Quote from: webby1 on March 18, 2014, 12:32:00 AM
MarkE,

You have said nothing in your response, but you did use a lot of words.

I explained my understanding of the method of operation before you made your spreadsheet, so there are no new windows or doors.

Water and some metal bits get lifted up: Just like a pail of water.  Later some water and metal bits get lowered down:  Just like a pail of water.  No free energy results.  You are free like any of the HER/Zydro proponents always have been to attempt to distinguish the ZED from it's far more useful bucket of water counterpart.

Quote

Why do you continuously try and state that I am adding more to the process when I have stated that process already, and am only sticking with it.

Since you have done this many times with prior knowledge of the method,  I wonder why that would be.

Projection!  There we go.  After spending the whole day in convulsive contortions, you try and suggest that I have been dishonest.  Your antics are just getting sadder all the time.

Quote

I do not us Excel, and most likely we do not have the same processor, aka computer chip, and yet you seem to have the same values come up when you run the file that I do.  If it is a math issue, what are the chances of two different systems and programs coming up with the exact same error.

I never said it is a processor issue.  It has nothing to do with the processor.  One can code IEEE754 to run on an 8 bit processor if they are so inclined.   IEEE754 is a commonly used standard.  That's standard as in S T A N D A R D.  As in it is supposed to yield the same predictable results no matter where or how implemented.  That format has 52 bits of mantissa.   52 bits resolve to 25 parts in 10^17.  When you have a number on the scale of 1 million, that means that the smallest increment that Excel can add or subtract from that value is ~25E-11.  Anything smaller is lost forever.  Values that are larger get approximated.  If you want to add two numbers: 1.0E6 and 1.0E6 + X, and you want an accuracy in X to say 1%, then in anything using IEEE754 format X has to be at least about 10^-8. 

X   10E-X...................10E-X + 9*10E(-X-1)
.0   1.000000000000000000   1.900000000000000000
.1   0.100000000000000000   1.090000000000000000
.2   0.010000000000000000   1.009000000000000000
.3   0.001000000000000000   1.000900000000000000
.4   0.000100000000000000   1.000090000000000000
.5   0.000010000000000000   1.000009000000000000
.6   0.000001000000000000   1.000000900000000000
.7   0.000000100000000000   1.000000090000000000
.8   0.000000010000000000   1.000000009000000000
.9   0.000000001000000000   1.000000000900000000
10   0.000000000100000000   1.000000000090000000
11   0.000000000010000000   1.000000000009000000
12   0.000000000001000000   1.000000000000900000
13   0.000000000000100000   1.000000000000090000
14   0.000000000000010000   1.000000000000010000
15   0.000000000000001000   1.000000000000000000
16   0.000000000000000100   1.000000000000000000
17   0.000000000000000010   1.000000000000000000

Quote

I understand that you no longer wish to continue, that is fine, that is your choice and I do appreciate all the help you have provided.

There is nothing to continue.  Mondrasek asked for evaluation of his supposed over unity by calculation.  I have proven that his result was erroneous.  I have proven that the "ideal ZED" that he set-up, that Wayne Travis himself approved was built around a fallacious stipulation of State 1 being in an equilibrium that it was not, and that the device acts like a compression spring.  You express interest in chasing down rabbit holes after some other source of OU that neither you nor any other proponent of HER/Zydro's false claims has in any way shown exhibits unusual behavior in the slightest.  It is up to you or any other proponent now seeing the "ideal ZED" is a non-starter to come up with some other bull shit that you think can stick.

Quote

I am not taking this to the personal level as you have, I do not mean any harm by not doing that I just prefer to stay with the topic in an open fashion.

Bull shit.  You repeatedly misrepresent.  If you were interested in "an open fashion" you would offer some evidence for your false assertion that anything from HER/Zydro can be OU.

Quote

I have provided what I know and understand to the best of my ability to do so, if that is not sufficient for you then I am sorry.

You have offered zero evidence to counter the hard evidence that there is nothing extraordinary to anything HER/Zydro have proposed.

Quote

I believe we are yet again at an impasse, that is fine.

  Hi,
      this thing has degenerated into a real bad case of never try and argue
    with an idiot.
                      John.

Quote from: webby1 on March 17, 2014, 07:51:39 PM
I work for no one. 
All the things I do, I do out of my own curiosity.
I ask questions and try to find answers.
I look at things that are today's understanding and am not afraid to look and see if there are things that might of been overlooked.
I am not afraid of being wrong.
I would rather live life being incorrect most of the time than live a life of doom and gloom stuck in the quagmire of no change.
I think to find new things one must be willing to be wrong.
I think to only do what has been done only leads to doing the same thing over and over.

This is part of me, to help understand who "I" am.

Some will poke at me, that is only a reflection of who "they" are, and is in no way anything about me.

You do not come across as genuine, you have been told enough times why things don't work the way you want to believe, if you genuinely believed you're right you would go away and build a device that works, but instead you just keep repeating the same old questions and statements,
you sound just like Red_herring and Wayne travesty, your repetitive insistence that there is something there, without ever showing any genuine evidence  is a carbon copy of Wayne's deception tactics.

Does anyone remember the "Travis Effect"?  That was supposedly some magic energy gain that results from using inserts and nesting cylinders.  It was supposed to be THE DISCOVERY.  While lots of people around HER/Zydro, including the fraudster Wayne Travis himself like to refer to this so-called "Travis Effect" none will commit themselves to a statement of what the "Travis Effect" is actually supposed to do.  That is of course because there is no such thing as a "Travis Effect".  There is the HER/Zydro misdirection effect of demonstrating buoyancy when an insert is involved and making the false claims that Archimedes' Principle has somehow been circumvented.  Well, now we have, ( I would say we had years ago when Kan Shi first posted diagrams ), a definitive model that the most idealized arrangement of concentric risers does not do anything special.  They certainly do not produce any energy gains.

I wonder what happened to LarryC and his overunity spreadsheet.




It's too bad you can't run a generator with a spreadsheet, isn't it Larry ?