Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

Now.... some test protocol questions for Webby and the spreadsheeters working on single Zeds.

The device is precharged with whatever necessary, a known test mass is placed on the output riser or pod or whatever it's called: the output, and it's now sitting there motionless and ready to go, all cylinders and risers etc. sitting at some reference marks "A".
Right?

Now we take a spring scale rigged to read compression force. We push down on the input thingy using this spring scale to allow us to maintain some constant pressure (force) downward, and we press for a travel distance of some known value, say 5 units, on our scribed scales on the sides of the tubes. We have now done X amount of work (the spring scale force reading x the pushdown units).
Right?

We see the output thingy rising, lifting the known mass. We now have an output value for the work: the downward weight of the known mass (a force) x the lift distance. 
Right?

Now we relax the applied force to the input and allow the system to return to its equilibrium state.... which should be identical to the initial state.
Right?

Now we can find the ratio of the input work to the output work easily enough.
Right?

[LarryC]

A little misunderstanding about our system - we have reduced the input cost - we do not get more out of the system than it could generate - The wrong question is "where does the energy come from" - the right question is "how did you reduce the input".

Larry has been doing an excellent Job showing how our layered system reduces the input. If you are looking for missing energy - you might not see it.

Wayne

The question is 'how do you reduce the input' and that is shown in the drawing, but most recent posters completely ignore it. What is your real reason? You don't even ask how I calculated these values. I do have a spreadsheet ready, but that would just be more proof and I suspect you don't want to see the proof.

It is so simple, there is 4 phases, Sink to Ready to Stroke, 3" Rise, 3" Fall, Ready to Stroke to Sink. The only phase that Archimedes accomplishes at the same speed is the 3" Rise. It is all about time. 4 Riser requires much less time in all other phases. So back to the simple formula, Power = (Force X Distance) / Time.

Regards, Larry

PS: At all with common sense and values the truth, it will be interesting to see how long it takes them to bury this one in their useless blabbering.

[see3d]

Hello folks,

I have been lurking for many weeks while working on my simulator for a single layer single ZED demonstrator.  I must say that I have been a bit amused by the members thinking that they must somehow prove O/U or not for his existing machine.  I do not believe that Wayne needs or desires this kind of "help".  MD is in charge of that type of effort with much expense and preparation for each stage of verification.  There would be plenty of investors based on MD's approval of the technology, and follow-on testing would reveal the physics involved.

Duplication and testing of duplicates is more valuable than one more tear down of his machine.  What Wayne needs is independent replications that show O/U.  That will add more credibility to his device than anything else.  End of story.

Wayne has made himself available on this site to provide enough information for experimenters to build their own small models.  He even offered a bounty to keep the cost of the construction materials from being an obstacle.  He has been most gracious in inviting and hosting those who desire a visit to his shop.

I must also say that I have been very disappointed by the very poor manners displayed by some here.  Being a skeptic is good.  It keeps one from falling for scams, delusions, and bad math.  However, being disruptive and obnoxious and thinking the inventor owes more than his stated purpose of sharing is a hinderance for those who do want to proceed with experiments.  Enough said.

I will be releasing my document to this site in the next few days.  The document is an analysis of the principles and formulas that I am using in my simulation for this simplest of cases.  Successful verification of the simple case by competent skeptics will be followed by a more complex multi-layered case.  My approach stresses successful simulation to pave the way for robust replications.

[MileHigh]

LarryC:

4 Riser requires much less time in all other phases. So back to the simple formula, Power = (Force X Distance) / Time.

You seem to be implying that for one of the steps of the 4-riser it happens much faster so there is "more power."  What I believe that you are not getting is that then there is a "dead time" were nothing happens.  Am I correct?

To factor in the "dead time" you look at the entire cycle time, and then you get (Force X Distance)/Total_Cycle_Time to get the average power per cycle.

But if you want, you can simply factor out the total cycle time and just talk about the energy expended per cycle.  Each one of the four steps (I assume) either inputs or outputs a certain amount of energy during the entire cycle.  So discussing the energy required per step is sufficient.

