Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

Sorry all.  I took a video.  It was pretty good except that I forgot to weigh the mass of the cup from which I was pouring the input water at the end!  But the pre-pour mass was only about 180 grams so it was still way less than the 1217 lift.

But now I cannot even find a regular USB to mini USB cable to hook the digicam to the PC to try and figure out how to upload a video off of it to YouTube.  I have about half a dozen regular USB to MICRO USB cables sitting around...

Ain't technology a b**ch!?!

I'll try and present video later.

Sorry again,

M.

[mondrasek]

Well I found the USB adapter cable I needed plugged into a hub that supports my keyboard and mouse.  So I switched everything around, but the digicam is not recognized by the PC.  It must need a driver that I do not have handy (the PC is on a newer OPSYS since the last time I did this).  So I am giving up for now.

I'm still happy to do experiments and report results, but I understand that without "video evidence" or better that any postings should be considered suspect.  But if anyone wants any tests, please let me know.

M.

[Red_Sunset]

RS,

Sorry if I do not or am not able to answer all of your questions correctly.  I am currently in charge of the youngun and waiting for "Mommy" to return from an away trip.  I am also making sure the digicam has a charge and thinking through the video "production."

1.  The experiment started from the position of "sunk," but with the Pod/Risers in neutral buoyancy (floating) approximately 1 mm above the point where they would be resting on the annulus walls.  This was by design so as to keep the lift as close to "ideal" maximum as I could while making sure not to have the Pod/Risers sit down on the walls.

2.  There is a preload on the system that includes (from bottom to top) the Pod and Riser mass, a couple spacers (that include a partial roll of electrical tape and a plywood disk), a Cedar plank (to give a point for the digital indicator to read off of), a pre-weight (a Tupperware type container with some wet sand from the yougun's play table), and, finally, the Lift Load (a free weight disk marked at 2.5 lbs but that measures at 1217 grams on a digital scale).

The digital indicator is another portion of the pre-load.  It's induced mass was not linear due to the internal return spring so I removed that spring and only gravity is in play now.  Except for friction it is now a constant load during the rise/sink.

3.  I am not sure what measurement you want me to explain or take with this.  Please try again.

Please let me know if anything was not answered!

M.

Hi Mondrasek,

From what I can interpret and gather, I hope the stuff below matches the reality you have, 
A nice 3 layer riser you got there but the results appear somewhat of the mark, pls check values and designation

Input                 74   gr   
Input energy   12210   gr_mm   
output load     1217   gr   
output energy   90058   gr_mm   
distance                         10   mm   
Output to input ratio         7.38   
height change 0 to 1217gr      4   mm   
head change to support 1217 gr   165mm  = 0.234psi  (your float pressure = stroke pressure)
Weight /psi capability      5185.158   gram/psi

The riser with the weight on it of 1.2kg will float with a head of 165mm (=.234psi). Since you float your weight up for 10mm, your stroke pressure is the same.
Your input pressure to stroke = your float pressure, this makes your energy efficiency is over 700%.
You can lift just over 5kg for every psi of input pressure, that is ~5kg for every 703mm of head

Compared to the guideline efficiency, you are way over,  make sure the above info is listed and interpreted correctly
•   3 layer system is ~160% efficient
•   6 layer system is ~340% efficient
•   8 layer system is ~800% efficient

Please confirm that your input of 74 grams of water is for the distance of 10mm and not just to put a head of 165mm on your riser.

Regards, Michel

PS: You got a very good friend in Neptune mon ami, that is something to appreciate.

[GreenHiker]

For anyone having difficulty with the Archimedes Paradox that See3d mentioned, this a good discussion thread:

Ocean liner in bucket full of water:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619

Relate this paradox with the Travis Effect cup demos I did a while back (links are on Wayne's website front page). The thin layer of water around the ship acts in some ways similar to the thin layer of air around the cement block in the videos. 

Tom

[see3d]

For anyone having difficulty with the Archimedes Paradox that See3d mentioned, this a good discussion thread:

Ocean liner in bucket full of water:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619

Relate this paradox with the Travis Effect cup demos I did a while back (links are on Wayne's website front page). The thin layer of water around the ship acts in some ways similar to the thin layer of air around the cement block in the videos. 

Tom

The relationship is inverted.  Since it is all taking place underwater, and an inverted cup of air over the upside down battleship, the buoyancy role of water and air are reversed. Same principle, but you have to stand on your head to see it.  Oh, that was tiring, so I turned my monitor upside down instead... LOL