Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Repost:

Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.

Yep, stick with that:  An ideal ZED as you approved the description that relies on Mondrasek's State 1 stipulation.  Remember you approved that.

Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.

No Wayne, Mondrasek never stated such a thing, but it is nice that you repeat your lies so that all can see that is intentional.

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

MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.

No, many including I have shown that the ZED is an overcomplicated weight lifting and dropping machine that is completely useless and incapable of generating the free energy that you falsely claim it does.

These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.

Oh really?  Many have asked for that.  Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from.  You can't, because you never issued such a post.  Your claim that you did is just another of your shameless lies.

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

It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.

It doesn't matter what you call your first state.  You declared your approval of Mondrasek's set-up as an "ideal ZED".  A real, non-ideal machine can never outperform the idealized model.  Since Mondrasek's model you approved is useless, you have admitted that your heap of junk is similarly useless as it is.

While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.

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

I hope you can see the difference

Wayne

There is lots to see.  Your shameless carnival barker routine is one of them.

[TinselKoala]

Is that your version of a "triumph"

Sad.

That's not sad.

This is sad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKctCl_pr7A

[mrwayne]

God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.

You honor me.

Wayne

[MarkE]

I do not need it both ways, it is only one way.

State 1 is a net zero condition of forces acting on the risers and pod, and so for a full analysis the end of state 3 MUST also be a net zero.

Allow your risers to lift far enough so that the sum of all forces acting on them is zero, then what do you get?

If there is zero net up force in State 1, then at the raised position of 1.4688mm of State 3 there is no net up force either.  If there is up force in State 3 at 1.4688mm lift then there is also up force in State 1 and you must reject Mondrasek's stipulation.  Choose one or the other.  It doesn't matter.  The machine is lossy in either case for the same reasons.

[mrwayne]

That's not sad.

This is sad:

Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.

Thanks