Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

Do you suppose that Wayne Travis may have paid off some early investors with money obtained from later, larger investors? I seem to recall that there is a name for that kind of activity. Pongy? Ronzy?  Something like that, anyway.

Ignoring for the moment the rather large conceptual error that MarkE found in LarryC's spreadsheet analysis.....

Now what I'd like to know is why Zeds don't blow up. If one Zed is underunity but two Zeds are 154 (or whatever) percent OU after the first transfer, then what happens to the first zed after the first complete cycle and the transfer is back to it? Does it get pumped up to greater than 154 percent? How about after the fourth transfer? Just when does the OU stop increasing? This is pretty scary. Is there some pressure relief system somewhere? Is _matter_ being created out of nothing?  You guys had better put some brakes on that thing, or make sure you are drawing enough power out of it constantly, so that it doesn't blow up, right?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[TinselKoala]

MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn,  the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?

[MarkE]

C h a r l e s P o n z i was quite adept at using new money to keep old investors at bay.  Alas when there is nothing of value to come out of the investment scheme as is the case here, it's a case of musical chairs.  Those who are fortunate enough to get some or all of their money out do so at the cost to those who don't.  Some of Madoff's investors who got money out actually had to give it back to the receiver because of their knowledge and the timing.

Wayne Travis told us that HER / Zydro are fully funded and are not out trying to pull in new investor money.  Surely Wayne wouldn't lie about something like that.

[MarkE]

MarkE: the 2-d drawings don't seem to reflect the fact that, if all the fluid annuli have the same surface area, their thickness in the radial direction has to be getting smaller the further out from the center you go. In the 2-d simplification, as drawn,  the thickness is the same, producing the same surface area regardless of layer number, but in the 3-d situation this isn't true anymore, the annuli must get thinner as the inner radius increases, if they are to have the same surface area.
Or am I interpreting "surface area" incorrectly?

We are talking about LarryC's analysis of a hypothetical device.  The walls have zero thickness, the "air" is massless and incompressible, and he has now stipulated that the annular widths get smaller in order to hold a constant 51 circular inch annular ring area:

The gap between the 25" diameter pod and the pod chamber wall, exactly 0.5", IE 26" diameter chamber.
The gap between the pod chamber wall and the riser wall, exactly: (727^0.5 - 26)/2", IE 727^0.5" diameter riser.
The gap between the riser wall and the vessel outer wall, exactly: (778^0.5 - 727^0.5)/2" IE 778^0.5" diameter vessel.

[TinselKoala]

OK, thanks. So the drawings aren't to scale then, that's OK with me as long as the numbers are right.

BTW, the "sub" and "sup" BBCode tags are available just above the line of smileyfaces, they work pretty well.

e.g. 5^0.5 = 5^0.5