Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Quote from: LibreEnergia on Today at 05:10:36 AM
    Your machine would appear to raise and lower masses correct? This does not give rise to net energy output.
    You machine compresses/expands air somewhat..? again not an net energy producing effect.
    A buoyant object moves up and down..? again, not an net energy producing process.

It does not lower the value of the external work.... not a brick - the risers have weight - but they are kept neutrally buoyant at all times... they are counter balanced by the buoyancy.

Using buoyancy to lift something through any distance  trades lifting weight of the partially / fully submerged buoy with lowering an identical weight of the surrounding fluid.;

The energy accounts always balance.  Increased GPE of the buoy is matched by decreased GPE of the surrounding fluid and vice-versa.  Archimedes' Paradox may be utilized to limit the amount of fluid to supply sufficient force to statically support a buoy.  It does not reduce the energy that must be imparted in order to increase the buoy's submersion, nor the energy available decreasing the buoy's submersion.  If your brain trust does not understand that, then they are incompetent as engineers or worse.

Net energy comes from the Super Conservative process - which has nothing to do with weights... which in a nut shell is a closed looped reduced input system.

"Super Conservative" is just another meaningless term you have made up.  Hey:  "Honest Wayne Travis", closed systems don't have inputs or outputs.  That's what makes them closed.

If we use air - the air does change pressure in direct relationship to the head - air is not expanded during the external work - only during the reuses.

The system without air works better.

When it comes to generating the free energy that you falsely claim:  Your systems don't work at all.

To Be clear - no new air - no new compression - switching pressure from one side to the other does result in an change between those two sides - as described previously.

That's nice.  Such schemes invariably suffer energy loss due to the N*(X/N)² problem.  Your contraptions all run down.  This is why you have never had Mark Dansie out to perform his observation of an attempt to operate for 48 hours.

Net Energy is the by product of  a process
Thanks

Nope.  You are just lying again.

[mrwayne]

Nope. They are the same pipe dream.You built an underunity device that is less inefficient than a more trivial device an 8 year old could have designed.  What you designed does not reuse input energy.Only those with poor math or science skills could make such an egregious error to call something that does not produce any surplus output energy versus input a free energy device.Yet it has never passed Mark Dansie's very straightforward tests.  There is a simple reason:  The contraption does not produce the free energy that you falsely claim it does.Until of course it ran down the internal "pre charge".  A four year old can inflate a balloon and let it go.  It will literally pass by with flying colors.There is no need to wonder about something the contraption never did.Are they all grade school drop outs?Nope, there is not a femtoJoule of surplus energy that can be found by proper analysis.  When First Priniciples are the basis of any model, then only numerical or human error can result in a non-conservative result.They don't.  Any engineer or scientist who fails to recognize that is incompetent.No, it is physically incorrect.No, you have no such working physical system and never had.  See again that you have never passed Mark Dansie's very simple initial qualifying test.Force is not conservative.No, you invented bafflegab to try and hide the fact that you do not have what you claim.No, you came up with a scheme to defraud gullible investors and have executed against that scheme.Gravity is a field."Gravitational force" is the equivalent force due to the acceleration that occurs in a gravitational field.Force cannot be converted to energy.  Energy is the integral of the dot product of force and distance."Concentrated buoyancy" is a nonsense term you have made up.  You cannot distinguish the behavior of "concentrated buoyancy" from "ordinary buoyancy".  Archimedes' Paradox applies to buoyancy without qualification.  Dry docks and other machines have utilized Archimedes' Paradox many generations before you were born.So, once again we see the swindler Wayne Travis trying to convince people that force can be substituted for energy.  It is as silly as the person who claims one can have a bottomless checking account just so long as they have more blank checks.

MarkE,
I think the whole world knows what you think...
Thanks for something..
Wayne

[mrwayne]

It does not lower the value of the external work.... not a brick - the risers have weight - but they are kept neutrally buoyant at all times... they are counter balanced by the buoyancy.Using buoyancy to lift something through any distance  trades lifting weight of the partially / fully submerged buoy with lowering an identical weight of the surrounding fluid.;

The energy accounts always balance.  Increased GPE of the buoy is matched by decreased GPE of the surrounding fluid and vice-versa.  Archimedes' Paradox may be utilized to limit the amount of fluid to supply sufficient force to statically support a buoy.  It does not reduce the energy that must be imparted in order to increase the buoy's submersion, nor the energy available decreasing the buoy's submersion.  If your brain trust does not understand that, then they are incompetent as engineers or worse."Super Conservative" is just another meaningless term you have made up.  Hey:  "Honest Wayne Travis", closed systems don't have inputs or outputs.  That's what makes them closed.When it comes to generating the free energy that you falsely claim:  Your systems don't work at all.That's nice.  Such schemes invariably suffer energy loss due to the N*(X/N)² problem.  Your contraptions all run down.  This is why you have never had Mark Dansie out to perform his observation of an attempt to operate for 48 hours.Nope.  You are just lying again.

Pretty bold assumptions - brother.....
First - I shared how our first system does work to provide consumer end Net energy...
and you dream up schemes to twist what you do not know into stories -- and then you agree with yourself....
Of course you have not changed - that method of insulting people is what you got called out as a proven liar over and over.
Such a waste....

[powercat]

MarkE,
I think the whole world knows what you think...
Thank for something..
Wayne

That's right Wayne Travesty, you are a liar and a fraud, everyone can see it, who is coming to your defence, after all these years who has used your simple science to construct a free energy device, not even your stooges can do that, you are a joke and a fraudulent liar

[MarkE]

Pretty bold assumptions - brother.....

It is proven physics.

First - I shared how our first system does work to provide consumer end Net energy...

No, you simply retold your lies.  Your system does not deliver net output energy in excess of input energy.

and you dream up schemes to twist what you do not know into stories -- and then you agree with yourself....
Of course you have not changed - that method of insulting people is what you got called out as a proven liar over and over.
Such a waste....

The fraud: Wayne Travis once again attempts to deflect attention from his fraud and his lies by accusing others.