Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things:  A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights.  The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements.  They can sue.  If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well.  You claim to have many legal groups.  Have them look into the Acts:  1933, and 1934.  See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements. 

The conservative nature of gravitational fields is an extremely well observed fact.  If you wish to counter that you go up against known science at least back to Kepler and arguably back to the Greeks.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You haven't a shred of evidence, much less proof.  That makes your false claims at a minimum reckless.

Larry has yet to prove anything, ditto Mark, and most of all:  ditto you.

You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....

What a waste ......

Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...

That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,

Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.

Wayne

[minnie]

   Rove is to wander aimlessly mrwayne, I feel that perhaps that's what you're doing.
                            John

[MarkE]

You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....

What a waste ......

Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...

That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,

Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.

Wayne

Red_Sunset failed to present any evidence of a conservation breach.  He did attempt to invoke such comic relief as magic levers.  Your claims to investors of free energy technology and gravitational breaches are false and misleading.  You know that they are false and misleading and/or are reckless in not recognizing them as such.  For someone selling stock that's the end with or without a registration exemption.

You cannot show math that is faithful to the real world that also shows a cycle by cycle energy gain in your system.

[LarryC]

Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet.  The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities.  For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions:  Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End.  For each he lists two head values:  Riser and pod.  I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights.  These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers:  95,50  65,35  51,28  and 35,20.  Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2.  IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.

Thanks for checking the math, any confusion that is perceive helps me to improve the example.   


The water head in the Pod is equal to water in the pod chamber annular ring heights, however the water head for the riser is equal to the Outermost annular ring (O1) - Next inner annular ring (O2).


Thus the 95 represents 100 in O1 - 5 in O2. Then during equalization the water dropped 15 in the Pod to 35. When this occurs, the water in O2 follows up and rises 15 to 20 and the water in O1 follows down and lowers to 85. So now the water head is 65 which represents 85 in O1 - 20 in O2. That is why I brought up earlier that 1X changes in the Pod Water causes 2X change in riser water head as Wayne stated early is his thread.

You can see this effect in the drawings.

Larry

[TinselKoala]

Good thing Sock Puppets don't breath...

Your characterization of me is false. This is the only alias I have ever used here, the only account. If you don't believe me, ask our host Stefan. You cannot provide any evidence for your claim that I may have multiple accounts or usernames here.

Lets get something clear -

You set the standard making claims against our ZED device using supposed indisputable mathematical proof.

Again... false. I have only recently begun any mathematical analysis of your claims. The FACT that you do not have anything that demonstrates your claims has always been indisputable proof that ... you don't have what you claim!

Now you refuse to accept  that same method as proof. you speak out of both socks at the same time...

You are deluded, nearly as much as our dear old Ainslie. Believe it, Travis.... more than one person is able to see through your misrepresentations and outright lies.

The question at hand - no pun intended - is Mathematical analysis - if you are not interested - put the boys back in the dresser.

Your diversion is a waste of time.

Wayne

You are hilarious! The QUESTION AT HAND is whether or not your claims are valid and true. Since you cannot produce any evidence that they are true, besides some spreadsheet numbers that you yourself didn't even come up with.... well, I think even a bright sixth-grader could DO THAT MATH.

Why are you wasting your time, then? Take your stuff over to the Norman campus and tell us what they think. You will not do it, because you know the result already.