Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[mondrasek]

You're an engineer. You've been to university.  Then you know what you need to show:  For each value that you develop you need to show the equation that gets you there.  Express the problem into just one giant equation, or some number of simpler equations.  What you have shown are some values from some non-specific equations.  That's crap and you know it.

So either stop with the games and actually show your work, or call it a day.

MarkE, I'll call it a day.  I'm not in school and need not conform to any rules to pass a class.  Neither am I presenting a proof for publication in any Science Journal.  I am showing others on an Internet Forum how I Analyzed the ZED using math, CAD, and a Calculator.  If they want to share in that, they can follow the presented methodology (which includes equations) and see if they result in the same values that have been presented.  They can also decide for themselves if the conclusions drawn are supported by those methods and math.  And I offer to assist anyone who has any question along the way.

AFAIK, the only tricky part is calculating the water column heights for whatever State 3 you want to finish with.  The lift creates some internal Volumn changes that can be missed initially.  That got me two years ago and again on my first attempt more recently.  If anyone wants assistance with that I am happy to help.

[mondrasek]

i see marke asked you this, he said...

"If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work. 

Marsing, only I never asked MarkE, or anyone, to "audit" my work.  I asked if anyone would double check my work.  And that can be done by different methods.  For example, I initially calculated new Water heights for State 3 by working from the inside out comparing Volumes and moving the boundary levels previously found in State 2 in CAD.  I then double checked the work by comparing Volumes of the Air and Water in each area to those in State 1 and State 2, which is a slightly different method.  Then I triple checked the work by calculating the Energy in the Water in each state as well as introduced by the charge and seeing if those values all compared properly, a completely different and valid method.

So there are different methods, and I could show several for most steps, but I encourage others to pick their own OR follow what I did. 

Now since my methods and MarkE's both arrive at the same State 2, I see no reason to back up and "show my work" that is proven to result in identical results with MarkE.  But I did agree to "show the work" moving forward from State 2 to State 3 since that is where we diverged.  And this, I believe, I have done.  With descriptions, equations, and example calculations.

[minnie]

   Mondrasek,
                     what's wrong with you? You'll never get anywhere with that attitude.
   You've got to present a comprehensive piece of work, doesn't matter if you do
   it on an abacus or count it on your fingers, you must show all your workings just
   like is required when you're at school. The right answer alone won't cut it unless
   it is backed by your method.
       Nobody can read your mind.
    You seem to be an ardent ZED supporter, as is shown by your looking at pentane.
    The ZED is a labyrinth, an oscillating one at that. The power (rate of doing work)
    that could be handled is minimal, someone mentioned about three rpm. If such a
    thing were to work it would have to be colossal. You're an engineer so you must
    know what happens when you start interrupting the flow of a fairly dense liquid
    you get a shock wave. My grandfather fed his farm with water by using the kinetic
    energy of a spring, using a ram pump.
       As for the math, you know the answer!
                                  John

[mondrasek]

Minnie, if I felt that MarkE's intentions were to learn anything, I might be inclined to do differently.  But he clearly was able to present a correct State 2, but refused, at first, to present a State 3.  Instead he simply "waved his hands" and said that for reasons previously explained, it cannot work.  I found that to be disingenuous at first.  But he did agree to continue.  It is at that point he deviated to a Volume in = Volume out approach, instead of the clearly stated method of checking if Energy in = Energy out.  And he has had many "errors" ever since.  Including the ridiculous claim that the buoyancy Force is calculated by the ID and not the OD.

So I find that MarkE is not working in good faith to help with anything.  He is only disrupting now.  In fact, he is trying, once again, to make us go back to the beginning.  Why do you think that is?  I know why, do you?

If anyone who displays a desire to learn what I presented and cannot on their own (I hope many can) I would be happy to help.  But MarkE's demands will not stop.  And nothing that I present will ever be satisfactory.  And he will never let the Analysis be completed if he is involved.

So, why bother?

[minnie]

  Mondrasek,
                  now you really are sounding like Travis. You could easily have done what is
    required in the time you spent triple checking with a calculator.
       My opinion is that you really don't want to know the truth, it might hurt.
                                            John.