Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

I like pictures MarkE,, but exactly what is it that you are showing?

These pictures show a bit of truth concerning buoyancy.  The experiments include:  Materials with SG > 1.  Materials with SG < 1.  Water.  Trapped air.  Vented air.  It's more fun to see the effects live.  I encourage anyone who is interested to spend the small amount of time it takes to set the experiments up and conduct them.  In most households the only thing one might not have is the hot glue.

Think about what you see in the pictures and the conditions that produced what you observe.  See if you can relate them to HER/Zydro's false claims.

[powercat]

It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.  I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet.  For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc.  One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1.  When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes:  The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod.  That would be:

pi/4*RingWall1_height*(22²-20²)mm³ +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(26²-24²)mm³ +
pi/4*1*26²)mm³
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = 6793.694113388mm³ = 6.793694113388cc

That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet.  Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work.  There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription.  I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model.  When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.

Hi MarkE
this so called analysis, I'm no expert but for there to be any credibility surely it must be performed on a working device ?  And if it was performed on a working device then how can they be any secret components, that can't be shown because of business reasons(according to Wayne), how can anyone perform a proper analysis without knowing all the components of the device, it just doesn't make sense to me, how can you expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if you don't make all the information available ?  And if you are making all the information available why all the secrecy about showing Wayne's device running in the first place.

[mondrasek]

It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.

To be honest, it is because spreadsheet programs were not introduced (to me at least) before I finished my University studies and I have never been formally trained or taken the time to learn more than the basic capabilities of Excel.  I can write basic math functions in Excel, but I do not know how to label cells, reference anything on different tab, or anything involving scripting!  So math functions that I would write all reference cell locations which makes it very difficult to follow and debug.

When I started the Analysis it was with the 2-layer system.  I can run those numbers on a calculator much quicker than building a spreadsheet.  However, when I started thee 3-layer I did consider attempting to calculate in the spreadsheet.  But since the 3-layer used the same inner 2-layer, those values mostly remained the same.  So I continued with the manual method that I had employed earlier, even though State 3 does become a mind numbing PITA at this point (for me at least).

I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet.  For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc.  One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1.  When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes:  The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod.  That would be:

pi/4*RingWall1_height*(22²-20²)mm³ +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(26²-24²)mm³ +
pi/4*1*26²)mm³
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = pi/4*8650mm³ = 6793.694113388mm³ = 6.793694113388cc

That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet.  Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work.  There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription.  I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model.  When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.

I think I have an answer for this, and I apologize for not noticing that I did this or I would have pointed it out.  The Volume calculations for the air neglect the volume directly above the pod and riser top surfaces since those never change.  So the Volume of the air is only calculated as the "U" shape section, very similar to the "U" shape of the water volumes sections.

In the example you show, please subtract the pi * r²*ht Volume of air above the pod which is pi*1cm²*.1cm = .3141592654cm³.  Our numbers are then the same.

[MarkE]

Hi MarkE
this so called analysis, I'm no expert but for there to be any credibility surely it must be performed on a working device ?  And if it was performed on a working device then how can they be any secret components, that can't be shown because of business reasons(according to Wayne), how can anyone perform a proper analysis without knowing all the components of the device, it just doesn't make sense to me, how can you expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if you don't make all the information available ?  And if you are making all the information available why all the secrecy about showing Wayne's device running in the first place.

One can perform theoretical analyses, and they can be valid.  It is a good idea whenever one obtains an extraordinary result either by measurement or analysis to check one with the other.  If both agree then additional tests or analyses may be required to reconcile how something extraordinary could be occurring.  Sometimes what has happened is that there is a genuine discovery.  Don't look for such things from Bible thumping con artists.

The exercise from the OP is an analysis of a hypothetical apparatus.  The concept is that certain impossible to achieve stipulations will not affect the main question that the analysis seeks to answer.  So, we stipulate a material that is incompressible and massless for the "air" and massless for the risers, etc.  If one can't get free energy even with such unreal, optimistic stipulations, then one can pack it in.

Because the analysis is theoretical, so long as it relies upon and is faithful to First Principles, the game is over before the analysis begins.  Conservation of Energy / Matter as a First Principle precludes the analysis from yielding free energy.  It then becomes an exercise to find the fault or faults in any analysis that purports to yield an answer that violates the principles under which it is stipulated to obey.  And that is invariably what will happen by the time this exercise is done.  We will find that there are faults in either the assumptions, or the development and application of the hypothetical model.  There is no other possible result. 

Only an actual experiment could purport to violate First Principles.  Any such experiment would be extremely suspect and would require rigorous validation.  An example would be the fairly recent reports of faster than light velocity measurements for neutrinos.  The experimenters reported everything they could about their experiment and sought reproduction.  The results were not reproduced, and the experimenter's ultimately determined that they had faulty fiber optic connections.

So, the bottom line here is that anyone trained in science should recognize that this analysis is all something of a lark.

[TinselKoala]

Really, the spreadsheet is what "computers are for." 

You can do so much with spreadsheets. Properly set up spreadsheets can handle all your household, tax, budget, automobile records,  financial planning, numbers racket, scientific data analysis, anything involving data sets and interrelationships between data. A little time spent fooling around with and learning spreadsheet functionality and use is well worth the effort if you do any number crunching in your life at all.

I consider my own spreadsheet skills to be very basic, but I couldn't do without them. The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets.  The existence of spreadsheet programs like LibreOffice Calc or MS Excel entirely justifies the existence of the personal computer. If a computer could do nothing but spreadsheets it would still be necessary to own one for that reason alone.