Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Sure thing Mark,

It is entertaining how you avoid the questions that do not support your view, and then you also choose to take an ideal mathematical model and require a non-ideal external extraction process,, not exactly good science is it Mark.

Tom you are so full of it that your eyes must ooze brown.

The system also does not behave in a linear fashion, but then to play with that a person would not be able to use your spreadsheet, would they Mark.

I have shown that Mondrasek's device does behave linearly.  You are free to keep trying to show otherwise.  You will fail like you have failed with your other assertions for 160 plus pages now.

Heaven forbid if someone were to play with the AR1 fill heights.  What if they put in a height value of 21.57mm or less,, then what.

That's right,, that just becomes stupid because there is more out than what was put in,, and that without changing your spreadsheet, except for the spillway time.

ST2_AR1Height   21.57mm
ST2_EnergyAdded   0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_INTERNAL_ENERGY_LOSS   0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed   0.0007132J
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS   17.3%   
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS vs ST2_ENERGY_ADDED   100.00%   
ST3_Uplift       1.584875mm   Up Lift Distance


ST2_AR1Height    15mm
ST2_EnergyAdded   0.0003449J
ST2_ST3_INTERNAL_ENERGY_LOSS   0.0003799J
ST2_ST3_External_Work_Performed   0.0003799J
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS   10.1%   
ST2_ST3_PCT_ENERGY_LOSS vs ST2_ENERGY_ADDED   110.15%
ST3_Uplift   1.156696mm


Go figure that,, those changes just by changing the AR1 fill height.

Tom the ST2_ST3_EXT_ENERGY_EFFICIENCY value is 99.87% for your change.  The last time I checked that is still under 100%.  It has been more than four weeks now and you still don't understand the spreadsheet.  If you make the spillway time longer and longer, IE reduce the power throughput capability closer and closer to zero then you can push the efficiency closer and closer to 100%.  But you can never get to 100% and have the machine actually cycle.  I have shown you the physics and the algebra several times.  That you present yourself as unable to comprehend those realities is your shortcoming.

[mondrasek]

M:

But, how does that 78.7% compare with a simple spring?

Just saying...

Bill

That is also true, Bill.

In my opinion there might be a difference between a simple spring and a ZED.  And that is because I know (think I know?) how a simple spring acts.  For a simple spring it does not matter what changes I make to the geometry of the spring:  it will always display the properties of F=kX.

Right now I am not so sure about a ZED.  It does not appear to act only to follow the expected F=mA requirements (nor an F=kX spring relationship).

And so I think it is necessary to test changes to the geometry of the model of the Ideal ZED to see if it always provides an (unusually high) efficiency of 78.7%, or if that efficiency varies under certain dimensional considerations.

M.

[MarkE]

M:

But, how does that 78.7% compare with a simple spring?

Just saying...

Bill

Unless the spring is made of Playdough:  the "ideal ZED" compares badly, and any "real ZED" compares even worse.

[MarkE]

That is also true, Bill.

In my opinion there might be a difference between a simple spring and a ZED.  And that is because I know (think I know?) how a simple spring acts.  For a simple spring it does not matter what changes I make to the geometry of the spring:  it will always display the properties of F=kX.

Right now I am not so sure about a ZED.  It does not appear to act only to follow the expected F=mA requirements (nor an F=kX spring relationship).

And so I think it is necessary to test changes to the geometry of the model of the Ideal ZED to see if it always provides an (unusually high) efficiency of 78.7%, or if that efficiency varies under certain dimensional considerations.

M.

But of course your "ideal ZED" behaves as a linear spring.  For the dimensions you specify:  At State 2 it has a force constant of -.57N/mm and a preload of 2.59mm.  At State 3 it has relaxed to zero preload.

78% efficiency for a spring is crap.

[mrwayne]

As predicted you avoided the question, you must have missed it, it's a perfectly reasonable question, I will posted again for you, maybe we'll help you if it's in red letters,
Name a single Ph.D. and/or professional engineer who endorses your fraud..

Diversion Troll