Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

hi markE

I think we need to convert pwater from N/liter to N/m^3 first, because liter = dm^3,
SI uses N/m^3..    i see you use mN ( mili ) not uN (micro).
too late to participe in your quiz... (fffff)..

A liter is as good a volume as m³ or cc or in³ or even furlongs³.  We just need to make sure that we use the right scaling constant to get to the units we want in the end.

[MarkE]

Well i goofed on the riser extension volume,, I forgot to convert from cirmm2,, so the new value is

17.2202645839cc

Which drops the buoyant lift down to

1.6141259172N

Keep pounding on that calculator Tom.  Perhaps someday you will learn how this stuff works.

[MarkE]

I was there to start with.

I think I have the correct numbers now for the displacement, not the pressure lift value but buoyancy.

I have taken what I have learned from Mark and applied it to the "ideal ZED" and the buoyant lift is greater than the input pressure and volume cost, but in a funny way, sort of.

The lift is losey, but there is left over input, and the output is more than those loses.

I wonder what people thought about buying into Microsoft when they were still in a garage,, or Apple or,,,,

Do you know how many times I heard that the world does not need another fancy typewriter or word-processor??  Look at those that took that risk back then.

If you are getting different force answers for each riser and the pod individually or the whole contraption in total than the R4 spreadsheet, then you are getting the wrong answers.  It can be shown algebraically that the formulas used in the R4 spreadsheet exactly represent the same quantities that one would get by using the water heights, riser and pod positions to calculate buoyant up lift on the risers and pod individually.

It is hilarious that you compare the fraud Wayne Travis to Microsoft or Apple.  Whatever their businesses practices, they actually had technology, be it: invented, begged, borrowed, or stolen.

If you think that there is energy gain to be had from cyclically lifting and lowering weights, then you are incredibly ignorant.  I suggest that you try an exercise with two buckets of water:  Fill each half way.  Alternately lift and lower each.  You can help yourself out by building a teeter totter or any other passive device you want.  Let me know how much energy you are able to generate over the course of a day.

[mondrasek]

This effects the initial force and the amount of energy that it takes to get to State 2.  The stored internal energy at State 2 is unaffected.  If one wanted to cycle between State 1 and State 2 or State 1X and State 2, then it would matter to those cycles.

MarkE, the CYCLE would need to be from State 1(x) to State 2 to State 3 and back to State 1(x).  At least that is the goal of my Analysis.  Reciprocating on any one leg of a cycle is a pointless Analysis exercise, IMHO, regardless of the truth of your statement.

The further problem with the Ideal ZED having pulled a vacuum in the pod chamber at State 1X is that it could NOT reset (without added Energy) from State 3 back to State 1X simply by venting the water from the pod chamber by "pulling the plug."

So State 1X may also be an unrealistic start and end State for a simple Analysis.  Any ideas?  I'm wondering if a new State 1Y is necessary for the start and end of the Ideal ZED cycle?

[MarkE]

Hey Mark,

Thanks for being persistent enough to make me see that I should of been using 9.78899 instead of G0,, it did drop values but that is alright,, a ~2.5% gain cycle over cycle is not much but it is something.  That is only using 1/2 of the left over input by the way,, just to keep things on the conservative side.

There is no energy gain.  There are only your mistakes.  The R4 spreadsheet is correct.  Your changes, and "checks" of the spreadsheet are what have been wrong all along.