Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

Started by mondrasek, February 13, 2014, 09:17:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 32 Guests are viewing this topic.

mondrasek

Quote from: MarkE on March 11, 2014, 10:56:23 AM
I beg to differ.  You have about 75 cells in your spreadsheet that just have values in them.  Where are the 75 corresponding equations?  We already know that the very first non-zero value in your spreadsheet was not the result of the model you represented.  Obviously, you have some issues auditing your own work to insure that it represents what you intended.  If you think others should try and read your mind, well then good luck to you.  If you won't be bothered to show your work then you have no business asking anyone to audit what you refuse to show.

I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ.  They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.

MarkE

Quote from: mondrasek on March 11, 2014, 11:02:35 AM
I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ.  They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.
Yes you asked people to double check what you refuse to show.   

QuoteAll, please check the math.  I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.

How do you know that you followed whatever methodology you think you did when you say you don't have it written down?  You complain that you don't know how to enter algebraic formulas in Excel.  Well if you didn't enter algebra on paper someplace, then what did you do?  You can show your work, or just leave the conclusion that these absurd excuses of yours show that you were never serious about the matter.

And even more amazingly, you now imply that your spreadsheet has values in it that are just filling in space.  Do you get away with this kind of crap at work?  Are your notebooks filled with numbers scattered around the page and little else?

TinselKoala

Quote from: mondrasek on March 11, 2014, 11:02:35 AM
I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ. They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.

Oh come on. I can't believe you said that.

You need to show your work, regardless of whether someone else is making the same mistakes or not. It is the only way to assure that the model you are using is correct and that the operations you are performing are properly performed. Just because two people get the same answer, or that the answer you get is what you expected to get.... and that each mathematical operation performed was correct.... that does NOT mean it's right or that you don't have to show how you got to your result!

I'm actually flabbergasted by that statement. My tenth grade geometry teacher Mrs. Landrum would have thrown me out of class for saying something like that. "But Mrs Landrum, I got the right answer, so you don't need to see how I got it....." I can see her spinning in her grave.

MarkE

It is simply not believable that Mondrasek claims he has reached an extraordinary conclusion, but he doesn't have the supporting work available.  This is as nuts as his contention that he only kept the spreadsheet for this lark on his work computer.  The story just gets more and more ridiculous.

mondrasek

I have explained and showed my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2.  That begins here:  http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999  Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.

Really guys, no spread sheet is needed to follow along.  Each presented value can be obtained by following the example and substituting the proper numbers that are shown on the presented diagram.  I am prepared to engage if you find a problem with either the reasoning, the equations used, or the resultant values that are all posted.