Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 755723 times)

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #900 on: March 11, 2014, 01:04:51 PM »
I like pictures MarkE,, but exactly what is it that you are showing?
These pictures show a bit of truth concerning buoyancy.  The experiments include:  Materials with SG > 1.  Materials with SG < 1.  Water.  Trapped air.  Vented air.  It's more fun to see the effects live.  I encourage anyone who is interested to spend the small amount of time it takes to set the experiments up and conduct them.  In most households the only thing one might not have is the hot glue.

Think about what you see in the pictures and the conditions that produced what you observe.  See if you can relate them to HER/Zydro's false claims.

powercat

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1091
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #901 on: March 11, 2014, 02:32:02 PM »
It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.  I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet.  For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc.  One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1.  When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes:  The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod.  That would be:

pi/4*RingWall1_height*(222-202)mm3 +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(262-242)mm3 +
pi/4*1*262)mm3
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = 6793.694113388mm3 = 6.793694113388cc

That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet.  Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work.  There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription.  I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model.  When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.

Hi MarkE
this so called analysis, I'm no expert but for there to be any credibility surely it must be performed on a working device ?  And if it was performed on a working device then how can they be any secret components, that can't be shown because of business reasons(according to Wayne), how can anyone perform a proper analysis without knowing all the components of the device, it just doesn't make sense to me, how can you expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if you don't make all the information available ?  And if you are making all the information available why all the secrecy about showing Wayne's device running in the first place.

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #902 on: March 11, 2014, 02:42:30 PM »
It is extremely odd that you choose to use a hand calculator and then manually transcribed resulting values into Excel, explicitly entering much of the data as text.

To be honest, it is because spreadsheet programs were not introduced (to me at least) before I finished my University studies and I have never been formally trained or taken the time to learn more than the basic capabilities of Excel.  I can write basic math functions in Excel, but I do not know how to label cells, reference anything on different tab, or anything involving scripting!  So math functions that I would write all reference cell locations which makes it very difficult to follow and debug.

When I started the Analysis it was with the 2-layer system.  I can run those numbers on a calculator much quicker than building a spreadsheet.  However, when I started thee 3-layer I did consider attempting to calculate in the spreadsheet.  But since the 3-layer used the same inner 2-layer, those values mostly remained the same.  So I continued with the manual method that I had employed earlier, even though State 3 does become a mind numbing PITA at this point (for me at least).

I am afraid that I must insist that you show the equations that you relied upon, because the numbers don't seem to correspond to the sparse verbage in the spreadsheet.  For example, you list a value for "Riser 1 Air Vol" of 6.479534848cc.  One might think from that label that you are trying to calculate the "air" volume that is under Riser 1.  When I look at the drawing, I see that can be readily computed as the sum of three volumes:  The volumes on either side of the innermost ring wall plus the volume under the "attic" that is above the height of the ring wall and the pod.  That would be:

pi/4*RingWall1_height*(222-202)mm3 +
pi/4*(RingWall1_height - 32.5)*(262-242)mm3 +
pi/4*1*262)mm3
=pi/4*(5124 + 2850 + 676)mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = pi/4*8650mm3 = 6793.694113388mm3 = 6.793694113388cc

That does not equal the 6.479534848cc shown in your spreadsheet.  Whatever you are doing, it looks like you are writing down values to ten digits that aren't even accurate to two digits.
Without the equations that you relied upon, there is no audit trail to your work.  There is no way to tell what is incorrect: assumption, model, equation, or transcription.  I don't know how you check your work without writing down the equations that you use to represent your model.  When you show your equations, then I will continue to evaluate what you have done.

I think I have an answer for this, and I apologize for not noticing that I did this or I would have pointed it out.  The Volume calculations for the air neglect the volume directly above the pod and riser top surfaces since those never change.  So the Volume of the air is only calculated as the "U" shape section, very similar to the "U" shape of the water volumes sections.

In the example you show, please subtract the pi * r2*ht Volume of air above the pod which is pi*1cm2*.1cm = .3141592654cm3.  Our numbers are then the same.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #903 on: March 11, 2014, 02:59:59 PM »
Hi MarkE
this so called analysis, I'm no expert but for there to be any credibility surely it must be performed on a working device ?  And if it was performed on a working device then how can they be any secret components, that can't be shown because of business reasons(according to Wayne), how can anyone perform a proper analysis without knowing all the components of the device, it just doesn't make sense to me, how can you expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if you don't make all the information available ?  And if you are making all the information available why all the secrecy about showing Wayne's device running in the first place.
One can perform theoretical analyses, and they can be valid.  It is a good idea whenever one obtains an extraordinary result either by measurement or analysis to check one with the other.  If both agree then additional tests or analyses may be required to reconcile how something extraordinary could be occurring.  Sometimes what has happened is that there is a genuine discovery.  Don't look for such things from Bible thumping con artists.

