Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

"John", anytime you would like to discuss the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED I would be pleased to engage further.  However, your present course of questioning takes us off topic and onto the path that TK is also inclined to head down.  That path is this argument:  If the Physics premise is true, then why have we not seen the Physical Representation of a Functioning Device released?  Ergo, if no Physical Representation of a Functioning Device, then the premise to build one must be false.

That argument is a "chicken or the egg" type of thing, isn't it?  Ie. Which comes first, the Mathematical proof of an exploitable Physics phenomenon, or the product (or video?) which shows the utility of that phenomenon for the first time?

I am claiming that the math does not support the preconception that an ideal ZED performs identical to an ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.  I have requested from this forum that others check it out for themselves and either show me the error of my math and/or methods or confirm the same findings.  This process is similar to what is known as "Peer Review."

I have openly become an exposed target for proclaiming what I have presented so far.  Feel free to shoot me down.  Please do it in the language of Science:  Mathematics.

M.

Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery:  Show it in theory or experiment.  HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years.  HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago.  They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago.  Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need.  Yet the experiments do not happen.  Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced.  First principles dictate that energy is conserved.  That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis.  That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.   

HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:

Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.

HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above.  The fact is that they cannot show any of the above.  They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left.  In other words:  They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity.   Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point.  And the last point is simple arithmetic.

[mrwayne]

Hello Monderask,

Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............

Great focus.

Wayne

[MarkE]

Hello Monderask,

Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............

Great focus.

Wayne

It's good for anyone to do such a thing.  It's not something HER/Zydro seem interested in publishing.

[LarryC]

Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery:  Show it in theory or experiment.  HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years.  HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago.  They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago.  Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need.  Yet the experiments do not happen.  Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced.  First principles dictate that energy is conserved.  That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis.  That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.   

HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:

Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.

HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above.  The fact is that they cannot show any of the above.  They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left.  In other words:  They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity.   Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point.  And the last point is simple arithmetic.

MarkE,


You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.


After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.


   

[MarkE]

MarkE,


You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.


After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.

I checked the results before I posted.  They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits.  The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use:  IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall.  40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water. 

Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of circular area units.  They get used in power electronics quite a bit.  A circular area unit is the area a square would take that has the width of a given circle's diameter.  The relationship between circular area and absolute area is:  absolute area = circular area * pi/4.  With a pod of 25" diameter, the circular area is 25² = 625.  The ring wall at 26" diameter is 26² = 676.  The area difference is of course the sum of the two diameters = 51 circular inches.  We can work in these more convenient units throughout the problem before applying the common constants pi/4 and the density of water, and our conversion from cubic inches volume and inches height to cubic feet and feet height.

My reduction simply reproduced the net total of the spreadsheet formulas in algebraic form.