Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

You tell me MarkE,, you keep trying that technique.

No Tom it is you who have posted a litany of truth adverse claims.  Anytime you want to show that you have built the mechanism you so staunchly claim, you are free to do so.  Anytime that you want to show that there is any hope of OU from Wayne Travis's / HER's / Zydro's contraption you are free to do so.  You cannot do these things because you claims are lies.  You've made yourself a mouthpiece for a fraud.

No news to me there MarkE, since there are very few loses.

You keep saying, but you can't show.

Don't forget that column A DOES NOT fill up column B with the water from column A,, B has its own and so does A,,

Again, a mythical unseen machine.

Well, that will be something that you will claim as "new"  which of course it is not, this was put out there months ago.

Excuses, excuses, you claim you built this almost two years ago.  Is it out to the shop for repair?  Did you lose you notebook detailing the greatest discovery since fire again?  Did the dog eat your homework?

By the way,, Since you claimed I was trying ti discredit you,, why don't you look back and count all the DISS's you have thrown at me and how many I have thrown at you ,, not many from me MarkE,, but pages from you.

You have earned each and every criticism of your falsehoods.  Where are those spreadsheet errors Tom?  Who have you submitted the spreadsheet to for professional review?  Did they disappear like your notebook?

You have been doing this for a long time MarkE,, using your last resort.

I am not backing off on your false claims of loses.

Remember, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.

All you need to do to triumph is show evidence.  Oops, the dog must have eaten that.  Or did government black ops come and steal it all during the night?

Are you saying there is not one.

Ah, it's back to asking questions without any specificity.

Water in motion is what kind of energy potential Marke?  I thought that made it Kinetic.

Perhaps you are learning something.  What does that transfer pump you insisted upon do to you?

And this make me ROTFLMAO.

Look there are more of those ever present attacks,,,

Yeah sure Tom.  You're just a poor victim.  You are a victim of your own lies.

[MarkE]

Talking about straight answers--

Daytona Speedway  5 cars doing 5 practice laps each   (1 car on track)

car #    rpm's         speed       fuel used (5 laps after up to speed)
1        7800           180         384 (liquid oz.)
2        7800           180         384
3        7800           180         384
4        7800           180         384
5        7800           180         384


Next scenerio:

5 cars together on track after reaching speed  (15 car lengths between cars)

Identical results as 1 car on the track



Next scenerio:

5 cars together with 5 feet intervals between cars

car #'s         rpm's         speed       fuel used(5 laps after up to speed

1               7500           185          364 liquid oz.

2               7500           185          364

3               7500           185          364

4               7500           185          364

5               7500           185          364

I am sure you can give me a straight answer to explain this.

It is called drafting.  So what?  Are you planning on taking the see-saws of silliness out to the track? 

[TinselKoala]

Have you got your continuously-variable miracle transmissions in those Daytona cars? How can you get slower RPMs making faster speeds? No car I've ever driven around the track at Daytona behaved that way....

[MarkE]

Have you got your continuously-variable miracle transmissions in those Daytona cars? How can you get slower RPMs making faster speeds? No car I've ever driven around the track at Daytona behaved that way....

Before camelherder got stuck on:

For, 0 < A < 1, 0 < B < 1, and 0 < C < 1:

A * B < A
A* B < B
A * C < A
A * C < C
B * C < B
B * C < C

But that A*B could be greater than or less than A*C or B*C, and ditto A*C could be greater than or less than A*C.

Camelherder confused the fact the series combination of any lossy processes is less efficient than any of the individual processes that compose the process with the fact that a given combination of lossy processes may be more or less lossy than a combination of other lossy processes. 

[orbut 3000]

Shoudn't car #1 in scenario #3 consume more fuel than the other cars?