Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

Profile>Account Settings>Modify Profile>Notifications, Ignore List
I really don't understand how anything I do or say could possibly prevent you from doing exactly as you like, though, and I'm puzzled as to why you seem to think that it could.

Thanks, didn't know the feature existed.
You possibly have more powers than you think !

[mondrasek]

If you are saying that you "vent from the top of the fill tube" by "extracting" water at that level and then putting it back in at that level after things have sunk  .... you are lifting water, by doing that, and it is disingenuous to imply that you would not be, and I know that you wouldn't do that, so you must mean something else. You cannot have flow of water unless you have a pressure differential. For water to come out of the fill tube at the top, you have to provide pressure from within, suction from without, or a lower place for it to run into. For this removed water to be reintroduced into the same height in the fill tube, it must again come from higher pressure than where it is going: it must be pushed, or pulled, or lifted and allowed to flow downhill.

Okay, TK, I see where you are coming from.  I think the disconnect is that I was trying to describe something using a theoretically ideal scenario and you are focusing on practical test setups.

I did mean "vent from the top of the fill tube by 'extracting' water at that level."  And in an ideal scenario that means the water being vented does *not* need to be raised or lowered, only moved to the side.  This could be accomplished by opening a (theoretical) drain hole on the side of the fill tube at an infinitesimally small distance below the top of the fill tube water column.  That drain hole would have to drop as the water level in the fill tube drops.  The vented water is then collected in to another container that is also lowering as the drain hole lowers and the water in that container rises.  To reverse the process and reintroduce the water, the process, well, reverses.

This is similar in concept to what fletcher diagrammed in his analysis of wildew's thought experiment.  If run through a full cycle of empty and fill, and with infinitely small steps and drain hole diameters, it shows that no energy is required to remove and reintroduce water in the fill tube.  My point was that we can ignore the fact that I vent from the bottom (loosing pressure from the system), then raise that water to another height and reintroduce it, from the energy balance for now.  Of course a real system will have losses greater than the zero losses in the theoretical.  But it should not be a barrier to analyzing the current input energy vs. output energy ratio from my measurements.

BTW, I didn't see where I was getting "tetchy."  I apologize if I came off that way.

M.

[AmoLago]

Hi .. the short answer is I don't believe so - but I stress it is very difficult to read someone else's thoughts on paper & interpret them correctly & accurately without a flow diagram to follow - it can easily get misconstrued or misunderstood on a technicality.

Hi Fletcher,

Hope you don't mind, but I've modified your second posted image to indicate what I'm trying to explain as I thought a same starting base would be better.... hopefully it'll do at least a thousand words!

I'm not sure that the final PE is correct, but from what I've gleaned from other posts, and TK's "Virtual Water" video, this is what is going on in my head as to what could happen. Am I wrong?

If not, then from Step 3 in the image, I guess you can....
   1. Unlock whatever is holding the pod in place. If the pod is buoyant, I assume it's movement could be used to do work???
   2. Lower the currently empty blue tank on the left hand side back to it's starting point. Would this take all that much work???
   3. As the blue left tank lowers back to it's starting point, the water would naturally flow back until the water is back at the starting point.
   4. The "pod" would also sink back to it's starting point as the water level dropped and could be locked again and the process restarted.

I guess the question is, that is if this in any way reflects any kind of reality, is can you get more output more from the releasing of the pod than is required to lift the water in the left container.

Also, if the layering adds head height, then does that mean the the blue water tank on the left of a layered system would have to be lifted as far? If not, then that I guess that reduces necessary input too.

Amo

[neptune]

A cycle isn't complete until all parts and pressures and so on are back to the start state. If you have moved up and then back down and all your physical parts are back where they started from AND you still have excess pressure somewhere in the system, more than you started with.... please let me know right away.

And in the MrWayne Zeds, some energy IS expended to reset the system, by the hydraulic assist applied to the bags. It's not resetting just from the weight alone. In my way of thinking the assist is making up for losses; in the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first zed: you use it to help reset the second zed.

You said "In the official Zed way of thinking, this is what you do with the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed: you use it to help reset the second Zed.

Wrong. In the official Zed way of thinking, you use ONE THIRD of the extra energy or work produced by the first Zed, to help reset the second Zed.


That is not exactly the same thing now, is it?

[TinselKoala]

Okay, TK, I see where you are coming from.  I think the disconnect is that I was trying to describe something using a theoretically ideal scenario and you are focusing on practical test setups.

I did mean "vent from the top of the fill tube by 'extracting' water at that level."  And in an ideal scenario that means the water being vented does *not* need to be raised or lowered, only moved to the side.  This could be accomplished by opening a (theoretical) drain hole on the side of the fill tube at an infinitesimally small distance below the top of the fill tube water column.

Maybe I misunderestimated you. You can add up a whole bunch of infinitesimally small distances and get "zero".

That drain hole would have to drop as the water level in the fill tube drops.  The vented water is then collected in to another container that is also lowering as the drain hole lowers and the water in that container rises.  To reverse the process and reintroduce the water, the process, well, reverses.

Exactly. What part of "lifting water" wasn't clear? You are describing a process of draining water from a high place into a low place, and then _raising it back up_ again to drain it back in. Just because in your thought experiment you are using "infinitely small" increments.... they do not equal zero. And just because you are doing it infinitely slowly, the energy (or work) involved does not vanish !! Is this to be a freshman calculus review?

This is similar in concept to what fletcher diagrammed in his analysis of wildew's thought experiment.  If run through a full cycle of empty and fill, and with infinitely small steps and drain hole diameters, it shows that no energy is required to remove and reintroduce water in the fill tube.  My point was that we can ignore the fact that I vent from the bottom (loosing pressure from the system), then raise that water to another height and reintroduce it, from the energy balance for now.  Of course a real system will have losses greater than the zero losses in the theoretical.  But it should not be a barrier to analyzing the current input energy vs. output energy ratio from my measurements.

BTW, I didn't see where I was getting "tetchy."  I apologize if I came off that way.

M.

Apology accepted; after all, when a porcupine encounters a koala, strange things might happen. But come on...... you are adding infinitesimals and getting zero for an answer and that's just wrong, Mr. ZENO.
We'll never get anywhere, that way....