Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mrwayne]

It is funny how early on Wayne Travis approved and lauded your "ideal ZED".  Now that it has been proven fundamentally lossy you find it is no longer relevant.  All of Wayne's contraptions are fundamentally lossy.  None of them generate surplus energy.

Do you believe your words....
I approve of the intent and good work by Mondrasek - not what you keep trying to turn it into.
Wayne

[orbut 3000]

I think it is pretty clear who can and does back up his claims and who doesn't.
I think it's obvious who tells the truth here and who tries to misdirect and obfuscate.

[MarkE]

Do you believe your words....
I approve of the intent and good work by Mondrasek - not what you keep trying to turn it into.
Wayne

Wayne you are a hoot.  Maybe we should just dig up your posts promoting the idea that Mondrasek was going to teach all those skeptics something with the "ideal ZED".  Once more your tattered curtain has been pulled back to reveal once more that you have nothing such as you claim.

[MileHigh]

We never left Oklahoma.

[MarkE]

Mark,

You have not explained anything in regards to how the vacuum between Riser 3 and Riser 2 magically helps to lift Riser 3 so that Riser 3 can magically lift Riser 2.

Your soda bottle, for starters, as the soda bottle is going up you need to be filling the straws with water, not in your picture however.  Further to the point, the straws are filled up above the water level in the large bottle,, how far will your little bottle lift the water now?

For Riser 3 to help lift up the other Risers and Pod, Riser 3 MUST have its own positive lift value, which it does not.

At 1.80832897mm lift, Riser 3 is at a net zero condition, any further lift will put the negative force value directly onto the top of Riser 2.  This net zero condition is including the Riser wall force.

2.15840513

These facts are right in front of your face, so face them and deal with it.

There is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.

Tom you are  a real piece of work.  Not only have I explained exactly how it is that the risers move by 2.59mm, I have done so multiple times.  Each time you stick your head in the sand.   I have posted the correctly calculated pressures and forces from the R4 spreadsheet.  There is net up force on the riser assembly until the assembly extends 2.59mm.  All your objections have been based on your unique non-physical Tom Web physics.  Your idiotic argument that in the perverse non physical world of Tom Web a free body subject to net force does not accelerate is beyond idiotic.  It is absurd.

There is no magic.  There is real physics that you obstinately and persistently ignore, substituting instead your misguided and wrong ideas.

The soda bottle experiment does exactly what it is supposed to demonstrate.  It was devised to prove to Mondrasek that he was wrong about the riser walls.  The straws filled with air are surrogates for those massless riser walls.  We can't make the straws zero mass, but we can get their SG down reasonably low.  Those straw "pontoons"  are subject to uplift force even when the water inside and outside is level and the vent is open just as Mondrasek's assembly would be just prior to the end of State 1.  The up force on the pontoons raises the assembly and results in negative gauge pressure inside the water bottle just as would occur with Mondrasek's assembly if unrestrained at the end of State 1, leading to State 1X.  By the same token, net up force acting on the entire riser assembly raises it going from State 2 to State 3. 

The soda bottle demonstration correctly demonstrates what happens when AR7 crosses below AR6 during the movement from State 2 to the State 3 up lift position of 2.59mm.  Up lift force acting on the Riser 3 ID surface goes from positive up to zero when AR7 drops to meet the rising AR6. This is represented by the equalized condition in the third photo.  From there on an increasingly negative down force acts on the Riser 3 ID just as it does on the ID of the inverted water bottle.  Each: the water bottle and the ZED rise until the down forces and the up forces match.  In the "ideal ZED" case the assembly continues to draw water in from AR7 developing more and more negative gauge pressure under Riser 3. Eventually AR5 and AR4 cross causing the same thing to happen under Riser 2.  Up lift force acting on the three riser walls, the Riser 1 ID surface and the pod all offset the downward force acting on the Riser 3 and Riser 2 ID surfaces.

That you propose filling the straw pontoons with water just further shows that you don't understand the demonstration or its relation to the "ideal ZED" under discussion.

You can isolate the buoyant forces acting on Riser 3 as much as you want.  The fact that you choose to ignore the forces transmitted from: the pod and the other two risers through the incompressible fluid "air" means that you are once again being willfully ignorant.