Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE,

What is the energy loss in the system due to heat, two incompressible mediums.

Are you asking that as a global question?  42.

In the real world what would the energy loss be due to heat loss from the water.

Did you know that whenever you pump fluid through a pipe that heats the pipe?

What is the pressure change on the water that is needed for 1J.

Are you confusing pressure for energy now?  You've confused energy and force frequently in the past.

If that heat dissipated is exactly at room temperature, then how much loss is there.

When the temperatures equalize, every Joule put into heating the environment is no longer available to perform useful work.

I do not contradict myself, if you have not understood I still think that gravity is conservative.  Wayne has his view, he calls it what he calls it and that does not change whether the system can function or not.

Sure you contradict yourself.  If gravity is conservative then you cannot get any energy out of cyclically moving masses around in a gravitational field.  Since Wayne claims to generate free energy from moving masses around in a gravitational field, a conservative gravitational field makes his claims false.  Since you state both that you believe Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro's claims and that gravity is conservative, you contradict yourself.  QED.  It's amazing that you so openly contradict yourself and claim that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself.

The negative resistance class has nothing to do with my question about resistance dissipating heat.

It was your claim that resistance only goes up with temperature.  Are you conceding that false claim?

How far will the resistance drop in the new item you brought up at room temperature.  What was that?? it won't change unless the outside temperature changes??

You are wrong again.  NTCs change resistance due to self-heating from any current passed through them.

[mondrasek]

Given that you have described the steps of putting water into the machine as set-up, that left states 2 and 3 for a cycle.  But if you want to cycle among other states, that's fine too.  If you don't come up with some sort of harvesting mechanism to collect energy that you dump from the stored water by returning to any state lower than State 2, then you will massively aggravate the losses.  If you do come up with a harvesting mechanism, depending on how efficient it is, and it will always be less than 100% efficient, it will simply increase the cyclical losses.

MarkE, I was never interested in presenting or designing a harvesting system for the Ideal ZED.  The purpose of Analyzing the Ideal ZED was to see if it acted identical to a simple hydraulic cylinder as had been ASSUMED when previous Analyses of a Dual ZED system were performed.  I only presented the "spillway" since the Energy that leaves the system as the Ideal ZED lifts from State 2 to State 3 was presented to be simply "lost."  The spillway was just to show that Energy is leaving the system and should be calculated.

The Ideal ZED does not complete a full lift cycle as explained to be part of a complete dual ZED system cycle, so using the harvesting method described for that is not possible.  I do not know of any practical harvesting method for the Ideal ZED.  But again, presenting such a device was never the intent of the Analysis.  Calculating the Energy that leaves the Ideal ZED during the lift from State 2 to State 3 is all that is necessary for the Analysis.

[mondrasek]

Given that you have described the steps of putting water into the machine as set-up, that left states 2 and 3 for a cycle.   

MarkE, setting up to State 1(x) is set up.  Manufacturing cost.

Charging by adding water to go from State 1(x) to State 2 is INPUT.  Lifting from State 2 to State 3 is OUTPUT.  Returning from State 3 to State 2 (and NOT through State 2) is RESET.

[MarkE]

MarkE, I was never interested in presenting or designing a harvesting system for the Ideal ZED.  The purpose of Analyzing the Ideal ZED was to see if it acted identical to a simple hydraulic cylinder as had been ASSUMED when previous Analyses of a Dual ZED system were performed.  I only presented the "spillway" since the Energy that leaves the system as the Ideal ZED lifts from State 2 to State 3 was presented to be simply "lost."  The spillway was just to show that Energy is leaving the system and should be calculated.

The Ideal ZED does not complete a full lift cycle as explained to be part of a complete dual ZED system cycle, so using the harvesting method described for that is not possible.  I do not know of any practical harvesting method for the Ideal ZED.  But again, presenting such a device was never the intent of the Analysis.  Calculating the Energy that leaves the Ideal ZED during the lift from State 2 to State 3 is all that is necessary for the Analysis.

It seems that we need to repost your OP again:

Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« on: February 13, 2014, 03:17:30 PM »

    Quote

All, please check the math.  I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.  Feel free to send your input by PM if you don't want to post in the thread.  It would be nice to know if you check the analysis and agree as much as if you find mistakes. ...

You claimed that the three riser scheme yielded over unity in your analysis.  You asked for help evaluating whether you made mistakes in your analysis. 

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2014, 03:52:12 PM »

    Quote

All, MarkE has not been able to work out his double check of the analysis yet.  Would anyone else like to help?  I am happy to assist in any way possible.  Or if anyone can explain why the method I am using in this analysis is incorrect that would also be helpful.

The reason I am asking is because what my analysis has shown so far is extraordinary.  It appears to show that the ZED is NOT conforming to Boyle's law.  Possibly because it is an open system?  And so PinVin<>PoutVout.  And in the case shown in the analysis, PinVin>PoutVout, so underunity.  But that leads to the following question:  If PinVin<>PoutVout, is there some possible change to the geometry of the ZED model that could lead to PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity?

I have already tested the next logical step:  I added the third riser to the current model.  The results of that analysis, by the exact same method outlined in this thread, does result in PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity.  So I am anxious to have the analysis duplicated and/or shown to be erroneous.

Thanks,

M.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 08:31:15 PM by mondrasek »

As we discovered, yes you did make mistakes and no the "ideal ZED" is not over unity as you said your now shown to be erroneous analysis concluded it is.

Without a harvesting mechanism, which you did not include when you presented the set-up, the internal energy loss going from State 2 to State 3 was a systemic loss.  Remember:  You defined the problem that you wanted analyzed.  As your recent 44mm example shows, even with a harvesting device the systemic loss can be almost all of the internal energy loss.  It requires a harvesting device with specific characteristics to be able to harvest a high percentage of the internal energy loss.

The fundamentally lossy behavior of an "ideal ZED" has been proven.  Losses don't get made up in volume.  If you want to try and argue that a "real ZED" is over unity then you move the argument away from the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance, IE the special mechanism behind the bull shit, nonexistent "Travis Effect" to something else such as the See-Saw of Silliness.  You know as well as I do that there is no free energy to be had there either.  But if you want to try and make a nonsense claim to free energy from see-saws, then I suggest you start a new thread for that.

[MarkE]

MarkE, setting up to State 1(x) is set up.  Manufacturing cost.

Charging by adding water to go from State 1(x) to State 2 is INPUT.  Lifting from State 2 to State 3 is OUTPUT.  Returning from State 3 to State 2 (and NOT through State 2) is RESET.

You can establish any starting point that you want.  You need to define what states constitute your cycle.  If you want to cycle between State 2 and State 3, as seemed to be your intent before, that's fine.  Then even with the pizza pan spillway contraption you lose energy every cycle.  If you want to cycle between State 3 and State 1X, or State 1, or even State 0, you can do that too.  The per cycle losses will increase versus a State 2 <=> State 3 cycle no matter what you come up with to try and recover the increased internal energy loss that occurs spanning those states versus just cycling between State 2 and State 3.