Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Bill, I have had to learn that to some over unity means magical free energy - and that is not what we have.

You do not have what you claim.  Shall we review the list yet again?

If you read all my posts on the other thread - you will only need to read a few - and you will see where I shared the struggles our early engineers had with seperating that distinction.

The walls of blather showed nothing material.  They did demonstrate your behavior.

TK ALWAYS OMITS THE CONTENT _ IF IT DOES NOT FIT HIS LIES>

Kindly provide an example of a lie you claim that TK has told.

Bill,

We have mechanical amplification.

Mechanical amplification of force or power are trivial.  They do not produce energy ex nihilo as you falsely claim to do.

I am sorry you accept TKs tactics of creating scenrio's to call people liars - do you know hown many times he - not having a clue - and still does not - how our system operates insisted that a single ZED must be over unity - because - in his assumption - that two under unity systems  can not be combined to produce excess energy?

The efficiency of each constituent sub process in a composite process multiply.  Losses cannot be made up in volume.  If one ZED is underunity:  And it unquestionably is, then any number N ZEDs placed in series or parallel are similarly underunity.

I am sorry Smart guys like Mark E - fall for his crap.

And Many jumped in total ignorance agreeing....

The part of my answer that TK left ommited to share - was this - Yes you can have an excess with a single ZED - much more complicated and slower - you will have to configure a way to capture and reuse the exhuast - and re insert it at the next stroke.

Any single ZED is unquestionably under unity.  Were any ZED in any form OU, you could point to the specific subprocess that is OU.  You cannot do so, because there is no such OU subprocess.  All of the processes are under unity as is the composite contraption.

You still can altered heights for proper speed with a dual system- but is stupid.

Over unity or free energy or net energy of a "little" is pointless - our first single layer pod system was PE certified on the upstroke at 105% and that did not include reusing the exhuast. That engineer repeated, and repeated, called in others, repeated, and then prayed and then started over (white sheeted) three times again - and then accepted just 105%

If any PE has written a report that supports your false claims to an over unity / free energy device I would like to see a copy of the signed report.  I'm sure the certifying authority and his E&O insurer would like to see it as well.

Which is a total waste of time - since my goal was Net energy - I could care less about the covet claim - I am ashamed that men treat each other like TK and MH, it is sad that they are trash talkers.

Whereas you just emit a steady effluent stream of lies to investors.  That video TinselKoala got his hands on is quite enlightening.

p.s. After the PE's finished - I and independent engineering firm verify - prior to any investment form any of my family Except one.  Mark Dansie Came a year later when we were testing three layer system - much much better.

Yet, Mark Dansie never saw a working system:  Never.  You are free to attempt to extract a more favorable statement from him.  He has never witnessed the initial proof of concept demonstration that he has insisted would be a first step towards further consideration of your false claims.

He asked for a self runner to show/ help people like TK - maybe not him personally - but people who refused to understand the process.

Those people must include Mr. Dansie himself.  Feel free to avail yourself to the public comments he has placed on the record.

I did - not for me - not for our company - and not for fame or money.

MH, ME and Kanshi and all screamed foul - "adding to a system can not make it more efficient" --- really - they did not think that one out.

Ms. Kanshi is a university professor.  What are you?

Posted crap and doctored photos - called water hoses - extension cords - claimed we put hidden pumps.

TK called Mark a shill - he calls anyone a shill - I have the posts saved - where he worked tirelessly to defraud him. Pure shame.

You need a different dictionary.

I invited TK, I had him checked out, but before I could reply - he flipped out claiming he would steal it if he could???

Really?  Are you going to go with that story?  I'd sure like to see evidence that backs such a claim.

I have those notes as well.

Can you reduce losses by adding more layers - yes

Nope, each time you add layers you compound your losses.  Feel free to publish any analysis you rely upon to find differently.

It does if you are increasing the output at a proportional rate faster than the increases of losses.

Layering does that.

Nope.  Adding layers just exacerbates the losses of your less efficient than a brick scheme.

I am sorry if you do not get that - not my intent to confuse you.

