Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Oh come on!  And you also gave _no real answer_ to LarryC's question.  He specifically asked how his MATH is incorrect.  To do so does not require any more words.  It requires math.

LarryC has presented evidence by the accepted method of science:  A mathematical solution/analysis.  If it is correct, it is correct.  If it is incorrect, it is incorrect.  There is no gray area.  There is only one correct solution to the math.  Checking his math and process is the only correct way to move forward.

I have also presented evidence by the method of a mathematical analysis.  I have also asked for my math and process to be checked.  I thank MarkE for his assistance so far and offer to double check.  TK, your assistance with the math is also appreciated.

If anyone would like to work on LarryC's math question instead of my own, that is fine, as his work appears to show the same anomaly that I am trying to find the reason for.

Thanks,

M.

Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet.  The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities.  For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions:  Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End.  For each he lists two head values:  Riser and pod.  I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights.  These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers:  95,50  65,35  51,28  and 35,20.  Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2.  IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.

[TinselKoala]

   I want to get this straight, you lift a weight with one side of your device, you remove the
  weight and use it, and it sinks by itself and also raises a weight on the other side of your device.
   Now if that isn't a bit of magic nothing is!
                         John.

Oh, it's magic all right. And it is also something that has _never been demonstrated_. Let's not forget that part!

[MarkE]

I have placed you on ignore out of respect.


---------- Your "incontrovertible fact"  only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.

Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.

I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.

Back to ignore

Good Day.

Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page.  The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.

[mrwayne]

The phrase Can't work is understood - it is said by some - before all new discoveries.

[MarkE]

Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.

You have said much....

The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.

Wayne

Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?