The exercise from the OP is an analysis of a hypothetical apparatus.  The concept is that certain impossible to achieve stipulations will not affect the main question that the analysis seeks to answer.  So, we stipulate a material that is incompressible and massless for the "air" and massless for the risers, etc.  If one can't get free energy even with such unreal, optimistic stipulations, then one can pack it in.

Because the analysis is theoretical, so long as it relies upon and is faithful to First Principles, the game is over before the analysis begins.  Conservation of Energy / Matter as a First Principle precludes the analysis from yielding free energy.  It then becomes an exercise to find the fault or faults in any analysis that purports to yield an answer that violates the principles under which it is stipulated to obey.  And that is invariably what will happen by the time this exercise is done.  We will find that there are faults in either the assumptions, or the development and application of the hypothetical model.  There is no other possible result.

Only an actual experiment could purport to violate First Principles.  Any such experiment would be extremely suspect and would require rigorous validation.  An example would be the fairly recent reports of faster than light velocity measurements for neutrinos.  The experimenters reported everything they could about their experiment and sought reproduction.  The results were not reproduced, and the experimenter's ultimately determined that they had faulty fiber optic connections.

So, the bottom line here is that anyone trained in science should recognize that this analysis is all something of a lark.

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #904 on: March 11, 2014, 03:00:11 PM »
Really, the spreadsheet is what "computers are for."

You can do so much with spreadsheets. Properly set up spreadsheets can handle all your household, tax, budget, automobile records,  financial planning, numbers racket, scientific data analysis, anything involving data sets and interrelationships between data. A little time spent fooling around with and learning spreadsheet functionality and use is well worth the effort if you do any number crunching in your life at all.

I consider my own spreadsheet skills to be very basic, but I couldn't do without them. The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets.  The existence of spreadsheet programs like LibreOffice Calc or MS Excel entirely justifies the existence of the personal computer. If a computer could do nothing but spreadsheets it would still be necessary to own one for that reason alone.

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #905 on: March 11, 2014, 03:18:31 PM »
The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets.

And the graphical functions to visualize data are one that I use the most.  Also, exporting Servo Motor traces from an O-scope via a .cvs file allows for quickly solving for Duty Cycle, which is something else I do frequently.  But I am not the "Jack of all trades" that some of you are.  Call me lazy, but I have to know how to operate so many software programs and hardware platforms that I try to limit my knowledge of each to what I need to do so I can move on to the next task.  It is a rare occasion that I delve deeper than that and only because one of those tools has piqued my interest.  Learning more about Excel just for this simple Analysis was something I did not consider of value.

I have utilized the services of Analysts and Software Engineers where I work when a specific spreadsheet or VBA app appears to be a useful tool to eliminate redundant accounting or calculation activities that I and coworkers are found to be performing.  But I do utilize the talents of those other team members rather than learn the skill myself based on a time and value proposition case by case.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #906 on: March 11, 2014, 03:30:47 PM »
To be honest, it is because spreadsheet programs were not introduced (to me at least) before I finished my University studies and I have never been formally trained or taken the time to learn more than the basic capabilities of Excel.  I can write basic math functions in Excel, but I do not know how to label cells, reference anything on different tab, or anything involving scripting!  So math functions that I would write all reference cell locations which makes it very difficult to follow and debug.
Google "named ranges, Excel".  Unless you want to write a computer program, there is no need to do so in Excel.  Excel is at its heart a place that one can stuff equations.  Named ranges (cells are ranges of one cell) allow you to get past 1989 and use names to refer to values in a spreadsheet instead of \$a\$12 etc.
Quote

When I started the Analysis it was with the 2-layer system.  I can run those numbers on a calculator much quicker than building a spreadsheet.  However, when I started thee 3-layer I did consider attempting to calculate in the spreadsheet.  But since the 3-layer used the same inner 2-layer, those values mostly remained the same.  So I continued with the manual method that I had employed earlier, even though State 3 does become a mind numbing PITA at this point (for me at least).
Quote

I think I have an answer for this, and I apologize for not noticing that I did this or I would have pointed it out.  The Volume calculations for the air neglect the volume directly above the pod and riser top surfaces since those never change.  So the Volume of the air is only calculated as the "U" shape section, very similar to the "U" shape of the water volumes sections.

