Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

How can "I" be "specific"?

You stated: 

My answer is that I see merit in the concept, so to me it is not a fraud.

Either you can identify what is meritorious or you can't.  I bet that you can't.

Your tool shows that the input costs to move the air\water columns into a vertical position can be almost completely recovered.

They show that the system is fundamentally lossy.  The tool and associated analysis never shows a hint of over unity.

TK's Bollard example shows that anything that assists in lifting an object reduces the input cost of the operator to lift that object.

No they don't.

Archimedes has shown that the buoyant lift force is not a distance relationship.

Archimedes does not show anything that suggests over unity.

The concentric rings grow in surface area while the input volume stays the same.

Which again does not offer any information that suggest over unity.

The risers use the same space\volume to have a much larger equivalent water displacement than the volume of the system as a whole.

Levers do not suggest over unity.

I see all this as some kind of hybrid between a hydraulic lift and a buoyant lift with the opposing forces that are required to make each of those force conditions being used partially against the same surface as the surface the primary forces are acting on.

Force is not conserved.  Energy is.  Nothing that you have referenced has ever shown over unity energy, nor has anything that you have referenced either suggested over unity energy.  Do you understand the difference between:  force, distance, and energy?

The surface of interaction is the horizontal surface, that does include both the upper and lower surfaces.  The buoyant lift does not care about the lower surface but the hydraulic lift uses them both.  The riser walls and the ring walls are the constraints that only allow the forces to manifest in one direction of reaction.

That is not true.  In the case of the buoyant object the pressure that acts on the top of the object also acts on the surrounding fluid and therefore contributes a like amount of pressure to the bottom of the object.  Consequently, we can shortcut inclusion of the atmospheric pressure when calculating up thrust on a buoyant object.  We only need to know the effective displaced volume and density of the surrounding fluid.

[mondrasek]

It is already on that drawing.  Are you contending that there is an error in that graphic?  If so, what do you contend is wrong?

Yes, I contend that there is an error in the verbiage in the graphic.  The error is in the statement on line #3 which reads:  As water levels equalize, energy is lost.

You have failed to correctly describe the Energy that is "lost" by this Ideal 3-layer ZED system when transitioning from State 2 to State 3.  The Energy does not need to be simply "lost."  That Energy can be collected.

Only if you calculate the Energy that is (described incorrectly as "lost") necessary to cause the calculated "lift" of the outer ZED riser will the Energy balance calculations be correct.

[mondrasek]

MarkE, what amount of Energy is necessary for the SUT to rise 2.590mm?

[MarkE]

That is a safe bet since I do not speak in numbers, and it is numbers speak that you count as specific.

It is not about how I speak.  It is about the merit you say Wayne Travis's / HER's / Zydro's absolutely false claims to free energy from lifting and lowering weights has.  Either you can show that there is merit that exists, or your claim that you find merit is false.

You are missing it,, the surface is the underside of the riser and the bottom of the unit.  The buoyant force cares NOT about the pressure on the top of the riser when all of the water coulumn is exposed to that same pressure, it is only the equivalent displaced volume of water that makes the lift force.

Buoyant force is the weight of the displaced fluid, period.

Since you keep throwing this out AND I keep answering,, force and distance moved equal the energy involved.

No, energy is the integral of F*ds.  Force can be one value or many values along the path of some movement.  Only under the special circumstance that force is constant along the path is energy equal to the product of force and distance.  This has been explained to you many times already.  Why is it that you still do not understand?

Do you not understand that energy is a "tool" for comparing things that are not the same, do you not understand that "energy" is not real, do you understand what the "tool" is used for.

Energy is very real.

If this "tool of energy" comes up with either, an extra amount, or a lesser amount, then whatever is causing that discrepancy must be found AND included so that the "energy tool" ends up as a net zero function.

You are back to bafflegab.

Over Unity can only exist for as long as all of the environmental influences are not understood or appreciated, once they all are, then there is no more Over Unity.

That's nice.  When has over unity apparent or otherwise ever been demonstrated by cyclically lifting and lowering weights?

To make a hydro-pneumatic lift, pressure must be built within the system, to build this pressure the concentric rings allow for water and air to be repositioned as such that the air and water form into vertical columns and it is this that allows the pressure to build.

In other words the weight of some water compresses some air.  So what?

A buoyant lift needs to have some equivalent volume of water displaced from within the column of water, the lift force is equal to that amount of equivalent displaced water.

That's right: the force depends on the weight of displaced water.  Where does that get you in terms of energy?

You have not shown how anything that the system does stops both of these conditions from occurring simultaneously from the same input source.

On the contrary, I have shown that there is no mechanism for energy gain.  There are only mechanisms for energy loss.  So were is this merit to Wayne Travis' claims that you assert?

[MarkE]

I do have another question.

I thought you said that the CirArea was the same as a square made from the diameter,, so a 22mm diameter would have a 484 CirArea mm^2 right?

Representations of circular area simply drop the pi()/4, effectively multiplying the true area by 4/pi.  This is the identical area ratio that a square of the same width as the circle's diameter would have relative to the circle. A 22mm dia circle does have a 484 mm² circular area.

I am looking at your AR?CirArea and am not seeing this value.  So I am wondering about its use.,, is that the surface area of the space between the AR's?

These are rings.  The area of a ring is:  pi/4*(OD² - ID²).  AR1 OD is 22mm, its ID is 20mm, the circular area is 484mm² - 400mm² = 84mm².  The true area is pi/4*84mm².