And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.
On another note - my contact information has never changed - to those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.
The first thing that you will want to be very careful with is the assumptions that you make with respect to the amount of work it takes to displace "air" or water in any of the chambers. A mistake can easily throw energy off by the ratio of area of the cylinder area to the annular ring area of the chamber. It is tempting to calculate force based on the smaller area in cases where it is actually a function of the much larger area.
If we ASSUME that the ZED is acting exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, then it would have to follow Boyle’s Law. The Integral of PinVin must equal the Integral of PoutVout. To find the lift that would result in this case requires that we find the Vout. Again I must also ASSUME that the output Pressure that the outer riser can provide is a linear function, starting at an initial pressure found from the buoyant lift force applied to the cross sectional area of the outer riser, and ending at a pressure of zero. The hydraulic lift force of ~82.590 grams results in an initial pressure value of ~795.980 Pa. The average Pout becomes half of that, or ~397.990 Pa. With Pin of ~872.257 Pa and Vin of ~2.1771 cc (from a previous post), we solve PinVin = PoutVout for Vout = ~4.771 cc. The lift of the outer riser is then calculated to be ~4.688 mm. This is drawn and analyzed (after redistributing the fluids properly) to see if it is neutrally buoyant or not.Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals. Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral. If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial. If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.
The evaluation of this ZED shows it is definitely NOT neutrally buoyant. In fact, it sucks, literally. It is displaying a positive lift force from the pod of ~10.050 grams. But the risers are both negatively buoyant. The inner riser has a lift force of ~-7.238 grams and the outer riser has a lift force of ~-43.130 grams. The total is ~-40.31771688 grams. When we add the additional downward force of the ~8.168 grams the outer riser needed to weigh for the system to be neutrally buoyant in the setup position, the total lift in this analysis is now ~-48.486 grams, far below a neutral buoyant condition.
So this test failed. The ZED could never rise to the height calculated by Boyle’s Law. If the ASSUMPTION of linear pressure transfers are correct (or close) the ZED could only rise a bit less than 2/3 of the required value necessary to satisfy Boyle’s Law. Therefor we are left with the possibilities that a) there is a mistake in the math, b) the ASSUMPTIONS are greatly skewing us away from expected results, or c) an Ideal ZED is NOT analogous to an Ideal Hydraulic Cylinder.
M.
Something else that one needs to be careful about is evaluating integrals. Where the pressure which translates to force changes, we need to solve the integral. If the force or pressure starts at zero and goes to some other value then the integral is trivial. If the pressure / force starts and ends at non-zero values then we get both linear and quadratic terms.
Can you lend assistance with how to evaluate the PinVin integral properly since it starts from a non-zero condition in this setup? Or would it be necessary for me to start over with a setup that initially has no water in the pod chamber?Sure:
Also, to be clear, is there any issue with evaluating the PoutVout where Pout starts at non-zero but should end at zero?
M.
Take a volume where we are going to eject water replacing it with an incompressible fluid...
I wanted to put all of the dimensions in one place and it is easier for me to see the different pieces by using more colors. So, here is the initial state drawing. I would like to know whether we are stipulating that we got to this state, or that we are following some assembly procedure in order to get to this state.
OK so we will treat it that way: Allowing water admitted to AR1 to flow underneath in a very thin layer without consideration of surface tension, etc. Are you also OK with the assumption that any water we admit, that we admit through the bottom of AR1?
You have seen my older spreadsheet with recursive iterations performing millions of calculations to get the water levels in the risers correct during the rise, due to interconnection of air compression/decompression. I don't know how to do this it any other way, so I can not help with your calculations.
And your nested system is significantly different.... how?
1. You are confusing yourself with "Boyle's Law" pressure/volume calculations, because Travis and Red Sunset and Webby have all said that the air can be replaced with incompressible fluid. All chambers in your system should be filled with fluid that doesn't change in volume when it's under pressure.
1b. Air -- wet air -- is not an ideal gas and you will find that it deviates from strict Boyle-Charles law behaviour. How much? Enough to account for your numerical result? I don't know. Do you?
2. You should be able to demonstrate some actual gain in something, somewhere, using just three layers. Travis has told us so!
3. What, exactly, is the real "output" of your system? Is it a lifted weight? If you are counting pressing against a stop as "output work", that's not kosher!
All internal chambers have been replaced with an incompressible fluid. There is the water (SG=1), and the air (SG=0) that is ASSUMED to be incompressible for this ideal case.
I have never calculated the real Vout. Instead I have ASSUMED the system follows Boyle's law...
So what are you doing mentioning Boyle's Law at all? Boyle's Law is the relationship between Pressure and Volume of compressible (ideal) gases. You are assuming incompressibility at the top, then complaining that your system doesn't follow the law of compressible gases?
Maybe that's your problem then, since incompressible fluids do not follow Boyle's Law of the pressure-volume relationship of ideal, compressible gases.
And work is only performed when forces act over distances. Pressing against a stop with some pressure is not work. Does your butt do work on the chair you are sitting in?
So you are saying that Boyle's law does not apply to a fluid once it changes state from a vapor/gas to a fluid?Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
I thought that once the fluid is incompressible then the volume cannot change.That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
And then Boyle's law of P1V1=P2V2 would reduce to Integral of P1 = Integral of P2. Are you saying this is incorrect?How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I'm not sure how this applies? Work is not being calculated while pressing against a stop. A non unity guantity of Energy is.In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.
Who is talking about phase changes here? Your device is filled completely with two incompressible fluids. No phase change happens. Boyle's Law does not apply to incompressible fluids!
That's right: The pressure applied to the fluid is _unrelated_ to the volume of the fluid, it does not affect the volume, and no amount of applied pressure can change the volume of an _incompressible_ fluid, and no energy can be stored by "compressing" or applying pressure to an incompressible fluid.
How many pounds per gallon does a speed of 60 seconds per bushel represent?
I am saying that no pressure change will result in a volume change of an incompressible fluid, therefore Boyle's Law is irrelevant and inapplicable! So Boyle's Law reduces to P1V1 = P2V1 since volume cannot change in an incompressible fluid, and this relation is contradicted by experiment (pressures can certainly be different for the same volume of water, a nearly incompressible fluid) because Boyle's Law is not applicable to _incompressible fluids_ !! It is an IDEAL GAS LAW and ideal gases are ideally compressible ... that is what Boyle's Law tells you!
In a previous post you stated that the pressure against the stop caused by your calculated excess buoyancy represented a gain, I thought. And work and energy have the same units, the Joule in SI. If you are calculating Energy you are also calculating Work and vice versa.
Mondrasek, I think that the confusion here is in how does one measure the energy of a submerged buoyant object. For an object of constant height, the amount of force that we must apply to the object to initially submerge it changes from the value at zero submersion to the fully submerged value. From there on the buoyant force is constant and the amount of additional work required to submerge the object further is the difference between that constant buoyant force and the constant force of gravity on the mass of the object multiplied by the change in depth.
The attached graphic will hopefully help.
Do you have me confused with someone else?
But look again at Mark's diagram. Do you see what he is integrating? Do you see any need for an ideal gas law in determining the work required to submerge a _sealed_ buoyant object?
Now, if you were considering a Cartesian Diver (an _unsealed_ buoyant object) and didn't stipulate beforehand that all your fluids were incompressible, that would be a different story.
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably). Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?No Mondrasek I am not a sock puppet of TinselKoala. And no when a gas is incompressible, the ideal gas law of which Boyle's Law, and Charle's Law are consequences do not apply.
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! We get to the Ideal gas law! Which is PV=nRT. Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in Boyle's law: PVinput=PVoutput.
Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?
M.
No TK, I am just calling you out (regrettably). Are you, or are you not, using the pseudonym of MarkE ?Sure, Rosemary, you have finally tracked me down.
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!! We get to the Ideal gas law! Which is PV=nRT. Which for Isosthermic cases (ie. T1=T2) results in Boyle's law: PVinput=PVoutput.
Not, as you have stipulated the Zed contains only incompressible fluids. So it is not comparable to the unsealed buoyant object like the Cartesian Diver, whose buoyancy depends upon the Volume of the compressible gas contained within it, which is open to the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Changing the pressure of the outer incompressible fluid changes the pressure _and hence the volume_ of the compressible gas within it, thus making the Diver rise or sink as its buoyancy is changed by the changes in the pressure of the surrounding incompressible fluid. Your Zeds, ex hypothesi, have only incompressible fluids, so no pressure changes can result in any volume changes anywhere. In an incompressible fluid, volume is conserved. The only way to get more or less volume is physically to add or subtract more of the incompressible fluid.
Is the ZED system an "unsealed buoyant object" or not?
M.
I finally got to spending some time with your model today and have a couple of questions. The first is that when you admit water you want to fill up the pod chamber to 60mm height.
So you either must drop references to the gas laws in your analysis and workings, or you must use _compressible gas_ instead of one of the incompressible fluids in your model. I'm arguing for the former, as it will simplify your analysis.
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?Of course.
Here is what I would propose to try next: Using the incompressible fluids in the model. Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?So it would seem, if I am understanding you correctly. However, consider the simple lever. If I "admit" a certain weight on the long end and it sinks, should that be equal to the Height Output as measured by the height change of the weight on the short end? I think nested hydraulic cylinders can act like a compound lever, and I think that the multiple layers might distribute an initial "volume input" over several outer risers, so the final "rise" might be small, but with increased force.
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right? If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
Of course.
Now you have lost me. Neutral buoyancy means that the mass of the displaced water is equal to the mass of the displacing object. Adding additional force pressing down on the "neutrally buoyant" object makes it sink, so is this extra force to be included in the figuring? Since your risers are "massless" I think you are once again up against a place where your assumptions are non-physical and may be leading you off the correct track.
MarkE, the volume of water admitted is only enough to fill the pod chamber to 37mm height. That is shown in the second diagram here:Thanks. That helps. 37mm will not cause an underflow / overflow problem.
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854
Do you (or anyone else) know how to calculate the amount of energy that crosses into a system when a specific volume of water is introduced, starting at a pressure of zero and building linearly to a final pressure of Pin?The work calculation is still performed as the integral of F*ds. You can normalize by using the area of the feed pipe ID.
Here is what I would propose to try next: Using the incompressible fluids in the model. Is it correct to say that the Volume input (volume of water admitted into the bottom of AR1) should be equal to the Volume output as measured by the height change of the outer riser * the cross sectional area of the outer riser?
If so, a ZED that is drawn with that exact amount of rise and with the fluids re-distributed correctly should be neutrally buoyant, right? If it is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder?
*sigh* Would you be so kind as to describe the correct method in the form of a mathematical relationship?Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
Maybe. Without knowing exactly what you mean I'm not sure. Recall that the surface area of a cylinder isn't cut in half when you cut the cylinder itself in half across its height, since the ends are still the same area as before... only the "wall" area has been cut in half.
Please refer to the start condition and the charged condition shown in the first two diagrams here:
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854 (http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg387854/#msg387854)
A specific volume of water is being added to the pod chamber (AR1). If the ZED is acting strictly like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then the outer riser should need to rise by an amount that would be equal to having received that same volume of water. That volume is calculated by measuring how much the outer riser lifts, I think. It is the same way we correctly measure your U tube diagram: Draw a box around the ZED. Then see what enters and exits that box. Since we are using incompressible fluids the volume of water entering "the box" must be equal to the volume of the outer riser that exits "the box." Is that correct?
Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object. Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses. If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.
When the charged ZED is released to rise, it will rise due to buoyant force until it is neutrally buoyant.
If the above paragraph is correct, that rise amount should be the measured volume of the outer riser that lifts up (and out of "the box"). So the actual rise * cross sectional area of the outer riser = volume that exited "the box." That volume must be equal to the volume of water added during the charge.Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?
I propose to draw the ZED as if it has risen to satisfy having stroked by the exact same volume that has been added by the charge. The position of the fluids will be redistributed correctly due to the constraints of being incompressible. If the ZED is acting exactly as a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder, then it should come to rest at this condition, and so equalize the buoyant forces caused by the charge and be neutrally buoyant. If it is found to be NOT neutrally buoyant in this condition, it would have to stroke less or further and definitely not be acting like a simple ideal hydraulic cylinder.
Say you have a syringe full of water, connected by a tube to the input port of your device. You use a spring scale to press the syringe plunger into the syringe. You monitor the distance the plunger has travelled (s), you record the instantaneous force readings from the scale (F), and you calculate the integral of the spring scale's instantaneous force readings over the distance the plunger has travelled. (Integral from 0 to s of F ds.) This results in an input energy (or work) value. You can press the empty syringe the same distance to get a value for the syringe frictional work that isn't injected, subtract the latter from the former, and you then have the actual work injected into the system.
I thought we had already covered that.
Nope. The buoyancy of an item does not change as it rises; if it was buoyant at the start, it will rise until the mass of the displaced water is equal to the _entire mass_ of the object. Neutral buoyancy means that the entire volume of the item displaces the same mass of water as the item itself masses. If you now only want to count the part of the item that still remains under the water line in your "neutral buoyancy"... I don't think this is legitimate.
Maybe. How _far_ does the riser need to rise in order for that to be true? More, or less, than the distance you depressed the plunger of the syringe? Much less, I'll wager, since the syringe is of smaller cross sectional area. How much work is performed by that lift, though?
3) The water. SG=1. I don't know what you are using for acceleration due to gravity, or density of water. I use 9.80665N/kg for G0, and 0.9982g/cc for the density of water at 20C.
Hello Monderask,Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?
I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.
I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.
Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.
Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".
The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.
I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.
Wayne
Isn't it funny then that you have shown neither math that works, nor a unit that works in six years of selling this snake oil?
Interesting, then could you please show why the math showing an efficiency of 153.94% in the attached spreadsheet is incorrect? The efficiency is in field B16. The drawing shows the process cycle.
Thanks, Larry
so I don't expect any kind of real answer to my questions.
And if that weren't enough... I still believe the automatic bollard is showing the same "anomaly" that you think you have found. Nobody has "done the math" to prove me wrong about that. Why not? Do you deny that the 300 pound bollard can be raised to its full height, and lowered back down again, with just a few pound-feet of work? Reducing the input, getting the big output, subtracting the input from the output to get the "net" gain in work .... it's all there in the automatic bollard. So?
Here's an incontrovertible fact: If your calculations show "overunity" performance, then you are making an error somewhere.
Here is where I see your automatic bollard example falling short: What big output? You put a little in, and it raises a far distance, but with no appreciable force! In fact the force it rises with is exactly equal to force you are putting in, minus losses.How can you say that? A three hundred pound bollard is lifted by its full height of four feet, which represents 1200 pound-feet of work! Yet the input was only, say, 5 pounds of manual lift over that same distance, or 20 pound-feet of work, for a "net gain" of 1180 pound-feet of work. DO THE MATH.
How can you say that all valid experimentation has failed?Rather, all valid experimentation has failed _to confirm Travis's claims_, a far different thing than saying that the valid experimentation has simply failed. The experiments have provided valid data that fails to support Travis.... this is a failure of Travis's theories, not the experiment.
The ZEDs amplify force at the expense of distance travelled, as you yourself have found and admitted freely,
but the output work will be less than the input work, because of the inevitable losses.
What about what Larry and Monderask have presented.
Any problem other than can't work.
Wayne
Which is the basis for absolutely no conclusions. Because I also freely admit that from what I have found, the Integral of the resultant force * distance does NOT equal that of the input. I never said the ZEDs amply force by a relationship to a reduced distance of travel that conforms to a conservative system.No? I could have sworn that you did, when you agreed with me here:
Of course the riser moves a much shorter linear distance than the syringe plunger, assuming a syringe with diameter smaller than the ZED's outer riser. That is why I proposed to compare volumes.
This is not what the Mathematical Analysis supports. It is your assumption and/or position, not a proven fact.It is my "assumption" and position, based on thousands of years of experimentation by hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and amateurs like some of us. Nobody, nowhere, has ever demonstrated otherwise. Please see the quote from Feynman re the relationship between "theory" and "experiment".
On another related note, please tell me what you think about this. Imagine the ZED model surrounded by the "red box" I showed when analyzing your U tube joke. There are more than the two volumes I have shown in the analysis crossing that system barrier. Yes there is the input water, and the output riser stroke that cross the barrier. But there is also air that leaves and enters the system through the outer annulus (outside the outer riser) that is open to the atmosphere. So the ZED is an OPEN system, right? Also, it is the air that crosses through this opening that allows the fluid levels to redistribute and create a resultant buoyant force that is calculating to be not equal to the force predicted by the input.
Oh come on! And you also gave _no real answer_ to LarryC's question. He specifically asked how his MATH is incorrect. To do so does not require any more words. It requires math.Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet. The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities. For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions: Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End. For each he lists two head values: Riser and pod. I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights. These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers: 95,50 65,35 51,28 and 35,20. Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2. IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.
LarryC has presented evidence by the accepted method of science: A mathematical solution/analysis. If it is correct, it is correct. If it is incorrect, it is incorrect. There is no gray area. There is only one correct solution to the math. Checking his math and process is the only correct way to move forward.
I have also presented evidence by the method of a mathematical analysis. I have also asked for my math and process to be checked. I thank MarkE for his assistance so far and offer to double check. TK, your assistance with the math is also appreciated.
If anyone would like to work on LarryC's math question instead of my own, that is fine, as his work appears to show the same anomaly that I am trying to find the reason for.
Thanks,
M.
I want to get this straight, you lift a weight with one side of your device, you remove the
weight and use it, and it sinks by itself and also raises a weight on the other side of your device.
Now if that isn't a bit of magic nothing is!
John.
I have placed you on ignore out of respect.Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page. The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.
---------- Your "incontrovertible fact" only applies to conservative applications - in which I would agree with you.
Your inability to see that the 'Math presented' perfectly defines a non conservative system - which in itself is a new realm of understanding - you continue to miss - we graciously tried to explain.
I know how you will respond - it will not be to analyze and learn.
Back to ignore
Good Day.
Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?
You have said much....
The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.
Wayne
Multiple different people have shown now how our system can and does work.
You have said much....
The "can't work" is your misunderstanding.
Wayne
Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page. The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.
Wayne Travis where is one of these working systems, and who has verified its operation is as you claim?
Mark,
I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.
The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.
Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.
This does not require higher math to understand or verify.
Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.
Good luck.
Why not give Kevan Riley,PE, a call? I posted his telephone number somewhere earlier. See if he still stands by the material presented in the PowerPoint slideshow. Ask _him_ why the Trinity Baptist Church is still paying for electricity.If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Demonstrate it, then. You cannot.
Show us your electric bills. You will not.
Your words mean nothing, against the lack of a practical demonstration of your claims. Just think how easy it would be for you to refute me utterly, had you what you claim. But you have not, and you cannot, because you DO NOT. Go ahead, prove me wrong by showing a valid demonstration.
I'm holding my breath in anticipation.....
NOT.
If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Mark,Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things: A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements. They can sue. If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well. You claim to have many legal groups. Have them look into the Acts: 1933, and 1934. See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements.
I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.
The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.
Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.
This does not require higher math to understand or verify.
Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.
Good luck.
Then why hasn't it been? Why are you not running your house, shop, and Trinity Baptist Church on the wonderful output of your Zed system?
I know why, and so do you.
Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.Your system does not produce the free energy that you claim. We know it doesn't even give an appearance of something interesting because you have never lived up to the years over due Dansie demonstration. You can bluff and bluster all day long. The fact that you don't demonstrate underlies the simple fact that you can't demonstrate.
How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.
You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.
Wayne
Wayne Travis it is not slander to state the fact that you are making false claims of among other things: A way to get non conservative behavior from gravity, free energy from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The threat to you is from burned investors who have believed your false and reckless statements. They can sue. If there are enough of them with any influence they can bring law enforcement against you as well. You claim to have many legal groups. Have them look into the Acts: 1933, and 1934. See what they have to say about selling securities while making fraudulent statements.
The conservative nature of gravitational fields is an extremely well observed fact. If you wish to counter that you go up against known science at least back to Kepler and arguably back to the Greeks. The burden of proof is upon you. You haven't a shred of evidence, much less proof. That makes your false claims at a minimum reckless.
Larry has yet to prove anything, ditto Mark, and most of all: ditto you.
You know - I did not know that everything in the universe was taught to you when you went to school - Research should just stop now....Red_Sunset failed to present any evidence of a conservation breach. He did attempt to invoke such comic relief as magic levers. Your claims to investors of free energy technology and gravitational breaches are false and misleading. You know that they are false and misleading and/or are reckless in not recognizing them as such. For someone selling stock that's the end with or without a registration exemption.
What a waste ......
Or try learning something new - RED Sunset tried to show you that the conservative field of gravity - has been broken...
That's the end - and you are making such a fool of yourself calling me names and slandering,,,,
Do the Math - it tells the truth without predisposed assumptions.
Wayne
Mondrasek, I have done some looking at Larry's spreadsheet. The first thing that jumps out at me is that it does not look like he accounts for the cross-section areas of his various cavities. For example on the '2 Zed' worksheet he lists four conditions: Start, Equalized, Ready to Stroke, and Stroke End. For each he lists two head values: Riser and pod. I gather these refer to the outermost annular ring, and the pod chamber annular ring heights. These values are shown as having very nicely rounded numbers: 95,50 65,35 51,28 and 35,20. Fluid moving in the various annular ring moves as V/28^2,V/27^2,V/26^2, and V/25^2. IE V/784, V/729, V/676, and V/625.
Good thing Sock Puppets don't breath...Your characterization of me is false. This is the only alias I have ever used here, the only account. If you don't believe me, ask our host Stefan. You cannot provide any evidence for your claim that I may have multiple accounts or usernames here.
Lets get something clear -
You set the standard making claims against our ZED device using supposed indisputable mathematical proof.
Now you refuse to accept that same method as proof. you speak out of both socks at the same time...You are deluded, nearly as much as our dear old Ainslie. Believe it, Travis.... more than one person is able to see through your misrepresentations and outright lies.
You are hilarious! The QUESTION AT HAND is whether or not your claims are valid and true. Since you cannot produce any evidence that they are true, besides some spreadsheet numbers that you yourself didn't even come up with.... well, I think even a bright sixth-grader could DO THAT MATH.
The question at hand - no pun intended - is Mathematical analysis - if you are not interested - put the boys back in the dresser.
Your diversion is a waste of time.
Wayne
Let me help you TK - you can't rove our system is anything less than we claim....
End of story.
Good Day - I have a meeting.
Thanks for checking the math, any confusion that is perceive helps me to improve the example.
The water head in the Pod is equal to water in the pod chamber annular ring heights, however the water head for the riser is equal to the Outermost annular ring (O1) - Next inner annular ring (O2).
Thus the 95 represents 100 in O1 - 5 in O2. Then during equalization the water dropped 15 in the Pod to 35. When this occurs, the water in O2 follows up and rises 15 to 20 and the water in O1 follows down and lowers to 85. So now the water head is 65 which represents 85 in O1 - 20 in O2. That is why I brought up earlier that 1X changes in the Pod Water causes 2X change in riser water head as Wayne stated early is his thread.
You can see this effect in the drawings.
Larry
No, I don't think that is right. I considered this issue before when the "incompressible fluid" was replacing the air in the trapped chambers. The outer ringwall and the outermost layer of trapped whatever seals the rest of the system from contact with the outside air, and even in spite of that, there is nothing happening, or that can happen, in any Zed system that can change the pressure of the _outside air_.
Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.
Larry, it is not my hang up. It is that the math does not represent the model represented. It's like estimating pi as 3. Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances. In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions. Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble. I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.
Got hung up on explaining water head and forgot to mention about your volume point. In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser. These kind of calculations are done in my complex spreadsheet, but I was trying to keep this simple for easy understanding. I can add if that small difference is your hangup.
Heh... guess what, I don't have to "rove" or prove anything at all! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to "rove" them. But you cannot, all you can do is point to LarryC's apparently two dimensional spreadsheet numbers. Where is the self-running system you have claimed to have? Nowhere, that's where. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You cannot !
TK, here the "red box" has been drawn around the ZED system. The charge water is not shown in the diagram on the left, but is assumed to cross that barrier and enter the system into the pod chamber to result in the state of the center diagram. When doing so, air in the outer annulus (shown in yellow) is also pushed across that barrier. Then when the system is allowed to stroke, the Outer Riser (and the volume within it's borders) crosses the barrier at the top. When doing so, the initial volume of air in the outer annulus crosses back into the system, and is followed by even more air. Therefore the system is open to the atmosphere, right? Am I misunderstanding what you presented?
I am a really nice guy - so if this is too much - let me apologize up front:
Here is what I have learned from your last 300+ postings
Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability than I have ever seen from you and your socks.
You could learn three things from Larry - manners, due diligences (before slander), and how non conservative is possible.
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need. Stop wasting my time with your diversions.
Mathematical Analysis - take your time.
Wayne
In actual practice the gaps are adjusted to maintain water head at a desired performance level in each Riser.
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need
In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions.
I am a really nice guy- brainwashing attempt
Larry has demonstrated more intelligence and capability- brainwashing attempt
and how non conservative is possible- brainwashing attempt
Monderask and Larry has supplied what you need- brainwashing attempt
due diligences
How did your meeting go? Pretty short meeting. Did you cut it short to rush back here and insult me, yet again?
Wayne:
Without being specific to Larry because I haven't followed his spreadsheet, I note MarkE's comments:
And yet you endorse LarryC. You endorse Webby when he can barely explain himself. You are one piece of work.
With respect to you:
- brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt - brainwashing attempt
That one I can latch onto and agree with.
Wayne, please demonstrate YOURSELF that YOU have something. That is the real due diligence.
Do you have anything? ANYTHING?
MileHigh
What would you do if I told you I was colorblind?
Just kidding. The outer part always sees the same pressure from the outside air, whether the yellow lines are out, in, or neutral. Therefore the outer air pressure doesn't make any difference between the three states. Open to the atmosphere is one thing, able to be affected by it is another. Your system is NOT open in the same way that the Cartesian Diver is, where the surrounding fluid pressure changes DO affect the buoyancy.
Larry, that helps. I will continue to go through the spreadsheet. Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:
Went ahead and added a riser gap that would give it the same SI as the pod gap. Wanted to see how big a difference it would make in the efficiency. Darn, it went from 153.94% to 153.56%.
Larry
That would suck on so many levels. But I think we could then resort to labels. But it would be so much harder to follow.
My apologies to any colorblind individuals trying to follow along.
TK, I never said that the atmospheric air pressure makes any difference to any pressures inside the ZED. Thankfully, it doesn't! What having the outer annulus open to the atmosphere does do is allow for the Vin to NOT equal the Vout. Because air also moves freely into and out of the system from the atmosphere and adds ANOTHER V (that is not costing us anything) that must be accounted for in an Energy Balance.
The air that freely crosses into and out of the system allows the water levels to redistribute to satisfy simple volumetric constraints. And when allowed to do so it results in a lift force that is due to BUOYANCY, not the usual pressure * volume relationship found in a simple hydraulic cylinder.
The interview went well.
Now that I am sure you know the concept of making ignorant claims against other people is wrong - I will apologize to you when you do.
Wayne
Show me the Sausages! (http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html) A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow.
The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine - surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!"
The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."
The philosopher says "How dare you, a mere scientist, question my wonderful philosophical reasoning?"
Scientist: "I'm not questioning your reasoning - I want to know if your machine really produces sausages."
Philosopher: "Can you point to any flaw in my argument that it produces sausages?"
Sci: "I don't know - I just want to know if it produces sausages. Here is some meat. Why don't you feed it through and see if you get any sausages?"
Phil: "And sully my wonderful machine with mere offal?"
Sci: "You said it was a sausage machine. I want to see the sausages."
Phil: "Are you questioning my ingredients?"
Sci: "I'm just questioning whether it produces sausages or not. Show me the sausages."
Phil: "Ah, so you cannot attack my premises and you cannot attack my argument. Therefore I'm right and you lose."
Sci: "Don't be such a melodramatic prancing arse. Show me the sausages."
Phil: "The sausages inevitably flow from the argument. You see my fine machine. You can even inspect the meat & onions. The sausages necessarily flow."
Sci: "Show me the sausages or I'm off to Tesco."
Phil: "You are a mere scientist with no understanding of philosophical matters."
Sci: "Bye."
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.
Larry, it is not my hang up. It is that the math does not represent the model represented. It's like estimating pi as 3. Whether or not that is close enough depends on the circumstances. In order to determine the magnitude of the error, one has to reverse engineer your spreadsheet, guess your intent, then substitute the correct relationships and evaluate the differences. That is a big PITA and rather unreasonable. It would be very helpful for you to state your assumptions, and for you to perform sanity tests on your own as to the validity of those assumptions. Introducing ~16% error terms is a recipe for trouble. I don't care if you fix the ring dimensions for constant area or keep them on a 0.5" grid as long as your calculations represent the model faithfully.
Let me make a suggestion that will make it easier to keep simple numbers on the spreadsheet: Assign a constant to pi/4. Then you can represent all your circular areas in integer units multiplied by the constant. This should make it easier for you to audit your calculations. The other thing that can be an immense help is to use named fields. That saves a lot of chasing around. Instead of a formula looking like: = $H$2*F19*E12 it would look like: = riser_diameter*riser_length. My last suggestion you may or may not like: Using MKS units generally makes it easier to avoid mistakes between mass and force. I can work in whatever units you are comfortable using.
But that would require that the red box changes shape (edit: but NOT volume) as the Energy Balance is performed.
Maybe so. Could you explain further?
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
MarkE,
Thanks for the suggestion, some will help.
But, don't understand your ~16% error, the .38% drop in efficiency was a ~.2% error.
PI/4 constant would help.
On the named fields, I do use them all the time for VBA modules. But, It is a good suggestion to use names on the constant parameter fields at the top for this example. I do like to use them at the multiple line level, in this case the 'Cycles', because when you copy one line to the next, the named fields do not increment its position. I use the 'Trace Precedent' to check formulas, it points to all the fields in the formula.
I agree with your points about MKS units. I don't use it because I've worked with many field engineers that use Imperial because the field workers that apply the specifications wouldn't understand and most times upper management wouldn't either. And I am more comfortable using Imperial, so thanks for working with my unit choice.
Larry
Consider a simpler system for a moment.
A syringe full of air is connected by a short tube to a deflated balloon.
Where do you draw your red box now? Do you include the outside air that the balloon expands into when you depress the plunger? How much of it? Or does your red box follow the actual perimeter of the "hard parts" of the system? Here, the outer air is displaced by the expanding balloon, isn't it? But its only effect on the expansion is its pressure, which remains constant no matter how big the balloon is.
Since the balloon is increasing in total surface area, the total _force_ exerted by the outside air grows.. but that doesn't happen in your Zeds because the surface area of the fluid column is constant.
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
I am going through the spreadsheet now. I have created a new worksheet for the 2 ZED where I am using named formulas and have substituted the exact geometry relations. However, I see a fundamental error: It looks like you failed to integrate when calculating your energy. The force required to lift a column of water increases with the head. In order to get the actual energy we have to perform the integration. This should make intuitive sense if you consider punching a pin hole near the bottom of one of the columns. When the column is very full, the stream is very strong, and as the column comes down to the pin hole the stream dribbles off to almost nothing.
Larry, that helps. I will continue to go through the spreadsheet. Please confirm that the drawing below is correct:
Larry, if I have a capsule of water and lift that capsule from one height to another then I can just multiply the weight by the distance moved and I am done because the gravitational force on that capsule is constant. But if what I do is change the height of a column by pumping water in or letting water out then I need to perform the integration.
Hi MarkE,
Liked what you did with the drawing, but has a few minor issues, I'll respond later on that post.
You're too fast, so I'll also respond to your ~8% later.
But wanted to address your integration concerns as it is key to the process.
The Left avg. psi at E13 is the average pod psi from the end of equalization to the start of ready to stroke.
The Right avg. psi at H13 using the same technique. So left 3.233, right 3.992. Now when adding water to the right along you would multiply that average psi times the volume to get the input cost.
But, if at the same time we are allowing water to flow out the left at its average PSI, it is returning energy to the Right. This return of energy reduces the input energy applied to the transfer by the average pressure differential between the two units. So the Average PSI Differential shown at I13 is the average pressure required to transfer the fluid. I can show this process in a little different format if it would help.
In your pinhole example, if you had two columns of water with one having 25% less water and you had a small tube connected to the pinhole in each column. Would the water flow out as fast as your one column example or would the speed be reduced by 75%? Its all about the pressure differential.
Larry
Larry, OK I fixed that. Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4. Consequently, the formulas are:
MarkE,
Thanks for continuing, like your analysis technique.
Few minor issues in the drawing. The Riser Head bottom arrow should be even with the water height in the next column to the left. I have .48150 for D5 Riser Gap and the arrows are pointing at the pod water, should move to the right one column for the Riser gap.
Larry
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.
Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure. That yields incorrect results. Integration is necessary.
I am sorry MH - you should ask Monderask or Larry to explain.
MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn, the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device. The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?
We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device. The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.
The gap between the 25" diameter pod and the pod chamber wall, exactly 0.5", IE 26" diameter chamber.
The gap between the pod chamber wall and the riser wall, exactly: (727^0.5 - 26)/2", IE 727^0.5" diameter riser.
The gap between the riser wall and the vessel outer wall, exactly: (778^0.5 - 727^0.5)/2" IE 778^0.5" diameter vessel.
The air is very compressible unlike the water which is incompressible for practical purposes.Mr. Grimer, for purposes of the analysis LarryC has stipulated that the "air" is incompressible and massless.
Wayne Travis told us that HER / Zydro are fully funded and are not out trying to pull in new investor money.
Koala,
if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
as a no I would assume.
John.
The proper drawing of your red box would follow the outline of the surface of the outer liquid layer, I think, because that is the sealed surface. It rises and sinks, of course, but that's no problem as far as the boundary condition goes.
Things don't always fit in little boxes...............You were absolute in your statements. Are you trying to weasel in modifications now?
Ah, pay attention to the language. Will and want are quite different.
Let me be clear - Our investors will not part with there part ownership in our company - none of them.
Again, language matters. Those who have stayed, have stayed. How many have asked to get out, and/or have gotten out?
They have been offered 10X returns by out side investors...........wanting in........ and our members flat walked away. It does not take long to realize how well our company is growing.......
Any trained engineer who thinks that there is energy to be gained by raising and dropping weights cyclically is incompetent. Full stop. The incompetence may be a temporary induced condition, but it is incompetence just the same.
The idea that any of them have been harmed is ignorance. (beside the fact that about 30% of our owners are engineers -good ones).
Only the records will tell whether that is true or not. And your record vis-a-vis truth is not so good.
I refused to let any of my friends and family support us unless they verified it was non risk money - and I have gifted much to needy friends and family.
Really? Again records would be the judge.
We never asked for money - and we always had exactly what we need to pay for parts, tests, legal fee's - tools.
So it's OK to take money under false premises if you don't spend it "lavishly"?
We did not buy cars - houses - jewelry, take vacations, or anything that would harm our ability or threaten the value of our members.
You've built an illusion on a stack of lies. There is no product. Your technology claims are false.
We built the product and the company.
........................Oh, this is new "Wayne speak". Your previous declarations were that you were both "fully funded" and were not seeking any new funds. Since the company has no source of revenue other than investors, either no investors have been cashed out, or your statement is false. The business records are again the better evidence of fact.
We "are" fully funded............... "Turnkey funded" and no investor has been paid off from other investors.
There is no future for HER / Zydro, because there is not now and never was the technology that you claim.
Paid off? you assume thay don't want to be part of our future............your mistake - your box.
The harm that has been done is your selling investment in a pipe dream that you know to be false, or are reckless in ignoring that it is false. The Acts, 1933, and 1934 do not distinguish between the two.
One day - you may realize the gross misdirection - harm done - by your good intentions - to the good people - on this web site.
No, Wayne Travis, you have no excuse. The physics is painfully simple: Gravity is conservative. You have no counter evidence.
Or not - I have always hoped your intentions may have been meant for good, but you have no excuse.
You have not made any physical discovery. You have discovered how a yarn skillfully told can separate people from their cash even when the yarn is utterly and entirely preposterous. Just as many people have fallen for scams claiming they've won a big lottery they never entered, there are people foolish enough to fall for the idea that there is free energy in a pail of water.
.......................
The gross error by critics on this subject has been "Stark faith in what was presumed "known" - and lack of due effort and discovery."
There it is! Yes, try and shift your burden of proof onto others. No Mr. Wayne you have no sausages. Just hope that isn't prophetically because someone of the temperament of Lorena Bobbitt has been burned by your shameless lies.
The demands that you be handed a operating system - after you ignored the originals, ignored original analysis, ignored replications - tells me one thing - misdirection. I am just not sure if thier is more than one puppet master leading the way.
All that you teach is the age old story that if the tale is pitched properly, some people will believe almost anything, no matter how preposterous.
Demands that you control the education - of what you did not understand - was arrogant. While you called me arrogant for trying to teach you....
That's right Wayne Travis: Stay on point. Keep insisting that you have a scientific discovery when you don't and never did. For you it's staying on message. For a prosecutor it is evidence of scienter.
HERE IS THE SAD POINT:
A fraction of the time spent slandering us, a fraction of that energy spent - would have been more than enough to share in our discover - don't give me more misdirection and excuses.
That's just what John Rohner used to say. And yet there was always more stock for sale. There still is.
The closing of the opportunity has passed.
......................."Show" being the key operative term. You can show props. You cannot show a working demonstration of the claimed technology, never could, and never will. Pails of water do not emit beams of glorious free energy from the heavens.
Yes, we are in the process of interviewing and selecting a full scale engineering team - to both develop our systems and applications, yes we have recently moved into temporary facilities while the permits for ground breaking are being processed and the 7-8 months required to build our show case facility -
That's lots of investor cash burn applied to something that you know is a lie.
As of Yesterday - we have hired 21 of our 27-28 people.
HER/Zydro cannot deliver anything to representatives of anyone. But you can sell worthless licenses and franchises to non-existent technology.
This first building will house our Management, Engineering, additional Research, legal, and training facility. It will be a show case for the visiting representatives.
That's what MediaFusion said.
Both City and state incentives have been negotiated, Both the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, and the Oklahoma Senate has been prepared and briefed -on our discovery and progress.
Oh goody: You've found a mark with means and connections. Now, all you have to do is work out that exit strategy where the greatest thing since fire fails but not because it was always a lie. Hmmm, will it be the Men In Black? Madison Priest used the amnesia story. You can look for other story lines that have been used on day time TV.
Our Benefactor is well represented in Both the US Senate and Congress, and has an incredible legal team.
Imagine that: A politician talking up something that they do not understand. Will that senator still be your buddy when the house of cards inevitably collapses?
One Senator spoke at our company launch three weeks agp - "Oklahoma has been known for its creative Energy solutions - and now that legacy continues with ZYdro Energy."
Sure, that will happen right after JWK's systems get tied in. His investors have been waiting longer, so the JWK systems will get tied in first. Oh, and then of course the Inteligentry systems will have to be tied in first. And then hell will have to freeze over.
And yes - our facility will be grid tied - and powered by our systems - works great for the Training Department.
You're in good company: The scammer Rossi also likes to talk about his non-existent automated factories.
Our funding includes automated manufacturing - we will have another round of hiring in less than 12 months. Different locations.
There you go: Stay on message. "Get in now!" "Step right up!" "Surrender your common sense and cash before it's too late!"
This will also supply advancement opportunities for our first team members.
Why yes, it is God's blessing that you have been discovered. But that's not in the sense that you mean. "Lorena! No!"
...........................
It is only by God's blessing that we were able to survive long enough to be discovered, examined, and supported.
I know the truth: You are a shameless individual selling false dreams to gullible investors, all with your Bible in tow. You know the OT is full of stories of retribution. You better stick to the NT that focuses more on forgiveness. You will be needing to seek a lot of that.
.....................
MarkE, you have the skills - and after the replication teams - you have begun to put in effort - I hope you can handle the truth - when the realization sweeps over you.
Yes, you benefit everyday from OPM. It is difficult to say if you would be doing more harm if you didn't have access to that.
I am blessed to see it happen almost every day - it is good for the world.
Luck has little to do with physics.
How you handle that will determine much, reveal much, for you. Good luck.
And yet you have done nothing but repeat your empty talking points. There is no development.
....................
I was asked nicely - to update Overunity.com on our development.
God speed to the poor investors who have been foolish enough to believe your lies.
And that time has now been spent, God speed to all of you.
Wayne
Your spreadsheet appears to be calculating energy by a series of linear adds and subtracts based on average pressure. That yields incorrect results. Integration is necessary.
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle. The fundamental problem for both the scheme using an insert and a scheme without an insert is that sloshing water around between filled and partially filled columns throws away a big percentage of the input energy. Using inserts reduces the amount of water moved around and therefore reduces the losses. A crude analogy is where one drives a car with one's foot on the brake: very inefficient, compared to driving applying less pressure on the brake: less inefficient, but still bad. There is an parallel to this situation in electronics where one charges multiple capacitors to different voltages and then connects the capacitors together. The energy relationships areas described by the same form of differential equations.
Thanks, MarkE.
Your example is using a CoE system and can never be > 100% efficiency. In my other spreadsheet for the flow between 2 Archimedes using the same energy calculations, you can change the yellow parameters all you want and it never goes over 100%. That not an override, just the math. So, If the energy calculations is the cause of >100% in the 2 Zed , I would be able to get over 100% in the 2 Archimedes system.
The only subtraction is for the Average PSI differential value. Without that the formulas would just use Pin average * Vin per cycle.
Since that seems to be causing your issue, we could remove using the differential and just compare the single Zed to the single Archimedes, where the Zed still shows a higher efficiency than the Archimedes.
The current 1Arch sheet has an input advantage and still is less efficient at 48.13% to the 1Zed at 73.76%. So I'm going to modify and resend, making the input volume the same and combining them on one sheet to make it easier to compare the two.
Hope you're willing to continue, as I'm learning a lot about the issue areas.
Larry
@mondrasek:
I may have been kidding about the color blindness (I actually have fine color vision according to Ishihara and other tests, even though my father was a deuteranope) but nevertheless I can't easily tell the Red from the Magenta when they are closely adjacent in your drawings. How about using a contrasting color for the "red" box outline?
RESEARCH INTERESTS: Geotechnical Engineering
Soil dynamics, rock mechanics, soil structure interaction, flow through porous media, constitutive laws of engineering materials (testing and modeling), mine system design and ground control, bridge approach settlements, expert systems, application of numerical techniques to complex geotechnical engineering problems, earthquake engineering, and geotechnical aspects of hazardous waste disposal.
Dear Professor Zaman,
Greetings and felicitations! I am writing on behalf of a few interested researchers who are looking into the claims of one Wayne Travis, dba "Zydro Energy LLC" located in Chickasha, OK, a short drive away from your Norman campus. Travis claims to have a mechanical, buoyancy driven system that "captures gravity" and which produces more energy output, by a large margin, than is input, and that will run itself with no input but will still produce usable "net" output energy. Needless to say, this scheme violates the law of Conservation of Energy as well as the conservative nature of the gravitational field. Travis has quite an operation going in Chickasha, he apparently has investors with deep pockets, and we are concerned that his claims might not actually be valid.
http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
I know you are very busy, but you may be amused by looking over this PowerPoint presentation, attached, that Travis presented to prospective investors in late 2010 or early 2011. I am wondering if you might have a stray graduate student looking for a thesis project, who may be able to look into this issue a bit more deeply. I myself cannot travel to Chickasha personally, but it may be convenient for someone from the Norman campus to go and have a look.
Thanks for your time and consideration, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions about the claims of Wayne Travis and Zydro Energy LLC.
Sincerely, I remain
(name and contact info redacted)
aka TinselKoala
attachment: the ppt file
Mondrasek, I know you are busy today so don't feel the need to reply right away, I can wait.
Does your diagram represent your actual test system?
Koala,
if we don't get an answer to question on 131 from Wayne we can take it
as a no I would assume.
John.
Larry, both the ZED and the "Archimedes" scheme rigidly conform to Archimedes' Principle.
Larry, OK I fixed that. Because the stipulation is equal cross-section area in each column, I changed the formulas to derive the diameters with the areas fixed at 51circular inches, IE 51*pi/4. Consequently, the formulas are:
Riser area = (26^2 + 51 )*pi/4 = 570.9844647900
Vessel area = (26^2 + 2*51)*pi/4 = 611.0397711233
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 51 )^0.5 = 26.96293752543
Annular clearance = (26.96293752543 - 26)/2 = .4814687627128
Riser diameter = (26^2 + 2*51 )^0.5 = 27.89265136196
The precision of these numbers are not particularly significant once we defined the annular cavities to all have the same 51 circular inch areas and perform our calculations based on that stipulated area rather than calculated area.
Larry, 28^2/26^2. Actually, I slipped and the area error is 8%, still that is 40X the 0.2% you think resulted, so that should raise suspicion right there. The annular ring areas are the differences of squares, so by proportion using your original numbers: 28dia - 27dia = 55cir_area versus 26dia - 25dia = 51cir_area: 55/51 ~8%.
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent.
Another point you made, that I said I would answer later. I see how you came up with 8%, but it has little relevance to the efficiency when dealing with pressure differential between 2 Zeds. FYI, I am working a clearer explanation for pressure differential energy calculations.
Larry
Larry, if you are about to make significant changes to your spreadsheet, then I will hold-off taking the time to go through the one you just sent.No effect to the one I just sent as it has no differential. It would only effect a new 2 Zed and 2 Archimedes version.
Minnie you will have to ask Larry. I guess that it means external energy added. Whenever the machine sloshes water from a high column to a lower column it loses stored energy. The whole gag has been misdirection by Wayne and company away from calculating energy values correctly over the course of a full cycle. Please see the next post.
Hi MarkE,
I've been looking at Larry's drawings and don't quite know what "flow assist" means.
I realise you're having to go back over all this stuff and more or less start again and I'm
beginning to sort of understand it.
Thankyou John.
Hi Larry,
could you please explain what is meant by "flow assist".
You show a stop to limit the travel, this would indicate that
there is stored energy to be accounted for.
Thankyou John.
The multiple connected columns require 1/3 the input Ft Lbs as the single column to have the same PSI.Oops is right Larry. You miscomputed the input work. Work is the integral of F*ds. The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero. But the force at the end is: 4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft. The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of: EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.
Wouldn't it be great if someone could design a system to utilize and maintain the PSI in the multiple connected columns example.
Oops.
Oops is right Larry. You miscomputed the input work. Work is the integral of F*ds. The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero. But the force at the end is: 4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft. The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of: EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz). The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each. At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left. The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right. The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft. The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against. Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is: (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft. The total force at that point is: 3*0.65psi/ft*area. Therefore: the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft. The input energy is therefore the integral of: 3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z. That evaluates to: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area. That is the inescapable physical reality.
MarkE,
Our Zed spreadsheet output formulas are F*ds as Force * Stroke. The input Ft Lbs formulas use P average * Volume of the fluid moving into the Pod retainer. That also increases the head in the risers.
The pressure rises faster than would account for just the input volume height, due to the riser head change. Are you now saying we have to account for the riser head change? That would be double dipping as its already factored in P average.
Larry
If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.
Larry, under conditions where force changes as a function of distance (height) as it does in your example, then the integral of F*ds becomes integral(f(z)dz). The incompressible fluid in the three columns transmits pressure between each. At the end state: The right most column has a head of 4' that presses down trying to push the entire fluid volume towards the left. The middle column has a head of 2' the presses down trying to push the entire volume towards the right. The net pressure is: (4-2)ft*0.65psi/ft. The leftmost column adds one more foot of head that the input energy source has to push against. Now, the total pressure that the input source has to work against at the end is: (4-2+1)ft*0.65psi/ft = 3*0.65psi/ft. The total force at that point is: 3*0.65psi/ft*area. Therefore: the force that the input source has to work against changes from 0 to 3*0.65psi/ft*area as the input head changes from 0 to 1ft. The input energy is therefore the integral of: 3*0.65psi/ft*area/ft*z dz, evaluated from 0 to 1ft input z. That evaluates to: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area*ft in ft. lbs. work as the drawing shows. That input energy identically matches the change in stored energy from 18*0.5*0.65*area to 21*0.5*0.65*area. That is the inescapable physical reality.
If you plug non-physical formulas into a calculator, spreadsheet, or computer codes, you simply create bogus results.
If you are having difficulty with these concepts, then I suggest looking at the situation in two places:
The incremental work that you have to do to pump in the first microinch, and the work that you have to do pumping in the last microinch. When you start the two 3 inch heads cancel the net force seen by the pump at the left most tube: F~= 0, and the work to pump in 1uinch head of fluid is also ~0. When you end, the input source is working against (virtually) the right head plus the left head less the middle head and the work is: E ~= F*s ~=3*0.65psi/ft*area*1uinch.
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density. However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work. The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning. Energy is conserved. There is no gain.
MarkE,
I think you picked up my P average from the example and using it as .65psi/ft. Water is .43psi/ft. That's part of the confusion. So going from 0 to 3*.43 makes sense. But When the pressure change is linear, as in the example and simulations, the Integral resolves to Pin average * Vin, this was also stated by M. earlier. Now if you don't agree, I can write a program with your micro inch height change and calculating the force, but it should be obvious.
Larry
Larry, yes I picked up the wrong constant for water density. However, it drops out of the equations in terms of relative work. The initial stored energy is 18X 0.5*pWater*area/height, the final stored energy is 21X the same quantity, and the energy input is 3X the same quantity which is the exact difference between stored energy at the end versus the beginning. Energy is conserved. There is no gain.
Here is the drawing updated removing the specific density coefficient for water. Substitute whatever fluid for the water that you like, and plug in the corresponding density in the units of your preference. The equations still work the same way. The relative quantities do not change.
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise. They are not comparable quantities. I can get lots and lots of force and / or pressure with zero work or lots of work.
It is conservative. Never said there was a gain with the multiple connected column setup. Said that you can get the same PSI with 1/3 the input Ft Lbs (using P average * Volume). If you released, it would have the same 1/3 output Ft Lbs.
Smaller fluid volumes in and out for the same PSI reduces cycle time. Cycle time reduction increases HP. To take advantage of its properties you need a setup that can use the rise in water in the first column (Archimedes) and also use the PSI generated by the second and third columns (Riser dome).
Larry
Larry comparing force or pressure with energy is a pointless exercise. They are not comparable quantities.
The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy.No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The Integral of Pressure is equal to the average of Pstart and Pend for an incompressible fluid.
No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible. The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass. Larry asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration. But it doesn't. The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'. Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'. The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column. Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke. Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be: 0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.
I've got a feeling if you used liquids with different sg's instead of air the thing would
work just like a hydraulic jack.
Larry, I've looked at the latest spreadsheet. There is still a good deal of work to do here. Please refer to the drawing below:
We need to either insure that the starting and ending energy states are identical, or else account for the stored energy in each state. No matter what, we do need to calculate the work added and going from each state to the next. Knowing the stored energy at all states provides a good sanity check. Please be aware that each time water equalizes from a taller single column to two or more lower columns that we lose stored energy. The drawing includes formulas for calculating stored energy under the assumptions previously stated:
20C
G0=9.80665m/s/s
zero thickness walls
25" diameter pod
26" diameter pod chamber
51 circular inch riser gap and riser head areas
No. You are mixing circumstances of compressible and non-compressible substances. Work is always the integral of F*ds. If we take a capsule of fluid and subject it to 1psi or a million psi we have not done any work on that fluid. If we apply pressure against a cross section of fluid through a distance, then we do work. When we lift columns of fluid we can obtain the work performed and stored by solving the F*ds integral which will work out for a single column to: E=0.5*total_weight*height = pave*volume = 0.5*density*volume*height = 0.5*density*area*height2.
The energy is not stored in compression of the fluid for the simple reason that the fluid is incompressible. The energy is stored in the gravitational potential of the raised mass. Larry asserted that raising some cross-section by 1' to end up with the 1+2+4 configuration "cost only 1/3" of some other configuration. But it doesn't. The force went from 0 to 3X what it would have raising an isolated column by 1'. Identically, the amount of work performed was 3X that required to raise an isolated column by 1'. The force and the energy both scaled by 3X versus the isolated column. Had we done the exercise totally emptying the middle column, then the force would have gone from zero to 9X over a 3X stroke. Kf would still be 3*pWater*area, and the integral would be: 0.5*3*pWater*area*(32-0) = 27*0.5*pWater*area, IE 27X the energy of raising an isolated column by 1' and 3X the energy of raising an isolated column by 3'.
No, MarkE, you are misunderstanding me. When I said:If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion. See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.
The Integral of Pressure * Volume is Energy,
it was in reference to the analysis of the ZED. The Volume I was referring to is that which moves into and out of the system. The input Volume is water. The output Volume is that which is encompassed by the portion of the outer riser that lifts up above the original start condition height.
Sorry I did not make that more clear. I realize you are looking at several things at once and I did not point out exactly which case I was making reference to.
Correction, noticed that the Pod Lift values wasn't squared.Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column. In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it.
If you stick with integral of F*ds there is no room for confusion. See for example LarryC's example of 0+3+3 columns versus 1+2+4, picking pressures or average pressures and volumes easily leads to non-physical results, whereas integrating F*ds yields the correct result every time.
Larry, the height used in a calculation is the height of a single column. In your Stored energy calculations it looks like you took the water column height, subtracted one and then doubled it.
You need to track the energy in each of the four water volumes as shown in this picture that I posted previously.
Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds. The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight: IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.
MarkE,
In your multiple connected column example you used 4-2+1. The Zed is a multiple connected column based system, so why wouldn't it be Riser Head - Riser Gap Head + Pod Head.
Don't understand the 'doubled it' comment. I'm summing the fields and the -value is only used once.
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power. I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work. In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs. In row 8 you have a value of 329.63. The corresponding head is 35". The work to fill a column to 35" is: Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs. You've calculated a value more than four times that. You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:
MarkE,
Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work.
With a pump that is rated for 1 cubic foot per minutes. Then the single column would take 3 minutes and the multiple connected columns would take 1 minute to create the same PSI in each system.
"Yes, they both end with same stored energy, but you're not considering Power or rate of doing work."
Larry, pressure is no measure of work or power. I can create lots of pressure instantly without doing any work. In column K you labeled values as Stored Energy in Ft. Lbs. In row 8 you have a value of 329.63. The corresponding head is 35". The work to fill a column to 35" is: Integral F*ds = 0.5*62.316lb/cuft*0.27816sqft*(35/12)ft2 = 73.69 ft. lbs. You've calculated a value more than four times that. You need to calculate energy for all four parts that the drawing identifies:
Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
Sorry. ..You have only confirmed my hypothesis.
It matters not one bit that a Zed compared with Archimedes might have different power characteristics. When you move from identical starting states to identical ending energy states only the change in energy is important, not how long it takes to transition between those two states
Consider the two statements
1. How much energy would it take to raise the Titanic from the bottom of the sea, vs
2. 'How much power would it take' to raise it.
The answer to 1 is a fixed amount irrespective of time. , The answer to 2 is 'any amount of power you happen to have available.
The ZED is no different to that scenario. Stop using power considerations to explain why the ZED 'works'. It just doesn't. Any person with even modicum of understanding of physics or engineering understands why.
LarryC, energy is the integral of F*ds. The force that must be exerted to go from the 3+3 state changes from 0 to pWater*area*3ft of total head because the column in the middle counterbalances the column on the right, so it is the difference between those heads, plus the head that we develop in the left hand column that determines the net weight: IE force that we lift each increment of distance as we pump water into the left hand column.
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds. Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong. Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:
I am calculating energy for all four parts, you need to learn to use the Trace Dependents and Trace Precedents button. The 35 in J8 is not used anywhere, it is a visual double check for me to make sure I set the newly added Inner and Outer riser water ht correctly so they equal the original riser heads in column C. The Inner and Outer riser water ht is used in the store energy calculation.
Never said pressure is a measure of work or power. You would have known, I was talking about the multiple connected columns is the basis for the Zed design as I have stated many time. The PSI is used in the Risers the same as in a pneumatic cylinder and does create Work during the stroke. Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
In the spreadsheet the volume input to get to Ready to Stroke is 22 for the Zed and 81.02 for the Archimedes and the Output Ft Lbs is 33.55% greater for the Zed. Based on the fact that it would take much longer for a pump to ready the Archimedes than for the Zed, the Zed will cycle faster. Cycle faster increases Work done over time or Power.
Misleading statements caused Librenergia to take it out context and put his big foot in his mouth, when I know just as much about work and power as most of you and apparently with better comprehension, since most of you cannot understand how the Zed works.
Getting the PSI up and down with less input volume is key to increased Power.
Larry, good if you know about energy and power, then kindly correct your spreadsheets once and for all so that they evaluate energy as the integral of F*ds. Stop using averaged pressure between multiple columns and other methods that you must know from your declaration of your personal expertise are wrong. Kindly stop uttering physically meaningless statements such as:
If you understand energy then you know that there isn't any stored in an incompressible fluid. You should also know that pressure and volume are meaningful with respect to energy only under special conditions. You should also know that power is not a measure of energy. You should know that energy is the integral of F*ds. So since based on your claimed expertise you know better, please cut the BS.
MarkE,
Testy, I gave you your Stored Energy calculations, the other calculation are for working field engineers so they won't be removed.
I knew when the Stored Energy calculations didn't help you explain the 33.55% increase, you would have to find some other excuse not to admit the Zeds excess output, which is BTW calculated as Force * Stroke.
So thanks for your time, you have helped in a lot of ways. As a business, we are trying to increase Horsepower in the Zed and you may have inadvertently helped.
Larry
Our engineers have a lot more than a modicum of knowledge and with the ability to comprehend the Zed.
You should go back and review what has been posted and than make some knowledgeable statements, instead of trying to show off with these simpleton examples.
Larry, you can toy with the power all you want. What you can't do is deliver excess energy. You've got formulas in your spreadsheet that are flat wrong. There is no excess energy in that system: not 1% not 33%, zero, zip, nada, de novo. Once again: Energy is the integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where F is constant does that evaluate to F*s. In these devices where water is being pumped in and out of columns, F is not constant, and energy is not F*s. If you are still unclear on that point then I have not helped enough.
I'd like to ask these engineers to reveal themselves.
If in fact they exist and belong to any professional or governmental body that attests to their competence to hold the title 'Engineer', I'd like to formally complain to that body as to their competence to continue practising in that capacity.
They should be ashamed of themselves for believing such nonsense.
They do exist, but why would they be ashamed of having better comprehension abilities than you. You should be wondering why you don't have the ability to comprehend the system.
Yes indeed Larry: flat wrong, even in your latest spreadsheet you labeled a column "Stored Energy in Ft Lbs" that calculates values that do not represent such values. That is indeed: flat wrong.
MarkE,
Flat wrong?
No Larry, it is not common sense and it is incompetent for an engineer, particularly a hydraulic engineer to say that P average * V equals energy without qualifying that to very limited circumstance that do not apply here. Use the wrong formula in the wrong circumstances and get the wrong result. Insist upon doing that after having pointed out is just incompetence or worse.
It has always amazed me about the Physicist wannabees on this site that think they know better than actual working engineers including a hydraulic engineer. They do use P average * V and F average * stroke when P or F is linear, that is just common sense.
No Larry, each incorrect calculation I have pointed out was in fact wrong. You still insist on relying upon the same invalid premises to obtain the same invalid results.
So, what is wrong with the Stored Energy calculations that I added for you. Every time you said a calculation was in error, I've had to explain to you why it was correct.
State where it is now incorrect and I'll fix or explain why it is correct, then you can tell all why there is no excess energy.We have been through this before: The stored energy in each of the four columns is separately obtained by integrating F*ds for the respective columns. The work applied is obtained by integrating F*ds applied to the input. You can insist on using incorrect methods and get the resulting incorrect results all day long. And as the time has come and gone to show that the supposed results are correct in a physical embodiment HER / Zydro of which you count yourself a member have seen that the embodiments do not reflect the results of the calculations you show.
I trained as a professional mechanical engineer at a reputable university for 4 years. I don't claim to be an engineer now however as my speciality is software development. During the time I studied engineering however I developed more than enough comprehension to understand why the ZED system cannot possibly work as claimed.Any shareholder who relied on the expressed opinion of a professional engineer for their decision to invest in HER/Zydro can sue that engineer for professional negligence.
I will state again, Any professional engineer would agree with me that this machine does not work as claimed. Those who disagree could only be described as manifestly incompetent to retain the title 'Engineer'.
So I reiterate, who are these engineers and to what professional or regulatory bodies are they affiliated? It's time for them to put their reputations on the line.
Here is LarryC's latest spreadsheet with decomposition and reduction. Larry is free to defend the physical basis he thinks justifies his model.
So can someone please tell me what _exactly_ is meant by "FLOW ASSIST" ... ?
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure. This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy. But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke." So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist." The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator. The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.
Uh-huh. So what part of pumping fluid into a hydraulic accumulator and getting it back out is "overunity"? You get the same work out from an accumulator as you put into it, minus losses. Did you check out the PDF file I linked to up above (or maybe in the other thread, this is pretty silly having this discussion in two threads.) I think, based on that PDF, that hydraulic systems are pretty darn well understood, and in fact in that PDF you will find illustrations of every individual piece of any Zed system that I have ever seen diagrammed, with the proper equations to compute pressures, volumes, flow rates..... and, after page 33, ENERGIES.
So to get more work out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, you will need to supply some outside source. It really sounds to me like you need to get more _volume_ out of the accumulator than you are putting into it, and that situation will not last very long.... and the longest _confirmed_ reported run of any of Travis's devices that I can find is only about four hours.
It is obvious that the need for "flow assist" means that the output of the single Zed is not OU. So where does the pressure for the "flow assist" come from ON THE INITIAL CYCLE? The only possible places I can identify are from the pre-charge, which will eventually run out, or from outside the system. And the "flow assist" only resets the second zed back to the start condition, right? So _where_ is the excess whatever coming from? Do the zeds create fluid volume out of nothing?
That's why I asked my question about the Heron's Fountain that was ignored. If a small Heron's Fountain with 100 mL reservoirs will pump a head to, say, 10 cm above the highest level in the reservoirs, and continue doing that for, say, about a minute, as mine do.... what would happen if you had reservoirs of 10,000 liters, elevated by 5 meters above your reference level? How long would you expect it to run, pumping a head of, say, 1 meter? Long enough to impress the money, er, "heck" out of the observers? I've had educated people accuse me of faking Heron's Fountain runs on the tabletop system, it is so unbelievable to them.
TK, the only way a ZED system could work, IMHO, is if a single ZED somehow is able to produce more Energy output than it is supplied Energy input.That seems right to me, unless extra energy is added from outside. Since the Zed system on the first cycle needs "flow assist" for the system to reset to the start state.... well, that in itself proves that the single Zed is not OU enough to complete the action on its own.
And that is what I started this thread to check for. You keep citing the known behavior of conservative hydraulic systems. Presumably because you are convinced that a ZED is acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder (under ideal conditions).No, a _compound_ hydraulic cylinder, full of Red Herrings swimming around inside, all of which will be found to obey real physics.
But I don't know why you lot are fiddling around with Travis Employee LarryC's dualzed spreadsheet. We have been told by his employer, you may recall, that a SINGLE ZED is already OU by itself, and that there _exists_ a three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself. Why are you lot not analyzing THAT simple system to see if Travis's claims about it are true?
So are you saying that your three layer system is the same one that Travis refers to in the famous quote? It isn't something _he has_, a real tangible object, but is actually only something that exists in the spreadsheet you have calculated?
hi larryHi Marsing,
did you scale the pod height ,water height, .. etc in this picture?
Hi,
the reference to hydraulic accumulator is a load of crap. You can't store energy in a
non compressible fluid. Hydraulic accumulators are gas or spring sort of things and are
used to even out the flow in systems. I suppose a water tower is a type of hydraulic
accumulator, but look at how high you have to pump the water to be able to store an
appreciable amount of energy.
John.
Larry, you can easily just plug in the final formulas into a pair of cells, referencing the corresponding source cells and see that you get the same answers so long as you don't muck around with the ring diameters / gaps.
MarkE,
Impressive. I'm not anal enough to review, unless someone brings up an issue. If anyone would like to check, it is easy to see all the formulas at once in excel by pressing Ctrl`. The accent is next to the 1 key.
Some of the Pressure left in a first ZED at the end of its "power stroke" is allowed to "Free Flow" to a second ZED that is at the bottom of its stroke and therefore at a lower Pressure. This equalizes the Pressure between the two ZEDs and requires no additional Energy. But it does not bring the second ZED up to the full Pressure necessary to perform its "power stroke." So additional Energy is required and is called the "Flow Assist." The Energy for the "Flow Assist" is a recycled portion of the excess energy that is supposed to be harvested during each "power stroke" where the rising ZED is pumping fluid under pressure into a hydraulic accumulator. The harvesting portion of the system is not being shown in the spreadsheets currently being analyzed, AFAIK.As has been shown several times, allowing fluid to flow from a column filled to some height H1 to a second column H2 such that the ending heights equalize at an intermediate height H3 loses energy. For the HER/Zydro claims that creates a deficit that they then would have to overcome with whatever it is that is supposed to be over unity in their process. Unfortunately for HER/Zydro, there is nothing over unity in their process.
The comedy here is that Wayne Travis, Red_Sunset et-al claim to have a found a way to breach the conservative nature of gravity. No spreadsheet that relies on gravity being conservative, IE treats the GPE of a mass the same based on its height the same no matter what its history of getting to that height happens to be, is going to show such a non-conservative behavior. So in order to buy into the cult's promise of 72 ever flowing water towers one first has to find a demonstration of this non-conservative gravity claim. No one at HER / Zydro has, or ever will come up with such a demonstration.
Hi,
let's try a little mind experiment. Say you had to stake your life on either the laws of
physics being right or Travis's Overunity being true?
I know which option I'd plump for, which would you choose?
John.
I feel that it's pretty much over here. Not one fact has been offered from HER or it's
supporters to substantiate the OU. claim.
Hi Mondrasek,
are you claiming verifiability? If you can we'll call it a fact. Do you know of
anyone else who has proven OU. with this device?
John.
"John", anytime you would like to discuss the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED I would be pleased to engage further. However, your present course of questioning takes us off topic and onto the path that TK is also inclined to head down. That path is this argument: If the Physics premise is true, then why have we not seen the Physical Representation of a Functioning Device released? Ergo, if no Physical Representation of a Functioning Device, then the premise to build one must be false.Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery: Show it in theory or experiment. HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years. HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago. They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago. Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need. Yet the experiments do not happen. Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced. First principles dictate that energy is conserved. That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis. That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.
That argument is a "chicken or the egg" type of thing, isn't it? Ie. Which comes first, the Mathematical proof of an exploitable Physics phenomenon, or the product (or video?) which shows the utility of that phenomenon for the first time?
I am claiming that the math does not support the preconception that an ideal ZED performs identical to an ideal Hydraulic Cylinder. I have requested from this forum that others check it out for themselves and either show me the error of my math and/or methods or confirm the same findings. This process is similar to what is known as "Peer Review."
I have openly become an exposed target for proclaiming what I have presented so far. Feel free to shoot me down. Please do it in the language of Science: Mathematics.
M.
Hello Monderask,It's good for anyone to do such a thing. It's not something HER/Zydro seem interested in publishing.
Keep up the good work - a true Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.............
Great focus.
Wayne
Monderasek, there are two ways to go about a discovery: Show it in theory or experiment. HER/Zydro have claimed to have working apparatus for years. HER/Zydro claimed that they had their instrumented data collection unit cranking away two years ago. They were to install that 50kW unit at the church three years ago. Wayne says he has all the money HER/Zydro need. Yet the experiments do not happen. Any math that is applied to a problem must be based on underlying assumptions of the physical rules that must be enforced. First principles dictate that energy is conserved. That then becomes the verification mechanism for any mathematical analysis. That means that for practice and purpose the analysis can stop before it begins, because any conservation violation will be treated as an error that needs to be tracked down.
HER/Zydro make the extraordinary and non-physical claims that they:
Generate free energy,
Generate free energy by violating the conservative nature of gravity,
Generate free energy by lifting and dropping weights in quantities that are orders of magnitude off if they simply dropped the weights.
HER/Zydro face the burden of showing not just any, but all of the above. The fact is that they cannot show any of the above. They cannot show under any circumstance that they can carry a weight through a closed path and end up with more gravitational potential energy when they return to a starting point than when they left. In other words: They cannot show their claimed violation of the conservative nature of gravity. Since by their own claims they rely on that supposed breach as their energy source, they are stuck on the free energy point. And the last point is simple arithmetic.
I checked the results before I posted. They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits. The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use: IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall. 40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water.
MarkE,
You guys really need to wait for results.
It took a while to figure out the parenthesis problem in your output formula, creating unbelievable output. Attached, shows your results from your new reduction formulas. I did make some changes as the 51 was your constant, but the spreadsheet was using 40.06. Also the Pod Channel area is not 676 SI, but 530 SI.
Bottom line, your calculations increased the efficiency of the Zed from 66.14% to 81.84%. Don't believe it increased, so there must be an issue. Please check.
After we correct this issue, you need to send your Archimedes formulas to compare the two efficiency's.
The Mondrasek three layer ZED.
Yes, Virginia using incompressible fluids it behaves just like the serpentine hydraulic piston that it is.
One must take into account a couple of key points:
1) The increasing area of the annular rings means that there is force gain from the innermost annular ring to all other annular rings. So, when pumping water into the inner most ring, the so called pod chamber, while we displace a like weight in each of the other chambers due to using incompressible fluids, the weight that reflects back to the inner most ring decreases as we move out. The total force that opposes the input energy source at the end of filling 37mm is the weight of the 37mm added to the innermost ring plus the loss of the same weight as a counterbalance in AR2 times the area ratio of AR1/AR2, plus the same weight times the area ratio of AR1/AR3, etc out to AR7.
2) The correct energy values are always obtained by integrating F*ds. When we do this, we get 3.412mJ total stored energy in the various water columns at the end of the first state where we fill annular rings 2-7 up to 32.5mm high.
3) The added energy required to pump 37mm of head into AR1 works out to 2.099mJ. This is identically the difference between the 3.412mJ stored at the end of the first state and the energy that one obtains by calculating and summing the stored energy in each of the annular rings at the end of State 2: 5.5111mJ. IOW, ignoring things like friction loss, the device is completely conservative pumping water in. Gravity has not been cheated.
4) Releasing the risers and allowing them to rise causes the the water levels in the various annular rings to move towards equalized heights. As I have already shown, anytime we take two columns one filled higher than the other and allow them to move towards equalization, we lose energy to heat.
MarkE, thank you for double checking everything up to this point. I'm glad that we agree so far.Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2? It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.
MarkE, you did not finish the test. And I must insist that you do. Because it is only when again measuring the Energies AFTER the lift that I am finding things do not add up. And, unfortunately, the rise (stroke) is the hardest part (for me at least) to calculate. I cannot simply calculate the final resting position that the ZED will rise to if allowed to do so where all the buoyant forces induced by the water charge sum to zero. I would have to do this iteratively and it would take forever. You and LarryC would probably write a VBA program to do that. I lack that ability.
So I took a different approach: I ASSUMED first that all the added Energy from the input charge would convert to motion of the outer riser by F*ds. I then re-drew the ZED model with that exact amount of rise and re-distributed the water. If all the added Energy had been converted to motion of the outer riser then the sum of the buoyant forces in the system should be zero at that state. When I did that analysis the sum of the buoyant forces was NOT zero. It was a positive value that meant the ZED would need to rise even further.
I checked the results before I posted. They agree with the spreadsheet to five digits. The 51 is the constant annular ring area expressed in circular inches that you agreed to use: IE the area of the annular gap between the pod and the innermost ring wall. 40.06 is what you get when you convert from circular inches to square inches, which the constant K1 rolled-up along with the density of water.
Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of circular area units. They get used in power electronics quite a bit. A circular area unit is the area a square would take that has the width of a given circle's diameter. The relationship between circular area and absolute area is: absolute area = circular area * pi/4. With a pod of 25" diameter, the circular area is 252 = 625. The ring wall at 26" diameter is 262 = 676. The area difference is of course the sum of the two diameters = 51 circular inches. We can work in these more convenient units throughout the problem before applying the common constants pi/4 and the density of water, and our conversion from cubic inches volume and inches height to cubic feet and feet height.
My reduction simply reproduced the net total of the spreadsheet formulas in algebraic form.
Are you saying that you agree with the analysis through State 2? It is OK if you don't, but I will then want to know specifically what you object against.
You have stipulated that the pods and risers are massless. Unless you specified some sort of payload someplace that I missed, going from State 2 to State 3 therefore does no work, but we know that it is lossy, because any increase in the internal volume requires the water columns to move towards equalization. The cylinder volume from the Riser 3 OD inward increases only at the expense of a reduced water column in AR7. Water volume from AR7 and AR6 go towards equalization, as do AR5 and AR4, and AR3 and AR2. The internal volume can increase no more than the ratio of the area of riser3 to the entire area including AR7 multiplied by the water volume added in State 2. And we know that equalizing columns is a lossy process. So before I go off to show the specific changes going to a State 3, I need more information from you about what useful work you intend this thing to do going from State 2 to State 3. As long as it can be shown that work is less than the energy loss going between those two states, then the machine is lossy.
Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.
But let me say - a single Zed system can demonstrate a gain over the operating cost
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.
Let's see you reconcile those two quotations from you, Travis.
TK, MarkE and I are currently working through the analysis of a SINGLE ZED that is composed of THREE LAYERS.
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control. He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers.
MH, I disagree. From what I can tell, Mr. Wayne drops in to encourage us to finish the Mathematical Analysis. I have done mine. I was surprised. I asked for a double check. And I still wait for that double check to be completed.
You, or anyone else, are welcome to perform a double check. Now that MarkE has performed and presented his analysis right up to the final step(s), and I have confirmed that his results conform to my own, you could skip those steps and just pick it up from there.
The results I have found, if corroborated by anyone, would definitely require a triple, and even a quadruple check!
I agree with your analysis through State 2. Everything adds up exactly as I also found.It all depends on what one wishes to determine.
I utilized the same analysis method for the output rise as was used for the input of the water charge: F*ds as expressed for the case of a Volume of a Fluid that is being moved by a change in Pressure that either starts or ends at zero: Paverage*V. The riser initially will want to move with a Pressure that can be calculated from the buoyant force sum of the pod and risers. That Pressure should drop linearly to zero as the ZED reaches equilibrium at the end of the rise. The physical device that would restrain the initial Pressure and allow it to drop to zero while performing the rise is not important for the analysis I think. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Great Work Mark E and Monderask.Engineers "jumped to your conclusion". You are a hoot. The seemingly effortless way that you continue to shamelessly keep suggesting that you have something behind your tattered curtain is really awesome.
You have worked thru the Math to properly analyzed the "Ideal charge"
That deserves a victory Lap for the Math so Far - well done.
Again - Great work thru the first step.
Note to Mark, "Ideal charge" is great for Monderask's question.
It is incorrect to use that state of a ZED or Marks stated operation as any conclusion, you have one wheel on the Gravity Wagon so far..Smile
p.s. Don't feel bad - almost every engineer jumped to your conclusion - you will get it soon.
Wayne
To All,Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
The drawing all lend confusion to our process.
Non show a static load - we used Hydraulic resistance as the load - above the risers.
This resulted in a state where the charge to lift a load is balanced - once buoyancy to load neutral is reached - any additional input resulted in overcoming the resistance and resulted in stroke and output.
Also important to understand - at the end of the desired stroke - a mechanical stop is used to keep the precharge and stroke input from being released.
In effect - the load was removed during stroke, and then the precharge and stroke input recaptured.
As Webby described - we invented several methods to improve the value of that re use of the precharge and stroke input.
- The Video Mark Dansie took - we recaptured 57% of the input. (was our first three layer ZED system)
This resulted in a simple input reduction to the over all process.
The comparisons to a Hydraulic cyclnder - which Larry has shown - is for one simple realization.
When we configure the ZED to upstroke loaded - with the same or better value than a simple hydraulic cylnder - and then re-use any portion of that input - the result is a input reduction.
Just as Fletcher described.
Our design requires three layers to be equal to or better than a Hydraulic cylinder.
The seal less jack comparison - with resuse is simple and clear - it continues to surprise me - that the men who slander me - won't see that.
............
Larry and Mark have agreed that a single layer and pod system is in the 60%'s area, I agree.
Watch what happens when you add two and then three - you can stop at three if you like - but you do not have to. smile
............
It took three minutes to realize the value of the ability to recycle input in a ZED system......... no magic, no fuss, no agenda.
Just good hard work.
Wayne
MarkE,Who cares how much less horrific one scheme is than another? The HER/Zydro claim is for a gain in energy. No such gain occurs. Do you drive your car around with the emergency brake on? Do you get excited about a huge boost in gas mileage when you release the emergency brake?
Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]
The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.
Larry
Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
It all depends on what one wishes to determine.
1) Since we agree that there is no energy gain going between State1 and State2, we have established that the "ideal Zed" you have set-up can only do something that you find interesting by buoying the risers and pod.
2) The risers and the pod have zero mass, so no energy is gained by their increase in height.
3) Buoyancy force is just acceleration due to gravity operating on fluids.
4) Gravity acts conservatively on any mass independent of state: solid, liquid, gas, plasma.
5) Now that you are using the integral of F*ds, you know that as soon as we release the risers, that the stored energy will go down.
Do you agree with all of that or not?
I think that Wayne drops in once in a while to try to do some damage control. He desperately wants this this thread to create the illusion that the Zed is real and his company is real for the true hard-core rabid believers. Hence he himself, Red_Sunset and LarryC always try to imply that everything is real with their cynical manipulative use of the English language. Where else could Wayne possibly get money? It's only from the hard-core rabid believers with deep pockets. Think of the people that built replications of the Mylow "motor." There was one wealthy person that was paying a machine shop to build his replication.
There is gold in them thar hills and Wayne wants that gold.
I will repeat again, I am so creeped out by his fake quasi North Korean "Leader" persona mixed in with the all of the religious jargon and fake preaching. Big Wayne is going to give you sausages and soothe your soul. Eeeeek!!!
So you must be building away in secret then, so that you will be the FIRST actually to show on a real system, more output work than input work, and a real self-runner. Certainly nobody on Travis's payroll can do that much.
And let's not even mention the little incident involving calculations that brought you and me together in the first place, shall we?
MarkE, I agree with all of it except for your statement #5. And that is because I have done the math and did not find those expected results for this unique construction (ZED). I would fully have expected your statement to hold true due to my training and experience (and knowledge of history). But I could not find the classical expected result to present itself. And so I did, and still do, ask for a double check of the analysis of this 3-layer ZED model.Mondrasek, take two columns and connect them with a pipe at the bottom. For the moment we will use identical cross-sections only for simplicity of the illustration. Now, fill each of the columns to a height H1 and calculate the stored energy:
LarryC you obviously have not been paying attention. But since you now agree that the algebraic reduction is correct, feel free to try and justify that those equations represent the physics. If you succeed you fail, because by your own words they do not yield even close to unity. And if you fail you establish that for all your claimed expertise you still have not modeled the system correctly.
MarkE,
Where is it broken now? You've proved that our Engineering calculations that you been saying were wrong, are correct, as they match your Integral F*ds calculations.
Engineers "jumped to your conclusion". You are a hoot. The seemingly effortless way that you continue to shamelessly keep suggesting that you have something behind your tattered curtain is really awesome.
Thanks Mark,Wayne Travis, it's awesome that you misrepresent so freely. Your claims of excess energy and breaches of conservative behavior by gravity are in fact completely unevidenced falsehoods. You choose to ignore what has already been proven. That's a big sign of scienter.
I have warned you that our system is counter intuitive - and you are trusting your intuitive - and it is good - Not the best I have seen - you get lock jaw when you trust in what you already know - is making you blind.
Richard is one of the best - and when he found what he thought was a dead end - he said - How did you get around "this" and he learned the system very quickly.
Jumping to conclusions is a big mistake........... and I believe - that is why our system eluded the world.
The Math will reveal the truth, Keep up the good work.
.....................................
You do not need me - you are on the right path to either conclusion.
Wayne
Wayne Travis you do not speak for me. Larry's spreadsheet remains broken. The analysis above shows that there is no gain to be had with the serpentine piston. As soon as we release the device, we lose energy that we paid. There is no sign of over unity. There are only losses.
Mondrasek, take two columns and connect them with a pipe at the bottom. For the moment we will use identical cross-sections only for simplicity of the illustration. Now, fill each of the columns to a height H1 and calculate the stored energy:
Right you are - my bad for the inclusion..There is not and never was net energy. You can tell that lie all you want. It has never had any evidentiary support. It is a bald-faced lie.
You have a one track mind - what you think the end is going to be..........
Get to the end of the Math - show the errors - everyone is appreciative.
The end is a three layer dual ZED system - Net Energy.
They are both figments of the imagination.
The new end of discussion will be; What is the Difference between a Non conservative Net Energy system and O/U.
Any engineer who believes your lies needs to go back to school.
That difference is what required our engineers to rethink of the black box.
Hey maybe Bubba will be calling you something else in a cozy 6'x9' for two. Only time will tell.
We let people call it what they understand - for now.
Wayne
No, MarkE. I will only discuss the Analysis of the unique construction of the ZED that you have participated in so kindly so far.Do I understand you to be saying that you refuse to discuss basic physics as it directly applies to your example? Your example in going from State 2 to State 3 moves the water columns towards equalization, does it not? The same physics applies to each pair of annular rings divided by a riser wall as it does to my example, does it not?
M.
Do I understand you to be saying that you refuse to discuss basic physics as it directly applies to your example? Your example in going from State 2 to State 3 moves the water columns towards equalization, does it not? The same physics applies to each pair of annular rings divided by a riser wall as it does to my example, does it not?
There is not and never was net energy. Only time will tell.
Let us presume for a while that the mathematical analysis as presented by LarryC is correct, in that it shows an energy increase or identically speaking a 'reduction in input' over a full cycle.
1. The first point would be to qualify that 'an energy increase' is in fact the same as a 'reduction in input', and simply a matter of semantics as to where you consider the lowest energy state of the cycle to be. I'd be interested in Wayne or LarryC's comment to that.
If the above is agreed, then question then becomes, where did this energy increase during the cycle come from? It must be transferred from somewhere, unless you are going to challenge the first Law that states energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nowhere have I seen a coherent explanation of this process.
We have claims of non-conservative gravity. This would imply lifting some mass was somehow easier when inside a ZED compared with outside of it. Certainly one can use levers to achieve lower force requirement but this is at the expense of displacement so we would expect in a conservative field such as gravity that the energy requirement remains constant.
If it works, then the ZED must break that symmetry. No where have I seen coherent explanation as to how this occurs within the ZED.
Does it somehow 'modify gravity' locally? From all accounts the machine doesn't becoming lighter while working, the workers are not floating away while working on it and I don't think Wayne is claiming that this is the working principle, so we can discount this.
So, from the agreed starting point given in point 1. I'd like LarryC or Wayne to provide a coherent explanation of how that happens. The description must explicitly state how and where the energy increase occurs. It cannot contain reference to time-based quantities such as power, as that is only valid when certain conditions are true that cause time to be eliminated from the math.
Perhaps, when this explanation is offered, we can then use mathematics to model JUST that process, as it is the only interesting part of the machine cycle.
Hi,
thank you mrwayne for answering my question- by not answering!
Now I feel I have enough information from Mondrasek and MarkE
to be able to have a crack at the maths myself. It'll take me some
time but between us we'll get to the bottom of it in the end.
John
I appreciate your turn and tone from trying to discredit our engineers - to asking a good question.
I think Monderask is taking a logical and clear method.
With the proper Math - of the whole system - opinions are not part of the equation.
Thanks Wayne
MarkE, I am refusing anything but to discuss the MATH. That is the only thing that matters, AFAIKS.Mondrasek I have presented you with math that irrefutably describes the physics. It is a fluid model. The added fluid volume redistributes across the cross section. The incompressible water and "air" then redistribute accordingly. There is no need for iterative calculations. Ordinary algebra yields the values. However, the character of the result is already known. Yet, you refuse to discuss that indisputable fact.
Principals of basic physics can be discussed later. But first, please finish your math when you can. Also, I am happy to help out since the volume changes in each annulus due to the changing height of the risers gave me a pause (once again). Luckily I had encountered that issue a few years ago in the original discussion on this subject and was able to quickly recover again due to my previous "learning curve." I'm happy to share that knowledge if it would expedite your own learning curve. And, of course, I have no doubts that you can get by the tricky part that I found! But the offer stands if it is useful.
Am I confused or what?Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.
I thought you were just a simple farmer who had friends that did the math you could not understand? ;)
p.s. trying to create stories to support your other stories - is just.... TK (thats "Thumb Knitting" - or sock puppetry).
Gravity is Always on :)
Wayne
Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.
TK, I see no reason why you keep making things like this up, and stating them in the form of a fact that you will repeat as true unless some "proof" is given that they are false.
TK, you can bring up the "mondrasek wheel" (please Google it if you want to see it everybody) anytime you please. But it appears you are trying to "shame" me for a mistake from my past, rather than discuss the Mathematical Analysis. And you have tried that before. And the last time you did so I think I was open and transparent about what happened during that occasion as well. So why the thinly veiled threat again? I openly admit I made a mistake then and that you were instrumental in helping me realize that fact. I have thanked you multiple times for helping me to find the error in what first brought me to OU.com and "Energy research" in the first place. So, what of it?
Just finish the Math....... I don't expect anything or ask anything else from you.
and No, You are not done - you just set the simple baseline.
Stay on Subject.
More fake creepy pseudo social engineering from sinister minister Wayne.The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims. The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel. One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy. It does make a little heater. A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.
He has the answer but he won't tell you, you have to work for it. Sure. Join the Wayne Drone Club and work hard for your secret decoder ring. You all were born with and suffer from the sin of not knowing. You are not worthy but keep working. Eeeek!
Lets score:
People who independently built ZED's and then analyzed to understand the system - are trying to share with the ones that would rather not.
And you have what to offer?
..........................................OK
Got it.
Wayne
Oh, it can go on for much longer. Remember Sean McCarthy and Steorn, 25 million Euro burn over five or six years, nothing delivered, five or six different iterations, a flat-packable Ikea-stocked Orbo (just kidding about that one), e-orbo, SSOrbo, kinetica toy, all of that? A couple of genuine red herrings too, the Core Effect pulse motor and the magnetic bearings, improper use of test equipment to produce misleading results.... a secret inner circle private Steorn Knowledge Base club with layers like an onion .... he's still running around from pub to pub in Dubalin-town and has changed products, or rather imaginary products again.... and is burning still more cash with no end in sight.I don't dispute that. Some scams go on for many years. Then again others get ripe enough and guys with badges and guns visit and they are in no mood for coffee and donuts.
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3. Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem? Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3? Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors? Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?
The hilarious part is that actually doing the math, which I have and is presented above in clear, easily audited form, refutes Wayne Travis' false claims. The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel. One puts energy into it, gets no work out, and then has to replenish the lost energy. It does make a little heater. A piece of resistance wire is a lot cheaper.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production.Is there really any need to say more?
Monderask - I hope you do not mind,The math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia. It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.
MarkE,
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.
With you it is always acting.
I will act as you were never told the states - for sake of time.
So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit. Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work. It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.
So lets get your states set up, and in order.
...........
Conditions
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A will be the receiving ZED,
ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.
.................
State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses
Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.
The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.
Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.
The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"
Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.
The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :
One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.
The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.
Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.
The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.
The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.
.................
To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.
The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.
Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)
Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.
.........................
Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.
The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.
but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.
.......................
Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.
In simple observation - the true cost of stroking a half cycle is all of the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.
A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.
MarkE - if you do understand these States - you should be able to see how we transfer two sets of PV left and right - not consuming that value and truely reducing the total input cost.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist is the external input - which can be powered by the Production. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.
Wayne
The math simply shows the physics that has been known for over two millennia. It is the same physics that proves you are selling lies for cash.With you it is always acting.So many words you utter, so much attempt you make to distract with utter bull shit. Nothing you have shown or can show will result in an energy gain from cyclically lifting and dropping weights. The "Ideal ZED" as Mondrasek has laid it out is a less than useless machine that expends energy while doing no useful work. It is an allegory for what investor funds in your sham companies do: No useful work.
Is there really any need to say more?
So do you give up? it is simple from here.Your shamelessness is awesome. I have proven that the "Ideal ZED" is less efficient than a brick.
it is simple from here.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production
The "Ideal ZED" is an energy roach motel.
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?As you are no doubt acutely aware, Wayne Travis' wall of words is just a bunch of flim-flam hand waving. Mondrasek put up his configuration of an "ideal ZED". Wayne Travis wrote several posts approving Mondrasek's configuration. Yet analysis shows that this "ideal" device is quite lossy. A cinderblock brick would be more efficient. Faced with that, Wayne belted out his wall of words suggesting that there is more to it. One needs to hook up two of these lossy things together to make up the losses in volume. Then our correspondent Wayne Travis filled out a long post of: do this, do that, blah, blah, blah, but yet in the end he is still lifting and dropping weights, where we have just shown that doing is not only underunity, if done incompetently as in the "Ideal ZED" it requires input work and yields no useable output work. It takes work to go from State 3 to State 2. Going from State 2 to State 3 yields no useable output. It does dissipate heat. A rope, a spring, a rock would all be more efficient and useful than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".
After all as the system is stroking and producing the excess output then some or all of that could be redirected to assist input, surely? Capturing it, storing it and moving it, even if it is to another Zed can only result in losses compared with using it directly. I see no reason to the contrary.
I'd be interested in your opinion as to why/why not. I'm only trying to help you achieve the most efficiency here.. which appear to be LarryC's stated aim too.
Bill, thanks. What's fascinating to me is the absolute conscience free chutzpah of our correspondent: Wayne Travis. It apparently matters not to Mr. Travis that the "ideal ZED" is shown to be an energy wasting contraption. Wayne just brass balls his way right past those inconvenient facts and alludes once more to some supposed secrets behind the curtain. Wayne is so busy trying to talk fast that he's missed the fact that the curtain blew away a long time ago.
Mark:
That is very funny indeed. Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.
Excellent terminology and very, very funny.
Well done.
Bill
How about this? How about we secretly replace the "air" in the "ideal ZED" with water? Why by gosh and by golly: Praise Jesus! It gets more efficient. How about we get rid of the serpentine chambers? Praise Jesus again! A simple hydraulic piston is like a rock, a spring, or a rope more efficient than the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED". The best ZED, the most efficient ZED is no ZED at all. A glass of water is more efficient than a ZED.
So from this description, the most efficient embodiment of the device would be to connect the 'Excess Output' directly to the input of this 'hydro assist system' and use it in the same stroke... would you agree?
So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3. Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem? Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3? Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors? Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?
Mark:
That is very funny indeed. Energy checks in but it doesn't check out.
Excellent terminology and very, very funny.
Well done.
Bill
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.If you have too many Red Herrings, things start to smell pretty fishy. Besides, a three-pronged teeter-totter is clearly just too weird.
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check ion never check out - exactly
Wayne
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.Now you are piling lie upon untruth. Mark Dansie DID NOT CERTIFY that system as self running. It has a tummy ache on one side, to boot. And you are practically admitting in this statement that you do not in fact have a self runner any more than my Heron's Fountain is a self-runner. You can waffle about and dodge the direct question as much as you like, you can invoke God's blessings... but you cannot deny that for some reason, God did not permit you to put up that 50 kW plant that you "expected" to be able to install at TBC years ago.
Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
The arguments will always come from some...
Thank You
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
Thanks.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check ion never check out - exactly
Wayne
The design of the system was just to mechanically amply force - by request we spent the money to self loop itself - even in its infant stage of development - with no engineering - that was possible.
Once again here is the link to that self contained closed loop system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc
The arguments will always come from some...
Thank You
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
Thanks.
The bad thing so far there is no energy can be extracted from the system.
every cycle you need to allocate some external energy .......... ALWAYS....... ::) :o
The Working system is not what was needed in the end - to gain the funding - it is character, our actual business plan, and the simple math - and blessing from God.
what is this mean ?
DOn't know what you are referring to?
The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?
We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).
Thanks
I'd wondered why Wayne stopped at having just two devices connected though. Using his thinking adding more connected together would offer far higher chance of success. Even in its current form, with a bit of pre-charge the IZED, (infinite Zed) might actually work long enough to convince investors it worked. In fact it would be hard to argue that it didn't.
Eout - Ein = extracted energy, and of course with full cycle
do you have a self running machine ?
The Ideal Analysis gets the calcs in your math right. Well Done.Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis. One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
... Wall of pointless blather ...
Wayne Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
To All;Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis. You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim. The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless. You can post as many walls of text as you want. What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick. Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.
... Wall of text ...
Since the inception of the NET Energy producing system - We worked hard to develop the systems, business, contact, and friendships.
I have put up with the nonsense from TK and his bandwagon now for two years for this reason.
Now we are hiring, we have Turn Key funding. We have selected 18 of our start up of 27 members.
We are hiring now, and we have temporary offices while our world class LEED building is being built.
.............................
We have Patent application pending in almost every county - some granted - some being exercised.
If you are interested in Clean and Green energy future - that has the only Alternative ON DEMAND CAPABILITY:
Welcome, our door has been open.
Wayne Travis
ZydroEnergy.com
Those are just more lies from you Wayne Travis. You do not now have and have never had a device or a method to generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights as you claim. The analysis of the "ideal ZED", the device model that you so glowingly approved, shows that the device is completely useless. You can post as many walls of text as you want. What you cannot do is get that ridiculous contraption to even match the efficiency of a brick. Each time one goes from State 2 to State 3, a transition that performs no useful outside work, one loses 28% of the internally stored energy which must be replaced in order to return to State 2 to set-up for the next futile cycle.
MarkE, please look at the ZED in State 3. There is still a positive water head on the pod and each riser! Therefore there is still much buoyant Force to be resolved. Ego, the ZED could NOT come to rest in this condition. It must stroke further if unrestrained. This proves that the ASSUMPTION that Energy in is equal to Energy out was wrong. Unless you have some other way to resolve the remaining buoyant Force without more stroke?Mondrasek, would you like to bet? The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct. Why? Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition. You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1.
I realize you did not mean this seriously;Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy. The special features of: A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine: a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk. This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.
But you are right regarding the Set up pressures - the first time you introduce the differential density fluids - and set them up to the sunk and stroked position - that requires external input.
That input never leaves the system - and is continually recycled.
SO check in never check out - exactly
Wayne
Ah another wall of BS text from the shameless huckster Wayne Travis. One might wonder why oh why is Wayne so anxious to try and deflect the analysis that shows that even under idealized conditions, the ZED is less useful than a brick.
Maybe the lying huckster wasn't completely honest with us about his investment situation.
Maybe the lying huckster has some fish he is trying to reel in and he doesn't want them to see the empty bag he is trying to trade them for their cash.
Note that in his entire wall of text, Wayne Travis cannot refute anything in the analysis. Note that in the entire wall of text Wayne Travis fails to bring in any actual new information that supports his false claims of getting free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.
Mondrasek, would you like to bet? The system as presented is physically and mathematically correct. Why? Because of the venting necessary to create State 1, the pod and the risers are stable as you stipulated as a requirement for the State 1 condition. You will recall that I went to pains to discuss with you how the system would be brought to State 1.
In State 2 3108 cir mm2*mm was added to the system. Unrestrained that volume lifts the entire cross-section by a distance equal to the volume divided by the cross-section as shown. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats.
If you object to State 3, then you must object to your own stipulations for State 1. At the end of State 1 the massless materials: The "air", the pod, and the risers are all in effect simply floating on the surface of one pool of water. State 2 holds those masses restrained while water is pumped in. State 3 releases those masses so that the water can equalize. They rise, gaining no work because they are massless and the previously lifted water falls, losing a great deal of the energy added during State 2.
Your piece of junk machine is a sink for energy. The special features of: A serpentine hydraulic piston corrupted by pockets of air, and with an outer venting column all take a useful machine: a hydraulic piston and turn it into a lossy piece of junk. This is of course contrary to your often stated lies that those very features enable you to cheat gravity.
MarkE, I was going to draw your State 3 and dimension the remaining heads on the pod and each riser that need to be resolved. But I ran into an error with your stated water height in AR2: 49.651mm. That is obviously not correct. Could you provide the correct value? And you should try calculating the buoyant Forces that remain on the pod and each riser that still need to be resolved. The ZED cannot remain in the position you show in State 3 unless restrained. It has more Energy that needs to be released due to the still remaining buoyant Forces.If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error. The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water. The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height.
I would have liked to just present my own diagrams again, but I see you calculated the rise based on Volume in = Volume out. This is another error since there is a third Volume of air that is interacting with the system by the nature of the outer annulus being open to the atmosphere.
I calculated my lift distance based on the ASSUMPTION that Energy in = Energy out, not by simple volumes. That results in a stroke that should be 1.9094mm. But the results are similar in that the system could not come to rest at that larger lift distance either. There is still 31.828 grams of buoyant lift force at that larger lift distance. So again, the lift would have to be even further to resolve the remaining buoyant Forces.
And FWIF, no iterations need to be performed for this simple analysis. The iterations would be needed (for me at least) to find the final resting state of the charged ZED. That state requires that the sum of all the internal buoyant Forces be zero. That is definitely not the case in your State 3, nor in the one I calculated via an Energy Balance approach.
DOn't know what you are referring to?Gee, Mr. Wayne, where is the load bank?
The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?
We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).
Thanks
Two years ago - one of the TK "likes" said something Similar - meant to be an insult:Ah more lies from Wayne Travis. As can be seen from the analysis of the "ideal ZED", and LarryC's spreadsheet, one has two basically two choices: make each successive annular ring narrower and narrower to hold constant area per ring, or watch as the change in water height in the outer rings and therefore the stroke converges towards zero. The ultimate ZED as opposed to the "ideal ZED" is a device with just one riser, and just one pod, where each are very, very wide, and the vertical stroke approaches zero. In the limit, such a system approximates but never quite matches the efficiency of a brick.
Why not just continue hooking the ZEDs together to forever..
In reality - the layering system works in much the same effect - but with reduced Capital cost and reduced foot print.
Net is the Product - two Six Layer ZEDs can be optimized to put out the same Net production as four three layer systems, in roughly the same foot print.
............
So it is a business decision - and a structural mechanical (Cost) limitation - to continue to up size each system.
Wayne
With Respect - I am sharing what I am not contractually bound to reserve.Once again the lying huckster Wayne Travis appeals to claims that he has something magic behind the curtain. No worries Wayne. Bubba is anxiously keeping his magic something for you with him in his cell.
Our Contract gives our Benefactor exclusive rights to first utilization of the manufactured models and their absolute first public demonstration.
Previous to that contract, we allowed a Skeptic to video our early model.
The Link has been posted.
Thank you.
If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error. The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water. The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height.
Once more: Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.
The materials are incompressible. Did you get that? They are incompressible. One more time: They are incompressible.
I am sorry MarkE,If your last line is a promise to keep spamming your wall of text, I don't think Stefan will appreciate that.
You seemed to miss this post. I will post it again.
... Wall of pointless text ...
Nonsense video with no measurements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc)
Wayne Travis
President
Zydro Energy, LLC
Mr.Wayne@ZydroEnergy.com
Every time you or TK, or the puppets come back.
MarkE, one might wonder why you are ignoring my two posts that point out a mistake in your presented values as well as a couple in the methods in your final Stage 3 presentation. It is an invalid "Energy Balance" Analysis, as well as completely ignores that works was done in the form of F*ds.You are absolutely wrong. The spreadsheet correctly shows all of the math. Each energy value in the spreadsheet explicitly calculates energy as the integral of F*ds. All of the math reflects real physics. The drawing had one transcription error, picking up a value one row off from the spreadsheet.
In the condition you show in your State 3 drawing the pod is still submersed in 28.537mm of water. It is displacing 89.652 cc of that water. Are you saying that does not create a buoyant Force equal to ~89 grams? What is keeping it from rising further? Where is the equal and opposite force that is cancelling this buoyant Force that remains?I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form. If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you. Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition. If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each: State 1 and State 3. State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7. Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior. Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.
The three risers are likewise still positively buoyant due to the head difference of the water on their OD and ID, right?
MarkE,Despite the complications of detail that you try and use to obfuscate the fact that you have nothing of value, the fact is that at the end of the day, you lift and drop weights. There is no energy gain to be had from doing such a thing. You have never shown the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary.
I am still patient with you.
As far as your insinuations and slander, my motives have been clear and consistent from my first post.QuoteYes you are selling lies to investors. That has been clear for years now.
......
I know, our ZED system is tough to wrap your head around for some, you are very close - don't give up.
I see it for what it is, not the illusion that you try and misrepresent.
If all you see is lifting and dropping weights - you missed the production which is removed before dropping, and the re use of each half cycles charge.
You should be more concerned about where your burned investors might want to drop rocks.
That is not dropping a rock twice.
Wayne
You are free to show by competing analysis and / or demonstration that I got anything wrong in the spreadsheet. If you do, then make certain that you apply actual physics and not contrived ideas such as you have so far.
The math shows exactly what I told you and that you refused to discuss: That equalizing water column heights as occurs in the transition from State 2 to State 3 loses stored energy without doing any useful work. The most efficient ZED is no ZED at all.
I have shown all the work in the spreadsheet in convenient easy to read algebraic form. If you aren't going to bother to read and understand the work, then there is little hope for you. Either you accept your stipulation that the system was vented in State 1 so that there was no net force up or down on the risers, or you change your problem definition. If you accept the former, then what you have is no different than objects floating on a volume of water at the end of each: State 1 and State 3. State 2 added volume to the water which because of the restraint on the Russian Dolls of Ignorance was forced into AR7. Once the restraint was released at State 3, the added fluid effectively redistributed to an equal height across the entire cross-section as required by fluid behavior. Ergo, we poured some water into Archimedes' bath and his rubby ducky, Spanish Armada playset all rose with added water.
MarkE,Webby do try and pay attention. State 1 was stipulated by Mondrasek. AR7 increases in height over the State 1 stipulated equilibrium condition just like the entire rest of the cross-section does. That's what fluids do webby: They flow to fill the available area. The outer walls of the base assembly define that area. The Russian Dolls of Ignorance configuration does not change that reality.
There is no way the system you have presented will stop in this position.
This system will continue to lift until the water level in AR7 has been drawn down below the water level in AR6 to counter the decreasing buoyant lift of the other 2 risers and the pod.
It will be the negative buoyant condition of the 3rd riser that stops the movement, and your setup has not reached that.
The duckys are playing submarine,, and they are filled with air!
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral. It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium. In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved. How do you wish to resolve those Forces? Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?Mondrasek, again you are flat, stinking wrong. Under the condition that you again reiterate for State 1 above, the act of adding water in State 2 is to move that condition to one where the water level rises by the added water volume divided by the cross section. If you are going to continue to dispute basic physics then go find a suitable reference to support your absolutely incorrect argument.
MarkE, your math is not in question. But it results in a paradox, right? If you solve to balance Energy, you end up with unbalanced Forces left over (this is what your analysis shows). If you solve to balance the Forces, then the Energy balance is not correct. Do you disagree? Are there not unbalance buoyant Forces in State 3 of your analysis?Monderasek, there is no paradox. The behavior is all very well understood. If you think that this is a paradox, then you must think that connecting one charged capacitor to a second uncharged capacitor is a paradox as well. There is no more paradox here than there is to slowing down your car by applying the brakes. Your latest incorrect assumption is that the stored energy remains constant. You insist on this incorrect position even when the physics have been explained to you multiple times. This whole foolish contraption is a glorified pool of fluid. Add more fluid and it rises. End of story.
There was useful work performed that you have ignored. The ZED in this Analysis was not allowed to rise uninhibited by a load. We agreed on this from post 249 of this thread:I utilized the same analysis method for the output rise as was used for the input of the water charge: F*ds as expressed for the case of a Volume of a Fluid that is being moved by a change in Pressure that either starts or ends at zero: Paverage*V. The riser initially will want to move with a Pressure that can be calculated from the buoyant force sum of the pod and risers. That Pressure should drop linearly to zero as the ZED reaches equilibrium at the end of the rise. The physical device that would restrain the initial Pressure and allow it to drop to zero while performing the rise is not important for the analysis I think. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
You violated this first by NOT calculating the lift difference using the described method of an Energy balance. You instead resorted to a Volume balance which is flat wrong for this open ZED. Then you ignore that work output preformed upon the non-physical device agreed upon would provide the theoretical output F*ds as the Paverage*V, or simply Faverage*ds where ds is the lift distance. So there is Work that can be performed by the change from State 2 to State 3 and you ignore that in your Analysis.
Yes MarkE do pay attention.Nope, you are still not paying attention. Mondrasek stipulated the neutral condition as State 1. Now you may reasonably object to that stipulation, but then you will have to take that up with Mondrasek. But as long as he stipulates that State 1 is as he depicted it, the result in State 3 falls out.
Where are the water heights in state 1.
Where are the water heights in end of state 2.
Where are the water heights in end of state 3. Not back to a neutral height are they.
Tell that to Mondrasek. He seems to think that incompressible fluids behave some other way.
Water will flow and find its own level.
Again, State 3 arises from Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved stipulation of State 1. If you object to the State 1 stipulation, and you should, then you need to ask that pair why Mondrasek stipulated State 1 as he did and why Wayne Travis approved of that stipulation.
There is a buoyant lift left in the risers, all of them as you have them at the end of state 3. They all have a positive buoyant lift potential that is left,, repeat, the water still wants to move down and that will move things and make the risers go up.
Again, you need to change the stipulation of State 1. Otherwise, we get exactly what has been shown.
The only avenue there is for the increase in volume needed for all of that movement is from AR7, that will get sucked down until the suction, the negative buoyant lift equals the positive buoyant lift of the other 2 risers and the pod.
Again, that is because your experiment did not have the State 1 stipulation: Apples and oranges.
Do remember that I have played with a 5 riser system, and look at some of the pics I posted of that system.
I can tell you that the system as you have it in end of state 3 WILL move up and I can tell you that the water in AR7 WILL get sucked down.
Use your finger and follow the movement,, see that the movement can happen, see that nature will want to make that movement happen, see that that movement will happen.
You know that movement can happen because it happened for the system to go from state 1 to end of state 2.
if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong
MarkE.Webby you cannot have it both ways. Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't. If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown. If you don't accept it then you change the problem. So pick your poison: State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.
Look at your state 3 drawing. Do you not see 4 floats that are partially sunk.
State 1 is neutrally buoyant, and that is not an issue, state 2 has had a volume placed into the pod chamber, that volume not only forces the water and air to redistribute and create a buoyant force it also raises the base line for the pod chamber, this increase in base line height also then creates a physical step for the other columns to negotiate and in this negotiation there is a continued buoyant condition for the risers and pod.
Those heads will fall, and when they do they will push the air up and force the risers to move a further distance, at that time the water in AR7 will be below AR6 and the other 2 risers and pod will still have a positive buoyant value, but it is the negative buoyant value of the 3rd riser that will balance against that so that the forces sum BACK to zero as in state 1.
MarkE, the venting allowed for assembly without inducing buoyant Forces and kept internal Pressures neutral. It is the fact that there is zero water head between the OD and ID of each riser (and no water around the pod) that determines that each element is being acted on by no buoyant Forces and therefore in equilibrium. In your State 3 there exists positive buoyant Forces on the pod and all three risers that are yet unresolved. How do you wish to resolve those Forces? Or can you point out an equal and opposite Force that is neutralizing the remaining buoyant Forces?Mondrasek the stipulation that State 1 has no buoyant uplift is your Wayne Travis approved stipulation. Choose: Keep the stipulation, in which case State 3 results, or remove the stipulation and solve for a different State 3. The results all depend on your stipulation.
It's incredible watching Wayne ply his craft. It's very similar to debating with John Rohner. In both cases they post incomprehensible goop and pretend that they are actually saying something valid.
I really hope this one ends where the good guys win. It's soooo creepy to see this stuff happening in real time. There must be a lot of passive observers reading this thread that can distinguish right from wrong. It's incredible how so many of them remain mute in the presence of such wrong.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729-97)
Regarding State one:Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek? If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself. As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work. Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?
Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.
His stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.
...............
MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.
These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.
...............
It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.
While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.
....................
MarkE slow down, we are not attacking you, if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong.
Wayne
Webby you cannot have it both ways. Either you accept Mondrasek's: Wayne Travis approved State 1 or you don't. If you accept it then State 3 falls out as shown. If you don't accept it then you change the problem. So pick your poison: State 1 as stipulated by Mondrasek and approved by Wayne Travis with State 3 as the result, or State 1 as your experience tells you which yields a different and still lossy result.
See how incredibly creepy he is? He is playing the MIB card and he is playing it to a specific type of audience.Wayne has crawled over a bear trap with his fly undone. Of course Wayne tells us that he is not seeking new investment. Of course that would mean that he has no concerns that any prospective investors could be watching as he approved Mondrasek's non-physical stipulation, or as the inevitable result with or without that stipulation is a machine that is just a lossy piece of junk. Of course he wouldn't be worried that it would dawn on a new prospective investor that all the HER / Zydro charade amounts to is a game of three card monty. We know that because the self-declared the God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.
I really and truly hope that you make the national media Wayne for all the right reasons.
Wayne Travis, do you now speak for Mondrasek? If you don't and you aren't a mind reader then you had better let him speak for himself. As for you, you approved of his stipulations and applauded his work. Now that your minion Webby has noticed Archimedes' Principle acting on 21.5mm riser height that Mondrasek's stipulation ignored, what have you to say about that stipulation that you approved?
There is no mistaking that whether one starts with Mondrasek's stipulation or any real arrangement that the most efficient ZED that anyone can design is outperformed by a brick.
Repost:Yep, stick with that: An ideal ZED as you approved the description that relies on Mondrasek's State 1 stipulation. Remember you approved that.
Regarding State one:
Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.
No Wayne, Mondrasek never stated such a thing, but it is nice that you repeat your lies so that all can see that is intentional.
