Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

So you still think a lossy system can not provide a out put lol....
Making your statements will not change the physics -
p.s. there are lots of people to help you.

No words change nature.  Your bull shit claims are against nature.  It's awesome to watch you lie so effortlessly, constantly promoting what you know you never had and can never deliver.

[MarkE]

VERY LOSSY, I mean really lossy.... I have said that from the beginning lol....
But since the source of the natural occurring force that drives the differential values between the primary conversion is..... well..... "free" - we have an abundant GAIN.
Here is the limitation you set for yourself - any loss means no free lunch...... well you have to consider what causes head pressure - and how head pressure can be redistributed in a system to understand a ZED....
No magic - just use of available force utilized over a distance 

There is no energy gain in your system.  There is no alteration of the conservative nature of gravity.  Your contraption lifts and lowers weights losing externally supplied energy to heat each and every cycle.  Your church, your home, your business, none of these are powered by your contraption, because your contraption does not do what you claim.

[MarkE]

Ok men,
I have some work to do - so lets see if the puppets actual talk about a fact or not....
My bet - 15 posts of insults avoiding any mathematical facts...regarding:
Multiple systems being more efficient

I love it when you use empty suggestive phrases such as this.

Free flow actual values

There's more!

Pv in versus PV out of a layered ZED

And more.

Force over a distance being a measurable energy..

You are really on a roll here.

Or even this silly point - if a system produces Excess energy every stroke  - and matches the Math - what should change? The belief system it is impossible - or the facts...
Good day

The fact is that your contraptions lose energy to waste heat on every stroke.  They consume what you put into them.  They add nothing.

[mrwayne]

.I've done the math and presented it comprehensively.  The "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy as you admit the "real ZED" is.  That's the end of the story against your phony free energy claims.

Lol - you have done a pop up of a layered single tank -
Don't think you are fooling anyone... Do the real operation - doing work and real free flow values..
Shoot just explain how after precharge and a load is lifted and removed - the same input energy is still in the system..
the use of two ZED is obvious - let me help you .
After a load is lifted - removed and never allowed to POP UP - a simple three layer system can transfer over 50% of the stored head to the other ZED
What does that do to a two ZED system - reduces the input cost by at least 50%... well how does that help? Well -- as I said last year - then half the load cost is free - as long as the load lifted is worth more than 50% of the ideal - you have NET ENEGY.....
You my un-Skeptic, have proven our point - and then dodged the truth since.....
Wayne 

[mrwayne]

Levers have been known for thousands of years.  It's hilarious that you claim you've invented something that old.

Oh so now its a lever...... OK
So in a five gallon bucket - you can make a lever long enough to lift 4000 pounds with 24 pounds of pressure and 12 cubic inches of input - Well done..
Did you copy the ZED?

Well, Like I shared last year also - adding layers to the system is like a liquid lever - except - each layer reduces the distance needed to preform the same function as a lever.
That's something else Larry showed - More layers less volume to pressure.......... think about it...
SO - Mark - if that's who you want to be called right now - can you make a lever where both ends of the lever are the same length - and still amplify the force?
The Zed is a cool anomaly