Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

What am I ignoring,, you said that it will fall apart like a house of cards and then you said

There is pressure still within the pod chamber so the fluid will exit,, as the fluid exits what happens, the system returns,, this is what I interpret you to be saying.

Besides,,  what if state3 were a proper lift,, that is what if you put in 2 more times the input energy and took the lift distance out as a constant full force value,, then what happens if you do not let the risers "POP" and instead take the fluid back out of the pod chamber?

Lots.  You have chosen to take things out of context:  The house of cards (actually I recall saying "collapsing balloon" )referred to the specific geometries of Mondrasek's model a week or two ago.  You quote but ignore what you quoted:

Heads in odd AR#'s add to the reflected force, heads in the even AR#'s subtract and there are additional terms due to the nested risers.  The thing will drain so long as the reflected sums of the other annular ring forces and the weight in the pod chamber is positive. 

Do you fail to understand what that quote means in plain English? 

[MarkE]

I tried that and it did not work,, then there were all those _1 ends,, so I just did it the way I did.

Are you using Excel?  I highlighted the various lines, cut them, and then inserted the lines where you had them.  The only thing that is different is that I created a single cell IF(...) statement to detect underflow.

[MarkE]

Yes I do understand what a quote is,,

Like I said there is still pressure within the pod chamber,, so the fluid will come out.

I thought that the additional input is from going from end of state 1 to end of state 2,, which is B117,, is not state 1 a "build" condition and only gets put in once?

You quote my answer to a question posed on March 6, regarding the specific Mondrasek dimensions and then apply it as though it is my answer to your different general case question of today, when I carefully stated the dependence on the reflected forces.  Kindly tell me how you have done anything other than attempt to create a straw man.

Why you choose to compare energy output from State 2 to State 3 with energy input going from State 1 to State 2 as some sort of cyclic energy balance beats me.  Go from S2 to S3, and back.  In order to get back you have to at least input the ST2_ST3_ENERGY_LOSS which is greater than the ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed.

[MarkE]

No.

I do not have Excel so I am using Open Office.

I will look at the file later,, thanks.

I recommend you use Libre Office instead of Open Office.

[MarkE]

What within the system changed, other than the physical dimensions that would change what the outcome should be.  If there is no such change then if the outcome is what I have shown then there is an "engineering" component that can be used to optimize the setup which Mondrasek"s dimensions do not meet.

I do NOT need to go back to end of state 2 in one step,, I can go back to end of state 1 and from there go to end of state 2 which leads us once again into state 3.

Since there is a positive difference in water height between ar2 and ar3 and since ar6 is pulling up on ar5 when ar1 goes down and removes that positive pressure add ar4 will not be pushed down helping to lift ar5,  it is ar5 pulling on ar6 that is raising the water level in ar6, that will make ar5 fall down and ar4 move up and that will increase the negative buoyant value under R3, this will continue to move until all water levels are back to being even, back to end of state 1.

This is not a straw man anything, this is simple from this point for reset, as you said it may not be intuitive, not right off of the bat.  All the water weight and or height is balanced in only one condition after the risers are sunk.  The force to sink is a setup cost and is only paid once, after that the volumes *that can not change* keep the system with the lowest state of energy when freely allowed to move being end of state 1.

It may be hard to see a negative value as a source of positive motion, but any change from end of state 1 is a positive input, push down on the risers and they will come back up, pull up on the risers and they WILL go back down,, they were pushed up by the additional input going from end of state 2 to end of state 3 so the opposite reaction will be that they will pull themselves back down.

If you stretch your spring will it not pull back,, if you compress your spring will it not push back.

Oh, please, how convoluted do you want to get?  You emphasized "ALWAYS" in all caps in your current question and I stated that the result is determined by the coefficients.  You quoted but ignored my perfectly clear answer and wish to refer to my answer to a different more limited question. 

State 1 is not a rest state.  It requires external force to maintain.  State 1X is the rest state after sinking the risers and venting.  If you don't believe me, then go repeat the soda bottle experiment.

As you have found out by playing with the spreadsheet you can create a State 3 that is at a higher or lower energy state than State 1.  A passive system requires external energy input to traverse from a lower energy state to a higher energy state.  If you do not believe me about this, at least as far as it applies to the "ideal ZED", then use the spreadsheet to explore.  If you want to pretend to yourself that:  ST1 => ST2, and ST2 => ST3 constitutes a cycle, then who am I to disabuse you of your self-delusion?  If you want to go from ST1 to ST3 and back use the spreadsheet to determine the actual work traversing the loop.