Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

You forgot to add verGap*

I changed the riser thickness to point to a LidThickness and set it to 1.

No, you added a LidThickness term and then substituted that for RiserWallThickness in each:  Wall2Height, Wall3Height, Riser1Height, Riser2Height, and Riser3Height.  Since you used the same 1mm value for LidThickness ans RiserWallThickness, your changes had no net effect.

I added the volume check missing component.

The R4 spreadsheet accounts for each of the water and "air" volumes.  Nothing was missing to add.

I changed the total uplift force to represent the buoyant lift plus the riserwall lift force.

The R4 spreadsheet accounts for the riser wall uplift forces.  There was nothing to add.

I have tried it using the ID displacement as well.

That's just lovely: whatever "it" means.

I changed the time to lift from 0.5 seconds to 5 seconds.  This by itself brought the system to an ALMOST but NOT quite even input lose to output performed.

Did you suffer a brain spasm writing that?  The less force allocated to causing the net lift, the slower the system operates and the more efficiently it operates.  When it doesn't operate at all, IE when it becomes a brick emulator, then the efficiency is nominally 100%.  The flip side is that the faster it operates, IE the more power it is capable of conveying, then the less efficient it becomes.  As long as the machine operates, it is fundamentally lossy.

I thought that you would run your own volume check and find the same thing that I did, the displaced volumes are less than your reported lift force.

Force and volume are not the same thing.

I assumed that when you did find this you would not report it and that you would keep making fun of things.

You assume a lot. Often your assumptions have been proven wrong.

As you can see when I set the risers to 0mm the numbers change and when I set it back to 1mm with the new add-on that the numbers all follow what I have said and shown in the screenshots.

I can see that you altered various formulas and ended up with a fantasy.  For example you substituted your cell F256 for the up force calculated at the end of State 2, resulting in a enlarged value of 1.723606N instead of the correctly calculated value of 1.471061N.  I can see that after your alterations things like the force audit failed.  So, you took a perfectly good working model, messed around with it and broke it.

[MarkE]

Thank you for validating that the changes I made made no effect to your spreadsheet, except for the change to using the full uplift potential created by using the VOLUME of displaced water for the uplift FORCE value in N and adding the riserwall thickness uplift Force value in N.

You are learning well from your teacher:  The fraud Wayne Travis.  Don't let facts get in your way. You took a perfectly good spreadsheet that correctly reflected a valid physical model and broke it.

It wold appear as if you are saying that the displaced water volume does not need to match the uplift force or that the volume of water displaced is not an equivalent force.

Blah, blah, blah, build a straw man if you can.

So the displaced volume of 147.6715443014cm^3 means no force of 1.4481631499N?? Archimedes would not be happy.  Then I added your  ~0.275443229N riserwall to get  1.7236063793N which is all the up force at the end of state 2.

More noise from the peanut gallery.

If you take the displaced water volume and its lift potential and compare that to your calculated lift potential the water has LESS lift potential, if this is the case then what?  Then that means your spreadsheet is incorrect OR that I have made a change other than the ST2_TotalUpForce to reflect what I have.

The R4 spreadsheet accounts for all of the forces on the horizontal surfaces.  You have not shown otherwise.

You have just confirmed that the changes to the spreadsheet made no change to what or how it was calculating it, so what does that leave MarkE?

You made a mess.  I will not clean it up for you.

[MarkE]

I forgot to include that if you look at those pesky screenshots the force audit is now working and is not broken so that when I do change other settings I get a correct audit reading.

You will also notice that YOU can see in the file I posted that all the other settings are back at 1 and provide the numbers in the screenshaots, with or without the fix to the audit the audit shows 0 errors for things set to 1mm,, since +1*CirArea is the same as +CirArea.

You have stated that the only change I have made that is affecting your spreadsheet is the NEW uplift force value.

I said no such thing Tom.  You are a bad liar.  Where do you think you are going to get with your obvious lies? 

The spreadsheet you posted does not audit.  I shows a total uplift force at the end of state 3 that is not zero. 

Row 250:  ST3_Total_Uplift_Force   -0.2525450   N

That is straight from your spreadsheet as you posted it.  It needs to be zero.

[MarkE]

It's pop quiz time.  Test your knowledge of buoyancy.  Then compare that to Webby's in his spreadsheet linked in post #1753.

[mrwayne]

The saying goes -

"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water...."

Yep...
Atmospheric pressure could change during a stroke..
Some tiny Heat loss occurs during the tiny pressure change...
Wall thickness in a real system might not be uniform...
The bottom surface of the wall is deeper and thus has a higher differential pressure...

All of these concerns combined do not result in the loss of 41% of the system.
Its like saying - the cup holder will be too much load for the riding lawn mower.
...................

Great Work Men - Sanity Check and All