Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Hi John .. yep, I come from a farming background so know well the hardships of lambing etc - same reticence when I have to kill some house or dog tucker, but the job has to be done.

Haven't looked at the R4 spreadsheet John - just back after 2 months away with things to take care of here that take precedence - actually I trust MarkE's skills in putting that model together accurately - it was done in conjunction with others input such as Mondrasek & Webby I believe, so it is probably representative enough for analysis purposes - where the problem appears to be is in the interpretation of what it is showing & what's going on - there is a disconnect, mainly between MarkE & Webby, about the residual energy left from going from S3 back to S1 i.e. S1>S2>S3>S1 - it appears that S3 has a higher energy level than S1 with the crux being that extra volume under pressure can be vented elsewhere at no cost to return to S1 energy levels - perhaps I got this wrong but MarkE or Webby or Mondrasek can set this straight.

Webby has not to my knowledge made any argument concerning the energy state values in S1 or S3.  The stored energies are in the spreadsheet.  The methods by which they are calculated is in plain English algebra with notes and drawings.  Tom has for the past month asserted what he claims to be errors in the R4 spreadsheet.  Each time I have shown that it is actually Tom who has been mistaken, whether it be about the numerical accuracy limits of Excel (ask Tom about his 60m high 28nm movement configuration), how to calculate the fluid volume a submerged or partially submerged object displaces, or his latest odd concept of rejecting linear superposition.

State 1 has a stored energy of: 3.4123mJ
State 2 has a stored energy of: 5.5107mJ
State 3 has a stored energy of: 3.6054mJ

Mondrasek has proposed at different times cycling between different states.  He most recently proposed going from State 3 to a new state he called State 1Y reached from State 3 by opening a drain plug in the bottom of the pod chamber and allowing the system to find a new equilibrium.  He has not to my recollection proposed how he would like to return to State 3.  For instance:  By simply pumping back in what is drained in the S3 -> S1Y transition, or first restraining the riser assembly and pumping in water, or by forcing the riser assembly down all the way after State 1Y, etc.

BTW .. Mondrasek kindly sent me a revision of Mark's R4 spreadsheet with his own observations & conclusions - I will leave it to him to throw that in the ring or not, as he sees fit - I am not about to play catchup when I have so much else going on at the moment so I can't cross check the work that's been done until I have the mind space & time to do so properly - besides there are capable people already on the job.

.....................................

MarkE .. whatever mate - yeah, I know force is a vector as do most high school graduates.

Then you should have no objection to treating it as such.  If one is precise in their communication then the opportunities for misunderstanding are minimized.

.....................................

Comment: Until Wayne Travis produces a bona fide independently verified mechanical machine that runs on gravity [aka buoyancy] & does external work & doesn't need internal replenishment of energy then I see no further value in hashing & rehashing the last two years of thread content & increasingly personal & subjective comments about individuals on all sides of the debate.

Wayne Travis' free energy claims are false on their face.  No one has offered any evidence to support them.  Mondrasek said in his OP that he had a model of a three riser system that Mondrasek believed showed free energy.  That model has been shown to be erroneous, and that there is no free energy to be had from the three riser "ideal ZED" that Mondrasek set out to model.

I feel that the hardline skeptics have dutifully & vocally warned me of the high probability of fraud in the claims & representations - whilst personally I would not invest [& I know that WT is not looking for further investment]

Wayne Travis says that he is not seeking further investment.  You might want to check the difference between what Wayne says and what is reality.  They are frequently at direct odds.

I also believe that any investment, even in emerging technology, is inherently a high risk scenario - 'caveat emptor' comes to mind - personally, I don't feel the need to act as defender of the truth or cast myself into the role of fish mongers wife routing the snake oil salesman - ateotd WT has made his bed - he will lie in it, one way or another - history would say that it is unlikley that WT will ever come thru but stranger things have happened - if he does I would be pleased.

Were anyone to come through with a ground breaking clean energy technology it would be great.  Wayne Travis has established that he has no technology of any kind to offer and that he is defrauding his investors.

Right now, without that demonstrable machine, both sides argue on positions of faith - faith in science & faith in that the extraordinary is possible - seldom do I take any position on faith alone.

I argue on the basis of:  established, demonstrable science.  There is no faith required in what can and has been verified countless times.  Wayne Travis is a con man selling faith in his false claims.  Wayne Travis claims that he has the means to alter the conservative nature of gravity.  He has produced no evidence of his outlandish claim.  Wayne Travis claims that he can produce energy ex nihilo by cyclically raising and lowering weights.  He has produced no evidence of his outlandish claim.  I know why and so do you.

[mrwayne]

Poor Wayne is trying to shift the burden of proof.  That's the cat hissing when it's backed into a corner.

This caught my eye:

LOL and WHAT?

You mean to tell me Wayne and his "team of engineers" did not know if their contraption was over unity or not?  Supposedliy a team of consummate professionals?   And they don't have the brains to know what they are looking at?  They are working away for months like beavers and it takes a visit from Mark Dansie to straighten them all out?

It's the slip-ups like this in "reality" that tell the discerning eye that this is all a fraud and a farce.  Not to mention all the other reasons.

What a joke.

Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?

Thanks for making the insult that displays your (nicely) misunderstanding... and opportunity to emphasize a important point...
If a system has ZERO INPUT, and has ample OUTPUT - how do you exactly divide into ZERO???
Let me be clear what was explained to us..... which you missed again.....
A paradigm shift in the understanding of physics - that energy can be produced at a consumer end mechanically without the consumption of fuel.......................
Do you think that is a  joke?
p.s. Again -since you claimed he proved our system did not work - Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?
Wayne

[MileHigh]

The answer to your question is yes.

[mrwayne]

Oh my dear MarkE,
So you won't answer my question:
How much energy is in our ZED after the external load has been produced?
But you will post 15 times calling me a liar and fraud.....
We all know you have skills - and we all know you are diverting attention from the truth.

[MarkE]

Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?

Thanks for making the insult that displays your (nicely) misunderstanding... and opportunity to emphasize a important point...
If a system has ZERO INPUT, and has ample OUTPUT - how do you exactly divide into ZERO???
Let me be clear what was explained to us..... which you missed again.....
A paradigm shift in the understanding of physics - that energy can be produced at a consumer end mechanically without the consumption of fuel.......................
Do you think that is a  joke?
p.s. Again -since you claimed he proved our system did not work - Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?
Wayne

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  There is no need to worry about any hypothetical over unity system.  You do not have the free energy technology that you claim.  Yes, Wayne you are a joke to all but the investors you have defrauded.  How's that endorsement by any Ph.D.'s going?  I don't see any endorsements for you by Mark Dansie either.