Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

Come on, Travis, show your electric bills for the last six months.

And then explain why they are non-zero, since you claim to be able to build a 20 kW free energy self running generator plant that will fit in the footprint of a garden shed. After all, you have all that empty space in your building. Where are the ZEDs pumping out free electricity? You have plenty of room.

I know where... and so do you.

How's that for math?


(sound of crickets chirping....)



Don't forget, Wayne old boy, that we have the PowerPoint demonstration where you claimed to your investor prospects that you would put a 50 kW free energy generating plant at your CHURCH in three months after receiving funding from the investors. And this PPT was made in November of 2010, according to data in the file.

I imagine the Church elders are pretty disappointed in you, since they have had to spend many thousands of dollars on electricity since they first read your promise back in 2010.

[LarryC]

Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?

Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.


Thanks, Larry

[TinselKoala]

Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.


Thanks, Larry

Interesting, then could you please show why Travis, and everybody else, has been unable to produce a device that actually works and demonstrates a gain of energy? The failure to produce a real powerplant is evident in Travis's (and your) electric bills. The image in my last post above shows that he promised something years ago and has never accomplished it yet.

Thanks, TK

(Of course I know that Larry and Travis both have me on their "ignore" lists.... so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions. By the way, the word for a person who IGNORES things is.... ignoramus.)

[mondrasek]

so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions.

Oh come on!  And you also gave _no real answer_ to LarryC's question.  He specifically asked how his MATH is incorrect.  To do so does not require any more words.  It requires math.

LarryC has presented evidence by the accepted method of science:  A mathematical solution/analysis.  If it is correct, it is correct.  If it is incorrect, it is incorrect.  There is no gray area.  There is only one correct solution to the math.  Checking his math and process is the only correct way to move forward.

I have also presented evidence by the method of a mathematical analysis.  I have also asked for my math and process to be checked.  I thank MarkE for his assistance so far and offer to double check.  TK, your assistance with the math is also appreciated.

If anyone would like to work on LarryC's math question instead of my own, that is fine, as his work appears to show the same anomaly that I am trying to find the reason for.

Thanks,

M.

[TinselKoala]

Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere. It may be in the math, but it is more likely to be in the underlying assumptions that go into setting up the model. If you or LarryC want to pay me my usual daily consulting fee I would be more than happy to waste, er, spend the necessary time to go over things with a fine toothed comb. Otherwise, I think that spreadsheet analyses without real experimental data going into them, are worth approximately what they cost: nothing.

Meanwhile, real experimentation has never revealed any "gains" in work or energy from anything Travis, you, webby, LarryC, dale, RedSunset, etc have ever presented. That has got to be telling you something. After all, if LarryC gets 153.94 percent OU (lol) from two Zeds, think of the OU he would get if he chained six of them together. Easy and simple to get hundreds or thousands percent OU, right? But where, then, are the functioning models? FFS, it's just a bunch of stacked tubes. How complicated can that be, to build and demonstrate, if it's true? But we are in the position where _ALL_ valid experimentation has failed to show any OU at all, and in fact the experiments show massive losses and inefficiencies. Therefore... the theoretical models are failing, because they must be wrong somewhere. Digging out the place where the models are wrong is actually the responsibility of the person putting forth the model, not mine.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
--Richard P. Feynman

ps: Just why should I respond reasonably to a strawman question from someone who is deliberately ignoring me? I respect people who respect me, like you. LarryC and Wayne Travis.... I don't respect them, because they have both insulted me and placed me on their ignore lists.

And if that weren't enough... I still believe the automatic bollard is showing the same "anomaly" that you think you have found. Nobody has "done the math" to prove me wrong about that. Why not? Do you deny that the 300 pound bollard can be raised to its full height, and lowered back down again, with just a few pound-feet of work? Reducing the input, getting the big output, subtracting the input from the output to get the "net" gain in work .... it's all there in the automatic bollard. So?