Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE,


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.

LarryC there isn't anything outside of Archimedes' Principle in the graphic that your spreadsheet supposedly analyzes. 

A compressible fluid mass indeed has potential energy tied up in the compression over and above its GPE.  Incompressible fluids do not gain or lose energy as result of surrounding pressure.  If you do not believe me then you can write to the paleontologist:  Professor J. Bret Bennington and ask him.

147 Gittleson Hall
Phone: 516-463-5568
Fax: 516-463-5120
Email: geojbb@hofstra.edu

I wonder how he will feel about you taking a statement of his out of context in order to help further Wayne Travis' fraud.

Water is very slightly compressible.  For things on the scale of Wayne's useless ZED props the compressibility of water can be ignored.  When the head is thousands of meters, then  there is enough pressure to compress the water appreciably. 

The potential energy that you quoted out of context from Professor Bennington's class notes refers to the pressure of other water supporting a head of water above a datum.  That energy is completely accounted for in the formulas that I have offered:  E = 0.5*pWater*G₀*(H_TOP² - H_BOTTOM²).  In most of the examples that we have discussed the water was always at the zero datum, IE H_BOTTOM = 0.  That simplifies the energy calculation to: E = 0.5*pWater*G₀*H_TOP².   Here is a link to Professor Bennington's class notes that you either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent: 

http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_bennington/121notes/pdfs/Hydraulic_Head.pdf

It's looks like you've built another broken spreadsheet that has little to do with your represented model.  I like for instance how you calculated your pod buoyant force in cell H6 based by multiplying its volume by the density of water when it is not fully submerged.  Go back to school Larry.

There are four terms to the stored energy in the water and they are all shown on the diagram.  For the start condition you got the energy: in the gap in your cell L9.  The other three are missing.  For reasons known only to you, you set up cell L10 to calculate energy in the gap at your stipulated ending water level.  For L11 you calculated the sum of the energy in the water under the pod when it is elevated, with energy that would be in the gap if it filled up to your entered value of 109.02mm.  Then as your "sum" you subtracted L9 from L11.  If you think that represents the sum of the four energy values in the graphic, then you are smoking some powerful stuff.

Anytime you want to try and show that the equations I offered are flawed or incomplete for their purpose just go right ahead and put your analysis out there and compare it to the actual values that my stated formulas would generate.

[MileHigh]

MarkE:

Looks like you blew somebody out of the water!  lol  That was yet another amazing reality distortion zone posting by Wayne also.

The Great Marianas Turkey shoot!

MileHigh

[MarkE]

Wayne's disciples of duplicity manage to constantly shoot themselves in the feet.  Did LarryC really think that I wouldn't bother to look at what he had done?  Did he really think that he could quote a published work out of context and not get called on it?  This is Wayne's brain trust at work.  For added humor you can peruse Dr. Bennington's hydrology course notes where he teaches:  E = integral of F*ds.

[minnie]

  LarryC, Webby, Mondrasek and Travis supporters in general,
      I must say I don't like the way that you treat MarkE and the Koala in particular.
  Anyone can make an error but there is no need to treat them in a rude and
   condescending manner. These people try to show the proper scientific facts.
                        John.

[powercat]

Powercat - you've been dooped by the 
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    manipulating the math to   
It is cheap tricks by the puppet master.

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,
http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg394592/#msg394592
LOL and you wonder why people trash you.