In the example you show, please subtract the pi * r2*ht Volume of air above the pod which is pi*1cm2*.1cm = .3141592654cm3.  Our numbers are then the same.
I am not going to try and second guess work that you do not present.  If you want me to audit your work, then you need to show your work.  You can write out the equations you used, or you can enter them into something like Excel, or do whatever else you need to actually show the process you relied upon to get your errant results.  I have attached a copy of your spreadsheet with a work sheet added that separated the numerical values from the text, and named all the identifiable numerical cells.  If you like you can use that as a starting point.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #907 on: March 11, 2014, 03:32:19 PM »
Really, the spreadsheet is what "computers are for."

You can do so much with spreadsheets. Properly set up spreadsheets can handle all your household, tax, budget, automobile records,  financial planning, numbers racket, scientific data analysis, anything involving data sets and interrelationships between data. A little time spent fooling around with and learning spreadsheet functionality and use is well worth the effort if you do any number crunching in your life at all.

I consider my own spreadsheet skills to be very basic, but I couldn't do without them. The graphical presentation of data is easy with spreadsheets.  The existence of spreadsheet programs like LibreOffice Calc or MS Excel entirely justifies the existence of the personal computer. If a computer could do nothing but spreadsheets it would still be necessary to own one for that reason alone.
VisiCalc is what got interest in personal computers beyond geeks.

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #908 on: March 11, 2014, 03:40:36 PM »

MarkE, I am sorry you feel that way.  I have said that my calculations and methods lead to an Analysis that equaled the results of your own up through State 2.  I have then outlined, with all equations, the process that I used to Analyze the change from State 2 to State 3 and the final State 3.  I see no point in stepping backwards or in presenting anything in a different format.

I would be happy to explain any single step along the way if you have specific questions.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #909 on: March 11, 2014, 03:56:23 PM »
MarkE, I am sorry you feel that way.  I have said that my calculations and methods lead to an Analysis that equaled the results of your own up through State 2.  I have then outlined, with all equations, the process that I used to Analyze the change from State 2 to State 3 and the final State 3.  I see no point in stepping backwards or in presenting anything in a different format.

I would be happy to explain any single step along the way if you have specific questions.

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #910 on: March 11, 2014, 04:02:35 PM »

I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ.  They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #911 on: March 11, 2014, 04:07:48 PM »
I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ.  They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.
Yes you asked people to double check what you refuse to show.

Quote
All, please check the math.  I would appreciate if you can point out any mistakes in the math, assumptions, logic, and conclusions.

How do you know that you followed whatever methodology you think you did when you say you don't have it written down?  You complain that you don't know how to enter algebraic formulas in Excel.  Well if you didn't enter algebra on paper someplace, then what did you do?  You can show your work, or just leave the conclusion that these absurd excuses of yours show that you were never serious about the matter.

And even more amazingly, you now imply that your spreadsheet has values in it that are just filling in space.  Do you get away with this kind of crap at work?  Are your notebooks filled with numbers scattered around the page and little else?

TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #912 on: March 11, 2014, 04:09:20 PM »
I asked for a double check of my math and methods.  We only need to share methods if our results differ. They differ after State 2.  Your focus on a value I used to double check my own work does not seem justified.  It is a quibble.  Feel free to zero out all of those air and water volumes.  They are not needed in the Analysis.

Oh come on. I can't believe you said that.

You need to show your work, regardless of whether someone else is making the same mistakes or not. It is the only way to assure that the model you are using is correct and that the operations you are performing are properly performed. Just because two people get the same answer, or that the answer you get is what you expected to get.... and that each mathematical operation performed was correct.... that does NOT mean it's right or that you don't have to show how you got to your result!

I'm actually flabbergasted by that statement. My tenth grade geometry teacher Mrs. Landrum would have thrown me out of class for saying something like that. "But Mrs Landrum, I got the right answer, so you don't need to see how I got it....." I can see her spinning in her grave.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #913 on: March 11, 2014, 04:17:41 PM »
It is simply not believable that Mondrasek claims he has reached an extraordinary conclusion, but he doesn't have the supporting work available.  This is as nuts as his contention that he only kept the spreadsheet for this lark on his work computer.  The story just gets more and more ridiculous.

mondrasek

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1301
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #914 on: March 11, 2014, 04:18:49 PM »
I have explained and showed my methods for the Analysis from the point where it diverges from MarkE's at after State 2.  That begins here:  http://www.overunity.com/14299/mathematical-analysis-of-an-ideal-zed/msg391999/#msg391999  Each post tells the reasoning for the method used, the equations used, and a sample calculation.

Really guys, no spread sheet is needed to follow along.  Each presented value can be obtained by following the example and substituting the proper numbers that are shown on the presented diagram.  I am prepared to engage if you find a problem with either the reasoning, the equations used, or the resultant values that are all posted.