Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[orbut 3000]

Interesting, and confusing... the output is Buoyancy that is immediately turned into stored hydraulic pressure - which we  used to both run the Horizontal transfer and a hydraulic motor to power the generator......
What do you think I am talking about - MarkE's imaginary machine - or mine?
Ours ZED - you utilize the buoyant lift - for what ever you want...
Now the question is - can we turn the buoyancy on cheaply? ?
In fact - can we turn it on cheaper then the transfer cost......
Well - in fact we can - and did - even our old system gererated twice the production (from the Buoyancy - than the transfer consumed...
Watch the original video closely...
And as far as the accumulator being a battery - - yep you bet..... stored the fluid till we needed it and maintained pressure..
Now the kicker - how do you tell if you are using the accumulator to power the system - or if you are filling it?
Easy answer - the accumulator pressure increases as it is filled....yep.
Here is what anyone could see --- the head pressures went up and down - in both ZEDS, corresponding with which direction the Pv was being transferred..
Second during the stroke - the production pressure exceeded the Accumulator...
The accumulator dropped pressure as the assist began - and then climbed as the production began.
And here is the kicker - we did not want the pressure to climb too high - so we bled off the production to the reservoir - not much just enough to keep the resistance on the production cylinders form climbing out of range.   
Librea... I guess you can go a head and conclude what you think is Magic, or fallacy.... I am sure it is my fault.
I do not know why understanding is limited to a Law...... what is the point of looking?
Take care.
Wayne

Take care...

Oh, look! Wayne McFraud graces us with another unintelligible wall of text. Thank you, you great teacher and inventor of scientific terms of your own creation. The enlightenment must strike any minute now.


Or, perhaps,  it's just the same old dullshit father wayne uses to emit.

[MarkE]

First - another of your lies - which you were called out on at Pesn - Tom called it the travis effect - as it was stated in the article above your lies on Pesn.

Even though there is no Travis Effect you routinely use the term yourself as part of your fraud promotion.

You were also called out for lying about MD words - which were also in the article, and you also lied claiming you spread sheet the wholething..and proved it could not work...

The fraud: Wayne Travis presents his revisionist history.

It cracks me up when you suddenly realize their is a load on the system.....

Really?  You have yet to identify an external load that the supposed output drives.

Second - show where in history where buoyancy has been explained to exceed the mass displaced...

Once again you parade your ignorance.  You confuse mass with weight and ignore Archimedes' Paradox even though it has been pointed out to you many times.

Is it jealousy..... oh my....or just having fun as a liar?

I enjoy letting frauds like you put themselves on full display for what you are.

You have no credibility what so ever...

And each time you insult good people. well you dig deeper.

So says the fraud:  Wayne Travis.

[MarkE]

I get that,, but that is not the case *IF* the ZED moves more fluid into the accumulator than the assist rams use.

There is no direct relationship between fluid volume and energy.

Then it is not 2 batteries it is 2 motors running with one generator and one battery,, the assist rams being a motor and the ZED being a motor and the production rams being the generator.

Shuffling energy within the confines of a system has nothing to do with delivering energy output.

To test for that things would need to be monitored, as in fill height of the fluid in the accumulator and the reservoir, and then it would need to be run to see if the system keeps on keeping on while filling up the accumulator.

No, in order to determine output, the actual energy that the system delivers is measured.

[LibreEnergia]

Librea... I guess you can go a head and conclude what you think is Magic, or fallacy.... I am sure it is my fault.
I do not know why understanding is limited to a Law...... what is the point of looking?

Your problem is that you are not smart enough to realise that our understanding IS limited to and defined by a 'law'. When I studied engineering I spent years sifting through the mathematics and realised that there are no exceptions to the law of conservation of energy, mass and momentum when considering the motion of objects within a gravitational field (or another conservative system)

It is comprehensively proven mathematically. So in effect no, to my mind there is no point in looking.

Unless you pose a new non-conservative theory of gravity and show it to be supported by observable facts then I'm not interested in analysing your device even one step further.

As a starting point you need to show how you can lift a mass in a way that requires less energy than the potential it gains.
Your buoyancy scheme does nothing of the sort. You only consider forces, not energy. forces are not conserved , energy is.

[MarkE]

Well,, as I have been told many times pressure is not energy,, and it is the pressure that leaves the system.

Presure leaves the system?  LOL

This is kind of the crux of the matter really,, the fluid must stay with the system, even if dumped into a reservoir,, but the pressure that went with it does not come back,, so *is* that energy leaving the system??

Pressure is not energy.  A cinder block can deliver pressure all day long. How much energy do you think that is?