Has stated his purpose is to discuss Pv difference between a single and three layer system.
No, many including I have shown that the ZED is an overcomplicated weight lifting and dropping machine that is completely useless and incapable of generating the free energy that you falsely claim it does.
...............
MarkE You jump to the conclusion that you have analyzed a ZED in Operation.
Oh really? Many have asked for that. Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from. You can't, because you never issued such a post. Your claim that you did is just another of your shameless lies.
These are two separate subjects - as I clearly and complete shared a complete ZED operation.
It doesn't matter what you call your first state. You declared your approval of Mondrasek's set-up as an "ideal ZED". A real, non-ideal machine can never outperform the idealized model. Since Mondrasek's model you approved is useless, you have admitted that your heap of junk is similarly useless as it is.
...............
It is a mistake to assume that state 1 as Monderask described in his Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED is the same as the state 1 I described - which is sunk ZED - with enough differential pressure to maintain neutral buoyancy of added weight or risers.
There is lots to see. Your shameless carnival barker routine is one of them.
While ZED B is a Fully stroke ZED at the end of a determined and limited stroke - with a load balancing differential intact.
....................
I hope you can see the difference
Wayne
Is that your version of a "triumph" ???
Sad.
God fearing, Jesus loving Wayne Travis told us he isn't seeking any new investors.
I do not need it both ways, it is only one way.If there is zero net up force in State 1, then at the raised position of 1.4688mm of State 3 there is no net up force either. If there is up force in State 3 at 1.4688mm lift then there is also up force in State 1 and you must reject Mondrasek's stipulation. Choose one or the other. It doesn't matter. The machine is lossy in either case for the same reasons.
State 1 is a net zero condition of forces acting on the risers and pod, and so for a full analysis the end of state 3 MUST also be a net zero.
Allow your risers to lift far enough so that the sum of all forces acting on them is zero, then what do you get?
That's not sad.
This is sad:
Is that your version of a "triumph"
Please point to the specific post where you laid out the official analysis of a ZED, including the part where the free energy supposedly comes from.
MarkEMath unlike you may not lie. Your claims of free energy generation, violation of the conservative nature of gravity are complete bald-faced lies, knowingly or recklessly made to investors. See the Acts 1933, and 1934.
I applaud due diligence, I ignore your comments and assumptions and bogus conclusions.
If you do you math right - I know the conclusion - will you have the honor to admit it - I know you have not finished - because the Math does not lie.
If by "works in the physical" you mean a machine that delivers the free energy you claim, you have never built such a machine.
It could turn out that you are smarter than the 40 plus engineers that have traveled this road - that would be fantastic - but then we would have to solve why it works in the physical???
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about. Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.
We will see if you do.
I know it will be hard for you - you have dished out so much fodder - it is going to be hard to swallow.
I tried very very hard to warn you. I find no pleasure in your errors.
In that video Tinsel Koala just posted you look real perty. I asked Bubba about it and he agrees.
................
Monderask can speak for himself - and has.
................
I presented the "operational states" so that you could make a true conclusion - nothing to do with Monderasks State 1 or any other.
................
Take care.
Wayne
Sure, can't believe you keep missing this....Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours. Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.
...Useless wall of text, free of any supporting math or diagrams...
Webby:
Wayne:
Astute people will know who the evil one is. And it is sad indeed that in this day and age, with all the access to information and the ability to inform oneself, that this can happen. You are preying on the human condition and exploiting it for your own personal gain.
MileHigh
Yes, all you do is wave those oh so perty hands of yours. Don't wave them too much or Bubba may get overly excited.
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...The liar speaks with feigned indignation. Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies. Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period. Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie. Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.
You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.
And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.
Good day
MarkE,The kettle speaks of the pot's color.
Slander is the tool of those that can not think for them self, don't give up.
Wayne
Tell me again in simple, easy to understand terms just what it is you claim to be warning me about. Kindly state the specific consequences and by what means they will come about.
How will you repent when you realize you were on the wrong side of truth...
You have wronged me, injusted me, slandered me, and acted the complete fodder spreader.
And many people have taken the time to realize I am telling the truth - and you have not.
Good day
The liar speaks with feigned indignation. Wayne Travis your technology claims are lies. Cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not yield net energy, period. Your claims that such activity yields free energy is a lie. Your pitch that giving you money to "develop" your nonexistent technology does nothing but cheat those who don't recognize your lies for what they are.
Just simple "embarrassment" as I said before.You may one day be changing your outerwear for the color orange. Whether you do or not, we already know what you are and who you are.
You can change your log in - but you will always know.
That's all.
Wayne
Once again - if thats all you see - you missed it.Once again the liar who said he was done her a month ago speaks again. You have done more than you can imagine.
I spelled it out for you - maybe you think you are making points - but you have wasted two days of my time..
Count that as your victory... you can have it.
good night.
That is a false assumption.It is Mondrasek's stipulation. It doesn't matter if it is false or not. It is his required hypothetical starting point. The results follow from that requirement. If you want to set-up a somewhat similar problem with different stipulations, you are free to do so.
You're not paying very good attention Webby. In going from State 1 to State 3 we added 2.441cc of water and paid 2.011mJ to do so. There would be a real problem if at the end of State 3 we had less energy than in State 1. But since we don't there is no problem.
Your spreadsheet shows head differences between the inside and outside water columns for the risers and the pod. This difference in height represents a positive force of buoyancy, your own work is showing that, and that is for all 3 risers and the pod.
Since that force is there by your own work then the analysis is not complete and the risers and pod must move further to bring those forces back to a net zero.
If I had presented this to you, you would be saying the same thing. You would point out that all I allowed for was the volume change and that I have not accounted for all of the forces within the system.
Your own spreadsheet shows an increase in stored energy within the water,
3.412mj state 1
3.963mj end of state 3
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.Why? This thread is not about me, and I have made no claims within it, other than that you do not have what you said you have, years ago now.
Thanks
(emphasis mine)Welcome to OverUnity.com[/size]The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum[/c]
Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.
Thanks
Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/)
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
There is no problem with the starting point being a net zero, no lift, no sink no nothing.If you accept that stipulation then State 3 as shown follows. So choose to accept the stipulation or reject it for say the fact that it still displaces a fluid with a higher density than the displacing volume. In the latter case you have changed the problem definition and a different outcome will result.
No there is no problem with the end point. It conforms to the physics from the state starting point. All of the energy in and out, and lost is properly accounted for, as is the change in position of each of the constituent materials. You are of course free to perform your own work up and show your work as I have shown mine.
It is your ending point that is a problem, there is lift left within the system and this means that it is not back to a net zero that it started from, in respect to the forces acting on the risers and pod.
Since we have the states, we can go between them all day long. Which states would you like to define as a cycle? A S2 => S3 => S2 cycle does no work but requires 1.5mJ external work each cycle. An S1 => S2 => S3 => S2 => S1 cycle suffers the same loss per cycle.
Please explain how you can do an energy analysis where you do not have a full cycle, from a starting condition back to that very same condition, that would be no forces acting on the risers and pod that are not balanced and zero if that starting point was a balanced and zero condition.
You remain very, very confused. Under the stipulation that Mondrasek set, the net up force is zero in State 3. You must reject Mondrasek's stipulation of State 1 to reach a different set of conditions for State 3. And here's the spoiler alert again: That results in lost energy too. Why? Because the inane, insipidly stupid scheme causes there to be variable dense fluid column heights. Get rid of the "air" and the whole buoyancy stupidity and the scheme gets much more efficient. But then it would not be a ZED anymore, would it? The best performing ZED is no ZED at all.
You MUST let the risers and pod move a further distance to balance those existing forces back to zero. You will find that AR7 goes below AR6 and then that negative buoyancy will counter the positive buoyancy from the other 2 risers and pod.
Kindly point to the cell where you find that.
In YOUR spreadsheet there is still a buoyant force in place that has NO counter force to stop it, hence your analysis is not complete.
By your observation you must then object to the Wayne Travis approved State 1 stipulation by Mondrasek. Again: Choose a different set of starting stipulations and get a different result.
If I have a cup sitting in water where the water level inside the cup is 19mm below the outside water level what is it, a sink or a float, which way will it move with nothing to stop it from moving. All of the risers and the pod have an outside water level above the inside level, well the pod is sealed so that is just water up the outside of a weightless item,, which way will they move if there is nothing holding them still.
Again, you are free to create your own model following the stated stipulations and see where you get.
This is the condition you have left your setup in, with nothing to stop things from moving they will move.
I have explained it many times to you. If you accept the State 1 stipulation then the system is stable with no unbalanced force in State 3 as shown. If you reject the State 1 stipulation then we can work the problem to yield a result that you may find more satisfying. But that will not be the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".
Either let the risers and pod move a further distance or show what is stopping them from doing so.
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.In fact Wayne Travis has insisted here that he is fully funded and is not seeking additional investments. That's good news for HER/Zydro, because if he were courting a new investor, one look at his behavior here would likely be very repellant.
Mags
Hey Bill
Well, 'fossil fuels' is the term used in society. Until they change that, I think we all know what it means. ;) Not sure its something to make a fuss about. ;D
Mags
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.
Mags
Mags:
Exactly correct. It is a term used (incorrectly) in society and we, can change that using facts. It is the global warming crowd that uses this term (your word "They") and ignorance can only be changed through education. I cringe every time I hear this term and, I will bet that Wayne does not know the reality behind it.
Bill
Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed. This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college. Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs. It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource. If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming. Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Now it seems that the math is not on your side. Nor is general laws of physics. Now may be a good time to get into another racket.
Bill
I was originally invited to share our discovery.
Several members assumed - I must be this or that...
That's all there is to any of that.
I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.
If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site poor out daily - has no real value.
Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.
That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.
Wayne
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Those are very wise words that everyone should seriously contemplate.
I was originally invited to share our discovery.That's funny because you have no discovery. You make claims to discoveries that do not exist. You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system". Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy". Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck. Does Jesus approve of such behavior?
Several members assumed - I must be this or that...
That's all there is to any of that.
I took time from my work to return because several men who built systems and tested our claims - asked to give O/U.com one more chance.
If I must have a motive other than respecting hard work and Due diligence - it is to let other inventors know - the oppression that a few here on this web site pour out daily - has no real value.
Keep researching, keep discovering, keep asking the questions.
That is what leads to the advancement of real discovery.
Wayne
Hello Pirate,Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side. A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss. You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result. It's rather obvious why you don't identify it: No such process exists.
Don't fall for the "Math is not on our side claim" -
Mark E never presented our process - only a static evaluation and conclusions.
Larry has presented a mathematical representation of our whole process, he showed how one layer is less than 70% effecient - and that three layers in a dual recycling system - as designed to operate - provides Net energy.
He also provide the basis to understand that Buoyancy - in standard utilization is very inefficient.... but when layered - can rival a hydraulic cylinder action - and retain the Pv - which can be reused.
MarkE earned my thanks when he helped recognize and correct errors - awesome.
MarkE did not disprove our operation or system - only says he has.
I detailed the process - there is no excuse for the misleading - it has been common.
Thanks
Wayne
That's funny because you have no discovery. You make claims to discoveries that do not exist. You have not discovered a means to extract free energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a way to make gravity behave non-conservatively. Yet, you continue to insist that you do. You have not discovered a "mechanical energy amplifying system". Neither do have any means to produce "supply endless and abundant clean Energy". Those are just blatant lies you tell in search of a buck. Does Jesus approve of such behavior?
Hey Wayne
Long time since we chatted last.
My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;) I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.
Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)
I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove? I cant answer that for him.
Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.
Mags
Have you built any working perpetual motion machines lately? I didn't think so.
Thanks, Mags,
So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.
Larry
Thanks, Mags,
So insightful, statements like yours help me to deal with the ignorance of those with less system comprehension ability.
Larry
Exactly. Let's see a brazen person that's contributing to this thread post a clip of their own working over unity hydraulic bucket brigade unto itself.
Hey Wayne
Long time since we chatted last.
My post was a bit of sarcasm. ;) I KNOW that you have not asked for any investments from anyone here. ;) I was just fishing for some clear reasons for the comments.
Webby and Larry and who ever else is doing work on this, its too bad there is more negative posts than they care to be bothered with. I would be very frustrated. Its not like they asked for help from these guys. I guess it just the way things are today. People dont like people doing their own thing and need to occupy their time with page after page of argument. No wonder nothing gets done around here. ::) ;)
I guess Mark was exclaiming that why give away the idea if there is an investor. Wouldnt the investor disapprove? I cant answer that for him.
Anyway, hope things work out for the builders. its not a simple task.
Mags
No prob. Heck, I get tired of trying to shuffle through that crap just to read any substance of a thread. There are many threads here that are beat to a pulp continuously, ALL DAY LONG.No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works. When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.
Stefan NEEDS to make private threads for those that request them. Its being done on other forums. Sometimes there just needs to be some isolation from all the negativity in order to get things done. And if at the end of the day, the project doesnt work then so beit. These are the choices WE make to work on projects, only to have to explain ourselves day in and day out. Sick of it.
Anyway, good work you guys. And I hope it pans out for you. ;)
Mags
Wayne Travis math and physics are not on your side. A series of lossy processes only results in greater loss. You have yet to identify that non-existent process that makes up for all the losses in your inane contraption and yields the net over unity result. It's rather obvious why you don't identify it: No such process exists.
Yes, there is no reason for you to continue in your attempts to mislead people. Yet you continue to do that. Why is that Wayne?
Thanks Mag,How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?
Wouldn't the investor Disapprove?
Are all your family members who originally invested still in? Do they all want to stay invested? Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?
Yes - and every one of my family members disapprove - because of the way people are treated here - by a few.
If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.
I owed it to the builders, inventors and the engineers that helped us since I first posted here.
We are a team.
'Tis the way of the cult.
We are very well protected.
Also, Our intention is to work together with like minded people - I just have to put up with - garbage out's - sometimes.
Again, Thank you.
How do investors feel about you selling them a bunch of lies?Are all your family members who originally invested still in? Do they all want to stay invested? Or are their a lot of prayers for a buyout investor in Chickasha these days?If the day comes you might be surprised how many might ask to sever any court action.'Tis the way of the cult.
I vote for Mark E's brick. So far, that is showing the most promise. No investors needed either.
Bill
MarkE -Yet you do in fact claim free energy. And your claims are in fact false.
I have tried to be respectful even as you spew garbage continually - and I shared a NET Energy System with you.
Maybe looking for overunity limited your math - I never claimed Magical free energy - I accepted that a few puppets could not tell the difference and let it go.
Oh I absolutely agree that all the energy can be accounted, and that is where your machinery fails to deliver on your false claims.
All of our systems Energy input - reuses- and Net can be accounted for properly - that does not require Over unity.
Hence your false claims.
........
Hence the term - Non conservative process.
Wayne
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef? Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief? Did he crash your party? ??? ? What then? Delightment? ???
So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;) These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.
Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied? ??? ?? ;) I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better. Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)
Mags
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.You seem convinced of many things. For instance you might actually get away with selling lies to your investors. Then again, maybe you will face consequences for your actions. Only time will tell. Who am I. I am me and no one else.
MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....
I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.
You have earned block.
Good bye.
No amount of positive attitude will alter the way that nature works. When it comes to the acceleration of masses towards one another known as gravity, that behavior is entirely conservative.
Go ahead and put aside the fact that the conservative nature of gravity doomed HER/Zydro's claims the moment they came up with them. Investigate to your heart's content each of the things they say that they do that they claim are unusual and see how each of those things: helps, hurts, or has no net effect on efficiency. Please discuss any mechanism that you think offers a benefit compared to a brick.
Again, saying he is asking for a buck. ??? Please show me where he is asking anyone here for money!!! You cannot. So you are the liar. ;)"Our Mission at Z.E. is to build and license ..."
Mags
Cmon Bill. Ive always seen you a impartial here. Whats the beef? Did Wayne ask you for money? Does he give you grief? Did he crash your party????? What then? Delightment? ???Since when have false claims done anything but harm research? Every huckster who sells lies discourages investment in genuine research.
So go and make a brick thread if it shows so much promise. ;) These guys are not running around this forum telling one and all to come see the glorious pump. Their are just doing their thing, and you guys have a problem with that.
Well if that just the way its going to be around here, maybe its not a good place for people to come to. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Im sure Stefan would like to have less people come here. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Lets just run everyone out of here so you all can be satisfied?????? ;) I guess thats the goal. If not, its just to make everyone miserable then. Still no better. Of all, I always considered you better than that. ;)
Mags
So what. Why cant these guys figure things out on their own??? They did not ask for your help, but you give and give and give till the pages turn one after another like you are the forum police.Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims? Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims? Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?
So youve said it all in this post. But you will be here again and again and again and again. FOR FREAKIN WHAT!!!!!!! Again and again. Like some concentration camp.
Larry Wayne and Webby. If you want, I can get you set up with a private thread in another forum if you wish. Cuz this is nothing but a brick in the face day in and day out. Leme know. ;)
Mags
Geeze Mags, lighten up a bit over there. Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc.
Do YOU not see anything wrong with this? If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.
Bill
??? I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.
Mags
Do you suffer under the delusion that Wayne believes what he claims? Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims? Do you think that he has ever demonstrated to himself or anyone else what he has claimed to have for years?
This thread was set up by Mondrasek to analyze his problem as he set it up. So far it appears that I am the only one who has done that.
One other person went on a mad rampage like this last time he couldn't control the conversation, I was told that you and he were the same person.
MH backed up the other guy as well - the whole time....
I am now convinced you are one and the same. - if not - no distinction.
You have earned block.
Good bye.
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."When each of the constituent elements of a process is underunity, the entire process is underunity. The Wayne Travis approved Mondrasek "ideal ZED" is quite lossy.
You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH? Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony. Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)
Please tell me that you aren't going to argue from ignorance.
You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.
I refer you to the Acts 1933 and 1934 for the required standard. As to the science, see the analysis.
So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time. Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality.
I have put up my numbers. Where are yours?
Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen.
Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)Mondrasek invited the analysis. When I provided a sufficient one he objected and "insisted" on more, despite that the physics for the additional step was already established. Even so, I provided that as well. What have you provided?
Mags
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.
I suffer having to hop over your endless bickering posts to read real subject matter of what the thread is actually about.This is the second time that you have falsely accused me of being unable to back up my statements. What does that make you other than wrong?
"Do you think that in six years he has not been exposed to professional evaluation of his false claims?"
Show me proof of your statement.. You act like you are telling a truth here. Show me the paperwork on that Mark. Proof. You cant. What does that make you??? A guesser? ;)
Mags
That little bit of paranoia and denial of reality earns a ROFL for sure.He has no facts on his side, so what else can he do than resort to theatrics?
Don't worry, MarkE, Travis's "Block" is transparent. I'm on his "block" list too. He will always peek around the block and he will always never answer the direct question that Minnie has so politely asked.
Alright, I gota get some sleep. What did we blow away, 2, 3 pages??It's hard to say. But if you ever want to get back to the topic of the thread, I am happy to discuss the analysis.
Mags
All equations are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Hi,
my analysis says that you get out exactly what you put in if you don't
have any losses. The word "equation" should give you a clue!
John.
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.
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.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.
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
John,Nope, you have never been able to, and you never will be able to substantiate your patently false claims:
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.
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.
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
John,Are you addressing me? Then I would appreciate it if you would say so.
Once again - that is a bull face lie -
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.
First I will repeat - my family who supported - will not release their shares for ten times the amount.
None are disgruntled.
You mean that your lawyers have advised you that it is likely illegal for you to _sell him_ those shares.
Second - Our new benefactor - is not allowed to buy their shares.
Third - they first rights ----they first rights ---- Is that an English sentence that conveys meaning?
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.
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.
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.
p.s. I can back up my claims. PERIOD.
Wayne
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.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.
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
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.
The spreadsheet model agrees that pumping in water while the risers are restrained builds excess head in AR7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does it not make sense that the pod and risers must be restrained while going from state 1 to end of state 2.
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.
Does it not make sense that that is an applied force.
Actually that is a bit backwards. F=mA. When the forces come into balance the masses, even the massless ones will stop accelerating.
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.
Do you still not understand the difference between linear multiplication and an integral?
Does that not make it then 0.5f*ds, which is the energy output from the pod and risers stroking upwards.
How much energy is required to restrain a motionless object? Please show your work.
MarkE has not included this restraining energy in his analysis.
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.
MarkE has stopped the risers and pod lifting while there is still a positive buoyant force acting on them.
It is a fluid model. The stipulated incompressible fluids freely move within the confinement.
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.
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 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.
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.Kindly answer the question Webby: When you said this:
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!
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.
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.
Apples to oranges MarkE.Are you still rejecting the Wayne Travis approved stipulation by Mondaresk?
Push the risers down and that pushes the water up.
What constraint is stopping the pod and risers from lifting further in your state 3 drawing?
That is what one set of calculations show. You are free to show work that contends a different answer.
The water and air are free to move and the pod and risers are weightless. AR7 allows for outside air to enter the system.
Are you actually saying that the actual total lift of the outside riser would be 2.5906mm if allowed to move freely.
Excuse me what is a 99.9% resistance and where was it stipulated?
The lift of the pod and risers will happen even with a 99.9% resistance placed against them, they may move slow but rate has nothing to do with energy, remember.
Please answer my question about force. Do you contend that the restraints that prevent movement impart energy or not?
Again MarkE, what is stopping the pod and risers from lifting, I have shown, and you have shown, that it is not a volume issue, so what is it.
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3. But with only the outer riser represented. Can it rest in this state? Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.
Minnie, here is the ZED from MarkE's State 3. But with only the outer riser represented. Can it rest in this state? Or does the Riser need to move up (the air inside is incompressible) until the water level inside and outside are equal height?Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift. Is that or is that not your stipulation?
Is the impossibly incompressible air inside also massless? Because the answer depends on that. And note that if the air were real air, compressible and obeying the combined Boyle-Charles law... it would behave completely differently, calling into question Wayne's claim that an incompressible fluid would work in lieu of air.
Also, some pages back mond, you once again said something about how the outside air pressure/volume needed to be considered. I don't think it does, as I said before, because the outside air pressure pushes on the top of the outer water layer with the same pressure no matter how high the level is up in the zed. The outer air, because of its huge volume, is like a "perfectly compressible" fluid: it stores no energy for you because you can "compress" it and its volume doesn't change, and vice versa, because the volume is so huge relative to the slight volume changes you can make with the outer layer of water in a Zed ringwall. I think.
Let's start with your stipulation that in State 1 there is no uplift. Is that or is that not your stipulation?
[size=78%]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.[/size]Hi TK,
MarkE is referencing the surface area of the bottom of the risers being a place where force can be exerted, as well as the volume that the down-tube of the risers occupy.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???The "air" that Mondrasek stipulated as an incompressible, massless fluid is being used in the model.
Mags
What air is being used that is 'incompressible?? ???
Mags
No movement no energy.That's a relief. So what energy were you referring to when you claimed that I did not account for energy of the restraints?
When did I say anything like that?
Do you contend that energy causes movement?
The water masses are all in the spreadsheet.
Where are your buoyant lift forces in your spreadsheet, where is the buoyant lift from the pod in your spreadsheet?
Mondrasek stipulated as such. See State 1.
Do you contend that a partially sunk float will not move up?
Water countered itself???
It is looking to me that what you did in your analysis is a uniform spread of the water volume countered by the weight of the water columns.
Then you aren't thinking very clearly. Archimedes' Principle dictates the behavior of the always less efficient than a common brick ZED.
Archimedes is dead in the water I think.
It was not, that was in response to you saying there is no energy to be had from the risers and pod lifting, but there can be if you apply the restraint at a 99.9% value required. That is just common sense MarkE,, why just waste what you have when you do not need to.A restraint prevents motion. It does not create energy.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.That's right, and that's part of the reason that your ZED is an "ideal ZED". Using air as in a real ZED is less efficient.
In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT. The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed. It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered. So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance.
And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.Nope, the efficiency improves as the SG's converge. When the SG's are the same, IE the "air" is replaced with water, the losses improve a lot.
Yes, the "air" is just a fluid that moves back and forth to fill out the volume changes.
I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered. Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Of course. There is no head difference between the ID and OD surface on any riser. The pod has no water in contact with it at all. So all risers and the pod are being acted on by zero buoyant Forces. Also, the sum of the buoyant Forces on all the risers and the pod is exactly zero. There are zero Forces acting on the system and therefore zero motion would occur.I withdraw my objection. Yes, State 1 is in equilibrium naturally. I will have to rework the problem on that basis. It will not however materially change the outcome: Preparing State 1 is lossy. State 1 to State 2 is ideally conservative, and State 2 to State 3 is always lossy.
BTW, this is not a "stipulation." This is a physical fact derived from the geometry and the assumption of incompressible fluids.
The incompressible air has an ASSUMED Specific Gravity = 0.Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.
In fact, using a compressible fluid such as real air causes more losses due to the relationships described in the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT. The change in V due to P does change the T, by creating heat when compressed. It is a loss mechanism only and cannot be completely recovered. So using two incompressible liquids leads to a better performance. And the bigger the difference between those two fluid's Specific Gravity values, the better.
In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.
I agree that the outside air pressure/volume does not need to be considered. Except that the system is open to the outside air and so air can enter and exit the system freely as Pressure and Volume changes inside the system require to satisfy the Volume constraint of each internal fluid to remain constant.
Well, exactly. So why is Travis using air instead of kerosene or peanut oil? I know why.In every drawing I have seen, the outside air does NOT enter the system. The "system boundary" is along the top edge of the outer air column. This boundary moves but is never penetrated unless you blow skirts or overflow the top. The only thing the outside air does is press down on the outer layer of water and it does this with the same force regardless of the column's height (within reason of course. Make a column a mile high and then pressures will change.) The outer air pressure works against your injection of fluid, I think. If it were vacuum out there you would be able to inject the same amount of fluid but with less resistance (less working against the pressure of the outside air.) I think.I look at things a little bit differently. We are presented with a claim that by combining certain elements there is not only major advantage over well known and much simpler machines, there is actually a way to get free energy. Those claims are both false.
"Wayne has asked folks for money for a device that does not work, can't work, will not work, he can't prove it works...etc."
You have built it? And you have shown it does not work??? Has Mark? Has MH? Bah, he never builds anything yet knows it all in 10 sec of looking at it, right? Well, I dont follow the 10 sec diagnosis bullony. Just the mention of OU and the 'no it isnt' comes without the 'work' to prove it. Thats so easy. I wish I had that job. Boring but probably pays ok. ;)
You guys can talk all you want. But you never prove that it doesnt work, just state whats in the books, all in a tight little box.
So what if Wayne has an investor. As long as its not you or your Mom, what do you care? People get investments all the time. Sure some people get ripped off. But man you better be able to back up your statements of lies, thievery, ponzi, criminality. Wayne is not making the argument, you are. He is giving only what he said he would give, and the 2 people that are interested are being persecuted for doing what they want to do, and you have a problem with that??? So put up your numbers and show your non working device, then I will listen. Meanwhile, why cant these 3 guys hang out and discuss what they want in peace??? No?? They must pay for their deeds!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Mags
Hey! Remember John Rohner claiming that he would show his extraordinary plasma motor at that _real_ Power-Gen trade show? We mocked him well before the show and said that never in a million years would he show a running motor. John claimed that he would. I still smile thinking about the Team Rohner bumpkins standing around at that trade show while real power industry professionals walked by their booth. Of course there was no motor in sight, and there has _never_ been a plasma motor in sight. Yet there is still a web page out there fishing. The same thing will happen with the prancing fluids free energy pumpitude machine. You will never see it in your lifetime. The only question is how the end game will play out.I remember the giant empty plastic display case.
OK, so let me get this straight. If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen? After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right? Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take? I really hope not.Wayne Travis claims over unity. Check out the mission statement on his web site.
As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga. Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand. Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device. This was still wrong. I live in a world of right and wrong.
One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?
Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did. I wonder what those investors were told? Do you know?
That is all I have to say.
Bill
Wayne Travis claims over unity. Check out the mission statement on his web site.
OK, so let me get this straight. If I see a woman, whom I do not know, getting robbed on the street, I should just let that happen? After all, I don't know her, she is not my Mom or a family member....right? Is this the attitude you are suggesting that I take? I really hope not.
As you mentioned, I am usually impartial on things but, I was NOT impartial during the Mylow saga. Sometimes, a man just has to take a stand. Now, Mylow was not selling anything to anyone but, many folks were spending a lot of money trying to replicate his "working" device. This was still wrong. I live in a world of right and wrong.
One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?
Now Wayne has said, he does not claim overunity but, he did. I wonder what those investors were told? Do you know?
That is all I have to say.
Bill
Bill, I have had to learn that to some over unity means magical free energy - and that is not what we have.You do not have what you claim. Shall we review the list yet again?
The walls of blather showed nothing material. They did demonstrate your behavior.
If you read all my posts on the other thread - you will only need to read a few - and you will see where I shared the struggles our early engineers had with seperating that distinction.
Kindly provide an example of a lie you claim that TK has told.
TK ALWAYS OMITS THE CONTENT _ IF IT DOES NOT FIT HIS LIES>
Mechanical amplification of force or power are trivial. They do not produce energy ex nihilo as you falsely claim to do.
Bill,
We have mechanical amplification.
The efficiency of each constituent sub process in a composite process multiply. Losses cannot be made up in volume. If one ZED is underunity: And it unquestionably is, then any number N ZEDs placed in series or parallel are similarly underunity.
I am sorry you accept TKs tactics of creating scenrio's to call people liars - do you know hown many times he - not having a clue - and still does not - how our system operates insisted that a single ZED must be over unity - because - in his assumption - that two under unity systems can not be combined to produce excess energy?
Any single ZED is unquestionably under unity. Were any ZED in any form OU, you could point to the specific subprocess that is OU. You cannot do so, because there is no such OU subprocess. All of the processes are under unity as is the composite contraption.
I am sorry Smart guys like Mark E - fall for his crap.
And Many jumped in total ignorance agreeing....
The part of my answer that TK left ommited to share - was this - Yes you can have an excess with a single ZED - much more complicated and slower - you will have to configure a way to capture and reuse the exhuast - and re insert it at the next stroke.
If any PE has written a report that supports your false claims to an over unity / free energy device I would like to see a copy of the signed report. I'm sure the certifying authority and his E&O insurer would like to see it as well.
You still can altered heights for proper speed with a dual system- but is stupid.
Over unity or free energy or net energy of a "little" is pointless - our first single layer pod system was PE certified on the upstroke at 105% and that did not include reusing the exhuast. That engineer repeated, and repeated, called in others, repeated, and then prayed and then started over (white sheeted) three times again - and then accepted just 105%
Whereas you just emit a steady effluent stream of lies to investors. That video TinselKoala got his hands on is quite enlightening.
Which is a total waste of time - since my goal was Net energy - I could care less about the covet claim - I am ashamed that men treat each other like TK and MH, it is sad that they are trash talkers.
Yet, Mark Dansie never saw a working system: Never. You are free to attempt to extract a more favorable statement from him. He has never witnessed the initial proof of concept demonstration that he has insisted would be a first step towards further consideration of your false claims.
p.s. After the PE's finished - I and independent engineering firm verify - prior to any investment form any of my family Except one. Mark Dansie Came a year later when we were testing three layer system - much much better.
Those people must include Mr. Dansie himself. Feel free to avail yourself to the public comments he has placed on the record.
He asked for a self runner to show/ help people like TK - maybe not him personally - but people who refused to understand the process.
Ms. Kanshi is a university professor. What are you?
I did - not for me - not for our company - and not for fame or money.
MH, ME and Kanshi and all screamed foul - "adding to a system can not make it more efficient" --- really - they did not think that one out.
You need a different dictionary.
Posted crap and doctored photos - called water hoses - extension cords - claimed we put hidden pumps.
TK called Mark a shill - he calls anyone a shill - I have the posts saved - where he worked tirelessly to defraud him. Pure shame.
Really? Are you going to go with that story? I'd sure like to see evidence that backs such a claim.
I invited TK, I had him checked out, but before I could reply - he flipped out claiming he would steal it if he could???
Nope, each time you add layers you compound your losses. Feel free to publish any analysis you rely upon to find differently.
I have those notes as well.
Can you reduce losses by adding more layers - yes
Nope. Adding layers just exacerbates the losses of your less efficient than a brick scheme.
It does if you are increasing the output at a proportional rate faster than the increases of losses.
Layering does that.
Oh, so now you claim that there is a 'Travis effect'. That's terrific. Kindly state directly and succinctly what you claim the "Travis effect" to be. Kindly distinguish it from previously known fluid mechanics.
I am sorry if you do not get that - not my intent to confuse you.
Here is what I see you doing - you chiming in on three thugs - that do not know the Travis effect from Archimedes......
You system alters nothing to do with Archimedes' Principle. But since you now personally claim that there is a 'Travis effect' do be so kind as to describe it.
Archimedes is not wrong - when used in the context he presented it - our system alters that.
I can buy a 5 ton jack at the auto parts store that can produce the same forces in a much more compact space for under $20. Force is not energy. Force is not conserved. Energy is conserved.
The simple proof - 10,000 pounds buoyant force in the space that displaces 2000 pounds of water - I hope you do not miss that....and we only move less than one 2 cubic feet of water to go from sink to 10,000 pounds buoyancy.
I also missed the CIE index of flaming purple stratospheric flamingos. Nested pistons are not news.
P.s. look at the spread sheets - even Mark E - what is the actual space versus the total Buoyancy? He missed that one to.
That is a completely meaningless statement. Archimedes' Principle describes the behavior of buoyancy. It's only requirement is a fluid and something to displace fluid.
Just shows that Buoyancy can be used in a different arrangement than Archimedes ...
It's funny how you keep claiming you have explained something when the only thing rational folks seem to observe is a lot of hand waving.
Not that I have not tried to explain the diffirence twenty times - shown it and had four engineers post comparisons - now that was hard - every time I tried to explain - TK ME MH and other dud's demanded attention on anything from pink unicorns to psyco logical claims of superior understanding of a system they still can not explain -
If only could actually show something new. But you haven't. Every objective evaluation of the meager actual information you have produced shows no new behavior, and no conformance to your false claims.
Any person trying to understand was spammed -
Bill - it has one simple part.................
No one Can disprove it - You stand behind the guys that won't actually analyze the process and against the ones that have learned something new.
Why would anyone defend false claims unless they stood to personally benefit? I do not know of any vested interest that Bill has.
You helped them - that is your right - but don't sit there and tell us that you did your own thinking and own homework - I know the fact about that - or else you would be defending us.
We know the lies that you keep telling Wayne. They all concern your false claims to machines that generate energy for free.
All they do is bash make lies up about me = twist and shout down,
A gang of thugs and you picked up your stick and helped.
That's great! Take a stand for every red blooded, Bible thumping con artist who has the guts to reach for a brass ring paid for by cash traded for empty dreams. "America the beautiful, land that I love ..."
That is the mistake you are making.
You want to take a stand - I do not care about me here - but they do it to everyone that wont bow to them. I never will, and I will not help them.
Yet you are unable to refute him. What could anyone who objects to your false claims do were you to actually prove your false claims? Oh, there's that sticky problem again: You don't prove your claims because you can't prove your claims, because they are false.
To be clear - they are ignorant - or doing it on purpose - and a few good people get sucked into their lies - like you.
I am sorry to write this at all, the man is sick. I put him on ignore - to leave him be.
Yes, let's ask someone who 'understands'. A registered PE would be best, because they have their professional livelihood at stake.
I am more sorry that you think that our hard work and effort and good people deserves that crap.
I invite you to ask one of the men that do understand our system -
But, you of course say that with love and respect, don't you Wayne?
That bully - whose "lies about me" that you quoted as facts..... of course he likes other people to do his fight for him.
But he is just a punk, with puppets.
Wayne
Mark - you missed it again,I know the highlighted passages that grace your mission statement are bald-faced lies. Your claims are false. If you want to see where this can end up call up Dr. Dr. John Rohner Ph.D. Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his special visit.
Net Energy - do you know the difference?
I did not know the difference two years ago.
If you do - stop spreading lies about me.
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.The first highlight: "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.
"One last thing. I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources. Not at all. If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine. But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud. Do you understand what I am saying here?"
Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works? ??? ??
Mags
The first highlight: "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.
The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.
The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.
Hello and Welcome, My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology. Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
Hello and Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It has been my joy and purpose working together with so many of you.
We as a company currently have the cooperation of 160 members, and many people following our work who prefer to stay out of the light for now.
When I named the Company - HydroEnergy Revolution llc - I picked the "Hydro" to reflect the Buoyancy break through, "Energy" reflects the product, and "Revolution" reflects the change we are having on both understanding of Physics and Energy production.
Our System uses a special "Hydraulic, Pneumatic, Solid interaction - that is so complex and yet so simple - the design is summarily characterized as "Simply Brilliant".
Our system does not use fuel - instead we utilize the separate range of reactions that occur when Gravity effects the interaction within our Hydraulic, Pneumatic, and Solid system.
I was asked this week by a Brilliant Engineer - who had just reviewed our interactive system - he said “I have been reviewing your system......and I have to wonder ...... with the vast intelligence and educational resources ..... In this day and age.... All trying to solve the energy problem - did we overlook something so simple and yet so wonderfully complex?"
My answer - "Most of the "Education" that we esteem, fund and support - limits the students minds to the simple realm of conservative energy systems - how can you expect to find a non-conservative energy source when the parameters are already set to exclude them...
Our discovery is a paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanical energy production, we do not defy the Laws of Energy conversion, we do not contradict the Laws of Thermal dynamics - we leave those where they belong - very appropriately describing conservative energy systems.
To be clear - we have a non-conservative.... energy producing... evolution in technology:
One day soon, our education system will educate our engineers on "when and where to apply the limitations" understand the difference and reality of both conservative systems and non-conservative.
There is a great value to the old understanding - it is tried, true, and tested - the awakening comes when it is understood that the "Old Laws” did not encompass, test and try all future discovery.
I am thankful that our volunteers, engineers, scientists and support group have evolved beyond that self-inflicted and limited thinking of the conservation of energy.
Thank you all - you are on the leading and powerful edge of the future.
For those of you who are new to our work, I know and am sorry that our work upsets a lot of people - so did the earth being round and not the center of the universe - if it matters greatly to you - get involved.
We have a Revolution of Technology on our hands - like the Light bulb, the Airplane, the Microchip, and mapping DNA - we have "new tools" under our control - to move forward in our future.
We welcome those who would like to solve for them self and "see" what we are saying; it is the due diligence of people who "question" - that build our teams and group.
To all:
Billions have been spent on search for the a new energy source: the Super (atom) Collider, Cleaner Coal, Better fuel cells, better batteries, better Solar cells, better drilling methods, sustained Cold fusion, and much much more.
Billions in Taxes and limitations have been set on entropy energy production...of course passed onto the consumer - you and me.
The World is in desperation for energy - do you think they wanted to build the nuclear power plants around the ring of fire ... around earthquakes? Nuclear power is a band aid - to a wound - we have the technology to heal the wounds around the world.
We all know Energy "costs" have limited energy "availability" in most parts of the world, the band aid has caused countless loss of life, health and loss of freedom and cultural advancement........
We are on a mission of "change", expect resistance, expect challenges, expect ignorance.
What we have is a gift to mankind, one mankind desperately needs, We will Never give up, never surrender, until the responsibility that is our is met, our work fulfilled.
To say we have a special "Market Nitch" or that "we have an abundant fuel source" - As Steven advertised - "Gravity, Always ON!"
Gravity is a simple way to communicate with the academia with limited thinking - Gravity and its different effects on Gas - liquids, and solids - and is the reason our system works - it is key to our design - but we do not consume the gravity, saying it is a fuel source - is incorrect.
Gravity and Mechanics working together - to create the special conditions required for a non-conservative and "New" Energy source, for our future and our children’s children’s future.
We can say we have the most reliable and cleanest energy system ever invented by man - yet it is much more than that - it is a discovery that can usher in peace and prosperity.
To date, we have had the right people discover us and become involved, at the right time, at the right need -Such a blessing as to be beyond understanding.
Our Company is a "New" direction, bringing a "New" Energy source.... join us - pray for us, follow us - we will be true to our purpose.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
405-574-2157
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.
Wow, you really missed the point here. IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.
This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF. Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.
Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy. The innocent need no defense. Remember that.
Bill
Wow, you really missed the point here. IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.
This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF. Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.
Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy. The innocent need no defense. Remember that.
Bill
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick".
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
The innocent need no defense - really.Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!
You have quoted lies that TK has spread at least twice now - please do your own research.
It was very clearly explained, by me to TK, and thee rest of the forum, that The grant committee sent me to a third party - and did not give me the grant - and that plan was not funded.
But he suckered you into calling me a liar.
I am sorry for that.
You are backing the wrong guy.
Wayne
November 15, 2013:
If you look carefully over the years, Travis has gone from claiming a working free energy machine that will save the world, and a patent, in the early days, all the way "forward" to claiming a business plan, objectives to be met, and patent applications, today.
Now _that's_ progress !
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.
Are you falling behind, Mags? The full quote and the url reference are on the previous page.
Either you are fully funded or you are not, Wayne Travis. How could "I" be lying when I have put up your entire powerpoint slide show, and then pointed out that TODAY, long since you have been "fully funded", there is still no 50 kW powerplant at the church? I did say, after all, that nobody in the group you gave the presentation to "bit". So just where and how did I lie.... but more importantly..... look at all the places YOU have lied!
The internet never forgets, Wayne Travis. Many of your old newsletters are still publicly viewable even though you have tried to suppress them. See the previous page.
5. TAZ – The second Diamond:
of this system is the Mass momentum of the system, it is captured during the end of the tilt - and that energy is returned to reverse the direction.
The output is in pressure and volume - it can be removed in the form of air or water.
The system has a minimum pressure to maintain the proper internal orientation of the system currently 8 psi the output is varied by the pressure desired - if you were to output 13 psi you will have 4000 cubic inches of fluid or air - per tilt.In this set up - this give you 4000 cubic inches of volume with 5 psi usable force - In simple terms - that is 20,000 inch pounds output - per tilt.
We produce on both direction by offsetting two sets of "layers" 65 Degrees - On the TAZ - we call the "layers" - Loops. Currently - we are not yet "closed looped" with the TAZ - but the input and output is measurable........................The current undeveloped output of the system is Air and pressure or Water and pressure.
So in its most basic form - we have an New Energy pumping system.
What you do with the pump or its output is limited to our ability to imagine purpose.
As electrical production as its "use" "it will over come the cost of wind (electrical) generation, and solve the reliability issues with other sources of natural energy.....first.
It can be used for agricultural pumping, air moving such as mining, hooked to a standard pressure increaser - it could be used to provide hydraulic power - All fuel and emission free for as long as you desire.........................
Our input Energy to our TAZ is currently hydraulic - we use 700 psi and between 2 and 4 cubic inches (depends on output desire)
and we can currently safely run 3.5 dual tilts per minute -
providing a volume of 4000 cubic inches out put per 2 to 4 cubic inches input.
3.5 spm x dual system x 4000ci = 28,000 cubic inches out put Water or 121gpm @t 5 psi = Output
3.5spm x dual system x 4ci = 28ci or 12% of one gallon or .12gpm @ 700psi = input.
A normal cycle is one set of the "loops" tilting from the 85 degree position to the 20 degree position =
while the reverse side is tilting from its the 20 degree position to its 85Degree position.
The angles are relative the "loops" not to each other. When either loop is reaching the 20 degrees - it is lowering its pressure and the fluid or air output returns, when either set of loops is increasing its angle form 20 toward 85 - it is supplying output.
Currently we do not have our output system completed - so when we cycle - we can pump the output "water" to a raised reservoir and then let it fall to a lower reservoir which is then fed back into the TAZ. We also have an air bag system to use the air output as a mechanical pump - we are working on it as a hydraulic production system to close loop the TAZ.
Without the hydraulic out put system - our current system is not set up to accumulate the energy - it can provide the pumping continuously, or be started and stopped as needed.
The most logical long term use will be Clean Energy production, remote Energy production - pumping will likely be the initial product.
I am not sure what is all possible - what our devices both do - is make it economical to produce energy for consumption without pollution, and without consuming resources - beyond the capital costs.
Our TAZ system has two distinct advantages beyond the clean and New - simple to build and operate, Cheaper to supply continuous energy than Fossil fuel.
Disadvantage - we will never be as small as a fossil fuel system - but we could be used to compress hydrogen fuel - without the 80% loss.
In short, we have two ground breaking discoveries utilizing two separate yet related methods to generate Net energy, we are a small company and gathering good guidance.
We have both filed as patent applications the first is rolled over to the full application - the TAZ is a complete application in preparation yet we have it filed as a provisional for protection - giving us time to get thru development.
We have several replications of both systems, and the physics do not require a PhD to understand - if instructed properly - I have instructed many "in person" - it makes sense when you can see and touch and have questions answered.
I hope this is helping...Since we have had to invent names to call things - in order to communicate together here at the lab and world wide - I understand that it must be difficult trying to follow - I prefer not to try to "explain" over the phone - or e-mail - but I will try if desired - a visit is best.
Thank you for your time.
Wayne Travis
Great topic TK
Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy
and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....
Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol
Wayne
I can lift my entire automobile with a lever, pushing down with only a few pounds of force. SO? My car doesn't run itself
... and neither do any of your many claimed test apparatuses. That's the only interesting issue here: what you have claimed, and what you DO NOT HAVE.
TK,You made the power point show in November of 2010. I presume you presented it shortly thereafter.
That was so many years ago - I do not even know when lol
No - we did not get funding from that power point - we had a TK in the room claiming I must be a fraud - p.s. he was fired later.Of course he was. You have carefully selected those who surround you, as all cult leaders do.
I have never threatened you, Wayne Travis ol boy. You are threatening yourself, though, by engaging in very risky behaviour.
TK every time you make your silly threats - who are you talking to, yourself?
I always tell it like it is , as it is, at the time it is....
Let me guess - you never wore diapers - well I did, and I said I did at one time - and things change.
I don't now - so why don't you look me up in thirty years and call me a liar when I put on a pair then.
So silly.
December 6, 2012:
Mags, where do you think buoyancy comes from? The only way to turn it on and off is if you turn gravity on and off. Submarines don't do that, they pump water into and out of ballast tanks, decreasing and increasing the effective volume of the boat. This takes a goodly amount of time and it isn't turning anything on and off.
Now read that last newsletter carefully. Note that he is talking about inputs and outputs of liquid water. You put a little in, and you get a lot out.
Do we really have to say any more?
A lever ok?
The question was "with buoyancy"
Stay on topic and save your insults.
Thanks
I love your collection - you should see mine.Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.
It takes near 5 years for many many many people to come up with a new playstation version. And each new model is only an improvement of the previous design. All just to play games and make money. ;)
Mags
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"Steorn made their big public splash with their absurd claims to free energy from arranging permanent magnets coming up on eight years ago. They failed at all their demonstration attempts. Their jury ruled unanimously that Steorn failed to ever show any evidence that they could produce energy. And even one of their true believers eventually came out and decried their false claims of free energy as the result of measurement errors. Maybe you would like to select a jury of 22. It bought Steorn a good two and half years. Now Steorn have some water heater contraption.
What do you base that off?
Wayne
"Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. "How much would you like to bet?
Now, you REALLY need to show me that quote from Wayne. Show me and everyone here that Wayne said that. Ill be here eagerly waiting on that one. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) I really hope you can produce that piece of evidence. :o ;) But I bet Ill just get some whole page runaround instead. Bet on it. ;)
Mags
Hello and Welcome, My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology. Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled, Wayne Travis. And it is YOU who are insulting me, as usual, over and over. I am not that stupid, to fall for your dodges and lies.
Do you or do you not have the device Minnie has asked you about? A self running, 5 hp "net" device that outputs more ENERGY than the zero amount it takes to run it? Yes, or no.... or weasel some mo'.
The Zed has segregated surface area's - and we can control how much effect each is contributing to the lift during a production stroke, and how they contribute to the exhuast pressure on the down stroke.Why of course: Let's discuss that. Just post a diagram and your math. Show your energy gain. Force gain won't cut it. We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will. Are you finally up to the task?
It is a liquid piston technology,
The ability to change the size of the effective surface area at will.
The effective surface area - is directly responsible for the pressure required for lift, the production
And directly responsible for the pressure produced during the sink.
A big piston on the way up and a small piston on the way down -
NOW Here is the kicker - same volume and time both directions..
Any one want to discuss that?
Not my collection at all, Wayne ol boy. Your whole old website is saved on the internet for anyone to see, by the Wayback Machine. You can try to suppress information that you have posted, but you cannot actually do it.
Nope. Submarines been doing 'that' for a long time. Mark specified 'gravity'. Is there no difference???I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.
"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick"."
No link necessary. ;)
Mags
Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled,
Your fantasy -
You see TK, when you are telling the truth - it does not matter who has your records.
If all your posts were deleted - well - the world would be missing something.
As far as your fantasy about me supressing? get a life, If I want to back up my systems or add stuff - who cares what you think about that.
Great topic TKUnless you are trying to float 10klbs in an air atmosphere, no air is required. In water, we need to displace about 161 cubic feet of water. But then a $20. jack from AutoZone will generate 10klbs of lift in about 1/4 of a cubic foot.
Who wants to discuss why it takes 161 cubic feet of air to lift 10,000 pounds with good old regular buoyancy
and only 2 cubic feet with a ZED.....
Makes it quick to turn buoyancy on or off - - oh boy faster lol
Wayne
Who wants to discuss how we can lift and deliver a load - without consuming the inlet pressure??Consuming pressure? Surely you jest. Pressure is not a conserved quantity. Let's see you convey energy without consuming any energy.
OK that is too easy...
Lets do it without a spring or air....
A ZED can.....
I think you should avail yourself to a physics primer.
I really hate to argue with you T. I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But.. Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own? ??? ;) Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;D
Mags
Why of course: Let's discuss that. Just post a diagram and your math. Show your energy gain. Force gain won't cut it. We need to see you "turn buoyancy on and off at will", and/or gain energy at will. Are you finally up to the task?
I really hate to argue with you T. I respect your knowledge and intellect more than your cohorts. But.. Can you show me a reference to that statement, other than your own? ??? ;) Please?? You must have a copy ready for cut and paste. ;Dhttp://physics.j3science.com/images/d/db/Buoyancy_Summary.pdf
Mags
Buoyancy Summary
Fb = p*V*g
•p is the density of the displaced fluid
•V is the volume of displaced fluid
•g is the acceleration of gravity
•That is, Fb is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
...
My rule not yours - not your machine... sorry.So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?
So where have you turned buoyancy on or off? Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy. Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.
Since you have a tiny bit of understanding - I will jump ahead a bit.
P.s. don't tell me if you agree or not - you don't get it - I got that.
When a ZED is sinking - the heads are lower
When the ZED is rising - the heads are higher
RIght, right.
The lower heads result in a concentration of the forces to the middle of the ZED
The higher heads result in a greater distribution of heads.
The result ----the loaded ZED more effectively utilizes the total surfaces
The Sinking ZED uses less surface area
The benefit:
Less pressure needed per pound on the lift.......
Less load to create pressure on the sink........
And the difference between the two...........wait for it - not equal rocks......or Non conservative
RED and I explained this year ago.....
p.s. to save your MATH - if you leave the same load on up and down - it is a rock - or "brick" as you see it.
Not what we do buddy.
Hi,
Wayne the most likely thing you'll ever do with gravity is to talk up a
hot air balloon .
Have you ever answered my yes/no question?
I've no idea what you're supposed to be doing because you're not making
any headway, after all this time you've shown nothing!
John.
How much would you like to bet?
You do understand that buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity acting on a fluid displacement, don't you?
So you can't demonstrate turning buoyancy on and off after all, can you?So where have you turned buoyancy on or off? Shifting weights around does not alter the principle of buoyancy. Let's see you describe something that can be verified where buoyancy is active one moment, and is not active the next.
What I said, gravity is the only force involved.
(People are gonna see that "rho" for density and think it's a "p" for pressure, just watch.)
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still. Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself. It is just a result of certain conditions affected by gravity.Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.
So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!! lol Classic dodging. ;) And typical. ;D
Mags
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
I am sorry Mark,Oh so you are feigning ignorance. I get it. When you say you can switch buoyancy on and off what you really mean is that you can expend work to eject or take on ballast just like people have known how to do for 2000 years. I was under the mistaken impression that you were claiming that you could actually do something unique.
You must have me confused with TK,
I turn Buoyancy off and on the same way anyone does - just faster - so much faster..
Thanks
double dodgeAdd this to your reading list. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2694149522639?r=1&cm_mmca2=pla&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-TextBook_NotInStock_75Up-_-Q000000633-_-2694149522639
Your talking to the Guru of buoyancy TK,I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much.
Honestly - if you can not see the allocation of differential density in our system - and the ease at which we effect them.HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.
Better stop lecturing me.Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.
You act as if there were no water or atmosphere, that gravity and buoyancy coexist still. Buoyancy can be an effect due to gravity, but it is not gravity itself. It is just a result of certain conditions affected by gravity.
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off.
So far, I won that bet. Pay uP sucka!!! lol Classic dodging. ;) And typical. ;D
Mags
I was not addressing you, Travis, and Mags knows my history and knows that if I say I can demonstrate something... I really can do it. You? Not so much. HONESTLY? You have got to be kidding me. Thou hypocrite, I spew you from my mouth like the drink of lukewarm Zed leakage that you are.Or what, you big bully? Are you going to shoot a spitwad at me? Fail to mention me in your prayers? STOP THREATENING ME.
see how you twisted that commentThe only ability the ZED has is as a vehicle to raise money from people who do not perform technical due diligence. Contrary to your false claims, you cannot generate net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping weights. You can only expend net energy doing such things. When may we see a report from any professional engineer who supports your false claims?
I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.
You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.
I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.
or just stop wasting your own time.
see how you twisted that commentYou've threatened me more than once, both veiled and overtly. I am not embarrassed about anything, but I think you are. You have been asked a simple question and you refuse to answer it with "NO" because that would expose you as a false claimant by your own admission, and you refuse to answer it with "YES" because of that silly 8th Commandment. You probably think it's the Ninth, but you know which one I mean. Deut. 5, verses 4 onward.
I do not threaten you - I am trying to save you from emberassing yourself more.
You missed the ability of the ZED - and all of your attacks are misguided.
I suggest rather than getting stuck on a "decimal point" you go back and look at what Larry shared.
or just stop wasting your own time.
Buoyancy is the acceleration due to gravity restricted to the fluid states of matter. Would you like to spin again?
There is an easy way to control buoyancy, and that is by controlling the volume of the thing that is displacing the water.
Umm, like a submarine?? ;) ;DA submarine has tanks that are opened from within the boat, and it takes time to fill those tanks. This does not result in a "volume change" as much as it results in a "weight change". The sealed volume of the boat remains the same, but its weight is increased so it sinks and guess what, it is GRAVITY that sinks it. The Cartesian diver is operated by Pressure Changes coming from Outside, and the Diver responds instantly to those changes because its Volume changes so that it displaces more or less water, but its weight remains the same. Again, it is Gravity that makes the diver descend AND rise.
Night T
Mags
Where is the acceleration in a boat floating on a flat lake? :o It must be really slow. Actually, Im not much interested in waiting for the boat to accelerate. ;) I dont have time for that. ::)No Mags I am afraid that it is you who is a little slow. Just as the mass of the boat is acted upon by the acceleration due to gravity so is the equivalent mass of displaced fluid. Maybe you worry that the acceleration due to gravity is going to pull you through your bed as you sleep tonight. Thankfully for you there is Newton's Third Law to keep you from vanishing from under your covers to a fiery doom at the earth's center.
Again, you are dodging the question. Show me the quote from Wayne that he states that he can turn 'gravity' on and off. :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D
Master of the universe cant back up his own statements. Was it just sarcasm???? ;) Astigmatism?? :o ;D Maybe you can dig that quote up for tomorrow, just to give you some time to get it together. ;) No pressure. lol
Ok, time to sleep. Night
Mags
If anyone reading this new threat had any doubts about Wayne travesties honesty, take a look at the list of quotes from the old thread, Wayne will accuse me of anything he can to divert attention from his failings and dishonesty, he will also come up with multiple excuses to try and justify his failings and deceit.
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.
TO all:
The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.
Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.
I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.
But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.
..............
Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.
Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.
That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.
Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
Yes, I'm here posting too. Problem is, I don't have a world to save, so my time is my own.
In your hands, Travis, the "free energy" is stillborn. Where's the crying, wetting baby? No where but in your dreams.
And you, Travis, are finally coming closer and closer to telling the Truth. You do not have any "5hp net" device that truly runs itself, producing that 5 hp over and above the "zero input" cost of running it. You expected to have one at the time....so it was "true" then what you said, and now you no longer mention it nor will you answer the simple direct "yes or no" question about it that has been asked of you so many times.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
Are you Going help Monderask - or the regular
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - great
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.
Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.
Really - don't want me to refute your theory?? But you are allowed to pot shot mine....That may be true, but it is completely inapplicable to your situation, because you have no break through. You have nothing of value. And you certainly do not have anything that either alters the conservative nature of gravity or allows you to supply endless and abundant clean energy as you falsely claim.
TO all:
The ladder of a break thru technology is a hard climb - and change is hard for many people.
Ah yes there it is, the Tinkerbell Theorem: "We can't deliver on our false claims because people don't believe in our false claims."
Navigating thru the resistance creates many set backs.
We may yet get to see you attempt to stand up for your lies before a judge.
I stand behind every statement I have ever made - for the hope, the expectation, and the plan at that time.
Most scams are forgotten. That's good for new scammers. It's a little bit harder to burn people who have other similar scams fresh in their minds.
But be real - Change happen's and people like these clowns - are forgotten.
Yes, he seems a good person. Yet, you abuse that by attempting to appropriate his name with false suggestions of endorsement that he has never offered and does not offer now.
..............
Mark Dansie is a very good man, and he has busted his tail, been honest and firm in his trusted role as a real skeptic.
How nice that you will forgive people as on their own schedules they eventually recognize that you do not have and have never had what you claim.
Times and events may change - But my loyalty to those that gave direction, guidance, and connections - will remain solid as a rock.
There it is again: You claiming that others are responsible for your failure to deliver. Your failure to deliver is the direct result of your claims always having been false.
That may result in different expectations and plans - as proven by powercatt.
If that is true, then there will never be any free energy. You certainly don't have any.
Powercatt - you have chronicled the birthing pains of free energy.
Just trying to get focus back on topic here. This is a drawing of the same ZED system MarkE and I have been Analyzing, but with only the inner riser. And the pod is now a simple displacement block to minimize the input water needed to charge the system from State 1 to State 2.I agree that State 1 is in equilibrium.
Please note that in State 1, there are zero buoyant Forces on the riser.
However, buoyancy Forces are induced, or "turned on", as the 37 mm water charge is introduced to the inner annulus (what remains of the old pod chamber).I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on". Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path. There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.
Forces don't resolve. Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.
State 3 is shown after the single riser has been allowed to lift until the buoyancy Forces present in State 2 are completely resolved again to zero. The riser in State 3 is again experiencing zero buoyancy Forces.
Not your thread - not your machine - and above your pay grade -if you learn the system or help Monderask - greatNeither is this your thread. You are a guest with no more authority here than anyone else. Yet, you talk as though you carry authority you don't have. If you really want to claim that after six years of failing to deliver even one proof of concept that you do not understand that contrary to your claims, gravity is always conservative, then you say a lot about what your pay grade should be.
I think I got these correct,, I took them out of MarkE's spreadsheet.Deriving is not the same as taking. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have published.
Are you completely unfamiliar with Archimede's Paradox? The reason that you refer to it as "virtual" water is that it is the equivalent volume of displaced water.
This is the virtual water displaced.
The first column is the inner surface area of the risers, the bottom surface area of the pod.
The second column is the head, that is the difference in water column heights.
The last number is cubic mm,, all these numbers are in mm in the spreadsheet.
End of state 2
314.16 x 37 = 11623.92 pod
530.93 x 57.873 = 30726.51189 riser 1
907.92 x 44.55 = 40447.836 riser 2
1385.44 x 36.218 = 50177.86592 riser 3
30726.51189+11623.92+40447.836+50177.86592 = 132976.13381
132.976cc <= virtual volume of water displaced
End of state 3
132.976 x 30.996 = 3990.077856 pod
530.93 x 37.97 = 20159.4121 riser 1
907.92 x 18.82 = 17087.0544 riser 2
1385.44 x 4.613 = 6391.03472 riser 3
6391.03472+17087.0544+20159.4121+3990.077856 = 47627.579076
47.627cc <= virtual volume of water still displaced
But more interestingly, this was all made by the addition of only 3.108cc of real water into the pod chamber.
When I talk about force, as in cause and effect, you tell me that force is not energy, so I found myself assuming that you were saying that energy causes motion,, so I asked.The water levels are all calculated.
I do not see in your spreadsheet where you are calculating the virtual water that is both created and displaced by the addition of water into the pod chamber.
The pod is the filler for the first riser.
The first riser is the filler for the second riser.
The second riser is the filler for the third riser.
I object to this improper claim that buoyancy forces are "turned on". Force builds from zero linearly and incrementally as water pumped in is forced around the obstacles in its path. There is no "on" state or contrary "off" state.
Forces don't resolve. Acceleration stops when net force reaches zero.
MarkE, you can object to this description of "turned on" as it is not an instantaneous change between a state of 0 or 1. But it is the vernacular used by the majority of the population. I was only trying to point this out.I challenge you to show where this idea of "turned on" is accepted in industry or academia. It is a bull shit suggestion by our own HER/Zydro. It is part of their misdirection.
No it is not. The buoyant force builds linearly from zero as water is pumped in. It has no time dependency. It has no state dependency. More displacement = more force.
Ever "turn on" a CRT device and wait for the picture to appear as the tube "warms up?" Same thing. "Turn on" does not have to mean instantaneously. There is a delay in the on and off state of every device, no matter how high the switching frequency.
Unbalanced forces mean net force. Newton's Second Law still applies: F = mA. This example like your two riser and three riser before it is fundamentally lossy. You start by supplying work to create State 1. Then you add work, ideally without loss adding potential energy to get to State 2. Then without extracting any useful work, you lose more than 2/3 of the potential energy you added to get to State 2 by going to State 3. So, this scheme is less efficient than a brick. And yet it is the "ideal ZED". That means that real ZEDs with real friction can only underperform this machine that is already less efficient than a brick. The best ZED is therefore no ZED at all. HER/Zydro's claims to extra energy by using pods and risers are by your example of the ideal device: completely refuted.
Yes, acceleration stops in this single ZED system when all the buoyancy Forces sum to zero. If they are left at any other value then those Forces are: a) unresolved (my term), or b) (please tell me how to properly express this condition here).
I tried not to misrepresent anything.I highly doubt that TK being the learned person he is ever claimed to be the discoverer of Archimedes' paradox. I am quite confident that he explained the paradox, which really isn't a paradox at all when one thinks about it carefully. We covered this before when we discussed Grimer's cement volume derivations.
Actually MarkE,, you need to take that up with TK, he says he is the one to first use that term, and he demonstrated that the virtual water provided the same change in scale reading as the real water.
Still, it only took a small volume of real fluid to make that big change.
Newton's Second Law still applies: F = mA.
MarkE,Webby, you are stuck on the same potential transfer problem that seems will vex you forever.
Why would you NOT extract the useful work that can be extracted, sure if I run my car and don't go anywhere I will get ZERO MPG.
Common sense would say that if you can extract with no other effects then maybe you should, what part of this is it that you do not understand.
Yes it does. And lets look at that relationship.Yes, in this case with your stipulations for the "ideal ZED" m of the riser and "air" is constantly zero. Therefore the kinetic energy is constantly ... wait for it: zero.
F = mA
m is mass. Mass is a property of a physical material that does not change for the accepted IDEAL conditions of a constant temperature and obvious absence of a state of matter change. Therefore m is a CONSTANT.
A is acceleration. In this case it is the acceleration due to gravity. It is also a CONSTANT.
No, F is whatever function defines it over the traversed distance S that it will be evaluated. In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD. How could you work with CFD and misrepresent these fundamental concepts? Are you trolling?
So the Force (F) in F = mA is a mathematical fact which the calculation of cannot be disputed. It is the product of two CONSTANTS (and yes, TK, one is a vector so the result is a vector).
So, what is Energy? It is a resultant of the prior mathematical fact that is Force. It is F*ds (where ds is distance).
F is Force which is the product of two constants.
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus. But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?
ds is distance which another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
You must solve for the force at each incremental point over a path in order to solve for the energy applied. Drag a heavy object with a real coefficient of friction for a distance and you apply real work. That work all converts to heat. You end up with zero kinetic or potential energy in the thing you dragged.
Ergo, you must solve for Force before you calculate the Energy. And regardless of the outcome of that Energy value, it must be correct.
No, I calculated the energy loss for the change in internal energy. You may rightly contest that I did not correctly solve the equilibrium height, because I did not. But the energy loss calculated was correct for the calculated movement, and only gets worse going to the higher true equilibrium height.
In your first attempt at this Analysis you solved first for Energy Balance. This was erroneous and resulted in a physical State 3 that could not actually exist due to "unresolved" Forces in the system that did not sum to zero.
MarkE, regarding your note inserted in the graphic that states:Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy. Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy. You cannot. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy. I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math. If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."
3) No work extracted going from State 2 to State 3
We have already gone over this? There is an ASSUMED non-physical device that MUST restrain the ZED from rising unimpeded (and wasting all that Energy rather than collecting it) that would account for the Work/Energy you keep throwing away.
I do insist, because it is fundamental. You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0.
This is an IDEAL Analysis and so a physical device should not need to be presented. But if you insist that one does, I will oblige. Please let me know if you need to see a physical manifestation of a "Worked on Device" or if you can agree that the Energy "lost from the system" due to the lift could have been collected. Obviously we have all the correct ingredients: A Force (from buoyancy) and a ds (distance that the riser lifts)?
In the other thread I thought I read you saying that you work with CFD.
Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"
What do you base that off?
Wayne
Your assumption that some device can magically collect the lost energy is a fallacy. Place any mechanism that you like in communication with the risers and show that you don't lose energy. You cannot. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Every um of movement by the riser results in permanently lost energy. I have shown the physical basis for this and the associated math. If you want to argue differently, do more than exclaiming "No it isn't."I do insist, because it is fundamental. You cannot collect what you lose lifting, because the very act of lifting changes the N in N*X/N2 to a value greater than 1.0.
Sometimes simple things get missed.You have offered no evidence that the First Law of Energy is wrong.
It doesn't help if the missed things are counter intuitive.
If you assume a system can only be 100%, you must conclude that any loss means no Net Energy.
It is not an assumption, it is a law developed from countless careful observations. You have offered zero counter evidence.
If the assumption holds true - no Net Energy.
What happens if Peter Pan and Godzilla get into a smack down? What happens if Benjamin Netanyahu declares he is a Sunni muslim? We can hypothecate fantasies all day long. Perhaps someday you will understand that when it comes to energy efficiency, the only value greater than 100% is undefined.
................
Yet what happens when the system is 105% then 160% or 340%
No, energy is conserved. Again, see the First Law of Energy. You may want to practice that because paragraph 0008 of your patent application will trigger a rejection for lack of utility because of the claim to a First Law violation.
Can you as a designer choose to use components that have some losses and still have NET.
Don't forget to include Captain Hook pushing from behind ...
and more over - if a standard car engine is 33% efficient - and powering a 330% efficient ZED -
No, it is completely impossible that you have a First Law violation.
Pretty unlikley to have enough losses that result in no Net gain.
The box that we can all hope opens once long enough for you to enter is 6' x 9'. Then you can have plenty of time to explain your ideas to Bubba.
...................
Just saying - you need to open the Box a bit.
Disregarding any unexpected events, I will draw up the simplest physical device I can conceive of that shows the lift is performing Work and provide it to you tomorrow.The method should be easy to understand: Determine the initial net up force. Then determine the up force as a function of lifted distance. Solve for a change in up force equal and opposite to the initial up force.
Meanwhile, I would still like to learn your method to find the final end of lift state that resolves the positive buoyant Forces in the current State 3. Like I said before, I could only imagine to do that iteratively. But I believe you could find a way to reduce the calculus to an equation that would give the final (net zero buoyant Forces) lift height. You do have mad math skills. Please understand that this is not a demand or requirement for our current analysis. I am just eager to learn if there is a simple way to do what I currently find horrendously difficult.
E = k*N*X/N2
BTW, I did say:X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S. ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.
ds is distance which is another calculable (or measurable) physical fact and therefore a CONSTANT.
ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S. Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.
And you replied with:
I find it hard to believe that you flunked calculus. But, if you want to represent that you did, who am I to argue?
Distance is an indisputable fact. Calculus does not apply. Distance is simply distance. It is a measurement that has units of length. In SI the unit of length is the meter.
Distance can be constant. That does not mean that force along a path is constant. Here is a simple compression spring problem: F = -kX, where k is the spring constant. Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m. How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?
Once a distance is calculated or measured it is a CONSTANT that can in no way be in dispute.
So you think this is YOUR thread, then? And you are right about one thing.... you cannot buy ME.
Why don't you AT LEAST learn to spell M. Ondrasek's name properly, you ignorant buffoon.
You have dreams, plans, expectations. You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't.
And every single post you make that DOES NOT provide real evidence for your claims, the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it. So keep up the major work of making these posts here, Wayne Travis. Your employees are wondering why you spend so much time on internet forums promulgating your false claims instead of WORKING FOR A LIVING.
MarkE, could you please define the terms you are supplying in this relationship? Ie. k = what? etc.K is a constant appropriate to the problem. X is a distance where the evaluated quantity is proportional to the square of X, and N is the number of elements that over which the distance is equally proportioned.
Why don't you go for vapourization? Water in a container behaves as a single mass since the molecules are held by bonds keeping it in liquid state. But when it is vapourized, molecules get separated, become lighter than air and move upwards to form clouds at some part of the atmosphere. When water molecules in clouds join making them heavier than air (due to lightening or any other reason) they again fall down to earth as rain developing enormous kinetic energy which we make use of indirectly in hydel power plants to generate megawatts of electricity.No it is not. And the heat of vaporization of water is huge compared to the heat required to change its temperature from say room temperature to 100C. The energy that we are able to reclaim from a hydroelectric dam is but a small percentage of the solar energy expended vaporizing the water that ultimately runs through the generator turbines.
Is it not possible to replicate the natural process of rain in laboratory?
While most portion of solar energy is used up in heating up of earth and oceans, a very small portion only is used in evaporating water from oceans and ground. But when evaporated water falls down to earth as rain, it developes enormous kinetic energy.
Is not rainfall a natural case of overunity?
Cmon T. You complain about a misspelled name, that was posted at 1am, as you stated earlier, then put a comma in your first sentence of your post here, which does'nt work there really. ;) Did'nt work for me as soon as I read it. Does that make you an ignorant buffoon? Why so much belching of insults? For the audience? Making your case?? Cheap shot really. ::) I guess thats all that is left. ;)The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro. Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant. How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that: He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims. Each of those is an extraordinary claim. Each is false on its face.
"You do NOT have what you clearly claimed to have: a self running machine that makes usable excess energy output. Feel free to PROVE ME WRONG by showing one to someone. But you cannot, you will never be able to, and in some dark part of that brain of yours know that you can't."
Well I would say that statement is a claim. Can you prove your claim? ??? ;) Put it on YT and lets see your proof of 'your' claim. You made numerous vids proving Rosemary wrong, but no due diligence as such here. And you tell Wayne 'he' should work for a living. You are posting here in greater quantity than Wayne has, yet no proofs of 'your claim', just speculation. Oh the hypocrisy. ::)
Wayne said "...and above your pay grade" and you said "you cannot buy ME"
It seems to me that Wayne was implying that you are not worth the pay that he would expect to pay someone that he considered capable of doing the work he would expect to pay for. How is that him trying to buy you? Is that something the readers should understand clearly??? As that is your target audience, right? "the more people reading here will be convinced you cannot do it." ::)
See this is the way the comma should have been used...
"As that is your target audience, right?" not "So you think this is YOUR thread, then?" lol Buffoonery with a bit of hypocrisy? Any readers here?????? ;D
Mags ::)
Mark:In the past day, Wayne Travis has claimed that there is such thing as a "Travis effect". This overcomes the objection two years ago that the term was just something Tom Miller referred to and no one should hold Wayne Travis to that term. I have never seen anyone articulate a description of what the supposed "Travis effect" is, and how it behaves differently from the 2000 year old Archimedes' Principle.
I can answer your pop quiz but I am not sure any of Wayne's replicators can. I doubt that Wayne can answer it. For me that illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Wayne (endorsing them and advising us to 'learn' from them) and the folly of the whole affair.
Also Wayne's "descriptions" of how the thing allegedly works are nothing more than a word salad. It makes me absolutely cringe. I challenge anybody reading this to state that they actually understand what Wayne is saying. It's the well-practiced jumble-ese that is used to seduce little old ladies to part with their retirement money.
Wayne's world is a classic reality distortion zone.
MileHigh
X ds signifies the change in X per per infinitesimal change in S. ds is not S, and cannot be substituted for or by S.ds is calculus notation. integral( F*ds ) only equals F*S for the unique condition that F is a constant, and the evaluation is from zero to S. Under all conditions where F is a function of S, such as applies here, the integral(F*ds) must be solved.Distance can be constant. That does not mean that force along a path is constant. Here is a simple compression spring problem: F = -kX, where k is the spring constant. Let's make it simple and say that k = 10N/m. How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 100cm?
a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above
How much energy does it require to compress the spring by 1m?
a. 0.05J
b. 0.5J
c. 1J
d. 5J
e. none of the above
And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity. Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device. And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.
MarkE, please respond to one reply at a time. Try to not mix my replies into an amalgamation that I should have to decipher.No, I do not agree.
You have not defined yet what "X" represents. Or what "S" represents.
And I suggest that we stay focused only on the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED for the purpose of clarity. Discussing mechanical springs may be equivalent to the unique construction of a ZED for the purposes of the point you are trying to make, but that implied "analogy" is not focused solely on this device. And so your introduction of the "springs" are a distraction from the Analysis at hand.
F*ds is the correct way to calculate the Energy that enters or leaves the single ideal ZED system being Analyzed, do you agree?
The single layer device is what we are discussing.
To be 100% clear, are we now only discussing the Analysis of the single riser (semi) ZED system that I presented earlier today? Is that the one I should prepare the physical resistance to lift (work accumulator) for in the morning? Or did you want to try this on the 3-layer one?
I have responded to each of your questions one by one. X is a quantity that relates to the quantity we are evaluating as a square function. It is not specific to a particular problem. X could for example be voltage on a capacitor, deflection of a spring, or the head of water in some column, where the quantity that we are interested in is energy. In each case the energy is a linear function of X2.
BTW, I know that a negative or even condescending "tone" can be implied when reading this post. But please understand that it is not meant that way and accept my apologies for any offense I may have implied. I did not mean any offense, and I have great respect for your talent and skills. I am only trying to correspond in a "tone neutral" way, which to me at least, comes off kind of like an ass.
Sorry if I offended you in any way. It was not my intention.
M.
The extraordinary claim is by Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro. Extraordinary claims are false on their face until proven by the claimant. How many years has it been and Wayne Travis has not offered a shred of evidence that: He can alter the conservative nature of gravity, generate the endless energy, or any energy that he claims. Each of those is an extraordinary claim. Each is false on its face.
Well, if it is soo extra ordinary and 'predetermined' that the claim is false because of its extraordinary status, then why all the fuss?? There must be better reasons than just trying to get him to admit defeat for the sole purpose of getting him to concede. ???Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so. Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics. I offered to help and have done so. Wayne came here spewing his usual lies. He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected. If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.
Like why not go after the guys that put out the "build a magnet motor to run your home" info for just $49.95 Guarantied Money Back If Not Satisfied. No real problems with those claims, huh? Nobody getting ripped off there, huh? Did you see the comma placements there? lol
I know why none of you go after those guys. Its being 'allowed'. ;) Allowed because being it is a ripoff that discourages people from believing in the possibility of free energy or OU by cheating the ones that like the idea of it when they read the ads. Thats why the ads persist. No big raids, nothing. Its funny how they can keep 'advertizing' without being shut down, isnt it? These ads are EVERYWHERE!!. Not challenging enough for you?? Screw the fools that purchase these false hopes??? I thought that was what your goals were, to rid the world of OU ripoffs. ??? ;)
Best to attack the little guy in a little thread on some forum, who is just trying to help a few guys understand something they never knew? ??? ? ::)
All considered, it makes me think you guys are trying to shut Wayne down for more sinister reasons. 8) 8) 8) 8) ;)
Mags
If a fake YouTube clip flooder came on here to pitch his magnetic pyramid or some fifty buck circuit to "say goodbye to the power company" I would eat the guy alive. However, those scammers would never come here because they know that's exactly what would happen. They are the equivalent of a junk emailer that buys 10 million email addresses for $1000, concocts a pitch, does his email blast, and hopes that he can rake in $5000 or more. That type of criminal has no desire to interact with anybody. They are not looking for investment dollars, they don't want to speak to anybody. It's a totally different type of con.
Wayne Travis is unlikely to come out and admit his lies until there is an advantage for him to do so. Mondrasek asked for help analyzing a the physics. I offered to help and have done so. Wayne came here spewing his usual lies. He injected himself with those lies here, and like others I have objected. If you are unhappy about the people selling those bogus free energy plans, then you are free to try and do something about it.
Oh, its about the supposed lies. Hmm. So the ads are providing truths, so its ok. ;) And these ads are not 'spewed' far beyond this little thread, in fact around the world? ::) ::) ::) ::)Mags your posts say a lot about you. It is not complimentary.
Where is that quote of Waynes where he "claims to be able to turn gravity on and off" ?? Liar. ;)
Mags
I told you to never interact with me on this forum again. The worst behaviour that I have ever seen on this forum was from you bashing me repeatedly and relentlessly.
Do not engage with me on the forum.
Mags your posts say a lot about you. It is not complimentary.
Lol. Still no quote to back up your statement? Just dodging and insults. Again. Typical. Yet you demand Wayne backs up his claims. Hypocrite.You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly. That's your choice. Present yourself as badly as you like.
Mags
You choose to ignore facts and attack with false claims repeatedly. That's your choice. Present yourself as badly as you like.
You stated this....
"Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. Someone read "Slapstick"."
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg390997/#msg390997
M., Webby, Mags,LarryC really? Please cite any such posts of mine.
MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't understand?
Thanks, Larry
LarryC really? Please cite any such posts of mine.
I have shown you that buoyancy is gravity as applied to fluids. Therefore any claim to turning buoyancy on and off is a claim of turning gravity on and off as it applies to fluids. I provided you with a nice academic reference and quoted that reference. Still you insist that it isn't so. Maybe you don't remember. Maybe this is all just beyond your comprehension. Maybe you are just trolling. Whatever the reason, you are not presenting yourself well.
Do you need to see the reference again?
M., Webby, Mags, Wayne,
MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes, backed up by his math, and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?
Thanks, Larry
Well then, you should have stated that Wayne claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, instead of the words "turn gravity on and off. Correct???? But saying that he said that he claims to be able to turn buoyancy on and off, just doesnt sound so bad, does it? ;) You said he claimed to turn 'gravity' on and off, period. And now you twist it to be that you were saying other words instead.You claimed that I lied. I did not. I have shown that I did not. If you can't comprehend, or simply choose not to comprehend, then you make yourself look ignorant or worse.
Here is your words.... "Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on". Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off"
Show me the quote that Wayne said it!!!!!!! ;)
Magluvin
"Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?"Oh pleeease. Now you are trotting out the old suppression conspiracy? Really? How has this alleged conspiracy kept Wayne Travis from delivering on a technology he has long claimed to have? How has it prevented him from powering his home, his church, his investor's homes and businesses with the claimed invention? How has it caused him to switch horses multiple times?
Oh he does comprehend. ;) He is doing his best to discredit the claim by twisting the truth. 8) Thats why. ;)
Why do you think they are pounding on this so hard? To try and get the readers to think its a fraud, by any means. Why would they want to do that with such aggression? 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Suits. ;) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Magluvin
M., Webby, Mags, Wayne,
MarkE is very good with math, but he was unable to explain the 33.55% excess output of the Zed over the Archimedes, backed up by his math, and tried to squirm out of it with a pathetic unrelated brake example. Do any of you understand why he can't comprehend?
Thanks, Larry
Oh pleeease. Now you are trotting out the old suppression conspiracy? Really? How has this alleged conspiracy kept Wayne Travis from delivering on a technology he has long claimed to have? How has it prevented him from powering his home, his church, his investor's homes and businesses with the claimed invention? How has it caused him to switch horses multiple times?
Your play book is rather tattered.
Sorry guys, as I didn't list MarkE's actual post 265# at March 2 at 10:25:41 PM which show his inability to comprehend the 33.55%. Can you explain his ingorance?
Wrong again. Mondrasek actively sought help with his analysis. Help I might add that you have not provided.
Call it what you will. You said it no me. lol. My playbook is just dissecting your posts. And Im finding it a bit tattered as you say. :P ;D
Lets put it this way. With all your 'quality' input here, when will you be done? You entered here uninvited.
And thats fine. But its not friendly in the least. And you distort Waynes claims.Nope, I have fairly represented his false claims.
You are really making yourself look bad here. But if you suits you to act as you do, then that is your choice.
I have shown that clearly for 9 pages now, and you have not shown 'us' the quote from Wayne that he 'claims' to be able to 'turn on and off GRAVITY' I Ask for 9 pages now, again and again, and you dodge and weave. And you try to distract the 'readers' here by trying to make me look silly. lol
I have reposted my quote. So once again you are wrong.
YOU said it. Right readers? ;)
YOU dodge the quote requests again and again. And again. Right readers? ;)
Again, I reposted my quote, so you are again wrong.
You demand quotes from others but deny us of your own. Right readers?
Anyone who bothers to read the thread can see that you have been wrong over and over and over again. It is really quite sad.
Now, tell the 'readers' that I am lying. ::) Again, you cannot. ;) Because I am telling the truth, unlike you. ;) The readers know. ;) You got nothing on me. :P ;D And I can stand proud of that. ;)
Asked and answered several times now. But since you apparently wish to ignore, there is little that will satisfy you.
Show me the quote that Wayne 'claimed' to be able to turn gravity on and off!!! ::)
If you are declaring your intent to troll, then I suppose if you do it enough you may subject yourself to moderation.
You think you can make this just go away. lol Turn that on and off. ;) You will find that it would be 'extraordinary' if you can accomplish that. Count on it. ;)
I haven't asked you to go away. I have advised you that you are behaving very poorly and that reflects badly on you. It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep behaving as you do or not. If your posts are representative of the kind of support that the Wayne Travis camp can muster, that's just sad.
I know. You would like me to go away. Well why would you deserve such when you deny these guys of the same of you??? Hmmm? Am I right readers??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Magluvin
LarryC, How about when claiming to refer to a post, why don't you quote it and see if it really says what you claim? Kindly show me in that post where I demonstrated what you claim? As far as I can tell you have had difficulty understanding my response. The pneumatic lifting scheme that you call Archimedes is indeed very inefficient. So is the scheme you label as ZED. Wayne and HER/Zydro claim that their scheme is over unity. Reducing losses is all fine and well, but the scheme you call ZED even by your own analysis is far outperformed efficiency-wise by other far simpler means. Hence my comment about driving around with your emergency brake applied.
Sorry guys, as I didn't list MarkE's actual post 265# at March 2 at 10:25:41 PM which show his inability to comprehend the 33.55%. Can you explain his ingorance(sic)?
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #265 on: March 02, 2014, 10:25:41 PM »
Quote
Quote from: LarryC on March 02, 2014, 09:49:46 PMQuoteMarkE,
Added the Integral F*ds for the Archimedes and they also agree with the original spreadsheet results. So we still have a 33.55% efficiency increase for the Zed over the Archimedes that needs to be explained.[size=78%] [/size]
The majority of people coming to learn about the Zed would not understand your math approach and would think that we were trying to fool them. But they do easily understand concepts like buoyancy, pressure, force, volume, water levels, etc., which can be used in simple easy to understand math formula. A few that come, will like you, insist on Integrating F*ds and now I understand that we need to have that available. So, thank you for the heads up.
Larry
Who cares how much less horrific one scheme is than another? The HER/Zydro claim is for a gain in energy. No such gain occurs. Do you drive your car around with the emergency brake on? Do you get excited about a huge boost in gas mileage when you release the emergency brake?
Nature doesn't care what any individual may or may not understand. It's hilarious that you would claim that your convoluted spreadsheet that used dozens of cell formulas in place of a few lines of algebra was constructed to create an easy to follow illustration of your claims.
Wrong again. Mondrasek actively sought help with his analysis. Help I might add that you have not provided.Nope, I have fairly represented his false claims.You are really making yourself look bad here. But if you suits you to act as you do, then that is your choice.I have reposted my quote. So once again you are wrong.Again, I reposted my quote, so you are again wrong.Anyone who bothers to read the thread can see that you have been wrong over and over and over again. It is really quite sad.Asked and answered several times now. But since you apparently wish to ignore, there is little that will satisfy you.If you are declaring your intent to troll, then I suppose if you do it enough you may subject yourself to moderation.I haven't asked you to go away. I have advised you that you are behaving very poorly and that reflects badly on you. It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep behaving as you do or not. If your posts are representative of the kind of support that the Wayne Travis camp can muster, that's just sad.
I have advised you that you are behaving very poorly and that reflects badly on you.
..really.. OmgoshWell good morning Wayne. What do you think about Mondrasek's "ideal ZED" now? Do you have any new insights into how to make his short travel, linear spring emulating device into an over unity machine? Can you help out showing where gravity can be modified here to become non-conservative?
Pencils ready!And why is it useless? It is useless because nowhere in it does it describe anything that can or will change the behavior of even Mondrasek's idealized device from that of a linear spring to something that can create energy. If something is passive, it does not create energy. Adding more instances of passive devices does not introduce anything that produces energy. But it is nice to see that you are intent on evidencing your scienter.
Try using this process - and you will see that we do not release the "spring" as you describe.
I will post it again.
So lets get your states set up, and in order.
...........
Useless wall of text.
Step right up and get 10 better than "ideal ZED" devices for less than $12.00! These devices require no precharge, have no set-up losses, occupy a tiny fraction of the volume of the "ideal ZED", can store more than 10 times more accsessible energy than the "ideal ZED", don't leak, work in any orientation, don't lose fluid to evaporation, and don't corrode themselves with water! What they have is the same force versus distance constant as the "ideal ZED". Instead of a fully extended envelope of greater than 69.5mm H x 46mm Dia, these babies are less than 15mm long by 3mm diameter. IOW they fit in less than 1/1000th the volume of the "ideal ZED" while exactly matching the "ideal ZED" transfer function, without any of the complexity or headaches. That's right: They have more than 10,000 times the accessible volumetric energy density as the "ideal ZED". And did someone mention cycle rate? The self resonant frequency of these springs is in the thousands of cycles per second. How fast can a ZED cycle? All that and they cost less than $1.20 each when you buy 10 at a time and save!
http://www.amazon.com/Compression-Spring-Stainless-Compressed-Capacity/dp/tech-data/B005S4HDZ8 (http://www.amazon.com/Compression-Spring-Stainless-Compressed-Capacity/dp/tech-data/B005S4HDZ8)
Compression Spring, Stainless Steel, Metric, 2.82 mm OD, 0.32 mm Wire Size, 6.1 mm Compressed Length, 14.2 mm Free Length, 3.91 N Load Capacity, 0.48 N/mm Spring Rate (Pack of 10) Price: $11.73
These are better than even an "ideal ZED" in every way I said they are. Unfortunately, just like Wayne's machines, these aren't over unity either.
WoW they sound fantastic, what an amazing product, I really need some of them now, but before I part with my $ can I see one running ? and producing excess energy ? That's the big question, hope you'r ZED isn't like Wayne's (doesn't actually worked in reality)
When I was child - I did not read the instructions either....It appears that your childhood habits are still with you. A ~$1. spring does all than the "ideal Zed" does and more, in less than 1/1000th the space. Is your crack team of technologists looking for a defect in the spreadsheet that shows how the "ideal ZED" does nothing more than a much: smaller, cheaper, simpler, and more reliable linear spring?
As I grew older - I recognized the value of experience - I treasured other peoples teaching and wisdom.
And good morning.
My prayers for your recovery and good health.
"I treasured other peoples' thinking and wisdom"
I don't really think you do. Try asking TK, MarkE,
Milehigh, Powercat, Librenergie and many more,
see what they think.
Why doesn't this bloke do any real work you
may ask. Well I've got a broken back, I'm semi
retired and I'm looking after baby today.
I wouldn't be doing anything by now if I
hadn't had some metal rods screwed into my
spine, so I'm eternally grateful to all those other
peoples' thinking and wisdom that have made
surgery like this possible.
John
I am Pretty sure that Larry Shared the hydro assist cost of a three layer dual ZED, and the production...The analysis shows without doubt that the "ideal ZED" exhibits the transfer function of a linear spring. The "ideal ZED" has a force versus distance rate that is constant at 0.48N/mm over its available 2.492mm travel.
You might study it a bit more - smile
Just saying... We do not have a steel spring.... or a brick, or a any other false comparison.
Get Back with me after you Study.
Thanks
Good morning, MarkE. Here is a physical device that could be used to restrain the ZED from rising. It consists of an "ideal" Massless and Frictionless piston with the same diameter as the riser. It is fitted into a bore that is also allowed that same "ideal" bore. It is below the surface of the bore by a tiny amount less than the ZED is calculated to rise. The bore is filled with the same quality of water that is used inside the ZED. This results in a downward Force due to the weight of the water Volume. That Volume is slightly less than the Volume of the riser lift that is the result of the buoyant Forces in the upward direction once the water charge is introduce in State 2. So the piston will begin to rise only at the very end of the charge cycle going from State 1 to State 2. The ZED is now performing real measureable work by lifting the water above the piston as it strokes to State 3.This suffers from the tyranny of the: N*X/N2 = X/N problem.
This suffers from the tyranny of the: N*X/N2 = X/N problem.
The other problem that you have is that it requires head to support the payload weight. You have to pick a payload that is less than the initial uplift force, because the uplift force declines steadily towards zero with lift. If you pick a payload weight that is the same as the uplift force then the thing never moves. If you pick one slightly less as you propose then it moves only slightly.
MarkE, the initial payload is slightly below the maximum buoyancy Force in State 2. And the payload also declines linearly as the system lifts up. The payload "slug" of water does not sit on the piston at the end of State 3. It has been allowed to run off unimpeded across the top surface shown that includes the bore. The correct Energy equation reduces to .5*Fmax*S.You are still subject to the N*(X/N)2 tyranny. Let's say that you set-up your payload such that it runs off at the rate of 64.649N/m to match the rate at which the riser lift force runs down, then the Wpayload = 0.30078N - 64.649N/m. Now perform the integral math on the work you impart doing the lifting:
TK, regarding your "peanut oil" comment earlier (sorry, but I'm too lazy to go back and find it). I was wondering if you, or anyone else, had experience with Pentane? I did a little bit of research on a low and high density fluid and had settled on Pentane and an Aqueous Sodium Polytungstate solution for candidates to use in a production level ZED system. Only downside to Pentane though (that I can tell) is it is flammable. Any thoughts?Pentane is flammable, volatile, toxic and carcinogenic probably. Sodium polytungstate? Man, you are weird. How about using galinstan and kerosene?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_metatungstate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_metatungstate)
No, the payload is a fixed mass. It does not decrease as it moves up. A payload just less than the State 2 lift force barely moves.
If you create some arrangement where you lift the payload slightly and then it falls off of a cliff, then you need to account for the loss in PE that occurs when you do that. You cannot pretend that you lift what you drop, or that you lift what runs off. No matter how you slice you have to perform the integral math. And no matter how you slice it, when you convert potential energy stored in some device into potential stored in multiple devices, you get screwed by the N*X/N2 problem.
Question,
how much does it cost to pump a little bit of "virtual water"?
John.
How about using galinstan and kerosene?
I assumed galinstan would be much more costly and probably have a high viscosity. Plus it didn't come up in my searches. They were not extensive.
Kerosene is interesting. Is it safer than Pentane? Any idea on the least dense liquid that is non-toxic, and non-flammable?
Incorrect. It is the case I explained and that you address below.See the updated post above. You still lose more than 30%.
There is no need to be concerned with where the exiting Energy goes off to once it is properly calculated as leaving the system. The water could "fall off a cliff" or sit on top of an infinitely large surface. It does not matter. The only thing that matters is that this method allows for a correct calculation of the Energy that leaves the system during the transition from State 2 to State 3.
See the updated post above. You still lose more than 30%.
Sorry MarkE, could you tell me which post has been updated?#667
QuoteQuote from: mondrasek on Today at 05:28:21 PM
MarkE, the initial payload is slightly below the maximum buoyancy Force in State 2. And the payload also declines linearly as the system lifts up. The payload "slug" of water does not sit on the piston at the end of State 3. It has been allowed to run off unimpeded across the top surface shown that includes the bore. The correct Energy equation reduces to .5*Fmax*S.
You are still subject to the N*(X/N)2 tyranny. Let's say that you set-up your payload such that it runs off at the rate of 64.649N/m to match the rate at which the riser lift force runs down, then the Wpayload = 0.30078N - 64.649N/m. Now perform the integral math on the work you impart doing the lifting:
E = integral( F*ds )
F = 0.30078N - 64.649N/m
integral from 0 to 4.653mm is:
0.30078N * 0.004653m - 0.5 * 64.649N/m * (0.004653m)2 = 0.7mJ
The internal change in energy from State 2 to State 3 was 1.024mJ. So you are still stuck with a 30% loss.
Hi,
I tried with a bit of light oil over water and it's ok if you don't get any revs up.
Once you try and increase the rate of doing work of course you just emulsion.
When you put oil over water in your ZED you get a totally different beast than
when it's got air over water.
John.
Another reason to keep the difference in the Specific Gravities of the two working fluids as large as possible? Or, is it a showstopper that means a gas, while lossy as far as Energy is concerned, has an advantage when Power is the ultimate goal?The irony is that the force multiplication goes up with the relative SGs, but the efficiency goes down. The best ZED is not a ZED at all, but an ordinary hydraulic lift.
#667
Thanks!Have you downloaded the spreadsheet? Everything you want should be in it. The ZED is a piece of useless junk. I don't know where you obtained OU numbers, but it certainly is not reflected in the ZED. The "ideal ZED" using incompressible fluids, once you've paid all the energy to prepare it and charge it up, just acts like a linear spring. If you make one with compressible "air" it acts like a variable rate spring with additional loss.
Now back to the 3-layer ZED. Which one do you want to check? We need to calculate the Energy that left that system due to the rise. Then I think the Energy Balance Analysis is complete.
Have you downloaded the spreadsheet? Everything you want should be in it. The ZED is a piece of useless junk. I don't know where you obtained OU numbers, but it certainly is not reflected in the ZED. The "ideal ZED" using incompressible fluids, once you've paid all the energy to prepare it and charge it up, just acts like a linear spring. If you make one with compressible "air" it acts like a variable rate spring with additional loss.
MarkE, AFAIK you have ignored (thrown away) the Energy released by the ZED system when it is allowed to rise in every one of your attempts so far. You have finally correct that in the simple no-pod, single riser example after being shown that there is Energy leaving the system due to the rise. That Energy is F*ds which resolves to 0.5*Fave*S for this specific case. That same Energy value has NOT been calculated for any of your 3-layer attempts. I am asking you to do so. Without adding that correction to your previous work the way you have for the no-pod, single riser example, those proofs are wrong. You ignore Energy that clearly leaves the system when the ZED rises. Energy that can be used to do real Work.Mondrasek, I have shown that these contraptions once they are set up reduce to linear springs. I have explained the N*(X/N)2 tyranny issue of potential energy stores, and that includes linear springs and things that act like linear springs. For non-linear devices it is worse.
MarkE,There is at the end of State 3 still more energy in the system than at the end of State 1. Why would you think that the system would not return to State 1?
This is kind of,, maybe off the discussion,, but I was looking at the new drawing for the end of state 3 and I find myself asking what would happen if I opened the valve for the pod chamber after the risers and pod lifted?
Would the water just kind of dribble out, would it be able to come out at all or would it come out with some force behind it?
Mondrasek, I have shown that these contraptions once they are set up reduce to linear springs. I have explained the N*(X/N)2 tyranny issue of potential energy stores, and that includes linear springs and things that act like linear springs. For non-linear devices it is worse.
Kindly read the spreadsheet. Everything you need is in there. If you will not be bothered to look at the work I see no reason to pay attention to your demands for additional spoon feeding. The single layer and three layer only differ in their coefficients. Their completely under unity, linear spring emulating behavior is the same. The machines are worthless, overly complex, lossy junk.
The spreadsheet is very complete. It audits correctly. I have been very patient with you. You have yet to show the calculations that you relied upon to reach the erroneous conclusion that a three riser system is OU. Springs are not OU. The three riser like the single riser behaves as a linear spring. The ZED claims of over unity cannot be met by their emulation of ordinary springs. QED.
I thought that it would, but was not sure since riser 2 is at a neutral buoyant condition and riser 3 is at a negative buoyant condition leaving riser 1 and the pod positive. I was not sure if the atmosphere pushing down on riser 3 and the pressure left within the system would do anything.There would in the hypothetical set-up be no atmosphere. In practice there of course would be. However, the water still has weight. All of the columns would be happy to equalize if they could. They can't because of the restriction that air can only enter at AR7. Open up the drain plug under the pod chamber and the restriction no longer exists.
No, MarkE. And after checking, I think we need to return to your "correction" to post #667. There you introduced a "rate" into that Energy equation. You will need to explain that.Do you or do you not understand how to integrate in order to obtain energy?
Not to sound to silly,, but would that then suck the water up AR6 and over into AR5?No, opening the pod chamber would allow water to flow back from AR6 into AR7. It's just a collapsing balloon.
Do you or do you not understand how to integrate in order to obtain energy?
MarkE, you introduced a rate into an Energy calculation. Rate does not apply when calculating the Energy leaving the system as the piston rises in this case.What are you putting into your coffee? F*ds is not energy. The integral of F*ds is energy. The equation for up lift force as the riser goes up is just as I wrote it, and conforms to your description. Similarly, the solution of the integral that I wrote is correct for these circumstances. The second term in the integral is identically half the first term.
The correct Energy = F*ds reduction for the case of the riser lifting the water on top of the piston is simply Fave*S.
The Force starts at the maximum buoyancy Force that can be calculated from State 2. It then declines linearly to exactly zero which is the case in State 3 since the water is flowing off of the piston as it is rising. This is a straight forward calculation and involves no rates.
Alrighty,, it is kind of funny looking because riser 2 is neutrally buoyant and the water is "hanging" on riser 3 and pulling the water in AR5 up, so I was wondering about what happens when the push from the water from the other side goes away, it looks like riser 2 would also have water hanging on aka a negative buoyant condition,, all of that of course since the "head" around the pod will need to drop down before the pod can lower allowing the system itself to lower,, well it is a case of the balancing act,, naturally the pod will drop down, or maybe be pushed down,,It may seem non-intuitive to you, but the fluid in the pod chamber is drove the system to the State 3 condition. That fluid remains under pressure. The pressure is countered via the coupled force on the various sides of the risers. If you open the pod chamber, the whole thing will collapse without hesitation. The pod and Riser 1 have net upward pressure on them, meaning that they are net pushing back down on everything in the pod chamber and AR2. Open the pod chamber at the bottom and that positive pressure will drive fluid out. That will unbalance the rest of the assembly and the risers will collapse down and the water volumes will equalize. The reachable lower energy state is State 1: 32.5mm in AR[2-7], and no fluid in the pod chamber.
What are you putting into your coffee? F*ds is not energy. The integral of F*ds is energy. The equation for up lift force as the riser goes up is just as I wrote it, and conforms to your description. Similarly, the solution of the integral that I wrote is correct for these circumstances. The second term in the integral is identically half the first term.
Sure:
Take a volume where we are going to eject water replacing it with an incompressible fluid, where:
H is the height of the volume.
A is the cross-sectional area of the volume.
Ge is the acceleration due to gravity on earth.
pW is the density of water.
pX is the density of the incompressible fluid.
The pressure difference from bottom to top of the volume varies from 0 to H*Ge*(pW-pX).
The force required varies from 0 to H is A*Ge*(pW-Px)*H.
The work done is the integral of F*ds: = Integral( A*Ge*(pW-Px)*H dh)
The solution of the integral from 0 to H is of the form: Kh*(H2^2 - H1^2) + F0*( 0.5*A*Ge*(pW-pX)*H^2
For pX = 0: = 0.5*A*Ge*pW*H^2
And since the weight of water in the volume would be: Wdisplaced = A*Ge*pW*H, we get: E = H/2*Wdisplaced.
Pentane is flammable, volatile, toxic and carcinogenic probably. Sodium polytungstate? Man, you are weird. How about using galinstan and kerosene?
Or just a big spring and a rock.
MarkE. I apologize for leaving out the word "integral" again. It is a bad habit.For the special case of zero to HEND, or HSTART to zero, the work performed filling or emptying a column is: E = 0.5*PEND*VEND filling, and 0.5*PSTART*VSTART emptying. In all other cases the integral result is more complicated.
I think I saw this integral reduction shared by you. It is the one we are using for the Energy in the water introduced during the change from State 1 to State 2. That integral of F*ds is 0.5(Pstart-Pend)*V for the special case where the start or end Pressure is zero. Is that correct?
Another way to look at this is to calculate the Energy in the column of water that is on the piston. That Energy is dissipated as the piston rises and the water spills out. So that Energy must be equal to the Energy that is released when the ZED is allowed to rise. That equation also resolves to 0.5*Fstart*S.For the circumstance that you set-up that is correct:
I am saying that it cannot be done. Gravity is a conservative field. No amount of tinkering with: weights, sloshing liquid volumes, compressed gas volumes, or other mechanical devices addresses that fundamental behavior of gravity. Wayne Travis talks out of his hat when he claims as he does on the HER/Zydro web site that "Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing s to supply endless and abundant clean Energy." The statement is a bald-faced lie. HER/Zydro have no evidence and never had any evidence that the claim was ever true. They cannot demonstrate any means within their possession to alter the conservative nature of gravity. "Slapstick" was yet another very entertaining work of fiction by Vonnegut.
Hi,
if you imagine a see-saw, equally weighted, try taking say one eighth of the weight from
one side. The now lighter side will stubbornly rise, that's what will happen if you try
this with your ZED.
The pod can be discounted because it's just Archimedes, and the rest of the thing will
just behave like any ordinary telescopic ram, if you have massless, incompressible air.
Anyone who seems to be getting more out than is put in has seriously got to hunt for
glitches in their work.
Anyone proving that you really can get free energy out of this sort of device is going to
become a very famous person!
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it sure is one hell of a task
John.
MarkE,I calculate circular areas for many things in the spreadsheet, including the surface areas of the riser top surfaces identified as: RiserNODArea, where N is 1, 2, or 3, and each of the annular rings, ring walls, and the riser walls. You will see a note in column D that the areas are calculated as circular areas, IE the area that a square with the same width as the diameter would occupy. This is merely a convenience for calculations where the ratio of the true area to the circular area: pi/4 ends up common to a number of terms. Consequently, that ratio is just rolled up in a constant when needed, or not used at all when it would appear in both the numerator and the denominator of some relationship. Avoiding inclusion of irrational numbers like pi into equations when it cancels out reduces numerical error.
I was wondering why you have od squared of the outside of the risers as the area,, I think that is what is meant in the spreadsheet?
Would using the lightest workable liquid vs. air, cause us to use even more input due to the liighter liquid would have a lot more weight added to the system? More weight to move around, and more in before we get anything out. As compared to air.The best case for maximum force generation in a given volume is a very dense working fluid in place of water and a massless, incompressible fluid in place of the air. The best case for efficiency is to replace both fluids with a massless, incompressible fluid.
Was thinking also, being the air is compressible, initial input would be less loaded at the moment, rather than an abrupt requirement of 'full' input(surge) just to get things going. Just thinking. The total amount of possible excess input to begin a rise, as compared to an incompressible air substitute, might not be so much in because of its compressibility. The incompressible air substitute definitely creates a much closer weight difference between it and the water, so more needs to be input than can be output because we are taking away the weight difference of the water, as compared to using air.
Fill a balloon with the oil and one with air and see which rises to the top of the pool from the bottom first. So in the system being discussed, more oil would have to be moved than the amount of air mass, equals more loss to the system. Heck, might as well just use all water, if we dont care about the the object of changing the levels if weighted liquid in linked separate chambers as being discussed. In that case, then yes, buy a hand jack. ;D
Also, once that air is up to pressure, that pressure contains the energy that put it there. So if we dont try to capture that after the riser is at bottom, then we just wasted it stupidly if it is just released foolishly without applying some use to it at release. And beyond that, arrange the system to not release or use that compressed air that is at the pressure level of just before the riser is about to rise. Then we eliminated initial loss of compressing to the point of initial rise, again and again. We only have to go through 'that' loss 1 time. Pressure activated check valve? Like a zener diode, wont let the current flow if below say 12v, for a 12v zener.
Mags
The best case for maximum force generation in a given volume is a very dense working fluid in place of water and a massless, incompressible fluid in place of the air. The best case for efficiency is to replace both fluids with a massless, incompressible fluid.
The real air being compressible creates pumping losses, making the already stupid contraption even worse than the "ideal ZED". More work has to be exerted changing the volume because it goes into thermal losses compressing / decompressing the air.
See the discussion where Mondrasek came up with a clever way to only lose 31% of the energy each cycle. His scheme identically loads the riser with just the mass that the riser can lift at any moment less a little tiny bit that we ignored in the analysis to ensure that it does rise. It still loses 31%.
"The best case for efficiency is to replace both fluids with a massless, incompressible fluid. "It is a hydraulic lift jack with polluted hydraulic fluid. The first energy efficiency improvement is to remove the pollutant "air". If you still want high force for low fluid volume, use a large diameter insert. That will reduce the amount of fluid that you have to store. It will not reduce the amount of fluid required to obtain a given amount of lift against a particular maximum load.
So your saying it is no more than a hydrolic jack with a squishy piston. And to improve on that, replace the piston with a rigid one and say aero gel for fluid. Dont remember if it is compressible. lol, Im so beat, I should not be trying to think and post. late nights. You know.
Mags
Pencils ready!
Try using this process - and you will see that we do not release the "spring" as you describe.
I will post it again.
So lets get your states set up, and in order.
...........
Conditions At least three layers Each ZED:
ZED A Sunk remaining head due to riser weight and any added weight - ZED A will be the receiving ZED,
ZED B is at the end of delivering a load and in the raised position - and was not allowed to Bob up after the load was removed.
.................
State one - Start with sunk - still head remaining - equal to the weight of the risers - and any additional load. (additional load is sometimes used to reduce time by reducing expansion and contraction during cycles)
p.s. Adding weight is counter intuitive - most people assume adding weight induces losses
Lesson to be learned - trying to achieve Ideal usage results in self determined conservative process.
The next state is post free flow - this is where the other ZED A and B have equalized between the stroked ZED and the sunk ZED. No riser movement in either ZED - only fluid and pressure.
Note: Free flow results in equalized pressure - but not equalized volume.
The next State is changing from Free flow too "precharge"
Full precharge is the end of the state between free flow and enough buoyancy to nuetralize the determined load and no riser movement either ZED.
The process to get to the full precharge state - two inputs are utilized :
One - the continued consumption of pressure from the ZED B - and the hydro assist.
The hydro assist adds enough pressure - that when combined with the exhuast from the other ZED - reaches load neutrality (buoyancy). This is full precharge for ZED A.
Note: ZED B will not sink until the stored head has dropped below nuetrality of the risers and any added weight.
The Hydro Assist continues to be combined with the Pressure from ZED B - the input cost is the differance between the sinking ZED pressure and the stroking pressure required.
The next state is the Production Stroke of ZED A. ZED A stroking and ZED B sunk is the first half of a Dual ZED cycle - the process repeats in the other direction - notice I did not say reverses.
.................
To understand Stroke - you must determine both the proper load and the proper stroke.
The proper load is the lift safely available at the determined end of stroke.
Iterations are helpful..... I will give you a rule of thumb - Do not make the stroke longer than 1/11 the height of the ZED.
(another counter intuitive - short stroke is a more efficient process)
Use your baseline calculator already prepared to determine what the load is at that height - and that is a good load - presuming riser weight and any added weight has already been considered.
.........................
Unlike the states Mark described - the precharge and stroke is only released into the other ZED - not bobbed up or consumed as production.
The transfer of the precharge and Stroke is made mechanically more efficient as Webby described and posted two of our methods.
but you do not need to add those improvements to find the outcome.
.......................
Last notes - when the full precharge is reached - any additional volume input into the ZED A results in production - so once precharge is hit - no consumption of the previous pressure occurs - the ZED B hits bottom at the end of the production stroke on ZED A.
In simple observation - the true cost of a stroke half cycle is all of the Hydro assist - which is also the stroking Pv ZED A, minus the sinking ZED B Pv, and then repeat for a full cycle.
The production cycle is both ZEDS having produced once and combined.
A full cycle is a return of ZED A to "Sunk.
Lastly - the Hydro Assist can be a external input - or powered by the Production leaving excess. When you determine the cost of the Hydro Assist versus the production - you will understand why I have been so patient.
The Excess or Net per half cycle is no more than the value between the Pv sinking and the production - Not magical - but free.
I can't understand it not because I am dumb, but because it is nonsensical gibberish.
MileHigh
Just nitpicking :)That's right: The best ZED is no ZED at all. First remove the pollutant: air. Then seal off AR7, them remove the pod. Then you have the best ZED ever.
If you do not have air, or its equivalent, in the system, there is no lifting at all,, there is no seal to create pressure, no pressure no work.
...
ENough said...Hey there Wayne, how's your technical cadre doing with the spring that ate Cincinnati? Have your minions figured out any talking points that can make the "ideal ZED" at least seem like it does anything more than a 1000X smaller, ~$1 spring?