Am I making sense to you?   To me you seem to be saying that if the 4-riser requires two seconds to do a cycle but the Archimedes requires five seconds to do the equivalent cycle then the 4-riser is "more powerful."  But if the total cycle time for the two methods is ten seconds and they both do the same lifting job then the average power for the whole cycle is the same for the two versions and nothing remarkable is taking place.

Can you do me a favour?  Pretend that someone starts reading the thread at this point and they will not read the previous 80 pages.  Can you explain what your diagram is post #1296 means in simple plain English?  Can you list the steps one by one and explain what happens in each step?   Can you calculate the energy required to do each step?

Honestly, I look at your diagram and I can't make head or tail of it.  Also just to repeat for emphasis, you talk about lifting a weight a certain distance for a given step.  Surely you can indicate the energy required per step?   If we assume that you are going to discuss one complete cycle, then we don't have to look at power at all.  Just the energy calculation for each individual step.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

I am just going to share a few thoughts based on one of LarryC's earlier postings:

Simple as it can get proof. Apples to Apples.

The attached shows a Archimedes Pod of 30" diameter with retainer and a Travis Pod of 30" diameter with retainer. The Archimedes Pod is the height that it would take for it to have the same lift forces as a 4 Riser Travis System. The Riser are not shown as the water is only input into the Pod retainer.

Note that the Sink to Stroke water difference for Archimedes is 164, while only 37 for 4 Riser. Also note that the PSI levels are higher for Arch. than 4 Riser, this advantage is due to larger SI areas on the Risers.

Archimedes has to input 164" of water pushing against PSI from 5.43 to 11.33.
4 Riser has to input 37" of water pushing against PSI from 5.07 to 9.99 PSI.
Or Archimedes has to input 4.43 times as much water at the SI as 4 Riser for the same lift with a much increase load and unload time going from Sink to Stroke and Stroke to Sink.

If I understand correctly, the 4-Riser system will only have to input roughly one-quarter the water as a regular Archimedes system to do the same lifting job.  I am pretty sure that I am correct here but by all means please correct me if I am wrong.

Would it be fair to say that the 4-Riser is sort of like a four-segment telescoping antenna as it expands?

Assuming this is the case what the 4-Riser does for you is give you four times the lifting distance for every unit of water put into the 4-Riser as compared to the Archimedes system.   So LarryC crunches the start water pressure and the end water pressure and the water volume in his spreadsheet and it all looks really positive.

So if I am following this correctly, it's like the 4-Riser is kind of like a mechanical lever, but in this case the "lever" is giving you four times the lifting distance as compared to the normal Archimedes system.

If what I am saying is true, then I believe that there may be a problem with the calculations.

He is the gist of the problem:  If you are getting four times the lifting distance, then there is a price to pay for this "advantage."  Where you have to pay the price is in the "back pressure" coming from the weight you are lifting.  In the 4-Riser system the "back pressure" coming from the weight that you are lifting will be four times higher.

In other words:

Let's assume that we are going to lift one pound by one foot, and we are only going to discuss the "back pressure" that the one pound weight induces on the water inlet point of the system.   We are going to use simplified units.

To do the same lifting job of a one pound weight by one foot:

Archimedes:   1 unit of back pressure x 4 units of water = 4 "pressure-water-units."

4-Riser:  4 units of back pressure x 1 unit of water = 4 "pressure-water-units."

Note that the two calculations above represent the energy required to do the lifting.  You are pumping some water into the device which creates a displacement.  As you pump you are exerting a pressure which is a force.  So the two simplified calculations above represent force x displacement = energy.

In other words, with the regular Archimedes system or with the telescoping 4-Riser system, it takes the same amount of energy to lift the one pound weight up by one foot.

In other words, a telescoping 4-Riser is just a lever, and the fact that you get four times the lifting distance per unit of water means that you have to supply four times the water pressure to do the actual lifting.

If I am on the right track, I am suspecting that you are making a mistake in the estimates for your "start pressure" and "end pressure" for the 4-Riser system.  You are not accounting for the "lever effect" associated with the telescoping segments of the 4-Riser as they give you increased lifting distance, and increased back pressure from the weight.

MileHigh