Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

Just think for a moment, why do I take the trouble to post ?,  Why did Wayne take all the trouble he did ?
Answer; To share something that could possibly help you, open a new horizon for you.

You guys are brilliant ! in showing your insolence.  I agree you need to question scrutinize what is posted but you do it at the cost of understanding the intend of the communication.
The reason might lie in the fact , you ‘do not want to understand’ because ‘you are not looking for understanding’, I assume this might not be intentional
Your main purpose appears to be, how many holes you can shoot into any posting. Making for a pretty nice on-line gaming activity.
 
My applogies for the calc error  "225/115.7 = should be 194% " (writing postings near midnight doesn’t improve accuracy).  144 or 194 doesn’t impact the core intend of the posting. The figures are merely illustrative to the underlying purpose of the posting, to show where and how some over-unity can be had. The values shown are only important in their relationship value, not in their absolute value. The other details like layers ect only have importance in the relative dimensioning on which the number are based.
I am describing a concept principle, not a model blueprint for building

What was the purpose of my posting ?
One of the many ways cost savings are used in the Zed to show how OVER-UNITY. The layered device that is in principle not over-unity can made over-unity by the manipulating the area ratio’s and the process used to initiate lift.

Limitation “Please Note” on the bottom of the post,
**  “The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device.”

Let me allow you to consume my time, just for one more  time only .

1.. Fletcher - Yep, that looks ok - the trouble I'm having is that 8 PSI at 5.62 m head means that 20.6 liters [kg] would only raise its PE by half that distance because Static Pressure = pgh = 1000 kg x 9.81 m/s^2 x 5.62 m = 55.132 KPas = 8 PSI [i.e. fluid depth 5.62 m], while an equivalent column of solid would have its CoG half that distance [i.e. 2.81 m] since density is uniform.

Answer: I though that I was clear enough in my posting. If it only lifted half the distance, there would be no point for me to make a posting. To understand how 20.6 ltrs does the job of raising 3000kg for 3”, you will need to use your imagination & visualization and play it out bit by bit, this might take you some time.
The pivot lies in the ratio between the Outer Layer and the Pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be “unity” if we ignore losses. As you make the pod area smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will becomes your advantage over ‘unity’.
There are pre-requisites we need to satisfy. That is stroke distance. Since we inject displacement water only into the pod area, the risers must be pre-provisioned sufficiently to support the stroke distance (so they do not run dry). The criteria will be lift force (pressure) and stroke distance.

2.. TinselKoala - But garbage in, garbage out, anyway. Where do the numbers come from in the first place?

Answer: The figures are merely illustrative to support the description and discussion of a concept principle. They are not intended to serve as a model blueprint for building. The values shown are only important in their relationship value, not in their absolute value.
I want you to see the point, not to tell you how much it is going to ..give me…give me..

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the main energy gain conundrum of the Zed,  the ingenuity by Wayne to achieve the main caveat will blow your mind.
Finding it yourself is important to really appreciate and relate to the discovery. To get a taste what the inventor went through to arrive at this point and the feeling he must have had at the point of discovery. To discover the trick to fool nature.

If you think you have seen it all already,  it may be best that you keep your silence.
The world needs people that reach beyond the limits to advance mankind.

Regards,  Michel

[fletcher]

Moral of the story: Your spreadsheets and drawings could be themselves correct and consistent, all ducks properly marching in line..... and they could still be wrong. Epicycles.

And the only way to tell the difference between epicycles and a more correct model is to refine the input data. Part of this is to gather the _correct_ data in the first place, to the proper degree of precision necessary. Another part is to analyze the data correctly... using the right model. Yet another part is to see if your model can predict future data gathered under different initial conditions.... this is a robust test of a model, and this is where Graneau's program -- along with many others -- broke down.

I, at least, agree with you & have little faith in spreadsheets, in & off themselves - actually spreadsheet programs are fine & I use them, it's the modelers that can be the weak link.

I am much more impressed with robust simulations & real world POP experiments that can leave no room for doubt by the rigorous nature they are conducted & examined - it is a given that the modeling that follows should then be highly predictive but built around actual data.

I will trust the process underway to come to some sort of firm conclusions - either way it pans out will be a good result from my perspective.

Michel .. thanks for the reply - you won't be offended if I await actual data from the replicators & long run test before I'm swayed - I don't need to relive Mr Wayne's eureka moments for myself - I'd be too busy trying to rewrite the laws of physics to accommodate non conservative gravity loophole you speak about.

[Ghost]

jesus fucking christ!

it should be obvious by now that this system will never work!
data shown is shit!
videos and images shown, shit!
no solid proof has been shown!
expecting us to have faith that this system works and going along with it is absolutely unacceptable!
this system will never go open source! and if it does I bet that will be the time we find out it doesn’t work!

this type of shit will not end here, there will be others so get use to it!
eventually someone (or group of people) will come along and will actually open source their over unity/free energy discovery.
but until then we will have to deal with shit like this!

and if i’m wrong in the end, well then I apologize in advance! seriously.

[Red_Sunset]

Quote from fletcher
Michel .. thanks for the reply - you won't be offended if I await actual data from the replicators & long run test before I'm swayed

Fletcher, Thank you for a decent and meaningful response.
No, I will not be offended, I understand your reservation and I appreciate your response that you understood my comms and that you require further investigation to make up your opinion.
To me this means that you are doing your due diligence on your part instead of dismissing it outright like some/most of the other members on this forum without producing any validation on their part why a certain logic is illogical or wrong, except for a few high flung statements pulled out of their back pocket or science manual.

Example post, how not to respond: (from ghost)
          jesus fucking christ! 
          it should be obvious by now that this system will never work!
          data shown is shit!
          videos and images shown, shit!
          no solid proof has been shown!

Seamus,
No.. That statement makes no sense. Either some part of the cycle results in an energy gain or it doesn't . Your explanations show leverage is possible but leaves out how and where the actual energy gain occurs. Show where that happens or stop wasting our time

No.. That statement makes no sense.
**  Please expand your statement, why doesn’t it make sense. I though I explained it simple and well enough.

Either some part of the cycle results in an energy gain or it doesn't .
**   The energy gain was clearly demonstrated together with the source that created the gain in a logical fashion.
You may explain why this is so impossible in a progressive logical rebuttal. It is clear that you have difficulty to understand this but if you do not provided more details why you can not get your head around this. I can not help you.

Your explanations show leverage is possible but leaves out how and where the actual energy gain occurs.
** I showed a net energy output that was more than we put in. And I showed how we came to that point.
That is where a clever guy like you comes in. You can make a clear analysis why the example given in post #1861 can not work as stated.  Or tell me what produces this magical energy, or better said how can it be possible to demand a discount from nature within the bounds of the known laws. I can only tell you, I do’ this and that’ and look, I get this for free..  Believe me it is still a puzzle for me too. I do not claim that I know all. I am on a discovery tour. A bit like Columbus, he should have been in India or China but he was somewhere else outside the boundaries of what was known. Seamus, you got the ball. This is what the forum should be all about to be of any value.

Show where that happens or stop wasting our time.
** Yes, show us what happens, I did in earlier post, it is now your turn to make a meaningful contribution that will advance the train of logical reasoning, so we can ALL come out successful for the good of all of us and the world.

Lets be a team and stop hiding,

Regards, Michel

[see3d]

The pivot lies in the ratio between the Outer Layer and the Pod area. A pod area as big as the outer layer surface would be “unity” if we ignore losses. As you make the pod area smaller than the outer layer, the outer to pod area ratio will becomes your advantage over ‘unity’.

Michel, Thanks for your little insight nugget.