Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED (Read 754654 times)

mrwayne · « **Reply #435 on:** March 04, 2014, 03:52:02 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 04, 2014, 07:52:35 AM

He is "fully funded". Money from new investors has been used to buy out or service interest obligations of older original investors. Check the WIKI for what that system is called.

Bu you might well ask yourself what he IS doing here, since we are an insignificant internet forum and every second he spends here is a second that he is not spending saving the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. Personally I think he is trying to build credibility and interest, just like in the old locked thread, and when he sees that he cannot meet the challenges from people here.... he will again ask Stefan to lock the thread, or perhaps he'll just go away. Mad. After all, when you have a self-running machine, even a "5 hp net" one.... people will find out and will come and take a look. People like DIA, CIA, Mossad, NKVD, you name it. Free energy from a device that can run itself has immediate and game-changing military applications, as I have pointed out before. The mere fact that Travis is posting his nonsense here and can't wait to get back on after his dinner, is very strong evidence that nobody, really, is interested in him except some people he's charmed the pants off...er, I mean charmed the wallets out of. They are paying for his "expectations" and his projected milestone dates, with the hope that Wayne will _someday_ be able to translate his fantasy into reality. This milestone day will never come. It will be next month, next week or even tomorrow... but tomorrow something else will prevent the current prototype from continuing to "run" once the Flow Assist stops being put in from outside.

John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

Third - they first rights ----

and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....

You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne

MarkE · « **Reply #436 on:** March 04, 2014, 03:52:53 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on March 04, 2014, 02:27:43 PM

Mark, thanks for pointing out the contradictions in Wayne's claims. It's almost sad that Wayne can get away with that verbage where he claims that he is "explaining" how his system allegedly works and almost nobody complains. He doesn't get away with it completely though, some people can recognize it for the nonsense that it is.

I am certainly not you, that's for sure, I am my own person. Nor am I being paid by anybody, that's ridiculous.

I make a thought experiment. I think of some well-meaning couple that may have sunk their life's savings into Wayne's fake proposition. Chances are they will never see that money again. It may take away the funds that they wanted to use to finance their son's or daughter's college education and now that dream is lost. It's lost because they fell hook, line, and sinker for Wayne's nonsense. Their children get hurt because of this, and the confidence artist does not care. I care.

Even though it's all purely a hypothetical, nothing more than a thought experiment, these things really do happen in real life. It makes me mad.

Standing up to Wayne and others of his ilk in this thread or elsewhere can make a difference. Let's assume that there are anonymous lurkers that read threads like this. Reading here gives them valuable information that they might otherwise not get. It's takes them out of their investment fantasy delusions and prevents them from handing their life savings over to some con artist. That's worth a "battle" every now and then, and note that both parties contribute equally to the "battle."

MileHigh

It takes all kinds. There are people who toll endlessly some of whom come up with useful inventions and many who do not. Then there are people who realize that as long as one doesn't care about the consequences to others, there is money in selling dreams for cash. It's pretty easy to separate the people who genuinely believe in what they are trying to do from the sharpies. Those who believe in what they are doing are usually anxious to prove they are right, even if they are badly mistaken.

Sharpies emphasize suggestion over substance. They constantly reinforce the idea that there is magic behind a curtain. They attempt to assert authority. They attempt to make people want to join their secret society. There is always some secret that only the specially anointed supposedly share. Part of culling the herd is seeing who will bite on the idea of the cult secret. If they do, a common technique is to tell them some useless thing and insist that they keep that 'great secret' to themselves. Suggesting to someone that they hold a secret is a great way to play on people's ego and build loyalty. Those who cannot be so co-opted aren't good prospects. This is why we see special private groups and societies formed, be it the Scientologists, LDS, Steorn, or investment undertaker Wayne.

A really skillful sharpie will go to great pains to avoid promising anything direct or tangible. The best sell senseless imagery like: getting "clear", or "it". A few tiers down we have those who make the mistake of promising something specific that they know they can't deliver. Those are the Dennis Lee's and John Rohner's. They have some smooth talking skills down well enough, but they just never quite learned the craft well enough to separate people from their cash without promising something identifiable. These guys typically emulate John Worrell Keely's investor fan dance. They get investors all hot and bothered thinking that they are going to score big, and then it's time to stretch things out. About the time investors pull out the pitch forks and torches, low and behold some new discovery even better than the last one surfaces and the delay game begins anew. These second rate sharpies are the ones who get sued and prosecuted from time to time. The first rate sharpies are rarely ever touched. They do things like buy naming rights on stadiums.

