Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[orbut 3000]

The level of ignorance surely looks deliberate.

[MarkE]

Bill,

The only thing that I am insisting on is that the model that MarkE made, if you have not looked at it you should, it is *very* impressive,, any way,, the model does not function as a real ZED.  This point I know from building TBZED and testing it, as well as the information about the ZED that is readily available.

If I do not ask, then how do I know?  MarkE can always say no, as I think he has now, and is done with trying any more, that is fine, I appreciate this fun tool that I am playing with.

So if insisting that a testbed that does not work like the real thing is being ignorant, then so be it.

What part of the numerical error from Excel's finite resolution do you not understand?  What part of the ridiculously contrived numbers that you generated with more than 1MEGAJs total energy and less than 100NANOJs difference do you fail to understand?  What part of the algebra I showed you where the output energy is always limited to the fraction G₀/(G₀+Spill_acceleration_constant) do you not understand?  What part of that ratio always being less than one for any real and finite motion time do you not understand? What part of the "ideal ZED" is always lossy as a consequence do you not understand?  What part of multiple lossy processes in series result in a lossy result do you not understand?  What part of Wayne Travis' personal endorsement of Mondrasek's "ideal ZED" do you not understand?  What part of Wayne Travis' claim that over unity can be had from a single three riser unit do you not understand?  What part of your claimed results of 75% efficiency being far under unity, do you not understand?

What part of draining a bucket to fill another bucket do you claim can possibly yield free energy?

[orbut 3000]

Oh, I get it now. The real ZED is, by definition, OU, so any maths, models and replications that aren't OU are thereby wrong.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

What makes you think that I do not understand more of the system than you do?

Non responsive.

I understand from hands on experiments that there is more to the function of the system than your model provides for.

Non responsive.  You show under unity: 75%.

My 75% efficient lifts had a large part of the input stored within the system after lift.

Either you performed an energy balance or you did not.  If you did not, then the 75% number is meaningless.  If you did, that's the end of your story.  Neither you nor anyone promoting the complete BS fantasy tale by Wayne Travis and HER/Zydro have ever offered either a plausible theoretical basis or actual physical evidence that supports the bull shit claims.

I tried in the first thread to get information on how I could determine that value, but failed to get any.

It is not anyone else's problem to try and help you manufacture evidence for a bull shit claim.

I then chose to look at it that if I had full pressure and the full volume and if I then needed to drop my reservoir at a constant rate and had the fluid returned at a constant rate that I would have at *least* 25% of that input returned.  With what you stated with your "tyranny of it all" is that I could expect more than 25%.

You're just doing more hand waving.

Filling a bucket and pouring it into another bucket gets you nothing but exercise, but since that is not what is happening in a ZED then it is not playing with buckets.  Picking up a weight and dropping that same weight is the same thing.

It is to all effect and purpose all that happens in a ZED.  We have just shown that.  Risers move, water moves. levels go up, levels go down.  If you want to attempt to support the bull shit claim that is in any meaningful way different than lifting and lowering buckets of water, then after two years of this nonsense you ought to be able to articulate a distinction.  Yet, you have not done so.

The lift is good, but the recovery is better.  It is in how the lift input is re-used that makes it different.

That's just more hand waving.  Containers of water move up and down.  It's really quite mundane.

So less than 100% on the lift, fine, less than 100% on the recovery, fine, but if that recovery is more than what is lost on the lift then what.

Here we see more silly suggestions of comparisons to unidentified things.  It's really quite simple:  Account the internal energy in the system at the start of a cycle and at the end of that same cycle.  Account for the external energy added during the cycle and the energy delivered to the outside during the cycle.  Show that the sum of the energy at the end plus the energy delivered to the outside exceeds the internal energy at the start plus the energy added from the outside during the cycle.  You've had two years to do this.  What is the hold-up, other than the indisputable fact that the over unity claims are and have always been total bull shit?

If MEGAJ's are used and stay within the system what does it matter if it is only NANOJ's that are freebies,, IF that is what it takes right now, then with proper design why could it not be made better?

In terms of whether you are gaining or losing energy it matters when the ratios are so large that they exceed the numerical resolution of the tool that you are using to perform your calculations.  It is mind boggling that you pose such a question when the issue has already been discussed extensively in the last 24 hours.  That does not reflect well on you.  Do you understand that numerical error does not change the way that nature works?  If you do, then you know you are making BS arguments.  If you don't, then you have much to learn.

"the ideal ZED does not function like a real ZED"

Our buddy Wayne Travis approved the "ideal ZED" as a representation of ZED mechanics.  He even stated that Mondrasek was one of the ZED experts.  The "ideal ZED" is less efficient than a brick.  Any "real ZED" will be less efficient than the "ideal ZED" that is not burdened by things like viscosity, or compressible air, or a need to move fluids between multiple ZEDs so as to equalize between them.  You can bitch and moan that the "real ZED" is different:  It's taller, fatter, painted a different color.  But if you want to argue that it shows OU that the "ideal ZED" does not, when it was supposed to show OU, then you will have to propose a specific OU mechanism for your "real ZED".  You haven't because there isn't one.  Wayne and pals have been selling investors an empty pipe dream for years.  For whatever reason you choose to try and support that fraud.  How nice that must be for you.

a real ZED makes its lift while more input is being put in.

in a real ZED the risers are not being allowed to "pop"

Go dive down the rabbit hole and tell Snap and Crackle.  Wayne Travis already endorsed Mondrasek's "ideal ZED".  Things are exactly as TinselKoala predicted:  The claims of over unity for the "ideal ZED" have been disproven, so now comes the objection that the supposed magic is now someplace else.  If you want to keep making a total ass out of yourself promoting a fraud, that's your choice.

I have stated many times on the process I understand the ZED to go through, this process is not exactly the same as your model.

You have done nothing, and there is nothing that you can do to show that anything else in the "real ZED" that makes up for the losses in the "ideal ZED" and then some in order to end up with an over unity machine.  You just flail about waving your arms like Red_sunset and Wayne have before you.

[MarkE]

Oh, I get it now. The real ZED is, by definition, OU, so any maths, models and replications that aren't OU are thereby wrong.

That seems to be about what webby is trying to pitch.  His device was not OU.  Therefore it doesn't count.  The "ideal ZED" is not OU therefore it doesn't count.  Nothing that they have built at HER/Zydro has been OU so none of that counts either.  We are all supposed to just believe, because our Bible thumping con artist: Wayne Travis tells us that he is going to deliver free energy.  No, there won't be any sausages this week, or next.  But he'll be serving up those free energy sausages sometime down the road.  Now, if you would like a chance at winning $100. just hand $100. over to Brother Wayne and watch carefully as he places it under one of three opaque cups. ...