Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

    What about capturing an under water fart in a suitable container, displacing some
     water and bingo you've a way of turning buoyancy on?
                       John.

If you can find some buoyancy that suffers from stress or glaucoma then there's doctors in San Francisco who can turn on that buoyancy.

[mrwayne]

The description "force amplification - with reduced input " IS identically equal to saying that it is an over-unity device.

The Difference is one is a impossible dream - free energy from nothing - and the other is a machine that uses a unique process to provide Net Energy.

They are not identical at all.

Let me guide you to the difference ---- the path we were faced with...

I built a extremely efficient Buoyancy related force increaser - also designed in a manner that allowed the reuses of the input as a cost reduction, resulting in the re-use being greater than the losses in the process.

So originally - everyone called it a free energy device --PM, or Free energy...

And we put it thru the input output tests - passed with flying colors...........

The next assumed proof was - make it run itself.......Passed with flying colors.......

The immature and incorrect question was "HOW DOES IT 'CREATE' Energy.............

I asked our engineers - Show me the data that shows it creates energy.........

The result - if you look at the end product - it is free energy - but if you look at any of the steps in the process - they conform to normal physics.....and we have free energy

How can the sum of lossy systems result in Created energy???

Of course I know that is what you all have been saying.... it seems logically incorrect.

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

Our saving grace - was a physical system that worked... so we did not attack each other or give up on finding the answer.

In the process of uncovering the ability to amplify the force and then change its orientation - we found the answer.

Yeah - we had to create terms to explain the difference between creation and amplification.

Yeah - we had to come to grips with the whole notion of Overunity and the expected conditions that must exist for over unity to exist - are immature as claiming to create energy.

I suggest you read the BINGO Response - ]

Start asking - is gravity "energy" or is it "force" -

If gravity can be seen as a force - then does the LAWs regarding energy still apply?

If you find that it is force - then build a force amplification system and then convert the force to energy.

Concentrated buoyancy works very well....one more hint - don't do things the same in both directions...that is a brick...

Wayne

[mrwayne]

Your machine would appear to raise and lower masses correct? This does not give rise to net energy output.
You machine compresses/expands air somewhat..? again not an net energy producing effect.
A buoyant object moves up and down..? again, not an net energy producing process.

It does not lower the value of the external work.... not a brick - the risers have weight - but they are kept neutrally buoyant at all times... they are counter balanced by the buoyancy.

Net energy comes from the Super Conservative process - which has nothing to do with weights... which in a nut shell is a closed looped reduced input system.

If we use air - the air does change pressure in direct relationship to the head - air is not expanded during the external work - only during the reuses.

The system without air works better.

To Be clear - no new air - no new compression - switching pressure from one side to the other does result in an change between those two sides - as described previously.

Net Energy is the by product of  a process
Thanks

[MarkE]

I subtracted in one place,, and added the st3=>st1,, this may be wrong and I am trying to get the correct way of looking at it.

I have been trying to figure out where I can add the riser weight force in two places, and or how to do that,,  in state 0 it makes no change and I would have to change the state 0 to state 1 prefill energy.

I was thinking that if it is added at state 0, then there would be a negative input as the weight falls.

A little help please.

Three states:  S1, S2, S3
The assembly is restrained in S1, and S2.  In both  states the weight offsets down force that would otherwise be applied by the restraint.  The idea is that in S1 it completely replaces it.  In both these states the weight is in its lower position.  We can arbitrarily assign this as zero.  In S3 the weight is elevated by the uplift distance of ~2.4mm.

S1 => S2 energy in, unchanged from w/o the weight
S2 => S3 Internal energy increased by the new greater GPE of the weight.  (Available energy out also reduced identically compared to the original scheme.)
S3 => S1 Internal energy decreased by the return of the GPE of the weight to the assigned zero value.  (Available energy out also increased identically compared to the original scheme.)

Each state the total available energy remains the same as does the cyclical energy.

[MarkE]

The Difference is one is a impossible dream - free energy from nothing - and the other is a machine that uses a unique process to provide Net Energy.

Nope. They are the same pipe dream.

They are not identical at all.

Let me guide you to the difference ---- the path we were faced with...

I built a extremely efficient Buoyancy related force increaser - also designed in a manner that allowed the reuses of the input as a cost reduction, resulting in the re-use being greater than the losses in the process.

You built an underunity device that is less inefficient than a more trivial device an 8 year old could have designed.  What you designed does not reuse input energy.

So originally - everyone called it a free energy device --PM, or Free energy...

Only those with poor math or science skills could make such an egregious error to call something that does not produce any surplus output energy versus input a free energy device.

And we put it thru the input output tests - passed with flying colors...........

Yet it has never passed Mark Dansie's very straightforward tests.  There is a simple reason:  The contraption does not produce the free energy that you falsely claim it does.

The next assumed proof was - make it run itself.......Passed with flying colors.......

Until of course it ran down the internal "pre charge".  A four year old can inflate a balloon and let it go.  It will literally pass by with flying colors.

The immature and incorrect question was "HOW DOES IT 'CREATE' Energy.............

There is no need to wonder about something the contraption never did.

I asked our engineers - Show me the data that shows it creates energy.........

Are they all grade school drop outs?

The result - if you look at the end product - it is free energy - but if you look at any of the steps in the process - they conform to normal physics.....and we have free energy

Nope, there is not a femtoJoule of surplus energy that can be found by proper analysis.  When First Priniciples are the basis of any model, then only numerical or human error can result in a non-conservative result.

How can the sum of lossy systems result in Created energy???

They don't.  Any engineer or scientist who fails to recognize that is incompetent.

Of course I know that is what you all have been saying.... it seems logically incorrect.

No, it is physically incorrect.

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

Our saving grace - was a physical system that worked... so we did not attack each other or give up on finding the answer.

No, you have no such working physical system and never had.  See again that you have never passed Mark Dansie's very simple initial qualifying test.

In the process of uncovering the ability to amplify the force and then change its orientation - we found the answer.

Force is not conservative.

Yeah - we had to create terms to explain the difference between creation and amplification.

No, you invented bafflegab to try and hide the fact that you do not have what you claim.

Yeah - we had to come to grips with the whole notion of Overunity and the expected conditions that must exist for over unity to exist - are immature as claiming to create energy.

No, you came up with a scheme to defraud gullible investors and have executed against that scheme.

I suggest you read the BINGO Response - ]

Start asking - is gravity "energy" or is it "force" -

Gravity is a field.

If gravity can be seen as a force - then does the LAWs regarding energy still apply?

"Gravitational force" is the equivalent force due to the acceleration that occurs in a gravitational field.

If you find that it is force - then build a force amplification system and then convert the force to energy.

Force cannot be converted to energy.  Energy is the integral of the dot product of force and distance.

Concentrated buoyancy works very well....one more hint - don't do things the same in both directions...that is a brick...

"Concentrated buoyancy" is a nonsense term you have made up.  You cannot distinguish the behavior of "concentrated buoyancy" from "ordinary buoyancy".  Archimedes' Paradox applies to buoyancy without qualification.  Dry docks and other machines have utilized Archimedes' Paradox many generations before you were born.

Wayne

So, once again we see the swindler Wayne Travis trying to convince people that force can be substituted for energy.  It is as silly as the person who claims one can have a bottomless checking account just so long as they have more blank checks.