Big try at gravity wheel

[MileHigh]

Technology needs to aid nature to achieve the asymmetrical objective at a discounted cost

More complete and utter nonsense.  Don't let yourself get brainwashed by this person.  He is making a valiant attempt to appeal to wanna-believers and other susceptible people, especially the ones with money.  One big score from an investor and then four or five people can sit on their lazy asses and draw off that funding, drink beer and play pool, and otherwise do absolutely nothing.  The only "work" required might involve showing up at the "office" every few months to sit at a desk and aimlessly surf the web and pretend that you are working.

That could indeed be the seedy underbelly behind all of this.  It could be very similar to Jon Rohner and Intelgentry.  The man that claimed that he designed the spark plug firing circuit that clearly demonstrated on Facebook for all the world to see that he didn't even understand how one works.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Technology needs to aid nature to achieve the asymmetrical objective at a discounted cost,  this means savings.

Red, you continue to crack me up. Please tell me just how "Technology" and "Nature" are different. What principles does "technology" contain that are not fully part and parcel of "nature" ?

Physics... real physics, not pretend Travis-RedSunset physics... is universal. It applies to "technology" and "nature" equally. It is the same physics. In fact, what we think of as "technology" could not even exist at all without our proper understanding of the Physics of Nature. Our understanding of _some aspects_ of Nature is imperfect. Our understanding of other aspects is _perfect enough_ for us to engineer, with confidence. As our understanding of Nature progresses we are able to engineer more and more "esoteric" technologies.... but not a single one of them violates the basics of Thermodynamics, the basics of Engineering Statics and Dynamics (lumped together as Engineering Mechanics) or especially the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy. No amount of hand-waving that _does not include_ proper scientific experimentation and demonstration has ever, or can ever, trump the textbooks.

[mondrasek]

Okay.  So I proposed a test (mathematical) that could possibly disprove the ZED premise.  And Red_Sunset agreed that the proposed test is valid.

MH and TK, do you think that the proposed test is valid or not?

BTW, after some more thought on the matter I think the hypothesis that would be mathematically tested as proposed would be to see:  Is a ZED (multilayer buoyancy contraption) analogous to a common hydraulic cylinder?

If the test fails, it still does not prove that a ZED is OU or could be used to make an OU system.  It would only show that using a simplification of the ZED systems using a hydraulic cylinder analogue is not, in fact, analogous.

BTW, I would appreciate any assistance with this test and argument (if that is the appropriate term) if anyone can do so.  DOE and proofs are not something that I consider a forte.

Thanks,

M.

[MarkE]

Fetcher, Webby,....
Some clarification that can help, Webby's riser is the hardware device that makes the implementation of the asymmetric working concept possible.  By it self , the concept is a fantasy as you said before,  very true.  But so is the riser.  Together it is a different story.
Webby risers will have the ability to realize the objective of the concept in a specific controlled way as outlined by Wayne.  The concept realization has multiple physical property aspects that related to the device and working hand in hand are the ingenious input savings it allows.  The second ZED in the dual configuration plays an important savings role that can not be achieved by a stand alone ZED

The 3 stage concept approach as outlined to EnergiaLibre (and rejected by him) is the best way to approach I think.  Don't expect to find just 1 thing that gives you OverUnity, it is a combination of things as Wayne outlined in his thread. The high level asymmetry concept presented by me (also rejected by others) is high level enough to condense it into one thing,  this feathers out into multiple features as you go down range.

This is the reason, the ZED concept is somewhat complicated and difficult to understand without doing homework and due diligence, or to explain in a very simple way.  You can bring the horse to the water but you can not make him drink would be appropriate here.

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, you have always been most welcome to identify any energy "asymmetry" or "input savings" that is either possible or measured in any of these machines.  You have yet to do so. 

I see that you argue against looking for over unity in just one thing.  Yet, the net efficiency of a system is the product of the individual efficiencies.  Kindly explain how it is possible to multiply two efficiencies each less than one and end up with a value greater than: one or either of the two starting efficiencies.  If as mathematics dictates you cannot do that, then it must be necessary to identify a single process that is over unity, or else the entire process is condemned to under unity.

[MarkE]

You are mixing things up MarkE,, I suggest you re-read.

Since you are refuting my thought, then you are refuting known science, so that means you are making an extraordinary claim, so support it.

I do not make any extraordinary claim.  I assert that each of the elements proposed in any of these machines conserves energy, and that as a result the entire machine must conserve energy.  That is consistent with conventional science.  If you have evidence that any of the elements are OU, by all means supply it.  If you have any evidence that a series of processes each less than unity efficient can together be more than unity efficient, I would love to see your math.