Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

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......

LOL buoyancy is a force not energy. Ergo you admit that your contraptions do not output energy.  Ergo you admit your fraud.  QED.

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...

No output energy. See above.

Now the question is - can we turn the buoyancy on cheaply??

Do you get discount drugs in Chickasha?

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...

There it is more WT bafflegab.  Note the avoidance of the word: "energy".

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.   

And yet you still can't point to any external work that your contraption performs.

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...

Yes, why worry about reality when running an investment fraud?

[MarkE]

Hello Librea.... -  I thought you totally missed it - but you did not - you just don't believe it - and no plausible answer has been offered....
Well that is the hard part - I actually gave you the answer - but it apparently did not make sense.
Here it is in shortened version - the Series connection of the layers mechanically allows for the reduction of input required to create buoyancy - which simultaneously produces (hydraulic production) and stores the input in the form of head pressure.
The buoyancy can be generated more efficiently than a seal less hydraulic cylinder -
And after that generation - the head pressure can be used to offset and reduce the cost of the other ZED - additionally improving the performance of each stroke.
Our little ZED was 160% efficient....
Here is your problem and many others - the answer is so simple you ignore it.....
It is your assumption that breaking the laws of conservation in a process must exceed understanding...... and sadly - it is so simple.
..............................
  Those two points is all you need - so the question about the Math should be - how efficient is the lift of the ZED?
How much of the Head can be reused?
You only need to know those two things to see "what was made harder by assuming difficulty".
If you can step outside what is assumed and see what is presented.... it is eye opening.
Thanks Good night

Loss compounds loss.

[mrwayne]

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.

Oh I understand Librea..... I understand exactly what you just said...
I probably understand better than any single person in the world......
........................
I recommend you print your note you just sent - because when the denial, bargaining, frustrations, anger, acceptance and then realization hits you - and you realize that you worked to suppress a technology ............. this note you just wrote -
Explains exactly who was at fault - it was not your good education, it was not your failed attempts, it was your pride....
You ignored the simple truth - because you decided to.

[mrwayne]

Loss compounds loss.

MarkE - if you put the smartest and dumbest man on this web site in the same room - you would be alone in that room....
One thing is for sure - you make TK look good.....
My prayers for you and TK's Good health.

[mrwayne]

You only consider forces, not energy. forces are not conserved , energy is.

BINGO!!!
I watched the move Monster inc with my daughter - and when the Abominable Snow man offer the others yellow snow cones they refused.... and I went.... that is weird why did they refuse the snow cones.......
And then DUHHHH ... Yellow snow cones........ gross...... and I laughed out of turn.....
Now - you have unlocked the secret to free energy in your last sentence----- and when it hits you - or others - you are going to have a wave of OHMY GOSH  Wave over you....
It is a great and refreshing  DUHHHH moment.......

Of course you can not use energy to make more energy .......... "you know" the laws surrounding energy have no loop holes.... right.... Right.
And as long as you turn everything into energy -- you will never see free energy -- right .... Right......................
................DO you remember the mistake that all previous attempts to find free energy in buoyancy led to .... the discovery that Force and energy are not always equivalent measures of each other.....
So you can have force gain - but not Energy gain...... right? The Energy reference does not match.
And with buoyancy - being 33% efficient on the energy side - even if you saw a 100%  force gain in your lift predictions - you still were only 66% efficient....
Sucks hard...... I know I built a 24 foot tall bucket brigade systems before I built a ZED.
Here is where the inspiration hit - mechanical force amplification is everywhere - but how to make it more valuable then the energy reference???
Oh - since you probably did not actually read what I shared two years ago....
Energy Reference Mapping - the key to all building and designing all Free energy machines ---
Works like this - time - distance and mass are accounted for and mapped on a system.
Then you invent ways to alter one without altering the others --- We have five separate ways to do it here in our labs....
In the ZED - the alteration is TIME....... MarkE has worked hard to suppress that fact.
You see... and maybe the puzzle pieces will begin to click together.... to get a 33% efficient system to 100% efficient - you can reduce the time by "three" and your energy reference map is now 100%
THEN - Water column equalization between two columns NETS ENERGY.....
...................
Let it sink in - you may not be able to alter Energy - but you can FORCE....
Now - How many of your brain limiting Energy limiting LAWS were meant to apply to force......
Yeah.... none......
SO--- the maturity that was mocked - about Overunity versus NET Energy.....
Energy creation is the false idea of over unity - wrapped up in the LAW....
Net Energy is force amplification - into energy.....
Thanks