Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping

Mark,

What is holding Riser 3 up?

The volume stops the lift on Riser 3 at ~1.6mm.

You have bootstrapped Riser 3 to the ~2.59mm and then you are using that to lift Riser 2.

Tom your own spreadsheet shows that the zero point for net force up force on the risers plus pod is at 2.59mm.   Maybe you didn't notice:  All the risers and the pod act on each other.  You have to take the sum of the vertical forces.   The same physical mechanism is responsible for lifting Riser 3 beyond 1.6 mm as lifts water inside the water bottle in the right hand most picture above the water level outside the water bottle.

[mrwayne]

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  Only idiots and frauds claim as you and your disciples of duplicity do that cyclically lifting and lowering weights yields net energy.  Poor Tom can't seem to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

Gee - still avoiding explaining the anomalies present in the ZED....
I don't play with liars - they continually make up more crap and avoid the last lies they told.
Second, I do not play with rude people - they insult to hide their own inadequacy.
Every time you call us names - you show something to everyone.
As we see is clearly - you have been called out on lies by multiple members on this forum...
The list is growing, it is still a lie when your puppets defend them for you.
I am sure it is not your last lie - but your claim that you have proven no anomalies what so ever in our ZED system is pretty pathetic.
I fully expect you to crawl behind your insults some more.....This is clearly personal to you.
You do not want the truth out an willing to say anything.
You break all the rules of this forum, and ruin it for inventors with your lies, twisting of facts and personal vendetta.
Where have you helped to bring solutions - collaborations - support for enthusiasts - independence.... you or any of your other login names.
You pretend to help so that you can be big guy on the outside - and then prop yourself up by insulting others.......
I do not speak for anyone - but I bet most of us do not need propping up - thank you anyway.

[minnie]

    Good news for mrwayne that the ideal  ZED has loads more buoyancy than displacement.
               John.

[minnie]

   Mrwayne please point out the anomalies,
                 thank you,
                                John.

[fletcher]

Mondrasek/Mike .. I have just read the first 20 pages of this thread & the last 39 - I haven't gone into the diagrams & math in any detail relying instead on you to have been the objective arbiter of data & assumptions & model accuracy thru the design iterations, & physical functionality & likely performance etc, of the Ideal ZED you wish to analyse - you at least, I assume, understand it as well as MarkE & Webby purport too.

I would really appreciate you coming forward with your continued input into the debate between Webby & MarkE as neither seems to be connecting with the other - one is wrong or both are wrong ! - I feel you are likely best placed to highlight the differences in the arguments & their validity, or not, which ever is the case - your objective input would be appreciated by me as I am having trouble following Webby's arguments & logic at times, to be honest.

Thanks in advance !

P.S. if you can logically make the math case for 'Travis Anomalies' from your thread input Ideal ZED design then that's Ok too - if so, I would want to look at the exceptions between MarkE's understanding & Webby's that gave rise to those supposed anomalies, so that others, besides me, could follow the logic of each argument to a correct conclusion for ourselves.

-cheers.

ETA: coming & going over the next few weeks.