MarkE · « **Reply #437 on:** March 04, 2014, 03:58:24 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 03:52:02 PM

John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

Non or disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

So stop being a liar.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne

Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System"
"the Zydro Energy Device, is... which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics"
"Our technology produces clean energy Mechanically"
"Our technology ... by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity"
"allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy"

Each and every one of the above claims by you is completely false.

mrwayne · « **Reply #438 on:** March 04, 2014, 04:00:17 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 04, 2014, 03:58:24 PM

Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
"First Mechanical Energy Amplifying System"
"the Zydro Energy Device, is... which is a breakthrough in the understandings of physics"
"Our technology produces clean energy Mechanically"
"Our technology ... by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity"
"allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy"

Each and every one of the above claims by you is completely false.

You missed it that's all.

MarkE · « **Reply #439 on:** March 04, 2014, 04:10:51 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 04:00:17 PM

You missed it that's all.

Nope: Mechanical amplifiers that use external energy sources are old hat. Passive energy amplifiers don't exist. See the First Law of Energy.
There is no new physics that you or anyone in your organization has discovered. You have gone to pains to misrepresent physics that has been around for over 2000 years.
Your "technology" is an energy sink. It produces no energy on its own.
You have no means to alter the conservative nature of gravity. We can set-up a real test for your faithful employees. Climb on top of a church steeple and utilize your gravity altering technology to make a swan dive to the earth a safe and enjoyable experience.
You have no ability to supply any energy. Your personal utility bills are testament to that.

minnie · « **Reply #440 on:** March 04, 2014, 04:17:21 PM »

Wayne,
perhaps I missed it too!
John.
An honest man doesn't tell a lie.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #441 on:** March 04, 2014, 05:43:32 PM »

That particular "honest man" avoids telling lies by not telling the TRUTH.

The current editions of his websites have toned down the free energy claims quite a bit. But the internet never forgets. Use the wayback machine to examine some of the older versions and you will really get an idea. Powercat has preserved many of the broken promises ...er, sorry, ..."expectations not met" that he was making in those old newsletters and on the site itself. Hydro Energy Revolution, I think it was called then.... the operation has even changed its name since then. Why? We know why.

I've never _altered_ any photograph from Travis and for him to accuse me of doing so is an offense. The most I've done is to take a frame from the video, not the same one MarkE showed by the way, and point out another set of elevated wires or cables that appear to me to be from the top of the machine somewhere, going through the air back over to the barn. No ALTERATION was performed by me, I just wanted to know what Travis's explanation was for those wires or cables. It was about then that he started getting really nasty towards me, he denied that what I indicated had anything to do with the (half sick, unbalanced) operation of that machine, but he never did say what they _were_ for, and he's dodged the issue again since MarkE pointed out similar things in another frame.

For him to believe that I am minnie, MarkE and MileHigh, etc, or that I have anything to do with their posts is an easily disprovable paranoid delusion, literally, on the part of Wayne Travis. Who is clearly posting here as LarryC and RedSunset-- right? No, because they at least know how to use spellcheckers and to speak in complete English sentences that make sense.

Give Professor Zaman a call and produce an endorsement from him. But you will not. You will never dare to let real academic engineers with reputations at stake, anywhere near your actual apparatus.

CONTACT INFORMATION : EMAIL: zaman(at)ou.edu PHONE : (405) 325-4536 FAX : (405) 325-7508

TinselKoala · « **Reply #442 on:** March 04, 2014, 05:44:29 PM »

Quote from: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 03:52:02 PM

John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

Third - they first rights ----

and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....

You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne

Quote from: mrwayne on March 04, 2014, 03:52:02 PM

John,

Once again - that is a bull face lie -

Are you addressing me? Then I would appreciate it if you would say so.
Are you saying that none of your original investors have wanted out? Then you are lying to me, either now or in the video presentation I've shown a little clip from. Yes, I have the whole thing.

Or more likely, both.

Quote

First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.

None are disgruntled.

Did I mention your family at all, ever? No, I do not think I have, so your statement there is irrelevant to what I said.

Quote

Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.

You mean that your lawyers have advised you that it is likely illegal for you to _sell him_ those shares.

Quote

Third - they first rights ----

they first rights ---- Is that an English sentence that conveys meaning?

Quote

and fourh - I gave that power point and explained that the Grant committee sent me to a third Party - hence a new benefactor....

And those little red squiggles under your words mean that even your spellchecker objects to your rantings. Hence a new benefactor: a benefactor does not expect return for his benificence. INVESTORS DO.

Quote

You omit and lie constantly - and have never backed up your objections.

So stop being a liar. Stop doctoring photo - to make more lies, just do the math right.

