Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

READ mark,, I used YOUR formulas, I have used MINE and I have used them both with the risers and ringwalls at 1mm and 0mm.

I have posted screenshots using all of your formulas in place and only showing the displaced volumes,, that is the OD Mark,, not the ID.

Now,, You answer your graphic,, in your spreadsheet you are using the bottom face of the inverted cylinder at the depth it is under the water,, and then you are using the pressure on the underside of the top,, where are YOU using the displaced volume?

The displaced volume must match the lift force that you have, if it does not, more OR less, then there is an anomaly

Tom, my formulas are in the R4 spreadsheet.  Saying that you used them when you substituted some of your own is a lie.
You don't know what you are doing.  You have counted two different up forces on the riser walls and added them together:  the correct up force calculated in the R4 spreadsheet and the riser wall area multiplied by the head difference between the OD and ID.  That is wrong.  Ask Mondrasek, he has acknowledged that the correct force under the riser walls is the head difference between the OD and the underside of those walls.

[TinselKoala]

Welcome back, TK!

Off your meds again? The old manic paranoia keeping you awake at night?

You cannot support your contention that I have, or EVER HAVE HAD, any other account than this one or any other username here on this forum.

Why don't you send a PM to Stefan Hartmann, our host, who knows the IP addresses of everyone who posts here. Ask him.

Of course you'll never really be sure, will you. After all, great hacker geniuses can do all kinds of IP spoofing and other stuff. Had your computer rifled lately? Hearing any strange clicks on your phone calls?

Beware..... the well-paid secret cabal of EEs, MEs, PhDs and genius hackers that posts as TinselKoala may be watching you, just waiting for a chance to suppress your world-saving invention.


Grow up, Mike.

[MarkE]

So it does not take much ability to understand then that what Archimedes is saying and what MarkE is showing are not the same.

I wonder why YOU missed that.

I am exactly following Archimedes.  You are not.  Pick your answers to the five questions posed below.  See if you are capable of learning anything.

[MarkE]

You suggest we ignore the math and instead concentrate on what?!?

All the calculations in the world are useless when they are based on a BS model.  Tom has used for force acting on the risers the sum of two values:  the correct one that is already in the R4 spreadsheet, and the same wrong one that you once applied:  the head difference between the OD and the ID.  Where you were under counting the lift force, Tom is nearly doubling it.

[MileHigh]

It's very hard to pose as a different character.  You pretty much have to be a professional writer.  It's not too hard to recognize the distinct character in the prose of a given person once you get used to them and get to know them.  TK posts like TK.  MarkE posts like MarkE.  It's clear as a bell to me, plus chances are there is a lot of history before they even crossed paths.  From my perspective that's the case.  I am quite certain that it's as clear as a bell to many people around here.

All vectors turn around and point back to you know who.  If he said he had to leave under the advice of his lawyer and then came back, what does that say?  He alleges they are the same person?  This is "camp" without trying to be funny.  It's camp being used (in an attempt) to mesmerize you into a "brain illusion."

Camp is an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing or humorous because of its ridiculousness to the viewer.^[1] Camp aesthetics disrupt many modernists' notions of what art is and what can be classified as high art by inverting aesthetic attributes such as beauty, value and taste through an invitation of a different kind of apprehension and consumption.^[2] Camp can also be a social practice. For many it is considered a style and performance identity for several types of entertainment including but not limited to film, cabaret and pantomime.^[3] Where high art necessarily incorporates beauty and value, camp necessarily needs to be lively, audacious and dynamic. "Camp aesthetics delights in impertinence." Camp opposes satisfaction and seeks to challenge ^[2]
The concept is related to kitsch, and things with camp appeal may also be described as being "cheesy". When the usage appeared, in 1909, it denoted: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, and effeminate behaviour, and, by the middle of the 1970s, the definition comprised: banality, artifice, mediocrity, and ostentation so extreme as to have perversely sophisticated appeal.^[4] American writer Susan Sontag's essay Notes on "Camp" (1964) emphasised its key elements as: artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and 'shocking' excess. Camp as an aesthetic has been popular from the 1960s to the present.

In other words, Wayne is giving us a show.  Some people actually still do find humour in it.