Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MileHigh]

A day will come Wayne when everybody knows the real story on you.  The good guys will win and make no mistake, you are the bad guy.

[mondrasek]

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.

Okay, fletcher.  Well played.  You do your name proud with that one, you big tease!

MarkE, I have worked with your spreadsheet.  I downloaded it yesterday.  I was saddened to see I was only the 9th person to do so, if the website counters are correct.  It is a masterful piece of work, as I expected.

I modified it to add a Mass to Riser 3 so that we could complete a full CYCLE State 1 -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 1 per my concerns outlined here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395555/#msg395555

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395634/#msg395634

I highlighted all of my changes and take no credit for anything else.  Your hard work is evident and worthy of full credit.  In fact, if you think the changes are worth keeping, I would be honored if you would update and produce an R5 version yourself, rather than us use a version that I modified.

Please let me know if you have any issues with adjusting the Mass of Riser 3 so that State 1 is neutrally buoyant and does not "pop" up to State 1X anymore.  The major result of this is that the State 3 lift value is slightly reduced.

BTW, I did not bother to adjust any State 0 to State 1 portions of the spreadsheet since they do not come into play in the cycle I have outlined.

M.

[MarkE]

To All,

I know how unbelievable a mechanical free energy device seems.
I also know the push back - and the Trolling.
I have meet good skeptics, and read bad ones..........so far none of the bad skeptics have taken the effort to come visit....
A bad skeptic is one who looks to disprove rather than understand. That is a preconceived conclusion prior to "learning"
I have had plenty of engineers and PHD's review our work and have the hair raise on their arms when it hits - that we do indeed have a mechanical free energy machine....
And then the amplification's run thru their minds...........................
Now, I waste my time here for 99.9 percent of the time with four bad skeptics.....Who frankly have wasted your time too.
A good or bad skeptic has little to do with skill or education ... it has to do with character and honor.

Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud.  You won't and we all know why.

[MarkE]

Okay, fletcher.  Well played.  You do your name proud with that one, you big tease!

MarkE, I have worked with your spreadsheet.  I downloaded it yesterday.  I was saddened to see I was only the 9th person to do so, if the website counters are correct.  It is a masterful piece of work, as I expected.

I modified it to add a Mass to Riser 3 so that we could complete a full CYCLE State 1 -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 1 per my concerns outlined here:

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395555/#msg395555

http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395634/#msg395634

I highlighted all of my changes and take no credit for anything else.  Your hard work is evident and worthy of full credit.  In fact, if you think the changes are worth keeping, I would be honored if you would update and produce an R5 version yourself, rather than us use a version that I modified.

Please let me know if you have any issues with adjusting the Mass of Riser 3 so that State 1 is neutrally buoyant and does not "pop" up to State 1X anymore.  The major result of this is that the State 3 lift value is slightly reduced.

BTW, I did not bother to adjust any State 0 to State 1 portions of the spreadsheet since they do not come into play in the cycle I have outlined.

M.

If I am to understand that you added a 0.101715694N weight then what do you think that changes behaviorally?  It does not change the fundamentally lossy behavior of the device.   What is the point?

[mrwayne]

Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud.  You won't and we all know why.

Diversion...
Do you understand an NDA?
I am waiting for you to explain why we can not recycle the input......
Who actually avoids the facts?
That's right....... Trolls
Thanks