Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

    Team Travis is looking extremely shaky!
    Most don't seem to have a grasp of the
    very basics.
                       John.

[powercat]

It's the usual Travesty story,
shaky, flaky, vague, and without a credible working device in over three years, but apparently some people believe an analysis of a non existing device will convince everyone, if you believe in your analysis then produce a device that actually works, though let's face it if Wayne can't do it in three years what chance has anyone else,  that's why all the believers have left is an analysis of an non existing device.

[MarkE]

    Team Travis is looking extremely shaky!
    Most don't seem to have a grasp of the
    very basics.
                       John.

Well, under special circumstances one can get the right answer for energy using P_AVE*V.  The single column is such a case, and we can see that in Larry's example, provided that we pick the right P_AVE.

What we cannot do to get the right answer is use P_AVE obtained across multiple columns.
If we set K1 = pWater*G₀ then
In the [0,3,3] left hand case of Larry's example we would incorrectly calculate an internal energy of,

P_AVE is: K1*(0+3+3/3) = K1*2. 
V is Area*(3+3) = Area*6
P_AVE*V = K1*Area*12

The correct answer can be found by adding the energies of each column, and for that the individual P_AVE*V gives the right answer:

0.5*K1*Area*(0 + 3*3 + 3*3) = K1*9

Larry chose to calculate the energy added to get to the [1,2,4] case by calculating the average pressure in the left hand column and multiplying that by the volume in the left hand column.  And for those circumstances he got the right answer.  His analogy to a 3ft high column needs a bit of work, because while that gives the correct pressure, it yields the wrong volume and represents three times as much energy as was added.

[MarkE]

It's the usual Travesty story,
shaky, flaky, vague, and without a credible working device in over three years, but apparently some people believe an analysis of a non existing device will convince everyone, if you believe in your analysis then produce a device that actually works, though let's face it if Wayne can't do it in three years what chance has anyone else,  that's why all the believers have left is an analysis of an non existing device.

It does not seem that there is even an analysis, because while we are constantly reminded that such an analysis is supposed to exist we never see it.  Never mind that any mathematically correct analysis that holds to First Principles by definition cannot show a gain.  Also I believe that we are coming up on six years of this charade.  The PowerPoint pitch with the alternate universe physics is a little over three years old.

[MarkE]

That is what I thought, and that displaced fluid then will be the OD of the "float" and not the ID.

So why are you using the ID of the riser in your spreadsheet? more precisely you are using the OD of the AR inside the riser.

I was having issues with your lift force total and my hand calculated volumes of displaced water,, in your spreadsheet that value is approximately 122g of force, where as I come up with approximately 148g of force.

I will go look at it.  If it is wrong, I will fix it.  It will not change the fact that the system is fundamentally lossy.

Please tell me something:  Do you have any trouble following my spreadsheet?  I have tried to make the names and equations easy to follow.