Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mondrasek]

Have you downloaded the spreadsheet?  Everything you want should be in it.  The ZED is a piece of useless junk.  I don't know where you obtained OU numbers, but it certainly is not reflected in the ZED.  The "ideal ZED" using incompressible fluids, once you've paid all the energy to prepare it and charge it up, just acts like a linear spring.  If you make one with  compressible "air" it acts like a variable rate spring with additional loss.

MarkE, AFAIK you have ignored (thrown away) the Energy released by the ZED system when it is allowed to rise in every one of your attempts so far.  You have finally correct that in the simple no-pod, single riser example after being shown that there is Energy leaving the system due to the rise.  That Energy is F*ds which resolves to F_ave*S for this specific case.  That same Energy value has NOT been calculated for any of your 3-layer attempts.  I am asking you to do so.  Without adding that correction to your previous work the way you have for the no-pod, single riser example, those proofs are wrong.  You ignore Energy that clearly leaves the system when the ZED rises.  Energy that can be used to do real Work.

[MarkE]

MarkE, AFAIK you have ignored (thrown away) the Energy released by the ZED system when it is allowed to rise in every one of your attempts so far.  You have finally correct that in the simple no-pod, single riser example after being shown that there is Energy leaving the system due to the rise.  That Energy is F*ds which resolves to 0.5*F_ave*S for this specific case.  That same Energy value has NOT been calculated for any of your 3-layer attempts.  I am asking you to do so.  Without adding that correction to your previous work the way you have for the no-pod, single riser example, those proofs are wrong.  You ignore Energy that clearly leaves the system when the ZED rises.  Energy that can be used to do real Work.

Mondrasek, I have shown that these contraptions once they are set up reduce to linear springs.  I have explained the N*(X/N)² tyranny issue of potential energy stores, and that includes linear springs and things that act like linear springs.  For non-linear devices it is worse.

Kindly read the spreadsheet.  Everything you need is in there. If you will not be bothered to look at the work I see no reason to pay attention to your demands for additional spoon feeding.  The single layer and three layer only differ in their coefficients.   Their completely under unity, linear spring emulating behavior is the same.  The machines are worthless, overly complex, lossy junk. 

The spreadsheet is very complete.  It audits correctly.  I have been very patient with you.  You have yet to show the calculations that you relied upon to reach the erroneous conclusion that a three riser system is OU.  Springs are not OU.  The three riser like the single riser behaves as a linear spring.  The ZED claims of over unity cannot be met by their emulation of ordinary springs.  QED.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

This is kind of,, maybe off the discussion,, but I was looking at the new drawing for the end of state 3 and I find myself asking what would happen if I opened the valve for the pod chamber after the risers and pod lifted?

Would the water just kind of dribble out, would it be able to come out at all or would it come out with some force behind it?

There is at the end of State 3 still more energy in the system than at the end of State 1.  Why would you think that the system would not return to State 1?

[mondrasek]

Mondrasek, I have shown that these contraptions once they are set up reduce to linear springs.  I have explained the N*(X/N)² tyranny issue of potential energy stores, and that includes linear springs and things that act like linear springs.  For non-linear devices it is worse.

Kindly read the spreadsheet.  Everything you need is in there. If you will not be bothered to look at the work I see no reason to pay attention to your demands for additional spoon feeding.  The single layer and three layer only differ in their coefficients.   Their completely under unity, linear spring emulating behavior is the same.  The machines are worthless, overly complex, lossy junk. 

The spreadsheet is very complete.  It audits correctly.  I have been very patient with you.  You have yet to show the calculations that you relied upon to reach the erroneous conclusion that a three riser system is OU.  Springs are not OU.  The three riser like the single riser behaves as a linear spring.  The ZED claims of over unity cannot be met by their emulation of ordinary springs.  QED.

No, MarkE.  And after checking, I think we need to return to your "correction" to post #667.  There you introduced a "rate" into that Energy equation.  You will need to explain that.

[MarkE]

I thought that it would, but was not sure since riser 2 is at a neutral buoyant condition and riser 3 is at a negative buoyant condition leaving riser 1 and the pod positive.  I was not sure if the atmosphere pushing down on riser 3 and the pressure left within the system would do anything.

There would in the hypothetical set-up be no atmosphere.  In practice there of course would be.  However, the water still has weight.  All of the columns would be happy to equalize if they could.  They can't because of the restriction that air can only enter at AR7.  Open up the drain plug under the pod chamber and the restriction no longer exists.