Just one more time for review. Quoting Wayne:
I submit to all of you that the above quote is nonsensical gibberish. I can't understand it not because I am dumb, but because it is nonsensical gibberish.
I challenge anybody that claims they understand what he is saying to restate what he is saying in terms of cycles and energy. In my opinion, if no one takes up the challenge, that represents a tacit admission that you agree with my evaluation of Wayne's statements. It's another smoking gun indicating that Wayne will never produce anything. He is just a cash burner and it's other people's cash.
MileHigh
Well maybe if nobody takes up your challenge, it might mean that they dont really care about your challenge or your opinion. :o Its possible. Im one of them. ;)Then again you could attempt to put MileHigh in his place by showing how the great teachings are more than just so much pointless word salad. You could point out nifty things like how they teach energy is calculated, what energy values result, and how those energy values might support HER/Zydro's claims.
Its way to easy to win a challenge that makes you the winner, if the result is that nobody took the challenge and just say that is the admission of defeat, without taking into account that maybe nobody cares what you think. Nothing tacit about it. :P Its just you labeling others by your selfish rules. ::)
lol, if nobody takes your challenge, then they are what you say they are? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) How convenient for you. ::)
Mags
Hey there Wayne, how's your technical cadre doing with the spring that ate Cincinnati? Have your minions figured out any talking points that can make the "ideal ZED" at least seem like it does anything more than a 1000X smaller, ~$1 spring?
Then again you could attempt to put MileHigh in his place by showing how the great teachings are more than just so much pointless word salad. You could point out nifty things like how they teach energy is calculated, what energy values result, and how those energy values might support HER/Zydro's claims.
Like that would change anything for you guys other than more day after day negativity. It would not make any difference. So why should I take up any challenges that are not going to make a difference one way or the other when it comes to you guys? That wont end the 'abuse'.Who knows unless someone tries? It might do better than to promote the world's most complicated spring as a free energy machine for years.
Here is some word salad. Mh said once that a YT motor build was making the 'red' led light because the reed switch was connecting the 1.2v NIMH battery across the led. Can you tell me what is wrong there???? Its pretty basic stuff. ;) I can provide the link. ;)
And what was his excuse for that little blunder? "its been 30 years" meanwhile, just recently he claimed to have 35 years of experience... Lets see, its been 30 years, ok, so 35 years of experience before that, throw in say 18 years till graduation before college.... That would make him what, about 83 years old?? :o ::)
Got all the quotes and links. ;) With all the dressings. ;D
Mags
I read your posts. I see you say "Could you 'kindly' " "Will you 'kindly' "...... But you cant provide the same respect. Amazing. ::) As soon as Wayne arrives its time to be a dick. All day it was fairly peaceful and constructive. ::) ::) Then Wayne shows up and its time for the beatings to begin. ::)Is Mr. Pot complaining about Mr. Kettle? It's Wayne who makes the claims to free energy that are absolutely false. It is Wayne who attempts to suggest that there is something novel and useful to his Russian Dolls of Ignorance. If he can show an advantage versus a ~$1. spring that occupies less than 1/1000th the volume of the "ideal ZED" I would love to hear about that. Wouldn't you?
Just wanted the readers to know. ;) In case they missed anything. ;D
Mags
Who knows unless someone tries? It might do better than to promote the world's most complicated spring as a free energy machine for years.
Yes, please show the quote and context.
If a reed switch connects and disconnects a coil (such as a motor winding ) and there is an LED across the switch contacts, and something to open and close the reed switch contacts quickly, then that makes a crude voltage boost circuit. A 1.2V cell would be enough to light a 2V red LED. In principle, it's not so different from those electronically commutated boosters used in Chinese solar garden lights, and they need to jump up to ~3V for the white LEDs.
it takes 1.8-2.1v to get a typical 20-30ma 'red' led to conduct, and that 1.2NIMH pen light cell, or even step up to an alkaline at 1.5v isnt going to do it.
Ill dig up the post tomorrow. Im beat. I guess you didnt understand what "the reed connects the battery across the red led" means. Otherwise, why need the excuse of "its been 30 years" to explaining why he didnt know/remember it takes 1.8-2.1v to get a typical 20-30ma 'red' led to conduct, and that 1.2NIMH pen light cell, or even step up to an alkaline at 1.5v isnt going to do it. ;)If someone really said that they thought 1.2V would light a 2V Vfw LED then they were wrong. Without seeing the statement and context, it is impossible to determine if they really said what you claim, or that you misinterpreted, or something else.
You can defend it all you want. You are not going to be right in doing so, no matter how you wish to spin it. I have the proof of fact. Tell me. Do you think Im lying? ;) And you apparently cannot understand what "the reed connects the battery across the red led" to light it means. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
But if you wish to go on about it, you have the floor. ;D
Night
Mags
I think that what it takes to do a good analysis is primarily patience and good book keeping skills. Smart people make mistakes all the time. Careful book keeping reduces the chances that the mistakes will get through or stay out in the wild for very long.
What have we learned?
1, You've got to be pretty smart to do a meaningful mathematical analysis
of even the simplest of things.
2, Even experts can drop the odd clanger.
3, With a passive device, consider the answer should be predictable.
4, Simplify things by removing anything superfluous.
5, Beware of traps like Archimedes paradox
John
Hi Mags,
my 9v electric fence gives you a fair tickle, 6000 v , 2.7 stored joules.
Why not collaborate with Webby and solve this whole ZED thingy?
John.
So you get a movement S = FSTART/KRATE 0.30078N / 64.649N/m = 0.004653m and an output energy of
0.5*0.30078N*0.004653m 0.700mJ.
The energy expended, is the loss of potential energy in the annular columns as they move from the State 2 condition to the State 3 condition with the riser at 2.492mm lift...
I thought the forward voltage drop for an ordinary red LED was 0.6 volts and I was wrong. In the past, I have calculated the current programming resistor values for when an LED is connected to a 5-volt source and a 12-volt source. That's a huge challenge for the average experimenter on the forums. I think the last time I had to worry about LEDs was in 1988 when I had to put a few indicator lights on the front panel of a VMEbus controller card that I was designing.
MileHigh
mrwayne's on to something," you push it down and it goes up".
Quite amazing!
John.
Thanks Webby,
The spring was meant to be just another puppet rabbit trail like:
The Pink
Unicorn
Bollard
Hereon or what ever..
Brick
Rock
Gravity switch
and feel free to add the the misdirection list..
But as fate would have it - the analogy can be corrected - SMile
And Your spring correction is not too far from reality - Make one change - the ZED Spring has a impressive attribute missed...
It gets taller as it is compressed..................... how that for counter intuitive......
That's what I shared with Mark on his second visit - we push down to go up smile - makes the input a double use.
Now - give a an inventor worth his salt that can not use it to circumvent gravity ,,,,,,,,
Wayne
to elude the obvious - but if you want to cover
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
Now - give a an inventor worth his salt that can not use it to circumvent gravity ,,,,,,,,
Wayne
sure,, I think the prediction of efficiency was off by a lot however.A brick is easily over 99% efficient. The less that you let the ZED move the better the efficiency gets. Once the ZED does not move at all, it approximates the efficiency of a much smaller, cheaper, and more reliable brick.
Since KanShi seems to be the Gold Standard,, explain my 75 to 95 percent efficient lifts with a poorly built device.
And this is where I go back to the old thread and ask a simple question.
If I have a 75% efficient lift, how much do I need to recover from what is left after the lift?
MarkE, you are actually going over the worst usage of the system,, think about it,, this is the worst that it will do,,
PC, Mark Dansie posted much more recently, and in this thread. Why don't you quote from there? It should be his most recent thoughts on the ZED topic.
Well John,, I end up needing about a 75% efficient lift. I do not have the full understanding of the system either, just my hands on experience with what I got back out of the system while moving the reservoir back down after the lift weight was removed.Arrange any combination of springs that you like and what you will find is that the efficiency increases as the percentage of stored energy transferred decreases. The closer you make the ZED to a brick, the better it performs, until it becomes the virtual brick.
Back to MarkE's spring.
The spring analogy.
Sure, but lets set the spring up correctly.
The spring is mounted on a lever, that lever is operated to lift the spring up into contact with the weight, the lever is moved further to compress the spring to take the weight of the weight and then the lever is operated further lifting the weight.
This is closer to the ZED, and as is evident the spring that is compressed can be used to move the lever backwards and *assist* another lever to compress its own spring after the lift distance has been met.
The difference here is that the cost to lift the weight after the spring is compressed is fully paid for by the lever, not so in the ZED.
Feel free to quote what you like, I am making the point going back two years that Wayne cannot produce what he claims, the reason being- his device does not work, which is why he did not have it verified two years ago, what has changed since then has Wayne had his device verified,NO apparently he still believes it works, what a load of BS.
Thanks Webby,The "ideal ZED" once 'charged' in State 2, emulates a compression spring with a rate of 0.48N/mm. The relaxed position is at full extension. It can compress up to 2.492mm. Ordinary compression springs do not require the elaborate and lossy set-up that the "ideal ZED" requires. Of course the compression spring is easily made more than 1000 times smaller, is almost completely insensitive to orientation and doesn't evaporate or leak.
The spring was meant to be just another puppet rabbit trail like:
The Pink
Unicorn
Bollard
Hereon or what ever..
Brick
Rock
Gravity switch
and feel free to add the the misdirection list..
But as fate would have it - the analogy can be corrected - SMile
And Your spring correction is not too far from reality - Make one change - the ZED Spring has a impressive attribute missed...
It gets taller as it is compressed..................... how that for counter intuitive......
That's what I shared with Mark on his second visit - we push down to go up smile - makes the input a double use.
Now - give a an inventor worth his salt that can not use it to circumvent gravity ,,,,,,,,
Wayne
to elude the obvious - but if you want to cover
Lets see if the analysis so far can answer one question.The scheme operates as a linear spring. I don't know about you, but if I am lifting something heavy like a car, I prefer that it lift directly as a hydraulic jack does than to lift it through a low rate spring where it can bob up and down. You may feel differently.
Does the nested system behave exactly the same as a single piston hydraulic jack?
No.
Why?
With the system under consideration the full input work can be applied and stored for any time period before allowing the lift of the risers to do work.
Why would you want impair a hydraulic jack this way? If you want a spring, then use a spring. If you want a jack use a jack.
You can not do this with a hydraulic jack?
No.
Again, if you want a spring, then use a spring.
Can the hydraulic jack be modified to emulate this behavior?
Yes.
How?
With the addition of an EXTERNAL part to store the input.
That is absolutely not true. The different SGs of the two materials are what gives the "ideal ZED" key properties and key deficiencies. In terms of a hydraulic jack the "air" is a pollutant.
It is the last question that substantiates the first answer.
Now on to the polluted hydraulic fluid.
A hydraulic jack works because it uses an incompressible fluid medium combined with a fluid lever system.
The air in this consideration has been stipulated to be incompressible, ergo it does not hamper the operation of the hydraulic jack in any way.
Go ahead and try to sell the concept of replacing homogenous hydraulic fluid with a distribution of inhomogenous insoluable fluids to any hydraulic engineer.
It actually would be a very good thing for NASCAR,, the loss of weight would help the pit crew by making the jack they use to change tires in the middle of race lighter,, that could be worth money :)
I didn't infer. I stated flat out that the cost of the "air" pollutant is lost efficiency. A hydraulic piston using a homogenous fluid is more efficient than the "ideal ZED".
So, MarkE's inference that the incompressible air inhibits function is false. His statement that the fluid is polluted with this air is true,, so it may be factual but it has no impact at all.
That is fine. But I think you do Mark Dansie a disservice by misrepresenting him when you quote from two years ago. His opinions may have changed since that time. And since he went to the effort of posting his current opinions, those are the ones that should be presented.If you had red his current post, you would see that he stands by his words of two years ago regarding verification. I'm not looking to have an argument with you, as so far you haven't claimed to have a working free energy device which you have repeatedly failed to have verified or failed to show a continuous running model, for over 3 years.
MarkE,The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" analysis is done. Once charged in State 2, it emulates a linear compression spring. State 2 preloads the spring. Using Mondrasek's specifications, the preload is 1.2N, and the spring rate is 0.48N/mm.
I do not care so much for looking at paintings,, but I do enjoy watching an artist paint.
Watching your analysis improving as input to you is provided is like watching an artist paint.
I am learning from our interaction and I do appreciate that.
MarkE, thank you so much for all your hard work! I think it must be in this last step that I have made my mistake. I'm looking at it now, but found a discrepancy between our work. It might be a small miss on your part, or I am making another mistake, so I wanted to clarify.The single riser ZED has a total uplift force of: pWater*G0*(59.293mm - 1.420mm)*pi/4*26mm2 = 0.30078N. You are apparently applying 28mm2, the OD of the riser, instead of the ID.
I am finding the riser in the no-pod, single riser example at State 2 to be displacing 35.6234 cm3 of water and should therefore have an FSTART = 0.34884N. Can you please clarify if I am missing a step?
Okay, I am lost here. The lift was 4.68536mm. Did I miss something?4.653 is the single riser. I was answering your question with respect to the three riser.
Or 4.653mm by your math. Probably due to the use of different constants for water density and gravity?
PC, Mark Dansie posted much more recently, and in this thread. Why don't you quote from there? It should be his most recent thoughts on the ZED topic.Well there is post #572
So, I have not seen the data that convinces me, and I do hope to get to see and assist in evaluating a proof of concept one day. However until that day arrives I will continue my public stance as of interest but not supported by any data I have seen to date. Others who work with Wayne, many with engineering qualifications do believe in what they are doing and their calculations. I am a very simple person, and do not get involved in such matters until a working prototype is running run and data has been collected with acceptable methodologies.
That is fine. But I think you do Mark Dansie a disservice by misrepresenting him when you quote from two years ago. His opinions may have changed since that time. And since he went to the effort of posting his current opinions, those are the ones that should be presented.I do not see anywhere that Mark Dansie has stated improved optimism since the time he stated what PowerCat quoted.
Wayne Travis' statement apparently refers to the fact that the "charged" ZED in State 2 rises to reach a lower energy state in State 3. Wayne apparently represents that something that exactly emulates the action of a linear compression spring is somehow unusual in its behavior.
Quite absurd, educated adults debating for years whether it's possible
to get energy out of something that's dead as a stone.
I'm somewhat confused by mrwayne's statement that we push it down
and it goes up.
John.
The single riser ZED has a total uplift force of: pWater*G0*(59.293mm - 1.420mm)*pi/4*26mm2 = 0.30078N. You are apparently applying 28mm2, the OD of the riser, instead of the ID.
Well MarkE,Webby1 we have been told to disregard all the set-up steps as one time affairs. That's fine. That leaves us with the behavior between State 2 and State 3, and then back from State 3 to State 2. That behavior from a black box standpoint of the "ideal ZED" is indistinguishable from the behavior of a linear compression spring: a very complicated, and large, low energy compression spring, but a linear compression spring just the same.
There may be some factual basis to your statement, but the ZED is not a spring, it may have some attributes of a spring, but it is not "only" a spring.
Work does not only happen in one direction,, work can happen in any direction,, work really is not fixed to a direction,, a force over a distance, whether a straight line or a curve, is work.
I take it that you agree with my assessment in that you need to include the lever for the proper analogy with a spring to a ZED.
Of course I am using the OD instead of the ID. I am calculating the lift force due to BUOYANCY. The correct water displacement value is achieved when you consider the water displaced by the air inside the riser AND the wall thickness. That means you use the OD.Mondrasek, State 1 is in equilibrium is it not? And why is that? It is because the meniscus under the ID is at the same level as the water outside the riser. The water displaced by the riser wall plays no role in the force balance. What is true for State 1 is true for State 2, and State 3. If you close off the bottom of the riser so that the meniscus cannot rise up underneath it, then you change the problem to where the OD determines the displacement. Are you really going to argue that the riser wall that contributes no up force in State 1, suddenly changed its behavior because we introduce water into the pod chamber in State 2?
If you want to calculate the buoyancy Force on a fully submerged 1m3 cube that has a wall thickness of 100mm throughout, is it not displacing 1m3? Or do you want to calculate the displacement using only the remaining internal volume?
4.653 is the single riser. I was answering your question with respect to the three riser.
Mondrasek, State 1 is in equilibrium is it not? And why is that? It is because the meniscus under the ID is at the same level as the water outside the riser.
The water displaced by the riser wall plays no role in the force balance. What is true for State 1 is true for State 2, and State 3. If you close off the bottom of the riser so that the meniscus cannot rise up underneath it, then you change the problem to where the OD determines the displacement. Are you really going to argue that the riser wall that contributes no up force in State 1, suddenly changed its behavior because we introduce water into the pod chamber in State 2?
Your #745Mondrasek, as you see in #745 you quoted where I talked about 2.492mm movement. 2.492mm movement applies to the 3 riser system just as I responded. It looks like in #708 I wrote the 3 riser movement value of 2.492mm where I should have used the 4.653mm value. However, the 4.653mm and only the 4.653mm value was used in the calculations.QuoteQuoteQuote from: MarkE on Today at 01:54:01 AM
The energy expended, is the loss of potential energy in the annular columns as they move from the State 2 condition to the State 3 condition with the riser at 2.492mm lift...
Okay, I am lost here. The lift was 4.68536mm. Did I miss something?
Or 4.653mm by your math. Probably due to the use of different constants for water density and gravity?
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #706 on: Today at 01:54:01 AM »
QuoteQuoteQuote from: mondrasek on March 06, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
Another way to look at this is to calculate the Energy in the column of water that is on the piston. That Energy is dissipated as the piston rises and the water spills out. So that Energy must be equal to the Energy that is released when the ZED is allowed to rise. That equation also resolves to 0.5*Fstart*S.
For the circumstance that you set-up that is correct:
So you get a movement S = FSTART/KRATE 0.30078N / 64.649N/m = 0.004653m and an output energy of
0.5*0.30078N*0.004653m 0.700mJ.
The energy expended, is the loss of potential energy in the annular columns as they move from the State 2 condition to the State 3 condition with the riser at 2.492mm lift: The internal energy goes from 2.560mJ to 1.536mJ which equals 1.024mJ internal energy loss.
The efficiency is: 0.700mJ/1.024mJ = 68.3%.
This is the tyranny of N*(X/N)2. Whenever you directly transfer energy between two potential energy stores you run into the N*(X/N)2problem. In order to avoid the problem you have to retain N=1.0 and still transfer all of the energy. You can only do that by converting the form of the energy from potential to kinetic. That is how a pendulum works. The insipidly stupid ZED design cannot do that. It translates potential from one place to another. There is even the "equalization phase" that HER/Zydro say is necessary. Every time you take energy from one potential store and redistribute it to more stores than the original without first converting the form of the energy, you suffer losses.
Of course I did. Apparently, you are still having difficulty understanding how to calculate energy even when I laid it out there for you to see. The energy depends on the height squared. You can get that by going through the detail work of writing out the integral, or given that form of integral has been solved many times, you can skip to the end and use the maximum pressure and volume values, that ... wait for it ... result in squaring the height.
Untrue, MarkE. Here is what you wrote in post 708:QuoteSo you get a movement S = FSTART/KRATE 0.30078N / 64.649N/m = 0.004653m and an output energy of
0.5*0.30078N*0.004653m 0.700mJ.
The energy expended, is the loss of potential energy in the annular columns as they move from the State 2 condition to the State 3 condition with the riser at 2.492mm lift: The internal energy goes from 2.560mJ to 1.536mJ which equals 1.024mJ internal energy loss.
The efficiency is: 0.700mJ/1.024mJ = 68.3%.
In the first paragraph you are discussing the no-pod, single layer. See where you twice use the value for that lift of 0.004653m?
I calculated the values correctly, and showed you the work so that anyone could follow along. Apparently, you were not able to follow and latched onto the typographical error without checking any of the work. Are you able to follow along that the distance S is a function of the starting force and the rate at which that force changes per unit distance? Do you suffer difficulty verifying that S = FSTART/KRATE 0.30078N / 64.649N/m = 0.004653m does in fact result in the correct displacement value? pWater used is 998.2kg/m3, G0 used is 9.80665m/s2.
In the second paragraph you now reference the lift as only 2.492mm. And include internal energy values from where exactly?
You then calculate an erroneous efficiency using these mismatched and false values.
The equal level of the two mensci results in a HEAD difference of zero. Buoyancy Force = Weight of the Displace Water = (Density of Water)* HEAD * (Cross Section Area). If HEAD is zero, buoyancy Force is zero.Then you make a false accusation and make a fool of yourself in the process.
Complete hogwash. And now I will clearly state that it is MarkE's intention to misdirect and provide false information in this thread. He has done this several times in the past few days.
Then you need to go back to your text books, or perform an experiment for yourself, or both.
Buoyancy Force = Weight of the Displaced Water. For the riser what is displacing the water is the Air inside, and the Material of the riser itself.
So yes, I will argue that the riser wall has no relevance at all on up Force in State 1 dues to no water HEAD. But once a HEAD is introduced, yes, the wall thickness is included when calculating the Weight of the Displaced Water. The riser wall did not change its behavior. The water HEAD condition changed.
Why are you unable to follow along? Why are you throwing hissy fits?
Why are you purposely trying to stall and now misdirect this Analysis?
Nitpicking time.That's a nice nonsequitor. I referred to Wayne's earlier comments that he made today with respect to Mondrasek's "ideal ZED".
When state 2 is reached in Wayne's system, more input is used to make the lift,, there is NO state 3 change for production, state 3 change is part of the recovery process, but the risers are NOT allowed to "pop"
Actually MarkE, there is a huge difference.Since everything up to and including State 2 was declared part of the set-up, only the resulting behavior after State 2 has been reached matters. The behavior is that of a linear compression spring. The parameters used getting to State 2 define the coefficients for the equivalent linear compression spring.
Can you make your spring extend further by compressing it with more force? Or is it that the spring can only move the same distance it was compressed.
Mondrasek, as you see in #745 you quoted where I talked about 2.492mm movement. 2.492mm movement applies to the 3 riser system just as I responded. It looks like in #708 I wrote the 3 riser movement value of 2.492mm where I should have used the 4.653mm value. However, the 4.653mm and only the 4.653mm value was used in the calculations.
Fair enough.Then during the State 2 pumping exercise the whole assembly would rise part of the distance that it rises in State 3.
Still, your spring can only undo as far as you do it up.
I wonder what would happen if the risers only had 1\2 the maximum lift value holding them down while going from state 1 to end of state 2,, I know it is out of the area of discussion.
So? Why are you analyzing a Zed that has _no production output_ ? It is not the "real" zed and when you are done, this is what Travis will tell you. You are proving that a rock will fall in gravity.... Travis is telling you he has circumvented gravity. You are describing a spring that re-sets with no production, Travis is claiming a system that resets itself by using part of its own production. Ergo, your analysis is moot.
In the real ZED the production is the lift from the risers, in the version in the videos that lift is resisted by a hydraulic ram that charges up the external accumulator.
So the internal forces raise the risers, the risers moving up move the production ram and compress the fluid in the ram and that fluid passes into the accumulator and gets stored, from there it is distributed to the flow assist rams and they apply there force against the lever connecting the two bags together.
In the "ideal ZED" this part is not being considered.
I understand what you are doing, and why you are doing it, and I approve. I am not trying to discourage you.
What I am doing is pointing out that you are leaving honest Wayne Travis a huge hole to wriggle out of.
Just like you tell me that the Cartesian Diver is irrelevant to the real Zed (it isn't) and that the spring-loaded automatic bollard doesn't do what you have been showing the single Zed does (it does)..... honest Wayne Travis will look at your completed analysis, and will respond in one of two ways. Or maybe both.
If your "OU" numbers hold up in the correctly-modelled spreadsheet (they won't) he will say "I told you so all along" and if your numbers do NOT hold up once you've modelled correctly and re-inserted reality in the form of masses, compressibility, viscosity and so on.... he will simply say, "Thanks fellas... but the real Zed, which is now horizontal and which we call the Rotary Taz.... doesn't work that way at all, you have left out some important steps and it's really too bad you aren't worth your salt. I'll pray for you anyway."
MarkE what you said in post 766 was this:ETA: Ran this through the spreadsheet and made some very slight corrections to the numbers and the drawing.
4.653 is the single riser. I was answering your question with respect to the three riser.
This misdirected me to look at the 3-layer. You did not say it was a transcription error or typo. You said you were now talking about the 3-layer.
As for the rest of the Energies due to columns of water that you then refer to, I did not see them on your graphics or my 3-layer calcs that I thought you had directed me to move over to. But I also did check my calcs for the no-pod, single layer and also did not find them. I see that you are able to point out these values on your graphic, but again, we have a problem. The Energies due to the columns of water do not match my own calcs for the no-pod, single riser Analysis. My calcs and yours do match exactly for the 3-layer, so I am confident we are both calculating those the correct way. But I do not get your values at all for the no-pod, single layer. I have checked them several times now. Could you please double check your calcs for the Energy in the system due to just the water columns for State 1? The value I get is ~.879mJ.
In the real ZED the production is the lift from the risers, in the version in the videos that lift is resisted by a hydraulic ram that charges up the external accumulator.First anything that is not external output does not constitute "production" in the ordinary use of the term. Since the risers cycle internally within the ZED they do not constitute any energy delivered to the outside world.
So the internal forces raise the risers, the risers moving up move the production ram and compress the fluid in the ram and that fluid passes into the accumulator and gets stored, from there it is distributed to the flow assist rams and they apply there force against the lever connecting the two bags together.
In the "ideal ZED" this part is not being considered.
Here I check the work and make any needed corrections:
E = integral (F*ds).
K1 = pi/4*pWater*G0
The energy in the water columns at the end of State 1 is:
EST1 = 0.5*K1*(116+100)*32.52 = 877uJ. The 1.117mJ on the graphic neglected to multiply the diameters by pi/4.
it also neglected the component 0.5*K1*(108)*12 but that amounts to a miniscule 0.4uJ, which changes the total to 878uJ.
State 2
The energy in the water columns at the end of State 2 is:
EST2 = 0.5*K1*((116*59.2932) + (108*12) + (100*30.1572) + (84*372)
EST2 = K1*261,559
EST2 = 2.011mJ
EADDEDST1_ST2 = 1.133mJ
Lifting force end of State 2:
Fup_st2 = Pressure * Area
Pup_st2 = pWater*G0*(59.293 - 1.420) = 566.5Pa
Fup_st2 = 566.5Pa*pi/4*(0.028m)2 = 0.3488N
Lifting rate State 2 to State 3:
HCHANGE_OUTER_per_mm_lift = 282/116 = 6.759mm/mm
HCHANGE_INNER_per_mm_lift = (282-108)/100 = 6.760mm/mm
HeadCHANGE_per_mm_lift= 13.519mm/mm
PCHANGE_per_mm_lift = pWater*G0*13.519mm/mm = -132.3Pa/mm
FCHANGE_per_mm_lift = -132.3Pa/mm*pi/4*(0.028m)2 = -81.485N/m
Lift distance = Fup_st2/FCHANGE_per_mm_lift4.282mm
State 3
EST3_INTERNAL = 0.5*K1*((116*30.3532) + (108*(4.282+1)2) + (100*30.3662) + (84*372))
EST3_INTERNAL = K1*158,545
EST3_INTERNAL = 1.219mJ
EST2_to_ST3_INTERNAL = 2.011mJ - 1.219mJ = 0.792mJ
EST3_EXTERNAL = Fup_st2*Lift distance + 0.5*FCHANGE_per_mm_lift*Lift distance2
EST3_EXTERNAL = 0.3488N*4.282mm 0.5*-81.485N/m*2*(4.282mm)2
EADDEDST1_ST2 = 0.747mJ
EST3_TOTAL = 1.967mJ
The process remains lossy: 0.747mJ theoretically recovered from 0.792mJ internal energy change. So, why with a perfectly matched load did we fail to transfer 100% of the internal energy? The answer is still: N*(X/N)2 < X2 for all N > 1.0. The matched load reduce N close to 1.0 but cannot get there because of the fluid volume that increases under the riser wall. If the riser wall is made very, very thin, then the efficiency can approach that of an ordinary spring.
Thank you MarkE. And I hope you have a peaceful weekend! Please do and let's reconvene next week?I conceded the ID vs OD point earlier. The math you see before you reflects OD.
BTW, about your ID vs. OD argument on how to properly calculate the buoyant Force on a riser. It is, in fact, the OD that is needed in your calculation. Since the riser is ASSUMED weightless by having a Specific Gravity = 0, the riser material is, in effect, just air. So the riser, and the air inside, is just a big bubble. Ergo the OD needs to be applied to your buoyant Force calculations.
Gonna sign off now. Y'all have a wonderful evening.
Cheers,
M.
This has me a little confused.Does it? What does it deliver energy to that leaves the system?
If the risers moving up interact with an external ram, is that not delivering the work to the outside?
MilehighThere is a vast gap between: Human error, difference of opinion, and lies told to collect funds from gullible investors. Everyone makes mistakes. People often see things differently for any number of reasons. But it takes a deliberate choice to go into the business of swindling one's neighbors.
Whether you accept it or not, I appreciate that you posted that, and I respect you for doing it in a professional manner. Anyway, just wanted you and the readers to know that. Nuff said. ;)
None of 'us' are perfect. Nobody has to get nasty to accomplish the goals they have here. Why it has to come to being like a kid being bullied on a school bus, day after day, is hard to understand. It happens quite often though. What words would any of you choose to describe the necessity of such behavior? Fun? For who? The advantages of it seem oblique or just selfish indulgence. Not much good comes of it other than bitterness and knot in the tummy, for some.
Mags
Mond, what makes you accuse me of being "hostile"?
The hydraulic fluid in the external accumulator. This could be used to drive a device that would perform external work.
The fluid comes back,, but not the pressure it was delivered with.
The hydraulic fluid in the external accumulator. This could be used to drive a device that would perform external work.Webby, take a magic marker and draw a box around the system. Then account for what goes in and what comes out. If something doesn't release energy to outside your box, it is just spinning its internal machinery.
The fluid comes back,, but not the pressure it was delivered with.
Not to sound redundant, but the pressure can leave the system when the fluid under pressure interacts with something along the lines of a motor.Not to sound redundant.... but how then do you get that low pressure fluid, after the interaction with something along the lines of a motor.... how do you get it back into the Zeds?
Not to sound redundant.... but how then do you get that low pressure fluid, after the interaction with something along the lines of a motor.... how do you get it back into the Zeds?
Not to sound redundant, but the pressure can leave the system when the fluid under pressure interacts with something along the lines of a motor.Webby, output is what actually exits the device or system being evaluated. If it does not come out, it is not output.
Easy, employ the principle of inertial translinear transference. This requires 0 energy input and, in fact, actually adds 10% back into the closed system. So, the more you transfer, the more energy is added to the system. This principle was first developed to be used with bricks.I first heard of this transference principle in 1974. It gave Peter Boyle a somewhat more sophisticated way of expressing himself.
Bill
I conceded the ID vs OD point earlier. The math you see before you reflects OD.
MarkE, sorry, I missed that. Once I head home for the evening I rarely commit myself to reading this forum with complete attention. I should have looked for that correction. I appreciate that you rolled that into your calculations that you openly posted prior to my comment.First, those numbers are easy enough for you to extract from the spreadsheet. Second, I have posted them here anyway in post #733. I might ask that you show your work that yields OU, because there is nothing that should lead to that, and my numbers with readily audited derivations don't show it.
So, why have you not returned yet to the 3-layer ZED Analysis and calculated the Work that the outer riser could perform during it's lift from State 2 to State 3?
That is necessary to complete the Analysis of that system that I CLAIM shows the OU potential.Of course there wasn't. If it makes the mechanics easier to discuss, that's fine. It did create a fair amount of extra work, but I have captured that work and audited it. The efficiency killer remains: N*(X/N)2. In this case, N extends over 1.0 by virtue of the riser wall thickness. If you drive that to zero then given a load with a matching force versus distance function as the riser, then you can theoretically get out what you put in with the caveat that the power is zero, because with epsilon for the net up force it literally takes forever to transition from State 2 to State 3. Anything that we do to address that harms the efficiency. That leaves us in the position of having made extraordinary hypothetical accommodations for the "ideal ZED" and it is still outperformed by a brick.
The recent "side track" Analysis of the no-pod, single riser system was only intended to simplify the SUT so that its operation and proper Analysis method could be more easily understood. There was never any chance that it would turn out OU, right?
Why would you think that? The math keeps showing under unity performance despite all the unrealizable idealized stipulations we have applied. A real system will only be less efficient. If Y < X, and X < 1, then Y is also less than 1.
However, I think it proved that the system is behaving NON-CONSERVITIVELY. Is this correct? I mean, we have an IDEAL system, so Ein should = Eout, right?
Wayne Travis's patent application has not been examined. His statements are false as shown by this exercise. Here we have given virtually every benefit to the device and it is still under unity. And it will remain under unity unless someone can show non conservative gravitational behavior. That will not result from any proper application of math that follows first principles.
We have been told by Mr. Wayne Travis both in his Patent App., and here in this forum, that it takes several layered risers in a ZED system to achieve OU. Specifically he has made a CLAIM to the effect that a single 3-layer ZED can clearly show this OU.
Where? AFAIK you have yet to share your work.
My COMPLETE Analysis of the 3-layer model we have worked through together so far DOES show OU.
I would like to know if when you complete your Analysis of the same by finally adding the calculation for the Work the system performs when lifting from State 2 to State 3, do you also end up with results that show OU?Again, I already posted that, and the result is under unity.
Magluvin does seem to claim that there is no boost. But it is quite possible that Magluvin is mistaken. It is possible that the circuit is a booster, and Magluvin did not recognize it. It is also possible that MileHigh made a mistake. We will have to see what Magluvin comes up with for history.
Meanwhile back in Zydro-land Mondrasek came up with a fairly clever scheme to try and harvest as much of the energy as possible going from State 2 to State 3. Let's apply that to the three riser "ideal ZED":
From the spreadsheet:
ST2UPTOTALUPF 1.195618 N Total uplift force at the end of State 2
ST2_3KFORCE -0.479825 N/mm Total Rate of Force Change / mm
ST3_UPLIFT 2.491781 mm Up Lift Distance
From these we can calculate the size of the water pan necessary:
Water_pan_area =-ST2_3KFORCE/(G0*pWater*(m_per_mm3)) = 49,107 mm2
Water_pan_diameter = 249.8mm
Water_pan_depth = ST3_UPLIFT = 2.49178mm
Energy imparted pushing water up over the spillway:
=0.5*-ST2_3KFORCE/m_per_mm*((ST3_UPLIFT*m_per_mm)2) = 1.490mJ That's right a quarter meter diameter pan to deliver ~1.5mJ
The energy that will be required to return to State 2, is the same as the internal loss going from State 2 to State 3: 1.903mJ.
The idealized efficiency of the State 2 <=> State 3 cycle is therefore: 1.490mJ / 1.903mJ = 78.3%. This is better than the single riser case. But still way short of what we can do with an electric motor directly moving the payload.
Since the single riser and triple riser examples demonstrate different idealized efficiencies, is there some configuration of the idiotic ZED that can at least theoretically compete with a brick? Or is there an upper limit on the idealized efficiency that can be realized that is well below the idealized 100% of a brick?
Looking at comments in the old thread there was talk by the HER/Zydro proponents of: "capturing" 15in3 hydraulic fluid at 640psi pressure 3.7 times a minute. There was also some talk talk of 30in3. If we take the larger number it means that there is 15W power being expended. Given the tiny energies we see in the "ideal ZED" it is not surprising that the real ZEDs have very low power density, seeing how they slowly raise and lower weights. And there is no sign of any surplus energy from those machines at all.
Post #733 quoted for your convenience below. Feel free to check my work, it uses the same r3 revision of the spreadsheet that has been posted for some time. But, I really think it is about time for you to show your work that you keep saying yields an OU result.
Sorry MarkE. I must have missed that as well. And your request for me to show my results is fair at this point.You want the drawings with values on them, but you don't want to be influenced by those values? What??? We agree on everything up to State 2 I think. Show the process by which you solve for State 3. Algebra and some descriptive text is fine.
I'm at home now, and do not have access to my previous calculations or CAD. But I'd be happy to work from your drawings if you want. If so, can you tell me exactly (or please post again) which set of diagrams your post 733 refers to? Also, are those diagrams and calculations all correctly based off of a buoyancy Force calculated from the OD of the pod and each riser?
I am not inclined to open any of your spreadsheets. Not that I don't think they are probably masterpieces! I expect that they are very impressive works! I just don't want to be influenced in my methods by anything I might read in them. Much like how I expressed that I preferred you do your math your way and not be influenced by mine. I hope to only share results at first and methods only if discrepancies were found while you assisted me with this double check.
To remind you, I am running no calculation in a spreadsheet except some simple summations for volume and Energy balance double and triple checks. The spreadsheets I have are only used as a table to record the results of hand calculations. Those calcs were all run on an old Casio calculator that I was given at my first job. That is also at work. But I can dust off my old TI 15C, and suffer with the switch to RPN (which I truly love). What a marvelous piece of EE work that is! I've had it nearly 30 years now and had to change the batteries once! Of course, it has been turned on very little since undergrad years.
If you have a complete and accurate Stage 2 to Stage 3 drawing for me, I'll give it a go. Or we can wait until I am back at work. I wont press you for anything in the mean time.
Thanks,
M.
The energy that will be required to return to State 2, is the same as the internal loss going from State 2 to State 3: 1.903mJ.
You want the drawings with values on them, but you don't want to be influenced by those values? What???
MarkE! I just realized that you may have found it! It takes the exact same amount of energy to return from State 3 to State 2. But WE do not have to supply that Energy. If we simply pull the plug at the bottom of the ZED when at State 3, the water will drain out and the system will fall through State 2 and all the way back to State 1. WE supply zero energy to do that. That Energy comes from GRAVITY acting on the mass of the water.Are you serious? Sure, throw away a whole bunch of energy each cycle. See how that works out efficiency wise.
I said I don't want to be influenced by the METHOD you used to calculate those values. I have double checked your calculated values (by whatever method you use) with the results from my own and find they agree on the 3-layer model. They did not on the no-pod, single layer and that is how we found some miss in your spreadsheet. I did not look at how you originally calculated that value or what you changed it to recently. For this reason:You claim an extraordinary result: calculated free energy. You asked for help finding the error in your method. Yet, even now weeks later you still have not published your method. So let's see your method and the equations that you use in your attempt to execute that method. I have already published.
Remember when we were figuring out the proper way to account for the Energy that leaves the system when the riser lifts? I figured it could be calculated simply two different ways:
1) As the integral of the buoyant Force * the change in the riser height
or
2) The amount of Energy that exists in the water on top of the piston that is push up and "disappears" during the lift.
Both of those methods are correct and yield correct results.
But we have both seen that one can choose the wrong equation and get the wrong results. If I looked at your equations, I might be influenced to do things by that method (rather than a separate and equally valid method that yields a good double check for both of us), or actually follow down the path of using the wrong method (not saying you would ever intentional use the wrong method). So it is best to only share methods when the results are first compared and found to be in agreement or not, I think.
Show the process by which you solve for State 3. Algebra and some descriptive text is fine.MarkE, I have never solved for the correct final State 3 lift height. I have solved for a State 3 calculated from an Energy balance (drawings are on page 2 IIRC) that still showed a positive total buoyant Force. Due to the presence of this Force I concluded that the ZED could not stop in this state, must lift further, and therefore was breaking the law of COE in favor of OU. It is very similar to how you initially solved for a State 3 based on a Vin = Vout relationship and also learned that it resulted in a condition where the ZED must also lift further due to the remaining sum positive buoyant Force.
Not to sound redundant,, by putting that low pressure fluid into the production ram as it is going down. That ram needs no pressure fluid when it goes down.Uh-huh, right. Can you provide a dimensioned drawing and some pressure measurements or calculations that show this process?
If the production ram were to move 200cc of fluid per cycle and the flow assist rams were to use 100cc of fluid per cycle then the Reserve tank will need to provide the other 100cc per cycle resulting in the Reserve tanks held volume of fluid being moved into the high pressure accumulator resulting in the accumulators stored volume of fluid under pressure increasing and the Reserve tanks volume under low pressure decreasing.
There is the plumbing needed to facilitate setup and draining. This step requires both fluid and air pressure to be correctly installed into the ZED and both ZED's will also need to be drained of both fluid and air pressure to allow for a full accountability of all facets of the system.And so I guessed correctly. So the "flow assist" rams don't really directly assist anything flowing, but they push and pull on something, helping the system to rock back and forth?
The production rams are the gray vertical things on the top middle of the ZED. The flow assist rams are just above and to the right of the battery.
The battery is needed to run the electric flow control valves and monitoring system in this drawing.Yes... it is, because a pneumatic system, that might be operated on part of the "production", actually requires another power source like the little electric powered air compressor that can be seen in the photographs of the other, indoor unit.
I'm glad you realize this, now we are really on a roll.
The precharged accumulator,, that is the question of the day,, and the one, IMHO, Mark D. needed an extended time of run to confirm whether that charge went down during run or not. If this system that looks so clunky were a very good teeter-totter it would take, or could take, a long run time to see any appreciable drop in that accumulator pressure.
If the accumulator is preset for its hold pressure then the volume of fluid not used by the assist rams, and or anything else that is connected, that is needed for the descent of the production ram will result in a decease in the Reserve tank volume and an increase in the stored accumulator volume, When this happens the ZED's could be stopped until the Reserve tank is again filled back up and the accumulator is back down to its start volume by some other connected item.
Further, please note that we have been told, at various times, that there is no fluid transfer between the Zeds, or that there is, or whatever. So how do you account for the plumbing at the bottom?
What are the bags doing, we don got no bags, we don have to show you no stinkin bags, in the spreadsheets....
There is the plumbing needed to facilitate setup and draining. This step requires both fluid and air pressure to be correctly installed into the ZED and both ZED's will also need to be drained of both fluid and air pressure to allow for a full accountability of all facets of the system.
So the bags.... water flows into and out of the bags as the Zed moving parts, inside the white housing, move up and down. But this water isn't exchanged between the zeds because of the manual gate valve. Right? And it is supposed to be the water in these bags, changing weight, that rocks the teetertotter with the tall weights on it, back and forth?
Is the 'flow assist' ram driven by the rocking, so to be pumping hydraulic fluid, or is it driven by the hydraulic fluid, and so driving the rocking, or helping to drive it, mechanically?
OK, thank you both for making your descriptions explicit.
So we are agreed that the "flow assist" doesn't directly assist flow, but represents a hydraulic piston pushing/pulling on the rocking framework to assist or "work with" the rocking. And the flow that is being assisted is NOT the hydraulic fluid but rather the flow of water into and out of the bag of each Zed. SO the total volume of the water in each Zed is changing but is reset to the start value on every cycle. Right so far?
Now, since each of these steps can be demonstrated to be lossy, due to things like viscous fluid friction, the non-optimal geometry that produces bending and off-center loads, and so forth, just where in this system can extra energy be produced, without adding more volume or pressure from the outside of what is diagrammed?
IMHO.
It is a 3 step full cycle, 2 short steps and 1 long step.
You have rest to lift ready, short
Then you have lift ready to end of lift, short
Then you have recovery, long
The lift force is reduced by the move from rest to lift ready, as TK likes to put it the Bollard.
What you can not to with the Bollard is to use the spring that lifted the Bollard up to compress the spring under another one after it lifted the first one, nor can you drop the Bollard without compressing the spring and have the spring help the next lift of that Bollard.
With the Bollard the recovery is dropping the Bollard back down compressing its own spring, in the ZED there is one "spring force" that is shared between 2 ZEDS. This "spring force" is a little weak to be able to lift the next ZED by itself, so it uses a little help to lift a larger load, just like the Bollard. The Bollard spring is not strong enough to lift the Bollard by itself so it to uses a little help to lift the Bollard.
The "spring force" is added into the ZED system after setup is complete. This addition of input to create the "spring force" is a one time add.
MarkE, I have never solved for the correct final State 3 lift height. I have solved for a State 3 calculated from an Energy balance (drawings are on page 2 IIRC) that still showed a positive total buoyant Force. Due to the presence of this Force I concluded that the ZED could not stop in this state, must lift further, and therefore was breaking the law of COE in favor of OU. It is very similar to how you initially solved for a State 3 based on a Vin = Vout relationship and also learned that it resulted in a condition where the ZED must also lift further due to the remaining sum positive buoyant Force.
I have openly stated on several occasions that I did not know how to calculate for the correct final State 3 lift height, and that I believed that would require iterations or calculus that I was not prepared to delve into. But I will make a correction: It does not require iterations or calculus. That was a mistake on my part and came from my previous attempts (two years ago) to do this type of analysis without the assumption of the air being incompressible. So yes, it can be done algebraically. But I have not done that, nor do I intend to do it this weekend. I would gladly start by accepting that you have done that, and done it correctly. If so, you can publish the numbers for the water heights in each annulus, and the lift height, and I would be happy to work from there. If not, I will show the results of my false State 3 calculations next week. Or if you insist, I can work them up from the diagrams I posted on page 2. But please be clear that my State 3 is not, and has never been said to be, a correct final State where the sum of the buoyant forces is zero.
All, please check the math. I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions. Feel free to send your input by PM if you don’t want to post in the thread. It would be nice to know if you check the analysis and agree as much as if you find mistakes.
I preformed this analysis using a CAD model, Excel, and an old Casio calculator. So precision of the values was carried out to as many as 10 significant digits. I limited the CAD dimensions to only 7 digits after the decimal so errors are introduced but should still give accurate results if rounded to 6 significant digits or there about.
...
Anytime we can bring back "MarkE" we can move forward with the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED, AFAICS.Some people do need to sleep, eat, clean the spittle off the monitor, stuff like that.
MarkE, would it be okay with you to show how I would evaluate your State 3 shown here?I want you to show the "math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions" that you have long asked others to check.
It is not dimensioned but this has already been posted.Where is the external work output?
Please not the Reserve tank on the left, please note the one-way flow valves in the lines, please note that the high pressure fluid coming out of the production ram can only enter the accumulator, or High side of the system, please note that the low pressure return from the flow assist rams can enter either the Reserve tank, or low pressure side, or the production ram only when that production ram is at a low pressure, IE going down.
If the production ram were to move 200cc of fluid per cycle and the flow assist rams were to use 100cc of fluid per cycle then the Reserve tank will need to provide the other 100cc per cycle resulting in the Reserve tanks held volume of fluid being moved into the high pressure accumulator resulting in the accumulators stored volume of fluid under pressure increasing and the Reserve tanks volume under low pressure decreasing.
Edit to add,, the blue tank is the accumulator,, I believe :)
Anytime we can bring back "MarkE" we can move forward with the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED, AFAICS.No, we are all waiting on you to show your: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.
Where is the external work output?That particular model has never even been alleged to produce any usable work overboard. It was, however, represented to Mark Dansie --- if I understand the spaghetti rhetoric of honest Wayne Travis -- as a self running machine that needed no external power to run and keep running. Hence, just working against friction, heating up the environment and frightening the livestock with its clanking and clattering, that is its only external work output.
Webby and I are two discrete individuals.I suggest that you leave your loopy fantasies about me being TinselKoala behind and get around to stating your: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions, so that we may check them as you asked folks to do in your OP.
You and MarkE however...
Naaw, Linux and a kiddie script to change IPs?
But since you obviously post as TK and MarkE, I would have to have guessed that you have possession of more than one physical or virtual PCs. I think you can have more than one PC, but not enough for what you have presented. So my hypothesis is that they are virtual. And have been assigned different IP addresses.
I suggest that you leave your loopy fantasies about me being TinselKoala behind and get around to stating your: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions, so that we may check them as you asked folks to do in your OP.
As soon as you don't show up right after I tell TK that I am waiting for you to respond!Where are your: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions that you have asked people to check. The ante has been to you for a long time now. You claimed to have obtained a result and that you wanted people to check your work for errors. Yet, you seem extremely reluctant to show your actual work. Why is that?
But if you would like to get back to the Analysis...
I have presented several options on how to continue. Do you have a preference or soul you like to have them presented again?
My own personal preference is that we Analyze the State 3 diagram that I last posted. I believe that is what you also posted last as a final State 3.
Please let me know if we can continue using your posted State 3 Analysis diagram or not.
M.
Where are your: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions that you have asked people to check. The ante has been to you for a long time now. You claimed to have obtained a result and that you wanted people to check your work for errors. Yet, you seem extremely reluctant to show your actual work. Why is that?
Your contention that I am TinselKoala is delusional.
And yet my question to you if it is acceptable to continue the Analysis from the re-posted version of one of your "State 3" diagrams goes unanswered.You are being non-responsive. Either you have: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions that you want people to check as you stated in your OP or you don't. In the first case there shouldn't be anything preventing you from publishing such. In the latter case you do not have any OU conclusion that needs to be explained. Choose and proceed as you will.
"MarkE", I am ready to analyze any of the ZED systems we have been discussing.
Please choose one?
Thanks,
M.
Not so fast.So you put energy in to raise one side of the glorified teeter-totter, then did something with an "assist" device where it is unclear you obtained the energy that provides the needed "assist", and moved the teeter-totter to the other side. Where was useful work done?
From level move the system with an external source.
Now start with one riser up and the other down.
The raised ZED has its bag compressed and the water is inside the ZED.
The lowered ZED has its bag full of water and the ZED is in the rest state and has less volume of water inside.
When the system is allowed to change, the raised ZED's water moves into the bag, under pressure, and expands the bag.
The expanding bag pushes on the lever connected via a pivot to the other ZED's bag.
The other ZED's bag is being compressed to move the water from the bag into the ZED.
So the lever is up on the raised ZED side and down on the lowered ZED side.
The tall pole with weights and the tube is connected to that lever and is leaning towards the lowered ZED side.
As the pressure from the raised ZED is expanding the bag it is compressing the other ZED bag AND rotating the tall pole with weights and the tube, the added resistance of the tall pole with the weights and the tube are converting some of the lost pressure, aka the "tyranny" of it all,, into an elevated GPE, this motion continues until there is insufficient pressure in the raised ZED side to continue, at which time the assist rams are applied. The raised ZED side still has pressure within the ZED and this now assists the assist rams, as well as the tall pole with weights and the tube has now crossed over the vertical point and is also assisting by dropping the GPE to complete the motion of compressing the lowered ZED side bag and raising that ZED up.
During this cycle of change the raised ZED lowers and the lowered ZED raises.
Not so fast.
From level move the system with an external source.
Now start with one riser up and the other down.
The raised ZED has its bag compressed and the water is inside the ZED.
The lowered ZED has its bag full of water and the ZED is in the rest state and has less volume of water inside.
When the system is allowed to change, the raised ZED's water moves into the bag, under pressure, and expands the bag.
The expanding bag pushes on the lever connected via a pivot to the other ZED's bag.
The other ZED's bag is being compressed to move the water from the bag into the ZED.
So the lever is up on the raised ZED side and down on the lowered ZED side.
The tall pole with weights and the tube is connected to that lever and is leaning towards the lowered ZED side.
As the pressure from the raised ZED is expanding the bag it is compressing the other ZED bag AND rotating the tall pole with weights and the tube, the added resistance of the tall pole with the weights and the tube are converting some of the lost pressure, aka the "tyranny" of it all,, into an elevated GPE, this motion continues until there is insufficient pressure in the raised ZED side to continue, at which time the assist rams are applied. The raised ZED side still has pressure within the ZED and this now assists the assist rams, as well as the tall pole with weights and the tube has now crossed over the vertical point and is also assisting by dropping the GPE to complete the motion of compressing the lowered ZED side bag and raising that ZED up.
During this cycle of change the raised ZED lowers and the lowered ZED raises.
Dude, I'm signing off for the night.Either you have the: math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions that you want checked as stated in your OP or you don't. If you've been blowing smoke for three weeks, then it's been fun. If you actually have something that took you to an OU conclusion and you want work checked then it's up to you to show your work that you said that you want others to check. It does not get simpler than that.
I have asked you which one of the presented ZED models would you like me to Analyze to compare our results.
AFAIK, you have not answered me. But I do not discount the possibility that we are "talking past each other"
I hope you have restful evening!
M.
Webby, I completely followed that.So where does the external work come out? How much external work goes in? How are the external work in and out values measured?
p.s The bag system always equalizes in the center of travel.
Hello Mondrasek,The obvious conclusion is that the system is lossy as has been shown. It is Mondrasek who has failed to show that he obtains an OU result by any valid analysis.
A "builder" just stopped by shook my hand and gave me a running Sterno motor!
He drove 80 miles!!!
I love it.
.......................
I will be surprised if Mark ever goes any further with you - he is smart and can surely see the obvious conclusion.
Yes, it is sad how Mondrasek has asked people to help him figure out his work for three weeks, while he steadfastly dips and dodges every request to see the work that he says he wants checked. The obvious conclusion is that Mondrasek has been blowing smoke the entire time.
The dodging and diversions and demands, intentional omissions, premature assumptions, degrading comparatives, making self supporting claims, assumed ruler of the universe, and 8) 8) are much like TK - but I am not yet convinced.
If it is not an anagram of Nikola Tesla then it is probably not TinselKoala.
Quick question:
How many of these user names are "TK
John
AL
alokin alset
Orbo 3000
minnie
TK
alset alokin
Bill
????
If you have his actual name and address then you can also determine his science qualifications.
For John's name and address. Private message me.
Sorry if I missed some - do not read the other threads.
The obvious conclusion is that the system is lossy as has been shown. It is Mondrasek who has failed to show that he obtains an OU result by any valid analysis.Yes, it is sad how Mondrasek has asked people to help him figure out his work for three weeks, while he steadfastly dips and dodges every request to see the work that he says he wants checked. The obvious conclusion is that Mondrasek has been blowing smoke the entire time.If it is not an anagram of Nikola Tesla then it is probably not TinselKoala.If you have his actual name and address then you can also determine his science qualifications.
I know that Mondrasek is an excellent engineer, and has went to great length to analyze the system (independently) and has his conclusions.Whatever his conclusions may or may not be he has failed to show how he reaches them, despite opening this thread with a request that others review them. It is very queer that three weeks in he avoids showing the work he said he wants checked.
Not only do I know it, I have posted it: The scheme is fundamentally lossy. Adding more risers just makes it worse.
Its up to you - I suggest you let him lead his thread - I know you 'think' you know the answer - he does.
It's called physics.
I do understand you steadfast faith.
He seems to have performed a number of neat demonstrations that refute your claims.
On TK
You are right, he checked out with plenty of qualifications. What he is using them for now - at least on this thread - I do not know.
Then you stop doing that and do something useful. Selling false claims is not an honorable endeavor.
I am glad he is helpful to some - but being a total urd isser - does not help anyone.
MarkEMondrasek has had three weeks to show his analysis. We all still wait. Perhaps we will never see it just as we will never see a working free energy generator that you claim to have from you.
You have shown your version - diversion , not the one Mike was showing.
Oh perish the thought: People actually know that I follow the physics and not silly misdirection like the "Travis effect".
I do not waste my time with your letter to the readers - they are on to you.
You'll have to ask Mondrasek to come up with some evidence. Sadly, it is not something that either you or he offer.
Prove your "not" by letting Mike lead you to the OU
Are events in motion? Maybe yes, and maybe no.
Wayne
Sorry MarkE I thought that restating that when the risers goes up that they also move the production ram up and that places the fluid in the ram under pressure and moves it into the pressurized external accumulator,, was not needed.Anything that cycles internally is part of the system. Show energy that is delivered from within the system to outside the system in a way that can do useful work outside the system. If one takes energy out of the accumulator then that creates a deficit that the system must replace. So, if you like: account some amount of energy removed from the accumulator cycle by cycle and where you are going to replenish that energy from.
I was referencing TK's post on what he thought the relationships were.
Any excess input to the external accumulator could be used to run an external motor to extract useful work.
If the low pressure return to the Reserve tank is not sufficient to meet the volume requirements of the production ram going down then extra fluid is drawn in from the Reserve tank. When this becomes a sufficient drop in the tank level the system stops working while the pressure and fluid is used by the external motor and fills the Reserve tank back up.
The assist rams get there fluid volume at pressure from the external accumulator and return the low pressure fluid into either the Reserve tank or the production ram.
Mondrasek has had three weeks to show his analysis. We all still wait. Perhaps we will never see it just as we will never see a working free energy generator that you claim to have from you.Oh perish the thought: People actually know that I follow the physics and not silly misdirection like the "Travis effect".You'll have to ask Mondrasek to come up with some evidence. Sadly, it is not something that either you or he offer.Are events in motion? Maybe yes, and maybe no.
Maybe you are right, I give up.If you do it will give you more online time to go buy some linear compression springs to make a new super ZED, or cinder blocks to make an ultimate ZED.
I know that Mondrasek is an excellent engineer, and has went to great length to analyze the system (independently) and has his conclusions.
Its up to you - I suggest you let him lead his thread - I know you 'think' you know the answer - he does.
Hello Mondrasek,
A "builder" just stopped by shook my hand and gave me a running Sterno motor!
He drove 80 miles!!!
I love it.
.......................
I will be surprised if Mark ever goes any further with you - he is smart and can surely see the obvious conclusion.
The dodging and diversions and demands, intentional omissions, premature assumptions, degrading comparatives, making self supporting claims, assumed ruler of the universe, and 8) 8) are much like TK - but I am not yet convinced.
"removed text for poor taste"
I am glad he is helpful to some - but being a total urd isser - does not help anyone.
Let me put back in what you "removed text for poor taste." Some of your "poor taste" is preserved in MarkE's quotation of your posts, you cannot edit that away.
You called me a " urd isser " and I will put in the letters you omitted. T and K.
You, Wayne Travis, are an ignorant, disgusting buffoon. You can remove, edit, whatever.... but the record stands and with that little slip of yours, you have done two things: You have revealed your true personality, the muck inside your filthy lying self-serving mind; and you have earned my eternal enmity. No.... do not bother to apologize. You typed it, I and others saw it. You will get what you deserve in the end, honest Wayne Travis, and Someone a lot more powerful than I will be seeing to that.
Beware, gentle readers and analysts. Honest WAYNE TRAVIS is "checking you out".
He is using his vast well-paid network of lawyers and webmasters and private investigators to find out who you are, where you live, just what your "qualifications" are and just whatever he can find to use against you.
People have been accused of being "paid shills" on this website before.... but we've never, to my knowledge, encountered proof before.... until now. Wayne Travis has his paid shills posting on this forum, attempting to help promulgate his fraudulent program and his "Zero Energy Device".
Quick question:
How many of these user names are "TK
John
AL
alokin alset
Orbo 3000
minnie
TK
alset alokin
Bill
(http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)?
The only proof I need is contained in your statements, Honest Wayne Travis. You cannot cover up the stink of your insults with misdirection and insincere apologies. And let us not forget that YOU have never provided one lick of proof for your lying claims.
Do not forget, Honest Wayne Travis, that we KNOW that you have paid Webby for his "contribution" and we have LarryC's admission that he is on your payroll as well.
How does winning a contest and contracting skills equate to a Shill - and please address the other claims.
I would like you to defend your claims and statements, or Apologize.
..................
"He is using his vast well-paid network of lawyers and webmasters"
and "private investigators to find out who you are",
"where you live", just what your
"qualifications" are and just whatever he can find to use against you.
"Wayne Travis has his paid shills posting on this forum, attempting to help promulgate his fraudulent program"
....................
At least six claims you are making against me.....
Proof or made up claims
Thank you
I was wrong in saying so, regardless of whether it is or is not true.
Do you get the picture, hypocritical "honest" Wayne Travis? I'm sorry you called me a total TURD KISSER...... and some day you will be _genuinely_ sorry that you did.
I do believe I have actually gone over that, and more than once.Mistakes are always possible. You are free to show whatever mistake you contend that I have made.
In the world I live in when something is discussed, mentioned or what have you, then it is a case of an understood, I find it interesting that some people posting on this forum do not.
MarkE, you have posted your math on the single riser setup and your math as posted is absolutely WRONG. I am not a math hotshot and I can see your error,,,,,
Unfortunately this State 3 being checked is not going to work for us. When summing the buoyant Forces on the pod and risers due to the water Head on each you arrive at a negative value. So the ZED could never rise to the height that is displayed. It would stop short of that lift where the sum of the buoyant Forces is zero.The only thing that I am willing to discuss is the analysis you claimed to have in the OP but you refuse to produce. Produce your analysis or don't. If you don't, then you will continue to make it obvious that you have been blowing smoke the entire time.
The buoyant Force on the pod and riser is calculated:
Fb = (Water Head) * (Surface Area)
For the outer riser this would be calculated as Fb = (AR7 - AR6) * (pi * r2)
If the units of measure are kept always as cm, the result is simply cm3 (also known as cc). With the Density of water at 1 gram/cm3 the result is also the buoyant Force in grams.
So for the outer riser this would be calculated as Fb = (2.2966 - 4.0351) * (pi * 2.22) = -26.4344 grams of Force. This riser is negatively Buoyant and pushing down against the middle riser.
Calculate the others similarly and you get:
Buoyant Force from Outer Riser = -26.4344 g
Buoyant Force from Middle Riser = 0.9191 g
Buoyant Force from Inner Riser = 14.8938 g
Buoyant Force from the pod = 7.1132 g
------------------------------------------------------
Total Buoyant Force = -3.5083 g
The ZED could not rise to this condition.
MarkE, do you want to argue this point, make a correction, or should I choose a different State 3 to work with?
I know, I knew it was copied.If you are sorry for bad acts, then come clean with your investors and accept the consequences.
I am very sorry.
You have treated me fairly and with honest judgement from day one.
It was in very poor taste to treat you that way. Very Poor.
Wayne
Early on in the ZED development (but after we had broken the conservative process of gravity).No such thing ever happened. You have never created a situation where gravity does not behave conservatively. You have never been able to demonstrate such a thing before, and you cannot demonstrate such a thing now.
How can you say such things about the person Sterling D. Allan calls "Tesla II"? How can you say such things about a guy who has donated thousands and thousands of dollars to Sterling D. Allan?
I was contacted by Patrick Flanagan, who pumped me for inside information regarding the inner workings of the ZED.
I was excited - this guy was a wiz kid and had his own inventions.
......................
I gave him very valuable information --------- and he turned out to be not such a good guy.
He sounds like your kind of guy: Make outrageous claims, and fail to support those claims with any evidence. Are you sure you weren't separated at rebirth?
......................
Later - I discovered that Patrick had decided he was the reincarnated "Tesla" and he now was working to keep his secrets safe from bad guys.
I let it all go as a lesson learned.
Isn't that what you hired a crack team of technologists to do? If they haven't analyzed your bucket of water lifting and dropping, moaner / groaner, then maybe they do just sit around all day watching TV like MileHigh suspected.
......................
I do not know yet how my invention is a harm to the world - but I have seen every effort possible to discredit my work - except a real analysis.
Not even a "laying of the hands" will make the dead ZED arise and provide the "endless" energy that you know it cannot provide.
Hence my verbal support to the men who put hands on the equipment.
If you write to the BOP, you can perhaps reserve a number in advance. Then people will know how to insure your future mail does not get lost.
Once Again, I am in your debt.
Wayne Travis
I was wrong in saying so, regardless of whether it is or is not true.Ah there it is again. You just can't change your ways, can you Wayne? You just can't keep yourself from sliding into suggestion mode. Oopsy! You just unraveled your half-hearted apology to TinselKoala by suggesting that your base insult against him may not be anything but the false, disgusting insult that it is. If you were actually sorry for what you posted you would have admitted that you knew your accusation was false. Is it now fair game for anyone to lob any accusation they want if they later say: 'Oh, I am sorry that was rude, whether or not it is true.' "
"Because" I stooped to that level. I am sorry for doing it.
I don't have the time to go through TinselKoala's posts, but it is a safe bet that because you have never supported your absolutely false free energy claims that he has pointed out that fact. Praise Jesus! Oh thank God that some people actually think.
............................
Yes, I have a leg to stand on, you defamed my character for over two years........
I wouldn't know. Maybe TinselKoala does.
Have you not left an insult out - not one.
Now again:
I would like you to defend your claims and statements, I will remove the thought of apology for you:
..................
"He is using his vast well-paid network of lawyers and webmasters"
and "private investigators to find out who you are",
"where you live", just what your
"qualifications" are and just whatever he can find to use against you.
Well you do have at least one acknowledged employee posting here. Your claims to machinery that generates "endless" energy are nothing but a fraud. So, it seems that TinselKoala is on solid ground there.
"Wayne Travis has his paid shills posting on this forum, attempting to help promulgate his fraudulent program"
You should think about that one yourself. No matter how many times you invoke God when pimping your worthless investments, they are still worthless and you know or are reckless in not knowing it.
....................
At least six claims you are making against me.....
Are these generated from your imagination, is that fair way to treat people.
....................
Provide the proof or recall your claims.
I do not need an apology.
........ p.s. church does not make you perfect............. just saying....
"Quick question:I knew it! Your real name is Reagan O'Neill.
How many of these user names are "TK
John
AL
alokin alset
Orbo 3000
minnie
TK
alset alokin
Bill
(http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)?" (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif%29?)
So now I am TK? Or am I these other folks? Now I am confused. I really thought that TK was Stefan. (Just kidding) Maybe Mr. Wayne is Sterling then?
This makes my head spin.
Bill
Actually he did not call you a turd kisser. He expressed his opinion of you being one. I have accused my closest friends of being an ass or worse from time to time.Really you want to get back to the analysis that in your OP you said you had already done? Then why is it that you keep stalling? Where is this analysis that you said you wanted checked out? Here we are three weeks later and you still can't quite seem to put your hands on the work you said you had already done "to 10 digits".
I'd still like to get back to the Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED. Whenever anyone has constructive input on that topic. Currently I am asking if the method I used to calculate buoyancy Forces for the SUT is correct or not. Constructive input from anyone is welcome. MarkE must be busy or has abandoned his offer to double check. So, while we give him time to address the question, does anyone else have a constructive insight?
Actually he did not call you a turd kisser. He expressed his opinion of you being one. I have accused my closest friends of being an ass or worse from time to time.
(snip)
Keep it up, Honest Wayne Travis. You are compounding insult after insult with your hypocrisy.
No, I have not defamed your "character", I have simply pointed out that you have made claims that are untrue, which makes YOU a liar. I did not put the false claims into your mouth, I have just shown where YOU made them, on the website that you have tried to suppress.
I have pointed out promises you have made and not kept, and I've helped to show how YOU have tried to distract from the real issues by your hypocritical insults and lack of respect for those whom you have called "not worth our salt".... that is, meaning that we are incompetent, ignorant and that anyone who might pay us a salary -- from the word for "salt" -- is wasting their money.
@webby: Are you now denying that Travis paid you a substantial chunk of change? But it's on record. You may even recall that I asked you if the check actually cleared. Do you think he would have paid you that money if you had said that your tennis-ball-packaging model did NOT support his absurd claims? I sure don't. You have been PAID MONEY by WAYNE TRAVIS because YOU SUPPORTED HIS CLAIMS.
Now, if you found out that I was paid money to detract, to criticize.... I am quite sure that you would have no problem calling ME a "paid shill". You hypocrite.
There is one and only one issue here, and that is that Honest Wayne Travis has claimed that which is not true. He has claimed to have something that he will never show you, because he does not in fact have anything but a plan, a dream, and some colored water in plastic toys. Do not be distracted by his insults, his false apologies made from the left side of his face, or his threats. Demand to see the sausages! You will never see them.
Is this what you want, hypocrite Wayne Travis?
I regret that I called you a liar, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
I apologize that I called you a hypocrite, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
I am sorry that you don't keep your promises..... EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
Do you get the picture, hypocritical "honest" Wayne Travis? I'm sorry you called me a total TURD KISSER...... and some day you will be _genuinely_ sorry that you did.
If you are sorry for bad acts, then come clean with your investors and accept the consequences.
No such thing ever happened. You have never created a situation where gravity does not behave conservatively. You have never been able to demonstrate such a thing before, and you cannot demonstrate such a thing now.How can you say such things about the person Sterling D. Allan calls "Tesla II"? How can you say such things about a guy who has donated thousands and thousands of dollars to Sterling D. Allan?He sounds like your kind of guy: Make outrageous claims, and fail to support those claims with any evidence. Are you sure you weren't separated at rebirth?Isn't that what you hired a crack team of technologists to do? If they haven't analyzed your bucket of water lifting and dropping, moaner / groaner, then maybe they do just sit around all day watching TV like MileHigh suspected.Not even a "laying of the hands" will make the dead ZED arise and provide the "endless" energy that you know it cannot provide.If you write to the BOP, you can perhaps reserve a number in advance. Then people will know how to insure your future mail does not get lost.
Hello Mike,Hey, Wayne I just want to congratulate you on your ability to shamelessly keep up the carnival barker act. It's really awesome the way that facts never get in the way of your routine. Mondrasek is on the line to show the analysis he asked others to review. He, like you can at anytime show an analysis to that leads to the unreal OU claims that you both make.
Its Mark's shy'd away - his way or the highway - I suggest give him directions to the turnpike.
There are good engineers who can review - without a self supporting agenda.
Good Luck.
MarkE - I think we all know where you stand,,,,you missed it or ignored what you saw.Wayne Travis, gravity acts conservatively at all times. You cannot show otherwise. You have never shown otherwise. You never will, just as you will never deliver on any working version of your claimed free energy machine.
p.s. please provide proof that my investors are not happy.
good day
Wayne Travis, gravity acts conservatively at all times. You cannot show otherwise. You have never shown otherwise. You never will, just as you will never deliver on any working version of your claimed free energy machine.
Are you trying to claim that all your investors are happy with your fraud? Do you think that they are all so stupid that they still believe your lies no matter how effortlessly and shamelessly you repeat them?
Hey, Wayne I just want to congratulate you on your ability to shamelessly keep up the carnival barker act. It's really awesome the way that facts never get in the way of your routine. Mondrasek is on the line to show the analysis he asked others to review. He, like you can at anytime show an analysis to that leads to the unreal OU claims that you both make.
Oh, really? Where did you get your law degree, I wonder, Georgetown University?
I am of the opinion that it is really too bad that Wayne Travis is a eenie aster, not worth his salt.
Now.... did I just call Wayne Travis a Weenie Taster, who doesn't deserve to be paid for what he does because his talents and skills are worthless, or not?
Still waiting on your proof to back up these claims:Hey Wayne while you wait for TinselKoala, where's your proof of your phony over unity machine claims? Oops, you don't have any. Lift that weight, drop that weight, thump that Bible, cheat your investors. One two, one two. Praise Jesus! People who don't know any better can be readily separated from their cash! What a blessing God bestows upon those who pick the pockets of others!
"He is using his vast well-paid network of lawyers and webmasters"
and "private investigators to find out who you are",
"where you live", just what your
"qualifications" are and just whatever he can find to use against you.
"Wayne Travis has his paid shills posting on this forum, attempting to help promulgate his fraudulent program"
....................
At least six claims you are making against me.....
Proof or made up claims
Thanks you
Close - but it is wonderful and amazing discovery - not just a simple claim.Your technology claims are simply false. But hey don't ask me: Ask a guy named Wayne Travis of Chickasha, OK. Oh wait that is you!
Still waiting for your proof of your claims against our investors.
Thanks
The proof is in the math - You keep stating you don't believe our system is possible - you can not lead this exercise - sorry - you missed it.Hey Wayne, you better go back to school. Math that enforces First Principles cannot if properly applied yield an over unity result. Didn't you know that? Doesn't Mondrasek know that?
Who knows what Mondrasek has or has not. All we know is that he has so far failed to produce the analysis that he's been saying he wants help with for the past three weeks. He has promised yet again to show his analysis. Of course he's promised before and we still don't have it. So, don't hold your breath.
Mike did not.
How would you know? You flail your arms about madly offering nothing but baffle gab.
I do believe you are capable of learning - but what an effort it is to show you anything.
Name one engineer who will sign an affidavit stating that they have witnessed over unity from any of your machines. As to your investors, well you say all is well. But then you say many things.
You are in error Because - you think you know better than the hands on engineers - and you do not understand our investors at all.
Oh, you want proof Mr. Wayne Travis? You? The guy who has been making fraudulent free energy claims to investors for years wants proof from someone? Now, there is a laugh.
Proof of your statement - or acknowledge you made it up - again.
Wayne
Still waiting on your proof to back up these claims:
"He is using his vast well-paid network of lawyers and webmasters"
and "private investigators to find out who you are",
"where you live", just what your
"qualifications" are and just whatever he can find to use against you.
"Wayne Travis has his paid shills posting on this forum, attempting to help promulgate his fraudulent program"
....................
At least six claims you are making against me.....
Proof or made up claims
Thanks you
Musical interlude from the late, great Laura Nyro.Perfect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAjy5sz8Y7A
8) 8) 8)Do you mean like when you said that you were leaving a month ago and stayed away for all of a week or so?
Well men, It took a good woman to make me see the light......
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.com
If you mean that the laws of physics preclude you demonstrating your claims, then that would be correct. If you are trying to make the false suggestion that you have machinery such as you claim that produces "endless energy", but are restrained by contract from showing such a nonexistent thing, no it isn't any contract holding you up. I don't think anyone can point to when you ever showed any 'sausages'. You haven't been taking 'Carlos Danger' style selfies have you? If you have, please keep such things to yourself.
I am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.
I'm sorry that you were hoping to find another recruit for your cult of Russian doll ignorance in me. You'll have to find someone else more willing to take your carnival barker routine seriously.
It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope.
You can't show that your claims are genuine for the simple reason that they are false. But no worries, you'll no doubt keep on trying to make the false suggestion that there is something behind that tattered curtain of yours.
..................
I have been given great advice, which I should have listened to sooner.
Thank you Mags - surely the only level head here.
.......................
TK and MarkE
I can not show you what you demand and True diligence requires true willingness.
Most days are. Every once in awhile a perp gets their due, and the day is especially good. It's been just a year since the FBI paid a Welcome Wagon visit to John Rohner's house of cards. Perhaps they will visit you.
Now do what you do so well.
Good day.
Wayne
I am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.
8) 8) 8)
Well men, It took a good woman to make me see the light......
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.com
I am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.
Good day.
Wayne
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.com
PURE BS TK.What do you believe that you were ever able to show with that mock-up of yours?
I am not amused with your behavior at all TK.
I answered this question DIRECTLY and in the thread.
Do you wish to tell any more lies about ME TK?
Well, we deal with these very basic things that may be strung together in non-intuitive ways, but they still retain their fundamental behaviors. At the end of the day, the machine sloshes around some masses of different types. Various of the mechanisms are fundamentally lossy. One cannot even break even with them. The more such processes that are concatenated the greater the percentage losses each cycle.
Was the Koala right with ZED, zero energy device, or would LED be nearer
the mark, lossy energy device?
John.
The only thing that I am willing to discuss is the analysis you claimed to have in the OP but you refuse to produce. Produce your analysis or don't. If you don't, then you will continue to make it obvious that you have been blowing smoke the entire time.
MarkE,webby you talk about the efficiency of lift. What did you do to measure the energy consumed to get through a whole cycle, or only bits and pieces of a cycle? Did your mock up have an external output? If it did, what did you do to measure the energy delivered to that output cycle by cycle?
I was able to have a fairly efficient lift with a fair amount of recovery from that lift, as gauged by the level of the reservoir to the fluid returned into it.
My opinion was not affected by the "prize" money.
I am not sure why the prize money was paid. I found out about that after I released information and pictures of TBZED.
My opinion on the function of the ZED system is based on the observation that the ZED does not pick up rocks and drop them. I observed a change in modality between lift and sink that leads me to believe that the system operates as 2 independent items depending on which way the fluid is moving through the system.
These two systems share all the same parts, fluids and pressures, this took me a while to think through.
The buoyant lift or sink can be changed by changing the direction of fluid flow into or out of the pod chamber.
I had VERY good lifts, and I had VERY, VERY bad lifts,, this I interpreted as meaning that there should be a designed setup for ideal run for a set of given requirements.
I even used TK's videos as something to compare my thoughts with, in those he demonstrated the processes that would need to be present in order for the system to work as I was thinking it might.
Our Analyses agree through State 2. However, I am using a greater amount of significant digits and different constants. For Density of Water I am using 1g/cc while you used .9982g/cc. For the Acceleration of Gravity I am using 9.81N/kg while you used 9.80665N/kg. Therefore my results differ from your by a miniscule percentage. The Energies I calculate are:Showing values is nice. Showing values reached at the end does not show how you got there.
Energy in State 1 = 3.41964mJ
Energy added to go from State 1 to State 2 = 2.10293mJ
Energy in State 3 = 5.52257mJ
You can see how those values compare with those you included in your State 2 below.
Showing values is nice. Showing values reached at the end does not show how you got there.
Here is the spreadsheet where I recorded all the values that were generated on the Casio calculator that I used. The calculations were performed "by hand" so there are no formulas in the spreadsheet except to sum the Energies in each water annulus for each State. Those are at the bottom and were run as a triple check really. I'll post the equations used as I get to that point in my explanation of the methods I used, why, and the results that you can see ahead of time if you want to look at the attached data.It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text. I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet. For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc. One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1. When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes: The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod. That would be:
Attached is a picture of a spreadsheet and the actual spreadsheet below.Since the ideal case can be described by linear equations, the force versus lift height is readily computed as a constant: a spring constant. The force is therefore readily expressed as: F = FSTART + KFORCE*S. All that is left is to solve the integral which is trivial.
It's shows that doing an Iterative driven Integration, calculating Pressure * Volume for each iteration gives the same results as our use of P average * Volume.
If we were doing an Integration using sensors on a physical system, we couldn't do it that way as each stop and start results in many losses, main ones being momentum and inertial in the Zed. Also, in a physical system, most changes are not linear.
In a small math model like this, it is correct, because it has no losses and the changes are linear. One rule is that you can't use it across multiple SI in one start stop.
I could add the Iterative Integration program to my Analysis of flow spreadsheets, but that would only cause more questions and require more computer time.
Why does mrwayne not simply prove that his claims are true?Why indeed? Suppose that you or I had discovered a way to make energy for free. The available choices might include:
Why does mrwayne not simply prove that his claims are true?Why, silly, it's because the evil skeptics and their urd issing sock puppets are so mighty and righteous that they drove him away, again, before he had a chance to show us the scientific papers, the statements from engineers, the actual working prototypes and the ecstatic testimonials from the grateful Church Fathers who are making money selling their surplus electricity back to the grid.
Nicely done!Thanks. I don't do YouTube videos, but I can manage to take a still picture or two. I wonder if the Wayne's cadre of technical experts can correctly interpret what these experiments mean. Note that there are no quantitative measurements. Nor does there need to be in order to understand what they tell us. Here is a collage to help understanding.
Thanks. Anyone who doubts the results, or suffers under the misconception that there is anything behind HER/Zydro's curtain can spend a couple of dollars for the materials and a little time to learn the ultimate secrets of the ZED: 1. Gravity is conservative. 2. Buoyancy is just gravity operating on fluids. 3. HER/Zydro's claims to "endless and abundant clean Energy" are absolutely false.
Mark,
nice to see a bit of empirical evidence, don't know whether it's
strictly allowable here though. Does show what must happen even,
though some don't believe.
John.
I like pictures MarkE,, but exactly what is it that you are showing?These pictures show a bit of truth concerning buoyancy. The experiments include: Materials with SG > 1. Materials with SG < 1. Water. Trapped air. Vented air. It's more fun to see the effects live. I encourage anyone who is interested to spend the small amount of time it takes to set the experiments up and conduct them. In most households the only thing one might not have is the hot glue.
It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text. I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet. For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc. One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1. When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes: The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod. That would be:
pi/4*RingWall1_height*(222-202)mm3 +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(262-242)mm3 +
pi/4*1*262)mm3
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = 6793.694113388mm3 = 6.793694113388cc
That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet. Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work. There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription. I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model. When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.
It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.
I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet. For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc. One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1. When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes: The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod. That would be:
pi/4*RingWall1_height*(222-202)mm3 +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(262-242)mm3 +
pi/4*1*262)mm3
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = 6793.694113388mm3 = 6.793694113388cc
That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet. Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work. There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription. I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model. When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.
Hi MarkEOne can perform theoretical analyses, and they can be valid. It is a good idea whenever one obtains an extraordinary result either by measurement or analysis to check one with the other. If both agree then additional tests or analyses may be required to reconcile how something extraordinary could be occurring. Sometimes what has happened is that there is a genuine discovery. Don't look for such things from Bible thumping con artists.
this so called analysis, I'm no expert but for there to be any credibility surely it must be performed on a working device ? And if it was performed on a working device then how can they be any secret components, that can't be shown because of business reasons(according to Wayne), how can anyone perform a proper analysis without knowing all the components of the device, it just doesn't make sense to me, how can you expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if you don't make all the information available ? And if you are making all the information available why all the secrecy about showing Wayne's device running in the first place.
The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets.
To be honest, it is because spreadsheet programs were not introduced (to me at least) before I finished my University studies and I have never been formally trained or taken the time to learn more than the basic capabilities of Excel. I can write basic math functions in Excel, but I do not know how to label cells, reference anything on different tab, or anything involving scripting! So math functions that I would write all reference cell locations which makes it very difficult to follow and debug.Google "named ranges, Excel". Unless you want to write a computer program, there is no need to do so in Excel. Excel is at its heart a place that one can stuff equations. Named ranges (cells are ranges of one cell) allow you to get past 1989 and use names to refer to values in a spreadsheet instead of $a$12 etc.
Whatever process you followed you have not documented it well enough to audit. I am not a mind reader. You learned in university that if you don't show your work, your work is rightly rejected. The very first calculated value I encountered in your spreadsheet is inconsistent with your verbal descriptions and drawings. That's a full stop for me. Take care of your responsibility to assemble and show your work and we can figure out where you went wrong. It is inescapable that you have done something that violates First Principles either in your model, your interpretation of your model, your calculations or your transcription.
When I started the Analysis it was with the 2-layer system. I can run those numbers on a calculator much quicker than building a spreadsheet. However, when I started thee 3-layer I did consider attempting to calculate in the spreadsheet. But since the 3-layer used the same inner 2-layer, those values mostly remained the same. So I continued with the manual method that I had employed earlier, even though State 3 does become a mind numbing PITA at this point (for me at least).
I am not going to try and second guess work that you do not present. If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work. You can write out the equations you used, or you can enter them into something like Excel, or do whatever else you need to actually show the process you relied upon to get your errant results. I have attached a copy of your spreadsheet with a work sheet added that separated the numerical values from the text, and named all the identifiable numerical cells. If you like you can use that as a starting point.
I think I have an answer for this, and I apologize for not noticing that I did this or I would have pointed it out. The Volume calculations for the air neglect the volume directly above the pod and riser top surfaces since those never change. So the Volume of the air is only calculated as the "U" shape section, very similar to the "U" shape of the water volumes sections.
In the example you show, please subtract the pi * r2*ht Volume of air above the pod which is pi*1cm2*.1cm = .3141592654cm3. Our numbers are then the same.
Really, the spreadsheet is what "computers are for."VisiCalc is what got interest in personal computers beyond geeks.
You can do so much with spreadsheets. Properly set up spreadsheets can handle all your household, tax, budget, automobile records, financial planning, numbers racket, scientific data analysis, anything involving data sets and interrelationships between data. A little time spent fooling around with and learning spreadsheet functionality and use is well worth the effort if you do any number crunching in your life at all.
I consider my own spreadsheet skills to be very basic, but I couldn't do without them. The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets. The existence of spreadsheet programs like LibreOffice Calc or MS Excel entirely justifies the existence of the personal computer. If a computer could do nothing but spreadsheets it would still be necessary to own one for that reason alone.
Google "named ranges, Excel". Unless you want to write a computer program, there is no need to do so in Excel. Excel is at its heart a place that one can stuff equations. Named ranges (cells are ranges of one cell) allow you to get past 1989 and use names to refer to values in a spreadsheet instead of $a$12 etc. Whatever process you followed you have not documented it well enough to audit. I am not a mind reader. You learned in university that if you don't show your work, your work is rightly rejected. The very first calculated value I encountered in your spreadsheet is inconsistent with your verbal descriptions and drawings. That's a full stop for me. Take care of your responsibility to assemble and show your work and we can figure out where you went wrong. It is inescapable that you have done something that violates First Principles either in your model, your interpretation of your model, your calculations or your transcription.I am not going to try and second guess work that you do not present. If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work. You can write out the equations you used, or you can enter them into something like Excel, or do whatever else you need to actually show the process you relied upon to get your errant results. I have attached a copy of your spreadsheet with a work sheet added that separated the numerical values from the text, and named all the identifiable numerical cells. If you like you can use that as a starting point.
MarkE, I am sorry you feel that way. I have said that my calculations and methods lead to an Analysis that equaled the results of your own up through State 2. I have then outlined, with all equations, the process that I used to Analyze the change from State 2 to State 3 and the final State 3. I see no point in stepping backwards or in presenting anything in a different format.I beg to differ. You have about 75 cells in your spreadsheet that just have values in them. Where are the 75 corresponding equations? We already know that the very first non-zero value in your spreadsheet was not the result of the model you represented. Obviously, you have some issues auditing your own work to insure that it represents what you intended. If you think others should try and read your mind, well then good luck to you. If you won't be bothered to show your work then you have no business asking anyone to audit what you refuse to show.
I would be happy to explain any single step along the way if you have specific questions.
I beg to differ. You have about 75 cells in your spreadsheet that just have values in them. Where are the 75 corresponding equations? We already know that the very first non-zero value in your spreadsheet was not the result of the model you represented. Obviously, you have some issues auditing your own work to insure that it represents what you intended. If you think others should try and read your mind, well then good luck to you. If you won't be bothered to show your work then you have no business asking anyone to audit what you refuse to show.
I asked for a double check of my math and methods. We only need to share methods if our results differ. They differ after State 2. Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified. It is a quibble. Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes. They are not needed in the Analysis.Yes you asked people to double check what you refuse to show.
All, please check the math. I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.
I asked for a double check of my math and methods. We only need to share methods if our results differ. They differ after State 2. Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified. It is a quibble. Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes. They are not needed in the Analysis.
I have explained and showed my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2. That begins here: http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999 Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.I did not demand a spreadsheet. You can show your work in any number of ways. You elected to present a spreadsheet that has around 75 values in it, but no supporting equations to obtain those values. You have been refusing to provide what you say you want audited.
Really guys, no spread sheet is needed to follow along. Each presented value can be obtained by following the example and substituting the proper numbers that are shown on the presented diagram. I am prepared to engage if you find a problem with either the reasoning, the equations used, or the resultant values that are all posted.
I did not demand a spreadsheet. You can show your work in any number of ways. You elected to present a spreadsheet that has around 75 values in it, but no supporting equations to obtain those values. You have been refusing to provide what you say you want audited.
Could you show a picture of the initial start condition prior to the first sink?Same as in post #956 here again. The vent at the top is open. The system is in stable equilibrium. The amount of water displaced by the submerged part of the bottle and the soda straws equals the weight of the water bottle plus soda straw assembly. You can see that it is riding way up high in the larger 2 liter vessel. The only reason that it has any portion submerged is that the PET water bottle material is denser than water as is slightly the hot glue and soda straw plastic.
Thanks
I have explained and showed my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2. That begins here: http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999 Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.Who will follow you down your lovely garden path? You do see the picture above in the post to Webby don't you? What does that tell you about your assumptions? If that doesn't do it for you, then allow me to show you this picture:
DOH!!You've got the sequence right. The only thing that you've got tangled up is using the invented term: "potential force". This demonstration demonstrates, in hopefully not too subtle terms the nature of the energy states. Once the relationship of the energy states are known then one can compare those to the claimed ZED process and see if they are informative. (Spoiler alert: They are informative.)
My bad,,
So the first pic is where the bottle and pontoons come to rest,, then you push the little bottle down with a hole in the top of little bottle, then you seal that hole and let it come back up allowing the pontoons to lift the little bottle and the water inside the little bottle up so the water level inside the little bottle is above the water level in the soda bottle.
Besides wasting potential force again, by just venting the air instead of running it through something like the exquisite little motor TK showed us to showcase his machining skills, what is it you are trying to show?
MarkE, while your demonstrations are interesting, they do not include what I believe to be a key feature in the ZED. And that is the nested risers that are all supported by buoyant Forces due to the water in annuli separate by ring walls. That feature appears to allow a single input Pressure and Volume to affect the buoyant Forces on multiple pod and risers. By the Analysis method I used and am using, which is quite the same as used on the no-pod, single riser example that we digressed to earlier and finally arrived at identical results, I find unusual results. Those unusual results change from a non-conservative and lossy under unity condition for a 2-layer system to a non-conservative and over unity condition for a 3-layer.They do not need to deal with that unnecessary complexity to make the critical points. If you ever get around to performing your math in an auditable way, then you may see the reality of the situation. Or you can put what you think your math tells you to a physical test and find out that you've built a bogus representation.
What changed with the addition of 3rd riser to the previous 2-layer system? The Vin remained the same. The Pin average went up. But the Pout average went up substantially more. All that is due to adding another riser in another annulus separate by another ring wall. Without those unique features I do not believe you will witness anything extraordinary. So I don't think your demonstrations help with the ZED question, though they are fine to teach textbook Archimedes buoyancy interactions.
What should you be reminded of by the picture below? What does the picture that follows it say about one of your assertions? Are the water levels not equal? Did they not equalize due to venting? So why is it that the bottle not only rises once sealed, it takes water up with it? And why is it that if we let it vent, it goes even higher?
Your demonstration clearly shows that in a system with more than one buoyant object (where the objects are in interfering contact with each other) it is the SUM of the buoyant Forces that must equal ZERO for the system to be in equilibrium. The negative buoyant Force in your bottle due to the negative water Head is exactly balanced by the positive buoyant Forces due to the positive water Head on each pontoon straw.Good, I am glad you accept that. Now, look back at State 1 and apply the same principle.
We both sought to find zero net up force in State 3. We used different methods. The question is whether either method was in fact correct. I know that it was stupid me for conceding a point I shouldn't have that State 1 is in equilibrium, because as these demonstrations prove, it is not. The same logic that you assert: that the ring walls are supported from below by the buoyant force of the water beneath them in State 2 and State 3, is also true in State 1. We had to do real work to first sink the riser assembly, and then we had to continue to apply force to keep it down, or more accurately: to keep the water in the annular rings 2 through 7 up above the relaxed level of 22mm to the elevated level of 32.5mm. That represents additional stored energy in State 1 that is available to attempt to lift the risers above their most submerged depth at 1mm above the base. This in turn should cause you to question what the hell it was that you did in your calculations to arrive at the conclusion that the energy added in State 2 is the only energy that tries to escape by pushing up the risers. They would go up from State 1 as shown in this demonstration.
Checking for a balanced buoyant Force condition in the State 3 state is the first step I have show. Both on your State 3 where it was not zero (it was a negative value showing your State 3 would need to sink to find equilibrium) and my own State 3 where it was also not zero (it was a positive value showing my State 3 would need to RISE to find equilibrium).
Just to help a little bit here.For purposes of the demonstration the tape is completely adequate. All that we need to know is:
Would it not be better to use a one way valve in the bottom of the little bottle,, that is what you have made with your vent.
Then you *could* just use the old method of a lever, a bucket on a string and a weight on the other end of the lever,, since that is all you have made.
The pontoons are what is lifting the thing, no interaction with them so there is no correlation to the ZED.
Good, I am glad you accept that. Now, look back at State 1 and apply the same principle.
We both sought to find zero net up force in State 3. We used different methods. The question is whether either method was in fact correct. I know that it was stupid me for conceding a point I shouldn't have that State 1 is in equilibrium, because as these demonstrations prove, it is not. The same logic that you assert: that the ring walls are supported from below by the buoyant force of the water beneath them in State 2 and State 3, is also true in State 1. We had to do real work to first sink the riser assembly, and then we had to continue to apply force to keep it down, or more accurately: to keep the water in the annular rings 2 through 7 up above the relaxed level of 22mm to the elevated level of 32.5mm. That represents additional stored energy in State 1 that is available to attempt to lift the risers above their most submerged depth at 1mm above the base. This in turn should cause you to question what the hell it was that you did in your calculations to arrive at the conclusion that the energy added in State 2 is the only energy that tries to escape by pushing up the risers. They would go up from State 1 as shown in this demonstration.
We can figure out what I did wrong in my calculations because I have shown all of my work. We cannot figure out what you have done wrong until you show yours.
Nope. Our air is assumed incompressible.There you go Mr. I won't show my work insinuating that I have done something underhanded. I haven't. There is nothing here that I "played with". I added pontoons until the net assembly had an SG well under 1.0. The risers you stiplulated have an SG of 0. So let's do some free body diagrams, shall we? The up relaxed picture with the vent open is slightly submerged. Fb_up = Fg.
You have cleverly played with your system until the VACUUM you are inducing in the air inside the bottle is balancing the buoyancy Forces from your pontoons. If anyone cares to make something similar they will find that they cannot achieve the identical water inside and outside that you show by the methods you describe. Do you know why? I do.
hi.. mondrasekI don't think that Mondrasek said he is a VBA programmer. I thought he said that he does not write code. And if he never bothered to learn Excel, there is MathCAD and Matlab. And if he really doesn't like any of those he can always use a pen and paper. But to work the problem there is work that has to be done, and there is no way to audit the work if it is not written down one way or another. No one including Mondrasek can check work that is not recorded by some means. Mondrasek chooses not to show his work, and now without making any attempt to repeat my experiments, he accuses me of gaming them. I invite anyone to reproduce my experiments. They don't require a lot of time or skill, and they are cheap to perform.
it seem that you asked someone to repair your car or something without touching it, with closed eyes, is there something that you hide inside?
as PC is your toy and you are also VBA programmer, how could it be so difficult for you to learn only a bit of excel ?,
there is no doubt that you know exactly a help button in excel and you know google is a huge library. I'm sure you will not regret exploring excel features. say goodbye to calculator :)
hi.. mondrasek
it seem that you asked someone to repair your car or something without touching it, with closed eyes, is there something that you hide inside?
as PC is your toy and you are also VBA programmer, how could it be so difficult for you to learn only a bit of excel ?,
there is no doubt that you know exactly a help button in excel and you know google is a huge library. I'm sure you will not regret exploring excel features. say goodbye to calculator :)
Mondrasek chooses not to show his work...
So the interaction of the pontoons is to move up with force when they have been pushed down with force into the water.The pontoons combined with the water bottle are surrogates for a single riser. We can't get an SG of 0 for obvious practical reasons. However that is not important. It only means that instead of floating on top of the water, they are partially submerged in the relaxed state, which is with the vent open.
Absolutely! The water bottle plus pontoons rises to its highest position when the vent is open. When the vent is closed, the assembly has to lift water, and that requires energy.
Will they move up with the vent open?
What is it that you contend is dissimilar? A hollow assembly with SG < 1 is inserted into a volume of water. The water level inside and outside the assembly is allowed to equalize by opening a vent. When the water level has equalized, the vent is closed. The only difference here is that I don't have a convenient supply of incompressible air. Monderask has got things all backwards and has the odd idea that compressibility gives me something that I want to show that incompressible "air" would not. That's horse shit. Because the air is elastic: some energy goes into rarifying the air and some into lifting water. If the air were inelastic, then all of the energy would go into lifting the water. The water level in the water bottle would be higher, but the top of the water bottle would be lower. HER/Zydro use air, so the demonstrated arrangement is a little more representative of a "real ZED" than it is of an "ideal ZED", but the differences are not material to what is being demonstrated.
If yes then there is no similarity.
If no then why not.
I have explained and shown my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2. That begins here: http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999 Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.No they don't.
No they don't.
MarkE, I believe I can calculate everything from State 2 to State3 with the information I have provided from here on (and with the dimensions shown in the diagrams): http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999 If you can point out where something is missing I will make any necessary corrections or adjustments. But continuing to demand that I provide something when you will not state specifically what is missing will get us nowhere.You're an engineer. You've been to university. Then you know what you need to show: For each value that you develop you need to show the equation that gets you there. Express the problem into just one giant equation, or some number of simpler equations. What you have shown are some values from some non-specific equations. That's crap and you know it.
Now I did not show each step necessary to adjust the water levels from State 2 to State 3, but you have demonstrated the ability to do that in your calculations that correctly adjust from State 1 to State 2. So I would not think that would be necessary. Is it a demonstration of this step that you would like me to provide?
That is exactly what I am doing. Mondrasek is playing this BS game that it is up to others to second guess and then do the work he has supposedly already done in order to check his work. Except that they won't be checking his work. They will be checking their guess as to what his work might be. It's stupid.
ok then mondrasek, pencil,papper and calculator,
i guess my question have been answered. i will ask if i have more next time
i see marke asked you this, he said...
"If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work. You can write out the equations you used, or you can enter them into something like Excel, or do whatever else you need to actually show the process you relied upon to get your errant results".
maybe, markE is waiting equations that you use, and only from you.
Well,, I am curious as to the the change in water level in the soda bottle,, and a little curious about the height of the little bottle in the vented, sealed and just released and the equilibrium reached after release. Is that a change in the water height inside the little bottle without a change in the clearance from the top of the soda bottle to the, what is now, the top of the little bottle??No tricks were played. No water was added or removed from the system in between any of the pictures. The photographs were annotated with text and arrows. The collage cropped the photos to fit in a file that this server could take. The photos were not retouched or Photoshopped in any way. When the little bottle goes down the water in the outer bottle goes up.
You can tell where the little bottle is by looking at the clearance between the flexible part of the straws and the top of the 2 liter bottle. In the fully down position the two straws closest to the camera align the bottom of their flexible sections to the top of the larger bottle. In the next picture, both the water bottle and water within the water bottle have risen, while the water level outside has fallen as it must. If the contrast isn't good enough I can retake the pictures using red food coloring in the water.
So the water level in the soda bottle goes from Up to down a little down a little more and then up a little, and the little bottle is down the same then up and then the same,, but it looks like the water level in the little bottle went up in the last picture without the little bottle moving up.
It looks like the camera was about 2deg CW. That's not enough to screw with anything. I use a simple tripod that has a swivel in it. Apparently I did not get it dead level.
I keep wanting to rotate the pictures a little bit,, they are angled,, nit picking :)
Of course this little funny thing could be due to a change in camera position and angle, just making it *look* like there was a magical after the sealed event increase in water in the little bottle,, or maybe making it look like the little bottle did not raise anymore even tho it might have,, I mean it looks like the straws went up,, but then that also looks like the water level in the soda bottle went up as well,, and it looks like the bottle is both angled in the water as well as twisted,,
BUT, if I were to go with the photos as shown I would have to assume that the water volume in the soda bottle increased as well as the water volume in the little bottle as the little bottle was rising and the straws grew taller.That would not be physically reasonable. There is only one water volume and in the collage you can see the levels converge as air vents out the top of the smaller bottle.
You're an engineer. You've been to university. Then you know what you need to show: For each value that you develop you need to show the equation that gets you there. Express the problem into just one giant equation, or some number of simpler equations. What you have shown are some values from some non-specific equations. That's crap and you know it.
So either stop with the games and actually show your work, or call it a day.
i see marke asked you this, he said...
"If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work.
Oops is right Larry. You miscomputed the input work. Work is the integral of F*ds. The initial force adding your 1ft of water is zero. But the force at the end is: 4+1-2 = 3*0.65psi/ft. The added work is therefore the integral evaluation from 0 to 1ft of: 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*z2 = 0.5*3*0.65psi*area/ft*1ft2, which happens to be identically the difference between the starting and ending energies of: EINITIAL = 2*0.5*0.65psi*area*3ft2 = 18*0.5*0.65*area and EFINAL = 0.5*0.65psi*area*(12 + 22 +42) = 0.5*0.65psi*area*21.
MarkE, I'll call it a day. I'm not in school and need not conform to any rules to pass a class. Neither am I presenting a proof for publication in any Science Journal. I am showing others on an Internet Forum how I Analyzed the ZED using math, CAD, and a Calculator. If they want to share in that, they can follow the presented methodology (which includes equations) and see if they result in the same values that have been presented. They can also decide for themselves if the conclusions drawn are supported by those methods and math. And I offer to assist anyone who has any question along the way.Mondrasek you can blow smoke all day long if that is what suits you. You are making it obvious that you do not want your claimed analysis checked, because you never actually present your work so that anyone can check it. See who you can take down your garden path.
AFAIK, the only tricky part is calculating the water column heights for whatever State 3 you want to finish with. The lift creates some internal Volumn changes that can be missed initially. That got me two years ago and again on my first attempt more recently. If anyone wants assistance with that I am happy to help.
Marsing, only I never asked MarkE, or anyone, to "audit" my work. I asked if anyone would double check my work. And that can be done by different methods. For example, I initially calculated new Water heights for State 3 by working from the inside out comparing Volumes and moving the boundary levels previously found in State 2 in CAD. I then double checked the work by comparing Volumes of the Air and Water in each area to those in State 1 and State 2, which is a slightly different method. Then I triple checked the work by calculating the Energy in the Water in each state as well as introduced by the charge and seeing if those values all compared properly, a completely different and valid method.The opening post actually began like this:
So there are different methods, and I could show several for most steps, but I encourage others to pick their own OR follow what I did.
Now since my methods and MarkE's both arrive at the same State 2, I see no reason to back up and "show my work" that is proven to result in identical results with MarkE. But I did agree to "show the work" moving forward from State 2 to State 3 since that is where we diverged. And this, I believe, I have done. With descriptions, equations, and example calculations.
All, please check the math. I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.
MarkE,The physics of the single piston don't change when one goes to multiple pistons. Nesting folds a larger effective assembly into a smaller volume, at a cost of lost efficiency. It does not create energy gains for reasons that should be amply visible from the demonstration that you call middle school science. Ergo, none of this should be news to you at all.
Don't have to,, already done that a long time ago,, Jr. High school science.
I got sidetracked and forgot to answer your other question,, sorry about that.
What you have shown is a single piston assembly,, not a nested system, as well as the volume usage thing,, get the same results with only using 1\10 the volume while having all the forces the same,, that would be distance pushed down, weight of water lifted blah blah blah,,
Great! Then we are on the same page. Do that with more floats and more weights and what do you get? Just a more complicated implementation of the same thing. There is no change in where the energy comes from. There is no change in the behavior of gravity.
I am not saying you screwed with anything,, I explained most likely what was happening and you came along and conferred with my guess as to causality.
All my pictures are taken by hand,, you can imagine that if I tried to do a collage what it would look like :)
Anyway,, your simple little testbed does exactly what it should, that is you push a float down add some weight and it comes back up to the point where the buoyant force balances out with the weight. Your input work pushes the water up,, and then some of that fills the little bottle and the rest falls back down pushing the little bottle back up.
It demonstrates all of the fundamental behaviors one needs to understand to see the ZED claims as the false nonsense that they are.
I understand that you think this is the same as a nested system with pod,, that is what the discussion is all about.
Minnie, if I felt that MarkE's intentions were to learn anything, I might be inclined to do differently. But he clearly was able to present a correct State 2, but refused, at first, to present a State 3. Instead he simply "waved his hands" and said that for reasons previously explained, it cannot work. I found that to be disingenuous at first. But he did agree to continue. It is at that point he deviated to a Volume in = Volume out approach, instead of the clearly stated method of checking if Energy in = Energy out. And he has had many "errors" ever since. Including the ridiculous claim that the buoyancy Force is calculated by the ID and not the OD.Again, this is what you asked for:
So I find that MarkE is not working in good faith to help with anything. He is only disrupting now. In fact, he is trying, once again, to make us go back to the beginning. Why do you think that is? I know why, do you?
If anyone who displays a desire to learn what I presented and cannot on their own (I hope many can) I would be happy to help. But MarkE's demands will not stop. And nothing that I present will ever be satisfactory. And he will never let the Analysis be completed if he is involved.
So, why bother?
All, please check the math. I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.
MarkE,In the spreadsheet that you had sent you average pressure across multiple columns and then multiplied that pressure by volume to find energy. That's wrong. I have explained why it is wrong. It is wrong because: N*(X/N)2 = X/N. Given two identical columns: One column filled to 2m holds 4X the energy of one column filled to 1m, or twice the energy of two columns each filled to one meter. Under the special circumstances of a single column, one can prove (I've shown the math several times) that: 0.5*PMAX*V = 0.5*density*G0*Area*H2. The latter is the actual solution for the stored energy for each H. When you have multiple heights and you average pressure you can easily get the wrong answer as in the two column example I just offered.
Attached first is my example that you said had the input work wrong.
Second is a picture of the spreadsheet integration that shows the same results as the example.
Third is the actual integration spreadsheet. Where it is using P * V at each increment.
Correction: the results are the same as yours, after I correct your .65 to .43 for the psi/ft.
MarkE,The upward force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
I was wondering, is a buoyant lift an ID thing or an OD thing?
So if someone were using the ID and pressure then would it be a buoyant lift, or would it be something else?
MarkE,Larry, if you correctly calculate the reflected force back to column 1, which is in this case (1+(4-2))ft*pWater*G0*Area/ft = 3*pWater*G0*Area/ft and apply that to the net force: F = 0 + KFORCE*HCOL1 then when you evaluate the integral you get: 0*H + 0.5*KFORCE*HCOL12 then you get the exact answer without iterative calculations. We can observe that for these circumstances of starting from zero, that PAVE*VCOL1_ADDED yields the same result. The math works because the force and pressure were related back to one column. In this case you stacked columns side by side.
Attached first is my example that you said had the input work wrong.
Second is a picture of the spreadsheet integration that shows the same results as the example.
Third is the actual integration spreadsheet. Where it is using P * V at each increment.
Correction: the results are the same as yours, after I correct your .65 to .43 for the psi/ft.
Well, under special circumstances one can get the right answer for energy using PAVE*V. The single column is such a case, and we can see that in Larry's example, provided that we pick the right PAVE.
Team Travis is looking extremely shaky!
Most don't seem to have a grasp of the
very basics.
John.
It's the usual Travesty story,It does not seem that there is even an analysis, because while we are constantly reminded that such an analysis is supposed to exist we never see it. Never mind that any mathematically correct analysis that holds to First Principles by definition cannot show a gain. Also I believe that we are coming up on six years of this charade. The PowerPoint pitch with the alternate universe physics is a little over three years old.
shaky, flaky, vague, and without a credible working device in over three years, but apparently some people believe an analysis of a non existing device will convince everyone, if you believe in your analysis then produce a device that actually works, though let's face it if Wayne can't do it in three years what chance has anyone else, that's why all the believers have left is an analysis of an non existing device.
That is what I thought, and that displaced fluid then will be the OD of the "float" and not the ID.I will go look at it. If it is wrong, I will fix it. It will not change the fact that the system is fundamentally lossy.
So why are you using the ID of the riser in your spreadsheet? more precisely you are using the OD of the AR inside the riser.
I was having issues with your lift force total and my hand calculated volumes of displaced water,, in your spreadsheet that value is approximately 122g of force, where as I come up with approximately 148g of force.
I am not much of a spreadsheet person,, but the annotations help with following what you are doing,, that was after I realized that those were not the named ranges,, just notes.Do you realize that all the actual formulas use named ranges? The named ranges are but for the audit items in column B. The names are in column A.
Then I used my calculator to follow the formulas,, that helped me in understanding "HOW" the formulas should be used,, I am a hands on learner for the most part.
I see that and that makes it so that I have to keep moving all around.The names are supposed to be self evident. The whole point is to not need to jump around, but read it as though it were written out on paper. In some cases the names refer to things that happen during the transition between states. I can rename those to the form STn_STn+1 to make that more obvious.
I found that there is an error in one of the A columns, the formula calls for a ST_2 but in the A column it is ST_3 but the formula still gets the information,, so I assumed that the A column was just notation.
A 126
Hi MarkE,A126 ST2_AR6_Hdel_pmm is the water height in mm in AR6 for each mm that the risers go up. I can rename this ST2_ST3_AR6_Hchg_mm_per_mm if that will make it more readable.
While I am at it,, I do have an issue with the pressure under the pod.
B 107
I do not think it impacts much but that actual pressure would be
1719.31171611pa
But it looks like you are using the head value for lift consideration.
I can get what you are referring to,, then I go and find it to stick into my calculator,, and all the parts that go along with it,, that is what I meant.I think that you can make your life a lot easier by just inserting a column or columns some place and putting your formulas in those cells. Then you will have everything written down for yourself without having to worry about keystroke errors or trying to remember what you have done.
So I see what you are calling and in what sequence, but for me to stick it into my calculator for practice I must go and look at each of the cells.
Well, under special circumstances one can get the right answer for energy using PAVE*V. The single column is such a case, and we can see that in Larry's example, provided that we pick the right PAVE.MarkE,
What we cannot do to get the right answer is use PAVE obtained across multiple columns.
If we set K1 = pWater*G0 then
In the [0,3,3] left hand case of Larry's example we would incorrectly calculate an internal energy of,
PAVE is: K1*(0+3+3/3) = K1*2.
V is Area*(3+3) = Area*6
PAVE*V = K1*Area*12
The correct answer can be found by adding the energies of each column, and for that the individual PAVE*V gives the right answer:
0.5*K1*Area*(0 + 3*3 + 3*3) = K1*9
Larry chose to calculate the energy added to get to the [1,2,4] case by calculating the average pressure in the left hand column and multiplying that by the volume in the left hand column. And for those circumstances he got the right answer. His analogy to a 3ft high column needs a bit of work, because while that gives the correct pressure, it yields the wrong volume and represents three times as much energy as was added.
MarkE,Larry look at your own problem above. Unless I am reading your intent wrong, you tried to equate pumping 1ft of water into the serpentine structure as equivalent to pumping 3ft into a single column. They do not end up with the same energy. The 3ft column requires three times as much energy to fill as the 1ft working against the serpentine that starts with 3ft in each the second and third columns. So while you can get the right answer for going from equilibrium to some height in the single column by figuring out that column's pressure, your analogy fails, as would averaging pressure across columns to find energy in the whole structure. Pave_col(m)*Vcol(m) works for any single column m. You have to go column by column.
