Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 762854 times)

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2235 on: April 16, 2014, 02:31:37 PM »
Wayne, your descriptions are  meaningless crap and you know it.

The description "force amplification - with reduced input " IS identically equal to saying that it is an over-unity device.

Would you like to invent some more spin to try and convince the weak minded?

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.

What else does it do? magic? if so describe that...
I am not sure who you refer to as weak minded?
I don't see either side of this discussion as weak minded. I see some people who do not think outside parameters they have ingrained in their heads - and those willing to look beyond the standard education system.
As far as my "meanings" - do you have a vocabulary to describe a real free energy device -
Not an easy discussion -  and then try to have that discussion with individuals who think shoving everything into their mental box makes it right and what does not fit in their mental box must not be allowed in the discussion.
.........................
I could, but will not waste my last day sharing all of the unprofessional conducts by others on this Web Site - they made their own bed - for history - I had no ill will for them.
.........................
In my life I have had to face armed robbers, crazed dope heads, punks and bullies...I have had to protect my family and our liberty.
The punk threats by MarkE against my liberty......oh brother ...... big man safe behind his computer. What I see.......All that intelligence wasted. A wise man told me - in life - someone had to be the bad example.
You started asking good questions - oh yeah...I did not forget the insults of your past - but again - they only harm those speaking... I did not hold it against you.
No matter what you think you know - question it.
 My time is very short, take care... but think outside a bit.
The BINGO post was the path out of the box......
Good luck.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2236 on: April 16, 2014, 02:55:04 PM »
I am not sure who you refer to as weak minded?
I don't see either side of this discussion as weak minded. I see some people who do not think outside parameters they have ingrained in their heads - and those willing to look beyond the standard education system.
As far as my "meanings" - do you have a vocabulary to describe a real free energy device -
Not an easy discussion -  and then try to have that discussion with individuals who think shoving everything into their mental box makes it right and what does not fit in their mental box must not be allowed in the discussion.
.........................
I could, but will not waste my last day sharing all of the unprofessional conducts by others on this Web Site - they made their own bed - for history - I had no ill will for them.
.........................
In my life I have had to face armed robbers, crazed dope heads, punks and bullies...I have had to protect my family and our liberty.
The punk threats by MarkE against my liberty......oh brother ...... big man safe behind his computer. What I see.......All that intelligence wasted. A wise man told me - in life - someone had to be the bad example.
You started asking good questions - oh yeah...I did not forget the insults of your past - but again - they only harm those speaking... I did not hold it against you.
No matter what you think you know - question it.
 My time is very short, take care... but think outside a bit.
The BINGO post was the path out of the box......
Good luck.
The fraud Wayne Travis repeats his suggestions that there is something behind his tattered curtain.  There isn't.

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2237 on: April 16, 2014, 03:19:54 PM »
The fraud Wayne Travis repeats his suggestions that there is something behind his tattered curtain.  There isn't.
Dear MarkE,

I have not hid behind anything.

My Name and Address and phone number is posted here....

--- big difference between you and I, I focus on my technology....

Do some good - go invent something..

Take Care.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2238 on: April 16, 2014, 03:26:35 PM »



    What about capturing an under water fart in a suitable container, displacing some
     water and bingo you've a way of turning buoyancy on?
                       John.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2239 on: April 16, 2014, 03:27:21 PM »
Dear MarkE,

I have not hid behind anything.

My Name and Address and phone number is posted here....

--- big difference between you and I, I focus on my technology....

Do some good - go invent something..

Take Care.
The fraud: Wayne Travis speaks.  You don't have any technology Wayne.  You have the lies you use to sell your bogus investments.

Here is a quick pop quiz:  Suppose Wayne wants to lift a 1kg payload weight 100cm.  Let's help Wayne find the most efficient means to do that.  Assume all the gear is frictionless, and structure mass is zero.

a. How about a block and tackle.  It will take just a smidge more than 0.98J to lift the weight 100cm.
b. How about a hydraulic ram?  How much will it take?
c. How about a buoyancy device?  How much will it take?
c.1. How about a ZED like buoyancy device?  How much energy will it take?


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2240 on: April 16, 2014, 03:28:43 PM »


    What about capturing an under water fart in a suitable container, displacing some
     water and bingo you've a way of turning buoyancy on?
                       John.
If you can find some buoyancy that suffers from stress or glaucoma then there's doctors in San Francisco who can turn on that buoyancy.

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2241 on: April 16, 2014, 05:08:53 PM »
The description "force amplification - with reduced input " IS identically equal to saying that it is an over-unity device.


The Difference is one is a impossible dream - free energy from nothing - and the other is a machine that uses a unique process to provide Net Energy.

They are not identical at all.

Let me guide you to the difference ---- the path we were faced with...

I built a extremely efficient Buoyancy related force increaser - also designed in a manner that allowed the reuses of the input as a cost reduction, resulting in the re-use being greater than the losses in the process.

So originally - everyone called it a free energy device --PM, or Free energy...

And we put it thru the input output tests - passed with flying colors...........

The next assumed proof was - make it run itself.......Passed with flying colors.......

The immature and incorrect question was "HOW DOES IT 'CREATE' Energy.............

I asked our engineers - Show me the data that shows it creates energy.........

