Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....

TO all:

The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.

That may be true, but it is completely inapplicable to your situation, because you have no break through.  You have nothing of value.  And you certainly do not have anything that either alters the conservative nature of gravity or allows you to supply endless and abundant clean energy as you falsely claim.

Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.

Ah yes there it is, the Tinkerbell Theorem:  "We can't deliver on our false claims because people don't believe in our false claims."

I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.

We may yet get to see you attempt to stand up for your lies before a judge.

But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.

Most scams are forgotten.  That's good for new scammers.  It's a little bit harder to burn people who have other similar scams fresh in their minds.

..............

Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.

Yes, he seems a good person.  Yet, you abuse that by attempting to appropriate his name with false suggestions of endorsement that he has never offered and does not offer now.

Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.

How nice that you will forgive people as on their own schedules they eventually recognize that you do not have and have never had what you claim.

That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.

There it is again:  You claiming that others are responsible for your failure to deliver.  Your failure to deliver is the direct result of your claims always having been false.

Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.

If that is true, then there will never be any free energy.  You certainly don't have any.

[MarkE]

Just trying to get focus back on topic here.  This is a drawing of the same ZED system MarkE and I have been Analyzing, but with only the inner riser.  And the pod is now a simple displacement block to minimize the input water needed to charge the system from State 1 to State 2.

Please note that in State 1, there are zero buoyant Forces on the riser. 

I agree that State 1 is in equilibrium.

However, buoyancy Forces are induced, or "turned on", as the 37 mm water charge is introduced to the inner annulus (what remains of the old pod chamber).

I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on".  Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path.  There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.

State 3 is shown after the single riser has been allowed to lift until the buoyancy Forces present in State 2 are completely resolved again to zero.  The riser in State 3 is again experiencing zero buoyancy Forces.

Forces don't resolve.  Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.

[MarkE]

Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great

Neither is this your thread.  You are a guest with no more authority here than anyone else.  Yet, you talk as though you carry authority you don't have.  If you really want to claim that after six years of failing to deliver even one proof of concept that you do not understand that contrary to your claims, gravity is always conservative, then you say a lot about what your pay grade should be.

[MarkE]

I think I got these correct,, I took them out of MarkE's spreadsheet.

Deriving is not the same as taking.  Kindly do not misrepresent what I have published.

This is the virtual water displaced.

The first column is the inner surface area of the risers, the bottom surface area of the pod. 

The second column is the head, that is the difference in water column heights.

The last number is cubic mm,, all these numbers are in mm in the spreadsheet.


End of state 2
314.16  x   37              = 11623.92       pod
530.93  x  57.873        = 30726.51189  riser 1   
907.92  x   44.55          = 40447.836     riser 2
1385.44 x   36.218        = 50177.86592  riser 3

30726.51189+11623.92+40447.836+50177.86592 = 132976.13381

132.976cc <= virtual volume of water displaced


End of state 3
132.976 x  30.996   = 3990.077856  pod
530.93  x  37.97      = 20159.4121   riser 1
907.92  x  18.82      = 17087.0544   riser 2
1385.44 x  4.613      = 6391.03472   riser 3

6391.03472+17087.0544+20159.4121+3990.077856 = 47627.579076

47.627cc  <= virtual volume of water still displaced


But more interestingly, this was all made by the addition of  only 3.108cc of real water into the pod chamber.

Are you completely unfamiliar with Archimede's Paradox?  The reason that you refer to it as "virtual" water is that it is the equivalent volume of displaced water. 

[MarkE]

When I talk about force, as in cause and effect, you tell me that force is not energy, so I found myself assuming that you were saying that energy causes motion,, so I asked.

I do not see in your spreadsheet where you are calculating the virtual water that is both created and displaced by the addition of water into the pod chamber.

The pod is the filler for the first riser.
The first riser is the filler for the second riser.
The second riser is the filler for the third riser.

The water levels are all calculated.