Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

  Where is this supposed external load and what does it do?I've looked, I've seen, I've laughed uncontrollably.

Cool - so now your recent "excuse" that we left something out is over.... so now answer the question Mr Uncontrollablly:

When you added the load to the ZED - and surely noticed it required more pressure to stroke - at the end of the stroke - How much of the pressure was consumed---

How much would flow freely to the other ZED.

Now seriously - this is super simple.... when you repeat this process repeatedly - how much is the input to each side reduced by the free flow from the other?

Now hard question - how inefficient would the upstroke have to be to consume all the free flow and remaining energy value?

Thanks.

[mrwayne]

.Physics has been doing just fine.  Your attempt to retread 2000 year old understanding as something new and name it after yourself is hysterically funny.   Viva!  Las Vegas!

First - another of your lies - which you were called out on at Pesn - Tom called it the travis effect - as it was stated in the article above your lies on Pesn.

You were also called out for lying about MD words - which were also in the article, and you also lied claiming you spread sheet the wholething..and proved it could not work...

It cracks me up when you suddenly realize their is a load on the system.....

Second - show where in history where buoyancy has been explained to exceed the mass displaced...

Is it jealousy..... oh my....or just having fun as a liar?

You have no credibility what so ever...

And each time you insult good people. well you dig deeper.

[mrwayne]

Ah, the fraud: Wayne Travis speaks again.  No Wayne you have never had, do not now have, and will never have the free energy machines you claim.

Skipped the fact and went for an insult...... yeah...

Did you learn that a series system is more efficient or not?

Can you admit to it or not -

Can you man up and tell Larry he was right or not?

Since you do not have the character to admit when you are wrong - you do not have the right to make claims against others - you have no value here.

[MarkE]

John,

Which is more efficient - the Travis Effect a in Toms video number 5, or the Archimedes'

Which is more efficient:  Riding the brakes with the emergency brake on or off?  The scheme that you label Archimedes, and the scheme that uses the insert are both inefficient ways to raise weights.  One is more egregious than the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_MLjkt8ti4

Now each time you add a layer to the ZED, the Travis effect improves its performance.

There is no "Travis Effect". 

Three layers and a Pod (instead of a brick) broke the Force fallacy.

Three layers and a pod are less efficient than a brick.

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

ALL attempts to use buoyancy as a free energy device failed to convert the force into energy to reproduce the input.

Now that's bafflegab that one can sink their teeth into.  Force never converts into energy.  Force has no equivalence with energy.  Try again Mr. Fraud.

All single column equalization systems could not break that barrier...

If the barrier you refer to is 100% efficiency, then neither does your scheme break that barrier despite your false claims.

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

The ZED reverses that position - the Series system allowed Buoyancy to produce enough force to exceed the energy input.

That is a bald faced lie.  Force cannot be equated to energy.  And more importantly:  The ZED is fundamentally lossy.  Nothing about the nested Russian dolls of ignorance generates free energy.  Always more useful energy goes into the nested Russian dolls of ignorance than can be extracted.  Always.

Let that soak in - if one mechanical way force looses - the energy balance - increasing the force faster/more than the input increase - creates a new value to exploit.

Let's hear it for the bafflegab from today's contestant:  Mr. Wayne Travis!

Best of all - three layers is not the limit..... add more and more.... the force over input value continues to grow.

Poor Wayne, still pitching the fallacy that losses can be made up in volume.  They can't.

Force amplification - resulting in excess energy - is the new physics....

No it is complete bull shit.  Levers don't make free energy, and neither do your contraptions.

The old physics - made the assumption it was impossible --- I decided to test the theory - not defend the past.

Flunked out then?

Take Care

p.s. for fun - add a couple of layers to MarkE spread sheet - it should become clear..

Wayne

Sure add as many as you like.  It does not change the behavior:  The useless contraption is fundamentally lossy.

[MarkE]

Skipped the fact and went for an insult...... yeah...

Did you learn that a series system is more efficient or not?

The nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not generate the free energy you claim.  You can keep suggesting that they do, but that is the fraud you have committed yourself to promoting.

Can you admit to it or not -

I don't admit things that are not true.

Can you man up and tell Larry he was right or not?

LOL.  Keep pitching the lies there Wayne.

Since you do not have the character to admit when you are wrong - you do not have the right to make claims against others - you have no value here.

LOL, the guy who has been cheating:  friends, family, and neighbors with his lies about non-existent free energy technology is accusing those who have pointed out those crimes of being unethical.  It's your shameless approach that's really awesome Wayne.  If you're good with continuing to build this record of scienter on your part, it's just fine with me.