Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

MarkE,

That is interesting that 2.15 psi will change for some reason with the volumes that would be required for lets say a 1 inch lift, I thought that would be the same as to whether that is filling a 1 inch tall cylinder that has 25.133 square inches,  compared to a 1 inch tall cylinder that has 27.64 square inches.

It seems to me that there is a difference there in volume moved at the same pressure.

Remember that the only fluid added to the ZED is into the pod chamber, not the riser, and as TK's video demonstrated, the effect of transfer is there.

138.226x.43=59.437  59.437\2.15=27.645  5x.43=2.15  5.9 inch diameter for the hydraulic and oops that is a blank space but the diameter of the retainer is 5.66 inches. The first riser diameter is 6.9 inches.

This is simple algebra and only needs 2 points, start of lift and end of lift.

Perhaps you are not aware that the ZED is a short lift and recovery system.

Webby you need to work in energy.  As long as you have a compressible fluid:  IE air the volume changes with pressure and both change with stored energy.  And that is just standing still.  Calculate your stored energy at an arbitrary starting point, then exercise the machine as you like measuring the energy that you add and the energy that you take away.  Do that until the machine returns to the starting point that you chose.  Then calculate the stored energy that remains in the machine at your chosen starting / ending point.  If you do your accounting and math correctly you will not find that the net energy withdrawn from the machine plus the remaining energy stored in the machine at the end of the cycle exceed the stored energy that was in the machine at the start of the cycle.

[Red_Sunset]

Comments to Fletcher summary notes & observations,

Sorry Minnie,  I am +3 to your time zone, the reason for the delay
Fetcher,  You compiled a good summary.
  ** My responses

1. Red points out the a ZED by itself is not OU [that there is no gain in energy is accepted by others].
  ** To be understood as a simple hydro piston, a multi-layer device shown in pictures with water columns height in the various levels, you have a very efficient hydro lift device.
A ZED can be understood as a complete system used in a dual configuration with a second ZED, and provides the ability to achieve OU and loop capability due to cost saving ability.

2. Red contends from his own analysis & deductions [supported by Mr Wayne & a cast of 200] that a minimum of two ZEDs connected by levers [rams] can use the exhausted fluid output energy [pressure times volume] from one ZED on downstroke to partially offset the input energy of the second ZED on upstroke, 180 degrees out of phase [like a ICE connected to a crankshaft] - this requires a reservoir of fluid to ride the top of the pod/piston to fill the outer annular ring with a minimum of fluid volume to cause lift force over a greater distance, once the piston can move.
**    I would agree

3. Red postulates that everything would be sub-OU [no NET energy gain] unless a metered/pulsed mechanical intervention happens to interrupt the cycle [fluid volume transfer to beneath the pod/piston ?!] - this process gives rise to a self-sustaining movement of the mechanisms with an excess of available energy to do external work.
  **   This should be understood as a process that changes the lift parameters between the up & down stroke which is synonymous to high & low pressure range

A. Red is invoking Mr Wayne's contention that the pressure gradient inside the dual ZEDs is not linear [Mr Wayne previously said that compressible gas (air spring energy storage & release analogy which compromises volume) was not required & could be replaced by lighter density fluid/oil] - he further contends that there is a specific limited range of movement to maximize this gradient asymmetry.
**     I would agree, although limited range has more to do with pre-provisioing tolerance allowances.

B. It has been pointed out that non-compressible fluids have a strictly linear pressure gradient to depth at ordinary depths, except at extreme depths & pressures - MarkE has pointed out that energy & pressure are related thru the work energy equivalence principle i.e.

=> Force = Pressure x Area => Pressure = F / A = F.d / A.d = Work / Volume = Energy / Volume => Energy Density [kinetic energy density plus potential energy density (CoE) per volume].
**      I would agree,

C. It has been pointed out that Pascal's Law [undiminished transfer of pressure] supports the theory of rams & hydraulic levers as being sub-OU - IOW's, hydraulic levers are no different & conform to Archimedes Law of Levers.
**      I would agree, this would therefore suggest that the "crux of the matter" is not the lever but how the lever is used, facilitated by its unique design.

D. It has been pointed out that forces & pressure & power (rate of doing work) [especially in a dynamic system] are not reliable indicators of possible energy surplus - a self-sustaining mechanical device would be able to cover internal energy losses to friction & do some external work, & keep going for an extended period of time, until parts wore out, or the load became to great.
**      I would agree, but when using a fixed volume liquid quantity, then energy is linear with pressure.

[minnie]

   Hi,
       I find the paradox quite a tricky thing to deal with. It looks as if you can lift a huge weight
  with a cupful of water and the use that energy. Looking at Koala's video I realised what's
  happening, when you add more water you are beginning to get deep water underneath.
     When I looked at the aquarium video I realised that it was just an upside-down version
  of the paradox and could easily fool an unwitting onlooker.
     When someone achieves an ou device it will naturally want to accelerate and this will be the
  proof they need. When we start seeing things with brakes or safety cut-outs it'll be time to
  take notice.
            John.

[MarkE]

...
**      I would agree, this would therefore suggest that the "crux of the matter" is not the lever but how the lever is used, facilitated by its unique design.

You are back full circle to your appeal for a magic OU lever.  No such thing exists.  Neither you, nor Wayne, nor anyone at HER has shown any evidence that such a thing could exist.

[minnie]

     It looks as if we're back to the equation 0 + 0 and then a miracle happens!
                 John.