All column energies are accounted.
The End Col 1 PSI in the spreadsheet is 1.30. The PSI for Col's 1, 12" of water is .43. The 1.30 is calculated as Col 1 PSI - Col 2 PSI + Col 3 PSI = .43 - .87 + 1.73 = 1.30 after rounding. Col 2 is subtracted from Col 3 to give the water head pressure.
Pavg*V works for all cases from 1 to infinity number of columns or risers.
It takes me a while to learn new things,, like your spreadsheet. After I have played with it for a while now, I now look at the cell formula and I see what it is saying,, where as before I saw a bunch of "stuff" and I needed to go find out what that "stuff" was.I do not understand what you mean by this: "but the side column gives the actual number that people like me would understand easier." What would you like to see? What would make it easier to understand?
I am sure that most people could figure out what you are doing very easy, and in a shorter time period than it took me, it is very well written and very self explanatory. I like the side comments next to a few spots where the cell is in, like the circ units, but the side column gives the actual number that people like me would understand easier.
E 81 gives me the number that I can understand,, where asYou can think of circular mm2 as a world where pi = 4, or in other words where circular sections are squares. In calculations where it is the relative area that matters it is convenient for several reasons to use circular units instead of absolute units. This leaves multiplying by pi()/4 to the end when we need absolute values such as force or energy.
3108mm^3 circ mm^2*mm does not mean much to me
2441.0174918393 tells me right off of the bat that it is 2.44cc
So you have already made some things easy.
Larry look at your own problem above. Unless I am reading your intent wrong, you tried to equate pumping 1ft of water into the serpentine structure as equivalent to pumping 3ft into a single column. They do not end up with the same energy. The 3ft column requires three times as much energy to fill as the 1ft working against the serpentine that starts with 3ft in each the second and third columns. So while you can get the right answer for going from equilibrium to some height in the single column by figuring out that column's pressure, your analogy fails, as would averaging pressure across columns to find energy in the whole structure. Pave_col(m)*Vcol(m) works for any single column m. You have to go column by column.MarkE,
MarkE,Pressure is not energy. At the end of the day we are interested in determining the energy into and out of an alleged free energy machine. Free pressure machines are called fixed weights.
The intent was to show that the two methods ends up with the same Total PSI 1.3. No OU.
Pressure is not work. Pressure is not a capacity to do work. Pressure is simply force per unit area. How fast a process should go depends on the process.
But, if you have a system that utilizes PSI to do work, would you want want to take 3 times as long and require 3 times the input to cycle it?
The density of the fluid is really rather immaterial to the problem. If you always integrate then you will never make a mistake due to an invalid simplifying assumption as to how to calculate the work. Unless I am mistaken, the spreadsheet of yours that I decomposed averaged pressure across multiple columns. That's not going to calculate energy correctly. You can use PAVE_COL(m) * VCOL(m) to obtain the energy column by column and then add those energies to get valid results.
My Input foot lbs is equal to your Ein after correcting the .65 to .43.
Either you balance the books or you don't. The history of free energy claims is riddled with bad accounting. The audience does not determine the characteristics of a claim. First and foremost you need to prove that you've got what you claim. If the proof is not accessible to an audience of interest, you can later figure out how to explain your proof to a broad audience. If you don't have a valid proof then who might find the material accessible is irrelevant.
The spreadsheets title start with 'Analysis of flow'. So Input and Output foot lbs or Ein and Eout is our only concern as we need to be able to teach people with a high school educations. So stored energy initial and final is not required, as it would be confusing to most. Our intent is not to confuse, unlike some people here.
Are you claiming to have something that shows an OU result? If you are, then kindly point me to which post links your spreadsheet or other work that yields the claimed result.
Showing the starting and ending water levels in the drawing is sufficient for anyone with common sense to understand the stored energy is the same. But, if that's the only way you can understand a system, please continue and you can double check your Ein and Eout against my results.
So stored energy initial and final is not required, as it would be confusing to most.
People say the darndest things, don't they?
I'm pretty sure that even a high-school student understands the difference between the gasoline in your tank when you begin a journey, and the gasoline remaining when you have gotten to wherever it is you are going.
Or maybe not, these days.
In the spreadsheet I have from you A126 has ST3_AR6_Hdel_pmm NOT ST2_AR6_Hdel_pmmB120 through B127 are the changes in water height in each of the annular rings for each mm lift of the risers going from State 2 to State 3. B107 which is the pressure at the bottom of the pod chamber should read: =ST2R1Pressure+G0*pWater*m_per_mm*ST2FillHeightAR1 provided that we want to treat this like the risers. However, if we do that, then we have to account for the pressure above when calculating the total lift, whereas what the spreadsheet was doing was just using the head since the AR2 pressure acts upon the head and the top of the pod, canceling out. I think I like changing to accounting for the AR2 pressure, even though it cancels out, as I think that makes the spreadsheet more consistent and easier to follow.
So B107 should look the same as B108 with the additional AR parts added?
MarkE,I'm sorry that I resist going down garden paths. The chair in which you are seated has plenty of PSI that you utilize to stay off of the floor. Yet it does not need to do any work to serve that useful function.
I'm done.
It is impossible to teach someone without the common sense to understand what 'Utilize PSI' implies.
I think that would be better as the pressure placed into the accumulator,, the precharge is termed as the pressure inside the ZED after it is filled up with water.For whatever one deems to be a complete cycle, one needs to account for: Stored energy at the start, stored energy at the end, energy added, and energy released. HER/Zydro misuse terms all the time. The "ball" in HER/Zydro's game of three card monty is energy.
So the point you are saying is that the accumulator *may* be nothing more than a *battery* that is being used and hence can get used up.
So it needs to be checked for start charge, running charge state and end charge.
Silly me,,I think it is best to include all the terms even where they cancel out. Then anyone can see what the operating assumptions are. As I mentioned above, the AR2 pressure acts on everything in the pod chamber, including the water and the pod.
I changed B113 to include -ST2R1Pressure*(PodOD*m_per_mm)^2)
I could of just subtracted the pressures but that would not show all energy and what it all is doing,, this is what the correct method should be?? I mean I could get the same answer but I would not be showing all interactions and all the energy and stuff,, so this way the negative force from r1 is shown as well as the positive force from the pod.
MarkE,
I'm done.
It is impossible to teach someone without the common sense to understand what 'Utilize PSI' implies.
Note the classic formula when it comes to things like this: The proponents of the proposition (including management) are not able to properly describe their system, nor are they able to articulate how to analyze their system. It's John Rohner all over again where the designer of a "special" spark plug firing circuit demonstrated to the world that he didn't even understand how a spark plug circuit worked.I must have missed that. Did Dr. Dr. Con really demonstrate that he doesn't even know how a spark plug ignition circuit works? I know he said a lot of stupid things on PESN. I don't remember that.
It's almost unbelievable what people can get away with. They are like barnacles in the ocean fixed in place and casting their feathery cirri into the "air" to pick up a few "free" tender morsels of food energy.
MileHigh
Yes John had a moderately involved conversation with an engineer on Facebook and that's what transpired. He tried to bluff his way through once he was caught.Dr. Dr. Con versus a real engineer: that must have been fun. How many of his nonexistent Ph.D.'s did he destroy in that conversation?
Well.... what's the verdict?ZED was dead before it started. Cyclically lifting and dropping weights may be a way to build muscles on a budget but it does not make free energy. How much water does it take to make a kW? That's not so hard to figure out. Head*Flow yields power. 1kW = 1000J/s = 1000/(pWater*G0)m*m3/s = 0.102 m*m3/s ~=88.5 ft*gps. 50kW requires a whopping 4400 ft*gps. A 65HP pump is a large affair.
Has the issue been resolved?
Do we see why and how the spreadsheets were thought to indicate some kind of "overunity" or not?
Is ZED dead? Darn. I was really hoping someone would explain to me how millimeters of spreadsheet lift translate into pushing those production rams several feet in and out to make their high-pressure, high volume "production".
I can tell you that from the very first that I heard about this on PESN, Wayne and his crew seemed to take great pains to misrepresent, beginning with the still undefined, supposed "Travis Effect". The HER/Zydro crew fought tooth and nail to try and carry the misrepresentation that air is responsible for buoyant force applied to an object submerged in water. All I have seen from these guys is a bunch of hand waving and suggestion. Never did they offer any substance. Even if one were to buy into their completely false claims of being able to obtain free energy from gravity, as TinselKoala has pointed out several times, the power levels that they quote would require enormous fluid stores in order to sustain the kinds of loads they claim for even an hour or two. 50kW by one hour for example would require a product of water head and volume of: ~37,000 m*m3. The smallest that can be fit into is s a box over 40 ft on each side, IE 700,000 gallons, or more than the volume of an Olympic swimming pool, just to run for one hour at 100% efficiency. If it were only the depth of an Olympic pool: 2m it would have to be a much larger total volume. The whole thing is ridiculous beyond words. Wayne Travis has sold an absolute BS story to his investors. He continues to shamelessly promote his false claims without even blinking.
I do believe mr. Travis thought he was "on to something" in the early days.
Alarm bells rang for me when he said " the longest run so far is 4 hours, but
thats no matter".
Well it did matter, and the whole thing then has followed the classic route
of hot air and nothing else.
Thankyou to all who have contributed, it sure is a long garden, and I've
enjoyed every step down its winding path.
John.
MarkE,Yes.
Is F147 correct?
I think the idea is to outsmart gravity by overly complicated plumbing. The problem is that gravity is too stubborn and unimaginative to be outsmarted by such efforts. Investors and cultists are not, unfortunately.Sounds exactly like my bathroom, actually.
Just like that,, nope,, but then things are not just like that.Hogwash... so that's the secret of the ZED! It's full of hogwash!
It is kind of like TK carrying on that the rams must stroke for feet and feet and feet,, hogwash,, never heard of a lever??
Meaningless questions because you aren't specifying initial conditions.
How much REAL water does it take to lift 65,000lbs of virtual water?
How long does it take to lift that virtual water and dump it?
Some of the arguments against the ZED reminds me of the comic Jimmy Jones,, the one about getting pulled over for speeding on the A1,, 60mph?? but I have only been out for 10 minutes,, If you remember back that far you know why I did not write the actual joke :)Isn't that Wayne's line? He only needs ten minutes input to get a net of an hour's output, it sounds like. Or maybe it's the other way around.... he puts in an hour, recycles that hour over and over and gets a net ten minutes out every cycle. Sounds like he's using mental health hours, which are only 50 minutes long to begin with.
This is a fun little piece of trivia about this,, you most likely already know it,, rough numbers of course :)Another way to look at it is this:
The volume of the whole system at end of state 3 is
116cc
The volume of the whole system in end of state 2 is
112cc
The equivalent volume of displaced water in the end of state 2 is
147cc
The volume of water in the system at the start of state 2 is
22cc
The added volume to make all this happen is
2.5cc
So playing with 24.5cc we get 147cc worth of fun :)
MarkE,Oh sure, here it is along with the five state graphics. I added an additional state: State 1X which is a state that would occur if after reaching State 1, the risers are not restrained.
Are you going to post your fixed spreadsheet?
I might also suggest that you make the riser OD self setting instead of hard coded.
Thanks MarkE.You can change the geometries and the spreadsheet will still calculate correctly. Do you really want to increase the pod from a diameter of 20mm to 400mm???
If you have automagic riser OD's then use a HorGap of 3 and a pod of 400 and drop the fill down to 33
AC induction motors look almost like dead shorts when they start up. An electronic drive helps a lot. This is a huge money saver for people with swimming pool and other kinds of water pumps that see frequent use.
I can imagine the scene in the Travis household. Sandy says "Wayne you're getting
yourself into deep water with this stupid forum-you're banned"!
Which is pretty much the same as what goes on at my house, the women keep
things in order.
I've been struggling with my sewage disposal machine. I have a fairly big family
so it's a big 'un. 50 arse power. I put on a new motor three years ago and used a
thermal overload that was too big so the motor ended up as toast. What amazed
me was the unloaded current-it was very little less than what the trip had to be set
for. Heaven knows how these mo-gen things are supposed to work
John.
You need to cange B32 B33 B34 to use =AR2+2*HorGAp =AR4+2*HorGap =AR6+2*HorGAp and they all change and when I go back to 20 it gives me the same numbers as the first spreadsheet.Why not? Because the formulas for the OD's are all correct. Each successive ring OD builds as the disk it surrounds plus twice the width of the respective ring. The geometry is in the graphics. HorGap sets the annular ring width, RiserWallThickness the riser walls, and RingWallThickNess the ring walls.
Why?,, Why not??
I am looking at the new and improved layout,, the split window does make it easier to see the changes and what they do,, very impressive.The window split was not intentionally published. That's just a left over from my own auditing process. You can turn it on and off from the Window menu. If you are working with something that you modified, then you are kind of on your own with respect to those modifications. The latest version of the spreadsheet addresses comments that you made as to the readability of the formulas in the R3 version that preceded it, over and above fixing the way that I handled the riser walls. The riser walls sit on a different head than the riser IDs and so the pressures and resulting forces are tracked for the riser walls separately from the IDs. If you change the riser wall widths in R3 you can get calculated non-zero force in State 3, which of course means there is a problem. In R4 you can make any of the widths a very small value, such as 1E-20mm and the force at the end of State 3 and State 1X both come out zero as they should.
My changes to your r3 did about the same thing for getting the diameters,, now there is even more information to look at with this new revision :)
I was noticing some irregularities with revision 3,, which is why I was hoping you would post the correct fix, I did not think it would be as extensive as all that but it is more accurate now,, and that is a good thing.R3 did not handle the riser walls correctly. There is also one cell formula that had a ring wall in it where a riser wall belonged. As long as you don't do something that would break the assumptions, such as over or underflowing one of the annular rings, then R4 should yield valid results for any parameter change.
I did have an issue when I changed the VerGAp to 0 so I ended up leaving it at 1. On revision3.
With the split view I can see the heights and make sure that nothing "blows" a skirt :)Yes, it is pretty easy to burn up a lot a energy getting the machine set-up that you will never recover. After that, so long as we ignore friction, it acts like a compression spring.
right now I am horsing around with it and have a B228 of 102.58 and a B227 of 52.2
Just by changing the numbers,, this is interesting to watch what changes change what.
MarkE,What about them?
I have a setup that is over 1500% loss.
B86-B94??
B142-B148??
B150-B151??
Now we are really getting somewhere! A machine that destroys energy, dissipating fifteen times as much power as you put into it! That would really come in handy for certain applications.No, there is no energy destroyed. The spreadsheet performs a number of comparisons that I think are informative. For example it compares the percentage energy loss going from State 2 to State 3 versus the energy added in State 2. That number can easily exceed 100% because of the energy that was stored by the time we got to State 1. I would be concerned if someone can enter coefficients that result in negative energy at any one of the states.
(Check very carefully to make sure you are not dividing by zero somewhere, or rounding to zero in a figure that goes into a calculation involving it as a denominator. Usually the spreadsheet will not permit you to divide by zero, but can you trust it always to do so?)
I am getting what I think are non-real numbers, and wanted to make sure that what I am seeing in the spreadsheet is correct,, 264% loss?? with a 42% loss of total stored.There are multiple cells that calculate different relative efficiencies. Each is labelled with what I hoped would be self-evident descriptions. Do you get any negative absolute energy values in any state? If you think you have something that is screwed up then just post the spreadsheet with those values in it, preferably with the cells highlighted say using yellow fill or something like that.
This does not seem real,, and so I was asking to make sure they are.
It is new stuff,, and me,, well that takes some time :)The spreadsheet is not designed to handle overflow or underflow in any of the annular rings. If you managed to set-up such a case, then it's a pretty safe bet that it will generate non-physical results.
I like the new layout and all the verbiage, including the output part, is all very helpful.
When I took things way over the top and was getting a .9mm lift with a 504% loss compared to the input it seemed to me that something was not right,, that extra must be coming from the state 0 to state 1,, but then if I removed the pod chamber fluid all that would go back to state 1, so that seems wrong,,
At more normal values I get the expected stuff,, so I guess I am just wrong in thinking there is an issue.
ST2_AR heights will tell me if they have blown,, kind of handy that :)Don't you mean 99.7% of the added energy?
Then you can use the prefill height and the fill height to adjust as needed.
It is kind of fun to get a 99.7% usage of the added force and get a very close match to the output.
Plus I look at the audit section as well,, can not have any volume or force errors.
YES!,, my bad for not putting that there,, and the output was close to the same energy value,, so almost in for out :)And that is the best that you can ever do: Recover almost but never quite as much energy out as you put in cycling from one state to some other state and back to the original state. The system is fundamentally lossy and it is the "ideal ZED". Any real device with compressible air and real friction will exhibit more loss.
There is only investor money flushed down a pipe dream.
MarkE,Thanks. Physics always prevails. The soda bottle / water bottle experiment was proof of the State 1 fallacy.
Thank you so much for providing all your time and hard work! Your Analysis is a masterpiece and I admit that I came nowhere close to your level of work and presentation. I especially appreciate where you found the error in my belief that State 1 would have a net buoyant Force of zero. You are correct that the system would have a net positive buoyancy due to the water being displaced by the riser walls that were assumed to have an SG=0. So State 1x is correct. Nice catch.
How much Energy needs to be supplied to the system to go from State 3 back to State 1x? There is no reason to go from State 3 back to State 2 and then back to State 1x, AFAICS. If we "pull the plug" from the bottom of the pod chamber I think the system should transition from State 3 back to State 1x. Do you agree? Would we need to supply Energy to do that?
M.
To go from State 3 to State 1X, let the water out of the pod chamber. The internal energy decreases from 3.6054mJ of State 3 to 3.4029mJ of State 1X. losing 0.202454mJ.
And from what you have taught us all, theoretically, exactly half of that Energy lost (0.5*.202454mJ) could be transferred to a second Ideal ZED that starts at State 1 (while the former starts at State 3) if, instead of simply letting the water run out of the pod chamber to nowhere, it was coupled to the pod chamber of that second Ideal ZED? In a similar fashion as how two ZEDs are coupled in LarryC's diagrams in his spreadsheets?Why would you want to do that? Adding more complications or instances of under unity devices just increases percentage loss. Because the risers are unrestrained, going from ST1X to ST3 or back is effectively just the same as pumping water into a column of some dimension or draining it from same, respectively. The pair reduces to a glorified "U" tube with some water in it. The system will naturally seek an equilibrium state between ST1X and ST3 on both sides that in total holds less internal energy than when one is at ST3 and the other is at ST1X.
Why would you want to do that?
MarkE,If you open the valve at the bottom of the pod chamber you change the thing into a glorified crazy straw. In any state, the force that reflects back to the pod chamber is the sum of the relative areas times the heads as previously shown in LarryC's 0+3+3, and 1+2+4 model. When there is water in the pod chamber, this is like his 1+2+4 and there is net force required to hold the water in the pod chamber. Heads in odd AR#'s add to the reflected force, heads in the even AR#'s subtract and there are additional terms due to the nested risers. The thing will drain so long as the reflected sums of the other annular ring forces and the weight in the pod chamber is positive. Once the machine has been set-up to State 1 with the associated venting, the neutral condition is State 1X not State 1. You can play with the spreadsheet and see if that's what you get.
Are you saying that I can ALWAYS vent the fluid out of the pod chamber and have the system return to state 1?
Because that would mean the Ein needed to bring a second ZED from State 1x to State 2 would be reduced by 0.5*0.202454mJ I think.You can change the conditions, and you can change the states, but what you can't do is find any combination that will give you a closed cycle with an energy gain over that cycle. Adding complexity only worsens the situation.
I am a little confused. If I can pull the plug on the pod chamber and it will fall apart and go back to state 1,, will it be able to do it with these settings.Why do you ignore what I write?
The thing will drain so long as the reflected sums of the other annular ring forces and the weight in the pod chamber is positive. Once the machine has been set-up to State 1 with the associated venting, the neutral condition is State 1X not State 1. You can play with the spreadsheet and see if that's what you get.
Are you making bank vaults? 10" wide riser walls???
Click on the cell number and enter these values
B27 RiserWallThickness 257.5
B28 RingWallThickness 0.25Would you be so kind as to either refer to cell #'s or use the actual names in the spreadsheet? This value is ST2_EnergyAdded the total energy in state 2 for your conditions: ST2_EnergyAddedPlusST1E = 1070.4582073J
B29 PodOD 400
B30 PodHeight 4000
B31 ST1_PrefillHeight 3000
B111 ST2_AR1Height 2000
This setup leaves lots of room for any further movement of the air\water columns and has no over or under issues with the columns and volumes.
I arranged these numbers to make it easy for me to see so you will not see them all together like this in the spreadsheet.
Input 89.4066834062J
This is cell ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed.
Output 289.5823115248J
This is cell ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS vs ST2_ENERGY_ADDED. There should be no big surprise since you made made the risers gigantic there is now lots more energy stored in State 1, and State 1X than incrementally added going to State 2.
Input to Output 325.07%
Again, what is surprising to you here? And why is it that you choose to pick cells an internal energy change and label that as OUTPUT? B225 is clearly named as: ST2_ST3_ENERGY_LOSS. B226 is clearly named as: ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed. In your set-up, ST2_ST3_ENERGY_LOSS = 290.6357617J while ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed = 289.5823115J. The spreadsheet continues to demonstrate the inherently lossy behavior even with your bank vault riser walls.
Uplift distance 4.4593613399mm
Total uplift force 130348.603561497N
State 1 Energy 981.0515238844J
State 2 Energy 1070.4582072907J
State 3 Energy 779.8224455746J
This is my modified file.Since all the formula references are to named cells you could have just cut and pasted the lines you wanted to group together. For some reason you renamed many cells with a _1 suffix. It looks like you left the form of the calculations intact. So you should still be getting the right answers. What you label as Input at B230 is: ST2_EnergyAdded_1 (_1 your relabel) and what you label as Output is: ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed_1 (_1 your relabel). The real "input" is the internal energy lost in the cell immediately above: ST2_ST3_ENERGY_LOSS_1 (_1 your relabel). As you relabeled that cell, I think you should be aware of it.
I took MarkE's file and removed the graphics and then down at the bottom of state 3 I added some things so you can change the dimensions,, I pointed the actual cells up above to these cells, and I included the height levels so you can see those changes,, no red numbers are allowed,, that would be blowing something :)
I am sure MarkE would do a much better job of it,, I am not a spreadsheet person.
What am I ignoring,, you said that it will fall apart like a house of cards and then you saidLots. You have chosen to take things out of context: The house of cards (actually I recall saying "collapsing balloon" )referred to the specific geometries of Mondrasek's model a week or two ago. You quote but ignore what you quoted:
There is pressure still within the pod chamber so the fluid will exit,, as the fluid exits what happens, the system returns,, this is what I interpret you to be saying.
Besides,, what if state3 were a proper lift,, that is what if you put in 2 more times the input energy and took the lift distance out as a constant full force value,, then what happens if you do not let the risers "POP" and instead take the fluid back out of the pod chamber?
Heads in odd AR#'s add to the reflected force, heads in the even AR#'s subtract and there are additional terms due to the nested risers. The thing will drain so long as the reflected sums of the other annular ring forces and the weight in the pod chamber is positive.
I tried that and it did not work,, then there were all those _1 ends,, so I just did it the way I did.Are you using Excel? I highlighted the various lines, cut them, and then inserted the lines where you had them. The only thing that is different is that I created a single cell IF(...) statement to detect underflow.
Yes I do understand what a quote is,,You quote my answer to a question posed on March 6, regarding the specific Mondrasek dimensions and then apply it as though it is my answer to your different general case question of today, when I carefully stated the dependence on the reflected forces. Kindly tell me how you have done anything other than attempt to create a straw man.
Like I said there is still pressure within the pod chamber,, so the fluid will come out.
I thought that the additional input is from going from end of state 1 to end of state 2,, which is B117,, is not state 1 a "build" condition and only gets put in once?
No.I recommend you use Libre Office instead of Open Office.
I do not have Excel so I am using Open Office.
I will look at the file later,, thanks.
What within the system changed, other than the physical dimensions that would change what the outcome should be. If there is no such change then if the outcome is what I have shown then there is an "engineering" component that can be used to optimize the setup which Mondrasek"s dimensions do not meet.Oh, please, how convoluted do you want to get? You emphasized "ALWAYS" in all caps in your current question and I stated that the result is determined by the coefficients. You quoted but ignored my perfectly clear answer and wish to refer to my answer to a different more limited question.
I do NOT need to go back to end of state 2 in one step,, I can go back to end of state 1 and from there go to end of state 2 which leads us once again into state 3.
Since there is a positive difference in water height between ar2 and ar3 and since ar6 is pulling up on ar5 when ar1 goes down and removes that positive pressure add ar4 will not be pushed down helping to lift ar5, it is ar5 pulling on ar6 that is raising the water level in ar6, that will make ar5 fall down and ar4 move up and that will increase the negative buoyant value under R3, this will continue to move until all water levels are back to being even, back to end of state 1.
This is not a straw man anything, this is simple from this point for reset, as you said it may not be intuitive, not right off of the bat. All the water weight and or height is balanced in only one condition after the risers are sunk. The force to sink is a setup cost and is only paid once, after that the volumes *that can not change* keep the system with the lowest state of energy when freely allowed to move being end of state 1.
It may be hard to see a negative value as a source of positive motion, but any change from end of state 1 is a positive input, push down on the risers and they will come back up, pull up on the risers and they WILL go back down,, they were pushed up by the additional input going from end of state 2 to end of state 3 so the opposite reaction will be that they will pull themselves back down.
If you stretch your spring will it not pull back,, if you compress your spring will it not push back.
ST1=>ST2=>ST3=>ST1=>ST2=>ST3,,,,,,,,,,There is less displaced water than in the old State 1, but the coefficients of the force gain equations do not change. So the neutral position of State 1X is now closer to the new State 1 than before.
Yes MarkE,, ALWAYS,, as long as there is a positive pressure within AR1 the fluid will vent.
Lets take state 0 to end state 1, but stop the risers 4mm short and then close the vents. Now finish sinking the risers, what happens.
If you think the risers sink if you stop short 4mm you are simply wrong. You have no mass to load the thing down, and you still have displaced water. The three stipulations: incompressible and massless "air", and massless risers guarantee that the neutral position after forced submersion is always above the forced submersion level. With my soda bottle experiment due to the mass of the water bottle there is a minimum submersion depth. But not so with these ideal stipulations.
The air\water volumes can not move any where except one direction, that is, they will shift from AR1 out through AR7,, so when the water is up the outside of AR7 you have sunk the risers.
In English please? If you add more water in State 2, then you change the ending force in State 2. You do not change the force versus distance gains. More force at the end of State 2 requires more lift distance at the same force vs distance rate in the transition to State 3.
Lets look at end of state 2, where are the air\water columns,, they are shifted from AR1 out and through AR7, so in essence putting in water in AR1 is sinking the risers, you have pushed the risers down by filling up AR1.
If state 3 were a lift condition by the addition of more fluid into AR1 and the risers were allowed to move up with that volume increase,, then the lift force value is a constant.
The system emulates a linear compression spring. The dimensions that you pick set the spring rate. The prefill levels set the force at the end of the respective prefill states: State 1, and State 2. You really need to wrap your arms around this slide I posted earlier.
3 times more input for twice the 325% output,, you push down on the risers to make them move up.
Going up, r2 is pushing on r3,, going down r3 is pushing on r2,, that negative head thing.
ST1=>ST2=>ST3=>ST1=>ST2=>ST3,,,,,,,,,,Correction: AR1 fluid vents if the net pressure of water at the bottom of AR1 against the pod chamber floor is positive. The net pressure at the bottom of in AR1 at the end of State 3 is the sum of the two values: ST3_R1_PRESSURE and pWater*G0*ST3_AR1_Height. Take a look at what they are in your example.
Yes MarkE,, ALWAYS,, as long as there is a positive pressure within AR1 the fluid will vent.
...
MarkE,Where have I done that? I added posts that show that you have created a condition in State 3 where the pressure on the floor of the pod chamber is negative. Opening the valve will not let water out.
I find it a little awkward when you go back, after there has been an exchange, and edit your posts. I would prefer that you make a new post with the changed information and reference the old post.
Thank You.
Back to what? You wanted to open AR1 in State 3. Now you want to open it in State 1.
Back to this :)
Opening AR1 at State 1 means that air can enter the system from both AR1 and AR7 instead of just AR7. This reduces but does not eliminate the feedback gain. It relaxes somewhere between the State 0 and State 1X positions.
Leave the AR1 open, push down on the risers and close the vents for the risers only, release the risers.
What stops the risers from moving back up to the state0 position,, this is with AR1 open,, they will not make it up to the start position of state 0.
I believe that AR7,5, and 2 go down, 6, 4, and 3 go up.
Maybe it is the concept of pressure that is getting in the way, maybe it would be better to see that it is the weight of two water columns, like weights on a string,, that are at work.
AR7 pushes down,, AR6 pushes down, the riser wall and the ring wall focus all that pushing and leaves the only place that something can move is the bottom and top of the riser, R3.
How do you pull up on AR6 in isolation? The fluids are incompressible. You have allowed the fluid volume under Riser 1 to change freely by opening AR1. The three water volumes, and the air volumes under R3, and R2 are still fixed. What you have done is to change the feedback coefficients. If you want to use the block and tackle analogy, you have changed from one free and one fixed end to two free ends.
If I pull up on AR6, how much of all that is left to push up on the bottom of the R3,, the same pressure but not the same volume,, then how do I pull up on AR6?, that would be by pulling down on AR5 and then the whole inside TOP of R3 acts like a fixed pulley,, so with pressure I would have the lift pressure and the sink pressure,, or if it is just weight then AR6 becomes the sink weight and AR7 becomes the lift weight, and these two functions are relative to there height, so the only time that R3 can raise up is if AR7 is above AR6.
Not so,,The water masses exert force due to their weight. I do not see an anchor possible except at the ends. The fluids are free to move through the serpentine. We know that the amount of vertical movement shrinks as we move from center outward, just as conversely the relative force gain increases.
The string is anchored to the bottom of AR4-AR5 because of the internal volume thing,, this anchor makes R3 go heavy and R1 go light.
The volume of R3 is much larger than that of R1,, which one sucks in more per unit distance of travel,, which way will the string shift the most???
Dumb question time,,1 Joule = 1 Newton * 1 meter. E in Joules = Z N * Y mm * 1m/1000mm.
If I have a value of ZN and it is being moved over a distance of Ymm would I take the Ymm and multiply that by 0.001 and then divide N by that?
Thanks,,N/m is the force gradient per unit distance. We see it in a couple of different conditions: The force per unit height of a given area column, or the restoring force per unit movement.
I keep blowing brain farts with which is what when I am looking at what is doing which,,
N/m has nothing to do with distance, but I see the m and I am thinking distance,, I am trying to think of it as torque right now,, just to keep it straight.
−10791.415 I am working through this in AR1 and 2520cc and twisting it further by asking myself what happens if the risers are held still,, you know all the normal questions one might ask oneself on a Sunday :)
I would not be so sure :)Then you are acting stupid. Come up with some collateral evidence. Sticking your fingers in your ear and saying: "Na na na, I don't believe you" is just stupid.
For starters, this analysis for the "ideal ZED" is a wonderful starting point for a real ZED, the difference is that this "ideal ZED" is only using the "pop" of the risers and not the actual lift,,
Evidence for what exactly?This "ideal ZED" lifts and drops water inside the "Russian Dolls of Ignorance" just as a "real ZED" does. It demonstrates that contrary to HER/Zydros bald-faced lies, the nesting does nothing to alter the conservative nature of gravity. Nor does it change buoyancy into a behavior that can be switched "on" and "off". The nesting simply repackages at incredible disadvantages the transfer function of a compression spring. There is no magic behind this curtain. You may appeal to magical behavior all you want. It's up to you to offer evidence. That you have not done. No one who has ever supported HER/Zydro has ever shown any evidence of over unity that has held up under scrutiny. Mondrasek said he thought he had over unity results. He never showed his work, but has conceded so that claim is out.
The real ZED does not allow any "pop" and that is all this system is doing.
You are free to show the conditions you claim.
I now have a condition where the spillway is over 100%
Granted, and this needs to be *emphasized*, the conditions are *extreme*, almost no movement at all and extremely high pod height and thin riser wall thickness. Less then 5% loss in B228, 0% loss in B227 and over 100.1% in B302.
One of your comments was that any movement makes a loss, but when I almost remove that movement there is a gain in the spillway, and when I compare state 1 with state 3 and use the spillway output it seems to be showing a gain,, but the system loss still shows as 0.0% loss.
Why do you think that matters? How does that address HER/Zydro's bull shit claims? Formulate an actual hypothesis by which any of the differences you cite could yield over unity.
The real ZED does not have a state 1 to state 1X,, the weight left on the risers holds the risers down at the rest state, that is a condition where there is pressure held within the system and the water\air columns are shifted to match those conditions of weight holding.
Again you are free to show that there are a set of coefficients whereby the model appears to yield non-physical results, including support for HER/Zydro's bull shit claims. Just saying that when you plug in unspecified values you get results that aren't intuitive to you tells nothing to the rest of us.
By making the riser thickness .0001 I removed almost all of the state 1 to state 1X condition, and by playing with other parts I have observed your readings do some interesting things, one would think that AR6-AR7 would show the least height gain, but I saw one quick condition where that gain was more than AR4-AR5,, that was strange and I discounted it as me seeing things wrong,,
Sure you are. No one including you has found a defect in the model in its present form, and the model does not show anything other than conservative behavior internally, and in any finite time exchange of energy with the outside world lossy behavior. Yet you claim that there is something missing that is material. Where is any actual evidence in support of HER/Zydro's bull shit claims?
I am not saying "na-na-na" I am speaking the truth, the ZED lifts while more fluid is being added and it is not allowed to "pop", that is not the same as this analysis.
You claim to have found such conditions. For some reason you choose not to identify those conditions, therefore making it impossible for anyone to perform the examination you say that you want.
That I can find ANY conditions that have the spillway over 100% is something worth looking into, even if this condition is EXTREMELY unlikely. Having the input minus the difference between state1 and state 3 plus the output showing me a negative number, is something worth looking into, even if the condition is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Here is one showing the spillway at 100.17%Congratulations you have discovered how to create a bull shit answer by pushing Excel beyond its numerical accuracy. Your outrageous dimensions generate energy calculations of 1.13164363855033E6J in State 2, and 1.13164363855023E6J in State 3, a difference of 100nJ out of 1.1MJ for your 60m tall machine. That amounts to one part in ~1E13. Excel represents floating point numbers in IEEE754 format, which uses a 52 bit mantissa, or about 1 part in 25 parts in 1E17. It doesn't take too many adds and subtracts or multiplies to fall below two significant digits.
I shotgun, meaning I go through many tweaks in fast order,, only looking for tendencies,, so I went and found this one for you.
Here is one where the output losses plus the state3 state1 differences are less than the input but the state3 state1 differences plus the output from the spillway makes it a net zero.You doing the same thing as with the other. You have stored energy differences in the nJ out of total energies near 1MJ. Excel has run out of resolution. Or has it? Maybe you should try and build a 60m tall implementation of the Russian Dolls of Ignorance using 100u riser walls and see how it works out. Did you not notice that the stored energies in State 2 and State 3 matched to 12 digits?
You saw a video by Mark D. showing a dual system running, so that is a "real ZED" doing something.Just how did that video show that what was presented was doing what the fraudster Wayne Travis claimed?
So you are blaming it on the program,, or the tool,, or something else then.I can prove that it is numerical error.
I did say extreme,, and the largest J i can find is ~767137.9J
Mark D. went through the setup, and the start, and the stop and restart,, not saying that it would run forever,, as with Mark D. until that part is verified I can not say absolutely.Really? Define "working"? Kindly tell me what anyone can verify that the machine was doing in the video. Where was any load? Where were any measurements? I saw a large prop moving around.
The video did show the system working, it did show the system turned off and then turned back on by the touch of a button, so it showed something being done by the dual ZED system.
Try this one for a net zero then.Nice try.
MarkE,Webby you continue to try and take things out of context. Get a new schtick. This one is just tiresome.
The one big thing that you are not mentioning is the simple part where you said there would be these HUGE losses,, where are they exactly,, where did the go?
I am looking at one right now that has a 2.25mm uplift with a 99.816139457% spillway and a 4.279323203% ST2_ST3 percent energy loss with
1.6225831 external loss
1.6195998 external work performed
1.6312784666 input
0.0086953533 left in state 3 above state 1
This pretty much blows your massive losses out of the water.
Next is to limit the lift and have a weight holding it down, then have it lift while more input is provided,, then we will be talking about the whole ZED.
Here we have an output that is just under the input for the worse case for a ZED, if this is the worse case then what might change when the best case is put forward??
This little test has come out way better than you thought it could. I would think that that might give you reason to re-think things,, a 99.46% lift,, going from zero pressure up to lift and then popping instead of lifting,, not being at a held pressure brought up to lift pressure and then put to work,, with no pop.
The huge losses are to be seen in the investor's bank balance.... and the answer to "where did they go" is into Travis's pockets.Don't you mean "cash flow assist"? "Howdy neighbor: The name is Wayne and getting the money from your wallet is my game. Now, step right up and see the three opaque cups. I place your hundred dollars under one of the cups and all you have to do to win is keep you eye on the cups and tell me which one the hundred dollars is under. Pay attention as I move the cups and oh, is that a super model? Don't think sinful thoughts! God wouldn't like that. Now, all you have to do is tell me which cup has your money, and the hundred dollars will be yours. Oh, I am sorry, you picked the wrong cup. But, I think your luck is changing. Just praise Jesus and let's open another door of opportunity. If you will just hand me another $100. I will again place it under one of the cups and you'll have another chance to win $100. God says this is your lucky day."
It should be clear that as you make more and more idealizations, like neglecting viscosity, fluid friction, the mass and sizes of moving parts, compressibility and so on, you reduce those huge losses further and further. Unfortunately.... what you need is a _gain_, not smaller losses, and nowhere in the Zed system is there any room for an energy _gain_. Except of course that Flow Assist coming from outside the system.
This is a reason that when I build my little testbeds and stuff I do not accept just a 100% thing,, measurement errors and all sorts of things can get you to around 100%,, so I shoot for more than that.You really must enjoy playing the village idiot. Some people act clueless and some people are clueless. I don't know why you would want to be either one. Yet you insist.
Like with this tool MarkE made,, 100.12%?? that is well within rounding errors and should only be used to show that there is merit for further investigation,,that is what I am doing with.
My lifts with TBZED, measurement errors would be there, so even when I had numbers that showed a greater lift value I did not take them as absolute proof, I did however find them to be encouraging to continue testing, and with that, getting in a whole bunch of lifts that were 75% or better, leaving all that fluid still under pressure inside to use for something else.
Funny thing MarkE,, you keep trying to make this personal and I keep trying to discuss the topic.Bull shit.
Why is it that you keep trying to call me names and such, is that because you are feeling less solid about your view? Is that why you are attacking my person?
Sorry MarkE,, the "ideal ZED" is not a real ZED, no matter how many times you try and say it is the same thing, it shares the same parts layout but the function is not the same, in other words, the way it is being used in your tool is not how it is used in the real world, HOW do I KNOW?? I built one, remember,, I played with a real one, remember,, that is hands on in the real world,, so I know the difference between what your tool does and what the real ZED does.You are so completely full of shit. If all you are going to do is keep making up fantasies then do so by yourself. There are no next steps. The ZED is outperformed by a brick. Neither you nor any other proponent of the HER/Zydro fraud has, can, or ever will be able to show differently.
Your tool was intended to compare a nested system with a single piston system,, and guess what,, they are not the same,, your tool demonstrated that.
I posted what the next steps would be to take your tool from one thing and make it actually able to test a real ZED.
As far as the transfer from one ZED to another,, you do not need to worry about that,, I actually have that handled if needed, but your "tyranny" is only for the volume moved to bring one system up to pressure, and if that is not all the volume, or even 1\2 of it, then those losses drop even with a straight pressure\fluid transfer at a 1:1 volume value.
Case and point MarkE.You are so full of it. You quoted a spreadsheet cell value of 100.12% as meriting further research into HER/Zydro's completely refuted false claims. You did that even after I showed you proof that the algebraic result was under 100% and that the over 100% result was numerical error caused by your insanely contrived configuration of a 20 story tall ZED with submicron movement. Even when the: physics, the algebra, and the numerical limitations of Excel have been spelled out for you, you still trot out that proven invalid number as though it is legitimate. So, either you don't get it, or you are how shall we say: less than forthright.
I do appreciate this tool you made and all the things I have learned from you.
I understand if you do not wish to take the model further.
Case and point MarkE.Wow such perseverance, normally to be admired, but considering the $2000 payment and the lack of a credible working device, you now sound like you're working for Wayne travesty's propaganda machine.
I do appreciate this tool you made and all the things I have learned from you.
I understand if you do not wish to take the model further.
All the things I do, I do out of my own curiosity.
Bill,What part of the numerical error from Excel's finite resolution do you not understand? What part of the ridiculously contrived numbers that you generated with more than 1MEGAJs total energy and less than 100NANOJs difference do you fail to understand? What part of the algebra I showed you where the output energy is always limited to the fraction G0/(G0+Spill_acceleration_constant) do you not understand? What part of that ratio always being less than one for any real and finite motion time do you not understand? What part of the "ideal ZED" is always lossy as a consequence do you not understand? What part of multiple lossy processes in series result in a lossy result do you not understand? What part of Wayne Travis' personal endorsement of Mondrasek's "ideal ZED" do you not understand? What part of Wayne Travis' claim that over unity can be had from a single three riser unit do you not understand? What part of your claimed results of 75% efficiency being far under unity, do you not understand?
The only thing that I am insisting on is that the model that MarkE made, if you have not looked at it you should, it is *very* impressive,, any way,, the model does not function as a real ZED. This point I know from building TBZED and testing it, as well as the information about the ZED that is readily available.
If I do not ask, then how do I know? MarkE can always say no, as I think he has now, and is done with trying any more, that is fine, I appreciate this fun tool that I am playing with.
So if insisting that a testbed that does not work like the real thing is being ignorant, then so be it.
MarkE,Non responsive.
What makes you think that I do not understand more of the system than you do?
Non responsive. You show under unity: 75%.
I understand from hands on experiments that there is more to the function of the system than your model provides for.
Either you performed an energy balance or you did not. If you did not, then the 75% number is meaningless. If you did, that's the end of your story. Neither you nor anyone promoting the complete BS fantasy tale by Wayne Travis and HER/Zydro have ever offered either a plausible theoretical basis or actual physical evidence that supports the bull shit claims.
My 75% efficient lifts had a large part of the input stored within the system after lift.
I tried in the first thread to get information on how I could determine that value, but failed to get any.It is not anyone else's problem to try and help you manufacture evidence for a bull shit claim.
I then chose to look at it that if I had full pressure and the full volume and if I then needed to drop my reservoir at a constant rate and had the fluid returned at a constant rate that I would have at *least* 25% of that input returned. With what you stated with your "tyranny of it all" is that I could expect more than 25%.You're just doing more hand waving.
It is to all effect and purpose all that happens in a ZED. We have just shown that. Risers move, water moves. levels go up, levels go down. If you want to attempt to support the bull shit claim that is in any meaningful way different than lifting and lowering buckets of water, then after two years of this nonsense you ought to be able to articulate a distinction. Yet, you have not done so.
Filling a bucket and pouring it into another bucket gets you nothing but exercise, but since that is not what is happening in a ZED then it is not playing with buckets. Picking up a weight and dropping that same weight is the same thing.
That's just more hand waving. Containers of water move up and down. It's really quite mundane.
The lift is good, but the recovery is better. It is in how the lift input is re-used that makes it different.
Here we see more silly suggestions of comparisons to unidentified things. It's really quite simple: Account the internal energy in the system at the start of a cycle and at the end of that same cycle. Account for the external energy added during the cycle and the energy delivered to the outside during the cycle. Show that the sum of the energy at the end plus the energy delivered to the outside exceeds the internal energy at the start plus the energy added from the outside during the cycle. You've had two years to do this. What is the hold-up, other than the indisputable fact that the over unity claims are and have always been total bull shit?
So less than 100% on the lift, fine, less than 100% on the recovery, fine, but if that recovery is more than what is lost on the lift then what.
In terms of whether you are gaining or losing energy it matters when the ratios are so large that they exceed the numerical resolution of the tool that you are using to perform your calculations. It is mind boggling that you pose such a question when the issue has already been discussed extensively in the last 24 hours. That does not reflect well on you. Do you understand that numerical error does not change the way that nature works? If you do, then you know you are making BS arguments. If you don't, then you have much to learn.
If MEGAJ's are used and stay within the system what does it matter if it is only NANOJ's that are freebies,, IF that is what it takes right now, then with proper design why could it not be made better?
Our buddy Wayne Travis approved the "ideal ZED" as a representation of ZED mechanics. He even stated that Mondrasek was one of the ZED experts. The "ideal ZED" is less efficient than a brick. Any "real ZED" will be less efficient than the "ideal ZED" that is not burdened by things like viscosity, or compressible air, or a need to move fluids between multiple ZEDs so as to equalize between them. You can bitch and moan that the "real ZED" is different: It's taller, fatter, painted a different color. But if you want to argue that it shows OU that the "ideal ZED" does not, when it was supposed to show OU, then you will have to propose a specific OU mechanism for your "real ZED". You haven't because there isn't one. Wayne and pals have been selling investors an empty pipe dream for years. For whatever reason you choose to try and support that fraud. How nice that must be for you.
"the ideal ZED does not function like a real ZED"
a real ZED makes its lift while more input is being put in.Go dive down the rabbit hole and tell Snap and Crackle. Wayne Travis already endorsed Mondrasek's "ideal ZED". Things are exactly as TinselKoala predicted: The claims of over unity for the "ideal ZED" have been disproven, so now comes the objection that the supposed magic is now someplace else. If you want to keep making a total ass out of yourself promoting a fraud, that's your choice.
in a real ZED the risers are not being allowed to "pop"
You have done nothing, and there is nothing that you can do to show that anything else in the "real ZED" that makes up for the losses in the "ideal ZED" and then some in order to end up with an over unity machine. You just flail about waving your arms like Red_sunset and Wayne have before you.
I have stated many times on the process I understand the ZED to go through, this process is not exactly the same as your model.
Oh, I get it now. The real ZED is, by definition, OU, so any maths, models and replications that aren't OU are thereby wrong.That seems to be about what webby is trying to pitch. His device was not OU. Therefore it doesn't count. The "ideal ZED" is not OU therefore it doesn't count. Nothing that they have built at HER/Zydro has been OU so none of that counts either. We are all supposed to just believe, because our Bible thumping con artist: Wayne Travis tells us that he is going to deliver free energy. No, there won't be any sausages this week, or next. But he'll be serving up those free energy sausages sometime down the road. Now, if you would like a chance at winning $100. just hand $100. over to Brother Wayne and watch carefully as he places it under one of three opaque cups. ...
MarkE,Water and some metal bits get lifted up: Just like a pail of water. Later some water and metal bits get lowered down: Just like a pail of water. No free energy results. You are free like any of the HER/Zydro proponents always have been to attempt to distinguish the ZED from it's far more useful bucket of water counterpart.
You have said nothing in your response, but you did use a lot of words.
I explained my understanding of the method of operation before you made your spreadsheet, so there are no new windows or doors.
Projection! There we go. After spending the whole day in convulsive contortions, you try and suggest that I have been dishonest. Your antics are just getting sadder all the time.
Why do you continuously try and state that I am adding more to the process when I have stated that process already, and am only sticking with it.
Since you have done this many times with prior knowledge of the method, I wonder why that would be.
I never said it is a processor issue. It has nothing to do with the processor. One can code IEEE754 to run on an 8 bit processor if they are so inclined. IEEE754 is a commonly used standard. That's standard as in S T A N D A R D. As in it is supposed to yield the same predictable results no matter where or how implemented. That format has 52 bits of mantissa. 52 bits resolve to 25 parts in 10^17. When you have a number on the scale of 1 million, that means that the smallest increment that Excel can add or subtract from that value is ~25E-11. Anything smaller is lost forever. Values that are larger get approximated. If you want to add two numbers: 1.0E6 and 1.0E6 + X, and you want an accuracy in X to say 1%, then in anything using IEEE754 format X has to be at least about 10^-8.
I do not us Excel, and most likely we do not have the same processor, aka computer chip, and yet you seem to have the same values come up when you run the file that I do. If it is a math issue, what are the chances of two different systems and programs coming up with the exact same error.
There is nothing to continue. Mondrasek asked for evaluation of his supposed over unity by calculation. I have proven that his result was erroneous. I have proven that the "ideal ZED" that he set-up, that Wayne Travis himself approved was built around a fallacious stipulation of State 1 being in an equilibrium that it was not, and that the device acts like a compression spring. You express interest in chasing down rabbit holes after some other source of OU that neither you nor any other proponent of HER/Zydro's false claims has in any way shown exhibits unusual behavior in the slightest. It is up to you or any other proponent now seeing the "ideal ZED" is a non-starter to come up with some other bull shit that you think can stick.
I understand that you no longer wish to continue, that is fine, that is your choice and I do appreciate all the help you have provided.
Bull shit. You repeatedly misrepresent. If you were interested in "an open fashion" you would offer some evidence for your false assertion that anything from HER/Zydro can be OU.
I am not taking this to the personal level as you have, I do not mean any harm by not doing that I just prefer to stay with the topic in an open fashion.
You have offered zero evidence to counter the hard evidence that there is nothing extraordinary to anything HER/Zydro have proposed.
I have provided what I know and understand to the best of my ability to do so, if that is not sufficient for you then I am sorry.
I believe we are yet again at an impasse, that is fine.
I work for no one.You do not come across as genuine, you have been told enough times why things don't work the way you want to believe, if you genuinely believed you're right you would go away and build a device that works, but instead you just keep repeating the same old questions and statements,
All the things I do, I do out of my own curiosity.
I ask questions and try to find answers.
I look at things that are today's understanding and am not afraid to look and see if there are things that might of been overlooked.
I am not afraid of being wrong.
I would rather live life being incorrect most of the time than live a life of doom and gloom stuck in the quagmire of no change.
I think to find new things one must be willing to be wrong.
I think to only do what has been done only leads to doing the same thing over and over.
This is part of me, to help understand who "I" am.
Some will poke at me, that is only a reflection of who "they" are, and is in no way anything about me.
Does anyone remember the "Travis Effect"? That was supposedly some magic energy gain that results from using inserts and nesting cylinders. It was supposed to be THE DISCOVERY. While lots of people around HER/Zydro, including the fraudster Wayne Travis himself like to refer to this so-called "Travis Effect" none will commit themselves to a statement of what the "Travis Effect" is actually supposed to do. That is of course because there is no such thing as a "Travis Effect". There is the HER/Zydro misdirection effect of demonstrating buoyancy when an insert is involved and making the false claims that Archimedes' Principle has somehow been circumvented. Well, now we have, ( I would say we had years ago when Kan Shi first posted diagrams ), a definitive model that the most idealized arrangement of concentric risers does not do anything special. They certainly do not produce any energy gains.
If Travis's Zeds are not total deliberate fakes, then they must "work" by the Cuckoo Clock principle. My speculation is this: Energy is stored in elevated weights and high pressures; this is arranged by setting up the "precharge" of water levels and air pressures in the Zeds and charging the hydraulic accumulator. The valvulation acts as the pawl of the escapement formed by the rocking mechanical system. The Flow Assist is supplied from outside, the rocking proceeds, and with each cycle the cuckoo clock "weights" descend a little bit: the pressures decrease, the water levels move towards equalization. The system is well balanced so it takes very little actual energy to make it rock, and thus it can do so for quite some time from an initial precharge. The bigger the Zeds and the accumulator, the longer it will "run". That initial "flow assist" to get the rocking started represents another injection of energy into the system. Ooops, it's slowing down, must have another little leak, give it another Flow Assist jolt there Larry..... and it keeps on for another little while.Now, I am more interested in finding out whether certain events are in motion or not. Time will tell.
And as long as "improvements" are being made, and new designs come along that need to be built and tested to overcome the previously encountered leaks and squeaks... the Cuckoo Clock keeps on running.
They show that the "ideal ZED" was about the nested system, not a ZED.Since when is a ZED not about the idiotic nesting? In 100 words or less kindly state what is it about a ZED that supposedly distinguishes it from 2000 year old hydrostatics? Wayne and company have spent years claiming that the Russian Dolls of Ignorance are connected to free energy when they have been proven to have ordinary, under unity behavior. Teeter tottering pails of water aren't over unity either.
There is no magic. There is no over unity. The ZED is a stupid, complicated contraption that has no material value.
They show that what I have been saying is what I have said, no changes, no more "magic" hidden behind something.
If you contrive an absurd situation you can get Excel to generate silly results. You set-up a situation where a nearly 200 foot tall column moves a distance so small that state of the art lithography can barely manage it: 24nm. I have shown you in no uncertain terms that the odd numerical result is entirely a result of Excel running out of resolution. I have shown you that the algebra shows that the result is mathematically forced to be less than 100% for any finite motion time. Do you grasp that: N/(N+M) < 1 for all positive M?
They show that this error with the numbers is very very small.
You said that the BS numbers justify further investigation into the device. That's nonsense as the algebra has shown.
I do not take the numbers as proof of anything, and I stated that. You have blown that up into something else all together.
The tyranny is nature's, not mine.
You have blown most of the things I have tried to present into something else, and yet you like to teach all of us things,, that is a strange combination.
You do realize that your "tyranny of it all" is not in use, well does not need to be used, with a ZED?
Here is yet more disingenuous misrepresentations by you. I have shown where the losses are. The losses convert useful energy to waste heat. In the particular case of taking a potential energy store that is full and a like store that is empty you will lose 50% of the energy equalizing the potential of the two. Try it with capacitors, or springs, columns of water, tanks of compressed air, and you always get burned.
If you are saying with that, that if I put in the work to move a volume of fluid up into a vertical column that I can only get back 1\2 of that work, well then you have destroyed energy, or if you allow that the water falling back down will return that same work, minus frictional losses, then you have lost the tyranny.
You claimed that your columns were not subject to the loss problem. You claimed to already have built hardware that does not suffer from the problem. You have never provided any evidence that was ever true or that subsequently you worked out a solution. There is no small amount of irony noting that now that the "ideal ZED" has been shown to be the worthless junk that it is over unity wise, that you insist that we go look at a "real ZED", a device that has been described as requiring the very kind of energy wasting equalization that you have not found any way to solve.
I understand that if I were to try and use that work *directly* with another column of water moving in the opposite direction that your tyranny is alive and well and in full force. This is what makes the tyranny a special case that requires a set of conditions to be used, just like a Roberval, break those conditions and you break the Roberval's special ability.
I will address this one.The transfer function of each column is:
I posted a picture of just such a device, balancing levers, not the drawing.
I have other methods as well.
With these methods I have managed an almost 99% exchange.
I identified the problem and the reason that the tyranny is valid for a finite condition.
I will address this one.What is not fully in force? An under unity result is fully in force. The only way to reach unity is to convert to a brick and do nothing.
The non BS numbers show that in the worst case of using a ZED the lift to output is almost 1:1, that is something that natures tyranny does not allow, that is what you have said many times and I agree with, and yet here it is not fully in force.
The water columns are falling and as such should that not mean by the tyranny of nature that there should only be 1\2 that force for the output work?Grass is growing. Children are playing. A plane from Malaysia is still missing.
I do not need those equations since I am not using a +P*V to change a -P*V directly.You keep saying that. The problem for you is that those equations simply describe what the relationship is between volume and energy in the two columns. You are free to introduce some third agent to act as a go between. Then you will have to satisfy its constraints. It's been months now, and you still haven't described anything that works.
I am allowing water to fall and move something, that is a very simple thing, and if you think that all the energy I can get back is 1\2 the work it took to lift the water, then I think you are mistaken.
Do I only get 1\2 the work back out of the water column falling or do I get it all back.If you take two columns of water of equal diameters where one is empty and one is filled to some level and you equalize them then your ending equalized state has half the energy of your starting state.
Why are you dodging this simple question.
If you take two columns of water of equal diameters where one is empty and one is filled to some level and you equalize them then your ending equalized state has half the energy of your starting state.
Right, see this is where we are NOT on the same page.That is equalization. Calculate the energy that you have in each column when you start. Calculate the energy that you have at that point. It is less. That is a mathematical fact.
I view the water as a weight falling down, the CoM will fall down 1\2 the height of the column, that fall will be able to raise the other column CoM up that same height.
Come up with whatever mechanism you like then and describe how your mechanism is able to escape the condition. Hint: Manipulating potential energy will not solve the problem.
The problem is that allowing the water to flow down and push the other up wastes 1\2 of that potential, that is not a necessary condition.
IE apply external work
If I use all the potential from the top cup of water out of that column to lift the bottom cup of water up one cup height and let the top cup fall all the way down to do that, that is the wasted stuff.
Just in case you missed this picture.
Those are 2 identical weights on 2 different length lever arms. These arms are balanced with each other at the horizontal position.
Pick one weight up
and the other goes down, let go and they go back to this same position, that is within the constraints this testbed works with.That is called a see-saw.
One weight falls and picks the other weight up instead of allowing gravity to just accelerate the falling weight.
But like all CVTs the range of ratios is limited to finite values. You cannot get infinite versus zero or vice versa.
I have other methods that allow me to use a varying rate of change between to items, so they can start out at say a 1:3 ratio go to a 1:1 ratio and then a 3:1 ratio with no gear changes, kind of like a CVT.
What is it you are saying? I am reading that you are trying to say that 1\2 the energy is lost when 2 weights are on a teeter-totter, and can therefore not be rotated or anything but dropped.Do you understand what a state is? It is a specific condition. In order to empty one column you must traverse a state where it is half empty. In order to fill the other column from empty you must traverse a state where it is only half full. We know that if the half empty and full states coincide that one half the internal energy has been lost. So, all you have to do to avoid the 50% energy loss is transfer all of the incompressible fluid from one column to the other without having coincident 50% full states. Given that the fluid is incompressible you have to put it someplace. If as you claim you do not "directly" transfer it from one column to the other, then you have to go through an intermediate store. You will then have to insure that you don't run up against the same problem as with the two columns by themselves.
I actually made one that was termed an IVT, because it could be turned down to zero,, I argued that that was not correct because at some point it would just stop moving the output, but not as a function of 1:0 rather the tolerances within the system would not allow any motion transfer.
Thank you for the equations and explanation.Mostly the loss is to your sanity. How do you remove 1 cup from an empty vessel? You have a cup at the top of the filled column. Remove it. Specify where it ends up: If it goes into the empty column, it falls to the bottom. Suppose you had for example some sort of raised platform with a receiving container where that container falls as water enters from the first column. Then initially the bottom of that receptacle could be just under the top level of the filled column. Guess where the bottom of your platform is and the water levels are when you have removed 50% of the water from the first column.
Simple thought experiment for you to consider.
If I take 1 cup out of the raised side and use it to take 1 cup from the lowered side and raise it up to the same height that the first cup was removed from, and this continued for each cup and level,, what is the loss.
If you think so then draw it and the truth will be revealed. Of course the big laugh here is that we have been going around in circles for months with you claiming that you built something that doesn't suffer the N*(X/N)2 problem. Yet, you never manage to actual supply diagrams of what you claim to have built, nor how you supposedly measured the energy in and out to compute the still way under unity 75% efficiency you claim.
Since in this thought experiment there is no change in CoM height from start to finish, the left side went down and the right side went up the same amount there is no loss.
Is English a second language for you? The equations succinctly and completely describe the problem. Absent externally applied work: Fluids flow from higher elevations to lower elevations. Fluid flow from a higher elevation to a lower elevation results in a loss of potential energy.
In the view you are presenting the highest potential from the raised side is moving the same distance as the lowest resistance from the lowered side, thus the loss due to the disparity of force and its usage.
A frictionless pendulum is able to convert PE from stored on one side of the swing to the other by virtue of the intermediate conversion to KE. Without that conversion to KE the pendulum would simply find its lowest PE state and stay there.
I understand and accept these conditions when these conditions are used.
I also understand and accept that a pendulum converts the force of gravity into an internal potential that is returned.
Why do you insist on misuse of terms? Resistance is an electrical term. If you mean an opposing force, then say 'opposing force' or more simply: force.
I also understand that an external resistance can be applied to oppose the force of gravity.
More specifically: the Second Law of Energy condemns all real processes to being lossy. However, we do not need to rely upon the Second Law of Energy to expose Wayne Travis' / HER's / Zydro's false claims for the bull shit that they are.
I also understand that in any conversion process work is being done.
Sweetener packets are found in restaurants. Data packets are found in telecommunication networks. Energy is the integral of F*ds. Energy / matter may be changed in form. It may neither be created nor destroyed. When it is in the form of waste heat that reaches equilibrium temperature with the environment it cannot be converted to another useful form.
I also understand that any packet of f*ds can be changed into any other packet of f*ds providing that they equal the same value.
Thought experiments described in terms that do not even make linguistic sense are not helpful. If you believe that you can shelve water from one column to the other, then draw that mechanism as it steps through a couple of points and calculate the energy in each column. If you calculate the energy properly you will see that you have not addressed the problem. See the handy picture attached for the correct calculations.
So, thought experiments are not useful.
Since you have never diagrammed your claimed mechanism, I beg to differ.
I explained how I measured things.
No, I am stating plainly and simply that you have not shown anything that can overcome the: N*(X/N)2 problem as it applies to fluid transfer between columns that you state your machine executes.
Now you are mixing separate things together.
Why don't we actually diagram a proposed mechanism and show the associated energy calculations?
Let's think about this just a little bit,, water falls,, a loss in potential,, water falls and there is a loss,, Gravitational Potential Energy maybe?
Here we go with more disingenuous misquotes.
So a conversion of forces happens in a pendulum but you are saying that the only conversion that can happen is to KE or heat.
In electrical circuits where resistance is a defined behavior yes, the term has meaning. Resistance is not a term in kinematics or hydrostatics. If you mean 'force' say 'force'.
Resistance,, many uses.
No energy is destroyed, it is lost to heat.
If the water column can fall back down and return the work it took to put it up in the first place,, but you are saying that it can not do that, and so then that would have to infer that the 1\2 input that is lost is destroyed, not converted to heat because there is nothing for that conversion to happen,, destroying work, destroying energy,, and yet you say that can not happen,,
Which is it MarkE, can the water column fall back down and return the input work or does it loose 1\2 of that and destroy energy?
In the balancing lever pic the weights move vertically and in opposite directions.If you pull the arms apart to 10:30 and 7:30 and then let go, do the arms:
In the pic I do believe I had a distance of 22mm lifted for 21.something dropped,, so when I let go it would slowly come back to horizontal.
The closer the distance of travel that the two weights moved the less desire they had to move back, and if they were perfect distances they would not move on there own, nor would it cost anything to move them.
MarkE,If that is representative of your supposed column to column transfer scheme then you have proven what I have been telling you. Take a good long look at the drawing that I posted.
I already stated that they will move back to horizontal by themselves if the distances of motion are not the same.
If you are not careful they will go past this internal balance zone,,
How was it lost to heat,, it just fell."How was it (uninitialized pronoun) lost to heat,,"
Grammer Police LoL,,No, you refuse to speak in plain English.
Speeeling next :)
You claimed to already have built a machine that is not subject to these limitations. You have never produced a diagram or intelligible description of such a machine. One may reasonably conclude that since in many weeks you have been unable to articulate a mechanism you claim that you have already built, that you have been FoS the entire time.
I understand what you are saying MarkE, and when those conditions are there you are correct, I do not know how many times I need to say that.
I am saying that what you do to take the work back out is not the same as ways I would employ,, why waste what you do not need to.
There we go again, complete unintelligible crapola.
You want to know what that method is, I am not talking about that I am talking about the simple thing that forces applied over a distance can be converted into a different force\distance relationship than what was used to make it.
You know that I understand what? No, I do not even attempt to decode gobbledygook.
I know you understand this.
No, weight is the force of gravity on some mass. Pressure is force per unit area.
Is the weight on the end of a lever pressure?
We can agree on something then.There it is: Pure diversion. You can't support your claims so now you attempt to dodge by asking why I care about them. Maybe you forgot that your claims concerning the equalization loss are from another thread and it was you who recently resurrected them here.
Why are you so interested in an old device?
It has been your claim that your device is not subject to the N*(X/N)2 loss problem. You have completely failed to show any evidence that you did so, or that you have any knowledge of any means to do so. A lever won't get around the problem. The obvious conclusion is that your claims are false.
I have shared actual photos of that device to those I choose to share my information with, they have also seen other methods that can be readily adapted to fit this need,, this is just a lever system with a twist,, not rocket science or electronics,, both of which I am not very good at.
There's nothing revolutionary, there is only your prevarication.
Mechanical things like this are not that hard for me, they are kind of fun. If this is some "revolutionary" device that would be news to me and a lot of other people.
You've had many opportunities to support your claims. You've failed to do so. The conclusion is that your claims are false.
Variable geometry levers, and variable ratio levers are not new, stop thinking of using the pressure of the water and think about using the weight of the water,, simple,, well the pressure would be used but that is no different than an arm with a weight falling down around a pivot, rotating,, BTDT, posted a picture of one of many testbeds.
10:1-1:10, variable, easy and simple,, a CVT does it all the time.
That's good for him, and completely irrelevant.
I used to know a guy who was into snow mobile racing,, they use CVT's, some cars nowadays use them as well,, variable gear ratios,, simple.
You can keep saying "No it isn't." You've offered no evidence in the many weeks that you have been doing so. Your claims have no merit and will continue to have no merit so long as you fail to support them with actual evidence. Flailing your arms about does not create evidence for your claims.
The loss problem from the falling pressure\weight as the water falls trying to lift a small thing\weight first growing to a large thing\weight,, that only needs a variable gear set lever system so that the first step, when it is large, moves more of the small first.
Almost frictionless fluid transfer.Perfect
I think sad is one option. The HER/Zydro affair has certainly been sad for HER/Zydro investors. The little investors Wayne Travis ripped off with his lies don't have a lot of options. They can always hope that Wayne can find and reel in a bigger fish to cash them out. Maybe Wayne can find such a person. Maybe it would be a good idea to look for such a person. Then again would such a person of means be more likely or less likely to exact retribution for being defrauded than the investors Wayne has already burned?
How about this for a collective noun?
A sadness of ZED enthusiasts.
John.
MarkE is the one spinning things around in circles, he is hung up on another device .Hmm, let's see: the OP by Mondrasek was a request for others to evaluate his analysis that he thought showed over unity in his Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED". I have built a model that faithfully represents the physics and shows that Mondrasek was mistaken: Even the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED" is fundamentally an under unity device.
Then on the other hand I am going in circles because I keep having to go back and say the same things all over again and then get accused of changing things,,,
So if sticking to ones words is not genuine then so be it,
MarkE,No one, not you, not Wayne Travis, nor any other proponent of HER/Zydro's false over unity claims has ever shown any evidence in theory or practice of over unity. Full stop.
The reason I think the ZED can work is because I did report better than 75% numbers from TBZED.
The tool shows what the math and physics show: The Mondrasek, Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy. It offers no possibility of the over unity that HER/Zydro falsely claim.
Your tool shows that the input to output can readily be above 75% and it can leave the pod chamber with a positive R1 pressure, meaning the system will collapse back into state 1.
Now you again try and compare apples and oranges. The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" does not shuttle fluid from one charged column to an uncharged column. It's fun to watch you work so hard to try and make a purse out of the sow's ear. It has been the bull shit claim of Wayne Travis and the other liars promoting the HER/Zydro fraud that nesting inverted cylinders would somehow cheat 2000 year old hydrostatics and produce an over unity result. The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" exercise has completely disproven those false claims.
This of course does not show any OU, but it does show that the losses due to pressure equalization can be small.
There it is again: When backed into a corner you resort to nonsense gobbledygook hand waving. You freely mix independent terms in a physically meaningless word salad. Who is that nonsense supposed to impress?
With a continued input volume with lift, instead of the pop, the volume to bring the system up to equal pressure is far less than 1\2 of the total volume used, creating a small impact on any pressure equalization losses.
The tool has served its purpose. It doesn't matter if it is used many times or never again.
It would be sad if I were the only person playing with this tool YOU created.
Don't forget Snap and Crackle or they will feel left out. What you cannot do no matter how hard you try is make either the "ideal ZED" or any "real ZED" over unity, despite HER/Zydro's false claims and your never ending protests.
I have chosen to reduce the riser wall thickness since I can not leave a weight on the risers, so the state 1X condition is not there, with this I can have the system make the pop and leave state 3 above state 1 by a small value ensuring the reset to state 1 from state 3.
Positive pressure on the floor of the pod chamber will cause fluid to run out if the valve under the pod chamber is opened. In the example you offered, the pressure on the pod chamber floor was negative. But don't let facts get in your way now. Keep on doing everything that you can to misrepresent as has been your habit.
I asked that as long as there is a positive pressure in the pod chamber, if the system will return, and you said yes. I am not talking about a positive up force on the pod, but under r1.
You cannot get more energy out than you have to put in to complete any number of integer cycles, including one.
I CAN set this up so that the output is small but leave state 3 well above state 1, in this condition the pressure equalization WOULD be an issue and WOULD require some sort of intervening mechanism, or it could be such a small percentage of volume needed to bring another system up to equal pressure that those losses are small.
There you go again: You avoid talking about energy. You want to misdirect to pressure or volume, just so long as you avoid energy. It is really fun to see how hard you squirm and twist to avoid evaluating energy in a falsely claimed free energy scheme.
2.44cc in the original setup condition is all that is needed to build the pressure, then what if another 4.88cc were added for the lift. Ball park, that would be 1.22cc needed to equalize.
Whatever MarkE.I see, you are intent on more and more misdirection and misquotation. I give you points for persistence.
Here is a 94% lift and recovery from your spreadsheet.
Let me see here,, this is water falling down, and that is supposed to loose 50%.
I suppose that this does not count because it is not OU, never mind that it is a little better than 50% for water falling back down and lifting something.
What ever MarkE.
This is using 1\2 of the remaining energy in the system after the lift.
A 5.5% shortfall
Minnie, in terms of internal energy stored and released each cycle: a high quality spring made with music wire or stainless steel can be 99.99% or more efficient.
Mark,
what would be the efficiency of a good quality compression spring?
Thankyou John.
Take for example webby's latest set of specifications. It yields a device with an effective spring rate of 0.29N/mm, a compressed height of just over 69mm an OD greater than 34.6mm and a height extension of just under 3.5mm But the fool spill piston diameter is 195mm. So the volume this thing eats up is roughly 2100cc's IE 2 liters and the energy it can store each cycle is less than 2mJ. It can cycle those 2mJ's about once per second, half a second up and half a second back down. If we scale up to transfer 1W we will need 1,000,000cc's or 1m3 just to get 1W. A pack of 10 springs costs $12 on Amazon that has the same rate, and almost three times the load capacity, almost 10X the energy capacity, and occupies 16.6mm x 2.25mm OD, 0.066cc = 1/31,000th the volume of the Russian Dolls of Ignorance Webby has cooked up, and we can store 10X the energy. The resulting energy density is over 310,000:1 in favor of the dirt simple, ~$1. spring. And don't forget that we are not done yet. Because after all of that, what we have is something that can lift a 3.5mm x 195mm diameter pool of water above a spill gate. In order to do anything useful, now additional apparatus has to be installed to refill that shallow pool, and also do something with the spilled water.
Right Webby,
it would seem that the old Koala wasn't far out with his spring
assisted bollard, was he?
I know for a fact that you can't shuffle water or air through pipes etc.
and get anywhere near 99% efficiency.
When you look at a turbine you could possibly get 70+%, or a water
wheel will struggle to achieve 50%.
How many % must your ZED give to drive a turbine and leave you
with something to take home?
John.
Parts of it are close,, the question is how much does it take to compress the spring, and how does that compressed spring grow longer while it is lifting without decompressing.The useless "ideal ZED" loses force as it extends going from State 2 to State 3. It's external behavior is indistinguishable from a linear compression spring. The return from State 3 to State 2 again requires a variable force that varies linearly with distance. It is the exact transfer function of a compression spring. Only a $1 spring is thousands of times more energy dense, cheaper, and more reliable than the Russian Dolls of Ignorance.
Ask MarkE if he can find you a spring that does that.
WebbyDo you claim that HER/Zydro's devices are of any use? Do you claim that they have anything that is over unity such as they claim? Do you find utility in a spring emulator that is 300,000 times less energy dense than a ~$1. spring?
Your actual questions are never answered.Just "talk around".
Yes MarkE,Tell it to Snap and Crackle. The "ideal ZED" emulates a linear compression spring. The "real ZED" doesn't do as well. The "real ZED" is an even more complicated, less energy dense, more lossy, bad spring emulator than the piece of junk "ideal ZED". A ~$1. spring beats the "ideal ZED" on all counts other than scores for Rube Goldberg unnecessary complexity. Why don't you replace your car suspension with a set of ZEDs and tell us how it works out when you are done?
The "Ideal ZED" only pops up, the real one does not "pop" it has a lift.
Actually I have done this for other cars,, well that would be to replace the springs with either air or hydraulic or air over hydraulic.Yeah, sure, I'd like to see a picture of your Russian Dolls of Ignorance suspension. The 80' high columns running through the passenger compartment might make seating a bit difficult as well as clearing overpasses a bit of a problem.
Ever played with gas struts?Gas struts bear little resemblance to the Russian Dolls of Ignorance. The Russian Dolls of Ignorance rely entirely on the liquid weight multiplied by the internal leverage for their tiny restoring force and stored energy. They end up being huge for the amount of stored energy, and they are open, so they easily dump their fluid. They are unsuitable for a kiddie play car, much less a real car or God forbid a monster truck.
Ever played with those pesky control disks inside?
Ever watched a monster truck race?
MarkE,Context?
Quick question.
Is it OK to calculate the energy and change for each column and then sum them together? Would it be OK to just sum the change?
I tried to do it and, well I am on a steep learning curve,,so back to small steps :)
No, I never saw one. Fancy suspensions use variable rate springs and dampers. The really fancy ones use electronically variable components. Bose, the audio component company developed an actively suspended driver's seat for long haul truckers. I don't know if it ever made it to market.
I don't know if the Citroen BX ever made it to your part of the world.
I used to run one and it was one of the smoothest running vehicles
I've ever known.
The system used spheres with diaphragms and I think it was compressed
nitrogen. Over time the gas escaped and re-con spheres were needed.
Unfortunately the steel oil lines were prone to rust out and it rather
spoiled a very good car.
John.
I don't know if the Citroen BX ever made it to your part of the world.
I used to run one and it was one of the smoothest running vehicles
I've ever known.
The system used spheres with diaphragms and I think it was compressed
nitrogen. Over time the gas escaped and re-con spheres were needed.
Unfortunately the steel oil lines were prone to rust out and it rather
spoiled a very good car.
John.
Early CVTs had Engineering issues that gave that technology a bad rep initially, AFAIKO. But further Engineering and Materials advancements have solved most of those issues. And so today, a properly Engineered CVT that is mated via an equally well Engineered Control System (computer algorithms) to a similarly well Engineered and controlled Engine results in a highly efficient and smooth "ride."While all of that is basically true, I don't think Minnie was talking about a CVT. I think he was talking only about the suspension. A quick check on that car does not indicate that it was ever offered with a CVT.
Engineering (the practical application of Physics) rules!
I didn't think you new any of Waynes engineers John,,Any professional engineer who thinks that free energy is to be had lifting and dropping weights needs to have his certification revoked. They need to go back to school for extremely remedial training.
I like the Citroen's quirky little things,, never owned one but have ridden in many,,
Any professional engineer who thinks that free energy is to be had lifting and dropping weights needs to have his certification revoked. They need to go back to school for extremely remedial training.
Trying to help you out Powercatt - Add another dollar to the pot... but this was too funny.Gee Wayne your latest final farewell to OverUnity.com only lasted a week.
...............
Mark - you just cheered me up again.......... Let me drop a Brick for you........
....
I had assumed that you are a not just a 8) 8) 8) , but totally missing the ZED process - I admit it is getting harder to believe you have missed it.... but your intentional diversions and attacking members is something else.
.....................
Of course - this diversion;
"Any professional engineer who thinks that free energy is to be had lifting and dropping weights needs to have his certification revoked. They need to go back to school for extremely remedial training."
Those Excellent Engineers - did not try to turn our system into a "false lifting weights diversion", Spring or Brick....
Our Excellent Scientist and Engineers knew to hold their conclusions until they finished the analysis of the whole system.
And then joined our team, when you make a statement toward the credibility of others.... who do understand ....well, Enough said... Smile.
If you are a 8) 8) 8) - I understand all the twisted diversion - you have a job to do... remember - avoid the true ZED process - or you will fail.
...................
Good Day.
mrwayne
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #926 on: March 10, 2014, 11:24:14 AM »
Quote
8) 8) 8)
Well men, It took a good woman to make me see the light......
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.com
...
I brought up the CVT for a few reasons.This completely apples and oranges comparison is instructive: A CVT does not make an automobile over unity. Neither do the losses of the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance improve the efficiency of anything other than Wayne and company's ability to suck money out of the wallets of gullible investors.
A CVT by itself has more loses when compared to a normal automatic transmission by itself. When you take 2 cars that are otherwise identical the one with the CVT will accelerate better and return a higher fuel efficiency. That is something with more loses making a more efficient system. This is not the normal condition, normally more loses makes for more loses.
The CVT can match the input to output requirements between the engine, wheels and driver much better, that is, it can take the input from the engine at a constant RPM and deliver it to the wheels at a variable RPM.
Webby-And yet none of them attain over unity. Nor do the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance improve over the simple compression spring they replace at a cost of far greater: cost, complexity, and volume.
It gets back to your point much earlier about Nascar
and their drafting techniques. After a stack of cars
get together at the correct intervals, all cars in
the process attain more speed and better fuel efficiency.
What the heck???????
This was speaking to the point that was made earlierThere is no twisting necessary at all. Take the efficiency of an engine of your choice by itself. Bolt on the transmission of your choice. Then measure the result. It is always lower than the efficiency of either the engine or the transmission alone. The reason is simple: The product of any two numbers between zero and one is always less than each of those numbers. Why does that surprise you? Why do you think that comes under challenge with a CVT?
about adding additional under unity processes always
causes greater losses to the overall operation.
Twist that any way you care too!
This completely apples and oranges comparison is instructive: A CVT does not make an automobile over unity. Neither do the losses of the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance improve the efficiency of anything other than Wayne and company's ability to suck money out of the wallets of gullible investors.
There is no twisting necessary at all. Take the efficiency of an engine of your choice by itself. Bolt on the transmission of your choice. Then measure the result. It is always lower than the efficiency of either the engine or the transmission alone. The reason is simple: The product of any two numbers between zero and one is always less than each of those numbers. Why does that surprise you? Why do you think that comes under challenge with a CVT?
Mark,Ah the investment funeral director speaks. Any scientist or engineer who thinks that there is free energy to be had lifting and dropping weights is unfit for their job. Full Stop.
Insults toward those that have evaluated the full Zed process - from one who won't....
8) 8) 8)
Wayne
So I take it that you are in contact with the investors and THEY have proven to be gullible? or are you only assuming that.Gullible people buy into lies such as those told by our fraudster friend Wayne Travis.
Twisting was very necessary to you. You commented on my earlierWhen did the "T" in CVT stop meaning transmission? One more time: I have correctly stated and continue to state that any two under unity processes placed in series result in lower efficiency than either process by itself. You claimed that because one combination of under unity processes ends up being more efficient than a different combination of under unity processes that somehow that violates the absolute mathematical fact that the combination of any two under unity processes placed in series is less than the individual efficiencies of either process.
post without answering what the subject was. It was a direct
question that had nothing to do with your twisted answer and
I re-read my post and could find nothing about CVT anywhere.
One more time : multiple under unity processes joining together
to get positive speed increases and positive fuel efficiency.
So you do not know that information for fact, you are only assuming things and then,,,,Is there any reason I should tell you? Gullible is as gullible does. Why do you keep supporting Wayne's fraud?
Do you have any communications with the investors of Wayne Travis??
Sorry that this might be a bit off topic. But I have a question.Did you live and divorce in a community property state? Did she fail to list her assets during the divorce proceedings? If these unicorns are invisible, how do you know that they are pink? Is pink a more valuable shade of invisible than tan? What kind of mileage do these unicorns get when fitted with a CVT? How about turbo chargers?
Say I was happily married to a woman for many years. We shared our dreams and ambitions and were blessed with children. And along our journey together she confided in me her desire to start an Invisible Pink Unicorn pet ranch. And because we were a wedded team, I supported her and her dream to start that Invisible Pink Unicorn pet ranch.
But after many years, we have grown apart. I no longer wish to be married to this woman for reasons that are not important to disclose. And so we divorce.
But after we divorce (and she moves on) I learn that she has, in fact, created an Invisible Pink Unicorn! And not only that one, but she has several and has started a breading program! Her dreams of having an Invisible Pink Unicorn pet ranch are being fulfilled! And she has investors supporting and great profit potential.
So back to my question: Even though we are divorced... Can I successfully sue her for any portion of her current "pet ranch" value or potential future profits? I mean, I did support her through all of the years prior to those dreams becoming fulfilled, right?
Because you are making claims on there behalf, so you would need to be in contact with them to be able to speak for them. That also then would mean that you have first hand knowledge that they are not happy with there investment, supporting your claim that they are not.Ah there you go again, constructing men of straw so that you may charge and slay them. Anyone who has given Wayne Travis money for his fraudulent free energy claims is gullible. If you have cash to spare there are opportunities in: Very fast growing bean stalks, high toll opportunity thoroughfares in certain midAtlantic states, ocean front land in Florida, security cases loaded with cash in Amsterdam, and free energy machines in Chickasha OK.
Absent this connection and first hand knowledge then you are making false claims and or statements on there behalf.
Exactly John,, if you have more torque than needed you could make more speed with it,, simple really.
...ability to suck money out of the wallets of gullible investors.
Ah yes, the cost of becoming educated. Hopefully theirWe know that the investors already lost. The question is who ultimately gets to walk. Urban didn't. Will Wayne?
gullibility is cured in the process. I suppose one should
have empathy for those investors when their gambles
do not pay off. Wouldn't it be nice if wisdom came without
penalties? :P :o
So the tag-team match continues. With occasional
interludes of entertainment provided thoughtfully
by MileHigh. ::) ;)
I foresee a winner to this contest down the road a ways
yet - the one who plays by Gentlemen's Rules to the
conclusion. There may be two or more. 8) ;D
@powercat,This clever from a transfer function matching stand point bit is quite telling: Using your "ideal ZED" dimensions it requires a 271.5mm dia x 2.591 mm high pool of water on top of the original ~50mm dia 67mm assembly height. This large flaky machine is capable of cycling 0.0019J each cycle by storing water in a 2.59mm pan and then pushing the water over the top lip of the pan. We have established that the process is not only fundamentally lossy, but from any practical standpoint, it is also completely ridiculous.
Do you remember the diagram below? It is from a ways back in this thread. It was intended to show that the "lift" of the risers in a ZED system is an Energy release that could be performing work. In the diagram, the lift is causing a mass of water to be raised. And the Energy that the ZED must supply in order to raise the water is, of course, the integral of F*ds.
webby you can natter trying to build a straw man all that you want. Mondrasek's spillway mechanism reduces N very close to 1.0. The slower one is willing to go, IE the more futile they are willing to make the machine, the closer to 1.0 N gets. The most efficient "ideal ZED" like any ZED is no ZED at all.
Which is it MarkE, are the losses due to N/(X/N)^2 or not,, you stated here that this system does not behave this way.
Perhaps maybe you would like to explain the quantity of work required to oppose the falling fluid to make the move from the full column down to 1\2 height in one step, this is, after all, part of the energy balance equation. <= this is the funny part,, the energy for opposition is the missing 1\2,, so the energy is *taken* out of the system, not lost.
You keep saying that it is lost to heat, there is SOME factual basis for that but if the fluid and the columns were both inert to heat and they are both frictionless, then the fluid would simply oscillate from one side to the other just like a pendulum. When the real world frictional loses are put into the equation THEN the loss due to friction will generate heat and that is a conversion of energy that will stop the motion of the fluid and THEN it will settle into the 1\2 height positions and have 1\2 the energy left BECAUSE it then gave up that other 1\2 energy to heat.
I would suppose that you are going to nitpick on the pressure change on the fluid creating heat,, but if the fluid is inert to heat,, then what. You might also want to include the actual energy loss due to this heat from pressure change in the real world with real numbers, but that might show how little energy that is for these applications.
This clever from a transfer function matching stand point bit is quite telling: Using your "ideal ZED" dimensions it requires a 271.5mm dia x 2.591 mm high pool of water on top of the original ~50mm dia 67mm assembly height. This large flaky machine is capable of cycling 0.0019J each cycle by storing water in a 2.59mm pan and then pushing the water over the top lip of the pan. We have established that the process is not only fundamentally lossy, but from any practical standpoint, it is also completely ridiculous.
Ah there you go again, constructing men of straw so that you may charge and slay them. Anyone who has given Wayne Travis money for his fraudulent free energy claims is gullible. If you have cash to spare there are opportunities in: Very fast growing bean stalks, high toll opportunity thoroughfares in certain midAtlantic states, ocean front land in Florida, security cases loaded with cash in Amsterdam, and free energy machines in Chickasha OK.You are wrong yet again. It's fun to see you yap away trying to promote Wayne Travis' fraud.
You are making an assumption that they are gullible but in fact you are NOT in communication with them, correct?
LOL.
A non answer will be taken as a confirmation.
A straw man is by definition an invented opposing argument. As the guy who keeps claiming to have built a mechanism that he cannot describe you might want to be more cautious about emphasizing the term: "REAL".
If I am building men of straw, well at least they are something REAL and not assumed and can be verified before I go and slay them.
There you go: When reality doesn't suit you, then just make stuff up like your master Wayne.
Can you say the same? No you can not.
Of course Wayne Travis could never make his dates: His claims are fraudulent. Wayne Travis has known all along that his claims are lies. It is just so funny to see you constantly rush to the defense of the fraud Wayne Travis.
Wayne gave dates as to when he was going to try and provide more information and verification, several times, and was not able to meet these dates.
I was not aware of some cosmic contest. Since when is it necessary or even appropriate for anyone who points out a fraud to build some other device or devices? What should those other devices do?
Regardless of the reasons, this is the only thing that you have built your whole attack on, someone NOT meeting a schedule.
It is a fact that Wayne Travis' claims that he can generate free energy are false. Again it is very funny to watch you go into full attack mode trying to defend a guy who has been stealing money from gullible investors. Why do you not only support Wayne Travis' fraud, but support it so vociferously?
Your opinion and your analysis is that the system can not work, those are not absolutes and are subject to error.
No answer yet again MarkE.There it is: More idle attack. You do understand how completely you have put your stripes on full display don't you Tom?
The real question is why you do not answer the questions but defer to some other response.
MarkE, please show some respect. My post was clearly addressed to @powercat. I would appreciate if you would not respond to, and therefore possibly bury, posts intended for someone other than yourself.Mondrasek, I pointed out various aspects of the subject you brought up that are pertinent. If you want to hold a private conversation PM gives you a way to do that.
More responses with lots of words without saying anything.You can yap away all you want Tom. It will not make any of: Wayne Travis' / HER / Zydros fraudulent claims either true or innocent. Why do support Wayne Travis' fraud? And why do support it so vociferously? What's in it for you to motivate such strong support for this fraud?
You make a statement of "fact" and I question those actual "facts",, no stripes there.
You did not answer the force of opposition question, I would of thought that an easy one, except it does not support your usage of that condition.
That all by itself seems to make it you that are the one wearing stripes for all to see.
Mondrasek, I pointed out various aspects of the subject you brought up that are pertinent. If you want to hold a private conversation PM gives you a way to do that.
Now, getting back to this mechanism that you brought up in the single riser example: If the pan were only 28mm as shown, it would only transfer about 7.5% of the work input each cycle, IE lose about 92.5% of the input each cycle. If you think that is significantly off, then you are free to show calculations that generate a significantly different result.
MarkE, what I would like is that you calculate the correct Work potential due to the "lift" from State 2 to State 3 and include it in your diagram below. Please calculate it for the SUT in the diagram and not the simple no-pod, single riser system where we first discussed the "spillway."It is already on that drawing. Are you contending that there is an error in that graphic? If so, what do you contend is wrong?
My answer is that I see merit in the concept, so to me it is not a fraud.Fine: Identify any mechanism that allows for over unity. Be specific.
I see the incomplete usage of interactions as a means to deception and it is that deception that bothers me.The deception has always been from Wayne Travis and his supporters with false claims of over unity or any possibility of over unity as a result of lifting and lowering weights.
Nothing that I have done is new. The underlying principles have been understood for over 2000 years.
If I had your abilities to construct a full on mathematical model of this system, and if I had the proper abilities to present that model to the scientific community,, I would.
I would not do it for the recognition, that is something I do not seek, but I would do it to help further our understanding of the Universe and maybe, just maybe, leave the world in a better place than when I entered into it.It's funny that you offer platitudes of wanting the world to be a better place, yet you vociferously support a blatant fraud. How does supporting the fraud Wayne Travis help the world?
@powercat,
Do you remember the diagram below? It is from a ways back in this thread. It was intended to show that the "lift" of the risers in a ZED system is an Energy release that could be performing work. In the diagram, the lift is causing a mass of water to be raised. And the Energy that the ZED must supply in order to raise the water is, of course, the integral of F*ds.
How can "I" be "specific"?You stated:
My answer is that I see merit in the concept, so to me it is not a fraud.Either you can identify what is meritorious or you can't. I bet that you can't.
They show that the system is fundamentally lossy. The tool and associated analysis never shows a hint of over unity.
Your tool shows that the input costs to move the air\water columns into a vertical position can be almost completely recovered.
TK's Bollard example shows that anything that assists in lifting an object reduces the input cost of the operator to lift that object.No they don't.
Archimedes has shown that the buoyant lift force is not a distance relationship.Archimedes does not show anything that suggests over unity.
The concentric rings grow in surface area while the input volume stays the same.Which again does not offer any information that suggest over unity.
The risers use the same space\volume to have a much larger equivalent water displacement than the volume of the system as a whole.Levers do not suggest over unity.
Force is not conserved. Energy is. Nothing that you have referenced has ever shown over unity energy, nor has anything that you have referenced either suggested over unity energy. Do you understand the difference between: force, distance, and energy?
I see all this as some kind of hybrid between a hydraulic lift and a buoyant lift with the opposing forces that are required to make each of those force conditions being used partially against the same surface as the surface the primary forces are acting on.
That is not true. In the case of the buoyant object the pressure that acts on the top of the object also acts on the surrounding fluid and therefore contributes a like amount of pressure to the bottom of the object. Consequently, we can shortcut inclusion of the atmospheric pressure when calculating up thrust on a buoyant object. We only need to know the effective displaced volume and density of the surrounding fluid.
The surface of interaction is the horizontal surface, that does include both the upper and lower surfaces. The buoyant lift does not care about the lower surface but the hydraulic lift uses them both. The riser walls and the ring walls are the constraints that only allow the forces to manifest in one direction of reaction.
It is already on that drawing. Are you contending that there is an error in that graphic? If so, what do you contend is wrong?
That is a safe bet since I do not speak in numbers, and it is numbers speak that you count as specific.It is not about how I speak. It is about the merit you say Wayne Travis's / HER's / Zydro's absolutely false claims to free energy from lifting and lowering weights has. Either you can show that there is merit that exists, or your claim that you find merit is false.
Buoyant force is the weight of the displaced fluid, period.
You are missing it,, the surface is the underside of the riser and the bottom of the unit. The buoyant force cares NOT about the pressure on the top of the riser when all of the water coulumn is exposed to that same pressure, it is only the equivalent displaced volume of water that makes the lift force.
No, energy is the integral of F*ds. Force can be one value or many values along the path of some movement. Only under the special circumstance that force is constant along the path is energy equal to the product of force and distance. This has been explained to you many times already. Why is it that you still do not understand?
Since you keep throwing this out AND I keep answering,, force and distance moved equal the energy involved.
Energy is very real.
Do you not understand that energy is a "tool" for comparing things that are not the same, do you not understand that "energy" is not real, do you understand what the "tool" is used for.
You are back to bafflegab.
If this "tool of energy" comes up with either, an extra amount, or a lesser amount, then whatever is causing that discrepancy must be found AND included so that the "energy tool" ends up as a net zero function.
That's nice. When has over unity apparent or otherwise ever been demonstrated by cyclically lifting and lowering weights?
Over Unity can only exist for as long as all of the environmental influences are not understood or appreciated, once they all are, then there is no more Over Unity.
In other words the weight of some water compresses some air. So what?
To make a hydro-pneumatic lift, pressure must be built within the system, to build this pressure the concentric rings allow for water and air to be repositioned as such that the air and water form into vertical columns and it is this that allows the pressure to build.
That's right: the force depends on the weight of displaced water. Where does that get you in terms of energy?
A buoyant lift needs to have some equivalent volume of water displaced from within the column of water, the lift force is equal to that amount of equivalent displaced water.
On the contrary, I have shown that there is no mechanism for energy gain. There are only mechanisms for energy loss. So were is this merit to Wayne Travis' claims that you assert?
You have not shown how anything that the system does stops both of these conditions from occurring simultaneously from the same input source.
I do have another question.Representations of circular area simply drop the pi()/4, effectively multiplying the true area by 4/pi. This is the identical area ratio that a square of the same width as the circle's diameter would have relative to the circle. A 22mm dia circle does have a 484 mm2 circular area.
I thought you said that the CirArea was the same as a square made from the diameter,, so a 22mm diameter would have a 484 CirArea mm^2 right?
These are rings. The area of a ring is: pi/4*(OD2 - ID2). AR1 OD is 22mm, its ID is 20mm, the circular area is 484mm2 - 400mm2 = 84mm2. The true area is pi/4*84mm2.
I am looking at your AR?CirArea and am not seeing this value. So I am wondering about its use.,, is that the surface area of the space between the AR's?
Yes, I contend that there is an error in the verbiage in the graphic. The error is in the statement on line #3 which reads: As water levels equalize, energy is lost.As you described the device the energy absolutely is lost. Look at your own drawings. You later added a clever yet absurd mechanism to reclaim almost all of that lost energy. The mechanism is for all intent and purpose an unfolded mirror of the original device. I evaluated your proposed device as you presented it. You might recall that I asked you many times to present your complete analysis and you refused each time, stating that you felt you had provided enough information and would not be bothered.
You have failed to correctly describe the Energy that is "lost" by this Ideal 3-layer ZED system when transitioning from State 2 to State 3. The Energy does not need to be simply "lost." That Energy can be collected.
Only if you calculate the Energy that is (described incorrectly as "lost") necessary to cause the calculated "lift" of the outer ZED riser will the Energy balance calculations be correct.
MarkE, what amount of Energy is necessary for the SUT to rise 2.590mm?As you set it up:
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 09:58:25 PM »
Quote
I was hoping to have someone check my math and process of analyzing the 2-layer system before ever posting the 3-layer. That has not happened and so here is the next model if anyone is interested. It utilizes the exact same 2-layer model and adds an additional third riser on the outside. That way the same calculations for the 2-layer portion to find the water levels after introducing the Vin volume "charge" could be re-used.
The PinVin I calculate now rises to ~2.103 mJ. If PoutVout is to be equal to that per Boyle's law, then the system should stroke ~1.9094 mm. That is drawn on the right hand side and analyzed to see if it is neutrally buoyant. It is not, and actually is still pushing upward with ~31.8276 grams of force. So the ZED would stroke further than shown until it could come to rest again with neutral buoyancy. And that would require that PouVout would be greater than the PinVin of ~2.103 mJ.
The absurd pizza pan spillway mechanism works the same with a compression spring as it does with the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance. In both cases one has to be very careful not to reintroduce the N*(X/N)2 problem.
I assume the compression spring would behave in the same way if furnished
with the "absurd mechanism".
It's a bit of a "you can't have the penny and the bun" scenario.
John.
So,, I am confused here MarkE,, you are saying that 1.905mJ down on the risers will reset them to state 2, but when they lift up they deliver 3.802mJ,, so why can we not take the water from the raised pizza pan and deliver that back into a lowered pan,, that would then be all that water falling down 2.59mm refilling the lower pan and providing more output. Of course as it lifted that water would need to be transferred at loss,, but then that loss also removes the need to pump that water back into the pizza pan in the first place.I don't know what is confusing you:
Nope,, that part I get,, I am confused because the 1.905mJ to push down on the risers returns 3.802mJ to lift the piston moving the water,, so that is 1.905mJ in for 3.802mJ out,, that is what is confusing. The cost to fill the pizza pan,, well is that a real cost to run the system in a cycle,, what if you had flowing water to refill the pizza pan? then there is no cost in doing that,, what if something else from the environment was refilling the pizza pan,, again then that cost to cycle the "ideal ZED" is reduced by that 1.901mJ.No it does not. You do not get the 3.802mJ without adding at least 1.901mJ to the 1.905mJ input to make the transition from State 3 to State 2.
Any of these of course means that there is more energy being added, just not by the operator of the "ideal ZED", more like a dam or a river flowing, so the cost needs to be included for an energy balance but not as a cost to the thing running the system.
Go ahead and let the water run from the spillway back to the reservoir, and you lose all of the work that you added.
Yes, you would have a wet CVT. Unless you are into wet CVT competitions it won't be very exciting. Like the many machines that grace the museum of unworkable devices you will have something that consumes (more specifically converts to waste heat) a non-zero portion of the input energy.
But, just as a torque experiment, what happens if you add a CVT and then let the water spill over the CVT.
Wouldn't you have a wet CVT for free, then?
Just askin'.
I am sorry to say that this is getting beyond rediculous now. Mark (and TK) have bent over backwards attempting to describe real physics using well accepted math principles. Still, there seems to be a clinging on to something that Wayne has that might actually be overunity.The con man's followers will just keep repeating the same old arguments without ever showing any new evidence, despite his denials it is obvious that webby is a stooge for the Travesty propaganda machine, I think it's important that people like Mark, TK, mile high, John, and others continue to challenge this fraudulent claim, and keep demanding genuine evidence. But as we all know they will never go away and come up with something new that actually works, because all they have in reality is repetitive posting
Well, his website (Now) does not claim overunity so, what is the conversation about then? I really don't know what else Mark can type to make it more clear than he already has.
I admire Mark for doing what he has done here but, I think the time has come to let the man apply his efforts to something that actually might have some promise.
I thank you Mark for all you have done here, free of charge, to help to educate the rest of us.
Bill
As you described the device the energy absolutely is lost. Look at your own drawings. You later added a clever yet absurd mechanism to reclaim almost all of that lost energy. The mechanism is for all intent and purpose an unfolded mirror of the original device. I evaluated your proposed device as you presented it. You might recall that I asked you many times to present your complete analysis and you refused each time, stating that you felt you had provided enough information and would not be bothered.
Do you get it yet? Gravity is conservative. Wayne is a liar. You are acting as though you do not have even a very basic grasp on physics. Wayne Travis claims you are an expert. What does that say about Wayne's supposed experts?
The con man's followers will just keep repeating the same old arguments without ever showing any new evidence, despite his denials it is obvious that webby is a stooge for the Travesty propaganda machine, I think it's important that people like Mark, TK, mile high, John, and others continue to challenge this fraudulent claim, and keep demanding genuine evidence. But as we all know they will never go away and come up with something new that actually works, because all they have in reality is repetitive posting
mrwayne,
non of the evidence from any of your representatives on this forum holds up
because not one of them appears to have a grasp of even basic physics.
You've got to show something for the years that you've been at it, then we'll
start believing you.
Try a wiki on mechanical amplification and see where that gets you!
Regards John.
How logical is it to copy (puppet) insults made toward those that built and tested a Zed type system...
Here is what you miss - Independent replication VS 8) 8) 8)
We each make our own decisions - the self verified truth or 8) 8) 8)
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.comI am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope.Wayne
Physics is not a limiting law - it is a measure of the current level of understanding.@John
History does not favor the notion that the "experts" ever invent much - it is the ones that do not have limitations that look and discover.
So yes - We get insulted by some - and we go on and continue to introduce new understandings... which typically go thru fours years of well intending but misguided 8) 8) 8) until enough people open their eyes.
The ZED has opened a new field of discovery - some 8) 8) 8) will go on kicking - history forgets those quickly.
Just part of change,
Good day.
More 8) 8) 8) 8) I did not claim that Gravity is non conservative... You twisted our claim.
What is claimed - and missed or just 8) 8) 8) - is that we have designed a "mechanical" device that circumvents the conservative field of gravity.
Big difference - Which has enabled us the ability to utilize Gravity as an energy source.
Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy. Many have tried! It is our humble privilege to say that "at Zydro Energy we have exceeded the impossible".
Are you saying:What is tragic here is that the fraud Wayne Travis holds you up as an expert and you present yourself as incapable of understanding the transfer function of a simple compression spring, or in this case the same transfer function performed by the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance. Apparently this stuff is above your pay grade.
A: that the pizza pan needs to be full of water AND you need to push down with 1.905mJ, so that is 1.901mJ worth of water on the pan AND 1.905mJ added to force the risers back down from state 3 to state 2.
B: That after you apply 1.905mJ to push to the risers down you then must apply 1.901mJ to move the water into the pizza pan.
The slower one is willing to go? that means rate and when does rate have anything to do with energy???The faster you want the machine to operate the less efficient it becomes. Try to keep up.
It is not how fast, is it,, that would be power and power is not energy.
The SLOWER one is willing to go,,,
Just to be clear here,, you are saying that energy is not f*ds or E=maDon't like what is said so you make fun of it,, interestingNope! the weight of some water shifted into vertical columns,, not the same thing reallyI have stated many, many times that energy is the integral of F*ds As a representative of what Wayne Travis calls as an expert, your presented inability to comprehend basic concepts does not bode well for the caliber of help Wayne has hired.
So you think energy is a real thing,, that is a shame because it is not. Energy describes a real relationship,, but energy is and for ever has been man made,, non-real.
The force is not important when it is moved over some distance??? That's right, you do not think that force and distanced moved is what is called, energy.
How logical is it to copy (puppet) insults made toward those that built and tested a Zed type system...Given that you hold up people like Tom as experts, who present themselves unable to understand even a simple spring, noting that you have a team that present themselves as incompetent morons is a valid observation. Anyone who thinks that there is free energy to be had by cyclically lifting and dropping weights does not have even the most basic skills to function as an engineer or scientist. A deposition of such an incompetent would be a hilarious event to watch.
Here is what you miss - Independent replication VS 8) 8) 8)
We each make our own decisions - the self verified truth or 8) 8) 8)
More 8) 8) 8) 8) I did not claim that Gravity is non conservative... You twisted our claim.LOL, the fraud speaks. Let us quote from the Book of Wayne, The Act of Fraud, Paragraph 3: "Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy."
What is claimed - and missed or just 8) 8) 8) - is that we have designed a "mechanical" device that circumvents the conservative field of gravity.
Big difference - Which has enabled us the ability to utilize Gravity as an energy source.
Physics is not a limiting law - it is a measure of the current level of understanding.Current physics is an understanding that your proponents present themselves as lacking even a very elementary grasp. Evidence is required to alter our understanding of physics. All you evidence is that you are a blatant fraud.
History does not favor the notion that the "experts" ever invent much - it is the ones that do not have limitations that look and discover.
There is not one "new understanding" in physics that has come from you or your companies. There has been a continuous stream of lies.
So yes - We get insulted by some - and we go on and continue to introduce new understandings... which typically go thru fours years of well intending but misguided 8) 8) 8) until enough people open their eyes.
You can keep repeating that lie. What you cannot do is produce evidence to support it.
The ZED has opened a new field of discovery - some 8) 8) 8) will go on kicking - history forgets those quickly.
It's always fun Wayne. By the way, when can we look forward to your next false declaration that you will be leaving this forum forever?
Just part of change,
Good day.
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #926 on: March 10, 2014, 11:24:14 AM »
Quote
8) 8) 8)
Well men, It took a good woman to make me see the light......
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.com
I am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.
It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope.
..................
I have been given great advice, which I should have listened to sooner.
Thank you Mags - surely the only level head here.
.......................
TK and MarkE
I can not show you what you demand and True diligence requires true willingness.
Now do what you do so well.
Good day.
Wayne
Well MarkE,, neither I nor Wayne have put me forward as an expert, so you are misrepresenting the facts, period.Would you like me to repost Wayne's claim?
It is clear that you present yourself as unable to comprehend the answers.
I noticed that you are again not answering the questions but rather diverting what is being asked.
You can subject what I have posted to anyone you want. Who would I be to stop you? I have shown that the Nest Russian Dolls of Ignorance exhibit the transfer function of a compression spring. See if you can find an expert who can show differently.
Are you prepared to state that your analysis is a full and complete energy accounting of the system under question?
If not, why not.
If yes, then would you mind if your analysis is presented to some professionals?
Gravity powered devices / Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« on: February 13, 2014, 04:03:23 PM »
Quote from: webby1 on February 13, 2014, 03:13:03 PM
John,
There is not "A" design or configuration that makes the magic.
I got what Wayne said in the first go round on this topic, but most missed it, I have brought it up again in this thread and still most ignore it, and right now MarkE is so close that when he does see it,, well that is how I felt when I finally got at least a small part of it.
The first hurdle to get over is the recovery, anybody remember me saying that?? and yet no one has tried to get into that at all.
MarkE, do you know why you can NOT compare a ZED to a single piston? because you *can* get recovery from a ZED and NOT from a single piston.
The build I was walking through will get you there, I found it easier to use 2 devices within each unit and then "sacrifice" some performance from one to have the other as free,, it was just easier to see and to accept.
There is no difference between the system I am walking through if the weight is on the cylinder or not, the weight is an added extra.
Buoyancy has its force trapped within the water column, that is the water supplies the motive force at the cost of setting it up,, but once you have that buoyant lift you have no more cost, then when you are done with using it you can recover your input.
If you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left?? what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.
If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.
Congratulations Webby,
It is hard to see, I know that the ZED system is counter intuitive -
I am Impressed that Mark tried to follow - and I do believe he will get it eventually.
I am also Impressed that you stuck it out and explained.
No doubt your explanation will be followed by pages of confusion by others - which is the case for 240 pages.
................
To all - the point Webby just made - is the mystery behind our system.
It is also why our Zydro Energy group has been quietly building our company.
For all those following - Contrary to the "false facts"
We are not seeking any investments - We are fully Funded.
We have been granted Patents in some countries - all others are under examination.
The Tom Miller Video's did an excellent job of showing the inception to our future technology - they were meant to help you see what Webby just described - not over unity.
And yes - TK a single ZED can be OU - if you simple store the recycled energy and return it on the next stroke, as I said two yeas ago - which you omitted every time you miss applied the context. As I said before - why add the extra effort and time - simply transfer between systems. Get over it - you missed it.
On another note - my contact information has never changed - to those that have tried to discredit me and our company all this time - those people never made one call or asked me one single question about their claims against us. Shame on all of you who slander by assumption.
If you realize you were wrong - I already forgave you - if not time heals - good luck to you.
p.s. I never tell people what to say or think - not Tom, Webby, Mark, Mike, or even those that are childish.
To the rest of the world:
Our Physics are simple and pure - obviously hard for some to see, but no matter;
THE BEST NEWS - The world will receive access to pure clean and reliable energy - as always - as we have been for four years - we are open to visitors.
We are blessed to be able to do this right.
Peace to all of you.
Wayne Travis
Can anyone tell me one fact supporting the ZED that has come from Tom, Webby, Larry,
Mike, Michel or Wayne himself?
John.
It is out of courtesy that I ask.Oh my, a person who presents themselves as unable to comprehend the transfer function of a compression spring claims that I have made a mistake somewhere. Go to it Tom. While your at it, take Wayne's fraudulent claims to the same reviewer, say the ME dept in Norman, OK.
Your current revision 4 will be rejected due to errors.
I think that those errors are NOT what you intended with your analysis, nor did you intend to have the omissions from your analysis.
The integral of F*ds for the riser "lifting" is a necessary part of an Energy Balance Analysis of the SUT?An energy balance analysis needs to identify four values and perform a simple sum:
They never have. It wold be a tremendous surprise for them to start now. First the magic was supposed to be found in the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance. Now, that those have been shown to in the idealized case emulate a simple compression spring, the claimed magic is held to be somewhere else. It is absolutely hilarious how the fraud Wayne Travis was so happy to see "the math" being performed on the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance until the math showed them to be the useless contraption that they are.
Can anyone tell me one fact supporting the ZED that has come from Tom, Webby, Larry,
Mike, Michel or Wayne himself?
John.
Just as we never drew the device that would introduce the water needed to charge the system from State 1(x) to State 2, I also did not originally draw a device that represented the Work that the ZED can do while lifting from State 2 to State 3. The physical device is not important for either of that input or output in an Ideal Analysis. However, the calculation of the Energy that crosses the boarder of the Ideal ZED while transitioning from any first State to a second State needs to be calculated correctly.You set up your problem. The omissions were yours.
The Energy added to the system by the introduction of the Water during the transitions from State 1(x) to State 2 has been calculated.
The Energy leaving the system as Work when the riser "lifts" has not been calculated as the integral of F*ds.
Can anyone tell me one fact supporting the ZED that has come from Tom, Webby, Larry,
Mike, Michel or Wayne himself?
John.
Wow minnie, I feel your pain - I know it is hard to sort thru all the 8) 8) 8) diversions to find the actual facts.Well there is the fact that they all voice support for your fraudulent claims. And there is the fact that none of them have ever offered any evidence that supports your fraudulent claims. So, there are two facts right there. It appears that Minnie was already aware of both of those facts.
