Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Ah yes, the cost of becoming educated.  Hopefully their
gullibility is cured in the process.  I suppose one should
have empathy for those investors when their gambles
do not pay off.  Wouldn't it be nice if wisdom came without
penalties?

So the tag-team match continues.  With occasional
interludes of entertainment provided thoughtfully
by MileHigh.

I foresee a winner to this contest down the road a ways
yet - the one who plays by Gentlemen's Rules to the
conclusion.  There may be two or more. 

We know that the investors already lost.  The question is who ultimately gets to walk.  Urban didn't.  Will Wayne?

[powercat]

Invisible pink ZED, now there's an idea for Wayne Travesty, much better than the flogging a dead horse ZED

[mondrasek]

@powercat,

Do you remember the diagram below?  It is from a ways back in this thread.  It was intended to show that the "lift" of the risers in a ZED system is an Energy release that could be performing work.  In the diagram, the lift is causing a mass of water to be raised.  And the Energy that the ZED must supply in order to raise the water is, of course, the integral of F*ds.

[MarkE]

@powercat,

Do you remember the diagram below?  It is from a ways back in this thread.  It was intended to show that the "lift" of the risers in a ZED system is an Energy release that could be performing work.  In the diagram, the lift is causing a mass of water to be raised.  And the Energy that the ZED must supply in order to raise the water is, of course, the integral of F*ds.

This clever from a transfer function matching stand point bit is quite telling:  Using your "ideal ZED" dimensions it requires a 271.5mm dia x 2.591 mm high pool of water on top of the original ~50mm dia 67mm assembly height.  This large flaky machine is capable of cycling 0.0019J each cycle by storing water in a 2.59mm pan and then pushing the water over the top lip of the pan.  We have established that the process is not only fundamentally lossy, but from any practical standpoint, it is also completely ridiculous.

[MarkE]

Which is it MarkE, are the losses due to N/(X/N)^2 or not,, you stated here that this system does not behave this way.

Perhaps maybe you would like to explain the quantity of work required to oppose the falling fluid to make the move from the full column down to 1\2 height in one step, this is, after all, part of the energy balance equation. <= this is the funny part,, the energy for opposition is the missing 1\2,, so the energy is *taken* out of the system, not lost.

You keep saying that it is lost to heat, there is SOME factual basis for that but if the fluid and the columns were both inert to heat and they are both frictionless, then the fluid would simply oscillate from one side to the other just like a pendulum.  When the real world frictional loses are put into the equation THEN the loss due to friction will generate heat and that is a conversion of energy that will stop the motion of the fluid and THEN it will settle into the 1\2 height positions and have 1\2 the energy left BECAUSE it then gave up that other 1\2 energy to heat.

I would suppose that you are going to nitpick on the pressure change on the fluid creating heat,, but if the fluid is inert to heat,, then what.  You might also want to include the actual energy loss due to this heat from pressure change in the real world with real numbers, but that might show how little energy that is for these applications.

webby you can natter trying to build a straw man all that you want.  Mondrasek's spillway mechanism reduces N very close to 1.0.  The slower one is willing to go, IE the more futile they are willing to make the machine, the closer to 1.0 N gets.  The most efficient "ideal ZED" like any ZED is no ZED at all.

The real question here is why do you keep trying to promote Wayne Travis' fraud?