Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

It's silly to expect excess energy emerging from a sequence of lossy processes.
It's even sillier to expect such a thing to happen when the promoter of such a scheme acts like 'mrwayne' as documented in this thread.

But he is the amazing Mr. Zed!  "Hello Wilbur.  I just took the grand kids college fund."

[MarkE]

Now, I know this was confusing - or the trolls just tried to confuse everyone ---
When the ZED is receiving pressure and volume as an input - the head and air reacts in a serpentine manner - in an equal reaction resulting in vertically layered head Pressures, separated by vertically layered air pressure.
At the moment the Load is overcome - the external work is neutrally buoyant - any additional input continues to be stored as head and air columns - as the neutral load rises (resulting in external work).

Ah more babble speak from the amazing fraud: Mr. Zed.  When Mr. Zed isn't appealing to "The Emperor's New Zed", he tries the "baffle 'em with bull shit" baffle gab approach. Note the nonsensical misuse of terms and ridiculous suggestions.

The external load is removed - without allowing the pop up action ME added.

I added nothing.  The "ideal ZED" is an overly complicated spring emulator.  The "real ZED" is an overly complicated poor emulation of a spring.

at this point - in simple English - the external work is stored - and the head and air pressure is recycled to another ZED system.

Something that is stored within a system is by definition not external Mr. Zed.

Chalk board - not yelling,
THIS UNIQUE ABILITY TO RECYCLE THE INPUT -CONTINUALLY REDUCES THE INPUT REQUIRED FOR EVERY STROKE -BOTH OF THE ZEDS.
THAT IS WHY WE PAIR THEM TOGETHER.

There is no such ability.  Each of the pathetic ZEDs are fundamentally lossy devices.  Each stroke loses more input energy that must be supplied from the outside to keep the moaning and groaning stage prop moving.

THIS IS A "SUPER CONSERVATIVE PROCESS" -

Ah we are being treated to more made up terms by Mr. Zed.

YES - THAT IS A NEW TERM - The ZED AND PROCESS IS A NEW DISCOVERY.

Nope, the ZED and process are 2000 year old hydrostatics misrepresented by the con man and fraud:  Wayne Travis as something new that supposedly delivers free energy that it does not.

Got it?OK

Oh, we've got your number.

Viva! Las Vegas!

[MarkE]

Oh, let me direct you to our unique ability to hook lossy systems together to reduce input and increase efficiency.

Ah yes: Here are more bald faced lies from the fraud Wayne Travis.  Concatentating any lossy process with another aggravates loss.  That is a mathematical fact that you cannot escape.

Please read Larry's spread sheets............. It takes 16% of the energy required to come to buoyancy pressure - in a three layered dual ZED system versus a single column to the same head pressure.

Having two different lossy processes does not make either over unity.

Kind of makes it all possible...... thanks

Yes, your written record makes many things possible.  You may not like some of them.

Oh yes this is new - and no - no in the text books..

LOL, so you claim. But then you are the fraud:  Wayne Travis.

p.s. Buoyancy is pressure differential times surface area...... in simple terms...

No, but that was a nice try.  For a horizontal surface:  buoyant up lift force is the pressure of the surrounding fluid under the surface multiplied by the area of that surface.

[fletcher]

Point of Note:

Should anyone ever demonstrate a 'true mechanical OU device', aka, a 'true Perpetual Motion Machine', that uses ONLY gravity force to do external work & replenish itself cyclically, then indeed new physics & terms would need to be coined - currently mainstream understands gravity force to be conservative, or path independent, & so far no exceptions have been shown/proved to exist.

Wayne Travis would have us believe that he can demonstrate that exception & so he no doubt uses this forum to practice & hone his skills in articulating his ideas to a mainstream audience versed in ordinary physics language - he of course must throw in newly minted terms from time to time to describe the uncogent to physicists, mathematicians, & laymen alike - what else could he do under the circumstances, other than show a working & verified device, & then let the great unwashed lab coats go into a feeding frenzy tying to formulate & articulate the new paradigm for him ?

For my money, should anyone [including Mr Wayne] ever prove their case with a working verified gravity driven device I would probably start by examining the Work Energy Equivalence Principle enshrined in physics & perhaps consider the possibility that it is not always consistent or equivalent ?!

But that is navel gazing in the extreme at the moment.

[MarkE]

Point of Note:

Should anyone ever demonstrate a 'true mechanical OU device', aka, a 'true Perpetual Motion Machine', that uses ONLY gravity force to do external work & replenish itself cyclically, then indeed new physics & terms would need to be coined - currently mainstream understands gravity force to be conservative, or path independent, & so far no exceptions have been shown/proved to exist.

Wayne Travis would have us believe that he can demonstrate that exception & so he no doubt uses this forum to practice & hone his skills in articulating his ideas to a mainstream audience versed in ordinary physics language - he of course must throw in newly minted terms from time to time to describe the uncogent to physicists, mathematicians, & laymen alike - what else could he do under the circumstances, other than show a working & verified device, & then let the great unwashed lab coats go into a feeding frenzy tying to formulate & articulate the new paradigm for him ?

For my money, should anyone [including Mr Wayne] ever prove their case with a working verified gravity driven device I would probably start by examining the Work Energy Equivalence Principle enshrined in physics & perhaps consider the possibility that it is not always consistent or equivalent ?!

But that is navel gazing in the extreme at the moment.

Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found.  We already have appropriate terminology.  What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed.  So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".

The fraud: Wayne Travis freely engages in nonsense baffle gab.  An obvious motive is to confuse naive and uneducated audience members.  He presents behaviors that have been well understood and exploited for multiple millennia as things he claims to have discovered.  He's a liar, and not a very good one at that.