Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[powercat]

Lets pretend you did not read all the posts - and did not follow the whole story.... and you are not just a troll...
I am sorry you think I lied - I work on being as clear as possible - but I make errors in guestimates - that is why they are called "objectives..."
Look up the word - you pretend that our efforts are something else.
Now I ask you:
What is your intent here? protecting someone from a presumed liar --- or just sticking to your guns no matter what the truth.
Who are your protecting? What has My company or Myself asked form you?
That's right - Due diligence - nothing more.

BS, you repeatedly lied and gave promises over a six month period, not one of them came true, 16 times you said verification would happen, you and your stooges have been shown time and time again that your mathematics is incorrect.  It has also been shown that you were lying about verification, and now you expect people to suddenly believe your claim without an actual running device LOL, do you really think you were the first fraudster on this forum, do you really think we haven't heard those pathetic excuses before.

[TinselKoala]

First TK - I don't tell people what they can and can't think - you have the market on that.

First, Honest Wayne Travis..... you most certainly do tell people what to think, over and over again. And you call them names and disrespect them in other ways when they do not agree with you and they point out your continuing string of "overestimations" and "overconfidences" and "goals not met" and "expectations not fulfilled".

Second - You proved with your AL scam video - that a video is bogus proof
(snip)

You might want to check your sources, particularly the definition of "scam":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam

Now, if you like, we can discuss whether or not the video and the program to which you refer falls into that definition, or not, and just what the video DID and what it DID NOT prove. Perhaps we should do a side-by-side comparison of the OCMPMM with your ZED system, particularly just what the actual claims are that were made, or weren't made, by you and by "AL" whoever he is. I think it would be very instructive, and would "shine a light" upon just what YOU are doing..... which is pretty much letter by letter following the definition in the Wiki above.

Of course we'll ignore your attempt to change the subject and divert attention away from yourself, your scam operation and your bogus claims.

[MarkE]

Do you know what is sad about your trolling....
You left out our internal validations, and our open door validations, and our business redirection updates....

You have never had a machine that does what you claim.

You ignore the truth so that your narrative could fit your Trolling.
You also left out that Mark turned the validation over to other experts....

Really? And where did Mark Dansie ever say such a thing?  And if he did then why is it that you have not had those people validate?  Oh, that's right:  You're a con artist.

A few points:
Validation is no one business but ours - we are not raising funds.

Sure, you promise validation, and when you don't deliver you go defensive. pquote]
We are not making claims that can not be backed up with Math....[/quote]You are making claims that cannot be backed up by evidence.   Anyone can perform bad math.  Just check out Webby's abortive efforts.

Oh yeah - our system works as described.......

Your system works as described by the skeptics.  That is it does not produce the free energy that you falsely claim that it does.

A case of vocal constipation might be in order....
...............
Here is a reminder of what the validation team said in the beginning ---
Independent validation is the strongest proof any device can achieve....

The trouble for you is that you have never had any independent validation because your claims are lies.[qutoe]

Black Box is for the religious anti OU[/quote]LOL. Obviously, you do not understand what black box testing is.

Closed looped is for the closed minded

LOL.  Closed loop is what you promise with your false claims.

The Data, the Math Is the definitive.

Data yes, correct math yes.  The BS from you and your moronic cadre of duplicitious disciples: no.

You have wasted my time responding to your character assassinations - and you have not contributed to bringing a energy independence.
If you are unable to replicate - unable to do the math, unable to think without puppet strings - I understand.

It is you and your cadre who routinely demonstrate physics mistakes.

[MarkE]

I also stated that if I set the uplift distance BACK to the calculated prior distance then things are not as good,, BUT what I did not state is that that little force audit number goes back to ZERO.

I posted the file, any one out there can take a "fresh" download of YOUR file and add MY changes ONLY for the SANITY check,, and then see if YOUR numbers match Archimedes,, OR IF THEY EXCEED those values.

Obviously if something "extra" is going on that force audit will show something, it is showing that the system is moving to far, and that distance is a calculation that your spreadsheet has made with the new force value.

So If you are saying that I am "double dipping" then remove the riserwall uplift from your numbers and only use the OD,, go ahead and try it Mark,, do you think that maybe I might of already tried a bunch of things to bring your numbers and the displacement numbers into alignment.

You should be happy,, here we know have a mathematical model that proves that a nested riser system is NOT the same as a single piston.

Please note that I am not saying that we now have proof that you owe Wayne a LOT of apologies, only that the nested riser system is not the same as a single piston.

Just because it shows more output than the cost to go from state 1 to state 2,, there still could be other things that are in the way,, and these need to be addressed.

I also remember telling you that this spreadsheet showed merit for further investigation,,,

It is unfortunate that you missed doing the volume of displaced water check to lift N and relied on using pressure and surface area only,, but we got it there in the end.

You are very confused Tom.  The R4 spreadsheet is correct.  Your changes are all messed up.  You obviously do not understand what you are doing.

[MarkE]

Grab MarkE's spreadsheet revision 4, grab mine and use only the volume of displaced water numbers,, and then do your own math,, you will need to make the changes to revision 4 by yourself so as to not have mine in any way corrupt yours,,

Go ahead and do it,, you will find the same thing I did and the same thing MarkE did.

Then you can stop with this childish posting garbage.

You should solve today's pop quiz.  Then you should compare the correct answers to the two spreadsheets.  Oh, that's right:  You don't understand the physics, which is why you took the working spreadsheet and made your own non-physical one.