Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

Hi,
     I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
  supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.
                                          John.

[mondrasek]

     I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
  supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.

Bullshit, "John."  The facts are called math.  And you have presented none in this thread that is titled "Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED."  But others have.  And still others have shown where those maths are in error.  And corrections have been made.  Yet the corrected Mathematical Analysis that has been the most recent offered has not been confirmed or proved incorrect.  And it does currently substantiate OU.

Please understand that I am not from HER, but I must stand by the math and physics as presented in my analysis until shown how they are in error.

[minnie]

   Hi Mondrasek,
                      are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
    anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
                          John.

[mondrasek]

   Hi Mondrasek,
                      are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
    anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
                          John.

"John", anytime you would like to discuss the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED I would be pleased to engage further.  However, your present course of questioning takes us off topic and onto the path that TK is also inclined to head down.  That path is this argument:  If the Physics premise is true, then why have we not seen the Physical Representation of a Functioning Device released?  Ergo, if no Physical Representation of a Functioning Device, then the premise to build one must be false.

That argument is a "chicken or the egg" type of thing, isn't it?  Ie. Which comes first, the Mathematical proof of an exploitable Physics phenomenon, or the product (or video?) which shows the utility of that phenomenon for the first time?

I am claiming that the math does not support the preconception that an ideal ZED performs identical to an ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.  I have requested from this forum that others check it out for themselves and either show me the error of my math and/or methods or confirm the same findings.  This process is similar to what is known as "Peer Review."

I have openly become an exposed target for proclaiming what I have presented so far.  Feel free to shoot me down.  Please do it in the language of Science:  Mathematics.

M.

[TinselKoala]

And neither one of us has received answers to our questions which are very simple.

Minnie has asked, several times: Travis, do you in fact have an actual real "5 hp" unit that runs itself and provides usable energy that can be used outside the system?

And I have asked, Is there anyone reading this thread who believes that Travis could do what he promised to do, to a group of prospective investors, in the PowerPoint slide show from November 2010?

Two simple questions. LarryC could presumably answer the first one, since he is a paid employee of Travis. And everyone could answer the second one, with a simple one-word answer.

Why is this distracting or "off topic"? They are just questions Leon, they are written down for me.

(My answer to the second one is "NO". My guess as to the first one is that nobody will  actually answer it, meaning "NO".)