Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

 
  Camel,
         that sure is a teaser!
                          John.

[MarkE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle

Maybe you should read this MarkE.

Do you like that little part at the end,,

If only you would understand it, you would be a lot better off.

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

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: 

cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(ST2_AR3Height_1-ST2_AR2Height_1)*Riser1ODCirArea_1  This is the Riser 1 entire OD times the head that acts on the ID.  This is NOT a displaced volume that defines the up force on Riser 1. 

cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(ST2_AR5Height_1-ST2_AR4Height_1)*Riser2ODCirArea_1)  You've done the same thing for Riser 2 as you did for Riser 1.  This is NOT a displaced volume that defines the up force on Riser 2.

cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*Riser3ODCirArea_1)  And here the same thing for Riser 3 as for Riser 2 and Riser 1.  This is NOT a displaced volume that defines the up force on Riser 3.

Then you multiplied that whole sum by 0.001.

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.

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.

Then the pod,

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*(PodCirArea_1*ST2_AR1Height_1)*0.001

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.

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.

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?

[MarkE]

Math teaser:

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

   

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.

[MarkE]

Now, lets talk about double dipping.

Does the projection of the riser thickness into the water have a force on it that adds a lift potential or not.

The riser walls displace water.  Of course they experience a buoyant up lift force.

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

That's because you demonstrate that you don't know what you are doing.

[MarkE]

Another small question MarkE,

Why is it that changing the VerGAp breaks your air volume audit.

You have not established that such a thing happens.

Is the Vertical Gap not something that stays the same,, is that relationship a constant??

It is a constant value defined in the spreadsheet.

So why does the air volume change so much when you change that value?

Really Tom?  You are wondering why a dependent variable changes?  Why don't you open your eyes and look at the diagrams?