Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Good Point MarkE,

MarkE,

I suggest you put up your supposed proof that our system does not work - and prove our PHD's and Engineers and my self are all part of a vast conspiracy against science... and you and TK alone are the only ones wise enough protect us from our collective stupidity.....

Name some of the dumbasses who claim to hold PhD's but are so stupid that they think that  one can gain energy cyclically lifting and lowering weights.  It will be a hoot.

Now you say you won't because you just know it won't work.... it has losses --- Let me let you in on a secret I shared last year - we have nine lossy exchanges in our system......and ample free energy ----

Alllow me to let you in on something that is not a secret:  You are a liar and a fraud.

That made us face the truth - simple truth - the reality of a free energy device without some loss is magical......

And if you define Free energy as magical - and so discount every process forward...

The definitions are not mine.  They are properties of nature.

You set yourself up for ignorance.


Free Energy - versus Over unity....

They are one in the same.

Can you define the difference?

If you think both are the same - well you go a head and stick in the past - we now have five separate ways to produce clean and free net energy - all with lossy systems.....

Tapping the neighbor's electricity outlet is not free energy.  It is theft.

You will not show your supposed proof - because you do not actually have it - or you are not man enough to admit you were wrong.

ON PESN - when you claimed you ran a full simulation on the ZED system and then refused to "SHOW YOUR WORK" you proved yourself to be a liar then as well.

You are lying once again.

Discounting a system due to losses is entropy logic - not net logic - do you know the difference?

good day Troll

The liar and fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  And it's BS once more.

[MarkE]

Yes Mark,, they are, and just as that physical connection does not increase the assist of lift, but reduces that lift, so it does for the "ideal ZED"

Lets just think about what and how they are communicating shall we.

State2,, R3 is pushing down on R2, R2 is pushing down on R1 and R1 is pushing down on the Pod.

R3 is the external point of interaction and the Pod and R1 are the internal point of resistance for R3 to push against.  This also is what allows the force on the underside of physical Risers and Pod to push against the bottom of the physical device.

As I have stated you are bootstrapping R3 and R2 to get the forces YOU need to make the calculated lift distance.

You are making the claim that R3 is assisting in lifting R2 even after R3 has lost all of its own lift potential including the riser wall force.

Here is a simple evaluation of the actual lift distances and conditional changes within the system.

The OD force drops to zero for R2 when R3 looses all uplift force, at that distance R3 is resting on R2 and any further negative force from R3 is a hindrance to the uplift.  The OD force drops to zero for R1 when R2 looses all uplift force, at that distance R2 and R3 are resting on R1 and any further negative force from R2-R3 is a hindrance to the uplift.


1.6836403000 AR7-AR6 same height

1.8083289794 R3 0.0 uplift

2.1373907915 R2 0.0 uplift

2.2789824056 lift distance with 0.0 OD force

2.5433715000 AR4-AR5 same height

2.5471001082 buoyant lift to 0.0

2.5904774097 calculated lift distance

From this simple evaluation it can be seen that the maximum lift distance by internal pressure forces stops at ~2.28mm and the buoyant forces will continue that lift on to ~2.547mm but will not make the calculated ~2.59mm

Wrong again.  Keep trying Tom.  One assembly: One sum of forces.

[MarkE]

You know MarkE's picture with the soda bottles?? do you know what that is,, if it were Riser 3?  that is this distance in the lift,,

1.8083289794 R3 0.0 uplift

That is when the lift available form the internal pressure is ZERO and the wall force, that would be the straws that are acting as pontoons, is matched by the weight of water lifted,, not a full lift at all.

Just as in the Mondrasek problem, the water bottle rises until the net force is zero.  That requires negative gauge pressure in the bottle, just as occurs for Riser 3 in the Mondrasek  case.

[MarkE]

Still can't read Mark?,, I am not talking about forces with what I posted now am I,, those are distances.

Do I have to spell out each word, each syllable for you Tom? The R4 spreadsheet correctly determines the rest position in State 1X and State 3 as the position at which the sum of the forces acting on the free body assembly reaches zero. Riser 3 is not free to move independently of the rest of the assembly.

[minnie]

    Webby and Mark,
                   there can be only one right answer. One of you could be right and one wrong.
     Or you could both be wrong.
         I would love to see the pair of you in agreement. Good luck!
                       John.