One suggestion - click on any of those members names - and you can find plenty.
Wayne
Wow minnie, I feel your pain - I know it is hard to sort thru all the 8) 8) 8) diversions to find the actual facts.
One suggestion - click on any of those members names - and you can find plenty.
Wayne
I know it is hard to sort thru all the 8) 8) 8) diversions to find the actual facts.
One suggestion - click on any of those members names - and you can find plenty.
I like that song,,Webby, why should I deny you your crowning moment of glory when you declare: "Boss! Zee mistake, zee mistake!" That spreadsheet has been out for almost ten days now. It's likely that the brain trust in fraud town USA has done what they can to try and find fault with it. Your efforts at generating numeric errors in Excel by entering bizarre dimensions were fun entertainment, as was watching you try and create that into an issue against the analysis.
If I can see errors,, maybe you should check it yourself.
The gentleman you see here will gladly assist you in your difficult task.
He has been lying from day one in an attempt to create a "Big Lie."
MileHigh
I love that picture !I think it does a great job of capturing your funeral director of investment funds persona.
Thank You!
In my life - I have seen good people who "think for them self" - and they support and rally around the truth.Is that why you lie so freely and so often with your false free energy claims? Is it to create a clear contrast to the truth?
I am sorry if you have never seen that.
If MileHigh ever does, be sure to let him know.
Each time you post false witness against me - I am sorry for you.
What kind of person sells a sack of blatant lies to his family and his neighbors for ten pieces of silver? Oh, that's right. That would be someone selling shares in a non-existent but claimed free energy technology. That would be the kind of person who has no shame. It will be interesting to see what the exit plan is and if it comes off as planned.
......................
What kind of persons attack other people with "Symbolism, Comparisons, Unfounded accusations, Diversions and ignore substance" at all cost?
Sleep tight Wayne.
What does you book say about them?
Good night
I think it does a great job of capturing your funeral director of investment funds persona.
In my life - I have seen good people who "think for them self" - and they support and rally around the truth.How dare you talk about the truth and false witness, you are so full of BS, let's just remind everyone again of your actual words, you lie to everyone repeatedly, you bear false witness and you lie directly to people giving them false hope.
I am sorry if you have never seen that.
Each time you post false witness against me - I am sorry for you.
.............
What kind of persons attack other people with "Symbolism, Comparisons, Unfounded accusations, Diversions and ignore substance" at all cost?
What does your book say about them?
Good night
Is that why you lie so freely and so often with your false free energy claims? Is it to create a clear contrast to the truth?If MileHigh ever does, be sure to let him know.What kind of person sells a sack of blatant lies to his family and his neighbors for ten pieces of silver? Oh, that's right. That would be someone selling shares in a non-existent but claimed free energy technology. That would be the kind of person who has no shame. It will be interesting to see what the exit plan is and if it comes off as planned.Sleep tight Wayne.
How dare you talk about the truth and false witness, you are so full of BS, let's just remind everyone again of your actual words, you lie to everyone repeatedly, you bear false witness and you lie directly to people giving them false hope.
Well....... If you call a wedding photo a funeral - lolWhen it comes to investor funds it is more of a burial. I am glad that someone can laugh about that. Your investors aren't laughing.
Thanks powercat ,
come on, mrwayne!
"Simple. Phisics can show it over and over". (phisics ?)
"Our system is over 600%".
A wee bit of proof shouldn't be that hard with statements like that.
John
Dear Mark,Investment obtained using false and/or misleading claims is a violation of the Acts 1933 and 1934.
When you are pretending to care for our investors:
The help we receive is not money to buy cars, - but Engineering, DoEs, designing, business strategists, Manufacturers, Logistics, Builders, International representatives, Training, facilities, HR, accounting, staffing, tooling and testing.
It is well demonstrated that gullibility is not an issue of intelligence.
...................
p.s. These are smart people - much smarter than me - They are a blessing.
There is no mystery to the ZED system: You lift weights, you lower weights. You lie claiming that you get free energy in the process. You fraudulently sell investment with your lies. It is very open and shut.
Mark, let me be clear - you are much smarter than me...
which is why I believe you are just a UI 8) 8) 8) - you spend countless hours trashing us - it does not take that much effort to unlock the mystery of the ZED system.
One can hope that you will indeed deal with truth and reality as a criminal defendant. The great news is that each time your repeat your brazen and shameless lies you reinforce evidence of your scienter.
.............
Here is a secret of Truth - it has unbreakable advantage over you;
I deal with truth and reality, and not your made up accusations.
I am not a part of your fraud.
..................
As far as your contributions to our work;
We know that to be false as evidenced by your behavior and that of your lackeys.
In my leadership circles - I do not allow "yes men", so disagreement is fine - we do insist on honesty.
LOL, the shameless fraud levels an accusation of dishonesty.
You have made insult after insult and accusation after accusation - you are not honest.
..................I think the way that you lie without hesitation or shame is awesome. You might have made a very successful politician. Unfortunately, fraud statutes are on the books.
Success in teamwork requires respect for people limitations and respect for their gifts.
Actually, nature is in charge and nature precludes your false claims.
The reason for our success - we know who is ultimately in charge.
There is no technology. Your claims to technology are all lies. The Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance poorly emulate springs less than 1/1000th their size. Your contraptions do not as you claim alter the behavior of gravity, nor do they provide for any free energy. They are stage props for your fraud.
We are not waiting on your permission, nor for you to catch up with the technology,
Correction: You are spending investor funds on the pretense of building a company.
and .... sadly .....we are not waiting for you to tell the truth.
We are building our company.
You must believe that God doesn't mete out justice on the wicked. Your exit is far more likely to involve lawyers, conflict, and throwing blame any direction you can.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Here is my Exit plan - Groom a CEO to replace me and focus my days on discovery, inventing, and giving God credit for it all.
You've proven that you have quite a penchant for inventing false stories that you tell to extract money from the gullible.
The only sleep I ever loose is prayer time, and inventing time - I love loosing sleep for both.
Take care.
Wayne
Dear Powercatt -He is talking about: false as in the opposite of true, and hope as in the expectations you create for those you fleece.
Did you get the PM to "help bash Wayne"?
False hope........... what are you talking about?
Yes, incredible as in not real, because your technology claims are lies.
This is a incredible journey.
That would mean involving himself in something real, rather than your lies.
Please share you efforts to introduce a world changing technology?
It's amazing what a shameless huckster can convince honest people to do.
Did it all go smoothly and without hurdles to face - did you find support and skills readily volunteered?
When you were overloaded - with responsibility - did people help pick up your load and support you?
No one needs permission to point out a crime in progress. That usually falls under the heading of community obligation.
...................
When you share your journey, your invention, you have my permission to speak accusations against me.
Wayne
Gosh - maybe I should just show the early models self looped running by itself.....Except that you can't, because you have never had any machine that produces free energy.
Except that you can't, because none ever have worked as claimed.
Maybe I should invite engineers to come and stay in my lab to analyze the system working as claimed.......
Except that you you won't like the reports because they won't corroborate your false claims.
Maybe I should allow members from this site to come see for them self and let them report on this site....
If you do then you will be inviting others to demonstrate the falsity of your claims.
Maybe I should invite replication and let the builders share their discovery.....
That would be hilarious. Then we would get to see what kind of nonsense your staff supposedly believes.
Maybe I should allow the engineers to share there analysis.....
Oh yeah, there have been masterpieces like LarryC's spreadsheet.
''''''''''''''
Wow - oh wait - "been there, done that" and the result from you 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
What no one will see is any of your claimed systems providing the free energy that you claim they can.
Here is what more proof I will give you ........
You will our see our logistics teams installing our systems.
It seems that he already understands all too well. It's the people who have invested in your lies who didn't understand what they were doing.
And then you can make a video about how we intentionally did not explain it well enough to you to understand....
It was fortunate for you. It was unfortunate for the investors.
How it is our fault that you missed it.
Fortunately - not everyone missed it.
Good day.
Gosh - maybe I should just show the early models self looped running by itself.....That is one of the most twisted BS statements you've made in recent time, let's see now what happened in reality, you know the truth, oow wait you don't believe in the truth you just twist things.
Maybe I should invite engineers to come and stay in my lab to analyze the system working as claimed.......
Maybe I should allow members from this site to come see for them self and let them report on this site....
Maybe I should invite replication and let the builders share their discovery.....
Maybe I should allow the engineers to share there analysis.....
''''''''''''''Wow - oh wait - "been there, done that" and the result from you 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Here is what more proof I will give you ........
You will our see our logistics teams installing our systems.
And then you can make a video about how we intentionally did not explain it well enough to you to understand....
How it is our fault that you missed it.
Fortunately - not everyone missed it.
Good day.
Dear Powercatt -I will speak the truth against you, not only do you deserve bashing that you need to be destroyed and shown up for the twisted conman you are, like all conman of course you have followers and believers, what , do you think because you have that it means you're not a liar, don't make me laugh we have seen it all before, as your relatively new to this site I will quote you one example from the financial world,
Did you get the PM to "help bash Wayne"?
False hope........... what are you talking about?
This is a incredible journey.
se share you efforts to introduce a world changing technology?
Did it all go smoothly and without hurdles to face - did you find support and skills readily volunteered?
When you were overloaded - with responsibility - did people help pick up your load and support you?
...................When you share your journey, your invention, you have my permission to speak accusations against me.
Wayne
Powercat - you are wrong, Sorry.More lies from the fraud Wayne Travis. It's all good. The lies just build the evidence of scienter. Wayne Travis keeps trying to prop up his central preposterous lie: That he has found a way to get free energy from lifting and lowering weights.
Wow - 8) 8) 8)
Should I be surprised...
no
Of course Wayne Travis does not now have nor did he ever have a machine that delivers free energy at even a tiny fraction of a hp.
mrwayne,
May 28 2012.
"I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts"
Have you got a self running 5hp. machine?
Please answer. Yes/no
John
:-* :-*The non-fluid fluid graphic cracks me up every time I see it. Just think: Some fool PE put his name to that. Someone flunked statics.
I wonder if there was any speaking that accompanied that slide, something along the lines of to push the water up on the right and the air down on the left,, blah blah blah,,,
Oh,, that can not be the case because then the slide would make sense.
Kind of like where the other half of the energy goes when equalizing,, or should I ask, how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating,, that would not happen to be the missing 1\2,, those darn pesky physics.
More lies from the fraud Wayne Travis. It's all good. The lies just build the evidence of scienter. Wayne Travis keeps trying to prop up his central preposterous lie: That he has found a way to get free energy from lifting and lowering weights.
Tom,Here are Slides 26 and 27 AGAIN.
TK has omitted the next slide every time he posts that slide.
Of course I reminded him several times of his intentional misleading. Still does it.
.....
Free flow and equalization is the same function - only concentrated in a ZED.
That slide began to explain how we reduce the input - which Mark and the others avoid at all cost.
I am glad they keep bringing it up.
I wonder if there was any speaking that accompanied that slide, something along the lines of to push the water up on the right and the air down on the left,, blah blah blah,,,
Oh,, that can not be the case because then the slide would make sense.
Kind of like where the other half of the energy goes when equalizing,, or should I ask, how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating,, that would not happen to be the missing 1\2,, those darn pesky physics.
The internal energy decreases where you claimed it increases.
Tom,Try as you might Wayne, no amount of misleading language like "reduce the input" can make your fraudulent claims to free energy real.
TK has omitted the next slide every time he posts that slide.
Of course I reminded him several times of his intentional misleading. Still does it.
.....
Free flow and equalization is the same function - only concentrated in a ZED.
That slide began to explain how we reduce the input - which Mark and the others avoid at all cost.
I am glad they keep bringing it up.
Mark - It is a joke that you keep trying to uninvent our ZED system...Only you nose gets longer each time you speak Wayne. The "ideal ZED" does not get taller as it is compressed. It gets taller as it relaxes, just like the compression spring it emulates.
I think we are on to you. Weights bricks, springs, bollard, ---
Which of those get taller as you compress them???
Diversion of desperation..I understand - it is your job.
Try as you might Wayne, no amount of misleading language like "reduce the input" can make your fraudulent claims to free energy real.Reduce the input by using the pre-charge. Spring-loaded automatic bollard. Webby finally got it. The precharge isn't used up, it only takes five pounds of lift to raise up a 300 pound bollard or lower it gently, the preload never runs out. You have reduced your input but 'something' has still performed all the work necessary to raise up that heavy bollard.
Only you nose gets longer each time you speak Wayne. The "ideal ZED" does not get taller as it is compressed. It gets taller as it relaxes, just like the compression spring it emulates.
MarkE, I have never claimed that the internal energy increases except when we are adding that exact amount of energy as additional water Volume under Pressure. This happens from State 1(x) to State 2.You had best reread your post #27. Kindly show where in that post you mention external energy output.
You have shown, and I agree, that the internal energy decreases during the lift from State 2 to State 3. I would like to see the calculation for the Work performed during that lift, since that Work is also energy that is leaving the system.
Mondrasek
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1236
View Profile
Personal Message (Online)
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 09:58:25 PM »
Quote
I was hoping to have someone check my math and process of analyzing the 2-layer system before ever posting the 3-layer. That has not happened and so here is the next model if anyone is interested. It utilizes the exact same 2-layer model and adds an additional third riser on the outside. That way the same calculations for the 2-layer portion to find the water levels after introducing the Vin volume "charge" could be re-used.
The PinVin I calculate now rises to ~2.103 mJ. If PoutVout is to be equal to that per Boyle's law, then the system should stroke ~1.9094 mm. That is drawn on the right hand side and analyzed to see if it is neutrally buoyant. It is not, and actually is still pushing upward with ~31.8276 grams of force. So the ZED would stroke further than shown until it could come to rest again with neutral buoyancy. And that would require that PouVout would be greater than the PinVin of ~2.103 mJ.
M.
ZED3 All.jpg
Mark, I am sorry - I thought you were intentionally trying to confuse people - now I understand that you really did miss it.LOL. Wayne Travis, black box behavior is evaluated from the outside. You lose again.
Look inside the ZED for the Spring - not out side.
The taller happens inside.
Wayne
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #1434 on: Today at 03:09:23 PM »
Quote
I wonder if there was any speaking that accompanied that slide, something along the lines of to push the water up on the right and the air down on the left,, blah blah blah,,,
Oh,, that can not be the case because then the slide would make sense.
Kind of like where the other half of the energy goes when equalizing,, or should I ask, how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating,, that would not happen to be the missing 1\2,, those darn pesky physics.
Well then,, why don't you show us all how you can stop gravity from accelerating something without an opposing force.Force does not require any energy. Whatever is between you and the center of the earth is not expending energy to keep you from that long fall.
You are sounding like one of those " I will only show the half that helps me" kind of people.
LOL. Wayne Travis, black box behavior is evaluated from the outside. You lose again.
Some of the water columns get taller, others get shorter as the machine relaxes. The machine as a whole behaves as a compression spring. The fraudster Wayne Travis disputed that even though he knows it to be true. He tried to lead readers down a garden path. He fell into his own thickets.
Mark,
can the thing get taller inside when the air is massless and incompressible?
John.
For a musical interlude here is a link to "The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys" MarkE's lyrics,,Do you suffer dementia? Are you unable to recall your own post #1434? Allow me to refresh your memory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3M8Sk7X51k
Where did I say energy, MarkE,, I said FORCE,, opposing force actually.
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZEDYou really must enjoy playing a village idiot as you so insistent upon doing it.
« Reply #1434 on: Today at 03:09:23 PM »
Quote
I wonder if there was any speaking that accompanied that slide, something along the lines of to push the water up on the right and the air down on the left,, blah blah blah,,,
Oh,, that can not be the case because then the slide would make sense.
Kind of like where the other half of the energy goes when equalizing,, or should I ask, how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating,, that would not happen to be the missing 1\2,, those darn pesky physics.
LOL - You need to mature past the black box...LOL. Black box evaluation is a standard method of evaluation. It is just so funny to see you keep pretending that there is something special about your Rube Goldberg contraptions.
That is your preconceived requirement - which creates limited thinking.
I will check in next week and see if you have actually tied to unravel the system.
Smile
I will check in next week and see if you have actually tied to unravel the system.
Not safe for young or work or those easily offended.So when you forgot that you asked your clueless question: "how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating" your forgetfulness was dementia? And pray tell what is your excuse for asking how much energy is required to supply a force? The person having trouble understanding basic concepts here is obviously you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY
My bad MarkE, I needed to reference the water columns equalizing and forgot,, I assumed that all would understand that reference without me having to make it,, but at least you missed it, so others might of missed it as well.
Oh shoot MarkE,, would you look at your quote,, I did qualify that statement,, darn it all for you any way!
Kind of like where the other half of the energy goes when equalizing,,
or should I ask, how much energy is needed to be applied to stop the water from just accelerating
Well then,, why don't you show us all how you can stop gravity from accelerating something without an opposing force.You are still confusing force with work.
You are sounding like one of those " I will only show the half that helps me" kind of people.
How much Work is done when the water above the piston is lifted?0.5*pWater*G0*pi/4*44mm2*HLIFT2, where HLIFT <= 2.5899mm
Right, because the water never falls down to equalize,, so that means there is no water motion and therefore no force over any distance.. Right MarkE.Context?
Sure you can Reduce the force to zero, when the two columns are at the same height then the water will no longer just accelerate away.
There is that other column that is applying a force against it however, and since now there is no motion there is no energy change.
I will check in next week and see if you have actually tied to unravel the system.Is that a promise ? or will you be back before next week ?
Context?Like most of his statements,
What are you asking?LOL, you posed a question. If you can't supply the context for your question then you are totally lost.
Here is just one page from webby previous posts,If Webby believes that a SMOT can be made to complete a full cycle without added external energy, then there is a good chance that he does not understand things like fields and integrals.
http://www.overunity.com/profile/webby1.1117/area/showposts/start/480/#.UzCODvl_s8A
for those nonmembers who can't use the link, the thread is about a self looping "SMOT" and nothing to do with the ZED, they are many more pages like this showing a lack of interest in the ZED from the time Wayne originally left the forum.
You can also see that since Wayne returned webby only ever posts about the ZED, and must post almost every day for months, and he must challenge almost everything told to him, and despite being capable of building a device, he insists on repetitive argumentative posting.
Well,, why don't you show that you are no different.Tom, if you think that the N*(X/N)2 tyranny of equalizing (full equalization is not necessary) two potential energy stores does not apply to your two cylinder lifter machine, then go after it. You have many times claimed that your two cylinder lifter had been designed and constructed in such a way that it was not subject to the problem. Yet months later, you have been unable to show that you have been doing anything but blowing smoke.
Posting the same argument over and over, is indeed repetitive.
I agreed to disagree many times and was fine with the impasse.
But the "tyranny of it all" seems to be ever present even tho that is not the only way nature works.
Which question would that be?Now you act as though you can't even remember your own questions. They must not be important to you. If your questions aren't important enough for you to remember, then why should they be important enough to anyone else to answer?
Are you then stating that an equal and opposite force can not be applied to the transfer of potentials that converts the remaining potential during the transfer?I am stating exactly as I have that equalizing potential between two or more potential energy stores results in a loss of energy. That loss of energy can be quantified as the difference between: N*(X/N)2 and X2 for any N > 1. As it applies to your cylinders, in the Starting / Ending state one and only one cylinder is full charged to a given force potential and as such stores a given amount of energy. When you attempt to transfer the energy from one cylinder to the other using the stored potential energy which is certainly the case when you speak of manipulating forces, then you will inevitably equalize along the way similarly to the two column water transfer problem shown in the attached graphic. At that point you will have lost half the energy that you had at the start and will have to add that lost energy in order to continue to the end state, or retreat to the starting state.
Is this conversion, in your view, into either heat or a change in KE and nothing else?
You have left too many questions unanswered.Third base!
Who"s on first?You have so far failed to show an example of what you claim. I suspect that you simply do not understand and so misinterpret what you think overcomes the problem.
That long list made me laugh,, I have stated that me and electronics are not good be fellows,, but I understand what you are trying to get at, and I agree with what you are saying except for one small part.
I can not speak to electrical parts, but with mechanical parts I can state that the condition of a full loss of 1\2 the energy does not have to happen. Using mechanics, the unused force that is applied can be applied into another mechanical device, without detracting from the primary transfer system.
The fact that you are citing a differential as an example of a potential energy behavior reinforces my view that you simply do not understand the N*(X/N)2 problem or how it applies to your two cylinder lifter.
This is done with load sharing stuff all the time and is not anything new.
A Torsen center diff for AWD or 4WD cars, just as an example.
That long list made me laugh,, I have stated that me and electronics are not good be fellows,, but I understand what you are trying to get at, and I agree with what you are saying except for one small part.
I can not speak to electrical parts, but with mechanical parts I can state that the condition of a full loss of 1\2 the energy does not have to happen.
"a full loss of 1\2 the energy does not have to happen. "Well then perform all ten steps of the experiment and see if you can defend your belief. Here is a hint: No matter what resistance value you use between the two capacitors, you always lose the same amount of energy. Only the [/b]power[/b] changes, making the equalization happen faster or slower.
Absolutely correct. ;)
We can charge a 100uf cap to 100v and if we allow it to be discharged into another 100uf cap(0v), we end up with 50v in each cap. There is a loss of 50%. And I say we just lost it stupidly by not making use of the current flow from the full cap to the empty. For me, I dont believe it was lost due to resistance/heat.
I think that reasoning is just used to cover the simplistic ideals that we started with 1 cap at 100v, and ended up with just half that voltage in each.This is a natural and common situation. If one wants to minimize its effects one has some design choices. One of those choices is to still use equalization, but not to restrict the potential variation between the stores. Such methods have been used in charge pump power converters since the late 1970s. Another choice is to convert the energy into another form and then back. That is the method that pendulums have used for centuries.
That's right: The resistor value affects the power not the energy.
We could have a 1,000,000 ohm resistor(pressure limiting valve) inserted between the 2 caps, and it would take a long time to equal out to 50v each, but no extra losses due to the 'added' very large resistance. ??? ;)
That almost works. What happens is that the inductor current build-up slows down as the second capacitor begins to charge. This will prevent the first capacitor from fully discharging. But you are on the right track. The inductor serves the same purpose as kinetic energy in a pendulum. In the case of the quasi-resonant converter that you just described the potential energy in the electric field converts into "kinetic" energy in the magnetic field of the inductor.
Capaitor - air tank
100v - 100psi
50v - 50psi
resistor - valve limiting pressure to be released
Now, if we have 2 caps, 100uf/100v and 100uf/0v and we add an inductor between the leads of the caps, so that the 100v cap dumps into the empty cap, if we have a switch and time it just right, we can turn the switch on, the 100v cap begins to discharge into the empty cap through the inductor. The inductor starts to build a magnetic field(stored energy), eventually nearly all the energy from the full cap will be in the previously empty cap if we turn the switch off right at that moment.
Actually you suffer a lot of loss due to two factors: 1) The turbine power efficiency will be in the 30% range, and 2) Just as with the inductor, if you do not convert all of the energy out of potential form before transferring it to the second potential store, then you still get burned by the N*(X/N)2 problem.
The inductor acts as a flywheel. So if we have 2 equal air tanks, one with 100psi, and the other at 0psi, then we run a pipe from the full tank to a valve(switch), and then an efficient turbine or better yet an air driven motor(less leakage) with a flywheel on its shaft, when we open the valve, the pressure in the full tank decreases and the empty tank begins filling. With the air motor/flywheel, as the air is being transferred, the flywheel gets going. When the 2 tanks are at equal pressure(50psi), the flywheel is at its peak rpm, and continues pumping from the originally full tank into the previously empty tank, till we have nearly all the initial pressure of the source tank in the destination tank, and we shut off the valve. Little loss. Not 50%.
That is the tyranny of the N*(X/N)2 problem.
Electrical, mechanical, very similar beasts in many ways. ;) When the inductors field is at peak(flywheel at peak rpm) the field begins to collapse, pulling charge from the source cap to the destination cap, turn off the switch. ;D
So if we just let the source tank(100psi) just dump into the destination tank, and we end up with 50% of the total initial energy of the first tank, in both tanks total(50psi each), then we just lost that energy stupidly by just releasing the pressure and not taking advantage of the transfer. Releasing the pressure into a totally larger container(2xcu.in of source container), without doing anything with that release in order to make use of that energy being transferred.
You have the basic idea right. Now, all you need is to actually solve the problem for Tom's two cylinder lifter, and then jump in a time machine so that you can provide that answer to Tom so he can apply back when he has been saying he had a solution.
We could do other work with the air motor, providing power out of the system, and still end up with 50psi in each tank, where the originally lost 50% would have been used mechanically by way of the air motor. ;) Hope that helps.
Mags
Well then perform all ten steps of the experiment and see if you can defend your belief. Here is a hint: No matter what resistance value you use between the two capacitors, you always lose the same amount of energy. Only the power changes, making the equalization happen faster or slower.This is a natural and common situation. If one wants to minimize its effects one has some design choices. One of those choices is to still use equalization, but not to restrict the potential variation between the stores. Such methods have been used in charge pump power converters since the late 1970s. Another choice is to convert the energy into another form and then back. That is the method that pendulums have used for centuries.That's right: The resistor value affects the power not the energy.That almost works. What happens is that the inductor current build-up slows down as the second capacitor begins to charge. This will prevent the first capacitor from fully discharging. But you are on the right track. The inductor serves the same purpose as kinetic energy in a pendulum. In the case of the quasi-resonant converter that you just described the potential energy in the electric field converts into "kinetic" energy in the magnetic field of the inductor.
If you want high energy transfer efficiency, you need to connect the first capacitor to only the inductor until the capacitor voltage reaches zero, at which point all of the energy is in the inductor's magnetic field, and then connect the inductor to the second capacitor. Then when the inductor current reaches zero, you need to disconnect the inductor from the second capacitor. This sort of arrangement can reach very high efficiencies.Actually you suffer a lot of loss due to two factors: 1) The turbine power efficiency will be in the 30% range, and 2) Just as with the inductor, if you do not convert all of the energy out of potential form before transferring it to the second potential store, then you still get burned by the N*(X/N)2 problem.That is the tyranny of the N*(X/N)2 problem.You have the basic idea right. Now, all you need is to actually solve the problem for Tom's two cylinder lifter, and then jump in a time machine so that you can provide that answer to Tom so he can apply back when he has been saying he had a solution.
Well, no losses if we are talking 'ideal' 'here' ;)
Now, if in the electronic example, we cut the switch when the input cap was at near 70v, then we use a free wheel diode to let the inductor finish discharging into the destination cap, the second cap can be charged up to around 70v also. Now we have 2 caps, total energy nearly what was in the originally full cap. Well, ideal would be 100% of the original energy still available., but in a larger reservoir.
So how do we do that with the air tanks? I dont think it would work well. Maybe some alt mech could be made to get it done. Source tank 100psi, fly wheel accel, second tank filling, cut of the source tank at 70psi. Flywheel still going, we would have to pull the additional air from the outside with the flywheel/air motor to continue pressurizing the second tank. Big problem getting to 70 psi though. We just switched our source of 70psi to a 0psi source. No way to get to 70psi.
That tank example is just a simple way to get Webby to understand the electronic example in comparison. If we really want to do it right, each cap would be compared to 2 tanks(plates). ;)
More complicated, but problem solved. ;) But Im sure he can understand the comparison better now. ;D
Mags
Well, no losses if we are talking 'ideal' 'here' ;)Well you won't succeed in equalizing at 70.7V that way, but your intuition is on the right track. If you want to approach 100% efficient energy transfer, you need to transfer only from the first capacitor to the coil, and then from the coil to the second capacitor. As long as the second capacitor and the first capacitor are connected together whether or not there is a coil in between you suffer from the N*(X/N)2 problem. The coil reduces the effective value of N.
Now, if in the electronic example, we cut the switch when the input cap was at near 70v, then we use a free wheel diode to let the inductor finish discharging into the destination cap, the second cap can be charged up to around 70v also. Now we have 2 caps, total energy nearly what was in the originally full cap. Well, ideal would be 100% of the original energy still available., but in a larger reservoir.
It is tricky business, because you need a highly efficient means to both convert the potential energy to kinetic, and then switch to perform the reverse conversion on the second column. None of Tom's proposals have included the necessary mechanics.
So how do we do that with the air tanks? I dont think it would work well. Maybe some alt mech could be made to get it done. Source tank 100psi, fly wheel accel, second tank filling, cut of the source tank at 70psi. Flywheel still going, we would have to pull the additional air from the outside with the flywheel/air motor to continue pressurizing the second tank. Big problem getting to 70 psi though. We just switched our source of 70psi to a 0psi source. No way to get to 70psi.
If by problem you mean getting Tom to understand what he is up against, then yes. If you mean a devised solution that will do substantially better than 50% loss, then it is still at the rough concept phase. Tom's problem is that he has been claiming to have solved the problem almost two years ago, when it seems that he has yet to understand it.
That tank example is just a simple way to get Webby to understand the electronic example in comparison. If we really want to do it right, each cap would be compared to 2 tanks(plates). ;)
More complicated, but problem solved. ;) But Im sure he can understand the comparison better now. ;D
Mags
Well,, why don't you show that you are no different.I'm not denying I'm being repetitive, Wayne Travesty is a fraudulent liar, and needs to be challenged and so does anyone supporting his fraud, if you want things to change I suggest you come up with some proper evidence, like a continuous self running device, but you just continue posting day after day month after month supporting Wayne, how many lies do you want to be associated with ?
Posting the same argument over and over, is indeed repetitive.
I agreed to disagree many times and was fine with the impasse.
But the "tyranny of it all" seems to be ever present even tho that is not the only way nature works.
No it is not.Tiresome is as tiresome does. Show me the multiple potential energy stores in a Torsen or any other style differential.
The fact that you are missing it shows that you do not get it.
That's nice. It does not change the situation that you have in hand.
PTO's have been around for ages and multiple devices running off of a single drive unit as well.
I don't want the potential to stay in the water, I want it to do work and I want that work to be done through a device of my control.
That is apparently because despite the number of times that I have explained it to you, you still do not see. You keep coming back with the idea that if you arrange a lever: be it as a simple lever or in the form of gears or pulleys, that you can overcome the energy problem. You have proposed several devices and none of them address the problem. I can only conclude that is because you do not comprehend the problem. The only source of energy, and the only source of force that you have available is bound up in the height of your charged column. I have shown you that even if you arrange a scheme where the force differential is just barely above zero that the force still comes to zero when the columns reach equal heights. You can have the world's highest gain lever arm and it won't help you. One would think that you could see this from your own contraption where you admit that when the two arms each come level to the horizon the machine stops.
What I see when I look at your problem is a source with a diminishing value,, that is all it is, so to use that I need to simply maximize what is available when it is available to do the most work with whatever it is being used for while it can.
Tom, heat is energy. When it is the same temperature as the environment it is not useful energy.
What part of "you can not destroy energy" do you really not understand?
Energy isn't what I call it. It is the integral of F*ds. And if you think all useful energy always remains useful energy then you do not understand the basic concept of efficiency.
Energy????, call it what you want but it describes a packet force over some distance,, that "work" can be converted into any other value of force and distance so long as they are the same packet size.
Wayne Travis' fraud is all about his false claims of being able to generate unlimited amounts of free energy. It is a fraud that you staunchly support. You present yourself more and more as unfamiliar with and unable to grasp the fundamental concepts involved.
I do not care about energy, does not bother me at all,, I have always looked at the actual force and the actual distance the actual angles and all of that actual stuff. All the formulas do the same thing with different names and conventions and, well all those funny little characters meaning this , that, and the other, but those formulas must always change to meet what people like me actually do, that is not the other way around,, if I am doing something that the formulas states I can not,, then the formula changes I do not suddenly stop being able to do what ever it is I am doing.
Hmmmm,, I wonder what it is that I am saying, the big part that you do not seem to get nor understand.A lever does not convert the energy into another form. A lever multiplies force at a cost of distance or distance at the cost of force.
If you want to defeat the N*(X/N)2 problem you have to convert the form of the energy. I have explained this many times. You act as though you do not grasp this concept.
The column of water is only a store of potential, drain the store, convert that and then re-use it,, DOH!
No, you have to convert the energy to another form. You cannot keep the energy in potential form without facing the N*(X/N)2 problem. Do the math. Oh, that's right, you say you don't know how to do the math even though I have shown it to you many times.
Drain the store using more than 1 item even,, it is all the same thing.
You keep repeating invalid ideas.
This is what I have been saying.
We may be witnessing Dunning-Kruger exemplified.
If you do not understand what the diff does, that is fine,, that is more in my area.
You have not identified any errors in the spreadsheet. If you or anyone else identifies an actual error then I will fix it.
I would really suggest you fix up your spreadsheet,, not to make any changes, and I do not think all of the errors affect things much, but it is your work that others may be looking at.
Then you should have no problem identifying these supposed errors that no one else has identified. What are the odds that you can't anymore identify an actual error than you have been able to come up with a solution to your two cylinder lifter energy loss?
If you are not worried about it no problem for me either,, I just have to fix your errors and then move on as I am using it for a guide on how to go about doing this stuff, and yes the errors are that obvious.
This is interesting,,Red is not blue. So what?
Oh,, width is not height by the way,,
You still haven't pointed out any alleged errors in the R4 spreadsheet. You've only indicated that between you and Open Office you are having problems making whatever changes you would like to the R4 spreadsheet. The formula that you are copying is the named cell ST0_Energy. You can simply refer to that by name. For example: '= ST0_Energy*1'. That particular cell calculates the stored energy potential in the three columns of water in State 0.
Program problems,, That makes more sense then that you did not see any errors.
For some reason when I copy and paste sometimes I am getting this
=0.5*cir_mm_m_to_N_1*(AR2CirArea_1+AR2_3WaterVol_1+AR2CirArea_1+AR5CirArea_1+AR3CirArea_1+AR7CirArea_1+Riser1WallCirArea_1+cir_mm_m_to_N_1+Riser3WallCirArea_1)*(ST0_AR_Height_1*mm_to_m_1)^2
When I copy this
=0.5*cir_mm_m_to_N_1*(AR2CirArea_1+AR3CirArea_1+AR4CirArea_1+AR5CirArea_1+AR6CirArea_1+AR7CirArea_1+Riser1WallCirArea_1+Riser2WallCirArea_1+Riser3WallCirArea_1)*(ST0_AR_Height_1*mm_to_m_1)^2
What is force, What is Energy, What is distance, What is stored potential?You present yourself as unfamiliar with elementary physics. Energy does indeed take multiple forms. In the mechanical world the two forms are: potential energy, and kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy that results because of something's position within a field. Kinetic energy is energy that something has because of its motion. A spinning flywheel of some defined inertia and spin rate may have the same quantity of kinetic energy as the quantity of potential energy stored in a suitable compressed spring, but the forms of energy are completely different.
Does a lever use pressure?
Does gravity do any work all by itself?
A unit quantity of Energy is just that, there is no "form" to it.
You wont get this but,
You need to be able to identify both sides of a coin, otherwise you can only say heads or not heads, and this may be just fine and dandy and you may be able to make all sorts of heads and not heads observations, but then the coin is flipped and lands on its edge,, since it is not heads that is all you can call it, not heads.
See the problem.
=Riser2Height+VerGap+RiserWallThicknessThe risers are modeled using a uniform material thickness for both the tops and the sides.
I am wondering if this issue is the same as the copy and paste issue, that is with the program I am using.
I think we are going to just have to disagree on this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5WJoup-RD8 Learn something.
On one hand we are in agreement and on another we are not seeing things eye to eye.
I hope you watched that video,, maybe you can learn something yourself,, watch the rock fall down.Tom it was your false claim that there is no difference between potential and kinetic energy. You are simply and completely wrong. If a video that explains the concept to school children can't penetrate your psyche, then it is unlikely that any can. If you can't be taught even the most basic physics concepts that you are dealing with, then the likelihood that you can find your way to correct conclusions is essentially nil.
Hey, it just occurred to me that I might have an overunity Joule Thief circuit.That is just a "set-up" cost right? In the land of Chickasha's best and brightest you may have just invented the LED ZED. Maybe in addition to the LED you can have device run a teeter totter of some form.
Now, this circuit will light an led 24/7 for 2 months. It does not use any energy at all. (See below)
Of course, I do have to "pre-charge" the 1.2 volt battery but, there is no need to put that into my pin pout calculations right? So, that means I have a circuit that must be overunity then right?
Bill
That is just a "set-up" cost right? In the land of Chickasha's best and brightest you may have just invented the LED ZED. Maybe in addition to the LED you can have device run a teeter totter of some form.
Great idea! I only have to "pre-charge" the battery once every two months so that is just a maintenance cost. I am afraid if I wired it to a teeter totter, combined with the input energy from gravity, it might make too much power and could not be controlled. Mankind is not ready for this much energy production I am afraid. Someone might use it in a war.There is the risk of such dual use. But it is much better: Praise Jesus! that we God loving citizens of the USA benefit from this holy gift for our own protection than the Godless heathens who would stop the Wright Brothers themselves if they had the chance.
Bill
Height and width are not the same,, if it does not matter to you then that is fine,, I already said that.The spreadsheet reflects the configuration that Mondrasek set-up with additional flexibility. Apparently, you are all upset because one parameter: RiserWallThickness is used for both the vertical and horizontal walls. If you want to piss and moan that the spreadsheet doesn't have some extra feature that you would like, such as independent vertical and horizontal wall thickness specifications then be my guest. A more diplomatic way to get something extra is to ask for it.
If you refuse to learn basic physics, then that is your loss. Potential energy and kinetic energy are distinct forms.
BS on the claim you are sticking in my words there MarkE,, Potential is useless,, just like a rock sitting up on a hill.
Accuse away. As usual your accusations are BS.
What YOU are not understanding is that I am always talking about a FORCE acting over a DISTANCE,, and now you are making things up.
Ah, here we see Tom Web special physics where you choose to redefine basic terms. Packets are for routers and beverage sweeteners. It seems that you are incapable of learning the real physics that operates in the real world. So be it.
Stored potential is a packet of work that can be spent,, that is what I have said,, so where do you come of with the BS line.
Let's see Tom: You claim machinery that you have never had. You staunchly defend the blatant fraud Wayne Travis and his phoney baloney free energy claims. You make claims against physics that are totally false. You continue to make such claims even when they are refuted again and again. You claim that there are obvious errors in the R4 spreadsheet but you cannot even identify one. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is routinely on the wrong side of reality.
What do you call it when people make things up that are not true MarkE? This is what you are doing yet again.
OK - work is done here. To RED, Webby, Let them be - we are moving up, and onward.Wayne
Is gravity conservative? MarkE says no, I think it is.
Gravity is conservative.
Of course, I do have to "pre-charge" the 1.2 volt battery but, there is no need to put that into my pin pout calculations right? So, that means I have a circuit that must be overunity then right?
What a dolt,, Wayne tells me to forget about trying with this group and you make that into what???That's right I have a special approach, but if you are paying attention you would see that I only attack people that make OU claims they can't support, like yourself Red, and Wayne,
Out of the last 80 posts of yours how many were informative and how many were BS posts just like this one?
I think it is YOU who lost credibility a while ago when you started on a rampage of destruction,, forget about anything else destroy at all costs,, that is a really special approach.
Same thing goes for MarkE,, lets not pay attention to the REAL stuff lets just do our best, and even lie about it, to destroy and belittle the "other" people,,
Is gravity conservative? MarkE says no, I think it is.
I am not pissing and moaning Mark, you are, you and your friends are all whining just like a little school girl who does not get her way.Sure you are. You're bitching that the spreadsheet doesn't let you have different riser vertical and horizontal wall thicknesses. You keep trying to represent that the parameter: RiserWallThickness has been improperly used in height calculations, stating that width is not the same as height. While your statement that width is not the same as height is true, it's another of your straw man arguments. The spreadsheet uses the parameter RiserWallThickness to define how thick the riser walls are whether or not they are vertical or horizontal walls. Now where are these errors you keep claiming exist in the R4 spreadsheet?
Nope, the lost energy goes into heat. So, either you do not understand what I have told you many times now, or you are a liar. Idiot or liar: which are you Tom?
According to MarkE it takes twice as much work to pump in water to fill a tube than can be had when the water leaves the tube,, even if there is no heat or friction it still loses 1\2 of the input.
Nope, the energy is converted to heat. You clearly do not understand.
I may be accused of missing things,, but I know that that would mean that energy is being destroyed,, so MarkE is now having everyone believe that energy can be destroyed.
I already have many times now.
Try to prove me wrong MarkE.
Nope. Obviously you do not understand the real physics that results in the real loss whenever one takes an energy potential from a single store and attempts to divide it with other stores. You suffer under the delusion that you can transfer potential energy from one store to another without either first converting the potential energy to kinetic and then moving it to the second store, or losing a large percentage of the energy. In short: You present yourself as ignorant and unteachable.
Pumping water into the tube takes how much work and therefore how much energy,, and then when the water exits the tube how much work can be collect from that water,, is that not just funny,, they are the same amount.
PooF goes MarkE's argument,, using BS conditions that are very specific and then generalizing them is BS,, MarkE do you understand the requirements for your system to work, I think not.
Again, it is clear that you don't understand what I have shown you, or like you have done before you are trying to create a straw man argument. It really doesn't matter whether your problem is ignorance or a bad case of being veracity challenged. You've established that you cannot support your claims even so far as they extend to what it is that I have said.
MarkE is stating that the most you can get out of something falling under the influence of gravity is 1\2 that force,, and yet he calls gravity conservative.
There it is: The world according to Tom Web, not the world according to science. That's called magical thinking.
I use words my way MarkE,, and those definitions for those words actually work,, You must live in a sad place because no one else can understand you and you most defiantly can not understand them,, resistance is futile,, resistance is resistance.
Really?You talk a bunch of nonsense. If you think you can cheat the N*(X/N)2 problem then show a mechanism that you claim does so for your two cylinder lifter. You have failed to do so for months for the simple reason that you have no such mechanism. You present yourself as not even able to comprehend the problem.
You like to flip-flop with whoever you think is on top,, what kind of yo-yo are you then.
I have stayed the same through this whole thing, no change from me, still saying the same things that I started with.
What goes up with some force comes back down with that same force,, not 1\2 of that force.
I talk about applied force,, you talk about sheep.
3700lbs of force 4 inch ram moving 8 inches 2 times per minute IIRC that was the lift force for the ZED
What a dolt,, Wayne tells me to forget about trying with this group and you make that into what???There it is again: I insist that gravity is conservative. The fraud that you support: Wayne Travis claims that he can beat the conservative nature of gravity. By acknowledging the fact that gravity is conservative, you acknowledge that Wayne Travis' claims that you support are false. Ergo: you directly contradict yourself. So, why do you support the fraud: Wayne Travis, Tom?
Out of the last 80 posts of yours how many were informative and how many were BS posts just like this one?
I think it is YOU who lost credibility a while ago when you started on a rampage of destruction,, forget about anything else destroy at all costs,, that is a really special approach.
Same thing goes for MarkE,, lets not pay attention to the REAL stuff lets just do our best, and even lie about it, to destroy and belittle the "other" people,,
Is gravity conservative? MarkE says no, I think it is.
"Pre-charge" or "manufacturing cost" or "set-up energy" are Energies that do not leave the system. If they are present at the initial State 1(x) of the cycle, they must still be present at the final State 1(x) of the cycle. That is the case with the Ideal ZED being analyzed. All of the Energy in State 1(x) is still present inside the ZED after it completes a full cycle from State 1(x) to State 2 to State 3 and back to State 1(x).PirateBill's comical LED ZED is more useful than either an "ideal ZED" or a "real ZED". His logic is every bit as valid as the fraud Wayne Travis'. And of course he's just running down his potential energy store. Even the "ideal ZED" does that.
Please note that there is no return from State 3 to State 2 in that cycle.
The "pre-charge" in your example is misnamed. It is actually just a "charge." It is analogous to the Energy used to charge the Ideal ZED from State 1(x) to State 2.
Alrighty MarkE, I will bite on this one :)Clearly again, you do not understand. There is an entire class of resistors used in many applications where the resistance goes down as they heat up. They are called negative temperature coefficient thermistors.
How much energy can a resistor dissipate at room temperature.
It is my understanding that it can not dissipate any and that is what leads to the resistance of the resistor going up.
So, what was the point of your recent example with the 44mm water pan? As that only extracts 49.9uJ out the 1905uJ energy that you have to put back in to get from State 3 back to State 2 it sets up a 97%+ State 2 <=> State 3 cyclical loss. PirateBill's LED ZED can be made much more efficient than that.
I was interested if you would point out that it was not a correct method for trying to calculate the Energy that leaves the ZED system when it lifts from State 2 to State 3.Given that you have described the steps of putting water into the machine as set-up, that left states 2 and 3 for a cycle. But if you want to cycle among other states, that's fine too. If you don't come up with some sort of harvesting mechanism to collect energy that you dump from the stored water by returning to any state lower than State 2, then you will massively aggravate the cyclical losses. If you do come up with a harvesting mechanism, depending on how efficient it is, and it will always be less than 100% efficient, it will simply increase the cyclical losses versus cycling only between State 2 and State 3 with your pizza pan of water spillway contraption.
Why do you keep bringing up anything about the Energy it takes to go from State 3 back to State 2? That never needs to happen. The full cycle can be: State 1(x) to State 2 to State 3 to State 1(x).
MarkE,Are you asking that as a global question? 42.
What is the energy loss in the system due to heat, two incompressible mediums.
Did you know that whenever you pump fluid through a pipe that heats the pipe?
In the real world what would the energy loss be due to heat loss from the water.
Are you confusing pressure for energy now? You've confused energy and force frequently in the past.
What is the pressure change on the water that is needed for 1J.
When the temperatures equalize, every Joule put into heating the environment is no longer available to perform useful work.
If that heat dissipated is exactly at room temperature, then how much loss is there.
Sure you contradict yourself. If gravity is conservative then you cannot get any energy out of cyclically moving masses around in a gravitational field. Since Wayne claims to generate free energy from moving masses around in a gravitational field, a conservative gravitational field makes his claims false. Since you state both that you believe Wayne Travis / HER / Zydro's claims and that gravity is conservative, you contradict yourself. QED. It's amazing that you so openly contradict yourself and claim that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself.
I do not contradict myself, if you have not understood I still think that gravity is conservative. Wayne has his view, he calls it what he calls it and that does not change whether the system can function or not.
It was your claim that resistance only goes up with temperature. Are you conceding that false claim?
The negative resistance class has nothing to do with my question about resistance dissipating heat.
You are wrong again. NTCs change resistance due to self-heating from any current passed through them.
How far will the resistance drop in the new item you brought up at room temperature. What was that?? it won't change unless the outside temperature changes??
Given that you have described the steps of putting water into the machine as set-up, that left states 2 and 3 for a cycle. But if you want to cycle among other states, that's fine too. If you don't come up with some sort of harvesting mechanism to collect energy that you dump from the stored water by returning to any state lower than State 2, then you will massively aggravate the losses. If you do come up with a harvesting mechanism, depending on how efficient it is, and it will always be less than 100% efficient, it will simply increase the cyclical losses.
Given that you have described the steps of putting water into the machine as set-up, that left states 2 and 3 for a cycle.
MarkE, I was never interested in presenting or designing a harvesting system for the Ideal ZED. The purpose of Analyzing the Ideal ZED was to see if it acted identical to a simple hydraulic cylinder as had been ASSUMED when previous Analyses of a Dual ZED system were performed. I only presented the "spillway" since the Energy that leaves the system as the Ideal ZED lifts from State 2 to State 3 was presented to be simply "lost." The spillway was just to show that Energy is leaving the system and should be calculated.It seems that we need to repost your OP again:
The Ideal ZED does not complete a full lift cycle as explained to be part of a complete dual ZED system cycle, so using the harvesting method described for that is not possible. I do not know of any practical harvesting method for the Ideal ZED. But again, presenting such a device was never the intent of the Analysis. Calculating the Energy that leaves the Ideal ZED during the lift from State 2 to State 3 is all that is necessary for the Analysis.
Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« on: February 13, 2014, 03:17:30 PM »
Quote
All, please check the math. I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions. Feel free to send your input by PM if you don’t want to post in the thread. It would be nice to know if you check the analysis and agree as much as if you find mistakes. ...
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2014, 03:52:12 PM »
Quote
All, MarkE has not been able to work out his double check of the analysis yet. Would anyone else like to help? I am happy to assist in any way possible. Or if anyone can explain why the method I am using in this analysis is incorrect that would also be helpful.
The reason I am asking is because what my analysis has shown so far is extraordinary. It appears to show that the ZED is NOT conforming to Boyle's law. Possibly because it is an open system? And so PinVin<>PoutVout. And in the case shown in the analysis, PinVin>PoutVout, so underunity. But that leads to the following question: If PinVin<>PoutVout, is there some possible change to the geometry of the ZED model that could lead to PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity?
I have already tested the next logical step: I added the third riser to the current model. The results of that analysis, by the exact same method outlined in this thread, does result in PinVin<PoutVout, ie. overunity. So I am anxious to have the analysis duplicated and/or shown to be erroneous.
Thanks,
M.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 08:31:15 PM by mondrasek »
MarkE, setting up to State 1(x) is set up. Manufacturing cost.You can establish any starting point that you want. You need to define what states constitute your cycle. If you want to cycle between State 2 and State 3, as seemed to be your intent before, that's fine. Then even with the pizza pan spillway contraption you lose energy every cycle. If you want to cycle between State 3 and State 1X, or State 1, or even State 0, you can do that too. The per cycle losses will increase versus a State 2 <=> State 3 cycle no matter what you come up with to try and recover the increased internal energy loss that occurs spanning those states versus just cycling between State 2 and State 3.
Charging by adding water to go from State 1(x) to State 2 is INPUT. Lifting from State 2 to State 3 is OUTPUT. Returning from State 3 to State 2 (and NOT through State 2) is RESET.
You can establish any starting point that you want. You need to define what states constitute your cycle. If you want to cycle between State 2 and State 3, as seemed to be your intent before, that's fine.
What is the meaning of life.That is as silly and global as your question:
What is the energy loss in the system due to heat, two incompressible mediums.was. Ask silly questions, and only silly answers are appropriate.
Which system is that Tom? You asked:
yep I did, but have you told us what that cost is in this system.
In the real world what would the energy loss be due to heat loss from the water.Once again you ask nonspecific questions and don't like the answers. When it comes to moving volumes of water around I suggest that you first learn how much energy is lost in a pipe. Since pressure = F/area, what do you think the relationship between pressure drop and volume passed through a pipe is?
You asked:
you are talking about heat loss,, and you have said that the pressure change creates heat, so no I am not.
What is the pressure change on the water that is needed for 1J.Joules are a measure of energy. Pressure is force per unit area. You are confused again despite your protests.
You asked:
This one actually has made me think before,, if it cannot dissipate the heat what happens to it?? With no heat gradient where, or how, can it go anywhere??
If that heat dissipated is exactly at room temperature, then how much loss is there.What you seem to miss is that heat that is dissipated raises the temperature of its surroundings. A heat engine requires a temperature difference in order to perform work. That is the tyranny of the Second Law of Energy. It has the unpleasant implication that the universe is bit by bit winding itself down into heat death.
Wayne Travis' claims to manipulate gravity so that it is not conservative. Even he acknowledges the obvious that if gravity is conservative, which you acknowledge that it is, there is no energy to be had cyclically lifting and lowering weights. Under the influence of a conservative gravitational field, the energy that can be recovered lowering a weight from some height to a lower height, must be exactly spent lifting that weight back to its original height. Since you acknowledge that gravity is conservative, you contradict investment fund funeral director Wayne's fraudulent free energy claims. That's an inescapable fact.
I have my own understanding on what is happening, yes I think the system can work, and no it is not cyclically moving masses around, as in, up and down ONLY, and expecting that part to provide anything out.
If you think so, then present your argument. I have shown you again that your acknowledgement that gravity is conservative contradicts your support of Wayne Travis' fraudulent free energy claims. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying: "No, I didn't." doesn't make an argument. It just makes you appear foolish.
You have twisted things around and then added your own wants on top of it,,
There you go with your: "No, I didn't."
So,, no I am not contradicting myself at all.
You asked:
Where did I "claim" that is the only case?
How much energy can a resistor dissipate at room temperature.Your statement here is the all encompassing one. I showed you that your statement is wrong. NTCs dissipate heat, in doing so their temperature rises, and their resistance goes down.
It is my understanding that it can not dissipate any and that is what leads to the resistance of the resistor going up.
Now you are confusing resistance with temperature. You really should crack a physics text or at least any of the many fine tutorials that are on the web.
Which way does the resistance change? Do they get colder, like a Peltier?
A hydraulic cylinder does not store any energy John.It ideally does not store energy compressing the hydraulic fluid. But a hydraulic cylinder definitely stores energy in the GPE of the constituent components. The pathetic Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance emulate a spring by storing energy in GPE.
This is one of those misguided things of mine I guess,, even the "ideal ZED" stores some potential after it is allowed to "POP" and that makes it not the same as a hydraulic cylinder.
Well someone is deleting things,, Johns response to mine was on another page and now it is back one.Now paranoia is setting in.
Leaving the weight on the jack means that you did nothing useful.
The ZED, you leave some weight on it to bring the rest pressure up so that there is not a long distance between rest and lift.
I am sorry if you misunderstood or I misrepresented my "intent."From a standpoint of what happens in AR7 to what happens with the risers, why don't you think that this device acts like a single hydraulic cylinder?
To be clear: My INTENT was to see if the ASSUMPTION that an Ideal ZED acts exactly the same as an ideal simple hydraulic cylinder as it has been reduced to in pervious Analyses, was correct.
I did not find that ASSUMPTION to be correct.
I was surprised when my calculations from a specific State to another appeared to show a change in the Energy that crossed into or out of or remained in the Ideal ZED.
I was surprised because that would mean the Ideal ZED was NOT acting as a simple hydraulic cylinder.
Again, to be clear: The Ideal ZED Analysis is not constrained to a cycle from State 2 to State 3 and back. The correct cycle for the Analysis is:
State 1(x) -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 1(x)
LOLYou have shown lies and deceit, you keep saying you have shown the evidence, that is the biggest load of BS most members have heard, where is your self running device ? Where is your verification by Mark Dansie ? If you want respect you should keep your word and tell the truth, let me remind your delusional deceitful mind that you are a indeed a liar and a fraudster and you are incapable of delivering what you claim.
Have left Wayne's first word and last, unfortunately the rest of the quote was the usual rhetoric blaming other people and arguing that he has proved how his device works, it's just hidden behind a curtain but he has told you where the curtain is.
help.
Well I guess playtime is over MarkE,Tom all you have to do is show a mechanism that does as you claim. Oh, that's right: You never had such a mechanism. You have your own specially plead magical Tom Web physics. I suggest that you do something to go learn real physics.
Are you ready to concede your claim that only 50% of the GPE can be recovered from the column of water.
I am not including the ridiculous add-on that the other 50% is converted into, and then lost as, heat,, that is just silly.
...It's another day so it must be time for a wall of pointless text from the fraud Wayne Travis: claiming that there is still some magic behind the tattered curtain, repeating "The Emperor's New ZED", offering more lies about what people have said, telling more lies about the false free energy claims, and now making veiled legal threats.
I found another use for MarkE's formula.Gee just a couple of days ago when I offered you some nifty educational capacitor experiments you said you no speaka da electonica. Well, now you can go back and perform those experiments and learn something. Or you can keep spewing your ignorant diatribes. It's your choice Tom.
It appears to predict how much potential I can extract from 2 similar systems interacting with each other when they are charged to 2 different potentials.
In the case where one is charged up to 100% and the other side is at 0% it predicts that I can extract 50% while the charged up side is charging the other side,, and then when they are both at the same 50% potential it also seems to predict that I will have 25% potential left in each side.
That is neat,, that is 50% extracted leaving 2 at 25% so 25+25+50= 100%!
This is not so new however, this is the same strategy that I have been using with my capacitive voltage divider setups that I use to feed alternating pulsed DC to my little motor testbeds for a very long time,, I got that out of a pocket reference guide for electronics.
Wrong again MarkE, you do not know what I do, or do not have. Those that I share such information with know of some of the things I have made.Yeah, right Tom. Sure you have a proof, right behind that curtain. Sure thing.
Heat follows a temperature gradient. Once again you have mixed up physical concepts.
AAHHHH,, shoot MarkE, all you have is more personal attacks??
Which way does heat energy flow when something is going FROM a higher pressure to a LOWER pressure.
You seemed to miss the need for the condenser coils to exchange all the added heat of compression to the environment.
HINT: Heat pumps take the *compressed* medium and allow it to *expand* into the evaporator,, that would be the part inside the room that makes you nice and cold.
Nursery rhymes?
Tall water column,, more pressure,, low water column,,, less pressure ;)
Take a class in hydrodynamics and maybe you will learn.
I wonder what kind of friction heating happens within a line or hose with fluid being moved through it,, I wonder if that friction issue could cause a lot of heating.
No ratio can fix this for you Tom. The problem is not about leverage. You present yourself as completely clueless as to what the problem is or what can be done about it. You just keep repeating the same tired and false claim that you've beat the problem without ever showing any evidence that you have. If you had a solution then you could show it and given your history of trying to find whatever nit you possibly can to discredit me, if you had something that could discredit me you would surely have shown it a long time ago.
The pic of my balancing levers demonstrates at least a small understanding of applied forces with changing force moments even.
The CVT's that I have made demonstrate at least a small understanding of variable ratios and how to apply them.
So NO MarkE, not ignorance, hands on doing stuff and making things.
Whatever Marke,Tom, you have been proven wrong many, many times now. You present yourself as unfamiliar with basic physics and unable to perform the associated math. You make claims that you can't support.
You are discrediting yourself, I am not doing that, I am only pointing out an error in assumption that you have made.
Remember, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.
Since you can manage a charge pump you can manage the experiment. Conduct the experiments. Then feel free to discuss the results.
Passing water,, that is funny.
I wonder if the heat from the resistors in your cap test accounts for the lost energy,, so it was not "lost" it was wasted as heat.
In the real world there are definitely losses filling a column. If you fill the column from a constant pressure source guess what the losses are. Guess what they are independent of the pressure value, just so long as it is greater than the ending pressure in the column.
I suppose you are saying that it takes more work to fill the column than what is stored in the column when it is full,, does that not sound like a violation of something??
Water is incompressible. Why are you confused on that point?
That's right,, you keep blaming it all on those pesky pipes and the compression of water burning up all that energy.
Force is not a conserved quantity. You are again confused.
Your drawing would be better labeled as "the force from the falling water MUST be used up in the pipes by friction to convert it into heat to account for all the energy not used".
In the case where we connect at the bottom of course it does. I told you it does. You are either not paying attention or deliberately misrepresenting.
I must assume you have NEVER run a test like this,, when you first open the connection valve the water will gush into the other container,, with a LOT of force.
It will only do so until the columns equalize. Did you miss that point?
As a matter of FACT you can use a pipe to run up inside the receiving column just under halfway and open the valve and the water will still flow from the source column into the receiving column,, now what to do with the water falling from the end of that pipe while it is filling up the receiving column???? the mind boggles.
That is a similar arrangement as what you see in the lower drawing. The receiving column lowers down to keep the top of its water column just beneath the top of the water column from the source side. The available head and consequent force are kept close to zero. If you manipulate a siphon hose you get the same result. You still suffer energy loss all the way to the point where the columns are equalized, there is no more head and no amount of leverage gain multiplied by zero head results in any force to move additional fluid from the source column to the receiving column. This has been explained to you many times already. Still you act as though you do not understand.
One step further is to take that pipe up just under the top of the receiving column and lower that pipe as the source is draining,, less oomph out of the feed pipe but a longer drop.
Where? What work was done to what.
With both of these you still end up at the 1\2 way point, but the energy you are speaking of has been used for something other than heating up the area, it has been put to work.
Whatever you may or may not have done you present incorrect statements as though you do not understand.
This stuff I have done and so have MANY other people.
Prove that you can get over 50%. Show a mechanism that does in action. You say that you have such a thing. Let's see it.
MY frictional real world losses stopped me from getting 100%, I already stated that, but I CAN get way over 90% easy
Yes Mark.So tell me, how do you calculate pumping loss?
There are pumping losses, these are real world things.
I guess that you think that running on with phrase after phrase in meaningless prose is the same as articulating some sort of meaningful statement instead of the thing that you are doing which is more or less stringing words together in long incomprehensible run on sentences devoid of any specific meaning that someone who might accidentally take you seriously might confuse for an actual attempt at intelligent conversation when in fact you are just building more men of straw. Or to put it another way: You've written a bunch of bafflegab, and you've built yet another straw man argument.
You think that having almost no head difference is the same as having the water come out the end of an elevated pipe so that the water can fall down through some strange device that takes that kinetic energy and can convert it into useful work. I guess we do not have any such devices in use today,, what a shame that is.
In which case you have conceded the point after months of fighting it.
I guess you answered before you read the whole response Mark,, since I stated that both methods stop at the point of equalization.
This was my point Mark, that there are simple means to extract the work out of the system as the two columns are moving towards equalization, when equalization is reached each column will have 25% of the starting potential.
The other 50% will be a combination of loses and the work performed by the moving water.
My,, more words more poking at me more of nothing and more of the same.Tom do you think repeating a lie will make it true? Do you think it will make it seem true?
You are twisting around there MarkE,,
You are what you are, and that is just fine.
Water has mass, water moves,, moving water can do useful work,, go figure that something with mass moving can do something,, who-da thunk such a thing is possible.
You have conceded that your 50% loss is in error, that is fine.
Wayne's posting was a hoot! Meanwhile my spillway question got lost in the flood! lol
Hey, Honest Wayne Travis.... I have never signed your NDA, and everything I have posted is stuff that YOU YOURSELF or your minions have put onto the internet. I don't have any magical sleuthing skills.... I just have a good memory and I preserve stuff that I think is interesting.Hmmm..... wonder what has made him react to those documents, it certainly establishes a timeline which makes it difficult for him to attract new investors, that's why he removed the update section from his website, where he was promising verification two years ago.
If you don't want some record of your activities to exist for public view.... DON'T POST IT TO THE INTERNET.
Sheesh, Wayne.... grow up.
(And look to your own.... because your Zeds aren't the only things leaking in your little cult.)
If one cubic foot can create the initial conditions that normally require 130 - how can you miss that adding layers reduces cost?
Yesterday I interviewed an Executive and Professional ME from Chile' (Expansion).
You tell me MarkE,, you keep trying that technique.No Tom it is you who have posted a litany of truth adverse claims. Anytime you want to show that you have built the mechanism you so staunchly claim, you are free to do so. Anytime that you want to show that there is any hope of OU from Wayne Travis's / HER's / Zydro's contraption you are free to do so. You cannot do these things because you claims are lies. You've made yourself a mouthpiece for a fraud.
You keep saying, but you can't show.
No news to me there MarkE, since there are very few loses.
Again, a mythical unseen machine.
Don't forget that column A DOES NOT fill up column B with the water from column A,, B has its own and so does A,,
Excuses, excuses, you claim you built this almost two years ago. Is it out to the shop for repair? Did you lose you notebook detailing the greatest discovery since fire again? Did the dog eat your homework?
Well, that will be something that you will claim as "new" which of course it is not, this was put out there months ago.
You have earned each and every criticism of your falsehoods. Where are those spreadsheet errors Tom? Who have you submitted the spreadsheet to for professional review? Did they disappear like your notebook?
By the way,, Since you claimed I was trying ti discredit you,, why don't you look back and count all the DISS's you have thrown at me and how many I have thrown at you ,, not many from me MarkE,, but pages from you.
All you need to do to triumph is show evidence. Oops, the dog must have eaten that. Or did government black ops come and steal it all during the night?
You have been doing this for a long time MarkE,, using your last resort.
I am not backing off on your false claims of loses.
Remember, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.
Ah, it's back to asking questions without any specificity.
Are you saying there is not one.
Perhaps you are learning something. What does that transfer pump you insisted upon do to you?
Water in motion is what kind of energy potential Marke? I thought that made it Kinetic.
Yeah sure Tom. You're just a poor victim. You are a victim of your own lies.
And this make me ROTFLMAO.
Look there are more of those ever present attacks,,,
Talking about straight answers--It is called drafting. So what? Are you planning on taking the see-saws of silliness out to the track?
Daytona Speedway 5 cars doing 5 practice laps each (1 car on track)
car # rpm's speed fuel used (5 laps after up to speed)
1 7800 180 384 (liquid oz.)
2 7800 180 384
3 7800 180 384
4 7800 180 384
5 7800 180 384
Next scenerio:
5 cars together on track after reaching speed (15 car lengths between cars)
Identical results as 1 car on the track
Next scenerio:
5 cars together with 5 feet intervals between cars
car #'s rpm's speed fuel used(5 laps after up to speed
1 7500 185 364 liquid oz.
2 7500 185 364
3 7500 185 364
4 7500 185 364
5 7500 185 364
I am sure you can give me a straight answer to explain this.
Have you got your continuously-variable miracle transmissions in those Daytona cars? How can you get slower RPMs making faster speeds? No car I've ever driven around the track at Daytona behaved that way....Before camelherder got stuck on:
Hey Al, I mean Mark, I mean Orbo, I mean Minnie, I mean TK, and or whoever you call yourself this time...The fraud Wayne Travis seems unusually stressed today. Did Wayne have a bad week?
So what is your goal here...is this a puppet game you play - or do you have serious mental issues.
I would ever ask about mental issues - if you can't help it.
Is this like your fake mag machine where you scammed builders?
Are you paid to stir trash on this web site to increase hits....
Or is the answer simple - that you have been kicked of most the decent sites for your neurotic games.
And obviously moderation is laxed????
Hey Al, I mean Mark, I mean Orbo, I mean Minnie, I mean TK, and or whoever you call yourself this time...
So what is your goal here...is this a puppet game you play - or do you have serious mental issues.
I would never ask about mental issues - if you can't help it.
Is this like your fake mag machine where you scammed builders?
Are you paid to stir trash on this web site to increase hits....
Or is the answer simple - that you have been kicked of most the decent sites for your neurotic games.
And obviously moderation is laxed? ???
Preserved for posterity. It seems that all these frauds and fakers share the same paranoia and megalomania. They just can't believe that more than one person could possibly fail to fall for their line of soggy BS. Another widely shared trait among these people, as evinced by honest Wayne Travis in this post, is that they seem to be unduly proud of their ignorance and inability to reason, and they love to display it for all to see. Dunning-Kruger move over.... here comes the Ainslie-Travis effect.Honest Wayne, the Funeral Director for Investor Funds assures us that he isn't seeking new investors. But what if he wanted new investors? Do you think that if the fraud Wayne Travis actually had what he claimed that it would be a good idea to demonstrate that he isn't FoS to prospective investors? Unfortunately for Wayne, he cannot show that he has what he claims. So, if Honest Wayne happened to be courting new investors that he insists that he isn't, all he could do is try and buffalo them. Would that work if such investors were to actually perform due diligence?
And now, honest Wayne Travis, you find yourself in the position of having "informants" who are not telling YOU the truth. What an arrogant and overweening buffoon you are.
(Hilarious... I've been banned from exactly two forums in all the years I've been doing what I do: the original Steorn forum, for pointing out that Sean's device didn't work as he claimed, and from Energetic Forum, for pointing out Rosemary Ainslie's device didn't work as claimed. Most of the decent websites.... right. Wayne old boy, you are almost as entertaining as your podmate Ainslie. But you aren't nearly as literate or articulate.)
Happy Hour?
Oh mrwayne, you've gone.....I wonder why?
I'll ask MarkE.
John.
Well I guess there is only one question that needs to be answered.This just goes to prove that despite all the explanations, you still present yourself as clueless to the N*(X/N)2 problem. Just as one can show that levers work, conserving f1*d1 = f2*d2, the potential energy of two like potential energy stores when equalized to the same potential hold only half the potential energy of one of either stores storing at twice the potential. It's just sad that some people either can't learn or refuse to learn.
Can a large force moving a short distance move a small force a long distance?
If the answer is yes, then MarkE is full of BS with his 50% loss claim.
It is that simple.
So now the magic is no longer in the ZEDs? Is that it? Since even "ideal ZEDs" have been proven to be fundamentally lossy machines, bull shit quest has to place the supposed magic elsewhere. So now the magic is supposed to be in the see-saw of stupidity.
John,
The transfer system is to take the water as it is coming out of one ZED under pressure and use it to push water into the other ZED. The transfer system is not a ZED.
The output water from one ZED is at a higher pressure\force value than the opposing force that the water for the second ZED presents for part of the cycle.
The water movement out of one ZED would not be at the same rate as the water that moves into the second, if this system were used.
Hey Webby - I am so glad that you are happy as one person....LOL, let's see what's wrong with your bull shit declarations Wayne: You make the false over unity claim. Admitting that there is no over unity is an admission of your own lies. That's precious!
The puppet master did not read or understand when you explained that there is no such thing as OU.
p.s He trying to avoid the proof that a series of independently lossy systems can be better than the comparison of the individual.
As was accidently proven by Kanshi - when he was MarkE, Proven by Larry when he was TK, and other - Even the Nascar.
He is busted and dug in :)
The Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance do not improve efficiency. They are a poor emulation of a comrpession spring. Using ordinary materials a compression spring with like force rate and superior energy storage is less than 1/1000th the volume of the "ideal ZED".
His only answer - it is still not OU - Like who is asking....
So as I shared with Kanshi - your absolute proof that layering the system is not more efficient Is not so Absolute after all is it.
It's hilarious, you and your disciples of duplicity have been proven wrong over and over again and you just soldier on as though reality does not exist, going so far as to congratulate their failures as though they have been successful. I think the way that you lie so freely and unashamedly is just awesome.
As was said in China.....So sad........
Now - why does it matter - maturity.
Mature enough to admit that assumed laws might not apply to all situations - that the idea that energy from a black box would be proof of OU - it is not.
Proof by a closed looped system is OU - it is not.
All three of those claims assume "magic is required to provide Net energy ---
Webby - you have shown true maturity
You probably knew all of that before I matured.
Well done.
It is nice to know that you are saying that levers do not work for transforming a larger potential over a shorter distance into a smaller potential over a longer distance MarkE.You have got absolutely nothing apart from hollow words, where is your continuous running device, oh yes, you're too busy arguing and posting to have any time to build one and find out if the BS you keep dreaming of actually works, but then again we all know you're the $2000 stooge of Wayne Travesty.
As far as all the other garbage you keep expousing,, well the square round file is just over that a way => or maybe learn to control yourself.
Now, you are also repeating what I have said and making out like I did not say it,, that is funny,, each column will have 25% left IF it is done the way YOU are saying it MUST be done,, like there is only your method of doing something,, that must be MarkE's "special" mechanics.
You keep "needing" and "whining" about seeing something that is in use everyday in the real world,, get a grip.
You sure are "special" guy there Marke.
It is nice to know that you are saying that levers do not work for transforming a larger potential over a shorter distance into a smaller potential over a longer distance MarkE.You are making a fool of yourself again Tom.
That's it Tom: Be a faithful disciple of duplicity. Does Wayne appreciate how loyally you support his fraud?
As far as all the other garbage you keep expousing,, well the square round file is just over that a way => or maybe learn to control yourself.
Round and round we go. You have not shown that you have another way. As a matter of fact in the faint glimmer of understanding that you expressed you should have seen that to avoid the loss you must convert the energy from potential to kinetic and back. Yet, your transfer pump precisely prevents that. You've buried yourself many times over Tom. If you want to keep digging, then shovel away.
Now, you are also repeating what I have said and making out like I did not say it,, that is funny,, each column will have 25% left IF it is done the way YOU are saying it MUST be done,, like there is only your method of doing something,, that must be MarkE's "special" mechanics.
Really Tom? And what is that?
You keep "needing" and "whining" about seeing something that is in use everyday in the real world,, get a grip.
How nice. If only you could back up your claims. You can't.
You sure are "special" guy there Marke.
What do these three have in common, webby1, Red_sunset, Wayne Travesty
Continuously claiming for two years or more that a ZED produces free energy.
Argue with anyone that doesn't support their claim, divert the argument and make them justify their position, be vague and misleading.
When shown evidence why it doesn't work, pretend something has been missed and start the argument all over again.
Always had a verbal argument never show a continuous running device, promise but never have anything verified by anyone credible
Be route and derogatory to anyone not believing in the broken promises of Wayne Travesty
MarkE,Larry your not showing the 50% loss??? - Hasn't that been proven by MarkE Or Tk...
Correct your formulas, they are misleading.
Larry your not showing the 50% loss??? - Hasn't that been proven by MarkE Or Tk...
If you don't, someone might figure out that the Zed system does work? ???
Wait - that would mean all the slander by Tk - may have been intentionally misleading again --
Like the fake mag video he made ----???
Sorry for the poor lighting TK.
Powercat - you've been dooped by the 8) 8) 8)
Let me tell you now - I have no ill will toward you - even though you have tried to trash my name so many times.
I can not show you what you need to see - but let me assure you - the math tells the truth - no matter who is trying.
Math doesn't care whose side you are on - you have been lied to - by the 8) 8) 8) manipulating the math to 8) 8) 8)
It is cheap tricks by the puppet master.
I can not show you what you need to seeFitting words.... will they wind up being your epitaph?
MarkE,LarryC there isn't anything outside of Archimedes' Principle in the graphic that your spreadsheet supposedly analyzes.
I told you several times earlier that your formulas shown in your example below wasn't accounting for the Water Head.
Statement below is from this course: Geol 121Hydrology Prof. J Bret Bennington
'A fluid mass has another component of potential energy owing to the pressure of the surrounding fluid acting on it.'
The attached spreadsheet is of a single Archimedes and has the corrected F*ds formulas, an Iterative Integration, and my original Paverage X Volume. All have the same answer except yours.
I added the Iterative Integration as concrete proof that this is correct, as I know you would still think you know better than a PHD in Geology.
Correct your formulas, they are misleading.
Powercat - you've been dooped by the 8) 8) 8)You're so easy to trash, and you deserve it for all your false claims and promises, why don't you look at the truth of yourself and stop running away from your lies, but we all know you can't help avoiding questions you don't like, and deleting information that show your broken promises, look at the list of your statements,
Let me tell you now - I have no ill will toward you - even though you have tried to trash my name so many times.
I can not show you what you need to see - but let me assure you - the math tells the truth - no matter who is trying.
Math doesn't care whose side you are on - you have been lied to - by the 8) 8) 8) manipulating the math to 8) 8) 8)
It is cheap tricks by the puppet master.
Here is your proof that you need to control yourself Mark,, increase your meds.Sure Tom, whenever you get it worked out, just show the diagrams and the data. Maybe you can find that missing notebook.
Don't think so Mark,, I started out with a device that did all that BEFORE you brought it up,, kind like you followed me on that one,, AND NO the pump does not get in the way,, what a pathetic move on your part there MarkE,, OF COURSE the pump is in the middle,, AND the pump can move two DIFFERENT volumes of WATER at 2 DIFFERENT rates. Just in case you don't understand that it is called a "lever" function.
MarkE,, it is you who have buried yourself,,
Here is a pic of a simple little testbed I built a year or two ago.That's a lovely shed Tom. What's it got to do with your prior claims?
That is about a 12ft tall head pipe coming out of the pump,, that would be 12ft above the top of the pump.
No reciprocating parts inside the pump.
This is one of many testbeds I built for this pump method.
Question 1) What it the head pressure coming out of the pump as the pump moves water all the way up the head pipe.
Question 2) What modification did I make that increased the efficiency of this style pump.
Bonus points) What did I call this pump.
I can not show you what you need to see
@ webby1PC - your going backwards - in maturity
You are clearly capable of construction, but like the rest of the Wayne Travesty supporters you don't have a self-running device, so you can't prove your claim, and conventional science wins again, you're all a bunch of losers, and fraudsters for claiming something which is clearly not true, and proven by the lack of anyone in all these years coming up with a self-running device.
Even Wayne himself admits it
PC - your going backwards - in maturityReally? You've provided video of a self running ZED have you? Where might this video be? Where is the load in the video? Where are measurements that show the internal energy holding steady while the device delivers its free energy?
So what does a self running device prove that an increase output over input does not?
Can any video ever prove anything? - No - it just fuels stupid insults - well like yours....
So ignoring that we have already provided video of a self running ZED....
What will you need to see then???
That's right - the "math" to support the claim - .......... WE have provided that.
PC - your going backwards - in maturityAs usual you're very selective with what you answer and how you answer, your maths as you claim has been proved completely wrong, so as you been asked before on many occasions show your device self running continuously
So what does a self running device prove that an increase output over input does not?
Can any video ever prove anything? - No - it just fuels stupid insults - well like yours....
So ignoring that we have already provided video of a self running ZED....
What will you need to see then???
That's right - the "math" to support the claim - .......... WE have provided that.
Really? You've provided video of a self running ZED have you? Where might this video be? Where is the load in the video? Where are measurements that show the internal energy holding steady while the device delivers its free energy?
The correct math shows that the "ideal ZED" and the "real ZED" are both fundamentally lossy.
As usual you're very selective with what you answer and how you answer, your maths as you claim has been proved completely wrong, so as you been asked before on many occasions show your device self running continuouslyPC - you are stuck in the assumptions of the past - you should do the math ....
do you understand what the word continuously means ? From what we heard two years ago your device never ran for longer than 4 hours on pre stored energy. that is not continuously self running, also in the past you were asked to show a light streamed video of your device continuously running over days and weeks.
You have been asked many times and you have promised to have your device verified by Marke Dansie, you repeatedly avoid these issues and keep claiming that the maths proves your claim, well your maths has been proved incorrect and your claim is false, so you deserve everything you get bashing, ridicule, and childish behavior. you are a failure and a fraudster, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat your hollow words they will not make your device work.
What a joke, you are the only one in all these years with a device, which only runs for 4 hours on pre stored energy, but apparently you have 600% overunity and your device works on simple physics, LOL it is so obvious you are a conman.
Well, Webby couldn't answer the spillway question. Nor could Wayne. "The Wayne Brain Drain." <rim shot>Your assumption that any loss makes a system in capable of producing NET - is old an immature understanding.
The answer ties into the big understanding hurdle about the fact when the two cylinders equalize in water height then one-half of the gravitational potential energy in the water is gone. Notice I said "gravitational potential energy."
This will be a simplified explanation for the sake of clarity. For the spillway, from one trough to the next trough, the forward velocity of the water stays the same. So the forward kinetic energy in the water remains constant. As Bill stated, the water drops in height, so it goes down in gravitational potential energy.
Well, if the water lost GPE, where did it go? Energy doesn't just disappear into nowhere. (Actually it's feeding the Wheelwork of Nature.)
Just kidding.
THE WATER HEATS UP. That is the answer that I was looking for. From one trough to the next, the water gets progressively hotter.
The water goes down in gravitational potential energy, and it also goes up in thermal potential energy. An energy conversion process takes place. It's the water rubbing against itself and causing friction. That happens at the one-meter drop.
So as the water flows down the spillway, it does not change in total energy.
There is no load, no mill grinding seed into flower, so there can't be a change in energy.
And that's why you lose half of your energy when the two cylinders equalize. The thermal energy is considered as "lost" energy. It eventually gets radiated out into outer space and is lost forever!
It's not "reduce the input and the magic happens," it's Wayne's Brain Drain in Spain draining lightly on the plain.
MileHigh
Well, Webby couldn't answer the spillway question. Nor could Wayne. "The Wayne Brain Drain." <rim shot>p.s. I did not ignore you for any other reason than the question showed you do not understand our system at all.
The answer ties into the big understanding hurdle about the fact when the two cylinders equalize in water height then one-half of the gravitational potential energy in the water is gone. Notice I said "gravitational potential energy."
This will be a simplified explanation for the sake of clarity. For the spillway, from one trough to the next trough, the forward velocity of the water stays the same. So the forward kinetic energy in the water remains constant. As Bill stated, the water drops in height, so it goes down in gravitational potential energy.
Well, if the water lost GPE, where did it go? Energy doesn't just disappear into nowhere. (Actually it's feeding the Wheelwork of Nature.)
Just kidding.
THE WATER HEATS UP. That is the answer that I was looking for. From one trough to the next, the water gets progressively hotter.
The water goes down in gravitational potential energy, and it also goes up in thermal potential energy. An energy conversion process takes place. It's the water rubbing against itself and causing friction. That happens at the one-meter drop.
So as the water flows down the spillway, it does not change in total energy.
There is no load, no mill grinding seed into flower, so there can't be a change in energy.
And that's why you lose half of your energy when the two cylinders equalize. The thermal energy is considered as "lost" energy. It eventually gets radiated out into outer space and is lost forever!
It's not "reduce the input and the magic happens," it's Wayne's Brain Drain in Spain draining lightly on the plain.
MileHigh
Repetitive jargon without any evidence. except for evidence that has been proven wrong.What a classic answer from you, completely ignoring the fact of your broken promises over verification, like it never happened Wayne, I really don't care if you have 200 stooges, none of them have a continuous running device, and let's face it if you're mats was as good as you claim there would be plenty of these devices, that's so F,ing obvious even you must be aware of that.You has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago) you can't blame the maths according to you the device should work, that's why you're so keen on verification,
That's up to you.
What a classic answer from you, completely ignoring the fact of your broken promises over verification, like it never happened Wayne, I really don't care if you have 200 stooges, none of them have a continuous running device, and let's face it if you're mats was as good as you claim there would be plenty of these devices, that's so F,ing obvious even you must be aware of that.You has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago) you can't blame the maths according to you the device should work, that's why you're so keen on verification,p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Is this the document you're referring to.
You should pull up the notes where I detailed the 9 lossy exchanges in our original system --- did you forget that?
Wayne:One day you will see that you created that persona your self .... it has nothing to due with reality here.... so enjoy..
The tease is one part of your modus operandi and I am not bamboozled and made glassy eyed and induced into a trance by the groaning bellows.
Your "math" is not real, the whole thing is a performance. Just like an actor in a live stage play will not break character if they make a mistake during a performance, you are pigeonholed into your character. You are "on," and the Wayne reality distortion field is just part of your shtick.
MileHigh
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.You're so full of BS, you have completely avoided the questions in the post, so typical, you deserve nothing but ridicule.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.
TK stepped back and is pulling your strings - normal....
Is this the document you're referring to.
You're so full of BS, you have completely avoided the questions in the post, so typical, you deserve nothing but ridicule.LOL who is avoiding what???
What... do you really think people are not going to expect you to have a continuous self-running device, with all the claims you've be making for 3 years, do you think now that people will southerly except your false mathematical argument with no continuous running device, LOLI don't blame you for posting comments the have already been answered - I don't take the time to read things that are just for distraction - so much is missed.
Hey TK, Al ect
Wayne,
you only ignore me because you can't tell lies. The problem is that you've already
told a few.
You won't answer so I'm telling everyone that you haven't got a 5hp machine that
runs itself and the 600% was just a joke, a rather sad one at that!
Your supporters on here haven't got a hope of presenting a satisfactory piece of work
as far as the maths is concerned.
Just had a thought, I bet Webby has got a 20kw. Zydro in that shed of his. I wouldn't
think Webby has to pay for his electric anymore!
What does Sandy think?
John
Lets say we have 5lbs of water sitting in a large pizza pan and I want to stand that water up into a 5ft tall column, that would be,I see you are spending your Saturday constructing and slaying more men of straw. It's really sad Tom.
0.5×5×5^2 = 62.5 or maybe I am not supposed to use the square,, so
B: 0.5×5×5 = 12.5
So that represents the amount of input I need to use, now lets see how much I can take out when I let it fall back down into the pizza pan,, so that would be,
0.5×5×5^2 = 62.5 or maybe I am not supposed to use the square,, so
B: 0.5×5×5 = 12.5
Hmmmm,, that looks like the same number, no missing 50%,, work in equals work out, go figure??
As this shows, it is MarkE's requirement for a loss given away to frictional loses that consume the 50% and not a physics requirement, nor a mechanical requirement, nor a requirement by nature.
By definition a lossy system: Note the word "lossy" loses energy between input and output. You get less out than you put in. Your scheme is fundamentally lossy. How good of your to admit that your contraption is lossy. Which is an admission that your false claims to energy production are false.
Hey Al, I mean Mark, or Tk, or Minie...what ever...
Lossy - you are missing it still? or just 8) 8) 8)
Each time you assert your claims that a lossy system can not produce Excess - it is either diversion or you missed it - or diversion.
To be very simple and clear - our claim is that a lossy system does produce Net Energy - No Magic in the system.
Losses cannot be made up in volume Wayne. You've admitted that you are FoS.
You keep claiming that we have no Magic in our lossy system - that is right We have no magical OU - we do have a system that produces Net Energy - with a Paradigm shift in understanding....
..................
As I said before - people looking for the "Magic" is what blinds you - it is a wrong assumption to think a net system requires evidence of Magic - your wrong assumption -
We have a system with a series of lossy exchanges and it produces a net production.
We have explained that from the beginning - this is the Paradigm shift in the understanding of Physics - you have missed from the beginning.
You should pull up the notes where I detailed the 9 lossy exchanges in our original system --- did you forget that?
You are stuck on one - and ignore or 8) 8) 8) the process......
............
To be clear - you need to look at the whole system - stopping at any lossy point - any single part of our system and then making immature assumptions about possibility of the system leaves you in the old Paradigm.
"Missed it, that's all"
Only looking at party of the process ....and making claims about the whole - immature and 8) 8) 8)
Misleading others to keep them in the dark..... you will be remembered for your contribution.
PC - you are stuck in the assumptions of the past - you should do the math ....Actually your contraption has been disproven mathematically.
Over 200 have now checked for themselves ...... and ignored the 8) 8) 8) 8)
..................
Here is what you missed - and was explained on the video -
Every single stroke produces a 50% excess of the energy required to maintain the operation -
EVERY SINGLE STROKE - in case that did not sink in...
How may times would it need to stroke to produce an excess -------- oH - just one- and what does it mean if that happens every time for a s long as you want to run it? ???
What does one cycle of the ZED PROCESS produce - Just one --- More than it consumes.
................
Let me add some maturity to your understanding of evaluation....
If we had a system that could not be proven mathematically - we would need to prove the MAGIC with a continuous runner - because something could not be understood.
Support, oh yeah the people who you have conned with your fraud and still don't realize still support you. That population is shrinking.
Not the case with ours - why do you think we get so much support..........the Math matches--- lossy stages and All....
Obvious - once you get over the preconceived notions....that magic must exist....... your eyes will open - unless you are just a UISelf-looped running of a free energy machine is something that any working free energy machine should be able to do, and indeed what you make the false claim your contraptions can do. Anyone can make a mistake in measurement and / or their calculations. A machine chugging away driving a useful load with no input energy source will eventually deliver more energy than could be stored in its mass or volume by known means. When a machine delivers well beyond that point it will have evidenced an apparent free energy claim. It is hilarious that years after promising such demonstrations you now talk them down. I know why. You know why. It is because your claims are bull shit. It is because your claims have always been bull shit.
.......
The assumption that a continuous run "is" needed for proof stems from the people who claim their system exceeds the MATH - the science, the current ability for standard engineering to evaluate -
The people who use their brains here are the ones who spotted you for the fraud that you are a long time ago.
I would insist that a Magic claim run for days - but if a simple engineer can understand the MATH of a ZED system - and that Is a different thing all together.
Hope you actually think here...
Your assumption that any loss makes a system in capable of producing NET - is old an immature understanding.An amplifier is a device that manipulates energy from one source using a much smaller signal(s) from another source(s) to yield a controlled output greater in power than the smaller signal(s) source(s). Amplifiers do not create energy. The best amplifiers waste very little energy.
Let me help you - our scientists calculated the loss of heat during the pressure changes - and they were present - and all of the combined added to less than one single elbow in the hydraulic output system.....
p.s. this is not a tiny electric resistor - our amplification can handle a lot of losses...
MH with respect - your assertion is understandable - but misapplied at best.
We also do not claim to be free from losses - do the math - open your eyes.
A paradigm shift in understanding - look or miss it.. That's up to you.
Wayne
What a classic answer from you, completely ignoring the fact of your broken promises over verification, like it never happened Wayne, I really don't care if you have 200 stooges, none of them have a continuous running device, and let's face it if you're mats was as good as you claim there would be plenty of these devices, that's so F,ing obvious even you must be aware of that.You has promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago) you can't blame the maths according to you the device should work, that's why you're so keen on verification,Perhaps the second quote referred to his bladder.
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.Thanks for confirming that all plans to have Mark Dansie validate your contraption have been scuttled. We all know what that means: You can no longer convince Mark Dansie that you have any chance of demonstrating what you've claimed to have for years.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.
One day you will see that you created that persona your self .... it has nothing to due with reality here.... so enjoy..Respect, LOL! You've taken money from friends and neighbors alike by lying to them about technology you do not have, never did have, and can never have. You're feigned manners are those of a pick pocket who says: "Excuse me." while he lifts his victim's wallet.
You might notice I keep showing you respect...... I am trying not to make the realization we have been telling the truth all along so hard to admit for you.
You have made mistakes before - I do not bring them up or bash you - you are doing it here again..
As long as you use the excuse that some how looking at the math is tantamount to drinking the "coolaid" you will stay wrong.
Again your choice
TK stepped back and is pulling your strings - normal....Are you saying that you haven't been seeking funding Wayne? Did you know that a registration exemption does not get one off the hook from the anti-fraud provisions of the Acts 1933 and 1934?
That video would be great in context - p.s. it details the success in wading thru the 8) 8) 8) of garbage spewing.
As usual - only points that can be twisted were released by your puppet master.
Oh yeah - A big point of the video which was and is private to our team members - we do not need any funding........... Kind of left that out....
You have no technology. You have lies.
Doesn't fit with your theme of trying to save poor investors of their hard earned money does it?
That video was explaining how really wise people look for inventors with paradigm shifting technology to support - like ours......
And it also shows how your attacks and refusal to look at the math - was the red flag they needed to cone in and support us.It may be that the remaining investors are operating in a bunker mentality. Charlatans have often used the "us versus them" to keep their followers in line.
So thanks for sharing it - and don't be fooled by your own ego - the harder you attack us - the stronger our support.
Anyone want a link to the whole video..... sent me a P.m.
Wayne
I don't blame you for posting comments the have already been answered - I don't take the time to read things that are just for distraction - so much is missed.Ah, now it is the "Manufactured end model". This is John Rohner all over again with one generation of phony prop after another put before licensees and investors he duped into believing he could make a working plasma engine. He's been dancing in court with the SEC for a year now. Tomorrow he is due back in court and faces a very real possibility of being thrown in jail in a civil case. That is before the DoJ files the criminal charges they have been compiling.
Also - it is kid games to try to get me to "show me the sausages" your comment above - that is why I ignore the puppet Minnie.....
I do not care if people believe us or not - the right people do their homework.
p.s. It is four years - and we have not been siting idle at all..... :)
Let me be clear again -- Our benefactor has first rights to display our Manufactured end model.
We are running a business - preparing to supply the solution to Energy needs.
So what have we been doing for four years........ you will know soon enough.
By definition a lossy system: Note the word "lossy" loses energy between input and output. You get less out than you put in. Your scheme is fundamentally lossy. How good of your to admit that your contraption is lossy. Which is an admission that your false claims to energy production are false.Losses cannot be made up in volume Wayne. You've admitted that you are FoS.
Hey TK, Al ectThere are only two ranges of numbers for efficiency: 0 - 100% and undefined. Were any process able to produce more than it consumes then the process could operate on its own output leaving a surplus that requires no input. X output divided by zero input is an undefined quotient. That this escapes you just says more about the limits of your understanding.
You are good at assuming .......
I will give you that lol
......................
So why do you assume 600% is absurd....
The First Law of Energy/Matter states that energy/matter is conserved. It is one of the first principles. Your patent application will be rejected for lack of utility due to your claims that you violate that first principle.
Is your education limited to the idea that only conservative systems are allowed to exist?
Weight is not energy. You know this. You constantly go on about quantities such as force that are not conserved in your efforts to make a case for your fraudulent free energy claims.
Take the time to think ....
I can get over 4000 pounds of buoyancy from inside a five gallon bucket - can you?
The tools that matter are those that law enforcement has for dealing with crooks like you. Time will tell if they get applied in your case.
Oh yeah - that is in an open system - not a hydraulic cylinder lol
.....................
Pressure just over 24 pounds and displacement volume less than 12cubic inches......
Now solve for X -----
X is what you were not taught... and we have been trying to share -
It is the increase in understanding of physics....
.........
We have already given you the tools -
Actually your contraption has been disproven mathematically.Support, oh yeah the people who you have conned with your fraud and still don't realize still support you. That population is shrinking.Self-looped running of a free energy machine is something that any working free energy machine should be able to do, and indeed what you make the false claim your contraptions can do. Anyone can make a mistake in measurement and / or their calculations. A machine chugging away driving a useful load with no input energy source will eventually deliver more energy than could be stored in its mass or volume by known means. When a machine delivers well beyond that point it will have evidenced an apparent free energy claim. It is hilarious that years after promising such demonstrations you now talk them down. I know why. You know why. It is because your claims are bull shit. It is because your claims have always been bull shit.The people who use their brains here are the ones who spotted you for the fraud that you are a long time ago.Oh you are Power catt now???
Oh you are Power catt now???Put the vodka down Wayne.
That is a new one on me.
You admit that your system is lossy. Therefore it cannot on its own deliver any energy such as you falsely claim: "- allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy."
Oh I admit something ... ;)
So are you saying that if every exchange in a system is lossy that no benefit can be made form the whole system?
What if the input to the system is natural - say like a solar cell or a wind generator?
Hmmmm.... Sure a lot of people confused out in the world...
Thanks for confirming that all plans to have Mark Dansie validate your contraption have been scuttled. We all know what that means: You can no longer convince Mark Dansie that you have any chance of demonstrating what you've claimed to have for years.Mark Dansie is a real skeptic -
Respect, LOL! You've taken money from friends and neighbors alike by lying to them about technology you do not have, never did have, and can never have. You're feigned manners are those of a pick pocket who says: "Excuse me." while he lifts his victim's wallet.Pure made up trash - TK - no one on our team of over 200 feels the way you do - they looked and learned...
Are you saying that you haven't been seeking funding Wayne? Did you know that a registration exemption does not get one off the hook from the anti-fraud provisions of the Acts 1933 and 1934?You have no technology. You have lies.It may be that the remaining investors are operating in a bunker mentality. Charlatans have often used the "us versus them" to keep their followers in line.Oh my gosh you are so desperate...
So you still think a lossy system can not provide a out put lol....
You ahve already admitted that your machines are lossy. You will never deliver a working free energy device.
You admit that your system is lossy. Therefore it cannot on its own deliver any energy such as you falsely claim: "- allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy."VERY LOSSY, I mean really lossy.... I have said that from the beginning lol....
Mark Dansie is a real skeptic -You have me confused with someone else.
What do you call yourself - a person who keeps switching names and getting kicked off sites for being a 8) 8) 8) .
..........................There will be only more delays. You are following the JWK play book.
Mark will be invited with honors - just before we release.
So keep it up Tk, avoid the facts and make things up - or try to learn from those who do not have an agendaI've done the math and presented it comprehensively. The "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy as you admit the "real ZED" is. That's the end of the story against your phony free energy claims.
Or do the usual post three pages of trolling ...
The math is not that hard.
Pure made up trash - TK - no one on our team of over 200 feels the way you do - they looked and learned...Scienter, it's a bad thing Wayne.
Spend some time doing that.
Oh my gosh you are so desperate...Levers have been known for thousands of years. It's hilarious that you claim you've invented something that old.
With our system you get 4000 pounds of buoyancy out of a open system five gallon bucket..
Is that a technology you can consider that people might try to support?
Maybe you can't think of a benefit ................
Well, maybe you are not the inventive - but
So you still think a lossy system can not provide a out put lol....No words change nature. Your bull shit claims are against nature. It's awesome to watch you lie so effortlessly, constantly promoting what you know you never had and can never deliver.
Making your statements will not change the physics -
p.s. there are lots of people to help you.
VERY LOSSY, I mean really lossy.... I have said that from the beginning lol....There is no energy gain in your system. There is no alteration of the conservative nature of gravity. Your contraption lifts and lowers weights losing externally supplied energy to heat each and every cycle. Your church, your home, your business, none of these are powered by your contraption, because your contraption does not do what you claim.
But since the source of the natural occurring force that drives the differential values between the primary conversion is..... well..... "free" - we have an abundant GAIN.
Here is the limitation you set for yourself - any loss means no free lunch...... well you have to consider what causes head pressure - and how head pressure can be redistributed in a system to understand a ZED....
No magic - just use of available force utilized over a distance :) :)
Ok men,I love it when you use empty suggestive phrases such as this.
I have some work to do - so lets see if the puppets actual talk about a fact or not....
My bet - 15 posts of insults avoiding any mathematical facts...regarding:
Multiple systems being more efficient
Free flow actual valuesThere's more!
Pv in versus PV out of a layered ZEDAnd more.
Force over a distance being a measurable energy..You are really on a roll here.
Or even this silly point - if a system produces Excess energy every stroke - and matches the Math - what should change? The belief system it is impossible - or the facts...The fact is that your contraptions lose energy to waste heat on every stroke. They consume what you put into them. They add nothing.
Good day
.I've done the math and presented it comprehensively. The "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy as you admit the "real ZED" is. That's the end of the story against your phony free energy claims.Lol - you have done a pop up of a layered single tank -
Levers have been known for thousands of years. It's hilarious that you claim you've invented something that old.Oh so now its a lever...... OK
There is no energy gain in your system. There is no alteration of the conservative nature of gravity. Your contraption lifts and lowers weights losing externally supplied energy to heat each and every cycle. Your church, your home, your business, none of these are powered by your contraption, because your contraption does not do what you claim.Yeah broken record...
I love it when you use empty suggestive phrases such as this.There's more!And more.You are really on a roll here.The fact is that your contraptions lose energy to waste heat on every stroke. They consume what you put into them. They add nothing.So what do you put into a solar cell?
Oh so now its a lever...... OKThe ZED copies long established hydraulic rams.
So in a five gallon bucket - you can make a lever long enough to lift 4000 pounds with 24 pounds of pressure and 12 cubic inches of input - Well done..
Did you copy the ZED?
Nothing you have done violates physical principles that have been known for thousands of years. Nothing you do creates the energy that you claim. You are a fraud and all here know it. Only you and your disciples of duplicity deny it.
Well, Like I shared last year also - adding layers to the system is like a liquid lever - except - each layer reduces the distance needed to preform the same function as a lever.
That's something else Larry showed - More layers less volume to pressure.......... think about it...
SO - Mark - if that's who you want to be called right now - can you make a lever where both ends of the lever are the same length - and still amplify the force?
The Zed is a cool anomaly :)
So what do you put into a solar cell?External solar energy.
Or a wind generator?External wind energy.
As I shared last year - you need to account for the natural input - but more importantly - you need to account for how that natural input is realized in liquids of differing orientations..There is no "natural input" for the useless ZEDs. Maybe you are referring to an electrical cord running over to the neighbor's place.
Might re read RedSunsets posts - he got it right away.
Man a whole hour of my day -Will God forgive you for stealing from your friends and neighbors? Will they forgive you?
Mark you win -- I am going to go enjoy this beautiful day God has given us :)
Richard Willis and his Vortex do nothing machines. Yes, he is something. I am surprised that he has not been arrested for mail fraud yet.
Mark,
getting to sound a bit like Richard Willis here. Vorktek or something.
Tried to send mrwayne a nice pm. But was blocked.
John.
The "load" is in the collisions,
Pick up a weight and drop it, when it hits the ground the inelastic collision distorts, compresses and reshapes both the ground and the weight using up all that GPE that has been converted into KE,, the weight and ground heat up.
Same weight same height but this time tie a string to the weight and have that string go around a pulley so that the falling weight will turn the pulley and perform useful work. Drop the weight,, let it come into contact with the ground,, now how much heat?
See Wilby, it all balances.
Ha ha.... I caught it just before you posted that.
Indeed MH, but why?A clever design avoids losses as much as possible. That is only possible by either blind luck or when the designer understands the issues in the first place. People who value efficiency and know what they are doing do not for example build charge pump based power converters where the receiving capacitor is allowed to run down significantly. Yet transferring fluid from one full volume to an empty volume is a direct analogue.
Why waste what does not need to be wasted, sure there are loses but why not use what you have for work instead of letting it get turned into heat?
That would be about as useful as any of the HER contraptions, perhaps even more useful.
I "could" drive my car with flat tires, does that make sense to you?
Wanting and doing are distinct.
There are some cases where you need to loose that energy, a crash barrier, a resistive voltage divider and such, where the loss serves a purpose, but if it does not, then use it for work instead.
For a brick yes. For a ZED no.
The work in can, and does, equal the work out.
MarkE,And yet we have diagrams and the "Flow assist" terminology.
You are fixated on transferring fluid from one vessel into another. You have been informed many times that the fluid itself does not transfer, only the work done by the fluid falling.
MarkE,Transferring fluid from one column to another was supposedly what the machine you claimed to build and evaluate for efficiency supposedly did. It is understandable that being unable to substantiate your claims you would like people to just forget them.
You are fixated on transferring fluid from one vessel into another. You have been informed many times that the fluid itself does not transfer, only the work done by the fluid falling.
It obviously does not and cannot work as the fraud Wayne Travis claims. There is no energy gain to be had cyclically lifting and lowering weights. At the end of the day that is all his contraptions do. Once he ripped off his first investors, Wayne Travis was stuck in the JWK bait and delay game. The game ends at the earlier event:
orbut,
I totally agree. I call it mrwayne's diatribe. I realise it isn't quite the right use of the
word but somehow I feel it fits.
What I can't understand is what his problem is, if it works as well as he says why
does he fill these pages with waffle?
John.
It only take s a few good men to stand up against a tyrant,, I may not be all that good but I am standing up against the tyrant.
Whatever TK,, like this is the first time you missed the small details of the ZED???
Flow assist,, this HAS been explained a few times TK,, so why are you making out like it has not been discussed, What game is it that YOU are playing TK?? Remember how you missed that NO FLUIDS are shared,, REMEMBER how YOU thought that the assist rams USED THE SAME FLUID as the ZED,, THESE were all about YOU not comprehending the discussion and jumping to your own conclusions.
Are you trying to do that again TK or are you deliberately trying to looked confused.
Lets try it this way TK,, and see if you can understand simple things,, one bag is expanding and the other needs to be compressed,, the expanding bag can compress the compressing bag more than the expanding bag needs to expand,, it is a LEVER or GEAR RATIO.
So while the expanding bag has an advantage over the compressing bag it uses that advantage, when it no longer has an advantage it still can help another source compress the compressing bag.
The rules are simple TK, common sense and an open mind,, and maybe a lot of "how CAN I make that work" instead of "how can I disprove that" or "how can I twist that" or "how can I make them look stupid",, see the thing there is a positive attitude.
So now you see the light and are standing up against Wayne? Good for you. It's about time.
Bill
Cmon Bill. Why is it necessary to twist his words to mean something else. Is this how one proves their case, by twisting? Your statement is as false as you say Waynes claims are. ;) So what does that make you in comparison?? ;)
Mags
Bill,
You are wrong.
Anyone,
from a mathematical point of view, we know everything about this relatively simple
system, and if we have no losses surely there must be only one answer - the right one!
Surely we must know what the answer is?
John.
Yep....... 15 posts or more of Trolling. that makes almost 290 pages of the same trollsIt's another day and another wall of self-serving bull shit wall of text from the fraud Wayne Travis, now pushing a messiah complex along with his tried and true version of: "The Emperor's New Free Energy Machine". The good news is that it just adds more evidence of scienter to the huge pile.
Some say that it is foolish to share wisdom with those who do not listen - Some do listen.
...
Wayne Travis
Not for nothing TK,, but the implication from this is that you actually have a copy that was not released to the public and hence any thing you show from that requires the owners consent.Webby1 are you a pretend copyright lawyer now?
Your "for forensic purposes" does not hold up.
This also is a threat to publicly release said video even tho you know and have stated that you have known it is not for public release.
BULL,,ABSOLUTE BS,, What a sack if crapola that all is MARKE.Foaming at the mouth with false indignation and lies doesn't make any of your lies more credible Tom.
What machine did I build EXACTLY to do that? WHERE did I say EXACTLY what the efficiency is,, I asked for HELP to determine that but did not RECEIVE ANY.
Now,, as I see it, since your tyranny has been proven to be YOUR OWN inclusion and NOT natures you are going to try and do what,,,, Oh well, it looks like you are going to deliberately misrepresent information on my behalf, and others f course.
It only take s a few good men to stand up against a tyrant,, I may not be all that good but I am standing up against the tyrant.
Where is the insult TK,, where is the threat.Ooh, Tom Web the pretend lawyer speaks again. Please cite a reference that makes what TK has said "an actionable claim".
You made the threat and in an uncharacteristic move you made an actionable claim, that is most definiatly NOT like you.
There is no need to wonder: Cyclically lifting and lowering weights cannot generate surplus energy because gravity is a conservative field.
I wonder if the VOLUME of fluid moving to bring the other bag up to pressure is the same as the pressure drop for the VOLUME leaving the other side???
In other words: You have no trouble fantasizing.
I have no issues with seeing what is there, and I have no issues with thinking outside the black box to try and find out what is inside that black box.
Anyone can alter a model to make that model non-physical. What you cannot do is take your new representations and build a corresponding machine that is over unity.
MarkE's spreadsheet itself shows a 145% gain for work out WHEN I take and use the buoyant lift plus the riserwall lift as the total uplift force AND it ends up with uplift in the negative state from the calculated lift distance.
I love it, you've taken a spreadsheet with some 300 plus cells and posted a single number as though that has meaning.
I have made no other changes to his spreadsheet other than to remove the graphics, copy a few cells to "save" them and then added the computations from the values he has.
The uplift force for the OD is 1.7236063793N
If webby1 is correct and the buoyant lift Force induced by the water charge to achieve State 2 is 1.7236063793N, then we can do the math. The Energy released due to the lift is the integral of F*ds. For the case of the lift Fstart is 1.7236063793N and Fend is 0N. The lift is 2.590 mm. The integral resolves to 0.5*1.7236063793N*0.002590m = 2.232mJ. This is clearly larger than the 1.905mJ MarkE calculates was lost from the Energy in the water between State 2 and State 3.If wishes were dollars they would be worth money. But wishes are not dollars. As has been shown over and over and over again the "ideal ZED" that you set up even with all the special allowances we made for it is fundamentally lossy. IE it is always lossy no matter how configured.
If the model made by MarkE holds true to the accepted usage of the formulas, then that is what I get WHEN I add the uplift force of the bottom face of the risers, those are 1mm thick.The spreadsheet already incorporates the uplift on the risers. You are double dipping if you add that up lift again. The spreadsheet includes auditing for the various volumes and forces.
I was doing a displacement sanity check on MarkE's spreadsheet, I am using it as a teaching guide, and I noticed that the volume of displaced water did not match the lift force in N and so was looking to see what was not the same and the only increase value I have found so far is the riser bottom lift force,, aka riserwall.
A very wise man said "you can not put new wine in old skins"
He was answering the Pharisees on their confusion and Jealousy toward Jesus, the Pharisees felt they should have been chosen (by God) to usher in the "Way" it was of course their educated duty..... they forgot thay were keepers of the truth - not directors of the truth.
So truth coming form someone else stepped on their toes...... (and puppets).
Whether it be God lifting a veil, or educational evolution - it has always been those with self worth and status that have felt that change was an attack on them......as it is here.
The Pharisees claimed they were protecting people also - from these disruptors with the "New truths"......
They were misguided as the trolls are here today.
Wayne Travis
The spreadsheet already incorporates the uplift on the risers. You are double dipping if you add that up lift again. The spreadsheet includes auditing for the various volumes and forces.
If MarkE is correct, the Fstart value is only 1.471061N. And again the amount of Work performed by the system as it lifts from State 2 to State 3 (integral of F*ds) resolves to 0.5*1.471061N*.002590m = 1.905mJ. That exactly equals the amount of Energy lost from the system as calculated by the difference of the Energy inside the system at State 3 and State 2.The "ideal ZED" like any other machine is fundamentally lossy. In order to extract energy going from State 2 to State 3, the peak weight of the spillway load must be less than the total uplift force at the end of State 2 or else the risers will never lift the spillway load. As a direct consequence, the effective spring rate and starting force of the spillway load are both smaller than those of the "ideal ZED" and less than 100% energy transfer results even with our pretense that the system is frictionless and the risers are massless etc.
If so, the Ideal ZED is, in fact, Ideal and not lossy at all? (Edited to change that to a question and not a statement. I am interested in what others think about this.)
Yep,, it sure does for your lift calculations.You are talking so much nonsense Tom. In the R4 spreadsheet, the lift distance is exactly accounted for in the volume. If you take a correct model such as that represented by the R4 spreadsheet and alter it's behavior, then you break the model.
I was running a sanity check by volume of displaced water, not using your uplift values but comparing what you have for lift to what the volume of displaced water is.
Your lift numbers are higher than the displaced volume, so I went and added the riserwall lift force to the buoyant force value of the displaced water, and since within your calculations you are including those forces as an input and reset cost they are real enough to be added to the buoyant lift value, that and they are from the physical structure under the water.
Here is a screenshot a little higher showing the output work to input work using the calculated lift.You've shown a bunch of numbers on a page. That is less than useless.
Edit to add
That lift is 3.0351985426mm
You've shown a bunch of numbers on a page. That is less than useless.
And this one is when I drop that lift down to 2.590477mmYou have the same issue: You've snapped a picture with a bunch of numbers on a page. It's meaningless. Anyone, including you are free to take the R4 spreadsheet, complete with its diagrams, descriptive text, and plain English algebraic formulas and evaluate it for errors. You kept harping that there were supposed errors in the R4 spreadsheet but have not identified any such errors. What you have also done is said that you cooked up some model where you double counted the up lift force on the riser walls. Apparently, the plain English in the R4 spreadsheet was not something you understand.
