Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[Magluvin]

Sorry guys, as I didn't list MarkE's actual post 265# at March 2 at 10:25:41 PM which show his inability to comprehend the 33.55%. Can you explain his ingorance?

Hey Larry

Havnt gotten to that post yet. Going back to them as we speak.  Some interesting reading. Taking notes.     Good stuff. lol

And its not ignorance. He know exactly what he is doing.

Magluvin

[MarkE]

Call it what you will. You said it no me. lol. My playbook is just dissecting your posts. And Im finding it a bit tattered as you say.

Lets put it this way. With all your 'quality' input here, when will you be done? You entered here uninvited.

Wrong again.  Mondrasek actively sought help with his analysis.  Help I might add that you have not provided.

And thats fine. But its not friendly in the least. And you distort Waynes claims.

Nope, I have fairly represented his false claims.

I have shown that clearly for 9 pages now, and you have not shown 'us' the quote from Wayne that he 'claims' to be able to 'turn on and off GRAVITY'   I Ask for 9 pages now, again and again, and you dodge and weave. And you try to distract the 'readers' here by trying to make me look silly. lol

You are really making yourself look bad here.  But if you suits you to act as you do, then that is your choice.

YOU said it.  Right readers?

YOU dodge the quote requests again and again. And again. Right readers?

I have reposted my quote.  So once again you are wrong.

You demand quotes from others but deny us of your own.  Right readers?

Again, I reposted my quote, so you are again wrong.

Now, tell the 'readers' that I am lying.       Again, you cannot. Because I am telling the truth, unlike you.  The readers know.     You got nothing on me.  And I can stand proud of that.

Anyone who bothers to read the thread can see that you have been wrong over and over and over again.  It is really quite sad.

Show me the quote that Wayne 'claimed' to be able to turn gravity on and off!!!   

Asked and answered several times now.  But since you apparently wish to ignore, there is little that will satisfy you.

You think you can make this just go away. lol Turn that on and off.    You will find that it would be 'extraordinary' if you can accomplish that. Count on it.

If you are declaring your intent to troll, then I suppose if you do it enough you may subject yourself to moderation.

I know. You would like me to go away. Well why would you deserve such when you deny these guys of the same of you???  Hmmm?  Am I right readers??? 
Magluvin

I haven't asked you to go away.  I have advised you that you are behaving very poorly and that reflects badly on you.  It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep behaving as you do or not.  If your posts are representative of the kind of support that the Wayne Travis camp can muster, that's just sad.

[MarkE]

Sorry guys, as I didn't list MarkE's actual post 265# at March 2 at 10:25:41 PM which show his inability to comprehend the 33.55%. Can you explain his ingorance(sic)?

LarryC, How about when claiming to refer to a post, why don't you quote it and see if it really says what you claim?  Kindly show me in that post where I demonstrated what you claim?  As far as I can tell you have had difficulty understanding my response.  The pneumatic lifting scheme that you call Archimedes is indeed very inefficient.  So is the scheme you label as ZED.  Wayne and HER/Zydro claim that their scheme is over unity.  Reducing losses is all fine and well, but the scheme you call ZED even by your own analysis is far outperformed efficiency-wise by other far simpler means.  Hence my comment about driving around with your emergency brake applied.

It's funny that almost two years after Kan Shi explained how simpler means outperform the ZED in the hydro differential thread you were very active in, that you still don't seem to understand what either Kan Shi and others explained then or that I have explained recently. 

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #265 on: March 02, 2014, 10:25:41 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: LarryC on March 02, 2014, 09:49:46 PM

    MarkE,


    Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]


    The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.


    Larry

Who cares how much less horrific one scheme is than another?  The HER/Zydro claim is for a gain in energy.  No such gain occurs.  Do you drive your car around with the emergency brake on?  Do you get excited about a huge boost in gas mileage when you release the emergency brake?

Nature doesn't care what any individual may or may not understand.  It's hilarious that you would claim that your convoluted spreadsheet that used dozens of cell formulas in place of a few lines of algebra was constructed to create an easy to follow illustration of your claims.

[Magluvin]

Wrong again.  Mondrasek actively sought help with his analysis.  Help I might add that you have not provided.Nope, I have fairly represented his false claims.You are really making yourself look bad here.  But if you suits you to act as you do, then that is your choice.I have reposted my quote.  So once again you are wrong.Again, I reposted my quote, so you are again wrong.Anyone who bothers to read the thread can see that you have been wrong over and over and over again.  It is really quite sad.Asked and answered several times now.  But since you apparently wish to ignore, there is little that will satisfy you.If you are declaring your intent to troll, then I suppose if you do it enough you may subject yourself to moderation.I haven't asked you to go away.  I have advised you that you are behaving very poorly and that reflects badly on you.  It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep behaving as you do or not.  If your posts are representative of the kind of support that the Wayne Travis camp can muster, that's just sad.

and     Pretty much covers it.    Take not Readers.  Oooo 16,860 reads. Lots of readers in that bunch.

Ok, time for bed. 2am.  And I have a job. 

Magluvin

[MarkE]

So, I have corrected my lift distance calculations.  The lift is higher:  2.492mm versus the 1.4688mm I had erroneously calculated before.  The spreadsheet has full auditing of the end forces and volume.  As I have previously explained: the more lift in State 3, the worse the losses are.  The transition from State 2 to State 3 now loses 90.7% of the energy added at State 2.  So, for all intent and purpose, we have a fancy 0.48N/mm spring with a maximum compression of 2.492mm that we can compress by going from State 3 to State 2 and we can release by going from State 2 to State 3.  Woo hoo! 

Get out your pens and pencils boys and girls and try and figure out a way to harvest as high a percentage of the energy expended compressing the "spring" as possible each time it is released.