Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

   Wayne,
              you only ignore me because you can't tell lies. The problem is that you've already
   told a few.
          You won't answer so I'm telling everyone that you haven't got a 5hp machine that
   runs itself and the 600% was just a joke, a rather sad one at that!
      Your supporters on here haven't got a hope of presenting a satisfactory piece of work
  as far as the maths is concerned.
     Just had a thought, I bet Webby has got a 20kw. Zydro in that shed of his. I wouldn't
   think Webby has to pay for his electric anymore!
       What does Sandy think?
                                      John 

[mrwayne]

   Wayne,
              you only ignore me because you can't tell lies. The problem is that you've already
   told a few.
          You won't answer so I'm telling everyone that you haven't got a 5hp machine that
   runs itself and the 600% was just a joke, a rather sad one at that!
      Your supporters on here haven't got a hope of presenting a satisfactory piece of work
  as far as the maths is concerned.
     Just had a thought, I bet Webby has got a 20kw. Zydro in that shed of his. I wouldn't
   think Webby has to pay for his electric anymore!
       What does Sandy think?
                                      John

Hey TK, Al ect
You are good at assuming .......

I will give you that lol

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

So why do you assume 600% is absurd....
Is your education limited to the idea that only conservative systems are allowed to exist?
Take the time to think ....
I can get over 4000 pounds of buoyancy from inside a five gallon bucket - can you?
Oh yeah - that is in an open system - not a hydraulic cylinder lol
.....................
Pressure just over 24 pounds and displacement volume less than 12cubic inches......
Now solve for X -----
X is what you were not taught... and we have been trying to share -
It is the increase in understanding of physics....
.........
We have already given you the tools -
   

[MarkE]

Lets say we have 5lbs of water sitting in a large pizza pan and I want to stand that water up into a 5ft tall column, that would be,

0.5×5×5^2 = 62.5  or maybe I am not supposed to use the square,, so
B: 0.5×5×5 = 12.5

So that represents the amount of input I need to use, now lets see how much I can take out when I let it fall back down into the pizza pan,, so that would be,

0.5×5×5^2 = 62.5 or maybe I am not supposed to use the square,, so
B: 0.5×5×5 = 12.5

Hmmmm,, that looks like the same number, no missing 50%,, work in equals work out, go figure??

As this shows, it is MarkE's requirement for a loss given away to frictional loses that consume the 50% and not a physics requirement, nor a mechanical requirement, nor a requirement by nature.

I see you are spending your Saturday constructing and slaying more men of straw.  It's really sad Tom. 

[MarkE]

Hey Al, I mean Mark, or Tk, or Minie...what ever...
Lossy - you are missing it still? or just 
Each time you assert your claims that a lossy system can not produce Excess - it is either diversion or you missed it - or diversion.
To be very simple and clear - our claim is that a lossy system does produce Net Energy - No Magic in the system.

By definition a lossy system:  Note the word "lossy" loses energy between input and output.  You get less out than you put in.   Your scheme is fundamentally lossy.  How good of your to admit that your contraption is lossy.  Which is an admission that your false claims to energy production are false.

You keep claiming that we have no Magic in our lossy system - that is right We have no magical OU - we do have a system that produces Net Energy - with a Paradigm shift in understanding....
..................
As I said before - people looking for the "Magic" is what blinds you - it is a wrong assumption to think a net system requires evidence of Magic -  your wrong assumption -
We have a system with a series of lossy exchanges and it produces a net production.
We have explained that from the beginning - this is the Paradigm shift in the understanding of Physics - you have missed from the beginning.
You should pull up the notes where I detailed the 9 lossy exchanges in our original system --- did you forget that?
You are stuck on one - and ignore or    the process......
............
To be clear - you need to look at the whole system - stopping at any lossy point - any single part of our system and then making immature assumptions about possibility of the system leaves you in the old Paradigm.
"Missed it, that's all"
Only looking at party of the process ....and making claims about the whole - immature and 
Misleading others to keep them in the dark..... you will be remembered for your contribution.

Losses cannot be made up in volume Wayne.  You've admitted that you are FoS.

[MarkE]

PC - you are stuck in the assumptions of the past - you should do the math ....
Over 200 have now checked for themselves ...... and ignored the 
..................
Here is what you missed - and was explained on the video -
Every single stroke produces a 50% excess of the energy required to maintain the operation -
EVERY SINGLE STROKE - in case that did not sink in...
How may times would it need to stroke to produce an excess -------- oH - just one- and what does it mean if that happens every time for a s long as you want to run it?
What does one cycle of the ZED PROCESS produce - Just one --- More than it consumes.
................
Let me add some maturity to your understanding of evaluation....
If we had a system that could not be proven mathematically - we would need to prove the MAGIC with a continuous runner - because something could not be understood.

Actually your contraption has been disproven mathematically.

Not the case with ours - why do you think we get so much support..........the Math matches--- lossy stages and All....

Support, oh yeah the people who you have conned with your fraud and still don't realize still support you. That population is shrinking.

Obvious - once you get over the preconceived notions....that magic must exist....... your eyes will open - unless you are just a UI
.......

The assumption that a continuous run "is" needed for proof stems from the people who claim their system exceeds the MATH - the science, the current ability for standard engineering to evaluate - 

Self-looped running of a free energy machine is something that any working free energy machine should be able to do, and indeed what you make the false claim your contraptions can do.  Anyone can make a mistake in measurement and / or their calculations.  A machine chugging away driving a useful load with no input energy source will eventually deliver more energy than could be stored in its mass or volume by known means.  When a machine delivers well beyond that point it will have evidenced an apparent free energy claim.  It is hilarious that years after promising such demonstrations you now talk them down.  I know why.  You know why.  It is because your claims are bull shit.  It is because your claims have always been bull shit.

I would insist that a Magic claim run for days - but if a simple engineer can understand the MATH of a ZED system - and that Is a different thing all together.
Hope you actually think here...

The people who use their brains here are the ones who spotted you for the fraud that you are a long time ago.