Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

Where is this photo that honest Wayne Travis accuses me of altering? He's made the accusation several times but has never supported his accusation with any reference or actual evidence for his accusation.

[MarkE]

Call the output whatever you like - Sir. I am done with your word twisting and games.

LOL, sure there Wayne.

[MarkE]

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.

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.

The pressure based evaluation keeps track of all the forces in the Z axis.

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.

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.

__________________________________________-

These are your usages and assigned values of the forces, I have the lift stopped short at ~2.57mm

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.

Actual R4 spreadsheet values:
State 3 Pressures         
ST3_POD_Pressure   216.0815190   Pa   
ST3_R1_Pressure   24.6763852   Pa   
ST3_R1_WallPressure   174.8508712   Pa   
ST3_R2_Pressure   -199.0357172   Pa   
ST3_R2_WallPressure   75.5493016   Pa   
ST3_R3_Pressure   -190.9595179   Pa   
ST3_R3_WallPressure   179.2773306   Pa   
         
State 3 Forces         
ST3_POD_UPF   0.0678840   N   
ST3_R1_ID_Force   0.0131014   N   
ST3_R1_Wall_Force   0.0148314   N   
ST3_R1_OD_Force   0.1225567   N   
ST3_R2_ID_Force   -0.1807086   N   
ST3_R2_Wall_Force   0.0083071   N   
ST3_R2_OD_Force   0.1943731   N   
ST3_R3_ID_Force   -0.2645634   N   
ST3_R3_Wall_Force   0.0242183   N   
ST3_Total_Uplift_Force   0.0000000   N   

___________________________________________-      
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.

No they are not.  The correct values are shown along with the diagrams in the R4 spreadsheet.

This is without adding the extra parts,, just using the forces as your spreadsheet calculates them.

That's hilarious Tom because what you posted are not the values from the R4 spreadsheet.

[MarkE]

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"?

[LibreEnergia]

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

Given the apparent simplicity of this explanation it is indeed a wonder that you have not to date been able to produce a working implementation based on this principle...

However, your explanation provides for the ability of the machine to shuffle some potential back and forward between two stores but cannot account for how you could extract any of that potential to power an EXTERNAL load.

That any engineer could be fooled by such a theory is beyond comprehension to me. 

Surely you are not going to tell me I'll have to wait for the 'Rotary Zed' to be released in 2015 to explain such a breakthrough?