And the output is still above the loses
Uselessless???Are you seeing double?
You have an error in two lines in your state 3 air volume check.Really? And what would that supposed error be?
There is no error in riser wall thickness. It represents exactly what the drawings show: The thickness of the riser walls. The volume check validates that the incompressible fluids did not change volume as they should not.
Happy now,, and that is besides the thickness thing which for the purpose of the spreadsheet does not matter, nor does the volume check error.
There is no way to know where these numbers come from, because all you have done is snapped a screen grab of a spreadsheet that you have modified. It's funny how you keep publishing screen shots instead of the actual spreadsheets. Is there something you don't want people to know?
These are your numbers, I have taken the displaced volumes from your AR height calculations and your area calculations.
Given that volume and pressure are entirely different things, your statement makes no sense.
I was making a sanity check on your numbers using volume displaced instead of pressure exerted.
IF your spreadsheet were correct I assumed that those numbers would be the same, they were not, so I looked further and found that the difference is with the upforce on the riserwall and I am not sure of what else.Your assumptions betray you.
You've published yet another picture of numbers on a page. It's meaningless.
here is another add-on,, your lift force without the riserwall.
This one is with 1mm riser thickness.
Here is with the risers at 0mmOh boy! You've posted another picture of numbers on a page. That's more meaningless drivel.
You forgot to add verGap*No, you added a LidThickness term and then substituted that for RiserWallThickness in each: Wall2Height, Wall3Height, Riser1Height, Riser2Height, and Riser3Height. Since you used the same 1mm value for LidThickness ans RiserWallThickness, your changes had no net effect.
I changed the riser thickness to point to a LidThickness and set it to 1.
The R4 spreadsheet accounts for each of the water and "air" volumes. Nothing was missing to add.
I added the volume check missing component.
The R4 spreadsheet accounts for the riser wall uplift forces. There was nothing to add.
I changed the total uplift force to represent the buoyant lift plus the riserwall lift force.
That's just lovely: whatever "it" means.
I have tried it using the ID displacement as well.
Did you suffer a brain spasm writing that? The less force allocated to causing the net lift, the slower the system operates and the more efficiently it operates. When it doesn't operate at all, IE when it becomes a brick emulator, then the efficiency is nominally 100%. The flip side is that the faster it operates, IE the more power it is capable of conveying, then the less efficient it becomes. As long as the machine operates, it is fundamentally lossy.
I changed the time to lift from 0.5 seconds to 5 seconds. This by itself brought the system to an ALMOST but NOT quite even input lose to output performed.
Force and volume are not the same thing.
I thought that you would run your own volume check and find the same thing that I did, the displaced volumes are less than your reported lift force.
You assume a lot. Often your assumptions have been proven wrong.
I assumed that when you did find this you would not report it and that you would keep making fun of things.
I can see that you altered various formulas and ended up with a fantasy. For example you substituted your cell F256 for the up force calculated at the end of State 2, resulting in a enlarged value of 1.723606N instead of the correctly calculated value of 1.471061N. I can see that after your alterations things like the force audit failed. So, you took a perfectly good working model, messed around with it and broke it.
As you can see when I set the risers to 0mm the numbers change and when I set it back to 1mm with the new add-on that the numbers all follow what I have said and shown in the screenshots.
Thank you for validating that the changes I made made no effect to your spreadsheet, except for the change to using the full uplift potential created by using the VOLUME of displaced water for the uplift FORCE value in N and adding the riserwall thickness uplift Force value in N.You are learning well from your teacher: The fraud Wayne Travis. Don't let facts get in your way. You took a perfectly good spreadsheet that correctly reflected a valid physical model and broke it.
Blah, blah, blah, build a straw man if you can.
It wold appear as if you are saying that the displaced water volume does not need to match the uplift force or that the volume of water displaced is not an equivalent force.
More noise from the peanut gallery.
So the displaced volume of 147.6715443014cm^3 means no force of 1.4481631499N?? Archimedes would not be happy. Then I added your ~0.275443229N riserwall to get 1.7236063793N which is all the up force at the end of state 2.
The R4 spreadsheet accounts for all of the forces on the horizontal surfaces. You have not shown otherwise.
If you take the displaced water volume and its lift potential and compare that to your calculated lift potential the water has LESS lift potential, if this is the case then what? Then that means your spreadsheet is incorrect OR that I have made a change other than the ST2_TotalUpForce to reflect what I have.
You made a mess. I will not clean it up for you.
You have just confirmed that the changes to the spreadsheet made no change to what or how it was calculating it, so what does that leave MarkE?
I forgot to include that if you look at those pesky screenshots the force audit is now working and is not broken so that when I do change other settings I get a correct audit reading.I said no such thing Tom. You are a bad liar. Where do you think you are going to get with your obvious lies?
You will also notice that YOU can see in the file I posted that all the other settings are back at 1 and provide the numbers in the screenshaots, with or without the fix to the audit the audit shows 0 errors for things set to 1mm,, since +1*CirArea is the same as +CirArea.
You have stated that the only change I have made that is affecting your spreadsheet is the NEW uplift force value.
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.The whole validation scandal is finally over, as Wayne has admitted himself it will never happen, his repeated lies and promises from two years ago made that obvious to most people. Here is what he said over a six month period, clearly this man is a liar and fraudster.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.
Do you know what is sad about your trolling....Open your eyes, and look at the your own quotes, it is you directly promising again and again to do the two day verification. Your words not mine, your promises, not mine, but go ahead continued to deny it and pretend it if didn't happen, and come up with diversionary excuses, I will continue to show the truth of your own words and promises.
You left out our internal validations, and our open door validations, and our business redirection updates....
You ignore the truth so that your narrative could fit your Trolling.
You also left out that Mark turned the validation over to other experts....
A few points:
Validation is no one business but ours - we are not raising funds.
We are not making claims that can not be backed up with Math....
Oh yeah - our system works as described.......
A case of vocal constipation might be in order....
Here is a reminder of what the validation team said in the beginning ---
Independent validation is the strongest proof any device can achieve....
Black Box is for the religious anti OU
Closed looped is for the closed minded
The Data, the Math Is the definitive.
You have wasted my time responding to your character assassinations - and you have not contributed to bringing a energy independence.
If you are unable to replicate - unable to do the math, unable to think without puppet strings - I understand.
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation teamYou just can't help blatantly lying, even when your own words are in front of you, you are clearly living in denial of reality, and have been doing for at least three years.
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.
Black Box is for the religious anti OU
Closed looped is for the closed minded
The Data, the Math Is the definitive.
You have wasted my time responding to your character assassinations - and you have not contributed to bringing a energy independence.
If you are unable to replicate - unable to do the math, unable to think without puppet strings - I understand.
Open your eyes, and look at the your own quotes, it is you directly promising again and again to do the two day verification. Your words not mine, your promises, not mine, but go ahead continued to deny it and pretend it if didn't happen, and come up with diversionary excuses, I will continue to show the truth of your own words and promises.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 2012 on his web siteYou just can't help blatantly lying, even when your own words are in front of you, you are clearly living in denial of reality, and have been doing for at least three years.
You also promised a 50 kW "field unit" at Trinity Baptist Church, within 3 months of funded.(over 3 years ago)
I don't care what you call me, you are a liar and I have proved it and as long as you continue denying your lying I will continue posting your lies back in your face. and unlike you I keep my word....FU and your BS
Wayne Travis said,
Heck, honest Wayne Travis, aren't you worried about hurting LarryC's, Webby's, RedSunset's, and Mondrasek's feelings? After all..... they are unable to replicate a working system, unable to do the math that you haven't shown.... as far as being unable to think for themselves.... well, you do understand, that's for sure.
Grab MarkE's spreadsheet revision 4, grab mine and use only the volume of displaced water numbers,, and then do your own math,, you will need to make the changes to revision 4 by yourself so as to not have mine in any way corrupt yours,,Garbage you call it, I have clearly shown Wayne lied about verification. they are lies in front of your face, but as you're one of Wayne stooges I don't expect you to admit that. Where is your continuous self running device ? Where is anyones device that believes in this BS, nowhere how can you have an OU claim for all these years without showing a continuous running device......Queue the diversionary excuses.
Go ahead and do it,, you will find the same thing I did and the same thing MarkE did.
Then you can stop with this childish posting garbage.
mrwayne,
what would happen if you built your machine on a weigh platform.
Would it be anti gravity?
John.
Power is rate of doing work, RPM's which a ZED certainly won't achieve.
Need to go to rotary ZED.
John.
Garbage you call it, I have clearly shown Wayne lied about verification. they are lies in front of your face, but as you're one of Wayne stooges I don't expect you to admit that. Where is your continuous self running device ? Where is anyones device that believes in this BS, nowhere how can you have an OU claim for all these years without showing a continuous running device......Queue the diversionary excuses.
You change the states between directions - Refer to RedSunsets posts for clarification.What a classic vague statement, which one of the 427 posts from red are you referring to. LOL
What a classic vague statement, which one of the 427 posts from red are you referring to. LOL
Lets pretend you did not read all the posts - and did not follow the whole story.... and you are not just a troll...BS, you repeatedly lied and gave promises over a six month period, not one of them came true, 16 times you said verification would happen, you and your stooges have been shown time and time again that your mathematics is incorrect. It has also been shown that you were lying about verification, and now you expect people to suddenly believe your claim without an actual running device LOL, do you really think you were the first fraudster on this forum, do you really think we haven't heard those pathetic excuses before.
I am sorry you think I lied - I work on being as clear as possible - but I make errors in guestimates - that is why they are called "objectives..."
Look up the word - you pretend that our efforts are something else.
Now I ask you:
What is your intent here? protecting someone from a presumed liar --- or just sticking to your guns no matter what the truth.
Who are your protecting? What has My company or Myself asked form you?
That's right - Due diligence - nothing more.
First TK - I don't tell people what they can and can't think - you have the market on that.First, Honest Wayne Travis..... you most certainly do tell people what to think, over and over again. And you call them names and disrespect them in other ways when they do not agree with you and they point out your continuing string of "overestimations" and "overconfidences" and "goals not met" and "expectations not fulfilled".
Second - You proved with your AL scam video - that a video is bogus proof
(snip)
Do you know what is sad about your trolling....You have never had a machine that does what you claim.
You left out our internal validations, and our open door validations, and our business redirection updates....
You ignore the truth so that your narrative could fit your Trolling.Really? And where did Mark Dansie ever say such a thing? And if he did then why is it that you have not had those people validate? Oh, that's right: You're a con artist.
You also left out that Mark turned the validation over to other experts....
A few points:Sure, you promise validation, and when you don't deliver you go defensive. pquote]
Validation is no one business but ours - we are not raising funds.
Oh yeah - our system works as described.......Your system works as described by the skeptics. That is it does not produce the free energy that you falsely claim that it does.
A case of vocal constipation might be in order....The trouble for you is that you have never had any independent validation because your claims are lies.[qutoe]
...............
Here is a reminder of what the validation team said in the beginning ---
Independent validation is the strongest proof any device can achieve....
Closed looped is for the closed mindedLOL. Closed loop is what you promise with your false claims.
The Data, the Math Is the definitive.Data yes, correct math yes. The BS from you and your moronic cadre of duplicitious disciples: no.
You have wasted my time responding to your character assassinations - and you have not contributed to bringing a energy independence.It is you and your cadre who routinely demonstrate physics mistakes.
If you are unable to replicate - unable to do the math, unable to think without puppet strings - I understand.
I also stated that if I set the uplift distance BACK to the calculated prior distance then things are not as good,, BUT what I did not state is that that little force audit number goes back to ZERO.You are very confused Tom. The R4 spreadsheet is correct. Your changes are all messed up. You obviously do not understand what you are doing.
I posted the file, any one out there can take a "fresh" download of YOUR file and add MY changes ONLY for the SANITY check,, and then see if YOUR numbers match Archimedes,, OR IF THEY EXCEED those values.
Obviously if something "extra" is going on that force audit will show something, it is showing that the system is moving to far, and that distance is a calculation that your spreadsheet has made with the new force value.
So If you are saying that I am "double dipping" then remove the riserwall uplift from your numbers and only use the OD,, go ahead and try it Mark,, do you think that maybe I might of already tried a bunch of things to bring your numbers and the displacement numbers into alignment.
You should be happy,, here we know have a mathematical model that proves that a nested riser system is NOT the same as a single piston.
Please note that I am not saying that we now have proof that you owe Wayne a LOT of apologies, only that the nested riser system is not the same as a single piston.
Just because it shows more output than the cost to go from state 1 to state 2,, there still could be other things that are in the way,, and these need to be addressed.
I also remember telling you that this spreadsheet showed merit for further investigation,,,
It is unfortunate that you missed doing the volume of displaced water check to lift N and relied on using pressure and surface area only,, but we got it there in the end.
Grab MarkE's spreadsheet revision 4, grab mine and use only the volume of displaced water numbers,, and then do your own math,, you will need to make the changes to revision 4 by yourself so as to not have mine in any way corrupt yours,,You should solve today's pop quiz. Then you should compare the correct answers to the two spreadsheets. Oh, that's right: You don't understand the physics, which is why you took the working spreadsheet and made your own non-physical one.
Go ahead and do it,, you will find the same thing I did and the same thing MarkE did.
Then you can stop with this childish posting garbage.
Powercat - you are just a picker....There it is. Do you see it? The fraud Wayne Travis is beginning to set-up his exit: "Oops, we miscalculated!"
You are not wrong about me being over optimistic, you are not wrong about me being imperfect.
, you are not wrong that many changes happen in development....
Note the past tense. Yes, 'Honest Wayne' sure looks to be working his way towards the announcement that the ZED is dead. First, he needs a few weeks to inoculate the faithful before he announces the impassible barrier: Gravity is conservative after all.
Your pic and choose method - proves your lack of experience in product development or your poor character.
This has been a great and wonderful journey - sorry you chose to be negative.
Wayne
John,There is no anomaly in the R4 spreadsheet. There is only your own willful ignorance.
The anomaly is an anomaly, whether it holds as something or not IMHO needs to be investigated.
Power is not energy and if you confuse them certain people will pick on you for it,,
Practicality,, well that is another topic altogether.
If the anomaly is in fact there, than that should be able to be engineered to a more useful value and perhaps make the machine more practical.
First TK - I don't tell people what they can and can't think - you have the market on that.You do not have any machines that deliver the free energy that you claim.
Second - You proved with your AL scam video - that a video is bogus proof
Third - It is maturity - and the understanding that Super Conservative Net Energy Systems do not require OU
p.s. We have five now....
LOL. No, 'Honest Wayne', that's not what black box tests were devised to do. Black box tests evaluate the behavior of the device under test without regard to the internal workings. All the inner workings remain inside an opaque black box. Only the external behavior is considered.
Fourth - the Black Box test was created to vet systems that do not comply with physics.
A self-running device is what you have been claiming these many years. I see your efforts to inoculate your faithful against revelation of the electric cord from the neighbor's place continue.
Fifth - a self runner only adds questions and speculation.
....................
A wise man explained - arguing about theory is a waste of time - do the math, generate the data.
A successful black box test , a self runner, done that more than once, leads to the question HOW
And if you have all else - but you do not have HOW - you have not Learned.
Thanks for your pretend concern, and attempt to divide, but I asked for no one to take sides - only look for the truth..
It would have been better without the 293 pages of trolling. That's all
LOL, sure where is gravity consumed? I would like to see something where gravity goes in and something else comes out after the gravity is destroyed. Pointing to Red_Sunset for clarification is like pointing to Mexico City for fresh air.
No - and no Gravity is consumed - as I answered last time.
You change the states between directions - Refer to RedSunsets posts for clarification.
Rotary is less conversion to electricityZEDs produce no net energy.
Zeds do not have to run fast - they produce extremely large force -
The Rotary TAZ has a much larger foot print per KW
Plus and minus of both
When I set the system back to use MarkE's numbers and set the riserwall to 0mm there is a small discrepancy between the calculated pressure lift and the displaced volume lift force.I love how you obfuscate by relabeling things. 1.261900N is the total uplift force at the end of State 2 using zero thickness riser walls and all other dimensions as Mondrasek depicted them. 1.2641758762N does not occur in the correct R4 spreadsheet.
1.2641758762N displacement lift
1.2619003597N calculated pressure lift
At 0mm thickness I would assume that these two values should be the same.
The extractable work is always less than the input work. That's what fundamentally lossy means.
This also brings the output performed to just under the input loses.
Those must be numbers after your non-physical double dipping changes. The R4 spreadsheet correctly calculates:
2.9863713965mm lift distance
0.0018843J loss
0.0018842J performed
Using the buoyant lift value changes things
2.9917565583mm lift distance using displacement lift
0.0018842J loss
0.0018910J performed
If this system can then get back to state 1X by itself there would be a nominal gain.
Lets pretend you did not read all the posts - and did not follow the whole story.... and you are not just a troll...Wayne it is just awesome how: freely, effortlessly, and unashamedly that you lie. I see that you are continuing your progrom of follower inoculation. Yes, that's it: Tell everyone that all those false claims that you've made to free energy machines weren't lies. They were just "guestimates". LOL.
I am sorry you think I lied - I work on being as clear as possible - but I make errors in guestimates - that is why they are called "objectives..."
The fraud has gone full defensive.
Look up the word - you pretend that our efforts are something else.
Now I ask you:
What is your intent here? protecting someone from a presumed liar --- or just sticking to your guns no matter what the truth.
Who are your protecting? What has My company or Myself asked form you?
That's right - Due diligence - nothing more.
If I set both the ringwall thickness and the riserwall thickness to 0mm I then need to drop the ST2 fill height to 35.5mm to stop "blowing" ar2 but this still leaves the displaced lift force higher than the calculated pressure lift force and still has the work performed higher than the loses.Those must be numbers from your fantasy spreadsheet. Making the changes you state to the correct R4 spreadsheet yields:
0.0020460J loss
0.0020533J performed
Again, this is with using the displace water volume force equivalency in N for the lift calculation and therefor distance.
With both set to 0mm I am assuming that then there is no physical device interaction.
This also leaves a positive pressure under r1 at end of state 3 and a zero pressure under r1 at the end of state 1X, so in this condition the system will collapse back down into state 1X without outside input.
Alrighty MarkE,You have not identified any errors in the R4 spreadsheet. Your spreadsheet double counts values. Your spreadsheet is wrong. If you want to understand your mistakes see the drawing below.
Here is the spreadsheet WITHOUT the VerGAp change to the volume check in the state 3 audit.
Without this change you can not change the VerGAp setting.
I have set the riserwallthickness to 0 and changed the lidthickness to 0 to match,, just as if I had no changes to the height section.
It is using the lift force by displacement only and as you can see it is showing a force audit error of -0.0022755N
You will also see that there is no air volume errors.
You can point cell B164 to use cell E164, this is MarkE's calculated pressure lift, or you can point it to use cell F238, which is where it is pointing right now which is the displacement lift force,, or you can point it to cell F256 which is the riserwallthickness lift force plus the displacement lift force.
If you choose to change the riserthickness to 1 then also change the lidthicknes to one to keep MarkE's relationship in tact. Those are cells B25 and B28.
Now the only thing that might not be happy with MarkE is that there are the other forces that have not been identified by his spreadsheet and at least the lift force of the displaced volume of water MUST be considered.
Thank You MarkEThose are thicknesses not forces.
So you are saying that these wall forces are valid to use, Thank You again
There is no brain fart. You seem unable to comprehend, that the faster you want the system to operate, IE the greater power you want it to be able to transfer, the greater the force difference required to accelerate the payload. You are either being obtuse out of sheer ignorance or because you intentionally wish to misrepresent.
Power and energy are NOT the same MarkE,, did you have a brain fart on that one?
Yes he did. You should learn his famous principle and how to apply it sometime.
But Archimedes uses the displaced VOLUME for calculating the FORCE,, is that another brain fart Mark?
Again: No one has found any errors in the R4 spreadsheet. You created a derived spreadsheet where you introduced errors.
It is a shame that the FORCE audit broke, I only used the force present within YOUR spreadsheet,, you know,, the one you did not use,, so if using a FORCE that is present breaks something,, then who goofed up?? me for using a FORCE that is present or YOU for not using that force to start with.
If you want to see the error in your spreadsheet see the atttached screenshot with all your cells back in play,, do you see any RED numbers at the state 3 condition that are in the TOTAL column,, do you see any audit errors,, well something must be wrong.Tom, it is your spreadsheet that is wrong. You double counted the up lift on the riser walls. You don't know what you are doing or you intentionally misrepresent. In either case, your spreadsheet and protests are worthless garbage.
MarkE,,No it isn't. I have never substituted one for the other. You are either too dense to notice, or just trying to make up yet another straw man. [/quote]
You stated, and got all over not just me but others,, remember, POWER is NOT ENERGY,, get a grip.
No Tom, you do not understand. Go ahead and answer the two questions posed in this graphic. Then we will discuss your misconceptions.
I simply went and found the equivalent volume of displaced fluid in YOUR spreadsheet,, YOU must balance to that value.
This reminds me of a post by Mondrasek,, and now you have it in front of you with your own work.Mondrasek has admitted that his analysis was mistaken and that the analysis behind the R4 spreadsheet is correct. Try to keep up Tom.
Which one is solved for first??? this is the question isn't it.
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg390695/#msg390695
That is YOUR spreadsheet,, I am only showing the values and the displaced volume of water,, everything else is yours there Mark,,Your add ons are wrong Tom. You are double counting values.
Your lift, your calculated force,, all your stuff,, with the add-ons showing what is what.
These 2 screenshots are with MarkE's force number in Screenshot-6 and the buoyant lift force number in Screenshot-7, for the lift force value in cell B164Did you forget to mention that you have substituted your own incorrect formulas for the correct formulas that are in the R4 spreadsheet? Did you mention that you have added two different values for up lift force on the riser walls? In this amazing new Tom Web artificial physics, a submerged object is subject to two different additive up forces.
These have the riserwallthickness and the ringwallthickness both set to 0mm.
This takes the physical structure out of the equation and thus turns it into an "ideal" model.
These numbers MUST be the same for each lift method, that is in Screenshot-6 MarkE's lift force and the buoyant lift force must be the same as each other for state 2, then they must also be the same as each other in Screenshot-7 for state 2.
So look at cell F256 and cell F253, these numbers must be the same.
Mondrasek has admitted that his analysis was mistaken and that the analysis behind the R4 spreadsheet is correct. Try to keep up Tom.
Your add ons are wrong Tom. You are double counting values.
webby, just a little reminder ;)
Welcome back, TK!Welcome back, wayne. :D
I'd suggest we forget his somewhat incomprehensible ramblings and analysis and concentrate on holding Wayne Travis to account for his on-going misleading and false statements.
Welcome back, wayne. :D
Well played, Al.Nice try, Saddam. ;D
I have agreed that you maths appear correct. I have not (yet) agreed with your conclusions. I still firmly believe that all Forces must be resolved as a first order of business. Only after the Forces are resolved correctly can Energy calculations be analyzed.You have had the spreadsheet available for over two weeks. You have not identified anything to which you object.
READ mark,, I used YOUR formulas, I have used MINE and I have used them both with the risers and ringwalls at 1mm and 0mm.Tom, my formulas are in the R4 spreadsheet. Saying that you used them when you substituted some of your own is a lie.
I have posted screenshots using all of your formulas in place and only showing the displaced volumes,, that is the OD Mark,, not the ID.
Now,, You answer your graphic,, in your spreadsheet you are using the bottom face of the inverted cylinder at the depth it is under the water,, and then you are using the pressure on the underside of the top,, where are YOU using the displaced volume?
The displaced volume must match the lift force that you have, if it does not, more OR less, then there is an anomaly
Welcome back, TK!Off your meds again? The old manic paranoia keeping you awake at night?
So it does not take much ability to understand then that what Archimedes is saying and what MarkE is showing are not the same.I am exactly following Archimedes. You are not. Pick your answers to the five questions posed below. See if you are capable of learning anything.
I wonder why YOU missed that.
You suggest we ignore the math and instead concentrate on what?!?All the calculations in the world are useless when they are based on a BS model. Tom has used for force acting on the risers the sum of two values: the correct one that is already in the R4 spreadsheet, and the same wrong one that you once applied: the head difference between the OD and the ID. Where you were under counting the lift force, Tom is nearly doubling it.
Camp is an aesthetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic) sensibility that regards something as appealing or humorous because of its ridiculousness to the viewer.[1] Camp aesthetics disrupt many modernists’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism) notions of what art is and what can be classified as high art by inverting aesthetic attributes such as beauty, value and taste through an invitation of a different kind of apprehension and consumption.[2] Camp can also be a social practice. For many it is considered a style and performance identity for several types of entertainment including but not limited to film, cabaret and pantomime.[3] Where high art necessarily incorporates beauty and value, camp necessarily needs to be lively, audacious and dynamic. “Camp aesthetics delights in impertinence.” Camp opposes satisfaction and seeks to challenge [2]
The concept is related to kitsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch), and things with camp appeal may also be described as being "cheesy". When the usage appeared, in 1909, it denoted: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, and effeminate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminate) behaviour, and, by the middle of the 1970s, the definition comprised: banality, artifice, mediocrity, and ostentation so extreme as to have perversely sophisticated appeal.[4] American writer Susan Sontag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag)'s essay Notes on "Camp" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_%22Camp%22) (1964) emphasised its key elements as: artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and ‘shocking’ excess. Camp as an aesthetic has been popular from the 1960s to the present.
It's very hard to pose as a different character. You pretty much have to be a professional writer. It's not too hard to recognize the distinct character in the prose of a given person once you get used to them and get to know them. TK posts like TK. MarkE posts like MarkE. It's clear as a bell to me, plus chances are there is a lot of history before they even crossed paths. From my perspective that's the case. I am quite certain that it's as clear as a bell to many people around here.
All vectors turn around and point back to you know who. If he said he had to leave under the advice of his lawyer and then came back, what does that say? He alleges they are the same person? This is "camp" without trying to be funny. It's camp being used (in an attempt) to mesmerize you into a "brain illusion."
In other words, Wayne is giving us a show. Some people actually still do find humour in it.
Here is what I am saying MarkE,If you believe that, then draw a free body diagram that demonstrates it. You are of course once again wrong.
The volume of displaced water is
147.6715443014cm^3
Which is a lift force of
1.4481631499N
That means that your spreadsheet can not exceed that force limit, but it does.
There is no anomaly. There is only your ignorance.
Using that with your calculations leaves
0.0228982N
after a lift of
2.5501545683mm
Are your calculations wrong?? I doubt it.
This is the anomaly.
The fact that you say that you have just been "trying many variations" demonstrates that you do not have a good understanding of either the physics or the mathematical representation of the physics that is in the R4 spreadsheet.
A gain or a loss does not matter,, the math says that they are supposed to be the same. I have been trying many variations to bring them into alignment,, but no success.
999,999 more skilled like you might lead to progress, or might not.
I thought that the zero thickness would get rid of any discrepancies,, but that did not work either.
The R4 spreadsheet correctly accounts for the forces on each horizontal surface. Within the numerical precision limits of Excel the answers are exact and audit correctly.
It does not matter WHAT I put in for the lift force when the start values are not the same. I can manually change the lift distance and get both very very close,, but we are not talking about something that only has to be close, it must be exact.
MileHigh (or should I say Darth Vader ;) ), but what is wrong with a good, old fashioned witch hunt?I'll have you know that they put this nose on me, and I am not fond of ducks.
Pointing at posters whose opinions you don't like and shouting witch! ,witch! adds so much value to the discussion.
Alrighty then MarkE,,There is no fixing willful ignorance. Show an actual calculation that is wrong, and why it is wrong. You can't. You present yourself as completely unfamiliar with the physics. Let's see what you are bitching about now: "displaced volume". It seems you do not understand leverage or hydraulic force gain. Repeat after me: Force is not conserved. Force is not conserved. Force is not conserved. In order to calculate forces, you have to work out the pressure that acts on each horizontal surface and then multiply that pressure by the exposed horizontal surface. The R4 spreadsheet does just that.
Calculate the actual volume of displaced WATER and virtual WATER using YOUR numbers,, that is what I have done that is
147.6715443014cm^3.
Then what is that weight in N.
Go ahead MarkE,, show me that your spreadsheet comes up with something else,, then, when you can not do that then what are you going to say or do to try and twist things further???
Have you checked what volumes you are calculating in your own spreadsheet there MarkE,, the air volume of the riser and the water volume of the AR2_3 AR4_5 and AR6_7 gap,, where is the sanity check for the displaced volume???
Oh,, that is a silly question,, there is NOT any,, some person is so sure of himself that he does not need anything as stupid as a displaced volume sanity check,, the forces are all that are needed,, it is not like we are talking about a BUOYANT lift or anything.
Tom,The shameless fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Tom Web presents himself as incapable of learning concepts taught to high school students each year. Archimedes' Principle holds in all cases of fluid displacement. When people do not understand the principle or how to apply it as Tom presents himself, then they get wrong answers. The "Travis Effect" videos showed what happens when a dishonest huckster attempts to misrepresent and misdirect by claiming that a displacing material: air in the case of the videos, is responsible for buoyant force, when it is not. The weight of the displaced surrounding fluid: water is entirely responsible for the buoyant up force. The air in all of those videos did two things: provided some of the displacing volume, and transmitted the buoyant force to the ID of the cups in all cases. There is no "Travis Effect". There is a small group of frauds led by you trying to mislead investors who don't know any better. The great news is that you have documented your scienter.
You are sane...and wise.
Archimedes' is correct - in situations where a static surface is not involved.
As you and Mark have shown:
The volume relationship to buoyancy is correct in a Archimedes' as is the differential pressure X surface area is also correct - since they are both in effect the same descriptions of the effect gravity has on fluids - and a displacement.
The "Travis Effect Videos" showed that a mechanical intervention could be made to effect that relationship.
Most interventions cause added work - but when the intervention reduces the reaction time, or displacement requirements, or reduces the mass involved - but nets the same values..... a new observation is warranted.
Wayne
It is ok if you still do not understand, step back from the insults and the preconceived conclusion to see the simple things.I understand your fraud just fine Wayne. The question for you is: Who else understands it? And what might they be doing about it?
The contraptions you have built are useless cyclical weight lifting and lowering machines.
The open system is buoyancy - not a hydraulic cylinder
Weight and volume are distinct properties. They are no more comparable than the sound of a color.
and the total buoyant force is greater than the total volume of the system.
Your comparison is meaningless because the buoyant force as shown 2000 years ago by Archimedes is due to the displaced weight of the fluid. Area is not buoyant force. Area alone does not translate to buoyant force. It is in your fraudulent world of misdirection that we see these attempts by you and your disciples of duplicity to misrepresent ordinary physics.
The simple - so simple observation is this;
The total area is much less than total buoyancy.....Does that fit with Archimedes'
Reality is unaffected by your lies Wayne. Is that a train whistle I hear?
No.
It does not matter what any of us think..... the fact is a fact - facts do not care about the age of our skins.
Mark - you have no honor.Oh my: The shameless fraud Wayne Travis accuses me of having no honor. Let's see: How many years have you been defrauding your family and neighbors with your BS claims of free energy? I see that you lie freely and that is awesome. It is not what I call honorable.
Well, honest Wayne Travis.... shouldn't you be at work, preparing for your invitation-only "Public Demo"?Those pesky leaks are hard to fix! Good investor leads are for closers!
Have you located your major leaks yet? 8) 8) 8) 8)
But every time you find and seal one, another one springs open somewhere else and your expensive teeter totter lurches to a halt. But you've got a new design that you expect and anticipate will solve all those problems! How long can you run with that explanation before the villagers start marching on you with pitchforks and torches?
Are you hoping to add even more items to PowerCat's list of your broken promises? With every post, you do.
LOL, The man claiming OU for three years doesn't have a continuous running device, LOL'Honest Wayne's' body language in that screenshot cracks me up. I love all the pointless crap that is scrawled on the white board.
'Honest Wayne's' body language in that screenshot cracks me up. I love all the pointless crap that is scrawled on the white board.;D I wonder if he'll go down with the sinking ship, or run away and hide...... think he'll run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principleIf only you would understand it, you would be a lot better off.
Maybe you should read this MarkE.
Do you like that little part at the end,,
Did someone forget the left hand side? Did someone forget to say what it is that they are trying to calculate? So let's see what you are calculating shall we:
From the spreadsheet heights I used this,
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(((ST2_AR3Height_1-ST2_AR2Height_1)*Riser1ODCirArea_1)+((ST2_AR5Height_1-ST2_AR4Height_1)*Riser2ODCirArea_1)+((ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*Riser3ODCirArea_1))*0.001
How many times do I have to tell you that all the arithmetic in the world cannot fix a bad model? What do you think you are calculating? It is not the displaced water.
For those that have a normal working spreadsheet program it is this,
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*(((ST2_AR3Height-ST2_AR2Height)*Riser1ODCirArea)+((ST2_AR5Height-ST2_AR4Height)*Riser2ODCirArea)+((ST2_AR7Height-ST2_AR6Height)*Riser3ODCirArea))*0.001
This is for the risers only,, go ahead and stick this in any open cell and see what you get.
The buoyant up lift force exerted on the pod is the displaced water volume that is it is the pod cross section area times the difference between the AR1 water column height and the water level beneath the pod. Pay attention to Figure 3 below.
Then the pod,
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(PodCirArea_1*ST2_AR1Height_1)*0.001
This is your ignorance on full display Tom. Shall we review again? Select the right multiple guess answer for each of the five figures. See if you can spot your mistake. Here is a hint: what volume of water does each riser wall displace?
Again for the normal working program,
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*(PodCirArea*ST2_AR1Height)*0.001
Add these two together and see what you get.
147.6715443014cm^3
Then convert to N,
=(the total)*0.001*G0_1
again for those with a normal working program,
=147.6715443014*0.001*G0
Then you get
1.4481631499N
compared to MarkE's
1.4710613906N
This is math MarkE.
Math teaser:What we always find for any of the "assisted" machines is that either or both the input and output continuous power have been measured or and/or calculated incorrectly. None of them can ever be arranged to deliver an actual surplus output over input. While technically not necessary if the input and output continuous power were both measured correctly self-looping is a definitive test that is not subject to the measurement and / or calculation errors that have plagued every free energy claim ever made. Wayne Travis' deliberate fraud is no different.
KEEP IN MIND IF ONE OF THESE IS POSSIBLE, THEN SO IS THE OTHER
The point being that a self runner is what most people are beating
their drums about. No matter how it is done, some of the overall
production is being used by the process. Why would anyone subject
themselves to such scrutiny if not necessary??
_1_ _2_
Hypothetical free energy device Hypothetical assisted energy device
Total output 10kw Total output 10kw
Total input (from within) 5kw Total input (from grid) 5kw
Total usable output 5kw Total usable output 5kw
Now, lets talk about double dipping.The riser walls displace water. Of course they experience a buoyant up lift force.
Does the projection of the riser thickness into the water have a force on it that adds a lift potential or not.
That's because you demonstrate that you don't know what you are doing.
What does that add look like.
When I use what I think is correct I come up with a total lift in N of
1.6631790687N for state 2
and it ends at state 3 with
-0.007462169N
Using your calculated lift force and distance.
1.471061N state 2
0.0000000N state 3
2.5904774097mm
Another small question MarkE,You have not established that such a thing happens.
Why is it that changing the VerGAp breaks your air volume audit.
It is a constant value defined in the spreadsheet.
Is the Vertical Gap not something that stays the same,, is that relationship a constant??
Really Tom? You are wondering why a dependent variable changes? Why don't you open your eyes and look at the diagrams?
So why does the air volume change so much when you change that value?
Interesting,Look at the diagrams Tom. See if you can figure out the correct answers. You can play the village idiot as long as you like.
You are saying that it is not the Outside Diameter?
That it is not the volume of displaced water,, that the vessel itself has no displacement value?
In that case MarkE,, you must remove the riserwall lift force,, which is it then,,
I will try to remember that it is only the volume inside the float that counts,, so that makes a Styrofoam float sink because there is no space inside,,, interesting MarkE.
Oh, lets not forget the big hoohaa you had about the water rising in a container when the float was pushed down,, whether that float was full of water or not.
Just a sec,, let me get a screen shot with using .1mm for the vergap and the air volume error,, any person with a copy of your spreadsheet, including YOU can check this.That's your spreadsheet Tom. Try again.
There ya go MarkE,, FAIL
(snip)
Then again, I suppose you are calling TK's videos a fraud,, since those demonstrated that it is the volume of water displaced not what is displacing that water.
Lets just look and ringwall 2 shall we,,If you want to figure out the correct answer then just answer each of the five questions. Then maybe you will understand what you are doing wrong. The up force on Riser1 side wall is the product of the pressure at the bottom of that side wall and the area of that wall's horizontal face. It is no more and no less. If the bottom of that wall is at 1mm (which it is) and the water level in AR2 is at 1.42mm (which you have stipulated) then the pressure transmitted from the top of the water column in AR2 to the underside, of Riser1 is not the same as the pressure acting on the bottom of the Riser1 side wall. You can flail about all you want. You cannot change that fact.
It houses a riser and a water column,, R1 and AR3 if AR3 is at some height
59.293103mm
and then the Riser is stuffed in there and the water inside that Riser is at
1.420000mm
then the height of the missing water from ringwall 2 is
59.293103mm − 1.420000mm = 57.873103mm
and if R1 happens to have a diameter of 28mm then that is
.25π×28^2mm = 615.752160104mm
615.752160104×57.873103 = 35635.488184171mm^3
35635.488184171×.001 = 35.635488184cm^3
WOW,, did I just figure out the volume of the missing water inside ringwall2??
Looks that way to me.
Now what is it that that Archimedes guy said about the buoyant lift force??
That's right,, it equals the volume of displaced water.
So MarkE,What is "this" Tom?
Should I be using the spreadsheet for this,, since in there you have the force needed to sink the open topped risers,, well that does displace water now doesn't it,, and then are you asking for the force relative to the air volume or the force for the entire volume of water that is being displaced.
What is "it" Tom?
You use it one way and then you use it the other,, so answer your own question first so we all can see which way you want to use your "special" rules of buoyancy.
That does what Tom? Why is it that you routinely fail to write intelligible English? Is it the same reason that you write equations that miss the entire left hand side?
Then again, I suppose you are calling TK's videos a fraud,, since those demonstrated that it is the volume of water displaced not what is displacing that water.
So MarkE can see the volume of displaced waterOh joy! You've posted a picture of more numbers on a page.
It's not the first time that someone has misinterpreted or overinterpreted what I show in a video. Maybe I need to use a different transcoder or something.Tom seems decidedly reluctant to trying his hand at the quiz. If one can answer the quiz questions correctly, then one should be able to understand why the R4 spreadsheet is correct and why Tom has been spewing a bunch of BS.
Aren't you going to answer the quiz? I'm dying to see if I got the same answers you did.
Hey MarkE,, Do you see the big error in your "quiz"
How do you displace that water with no change in the height of the surrounding water,, that must be more of your "special" skills,,,
You have made the water disappear,, like magic
So you are asking for the displaced fluid on the inside of a wall that happens to be sitting in water but the wall does not move,,Whatever you believe or wish to profess to believe, then go ahead and choose your answers to the five questions. In doing so, or continuing to avoid doing so you will do one of the following:
Wow Marke,, that is nifty and oh so informative,,
Are you stating that the displaced volume is ONLY calculated by the ID,, that is Inside Dimension, or diameter, since we are dealing with cylinders, is the true displaced volume of water?
You are using pressure, that is fine, I am using volume, then I am converting that volume of water into N,,
These two methods are both used and accepted methods for calculating force,, or are you saying only your way is accepted and used.
The riser wall sections that are displacing water that extend beyond the missing water level total 21.9255218391cm^3, add this to the 147.6715443014cm^3 volume from the risers and pod and you get a total of 169.5970661405cm^3 of displaced water.
Now, you can go ahead and try to prove my numbers wrong,, but you can not because these are what they are from your spreadsheet.
Buoyant lift force is calculated by the Outside Dimension,, remember MarkE,, or are you having a brain fart.
Hey MarkE,, Do you see the big error in your "quiz"The quiz makes no representations of prior conditions for any of the questions. If you don't think any of the numerical values are correct for any question, then select: f. None of the above.
How do you displace that water with no change in the height of the surrounding water,, that must be more of your "special" skills,,,
You have made the water disappear,, like magic
Oh-my-oh-my,,The answers that you need are all found in the quiz:
I see that you do not read posts very well,, your loss.
Now prove my numbers wrong or keep playing the idiot,, your choice.
Well,, when I use MarkE's number for N/liter I get the force ofHave you figured out your answers to the five quiz questions yet?
1.6601856804N
Instead of
1.6631790687N
My computer analysis shows that the answer to Mark's quiz is........While that is technically the correct answer, we are looking for it coded in a form of: a), b), c), d), e), or f) for each of the five questions. The special properties of 42 allow it to be represented as multiple different values simultaneously.
42.
I have double checked this.
Bill
While that is technically the correct answer, we are looking for it coded in a form of: a), b), c), d), e), or f) for each of the five questions. The special properties of 42 allow it to be represented as multiple different values simultaneously.
Well now, that is a different matter altogether. I will have to re-compute this but, it is going to take a long, long time.Might a better computer help?
Bill
Expressed as a function of 42'ness it is readily apparent the answers are:It's really a good thing that Wayne tells us that he isn't seeking any new investment. Talk like yours that involves numbers and fancy terms like quantum mechanics might scare prospective investors away, especially any real mega millionaire investors like G G Gadbois.
1, 0.992
2. 8.257
3. 0.992
4. 7.265
5. 7.974
What is not so easily recognised is that taking these numbers and applying the 'Travis Gravity Modification Constant' (TGMC) the values become a function of whether you are observing a functioning machine or not.
It would seem that Quantum mechanics has finally been vindicated as the working principle...
Expressed as a function of 42'ness it is readily apparent the answers are:
1, 0.992
2. 8.257
3. 0.992
4. 7.265
5. 7.974
What is not so easily recognised is that taking these numbers and applying the 'Travis Gravity Modification Constant' (TGMC) the values become a function of whether you are observing a functioning machine or not.
It would seem that Quantum mechanics has finally been vindicated as the working principle...
Switch over to Base 8 and then the numbers will jive!I thought it was a Farfisa!
I kept dividing 42 by the nearest prime and got the calculations needed for an improbability drive. Then I realized this is the secret to all overunity devices, they need to have an improbability drive.I tried dividing by primes and decided to have a nice steak instead.
Kind Regards
Mark
45Did somebody mention mice :D
Well markE,, you are wrong againn,,,As for your muttering and nearly random number flinging, it's up to you to articulate an argument. All you've done is flail about. The R4 spreadsheet generates the exact up lift values that one gets when one correctly calculates buoyant up lift force for each. Since, you represent your numbers as at odds with the R4 spreadsheet, it is your numbers that are wrong.
Are you talking at all about the actual volume or are you still talking about the calculated pressure lift force?
By the way
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395435/#msg395435
So you can NOT prove my volume numbers wrong,, I have now applied the correct force value, not in this pic, and it is still higher than your calculated force,, get a grip.
So the weight of the lifted water is less than the weight the lifted water can lift,, so what?
Well, I am pleased that I was able to get all the right answers to the Quiz, and allow me to point out that LibreEnergia's answers are also correctly encoded in 42-ness.Webby declined to take the quiz. But from his ongoing spreadsheet follies it may well be that he did something such as you suggest.
What I want to know is this..... did anyone get a different answer for Figure 1 than for Figure 3? Because that just might be the key to understanding Travis and the Zeds.....
You may have covered the "unequal" example - if so Sorry for the repeat.LOL.
Wayne
I had an interesting thought this morning. Referring back to the State 1X diagram that MarkE presented to be in a true state of rest, unlike the State 1 diagram. State 1X would occur if the Ideal ZED in State 1 is unrestrained, since there are buoyant forces from the displaced water due to the riser walls extending below the water level.This effects the initial force and the amount of energy that it takes to get to State 2. The stored internal energy at State 2 is unaffected. If one wanted to cycle between State 1 and State 2 or State 1X and State 2, then it would matter to those cycles.
In order to come to rest at State 1X the risers all lift and cause each to have a slight negative buoyancy due to a negative water head. The sum of the positive buoyancies due to water displaced by the riser walls and the negative buoyancies due to the negative water displaced by the negative water head is, of course, zero. But it also creates a negative pressure (vacuum) in the pod chamber. This means that the water charge needed to go from State 1X to State 2 would begin at a negative pressure, and not zero as I had intended when designing this model for Analysis. But is this significant at all?
I posted an answer to the part that was needed, Mark. That answer was the OD of the main body plus the displaced volume of the riser skirts that went below the water line. That is a 9mm distance.LOL, you are a fun guy Tom. There were five questions. Did you answer one? Who knows, because you threw out a number without saying which question you were trying to answer.
I would like to know when you understood that the system works.
.25π×44^2×(32.5−10)+ (.25π×(44^2−42^2)×(10−1)) = 35427.740354532is correct.
You calculated the correct displaced volume.
35427.740354532×.000001×9.789 = 0.34680215N
hi markEA liter is as good a volume as m3 or cc or in3 or even furlongs3. We just need to make sure that we use the right scaling constant to get to the units we want in the end.
I think we need to convert pwater from N/liter to N/m^3 first, because liter = dm^3,
SI uses N/m^3.. i see you use mN ( mili ) not uN (micro).
too late to participe in your quiz... (fffff)..
Well i goofed on the riser extension volume,, I forgot to convert from cirmm2,, so the new value isKeep pounding on that calculator Tom. Perhaps someday you will learn how this stuff works.
17.2202645839cc
Which drops the buoyant lift down to
1.6141259172N
I was there to start with.If you are getting different force answers for each riser and the pod individually or the whole contraption in total than the R4 spreadsheet, then you are getting the wrong answers. It can be shown algebraically that the formulas used in the R4 spreadsheet exactly represent the same quantities that one would get by using the water heights, riser and pod positions to calculate buoyant up lift on the risers and pod individually.
I think I have the correct numbers now for the displacement, not the pressure lift value but buoyancy.
I have taken what I have learned from Mark and applied it to the "ideal ZED" and the buoyant lift is greater than the input pressure and volume cost, but in a funny way, sort of.
The lift is losey, but there is left over input, and the output is more than those loses.
I wonder what people thought about buying into Microsoft when they were still in a garage,, or Apple or,,,,
Do you know how many times I heard that the world does not need another fancy typewriter or word-processor?? Look at those that took that risk back then.
This effects the initial force and the amount of energy that it takes to get to State 2. The stored internal energy at State 2 is unaffected. If one wanted to cycle between State 1 and State 2 or State 1X and State 2, then it would matter to those cycles.
Hey Mark,There is no energy gain. There are only your mistakes. The R4 spreadsheet is correct. Your changes, and "checks" of the spreadsheet are what have been wrong all along.
Thanks for being persistent enough to make me see that I should of been using 9.78899 instead of G0,, it did drop values but that is alright,, a ~2.5% gain cycle over cycle is not much but it is something. That is only using 1/2 of the left over input by the way,, just to keep things on the conservative side.
MarkE, the CYCLE would need to be from State 1(x) to State 2 to State 3 and back to State 1(x). At least that is the goal of my Analysis. Reciprocating on any one leg of a cycle is a pointless Analysis exercise, IMHO, regardless of the truth of your statement.You can define a cycle as including whatever sequential states you want, so long as you always work your way back to the starting state by the end of each cycle. No matter what you do: The machine is fundamentally lossy.
What defines whether the state is reachable or not is whether or not there is an intermediate lower energy state. If there isn't, then the water should drain completely before reaching State 1X. It is then a matter of closing the drain when the water has drained out, and the system will develop the vacuum as it works its way to State 1X.
The further problem with the Ideal ZED having pulled a vacuum in the pod chamber at State 1X is that it could NOT reset (without added Energy) from State 3 back to State 1X simply by venting the water from the pod chamber by "pulling the plug."
Yes, there should be a State Y where the pod chamber is empty and the pressure on the pod chamber floor is positive or zero.
So State 1X may also be an unrealistic start and end State for a simple Analysis. Any ideas? I'm wondering if a new State 1Y is necessary for the start and end of the Ideal ZED cycle?
Well excuse me for showing my work.Is this "π" supposed to be pi? It renders as a lowercase "n" in my browser. If it is pi, then I apologize for not seeing that.
What this proves is that you have a hard time with information that is not in your exact style.
Is the answer correct and is that the same answer I posted prior to your answer sheet,, yep.
Maybe I should of put it this way instead of putting in those extra spaces of separation
.25π×44^2×(32.5−10)
PLUS
(.25π×(44^2−42^2)×(10−1))
EQUALS
35427.740354532
then
35427.740354532×.000001×9.789 = 0.34680215N
No problem with the miss,, I actually realized that I should of at least enclosed each part to make that easier,,That gives you the top cylinder slice in the same way as you addressed the quiz question. Your units are a little strange: mm3/1000 but that can be fixed with a constant.
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001
this is what I am doing in the spreadsheet calculation for volume in cc of the riser
This is where you went wrong. You are counting the entire riser wall here as in the R4 spreadsheet, but you already counted the part above the AR6 meniscus. Using the method you used in the quiz question it would be:
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
No, you have been double dipping just as I have told you for several days now.
This is for the Extension into the water after lift,, again, volume in cc
I do believe that this is what I did and what you have shown.
Yep, that pesky "pi" symbol in the default font is a problem, hard to read. Looks very much like the lower-case "n". Even "bolded" it's hard to tell them apart.I see what looks like two lower case "n"s, some box with a 213c in it an integral sign a star a cirle with a 42 in it and something that looks like a sandwich.
π
n
ℼ
That last one is from the "common" character set, "Double struck small pi", U+213C.
∫ ⚝ ㊷ ䷔
Did those chars display for you?
Wrong John,, team skeptic's attempts to hide those anomalies is falling apart fairly fast.I don't know Tom,
A liter is as good a volume as m3 or cc or in3 or even furlongs3. We just need to make sure that we use the right scaling constant to get to the units we want in the end.
Did you check your work Mark?Tom, I have shown you multiple times now where you have gone wrong. I already checked the R4 spreadsheet up lift forces against buoyant volumes and it is correct. If you recognize that X - X = 0, then you can see by inspection of the formulas used in the R4 spreadsheet that the calculated up lift forces on each riser and the pod are identical using the pressure method as calculating force using displaced water. If you get results that are different than the R4 spreadsheet it is because you are still making mistakes.
Here is MY calculated volume for that extension
2.5427305737cc
Here is YOURS
5.052267107cc
Are you saying that you would accept a spreadsheet with YOUR method of calculating the extension in it?? that would make me happy because that would provide even more lift force.
So you are incorrect and I am correct.
Where within R4 are you calculating the buoyant volume? You are NOT calculating the buoyant volume.
Here is mine with the buoyant volumes.
I expect to see yours with the buoyant volumes included ASAP.
Wrong John,, team skeptic's attempts to hide those anomalies is falling apart fairly fast.Tom you are out of your mind. There are no anomalies. You have made many mistakes that others such as myself have corrected.
I don't know Tom,The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. You wouldn't know what it means to invent a free energy machine, because you haven't invented one. You just lie to investors with your false claims of having invented one. As for poor Tom, I keep showing him his mistakes. Like you, he plows on as though he is oblivious to reality.
What good does it do to discover a free energy device?
Last year I thought these skeptics were just not qualified to evaluate -
I mean according to them;
all the most devious and brilliant brainwashing master minds of all time rolled into one character - is here wasting his time not asking for money and not applying for an OU prize............(That's brilliant)...
According to the phony skeptics - everyone who has hands on experience is a babbling shill and too stupid to think for themselves....give me a break.......................
This is Mondrasek's link - and his point was to show the an Ideal ZED has an anomaly - not even the whole process - and we have 130 pages of every diversion possible to deny what is clearly just .......cool.
A skeptic does not direct the observation to his will - he/she reports the facts.
Wayne
hi markMKS is preferred and it is what the spreadsheet rigorously uses.
It was expected that you would answer with an explanation plus examples, that if one units was converted into any form, others should be convert too, and the result will be just same. and show directly the source of problem.
just hope you will replay to webby with this way if you have found a mistake.
still fffff, in exel file pWater uses Kg/m^3 while in qiuz N/liter.
Yes, there should be a State Y where the pod chamber is empty and the pressure on the pod chamber floor is positive or zero.
MKS is preferred and it is what the spreadsheet rigorously uses.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. You wouldn't know what it means to invent a free energy machine, because you haven't invented one. You just lie to investors with your false claims of having invented one.
That was crap mrwayne,
Archimedes himself reckons that it is the the volume of the immersed part of the object
which is important, NOT THE DISPLACED VOLUME.
Try again, better luck next time!
John.
Mond.
The displaced volume is the volume of say water, which the object itself displaces.
This can be much less than the immersed volume of the object.
The energy requirement would be inline with any work done lifting the object itself.
John.
The ZED has more buoyancy than its total displacement
Mond,
OK. I give in.
I was just following the Koala and his virtual water.
John.
Surely something in a close fitting container can only displace a small amount of water.
The weight can be balanced by "virtual water" Trouble is when it comes to pumping
there's no free ride.
John.
This is the cell for the air volume audit for Riser 2 with the VerGap set to 0mm and an error ofA vertical gap of zero means that the machine is a concentric set of sealed cans. It is meaningless.
1156cir_mm2*mm
Riser 2 has a Risr2IDCirArea of
1156cir_mm2*mm
R2
=(Wall2Height_1-ST3_AR3_Height_1)*AR3CirArea_1+(Wall2Height_1-ST3_AR4_Height_1)*AR4CirArea_1+ST3_Uplift_1*(AR3CirArea_1+AR4CirArea_1+RingWall2CirArea_1)+Riser2IDCirArea_1
This is the cell for the air volume audit for Riser 3 with the VerGap set to 0mm and an error of
1764cirmm2*mm
Riser 3 has a Riser3IDCirArea of
1764cirmm2*mm
R3
=(Wall3Height_1-ST3_AR5_Height_1)*AR5CirArea_1+(Wall3Height_1-ST3_AR6_Height_1)*AR6CirArea_1+ST3_Uplift_1*(AR5CirArea_1+AR6CirArea_1+RingWall3CirArea_1)+Riser3IDCirArea_1
To me this means that the audit needs to be +VerGAp_1*Riser2IDCirArea instead of +Riser2IDCirArea at the end.
To me this means that the audit needs to be +VerGAp_1*Riser2IDCirArea instead of +Riser3IDCirArea at the end.
Show a sreenshot of your calculated volumes for buoyancy,, I did.Screenshots are worthless. Look at the formulas that are already in the R4 spreadsheet.
I am also trying to show changes in methods that do not reflect in favor of an anomaly,, and yet it is still there.
LOL you are such a hoot...and have no character or honor.So accuses the fraud who has stolen from family and friends with his fraudulent free energy claims.
Others and I have many times proven that your claims are lies. Being the shameless liar that you are you simply ignore those proofs and press on with your fraud.
First - you have never proven my whole machine does not work as claimed - neither has anyone else...
just because you do not like it or me - is no proof.
There are no anomalies in any of your contraptions. And you cannot show differently.
Ignoring the process to fit your claims is more poor character.
No Anomalys lol ---- so you say...
Archimedes' Paradox is not an anomaly. It is 2000 year old science.
Well here is one of the Dozen I have shared - which you ignored:
The ZED has more buoyancy than its total displacement
It is Thursday and it is sunny, or are you a wife beater?
It is an open system - and it is buoyancy - or is all your math wrong??
I think the completely shameless way you press ahead with your fraud is awesome. I don't encounter such blatant sociopathy that often.
So quiz time - why do you ignore the facts.
Volume of the immersed part vs. the displace volume: Are they not one and the same? I guess I am not following what you meant.Look up Archimedes' Paradox.
Sorry John, but that is incorrect. The volume of any object immersed in water will displace an equal volume of water.Minnie is correct. Look up Archimedes' Paradox.
Now the WIEGHT (Mass) of the two can be very different.
But the volume is the same. That is Archimedes' Principle.
M.
It is all "pure Archimedes" Larry. Once again you do not know what you are talking about. You cannot show anything there that violates Archimedes' Principle.
And below is why. The only pure Archimedes shown is the Pod. The Risers are hydraulic pneumatic hybrids using only the accumulated head pressure of the water heads in the surrounding circles.
Minnie is correct. Look up Archimedes' Paradox.
But...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox)
Don't mind me none,, but these are from r4 as I downloaded it.The question here is what are you trying to calculate?
this is Mark's air height number for state 3
Air height AR6 from top of Wall 3 down
Do any of these look correct?
23.587792 air height
41.412208 ar6 height
2.590477 lift
65 wall 3 height
1 vergap
1 vergap
65−(23.587792+41.412208+2.590477+1) = −3.590477
(65+1)−(23.587792+41.412208+2.590477) = −1.590477
(65+1)−(23.587792+41.412208+2.590477+1) = −2.590477
(65+1+2.590477)−(41.412208+23.587792) = 3.590477
(65+1+2.590477)−(41.412208+23.587792+1) = 2.590477
23.587792+41.412208 = 65
edit to add Marks comment: Air height AR6 from top of Wall 3 down
Once we start talking about anything other than the Mathematical "Ideal" model, I agree completely. There are obviously losses during all of the dynamic interactions in a Real World ZED Cycle. Those loses would need to be incorporated properly into any complete simulation of a real world system.As has been shown many times already, even the "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy. The risers will not lift going from State 2 to State 3 if the payload identically equals the force versus position transfer function. The payload must have a lower energy transfer function and that difference is irrecoverable loss.
So if an "Ideal ZED" system acts only as "Ideal" (IE efficiency of 100%), then real world losses would necessitate that it be less that 100% efficient.
BTW, this gives rise to one of my concerns about the claims that the "pre-charge" causes the dual ZED system to be able to cycle for the length of time as shown in Mark Dansie's video: In my experience, the losses built into the entire dual ZED system would consume any excess Energy due to a "pre-charge" in only ONE or at best TWO cycles. I contend that a precharged dual ZED system could not oscillate like a teeter-totter for several cycles, let alone the minutes shown in those videos.
My opinion is that something must be DRIVING the dual ZED system behavior that was video taped by Mark Dansie. But that is only my opinion.
M.
Then could you tell me exactly where the formulas are for the total amount of displaced water volume.You have demonstrated that you have added erroneous calculations with your add ons.
I see riser volume for air and water, but not how much is creating a buoyant lift,, in other words I am NOT seeing where you have the displaced volume calculated and shown.
This is what I have done with my add-ons.
No.True and the basis of the paradox is that is so even if a like volume of water was not first there to displace.
The VOLUME of any object submersed in a body of water will displace an equal VOLUME of water.
There is no such requirement. If the SGs are equal then the submerged object is neutrally buoyant.
However, the weight (mass) of the object must not equal the weight (mass) of the displaced volume of water.
Again this is true, even if the original volume of water was far smaller than the volume of the submerged object.
But the VOLUME of any object submersed in a body of water will displace an equal VOLUME of water.
It absolutely applies. Note that the total up lift force in State 2 is 1.471N which is equal to the force exerted by 150,277mm3 displaced water. However the total volume of water in the device is 24,212mm3. 5/6ths of the "displaced water" is not water at all.
Archimedes "paradox" (not Principle) does not apply at all in this case.
Yes. And Archimedes' "paradox" (or the "hydrostatic paradox") is concerning a specific case. That 'case' states that an object can float in a quantity of water that has less volume than the object itself, if its average density is less than that of water.The volume occupied by each riser and the "air" trapped underneath has an SG of 0, as does the pod. The last time I checked: 1 is always greater than 0, even for very large values of 0.
Please show me where we have anything in the Ideal ZED model that has an average density less than water?
M.
One of the things I have observed is that the buoyant lift can be greater than the pressure lift, but it has a shorter distance of lift.The net buoyant lift force on any riser is the same as the sum of the pressure based up forces and down forces on the same riser. The same is true for the pod.
This can also go the other way depending on the dimensions and there relationships.
I just had one that was about -110%,, very lossy,, but I am having the ~2.5% over when using the "stock" settings.
So they are not identified and accounted for then.The equivalence is inherent to the formulas in the spreadsheet. You can verify that with some simple algebra. You can also look at the cells that If you are too lazy or incapable of doing the algebra, that's your problem. You should also be getting the same values riser by riser as listed in the spreadsheet. But if you are still double dipping, then you will get the wrong values, and it is up to you to fix your formulas.
That is fine since I am using your spreadsheet data to get the numbers I have.
I will then assume that they are indeed correct since you are not showing anything contrary.
The buoyant lift FORCE does not care about all that pressure stuff,, it is equal to the volume of displaced water, hence a sanity check on things using another method to calculate the lift forces.So here you present yourself again as the Village Idiot. What is the physical basis of buoyancy Tom? Allow me to present you with a hint:
I have more volume of displaced water than your force conversions are showing ~11.5cc worth.
I got the "dipping" correct you did not,, and the ID of the riser is less until I add the extensions, then there is more,,,Now you are just lying Tom. Do we need to review your equations where you calculated the displaced volume for Riser 3 using OD from the top down to the meniscus in AR6 and the riser wall from the top down to the bottom, thus double counting the riser wall volume from the top down to the meniscus in AR6? If you wish to present yourself both as an idiot and liar, I can't stop you.
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #1939 on: April 03, 2014, 05:05:36 AM »
Quote
Quote from: webby1 on April 03, 2014, 04:56:14 AM
No problem with the miss,, I actually realized that I should of at least enclosed each part to make that easier,,
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001
this is what I am doing in the spreadsheet calculation for volume in cc of the riser
That gives you the top cylinder slice in the same way as you addressed the quiz question. Your units are a little strange: mm3/1000 but that can be fixed with a constant.QuoteThis is where you went wrong. You are counting the entire riser wall here as in the R4 spreadsheet, but you already counted the part above the AR6 meniscus. Using the method you used in the quiz question it would be:
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR6_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
IE taking only the portion of the riser wall that is below the inside meniscus, since you have already counted the part that is above the meniscus.
The way that you have been doing it, you have double counted the portion of the riser wall that is above the AR6 meniscus.Quote
This is for the Extension into the water after lift,, again, volume in cc
I do believe that this is what I did and what you have shown.
No, you have been double dipping just as I have told you for several days now.
Yes I think we need to Mark,Even after the quiz, even after directly pointing it out to you several times, you blindly go on making the same mistake. Are you really that dense?
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
So as you can see I am using AR7 height minus the lift minus the vergap times the Riser3WallCirArea to calculate the extension going down under the water height of AR7. This all leaves me with only the portion of the riser that is under water,, not the whole thing as you are trying to state again,, which is false.
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001
Do YOU get it NOW
well I see a state 2 lift condition and then I see a state 3 extension conditionYou are still double counting the Riser 3 Wall volume between the AR7 and AR6 meniscus. You may be beyond all hope.
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001
That looks like the distance and volume of the OD of R3 and the HEIGHT difference BETWEEN AR6 and AR7
Lets see shall we AR7 =49.766667 AR6 =13.548780
So that is 49.766667−13.548780 = 36.217887 height distance of the water for lift volume without the extension
And since you did not read, one was volume for lift and the other was the volume of the extension AFTER lift
Extension after lift
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
IF you had a question you should of ASKED instead of jumped,, get a grip.
Do YOU get it NOW
No problem Bill,Tom you have been consistently wrong throughout. You are wrong again.
Did you actually read what I am using?
Do you understand what I am doing?
Mark's "formula" that he says I should use nets the buoyant lift with a lot more volume than what is there.
So what is not to get.
No problem Bill,What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,
Did you actually read what I am using?
Do you understand what I am doing?
Mark's "formula" that he says I should use nets the buoyant lift with a lot more volume than what is there.
So what is not to get.
What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,
I fully agree mrwayne, your system is definitely not fraudulent .
John.
As has been shown many times already, even the "ideal ZED" is fundamentally lossy. The risers will not lift going from State 2 to State 3 if the payload identically equals the force versus position transfer function. The payload must have a lower energy transfer function and that difference is irrecoverable loss.
What drives the contraption that Mark Dansie filmed is energy obtained from the outside used to overcome the internal losses of Wayne Travis' useless prop.
Nothing personal powercat -Clearly you have missed it go back and look at MarkE's posts again, the information is there to see....simple as is simple does...open your eyes and do your duediligence and you will see simple physics shows why you're device doesn't work.
But where did mark or anyone else show my system to be fraudulent....
That is not a question. It is a statement about your lie.
This is your personal issue.
Clearly you have missed it go back and look at MarkE's posts again, the information is there to see....simple as is simple does...open your eyes and do your duediligence and you will see simple physics shows why you're device doesn't work.
You misrepresent the mats that MarkE and others have shown and that is the error of your ways, open your mind and learn the truth.
The Data, the Math Is the definitive.
You have wasted my time,If you are unable to do the math, unable to think without lies and deception- I understand. You are a conman with only false promises of a free energy device.
Ok MarkE,It is called Archimedes' Paradox. It is 2000 year old science.
Waited a whole day...
Back to the first Anomaly.....
More buoyancy than physical space could accounted for........
Show one example where compounded buoyancy has been utilized or even mentioned in history?
I mean besides the ZED system of course.
Thanks
OK Mark,The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again. There is no energy efficiency gain that results from the Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance.
One down.... next one....Next cool Anomaly.....
This one might jog your memory a bit...because you categorically denied the possibility of this anomaly...
connecting the layers in series requires less work and is More efficient to attain pressure in buoyancy than a single column of same diameter
Do you understand how the ZED is designed to utilize that anomaly yet?
I think you said it is more lossy to add systems together.......... so this must be new to you..
Lol - what a wild leap..... You should stick with what you know --- because your guessing is way off....The fraud Wayne Travis admits my points without even realizing it. It's hilarious. There is no anomaly. There is nothing in your scheme that hasn't been known for many generations.
From your quote above....
You have examined the simple math in a "Part of our process" and have not examined the whole process.
And then you conclude - and state - as first had knowledge - that the Video of our first closed loop system was being powered from an outside force......lol.......
Wow....... p.s. you made my point about a closed loop system not being proof of anything :) :) :) :)
What drove the ZED in Mark D video was the lossy but effective reuses and capture of the "Second' energy transfer function- after the load (the first energy transfer function).
p.s. the stated recapture and observation was 50%........
...................
And by the way - the second energy transfer function only needed to cover the lossy system expenses to run closed loop.
Let me break that down - if the first Energy transfer was "only" 50% efficient - the whole system would have still been 100% efficient....... In the ZED - two separate things happen in a ZED - Potential and the stroke of a load.
The potential created to lift the load is then used to reduce the cost of the next load..... simple as is simple does.
A big P.S. The first energy transfer function - the load - was supplemented by the other Zeds Second Energy transfer function.
During the lifting of the load - the energy transfer to lift the load - is not consumed...... and the load is production.
That's a pretty HUGE anomaly to chew on.
You are a strange one Mark.Archimedes' Principle states that the buoyant force is the weight of the corresponding volume of displaced fluid. That you are so geometry challenged that even with pictures you still can't correctly identify what is displaced is simply laughable.
Please show me where Archimedes states that it is only the water inside an object that is displaced that equals the force.
In short you are saying that the equivalent volume of displaced water magically shrunk,, and this is after you agreed with Mondrasek that the buoyant lift force is by the OD.
So,, now you have to either explain how you have destroyed a mass equivalency or how your special buoyancy can magically work around the accepted rules.
Since I have been using the water on the outside in both formulas,, then I have not been doing anything wrong.
Now you compounded your lie - Mark has found a minor error in Mikes math, and made several minor errors himself - in discussing Mikes Ideal analysis - he has agreed that losses exist in our system.The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again. I found that Mondrasek based his conclusions on faulty premises. I have shown the correct premises and math prove that the Russian Dolls of Ignorance are fundamentally lossy. They do not offer any opportunity for the energy gain that you falsely claim as part of your investment fraud.
We never claimed loss less system???
To be clear - In a super conservative system - one that produces enough net to overcome all losses - the presumption and imposed idea that if any losses exist - than nothing cam be gained....is intellectual immaturity.
We had to face that anomaly in our study of our system.
"If" mark ever discusses the whole process - then I will be impressed.
Next point - whom is wasting who's time......
Good day
Gee - Mark - I guess I will have to start over..The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Oh poor fraud Wayne Travis is so disappointed in others while he steals from: friends, family, and neighbors. That's what's awesome about you Wayne: You are completely shameless.
It is clear you are incapable of being incorrect.... my bad for assuming good in people.
Thanks for the criticism - wish it had been honest....
Good day.
There is some jabbing on both sides. But when you filter that out you are left with Wayne putting on a really ugly and creepy show where he continually tries to create the impression that he has something that certain other people don't get. He once posted that he is a "hydraulics expert" and yet Wayne can only offer verbage, and he can't do any kind of analysis using mathematics and equations to back up his premise. It's a Catch 22 for Wayne, because if he showed some equations, they would show that his sales pitch is false. You are left with a creepy prophet of water, Mr. Splashing Fluids. Mr. Ho Ho. He make free energy for you long time.Wayne Travis is obviously no expert in hydraulics. He uses similarly invented terminology as the terminally confused Webby and other of the disciples of duplicity who support the Wayne Travis fraud.
Wayne Travis comes across as a habitual liar and fraud. The fact that he's chosen friends, family and neighbours as his first victims leads me to believe that he is not very intelligent. So does the fact that his 'invention' and claimed 'anomaly' is pretty much self-debunking by applying common sense and basic math.If one lacks an empathy response, IE if they are a real sociopath, who they screw doesn't much matter. None of us want to think that our friends or family members are so evil that they would look us in the eye while stealing our money. Yet, such people exist, and they have friends and family. Those friends and family often make easier marks than a stranger. In order to screw someone they need to trust you. In the case of a stranger you have to first build the trust before you can abuse it. As an example of the case of friends and family many of the people who invested with Madoff suspected he was a crook but insanely figured that he wouldn't cheat them. I can cite multiple fairly recent cases of other sociopaths stealing from friends and family in multimillion dollar scams.
His at best shallow knowledge of the subject matter is also very revealing. He repeatedly endorsed opinions in support of his fraud that were subsequently proven wrong.
Why should anyone trust or believe him? That's the only anomaly, the only interesting part of this farce.
That's your story and your sticking to it.....
Thank all of you for the private p.m.s
And yes - they are.
Wayne
The potential created to lift the load is then used to reduce the cost of the next load..... simple as is simple does.
A big P.S. The first energy transfer function - the load - was supplemented by the other Zeds Second Energy transfer function.
During the lifting of the load - the energy transfer to lift the load - is not consumed...... and the load is production.
That's a pretty HUGE anomaly to chew on.
It isn't as though the fraud Wayne Travis needs to spend time working on his non-existent technology. Not having anything to work on leaves him plenty of time to come here and lie about it.
That sounds pretty much like a confession.
Are your imaginary supporters aware of the fact that your (private) PMS can be detected by precognition-enabled sharks?
And yes, you are. A liar. A fraud. And not the smartest one, by far.
Why else should you waste this great opportunity to put all your critics into
their place by presenting irrefutable proof of your easily refutable claims? You know why.
You simply have the hydraulic equivalent of a see saw. You may even be able to get it to oscillate back and forwards quite a few times by minimising losses caused by fluid flow. Running it slowly would help that. The FORCES generated during these oscillations may even be quite large , giving hope that if you could some how actually use them to power an external load then the device would generate quite a bit of power...Hey missed you...
However, what you can't do, (and will never be able to do) is actually make the thing run for any length of time while using it to power an external load. The reason is simple. it does not actually produce any energy. There is no NET Pressure x Volume or integral of F.ds, or however you'd like to measure it produced during the whole cycle.
Sadly for you that is the nature of conservative systems or even 'super-conservative' systems or any other bullshit pseudo scientific description you'd like to invent to make yourself appear more knowledgeable than your investors.
It isn't as though the fraud Wayne Travis needs to spend time working on his non-existent technology. Not having anything to work on leaves him plenty of time to come here and lie about it.Ok " 8) Chosen One 8) " sorry if asking you to defend your lies is not fun.
He had better hurry up and present something viable, instead of loafing around on Free Energy forums.
He's losing ground fast to Jimmy Kwok. Kwok has multiple experts with PhDs, multiple designs, patent applications, real working prototypes, even pretty girls. Kwok might even have a patent infringement case against Travis, if honest Wayne ever actually tries to sell a "working" Zed to anyone, since Kwok's designs have been around since 2009 or before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV5wFTfsTSs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV5wFTfsTSs)
Note the "flow assist" system..... "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber"....
The difference - we can turn on hundreds of cubic feet worth of displacement with a single cubic foot
Lol - not much pumping it the point - seriously lol..
Wayne,
I think you'll find virtual water takes a hell of a lot of pumping, perhaps someone
will come up with a virtual water pump!
Do you know if old Kwok's machine works, there's a label on the diagram which says
electricity to grid - but I think it might need another, namely electricity from grid.
John.
I guess if you say this to a potential investor and they don't look at you like you are retarded then you know you have a chance at a score.lol
Wayne won't say when he will show a stand-alone working system diving a load. He ignores the question. He ignores the question because he never had, does not have now, and never will have a working system. Perhaps one day James Kwok and Wayne Travis will be using cigarettes as currency.Defending the team I see - hey how about you answer the anomaly concerns for MarkE since he won't.
Defending the team I see - hey how about you answer the anomaly concerns for MarkE since he won't.
Don't be afraid to ask hands on people for help - I mean P.m'd of course.
good day.
Now you compounded your lie - Mark has found a minor error in Mikes math, and made several minor errors himself - in discussing Mikes Ideal analysis - he has agreed that losses exist in our system.
We never claimed loss less system???
To be clear - In a super conservative system - one that produces enough net to overcome all losses - the presumption and imposed idea that if any losses exist - than nothing cam be gained....is intellectual immaturity.
We had to face that anomaly in our study of our system.
"If" mark ever discusses the whole process - then I will be impressed.
Next point - whom is wasting who's time......
Good day
Hey missed you...The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. There is no net energy production from your contraption versus input. Your junk pile is a net energy consumer. BTW: I just love the your invented terms.
I am sure it was an accident - but your quote left out the production - Mark does it on purpose -
Notice the term "second" these two actions - the load - which is the output of a ZED and the Stored potential - are two separate things. One is converted to energy for the customer - and the other is transferred - but not consumed - in a SUPER CONSERVATIVE PROCESS - that reduces the total production cost - of the energy to the customer - by more than 50%.
Not yelling - just being clear -
Here is the that post section in full:
"And by the way - the second energy transfer function only needed to cover the lossy system expenses to run closed loop.
Let me break that down - if the first Energy transfer was "only" 50% efficient - the whole system would have still been 100% efficient....... In the ZED - two separate things happen in a ZED - Potential and the stroke of a load.
The potential created to lift the load is then used to reduce the cost of the next load..... simple as is simple does.
A big P.S. The first energy transfer function - the load - was supplemented by the other Zeds Second Energy transfer function."
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ok " 8) Chosen One 8) " sorry if asking you to defend your lies is not fun.Your junk piles do not exhibit any anomalies. No matter how much you insist, there is nothing behind your tattered curtain. You're a con artist with a Bible.
...............
OK MarkE, you have had two days
To admit the first anomaly - and you failed.
As is your method - your defended your "paradox claim" - even posted a picture of a buoyant object - void of any layers ........ layers which lay waste to your denial.
..................
You have had one day to admit Anomaly Number Two:
Remember when you claimed it was categorically lossy to add systems together - sorry that you proved yourself wrong in the spread sheets - most people call the learning - but do you have the character to admit that anomaly..
You didn't bother to respond - other than cry baby about me being your fraud 8) 8) 8)
..............................
Lets go to Anomaly Number Three:
Our system does not consume the pressure * volume used to precharge or stroke - now here is the kicker - while doing work....
Name me another system that produces separate work and conserves the input........ here is a tip - Super conservative might not be in your text book....... the ZED is an anomaly.
Now why can't you suppress the ZED system? ??? ??
I don't think you have "missed it" like you act -- I gave you the benefit while many others wrote you off - You are fooling many.. :)
Have a good day.
IIRC Kwok already has a fraud conviction under his belt. I'll have to go check.
lol .....
Brilliant ..... James can speak to his inventions - he does have a few clever things - but none of his systems look anything like a ZED .
p.s. don't confuse an Archimedes' limited system to a concentrated form of buoyancy like the ZED - there are thousands of equal volume displacement buoyant systems that are less than 33% efficient.
The difference - we can turn on hundreds of cubic feet worth of displacement with a single cubic foot - no one else can - no one else that I have met has a Super conservative buoyancy system....we are pretty safe legally - thanks.
Take care.
p.s. TK while you are him... I want you to know that every time I share the virtual displacement story - to our growing partners from around the world - I always, always, give you credit for the term.
You may refuse to admit when you are wrong - but I give credit where it is due.
Good day.
Wayne
Frown.... You can't even discuss your alleged system using comprehensible terminology that anyone associated with hydraulics and energy production should be able to do. And you allege that there are anomalies with your system? The real anomaly is that you are still walking around as a free man. Count your cigarettes.No hints!
Just remembered that I did not post this yet, been a little busy with life :)Congratulations! You've finally figured how to identify the actual displaced water volumes instead of double counting as you were before. Now, if you plug in the same values of pWater and G0 instead of your truncated constants you will find that your net up lift forces are identical to the R4 spreadsheet. IOW there is no algebraic difference in the answer whether one uses pressure applied to each of the horizontal surfaces or one uses the actual displaced water volumes just as you have already been shown.
I hope these volumes meet Mark's requirements.
Here is a screenshot and the file.
The false physics claims are 'Honest Wayne Travis' own. The last thing that Wayne Travis wants around is anyone competent to point out the obvious fact that his contraption does not do what he claims and never can.
Has mrwayne himself been a victim of fraud?
Any physics prof. would have taken seconds.
Likewise with the math.
What about patent lawyers?
John.
Mark,Webby you have now changed the formulas in your spreadsheet. If you want to continue lying about what is there for all to see, then go ahead. The fact is that you have brought your numbers to match the R4 spreadsheet. Where you are getting different lift numbers beats the hell out of me because your spreadsheet gets to 0 force in state 3 using the R4 lift distance that you dispute. As you can see your formulas reference the correctly computed 2.59mm lift value from the R4 spreadsheet. I have shown you how the physics work, how to do the math and you still come up confused. What motivates one to be as belligerently stupid as you present yourself completely escapes me.
I have tried to tell you that you are wrong, I have tried to show you where you went wrong, but none of these have worked to help you see what you are doing that is wrong.
Your Revision 4 spreadsheet is broken, but when it is fixed your calculated lift distance is not ~2.59mm, is it,, it is back down to ~1.6mm even tho in your revision 3 you called it close to ~1.47mm.
I did my due diligence to go and figure out what you are using and how you are using it, as is shown by my volumes to distance and all things being zero at the end. I did this even tho I do not agree with you so that I, at least, can have a better understanding of what it is you are seeing.
This is how investigations work,, you see things one way, I see them another then we should try to understand each others POV and answer our own questions from that,, all of this also, in a positive communication.
To start things off.
This proves that the nested system does not behave the same as a single piston system.
What is that proof?
If AR7 were sealed to Riser 3 at the height of AR7 at the end of state 1 and then the input fluid were added Riser 3 would only lift ~1.6mm
The false physics claims are 'Honest Wayne Travis' own. The last thing that Wayne Travis wants around is anyone competent to point out the obvious fact that his contraption does not do what he claims and never can.Gee Mark, I am sorry you had that experience.
Patent lawyers do what they are paid to do: Usually that is prepare the application in a form generally accepted by the USPTO. Patent lawyers will be happy to run prior art searches if the inventor pays for that service. Very few firms review claimed inventions for actual utility.
Boy Mark,The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Only idiots and frauds claim as you and your disciples of duplicity do that cyclically lifting and lowering weights yields net energy. Poor Tom can't seem to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.
You sure like to point at people and call them "Stupid" a lot......
I am definitely not as smart as you. You have proven to me your ability.
Wayne
Gee Mark, I am sorry you had that experience.Any engineer who thinks that your claims are genuine is a blabbering fool who should be kept away from tools lest he or she hurt themselves. You have no proof of your claims. But it's awesome that you just keep soldiering on with your lies. Keep building that record of scienter Wayne.
On my Inventions - We were refused until their own engineers evaluated our system.
Of course - We enlisted the "best" on purpose - to protect all of us from both inventor error and engineer mistake - or abuse as you described.
Our lawyers and Firm has a solid policy against inventions that had the intention of Net Energy - until ours - proof is first, and best.
Take care.
...smile.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BootstrappingTom your own spreadsheet shows that the zero point for net force up force on the risers plus pod is at 2.59mm. Maybe you didn't notice: All the risers and the pod act on each other. You have to take the sum of the vertical forces. The same physical mechanism is responsible for lifting Riser 3 beyond 1.6 mm as lifts water inside the water bottle in the right hand most picture above the water level outside the water bottle.
Mark,
What is holding Riser 3 up?
The volume stops the lift on Riser 3 at ~1.6mm.
You have bootstrapped Riser 3 to the ~2.59mm and then you are using that to lift Riser 2.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Only idiots and frauds claim as you and your disciples of duplicity do that cyclically lifting and lowering weights yields net energy. Poor Tom can't seem to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.Gee - still avoiding explaining the anomalies present in the ZED....
Gee - still avoiding explaining the anomalies present in the ZED....The Fraud Wayne Travis speaks. Each 'anomaly' that you have claimed, I have shown is no anomaly at all. As to playing with liars: You are a shameless and remorseless liar selling investments in non-existent technology claims. Maybe "The Music Man" was your favorite film.
I don't play with liars - they continually make up more crap and avoid the last lies they told.
Second, I do not play with rude people - they insult to hide their own inadequacy.
Every time you call us names - you show something to everyone.
As we see is clearly - you have been called out on lies by multiple members on this forum...
The list is growing, it is still a lie when your puppets defend them for you.
I am sure it is not your last lie - but your claim that you have proven no anomalies what so ever in our ZED system is pretty pathetic.
I fully expect you to crawl behind your insults some more.....This is clearly personal to you.
You do not want the truth out an willing to say anything.
You break all the rules of this forum, and ruin it for inventors with your lies, twisting of facts and personal vendetta.
Where have you helped to bring solutions - collaborations - support for enthusiasts - independence.... you or any of your other login names.
You pretend to help so that you can be big guy on the outside - and then prop yourself up by insulting others.......
I do not speak for anyone - but I bet most of us do not need propping up - thank you anyway.
Mark,I just love the way that you use the same terms for force and distance. Why is it so hard for you to say "force" when that is what you mean and "lift" when you mean distance? Is it because you want to be vague?
You are using the Riser OD force in N's to represent the opposing force in N's from the riser above it.
In your spreadsheet you are showing a positive lift added from Riser 3 to the OD of Riser 2 of
ST3_R2_OD_Force 0.1943731N
There is no fixing stupid. AR6 is higher than AR7. Gravity pulls harder on the taller head in AR6 than it does in AR7. That creates suction on the top of Riser 2. Yes, that is an up force. The effect of the head difference between AR6 and AR7 on the top surface (OD) of Riser 2 is identically canceled by its effect on the combined Riser 2 wall and Riser 2 ID. Go study the hyperphysics article on buoyancy that I linked.
This then states the Riser 3 is pulling up on Riser 2, and then you have Riser 2 pulling up on Riser 1 with
Again, no such thing. It is amazing how you construct these straw man arguments with invented values.
ST3_R1_OD_Force 0.1225567N
For these two forces to be present and a positive lift input, then Riser 3 must be pulled up by an outside force.
I have shown you time and time again your mistakes. Then you just run off and make new ones. You are wrong once again.
Riser 3 can only be lifted by AR7 which is below AR6 and therefore offers no support to hold the Riser up.
My buoyant lift distance when setup correctly is only
2.5471001082mm
Your willful ignorance is really stunning. The assembly is pushed up from below. As it rises negative heads develop across both the Riser 3 and Riser 2 walls. The resulting pressure difference exerts a downward force on the ID of each: Riser 3 and Riser 2. The walls of all risers remain submerged and all exert an up force, as do Riser 1 and the pod. The system linearly goes from net up force of 1.47N in State 2 to 0N in State 3 after lifting 2.59mm. You can keep pounding like a clueless monkey at a keyboard, or bother to learn the physics which is nominally taught to high school kids in two fifty minute classes.
That is using the OD for the buoyant lift value, where as in my spreadsheet I had to shift Riser 2 and Riser 3 to use the ID volume to match your calculated lift distance and volume at end of State 3.
As I stated, you have bootstrapped Riser 3.
Yes Mark,Since you can't seem to get it through your thick skull that gravity between the earth and the water columns pulls down on the water columns and because the water columns are at unequal heights there is a differential pressure that operates on the various horizontal surfaces, that pressure being upward on all horizontal surfaces except the IDs of Riser 2 and Riser 3, then pick a favorite deity and attribute the "magic" to them. Because obviously the physics which is successfully taught to millions of boys and girls in a couple of lessons each year is beyond you. You do realize that pressure in a fluid is omnidirectional don't you?
What is holding Riser 3 UP so that it can suck riser 2 up,, nothing so that suck is pulling Riser 3 down and placing its FULL weight on top of Riser 2.
No, you are willfully ignorant.
You are bootstrapping Riser 3,, no matter how you try and go with it, Riser 3 has nothing but its own bootstraps to hold itself up.
The R4 spreadsheet correctly calculates and applies all the pressures against to appropriate horizontal surfaces yielding the correct forces. You are lost: utterly and completely freaking lost.
If you want to go a little further then you will also have to add on that suck force any value of AR5 that is above AR4 since it is AR5 pulling AR6 up.
State 2 stipulates that the risers are held down with force from an outside restraining device. Water is forced up into the assembly from below. Got it? It is down force working identically against up force. FDIFF = 0, consequently mA = 0.
In State 2 you have no movement so the risers are down, the pressure input into AR1 forces all of the water to change its position and create the buoyant lift condition as well as create the pressures that you are calculating.
I have the correct R4 spreadsheet that correctly calculates the neutral condition in State 3 as 2.59 mm up lift. Yes, since the volume inside of AR7 increases, and there free communication between AR7 and that increasing volume, fluid moves from AR7 to fill the increased volume. That should be obvious from the diagrams. The height is equal to: ST3_Uplift*Riser3ODCirArea/AR7CirArea. Which you will find is identically the height difference between the R4 spreadsheet values for the State 2 and State 3 AR7 heights. Fluid moves until the forces pushing the assembly up equal the forces pushing the assembly down. That happens when the risers and pod have moved 2.59mm. Water draws from the outside: AR7 into the middle in this contraption just as it does into the water bottle inserted upside down in the soda bottle below. Note that in the third picture the water levels are even before the vent is sealed. IE the water and air pressures are identical. And yet: Thank Govan it's Friday- the water bottle rises dragging water up with it resulting in negative gauge pressure inside the water bottle. You may throw yourself into the volcano in respect for Govan's great magical gift whenever you are ready.
You only have ~1.6mm of lift from Riser 3 with the volume added, the rest of the volume that is needed comes from AR7,, it donates that volume during lift.
Gravity "holds it up" by pulling down on all the fluid.
When AR7 and AR6 are at the same height there is no head and no pressure between them for Riser 3,, any movement after that for Riser 3 sucks waster in from AR7 and this adds weight to Riser 3 which is reflected directly on top of Riser 2.
AGAIN, WHAT IS HOLDING RISER 3 UP IN THE AIR TO SUCK UP RISER 2?
I have so many times now it has become a very absurd joke.
Answer that simple question will you Mark??
Show the world how dumb and stupid I am and tell us all how Riser 3 is being held UP IN THE AIR so that it can suck Riser 2 up.
Is it that weaker wall force for Riser 3??If you were interested in learning how the nested Russian dolls of ignorance work you would avail yourself to the explanations and references I have offered.
Is it the incompressible air and water that for some reason does not get pushed back out and up AR7??
I am interested in knowing what it is Mark.
Is it that weaker wall force for Riser 3??What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,
Is it the incompressible air and water that for some reason does not get pushed back out and up AR7??
I am interested in knowing what it is Mark.
What you should be doing, if you really believe there's free energy in Wayne's device, is build your own and show everyone it works, but just like Wayne can't do that, because in reality his mathematics have been shown to be fraudulent, and every time MarkE shows where you have made a mistake you move the goalposts and argue you meant something else,Hey Powercat - Back to re-write history again...so sad..
but I'm sure you will carry on with Wayne's approach of blaming other people for not looking close enough at the information that's right there in front of you, the only problem with that approach is that we have all seen the information is fraudulent so many times that repeating the same argument is really now a complete waste of time. But maybe the solution for you is to try and build the device and finally discover your ignorance.
Hey Powercat - Back to re-write history again...so sad..Ah more bald faced lies from the fraud Wayne Travis. None of your contraptions deliver any of the free energy that you claim that they do.
No one has or can prove the ZED does not work as claimed.... because it does.
History is going to show who the fraud is... smile...
Powercat,
I don't want Mark to discuss the whole system and discover that "free energy" does not have not be magical - and that energy amplification is and has always been possible.
He has earned his place in history as the "Smartest guy in the room".... smile...
..........................
Tom is doing what great inventors do - they seek and answer questions... Tom also has built his own system - and then improved it. It is what we do....Solve problems.
Not everyone will shut up and bow down.......
p.s. It is the purpose of this web site to search and discover..... why do you want to stop that?
Take care
That is nice Mark, you actually said that gravity is pulling all the fluid down and that is what is holding up Riser 3.That's right.
Wrong. Gravity pulls down on the water. Water is drawn into AR7 just as water is drawn into the water bottle in the right most picture below. Why is it that you refuse to see what is right before you?
So you have NO actual answer as to what is holding Riser 3 up so that it can suck Riser 2 upwards.
I see you are trying to build another straw man Tom. Slay those men of straw to your heart's content. None of them represent what I have said.
If I then take what YOU have said and do a simple test,, I will stack 3 dinner plates on my table and push down on the top plate to lift all 3 plates up,, that is what you just said.
Why do I care that you miscalculated yet another thing? You claimed that the machine does not lift 2.59mm. Your arguments are based on faulty premise and lead to wrong conclusions. You are wrong again as you have been wrong so many times in the past.
I left an open for you,, I left an error that you COULD of noticed and then jumped on, and even taken it further, but no, you chose to go with the personal attack.
You are wrong on the state 3 force direction on Riser 2 OD and Riser 1 OD.
What I left "out" was that when the pressure lift distance is met, ~1.6mm, the buoyant lift force is still positive and continues the lift. This means as the lift goes up the pressure lift is going negative and the buoyant lift is loosing its ability to lift and at some point they will become equal and opposite, and that point will be below the ~2.57mm buoyant lift distance.
At this point any change in either force will cause a change in riser height, but what is interesting is that if any more fluid is entered into AR1 then both lift forces change with the result being that both of those force changes will make the risers move up, take water out and the same thing happens the other way.
Gee, lifting a load without consuming the input...... hmmmmm
Right mrwayne and Webby,
let's see a working example - if it's so easy!
Rest assured if your math doesn't give the expected answer - it's wrong!
You've got to show some means of introducing something that will upset
the balance. You can't bend the rules on this one.
John.
I would really appreciate you coming forward with your continued input into the debate between Webby & MarkE as neither seems to be connecting with the other - one is wrong or both are wrong ! - I feel you are likely best placed to highlight the differences in the arguments & their validity, or not, which ever is the case - your objective input would be appreciated by me as I am having trouble following Webby's arguments & logic at times, to be honest.
p.s. It is the purpose of this web site to search and discover..... why do you want to stop that?The first bit of your post has been answered, you must have missed it go back and look at marks posts again.
Take care
Mondrasek,
what's the point of moaning about nobody wanting to look at your idea
of how it should work?
PowerCat,As you are obviously one of the few people that still believe there might be free energy(according to Wayne 600%) in this device then you should be the one constructing, going round in circles with your arguments is not convincing anyone, in fact it's convincing them more and more that you are a part of Wayne's investment scam
The device I built showed that the system can work.
If you are placing bets on anything then I would suggest that you at least try the simple experiment I outlined in my response to Mark. Try that little test and tell the group if indeed the cup magically lifts up and raises the water within the cup above the water level in the sink, if it does not then Mark is in error, if it does then I am in error,, simple.
"They're not analysing the correct model"
No Mark, you are still wrong.You are hopelessly lost. The movement from State 2 to State 3: All 2.59 mm of it occurs for the same reason that the water bottle moves from the fully equalized pressure in the third picture to the fourth picture where it has drawn in and lifted water from the outer soda bottle resulting in negative gauge pressure in the water bottle. You are willfully ignorant. You are simply going to keep repeating your version of "No it isn't" ad infinitum no matter how many times I demonstrate how utterly and completely wrong you are. See once again the pictures below.
You have not introduced, or shown, a device, or mechanism, that not only supports Riser 3 while the vacuum is present but also lifts Riser 3 while it is using that vacuum to lift Riser 2.
What is present in the system that can do that is Riser 2. Riser 2 supports the full negative force of Riser 3, and it lifts Riser 3 thus Riser 2 see's the full negative force from Riser 3 and as such, in your spreadsheet, that OD force on Riser 2 must be negative, not the positive value you have assigned.
Another test that any one can run is to take a cup and half fill it with water, invert the cup in a sink full of water,, according to you the cup should rise up and out of the water lifting the water inside the cup with it, it does not. In order to lift the cup up and raise the water level inside the cup above the water in the sink it must be pulled up. This condition is still the same even if you put a cork, or a ping-pong ball inside the cup.
As I have correctly stated you have bootstrapped Riser 3.
Or, maybe you are one of a few people who still believe that it does not.there is a special quote from one of Wayne's disciples of duplicity. No one with any science knowledge or any common sense for that matter should ever be fooled into believing that lifting and lowering weights cyclically generates net energy as Wayne Travis and his cadre falsely claim they do.
PowerCat,Your dubious claim for your contraption was a generous 75% efficiency. Even if one were to take that claim, your device was well under unity: refuting Wayne Travis' claims. Try the soda bottle test. It proves what I have been telling you.
The device I built showed that the system can work.
If you are placing bets on anything then I would suggest that you at least try the simple experiment I outlined in my response to Mark. Try that little test and tell the group if indeed the cup magically lifts up and raises the water within the cup above the water level in the sink, if it does not then Mark is in error, if it does then I am in error,, simple.
Not what I said, minnie. I said they are not analyzing a correct model. Just as my Analysis was shown to have errors, so has the model that I presented in the first place. You do recall the reason they were presented? The reason was to see if others could confirm they were correct or not.It is funny how early on Wayne Travis approved and lauded your "ideal ZED". Now that it has been proven fundamentally lossy you find it is no longer relevant. All of Wayne's contraptions are fundamentally lossy. None of them generate surplus energy.
It is funny how early on Wayne Travis approved and lauded your "ideal ZED". Now that it has been proven fundamentally lossy you find it is no longer relevant. All of Wayne's contraptions are fundamentally lossy. None of them generate surplus energy.Do you believe your words....
Do you believe your words....Wayne you are a hoot. Maybe we should just dig up your posts promoting the idea that Mondrasek was going to teach all those skeptics something with the "ideal ZED". Once more your tattered curtain has been pulled back to reveal once more that you have nothing such as you claim.
I approve of the intent and good work by Mondrasek - not what you keep trying to turn it into.
Wayne
Mark,Tom you are a real piece of work. Not only have I explained exactly how it is that the risers move by 2.59mm, I have done so multiple times. Each time you stick your head in the sand. I have posted the correctly calculated pressures and forces from the R4 spreadsheet. There is net up force on the riser assembly until the assembly extends 2.59mm. All your objections have been based on your unique non-physical Tom Web physics. Your idiotic argument that in the perverse non physical world of Tom Web a free body subject to net force does not accelerate is beyond idiotic. It is absurd.
You have not explained anything in regards to how the vacuum between Riser 3 and Riser 2 magically helps to lift Riser 3 so that Riser 3 can magically lift Riser 2.
Your soda bottle, for starters, as the soda bottle is going up you need to be filling the straws with water, not in your picture however. Further to the point, the straws are filled up above the water level in the large bottle,, how far will your little bottle lift the water now?
For Riser 3 to help lift up the other Risers and Pod, Riser 3 MUST have its own positive lift value, which it does not.
At 1.80832897mm lift, Riser 3 is at a net zero condition, any further lift will put the negative force value directly onto the top of Riser 2. This net zero condition is including the Riser wall force.
2.15840513
These facts are right in front of your face, so face them and deal with it.
There is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.
We never left Oklahoma.
Wayne you are a hoot. Maybe we should just dig up your posts promoting the idea that Mondrasek was going to teach all those skeptics something with the "ideal ZED". Once more your tattered curtain has been pulled back to reveal once more that you have nothing such as you claim.I would say go ahead.... but I am still waiting on you to answer your accusations and lies....
I would say go ahead.... but I am still waiting on you to answer your accusations and lies....The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again. No Wayne the nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not reduce energy input versus a single column. The serpentine allows one to get more buoyant force in the same volume as would a single column lift. However a simple compression spring beats both by thousands of times. The serpentine ultimately increase losses due to additional friction copared to a single column. Kan Shi pointed that out to you two years ago. So your "Dear LarryC" letter will have to remain your fantasy.
What's wrong? Can't you even admit to one of your mistakes....Let me help you.
Dear Larry, you were right all along - the serpentine process in the ZED does in fact reduce the input cost over a single column....
Just a start.....
Wayne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 728
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 03:49:48 PM »
Quote
Great collaboration! I am logging out till needed.
Looks Like you Men have a great handle on the ZED system.
Wayne
Offline mrwayne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 728
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2014, 02:45:40 PM »
Quote
Hello Monderask,
I can remember when you were quite opposed to the ZED system, you were almost hostile - but you helped another engineer "Do the Math" and you asked me very hard questions.
I impressed with your intelligence and character, you did the math.
Our systems do not defy the math - and you are doing a great job presenting that.
Logically, that is obvious - a person should be able to prove or deny with the "math".
The right questions have to be asked - and the wrong prejudices have to be put on hold.
I hope you are able to teach others - You have certainly earned my respect.
Wayne
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2014, 08:42:03 PM »
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Math that does not reflect physical reality is just so many numbers on a page. The conservative nature of gravity does not change just because someone performs the wrong calculations.
Mark,
I m sill holding out that you will actually look, threats and slander ignored.
The Word Conservative is a theory - and Non conservative - does not have to ask its permission.
Conservative does not need your protection - Math supports and proves both.
This does not require higher math to understand or verify.
Larry and Mark have presented proof - and it can be utilized in a ZED system.
Good luck.
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #81 on: February 25, 2014, 08:52:00 PM »
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 08:46:29 PM
If he really is a PE, then he can be sued by any and all of the burned investors for his expressed support of HER/Zydro's false claims.
Once again - Our system is real - you are making a fool of yourself.
How hard is your apology going to come......that is if you have an honor.
You should really look at the spreadsheets Monderask and Larry shared - ask for their help if you do not understand.
Wayne
So all you have is that picture,, a picture of a set of floats lifting up a weight after you have pushed it down,, a set of floats that does not change,, Riser 3 fills up with water,,, where is that in your picture,, oh that's right you are trying to present the little bottle as the,, what is that supposed to be,, maybe the load,, so you are showing that a float can lift a load,, WOW!No Tom: It's displaced water that lifts the water bottle. Jeez, when are you going to learn how buoyancy works?
Yes Mark,, they are sealed on both ends and it is the straws that lift the little bottle,, who'd a thunk.
The riser walls are stipulated to be massless. Yet they have volume. Gee, what will happen when they displace water, weighing as they do nothing and the water weighing pWater * G0 * the displaced volume?
Now,, where are your straws on Riser 3? I do not see them in your spreadsheet,, did you forget to include them as an outside force acting to lift Riser 3???
Wrong again Tom. You obviously still do not understand buoyancy. It's pathetic.
They are not there to lift it up, so Riser 3 is nothing more than an inverted cup with water trapped inside that has been lifted so that the water inside is higher than the water outside,, now what kind of physics calls that a float with a positive lift value?? Oh yeah,, that's right Mark's "special" physics.
Since it is you who are dead wrong, I am sticking to my physically correct statements.
How many insults are you going to throw out there and how many times are you going to lie about the simple fact that Riser 3 stops with any lift force and any assistance to lift after it has crossed that much lower line in the water.
The demonstration clearly shows that the water levels are equal in the third picture just after the vent has been closed. There is no differential pressure between the inside and outside. That is the same condition as Mondraseks's State 1, and part way between State 2 and State 3 when AR7 and AR6 are at the same level. Yet the assembly complete with water inside the water bottle lifts up, thus refuting the claim you moronically repeat that the "ideal ZED" will not rise past the AR7 / AR6 equalization point. You are wrong, I have shown this many times now, but you obstinately cling to your fantasies.
I am not forgetting about Riser 2, Riser 1 and the Pod,, it is those that lift the dead weight of Riser 3 up. Riser 2 does not help so much,, that is a shame because it is carrying the direct weight of Riser 3 when Riser 3 no longer has a positive lift force
Here is a special little trick.Riser 3 is part of an assembly. It does not exist in isolation. Once again the forces at State 2 and the forces at State 3:
Take a clear plastic cup and a cork, or some kind of small float that easily fits inside the plastic cup with room to spare,, now fill a sink with water and put the little "float" in the water,, take the plastic cup and place it open side down over the little float,, push down on the cup and watch as the water level inside the cup moves down with the cup and so does the float,, now half fill the plastic cup with water keeping the little float inside it,, now let it carefully come up to the surface,, see how it stops as the water line inside the cup is right around the water line outside the cup?? now lift the cup up a little further and you can see the water inside the cup and the little float come up with the cup and above the water level outside the cup,, did it just magically raise up to the new height or did you have to lift the cup up to get it there,, that's right,, you have to lift the cup up to raise the water and the little float up above the outside water level.
Same for Riser 3,, it does not move up by itself, and moving it up takes a force external to the cup to do so.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again. No Wayne the nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not reduce energy input versus a single column. The serpentine allows one to get more buoyant force in the same volume as would a single column lift. However a simple compression spring beats both by thousands of times. The serpentine ultimately increase losses due to additional friction copared to a single column. Kan Shi pointed that out to you two years ago. So your "Dear LarryC" letter will have to remain your fantasy.Now MarkE, You know full well that Kanshi did the same thing you did - but she did not lie about the results.
It's hilarious that you: the running fraud accuses me of lies. Sadly for you you can't point out any.
Here below again and again we see the fraud and liar Wayne Travis promoting the spreadsheet work of Mike (Mondrasek) and Larry (LarryC) that has since been shown to be built on wrong assumptions and therefore yields the wrong answers. These facts will of course not alter Wayne Travis' carnival barker routine one bit. Wayne is stuck pretending that his BS claims are real lest he admit to all those around him that he has been cheating them for years.
You obviously still do not understand buoyancy.This is great, you do understand buoyancy???
Now MarkE, You know full well that Kanshi did the same thing you did - but she did not lie about the results.The fraud Wayne Travis yanks on his holster squeezes the trigger and blows away more of his own toes.
She said the same thing you did - you can not add lossy systems together and increase efficiency
- ---- then she did the math for pod, then a single layer and pod and then two layers and pod.....
And her math showed the efficiency improved....
Your own superior than thou math shows the efficiency improves......
You are the fraud. ......And you owe Larry an apology.
This is great, you do understand buoyancy???Displaced fluid is responsible for buoyant up lift. Are you still trying to hold the the misdirection in Tom's hapless videos? Hey "Honest Wayne and Tom" air isn't responsible for buoyant lift in water. there is no "Travis Effect". There are attempts at misdirection by you and your disciples of duplicity.
So can two separate but equal volumes of air lift different amounts of weight?
I recall when you were Mark Euthanasia - you would Quote Wikipedia over and over insulting the Travis effect - I mean you posted it over and over....
Have you learned since then - if not, or if you have trouble - TomG made five very nice video's showing what he dubbed the Travis Effect.
...Smile....
The fraud Wayne Travis yanks on his holster squeezes the trigger and blows away more of his own toes.MarkE, You can not be this blind....
Each of the ZED processes is fundamentally lossy. That means that the ZED is fundamentally lossy. That means that the ZED cannot produce energy as you claim. Concatenate any set of lossy processes and the total efficiency is less than any of the individual components. In other words, each added process reduces the total efficiency. There is no escaping that mathematical fact. And that mathematical fact lays to rest all your BS concerning "super conservative" systems. One cannot multiply any set of numbers where each number is equal to or greater than zero but less than one and get a result that is even as large as the smallest of the individual numbers.
What LarryC tried to do was use the fact that two compound processes can have different efficiencies to incorrectly claim as you idiotically do that concatenating two lossy processes results in higher efficiency than one or the other of the processes alone. The trivial algebra shows that your claims are completely false.
Now go have a doctor tend to that foot wound before gangrene takes to it.
MarkE, You can not be this blind....The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.
I am not buying it - answer the question - not the one you are diverting too.
The question is and has been - does the serpentine effect or the ZED layering system turn on buoyancy cheaper that standard buoyancy...YES so obviously it is ridiculous.....
You diverting to the: BUT It doesn't provide EXCESS energy...........
Answer the question - was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not.
Come on MarkE - it is not that hard to say - Dear Larry, you were right, I should not have called you all those insulting names....
Do it.
Displaced fluid is responsible for buoyant up lift. Are you still trying to hold the the misdirection in Tom's hapless videos? Hey "Honest Wayne and Tom" air isn't responsible for buoyant lift in water. there is no "Travis Effect". There are attempts at misdirection by you and your disciples of duplicity.Sorry about the spelling, I make mistakes...
I have never been "Mark Euthanasia". My name is Euthanasius.
Now, you've shot from both holsters and blasted both of your feet.
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again.I stand corrected - maybe you are that lost...
Buoyancy is not a drug crazed hippie that needs to turn-on. Buoyancy is a behavior: specifically force exerted due to displaced fluid. All buoyancy is "standard" buoyancy. There is no special kind of buoyancy. There is no "Travis Effect". The serpentine is an implementation of the 2000 year old Archimedes' Paradox that has been used as long as it has been known. As that principle is applied in the nested Russian dolls of ignorance, it can be replaced with a coil spring less than 1/1000th the volume.
Your demand: "was Larry right that the interconnected columns reduce the cost to come to pressure in both volume and time - or not." is semantically meaningless.
LarryC and the rest of your disciples of duplicity are as much a joke as you are. The only question is whether events are in motion or not. Hmmm, how could an enterprising fraud like yourself find out?
Honest Whyne Tarvis is notoriously error-prone when it comes to getting people's names right.That is pretty funny....I do suck at proof reading....lol
Why, he still can't believe that more than one person could actually disagree with him, so he thinks that we are all the same person, typing like mad simultaneously on four different keyboards or something. It's a good thing I have all these index cards to remind me of the personal idiosyncrasies of all my sock puppet identities.... or I might betray myself with a speling eror, or forgetting to carelessly split an infinitive.
Sorry about the spelling, I make mistakes...I love it: just stitch together whatever phrases you can to try and make it seem that you are saying something that has any merit.[/quote]
Next - "Displaced fluid is responsible for buoyant up lift"
The question was - is it proportional - like you claimed over and over.... with your posts...
...................Tom makes a number of statements in the videos where he suggests that we should believe that buoyant up lift force should be a result of the air volumes. That's complete BS misdirection. It's the displaced water that generates the buoyant up lift force. It doesn't matter that in one case air displaces most of the volume and in another a chunk of cement does. It's high comedy that you still try and promote those laughable videos.
Now that you insulted Tom again.... the video shows simple and plainly that the amount of buoyancy is not proportional the to displacement when a non attached static intervention is included in the process - (the concrete block)..
SO again --- MarkE,Why would I want to state such nonsense? I am certainly not motivated because a fraud like you wants me to do so.
You can do it, Dear TomG, I am sorry that I insulted your video - I now see that your were correct in describing the ability to demonstrate that in special cases - Like your video - buoyancy is not proportional to the volume displaced...
P.s. Don't bother saying that his video only showed a rock taking up the displacement - that is just one layer over a rock - adding layers amplifies the buoyancy - that is one of the Anomalies you refuse to address..There is no anomaly in any of the videos or in any of your devices. There is just your incessant carnival barker claims. You would do better with a half silvered mirror to turn Zelda into an ape woman.
You know - more buoyancy than the total volume of the system......That's meaningless prose.
You owe Larry and Tom an apology.So you keep claiming. Sorry, I am not going to apologize for pointing out their idiocy.
You awe the world an apology for misleading the readers here.You are the fraud "Honest Wayne".
"Viva Las Vegas"
Bright light city gonna set my soul
Gonna set my soul on fire
Got a whole lot of money that's ready to burn,
So get those stakes up higher
There's a thousand pretty women waitin' out there
And they're all livin' devil may care
And I'm just the devil with love to spare
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
How I wish that there were more
Than the twenty-four hours in the day
'Cause even if there were forty more
I wouldn't sleep a minute away
Oh, there's black jack and poker and the roulette wheel
A fortune won and lost on ev'ry deal
All you need's a strong heart and a nerve of steel
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
Viva Las Vegas with you neon flashin'
And your one armbandits crashin'
All those hopes down the drain
Viva Las Vegas turnin' day into nighttime
Turnin' night into daytime
If you see it once
You'll never be the same again
I'm gonna keep on the run
I'm gonna have me some fun
If it costs me my very last dime
If I wind up broke up well
I'll always remember that I had a swingin' time
I'm gonna give it ev'rything I've got
Lady luck please let the dice stay hot
Let me shout a seven with ev'ry shot
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas,
Viva, Viva Las Vegas
Honest Whyne Tarvis is notoriously error-prone when it comes to getting people's names right.I reserve my inherent right to gratuitously split as many infinitives as I deem appropriate.
