Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MarkE, I was going to draw your State 3 and dimension the remaining heads on the pod and each riser that need to be resolved.  But I ran into an error with your stated water height in AR2: 49.651mm.  That is obviously not correct.  Could you provide the correct value?  And you should try calculating the buoyant Forces that remain on the pod and each riser that still need to be resolved.  The ZED cannot remain in the position you show in State 3 unless restrained.  It has more Energy that needs to be released due to the still remaining buoyant Forces.

I would have liked to just present my own diagrams again, but I see you calculated the rise based on Volume in = Volume out.  This is another error since there is a third Volume of air that is interacting with the system by the nature of the outer annulus being open to the atmosphere.

I calculated my lift distance based on the ASSUMPTION that Energy in = Energy out, not by simple volumes.  That results in a stroke that should be 1.9094mm.  But the results are similar in that the system could not come to rest at that larger lift distance either.  There is still 31.828 grams of buoyant lift force at that larger lift distance.  So again, the lift would have to be even further to resolve the remaining buoyant Forces.

And FWIF, no iterations need to be performed for this simple analysis.  The iterations would be needed (for me at least) to find the final resting state of the charged ZED.  That state requires that the sum of all the internal buoyant Forces be zero.  That is definitely not the case in your State 3, nor in the one I calculated via an Energy Balance approach.

If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error.  The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water.  The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height. 

Once more:  Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.

The materials are incompressible.  Did you get that?  They are incompressible.  One more time:  They are incompressible.  By definition their volumes cannot and do not change.  Fluid can be pumped in through the various inlets when those valves are open.  Fluid can be released through vents as you stipulated in State1.   Once the valves are closed, fluid may be forced into or drawn from AR7.

Your assumption that energy would not be lost is false for the reasons that I have already proven.

[MarkE]

DOn't know what you are referring to?

The LOAD - is the energy extracted, with every half cycle?

We use Hydraulic production as the load - because it can be used to both apply Hydro assist and rotational output to a generator (thru a hydraulic motor).

Thanks

Gee, Mr. Wayne, where is the load bank?

[MarkE]

Two years ago - one of the TK "likes" said something Similar - meant to be an insult:

Why not just continue hooking the ZEDs together to forever..

In reality - the layering system works in much the same effect - but with reduced Capital cost and reduced foot print.

Net is the Product - two Six Layer ZEDs can be optimized to put out the same Net production as four three layer systems, in roughly the same foot print.

............

So it is a business decision - and a structural mechanical (Cost) limitation - to continue to up size each system.

Wayne

Ah more lies from Wayne Travis.  As can be seen from the analysis of the "ideal ZED", and LarryC's spreadsheet, one has two basically two choices:  make each successive annular ring  narrower and narrower to hold constant area per ring, or watch as the change in water height in the outer rings and therefore the stroke converges towards zero.  The ultimate ZED as opposed to the "ideal ZED" is a device with just one riser, and just one pod, where each are very, very wide, and the vertical stroke approaches zero.  In the limit, such a system approximates but never quite matches the efficiency of a brick.

[MarkE]

With Respect - I am sharing what I am not contractually bound to reserve.

Our Contract gives our Benefactor exclusive rights to first utilization of the manufactured models and their absolute first public demonstration.

Previous to that contract, we allowed a Skeptic to video our early model.

The Link has been posted.

Thank you.

Once again the lying huckster Wayne Travis appeals to claims that he has something magic behind the curtain.  No worries Wayne.  Bubba is anxiously keeping his magic something for you with him in his cell.

[mondrasek]

If you opened the spreadsheet, you will see that was a transcription error.  The value posted was the height of the air from the top of the innermost ringwall down to the surface of the water.  The correct value: 11.349mm is simply that value subtracted from the ring wall height. 

I knew it was a simple typo.  Sorry I did not notice that you posted a spreadsheet from which I could have found the correct value.

Once more:  Under the stipulation that you set that the system is stable, unrestrained in State 1, it is similarly stable unrestrained in State 3.

I can't see how?  In State 1 there are no unresolved buoyant Forces.  The pod is in no water, and there is zero water head between the ID and OD surfaces of any riser.  This is clearly not the case in State 3 where the pod and risers are all affected by buoyant Forces that are not zero.

The materials are incompressible.  Did you get that?  They are incompressible.  One more time:  They are incompressible. 

I have never said or thought that they were compressible!  Compressibility is not at issue.  Unresolved buoyant Forces are the issue.