Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Here is a special little trick.

Take a clear plastic cup and a cork, or some kind of small float that easily fits inside the plastic cup with room to spare,, now fill a sink with water and put the little "float" in the water,, take the plastic cup and place it open side down over the little float,, push down on the cup and watch as the water level inside the cup moves down with the cup and so does the float,, now half fill the plastic cup with water keeping the little float inside it,, now let it carefully come up to the surface,, see how it stops as the water line inside the cup is right around the water line outside the cup??  now lift the cup up a little further and you can see the water inside the cup and the little float come up with the cup and above the water level outside the cup,, did it just magically raise up to the new height or did you have to lift the cup up to get it there,, that's right,, you have to lift the cup up to raise the water and the little float up above the outside water level.

Same for Riser 3,, it does not move up by itself, and moving it up takes a force external to the cup to do so.

Riser 3 is part of an assembly.  It does not exist in isolation.  Once again the forces at State 2 and the forces at State 3:

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

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

[mrwayne]

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.  No Wayne the nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not reduce energy input versus a single column.  The serpentine allows one to get more buoyant force in the same volume as would a single column lift.  However a simple compression spring beats both by thousands of times.  The serpentine ultimately increase losses due to additional friction copared to a single column. Kan Shi pointed that out to you two years ago.  So your "Dear LarryC" letter will have to remain your fantasy.

It's hilarious that you: the running fraud accuses me of lies.  Sadly for you you can't point out any.

Here below again and again we see the fraud and liar Wayne Travis promoting the spreadsheet work of Mike (Mondrasek) and Larry (LarryC) that has since been shown to be built on wrong assumptions and therefore yields the wrong answers.  These facts will of course not alter Wayne Travis' carnival barker routine one bit.  Wayne is stuck pretending that his BS claims are real lest he admit to all those around him that he has been cheating them for years.

Now MarkE, You know full well that Kanshi did the same thing you did - but she did not lie about the results.
She said the same thing you did - you can not add lossy systems together and increase efficiency
- ---- then she did the math for pod, then a single layer and pod and then two layers and pod.....
And her math showed the efficiency improved....
Your own superior than thou math shows the efficiency improves......
You are the fraud. ......And you owe Larry an apology.

[mrwayne]

  You obviously still do not understand buoyancy. 

This is great, you do understand buoyancy???
So can two separate but equal volumes of air lift different amounts of weight?
I recall when you were Mark Euthanasia - you would Quote Wikipedia over and over insulting the Travis effect - I mean you posted it over and over....
Have you learned since then - if not, or if you have trouble - TomG made five very nice video's showing what he dubbed the Travis Effect.
...Smile.... 

[MarkE]

Now MarkE, You know full well that Kanshi did the same thing you did - but she did not lie about the results.
She said the same thing you did - you can not add lossy systems together and increase efficiency
- ---- then she did the math for pod, then a single layer and pod and then two layers and pod.....
And her math showed the efficiency improved....
Your own superior than thou math shows the efficiency improves......
You are the fraud. ......And you owe Larry an apology.

The fraud Wayne Travis yanks on his holster squeezes the trigger and blows away more of his own toes. 

Each of the ZED processes is fundamentally lossy.  That means that the ZED is fundamentally lossy.  That means that the ZED cannot produce energy as you claim.  Concatenate any set of lossy processes and the total efficiency is less than any of the individual components.  In other words, each added process reduces the total efficiency.  There is no escaping that mathematical fact.  And that mathematical fact lays to rest all your BS concerning "super conservative" systems.  One cannot multiply any set of numbers where each number is equal to or greater than zero but less than one and get a result that is even as large as the smallest of the individual numbers.

What LarryC tried to do was use the fact that two compound processes can have different efficiencies to incorrectly claim as you idiotically do that concatenating two lossy processes results in higher efficiency than one or the other of the processes alone.  The trivial algebra shows that your claims are completely false. 

Now go have a doctor tend to that foot wound before gangrene takes to it.

[MarkE]

This is great, you do understand buoyancy???
So can two separate but equal volumes of air lift different amounts of weight?
I recall when you were Mark Euthanasia - you would Quote Wikipedia over and over insulting the Travis effect - I mean you posted it over and over....
Have you learned since then - if not, or if you have trouble - TomG made five very nice video's showing what he dubbed the Travis Effect.
...Smile....

Displaced fluid is responsible for buoyant up lift.  Are you still trying to hold the the misdirection in Tom's hapless videos?  Hey "Honest Wayne and Tom"  air isn't responsible for buoyant lift in water.  there is no "Travis Effect".  There are attempts at misdirection by you and your disciples of duplicity.

I have never been "Mark Euthanasia".  My name is Euthanasius. 

Now, you've shot from both holsters and blasted both of your feet.