Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[camelherder49]

My statement:

Your answer: What has that got to do with the price of banana juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very helpful to the discussion.

[mondrasek]

Of course I said a mechanism must be presented.  And yes Mondrasek came up with the giant pizza pan.  You or anyone else who would like to take a stab at designing a more complex pizza pan that can do better than the "simple" rectangular cross-section pan is welcome to put their hand to it.

MarkE, I still don't see the point of any physical Energy capture mechanism for an Ideal Analysis.  The IDEAL Energy that is output from the SUT during the ST2 => ST3 rise could simply be calculated as the integral of F*ds as reduced to 0.5*ST2_Max_Lift_Force*ST3_Lift_distance (I'm using descriptive terms here, not calling out the actual ones from the spreadsheet).  That would return the same value as the "spillway" Energy calculations as the time constant approaches infinity.  So for the IDEAL case, no actual mechanism is required.  Only the maximum theoretical Energy value need be calculated.

[MarkE]

My statement:

Your answer: What has that got to do with the price of banana juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very helpful to the discussion.

Camels, banana juice, a woman named John?

[MarkE]

MarkE, I still don't see the point of any physical Energy capture mechanism for an Ideal Analysis.  The IDEAL Energy that is output from the SUT during the ST2 => ST3 rise could simply be calculated as the integral of F*ds as reduced to 0.5*ST3_Lift_Force*ST3_Lift_distance.  That would return the same value as the "spillway" Energy calculations as the time constant approaches infinity.  So for the IDEAL case, no actual mechanism is required.  Only the maximum theoretical Energy value need be calculated.

Well, maybe you have a different idea of what it is that you would like to try and obtain from this analysis exercise than I think you do.  Please state clearly and succinctly what you are trying to determine from this exercise. 

I maintain that if you are trying to determine what level of efficiency is "ideally" possible, then the mechanisms do need to be specified, or else the exercise is rather pointless.  It is pretty simple to state that as the throughput power approaches zero the energy efficiency approaches, but never reaches 100%.  If you are content with that conclusion, then we are back to the device being more or less a complicated way to emulate a spring, actually two springs, where one more or less falls out in the ST3 to ST1 transition. 

If you have not been picking up the hints, the change in R3 GPE is negative in the ST3 => ST1 transition as is the internal energy change in the water columns.  In your spreadsheet you did not account for the R3 GPE.  If you did then your 88.3% number under the assumptions you state would come up to close to but less than 100%.  The device remains fundamentally lossy.  The whole question of whether something like this could be OU was answered by Powercat or Minnie back at like page 3 of the thread:  Using accepted First Principles, a properly constructed math model cannot show over unity as First Principles do not allow for it.

[LibreEnergia]

..
Librea... hit it on the head - whether he knows it or not....Doesn't matter...

To solve any real problem - you must reduce it to its simplest form.....

Ok, so lets not introduce any nonsensical statements like 'Super  Conservative' or 'Energy reference mapping'

With out reference to such ill defined concepts, show me just where in your machine that

"Water spontaneously flows up hill",  or
"Expanding air recovers more energy then is required to compress it" or perhaps even,   
"A buoyant object gains more energy when it rises compared to the energy required to sink it".

Have I missed any potential 'simple processes' that might be occurring in your machine?