I am not doing math, Travis, and I have never ever "doctored" a photograph other than to provide indicator markings and notations to what is ALREADY THERE. Your accusations against me are false, especially that "never backed up" part, as the record shows.

Quote

p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.

Wayne

No you cannot. You can't even answer Minnie's question. You are lying by omission, you are lying outright, and I don't know how you sleep at night, since you apparently believe in a Higher Power who will eventually be judging us all with a rather final and unappealable judgement.

You have claimed to be able to make a self running machine that produces "net" energy output over and above the "no input energy" required to run it. No input, no exhaust, just "net production" output, your words. You cannot back up this claim with actual data. In fact you have NEVER EVER supplied any actual data, you just repost, what, three or four times now, the exact same non-descriptive logorrhea that you always spout.

Show us the sausages. But you cannot, o Honest, Open-Source Researcher Wayne Travis. Your whole story is the same as the Emperor's New Clothes. Your sycophants don't want to admit that they can't figure out what you are describing, so they nod their heads and mutter to themselves, yah sure, he's a Christian how could he be lying, he has all these engineers (where, who, where's the paper in an IEEE journal) who agree with him and we'll make a bundle if he ever makes a sausage. So none of them is willing to point the finger and say that there is really nothing there but a naked fat old man prancing about at the head of a parade of blind mice and lemmings.

However, less than an hour's drive away from you, MISTER WAYNE, there is a world-class mechanical engineering school. Let's see an endorsement from someone who has some credibilty in the world of engineering, not some incompetent spreadsheeter that can't even do algebra properly.

The properly executed spreadsheet on a properly constructed theoretical model, which you endorsed, has been demonstrated to be incapable of performing better than a dropped stone.

MarkE · « **Reply #443 on:** March 04, 2014, 05:48:37 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 04, 2014, 02:23:25 PM

Any one who cares, which does not seem to be the author of this spreadsheet, here are a few small numbers from the spreadsheet that "prove" there is still a buoyant lift acting on all the risers and the pod.

ST3AR1HEIGHT 30.005671 mm
ST3AR2AIRHEIGHT 49.650851 mm
ST3AR2HEIGHT 11.349149 mm
ST3AR3HEIGHT 49.365980 mm
STAR4AIRHEIGHT 41.182248 mm
ST3AR4HEIGHT 21.817752 mm
ST3AR5HEIGHT 40.637996 mm
ST3AR6AIRHEIGHT 35.652566 mm
ST3AR6HEIGHT 29.347434 mm
ST3AR7HEIGHT 33.968809 mm

The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.

If you look at the details you will see that MarkE ONLY included the numbers to support his view,, he did NOT include a complete report nor any supporting numbers against his view.

edit to remove an un-needed inflammatory piece

Webby are you really unaware of the fact that force is not energy: "The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance." When the risers are restrained, they do not move. That's what restrained means. The spreadsheet fully accounts for the fluid movements during states when the risers are restrained.

You can choose to ignore Mondrasek's stipulation all you want. Slay that man of straw.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #444 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:00:38 PM »

While all this math analysis is interesting, let's not forget, shall we, where the burden of proof actually lies, and what kind of information is acceptable as proof of Travis's claims. Had he what he claims over and over, here on this Open Source website, he could prove it easily enough, since he has a self running tabletop perpetual water pump. Just show that.

Travis, since you have disclosed your invention publicly already (the patent applications, which by law must include sufficient information so that a person skilled in the art can make one and make it fulfil the claims of the patent application) your "benefactor" cannot prevent you from demonstrating the truth of your claim by showing what is in the patent actually running.

Remember, honest Wayne Travis, the discussions we had back in the old thread, when you repeatedly claimed to have a patent, when you didn't, and I had to show you that it is actually illegal to sell something claiming a patent when there is only an application, not even "patent pending" status? You finally stopped making the "have a patent" claim because of that pressure from me, didn't you. Again, you are following the Steorn (and Ainslie) script exactly on that one.

MarkE · « **Reply #445 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:11:35 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 04, 2014, 05:49:27 PM

Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.

As a matter of fact I do. But it was a matter of stipulation by Mondrasek. So, the analysis carries that requirement.

Quote

Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.

The spreadsheet model agrees that pumping in water while the risers are restrained builds excess head in AR7.

Quote

Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.

I am glad you mentioned that. Yes, and yes: The pod and risers do move in the spreadsheet, and that does cost energy taking the system to a lower energy state. Thanks for acknowledging the loss.

Quote

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.

