Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

hi..  mondrasek

it seem that you asked someone to repair your car or something without touching it, with closed eyes, is there something that you hide inside?
as PC is your toy and you are also VBA programmer, how could it be so difficult for you to learn only a bit of excel ?,
there is no doubt that you know exactly a help button in excel and you know google is a huge library. I'm sure you will not regret exploring excel features.  say goodbye to calculator   

I don't think that Mondrasek said he is a VBA programmer.  I thought he said that he does not write code.  And if he never bothered to learn Excel, there is MathCAD and Matlab.   And if he really doesn't like any of those he can always use a pen and paper.  But to work the problem there is work that has to be done, and there is no way to audit the work if it is not written down one way or another.  No one including Mondrasek can check work that is not recorded by some means.  Mondrasek chooses not to show his work, and now without making any attempt to repeat my experiments, he accuses me of gaming them.  I invite anyone to reproduce my experiments.  They don't require a lot of time or skill, and they are cheap to perform.

[mondrasek]

hi..  mondrasek

it seem that you asked someone to repair your car or something without touching it, with closed eyes, is there something that you hide inside?
as PC is your toy and you are also VBA programmer, how could it be so difficult for you to learn only a bit of excel ?,
there is no doubt that you know exactly a help button in excel and you know google is a huge library. I'm sure you will not regret exploring excel features.  say goodbye to calculator   

Nope.  Not a VBA programmer.  Plenty of Software Engineers that I can ask to do that for me if I feel it is needed.  Not needed for this Analysis.  Neither is Excel.  Paper, pencil, and a calculator can give the same exact results as any more advanced methods.

Feel free to review any of the reasoning, methods, math, and results in this Analysis.  Let us know if you find any mistakes, or if you have any questions.

BTW, I have seen many neat VBA and spreadsheet apps developed to check Industrial Robot loading while being with my current Employer for many years now.  Those that rely on those tools and do not understand the math behind them are limited by lacking that understanding.  I am often asked to evaluate ways to apply the robots properly to handle the situations where those tools merely tell the user they are exceeding the capacity of the robots.  I prefer to keep those skill sharp.

To be clear, I have nothing against spreadsheets and computer apps!  They are simply not needed for this Analysis.  If I were to include those unnecessary tools it could eliminate the understanding by anyone who does not have them available or also is not skilled with them.  So a simple approach and presentation are my preference.  And the simpler the better.  That was the reason I offered the no-pod, single riser model so we could clear up some issues before returning to the 3-layer.

[mondrasek]

Mondrasek chooses not to show his work...

I have explained and shown my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2.  That begins here:  http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999  Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.

[MarkE]

So the interaction of the pontoons is to move up with force when they have been pushed down with force into the water.

The pontoons combined with the water bottle are surrogates for a single riser.  We can't get an SG of 0 for obvious practical reasons.  However that is not important.  It only means that instead of floating on top of the water, they are partially submerged in the relaxed state, which is with the vent open.

Will they move up with the vent open?

Absolutely!  The water bottle plus pontoons rises to its highest position when the vent is open.  When the vent is closed, the assembly has to lift water, and that requires energy.

If yes then there is no similarity.

What is it that you contend is dissimilar?  A hollow assembly with SG < 1 is inserted into a volume of water.  The water level inside and outside the assembly is allowed to equalize by opening a vent.  When the water level has equalized, the vent is closed.  The only difference here is that I don't have a convenient supply of incompressible air.  Monderask has got things all backwards and has the odd idea that compressibility gives me something that I want to show that incompressible "air" would not.  That's horse shit.  Because the air is elastic: some energy goes into rarifying the air and some into lifting water.  If the air were inelastic, then all of the energy would go into lifting the water.  The water level in the water bottle would be higher, but the top of the water bottle would be lower.  HER/Zydro use air, so the demonstrated arrangement is a little more representative of a "real ZED" than it is of an "ideal ZED", but the differences are not material to what is being demonstrated.

If no then why not.

[MarkE]

I have explained and shown my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2.  That begins here:  http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999  Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.

No they don't.