Why, he still can't believe that more than one person could actually disagree with him, so he thinks that we are all the same person, typing like mad simultaneously on four different keyboards or something. It's a good thing I have all these index cards to remind me of the personal idiosyncrasies of all my sock puppet identities.... or I might betray myself with a speling eror, or forgetting to carelessly split an infinitive.
That is pretty funny....I do suck at proof reading....lolMore importantly, we all know that you: the fraud Wayne Travis are freely and remorselessly dishonest. Investment undertaker Wayne Travis: Chickasha's own caretaker of the final resting place for gullible investor funds since 2008.
Look TK - your personal vendetta is a sad portrait of a brilliant mind - is suppression the way you really want to end your days....
Well, you taught me much - and I do give you honest and appreciated credit - I also acknowledge you twist and lie to make a case that does not exist....
That is a sad combination in one character - in those cases - the puppets make sense.
Answer this - Do you have more than one log in - better question - do you ever enter text in any format - under the name of more than one member......
Can you be honest...
Sorry, I am not going to apologize for pointing out their idiocy.You are the fraud "Honest Wayne".Yep --- You are too smart to apologize for your mistakes.....
In the meantime:
Yep --- You are too smart to apologize for your mistakes.....So you think pointing out the idiocy of your disciples was a mistake do you "Honest Wayne"? The mistake seems to be not enlisting more talented disciples. Oh, that would be your mistake.
Got it.
Well what about the anomalies--- well then? Do you see them now?
More importantly, we all know that you: the fraud Wayne Travis are freely and remorselessly dishonest. Investment undertaker Wayne Travis: Chickasha's own caretaker of the final resting place for gullible investor funds since 2008.Are you hoping that will stick without proof - people are smarter than that...their is no double standard here - we proved our anomalies - and you dodge and slander...
Are you hoping that will stick without proof - people are smarter than that...their is no double standard here - we proved our anomalies - and you dodge and slander...The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. There are no anomalies. Ergo you could not and did not prove any anomalies. QED.
stick with the facts - How about that question you keep avoiding - can you admit yet that Larry was right - that the layered system results in a more efficient use of buoyancy?
Don't bother with the but its "lossy or not free energy" that is not the question.
If you do not have enough character to admit one single error - stop wasting all of our time here.
Nothing you say is worth dirt - if you refuse to learn.
Thank You for posting that Mark,, now you can not say I changed it.How can it be that water moving in a "U" shaped tube can result in forces changing on both sides of the tube? Are you really asking such naive questions?
Please notice in state 2 that the OD forces are "-" negative,, this is because riser 2 is pushing both up and down, down on riser 1, and up on riser 3, then riser 3 is both pushing up and down up on nothing but the output and down on riser 2. riser 1 is pushing up on riser 2 and down on the pod.
Now look in state 3,, those "down" forces from the riser3 and riser 2 are now UP forces,, how can that be when they are still pushing down to move up??
Look at riser 3 in state 3,, it has a negative lift force,, it is only pushing down,, how can that lift riser 2?
In State 1X there is another condition,, and in that one it is the riser wall thickness that is under the pressure to make the lift and that changes things,, look at state 3 Wall Force,, notice that there is at least 1 extra zero after that decimal point,, making the Wall Force very weak and not strong enough to lift riser 3.
Next time any person out there is washing a cup in the sink,, Feel free to experiment :)
The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. There are no anomalies. Ergo you could not and did not prove any anomalies. QED.You waste every ones time here - you keep trying to find a loop hole - "force is not energy" give me a break....
Efficiency is a term most often associated with energy. The serpentine does not improve the energy of your useless spring emulator. It degrades it.
If you want to find those who refuse to learn, just spin up your Rolodex to Tom. He's having a terrible time with linear superposition. Yes that's a real term unlike your invented "super conservative" term.
Viva Las Vegas!
That is pretty funny....I do suck at proof reading....lolHonest Wayne Travis, I am always honest. I have answered your question many times over..... you aren't the only one who has asked it, it is a common symptom of the mindset you exhibit for the claimant to believe that all of his or her many critics are in fact the same person, because they are all telling the claimant the same thing.
Look TK - your personal vendetta is a sad portrait of a brilliant mind - is suppression the way you really want to end your days....
Well, you taught me much - and I do give you honest and appreciated credit - I also acknowledge you twist and lie to make a case that does not exist....
That is a sad combination in one character - in those cases - the puppets make sense.
Answer this - Do you have more than one log in - better question - do you ever enter text in any format - under the name of more than one member......
Can you be honest...
You waste every ones time here - you keep trying to find a loop hole - "force is not energy" give me a break....Are you acknowledging that force is not energy, or are you contending that force and energy are the same Mr. Fraud?
You waste every ones time here - you keep trying to find a loop hole - "force is not energy" give me a break....
Honest Wayne Travis, I am always honest. I have answered your question many times over..... you aren't the only one who has asked it, it is a common symptom of the mindset you exhibit for the claimant to believe that all of his or her many critics are in fact the same person, because they are all telling the claimant the same thing.
If you look at the bottom right of each comment you will notice that your own IP address is displayed to you, but you can't see other people's IP addresses. Stefan Hartmann our host can see everyone's IP addresses, though, and I have invited YOU and anyone else to send Stefan a PM and ask him if I have ever posted here under any other username, or if any of the other usernames you think are me are posting from any of the IP addresses I have ever used.
NO, honest Wayne Travis, I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER LOGIN HERE THAN TinselKoala, NOR HAVE I EVER HAD. The old "alsetalokin" who once had an account here is NOT ME, it was an imposter, from Italy I believe, who actually even went to the trouble of stealing my preferred icon image, who posted lies here and who didn't last very long.
NO, honest Wayne Travis, I DO NOT EVER ENTER TEXT IN ANY FORMAT UNDER THE NAME OF MORE THAN ONE MEMBER.
Ask Stefan if you don't believe me. Of course.... I could be STEFAN, too, couldn't I. (insert ROFL here)
It is your own paranoia that makes you believe otherwise, and you should meditate and pray on the matter because it is an actual symptom of mental illness. If, that is, you can still face your God without withering to dust.
Are you acknowledging that force is not energy, or are you contending that force and energy are the same Mr. Fraud?
Force is not energy. You get no breaks, unless you can prove otherwise. FORCE IS NOT ENERGY.
I can provide literally hundreds if not thousands of references for this point. Can you provide even one that says "force IS energy"?
You still don't get it!
You could help teach me.
Show me where a buoyant object lifting a load over a distance is not preforming work...
Explain how you can preform work without also describing energy.
Explain to me why the potential left in a ZED after performing work - can not be used to perform more work, or described as potential.
Thanks
You still don't get it!
Now, read very carefully.
YOU, honest Wayne Travis, are the one making claims. NOT ME.
Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence FOR those claims.
The only thing I need to "explain" is that you have NOT provided that evidence.
The fact that I point out the continuing string of ridiculous statements you emit is optional on my part. However, I don't mind doing it as a favor to you. And I'll point you to an excellent basic engineering textbook that _some of us_ have worked through at one point or another: Beer and Johnston, Statics and Dynamics: Vector Mechanics for Engineers. Everything you need to know, but don't, is explained for you in that book, with problems you can work. If you can remember any of your calculus, that is.
OK. Now let's review.
Whose responsibility it is to provide evidence FOR his claims?
Anyone? You there in back, with the silly grin, the stuffed shirt and the tight belt ..... what's that you say? WAYNE TRAVIS?
That's RIGHT, go to the head of the class.
One more time, with emphasis:Wait - I love to discuss the ZED..........
YOU, honest Wayne Travis, are the one making claims. NOT ME.
Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence FOR those claims.
The only thing I expect you to do is to act with a "little" professionalism --
Wait - I love to discuss the ZED..........Can somebody translate that into English?
The only thing I expect you to do is to act with a "little" professionalism --
It is your unscientific assumptions and slander that I expect you to proved proof....
Thank you.
Wayne your device has been shown mathematically not to work, if you missed it go back and look at all the threads again the information is their right in front of you, I suggest you now shut your mouth and come back in the future when you have something more than your bullshit mathematics and your empty promises. I don't care if it's in October 2015, just get lost now,,,,,come back when you have more than your repetitive BS
Professionalism in the Travis sense means:
"I have something, but I won't show it."
Can somebody translate that into English?I am surely not as smart as you,
Honest Wayne Travis, you will find that it is very common, yea verily it is universal, for real scientists to ask for evidence, to provide evidence when asked, and to support their contentions with repeatable, fully documented experiments and reports that are vetted by peers and edited for precision and accuracy. And that is all I have ever asked of you.
Please give me an example of "my unscientific assumptions" and "slander", you ignorant buffoon.
Mark,Tom you are completely clueless. The force convention is positive for up. Therefore positive pressure on top of a given riser OD surface exerts a downward, IE negative force according to the sign convention.
It is amazing that you would choose to ignore Newton,, and then carry on that it is acceptable for you to do that.
These are the lines from Mark's spreadsheet.
State 2 R1 OD force
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*(-ST2_R2IDPressure*Riser1ODCirArea)
State 2 R2 OD force
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*(-ST2_R3IDPressure*Riser2ODCirArea)
State 3 R1 OD force
=-cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*ST3_R2_Pressure*Riser1ODCirArea
State 3 R2 OD force
=-cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*ST3_R3_Pressure*Riser2ODCirArea
Newton once said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In State 2 there is a positive pressure between the risers, that pressure pushes up on the riser above and therefore down on the riser below, and this is what creates the uplift.
As can be seen in State 2, Mark has assigned a negative value to the pressure being exerted on the lower riser, (-ST2_R2IDPressure) this meets with Newton.
In State 3 the forces between the risers has reversed. If you look at the State 3 formulas you will see that Mark has not reversed the direction of the reaction even tho the force direction has reversed. (-cir_mm2_to_mm2) the "-" minus sign keeps the reactionary force in the same direction as in State 2.
He has taken a negative force reaction and turned it into a positive force reaction by not reversing the reactionary force direction.
The "-" signs at the beginning of the State 3 lines should be removed to comply with Newton and to stay consistent with the formulas for State 2 they should be.
State 3 R1 OD force
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*(ST3_R2_Pressure*Riser1ODCirArea)
State 3 R2 OD force
=cir_mm2_to_mm2*mm2_to_m2*(ST3_R3_Pressure*Riser2ODCirArea)
Now it is easy to see that the reactionary force has been reversed with the reversed direction of the applied force.
The problem for Mark is that when this is done the risers go into a negative force when they are at the calculated lift distance.
Jeepers Mark,, it is the straws that are displacing the water,, DUH!Look at the physics. Do the calculations and you will find that what is in the R4 spreadsheet is correct. Do you even know what a free body diagram is?
lets add up all that lift shall we?
State 2
0.2754432294N
State 3
0.0473567581N
-0.2645634N just from riser 3 state 3,, that is when there is only ~.05N left of those straws Mark.
ooohhh you loaded the straws with some weight,, remove the straws and lets see how high it will lift,,
Sure thing Mark,, and the lift value in your straws?? How do they compare Mark.
Did I say it will not rise past that point,, *nope*, so you are making things up again,, I said after that boundary the lift force from Riser 3 reverses,, other forces are still at work and will lift it up further.
MarkE has been lying about my spreadsheet since the beginning.LarryC I see anohter of the disciples of duplicity are back. I told you many times that you can calculate energy in a single column as 0.5*pressure*volume. What you cannot do for the general case is average pressure across multiple columns in order to find the total energy in all those columns.
He never showed any proof, just said you can't do that, it was wrong, broke, broken and other lies and of course he had the other sock puppets repeating his lie to brainwash the normal people.
I knew that the two Input formulas were equivalent overall as they always gave the same answer. It is easy to understand why, when you compare the two as follows:
PSI Average Volume
PSI Average * Volume = (.5 * pWater * water height) * (water height * area)
Integral F*ds = (.5 * pWater * water height^2 * area)
Found another proof at Wolfram Alpha. The math proof spreadsheet attached shows an alternate form from Wolfram Alpha using my P Avg. * Volume as input. The alternate form result shown by Wolfram Alpha is the same as E Input. Compare D9 to D16.
I previously asked him for proof, no response, and it is obvious why the master and the sock puppets did not ask for proof, but why did you others that support his lie by restating it, not ask for proof?
This isn’t the first time he lied about my Input formula. On the three column example, he showed his proof, but used the wrong constant as a deception, to make my results appear incorrect.
The PSI and Volume results are in my original spreadsheet, because they are required by Hydraulic Engineers. So I just use these established values with P Avg. * Volume.
When someone displays math skill, it could just mean they use math software. But, a warning flag should go off when they state that their single math method is the only way to get the correct results.
If anybody would like to see the results, enter ‘(0.5 (P S+P F)) (F-S) A’ at the Wolfram Alpha website. After press the More button to the right of Alternate forms and see more forms, all give the same results.
Professionalism in the Travis sense means:Correction it means: "I claim to have something extraordinary but show no evidence to support my claims."
"I have something, but I won't show it."
I am surely not as smart as you,What are you talking about, honest Wayne Travis? Who is "whining" about anything? YOU are the one who is supposed to be providing evidence for your claims, and it is increasingly obvious that you cannot.
Being higher than others is not in my nature, I respect peoples skills and respect their weakness - you exploit them for your ego.
Now, what kind of scientists troll out the actual discussion, speak over, insult researchers, talk about invisible unicorns, make fun of personal photo's...... Dr stories..........
Not good scientists..... that is for sure.
If your posts were deleted -well first - that would be a benefit to mankind - and second 80% of the threads trolling would vanish.
And no one did it to you.... so stop crying about it.
Grow up.
I am happy to continue to point out the holes in your arguments.Just think how much benefit you could add if you instead added to the discussion, problem solved, without demanding your butt was kissed.
Just think how much benefit you could add if you instead added to the discussion, problem solved, without demanding your butt was kissed.TinselKoala has been very helpful. He has helped you make clear what a fraud you are.
Now that would be an impressive TK.
I know - not your job ...... but who made you king mudd slinger..... Nobody.
Have you ever read TK, Mh, ME, Pirate, ask.... how does the original input produce output and not get consumed..... ???
No - they don't want you to hear the answer.
I have brought it up 50 times.... and it is the heart of the ZED's ability to produce free energy.
Not everyone who visited completely understood the ZED - but not one single engineer left un amazed.
I have stood up for the innocent while you attacked like a pack of wild dogs...The fraud Wayne Travis speaks again. All the while that Wayne Travis steals from his investors he claims to be a protector of the innocent. It is quite a laugh. the fruad wayne Travis alleges that: "Every time anyone discusses the actual physics of the ZED - insults and slander non stop." Yes, Wayne and his disciples of duplicity routinely interfere with the actual physics discussions that have proven that Wayne's claims are false: Wayne has no technology such as he claims.
This has gone on for two years - too long.
Every time anyone discusses the actual physics of the ZED - insults and slander non stop.
To All; (not yelling)
IS THIS WHAT YOU ALL WANT FROM OU.COM
ARE YOU SICK OF IT YET??
Are the carnival barkers entertainment - does anyone actually want to learn.
Have you ever read TK, Mh, ME, Pirate, ask.... how does the original input produce output and not get consumed..... ???
No - they don't want you to hear the answer.
I have brought it up 50 times.... and it is the heart of the ZED's ability to produce free energy.
Not everyone who visited completely understood the ZED - but not one single engineer left un amazed.
Those four men - have robber you from the truth - if this is what you want - a soap opera
Well just let them go on. But if you really want free energy - something better change.
Stefan, Moderators - is this what you want.
You say you want proof - well call off the dogs long enough for a case to be made.... trolling is not helping.
Good night
Just think how much benefit you could add if you instead added to the discussion, problem solved, without demanding your butt was kissed.
Now that would be an impressive TK.
I know - not your job ...... but who made you king mudd slinger..... Nobody.
Hey, Honest Wayne Travis..... you cannot provide any evidence that I have ever "demanded that my butt be kissed", you obscene, filthy minded Christian hypocrite.Think happy thoughtsl - Viva! Las Vegas!
So here, I'll give you some little satisfaction, you ignorant buffoon: KISS MY ASS.
Meanwhile, every post you make that does not contain evidence for your claims is yet another attempt by you to avoid the Truth.
How to do work without consuming all the energy... 101 ZED SYSTEMSApply work. Get none out. Check.
#1. Bring the load (output) to equilibrium... We call state precharge, it could also be called floating.
#2. Raise the water level and watch as the load equalizes with the new water level.Apply more work. Get none out. Check.
#3. Notice that two things have occurred.... the load has changed orientation and the water level has increased................Work went in, no useful work came out. Check.
#4. In the ZED - the load is hydraulic output - not weight - so every time the water level rises - the result is hydraulic production.No defined load. IE no load. IE no useful output. Check.
#5. In the ZED - we push down to go up...... That "clue" was to show that every layer added - doubles the rate at which the water level rises (which results in decreased volume required).See-saw of silliness. Check. Volume is not energy. Check. No useful output. Check.
#6. At the end of stroke - after production - all the head - including precharge is still in place.No useful output. Check.
#7. The LOAD IS LIFTED WITHOUT CONSUMING THE HEAD.....The "load" will subsequently just fall again, doing no net useful work. Check. In the meantime precharge depletes. Check.
---------From that point.... you just have to see how good you can design a way to reuse the HEAD.Your contraption uselessly lifts and lowers its internal weights until the precharge energy runs out. Check.
The ZED layering system increases the head with continued displacement - NEVER in the process do we float up like a balloon under water - our "Neutral Load" just follows the water level.
Wayne Travis
How to do work without consuming all the energy... 101 ZED SYSTEMS
#1. Bring the load (output) to equilibrium... We call state precharge, it could also be called floating.
#2. Raise the water level and watch as the load equalizes with the new water level.
#3. Notice that two things have occurred.... the load has changed orientation and the water level has increased................
#4. In the ZED - the load is hydraulic output - not weight - so every time the water level rises - the result is hydraulic production.
#5. In the ZED - we push down to go up...... That "clue" was to show that every layer added - doubles the rate at which the water level rises (which results in decreased volume required).
#6. At the end of stroke - after production - all the head - including precharge is still in place.
#7. The LOAD IS LIFTED WITHOUT CONSUMING THE HEAD.....
---------From that point.... you just have to see how good you can design a way to reuse the HEAD.
The ZED layering system increases the head with continued displacement - NEVER in the process do we float up like a balloon under water - our "Neutral Load" just follows the water level.
Wayne Travis
Oh my, Mark and minnieCalling things output that do not deliver energy to an external load is just lying Wayne.
Obviously not simple enough ... Output is at step #2 Work out without consuming the work in.....
Hope that helps
Calling things output that do not deliver energy to an external load is just lying Wayne.
SO sad....
The only output from you Wayne is words.
You have not shown ONE thing which is in support of your claim.
Just provide a decent description if you want to be believed.
Trouble is I don't think you can - there isn't one.
John.
Hi mrwayne,
I was going to send you a pm. but I see I'm blocked.
Do your best at a description and we'll submit it to CERN.
Someone there hatched up the idea for the web, so they
know a thing or two!
John.
How to do work without consuming all the energy... 101 ZED SYSTEMS
#1. Bring the load (output) to equilibrium... We call state precharge, it could also be called floating.
#2. Raise the water level and watch as the load equalizes with the new water level.
#3. Notice that two things have occurred.... the load has changed orientation and the water level has increased................
#4. In the ZED - the load is hydraulic output - not weight - so every time the water level rises - the result is hydraulic production.
#5. In the ZED - we push down to go up...... That "clue" was to show that every layer added - doubles the rate at which the water level rises (which results in decreased volume required).
#6. At the end of stroke - after production - all the head - including precharge is still in place.
#7. The LOAD IS LIFTED WITHOUT CONSUMING THE HEAD.....
---------From that point.... you just have to see how good you can design a way to reuse the HEAD.
The ZED layering system increases the head with continued displacement - NEVER in the process do we float up like a balloon under water - our "Neutral Load" just follows the water level.
Wayne Travis
Isn't that hilarious? Honest Wayne Travis has you, and me, and many other people on his "ignore" and "block" lists.... but he clicks through the "show me anyway" button to see the posts he's supposed to be ignoring.Remember the first time Wayne left the site, didn't he set up his own website so that he could have discussions with only people that would agree with him ? Maybe they gave up when he kept breaking his promises and that's why he's back here now.
1 Cor 13:12
Call the output whatever you like - Sir. I am done with your word twisting and games.LOL, sure there Wayne.
I guess we were taught differently,,, I was taught that a positive value is in the direction of the applied force, either in whole or in part, and a negative value is against the direction of applied force, either in whole or in part.Then you were mistaught. Force is a vector. It has direction. We are operating only in the Z axis so we only have to keep track of direction and magnitude along that axis.
The pressure based evaluation keeps track of all the forces in the Z axis.
Indeed Mark,, look at the physics.
I use free body evaluations all the time, I play with mechanical things.
Have you drawn one for the ZED? If you have then you see that there is the force from AR1, there is the force from the water at the bottom of the Riser Walls and there is the force from the risers,,, there is the force from the atmosphere but that gets a little complicated and I prefer to keep things simple.
When the riser goes negative what? I have shown that the correct answers can be obtained by either tracking absolute force on all the horizontal surfaces and summing or because fluid in the odd numbered annular rings communicates directly with the fluid in the even numbered rings the head differences. AR7 to R3 wall bottom times R3 wall area, AR7 to AR6 times R3 ID area, AR5 to R2 wall bottom times R2 wall area, AR5 to AR4 times R2 ID area, AR3 to R1 wall bottom times R1 wall area, AR3 to AR2 times R1 ID area, and AR1 to the pod bottom times the pod area.
Just keeping it simple, when the riser goes negative that force is like the force from the water at the bottom of the riser wall,, but in the opposite direction and it grows larger.
__________________________________________-You are wrong. The lift stops when the additive forces reach zero at 2.59mm. The values you have posted below are NOT from the R4 spreadsheet. Nice try there Tom.
These are your usages and assigned values of the forces, I have the lift stopped short at ~2.57mm
___________________________________________-No they are not. The correct values are shown along with the diagrams in the R4 spreadsheet.
State 3 Pressures
ST3_POD_Pressure 218.5281409 Pa
ST3_R1_Pressure 46.9878927 Pa
ST3_R1_WallPressure 194.7165656 Pa
ST3_R2_Pressure -182.4644907 Pa
ST3_R2_WallPressure 88.8265037 Pa
ST3_R3_Pressure -181.8252329 Pa
ST3_R3_WallPressure 184.2689784 Pa
State 3 Forces
ST3_POD_UPF 0.0686526 N
ST3_R1_ID_Force 0.0249472 N
ST3_R1_Wall_Force 0.0165164 N
ST3_R1_OD_Force 0.1123529 N
ST3_R2_ID_Force -0.1656632 N
ST3_R2_Wall_Force 0.0097670 N
ST3_R2_OD_Force 0.1850755 N
ST3_R3_ID_Force -0.2519084 N
ST3_R3_Wall_Force 0.0248926 N
ST3_Total_Uplift_Force 0.0246328 N
_____________________________________________
These are with the correct forces applied as per Newton and what a free body diagram would show.
That's hilarious Tom because what you posted are not the values from the R4 spreadsheet.
This is without adding the extra parts,, just using the forces as your spreadsheet calculates them.
Remember the first time Wayne left the site, didn't he set up his own website so that he could have discussions with only people that would agree with him ? Maybe they gave up when he kept breaking his promises and that's why he's back here now.Remember the last time that the fraud Wayne Travis left OU for the "last time"?
How to do work without consuming all the energy... 101 ZED SYSTEMS
#1. Bring the load (output) to equilibrium... We call state precharge, it could also be called floating.
#2. Raise the water level and watch as the load equalizes with the new water level.
#3. Notice that two things have occurred.... the load has changed orientation and the water level has increased................
#4. In the ZED - the load is hydraulic output - not weight - so every time the water level rises - the result is hydraulic production.
#5. In the ZED - we push down to go up...... That "clue" was to show that every layer added - doubles the rate at which the water level rises (which results in decreased volume required).
#6. At the end of stroke - after production - all the head - including precharge is still in place.
#7. The LOAD IS LIFTED WITHOUT CONSUMING THE HEAD.....
---------From that point.... you just have to see how good you can design a way to reuse the HEAD.
The ZED layering system increases the head with continued displacement - NEVER in the process do we float up like a balloon under water - our "Neutral Load" just follows the water level.
Wayne Travis
You are showing that you do not read very well Mark,, go re-read what I posted and you will find that the numbers I posted ARE from your spreadsheet.As I have shown the numbers that you posted are not the values for the fields you represented. You are free to continue performing incorrect calculations. When you do represent those calculations as your efforts. Do not misrepresent them as from my work.
I have proven that my numbers are correct.
Your force applied values are incorrect,, you can say as many times as you like that they are right but they are not.
Does the engine car of a locomotive pull or push the car that is immediately behind it?
Logic question,, for Riser 3 to lift above the AR7-AR6 is it pulled up or pushed up?
Logic question 2,, if Riser 3 is being pushed up by Riser 2, how can Riser 2, the one that is pushing, be lifted by Riser 3?
You cannot show any bootstrapping by me. Lord knows that you have tried.
Bootstrapping is not allowed Mark.
Drawn and posted. Are you blind? Or do I need to add force arrows to go along with tabulated force values in the drawing to satisfy you? This is all hilarious because just a couple of posts ago you were claiming that the sign of force depends who exerts it:
Force has a direction, and in a proper look at the forces there are more than just those from AR1,, did you draw a free body diagram?
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZEDI see another attempt at a straw man argument. You do so love to try and set up and slay those men of straw Tom. What you refuse to do is learn basic physics.
« Reply #2179 on: Today at 04:19:32 PM »QuoteQuote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 01:20:34 AM
Tom you are completely clueless. The force convention is positive for up. Therefore positive pressure on top of a given riser OD surface exerts a downward, IE negative force according to the sign convention.
I guess we were taught differently,,, I was taught that a positive value is in the direction of the applied force, either in whole or in part, and a negative value is against the direction of applied force, either in whole or in part.
End comment, the water in AR7 can not BOTH move up into AR6 AND lift Riser 3 and then what is causing the water to raise up in AR6,, that has to pull on something :)
There are subliminal messages everywhere you look. 8) 8) 8)Viva! Las Vegas!
Viva! Las Vegas!
World saved!One of the tricks is seeing to it that the right pieces come together in the right sequence. Viva! Viva! Viva!
I have stood up for the innocent while you attacked like a pack of wild dogs...
This has gone on for two years - too long.
Every time anyone discusses the actual physics of the ZED - insults and slander non stop.
To All; (not yelling)
IS THIS WHAT YOU ALL WANT FROM OU.COM
ARE YOU SICK OF IT YET??
Are the carnival barkers entertainment - does anyone actually want to learn.
Have you ever read TK, Mh, ME, Pirate, ask.... how does the original input produce output and not get consumed..... ???
No - they don't want you to hear the answer.
I have brought it up 50 times.... and it is the heart of the ZED's ability to produce free energy.
Not everyone who visited completely understood the ZED - but not one single engineer left un amazed.
Those four men - have robber you from the truth - if this is what you want - a soap opera
Well just let them go on. But if you really want free energy - something better change.
Stefan, Moderators - is this what you want.
You say you want proof - well call off the dogs long enough for a case to be made.... trolling is not helping.
Good night
Wayne:Hello Bill,
Please show me ANY post I have made here, or anywhere, that violates the TOS (Terms Of Service) for this forum. Since you have chosen to include me in your above post, using words such as "Slander" and "Trolling" both deserve and demand some examples, or even, ONE example where I have done so.
Can you do this?
Since I am, and have been, a Moderator on this website in several of the topic areas for more than a few years, I am very familiar with the TOS that Stefan, our gracious host, has posted for everyone that signs up to this site. I should maybe point out to you that accusing another member of slander and trolling is actually a TOS violation.
So, I ask, with all due respect, that you please point out ANY, or even ONE of my postings either here, or anywhere else on this site, that qualifies as slander, and or trolling.
IF you can not, which of course you can not, I suggest that you read the TOS and respectfully ask that you abide by them and stop making such false allegations against me.
I will let the others that you have named and impugned defend themselves. Right now I am concerned that you have accused me of doing two things of which I have not done. I do not, and will not take this lightly sir. Please retract your false allegations immediately, or I will consider any and all possible remedies available to me.
Thank you,
Bill
Please retract your false allegations immediately, or I will consider any and all possible remedies available to me.Bill,
Thank you,
Bill
Hello Bill,The fraud Wayne Travis speaks claiming those who have shown the real science and math have ruined this web site. Sure, Mr. Funeral Director of Investor Funds, sure the ethical problems are others'. Surely, stealing your investors' money is a highly ethical and laudable endeavor. LOL.
That was my mistake - I was meant Powercat...
I did take the time to go back and read your posts, and I read the many smart and funny insults...
But not what qualifies for a troll.
I believe everyone has a right to an opinion - good or bad.
You comments do not show intentional - fact altering - and diversion - claims such as MH, ME, TK, and the "Powercat"..
Those men have ruined this web site - and going unchecked has severely diminished readership,
Many reader followed our journey - from the initial release on Pens, Here, The smart scare crow,
and our web site.
I can rarely find a person who will return to this web site because of the blatant trolling.
Those four members - get their jollies at slander, diversion, and the unchecked ability to interrupt the discussion of a technology and have unchecked for over two years.
They pound out any scientific discussion, and revel when they frustrate a conversation between other members.
My apology for mixing you up with them - it was my clear error.
Wayne Travis
Bill,The fact is Wayne that you have no technology. You have constructed some useless stage props. You lie: freely, shamelessly, and remorselessly. The sad efforts of your cadre: the disciples of duplicity have been soundly refuted at each turn.
Your last paragraph - where false allegations are not appreciated -
Seven members I know - have had to tolerate blatant and proven false allegations against us from TK, MH, ME, and Powercat..
Their lies proven by multiple members here - not one single retraction - that is trolling.
It should stop.
It would be great to discuss the facts of a technology - not made up other systems to confuse the readers an continual slander to interrupt the topic, and stop the personal attacks on anyone who does try to discuss the topic.
Thanks for understanding.
Wayne
Wayne,I am sure this is another game..............But I will play...
Just show a working prototype and there's nothing more for anyone to say. Instant "Troll spray". Its easy. BUUUT, from the sound of it, do you have one?
I think Wayne is becoming a bit unglued and the stress is showing in his prose. He can't get away with fake and phony pseudoscience platitudes about his alleged system that make no sense at all. Make no mistake people, Wayne doesn't speak in scientific terms at all. He just lies can claims that he discusses his alleged system in scientific terms. He has invented his own phony language when he discusses his alleged hydraulic/pneumatic system. And behind the smoke screen of the phony language is the root cause - lying to make a buck.Viva! Las Vegas! Viva!
Wayne, when it comes to personal integrity and truthfulness I have no worries at all. You, on the other hand, may one day have your offices raided by law enforcement so they can confiscate various documents and materials in order to build a criminal case against you. At this point in time I want to believe that the majority of readers around here know who the real bad guy is.
The fact is Wayne that you have no technology. You have constructed some useless stage props. You lie: freely, shamelessly, and remorselessly. The sad efforts of your cadre: the disciples of duplicity have been soundly refuted at each turn.Mark, You are so failing your mission...
I am sure this is another game..............But I will play...You have never built a machine that generates the free energy that you claim.
WOW, That is a good idea!
Lets build - first I will build an input output system and invite the skeptics to come measure the systems and see the amplifications!!!
Oh yeah.... did that.....
You have never successfully run a machine in such a way that you have shown it delivers output energy in excess of input.
And then all the attacks by the trolls (on the Skeptic)...
Wait, I know - we will just close loop the system and show the black box test...
Oh yeah.... did that.....
No one has built a replica of any of your devices that delivers the free energy you claim. None have built a device that alters the conservative nature of gravity such as you claim that you do.
And the attacks on the skeptic and inventor...
Wait I know - allow replication and even fund it!
You have never shown data that supports your claims.
Attacks on the replicators and character assassinations.... more accusations without facts....
Wait I know, Data collection and running a load.....
You have never set up even the 48 hour run for Mark Dansie that you have been promising for years.
Attacks on the business, on the volunteers, even had one moron member here write agencies and the local college to ask them to attack us.....
Wait I know - allow international engineers to spend a week evaluating our system and report to Stefan....
This is straight out of the John Rohner play book. Each time he blew a deadline to show frustrated investors and licensees working proof, he cooked up excuses and pushed out the goal posts. Well, we all know or should know what happened March 5, 2013. It's going to take a bit longer, but it's looking pretty certain that sooner or later John Rohner will be spending lots of up close and personal time with a new room mate: Bubba.
Attacks continued - Trolls apparently run the we site
Wait I know - why keep expecting the Trolls to wake up - they are doing what they know --- Crush the proof that they are the suppression and have been.
.........................
Wait I have an idea - build the system, the company, and preset the simple proof one more time - then let the Trolls dig in so deep that they can not even remember the truth to keep their lies strait.
And let History - record them forever.
.........that is working very well......... and has not been a waste of my time....
Our team has been charged and funded with the task of bringing clean energy to the world - we have made it clear who the Troll support.
..................
I think Wayne is becoming a bit unglued and the stress is showing in his prose. He can't get away with fake and phony pseudoscience platitudes about his alleged system that make no sense at all. Make no mistake people, Wayne doesn't speak in scientific terms at all. He just lies and claims that he discusses his alleged system in scientific terms. He has invented his own phony language when he discusses his alleged hydraulic/pneumatic system. And behind the smoke screen of the phony language is the root cause - lying to make a buck.LOL..... MH,
Wayne, when it comes to personal integrity and truthfulness I have no worries at all. You, on the other hand, may one day have your offices raided by law enforcement so they can confiscate various documents and materials in order to build a criminal case against you. At this point in time I want to believe that the majority of readers around here know who the real bad guy is.
Mark, You are so failing your mission...You see Wayne, that's what's so awesome about you: You lie without any hesitation. It's really amazing. It's probably just a tad sociopathic. But it's definitely amazing.
First you owe several people here an apology - for your lies.
You don't produce any actual output that you have ever identified. You see output leaves the thing that produces it. The only thing that leaves in your case is investor funds from their accounts.
Second - LETS TALK A FACT ....And you should know by your work with Mike...
And don't play stupid word games to avoid the subject as usual...
...............
IS the potential of "head" Still in the ZED - after a stroke (where work is preformed) in our case hydraulic production...
YES OR NO?
Candy may be everybody's darling, coming as she did from out on the island. But I won't talk about her that way.
AND HOW MUCH OF THE ORIGINAL INPUT IS STILL IN THE FORM OF HEAD
I don't need spread sheets - you don't either -If you want me to admit something then you'll have to find something that I actually did as opposed to the nonsense you make up.
and since I have no expectation of you to ever admit you were wrong -
If that nonsensical verbage is intended to claim that you get free energy from buoyancy: No you do not. No one does. No one can.
Hers is the answer - ALMOST ALL OF IT (not yelling - chalk board) - Minus small losses in the input itself.......
THE OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND SIMPLE PROOF THAT BUOYANCY - IN THE ZED SYSTEM PREFORMS AN EXTERNAL WORK -WITHOUT CONSUMING THE INPUT.
YOU DENY THIS SIMPLE PROOF - YOU ARE A FRAUD.
p.s. don't waste our time with the unrelated pop it up system - WITH A LOAD.
You are a hoot Wayne. And you are a complete and shameless fraud.
and double p.s. Not using the full ideal of a system - is not a loss............ it is the door way to free energy - lossy and all.
Every time you call us a fraud - it proves you are too dumb - or just a fraud.
I do not think you are dumb.
Wayne
How much of the
You have never built a machine that generates the free energy that you claim.You have never successfully run a machine in such a way that you have shown it delivers output energy in excess of input.No one has built a replica of any of your devices that delivers the free energy you claim. None have built a device that alters the conservative nature of gravity such as you claim that you do.You have never shown data that supports your claims.You have never set up even the 48 hour run for Mark Dansie that you have been promising for years.This is straight out of the John Rohner play book. Each time he blew a deadline to show frustrated investors and licensees working proof, he cooked up excuses and pushed out the goal posts. Well, we all know or should know what happened March 5, 2013. It's going to take a bit longer, but it's looking pretty certain that sooner or later John Rohner will be spending lots of up close and personal time with a new room mate: Bubba.Sorry ME,
LOL..... MH,No one has to assume what you yourself have proven: You are a shameless and remorseless liar.
Since you started trying to analyze my thinking patterns - you made one classic error - you assumed I was not telling the truth.... too bad for you.
Let's gaze deep into the crystal ball: The investor funds will be all spent. The free energy machines never materialize. Then a little fuzzier is whether you still have any money, and whether your suits look more dark blue or ... is that orange?
I am not on P.M.s crying for people to stop hurting my feelings.....for calling out your lies...
Here is what is happening - I am letting you dig your holes deep as you can.....
I do not know of any other person that can prove you are biased, unscientific, Trolls.
It should not be a surprise to you what is coming - we have clearly and openly shared.
The facts are: Gravity is conservative. Your contraptions are worthless stage props that move weights up and down while making nifty groaning sounds. You have no technology. You are a fraud.
Keep digging. Or unblock your prejudiced mind and look at the facts - not the rabbit trail.
Wayne
Wayne, I am the real thing and you are a clown.I know you are the real thing - why do you not think I keep warning you off the jumping in with the bullies?
Sorry ME,Your machines don't drive a load that you have ever shown.
You rewrite of history will not stick....
Answer the:
On the chalk board again...
QUESTION: HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY INPUT INTO THE ZED IS CONSUMED WHEN LIFTING THE LOAD?
WELL.
What are you Dumb OR Fraud??
I know you are the real thing - why do you not think I keep warning you off the jumping in with the bullies?You can plead with MileHigh all you want. He will not join in with you and your fraud.
You keep choosing the wrong side of science and truth.
YOUR CHOICE.
You have never shown a ZED perform outside work.
Have you asked Mark or TK why they will not answer how much of the input energy in the zed is consumed while also performing outside work.
And you just roll on with your incessant lies. It's so wonderful that you are so willing to make your scienter so obvious.
If you have not - you discredit yourself.
Sorry - but they have laid the rabbit trail - to diversion.
No one has to assume what you yourself have proven: You are a shameless and remorseless liar.Let's gaze deep into the crystal ball: The investor funds will be all spent. The free energy machines never materialize. Then a little fuzzier is whether you still have any money, and whether your suits look more dark blue or ... is that orange?The facts are: Gravity is conservative. Your contraptions are worthless stage props that move weights up and down while making nifty groaning sounds. You have no technology. You are a fraud.JUST BULL - you ask for proof and then deny it.... lol
Your machines don't drive a load that you have ever shown.LOL, IS THAT YOUR OUT???
I don't need to ask if you are a fraud. You are one.
JUST BULL - you ask for proof and then deny it.... lol
Use facts.....
HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY INPUT INTO THE ZED IS CONSUMED --- WHILE THE EXTERNAL WORK???
SIMPLE MATH.......
WHO IS THE FRAUD.
PS HAVE TK HELP WITH THE ANSWER.
LOL, IS THAT YOUR OUT???They are quite entertaining for some I am sure, but they do not represent output.
What about the moaning production cylinders???
Oh, please do show what external loads your contraptions have driven.
DO not make me pull up the dozens of times we explained the external production and how we clearly stated that you were intentionally ignoring it.
Well we know you are a fraud. That is well established. Are you dumb? I don't know. Is it smart to keep building a written record of scienter? You tell me what motivates you to do what you have been doing.
FRAUD or Dumb...
I think your investors will want a lot more than an apology from you.
If it is just Dumb - an apology is fine.
"Viva Las Vegas"
Bright light city gonna set my soul
Gonna set my soul on fire
Got a whole lot of money that's ready to burn,
So get those stakes up higher
There's a thousand pretty women waitin' out there
And they're all livin' devil may care
And I'm just the devil with love to spare
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
How I wish that there were more
Than the twenty-four hours in the day
'Cause even if there were forty more
I wouldn't sleep a minute away
Oh, there's black jack and poker and the roulette wheel
A fortune won and lost on ev'ry deal
All you need's a strong heart and a nerve of steel
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
Viva Las Vegas with you neon flashin'
And your one armbandits crashin'
All those hopes down the drain
Viva Las Vegas turnin' day into nighttime
Turnin' night into daytime
If you see it once
You'll never be the same again
I'm gonna keep on the run
I'm gonna have me some fun
If it costs me my very last dime
If I wind up broke up well
I'll always remember that I had a swingin' time
I'm gonna give it ev'rything I've got
Lady luck please let the dice stay hot
Let me shout a seven with ev'ry shot
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas,
Viva, Viva Las Vegas
Having trouble sleeping again, honest Wayne Travis?Still playing games.... well did I expect different.
You just cannot wait to get on this website and argue with "trolls", can you. Why, one would think that convincing me, MH, MarkE, powercat, and the other "trolls" you mention is the most important part of your project. Yes, so many people care about what we four or five people post on this forum, that it consumes most of your day in your efforts to refute and convince us.
What a clown you are, honest Wayne Travis! Spending time on this internet forum, when you should be in church, praying to your God for forgiveness and explaining why the TBC still is paying for gas to heat the church in winter.
They are quite entertaining for some I am sure, but they do not represent output.Oh, please do show what external loads your contraptions have driven.Well we know you are a fraud. That is well established. Are you dumb? I don't know. Is it smart to keep building a written record of scienter? You tell me what motivates you to do what you have been doing.I think your investors will want a lot more than an apology from you.OHH double down on your out huh?
Wayne TravestyYou are A troll and a spammer.
You are a liar, you promised public verification, anyone can go back and look at the thread, as you can't be bothered to admit your deception I will re-post your own words, remember these are your words not mine
Quote from: mrwayne on May 28, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
I always keep my word, and I tell the truth even when it hurts
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 02, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
We will be releasing to scientific journals and presenting the Data professionally, when Marks Group reccomends.
I look forward to the longevity runs as well, Next weekend is when we have the help to set up the new
plc equipment and software.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 10, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
Mark Dansie has assembled the team for our Extended runs - critical review
Quote from: mrwayne on June 24, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
We will run our pre test runs starting Monday - after we are sure we do not have new clogs
- I call Mark and he will come - the 28 is still our goal.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 27, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
Mark will come as soon as I ask - he is ready too.But I have not asked him to come yet, I might after tommorrows Run.
Quote from: mrwayne on June 30, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
We began running pretrial tests - prior to Mark Dansie's return - I had very much hoped to be done by Wednesday.
Quote from: mrwayne on July 27, 2012, 03:02:09 PM
After this Validation testing and presentation - we will be setting down to a coalition of teams
world wide to bring this technology to the world
Quote from: mrwayne on August 13, 2012, 02:55:02 PM
Mark has set his return for the week of the 20th.
Quote from: mrwayne on August 16, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
We are solving current issues for Mark and the rest of the team's next visit
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
No, I am not sharing run Data with aynone, until we have the system ready to be released
Quote from: mrwayne on August 25, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
Marks third return was delayed because our "new" system would not charge the accumulator
Quote from: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 05:05:15 AM
I still have not seen the two day demo yet , but I never put a time frame on this.
However as with all things as time carries on the confidence level always diminishes.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
p.s. our optimized system is over 600% efficient.
Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
It will all begin in a short time - the validation is just around the corner - I am relieved and excited.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!
Quote from: mrwayne on October 15 2012 on his web site
Of course this means we will run a couple days for ourselves before we turn it over to the validation team
- I have been in clear and constant communication with them.
Quote from: mrwayne on October 29 2012 on his web site
I spoke with Mark this morning regarding time lines, and travel arrangements
- we have selected a prevalidation member to come this weekend
Quote from: mrwayne on November 6 2012 on his web site
Do you feel a sense of urgency in our Development?
Have you waited long enough, are you ready to be done with all of the improvements and obstacles,
are you ready for the internal Validation, and the external validation? Me too.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 11, 2012, 04:07:58 PM
Mark is not a member of the "Final Validation team" - so do not make assumptions - Mark has arranged a completly
independant and extremely qualified Validation team.
Quote from: mrwayne on November 22, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
Yes,And thank you.Mark is a valuable part of our efforts.In Mark and mine's last conversation -
just prior to his heading off on his honeymoon - He has two other stops to make and then we
both hope we are ready for him to return her to Chickasha Oklahoma again. Will we be ready?
Quote from: mrwayne on March 10, 2014, 11:24:14 AM
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.comI am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope.Wayne
One more note for the chalk board:Yes the useless device has been described and found to be without utility.
TO ALL;
THE ZED DISCRIPTION AND FUNCTION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED FOR OVER THREE YEARS.
And still a cinderblock is more efficient than any of your devices.
THE VERAGE HAS IMPROVED FOR CLARITY, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN OPTIMIZED,
Your contraptions and their complete futility has been understood by knowledgeable people for just as long.
THE BASIC FUNCTION AND METHOD HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED - BY THOSE WHO UNDERSTOOD IT.
Ah it is back to the a bald-faced lies. No Wayne: None of your contraptions have ever produced any excess output energy over input.
WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR UNDERSTANDING, AND IMPROVED THE PROCESS. yET EVEN WITHOUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS - THE ZED PERFORMS AS DESCRIBED FROM THE BEGINING.
You do not now have, nor have you ever had a system that works as you claim.
IT WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ZED WITH THE DIVERSIONS OFFERED BY THE SPAMMING TROLLS
IGNORING THE TROLLS IS YOUR CHOICE - BUT WILL GREATLY IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF A WORKING SYSTEM.
Thank you all
Wayne
OHH double down on your out huh?No it did not that I ever saw. But you are free to try and point out any actual output load. I don't think you will. Let's find out.
ME - your contraption that you try to confuse people as mine - had no load - mine always did.
They make useless noises.
So what are the moaning groaning production cylinders on top of the ZED DOING?
sorry, doesn't wash Wayne. You could have as easily showed your trash cans lined up for trash day. No output was shown.
I guess with all the blow up shots tk posted trying to claim a drain line was an extension cord Mark D missed - - next to the production cyclinders missed your eye....
Well of course you talked and told fanciful stories. That is after all what you do: Tell lies to get gullible people to invest in your free energy fantasy.
Or maybe the video running and the discussions on the storage of the production missed your eyes.
Mondrasek set up his problem without an external load, claiming that he thought he got free energy even without one. Once I showed him that was not so, then he came up with his load idea which still left his "ideal ZED" that you approved the fundamentally lossy machine that it is. As I ahve repeatedly shown: Larry and webby are just lost.
Or maybe Mike, Tom, Larry, mine and others telling you to stop ignoring the load was not realized.
Are you asking me to alter your contraption? LOL.
OK--- fine - do it now.
add a load and lift it and then tell me how much of the energy used to lift the load is consumed...
Well?
You are A troll and a spammer.Probably because like most people who realize what is going on he knows you pose a meaningless question. Your contraptions do not deliver output energy to a load. They consume every bit of input energy that you supply to them causing them to run down and stop.
What is your excuse for not asking ME or TK to explain why the input is not consumed - while performing work?
Then you should stop doing such things.
Using quotes out of context is not very honest is it?
Your claims to energy production are false. Ergo no output in excess of input occurs. Ergo given that you claim to produce excess output energy over input you are a liar. Ergo given that you use those false claims to sell investments in a technology you know does not exist, you are a fraud. QED.
p.s. I have answered those questions before - it does not make me a liar if you refuse to listen.
good day.
Oh Yeah - if TK Or ME explain why we can not use the energy input after performing external work - you can call me a fraud and liar - until then - you are the Troll...
Still playing games.... well did I expect different.You still don't know the definition of SCAM, do you, and you still cannot provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims about "my video".... which you have never seen. All versions of "that video" that are on the internet are ALTERED and UNAUTHORIZED COPIES of the original video.
You scammed people with your video - money was lost, until you repay the builders...
Your credibility is toast...
You make up crap to insult good men.
good day.
OHH double down on your out huh?Still lying, honest Wayne Travis? When will you learn properly to represent what others have done and said?
ME - your contraption that you try to confuse people as mine - had no load - mine always did.
So what are the moaning groaning production cylinders on top of the ZED DOING?
I guess with all the blow up shots tk posted trying to claim a drain line was an extension cord Mark D missed - - next to the production cyclinders missed your eye....
Or maybe the video running and the discussions on the storage of the production missed your eyes.
Or maybe Mike, Tom, Larry, mine and others telling you to stop ignoring the load was not realized.
OK--- fine - do it now.
add a load and lift it and then tell me how much of the energy used to lift the load is consumed...
Well?
People who make claims that they cannot support with data, like YOU, honest Wayne Travis, and who make money on those unsupported claims, like YOU, honest Wayne Travis.... YOU are the fraud.
You have never shown any external work coming from any of your kludges. You have never honestly shown the work that goes INTO setting up any of your toys so that they might rock back and forth for a few minutes. And you never will.
Yes the useless device has been described and found to be without utility.And still a cinderblock is more efficient than any of your devices.Your contraptions and their complete futility has been understood by knowledgeable people for just as long.Ah it is back to the a bald-faced lies. No Wayne: None of your contraptions have ever produced any excess output energy over input.You do not now have, nor have you ever had a system that works as you claim.
Still lying, honest Wayne Travis? When will you learn properly to represent what others have done and said?
I posted ONE blowup shot of each unit, and I ASKED what the indicated object was.
Now you claim it was a "drain line".... for something that has no input and no exhaust, but still needs a drain line. Way up in the air. Right.
(I also asked what the Air Compressor was for in the indoor unit, IIRC.)
No you silly Troll,
You took one single frame from a video - and omitted the views that clearly showed the transparent drain hose connected to the vent line of a high pressure hydraulic system and then you and your puppets claimed that Mark D missed and extension cord running form the building... to the ZED..
NOW WHY DID YOU ONLY INCLUDE THAT VIEW _ TROLL.
You also ignored the content - which was regarding the negative efct of air in our hydraulic OUTPUT SYTEM system.
p.s. MARK - OUTPUT SYSTEM.....
As I asked then ---- why did you take only view of that hose,,,,,, hmmm you are a troll, or
Slandering EX scientist who beats on people for their own kicks...
Your past will not be justified by more lies from you.
Just another diversion for discounting the truth...It's a trick question: ZEDs don't perform external work. All of the input energy is wasted rocking a useless groaning moaning display back and forth.
HOW MUCH OF THE ENERGY INPUT INTO A ZED IS CONSUMED - WHILE PERFORMING EXTERNAL WORK?
Yes the truth is that you and your claims are frauds.
.....
Oh I know you will just say it is your job to provide the proof - we did and you trolled it.
Prove you are a scientist.......HOW MUCH IS STILL IN THE SYSTEM AFTER WORK ....
TRUTH OF FRAUD,
The blatant and obvious truth is that you are a fraud who has been stealing from gullible investors.
You are the one that looks for loop wholes to exploit - while ignoring the blatant and obvious truth.
Have a nice day.
No you silly Troll,A yes the output that doesn't do anything system. Sure Mr. Fraud. Sure.
You took one single frame from a video - and omitted the views that clearly showed the transparent drain hose connected to the vent line of a high pressure hydraulic system and then you and your puppets claimed that Mark D missed and extension cord running form the building... to the ZED..
NOW WHY DID YOU ONLY INCLUDE THAT VIEW _ TROLL.
You also ignored the content - which was regarding the negative effect of air in our hydraulic OUTPUT SYTEM system.
The fraud Wayne Travis seems to be working himself up into quite the frenzy this fine morning.
p.s. MARK - OUTPUT SYSTEM.....
As I asked then ---- why did you take only view of that hose,,,,,, hmmm you are a troll, or
Slandering EX scientist who beats on people for their own kicks...
Your past will not be justified by more lies from you.
Ok Trolls,
I add 1+1=2
2 - 1=1
You add 1+1= - 1 lossy system......
SO ME,
HOW MUCH OF THE INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM IS CONSUMED WHILE THE OUTPUT WORK IS CAPTURED?
THE ANSWER- STANDARD LOSSES - 16% maybe
NOT 100%
You owe an apology to Red, Larry, Tom, other Tom, Wayne, Mike, and the other hands on members.
You need to stop slandering yourself with your lies.
You two are so bad...Poor Mr. Wayne stuck repeating the same lies over and over. Your useless contraption consumes all the input energy. The output energy is less than the input energy. As a matter of fact you have yet to show any output energy at all.
MarkE TK more diversion....TROLLs
Chalk Board.
THE ZED SYSTEM DOES NOT CONSUME THE INPUT ENERGY - Losses occur as in any system in the world.
No, internal movements of your see-saw of silliness does not constitute output energy.
THE OUTPUT IS A SECONDARY REACTION TO RAISING THE WATER LEVEL - or HEAD.
Pressure is not energy Wayne.
THE OPPOSITE AND EQAUL REACTION IN A ZED IS TH$ INPUT BECOMES HEAD PRESSURE.
You have yet to identify any external load that receives this output energy you claim. Pressure is again not energy. I can carry a six pack of soda pop in the trunk of my car all day and the pressure inside will be maintained even as my gas tank runs dry.
AND IS NOT CONSUMED EVEN WHILE THE EXTERNAL WORK IS PREFORMED.
That's just more nonsensical prose from the fraud: Wayne Travis.
THIS RESULTS IN TWO AVAILABLE OUTPUTS FROM A SINGLE SYSTEM.
There is no external load.
THE EXTERNAL LOAD AND THE HEAD.
The only work your customers will get is hiring attorneys to sue you.
THE EXTERNAL OUTPUT IS USED TO PROVIDE WORK TO THE CUSTOMER
See-saws go up and see-saws go down. They consume external energy. They do not produce it.
THE INTERNAL OUTPUT IS USED TO PAY THE COST OF ANOHTER ZED SYSTEM.
In the fantasy-land that you promote: 2+2=25.
THE LOSSES IN TRANSMISSION - NORMAL TRANSMISION LOSSES ARE MADE UP FOR FROM THE EXTERNAL OUTUT.
The result is just unfulfilled promises by the fraud: Wayne Travis.
THE RESULT - A CONSUMER OUTPUT
Ok Trolls,Your disciples of duplicity owe your shareholders apologies. They owe their prior science instructors apologies for wasting their time by failing to learn what their instructors taught. Your contraptions are fundamentally lossy in each and every one of their mechanisms. The composite result is fundamentally lossy. Your machine requires externally supplied energy just to keep it moaning and groaning. Your contraptions do not supply any output energy in excess of the input energy.
I add 1+1=2
2 - 1=1
You add 1+1= - 1 lossy system......
SO ME,
HOW MUCH OF THE INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM IS CONSUMED WHILE THE OUTPUT WORK IS CAPTURED?
THE ANSWER- STANDARD LOSSES - 16% maybe
NOT 100%
You owe an apology to Red, Larry, Tom, other Tom, Wayne, Mike, and the other hands on members.
You need to stop slandering yourself with your lies.
Of course no one, including any of the disciples of duplicity or even the fraud: Wayne Travis himself can produce any evidence of free energy to be had by cyclically lifting and dropping weights.
Hi Trolls,
can any one of you come up with one fact in support of the excess produced by
a ZED from Red,Wayne,Mike,Tom,Tom or Larry?
I realise that's going to be a tough question!
John.
You are A troll and a spammer.You are a fraud and liar, you have been shown the evidencend why you're device does not work and your maths is false many times, I understand as a conman you have to stick to script even when you know it's a lie,(let's face it Mrwayne it wouldn't be much of a con if you told the truth) YOU ARE A FRAUD AND LIAR Smile
What is your excuse for not asking ME or TK to explain why the input is not consumed - while performing work?
Using quotes out of context is not very honest is it?
p.s. I have answered those questions before - it does not make me a liar if you refuse to listen.
good day.
Oh Yeah - if TK Or ME explain why we can not use the energy input after performing external work - you can call me a fraud and liar - until then - you are the Troll...
Mark,Reaction force is mA. The system in each state is static.
Since AR5, AR3 and AR1 are falling, hence negative.
Using normal convention then, the force that is making the vacuum is down and therefore negative, so the reactionary force is positive and that is then subtracted from the Riser2OD.
These are the riserID forces plus the riser wall forces, and the pod.It sounds like you need to draw up a free body diagram. Conveniently, diagrams for each state of the contraption are included in the R4 spreadsheet. Add arrows if you like. You should try and remember that the: risers, pod, and "air" are massless.
If riser 3 is trying to move down, how can it help lift riser 2, if riser 2 is trying to move down how can it help lift riser 1.
+0.0734035817N pod
+0.1250989764N r1
-0.0538762422N r2
-0.1446263159N r3
+0.0000000000N Total
2.2789824056mm lift distance
Riser 3 can not lift itself up, so how can it lift up riser 2.
Riser 3 would need to push down on something to lift itself up since riser 3 is the external interactive component, that component would need to be the water in AR7 or the top side of riser 2.
I do actually,, keep them without any mass.The R4 spreadsheet shows all the work done, and done correctly. R3 is in communication with R2, R1, and the pod, just as the water bottle here is in communication with the pontoons.
Did you reverse your force direction between the fill of AR1 and the lift?
Are you saying that after this lift distance Riser 3 is still going to be lifting up Riser 2?
These are riser force plus riser wall force.
0.0817433774 pod
0.2719122441 r1
0.1252094906 r2
0.0000000000 r3 <----------
0.4788651122 Total
lift distance
1.8083289794 R3 0 uplift <=at this distance.
You are a fraud and liar, you have been shown the evidencend why you're device does not work and your maths is false many times, I understand as a conman you have to stick to script even when you know it's a lie,(let's face it Mrwayne it wouldn't be much of a con if you told the truth) YOU ARE A FRAUD AND LIAR SmilePowercat - where is the proof you claim?
Can you really miss it?
Hi Trolls,
can any one of you come up with one fact in support of the excess produced by
a ZED from Red,Wayne,Mike,Tom,Tom or Larry?
I realise that's going to be a tough question!
John.
That does not describe the anomaly with the ZED.
I seem to run in to a see-saw problem.
If you have a see-saw with 100 units on each side it is balanced so you add one
to one side which then descends.
If you take 50 off the light side (work done) and transfer 50 from the heavy side
to light side you end up with 50 one side and 51 on the other so you have to say
put another 2 on to get it to go again.
I wonder if Travis would have a similar problem?
John.
mrwayne, why don't you put all the allegations that you are a con man and fraud to rest once and for all by simply proving your silly claim?I am sorry orbut - what is silly about it?
In plain English and complete sentences?
Please.
I am sorry orbut - what is silly about it?
Oh, let me direct you to our unique ability to hook lossy systems together to reduce input and increase efficiency.
It's silly to expect excess energy emerging from a sequence of lossy processes.
It's even sillier to expect such a thing to happen when the promoter of such a scheme acts like 'mrwayne' as documented in this thread.
Now, I know this was confusing - or the trolls just tried to confuse everyone ---
When the ZED is receiving pressure and volume as an input - the head and air reacts in a serpentine manner - in an equal reaction resulting in vertically layered head Pressures, separated by vertically layered air pressure.
At the moment the Load is overcome - the external work is neutrally buoyant - any additional input continues to be stored as head and air columns - as the neutral load rises (resulting in external work).
The external load is removed - without allowing the pop up action ME added.
at this point - in simple English - the external work is stored - and the head and air pressure is recycled to another ZED system.
Chalk board - not yelling,
THIS UNIQUE ABILITY TO RECYCLE THE INPUT -CONTINUALLY REDUCES THE INPUT REQUIRED FOR EVERY STROKE -BOTH OF THE ZEDS.
THAT IS WHY WE PAIR THEM TOGETHER.
THIS IS A "SUPER CONSERVATIVE PROCESS" -
YES - THAT IS A NEW TERM - The ZED AND PROCESS IS A NEW DISCOVERY.
Got it?OK
Hello Bill,
That was my mistake - I was meant Powercat...
I did take the time to go back and read your posts, and I read the many smart and funny insults...
But not what qualifies for a troll.
I believe everyone has a right to an opinion - good or bad.
You comments do not show intentional - fact altering - and diversion - claims such as MH, ME, TK, and the "Powercat"..
Those men have ruined this web site - and going unchecked has severely diminished readership,
Many reader followed our journey - from the initial release on Pens, Here, The smart scare crow,
and our web site.
I can rarely find a person who will return to this web site because of the blatant trolling.
Those four members - get their jollies at slander, diversion, and the unchecked ability to interrupt the discussion of a technology and have unchecked for over two years.
They pound out any scientific discussion, and revel when they frustrate a conversation between other members.
My apology for mixing you up with them - it was my clear error.
Wayne Travis
Oh, let me direct you to our unique ability to hook lossy systems together to reduce input and increase efficiency.
Please read Larry's spread sheets............. It takes 16% of the energy required to come to buoyancy pressure - in a three layered dual ZED system versus a single column to the same head pressure.
Kind of makes it all possible...... thanks
Oh yes this is new - and no - no in the text books..
p.s. Buoyancy is pressure differential times surface area...... in simple terms...
At the moment the Load is overcome - the external work is neutrally buoyant - any additional input continues to be stored as head and air columns - as the neutral load rises (resulting in external work).
Oh, let me direct you to our unique ability to hook lossy systems together to reduce input and increase efficiency.
Please read Larry's spread sheets............. It takes 16% of the energy required to come to buoyancy pressure - in a three layered dual ZED system versus a single column to the same head pressure.
Kind of makes it all possible...... thanks
Oh yes this is new - and no - no in the text books..
p.s. Buoyancy is pressure differential times surface area...... in simple terms...
That does not describe the anomaly with the ZED.There is no anomaly with the ZED. There is ordinary 2000 year old hydrostatics.
Thanks
But he is the amazing Mr. Zed! "Hello Wilbur. I just took the grand kids college fund."
It's silly to expect excess energy emerging from a sequence of lossy processes.
It's even sillier to expect such a thing to happen when the promoter of such a scheme acts like 'mrwayne' as documented in this thread.
Now, I know this was confusing - or the trolls just tried to confuse everyone ---Ah more babble speak from the amazing fraud: Mr. Zed. When Mr. Zed isn't appealing to "The Emperor's New Zed", he tries the "baffle 'em with bull shit" baffle gab approach. Note the nonsensical misuse of terms and ridiculous suggestions.
When the ZED is receiving pressure and volume as an input - the head and air reacts in a serpentine manner - in an equal reaction resulting in vertically layered head Pressures, separated by vertically layered air pressure.
At the moment the Load is overcome - the external work is neutrally buoyant - any additional input continues to be stored as head and air columns - as the neutral load rises (resulting in external work).
I added nothing. The "ideal ZED" is an overly complicated spring emulator. The "real ZED" is an overly complicated poor emulation of a spring.
The external load is removed - without allowing the pop up action ME added.
at this point - in simple English - the external work is stored - and the head and air pressure is recycled to another ZED system.Something that is stored within a system is by definition not external Mr. Zed.
Chalk board - not yelling,There is no such ability. Each of the pathetic ZEDs are fundamentally lossy devices. Each stroke loses more input energy that must be supplied from the outside to keep the moaning and groaning stage prop moving.
THIS UNIQUE ABILITY TO RECYCLE THE INPUT -CONTINUALLY REDUCES THE INPUT REQUIRED FOR EVERY STROKE -BOTH OF THE ZEDS.
THAT IS WHY WE PAIR THEM TOGETHER.
Ah we are being treated to more made up terms by Mr. Zed.
THIS IS A "SUPER CONSERVATIVE PROCESS" -
YES - THAT IS A NEW TERM - The ZED AND PROCESS IS A NEW DISCOVERY.Nope, the ZED and process are 2000 year old hydrostatics misrepresented by the con man and fraud: Wayne Travis as something new that supposedly delivers free energy that it does not.
Got it?OKOh, we've got your number.
Oh, let me direct you to our unique ability to hook lossy systems together to reduce input and increase efficiency.Ah yes: Here are more bald faced lies from the fraud Wayne Travis. Concatentating any lossy process with another aggravates loss. That is a mathematical fact that you cannot escape.
Having two different lossy processes does not make either over unity.
Please read Larry's spread sheets............. It takes 16% of the energy required to come to buoyancy pressure - in a three layered dual ZED system versus a single column to the same head pressure.
Yes, your written record makes many things possible. You may not like some of them.
Kind of makes it all possible...... thanks
Oh yes this is new - and no - no in the text books..LOL, so you claim. But then you are the fraud: Wayne Travis.
p.s. Buoyancy is pressure differential times surface area...... in simple terms...No, but that was a nice try. For a horizontal surface: buoyant up lift force is the pressure of the surrounding fluid under the surface multiplied by the area of that surface.
Point of Note:Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found. We already have appropriate terminology. What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed. So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".
Should anyone ever demonstrate a 'true mechanical OU device', aka, a 'true Perpetual Motion Machine', that uses ONLY gravity force to do external work & replenish itself cyclically, then indeed new physics & terms would need to be coined - currently mainstream understands gravity force to be conservative, or path independent, & so far no exceptions have been shown/proved to exist.
Wayne Travis would have us believe that he can demonstrate that exception & so he no doubt uses this forum to practice & hone his skills in articulating his ideas to a mainstream audience versed in ordinary physics language - he of course must throw in newly minted terms from time to time to describe the uncogent to physicists, mathematicians, & laymen alike - what else could he do under the circumstances, other than show a working & verified device, & then let the great unwashed lab coats go into a feeding frenzy tying to formulate & articulate the new paradigm for him ?
For my money, should anyone [including Mr Wayne] ever prove their case with a working verified gravity driven device I would probably start by examining the Work Energy Equivalence Principle enshrined in physics & perhaps consider the possibility that it is not always consistent or equivalent ?!
But that is navel gazing in the extreme at the moment.
Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found. We already have appropriate terminology. What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed. So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".
The fraud: Wayne Travis freely engages in nonsense baffle gab. An obvious motive is to confuse naive and uneducated audience members. He presents behaviors that have been well understood and exploited for multiple millennia as things he claims to have discovered. He's a liar, and not a very good one at that.
We is the scientific community. We already have the descriptive terms: conservative and non conservative. Gravity only became described as conservative once many many efforts to show otherwise failed. All someone has to do is reliably show that it is in fact not conservative under some set of circumstances and the global characterization of gravity as a conservative field will fall. Sadly for Wayne and his cadre, they have no such evidence.
If We already have appropriate terminology then We have ever considered that gravity is not always conservative, what we need is only evidence how it can be happen.
but, who are "We" ?.
I think Mr. Zed's: "super conservative" is hilarious.
I think "super conservative" is not quite the term he was intending. Super rather infers
being even more conservative, perhaps sub conservative would have been a better
choice?
John.
We is the scientific community. We already have the descriptive terms: conservative and non conservative. Gravity only became described as conservative once many many efforts to show otherwise failed. All someone has to do is reliably show that it is in fact not conservative under some set of circumstances and the global characterization of gravity as a conservative field will fall. Sadly for Wayne and his cadre, they have no such evidence.
Sure....... only insane people can see that a system that does not consume the input - which can then be reused - is a benefit.
Still no clear proper description of your claimed anomaly or excess energy result.
Inventing new terms doesn't change the known and observable behavior of matter.
So your unproven and silly claims are still: Unproven and silly. Or, as most sane readers are undoubtedly forced to conclude, fraudulent.
Look, if you have not figured out by now... you don't bother me lol.. good day
Sorry,,, wayne.... I won't... read Larry's spread cheeks. Thanks.... Smile. ... p.s.
Why don't you express your thoughts in properly structured sentences? Your grammar is almost as insulting as your special branch of cartoon physics.
The load is overcomeGee that is scientific of you Troll...
the external work is neutrally buoyant
additional input continues to be stored
neutral load rises
resulting in external work
Gobbledegook. Neutrally buoyant external work. Rising neutral load. ADDITIONAL INPUT. What a crock. Blah blah blah. Honest Wayne Travis can't explain what he doesn't have, so he tries the same "dazzle them with BS" tactic that has carried him through the past several years. It doesn't work here, though.
Sure....... only insane people can see that a system that does not consume the input - which can then be reused - is a benefit.Unfortunately, for you: the fraud Wayne Travis, your worthless contraptions consume all of the input energy. Contrary to your false claims they do not deliver any surplus output energy over and above the input energy.
OK.....
Gee that is scientific of you Troll...LOL. TinselKoala called your bafflegab for what it is. And you attacked him personally. One can't make this stuff up.
Attack the person, insult the person, -- oh wait ---- that is what Trolls do....
If this is your operating principle then you should have come to the conclusion by now that rather than have a complicated system of layered cylinders that you could replace all that with a spring loaded float that changed volume. The spring would mean its buoyancy could fluctuate between two values while loosing very little energy in the process.Actually a spring is a good discussion point - because you can not do our operation with a spring - and maybe that will bring some insight.
The effect would be identical to couple of ZEDs and would achieve the same result with fewer losses caused by water flow.
It still would not be a net energy producer either, but that is another discussion.
There is no anomaly with the ZED. There is ordinary 2000 year old hydrostatics.Our system can be thematically proven with simple and understood physics...
Actually a spring is a good discussion point - because you can not do our operation with a spring - and maybe that will bring some insight.There is no such anomaly in your system. Compression force applied to the nested Russian dolls of ignorance pushes the risers down. Try again.
One of the Anomalies that Mark E refused to admit - was that our compression process makes the spring taller ---- which is how the external neutral load is lifted freely.
That is complete and utter nonsense.
The spring being taller means it does not expand back to its point of origin - it shrinks while giving up its compression...to the start point.
Which is not a problem because what you describe doesn't happen in your contraptions either.
No configuration of a mechanical spring allows for compression during extension and neutral effect of the load lifting.
No. You had better go back to the hardware store and find some springs so that you might learn how they behave.
-------------
A steel spring requires distance to compress and additional distance to lift the load (a distance).
It is amazing what BS tripe you write.
The resulting compression is stored energy and additional work is required to lit the load..
Thanks
Wayne
Our system can be thematically proven with simple and understood physics...Unfortunately for you: Your claims have been disproven with simple, long understood physics.
Thanks
Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found. We already have appropriate terminology. What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed. So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".Really, MarkE... for what benefit - you and the Trolls are the most blinded by prejudiced people I have ever meet in my life....
The fraud: Wayne Travis freely engages in nonsense baffle gab. An obvious motive is to confuse naive and uneducated audience members. He presents behaviors that have been well understood and exploited for multiple millennia as things he claims to have discovered. He's a liar, and not a very good one at that.
Now MarkE
I am receiving E-mails explaining that you are willfully ignorant...
Why waste my time with a unapologetic liar?
Let me tell you and all why -------------------
Free energy, clean energy, energy security, and energy independence - is far more important than your Ego, and my time.
Show where anyone has ever proven the ZED technology wrong -
You can't because MATH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT your vendetta.
Show it here now....my system - not the one you tired to invent with the weights going up and down, or the springs, or the dolls, or the unloaded system, or the bricks, or the unicorns....
Actually show that a ZED does not work.... You can not because you and the gang of four are just not powerful enough to change the physics...
Yeah - our system improves the understanding of physics -
That is why we get so much good help - first - we are not jerks to other people - second - we have the physical truth - and you have personal attacks..
and one more thing you need - admit when you are wrong - it builds character.
Really, MarkE... for what benefit - you and the Trolls are the most blinded by prejudiced people I have ever meet in my life....LOL, so "almost everyone" are the "most blinded and prejudiced people" you have ever met? Have you convinced anyone such as Mark Dansie or his team that your silly contraptions do what you claim? I've never seen any such statement from any of them.
Almost everyone of our visiting Engineers had the same prejudice - and not one single engineer was "unable to cope with the facts"
You don't have a discovery. You are in the investment fraud business. [/quote]
How possible does it hurt anyone to share my discovery???
I am blessed with the faculties to see through your incessant BS.
Let me remind you - the Law was written by men using sound judgment, science, and mathematics..... and it has evolved over and over as new discoveries have been made.
You are blessed to have been given the opportunity to share in the release of our Super conservative process..
Once again: You have no discovery.
And you treat the discovery and those that understand it with Trolling Buffoonery
When all else fails as it very often does for you, you just lie. Here that is again.
Worst of all you make up crap to make yourself confident....
I think your words are awesome. The way that you freely, effortlessly, and shamelessly tell lie after lie in advancement of your investment fraud is fantastic.
I care less if you like my words -
You are a fraud stealing your investors' money. You are definitely hurting them.
You should thank me for putting up with you and the puppets attacks.....
WHO IS HURTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE
"fain" What's a fain Wayne? I point out your fraud. You don't like that. That's tough Wayne.
You fain that you are some hero trying to help innocent people from a fraud.... a portrait you painted...
Neither you nor those who support your fraud are innocent.
You attack the innocent constantly - look in the mirror - that is what makes you a Troll.
................I already have numerous times already.
More importantly:
Prove your accusations...
How much of the input energy is still in the system after the Stroke and external load has been removed and the ZED not allowed to pop up????You have yet to show any energy delivered to an external load. Your stage props tilt and creak, sway and moan. You've not shown that they perform any useful work. And most of all you cannot show that they deliver any output energy in excess of the input energy.
No, all of your energy trying to argue your BS contraptions deliver free energy has been wasted.
Let me help you - how much energy was wasted when you popped up...??
That's all wonderful bafflegab Wayne. Unfortunately it has no physical meaning. Your devices are energy roach motels. Your business is an investment roach motel.
That's right - most of it...
Now what is most important next step --- remove more energy to be able to sink...
OR REUSES ALL THAT ENERGY TO REDUCE THE OTHER ZED........
Now quick math - how much would have to be reused to make the other ZED SUPER CONSERVATIVE???
You would have capture enough to over come the losses in the transfer.... right?
Well would 50% be enough.... well it would if the ZEDs Ideal was only 50% efficient...
GEE, if we only were able to recapture 50% of the input, and were only able to design a buoyancy system that was 50% efficient - we could make unity....
But what if we could make a buoyancy device that is 51% efficient - or how about 99.9%
Or what if we could capture 51% of the reuse - or how about 75% of it?????
........SUPER CONSERVATIVE APTLY DESCRIBES THE ABILITY TO USE AN INPUT MORE THAN ONCE...........
<<<AND THE CURRENT LAWS OF PHYSICS EXPLAINS THAT THE RESULT IS NET ENERGY>>>
It is so simple it boggles my mind that you can not get it.
Wayne
Really, Honest Wayne?Your fascination with my postings is pure scientific I am sure....
For our international readers, it is now 6:43 am in Chickasha OK USA, and it appears that honest Wayne Travis has gotten up early and made at least SIX forum posts arguing with internet trolls he does not respect.... BEFORE BREAKFAST.
The fellow has a serious problem.
LOL, so "almost everyone" are the "most blinded and prejudiced people" you have ever met? Have you convinced anyone such as Mark Dansie or his team that your silly contraptions do what you claim? I've never seen any such statement from any of them.You don't have a discovery. You are in the investment fraud business.Gee Mark -That is so desperate Mark...insult my words...... go on DIVERSION.
Are you the conservative Law police?LOL.I am blessed with the faculties to see through your incessant BS.Once again: You have no discovery.When all else fails as it very often does for you, you just lie. Here that is again.I think your words are awesome. The way that you freely, effortlessly, and shamelessly tell lie after lie in advancement of your investment fraud is fantastic.You are a fraud stealing your investors' money. You are definitely hurting them."fain" What's a fain Wayne? I point out your fraud. You don't like that. That's tough Wayne.Neither you nor those who support your fraud are innocent.I already have numerous times already.You have yet to show any energy delivered to an external load. Your stage props tilt and creak, sway and moan. You've not shown that they perform any useful work. And most of all you cannot show that they deliver any output energy in excess of the input energy.No, all of your energy trying to argue your BS contraptions deliver free energy has been wasted.That's all wonderful bafflegab Wayne. Unfortunately it has no physical meaning. Your devices are energy roach motels. Your business is an investment roach motel.
Now MarkEOh Wayne, I wouldn't concern myself with emails. There are much more important documents you should concern yourself with receiving.
I am receiving E-mails explaining that you are willfully ignorant...
He lives in your body. What can you do?
Why waste my time with a unapologetic liar?
There it is: Motherhood and apple pie! Kiss the babies and the investor's money good bye![/quote]
Let me tell you and all why -------------------
Free energy, clean energy, energy security, and energy independence - is far more important than your Ego, and my time.
Neither math nor physics bend to your fantastical lies Wayne.
You can't because MATH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT your vendetta.
No, your sad contraptions have done nothing to advance physics from where it was in the time of the Greeks.
Show it here now....my system - not the one you tired to invent with the weights going up and down, or the springs, or the dolls, or the unloaded system, or the bricks, or the unicorns....
Actually show that a ZED does not work.... You can not because you and the gang of four are just not powerful enough to change the physics...
Yeah - our system improves the understanding of physics -
If you think stealing other people's money with your investment fraud doesn't make you a jerk, then you are free to do so. Fraud you are, steal your investor's money with false claims you do.
That is why we get so much good help - first - we are not jerks to other people - second - we have the physical truth - and you have personal attacks..
and one more thing you need - admit when you are wrong - it builds character.
Your fascination with my postings is pure scientific I am sure....Dear Mr. Fraud: Your see-saws of silliness do not generate free energy. Like any see-saw they dissipate energy supplied from the outside.
So TK, do you wish to redeem your self as an intelligent unbiased being....or continue to insult people....
Here is your chance....
If a system were able to reuse the same input to perform a second function - would that confirm to :
Two opposite and equal reactions.....
hypothetically of course...
Thanks
Gee Mark -That is so desperate Mark...insult my words...... go on DIVERSION.I got "it" a long time ago Wayne: You are FoS. You are in the business of taking investor money based on claims you know to be false. You are a fraud. Yes, I get that.
Do you know how much less effort it would be to say - Gee Wayne - I get it now.....
LOL, there it is again: You want me to alter your system for you. What's the matter Wayne? Are you having difficulty finding that output load you claim?
MarkE
I waited for you to show how superior your math was than anyone else's in the world..
YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE -
Now put a load on the system and tell me how much of the input is still in the system after stroke - and then explain why it can not be reused?
until you do - your are the largest fraud and a Troll EVER....
Since you continue to rewrite history-That's funny because you still keep making the false claim that your system generates free energy that you know it does not generate.
Mark D - is the best skeptic I ever met - instead of prejudice and attacking character - he helped us learn that what we had was not over unity.
I'm sure it wasn't that hard for him to locate the waste cans in your yard.
And then guided us in the direction to advance the technology.
LOL, no you have nothing but your shameless lies.
We have a paradigm shift in the understanding of physics as they are known today - well at least back then....we got a pretty good handle on it now...smile...
I suggest that you obtain a statement from Mark Dansie saying that he observed what you claim. That shouldn't be too hard. Oh, that's right, you promised and promised and promised to show him a machine sustain for 48 hours but failed to deliver each time.
As far as the first self runner - I suggest you listen closely to his words on his video - as he describes what you have missed over and over in good detail.
You suck royally as a skeptic - you wear your malcontent on your lips.
good day.
Net Energy -
OK all - it is recorded in history that MARK E refused to supply the proof he claims to have...Are you promising to go away forever again?
My time is done here ..... maybe...... lol
Wayne
So TK, do you wish to redeem your self as an intelligent unbiased being....or continue to insult people....
Thanks
Continue to insult peopleYou are the only one around here getting the insults, and you deserve it for being such a liar and making a fraudulent claim on a website that specializes in scrutinizing such claims. (You failed big time)
Good Point MarkE,Name some of the dumbasses who claim to hold PhD's but are so stupid that they think that one can gain energy cyclically lifting and lowering weights. It will be a hoot.
MarkE,
I suggest you put up your supposed proof that our system does not work - and prove our PHD's and Engineers and my self are all part of a vast conspiracy against science... and you and TK alone are the only ones wise enough protect us from our collective stupidity.....
Alllow me to let you in on something that is not a secret: You are a liar and a fraud.
Now you say you won't because you just know it won't work.... it has losses --- Let me let you in on a secret I shared last year - we have nine lossy exchanges in our system......and ample free energy ----
The definitions are not mine. They are properties of nature.
That made us face the truth - simple truth - the reality of a free energy device without some loss is magical......
And if you define Free energy as magical - and so discount every process forward...
They are one in the same.
You set yourself up for ignorance.
Free Energy - versus Over unity....
Tapping the neighbor's electricity outlet is not free energy. It is theft.
Can you define the difference?
If you think both are the same - well you go a head and stick in the past - we now have five separate ways to produce clean and free net energy - all with lossy systems.....
You are lying once again.
You will not show your supposed proof - because you do not actually have it - or you are not man enough to admit you were wrong.
ON PESN - when you claimed you ran a full simulation on the ZED system and then refused to "SHOW YOUR WORK" you proved yourself to be a liar then as well.
The liar and fraud Wayne Travis speaks. And it's BS once more.
Discounting a system due to losses is entropy logic - not net logic - do you know the difference?
good day Troll
Yes Mark,, they are, and just as that physical connection does not increase the assist of lift, but reduces that lift, so it does for the "ideal ZED"Wrong again. Keep trying Tom. One assembly: One sum of forces.
Lets just think about what and how they are communicating shall we.
State2,, R3 is pushing down on R2, R2 is pushing down on R1 and R1 is pushing down on the Pod.
R3 is the external point of interaction and the Pod and R1 are the internal point of resistance for R3 to push against. This also is what allows the force on the underside of physical Risers and Pod to push against the bottom of the physical device.
As I have stated you are bootstrapping R3 and R2 to get the forces YOU need to make the calculated lift distance.
You are making the claim that R3 is assisting in lifting R2 even after R3 has lost all of its own lift potential including the riser wall force.
Here is a simple evaluation of the actual lift distances and conditional changes within the system.
The OD force drops to zero for R2 when R3 looses all uplift force, at that distance R3 is resting on R2 and any further negative force from R3 is a hindrance to the uplift. The OD force drops to zero for R1 when R2 looses all uplift force, at that distance R2 and R3 are resting on R1 and any further negative force from R2-R3 is a hindrance to the uplift.
1.6836403000 AR7-AR6 same height
1.8083289794 R3 0.0 uplift
2.1373907915 R2 0.0 uplift
2.2789824056 lift distance with 0.0 OD force
2.5433715000 AR4-AR5 same height
2.5471001082 buoyant lift to 0.0
2.5904774097 calculated lift distance
From this simple evaluation it can be seen that the maximum lift distance by internal pressure forces stops at ~2.28mm and the buoyant forces will continue that lift on to ~2.547mm but will not make the calculated ~2.59mm
You know MarkE's picture with the soda bottles?? do you know what that is,, if it were Riser 3? that is this distance in the lift,,Just as in the Mondrasek problem, the water bottle rises until the net force is zero. That requires negative gauge pressure in the bottle, just as occurs for Riser 3 in the Mondrasek case.
1.8083289794 R3 0.0 uplift
That is when the lift available form the internal pressure is ZERO and the wall force, that would be the straws that are acting as pontoons, is matched by the weight of water lifted,, not a full lift at all.
Still can't read Mark?,, I am not talking about forces with what I posted now am I,, those are distances.Do I have to spell out each word, each syllable for you Tom? The R4 spreadsheet correctly determines the rest position in State 1X and State 3 as the position at which the sum of the forces acting on the free body assembly reaches zero. Riser 3 is not free to move independently of the rest of the assembly.
Yes Mark, a net zero lift force for riser 3.Tom, you can keep fighting reality as long as you want. You say that you draw free body diagrams. Draw one for this device.
Are you trying to use the wet spaghetti noodle argument? the one where you are pushing something with a wet spaghetti noodle.
When riser 3 has no more ability to move up on its own it must be MOVED up,, how is that assisting riser 2? The spacers do not allow riser 2 to get any closer to riser 3 and it is the lift force that riser 3 needs to communicate,, and well that goes negative,, so it is communicating a negative force,, IOW it is resting on Riser 2 and passing all of the burden straight onto the contact point between the risers,, just like your straws glued to the side of your little bottle.
That is true: two differing positions cannot both be right. All of my work is shown in the R4 spreadsheet. The R4 spreadsheet has held up just fine against multiple types of cross checks applied for the past month since I published it.
Webby and Mark,
there can be only one right answer. One of you could be right and one wrong.
Or you could both be wrong.
I would love to see the pair of you in agreement. Good luck!
John.
Mark D - is the best skeptic I ever met - instead of prejudice and attacking character - he helped us learn that what we had was not over unity.
Poor Wayne is trying to shift the burden of proof. That's the cat hissing when it's backed into a corner.It is pretty funny stuff.
This caught my eye:
LOL and WHAT?
You mean to tell me Wayne and his "team of engineers" did not know if their contraption was over unity or not? Supposedliy a team of consummate professionals? And they don't have the brains to know what they are looking at? They are working away for months like beavers and it takes a visit from Mark Dansie to straighten them all out?
It's the slip-ups like this in "reality" that tell the discerning eye that this is all a fraud and a farce. Not to mention all the other reasons.
What a joke.
Mark,Tom you just keep flailing about. Let me know if you ever come up with an actual defensible argument that something in the R4 spreadsheet is wrong.
Still can not read?
I posted that I was in error, and that the force on the OD is indeed needed.
However, I took that as a literal force on the actual OD, which it is not, but it IS a force that is in the system.
Should anyone ever discover a means to break the conservative nature of gravity, they would not need new terms to describe what they would have found. We already have appropriate terminology. What would require explanation are the circumstances under which non conservative behavior can be observed. So, no there is no: "he of course must throw in newly minted terms".
Well I beg to differ Mark - I'd like to see the terminology used & the reconciliation attempt between Work & Energy for Input & Output IF gravity was ever shown to be non-conservative in a Gravity Only mechanical device that did external work & was self sustaining.Let us suppose that such a thing were possible: Work and energy would not change their meanings. Gravity would not change its meaning. And certainly conservative would not need a new meaning. What would be needed is an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is not conservative. Would objects have to travel at some super high or low speed? Would two bodies have to have some extremely large mass separated by some small distance, etc, etc.
The frauds at Steorn came very close to making claims like that using magnetic viscosity instead of friction.
Of course, we do know of non-conservative forces like friction, but no one ever claimed to have a self sustaining device run by harnessing friction.
You may mean: integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where where F is constant over and in the direction of the path is F*S the the same as the integral of F*ds which is work.
The point being that a force x displacement equals Work [energy]
- and we know that a constant acceleration applied to a mass results in that object having kinetic energy equivalent to the force times displacement equationWe know Netown's Second Law: F=mA. Again, direction of the force and direction of acceleration matter. A satellite accelerates constantly, and is subjected to force constantly, but for practical purposes, no energy is expended.
- for a force to be non-conservative that same object with the same force applied over the same distance would acquire more or lesser Ke, without considering ordinary system losses to frictions etc.Forces are not conservative. The gravitational field is conservative. The force on a 10lb weight is not the force on a 20lb weight.
It seem you suggest that gravity is just like pi,Then you infer wrong.
here g is not always have the same value,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
;D ;D ;D
Then you infer wrong
Let us suppose that such a thing were possible: Work and energy would not change their meanings. Gravity would not change its meaning. And certainly conservative would not need a new meaning. What would be needed is an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is not conservative. Would objects have to travel at some super high or low speed? Would two bodies have to have some extremely large mass separated by some small distance, etc, etc.
You may mean: integral of F*ds. Only in the special case where where F is constant over and in the direction of the path is F*S the the same as the integral of F*ds which is work.We know Netown's Second Law: F=mA. Again, direction of the force and direction of acceleration matter. A satellite accelerates constantly, and is subjected to force constantly, but for practical purposes, no energy is expended.
Forces are not conservative. The gravitational field is conservative. The force on a 10lb weight is not the force on a 20lb weight.
We would indeed need an explanation of the conditions under which a gravitational field is NOT conservative ! I have always agreed with that statement - especially if a bona fide mechanical device using gravity only were to do external work & self sustain itself - then, given current understanding & terminologies, the non-conservative nature of, & the special mechanical circumstances where it could occur, would need further rendering & perhaps addendum to the laws.None of which requires new language, and certainly not the kind of bafflegab spewed by Wayne Travis.
The problem with getting loose with language is that there are those here who routinely misrepresent. Misrepresentation is the foundation of the Travis/HER/Zydro fraud.
Mark .. when I write something it usually isn't in isolation - usually it has some relevant context to give it substance or greater meaning - in this case I didn't think further clarification was necessary as I was talking about force & displacement in the context of the Work Energy Equivalence Principle - vis-a-vis, work can only be done on an object in the direction of the force, & I did talk about a constant acceleration so the descriptive of integral wasn't required IMO - clearly a satellite in orbit is accelerating but the gravity force is normal to the direction therefore no work is done on it, in the context of my comments.
No not where I come from it isn't, because: force is not conserved. A lever proves that.
It is common vernacular to talk about conservative forces [I'm pretty sure you used the term]
- clearly since f = maF=mA. F is a vector, A is a vector.
where there is a mass component intersecting with a field or gradient of potential etc then a force results - if the mass is larger or smaller so is the force however the gravitational acceleration remains the same.No, F=mA works just fine outside relativistic speeds. And again: F is a vector as is A. Directionality is intrinsic to the equation.
N.B. F = ma is not as fundamental a principle as say the laws of thermodynamics - clearly there are exceptions as you pointed out when the directions are not aligned & I addressed - however that argument I consider to be outside the context or intent of my original comments.
ETA: you can take it as a given from me that I'm also not talking about relativistic speeds & changing mass or inertia etc.
Hi John .. yep, I come from a farming background so know well the hardships of lambing etc - same reticence when I have to kill some house or dog tucker, but the job has to be done.Webby has not to my knowledge made any argument concerning the energy state values in S1 or S3. The stored energies are in the spreadsheet. The methods by which they are calculated is in plain English algebra with notes and drawings. Tom has for the past month asserted what he claims to be errors in the R4 spreadsheet. Each time I have shown that it is actually Tom who has been mistaken, whether it be about the numerical accuracy limits of Excel (ask Tom about his 60m high 28nm movement configuration), how to calculate the fluid volume a submerged or partially submerged object displaces, or his latest odd concept of rejecting linear superposition.
Haven't looked at the R4 spreadsheet John - just back after 2 months away with things to take care of here that take precedence - actually I trust MarkE's skills in putting that model together accurately - it was done in conjunction with others input such as Mondrasek & Webby I believe, so it is probably representative enough for analysis purposes - where the problem appears to be is in the interpretation of what it is showing & what's going on - there is a disconnect, mainly between MarkE & Webby, about the residual energy left from going from S3 back to S1 i.e. S1>S2>S3>S1 - it appears that S3 has a higher energy level than S1 with the crux being that extra volume under pressure can be vented elsewhere at no cost to return to S1 energy levels - perhaps I got this wrong but MarkE or Webby or Mondrasek can set this straight.
Then you should have no objection to treating it as such. If one is precise in their communication then the opportunities for misunderstanding are minimized.
BTW .. Mondrasek kindly sent me a revision of Mark's R4 spreadsheet with his own observations & conclusions - I will leave it to him to throw that in the ring or not, as he sees fit - I am not about to play catchup when I have so much else going on at the moment so I can't cross check the work that's been done until I have the mind space & time to do so properly - besides there are capable people already on the job.
.....................................
MarkE .. whatever mate - yeah, I know force is a vector as do most high school graduates.
Wayne Travis' free energy claims are false on their face. No one has offered any evidence to support them. Mondrasek said in his OP that he had a model of a three riser system that Mondrasek believed showed free energy. That model has been shown to be erroneous, and that there is no free energy to be had from the three riser "ideal ZED" that Mondrasek set out to model.
.....................................
Comment: Until Wayne Travis produces a bona fide independently verified mechanical machine that runs on gravity [aka buoyancy] & does external work & doesn't need internal replenishment of energy then I see no further value in hashing & rehashing the last two years of thread content & increasingly personal & subjective comments about individuals on all sides of the debate.
Wayne Travis says that he is not seeking further investment. You might want to check the difference between what Wayne says and what is reality. They are frequently at direct odds.
I feel that the hardline skeptics have dutifully & vocally warned me of the high probability of fraud in the claims & representations - whilst personally I would not invest [& I know that WT is not looking for further investment]
Were anyone to come through with a ground breaking clean energy technology it would be great. Wayne Travis has established that he has no technology of any kind to offer and that he is defrauding his investors.
I also believe that any investment, even in emerging technology, is inherently a high risk scenario - 'caveat emptor' comes to mind - personally, I don't feel the need to act as defender of the truth or cast myself into the role of fish mongers wife routing the snake oil salesman - ateotd WT has made his bed - he will lie in it, one way or another - history would say that it is unlikley that WT will ever come thru but stranger things have happened - if he does I would be pleased.
I argue on the basis of: established, demonstrable science. There is no faith required in what can and has been verified countless times. Wayne Travis is a con man selling faith in his false claims. Wayne Travis claims that he has the means to alter the conservative nature of gravity. He has produced no evidence of his outlandish claim. Wayne Travis claims that he can produce energy ex nihilo by cyclically raising and lowering weights. He has produced no evidence of his outlandish claim. I know why and so do you.
Right now, without that demonstrable machine, both sides argue on positions of faith - faith in science & faith in that the extraordinary is possible - seldom do I take any position on faith alone.
Poor Wayne is trying to shift the burden of proof. That's the cat hissing when it's backed into a corner.Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?
This caught my eye:
LOL and WHAT?
You mean to tell me Wayne and his "team of engineers" did not know if their contraption was over unity or not? Supposedliy a team of consummate professionals? And they don't have the brains to know what they are looking at? They are working away for months like beavers and it takes a visit from Mark Dansie to straighten them all out?
It's the slip-ups like this in "reality" that tell the discerning eye that this is all a fraud and a farce. Not to mention all the other reasons.
What a joke.
Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. There is no need to worry about any hypothetical over unity system. You do not have the free energy technology that you claim. Yes, Wayne you are a joke to all but the investors you have defrauded. How's that endorsement by any Ph.D.'s going? I don't see any endorsements for you by Mark Dansie either.
Thanks for making the insult that displays your (nicely) misunderstanding... and opportunity to emphasize a important point...
If a system has ZERO INPUT, and has ample OUTPUT - how do you exactly divide into ZERO???
Let me be clear what was explained to us..... which you missed again.....
A paradigm shift in the understanding of physics - that energy can be produced at a consumer end mechanically without the consumption of fuel.......................
Do you think that is a joke?
p.s. Again -since you claimed he proved our system did not work - Did you ask MarkE or TK how much energy is in the ZED system (that could be recycled) after a load was lifted?
Wayne
Oh my dear MarkE,You have never identified any actual energy output from a ZED. Any output energy (including the apparent zero energy) delivered by a ZED is exceeded by the input energy.
So you won't answer my question:
How much energy is in our ZED after the external load has been produced?
But you will post 15 times calling me a liar and fraud.....
We all know you have skills - and we all know you are diverting attention from the truth.
How's that endorsement by any Ph.D.'s going? I don't see any endorsements for you by Mark Dansie either.
The Trolls will retreat under the bridge and be forgotten.
Wayne:Small correction MH,
The ship is coming in on you. The whole wide world is watching you.
MileHigh
BTW .. Mondrasek kindly sent me a revision of Mark's R4 spreadsheet with his own observations & conclusions - I will leave it to him to throw that in the ring or not, as he sees fit - I am not about to play catchup when I have so much else going on at the moment so I can't cross check the work that's been done until I have the mind space & time to do so properly - besides there are capable people already on the job.
To All,Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
I know how unbelievable a mechanical free energy device seems.
I also know the push back - and the Trolling.
I have meet good skeptics, and read bad ones..........so far none of the bad skeptics have taken the effort to come visit....
A bad skeptic is one who looks to disprove rather than understand. That is a preconceived conclusion prior to "learning"
I have had plenty of engineers and PHD's review our work and have the hair raise on their arms when it hits - that we do indeed have a mechanical free energy machine....
And then the amplification's run thru their minds...........................
Now, I waste my time here for 99.9 percent of the time with four bad skeptics.....Who frankly have wasted your time too.
A good or bad skeptic has little to do with skill or education ... it has to do with character and honor.
Okay, fletcher. Well played. You do your name proud with that one, you big tease!If I am to understand that you added a 0.101715694N weight then what do you think that changes behaviorally? It does not change the fundamentally lossy behavior of the device. What is the point?
MarkE, I have worked with your spreadsheet. I downloaded it yesterday. I was saddened to see I was only the 9th person to do so, if the website counters are correct. It is a masterful piece of work, as I expected.
I modified it to add a Mass to Riser 3 so that we could complete a full CYCLE State 1 -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 1 per my concerns outlined here:
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395555/#msg395555
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg395634/#msg395634
I highlighted all of my changes and take no credit for anything else. Your hard work is evident and worthy of full credit. In fact, if you think the changes are worth keeping, I would be honored if you would update and produce an R5 version yourself, rather than us use a version that I modified.
Please let me know if you have any issues with adjusting the Mass of Riser 3 so that State 1 is neutrally buoyant and does not "pop" up to State 1X anymore. The major result of this is that the State 3 lift value is slightly reduced.
BTW, I did not bother to adjust any State 0 to State 1 portions of the spreadsheet since they do not come into play in the cycle I have outlined.
M.
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.Diversion...
A day will come Wayne when everybody knows the real story on you. The good guys will win and make no mistake, you are the bad guy.So you think the suppressors are the good guys? Makes sense considering your behavior.
Do you understand an NDA?
Such as gee how much energy is left in the system after the load is lifted, and how much does it cost to reset the system.....what could we do with this extra energy???
Diversion...As predicted you can't find anyone with an actual technical reputation to vouch for you. Sure Wayne, tell your silly story. Everyone knows that no scientist would want to be associated with you, so of course they would demand you never disclose their association with your fraud.
Do you understand an NDA?
I am waiting for you to explain why we can not recycle the input......
Who actually avoids the facts?
That's right....... Trolls
Thanks
So you think the suppressors are the good guys? Makes sense considering your behavior.Ah, we now enter the world of the fraud Wayne Travis': Wayne speak. Bad guy: That's you Wayne, sells fraudulent investment in non-existent free energy technology.
Bad guy make free energy machine -- Bad man, bad man.....
Maybe you should down load mikes file and ask yourself a couple questions -
Such as gee how much energy is left in the system after the load is lifted, and how much does it cost to reset the system.....what could we do with this extra energy???
MH ....I am sorry in advance - you have treated a good man, machine, and team like crap..........
And if you are a good man at all - it will suck.. to be you...
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
Wayne You Missed It TravisThe fraud Wayne Travis asserts that no Ph.D. or professional engineer will endorse his fraud. He claims that there is no Ph.D. or professional engineer that will even allow them to invoke his name for fear they will sue him for damage caused them should he do so. Does that sound like any of these supposed experts think they have latched onto a breakthrough in physics? No, no, no, there isn't anyoe who wants to put their reputation on the line for the fraud: Wayne Travis.
MarkE ask you a simple question, Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
Did you just miss the above question, will RE Post it in bold (save you going back and looking for it)
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
There it is simple as simple is, in plain words on the page, but we know your answer will be nothing but excuses and insults.
Mark,Read his posts Tom. The fraud Wayne Travis claims that he has Ph.D.s and engineers who support his fraudulent claims. He does not. He has cooked up the claim that NDAs prevent him from identifying such individuals. They do not exist.
Show exactly where Wayne has said this.
Since you can not then this is an absolute falsehood, and one done with full understanding and knowledge.
How much is left in a real ZED Mark,, you keep avoiding the question, after lift how much input is left in the system.
I can tell you how much, all of it is still there and still at full pressure. This simple fact is enough for any reasonable person to realize that the "ideal ZED" is not a ZED and that your conclusions drawn from those experiments about the functionality of a real ZED are false.
If I am to understand that you added a 0.101715694N weight then what do you think that changes behaviorally? It does not change the fundamentally lossy behavior of the device. What is the point?
Diversion....Troll
That is actually a quite funny and revealing statement, mr fraud.
Can you post a copy of the document?
What a joke, just like Mark Dansie "correcting" the understanding of your alleged TEAM OF ENGINEERS. There is no team of engineers from what I can discern, just you and perhaps a few cronies.Wow, you took the time to write that but did not answer the question:
You ask a nonsensical question complete with zero information, no diagrams, no setup information, and you ask for an answer? It's just as retarded as your entire alleged development team allegedly working for months and months on the project and not knowing if it's over unity or not. That was a slip-up on your part, Wayne. That was a line that you could feed to a bunch of rich old ladies at a retirement home and get away with it. But not for me. You got caught saying something totally and completely nonsensical, something that simply would be impossible to happen in real life. You got caught.
Like I said before, you are a clown, just like John Rohner was and is a clown. I am the one that knows about developing products and launching them into production and working with teams of hardware, software, manufacturing, test, and quality engineers. And I can tell you from real-world experience that what you say rings hollow, it's all a fake. Your whole narrative about developing your product comes of as a complete fake, an imaginary story by Wayne about what he thinks it should sound like.
I really hope you get swarmed and hammered by the media one day.
I can imagine the headlines:
"Self-declared developer of 'Free Energy' device convicted of fraud."
MileHigh
Post a copy of your Nda, so here will be no more one asking about your engineer qualification, hide the thing that you think confidential, i see that's the only way, or you reveal one. ;DI have watched the diversions for over two years - this one is pathetic.
good night.
As predicted you can't find anyone with an actual technical reputation to vouch for you. Sure Wayne, tell your silly story. Everyone knows that no scientist would want to be associated with you, so of course they would demand you never disclose their association with your fraud.Diversion Troll.
Ah, we now enter the world of the fraud Wayne Travis': Wayne speak. Bad guy: That's you Wayne, sells fraudulent investment in non-existent free energy technology.Really, you stick with that one...
Mondrasek has yet to offer any claim for his proposed change. Gravity is still conservative with or without adding a static weight.
Wayne You Missed It TravisGee Powercat - Did you almost miss the troll band wagon.......
MarkE ask you a simple question, Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
Did you just miss the above question, will RE Post it in bold (save you going back and looking for it)
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud. You won't and we all know why.
There it is simple as simple is, in plain words on the page, but we know your answer will be nothing but excuses and insults.
Mark,DITO...
Show exactly where Wayne has said this.
Since you can not then this is an absolute falsehood, and one done with full understanding and knowledge.
How much is left in a real ZED Mark,, you keep avoiding the question, after lift how much input is left in the system.
I can tell you how much, all of it is still there and still at full pressure. This simple fact is enough for any reasonable person to realize that the "ideal ZED" is not a ZED and that your conclusions drawn from those experiments about the functionality of a real ZED are false.
Read his posts Tom. The fraud Wayne Travis claims that he has Ph.D.s and engineers who support his fraudulent claims. He does not. He has cooked up the claim that NDAs prevent him from identifying such individuals. They do not exist.MarkE,
You are surely free to continue to demonstrate your ignorance of basic science by trying to suggest that Wayne's fraudulent claims have any possibility of being true.
What a joke, just like Mark Dansie "correcting" the understanding of your alleged TEAM OF ENGINEERS. There is no team of engineers from what I can discern, just you and perhaps a few cronies.I have been consistent from day one where I did see a device that I stated would have to run at the time for at least two days to meet my criteria. I am not sure "what I corrected". I am also under an NDA which I will always honor (I have may dozens of them with different technologies I assess)
MileHigh
Gee Powercat - Did you almost miss the troll band wagon.......
Now seriously - who is insulting you - you spit vile trash, slander good people, refuse to admit your lies, and then you cry because one person stood up to your suppression and lies..... Troll
Tell everyone this Powercat - by what physic's have you proven our machine does not work as claimed and as MarkE inadvertently proven?
or more insults to cover up and divert.....
Yeah........ you do not have character either.
I have watched the diversions for over two years - this one is pathetic.
Read his posts Tom. The fraud Wayne Travis claims that he has Ph.D.s and engineers who support his fraudulent claims. He does not. He has cooked up the claim that NDAs prevent him from identifying such individuals. They do not exist.
You are surely free to continue to demonstrate your ignorance of basic science by trying to suggest that Wayne's fraudulent claims have any possibility of being true.
I have been consistent from day one where I did see a device that I stated would have to run at the time for at least two days to meet my criteria. I am not sure "what I corrected". I am also under an NDA which I will always honor (I have may dozens of them with different technologies I assess)
Just a few other points.
1. I use my real name and contact details in public
2. I always state I use qualified scientist and engineers to assist in my work, at least three have visited Wayne offering advice on a wide range of topics namely what would be required with an assessment of a POC
3. I have met with qualified engineers and college educated assistants in Wayne's group that do believe in what they are doing, I also know of several others who have visited and have assisted from time to time. They have presented their cases, sometimes with genuine conviction. However I am not qualified to analyse what was presented to me.
4. I am not involved in the project development, but have offered along with several other of my engineer and science friends to be available to assist with evaluating any proof of concept.
5. I have in person on three occasions advised on what outcomes I would be looking to be satisfied that it did what was claimed.
I really am not sure why you want to attack or shoot the messenger (me). Go read revolution-Green where I regularly expose technologies as scams and technologies that are just BS. I am running a series on Hope-Girl and the QEG at the moment.
I have also stated I will stay out of this or any other discussion where I am under NDA and do not have the skill set to argue the science and calculations use. Does that mean I am endorsing Wayne? No, I will wait till a proof of concept comes available to complete my assessment.
Perhaps I misread your intent MileHigh, but suggesting I am some sort of joke and I am correcting my stance is perhaps a reflection on my communication skills. I have respect for you, Mark E and TK. I have at time have received criticism from you and TK, which I have taken on board and in some cases acted upon. But I have always treated you all with integrity, is it too much to ask the same.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
As predicted you avoided the question, you must have missed it, it's a perfectly reasonable question, I will posted again for you, maybe we'll help you if it's in red letters,
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud..
@ Powercat
I agree Wayne is not doing himself or anyone any favors here. I would personally never take on TK or Mark E on any maths or science challenge. I have advised Wayne many times not to post and wait till he has a POC before making public statements.
I agree, a POC would settle things.
Kind Regards
Mark
Again, he does not have to name anyone. What, just because he gives a name, it proves something to you? Then what, you want their address? Phone no.?? Or you will search and hunt them down??? ??? ::) Real nice. Get real dude. What a farce.
How bout you give us your name, number and address, where you went to school, whats your wifes name? How about your kids names? your mom and dads name? Where do you work? Prove your credentials?. Or how about you Mark. Milehigh? Tk??? Anyone else want to step up to that plate??? ::) Oh, it is only your 'demands' that count here. Yeah right.
Mags
Hmm. I can imagine that if Wayne were to introduce an engineer or Ph.D here, it would be necessary to give their full name and possibly some other ID in order for it to be checked out that they are really who they say they are.
Well wouldnt that be a wonderful thing for that engineer or Ph.D to do so, reveal who they are in the real world right here and now, along with complete information so they can be hassled in their lives beyond this forum. I can see it now.....
"Well hello Mr. Fraud Engineer and accomplice Mr Fraud Ph.D?. Tell us your lies Mr engineer. Tell us your Lies Mr Ph.D." ::) Right off the bat. ;) Yeah, that would be fun for them, considering the NDA would be in the way of them being able to explain anything further than has already been discussed here. So whats the point?. More people to slander and insult consistently? I would not subject these people to this sort of 'non professionalism'. ::) ;) Like I said above, these people would have to fully identify themselves in order for it to be believed that they are who the claim to be. And if they were to read through this thread first to see who and what abuse and bullying they would be subjected to, why would they want to even get involved in that kind of demonizing and never ending consistent insults and libel? ::)
So what would be the point in Wayne doing so if they could not divulge anything beyond the NDA? ;) What, the NDA is an indication of fraud? ::) They are 'very' important documents when presenting and idea to others so as to protect the idea by revealing to chosen others. It is standard procedure in presenting new ideas/inventions. Show me an example that an NDA is an absolute indication of fraud. So you can drop that balony right here and now. ;)
Heck, TK woulndt ever reveal who he is, no way no how. He would not reveal his full credentials, where and how they were obtained. For what reasons? The same that these engineers and Ph,D's 'should not' engage here with full presentation as to who they are in the real world. This thread is a perfect reason and example. Pretty simple really. ;)
And if you said, " Oh, I will be cordial and only kind words will be used when conversing with them Wayne" Why would anyone believe that? ??? After reading all the bashing towards Wayne, Tom, Mike and Larry, WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU MARK? ??? ? And no matter how you try to explain how good you would treat them, the history of this thread is you are a bully. That cannot be denied. Its written in stone bud. ;) You are stuck with that here in this forum. You cant just stick to the technical issues to present your case. There has to be nastiness included on every page. Lol, like it is productive and shows what a big smart man you are. What a joke. Well, thats just your way. Oh, its not just your way? ;) Who else here is acting the same way? You know who you are.
Its really funny that just about every one of you is abusive. Why is that I wonder? All from the same school of, "cant beat then down with technical knowledge, so bully tactics are necessary."
So much respect you all deserve. ::) Keep up the good works. ::) Its really workin for ya. ::) ::)
Mags
Again, he does not have to name anyone. What, just because he gives a name, it proves something to you? Then what, you want their address? Phone no.?? Or you will search and hunt them down??? ??? ::) Real nice. Get real dude. What a farce.I'm not claiming to have a free energy device, therefore I do not need to justify my position, I really don't mind how ludicrous the idea anyone might have of how to produce free energy / OU, I will always wish them the best of luck in their research,
How bout you give us your name, number and address, where you went to school, whats your wifes name? How about your kids names? your mom and dads name? Where do you work? Prove your credentials?. Or how about you Mark. Milehigh? Tk??? Anyone else want to step up to that plate??? ::) Oh, it is only your 'demands' that count here. Yeah right.
Mags
MarkE, here is what I sent to Fletcher (and some others) last Friday. Just to be clear: The full cycle I am considering is State 1 -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 1.If you do that then whether or not you come up with a mechanism for recovering the energy in the water you pump in and dump each cycle, then you are simply compounding the losses.
The graphics you find so annoying make plain to most, but apparently not Tom what is going on in each state.
