Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

MileHigh (or should I say Darth Vader  ), but what is wrong with a good, old fashioned witch hunt?
Pointing at posters whose opinions you don't like and shouting witch! ,witch! adds so much value to the discussion.

I'll have you know that they put this nose on me, and I am not fond of ducks.

[mrwayne]

Tom,
You are sane...and wise.
Archimedes' is correct - in situations where a static surface is not involved.
As you and Mark have shown:
The volume relationship to buoyancy is correct in a Archimedes'  as is the differential pressure X surface area is also correct - since they are both in effect the same descriptions of the effect gravity has on fluids - and a displacement.
The "Travis Effect Videos" showed that a mechanical intervention could be made to effect that relationship.
Most interventions cause added work - but when the intervention reduces the reaction time, or displacement requirements, or reduces the mass involved - but nets the same values..... a new observation is warranted.
Wayne

[TinselKoala]

Well, honest Wayne Travis.... shouldn't you be at work, preparing for your invitation-only "Public Demo"?
Have you located your major leaks yet?   

But every time you find and seal one, another one springs open somewhere else and your expensive teeter totter lurches to a halt. But you've got a new design that you expect and anticipate will solve all those problems! How long can you run with that explanation before the villagers start marching on you with pitchforks and torches?

Are you hoping to add even more items to PowerCat's list of your broken promises? With every post, you do.

[MarkE]

Alrighty then MarkE,,

Calculate the actual volume of displaced WATER and virtual WATER using YOUR numbers,, that is what I have done that is
147.6715443014cm^3.

Then what is that weight in N.

Go ahead MarkE,, show me that your spreadsheet comes up with something else,, then, when you can not do that then what are you going to say or do to try and twist things further???

Have you checked what volumes you are calculating in your own spreadsheet there MarkE,, the air volume of the riser and the water volume of the AR2_3 AR4_5 and AR6_7 gap,, where is the sanity check for the displaced volume???

Oh,, that is a silly question,, there is NOT any,, some person is so  sure of himself that he does not need anything as stupid as a displaced volume sanity check,, the forces are all that are needed,, it is not like we are talking about a BUOYANT lift or anything.

There is no fixing willful ignorance.  Show an actual calculation that is wrong, and why it is wrong.  You can't.  You present yourself as completely unfamiliar with the physics.  Let's see what you are bitching about now:  "displaced volume".  It seems you do not understand leverage or hydraulic force gain.  Repeat after me:  Force is not conserved.   Force is not conserved.  Force is not conserved.  In order to calculate forces, you have to work out the pressure that acts on each horizontal surface and then multiply that pressure by the exposed horizontal surface.  The R4 spreadsheet does just that. 

[MarkE]

Tom,
You are sane...and wise.
Archimedes' is correct - in situations where a static surface is not involved.
As you and Mark have shown:
The volume relationship to buoyancy is correct in a Archimedes'  as is the differential pressure X surface area is also correct - since they are both in effect the same descriptions of the effect gravity has on fluids - and a displacement.
The "Travis Effect Videos" showed that a mechanical intervention could be made to effect that relationship.
Most interventions cause added work - but when the intervention reduces the reaction time, or displacement requirements, or reduces the mass involved - but nets the same values..... a new observation is warranted.
Wayne

The shameless fraud Wayne Travis speaks.  Tom Web presents himself as incapable of learning concepts taught to high school students each year.  Archimedes' Principle holds in all cases of fluid displacement.  When people do not understand the principle or how to apply it as Tom presents himself, then they get wrong answers.  The "Travis Effect" videos showed what happens when a dishonest huckster attempts to misrepresent and misdirect by claiming that a displacing material:  air in the case of the videos, is responsible for buoyant force, when it is not.  The weight of the displaced surrounding fluid: water is entirely responsible for the buoyant up force.  The air in all of those videos did two things:  provided some of the displacing volume, and transmitted the buoyant force to the ID of the cups in all cases.  There is no "Travis Effect".  There is a small group of frauds led by you trying to mislead investors who don't know any better.  The great news is that you have documented your scienter.

In terms of interventions, you should concern yourself with whether or not one is coming, and if it is what form it will take.  If you like to take a sip now and again, don't drink to excess.  You might end up with a bad Hangover.