Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mondrasek]

Of course, I do have to "pre-charge" the 1.2 volt battery but, there is no need to put that into my pin pout calculations right?  So, that means I have a circuit that must be overunity then right?

"Pre-charge" or "manufacturing cost" or "set-up energy" are Energies that do not leave the system.  If they are present at the initial State 1(x) of the cycle, they must still be present at the final State 1(x) of the cycle.  That is the case with the Ideal ZED being analyzed.  All of the Energy in State 1(x) is still present inside the ZED after it completes a full cycle from State 1(x) to State 2 to State 3 and back to State 1(x).

Please note that there is no return from State 3 to State 2 in that cycle. 

The "pre-charge" in your example is misnamed.  It is actually just a "charge."  It is analogous to the Energy used to charge the Ideal ZED from State 1(x) to State 2.

[powercat]

What a dolt,, Wayne tells me to forget about trying with this group and you make that into what???
Out of the last 80 posts of yours how many were informative and how many were BS posts just like this one?
I think it is YOU who lost credibility a while ago when you started on a rampage of destruction,, forget about anything else destroy at all costs,, that is a really special approach.
Same thing goes for MarkE,, lets not pay attention to the REAL stuff lets just do our best, and even lie about it, to destroy and belittle the "other" people,,
Is gravity conservative?  MarkE says no, I think it is.

That's right I have a special approach, but if you are paying attention you would see that I only attack people that make OU claims they can't support, like yourself Red, and Wayne,

if you were doing some honest research I would be encouraging you,  have done my own research and posted the results here on a couple of occasions,and find generally most members get along very nicely, by what doesn't work and causes the problems is the BS OU claims without any evidence to support the claim.

You think you're so special, where is your working device ? oh yes you're full of BS you have never had a working device and you never will, all you can do is post propaganda for the $2000 Wayne Travesty,  bet you always tell the truth just like Wayne . go ahead divert the argument on to my capabilities, instead of backing up your words and producing a working OU device, how very productive of you.

[minnie]

     Webby,
                you've seen the transfer can be done almost 100% with the turntable
and an (almost perfect) bearing. Try and achieve the same with some sort of
pumping device.
    See if you can beat a 99+% spring. A spring can be a very efficient energy
storage device!
   Travis himself can't answer a straight question-because he can't tell a lie.
Is his 600+% claim a lie? What would you think?
                               John.

[MarkE]

I am not pissing and moaning Mark, you are, you and your friends are all whining just like a little school girl who does not get her way.

Sure you are.  You're bitching that the spreadsheet doesn't let you have different riser vertical and horizontal wall thicknesses.  You keep trying to represent that the parameter:  RiserWallThickness has been improperly used in height calculations, stating that width is not the same as height.  While your statement that width is not the same as height is true, it's another of your straw man arguments.  The spreadsheet uses the parameter RiserWallThickness to define how thick the riser walls are whether or not they are vertical or horizontal walls.  Now where are these errors you keep claiming exist in the R4 spreadsheet?

According to MarkE it takes twice as much work to pump in water to fill a tube than can be had when the water leaves the tube,, even if there is no heat or friction it still loses 1\2 of the input.

Nope, the lost energy goes into heat.  So, either you do not understand what I have told you many times now, or you are a liar.  Idiot or liar: which are you Tom?

I may be accused of missing things,, but I know that that would mean that energy is being destroyed,, so MarkE is now having everyone believe that energy can be destroyed.

Nope, the energy is converted to heat.  You clearly do not understand.

Try to prove me wrong MarkE.

I already have many times now.

Pumping water into the tube takes how much work and therefore how much energy,, and then when the water exits the tube how much work can be collect from that water,, is that not just funny,, they are the same amount.

PooF goes MarkE's argument,, using BS conditions that are very specific and then generalizing them is BS,,  MarkE do you understand the requirements for your system to work, I think not.

Nope.  Obviously you do not understand the real physics that results in the real loss whenever one takes an energy potential from a single store and attempts to divide it with other stores.  You suffer under the delusion that you can transfer potential energy from one store to another without either first converting the potential energy to kinetic and then moving it to the second store, or losing a large percentage of the energy.  In short:  You present yourself as ignorant and unteachable.

MarkE is stating that the most you can get out of something falling under the influence of gravity is 1\2 that force,, and yet he calls gravity conservative.

Again, it is clear that you don't understand what I have shown you, or like you have done before you are trying to create a straw man argument.  It really doesn't matter whether your problem is ignorance or a bad case of being veracity challenged.  You've established that you cannot support your claims even so far as they extend to what it is that I have said.

I use words my way MarkE,, and those definitions for those words actually work,, You must live in a sad place because no one else can understand you and you most defiantly can not understand them,, resistance is futile,, resistance is resistance.

There it is:  The world according to Tom Web, not the world according to science.  That's called magical thinking.

[MarkE]

Really?

You like to flip-flop with whoever you think is on top,, what kind of yo-yo are you then.

I have stayed the same through this whole thing, no change from me, still saying the same things that I started with.

What goes up with some force comes back down with that same force,, not 1\2 of that force.

I talk about applied force,, you talk about sheep.

3700lbs of force 4 inch ram moving 8 inches 2 times per minute IIRC that was the lift force for the ZED

You talk a bunch of nonsense.  If you think you can cheat the N*(X/N)² problem then show a mechanism that you claim does so for your two cylinder lifter.  You have failed to do so for months for the simple reason that you have no such mechanism.  You present yourself as not even able to comprehend the problem.