Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

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?

[mondrasek]

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?

Yes, water is to be admitted through the bottom of AR1.

[mondrasek]

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.

[LarryC]

Hi M.


First, thanks for the inspiration. I've been looking for an improved way to help other understand the recovery and you gave it to me.


One of the issues is not recovering the stored energy from the previous lift. The attached spreadsheet shows a simple flow analysis between 2 Archimedes and also for a single Archimedes. The efficiency is ~83% with 2 and ~50% with a single. It doesn't have to be a second Archimedes, but some method of recovering the stored energy from the previous rise is required. Only change the parameters in yellow, all others are calculated.


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. My recent spreadsheets analyze the latest design Zed flows the same as the attached Archimedes and they all show efficiency's much greater than 100%. But, as you know, I can not post them here due to my NDA.


Good work and please let me know if you or anyone find any errors in the spreadsheet, should be easy as there is no VBA.


Larry

[TinselKoala]

And of course your NDA is preventing you from producing any kind of real system that shows the same degree of OU as your spreadsheet. But what's preventing Travis from using your information to get himself out of his hole? I know the answer to that one... and so do you.

Meanwhile, here's proof that a simple U-tube is overunity.