Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

Quite absurd, educated adults debating for years whether it's possible
  to get energy out of something that's dead as a stone.
  I'm somewhat confused by mrwayne's statement that we push it down
  and it goes up.
                       John.

[MarkE]

Lets see if the analysis so far can answer one question.

Does the nested system behave exactly the same as a single piston hydraulic jack?

No.

Why?

With the system under consideration the full input work can be applied and stored for any time period before allowing the lift of the risers to do work.

The scheme operates as a linear spring.  I don't know about you, but if I am lifting something heavy like a car, I prefer that it lift directly as a hydraulic jack does than to lift it through a low rate spring where it can bob up and down.  You may feel differently.

You can not do this with a hydraulic jack?

No.

Why would you want impair a hydraulic jack this way?  If you want a spring, then use a spring.  If you want a jack use a jack.

Can the hydraulic jack be modified to emulate this behavior?

Yes.

How?

With the addition of an EXTERNAL part to store the input.

Again, if you want a spring, then use a spring.

It is the last question that substantiates the first answer.

Now on to the polluted hydraulic fluid.

A hydraulic jack works because it uses an incompressible fluid medium combined with a fluid lever system.

The air in this consideration has been stipulated to be incompressible, ergo it does not hamper the operation of the hydraulic jack in any way.

That is absolutely not true.  The different SGs of the two materials are what gives the "ideal ZED" key properties and key deficiencies.  In terms of a hydraulic jack the "air" is a pollutant.

It actually would be a very good thing for NASCAR,, the loss of weight would help the pit crew by making the jack they use to change tires in the middle of  race lighter,, that could be worth money

Go ahead and try to sell the concept of replacing homogenous hydraulic fluid with a distribution of inhomogenous insoluable fluids to any hydraulic engineer.

So, MarkE's inference that the incompressible air inhibits function is false.  His statement that the fluid is polluted with this air is true,, so it may be factual but it has no impact at all.

I didn't infer.  I stated flat out that the cost of the "air" pollutant is lost efficiency.  A hydraulic piston using a homogenous fluid is more efficient than the "ideal ZED".

[powercat]

That is fine.  But I think you do Mark Dansie a disservice by misrepresenting him when you quote from two years ago.  His opinions may have changed since that time.  And since he went to the effort of posting his current opinions, those are the ones that should be presented.

If you had red his current post, you would see that he stands by his words of two years ago regarding verification.  I'm not looking to have an argument with you, as so far you haven't claimed to have a working free energy device which you have repeatedly failed to have verified or failed to show a continuous running model, for over 3 years.
So best of luck with your research maybe you will discover how to make the device work, because Wayne clearly cannot.

[MarkE]

MarkE,

I do not care so much for looking at paintings,, but I do enjoy watching an artist paint.

Watching your analysis improving as input to you is provided is like watching an artist paint.

I am learning from our interaction and I do appreciate that.

The Mondrasek "ideal ZED" analysis is done.  Once charged in State 2, it emulates a linear compression spring.  State 2 preloads the spring.  Using Mondrasek's specifications, the preload is 1.2N, and the spring rate is 0.48N/mm.

[MarkE]

MarkE, thank you so much for all your hard work!  I think it must be in this last step that I have made my mistake.  I'm looking at it now, but found a discrepancy between our work.  It might be a small miss on your part, or I am making another mistake, so I wanted to clarify.

I am finding the riser in the no-pod, single riser example at State 2 to be displacing 35.6234 cm³ of water and should therefore have an F_START = 0.34884N.  Can you please clarify if I am missing a step?

The single riser ZED has a total uplift force of:  pWater*G₀*(59.293mm - 1.420mm)*pi/4*26mm² = 0.30078N.  You are apparently applying 28mm², the OD of the riser, instead of the ID.