Of course it does. But how much force and how far depends on the LTI history of the machine. If you would like to start with a different set of stipulations, such as filling each of the AR pairs to 22mm and then forcing the risers down with the vents open, then you will see a few things: One of which is that you have to throw away a lot of energy to execute this pre charging step. The second is that you will have to apply and maintain the restraints at this stage because the bottom of each riser is displacing water. If you then carry that through State 2 and to State 3, then the equilibrium point occurs around 2.5906mm instead of 1.4688mm. See: Different constraints yield different answers. But the character of the answers does not change. The energy loss going from State 2 to State 3 gets worse increasing from 28.1% to 34.6% of the stored energy at the end of State 2, and losing over 90% of the energy added in State 2.

Quote

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.

The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation removed any requirement to restrain at State 1. Of course pumping in more fluid in State 2 requires restraint.

Quote

Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.

Energy gets added to the system and the system is restrained. That's a good recipe to have some stress or strain show up somewhere.

Quote

Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.

Actually that is a bit backwards. F=mA. When the forces come into balance the masses, even the massless ones will stop accelerating.

Quote

Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.

Do you still not understand the difference between linear multiplication and an integral?

Quote

MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.

How much energy is required to restrain a motionless object? Please show your work.

Quote

MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.

Again: Under the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek constraint the system reaches equilibrium at 1.4688mm lift. Remove that constraint and the system comes to equilibrium at 2.5906mm. Apples and oranges.

Quote

The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.

It is a fluid model. The stipulated incompressible fluids freely move within the confinement.

Quote

MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.

There you go again: You ignore the Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek stipulation. Why do you keep doing that when it has been clearly stated many times now?

MarkE · « **Reply #446 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:15:01 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 04, 2014, 05:53:28 PM

You are ignoring things MarkE. Force and distance,, buoyant lift and all that, the resistance needed to be applied against the risers,, more things you are ignoring.

Since you have required me to include all such things then I am entitled to require the same from you.

Show what is holding the risers and pod from moving while they still have a positive buoyant force acting on them, you can not!

Kindly answer the question Webby: When you said this:

Quote

The author of the spreadsheet also did not include the energy of restraint needed to hold the risers and the author did not allow for the full lift distance.

What did you mean? Do you really think the restraints that prevent motion impart energy?

MarkE · « **Reply #447 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:26:31 PM »

Webby won't don't you try to wrap your arms around this drawing. See if you agree that given massless, incompressible "air" and massless risers that the risers will happily just rest right on top of the 22mm water columns. Then let's see if you agree with the calculations of energy that is stored after, and consumed during the process of forcing the risers into the down position, while venting "air" out from under the risers to the atmosphere.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #448 on:** March 04, 2014, 07:26:36 PM »

Here's more mathematical and graphical proof of OU than you will ever see from Wayne Travis.

Not only does the two units of fluid on the right support the entire 13 units on the left, when you remove the two units from the right.... the liquid level only goes down a fraction of that input starting head height. Therefore you have a "net" production that does not reduce the "input" by nearly the same amount.

mrwayne · « **Reply #449 on:** March 04, 2014, 08:05:42 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 04, 2014, 05:49:27 PM

Does anyone have an issue with state 1 being a condition where all forces acting on the risers and pod equal zero.

Does anyone have an issue with the end of state 2 having positive forces acting on the pod and risers, this caused by the addition of water into the pod chamber.

Does it not make sense then that the pod and risers will move up as the water columns move back to a lower energy state.

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers will move until there is no more sum positive force of buoyancy acting on them.

Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.

Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.

Does it not make sense that when the pod and risers have stroked until there is no more sum positive force left acting on them that the force to restrain them will drop to zero.

Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.

MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.

MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.

The volume that is needed to be added to the system for the continued movement of the risers and pod comes into the system via AR7, and that is air from the atmosphere which is where the fluid volume from AR7 is moved to when the fluid is added into the pod chamber to go from state 1 to end of state 2, ergo this is an allowed event.

MarkE has not explained what is holding the pod and risers from any further movement even tho there is a positive buoyant force acting on them.

Webby,

LOL I have the spam team on block - so I had to go three pages to find a valid post. Yours.

Do you know the original thread was over 200 pages - after several bashers were removed.

That is going to happen here to (the bashers).

Your making a great point - my opinion - the ignorance is on purpose.

Keep Up the actual "thinking".

Larry shows the state of remaining head in his spread sheets as well.

Onward

Wayne

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED (Read 754654 times)

mrwayne

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

mrwayne

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

minnie

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

TinselKoala

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

TinselKoala

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

TinselKoala

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

MarkE

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

TinselKoala

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

mrwayne

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED