Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mondrasek]

The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.

I looked at it two slightly different ways.  But both result in the same Energy Balance in the end, so I don't know if it matters much if one is correct or not.  But I would like to know.

The first way is what you described above.  It makes sense, but having the red box change volume is a bit counter intuitive.  So I also thought about fixing the red box in the initial state as shown below.  Now when the water charge is introduced to cause the configuration in the center diagram, water leaves the red box through the upper surface of the "step" in the box across the outer annulus.  That water is a PE that flows right back into the red box when the system is allowed to rise, so it sums to zero with the energy that was lost when the water left in the first place. 

So by either method, I end up back to the same Energy Balance that I used for the second attempt at the 2-layer ZED analysis.

You have not answered if you agree that the output energy is correctly established by the volume of the outer riser (boxed in yellow) that rises up through the top of the red box boundary.  That volume starts rising at a P_out that is calculated from the buoyant forces of the pod and risers shown in the middle charged state diagram, and would presumably drop to zero if the ZED were to come back into equilibrium (neutral buoyancy) in the final position on the right.

[MarkE]

Things don't always fit in little boxes...............

You were absolute in your statements.  Are you trying to weasel in modifications now?

Let me be clear - Our investors will not part with there part ownership in our company - none of them.

Ah, pay attention to the language.  Will and want are quite different.

They have been offered 10X returns by out side investors...........wanting in........ and our members flat walked away. It does not take long to realize how well our company is growing.......

Again, language matters.  Those who have stayed, have stayed.  How many have asked to get out, and/or have gotten out?

The idea that any of them have been harmed is ignorance. (beside the fact that about 30% of our owners are engineers -good ones).

Any trained engineer who thinks that there is energy to be gained by raising and dropping weights cyclically is incompetent.  Full stop.  The incompetence may be a temporary induced condition, but it is incompetence just the same.

I refused to let any of my friends and family support us unless they verified it was non risk money - and I have gifted much to needy friends and family.

Only the records will tell whether that is true or not.  And your record vis-a-vis truth is not so good.

We never asked for money - and we always had exactly what we need to pay for parts, tests, legal fee's - tools.

Really?  Again records would be the judge.

We did not buy cars - houses - jewelry, take vacations, or anything that would harm our ability or threaten the value of our members.

So it's OK to take money under false premises if you don't spend it "lavishly"?

We built the product and the company.

You've built an illusion on a stack of lies.  There is no product.  Your technology claims are false.

........................

We "are" fully funded............... "Turnkey funded" and no investor has been paid off from other investors.

Oh, this is new "Wayne speak".  Your previous declarations were that you were both "fully funded" and were not seeking any new funds.  Since the company has no source of revenue other than investors, either no investors have been cashed out, or your statement is false.  The business records are again the better evidence of fact.

Paid off? you assume thay don't want to be part of our future............your mistake - your box.

There is no future for HER / Zydro, because there is not now and never was the technology that you claim.

One day - you may realize the gross misdirection - harm done - by your good intentions - to the good people - on this web site.

The harm that has been done is your selling investment in a pipe dream that you know to be false, or are reckless in ignoring that it is false.  The Acts, 1933, and 1934 do not distinguish between the two.

Or not - I have always hoped your intentions may have been meant for good, but you have no excuse.

No, Wayne Travis, you have no excuse.  The physics is painfully simple:  Gravity is conservative.  You have no counter evidence.

.......................

The gross error by critics on this subject has been "Stark faith in what was presumed "known" - and lack of due effort and discovery."

You have not made any physical discovery.  You have discovered how a yarn skillfully told can separate people from their cash even when the yarn is utterly and entirely preposterous.  Just as many people have fallen for scams claiming they've won a big lottery they never entered, there are people foolish enough to fall for the idea that there is free energy in a pail of water.

The demands that you be handed a operating system - after you ignored the originals, ignored original analysis, ignored replications - tells me one thing - misdirection. I am just not sure if thier is more than one puppet master leading the way.

There it is!  Yes, try and shift your burden of proof onto others.  No Mr. Wayne you have no sausages.  Just hope that isn't prophetically because someone of the temperament of Lorena Bobbitt has been burned by your shameless lies.

Demands that you control the education - of what you did not understand - was arrogant. While you called me arrogant for trying to teach you....

All that you teach is the age old story that if the tale is pitched properly, some people will believe almost anything, no matter how preposterous.

HERE IS THE SAD POINT:

A fraction of the time spent slandering us, a fraction of that energy spent - would have been more than enough to share in our discover - don't give me more misdirection and excuses.

That's right Wayne Travis:  Stay on point.  Keep insisting that you have a scientific discovery when you don't and never did.  For you it's staying on message.  For a prosecutor it is evidence of scienter.

The closing of the opportunity has passed.

That's just what John Rohner used to say.  And yet there was always more stock for sale.  There still is.

.......................

Yes, we are in the process of interviewing and selecting a full scale engineering team - to both develop our systems and applications, yes we have recently moved into temporary facilities while the permits for ground breaking are being processed and the 7-8 months required to build our show case facility -

"Show" being the key operative term.  You can show props.  You cannot show a working demonstration of the claimed technology, never could, and never will.  Pails of water do not emit beams of glorious free energy from the heavens.

As of Yesterday - we have hired 21 of our 27-28 people.

That's lots of investor cash burn applied to something that you know is a lie.

This first building will house our Management, Engineering, additional Research, legal, and training facility. It will be a show case for the visiting representatives.

HER/Zydro cannot deliver anything to representatives of anyone.  But you can sell worthless licenses and franchises to non-existent technology.

Both City and state incentives have been negotiated, Both the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, and the Oklahoma Senate has been prepared and briefed -on our discovery and progress.

That's what MediaFusion said.

Our Benefactor is well represented in Both the US Senate and Congress, and has an incredible legal team.

Oh goody:  You've found a mark with means and connections.  Now, all you have to do is work out that exit strategy where the greatest thing since fire fails but not because it was always a lie.  Hmmm, will it be the Men In Black?  Madison Priest used the amnesia story.  You can look for other story lines that have been used on day time TV.

One Senator spoke at our company launch three weeks agp - "Oklahoma has been known for its creative Energy solutions - and now that legacy continues with ZYdro Energy."

Imagine that:  A politician talking up something that they do not understand.  Will that senator still be your buddy when the house of cards inevitably collapses?

And yes - our facility will be grid tied - and powered by our systems - works great for the Training Department.

Sure, that will happen right after JWK's systems get tied in.  His investors have been waiting longer, so the JWK systems will get tied in first.  Oh, and then of course the Inteligentry systems will have to be tied in first.  And then hell will have to freeze over.

Our funding includes automated manufacturing - we will have another round of hiring in less than 12 months. Different locations.

You're in good company:  The scammer Rossi also likes to talk about his non-existent automated factories.

This will also supply advancement opportunities for our first team members.

There you go:  Stay on message.  "Get in now!"  "Step right up!"  "Surrender your common sense and cash before it's too late!"

...........................

It is only by God's blessing that we were able to survive long enough to be discovered, examined, and supported.

Why yes, it is God's blessing that you have been discovered.  But that's not in the sense that you mean.   "Lorena!  No!"

.....................

MarkE, you have the skills - and after the replication teams - you have begun to put in effort - I hope you can handle the truth - when the realization sweeps over you.

I know the truth:  You are a shameless individual selling false dreams to gullible investors, all with your Bible in tow.  You know the OT is full of stories of retribution.  You better stick to the NT that focuses more on forgiveness.  You will be needing to seek a lot of that.

I am blessed to see it happen almost every day - it is good for the world.

Yes, you benefit everyday from OPM.  It is difficult to say if you would be doing more harm if you didn't have access to that.

How you handle that will determine much, reveal much, for you. Good luck.

Luck has little to do with physics.

....................

I was asked nicely - to update Overunity.com on our development.

And yet you have done nothing but repeat your empty talking points.  There is no development.

And that time has now been spent, God speed to all of you.

Wayne

God speed to the poor investors who have been foolish enough to believe your lies.

[LarryC]

Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure.  That yields incorrect results.  Integration is necessary.

Thanks, MarkE.


Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.

The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.


Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.


The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.


Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.


Larry

[MarkE]

Thanks, MarkE.


Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.

The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.


Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.


The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.


Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.


Larry

Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle.  The fundamental problem for both the scheme using an insert and a scheme without an insert is that sloshing water around between filled and partially filled columns throws away a big percentage of the input energy.  Using inserts reduces the amount of water moved around and therefore reduces the losses.  A crude analogy is where one drives a car with one's foot on the brake: very inefficient, compared to driving applying less pressure on the brake: less inefficient, but still bad.  There is an parallel to this situation in electronics where one charges multiple capacitors to different voltages and then connects the capacitors together.  The energy relationships areas described by the same form of differential equations.

The next logical step is for you to calculate the energy applied and the energy that you recover during your cycle.  The general form for work changing the water level in a column is:

Work_applied = Area*(StartingPressure*(EndingHeight - StartingHeight) + 0.5*PressureChange/UnitHeight*(EndingHeight^2 - StartingHeight^2))

If the column shrinks then the Ending Height is less than the starting height, and work is released with a resulting negative value.
If the column grows then the Ending Height is greater than the starting height, and work is added with a resulting positive value.

[TinselKoala]

@mondrasek:
I may have been kidding about the color blindness (I actually have fine color vision according to Ishihara and other tests, even though my father was a deuteranope) but nevertheless I can't easily tell the Red from the Magenta when they are closely adjacent in your drawings. How about using a contrasting color for the "red" box outline?