Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MileHigh]

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)

[mrwayne]

Regarding State one:

Monderask is discussing an Mathematical Analysis of an ideal ZED.

Has 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

[MileHigh]

if you make these mistakes on purpose - that is wrong

See how incredibly creepy he is?  He is playing the MIB card and he is playing it to a specific type of audience.

I really and truly hope that you make the national media Wayne for all the right reasons.

[MarkE]

MarkE.

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.

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.

[MarkE]

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.