does not have a state 1 to state 1X,, the weight left on the risers holds the risers down at the rest state, that is a condition where there is pressure held within the system and the water\air columns are shifted to match those conditions of weight holding.

Why do you think that matters?  How does that address HER/Zydro's bull shit claims?  Formulate an actual hypothesis by which any of the differences you cite could yield over unity.

Quote

By making the riser thickness .0001 I removed almost all of the state 1 to state 1X condition, and by playing with other parts I have observed your readings do some interesting things, one would think that AR6-AR7 would show the least height gain, but I saw one quick condition where that gain was more than AR4-AR5,, that was strange and I discounted it as me seeing things wrong,,

Again you are free to show that there are a set of coefficients whereby the model appears to yield non-physical results, including support for HER/Zydro's bull shit claims.  Just saying that when you plug in unspecified values you get results that aren't intuitive to you tells nothing to the rest of us.

Quote

I am not saying "na-na-na" I am speaking the truth, the ZED lifts while more fluid is being added and it is not allowed to "pop", that is not the same as this analysis.

Sure you are.  No one including you has found a defect in the model in its present form, and the model does not show anything other than conservative behavior internally, and in any finite time exchange of energy with the outside world lossy behavior.  Yet you claim that there is something missing that is material.  Where is any actual evidence in support of HER/Zydro's bull shit claims?

Quote

That I can find ANY conditions that have the spillway over 100% is something worth looking into, even if this condition is EXTREMELY unlikely.  Having the input minus the difference between state1 and state 3 plus the output showing me a negative number, is something worth looking into, even if the condition is EXTREMELY unlikely.

You claim to have found such conditions.  For some reason you choose not to identify those conditions, therefore making it impossible for anyone to perform the examination you say that you want. 

     Webby,
               has a "real ZED" ever been shown to do anything?
     When I asked Wayne a yes/no question he said he was
      confused.
           Webby have you got a car? Please answer yes/no.
     Do you find that confusing?
                         John.

    Webby,
             the thing Mark Dansie saw was obviously running on stored energy because
   it stopped!
         I don't know if you have a car because obviously it was a confusing question.
  You want to find a flaw in well understood mathematics and science, don't you?
      We'll, all I can say is jolly good luck to you,     
                         John.

Quote from: webby1 on March 17, 2014, 12:41:10 PM
Here is one showing the spillway at 100.17%

I shotgun, meaning I go through many tweaks in fast order,, only looking for tendencies,, so I went and found this one for you.

Congratulations you have discovered how to create a bull shit answer by pushing Excel beyond its numerical accuracy.  Your outrageous dimensions generate energy calculations of 1.13164363855033E6J in State 2, and 1.13164363855023E6J in State 3, a difference of 100nJ out of 1.1MJ for your 60m tall machine.  That amounts to one part in ~1E13.   Excel represents floating point numbers in IEEE754 format, which uses a 52 bit mantissa, or about 1 part in 25 parts in 1E17.  It doesn't take too many adds and subtracts or multiplies to fall below two significant digits.