Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

BTW Tom maybe you ignored the original description of the set-up:  The straws are sealed at both ends.  Water does not go up into the straws.

[mrwayne]

We never left Oklahoma.

That is funny....nice!

[mrwayne]

Wayne you are a hoot.  Maybe we should just dig up your posts promoting the idea that Mondrasek was going to teach all those skeptics something with the "ideal ZED".  Once more your tattered curtain has been pulled back to reveal once more that you have nothing such as you claim.

I would say go ahead.... but I am still waiting on you to answer your accusations and lies....
What's wrong? Can't you even admit to one of your mistakes....Let me help you.
Dear Larry, you were right all along - the serpentine process in the ZED does in fact reduce the input cost over a single column....
Just a start.....
Wayne

[MarkE]

I would say go ahead.... but I am still waiting on you to answer your accusations and lies....
What's wrong? Can't you even admit to one of your mistakes....Let me help you.
Dear Larry, you were right all along - the serpentine process in the ZED does in fact reduce the input cost over a single column....
Just a start.....
Wayne

The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.  No Wayne the nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not reduce energy input versus a single column.  The serpentine allows one to get more buoyant force in the same volume as would a single column lift.  However a simple compression spring beats both by thousands of times.  The serpentine ultimately increase losses due to additional friction copared to a single column. Kan Shi pointed that out to you two years ago.  So your "Dear LarryC" letter will have to remain your fantasy.

It's hilarious that you: the running fraud accuses me of lies.  Sadly for you you can't point out any.

Here below again and again we see the fraud and liar Wayne Travis promoting the spreadsheet work of Mike (Mondrasek) and Larry (LarryC) that has since been shown to be built on wrong assumptions and therefore yields the wrong answers.  These facts will of course not alter Wayne Travis' carnival barker routine one bit.  Wayne is stuck pretending that his BS claims are real lest he admit to all those around him that he has been cheating them for years.

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 728
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 03:49:48 PM »

    Quote

Great collaboration! I am logging out till needed.

Looks Like you Men have a great handle on the ZED system.

Wayne


Offline mrwayne

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 728
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2014, 02:45:40 PM »

    Quote

Hello Monderask,

I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.

I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.

Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.

Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".

The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.

I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.

Wayne


Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2014, 08:42:03 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:25:17 PM

    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.


Mark,

I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.

The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.

Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.

This does not require higher math to understand or verify.

Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.

Good luck.


Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #81 on: February 25, 2014, 08:52:00 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:46:29 PM

    If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.


Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.

How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.

You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.

Wayne

[MarkE]

So all you have is that picture,, a picture of a set of floats lifting up a weight after you have pushed it down,,  a set of floats that does not change,, Riser 3 fills up with water,,, where is that in your picture,, oh that's right you are trying to present the little bottle as the,, what is that supposed to be,, maybe the load,, so you are showing that a float can lift a load,, WOW!

Yes Mark,, they are sealed on both ends and it is the straws that lift the little bottle,, who'd a thunk.

No Tom: It's displaced water that lifts the water bottle.  Jeez, when are you going to learn how buoyancy works?

Now,, where are your straws on Riser 3?  I do not see them in your spreadsheet,, did you forget to include them as an outside force acting to lift Riser 3???

The riser walls are stipulated to be massless.  Yet they have volume.  Gee, what will happen when they displace water, weighing as they do nothing and the water weighing pWater * G₀ * the displaced volume?

They are not there to lift it up, so Riser 3 is nothing more than an inverted cup with water trapped inside that has been lifted so that the water inside is higher than the water outside,, now what kind of physics calls that a float with a positive lift value??  Oh yeah,, that's right Mark's "special" physics.

Wrong again Tom.  You obviously still do not understand buoyancy.  It's pathetic.

How many insults are you going to throw out there and how many times are you going to lie about the simple fact that Riser 3 stops with any lift force and any assistance to lift after it has crossed that much lower line in the water.

Since it is you who are dead wrong, I am sticking to my physically correct statements.

I am not forgetting about Riser 2, Riser 1 and the Pod,, it is those that lift the dead weight of Riser 3 up.  Riser 2 does not help so much,, that is a shame because it is carrying the direct weight of Riser 3 when Riser 3 no longer has a positive lift force

The demonstration clearly shows that the water levels are equal in the third picture just after the vent has been closed.  There is no differential pressure between the inside and outside.  That is the same condition as Mondraseks's State 1, and part way between State 2 and State 3 when AR7 and AR6 are at the same level.  Yet the assembly complete with water inside the water bottle lifts up, thus refuting the claim you moronically repeat that the "ideal ZED" will not rise past the AR7 / AR6 equalization point.  You are wrong, I have shown this many times now, but you obstinately cling to your fantasies.