Quote (from previous e-mails)
I modified it to include a Mass for Riser 3 (the outer riser) so that the system would NOT lift from State 1 to State 1X. I marked this minimal change and all locations needed for how it integrates into the other calculations by highlighting the first row of my additions with yellow. Also, I added that first blank row as I prefer spreadsheets not to start without blank boarders (just me being me). And I removed the annoying graphics since they are not needed. And changed the time constant for the spillway from 0.5 sec to 5 seconds to make that process more "Ideal."
Qh the joys of playing with numbers. "Exact match" means no difference. But the algebra does not lie and it shows that you never have an exact match. You always come up short. Why, because no matter how you slice it, you need net force which when integrated over the lift distance means net energy in order to lift the payload. It is an inescapable loss no mater what ridiculous steps are taken such as moving the assembly very, very, slowly, or truncating digits in the values.
Energy at State 1 (ST1PrefillEnergy) is still 3.4123 mJ.
Energy add to charge the system from State 1 to State 2 (ST2_EnergyAdded) is still 2.0984 mJ.
And the total Energy at State 2 (ST2_EnergyAddedPlusSt1E) is still 5.5107mJ.
Due to the added Mass of Riser 3 the lift is now only 2.41136mm.
The new Spillway Energy that could be collected (Spill_water_energy) is 1.6510mJ.
The Work performed in lifting the Riser 3 Mass (.101716N * .00241136m) is .24527mJ.
Energy at State 3 (ST3_EStoredTotal) is now 3.6145mJ.
If you sum the above 3 values you get (1.6510 + .24527 + 3.6145) = 5.5107mJ.
So it is an exact match. All the Energy present in State 2 is accounted for in the transition to State 3.
Duh, look at how much energy was added. I hope you aren't going to make a Wayne Travis or Tom Web type special pleading to count only part of a cycle as a cycle.
HOWEVER, please note that there is more Energy left in the system at State 3 (3.6145mJ) than we began with at State 1 (3.4123mJ).
And it takes NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY to return from State 3 to State 1. IE if we "pull the plug" when at State 3, the input water will naturally vent (under pressure) and the system will settle back to State 1. The amount of excess Energy that must be vented is the difference of the Energy values at State 3 and State 1 (3.6145mJ - 3.4123mJ) = .2022mJ.
You still have a fundamentally lossy scheme.
End quote.
That is what I am considering now. I'm not sure if it means anything or not.
Diversion Troll.The way that you li so freely and shamelessly is just awesome Wayne. The math and physics are completely against you yet you just keep repeating your fantastical tales of: Wayne Travis fraud.
I know you are not stupid MarkE that only leaves one reason you refuse to admit what the Math clearly shows .... Troll
Really, you stick with that one...Of course you don't alter the conservative nature of gravity Wayne. You just lie about that on your website claiming that you do.
p.s. So you do not confuse people more with that diversion - we do not alter gravity - as we have said many many times..... As RED SUNSET explained many times - We alter the process during different orientations......
Makes using Gravity as an energy source possible...
Thanks
DITO...Having trouble reading your own posts Wayne?
MarkE,Ah, more verbal effluent from the fraud : Wayne Travis. LOL, just make up any old story and see who is stupid enough to believe it.
If you are not going to admit you are wrong - stop being a liar on this thread and bug off.
Your diversion tactics will no longer be tolerated.
Tom is right - "any" reasonable person can see the obvious facts here - one - that the energy is still in the Zed and could be recycled... Hence my term "Super Conservative" fits nicely.
And two: that you are a fraud - refusing to accept your own Math....
P.s. Our team - is awesome...
I did Mark, and you are making a false claim.LOL. You are so lost Tom. You are free to perform an energy balance you think is favorable anytime. You're efforts over the past month to dispute the R4 spreadsheet have been a complete failure.
You are also still avoiding the simple question of how much of the input volume and pressure is left after the lift of a real ZED.
Useless wall of text.Any working professional who actually believed that they were witness to a break through in science would be happy to associate themselves with such a discovery. But for the Travis cadre there is no discovery. There is a carnival barker act.
Again, he does not have to name anyone. What, just because he gives a name, it proves something to you? Then what, you want their address? Phone no.?? Or you will search and hunt them down??? ??? ::) Real nice. Get real dude. What a farce.The fraud Wayne Travis claims professionals endorse his false claims. That's just another of his lies. No competent professional ever has does or ever will endorse Wayne Travis false claims.
How bout you give us your name, number and address, where you went to school, whats your wifes name? How about your kids names? your mom and dads name? Where do you work? Prove your credentials?. Or how about you Mark. Milehigh? Tk??? Anyone else want to step up to that plate??? ::) Oh, it is only your 'demands' that count here. Yeah right.
Mags
I really [color=#0081BD !important][/color] not sure why you want to attack or shoot the messenger (me). Go read revolution-Green where I regularly expose technologies as scams and technologies that are just BS. I [color=#0081BD !important][/color] running a series on Hope-Girl and the QEG at the moment.
That is just brilliant. So let's perform the tally:
State 1 is the initial state. And the zero energy reference.
State 1 to State 2 requires 2.0984 mJ energy added
State 2 to State 3 delivers 1.6510 mJ energy removed to your spillway payload
State 3 to State 1 you have not specified any recovery mechanism
Now you are back at State 1
You have now completed a cycle are now down 0.4474mJ. Your efficiency is: 78.7%.You still have a fundamentally lossy scheme.
Very true.This device is a piece of junk. If you were to cycle just between states 2 and 3 it emulates a much smaller, cheaper and more robust compression spring. With the ST1 => ST2 => St3 =>St1 sequence it's an even more complicated and less efficient spring. The silly claims of over unity that Wayne and his cadre make for these silly contraptions are completely and laughably false.
But how does the 78.7% efficiency of this Ideal ZED model compare to the efficiency of a simple hydraulic cylinder? The answer to that question is why I am still interested in examining the ZED.
Also, how does that 78.7% efficiency compare to the Maximum theoretical efficiency of a simple Archimedes lift system?
Seriously, MarkE. If you do not want to examine the math behind a ZED, then please move on. Or join in the investigation.
I would prefer that you join in.
M.
Very true.
But how does the 78.7% efficiency of this Ideal ZED model compare to the efficiency of a simple hydraulic cylinder? The answer to that question is why I am still interested in examining the ZED.
Also, how does that 78.7% efficiency compare to the Maximum theoretical efficiency of a simple Archimedes lift system?
Seriously, MarkE. If you do not want to examine the math behind a ZED, then please move on. Or join in the investigation.
I would prefer that you join in.
M.
Sure thing Mark,Tom you are so full of it that your eyes must ooze brown.
It is entertaining how you avoid the questions that do not support your view, and then you also choose to take an ideal mathematical model and require a non-ideal external extraction process,, not exactly good science is it Mark.
I have shown that Mondrasek's device does behave linearly. You are free to keep trying to show otherwise. You will fail like you have failed with your other assertions for 160 plus pages now.
The system also does not behave in a linear fashion, but then to play with that a person would not be able to use your spreadsheet, would they Mark.
Tom the ST2_ST3_EXT_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY value is 99.87% for your change. The last time I checked that is still under 100%. It has been more than four weeks now and you still don't understand the spreadsheet. If you make the spillway time longer and longer, IE reduce the power throughput capability closer and closer to zero then you can push the efficiency closer and closer to 100%. But you can never get to 100% and have the machine actually cycle. I have shown you the physics and the algebra several times. That you present yourself as unable to comprehend those realities is your shortcoming.
Heaven forbid if someone were to play with the AR1 fill heights. What if they put in a height value of 21.57mm or less,, then what.
That's right,, that just becomes stupid because there is more out than what was put in,, and that without changing your spreadsheet, except for the spillway time.
ST2_AR1Height 21.57mm
ST2_EnergyAdded 0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_INTERNAL_ENERGY_LOSS 0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed 0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS 17.3%
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS vs ST2_ENERGY_ADDED 100.00%
ST3_Uplift 1.584875mm Up Lift Distance
ST2_AR1Height 15mm
ST2_EnergyAdded 0.0003449J
ST2_ST3_INTERNAL_ENERGY_LOSS 0.0003799J
ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed 0.0003799J
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS 10.1%
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS vs ST2_ENERGY_ADDED 110.15%
ST3_Uplift 1.156696mm
Go figure that,, those changes just by changing the AR1 fill height.
M:
But, how does that 78.7% compare with a simple spring?
Just saying...
Bill
M:Unless the spring is made of Playdough: the "ideal ZED" compares badly, and any "real ZED" compares even worse.
But, how does that 78.7% compare with a simple spring?
Just saying...
Bill
That is also true, Bill.But of course your "ideal ZED" behaves as a linear spring. For the dimensions you specify: At State 2 it has a force constant of -.57N/mm and a preload of 2.59mm. At State 3 it has relaxed to zero preload.
In my opinion there might be a difference between a simple spring and a ZED. And that is because I know (think I know?) how a simple spring acts. For a simple spring it does not matter what changes I make to the geometry of the spring: it will always display the properties of F=kX.
Right now I am not so sure about a ZED. It does not appear to act only to follow the expected F=mA requirements (nor an F=kX spring relationship).
And so I think it is necessary to test changes to the geometry of the model of the Ideal ZED to see if it always provides an (unusually high) efficiency of 78.7%, or if that efficiency varies under certain dimensional considerations.
M.
As predicted you avoided the question, you must have missed it, it's a perfectly reasonable question, I will posted again for you, maybe we'll help you if it's in red letters,Diversion Troll
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud..
mrwayneMy Business are private thank you.
Do you think i tried to make diversion ?, show us that your nda stated that you must hide your engineer identities, dunno how, or maybe just type it here, so, there will be no more one asking about your engineer, right ?. you talk about diversion, if you can eliminate "engineer issue" then you can eliminate at least one diversion, the discussion will run smoothly on mathematical proof only, that's my point, but sadly you took it wrong.
sometime, i think it is you who make diversion, but whatever..
see your actual machine, October next years.
peace...
It's good to hear you state your position, but Wayne's mathematics has been shown to be at fault and no one has ever been able to produce a working device that produces free energy from his mathematics.Secret LOL - The ZED has been revealed in pain staking detail - while enduring your trash talk....
Wayne apparently chooses not to release any information that might support his claim and of course let's not forget the promised public verification..... all we get from Wayne is excuses like ...everything is secrets until some future launch date = if everything is so secret why the hell come on this website in the first place. The man comes across as a conman.
But of course your "ideal ZED" behaves as a linear spring. For the dimensions you specify: At State 2 it has a force constant of -.57N/mm and a preload of 2.59mm. At State 3 it has relaxed to zero preload.
78% efficiency for a spring is crap.
Let's see... if Mags doesn't know something, then nobody does, and that makes your argument invalid. Is that how it goes, Magsie?Very scientific of you TK.... are these the assumptions you used to make your facts??
FYI:
1. There are plenty of people who know just exactly who and what I am, my history and qualifications and etc. and some of them are reading this thread right now. You aren't one of them, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The "important" people do know! If you want to know why people on the internet want to preserve their privacy a little bit .... well, just google "internet killers" for examples.
2. If I had a device that was truly OU and that I was trying to publicize, sell, make money from, convince the set of insignificant trolls of..... you bet I'd be saying right out front everything anybody needed to know to make my claim as credible as possible, starting with the names of my co-authors on the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that announce my discovery to the scientific world....that is, if the US DoD and Naval Research Laboratories aren't already knocking at (down) my door. No problem, bro.....
3. Once again.... it doesn't matter if the critics are a bunch of anonymous pastry cooks...... what matters is that the Claimant, Honest Wayne Travis, has never yet produced the evidence for his claims. But it's more than that: not only has he just not produced it, he has FAILED, he has "expectations not met, promises not kept, doors closing" and so forth: meaning he still doesn't have a self runner as he claimed and he is still paying for his electric bill at his home and shop.
Under normal circumstances a lot of what you say is very justified, but we are talking about Wayne Travis' who won't give out any technical information who won't have his device verified who promises things will happen soon, who keeps telling everyone they have missed it.Powercatt ........ I won't give any technical information...... oh brother...........
The way that you li so freely and shamelessly is just awesome Wayne. The math and physics are completely against you yet you just keep repeating your fantastical tales of: Wayne Travis fraud.Yeah, I will wait for you to apologize...... just won't hold my breath.
[/left]When this group of fish known as Tetraodontidae blow themselves up into a ball, they are actually making a last-resort action to defend themselves.
If it was any good there's no reason a qualified person wouldn't be able to verify it.
Koala, MarkE and Mark Dansie are all really honest as far as I can see and I wouldn't
doubt their scientific ability.
John.
Mark Dansie:
You are misunderstanding the context or I was not clear enough. There is no attacking of you. The issue is that Wayne clearly stated that his development group got direction from you that they did not have an over unity system. The issue is on Wayne's side.
It makes no sense at all that his development team would not understand if they had over unity or not, and they had to get guidance from you. It's akin to developing an electric shaver and your development team is not sure if it can shave a man's beard or not and they have to get in a consultant to tell them if they are on the right path or not. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Just like Wayne's description of his system is in absolutely ridiculous nonsensical pseudo technical terms that make no sense.
Wayne poses his 'hardball' question challenging people to explain his alleged technology and the question is absolutely ridiculous and doesn't even make any sense. Just like his description of his alleged system doesn't even make any sense.
Wayne got caught making a statement that destroyed his already destroyed credibility. I wasn't there for your visits so I can only use my own common sense to try to make sense of this ZED fiasco. You advising his 'team of engineers' if they had over unity or not is a completely ridiculous farce as far as I am concerned. This is not about you at all, it's about Wayne and his alleged team. It's like a scene right out of the movie Dr. Strangelove.
MileHigh
Once again MH......Troll
MileHigh
[/left]
Every time you try to claim our system is colossal - I laugh - who are you trying to convince - maybe new readers....or what --- You and I have discussed this over and over....
For it to work you'd need at least 150% back from a stroke and the machine would
have to be colossal.
John.
Excuse me???
Wayne got caught making a statement that destroyed his already destroyed credibility. I wasn't there for your visits so I can only use my own common sense to try to make sense of this ZED fiasco. You advising his 'team of engineers' if they had over unity or not is a completely ridiculous farce as far as I am concerned.
MileHigh
The ZED STILL HAS ALL ITS INPUT AFTER THE EXTERNAL LOAD IS LIFTED....
Once the mechanical barrier was broken (past tense for us) to be able to build a machine that harness a process able to generate energy - without fuel, without consuming anything...
The maturity was required to realize that Over unity - was not the only method available to generate Net Energy.
I know you do not get this yet..... because you keep acting superior and insulting good people.
We have a Paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanics----- Mechanical [color=#0081BD !important][/color] does not require Over unity - it requires A Super conservative process....
Evaluating it as a Over unity device - is a Pre - paradigm shift Error -
We work as we 'might' to catch you up----- but you are not listening.
You only posture for another self Ego stroke....
Once again MH......Troll
The math has no opinion, it has no alliances, it has no prejudices, it has no gangs..
Facts are facts......
The ZED STILL HAS ALL ITS INPUT AFTER THE EXTERNAL LOAD IS LIFTED....
Tell me another system that can do that.......................or will you come back with another psych babble analysis instead of the facts.....
You owe us an apology
Thanks.....
Wayne:You have added something scientific to the discussion?
Bollocks. You clearly are not even capable of posing a question or describing a system in comprehensible scientific terms. You want to pose the question in scientific terms with diagrams that illustrate the problem then you will get an answer.
It makes me think of Webby all proud after posing a similar question to me. The "catch" was that if a descending bucket is falling under the influence of gravity and also attached to a pulley that lifts another smaller bucket as it falls, then the descending bucket hits the ground with less kinetic energy because some energy was used to lift the smaller bucket. I clearly explained to Webby that all the energy was accounted for and everything balanced. I can only guess that Webby was looking for a "victory" and it somehow ties into your "alleged answer to your bizarre and incomprehensible question" quoted above.
So if you want to get out of the Wayne reality distortion zone and pose a question that is actually comprehensible and makes sense and is supported with diagrams and appropriate supplementary information, then I may endeavour to answer it. However, based on your past history, I am not sure if you are capable.
MileHigh
You have added something scientific to the discussion?
I must have missed it...
You are not listening. Stop talking in your "Wayne universe" nonsense talk and talk in a coherent scientific way that makes sense. If you can't do that it is just another giant blazing 20-story-tall Las Vegas sign proclaiming for all to see that you are a complete and total fraud.Three mistakes you make -
Plan B, if this is beyond your capacity. is to show something that works.
MileHigh
One word for this Mr Wayne Travis... Bullshit.Gee Librea... I thought you might say that my math was useless - good guess on my part.
Your maths will prove anything you like if you indulge in modelling the system in a way that does not represent physical reality.
Show us where you are actually powering an external load and then come back and then prove the potential is still retained. You will not, because if you did your model would be a first law violation and would not represent physical reality as science currently understands it.
By all means present a model of gravity that allows for it to be non-conservative, but expect it to be well scrutinised by those who actually understand the physics.
I will use terms that I feel fit the description.
Now.....
When you explain why we can not reuse the input in a ZED - In scientific terms - I will show you "again" how we do...
I see Wayne is a Polly Parrot.Not answering the question and more insults...yep Troll
No you will not use terms that you feel fit the description. You are playing with hydraulics and pneumatics and the proper scientific terminology for describing these systems exists. Stop your ridiculous nonsensical baby talk and describe your question and your system properly.
You make a laughing stock of yourself when you use that baby talk. If you met a group of mechanical engineers that design hydraulic and pneumatic systems they would think that you were nuts.
MileHigh
Such re-use would be a clear violation of the first law. You know the one that says 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed'.Not Bad, ... my respects.
To power an external load, energy is leaving the system, It's up to you to show where energy enters the system to account for this output.
Such re-use would be a clear violation of the first law. You know the one that says 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed'.I am not sure you are talking about the same thing ...... how is reuse - creating or destroying energy?
Does the law say that a "external energy" must be accounted for by energy input into a separate system?
To power an external load, energy is leaving the system, It's up to you to show where energy enters the system to account for this output.
If you try to argue no energy enters the system then you are creating that energy out of nothing. That does not happen.Actually the question shows you do not understand the ZED.
I think you should understand this by now...but if you don't..
If you claim the energy is some how 'coming from gravity' then show exactly how and where a mass is being lifted that requires less energy input than the potential it gains.
No expansion happens in a ZED to lift - we do not pop up like MarkE insisted.
Another source might be expansion in the air it contains. This is perhaps more likely.. the amount of verbiage you produce is more than enough to generate the hot air this would require.
I told you that I might answer the question if you actually posed it so that it was comprehensible. So who is the real troll I wonder?Gee would you repost the question I asked?
This is where you fall flat on your face Wayne. There is the nonsensical "selective memory" when the discussion is only 20 minutes old. Likewise, you may be able to razzle-dazze a bunch of retired farmers and their wives out of their retirement savings with your ridiculous nonsensical "Wayne's vocabulary" but not me and not here.
Between the selective memory that only lasts 10 minutes and the nonsensical baby talk it's a wonder that you managed to get this far with your prancing fluids fantasies.
MileHigh
Diversion TrollYou can't name a one can you, Mr. Fraud?
Yep. You are correct.Yet, it has been shown to completely conform to understood laws of physics. The exceptional behavior that you thought you calculated was all a result of errors on your part. Make a rock bigger or make a rock smaller and it is still a rock.
Regarding your comment : "For the dimensions you specify..."
You do remember the reason why those dimensions were selected, right? To be clear: the selection of the dimensions of the "Ideal ZED" model were mostly random. I will concede that I chose one ratio (of height to width) that was recommended by Mr. Travis.
The important point for all to understand about this Analysis of an Ideal ZED is this (IMHO): If the ZED does NOT react as expected by the currently understood laws of Physics, then could some configuration (Engineering) be capable of providing some benefit from how it does react?
I am not sure you are talking about the same thing ...... how is reuse - creating or destroying energy?
I know what you intended - If the reuse results in more energy than the original - it must be created energy....
I want you to think on that a bit - reused energy ... assumes it was used in the first place correct?
But it does not say that it was consumed....If we consumed the internal pressure - The law of creation / destruction would apply.
As with our first ZED system - we transferred the same displacement left and right - between two ZEDs as many times as we liked - it was never consumed.
Does the law say that a "external energy" must be accounted for by energy input into a separate system?
I know this is tricky - not meant to be... but if a boat is floating in the pool - does it take more or less energy to add water to the pool?
To jump you ahead a bit - the ratio of water put in to the value of the buoyancy/ mass of the boat make a huge difference to the results of the next proper question:Does it take more energy in the water to lift the boat and then extract the energy when the pool is drained.....
Depends --- how much energy went into raising the water versus the mass value of the boat....
The discovery of the layered system spanks that answer pretty well.
The ZED layers hooked in series invented a method to raise the water level extremely cheap..
And hooking two together - meant we could reused that water head from one pool to another...
If this is too much... let me know.
Another point - the ratio - that is so important is improved by not dropping the boat/mass to far.
To All,The fraud Wayne Travis speaks. The fraud bemoans his critics for pointing out that his false claims are belied by math physics and his own actions. He tlls fanciful tales of being interested in evidence and proof. Yet, he consistently offers none, and he never will.
I am very sorry for the constant interruptions... It is time for the skeptics to become skeptics.
Attacking people and their ideas is not helping anyone - it is just a game to TK, MarkE, Mh, and powercatt.....(got it right this time Pirate-- so sorry)...
I tried very hard for over two years to discuss our discovery only to have every page filled with garbage -
Those men need to work for Jerry Springer.... because as TK said - I look for holes to exploit...(his choice of words)..
Well inventors look for problems to solve - not ways to shut thinking down.... Big difference.
Which purpose is this web site here for???
To compete with Jerry Springer - or solve the energy needs?
.......................
I want to thank those of you who have called for proof of claims - and stopped the diversions..
Most of all - Those of you who support research, put your hands on tests, and due diligence!
Take care
Every time you try to claim our system is colossal - I laugh - who are you trying to convince - maybe new readers....or what --- You and I have discussed this over and over....The spreadsheets show that the useless ZED is easily and completely replaced with a compression spring far less than 1/1000th the volume. So much for "concentrates the foot print" Mr. Fraud.
..............
Just in case -
Do you remember the Anomaly that MarkE refused to answer - after he claimed non exists in our system....
We have more buoyancy lift than is physically displaced' ...........HINT: That concentrates the foot print.........
Well thanks for bringing it up again.....
p.s. MarkE spread sheets show that too.......
Thanks for helping...
Three mistakes you make -MH gets it all too well. You aretrying to sell lies. You are a fraud.
It is my invention[/b]bull shit - not yours - I will use termsbafflegab that I feel fit the description helps sell my lies.
You do not get it at all.... and that's Ok - why waste your time here?
Third - your pathetic attempts to insult me out of relevance did not work with any of the hands on members.....You are wasting your time.Sure tell that story. If MH were irrelevant you could simply ignore him. Instead you flood this thread with your repeated lies.
Now.....Says the fraud: Wayne Travis.
When you explain why we can not reuse the input in a ZED - In scientific terms - I will show you "again" how we do...
Good day
Stop the diversions - games and insults...
I am not sure you are talking about the same thing ...... how is reuse - creating or destroying energy?LOL
I know what you intended - If the reuse results in more energy than the original - it must be created energy....
I want you to think on that a bit - reused energy ... assumes it was used in the first place correct?
But it does not say that it was consumed....If we consumed the internal pressure - The law of creation / destruction would apply.
As with our first ZED system - we transferred the same displacement left and right - between two ZEDs as many times as we liked - it was never consumed.
Does the law say that a "external energy" must be accounted for by energy input into a separate system?Energy must be added. Does the fraud Wayne Travis think differently?
I know this is tricky - not meant to be... but if a boat is floating in the pool - does it take more or less energy to add water to the pool?
Nonsensical bafflegab. An intelligible question might be: Which requires less energy: A. Lifting a boat with a winch, or B. Lifting a boat by filling up an enclosing container with water? I'll give you a hint. A. lifts the boat. B. lifts the boat and the excess water around the boat.
To jump you ahead a bit - the ratio of water put in to the value of the buoyancy/ mass of the boat make a huge difference to the results of the next proper question:
Does it take more energy in the water to lift the boat and then extract the energy when the pool is drained.....Depends --- how much energy went into raising the water versus the mass value of the boat....
Archimede's Paradox has been known for 2000 years. It reduces the disadvantage of B. versus A. B. still remains at a disadvantage.
The discovery of the layered system spanks that answer pretty well.
Here the fraud Wayne Travis suggests that the layering scheme offers free energy. It doesn't.
The ZED layers hooked in series invented a method to raise the water level extremely cheap..
And hooking two together - meant we could reused that water head from one pool to another...Hooking one to another compounds the losses of one process with the losses of another.
If this is too much... let me know.
Another point - the ratio - that is so important is improved by not dropping the boat/mass to far.Not moving the boat at all is your best bet. That's as close as you will get to an ordinary winch. It is all downhill from there.
I think you should understand this by now...but if you don't..Ah the fraud Wayne Travis spews more useless bafflegab, including Wayne's recently coined meaningless term: "super conservative".
You just have to lift cheaper than the output..... Hint "Ratio" input volume and pressure to lift....reduces as you add layers.....
I know - that goes against the belief that hooking systems together only adds input --- but not when the serpentine effect reduces the volume of displacement and increases the pressure faster.....
Catch that "layers of buoyancy" as in the ZED reduce Volume and increase the speed to pressure exponentially....
Which means the ratio of pressure times surface area is spanked
When you can do an up cheaper than the value Down----- the conservative idea needs adjusted..
Just saying.....Super conservative....
MH gets it all too well. You aretrying to sell lies. You are a fraud.Sure tell that story. If MH were irrelevant you could simply ignore him. Instead you flood this thread with your repeated lies.Says the fraud: Wayne Travis.
Magsie, it's great to see your vigilant fight to defend the fraud: Wayne Travis. You're loads of fun.
Magsie :-*
Mags
notice how he adds words to Waynes statement
Magsie, it's great to see your vigilant fight to defend the fraud: Wayne Travis. You're loads of fun.
That's what happens when you make have an error in your 'quote' tag.
No reason for paranoia.
Show me your physical full blown zed sets( 2 working together) and show me it doesnt work as Wayne describes. But then I would have to say, that vid Marke made could be rigged to not work, or wasnt made right. MarkEs vid just doesnt do it for me. He needs to give me the names of all the engineers and Ph D's names or this just isnt going to fly. ;)You've show that you are perfectly happy ignoring the math and physics presented and proven that establish the falsity of the fraud: Wayne Travis' bull shit claims. If you like being a voice for fraud, no one can stop you.
::)
Oh you infallible man you. :-*
Magsie
That's what happens when you make have an error in your 'quote' tag.This board apparently does not support the strike / unstrike tags "[ s ]" "[ /s ]". I attempted to use those to strike various of the false words and phrases the fraud Wayne Travis used and translate those instead into true statements.
No reason for paranoia.
Correct, 'Reuse' does not create or destroy energy, as energy can only be transformed from one form to another (First law applies).Hello Librea...
I told you that I might answer the question if you actually posed it so that it was comprehensible. So who is the real troll I wonder?
This is where you fall flat on your face Wayne. There is the nonsensical "selective memory" when the discussion is only 20 minutes old. Likewise, you may be able to razzle-dazze a bunch of retired farmers and their wives out of their retirement savings with your ridiculous nonsensical "Wayne's vocabulary" but not me and not here.
MileHigh
Yet, it has been shown to completely conform to understood laws of physics. The exceptional behavior that you thought you calculated was all a result of errors on your part. Make a rock bigger or make a rock smaller and it is still a rock.Yeah, you see that it conforms to standard physics! First admission ever - way to go MarkE!!
However you cannot 'have your cake and eat it too'... If the system is powering an EXTERNAL load , then by definition that energy is LEAVING the system. Once it has left, it is not available to the system again. (unless the system replenishes it somehow.)
Hello Librea...That is a blatantly ignorant statement. Do you know why?
Good - narrow it down...
Transformed is not a requirement in energy and is not the only thing that you can do with energy - you can store it also.
Dufus: Boyle's law applies to gases not liquids.
Our displacement is stored one side - low pressure higher volume - higher pressure lower volume..according to boyles law.
Wrong. Ask your pal Tom whether he pressure tests his SCUBA tanks by first filling them almost entirely with water, or just pumping them up with air. If it's the latter, you don't want to be around when he does it.
In a perfect world - two equal bodies of PV - can produce the other - with standard seal type losses.
PV=nRT. They are only equal if the temperature is also the same for each.
So if you have 2cubic feet of air at 10 psi, or 10cubic feet at 2 psi - they are the same amount of energy.
"right" being the key operative term. The potential energy must first be converted completely to kinetic, and then back to potential.
Either one can produce the other - with the right matching conversion (pressure increaser - or volume increaser.
That's pure bafflegab. If you take energy from either store for output, you deplete your store.
Moving those two Pv's between the two states would not be useful if they were in the same body of water - because the desired output from this movement is "water height from displacement."
If you do not transform from potential to kinetic then you suffer energy loss due to N*(X/N)2.
Now - the point - How you "store energy" - makes the difference (NOT TRANSFORM).
That's hilarious on multiple levels: Incomrpessible liquids do not store energy. You can shuffle as much hydraulic fluid as you like back and forth and the only work you will have done will have been due to the viscosity of the fluid. Boyle's Law applies to compressible gases. It does not apply to incompressible fluids. The available energy stores are the GPE and the compressed gas volumes. Each time you compress and rarefy a gas volume you lose energy to heat. Each time you equalize GPE between two volumes you also lose energy to heat.
The point - is that the Pv we transfer from one ZED and Back is not being transformed....It is a simple Boyles law transfer.
No dufus: Lowering one internal weight to raise another internal weight does not produce external work. One has to deliver work outside the system for that work to be external.
Moving a float side ways - does little to effect the buoyant values... and does little to consume its energy.
Yet where the Pv is "present" and which form of Boyles is controlled - the effect of "displacement" in a mechanically designed system to take advantage --- water levels are raised - and the boat floats up... External work -
Because your processes are each individually lossy that "cost" in energy is real and non-zero. And yet, oops: No output work results.
The input is the cost to transfer Pv Energy one PV body to the Other PV body.
Transfer - not transformed....
Ooh, ooh, ooh, is this a new "anomaly" claim? What physical law requires that for something to "utilize head" IE respond to pressure, requires something "expanding"? Does the pavement beneath your feet "expand" when you step upon it?
and the anomaly in the ZED... being able to utilize the head "WITHOUT EXPANDING"
This "pop up" junk that you and Tom cooked up is a hoot. The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" performs as a compression spring. In Mondrasek's new arrangement all compression is performed in the S1 to S2 transition, and relaxation occurs in the S2 to S3 transition. Where Mondrasek would like the machine to cycle S1 => S2 => S3 => S1 the "spring" consists of two "springs" one of which he lets "fall out" in order to get back to S1.
All of this would be mute - if we used the expansion to do work - MarkE knows this - which is why he refused to do anything but pop up our system....
PS: as has been shown over and over again: No matter how ridiculous the dimensions or weak the power output of the machine the S2 <=> S3 cycle is fundamentally lossy even for the idealized machine. Mondrasek's latest proposal to dump energy going from S3 => S1 only aggravates the losses. What one ends up with is a big machine that can pass only a tiny amount of power and does so quite inefficiently. The entire machine and all of its parts completely conform to well known physics. The contraption is useless.
p.s. Librea... The pop up energy - is also equal to the input - so if we did it that way - we would be transforming the energy.
Thanks
Consider a spring. A 'perfect' spring will alternate between stored potential and kinetic energy and would oscillate between the those states forever. However if you were to capture the kinetic energy of the oscillation and divert it to an external load then the amount of energy inside the system would diminish.Our system works the opposite of a spring - which is why we get lift without consuming the Pv in transfer......
Yeah, you see that it conforms to standard physics! First admission over - way to go MarkE!!The risers in your useless contraptions are no better than rocks. Those who travel about in ferrocement boats might beg to differ.
Just a correction again.....lol
We are Still not lifting rocks though? I do not think they are usually buoyant....
Here is a hint: You speak clueless nonsense. Buoyancy does not displace. Buoyancy exerts buoyant force. The buoyant force results from displaced fluid weight.
Here is a hint - buoyancy displaces Mass - while Rocks have mass.....
Why don't you point out where this hydraulic output comes out of your useless contraption and show what external work it performs?
Rocks confirm to your statement..... Buoyancy does not - in some cases...
..................
The load on the real ZED system is Hydraulic - as we have shared ten thousand times....
Ah, it's morning and you are treating us to more of your meaningless bafflegab.
The neutral buoyancy produced a hydraulic output (not a rock) when floated up...
The nested Russian dolls of ignorance just do a bad job of emulating a compression spring.
You lock in the ROCK theory on your device - that is fine with me - The ZED on the other hand is a cool process...
Thanks
The question with assumptions that preceded this questions I corrected on the last post ..
So, what is the process that is replenishing the potential in a Zed as it oscillates back and forth? You cannot count any part of the oscillation energy as output as you are mistakenly doing.
I could remind you that you are making huge assumptions.... A better assumption might be that we were satisfied with the simple ZED system enough to move onto to optimizations.....
Given you have only be able to demonstrate this device working for a short period of time it should be apparent to you that your apparent 'output' is merely the initial energy it contains (the pre-charge) winding down, perhaps assisted by the 'flow-assist' you speak about. (I'm assuming by now you've tracked down the last of the leaks)...
Our system works the opposite of a spring - which is why we get lift without consuming the Pv in transfer......No it does't Mr. Fraud. Push down on the risers, and the weight of the displaced water and compressed air pushes them back against your effort. That's what springs do: exert force against the direction of motion. Maybe you and your brain trust should brush up by getting a high school kid to tutor your team on basic mechanics.
It's another early morning bafflegab treat!
Our ZED gets taller as the Pv heads (in series) - adjust for the energy storage - and the production occurs externally to keep the energy inside the system.
"jumps a transfer process" LOL.
Since the spring analogy jumps a transfer process - lets cover it now.
It's truly remarkable how hard you work to avoid describing energy input and energy output in your alleged free energy machine. How much energy do you think 10cc of hydraulic fluid under 10 BAR has? How much do you think 100cc of hydraulic fluid under 100 BAR has?
The PV input into a ZED gets stored as HEAD pressure and volume. The more the Head to be stored - the taller the series of Head columns.
LOL, the only thing that is "exponential" is your chutzpah. The nested Russian dolls of ignorance simply apply Archimedes' Paradox. Every dry dock in the world also applies the same principle. It is not new. It does not yield surplus energy.
Head columns in series are far more efficient that a single column - because of the exponential increase and reduction in both time and volume to reach pressure.
Such ignorance: A compression spring expands towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state. A ZED expands ... wait for it ... towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state.
The ZED is preloaded with External resistance (hydraulic) - when that point is reached (to over come the resistance) the system has only one choice - expand.
A spring on the other hand - gets shorter until the load is over come and then travels with the load...
You have just demonstrated that the ZED does in fact emulate (poorly) a compression spring.
If you compressed a spring and it lifted the load while compressing to match the load now that is a horse of a different color..........
Wayne
The question with assumptions that preceded this questions I corrected on the last post ..The cool thing is this: You offer fantastical and completely false claims, but some people are dumb enough to believe them and give you money. Now the trick is how to make your exit without retribution.
Yet the rest of the question is correct - we do have to make up the mechanical losses between the transfer of pv from side to side.....
The cool thing is this - the transfer cost is much cheaper than the External load - and as a added benefit - the two pv's equalize at not cost... so half the transfer "Could be" loss free -
I say could be - because we are dumping high pressure to low - the "Stupid weights" as MarkE called them on the transfer system were used to correct that dump transfer by loading the system during the equalization and then benefiting from the load on the other side.
p.s. The water tube was much more effecting than the weights...
In conclusion - the actual cost to operate a ZED is mechanical loss in the transfer system - not consumption of the PV (which does not happen in the ZED).
Now - that cost is pretty low when the whole system is considered.
You are completely fooling yourself here. The amount of energy put in to the system is not somehow magically multiplied by the geometry of the masses , boat or container. If you think otherwise then you are absolutely mistaken.I do not have time to follow all your ideas, but I do not think the ZED creates energy?? So I do not know you point?
Some geometries may amplify the FORCES involved but the distances those forces can act over is correspondingly reduced as it is simply a lever)
Now, it is true that the layered ZED system when considering forces only does give rise to a 'non linear' lever.
However when considering ENERGY this no longer applies. As the effective leverage of the system changes so to does the distance over which those forces can act change.
Energy is still conserved and no amount of manipulation of the geometry will change that.
I do not have time to follow all your ideas, but I do not think the ZED creates energy?? So I do not know you point?The successively smaller annular rings act just like a lever.
"but this comment:
"Some geometries may amplify the FORCES involved but the distances those forces can act over is correspondingly reduced as it is simply a lever)"
Is incorrect....
The corresponding reduction does not match a lever.
No, levers trade force gain for distance gain. Mass never enters into it. Neither does speed.
A lever in simple terms trades mass for distance - a small load can lift a large load but the small load has to travel further at a higher speed.......
You were doing better at first. It is just a serpentined hydraulic ram. By leaving one end open: AR7, you crippled that long known and useful device and turned it into a crummy spring emulation.
In the ZED, the serpentine effect in the layers each reduce the distance the lighter load must travel.
That is KEY to understand..... and why we originally called it a folded liquid lever system.
You have never designed, or built, or ever had a means to build a working free energy machine. All of your contraptions are fundamentally lossy.
...............
As an example we move our input head (in the old ZED) three feet to generate 24 foot of head.
So we have the potential of 24 foot for 3... WE Move the short end of the lever....... to lift an equal load....
I know that is difficult.......... but so was designing a free energy machine....
To MarkE, MH, Powercat, and TK.The fraud: Wayne Travis speaks. Your time is worthless. You have no technology to work develop.
You have proven to be nothing but Ego inflated Trolls.
I have given you precious time and you gamed it.........assumptions, diversions, lies, manipulation's threats and attempts at suppression....
I wish any of you four were at least half the man Mark D is; he has proven how a true skeptic, a professional, and an honorable man.
To the rest of you: If you have a valid technical questions - I would be glad to answer it.
I have four days left..
Thanks
Wayne
The risers in your useless contraptions are no better than rocks. Those who travel about in ferrocement boats might beg to differ.Here is a hint: You speak clueless nonsense. Buoyancy does not displace. Buoyancy exerts buoyant force. The buoyant force results from displaced fluid weight.Why don't you point out where this hydraulic output comes out of your useless contraption and show what external work it performs?Ah, it's morning and you are treating us to more of your meaningless bafflegab.The nested Russian dolls of ignorance just do a bad job of emulating a compression spring.
You got me there MarkE,There it is again: "The Emperor's New ZED". Only "smart" people "understand" that your fantastical claims are "true". Translation: Your claims are total BS. Each process within your contraptions is an ordinary, lossy process. The combination of those processes is a composite process more lossy than any of the individual processes. You can tell your lies as often as you want. You cannot deliver against them. That is why like so many free energy charlatans who have come and gone before you, you must keep moving the goal posts on your investors.
It is nonsense to the clueless.. sorry - you may not know it - but for those of us who do understand the ZED - your rants are pretty humorously childish..
Jus saying.... it is your mouth running over.....with mudd
No it does't Mr. Fraud. Push down on the risers, and the weight of the displaced water and compressed air pushes them back against your effort. That's what springs do: exert force against the direction of motion. Maybe you and your brain trust should brush up by getting a high school kid to tutor your team on basic mechanics.It's another early morning bafflegab treat!"jumps a transfer process" LOL.It's truly remarkable how hard you work to avoid describing energy input and energy output in your alleged free energy machine. How much energy do you think 10cc of hydraulic fluid under 10 BAR has? How much do you think 100cc of hydraulic fluid under 100 BAR has?LOL, the only thing that is "exponential" is your chutzpah. The nested Russian dolls of ignorance simply apply Archimedes' Paradox. Every dry dock in the world also applies the same principle. It is not new. It does not yield surplus energy.Such ignorance: A compression spring expands towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state. A ZED expands ... wait for it ... towards its relaxed, IE zero energy state.You have just demonstrated that the ZED does in fact emulate (poorly) a compression spring.
There it is again: "The Emperor's New ZED". Only "smart" people "understand" that your fantastical claims are "true". Translation: Your claims are total BS. Each process within your contraptions is an ordinary, lossy process. The combination of those processes is a composite process more lossy than any of the individual processes. You can tell your lies as often as you want. You cannot deliver against them. That is why like so many free energy charlatans who have come and gone before you, you must keep moving the goal posts on your investors.
SO DISPLAY YOUR SYSTEM, then, honest Wayne Travis, if you want it to be "looked at".
BUT YOU WILL NOT, you never have.
What Dansie saw certainly didn't convince him.... and he WAS THERE WITH YOU, TWICE ... and you still couldn't convince him.
And why? You know why: it does not do what you claim.
TK, ?I understand far more than you do, honest Wayne Travis.
I don't think you quite understand what you read -
Take care..
mrwayne,
a convincing bit of physics and math would teach MarkE a thing or two!
So let's be having it - please mrwayne.
You show us all what a good teacher you are, as you keep implying.
The skeptics 'll soon shut up, I'm sure of that, they won't have a leg
to stand on and you'll have the last laugh.
John.
I understand far more than you do, honest Wayne Travis.
I understand, for example, that a device, or mechanical process, has to have an OUTPUT to produce usable work.
You may very well think that, but I could not possibly comment.
LOL you are the most arrogant clueless person I have ever read...
Might I suggest you stop trying to think for everyone else a bit...
Let me see if I get this right - you are a genius infallible protector of the current educational system..
You are a fraud who presents false claims as to what you have built. And you assert statements that betray ignorance of basic science.
And I am a dumb guber dufas, moron, idiot, .... whom has built several different Free energy machines...
Many peopel have "got" you and your carnival barker routine. The question is: Where does that end?
Ok You got me,,,,, lol
The risers perform no differently than rocks. Rocks are in many cases more useful than the risers in your useless contraptions.
..................
p.s. since you think the Risers are rocks... they remain neutrally buoyant in the cycle up and down...they are counter balanced with remaining buoyancy......
Yes, you are "just saying". You do that a lot. It is called lying. Where is this supposed external load and what does it do?
The stored energy transfer only deals with the external load..... just saying...
I've looked, I've seen, I've laughed uncontrollably.
As I keep suggesting - you should look at our system - not the one you keep trying to twist it into.
Thanks
MarkE,We've seen the caliber of help that you've enlisted who've posted to this board. It's not very impressive.
The difference between you and I .......Omgosh..... I don't want to write another novel...
Lets just stick with one point - when I need to understand something - I seek people who can and will help.
There it is again: Your false suggestion that you have some technology to reveal. You don't. You've laid your lies out and they have been seen for the BS that they are.
You attack the teacher - you do not have a clue how our system actually works because you have so deluded yourself with what you think it us be.......
From your demonstrated horrifically bad understanding of science you couldn't correctly teach an eleven year old.
I can't teach you as long as you think you are the expert......
Physics has been doing just fine. Your attempt to retread 2000 year old understanding as something new and name it after yourself is hysterically funny. It sort of reminds me of the various "Planet of the Apes" productions where the simians would come across something simple like a lens and declare: "I've discovered an 'expander'!". The video set by Tom was particular fun.
Your emperor clothes - is the "idea" that you can protect physics from advancing....
If you think that you can violate first principles, then you are free to try and make your argument. Very strong evidence is required. Unfortunately for you, you haven't got any evidence in your favor.
If you think a mechanical process must have an input to produce usable work - well that is old school - old skin - and every degree anyone has that says it can't be done - has a choice...
Ah there it is: The appeals to motherhood and apple pie. Tell us about the scourge that is befalling Chickasha with the opening of a ... oh my gosh ... could it be ... school! And that rhymes with ... pool. No, what Chickasha needs to save its boys is a band!
Stick in the past or come learn that improvements on the previous understanding are being made.
This is true despite charlatans like yourself who burn people with their phony claims.
Intelligent men and women will recognize that history has always improved its physics....
Sure, why there have been so many things that you've taught: There was the Travis Effect, no that isn't it, because there is no Travis Effect, that was your co-opt of Archimedes' Paradox. Oh, so then there was the over unity three riser system. No, that's not it, three risers or a hundred, multiple risers don't make over unity. Oh, then it must be those revelations that the disciples of duplicity were going to share. No, that's not it, they have had to be corrected regularly. Oh, well, maybe you will think of something Wayne. maybe I won't be the first to correctly guess your BoP number.
And history has shown that some people resisted the changes with vile ignorance.... as you do here daily.
It's a wonderful day. Viva! Las Vegas!
Good day.
Hello John,Ah, the fraud: Wayne Travis speaks again. No Wayne you have never had, do not now have, and will never have the free energy machines you claim.
lol has he admitted anything yet? Never will.... lol
He still complains that series is a lossy system ---- of course he does not say - more lossy than a single column anymore....
MarkE has dug his own hole with his lies...
A person with a personal vendetta is not my concern.
...................
John, I also know you are just being cute...in hope that I will offer something new to be insulted..... for a decimal....so you can find a hole to exploit....
Like -
No thanks.
The ZED worked as described, and we have even better systems now.
Where is this supposed external load and what does it do?I've looked, I've seen, I've laughed uncontrollably.
.Physics has been doing just fine. Your attempt to retread 2000 year old understanding as something new and name it after yourself is hysterically funny. Viva! Las Vegas!
Ah, the fraud: Wayne Travis speaks again. No Wayne you have never had, do not now have, and will never have the free energy machines you claim.Skipped the fact and went for an insult...... yeah...
John,Which is more efficient: Riding the brakes with the emergency brake on or off? The scheme that you label Archimedes, and the scheme that uses the insert are both inefficient ways to raise weights. One is more egregious than the other.
Which is more efficient - the Travis Effect a in Toms video number 5, or the Archimedes'
There is no "Travis Effect".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_MLjkt8ti4
Now each time you add a layer to the ZED, the Travis effect improves its performance.
Three layers and a pod are less efficient than a brick.
Three layers and a Pod (instead of a brick) broke the Force fallacy.
Now that's bafflegab that one can sink their teeth into. Force never converts into energy. Force has no equivalence with energy. Try again Mr. Fraud.
....................
ALL attempts to use buoyancy as a free energy device failed to convert the force into energy to reproduce the input.
If the barrier you refer to is 100% efficiency, then neither does your scheme break that barrier despite your false claims.
All single column equalization systems could not break that barrier...
That is a bald faced lie. Force cannot be equated to energy. And more importantly: The ZED is fundamentally lossy. Nothing about the nested Russian dolls of ignorance generates free energy. Always more useful energy goes into the nested Russian dolls of ignorance than can be extracted. Always.
....................
The ZED reverses that position - the Series system allowed Buoyancy to produce enough force to exceed the energy input.
Let's hear it for the bafflegab from today's contestant: Mr. Wayne Travis!
Let that soak in - if one mechanical way force looses - the energy balance - increasing the force faster/more than the input increase - creates a new value to exploit.
Poor Wayne, still pitching the fallacy that losses can be made up in volume. They can't.
Best of all - three layers is not the limit..... add more and more.... the force over input value continues to grow.
No it is complete bull shit. Levers don't make free energy, and neither do your contraptions.
Force amplification - resulting in excess energy - is the new physics....
Flunked out then?
The old physics - made the assumption it was impossible --- I decided to test the theory - not defend the past.
Sure add as many as you like. It does not change the behavior: The useless contraption is fundamentally lossy.
Take Care
p.s. for fun - add a couple of layers to MarkE spread sheet - it should become clear..
Wayne
Skipped the fact and went for an insult...... yeah...The nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not generate the free energy you claim. You can keep suggesting that they do, but that is the fraud you have committed yourself to promoting.
Did you learn that a series system is more efficient or not?
I don't admit things that are not true.
Can you admit to it or not -
LOL. Keep pitching the lies there Wayne.
Can you man up and tell Larry he was right or not?
LOL, the guy who has been cheating: friends, family, and neighbors with his lies about non-existent free energy technology is accusing those who have pointed out those crimes of being unethical. It's your shameless approach that's really awesome Wayne. If you're good with continuing to build this record of scienter on your part, it's just fine with me.
Since you do not have the character to admit when you are wrong - you do not have the right to make claims against others - you have no value here.
Which is more efficient: Riding the brakes with the emergency brake on or off? The scheme that you label Archimedes, and the scheme that uses the insert are both inefficient ways to raise weights. One is more egregious than the other.There is no "Travis Effect". Three layers and a pod are less efficient than a brick.Now that's bafflegab that one can sink their teeth into. Force never converts into energy. Force has no equivalence with energy. Try again Mr. Fraud.If the barrier you refer to is 100% efficiency, then neither does your scheme break that barrier despite your false claims.That is a bald faced lie. Force cannot be equated to energy. And more importantly: The ZED is fundamentally lossy. Nothing about the nested Russian dolls of ignorance generates free energy. Always more useful energy goes into the nested Russian dolls of ignorance than can be extracted. Always.Let's hear it for the bafflegab from today's contestant: Mr. Wayne Travis!Poor Wayne, still pitching the fallacy that losses can be made up in volume. They can't.No it is complete bull shit. Levers don't make free energy, and neither do your contraptions.Flunked out then?Sure add as many as you like. It does not change the behavior: The useless contraption is fundamentally lossy.
A question or two.I have a better question: Where in any of those videos was external work performed? IE where is there any indication of actual output?
If, in the video by Mark D., the production rams are being pushed up by the risers and that output is going into the accumulator that is also driving the assist rams, would that not mean then that the pressure from the production ram needs to be at least the internal pressure of the accumulator?
If that internal pressure from the accumulator is driving the assist rams and they are driving the dual ZED system,, is that not a volume issue? with the assist rams being a smaller diameter than the production rams.
Does it not follow then, that the volume consumed by the assist rams needs to be greater than that moved by the production rams in order for the accumulator to be used a "battery" for the system that was videoed?
What is the difference between the risers "popping" up or down? That is to say, what if after lift they are allowed to "pop" but moving the risers down and the fluid out instead of up?
Lol - you are so proud of yourself...Mr. Wayne, are you getting snipey? Tsk, tsk.
The nested Russian dolls of ignorance do not generate the free energy you claim. You can keep suggesting that they do, but that is the fraud you have committed yourself to promoting.I don't admit things that are not true.LOL. Keep pitching the lies there Wayne.LOL, the guy who has been cheating: friends, family, and neighbors with his lies about non-existent free energy technology is accusing those who have pointed out those crimes of being unethical. It's your shameless approach that's really awesome Wayne. If you're good with continuing to build this record of scienter on your part, it's just fine with me.
Are you a liar and a Coward...LOL, you, the fraud: Wayne Travis claims that I am a liar. That's rich.
Yes I have and it refutes your false free energy claims.
You are wrong and know it - you have seen the math....
Did he win the lottery?
Larry Was right all along...
Ah yes, more bafflegab. What your contraptions do not do is produce one iota of output energy in excess of input energy. Contrary to being the revolutionary source of cheap energy you claim to your investors, your contraptions are useless stage props.
It is cheaper and faster to use a series connected system to come to pressure -
Well Mark that would depend.No it wouldn't. The machine has a useful output that we have yet to see, or it doesn't. It's really quite simple.
What happens inside the black box is irrelevant to what the black box outputs, or does not output.
If the accumulator is being used as a battery, as has been alleged by the skeptics, then the output would be the assist rams.
No Tom: OUTPUT, what the machine delivers to the OUTSIDE world. Internal mechanisms are irrelevant to energy (if any) that the contraption delivers to the outside world.
Then the assist rams are the output and the accumulator is the input to those rams, but the production rams are working against the accumulator, pushing fluid into it under the pressure of the accumulator, so those pressures must be the same, the volume then,, it must be less coming out of the production rams than what is used by the assist rams,, but then where does the volume from the assist rams go?
Oh, so now you trust things that Mark Dansie hasn't said he has done as being things that he has done? That's very curious. Do you perform seances and remote viewings as well?
I trust in Mark D's ability to make correct observations, and I trust that he would of pointed out if the production rams output went any where other than the accumulator and I also trust that he would of pointed out if anything else fed the assist rams or if the return lines from the assist rams went any where else besides the hydraulic circuit connecting everything together.
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1143
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #572 on: March 05, 2014, 02:54:46 PM »
I have been mentioned in dispatches again !!!!!!!
Just to clear what ever has been said or assumed (most likely the latter) I offer the following.
1. I have visited Wayne, an met withmany members of his team on three occasions.
2. I also arranged introductions to other parties who have visited on several times advising on paths forward and assisting with advice on proof of concept requirements. (highly qualified engineers and scientists)
3. I have always maintained that on my first visit, I was impressed with the efforts, the team spirit and saw some results that were interesting. However it never passed my "two day test of self sustaining"
4. I have suggested as have many of my friends I introduced, the the need for a POC device.
5. Wayne has many people, some very qualified working with him. I am not qualified to do analysis on:
a. Their calculations and assumptions.
b. Their methods of collecting and interpreting the data
c. Their overall theory
I have however on all three occasion suggested ways of obtaining data, and or suggesting what would be required to convince outside parties.
The engineering and building of prototypes have taken many paths over the years.
I have also been taken to task by many for not "debunking" this technology. Because of business negotiations that effect many of the people including volunteers and investors (which I am not involved in), I have refrained from setting a final time frame for a POC to be running.
On a personal note, this project has brought a lot of passion and interest from many people in Wayne s community and beyond. The real story is not always about the outcome but the journey. I look back at all my dozens of projects that never worked out, sometimes I got it very wrong.
So, I have not seen the data that convinces me, and I do hope to get to see and assist in evaluating a proof of concept one day. However until that day arrives I will continue my public stance as of interest but not supported by any data I have seen to date. Others who work with Wayne, many with engineering qualifications do believe in what they are doing and their calculations. I am a very simple person, and do not get involved in such matters until a working prototype is running run and data has been collected with acceptable methodologies.
This will be my only comment on this matter.
Kind Regards
Mark
I have four days left..
Thanks
Wayne
What a load of garbage Mark.
You must be in a bad place to utter such trash.
So, lets apply this elsewhere so that we can understand the two POV's.
Is charging a battery doing work?
I say yes.
Is charging a battery doing external work.
I say yes.
Here, IIUC you are saying no.
...
Battery charger === battery.
Battery flat :(
Charger charges battery :)
No external work is done???
You did kind of change things there.
The accumulator runs the assist rams, the ZED charges the depleted accumulator,, and if the ZED puts more fluid into the accumulator, then the ZED has charged the accumulator up.
I get that,, but that is not the case *IF* the ZED moves more fluid into the accumulator than the assist rams use.
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.
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.
Well,, as I have been told many times pressure is not energy,, and it is the pressure that leaves the system.
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??
Think of it like a spring. As a spring is compressed it gains potential. If we then remove that spring from the system and allow it to expand it can power an external load. If we then place it back in the system, it has lost it's potential. The spring still exists, but something inside the system would need to recompress it.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......
We could replace the spring with another mechanism that extracts energy from the system but a spring is a convenient way to think about it.
Wayne's world seems to imply that the 'spring' would somehow magically recompress as it is placed back in.
This is his 're-use the input' fallacy which hopefully by now you are starting to see is completely false.
Four days left for what ? before you leave the forum for ever,,, before you get arrested,,, before you discover you missed it - we will all be waiting your return hopefully sometime in October 2015. As according to your statements you can't released any relevant information until thenYes Powercat, the sad day is coming......soon - now only three days left....
Quote from: mrwayne on March 10, 2014, 11:24:14 AM
This is my Final Farewell to O/U.comI am not legally able to show TK my "Suasages" again.It is clear MarkE has only one intention... I did have hope. Wayne
unless the accumulator was storing more fluid inside itself,, then it is a store and not external work being done,, sure,, but to the ZED that would still be external work performed.Webby,
What a load of garbage Mark.LOL
You must be in a bad place to utter such trash.
If the machine in question is a battery charger then charging an external battery amounts to doing external work. If the machine in question includes the battery, then charging that internal component does not amount to energy output.
So, lets apply this elsewhere so that we can understand the two POV's.
Is charging a battery doing work?
If you do so without defining the boundaries of the machine then you present yourself as confused about what the word "output" means.
I say yes.
See above about understanding the boundaries of a system.
Is charging a battery doing external work.
I say yes.
Here, IIUC you are saying no.
LOL. Mark Dansie has stated in no uncertain terms his position. You have invented fantasies.
What is Mark Dansie's job? is it not to evaluate such things? In the video I linked to you can even hear Mark asking about part of the hydrualic lines and stuff that he showed in the video. You are grasping there Mark E.
It means exactly what it says. No data.
I noticed that you BOLDED the lines you think are important,, read them again REAL slow,," my public stance as of interest but not supported by any data I have seen to date." No data,, why are you reading something more into that?
Great! So kindly point to the output. Show the external work that the device performs.
I also looked at the video,, and the diagrams of the device,, and its hydraulic lines,, maybe that is outside your area of expertise,, that is to use your eyes.
It is people like you who destroy what this community is all about.
You actively support an investment fraud.
It is fine for people to disagree and or have different views and express them,, but then there are people like you who choose to twist and misrepresent things, and then all the name calling and other childish stuff.
'IF' the zed behaves as you say then yes it would be producing net energy output that could be used to power a load.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....
However it doesn't and cannot ever function like that. Such a device runs headlong into the limitations of the First Law. Energy would be leaving the system but it is not being replenished. If it is replenished if can't just coming from 'nowhere' as this would imply it is being created within the device and as yet no plausible explanation has been offered for how it does that.
LOLIf the machine in question is a battery charger then charging an external battery amounts to doing external work. If the machine in question includes the battery, then charging that internal component does not amount to energy output.If you do so without defining the boundaries of the machine then you present yourself as confused about what the word "output" means.See above about understanding the boundaries of a system.LOL. Mark Dansie has stated in no uncertain terms his position. You have invented fantasies.It means exactly what it says. No data.Great! So kindly point to the output. Show the external work that the device performs.You actively support an investment fraud.Oh my slippery little friend... we collected plenty of DATA.... smile.....
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...
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.
The fraud: Wayne Travis presents his revisionist history.
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...
Really? You have yet to identify an external load that the supposed output drives.
It cracks me up when you suddenly realize their is a load on the system.....
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.
Second - show where in history where buoyancy has been explained to exceed the mass displaced...
I enjoy letting frauds like you put themselves on full display for what you are.
Is it jealousy..... oh my....or just having fun as a liar?
So says the fraud: Wayne Travis.
You have no credibility what so ever...
And each time you insult good people. well you dig deeper.
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.
Shuffling energy within the confines of a system has nothing to do with delivering energy output.
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.
No, in order to determine output, the actual energy that the system delivers is measured.
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.
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?
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
Pressure is not energy. A cinder block can deliver pressure all day long. How much energy do you think that is?
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??
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?No output energy. See above.
Ours ZED - you utilize the buoyant lift - for what ever you want...
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......???There it is more WT bafflegab. Note the avoidance of the word: "energy".
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 yet you still can't point to any external work that your contraption performs.
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.Yes, why worry about reality when running an investment fraud?
I do not know why understanding is limited to a Law...... what is the point of looking?
Take care.
Wayne
Take care...
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....Loss compounds loss.
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
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)Oh I understand Librea..... I understand exactly what you just said...
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.
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....
You only consider forces, not energy. forces are not conserved , energy is.BINGO!!!
Oh I understand Librea..... I understand exactly what you just said...It's another fine morning and the fraud: Wayne Travis is pulling the "Emperor's New Zed" card again. zzzzz.
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.
MarkE - if you put the smartest and dumbest man on this web site in the same room - you would be alone in that room....Gee, Wayne why would either I or TK be needing your prayers for "Good health"? Don't you want to offer those prayers to your disciples of duplicity? The mental health there might not be in the best shape.
One thing is for sure - you make TK look good.....
My prayers for you and TK's Good health.
BINGO!!!Ah, another wall of bafflegab from the fraud: Wayne Travis. Force and energy are never equivalent. They are completely different things. The BS that you spew is truly comical.
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
One more thing - before you misapply the laws of conservation to force - you better think it out for a minute..No one has proposed to do such a thing. Force is not conserved. See the shiny lever. Push on the shiny lever. Notice that the force on one side of the fulcrum is multiplied by the ratio of the distance from that side of the fulcrum to the distance between the fulcrum and the far side.
Ooooh, a new bafflegab term from the fraud: Wayne Travis, "Energy Reference Mapping technology". It sounds so, um, how shall we say: completely made up. "Are you an investor who is lost in too large a pile of money? Then let Rev. Wayne use his Energy Reference Mapping Technology to guide you free of all that excess cash. Operators are standing by."
Energy Reference Mapping technology - is the process that we have proven works to produce Net Energy... as I said - with five different systems - only one is a ZED.
LOL, keep brass balling it Wayne. It just builds the record of your scienter.
Just letting you know - in advance.
When MarkE comes and blubbers over himself to act unprofessional...
He is just mistaken and to prideful to consider his mistake.
Wayne
MarkE - if you put the smartest and dumbest man on this web site in the same room - you would be alone in that room....Leave me out of your hypocrite's "prayers", you liar.
One thing is for sure - you make TK look good.....
My prayers for you and TK's Good health.
No DUH Einstein!
What do you think Wayne just said.
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
You are trying to argue with a Messiah.The Experience comes from having a Free Energy machine...and dealing with both unprofessional and professional people.
"I probably understand better than any single person in the world."
A Messiah who needs to get on the internet in the morning and argue with insignificant trolls, even before having breakfast!
The comedy continues. Honest Wayne Travis has 5 different systems that produce "net" energy.... but he can't demonstrate or explain a single one of them, on this OPEN SOURCE web forum.
The Experience comes from having a Free Energy machine...and dealing with both unprofessional and professional people.First you "Have" a Free Energy Machine.... then you don't, it's just "super conservative".... then you "have" a Free Energy Machine again....
That all.
Thanks
Leave me out of your hypocrite's "prayers", you liar.Who isn't a hypocrite TK, Who?
He said THIS:WOW TK, I love this sudden interest again -
Which even YOU should be able to smell for the pile of warm Oklahoma BS that it is.
First you "Have" a Free Energy Machine.... then you don't, it's just "super conservative".... then you "have" a Free Energy Machine again....TK - you are the one that guesses what we have and do - and wrong about 90% of the time.
Too bad you are lying. You don't have any such machine, you just have "expectations" and "business plans". Too bad the "expectations" are continuously "not met". Pretty soon you will have to answer for your "expectations not met", honest Wayne Travis.
No DUH Einstein!LOL Webby, I said the same thing..... Really!!! I mean REally - did he just say that....lol
What do you think Wayne just said.
TK - you are the one that guesses what we have and do - and wrong about 90% of the time.PROVE IT. You cannot.
You ignore and discount every fact that does not fit your belief ...I point out your nonsensical, contradictory and BS statements, and I point out that you are still spending hours a day, and get up before breakfast, to argue with people you disrespect and think are insignificant, and I point out that you have still not provided evidence for your claims. Let's see you provide evidence that I "ignore and discount every fact that does not fit (my) belief ". You have none. What I DO is to point out your BS statements and I point out that you still have provided no evidence for your claims.
What did the skeptics say? ???
Did they say we have imaginary teams and imaginary professional support and imaginary systems.....
You fail to make ground when you divert the truth toward your story.
Remember - pay the builders of your fraud - stick with the truth and not poorly lit videos, stop altering photos and making up bogus stories to discredit people..You still have no clue what you are talking about. You need to stop listening to your "sources" and do some research on your own. You still have not supported your contention that I have EVER ALTERED ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, you liar, and you cannot demonstrate any "bogus story" that I have ever made up "to discredit people". Your accusations are content-less and you cannot support them with evidence.... but we DO notice that you are STILL trying to DIVERT THE TRUTH away from YOURSELF and the fact that you still cannot provide evidence for your claims, neither about me, or about your own bogus "expectations not met."
Then apologize - and then just maybe - your worthless opinion will have the weight - and the respect that God gave you the intelligence to have.I'm sorry that you are such a hypocritical ignorant buffoon, that's for sure, Mister Messiah. You want to talk about motes and beams, that's fine. We still can see well enough to see that you can't provide evidence for your claims, and you are beggaring the whole notion of "OPEN SOURCE" which is the foundation of this website.
Yes, I pray for you, your arrogance and pride has left a huge plank in your eye..
I probably understand better than any single person in the world.
PROVE IT. You cannot.I point out your nonsensical, contradictory and BS statements, and I point out that you are still spending hours a day, and get up before breakfast, to argue with people you disrespect and think are insignificant, and I point out that you have still not provided evidence for your claims. Let's see you provide evidence that I "ignore and discount every fact that does not fit (my) belief ". You have none. What I DO is to point out your BS statements and I point out that you still have provided no evidence for your claims.
Honest Wayne Travis, when I have I _EVER_ tried to "divert the truth" towards anything else but YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS? Nowhere, that's where. In fact I have tried to PREVENT YOU from diverting the truth away from YOUR BOGUS CLAIMS. You hypocrite. How do you sleep at night? Oh... that's right, you don't. You obsess over internet forums and trolls you don't respect. You still have no clue what you are talking about. You need to stop listening to your "sources" and do some research on your own. You still have not supported your contention that I have EVER ALTERED ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, you liar, and you cannot demonstrate any "bogus story" that I have ever made up "to discredit people". Your accusations are content-less and you cannot support them with evidence.... but we DO notice that you are STILL trying to DIVERT THE TRUTH away from YOURSELF and the fact that you still cannot provide evidence for your claims, neither about me, or about your own bogus "expectations not met."I'm sorry that you are such a hypocritical ignorant buffoon, that's for sure, Mister Messiah. You want to talk about motes and beams, that's fine. We still can see well enough to see that you can't provide evidence for your claims, and you are beggaring the whole notion of "OPEN SOURCE" which is the foundation of this website.
Don't pray for me. Don't you DARE pray for me, you hypocrite.
You want to talk about arrogance? You hypocrite. Honest Wayne Travis claims,
I think you proved it yourself right here.You and Ainslie are two peas from the same pod.
And, Who attacks open source - you and the other Trolls
Thanks
I probably understand better than any single person in the world.
I think Mark Dansie said "I have advised Wayne many times not to post and
wait till he has a POC"
I think this says quite a bit of what Mark's thoughts were where mrwayne's
capabilities are concerned.
I can always PM. MarkE, Koala, Mark Dansie and many others and always get
a polite and thoughtful answer but when I tried mrwayne it came up as
blocked. That to me says a great deal about him.
John.
You and Ainslie are two peas from the same pod.
YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE EVER "ATTACKED OPEN SOURCE".
In fact you will find, if you ever bother to look, that by far MOST of my posts on this forum have been challenging people TO PROVIDE THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIMS. Just as I have been doing here.
Now, do you want to tell us all how that is "Attacking Open Source", you hypocrite liar?
Don't forget.... Honest Wayne Travis, the Messiah of Free Energy, has told us:
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
The Experience comes from having a Free Energy machine...and dealing with both unprofessional and professional people.LOL. No Mr. Fraud hat you have are useless props that you claim are free energy machines. Your useless contraptions are no more working free energy machines than a large cardboard box is some six yer old's working time travel machine.
That all.
Thanks
TK - you are the one that guesses what we have and do - and wrong about 90% of the time.Are you trying to claim endorsement by Mark Dansie? He hasn't offered such an endorsement.
You ignore and discount every fact that does not fit your belief ...
What did the skeptics say????
Did they say we have imaginary teams and imaginary professional support and imaginary systems.....
You fail to make ground when you divert the truth toward your story.
here may one see these photos that you keep accusing TK of altering?
Remember - pay the builders of your fraud - stick with the truth and not poorly lit videos, stop altering photos and making up bogus stories to discredit people..
Oh so now it's back to Bible thumping by the fraud: Wayne Travis.
Then apologize - and then just maybe - your worthless opinion will have the weight - and the respect that God gave you the intelligence to have.
Yes, I pray for you, your arrogance and pride has left a huge plank in your eye..
I think you proved it yourself right here.Gee I always thought those who did the most harm to open sourc were the liars and frauds, of which you are one, who make false claims, collect money, and never deliver because they never could.
And, Who attacks open source - you and the other Trolls
Thanks
I do not tell people what to think, Ok.I think you are far more concerned with telling them where to sign Mr. Fraud.
Good Day.
This is the note the ATTACK TROLLS ARE TRYING TO SPAM OUT OF YOUR MEMORY..Just one note Mr. Fraud? BTW you may be using the wrong count down clock.
Librea... hit it on the head - whether he knows it or not....Doesn't matter...
To solve any real problem - you must reduce it to its simplest form.....
Two Days left..
I'm just tell in' you that Mark D. thought you could easily dig yourself into a
hole, which is what you appear to have done!
If you block things you're not really interested anyway!
Before you go, just one decent bit of support that your claim is genuine, please.
John.
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
That is just brilliant. So let's perform the tally:
State 1 is the initial state. And the zero energy reference.
State 1 to State 2 requires 2.0984 mJ energy added
State 2 to State 3 delivers 1.6510 mJ energy removed to your spillway payload
State 3 to State 1 you have not specified any recovery mechanism
Now you are back at State 1
You have now completed a cycle are now down 0.4474mJ. Your efficiency is: 78.7%.You still have a fundamentally lossy scheme.
Now TK -
Can you put your guns away just for two days??
MarkE will not bother to think about my last post - his Vendetta is only about him... and his ego.
You used to be a scientist .... I think the fun you had here has definitely damaged that a bit - but is repairable.
You have two day left, will you think - without assumptions...
Maybe you can replace my "Reference mapping technology" term with a better one -
Again - I loved and give credit due to you for your "Virtual displacement"
Thanks -
Wayne
Now TK -
Can you put your guns away just for two days??
MarkE will not bother to think about my last post - his Vendetta is only about him... and his ego.
You used to be a scientist .... I think the fun you had here has definitely damaged that a bit - but is repairable.
You have two day left, will you think - without assumptions...
Maybe you can replace my "Reference mapping technology" term with a better one -
Again - I loved and give credit due to you for your "Virtual displacement"
Thanks -
Wayne
Correct TK.
You were Virtual Water.
Let us all remember that no "proof" that meets the needs of others is "proof" that things must be false,, right TK.
Wayne-- Will you be serving up roasted crow in a couple days??
Mark D gives excellent advice."Troll" That is Wayne Travis speak for anyone who sees through his investment fraud.
And if it were not for the non Troll here on this we site - it would be a total waste of my time.
I am letting the Trolls do what they do - that's it.
They Lie constantly for self ego.......they ruin Stefans web site and try t suppress technology.
Mark D - give honest guidance, correction, and guidance.
Trolls..... Are Trolls....
When you help them - as you do.... you do not come across as nice and polite...
Take Care...
Wayne
And you are incorrect again MarkE. There is no need to specify any recovery mechanism for an IDEAL ANALYSIS.That is utter and total nonsense. If one is going to analyze a machine or process then that machine or process must be defined. Define it as dumping a bunch of the input energy each cycle, then you have defined in that loss.
Again that is total nonsense. You are free to add what you like, but you must add it.
You keep ignoring that fact, but doing so does not make your requirement correct. We need only be concerned with calculating the ENERGY that enters or leaves the system. Not how it is captured. That is only necessary for a PRACTICLE DEVICE, not an IDEAL ANALYSIS.
Stipulating efficiency of something you are evaluating the efficiency of is circular reasoning. If you want to go that route, we can stop before you begin by noting that all passive mechanisms are lossy. Therefore any ideal machine you define is lossy. Then we can just call it a day.
I could similarly ask you to define a mechanism that makes water incompressible, or friction losses zero. They are the IDEAL conditions as are required by an Ideal Analysis.
Oh, but it was, because as shown, it cannot deliver all the energy expended. That was a specific point you contended as I recall.
The spillway was never needed to calculate the Energy that is expended during the lift process. And neither is any other physical recovery device needed to account for Energy leaving or entering the SUT.
No, you are wrong again. I suggest you write out the energy balance because your cycle efficiency number does not correspond to either case: Dumping the water without energy recovery in the ST3 => ST1 transition, or dumping the water with a high degree of energy recovery in that transition for a ST1 => ST2 => ST3 => ST1 cycle.
The Energy leaving the ZED during the State 3 to State 1 leg of the cycle is real and needs to be properly accounted for. That Energy value is 0.2022mJ. The complete cycle loss is correctly calculated as 0.2452mJ and the efficiency is 88.3% for the Ideal SUT.
Wayne-- Will you be serving up roasted crow in a couple days??Persons who do not understand that gravity is conservative can always hope.
I suggest you write out the energy balance because your cycle efficiency number does not correspond to either case: Dumping the water without energy recovery in the ST3 => ST1 transition, or dumping the water with a high degree of energy recovery in that transition for a ST1 => ST2 => ST3 => ST1 cycle.
ST1 => ST2 2.0984mJ of Energy enters the system. Please note that the Energy is added by a non-specified input mechanism.The stipulated act of pumping water into the pod chamber is somehow non-specific to you?
Using the spill mechanism yes, 1.651 is delivered as useful output.
ST2 => ST3 1.6510mJ of Energy (maximum) exits the system during the lift.
No, almost all could be recovered with an idealized collection mechanism.
ST3 => ST1 0.2022mJ of Energy exits the system during this reset phase. Please note that this Energy could be recovered by a non-specified collection mechanism.
Beware assumptions!
Energy Out/Energy In = (1.6510mJ + 0.2022mJ)/2.0984 = 88.3%.
As usual Tom, you are confused as to even the point of discussion. Mondrasek insisted that a mechanism could be devised that would extract all the internal energy loss going from State 2 to State 3. He proposed his spillway gizmo as an example. The spillway gizmo like any mechanism cannot extract all the internal energy loss. The mechanism will not move, even with zero friction if the force transfer functions of the ST2 => ST3 risers and the payload identically match. The payload transfer function must exhibit a lower force at least initially or the machine does not move. The faster that one wants the machine to be able to cycle, the greater the required acceleration of the spill pan, and the greater that force difference must be, resulting in lower and lower efficiencies of the already absurd machine.
That is funny Mark,, I remember Mondrasek saying that we should NOT need to include an actual device and you insisting on there being one.
Here YOU are saying, look see, there it is with all its loss,, see, see I told you so,, see,,
You put that loss in there,, YOU decided it must be a real world thing,,
Edit,, I messed up the quote
In the real world you are correct,, but in an ideal world the force of acceleration can be recovered as well,, it must, or else energy has left the system unaccounted for.LOL. Tom, even in an idealized world without friction, there is no acceleration without force. "Idealized" does not mean "anything that I want something to be". It means that certain real world behaviors that are not important to the problem being analyzed are disregarded. When evaluating the idealized energy efficiency of some process, the process must be specified. Otherwise one can simply declare: "We will ignore all loss mechanisms in the process. Therefore the process will be 100% efficient."
It was you who said a mechanism must be presented and Mondrasek complied with the spillway.
Analyzing an ideal something and a practical something are two different somethings,, even I know that :)
MarkE,Mondrasek has specified the machine as cycling ST1 => ST2 => ST3 => ST1. The GPE of the riser does not change during the ST1 => ST2 transition and has no impact on the input energy added there. The GPE increases during the ST2 => ST3 transition, taking away from useful work that otherwise would have gone to the output. The GPE falls identically back during the ST3 = > ST1 transition.
I am wondering on the riser weight energy.
Is that input cost returned when the risers go back down, as in a reduction from the input cost?
Or, is it included within the return from state 3 to state 1 value already? meaning that to take it out of the input cost AND then use the full return to state 1 would be double dipping.
This is why I am asking on the riser weight energy part.Change in riser GPE ST2 => ST3
If I do not take it out of the input and use the full return then energy has left the building, and with no friction or lost water or air,, where did it go,, plus no heat.
st2estoredtotal 0.0055107459J
st1estoredtotal 0.0034123194J
st3estoredtoatal 0.0036144798J
st2input 0.0020984266J
ideal output 0.0016509930J
Riser weight energy 0.0002452732J
st1 to st3 return energy 0.0002021604JIs it? Assumptions!
Input minus Riser weight 0.0018531534JWhy would you calculate this value? The input energy required to go from ST1 => ST2 is unaffected by the riser weight Mondrasek has added.
Output plus return 0.0018531534JYour getting closer, but no cigar.
So using everything in an ideal setup takes the system back to its starting energy level,, and is that not a required condition?
A couple of classic quotes, and some new ones showing how things have progressed to the current situationI love the new additions to the Wayne Travis bafflegab lexicon: "Super Conservative Systems" and "Energy Reference Mapping". These meaningless terms, much like the "Travis Effect" have been concocted to give a false pretense of scientific knowledge and legitimacy to the Wayne Travis investment fraud scheme.
Quote from: mrwayne on May 25, 2012, 04:14:10 PM
I promise, you who wish open sourcing will not be disappointed.
Quote from: mrwayne on March 30, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
The Zydro Energy expands the understanding of science - and shows that a mechanical super conservative device can be built.
Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 06:35:37 PM
So what have we been doing for four years........ you will know soon enough.
Quote from: mrwayne on April 08, 2014, 04:32:45 PM
We will not be publicizing our test results until the Public release of our Manufactured models - which are currently scheduled to roll out in October 2015.
Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:57:19 PM
Third - It is maturity - and the understanding that Super Conservative Net Energy Systems do not require OU
Quote from: mrwayne on October 1 2012 on his web site
We expect to be finished by the end of the week - assuming all goes semi well (parts delivery)
and we will be ready for the Validation!
Quote from: mrwayne on March 29, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
p.s. two days run was for those of you who are stuck in the past......... We left you all behind.
Mark will be invited to our public release. He is a great skeptic.
Quote from: mrwayne on March 31, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
You are not wrong about me being over optimistic, you are not wrong about me being imperfect.
When water is about to fall over a dam there is no acceleration without gravity.The acceleration due to gravity: It's real!
Of course I said a mechanism must be presented. And yes Mondrasek came up with the giant pizza pan. You or anyone else who would like to take a stab at designing a more complex pizza pan that can do better than the "simple" rectangular cross-section pan is welcome to put their hand to it.
My statement:Camels, banana juice, a woman named John?
Your answer: What has that got to do with the price of banana juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very helpful to the discussion.
MarkE, I still don't see the point of any physical Energy capture mechanism for an Ideal Analysis. The IDEAL Energy that is output from the SUT during the ST2 => ST3 rise could simply be calculated as the integral of F*ds as reduced to 0.5*ST3_Lift_Force*ST3_Lift_distance. That would return the same value as the "spillway" Energy calculations as the time constant approaches infinity. So for the IDEAL case, no actual mechanism is required. Only the maximum theoretical Energy value need be calculated.Well, maybe you have a different idea of what it is that you would like to try and obtain from this analysis exercise than I think you do. Please state clearly and succinctly what you are trying to determine from this exercise.
..
Librea... hit it on the head - whether he knows it or not....Doesn't matter...
To solve any real problem - you must reduce it to its simplest form.....
care to elaborate a little ???The value immediately preceding is the change in riser GPE going from ST2 to ST3.
They are at a higher GPE in ST3. They do fall back to the lower GPE returning to ST1. It is an internal energy loss. It does affect the amount of energy that comes out during the ST3 => ST1 transition. Hint: The force acting on the water in the pod chamber is not just the weight of that water column.
This is why I am asking.
If the risers are at a higher energy state, then will they not return to a lower state if allowed?
By "that force" I believe you mean the weight that Mondrasek intentionally added to counter the buoyant up force in ST1 of the submerged portion of the risers. Yes, if the riser walls had no volume they would not displace water and there would be no buoyant up force to compensate. The flip side is that the volumes and forces would change as well.
ST1=>ST2 takes the same input but ST2=>ST3 is over a shorter distance,, make the riser walls thinner and that force goes down,, make them 0 and it goes away.
Ha! I wasn't thinking of you when I said: a woman named John? It is a line from an old movie.
Yes Mark,
I think a bucket of slippery water would perform nearer the 100%
than the stupid Ideal ZED.
Is there anyone out there who could foresee any possible use for a
ZED, other than an amusing conversation piece.
minnie is my wife's name by way, I didn't realise how the thing worked
when I joined up many years ago, never bothered to change it. Don't
see why an ideal user name should be gender specific anyway.
John
I was running under the impression that it is the total reflected weight in the pod chamber.That is correct and it affects the energy dumped out the pod chamber drain.
That then would include the riser weight.
Zeroing the riser wall widths tells you if the up lift calculations on the undersides of the walls are reasonable. In terms of inergy in and out, one still has to put the same amount of energy in to go from ST1 to ST2 as before. What changes is the additional energy that comes out going from ST3 to ST1. You sort of had the right idea that you needed to account for the energy that goes into the R3 GPE. But where you subtracted it in two places to cancel out, you should have added in two other places instead.
That is what I used to "test" if my calculations were working to provide a net zero condition,, I made the thickness 0 and the final two calculations were still the same value as each other.
For God's sake why look at forces which are not conserved when trying to see if a machine conserves energy or not? What is force alone going to tell you that is of any use at all?
So I was thinking then that if the energy is balanced and accounted for, then I can look at the forces, which are not energy and do not need to be conserved.
If you want to try zeroing out then set the spillway movement time to some huge number like 1E30 seconds. You will run Excel out of significant digits forcing the ST2 => ST3 efficiency to 100% to Excel's precision limit.
I was also thinking that I could just take the difference between the spillway output and the ideal output and keep track of that so that the totals are still a net zero,, just trying to account for all the energy so that none is missed or doubled up.
Well, maybe you have a different idea of what it is that you would like to try and obtain from this analysis exercise than I think you do. Please state clearly and succinctly what you are trying to determine from this exercise.
I maintain that if you are trying to determine what level of efficiency is "ideally" possible, then the mechanisms do need to be specified, or else the exercise is rather pointless. It is pretty simple to state that as the throughput power approaches zero the energy efficiency approaches, but never reaches 100%. If you are content with that conclusion, then we are back to the device being more or less a complicated way to emulate a spring, actually two springs, where one more or less falls out in the ST3 to ST1 transition.
If you have not been picking up the hints, the change in R3 GPE is negative in the ST3 => ST1 transition as is the internal energy change in the water columns. In your spreadsheet you did not account for the R3 GPE. If you did then your 88.3% number under the assumptions you state would come up to close to but less than 100%. The device remains fundamentally lossy. The whole question of whether something like this could be OU was answered by Powercat or Minnie back at like page 3 of the thread: Using accepted First Principles, a properly constructed math model cannot show over unity as First Principles do not allow for it.
Ok, so lets not introduce any nonsensical statements like 'Super Conservative' or 'Energy reference mapping'Yeah, Non sense for now...
With out reference to such ill defined concepts, show me just where in your machine that
"Water spontaneously flows up hill", or
"Expanding air recovers more energy then is required to compress it" or perhaps even,
"A buoyant object gains more energy when it rises compared to the energy required to sink it".
Have I missed any potential 'simple processes' that might be occurring in your machine?
For God's sake why look at forces which are not conserved when trying to see if a machine conserves energy or not? What is force alone going to tell you that is of any use at all?Looking at a system to see if it conserves energy..................
The mystery man got nervous...
And he fidget around a bit
He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe
And he whipped out a shaving kit
Now I thought it was a razor
And a can of foaming goo
But he told me right then when the top popped open
There was nothin' his box won't do
With the oil of Aphrodite,
and the dust of the Grand Wazoo
He said "You might not believe this, little fella
But it'll cure your asthma too"
What I am trying to determine from this exercise is if an Ideal ZED acts analogous to a simple (or compound) hydraulic cylinder as has been contended as the basis for previous "proofs" of the impossibility of the actual functionality of the "dual ZED" devices demonstrated by Wayne Travis to Mark Dansie.It does act like a crippled hydraulic cylinder. That should be self-evident by now.
Good luck with the water heater.
I appreciate our mutual understanding of the "Ideal" Analysis. And I also agree that by the definition of an Ideal Analysis, any real world device must display efficiencies below that of the ideal device.
And this is my favorite part so far! And I thank you for teaching again.
I did pick up on the hints (I believe) and understood them to mean that the Energy that could be extracted from the difference in the Energy between State 3 and State 1 would be 1/2 that total (and not the 100% I used to calculate the 88.3% efficiency). But I had not considered that this could make the efficiency greater. I also do not fully understand how?
BTW, my water heater has blown and I am now stuck at home for tomorrow. I hope to be able to mentally digest all the logic changes due to the interesting negative GPE revelations. But for now I may be preoccupied with if I can comfortably wash my face in the morning. So please grant me a short hiatus.
Once again, I do greatly appreciate when you teach.
M.
Looking at a system to see if it conserves energy..................The ZED is absolutely subject to the Laws of Energy. Force is not conserved. But you simply reject these lessons each time they are presented because they contradict your lies.
......................
The Zed is not a conserves energy process...... it is a force amplification - with reduced input - which results in NET available energy.
If you are looking for a single process to gain.... you have not understood that our system is not an OU device -
Thanks
Looking at a system to see if it conserves energy..................
......................
The Zed is not a conserves energy process...... it is a force amplification - with reduced input - which results in NET available energy.
If you are looking for a single process to gain.... you have not understood that our system is not an OU device -
Thanks
To all:It is such a shame that you do not now have nor have you ever had a technology such as you falsely claim.
We have worked hard to develop our technology and then some more.
It's amazing the amount of help a shameless huckster can elicit.
We have had incredible selfless help - guidance - and support.
Too bad that there isn't any free energy to be had from your contraptions. But don't let that stop you from thumping your Bible.
We are so blessed, the source code to free energy has been unlocked -
Hmm, you must be working with a different calendar than me. Who knows, maybe you will get that knock on your door Thursday after all. It's just something that I don't know. Do you keep plenty of hot coffee and donuts around for visitors?
I waded thru crap here to share... the rest of you are awesome!
Tomorrow is the last day.
I will check back tomorrow.
Good night
Wayne, your descriptions are meaningless crap and you know it.I am not sure who you refer to as weak minded?
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?The fraud Wayne Travis repeats his suggestions that there is something behind his tattered curtain. There isn't.
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.Dear MarkE,
Dear MarkE,The fraud: Wayne Travis speaks. You don't have any technology Wayne. You have the lies you use to sell your bogus investments.
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.
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.
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.
The description "force amplification - with reduced input " IS identically equal to saying that it is an over-unity device.
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.
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.Three states: S1, S2, S3
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So originally - everyone called it a free energy device --PM, or Free energy...
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.
And we put it thru the input output tests - 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.
The next assumed proof was - make it run itself.......Passed with flying colors.......
There is no need to wonder about something the contraption never did.
The immature and incorrect question was "HOW DOES IT 'CREATE' Energy.............
Are they all grade school drop outs?
I asked our engineers - Show me the data that shows it creates 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.
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
They don't. Any engineer or scientist who fails to recognize that is incompetent.
How can the sum of lossy systems result in Created energy???
No, it is physically incorrect.
Of course I know that is what you all have been saying.... it seems logically 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.
.......................
Our saving grace - was a physical system that worked... so we did not attack each other or give up on finding the answer.
Force is not conservative.
In the process of uncovering the ability to amplify the force and then change its orientation - we found the answer.
No, you invented bafflegab to try and hide the fact that you do not have what you claim.
Yeah - we had to create terms to explain the difference between creation and amplification.
No, you came up with a scheme to defraud gullible investors and have executed against that scheme.
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.
Gravity is a field.
I suggest you read the BINGO Response - ]
Start asking - is gravity "energy" or is it "force" -
"Gravitational force" is the equivalent force due to the acceleration that occurs in a gravitational field.
If gravity can be seen as a force - then does the LAWs regarding energy still apply?
Force cannot be converted to energy. Energy is the integral of the dot product of force and distance.
If you find that it is force - then build a force amplification system and then convert the force to energy.
"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.
Concentrated buoyancy works very well....one more hint - don't do things the same in both directions...that is a brick...
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.
Wayne
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.;QuoteQuote 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.
"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.
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.
When it comes to generating the free energy that you falsely claim: Your systems don't work at all.
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.
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.
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.
Nope. You are just lying again.
Net Energy is the by product of a process
Thanks
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,
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.;Pretty bold assumptions - brother.....
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.
MarkE,
I think the whole world knows what you think...
Thank for something..
Wayne
Pretty bold assumptions - brother.....It is proven physics.
No, you simply retold your lies. Your system does not deliver net output energy in excess of input energy.
First - I shared how our first system does work to provide consumer end Net energy...
The fraud: Wayne Travis once again attempts to deflect attention from his fraud and his lies by accusing others.
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....
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
It is proven physics. No, you simply retold your lies. Your system does not deliver net output energy in excess of input energy.The fraud: Wayne Travis once again attempts to deflect attention from his fraud and his lies by accusing others.
I guess this is what you were expecting then.I have not checked the numbers but the operations now look right. Now, all someone has to do is find some way to recover the energy dumped with the bath water so to speak going from ST3 => ST1, only to immediately replace it going from ST1 => ST2. Then one can contemplate why go all to this trouble when a cinder block brick that just sits there is more efficient.
Since ST2 is restrained there is no energy increase to add, but in ST3 there is the increase in GPE which I have now added.
After that 1 additional change then I only need to add the return to ST1 and the performed.
st2 added energy 0.002098426553J
st2 estored total 0.005510745907J
st1 estored total 0.003412319354J
st3 estored total 0.003859752955J
ideal performed 0.001650992951J
st3 to st1 0.000447433601J
Performed Plus Return 0.002098426553J
st2 added energy 0.002098426553J
Input minus performed+return 0.000000000000J
st2 fill level 37.00mm
lift height 2.41mm
I added this to ST3_Energy
ST3_Riser_Weight_Energy 0.0002453J
=Riser3DownForce*ST3_Uplift_1*mm_to_m_1
Do you feel better Powercatt..There it is: The ever present, but false suggestion that there is something behind Wayne's tattered carnival curtain. Unfortunately for the poor folks who already invested, there isn't and never was anything there.
I hope so..
You make assumptions on lack of information....
You will figure out that the Trolls Are left out of the real advances..
Powercat has routinely reprinted your promises to demonstrate against your claims. What you said you would do in 2012, you now say you will not do until late 2015. The fact is that you never will demonstrate against your claims, because your claims are lies.
Why do you assume we would share information with you - with your utter unprofessional conduct..
Take Care
LOL you stick with your divisions...I never said such a thing. I note that you falsely claim to violate known physics. It is there to see on your web site and in your many writings, including posts here.
Who has said that we defy Physics? You do.
Oh goody, Wayne Travis the fraud will soon be gone for good ... until he comes back.
You assume we must.... that is the limitation of your intellect.... not mine.
Take care,
Last day
There it is: The ever present, but false suggestion that there is something behind Wayne's tattered carnival curtain. Unfortunately for the poor folks who already invested, there isn't and never was anything there.Powercat has routinely reprinted your promises to demonstrate against your claims. What you said you would do in 2012, you now say you will not do until late 2015. The fact is that you never will demonstrate against your claims, because your claims are lies.Wow - you are pretty high and mighty - sitting behind your computer insulting people.
I have not checked the numbers but the operations now look right. Now, all someone has to do is find some way to recover the energy dumped with the bath water so to speak going from ST3 => ST1, only to immediately replace it going from ST1 => ST2. Then one can contemplate why go all to this trouble when a cinder block brick that just sits there is more efficient.
I never said such a thing. I note that you falsely claim to violate known physics. It is there to see on your web site and in your many writings, including posts here.Oh goody, Wayne Travis the fraud will soon be gone for good ... until he comes back.Making an assumption that I will soon be gone......hmmmmm.....from your vantage point...maybe.......
Wow - you are pretty high and mighty - sitting behind your computer insulting people.LOL. It's just awesome how you soldier on as though you are oblivious to the falsity of your claims, or the despicable nature of preying on people's hopes in order to steal money from them.
So how much $$ did you bet that you could take down Wayne Travis?
Is Powercat in on it.
Last Day.
Do you feel better Powercatt..
I hope so..
You make assumptions on lack of information....
You will figure out that the Trolls Are left out of the real advances..
Why do you assume we would share information with you - with your utter unprofessional conduct..
Take Care
Hello All,The discovery was that investors can be sold BS.
My Name is Wayne Travis, ..
Fanciful wall of BS text...
...
In 2008, I chanced upon a discovery that would change my understanding of energy production and limitations.
All of these geniuses apparently flunked out of grade school science.
I begun building test systems to prove or narrow the understanding of the systems. My employer released me from intellectual control of the invention – it was not part of the robotics or tooling needs.
I worked two years quietly, and I was helped by many of the teams that I had worked with before, each of those members were given shares of my company – in return for their generosity of skill and time.
It is a journey they still haven't taken. None of Wayne's machines produce output energy in excess of the input energy.
We made great advancements, but it was a long journey from anomaly to a producing system, a long journey.
It's a real bummer how some people object to being defrauded.
Our expenses were mainly materials, and I personally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on development materials, legal protection and taxes….
We were almost granted – but a threat of lawsuit – scared the grantees’ – we pressed on.
Wayne tells us that the brain trust in Wayne town are so dim they don't know how to add vectors.
Our first Multi layered system was a great success – we were not sure if the buoyancy force would be additive or cancel each other out……….. Additive was the conclusion, and many benefits followed.
"Professionalism" equals Wayne speak for wooden nose.
With each stage of advancement – our understanding and professionalism grew. We also found that the established education made blinding assumptions regarding any such technology; we persevered.
Translation: "Conning by proxy is fantastic! Convince one person of a complete BS story and their reputation sells the BS to others. Mo' mo' investment money for Wayne!"
Wise men and women, great skeptics, and awesome builders joined in an international effort to understand and develop our systems – all blessings toward a common good.
It is zero. The contraptions are completely useless as energy generators.
Those people, like me, took a risks regarding our success or failure, they all understood that the chances of us succeeding at bringing clean energy to the world was next to Zero…. We often laughed at how insane it was to think we were going to succeed.
Physics prevents delivering systems that work as you claim to any customers, such as the Trinity Baptist Church.
As a businessman, I understood that open sourcing our system completely would destroy the ability for investment and growth required to actually deliver systems to consumers.
Viva! Viva! Viva!
I have been offered and have decided to sell our company, some of the requirements are that I become CEO, that our teams remain on board – and that we go dark: arrangements have been made.
Wanna bet?
Today is the last Day and communication from me, and I am asking that our NDA members to discontinue commenting on our systems – we have a world to bring clean power.
Sincerely: Wayne Travis
"Viva Las Vegas"
Bright light city gonna set my soul
Gonna set my soul on fire
Got a whole lot of money that's ready to burn,
So get those stakes up higher
There's a thousand pretty women waitin' out there
And they're all livin' devil may care
And I'm just the devil with love to spare
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
How I wish that there were more
Than the twenty-four hours in the day
'Cause even if there were forty more
I wouldn't sleep a minute away
Oh, there's black jack and poker and the roulette wheel
A fortune won and lost on ev'ry deal
All you need's a strong heart and a nerve of steel
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas
Viva Las Vegas with you neon flashin'
And your one armbandits crashin'
All those hopes down the drain
Viva Las Vegas turnin' day into nighttime
Turnin' night into daytime
If you see it once
You'll never be the same again
I'm gonna keep on the run
I'm gonna have me some fun
If it costs me my very last dime
If I wind up broke up well
I'll always remember that I had a swingin' time
I'm gonna give it ev'rything I've got
Lady luck please let the dice stay hot
Let me shout a seven with ev'ry shot
Viva Las Vegas, Viva Las Vegas,
Viva, Viva Las Vegas
Well Mark,, most of your points are valid, with a few exceptions.
I am no longer going to discuss the ZED or any other system that Wayne has.
I will say that you have the answer in your post.
I again thank you for teaching me some new things.
So, is this end of zed thread?I doubt it. An end of ZED thread would be something that would come up if the shareholders sue or law enforcement shuts Wayne down like they did the plasma engine fraud John Rohner. For the time being, Wayne says (again) that he is going to go quiet because a supposed buyer wants it that way. The promises to demonstrate to Mark Dansie have all been withdrawn. The only promise that is out there is production supposedly late in 2015. I give that similar odds to Rossi's past promises of production.
...
Today is the last Day and communication from me, and I am asking that our NDA members to discontinue commenting on our systems – we have a world to bring clean power.
Sincerely: Wayne Travis
...
I am no longer going to discuss the ZED or any other system that Wayne has.
...
My very credible NDA member informant says it's all bullshit.Do you mean to suggest that "Honest Wayne Travis" might be, how can I put this: being "Super Conservative" with the truth? Do you mean to suggest that he might not have actually sold the company?
Do you mean to suggest that "Honest Wayne Travis" might be, how can I put this: being "Super Conservative" with the truth? Do you mean to suggest that he might not have actually sold the company?My undisclosed but super credible informant indicated that mrwayne accidentally signed an NDA with himself so he can't possibly tell the truth at all. I know this sounds silly but my informant has multiple PhD's in buoyancy and plumbing.
My undisclosed but super credible informant indicated that mrwayne accidentally signed an NDA with himself so he can't possibly tell the truth at all. I know this sounds silly but my informant has multiple PhD's in buoyancy and plumbing.No one told us that Rossi had partnered up with Wayne.
Andrea Rossi is a certifiable hot air specialist!
Not true, plumbing yes, but surely Rossi's Phd. is in hot air.
John.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEEJesus died on Good Friday. When they opened the tomb on Easter Sunday it was empty.
A Unique Phenomenon That Allows For The Capture of Gravity as Energy
................
Our Technology produces clean energy Mechanically, by altering the once believed conservative field of gravity - allowing us to supply endless and abundant clean Energy. Many have tried! It is our humble privilege to say that "at Zydro Energy we have exceeded the impossible".
................
jwtravis5@peoplepc.com
A wise man relies on evidence for what he believes. An honest man states what he believes. Both are willing to evaluate evidence that challenges what they believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQfjIw3mivc
A humble man CAN question what he knows.
A wise man WILL question what he knows.
Then there are the others who will NEVER question what they know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RRWI6O57IE
Indeed,, TK.An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. The fact that human knowledge is very limited does not invalidate that which we have learned from strong evidence.
We all know what we know, we all know it to be true, that is until we learn otherwise.
I like to question everything and I try to see all sides,, even when I am pushing against a view, I quietly try to make sure I see what it is.
I was watching a quick little snip-it on metal whiskers,, I never thought that metal would grow whiskers and cause so much trouble,, I learned something new.
Here is a quick pop quiz: Suppose Wayne wants to lift a 1kg payload weight 10cm. 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?
A fool believes what he has been told without question, and we have been told what to look for and how it shows us what is being told.Wayne Travis has never offered verifiable evidence that supports his stories. It is because none exists. He is a fraud.
This sounds a lot like you are descending again into an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.
Circular logic, a House of Cards,, and other such methods is what covers a very large portion of what we know.
That is an argument from ignorance.
Just because something CAN be one way,, does that mean that it MUST be that way?
That is logically incorrect. If something is "known" then the belief is based on evidence. Otherwise, it is just a belief.
Jumping to a conclusion because it does not agree with what is known is ignorance.
Look at your work,, you define things in an ever increasing level of complexity and that is supposed to increase the level of certainty.That which has been shown to be true by repeated strong evidence is held to be true until strong contradictory evidence appears. In the case of Wayne's fraud versus 2000 year old science, Wayne has come up with zilch on the evidence side, much less strong evidence. Not a single proponent of Wayne's claims to being able to circumvent the "once believed" conservative nature of gravity. Not a single propoentn of Wayne's fraud can show a single femtoJoule of excess energy.
What that is doing is defining the environmental conditions down to specifics,, the environment can change in unexpected ways, or it can change in a controlled and predicted fashion.
You are using a circular argument, it CAN hold to be true OR it might NOT hold to be true,, just because it might hold in many cases still does not mean it holds in all cases.
Wayne and his crew have never demonstrated any anomaly. They have consistently misrepresented 2000 year old science as something new. They have consistently made false claims. If you haven't figured it out yet: Wayne is perpetrating an investment fraud.
I choose to not throw out an anomaly, nor do I throw out what we know because of an anomaly. I choose to use both and try and find what is causing what. It is kind of simple really.
That is your opinion, and you are more than free to have it.The issues of Wayne and friends misrepresentations of 2000 year old science are proven by the historical record of the science and the silly statements asserted by Wayne and company of: the non-existent "Travis Effect", "Energy Refernce Mapping Technology", "Super Conservative" systems and so on. No one promoting these nonsense, invented terms can either describe what they supposedly mean, nor show any of them to be actual real behaviors that are distinct from already well-established behaviors.
We are all entitled to our opinions, right, wrong or indifferent.
If it is overlooked by science then what?There is no evidence of any "it".
Are new discoveries not valid because no person has observed them before,, really?
Neither have you produced any evidence of any "it". By your own assessment you did not find: any non-conservative behavior in either gravity or energy.
Do NOT forget I built and tested and played with TBZED,, have you had your hands on a real device? I did not think so.
I state what there is strong evidence to support. You keep committing the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
You are again stating your opinion like it is some kind of fact, which it is not it is only your opinion.
Neither you nor anyone supporting Wayne's fraud have offered any empirical evidence that supports his claims. The very limited empirical evidence that you have offered refutes Wayne's claims. So does the demonstrated failure of his machines to perform as he claims.
Empirical trumps theoretical every time Mark,, not just sometimes,, every time,, that is what makes science evolve over time.
Since you have no evidence, much less proof on which to base your claim, that is pure speculation by you.
You may not have what YOU need for proof,, but that is you and your level of requirements,, I believe that even if you had a running system in front of you thar you would not except the proof.
That's the problem with science. It only applies to 'known' and 'observable' phenomena.
So as long as wayne doesn't demonstrate his alleged gravity cheating plumbing scheme, it's checkmate, bro.
/s
::)
But I did find a bunch of free work that could be done,, and I reported on that as well,, 90% lift and all that left inside is what I reported on,, actually it was better than that but TK decided to have an issue with my numbers,, so I backed down on what I measured, reasonable errors are reasonable,, so a 10% reduction in output to input to cover those errors.I have never seen any data from you that suggests you obtained unity or better results. If you think that you did, then like anyone else making an experimental claim you are free to: detail the experiment set-up, measurement methods, null experiments, measurements and any data manipulation performed to reach your conclusions. Your descriptions need to sufficiently detailed to allow any reasonably competent experimenter to reproduce the observations you claim to have made.
I have no idea what "things" you mean. Evidence is evidence. As far as I am aware you have not offered any for your extraordinary beliefs.
Now, yet again you are stating things as if they were fact, which they are not they are your opiniion.
I keep observing that you resort to logical fallacies, and that you profess support for a fraud. Those are observations.
You keep calling me names,, by your definition that is the last and weakest form of attack,, that is your definition there Mark.
This is true enough,, you are making an observation and providing your opinion on that. However, your use of logical fallacies needs to be qualified so as not to represent a fact,, but reflect that it is your opinion.Show what logical fallacy or fallacies you claim that I employ.
Once again you are making an argument from ignorance.
Just because something has not been observed before, are you stating that then there is nothing new that can be observed?
But I did find a bunch of free work that could be done,, and I reported on that as well,, 90% lift and all that left inside is what I reported on,, actually it was better than that but TK decided to have an issue with my numbers,, so I backed down on what I measured, reasonable errors are reasonable,, so a 10% reduction in output to input to cover those errors.
I did that in the first thread on this topic. So this question has been answered by me already,, several times actually.
Actually YOU need to show mine since YOU are making that claim about me. I understand that reading comprehension may not be your strong point,, but "needs to be qualified" about sums it up there Mark.Go look up argument from ignorance.
Evidence? No you never have evidence.
Here again you are making a false claim.
What "it"? Something that is not evidenced does not weigh against that which has evidence. No one has shown any evidence in support of Wayne's claims.
You have inferred, and also ignored, that if it has not been observed then there is nothing to observe.
You just keep going around in the same circles: You want to believe something extraordinary so it is up to others to disprove it to your satisfaction. Keep burying your head. Keep playing the fool. See where it gets you.
That sounds like YOU think YOU know all there is to know already.
I did that in the first thread on this topic. So this question has been answered by me already,, several times actually.I ahve never seen anywhere that you have shown evidence in support of Wayne's claims. As to your own experiments, when I asked you for data, you said you lost your notebooks and could not provide it.
I ahve never seen anywhere that you have shown evidence in support of Wayne's claims. As to your own experiments, when I asked you for data, you said you lost your notebooks and could not provide it.
Yes Mark, look it up,, here try this instead.If you want to keep playing yourself as a fool, no one here is going to stop you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It describes your argument very well.
If you have evidence of OU or a violation of the conservative nature of gravity, then just point to it.
Go read the first thread,, then I will accept your apology.
What information would that be Tom?
As I told you the information was posted in the first thread.
Unless you are trying to make free energy with bumble bees, you are off in the bushes.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/flight-bumblebee
Try this for a reference,, and see if the lower portion does not ring a bell with what has transpired here,,
You support the fraudulent claims of a con man with no evidence on your side. Why should you expect that reasonable people will not challenge such idiocy?
In a community people are supposed to work together, to help, but in this one it seems a few have decided that they must be the caretakers of everyone else. They alone have the ability and knowledge of all things to determine what is and what can not be, and then you get those that jump on the bandwagon just to have fun.
You are making subjective judgements of how oh so unfair it is that in order to take any extraordinary claim seriously, I first require strong evidence. If that offends a desire of yours to engage in magical thinking, then so be it.
I found the knowledge that Mark did share to be interesting and useful, his opinions and self righteous attitude not helpful at all,, then there are the heal bitters,, what are they supposed to be doing??
To the best of my knowledge you have not shown any data that suggest any support for Wayne's free energy claims or his gravity altering claims.
So,, I have posted information I gathered, I have shared what my thoughts are on that collected data and I have shared what I think that means or shows.
The more important question is: Has anyone, including you produced any objective evidence that supports Wayne's claims as you espouse to support them?
Anyone else here built a 5 layer system?
Do you understand how science works? Do you understand the scientific method? If you do, why are you so angry about it?
Go ahead and keep saying I did not post anything, go ahead and keep saying that because it has not been observed by mainstream science or some big named scientist that it can not be real,, go ahead and keep your heads in the sand,, if not stuck somewhere else.
Wayne has made a mockery of himself as have his supporters. None have come up with a single iota of evidence in favor of his idiotic and completely false free energy from buoyancy claims. And that includes you Tom.
Hey Bill,, Wayne started the first thread with the full understanding that not all information was going to be shared, that was with Stefan as well
Careful! Honest Wayne Travis has asked the NDA signers not to discuss the True and Holy Zed any more!Looking through some of the nonsense that the fraud: "Honest Wayne Travis" posted in the very beginning, he definitely was claiming that the nested Russian dolls of ignorance were OU. They are of course not OU as has been shown.
You can only discuss the lesser, pseudoZeds that are proven mathematically not to work. They are endorsed by the Zed Priesthood as being correct models, up until all the kinks are worked out of the math. Then when the math is all correct and it's impossible to claim that the models could work, it is revealed from on high that the models aren't really like the True and Holy Zeds at all..... Honest Father Wayne was just joking around with you, since he cannot reveal the actual operation of the True and Holy Zed and can't show any working model. The Law, and the agreements he has made, prevent it!
Many people believe all kinds of utterly crazy things. That doesn't mean it's true.
Mark:
Ah, the old "lost notebooks" ploy. That is almost as good as the "I signed an NDA so I can't show any evidence" ploy. Stefan should add a line to the TOS for this website that demands that anyone who makes a free energy claim must show proof, and NOT demand that others de-bunk it. Otherwise, TK's unicorn in his backyard might be eligible for the OU prize.
Bill
Agree,But how do we know that there isn't a colony of nanosized leprechauns living under some grain of sand: somewhere? How do we know that if we just great them with the right offering they won't supply us with endless riches? How do we know they weren't crushed by MH370?
claimants persistently claiming without some kind of control on their posting "I have achieved free energy", should always be challenged, and if found lacking some kind of control would seem reasonable. Before we end up with more and more pages going nowhere but argument.
See Mark,, there you go off the deep end again.Sure Tom. Tell yourself that you've been doing anything other than trolling for a very long time now. Maybe you can convince yourself.
I have not claimed violations of established science,, but if science needs to change then that is another thing altogether.
I understood science to be always changing, moving forward ever so slowly with the advent of new information,, is this a wrong view?
This should be expanded to include those that can not control themselves or their responses. We should hope to keep a civil environment.
Repeated posts of the same thing, name calling, slander, all that kind of stuff.
1st time poster, long time reader....No, Wayne Travis has not done any of the extraordinary things that he has claimed. You can hope all you want, but you will not get any free energy from lifting and lowering weights, including weights composed partially or fully of water volumes.
MR Wayne, You have DONE IT!!
I will post more later on the working model that will hopefully power my cabin come next week.
You were right ALL along...but I couldn't open my eyes till recently!!!...like a gem among pebbles right in front of me the whole time...
again I will expound later!!
Power On!!
Farce Wars: Attack of the WayneBots.
1st time poster, long time reader....
MR Wayne, You have DONE IT!!
I will post more later on the working model that will hopefully power my cabin come next week.
You were right ALL along...but I couldn't open my eyes till recently!!!...like a gem among pebbles right in front of me the whole time...
again I will expound later!!
Power On!!
Hello Mondrasek,
Let me tell you what I will do: Nothing.
He might have some problems at the moment.
http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/%E2%80%9Crenewable%E2%80%9D-energy-company-under-fbi-investigation (http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/%E2%80%9Crenewable%E2%80%9D-energy-company-under-fbi-investigation)
Well well well. It looks like Mister Wayne has some 'splaining to do.I also amended my article TK with your suggestions so there is no confusion. Sorry for not making it clearer earlier.
It's too bad that Mark E. isn't around to see this.
Well well well. It looks like Mister Wayne has some 'splaining to do.
It's too bad that Mark E. isn't around to see this.
If anyone wants to look back to the start of this thread you'll soon
see how much effort MarkE put into helping Mondrasek with his quest.