Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[fletcher]

Let us suppose that such a thing were possible:  Work and energy would not change their meanings.  Gravity would not change its meaning.  And certainly conservative would not need a new meaning.  What would be needed is an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is not conservative.  Would objects have to travel at some super high or low speed?  Would two bodies have to have some extremely large mass separated by some small distance, etc, etc.

We would indeed need an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is NOT conservative ! I have always agreed with that statement - especially if a bona fide mechanical device using gravity only were to do external work & self sustain itself - then, given current understanding & terminologies, the non-conservative nature of, & the special mechanical circumstances where it could occur, would need further rendering & perhaps addendum to the laws.

You may mean:  integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where where F is constant over and in the direction of the path is F*S the the same as the integral of F*ds which is work.We know Netown's Second Law:  F=mA.  Again, direction of the force and direction of acceleration matter.  A satellite accelerates constantly, and is subjected to force constantly, but for practical purposes, no energy is expended.

Mark .. when I write something it usually isn't in isolation - usually it has some relevant context to give it substance or greater meaning - in this case I didn't think further clarification was necessary as I was talking about force & displacement in the context of the Work Energy Equivalence Principle - vis-a-vis, work can only be done on an object in the direction of the force, & I did talk about a constant acceleration so the descriptive of integral wasn't required IMO - clearly a satellite in orbit is accelerating but the gravity force is normal to the direction therefore no work is done on it, in the context of my comments.

Forces are not conservative.  The gravitational field is conservative.  The force on a 10lb weight is not the force on a 20lb weight.

It is common vernacular to talk about conservative forces [I'm pretty sure you used the term] - clearly since f = ma where there is a mass component intersecting with a field or gradient of potential etc then a force results - if the mass is larger or smaller so is the force however the gravitational acceleration remains the same.

N.B. F = ma is not as fundamental a principle as say the laws of thermodynamics - clearly there are exceptions as you pointed out when the directions are not aligned & I addressed - however that argument I consider to be outside the context or intent of my original comments.

ETA: you can take it as a given from me that I'm also not talking about relativistic speeds & changing mass or inertia etc.

[minnie]

 
    Hi Fletcher,
                  nice to see you again. Have you had a look at the analysis?
     We've had 500 ewes giving birth so have had a lot to do!
     If I get a chance I'll try and find my pencil and have a bit of a go!
         I reckon any machine would be 1,000's of tons, if it did happen to
      work, which we mostly think it wouldn't.
          Fair play to Webby,, he'll prove it if he can!
       Got to go and nourish the pets.
                        John.
        They've had double D's, Double Dipping and Double Dealing.
        We get double D at laming time Death and Destruction, even
         after 60 years of it I still get upset by losing animals but it's
         part of the job I suppose.
                          John
     

[MarkE]

We would indeed need an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is NOT conservative ! I have always agreed with that statement - especially if a bona fide mechanical device using gravity only were to do external work & self sustain itself - then, given current understanding & terminologies, the non-conservative nature of, & the special mechanical circumstances where it could occur, would need further rendering & perhaps addendum to the laws.

None of which requires new language, and certainly not the kind of bafflegab spewed by Wayne Travis.

Mark .. when I write something it usually isn't in isolation - usually it has some relevant context to give it substance or greater meaning - in this case I didn't think further clarification was necessary as I was talking about force & displacement in the context of the Work Energy Equivalence Principle - vis-a-vis, work can only be done on an object in the direction of the force, & I did talk about a constant acceleration so the descriptive of integral wasn't required IMO - clearly a satellite in orbit is accelerating but the gravity force is normal to the direction therefore no work is done on it, in the context of my comments.

The problem with getting loose with language is that there are those here who routinely misrepresent.  Misrepresentation is the foundation of the Travis/HER/Zydro fraud.

It is common vernacular to talk about conservative forces [I'm pretty sure you used the term]

No not where I come from it isn't, because: force is not conserved.  A lever proves that.

- clearly since f = ma

F=mA.  F is a vector, A is a vector.

where there is a mass component intersecting with a field or gradient of potential etc then a force results - if the mass is larger or smaller so is the force however the gravitational acceleration remains the same.

N.B. F = ma is not as fundamental a principle as say the laws of thermodynamics - clearly there are exceptions as you pointed out when the directions are not aligned & I addressed - however that argument I consider to be outside the context or intent of my original comments.

No, F=mA works just fine outside relativistic speeds.  And again:  F is a vector as is A.  Directionality is intrinsic to the equation.

ETA: you can take it as a given from me that I'm also not talking about relativistic speeds & changing mass or inertia etc.

[fletcher]

Hi John .. yep, I come from a farming background so know well the hardships of lambing etc - same reticence when I have to kill some house or dog tucker, but the job has to be done.

Haven't looked at the R4 spreadsheet John - just back after 2 months away with things to take care of here that take precedence - actually I trust MarkE's skills in putting that model together accurately - it was done in conjunction with others input such as Mondrasek & Webby I believe, so it is probably representative enough for analysis purposes - where the problem appears to be is in the interpretation of what it is showing & what's going on - there is a disconnect, mainly between MarkE & Webby, about the residual energy left from going from S3 back to S1 i.e. S1>S2>S3>S1 - it appears that S3 has a higher energy level than S1 with the crux being that extra volume under pressure can be vented elsewhere at no cost to return to S1 energy levels - perhaps I got this wrong but MarkE or Webby or Mondrasek can set this straight.

BTW .. Mondrasek kindly sent me a revision of Mark's R4 spreadsheet with his own observations & conclusions - I will leave it to him to throw that in the ring or not, as he sees fit - I am not about to play catchup when I have so much else going on at the moment so I can't cross check the work that's been done until I have the mind space & time to do so properly - besides there are capable people already on the job.

.....................................

MarkE .. whatever mate - yeah, I know force is a vector as do most high school graduates.

.....................................

Comment: Until Wayne Travis produces a bona fide independently verified mechanical machine that runs on gravity [aka buoyancy] & does external work & doesn't need internal replenishment of energy then I see no further value in hashing & rehashing the last two years of thread content & increasingly personal & subjective comments about individuals on all sides of the debate.

I feel that the hardline skeptics have dutifully & vocally warned me of the high probability of fraud in the claims & representations - whilst personally I would not invest [& I know that WT is not looking for further investment] I also believe that any investment, even in emerging technology, is inherently a high risk scenario - 'caveat emptor' comes to mind - personally, I don't feel the need to act as defender of the truth or cast myself into the role of fish mongers wife routing the snake oil salesman - ateotd WT has made his bed - he will lie in it, one way or another - history would say that it is unlikley that WT will ever come thru but stranger things have happened - if he does I would be pleased.

Right now, without that demonstrable machine, both sides argue on positions of faith - faith in science & faith in that the extraordinary is possible - seldom do I take any position on faith alone.

[TinselKoala]

Faith may move mountains (or it may not; I've never seen a mountain moved by faith, have you?)

But Faith will never move a Zed, nor will it start your car or feed your family.

Nor, in spite of the claims of some religious splinter groups, will faith alone suffice to open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. That takes Good Works, actual practical applications of one's faith, or perhaps in spite of it .... something sorely lacking in what honest Wayne Travis has been pretending to present.