Here is what I see you doing - you chiming in on three thugs - that do not know the Travis effect from Archimedes......

Oh, so now you claim that there is a 'Travis effect'.  That's terrific.  Kindly state directly and succinctly what you claim the "Travis effect" to be.  Kindly distinguish it from previously known fluid mechanics.

Archimedes is not wrong - when used in the context he presented it - our system alters that.

You system alters nothing to do with Archimedes' Principle.  But since you now personally claim that there is a 'Travis effect' do be so kind as to describe it.

The simple proof - 10,000 pounds buoyant force in the space that displaces 2000 pounds of water - I hope you do not miss that....and we only move less than one 2 cubic feet of water to go from sink to 10,000 pounds buoyancy.

I can buy a 5 ton jack at the auto parts store that can produce the same forces in a much more compact space for under $20.  Force is not energy.  Force is not conserved.  Energy is conserved.

P.s. look at the spread sheets - even Mark E - what is the actual space versus the total Buoyancy? He missed that one to.

I also missed the CIE index of flaming purple stratospheric flamingos.  Nested pistons are not news.

Just shows that Buoyancy can be used in a different arrangement than Archimedes ...

That is a completely meaningless statement.  Archimedes' Principle describes the behavior of buoyancy.  It's only requirement is a fluid and something to displace fluid.

Not that I have not tried to explain the diffirence twenty times - shown it and had four engineers post comparisons - now that was hard - every time I tried to explain - TK ME MH and other dud's demanded attention on anything from pink unicorns to psyco logical claims of superior understanding of a system they still can not explain -

It's funny how you keep claiming you have explained something when the only thing rational folks seem to observe is a lot of hand waving.

Any person trying to understand was spammed -

Bill - it has one simple part.................

No one Can disprove it - You stand behind the guys that won't actually analyze the process and against the ones that have learned something new.

If only could actually show something new.  But you haven't.  Every objective evaluation of the meager actual information you have produced shows no new behavior, and no conformance to your false claims.

You helped them - that is your right - but don't sit there and tell us that you did your own thinking and own homework - I know the fact about that - or else you would be defending us.

Why would anyone defend false claims unless they stood to personally benefit? I do not know of any vested interest that Bill has.

All they do is bash make lies up about me = twist and shout down,

A gang of thugs and you picked up your stick and helped.

We know the lies that you keep telling Wayne.  They all concern your false claims to machines that generate energy for free.

That is the mistake you are making.

You want to take a stand - I do not care about me here - but they do it to everyone that wont bow to them. I never will, and I will not help them.

That's great!  Take a stand for every red blooded, Bible thumping con artist who has the guts to reach for a brass ring paid for by cash traded for empty dreams.  "America the beautiful, land that I love ..."

To be clear - they are ignorant - or doing it on purpose - and a few good people get sucked into their lies - like you.

I am sorry to write this at all, the man is sick. I put him on ignore - to leave him be.

Yet you are unable to refute him.  What could anyone who objects to your false claims do were you to actually prove your false claims?  Oh, there's that sticky problem again:  You don't prove your claims because you can't prove your claims, because they are false.

I am more sorry that you think that our hard work and effort and good people deserves that crap.

I invite you to ask one of the men that do understand our system -

Yes, let's ask someone who 'understands'.  A registered PE would be best, because they have their professional livelihood at stake.

That bully - whose "lies about me" that you quoted as facts..... of course he likes other people to do his fight for him.

But he is just a punk, with puppets.

Wayne

But, you of course say that with love and respect, don't you Wayne?

[MarkE]

Mark - you missed it again,

Net Energy - do you know the difference?

I did not know the difference two years ago.

If you do - stop spreading lies about me.

I know the highlighted passages that grace your mission statement are bald-faced lies.  Your claims are false.  If you want to see where this can end up call up Dr. Dr. John Rohner Ph.D.  Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his special visit.

[orbut 3000]

IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.

[MarkE]

IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.

The first highlight:  "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.

The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.

The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.

[Pirate88179]

"One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?"

Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works? ??   

Mags

Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill