Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,

but I'm sure you will carry on with Wayne's approach of blaming other people for not looking close enough at the information that's right there in front of you, the only problem with that approach is that we have all seen the information is fraudulent so many times that repeating the same argument is really now a complete waste of time.  But maybe the solution for you is to try and build the device and finally discover your ignorance.

Hey Powercat - Back to re-write history again...so sad..
No one has or can prove the ZED does not work as claimed.... because it does.
History is going to show who the fraud is... smile...
Powercat,
I don't want Mark to discuss the whole system and discover that "free energy" does not have not be magical - and that energy amplification is and has always been possible.
He has earned his place in history as the "Smartest guy in the room".... smile...
..........................
Tom is doing what great inventors do - they seek and answer questions... Tom also has built his own system - and then improved it. It is what we do....Solve problems.
Not everyone will shut up and bow down.......
p.s. It is the purpose of this web site to search and discover..... why do you want to stop that?

Take care

[minnie]

   Right mrwayne and Webby,
         let's see a working example - if it's so easy!
     Rest assured if your math doesn't give the expected answer - it's wrong!
        You've got to show some means of introducing something that will upset
     the balance. You can't bend the rules on this one.
                     John.

[MarkE]

Hey Powercat - Back to re-write history again...so sad..
No one has or can prove the ZED does not work as claimed.... because it does.
History is going to show who the fraud is... smile...
Powercat,
I don't want Mark to discuss the whole system and discover that "free energy" does not have not be magical - and that energy amplification is and has always been possible.
He has earned his place in history as the "Smartest guy in the room".... smile...
..........................
Tom is doing what great inventors do - they seek and answer questions... Tom also has built his own system - and then improved it. It is what we do....Solve problems.
Not everyone will shut up and bow down.......
p.s. It is the purpose of this web site to search and discover..... why do you want to stop that?

Take care

Ah more bald faced lies from the fraud Wayne Travis.  None of your contraptions deliver any of the free energy that you claim that they do.

All amplifiers take energy from one power source and manipulate it so that it follows a smaller power signal source.  All amplifiers are lossy:  Less useable power comes out than goes in.

Tom can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag. 

What has been discovered is what a shameless and remorseless fraud that you are.

[MarkE]

That is nice Mark, you actually said that gravity is pulling all the fluid down and that is what is holding up Riser 3.

That's right.

So you have NO actual answer as to what is holding Riser 3 up so that it can suck Riser 2 upwards.

Wrong.  Gravity pulls down on the water.   Water is drawn into AR7 just as water is drawn into the water bottle in the right most picture below.  Why is it that you refuse to see what is right before you?

If I then take what YOU have said and do a simple test,, I will stack 3 dinner plates on my table and push down on the top plate to lift all 3 plates up,, that is what you just said.

I see you are trying to build another straw man Tom.  Slay those men of straw to your heart's content.  None of them represent what I have said.

I left an open for you,, I left an error that you COULD of noticed and then jumped on, and even taken it further, but no, you chose to go with the personal attack.

You are wrong on the state 3 force direction on Riser 2 OD and Riser 1 OD.

What I left "out" was that when the pressure lift distance is met, ~1.6mm, the buoyant lift force is still positive and continues the lift.  This means as the lift goes up the pressure lift is going negative and the buoyant lift is loosing its ability to lift and at some point they will become equal and opposite, and that point will be below the ~2.57mm buoyant lift distance.

At this point any change in either force will cause a change in riser height, but what is interesting is that if any more fluid is entered into AR1 then both lift forces change with the result being that both of those force changes will make the risers move up, take water out and the same thing happens the other way.

Why do I care that you miscalculated yet another thing?  You claimed that the machine does not lift 2.59mm.  Your arguments are based on faulty premise and lead to wrong conclusions.  You are wrong again as you have been wrong so many times in the past. 

How much would you like to venture that I am wrong?  Why don't you go find those professional whom you were going to have tear apart the R4 spreadsheet?  All you have done is made a grand fool of yourself.

[mrwayne]

   Right mrwayne and Webby,
         let's see a working example - if it's so easy!
     Rest assured if your math doesn't give the expected answer - it's wrong!
        You've got to show some means of introducing something that will upset
     the balance. You can't bend the rules on this one.
                     John.

Gee,  lifting a load without consuming the input...... hmmmmm
...................