The result - if you look at the end product - it is free energy - but if you look at any of the steps in the process - they conform to normal physics.....and we have free energy

How can the sum of lossy systems result in Created energy???

Of course I know that is what you all have been saying.... it seems logically incorrect.

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

Our saving grace - was a physical system that worked... so we did not attack each other or give up on finding the answer.

In the process of uncovering the ability to amplify the force and then change its orientation - we found the answer.

Yeah - we had to create terms to explain the difference between creation and amplification.

Yeah - we had to come to grips with the whole notion of Overunity and the expected conditions that must exist for over unity to exist - are immature as claiming to create energy.

I suggest you read the BINGO Response - ]

Start asking - is gravity "energy" or is it "force" -

If gravity can be seen as a force - then does the LAWs regarding energy still apply?

If you find that it is force - then build a force amplification system and then convert the force to energy.

Concentrated buoyancy works very well....one more hint - don't do things the same in both directions...that is a brick...

Wayne

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2242 on: April 16, 2014, 05:24:01 PM »


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.

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.

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.

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.

Net Energy is the by product of  a process
Thanks

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2243 on: April 16, 2014, 07:28:02 PM »
I subtracted in one place,, and added the st3=>st1,, this may be wrong and I am trying to get the correct way of looking at it.

I have been trying to figure out where I can add the riser weight force in two places, and or how to do that,,  in state 0 it makes no change and I would have to change the state 0 to state 1 prefill energy.

I was thinking that if it is added at state 0, then there would be a negative input as the weight falls.

A little help please.
Three states:  S1, S2, S3
The assembly is restrained in S1, and S2.  In both  states the weight offsets down force that would otherwise be applied by the restraint.  The idea is that in S1 it completely replaces it.  In both these states the weight is in its lower position.  We can arbitrarily assign this as zero.  In S3 the weight is elevated by the uplift distance of ~2.4mm.

S1 => S2 energy in, unchanged from w/o the weight
S2 => S3 Internal energy increased by the new greater GPE of the weight.  (Available energy out also reduced identically compared to the original scheme.)
S3 => S1 Internal energy decreased by the return of the GPE of the weight to the assigned zero value.  (Available energy out also increased identically compared to the original scheme.)

Each state the total available energy remains the same as does the cyclical energy.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2244 on: April 16, 2014, 07:50:15 PM »
The Difference is one is a impossible dream - free energy from nothing - and the other is a machine that uses a unique process to provide Net Energy.
Nope. They are the same pipe dream.
Quote

They are not identical at all.

Let me guide you to the difference ---- the path we were faced with...

I built a extremely efficient Buoyancy related force increaser - also designed in a manner that allowed the reuses of the input as a cost reduction, resulting in the re-use being greater than the losses in the process.
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.
Quote

So originally - everyone called it a free energy device --PM, or Free 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.
Quote

And we put it thru the input output tests - passed with flying colors...........
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.
Quote

The next assumed proof was - make it run itself.......Passed with flying colors.......
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.
Quote

The immature and incorrect question was "HOW DOES IT 'CREATE' Energy.............
There is no need to wonder about something the contraption never did.
Quote

I asked our engineers - Show me the data that shows it creates energy.........
Are they all grade school drop outs?
Quote

The result - if you look at the end product - it is free energy - but if you look at any of the steps in the process - they conform to normal physics.....and we have free energy
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.
Quote

How can the sum of lossy systems result in Created energy???
They don't.  Any engineer or scientist who fails to recognize that is incompetent.
Quote

Of course I know that is what you all have been saying.... it seems logically incorrect.
No, it is physically incorrect.
Quote

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

Our saving grace - was a physical system that worked... so we did not attack each other or give up on finding the answer.
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.
Quote

In the process of uncovering the ability to amplify the force and then change its orientation - we found the answer.
Force is not conservative.
Quote

Yeah - we had to create terms to explain the difference between creation and amplification.
No, you invented bafflegab to try and hide the fact that you do not have what you claim.
Quote

Yeah - we had to come to grips with the whole notion of Overunity and the expected conditions that must exist for over unity to exist - are immature as claiming to create energy.
No, you came up with a scheme to defraud gullible investors and have executed against that scheme.
Quote

I suggest you read the BINGO Response - ]

Start asking - is gravity "energy" or is it "force" -
Gravity is a field.
Quote

If gravity can be seen as a force - then does the LAWs regarding energy still apply?
"Gravitational force" is the equivalent force due to the acceleration that occurs in a gravitational field.
Quote

If you find that it is force - then build a force amplification system and then convert the force to energy.
Force cannot be converted to energy.  Energy is the integral of the dot product of force and distance.
Quote

Concentrated buoyancy works very well....one more hint - don't do things the same in both directions...that is a brick...
"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.
Quote

Wayne
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2245 on: April 16, 2014, 08:06:47 PM »
Quote
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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

Net Energy is the by product of  a process
Thanks
Nope.  You are just lying again.

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2246 on: April 16, 2014, 08:22:41 PM »
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
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 10:32:44 PM by mrwayne »

mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2247 on: April 16, 2014, 08:29:23 PM »
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2248 on: April 16, 2014, 08:37:01 PM »
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #2249 on: April 16, 2014, 09:01:39 PM »
Pretty bold assumptions - brother.....
It is proven physics.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.