Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[TinselKoala]

Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/

[Pirate88179]

Show me your contributions to freedom from fossil fuels.

Thanks

Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill

[Magluvin]

Item of interest:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/christian-lawmakers-fall-for-ponzi-schemer-who-said-hed-found-noahs-ark/

I dont recall Mr W asking for investments here. Is that what he is doing? If so, I must have missed it.

Mags

[Magluvin]

Ummm.... fossil fuels do not exist, and never have existed.  This misnomer was disproved many, many years ago when I was a geology major in college.  Oil does not come from decomposing dinosaurs.  It is a natural by product of the chemistry inside the earth's core and is not a "finite" resource.  If you are not up to speed on this, then I question everything else that you are claiming.  Of course, after watching your first videos and after mark Dansie's visit, I was already questioning your unsubstantiated claims.  Now it seems that the math is not on your side.  Nor is general laws of physics.  Now may be a good time to get into another racket.

Bill

Hey Bill

Well, 'fossil fuels' is the term used in society. Until they change that, I think we all know what it means. Not sure its something to make a fuss about.

Mags

[MarkE]

There is no problem with the starting point being a net zero, no lift, no sink no nothing.

If you accept that stipulation then State 3 as shown follows.  So choose to accept the stipulation or reject it for say the fact that it still displaces a fluid with a higher density than the displacing volume.  In the latter case you have changed the problem definition and a different outcome will result.

It is your ending point that is a problem, there is lift left within the system and this means that it is not back to a net zero that it started from, in respect to the forces acting on the risers and pod.

No there is no problem with the end point.  It conforms to the physics from the state starting point.  All of the energy in and out, and lost is properly accounted for, as is the change in position of each of the constituent materials.  You are of course free to perform your own work up and show your work as I have shown mine.

Please explain how you can do an energy analysis where you do not have a full cycle, from a starting condition back to that very same condition, that would be no forces acting on the risers and pod that are not balanced and zero if that starting point was a balanced and zero condition.

Since we have the states, we can go between them all day long.  Which states would you like to define as a cycle?  A S2 => S3 => S2 cycle does no work but requires 1.5mJ external work each cycle.  An S1 => S2 => S3 => S2 => S1 cycle suffers the same loss per cycle.

You MUST let the risers and pod move a further distance to balance those existing forces back to zero.  You will find that AR7 goes below AR6 and then that negative buoyancy will counter the positive buoyancy from the other 2 risers and pod. 

You remain very, very confused.  Under the stipulation that Mondrasek set, the net up force is zero in State 3.  You must reject Mondrasek's stipulation of State 1 to reach a different set of conditions for State 3.  And here's the spoiler alert again:  That results in lost energy too.  Why?  Because the inane, insipidly stupid scheme causes there to be variable dense fluid column heights.  Get rid of the "air" and the whole buoyancy stupidity and the scheme gets much more efficient.  But then it would not be a ZED anymore, would it?  The best performing ZED is no ZED at all.

In YOUR spreadsheet there is still a buoyant force in place that has NO counter force to stop it, hence your analysis is not complete.

Kindly point to the cell where you find that.

If I have a cup sitting in water where the water level inside the cup is 19mm below the outside water level what is it, a sink or a float, which way will it move with nothing to stop it from moving.  All of the risers and the pod have an outside water level above the inside level, well the pod is sealed so that is just water up the outside of a weightless item,, which way will they move if there is nothing holding them still.

By your observation you must then object to the Wayne Travis approved State 1 stipulation by Mondrasek.  Again:  Choose a different set of starting stipulations and get a different result.

This is the condition you have left your setup in, with nothing to stop things from moving they will move.

Again, you are free to create your own model following the stated stipulations and see where you get.

Either let the risers and pod move a further distance or show what is stopping them from doing so.

I have explained it many times to you.  If you accept the State 1 stipulation then the system is stable with no unbalanced force in State 3 as shown.  If you reject the State 1 stipulation then we can work the problem to yield a result that you may find more satisfying.  But that will not be the Wayne Travis approved "ideal ZED".