Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

   Wayne,
              there is no anomaly, and you know it!
    You can't bend the rules.
    If you want to show an anomaly you've got to introduce a variable.
    Everything we're looking at is FIXED.
        I've just bought home a ewe who has had four lambs. I've got
   to take two off of her- it breaks my heart-and the ewe's but it must
   be done.
       Just a tiny weenie bit of proof, please mrwayne, then we'll believe
   you!
          John.

[Marsing]

A liter is as good a volume as m³ or cc or in³ or even furlongs³.  We just need to make sure that we use the right scaling constant to get to the units we want in the end.

hi mark

It was expected that you would answer with an explanation plus examples, that if one units was converted into any form, others should be convert too, and the result will be just same. and show directly the source of problem.

just hope you will replay to webby with this way if you have found a mistake.
   
still fffff, in exel file pWater uses Kg/m^3 while in qiuz N/liter.

[MarkE]

Did you check your work Mark?

Here is MY calculated volume for that extension

2.5427305737cc

Here is YOURS

5.052267107cc

Are you saying that you would accept a spreadsheet with YOUR method of calculating the extension in it?? that would make me happy because that would provide even more lift force.

So you are incorrect and I am correct.

Where within R4 are you calculating the buoyant volume?  You are NOT calculating the buoyant volume.

Here is mine with the buoyant volumes.

I expect to see yours with the buoyant volumes included ASAP.

Tom, I have shown you multiple times now where you have gone wrong.  I already checked the R4 spreadsheet up lift forces against buoyant volumes and it is correct.  If you recognize that X - X = 0, then you can see by inspection of the formulas used in the R4 spreadsheet that the calculated up lift forces on each riser and the pod are identical using the pressure method as calculating force using displaced water.  If you get results that are different than the R4 spreadsheet it is because you are still making mistakes.

[MarkE]

Wrong John,, team skeptic's attempts to hide those anomalies is falling apart fairly fast.

Tom you are out of your mind.  There are no anomalies.  You have made many mistakes that others such as myself have corrected.

[MarkE]

I don't know Tom,
What good does it do to discover a free energy device?

Last year I thought these skeptics were just not qualified to evaluate -
I mean according to them;
all the most devious and brilliant brainwashing master minds of all time rolled into one character - is here wasting his time not asking for money and not applying for an OU prize............(That's brilliant)...

According to the phony skeptics - everyone who has hands on experience is a babbling shill and too stupid to think for themselves....give me a break.......................

This is Mondrasek's link - and his point was to show the an Ideal ZED has an anomaly - not even the whole process - and we have 130 pages of every diversion possible to deny what is clearly just .......cool.

A skeptic does not direct the observation to his will - he/she reports the facts.

Wayne

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  You wouldn't know what it means to invent a free energy machine, because you haven't invented one.  You just lie to investors with your false claims of having invented one.  As for poor Tom, I keep showing him his mistakes.  Like you, he plows on as though he is oblivious to reality.

Mondrasek said that he had done an analysis that showed excess energy from his three riser "ideal ZED".  Mondrasek's analysis has been proven wrong.  The "ideal  ZED" has been proven lossy.  That was all done weeks ago.  Poor Tom keeps coming back with his mistakes and undying faith in non-existent anomalies.  You keep coming back with your bald faced lies.