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 38 Guests are viewing this topic.

MarkE

Quote from: webby1 on April 06, 2014, 08:49:44 AM
Mark,

I have tried to tell you that you are wrong, I have tried to show you where you went wrong, but none of these have worked to help you see what you are doing that is wrong.

Your Revision 4 spreadsheet is broken, but when it is fixed your calculated lift distance is not ~2.59mm, is it,, it is back down to ~1.6mm even tho in your revision 3 you called it close to ~1.47mm.

I did my due diligence to go and figure out what you are using and how you are using it, as is shown by my volumes to distance and all things being zero at the end.  I did this even tho I do not agree with you so that I, at least, can have a better understanding of what it is you are seeing.

This is how investigations work,, you see things one way, I see them another then we should try to understand each others POV and answer our own questions from that,, all of this also, in a positive communication.

To start things off.

This proves that the nested system does not behave the same as a single piston system.

What is that proof?

If AR7 were sealed to Riser 3 at the height of AR7 at the end of state 1 and then the input fluid were added Riser 3 would only lift ~1.6mm
Webby you have now changed the formulas in your spreadsheet.  If you want to continue lying about what is there for all to see, then go ahead.  The fact is that you have brought your numbers to match the R4 spreadsheet.  Where you are getting different lift numbers beats the hell out of me because your spreadsheet gets to 0 force in state 3 using the R4 lift distance that you dispute.   As you can see your formulas reference the correctly computed 2.59mm lift value from the R4 spreadsheet.  I have shown you how the physics work, how to do the math and you still come up confused.  What motivates one to be as belligerently stupid as you present yourself completely escapes me.

mrwayne

Boy Mark,
You sure like to point at people and call them "Stupid" a lot......
I am definitely not as smart as you. You have proven to me your ability.
Wayne



mrwayne

Quote from: MarkE on April 06, 2014, 05:04:55 AM
The false physics claims are 'Honest Wayne Travis' own.  The last thing that Wayne Travis wants around is anyone competent to point out the obvious fact that his contraption does not do what he claims and never can.

Patent lawyers do what they are paid to do:  Usually that is prepare the application in a form generally accepted by the USPTO.  Patent lawyers will be happy to run prior art searches if the inventor pays for that service.  Very few firms review claimed inventions for actual utility.
Gee Mark, I am sorry you had that experience.
On my Inventions - We were refused until their own engineers evaluated our system.
Of course - We enlisted the "best" on purpose - to protect all of us from both inventor error and engineer mistake - or abuse as you described.
Our lawyers and Firm has a solid policy against inventions that had the intention of Net Energy - until ours -  proof is first, and best.
Take care.
...smile.....

 

MarkE

Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 10:10:05 AM
Boy Mark,
You sure like to point at people and call them "Stupid" a lot......
I am definitely not as smart as you. You have proven to me your ability.
Wayne
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  Only idiots and frauds claim as you and your disciples of duplicity do that cyclically lifting and lowering weights yields net energy.  Poor Tom can't seem to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

MarkE

Quote from: mrwayne on April 06, 2014, 10:26:22 AM
Gee Mark, I am sorry you had that experience.
On my Inventions - We were refused until their own engineers evaluated our system.
Of course - We enlisted the "best" on purpose - to protect all of us from both inventor error and engineer mistake - or abuse as you described.
Our lawyers and Firm has a solid policy against inventions that had the intention of Net Energy - until ours -  proof is first, and best.
Take care.
...smile.....


Any engineer who thinks that your claims are genuine is a blabbering fool who should be kept away from tools lest he or she hurt themselves.  You have no proof of your claims.  But it's awesome that you just keep soldiering on with your lies.  Keep building that record of scienter Wayne.