Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

The equal level of the two mensci results in a HEAD difference of zero.  Buoyancy Force = Weight of the Displace Water = (Density of Water)* HEAD * (Cross Section Area).  If HEAD is zero, buoyancy Force is zero.

Complete hogwash.  And now I will clearly state that it is MarkE's intention to misdirect and provide false information in this thread.  He has done this several times in the past few days.

Then you make a false accusation and make a fool of yourself in the process.

Buoyancy Force = Weight of the Displaced Water.  For the riser what is displacing the water is the Air inside, and the Material of the riser itself.

So yes, I will argue that the riser wall has no relevance at all on up Force in State 1 dues to no water HEAD.  But once a HEAD is introduced, yes, the wall thickness is included when calculating the Weight of the Displaced Water.  The riser wall did not change its behavior.  The water HEAD condition changed.

Then you need to go back to your text books, or perform an experiment for yourself, or both.

Why are you purposely trying to stall and now misdirect this Analysis?

Why are you unable to follow along?  Why are you throwing hissy fits?

ETA: we are going to need to calculate using the OD.  I concede that point.  Will post later.  Off to lunch.

[MarkE]

Nitpicking time.

When state 2 is reached in Wayne's system, more input is used to make the lift,, there is NO state 3 change for production, state 3 change is part of the recovery process, but the risers are NOT allowed to "pop"

That's a nice nonsequitor.  I referred to Wayne's earlier comments that he made today with respect to Mondrasek's "ideal ZED". 

[MarkE]

Actually MarkE, there is a huge difference.

Can you make your spring extend further by compressing it with more force?  Or is it that the spring can only move the same distance it was compressed.

Since everything up to and including State 2 was declared part of the set-up, only the resulting behavior after State 2 has been reached matters.  The behavior is that of a linear compression spring.  The parameters used getting to State 2 define the coefficients for the equivalent linear compression spring.

[mondrasek]

Mondrasek, as you see in #745 you quoted where I talked about 2.492mm movement.  2.492mm movement applies to the 3 riser system just as I responded.  It looks like in #708 I wrote the 3 riser movement value of 2.492mm where I should have used the 4.653mm value.  However, the 4.653mm and only the 4.653mm value was used in the calculations.

MarkE what you said in post 766 was this:

4.653 is the single riser.  I was answering your question with respect to the three riser.

This misdirected me to look at the 3-layer.  You did not say it was a transcription error or typo.  You said you were now talking about the 3-layer.

As for the rest of the Energies due to columns of water that you then refer to, I did not see them on your graphics or my 3-layer calcs that I thought you had directed me to move over to.  But I also did check my calcs for the no-pod, single layer and also did not find them.  I see that you are able to point out these values on your graphic, but again, we have a problem.  The Energies due to the columns of water do not match my own calcs for the no-pod, single riser Analysis.  My calcs and yours do match exactly for the 3-layer, so I am confident we are both calculating those the correct way.  But I do not get your values at all for the no-pod, single layer.  I have checked them several times now.  Could you please double check your calcs for the Energy in the system due to just the water columns for State 1?  The value I get is ~.879mJ.

[MarkE]

Fair enough.

Still, your spring can only undo as far as you do it up.

I wonder what would happen if the risers only had 1\2 the maximum lift value holding them down while going from state 1 to end of state 2,, I know it is out of the area of discussion.

Then during the State 2 pumping exercise the whole assembly would rise part of the distance that it rises in State 3.