Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

Or, some one of these claimants can simply show the three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself, or the 5HP net self running system that has no input but makes 5HP usable external output power, or even the table-top self-running water pump that surely must exist. After all, the spreadsheets all produce so much excess energy that it's a wonder they don't explode. Certainly, if I had a mechanical system that made, say, 20 percent more energy out than it took to run it.... I know I could make a self running system out of it, even though I'm not worth my salt.  And I'll bet a _real engineer_ wouldn't take three or four years to do it, either.

After all, I've already shown a system that would run itself easily if it only had a couple of percent "extra" energy coming in from somewhere (the SNOT testbed). Give me ten or twenty percent OU and I'll gladly show you how to make a self-runner. Personally, I think that any "engineer" that can't take a 160 percent OU device and make it run itself, or another identical device.... isn't worth his salt. Of course in order to prove these contentions of mine, I'm going to need someone to show me a _real_ system that makes those numbers. A spreadsheet just won't cut it, since it is apparent that the models being used by the spreadsheeters are wrong. The math can be correct all day long, that doesn't make the model correct, and since the spreadsheets don't do what the actual devices do... well, I'm sure you can "do the math" (tm LMM).

Don't forget:
It doesn't matter how smart you are, how beautiful your theory is, or how many decimal places your spreadsheet calculates. If it doesn't agree with experiment... it's wrong. (Paraphrasing R. Feynman)

And we have seen no experimental support for the claims of Honest Wayne Travis, and in fact the experimental data we _have_ seen falsifies his claims.


Of course the entire issue is moot now, since Honest Wayne Travis has admitted that he cannot show "the sausages", meaning that he cannot demonstrate the truthfulness of his claims. He can't show a simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. He can't show a 5HP net self-runner. He certainly can't show a 20 or 50 kW powerplant, nor can he show or tell how he would build one in three months after securing funding. He certainly can't show a flat-packable rotary TAZ that you can buy at Ikea and put in your basement to run your home. He certainly can't discuss anything that is material to any litigation ! In fact, guess what will happen if you follow his patent _application_ exactly and construct what it discloses. That's right... you will not have anything that runs itself. The ZED that can be shown, described, proven... is not the eternal Holy Free Energy ZED!

[MarkE]

Here is the spreadsheet where I recorded all the values that were generated on the Casio calculator that I used.  The calculations were performed "by hand" so there are no formulas in the spreadsheet except to sum the Energies in each water annulus for each State.  Those are at the bottom and were run as a triple check really.  I'll post the equations used as I get to that point in my explanation of the methods I used, why, and the results that you can see ahead of time if you want to look at the attached data.

It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.  I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet.  For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc.  One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1.  When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes:  The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod.  That would be:

pi/4*RingWall1_height*(22²-20²)mm³ +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(26²-24²)mm³ +
pi/4*1*26²)mm³
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = 6793.694113388mm³ = 6.793694113388cc

That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet.  Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work.  There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription.  I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model.  When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.

[MarkE]

Attached is a picture of a spreadsheet and the actual spreadsheet below.


It's shows that doing an Iterative driven Integration, calculating Pressure * Volume for each iteration gives the same results as our use of P average * Volume.


If we were doing an Integration using sensors on a physical system, we couldn't do it that way as each stop and start results in many losses, main ones being momentum and inertial in the Zed. Also, in a physical system, most changes are not linear.


In a small math model like this, it is correct, because it has no losses and the changes are linear. One rule is that you can't use it across multiple SI in one start stop.


I could add the Iterative Integration program to my Analysis of flow spreadsheets, but that would only cause more questions and require more computer time.

Since the ideal case can be described by linear equations, the force versus lift height is readily computed as a constant:  a spring constant.   The force is therefore readily expressed as: F = F_START + K_FORCE*S.  All that is left is to solve the integral which is trivial.

[MileHigh]

Mark, Team Travistastic,

Pay ATTENTION.

This clip has some issues with discontinuities [*rim shot*] but it only adds to the slightly creepy and aethereal feel of it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQvFdRGffag

[orbut 3000]

Why does mrwayne not simply prove that his claims are true?