Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Well I guess there is only one question that needs to be answered.

Can a large force moving a short distance move a small force a long distance?

If the answer is yes, then MarkE is full of BS with his 50% loss claim.

It is that simple.

This just goes to prove that despite all the explanations, you still present yourself as clueless to the N*(X/N)² problem.  Just as one can show that levers work, conserving f₁*d₁ = f₂*d₂, the potential energy of two like potential energy stores when equalized to the same potential hold only half the potential energy of one of either stores storing at twice the potential.  It's just sad that some people either can't learn or refuse to learn.

John,

The transfer system is to take the water as it is coming out of one ZED under pressure and use it to push water into the other ZED.  The transfer system is not a ZED.

The output water from one ZED is at a higher pressure\force value than the opposing force that the water for the second ZED presents for part of the cycle.

The water movement out of one ZED would not be at the same rate as the water that moves into the second, if this system were used.

So now the magic is no longer in the ZEDs?  Is that it?  Since even "ideal ZEDs" have been proven to be fundamentally lossy machines, bull shit quest has to place the supposed magic elsewhere.  So now the magic is supposed to be in the see-saw of stupidity.

[MileHigh]

Last call for Webby for my spillway question.

For Bill:  I was being very strict with respect to your answer so as to not partially reveal any sausages.

So Webby, if you have a response to my question then great, but if you ignore it then fine.  However, ignoring it is tantamount to a wrong answer considering Wayne is suggesting that we get guidance from you.  If that comment from Wayne is legit, then one would assume that you could answer the spillway question.

[MarkE]

One by one Wayne's disciples of duplicity have fallen by the wayside.  Their own shoelaces were far too much for them.

[mrwayne]

Hey Webby - I am so glad that you are happy as one person....

The puppet master did not read or understand when you explained that there is no such thing as OU.

p.s He trying to avoid the proof that a series of independently lossy systems can be better than the comparison of the individual.

As was accidently proven by Kanshi - when he was MarkE, Proven by Larry when he was TK, and other - Even the Nascar.

He is busted and dug in

His only answer - it is still not OU - Like who is asking....

So as I shared with Kanshi - your absolute proof that layering the system is not more efficient Is not so Absolute after all is it.

As was said in China.....So sad........

Now - why does it matter - maturity.

Mature enough to admit that assumed laws might not apply to all situations - that the idea that energy from a black box would be proof of OU - it is not.

Proof by a closed looped system is OU - it is not.

All three of those claims assume "magic is required to provide Net energy ---

Webby - you have shown true maturity

You probably knew all of that before I matured.

Well done.

[MileHigh]

Answer the spillway question Wayne!!!