Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

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.

The Fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  Each 'anomaly' that you have claimed, I have shown is no anomaly at all.  As to playing with liars:  You are a shameless and remorseless liar selling investments in non-existent technology claims.  Maybe "The Music Man" was your favorite film.

The truth is out: Your claims are false.  You can never deliver on your free energy claims.  You are a shameless fraud.

Don't worry about propping up.  Bubba takes care of that.  You just listen for Bubba's sweet grunts.

[MarkE]

Mark,

You are using the Riser OD force in N's to represent the opposing force in N's from the riser above it.

In your spreadsheet you are showing a positive lift added from Riser 3 to the OD of Riser 2 of

ST3_R2_OD_Force    0.1943731N

I just love the way that you use the same terms for force and distance.  Why is it so hard for you to say "force" when that is what you mean and "lift" when you mean distance?  Is it because you want to be vague?

This then states the Riser 3 is pulling up on Riser 2, and then you have Riser 2 pulling up on Riser 1 with

There is no fixing stupid.  AR6 is higher than AR7.  Gravity pulls harder on the taller head in AR6 than it does in AR7.  That creates suction on the top of Riser 2.  Yes, that is an up force.  The effect of the head difference between AR6 and AR7 on the top surface (OD) of Riser 2 is identically canceled by its effect on the combined Riser 2 wall and Riser 2 ID.  Go study the hyperphysics article on buoyancy that I linked.

ST3_R1_OD_Force   0.1225567N

For these two forces to be present and a positive lift input, then Riser 3 must be pulled up by an outside force.

Again, no such thing.  It is amazing how you construct these straw man arguments with invented values.

Riser 3 can only be lifted by AR7 which is below AR6 and therefore offers no support to hold the Riser up.

My buoyant lift distance when setup correctly is only

2.5471001082mm

I have shown you time and time again your mistakes.  Then you just run off and make new ones.  You are wrong once again.

That is using the OD for the buoyant lift value, where as in my spreadsheet I had to shift Riser 2 and Riser 3 to use the ID volume to match your calculated lift distance and volume at end of State 3.

As I stated, you have bootstrapped Riser 3.

Your willful ignorance is really stunning. The assembly is pushed up from below.  As it rises negative heads develop across both the Riser 3 and Riser 2 walls.  The resulting pressure difference exerts a downward force on the ID of each:  Riser 3 and Riser 2.  The walls of all risers remain submerged and all exert an up force, as do Riser 1 and the pod.  The system linearly goes from net up force of 1.47N in State 2 to 0N in State 3 after lifting 2.59mm.  You can keep pounding like a clueless monkey at a keyboard, or bother to learn the physics which is nominally taught to high school kids in two fifty minute classes.

Up Forces at the End of State 2         
ST2_PODUF   0.113786   N   Up force contributed by the Pod
ST2_R1_Wall_UF   0.115463   N   Up force contributed by Riser 1 Wall
ST2_R1_ID_UF   0.720530   N   Up force contributed by Riser 1 ID
ST2_R1_OD_UF   -0.486809   N   Up force contributed by Riser 1 OD
ST2_R2_Wall_UF   0.095492   N   Up force contributed by Riser 2 Wall
ST2_R2_ID_UF   0.717795   N   Up force contributed by Riser 2 ID
ST2_R2_OD_UF   -0.360875   N   Up force contributed by Riser 2 OD
ST2_R3_Wall_UF   0.064488   N   Up force contributed by Riser 3 Wall
ST2_R3_ID_UF   0.491190   N   Up force contributed by Riser 3 ID
ST2_R1UF   0.349184   N   Up force contributed by Riser 1
ST2_R2UF   0.452412   N   Up force contributed by Riser 2
ST2_R3UF   0.555678   N   Up force contributed by Riser 3
ST2_TotalUpForce   1.471061   N   Total uplift force at the end of State 2


State 3 Pressures         
ST3_POD_Pressure   216.0815190   Pa   
ST3_R1_Pressure   24.6763852   Pa   
ST3_R1_WallPressure   174.8508712   Pa   
ST3_R2_Pressure   -199.0357172   Pa   
ST3_R2_WallPressure   75.5493016   Pa   
ST3_R3_Pressure   -190.9595179   Pa   
ST3_R3_WallPressure   179.2773306   Pa   
         
State 3 Forces         
ST3_POD_UPF   0.0678840   N   
ST3_R1_ID_Force   0.0131014   N   
ST3_R1_Wall_Force   0.0148314   N   
ST3_R1_OD_Force   0.1225567   N   
ST3_R2_ID_Force   -0.1807086   N   
ST3_R2_Wall_Force   0.0083071   N   
ST3_R2_OD_Force   0.1943731   N   
ST3_R3_ID_Force   -0.2645634   N   
ST3_R3_Wall_Force   0.0242183   N   
ST3_Total_Uplift_Force   0.0000000   N   

[MarkE]

Yes Mark,

What is holding Riser 3 UP so that it can suck riser 2 up,, nothing so that suck is pulling Riser 3 down and placing its FULL weight on top of Riser 2.

