Big try at gravity wheel

[powercat]

Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset

And you're talking BS, Wayne kept promising independent verification, and he kept breaking his word, but you seem to think breaking his word again and again is acceptable, and turning the blame on other people now for Wayne traverses complete failure to produce any real evidence is BS and avoiding reality.

[MarkE]

Hi Fletcher,
...I wrote a ~40 page pamphlet/booklet on it "The ZED for dummies", which I gave to Wayne as a base document for him to expand on as he wished and as a "thanks" gesture.

The asymmetry creation is an interference between the 2 half cycles.  The key is to be able to pay for that cost in a way that you pay for it without loosing any money in the process, so to speak.  ...

The successful outcome is a critical process but I am under the firm belief it can be done. Not necessarily in the form or shape as is attempted by these 2 inventors.
It is worthwhile to study these 2 inventions, yes !  although not for the purpose of a quick rip-off OU device(it is pre-historic) but to learn of a path that leads towards the light, absolutely !.  The reality of having the 2 inventions working at this point in time as the first OU system is not exactly the most important criteria here, although it would be nice and very encouraging if they did work.
Do I have (all) the answers ?, no, not yet.
Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:

1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?

[MarkE]

...

If this system works then it must be using something, or doing something, that is not within the scope of the well known and understood methods.

If this system only uses and behaves in the same fashion as understood interactions then it can not work.

...

This offers opportunity to progress towards a common understanding.  So hopefully we can take the next step:

What evidence is there that any element, or combination of elements do not behave in the same fashion as understood interactions?

If such evidence exists, then it can be pursued to see if it is mistaken observation, or it is real and therefore OU should be obtainable by exploiting the observed behavior.

[MarkE]

After the lift my system would eject the fluid at a higher pressure than the resting state pressure.

At the end of lift I had my reservoir at the same height that was needed for the lift and as such I believe that that means there was the same pressure still held within the system.

The input fluid was returned at a decreasing pressure value, that is to continue the descent of the risers I needed to keep lowering the reservoir until I had the reservoir back to the starting height.

This behavior is not in line with normal usage of hydraulics, in the normal use of hydraulics the instant the pressure source is removed from the fluid medium the potential is also removed.

Webby what is the starting state of your cycle?

I am not familiar with your device or the tests that you ran.  Will you please provide me a link to descriptions of each?

If your device uses pneumatics and hydraulics there is a good chance that you will see phase lags due to the inertial mass in the system and compressible gas.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset in your 40 pages of explanation did you:

1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?
2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?
3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?

MarkE,
1) Show any evidence of any force other than gravity operating within the device?  * No

2) Show any evidence that gravity behaves non-conservatively?  * Yes & No,
   **  The multi-layer piston changes the playing field because the piston makes an un-natural parameter (property) change at the midpoint cycle, so gravity reacts in response to those changes, not to the symmetry of the half cycle that preceded it.
This creates the appearance of non-conservation, but it all reactions are normal accepted physics behaviors.
No magic takes place or known physic's rules are broken in the process. Although the end result makes you believe different

3) Show any evidence that any closed cycle employed within the device generates a net energy gain?  * Yes

Your questions were answered already in a previous post that gave you a high level working overview of the ZED.  Re-read it and you might see more clarity?  Nothing will help you until you disassemble the set of inverted cooking pots.   It is a mind twister, give it time to assimilate.

Red_Sunset