Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

What can we observe about the internal energy in each of the four pictures that make up this collage?  How do any of them relate to the internal energy of the up and fully vented position picture below the collage?  Here are a couple of hints:  The first three pictures result from the weights being on top of the water bottle, but the water bottle does not move up or down.  The fourth image results from allowing the sealed at the bottom with water equalized condition to find a new equilibrium state.

[mondrasek]

MarkE, while your demonstrations are interesting, they do not include what I believe to be a key feature in the ZED.  And that is the nested risers that are all supported by buoyant Forces due to the water in annuli separate by ring walls.  That feature appears to allow a single input Pressure and Volume to affect the buoyant Forces on multiple pod and risers.  By the Analysis method I used and am using, which is quite the same as used on the no-pod, single riser example that we digressed to earlier and finally arrived at identical results, I find unusual results.  Those unusual results change from a non-conservative and lossy under unity condition for a 2-layer system to a non-conservative and over unity condition for a 3-layer.

What changed with the addition of 3rd riser to the previous 2-layer system?  The V_in remained the same.  The P_in average went up.  But the P_out average went up substantially more.  All that is due to adding another riser in another annulus separate by another ring wall.  Without those unique features I do not believe you will witness anything extraordinary.  So I don't think your demonstrations help with the ZED question, though they are fine to teach textbook Archimedes buoyancy interactions.

[MarkE]

DOH!!

My bad,,

So the first pic is where the bottle and pontoons come to rest,, then you push the little bottle down with a hole in the top of little bottle, then you seal that hole and let it come back up allowing the pontoons to lift the little bottle and the water inside the little bottle up so the water level inside the little bottle is above the water level in the soda bottle.

Besides wasting potential force again, by just venting the air instead of running it through something like the exquisite little motor TK showed us to showcase his machining skills, what is it you are trying to show?

You've got the sequence right.  The only thing that you've got tangled up is using the invented term:  "potential force".  This demonstration demonstrates, in hopefully not too subtle terms the nature of the energy states.  Once the relationship of the energy states are known then one can compare those to the claimed ZED process and see if they are informative.  (Spoiler alert:  They are informative.)

[MarkE]

MarkE, while your demonstrations are interesting, they do not include what I believe to be a key feature in the ZED.  And that is the nested risers that are all supported by buoyant Forces due to the water in annuli separate by ring walls.  That feature appears to allow a single input Pressure and Volume to affect the buoyant Forces on multiple pod and risers.  By the Analysis method I used and am using, which is quite the same as used on the no-pod, single riser example that we digressed to earlier and finally arrived at identical results, I find unusual results.  Those unusual results change from a non-conservative and lossy under unity condition for a 2-layer system to a non-conservative and over unity condition for a 3-layer.

What changed with the addition of 3rd riser to the previous 2-layer system?  The V_in remained the same.  The P_in average went up.  But the P_out average went up substantially more.  All that is due to adding another riser in another annulus separate by another ring wall.  Without those unique features I do not believe you will witness anything extraordinary.  So I don't think your demonstrations help with the ZED question, though they are fine to teach textbook Archimedes buoyancy interactions.

They do not need to deal with that unnecessary complexity to make the critical points.  If you ever get around to performing your math in an auditable way, then you may see the reality of the situation.  Or you can put what you think your math tells you to a physical test and find out that you've built a bogus representation.

Again, if you understand your basic physics, then you know that buoyancy is just good old conservative gravity operating on fluids.  If you calculate an over unity result, you've mad a mistake in your model, your calculations, your transcriptions or some combination of the above. 

There has never been anything demonstrated by HER/Zydro or anyone else to show any deviation of their Nested Russian Dolls of Ignorance from Archimedes' Principle.

Tell me what the relative energy states are of the five pictures:  Left to right in the collage, and full up state in the picture below the collage.

What should you be reminded of by the picture below?  What does the picture that follows it say about one of your assertions?  Are the water levels not equal?  Did they not equalize due to venting?  So why is it that the bottle not only rises once sealed, it takes water up with it?  And why is it that if we let it vent, it goes even higher?

Here is a clue:  There are no ZED questions.  There is 2000 year old hydrostatics.  There is the calculus.  There are the lies by HER/Zydro that things like air are responsible for buoyancy in water.   And there are the fraudulent claims of HER/Zydro that they have a free energy machine.

[mondrasek]

What should you be reminded of by the picture below?  What does the picture that follows it say about one of your assertions?  Are the water levels not equal?  Did they not equalize due to venting?  So why is it that the bottle not only rises once sealed, it takes water up with it?  And why is it that if we let it vent, it goes even higher?

Your demonstration clearly shows that in a system with more than one buoyant object (where the objects are in interfering contact with each other) it is the SUM of the buoyant Forces that must equal ZERO for the system to be in equilibrium.  Any negative buoyant Force in your bottle due to a negative water Head is exactly balanced by the positive buoyant Forces due to the positive water Head on each pontoon straw.  If the water levels are the same, the pontoons are simply supporting the weight of the bottle, themselves, the tape, etc.

Checking for a balanced buoyant Force condition in the State 3 state is the first step I have show.  Both on your State 3 where it was not zero (it was a negative value showing your State 3 would need to sink to find equilibrium) and my own State 3 where it was also not zero (it was a positive value showing my State 3 would need to RISE to find equilibrium).