Since you can't seem to get it through your thick skull that gravity between the earth and the water columns pulls down on the water columns and because the water columns are at unequal heights there is a differential pressure that operates on the various horizontal surfaces, that pressure being upward on all horizontal surfaces except the IDs of Riser 2 and Riser 3, then pick a favorite deity and attribute the "magic" to them.  Because obviously the physics which is successfully taught to millions of boys and girls in a couple of lessons each year is beyond you.  You do realize that pressure in a fluid is omnidirectional don't you?

You are bootstrapping Riser 3,, no matter how you try and go with it, Riser 3 has nothing but its own bootstraps to hold itself up.

No, you are willfully ignorant.

If you want to go a little further then you will also have to add on that suck force any value of AR5 that is above AR4 since it is AR5 pulling AR6 up.

The R4 spreadsheet correctly calculates and applies all the pressures against to appropriate horizontal surfaces yielding the correct forces.  You are lost:  utterly and completely freaking lost.

In State 2 you have no movement so the risers are down, the pressure input into AR1 forces all of the water to change its position and create the buoyant lift condition as well as create the pressures that you are calculating.

State 2 stipulates that the risers are held down with force from an outside restraining device.  Water is forced up into the assembly from below.  Got it?  It is down force working identically against up force. F_DIFF = 0, consequently mA = 0.

You only have ~1.6mm of lift from Riser 3 with the volume added, the rest of the volume that is needed comes from AR7,, it donates that volume during lift.

I have the correct R4 spreadsheet that correctly calculates the neutral condition in State 3 as 2.59 mm up lift.  Yes, since the volume inside of AR7 increases, and there free communication between AR7 and that increasing volume, fluid moves from AR7 to fill the increased volume.  That should be obvious from the diagrams.  The height is equal to:  ST3_Uplift*Riser3ODCirArea/AR7CirArea.  Which you will find is identically the height difference between the R4 spreadsheet values for the State 2 and State 3 AR7 heights.  Fluid moves until the forces pushing the assembly up equal the forces pushing the assembly down.  That happens when the risers and pod have moved 2.59mm.  Water draws from the outside:  AR7 into the middle in this contraption just as it does into the water bottle inserted upside down in the soda bottle below.  Note that in the third picture the water levels are even before the vent is sealed.  IE the water and air pressures are identical.  And yet:  Thank Govan it's Friday- the water bottle rises dragging water up with it resulting in negative gauge pressure inside the water bottle.  You may throw yourself into the volcano in respect for Govan's great magical gift whenever you are ready.

When AR7 and AR6 are at the same height there is no head and no pressure between them for Riser 3,, any movement after that for Riser 3 sucks waster in from AR7 and this adds weight to Riser 3 which is reflected directly on top of Riser 2.

AGAIN, WHAT IS HOLDING RISER 3 UP IN THE AIR TO SUCK UP RISER 2?

Gravity "holds it up" by pulling down on all the fluid.

Answer that simple question will you Mark??

Show the world how dumb and stupid I am and tell us all how Riser 3 is being held UP IN THE AIR so that it can suck Riser 2 up.

I have so many times now it has become a very absurd joke.

[MarkE]

Is it that weaker wall force for Riser 3??

Is it the incompressible air and water that for some reason does not get pushed back out and up AR7??

I am interested in knowing what it is Mark.

If you were interested in learning how the nested Russian dolls of ignorance work you would avail yourself to the explanations and references I have offered.

[powercat]

Is it that weaker wall force for Riser 3??

Is it the incompressible air and water that for some reason does not get pushed back out and up AR7??

I am interested in knowing what it is Mark.

What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,

but I'm sure you will carry on with Wayne's approach of blaming other people for not looking close enough at the information that's right there in front of you, the only problem with that approach is that we have all seen the information is fraudulent so many times that repeating the same argument is really now a complete waste of time.  But maybe the solution for you is to try and build the device and finally discover your ignorance.