Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE, I am refusing anything but to discuss the MATH.  That is the only thing that matters, AFAIKS.

Principals of basic physics can be discussed later.  But first, please finish your math when you can.  Also, I am happy to help out since the volume changes in each annulus due to the changing height of the risers gave me a pause (once again).  Luckily I had encountered that issue a few years ago in the original discussion on this subject and was able to quickly recover again due to my previous "learning curve."  I'm happy to share that knowledge if it would expedite your own learning curve.  And, of course, I have no doubts that you can get by the tricky part that I found!  But the offer stands if it is useful.

Mondrasek I have presented you with math that irrefutably describes the physics.  It is a fluid model.  The added fluid volume redistributes across the cross section.  The incompressible water and "air" then redistribute accordingly.  There is no need for iterative calculations.  Ordinary algebra yields the values.  However, the character of the result is already known.  Yet, you refuse to discuss that indisputable fact.

[MarkE]

Am I confused or what?

I thought you were just a simple farmer who had friends that did the math you could not understand? 

p.s. trying to create stories to support your other stories - is just.... TK (thats "Thumb Knitting" - or sock puppetry).

Gravity is Always on 

Wayne

Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.

[mrwayne]

Gravity is indeed "Always on", and contrary to your false claims it is always conservative.

Just finish the Math....... I don't expect anything or ask anything else from you.

and No, You are not done - you just set the simple baseline.

Stay on Subject.

Wayne

[TinselKoala]

TK, I see no reason why you keep making things like this up, and stating them in the form of a fact that you will repeat as true unless some "proof" is given that they are false.

TK, you can bring up the "mondrasek wheel" (please Google it if you want to see it everybody) anytime you please.  But it appears you are trying to "shame" me for a mistake from my past, rather than discuss the Mathematical Analysis.  And you have tried that before.  And the last time you did so I think I was open and transparent about what happened during that occasion as well.  So why the thinly veiled threat again?  I openly admit I made a mistake then and that you were instrumental in helping me realize that fact.  I have thanked you multiple times for helping me to find the error in what first brought me to OU.com and "Energy research" in the first place.  So, what of it?

Well, "what of it" is that you seem to me to have a slight tendency to get overly excited about your mathematically-derived results, and the last time it happened it turned out that your math was good but your procedure and some of your assumptions were wrong. Right? And when, with a little prodding from me, you reconsidered your assumptions, did a little research into circularly rotating machines, moment arms and torques, and you re-did your calculation _procedure_ and came up with the true answer. Note that your math was always right, so your answers were right. They just weren't true reflections of reality because the "world" they existed in is not our world. I saw the first part happening, here, when you started talking about using Boyle's Law but you had already stipulated that both fluids in your contraption, er, Device Under Test, were incompressible. We headed that one off at the pass, good. Now, I told you earlier under what conditions I would do what MarkE is doing for LarryC, I think. I can't do that kind of deep work for free any more. That other time, I think you will agree that I worked pretty damn hard and long for you, probably saved you a boatload, or at least a small canoe load of cash, and had we encountered each other a bit earlier, even more might have stayed in your pocket where it belonged.
So I am worried about you, my friend. That other time, if you will pardon me saying so, was a bit trying on both of us, I recall you reporting loss of sleep, etc.
So.... we can accept that your MATH is probably right. After all  you are using a spreadsheet too, aren't you? So, since we know a priori that these claims are extremely unlikely to be true, that means if our model "confirms" the claims, it is likely, just as likely, to be in error. Probabilities, not certainties, of course, keep an open mind but don't let it blow skirts and overflow your earholes.
Reexamine your assumptions. Make sure you are using the _right_ mathematical model. GIGO applies very strongly here. Respect sig digs from real measurements, especially muchly. Review your calculus and vector mechanics. And have fun!

Fair enough?

[MarkE]

So boys and girls exactly as stated for exactly the reasons stated, the "Ideal ZED" loses a great deal of its stored energy going from State 2 to State 3.  Why did the crack team at HER/Zydro think that an iterative solution is required to this simple fluid mechanics problem?  Why did Mondrasek refuse to discuss the exact physics that explains the loss going from State 2 to State 3?  Why does HER/Zydro insist that there is gain to be had in conservative and lossy behaviors?  Why does anyone think that lifting and dropping weights in any form leads to free energy?