Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

IN fact, let's look at some parallels.

A charismatic and well-spoken PI. Check.
Serendipitous discovery of a claimed effect that would lead to OU. Check.
A couple of catchy names for the org and the device. Check.
Slick websites. Check.
Three blind mice engineers who endorse the claims. Check.
A demonstration device shown to invited parties from around the world. Check.
The demonstration device didn't quite work when every body came to see it. Check.
Larger more better devices in the works after the failed demonstrations. Check.
The original device that should have worked at the demos disappears, never to be heard from again. Check.
Several forum threads where, inexplicably, the PI engages with insignificant critics who nevertheless present cogent criticisms. Check.
A secret forum where the self-selected sycophants discuss their various projects with the PI. Check.
Yet nobody can make what the PI claimed was easily made. Check.
Obvious attempts by the PI to get help solving the various problems from the internet posters. Check.
TinselKoala is a thorn in their side and he gets banned from one forum and causes the PI to flee from another thread. Check.
Nevertheless TK produces apparatus that demonstrated their claimed effects. Check.
In some cases TK is even able to show the same kinds of bogus measurements that led to the original OU claim. Check.
Rigorous analysis by others proves mathematically that the PI is FOS. Check.
Nevertheless the PI and his org keeps on keeping on... Check.

As far as I can tell, the only major difference between Zydro and Steorn is that one  burns dollars and the other burns Euro, and the major difference between Travis and McCarthy is Guinness Stout.

[MarkE]

Oh, it can go on for much longer. Remember Sean McCarthy and Steorn, 25 million Euro burn over five or six years, nothing delivered, five or six different iterations, a flat-packable Ikea-stocked Orbo (just kidding about that one), e-orbo, SSOrbo, kinetica toy, all of that? A couple of genuine red herrings too, the Core Effect pulse motor and the magnetic bearings, improper use of test equipment to produce misleading results.... a secret inner circle private Steorn Knowledge Base club with layers like an onion .... he's still running around from pub to pub in Dubalin-town and has changed products, or rather imaginary products again.... and is burning still more cash with no end in sight.

I don't dispute that.  Some scams go on for many years.  Then again others get ripe enough and guys with badges and guns visit and they are in no mood for coffee and donuts.

[mrwayne]

So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?

Monderask - I hope you do not mind,

MarkE,

The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.

I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.

So lets get your states set up, and in order.

...........

Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A  will be the receiving ZED,

ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.

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

State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses

Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.

The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.

Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.

The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"

Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.

The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :

One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.

The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.

Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.

The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.

The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.

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

To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.

The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.

Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)

Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.

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

Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.

The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.

but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.


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

Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.

In simple observation - the true cost of a stroke half cycle is all of the Hydro assist - which is also the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.

The production cycle is both ZEDS having produced once and combined.

A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.   

MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost - the remaining input cost is the hydro assist.

Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.

The Excess or Net per half cycle is no more than the value between the Pv sinking and the production - Not magical - but free.

Wayne

[mrwayne]

The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims.  The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.  One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy.  It does make a little heater.  A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.

Good math - your not done yet.

Wayne

[TinselKoala]

Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production.

Is there really any need to say more?