Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

So they are not identified and accounted for then.

That is fine since I am using your spreadsheet data to get the numbers I have.

I will then assume that they are indeed correct since you are not showing anything contrary.

The equivalence is inherent to the formulas in the spreadsheet.  You can verify that with some simple algebra.  You can also look at the cells that If you are too lazy or incapable of doing the algebra, that's your problem.  You should also be getting the same values riser by riser as listed in the spreadsheet.  But if you are still double dipping, then you will get the wrong values, and it is up to you to fix your formulas.

Each and every exception that you have raised against the R4 spreadsheet has proven to be the result of errors on your part.  You have yet to identify any actual error in the R4 spreadsheet.  When you can show an actual defect, then I will take notice and correct as necessary.  The R4 spreadsheet has been out for almost three weeks now.  No one has found any errors.  It is very unlikely that anyone will.

[MarkE]

The buoyant lift FORCE does not care about all that pressure stuff,, it is equal to the volume of displaced water, hence a sanity check on things using another method to calculate the lift forces.

I have more volume of displaced water than your force conversions are showing ~11.5cc worth.

So here you present yourself again as the Village Idiot.  What is the physical basis of buoyancy Tom? Allow me to present you with a hint:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pbuoy.html

[MarkE]

I got the "dipping" correct you did not,, and the ID of the riser is less until I add the extensions, then there is more,,,

Now you are just lying Tom.  Do we need to review your equations where you calculated the displaced volume for Riser 3 using OD from the top down to the meniscus in AR6 and the riser wall from the top down to the bottom, thus double counting the riser wall volume from the top down to the meniscus in AR6?  If you wish to present yourself both as an idiot and liar, I can't stop you.

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #1939 on: April 03, 2014, 05:05:36 AM »

   

Quote from: webby1 on April 03, 2014, 04:56:14 AM

    No problem with the miss,, I actually realized that I should of at least enclosed each part to make that easier,,

    =cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001

    this is what I am doing in the spreadsheet calculation for volume in cc of the riser

That gives you the top cylinder slice in the same way as you addressed the quiz question.  Your units are a little strange:  mm3/1000 but that can be fixed with a constant.

    =cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001

This is where you went wrong.  You are counting the entire riser wall here as in the R4 spreadsheet, but you already counted the part above the AR6 meniscus.  Using the method you used in the quiz question it would be:
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR6_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001

IE taking only the portion of the riser wall that is below the inside meniscus, since you have already counted the part that is above the meniscus.

The way that you have been doing it, you have double counted the portion of the riser wall that is above the AR6 meniscus.

    This is for the Extension into the water after lift,, again, volume in cc

    I do believe that this is what I did and what you have shown.

No, you have been double dipping just as I have told you for several days now.

[MarkE]

Yes I think we need to Mark,

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001

So as you can see I am using AR7 height minus the lift minus the vergap times the Riser3WallCirArea to calculate the extension going down under the water height of AR7.  This all leaves me with only the portion of the riser that is under water,, not the whole thing as you are trying to state again,, which is false.

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001

Even after the quiz, even after directly pointing it out to you several times, you blindly go on making the same mistake.  Are you really that dense? 

These equations of yours:

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001
=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3ODCirArea_1*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001

sum to:

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallCirArea_1*(ST3_AR7_Height_1-(ST3_Uplift_1+VerGap_1))*0.001 + // riser wall volume no problem

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3IDArea*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001 + // the ID volume between the AR7 and AR6 meniscus

=cir_mm2_to_mm2_1*Riser3WallArea*(ST2_AR7Height_1-ST2_AR6Height_1)*0.001 + // riser wall volume above the AR6 meniscus double counted

I have been pointing out this double dipping of yours for about a week now. Do you get it yet?

[Pirate88179]

Do YOU get it NOW

Ummm....I believe that Mark not only "gets it", I believe that he has been "getting it" from the get go.  I believe that it is you that does not "get it", and, sad to say at the rate you are going, possibly never will.

Bill

PS  I do not mean this as a personal attack...it is just my observations from all of the above posts.