Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

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, You can not be this blind....
I am not buying it - answer the question - not the one you are diverting too.
The question is and has been - does the serpentine effect or the ZED layering system turn on buoyancy cheaper that standard buoyancy...YES so obviously it is ridiculous.....
You diverting to the: BUT It doesn't provide EXCESS energy...........
Answer the question - was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not.
Come on MarkE - it is not that hard to say - Dear Larry, you were right, I should not have called you all those insulting names....
Do it.

[MarkE]

MarkE, You can not be this blind....
I am not buying it - answer the question - not the one you are diverting too.
The question is and has been - does the serpentine effect or the ZED layering system turn on buoyancy cheaper that standard buoyancy...YES so obviously it is ridiculous.....
You diverting to the: BUT It doesn't provide EXCESS energy...........
Answer the question - was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not.
Come on MarkE - it is not that hard to say - Dear Larry, you were right, I should not have called you all those insulting names....
Do it.

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.

Buoyancy is not a drug crazed hippie that needs to turn-on.  Buoyancy is a behavior: specifically force exerted due to displaced fluid.  All buoyancy is "standard" buoyancy.  There is no special kind of buoyancy.  There is no "Travis Effect".  The serpentine is an implementation of the 2000 year old Archimedes' Paradox that has been used as long as it has been known.  As that principle is applied in the nested Russian dolls of ignorance, it can be replaced with a coil spring less than 1/1000th the volume.

Your demand:  "was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not." is semantically meaningless.   

LarryC and the rest of your disciples of duplicity are as much a joke as you are.  The only question is whether events are in motion or not. Hmmm, how could an enterprising fraud like yourself find out?

[mrwayne]

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.

Sorry about the spelling, I make mistakes...
Next - "Displaced fluid is responsible for buoyant up lift"
The question was - is it proportional - like you claimed over and over.... with your posts...
Second - might be careful with the "upward force" buoyancy pushed down also....
...................
Now that you insulted Tom again.... the video shows simple and plainly that the amount of buoyancy is not proportional the to displacement when a non attached static intervention is included in the process - (the concrete block)..
SO again --- MarkE,
You can do it, Dear TomG, I am sorry that I insulted your video - I now see that your were correct in describing the ability to demonstrate that in special cases - Like your video - buoyancy is not proportional to the volume displaced...
P.s. Don't bother saying that his video only showed a rock taking up the displacement - that is just one layer over a rock - adding layers amplifies the buoyancy - that is one of the Anomalies you refuse to address..
You know - more buoyancy than the total volume of the system......
You owe Larry and Tom an apology.
You awe the world an apology for misleading the readers here.

[mrwayne]

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.

Buoyancy is not a drug crazed hippie that needs to turn-on.  Buoyancy is a behavior: specifically force exerted due to displaced fluid.  All buoyancy is "standard" buoyancy.  There is no special kind of buoyancy.  There is no "Travis Effect".  The serpentine is an implementation of the 2000 year old Archimedes' Paradox that has been used as long as it has been known.  As that principle is applied in the nested Russian dolls of ignorance, it can be replaced with a coil spring less than 1/1000th the volume.

Your demand:  "was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not." is semantically meaningless.   

LarryC and the rest of your disciples of duplicity are as much a joke as you are.  The only question is whether events are in motion or not. Hmmm, how could an enterprising fraud like yourself find out?

I stand corrected - maybe you are that lost...

[TinselKoala]

Honest Whyne Tarvis is notoriously error-prone when it comes to getting people's names right.

Why, he still can't believe that more than one person could actually disagree with him, so he thinks that we are all the same person, typing like mad simultaneously on four different keyboards or something. It's a good thing I have all these index cards to remind me of the personal idiosyncrasies of all my sock puppet identities.... or I might betray myself with a speling eror, or forgetting to carelessly split an infinitive.