Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

Started by mondrasek, February 13, 2014, 09:17:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 31 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pirate88179

Quote from: MarkE on March 02, 2014, 08:47:54 PM


The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel. 



Mark:

That is very funny indeed.  Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill
See the Joule thief Circuit Diagrams, etc. topic here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6942.0;topicseen

MarkE

Quote from: LibreEnergia on March 03, 2014, 01:06:17 AM
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?

After all as the system is stroking and producing the excess output then some or all of that could be redirected to assist input, surely?  Capturing it, storing it and moving it,  even if it is to another Zed can only result in losses compared with using it directly. I see no reason to the contrary.

I'd be interested in your opinion as to why/why not. I'm only trying to help you achieve the most efficiency here.. which appear to be LarryC's stated aim too.
As you are no doubt acutely aware, Wayne Travis' wall of words is just a bunch of flim-flam hand waving.  Mondrasek put up his configuration of an "ideal ZED".  Wayne Travis wrote several posts approving Mondrasek's configuration.  Yet analysis shows that this "ideal" device is quite lossy.  A cinderblock brick would be more efficient.  Faced with that, Wayne belted out his wall of words suggesting that there is more to it.  One needs to hook up two of these lossy things together to make up the losses in volume.  Then our correspondent Wayne Travis filled out a long post of:  do this, do that, blah, blah, blah, but yet in the end he is still lifting and dropping weights, where we have just shown that doing is not only underunity, if done incompetently as in the "Ideal ZED" it requires input work and yields no useable output work.  It takes work to go from State 3 to State 2.  Going from State 2 to State 3 yields no useable output.  It does dissipate heat.  A rope, a spring, a rock would all be more efficient and useful than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".

How about this?  How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water?  Why by gosh and by golly:  Praise Jesus!  It gets more efficient.  How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers?  Praise Jesus again!  A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".  The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.  A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.

MarkE

Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 03, 2014, 01:19:16 AM

Mark:

That is very funny indeed.  Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.

Excellent terminology and very, very funny.

Well done.

Bill
Bill, thanks.  What's fascinating to me is the absolute conscience free chutzpah of our correspondent:  Wayne Travis.  It apparently matters not to Mr. Travis that the "ideal ZED" is shown to be an energy wasting contraption.  Wayne just brass balls his way right past those inconvenient facts and alludes once more to some supposed secrets behind the curtain.  Wayne is so busy trying to talk fast that he's missed the fact that the curtain blew away a long time ago.

LibreEnergia

Quote from: MarkE on March 03, 2014, 01:21:44 AM
How about this?  How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water?  Why by gosh and by golly:  Praise Jesus!  It gets more efficient.  How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers?  Praise Jesus again!  A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".  The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.  A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.

I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.

mrwayne

 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 Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com