Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Yes Mark, a net zero lift force for riser 3.

Are you trying to use the wet spaghetti noodle argument?  the one where you are pushing something with a wet spaghetti noodle.

When riser 3 has no more ability to move up on its own it must be MOVED up,, how is that assisting riser 2?  The spacers do not allow riser 2 to get any closer to riser 3 and it is the lift force that riser 3 needs to communicate,, and well that goes negative,, so it is communicating a negative force,, IOW it is resting on Riser 2 and passing all of the burden straight onto the contact point between the risers,, just like your straws glued to the side of your little bottle.

Tom, you can keep fighting reality as long as you want.  You say that you draw free body diagrams.  Draw one for this device.

[MarkE]

    Webby and Mark,
                   there can be only one right answer. One of you could be right and one wrong.
     Or you could both be wrong.
         I would love to see the pair of you in agreement. Good luck!
                       John.

That is true:  two differing positions cannot both be right.  All of my work is shown in the R4 spreadsheet. The R4  spreadsheet has held up just fine against multiple types of cross checks applied for the past month since I published it.

[MileHigh]

Poor Wayne is trying to shift the burden of proof.  That's the cat hissing when it's backed into a corner.

This caught my eye:

Mark D - is the best skeptic I ever met - instead of prejudice and attacking character - he helped us learn that what we had was not over unity.

LOL and WHAT?

You mean to tell me Wayne and his "team of engineers" did not know if their contraption was over unity or not?  Supposedliy a team of consummate professionals?   And they don't have the brains to know what they are looking at?  They are working away for months like beavers and it takes a visit from Mark Dansie to straighten them all out?

It's the slip-ups like this in "reality" that tell the discerning eye that this is all a fraud and a farce.  Not to mention all the other reasons.

What a joke.

[MarkE]

Poor Wayne is trying to shift the burden of proof.  That's the cat hissing when it's backed into a corner.

This caught my eye:

LOL and WHAT?

You mean to tell me Wayne and his "team of engineers" did not know if their contraption was over unity or not?  Supposedliy a team of consummate professionals?   And they don't have the brains to know what they are looking at?  They are working away for months like beavers and it takes a visit from Mark Dansie to straighten them all out?

It's the slip-ups like this in "reality" that tell the discerning eye that this is all a fraud and a farce.  Not to mention all the other reasons.

What a joke.

It is pretty funny stuff.

[MarkE]

Mark,

Still can not read?

I posted that I was in error, and that the force on the OD is indeed needed.

However, I took that as a literal force on the actual OD, which it is not, but it IS a force that is in the system.

Tom you just keep flailing about.  Let me know if you ever come up with an actual defensible argument that something in the R4 spreadsheet is wrong.