Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

I am asking you for ten minutes work and a couple of simple weight measurements. My conjecture is that you  are NOT lifting the entire weight of the riser and the moving weight with whatever water you are introducing, because the precharge is already offsetting much of the weight of the moving parts. Please, if you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Prove me wrong. Then, if I am wrong, we can indeed use the change in GPE of the lifted weight to compute our "output" work. But if I am right...... well, it gets a bit more complicated.

TK, I'll skip the measurements and just simply agree with you here.  The precharge is definitely creating a neutral buoyancy condition and is supporting the weight of the Lift Mass.  Lifting up on that Mass or pushing down on it only a little causes it to rise or fall.  And so, as you say, it gets a bit more complicated.

So, what do you think is the correct way to measure so we can learn anything about the input energy to output energy ratio of a single three layer ZED setup?  Or is there something else that should be looked at first or instead?

M.

[mondrasek]

So 2 related questions for anyone that may have those references:
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?
2. What percentage of the POD should be submerged in a free floating state?

My opinions:
1.  During normal cycles the Pod should always be pushing upwards on the smallest Riser and the entire system of Pod/Risers should be pushing up (at different times in the cycle) against either locks, stops, preload, and (when present) the work load.
2.  Maximum lift from the Pod is obtained when it is completely submerged.  This lift is also the majority of the total lift of a ZED.  So you want your Pod to be able to fully submerge within the Pod chamber (inside its retaining wall).  The lift cycle should start as close to the point where the Pod is fully submerged in a full Pod chamber as possible.  So maximum lift force is ultimately achievable at the lowest sink level of the system.

[TinselKoala]

TK, the lift was 10mm (not 4mm).  At the top of the lift I do not lock anything (yet).  But at the top of the lift the Lift Mass of 1217 g is removed.  Yes, the ZED does pop up at this time (and the input tube water level drops).  When the 74 ml of water is vented the ZED does drop down again.  Even with the Lift Mass removed the ZED is still loaded with the mass of the Pod, Risers, spacers, and a preload mass (all weighed and posted earlier in the thread).  At the bottom the Lift Mass is reinstalled to complete the cycle.  Sorry if this was not all clear.

M.

Sorry is right. Surely you recall citing "4 mm" (actually a bit less than 4mm)  and I don't believe that I have been talking about ANY OTHER experiment since you reported that one.

I have been referring to the "reverse" test which you cited earlier, which has the best and most coherent data so far.  I thought that was a repeatable cycle. You have not, as far as I can tell, provided similarly good data for what you are describing above. For example you've not said what the "pop up" height was or how much the input tube water level drops. So PLEASE....

Let us just for the moment continue to discuss the test for which you provided good data that I graphed. What is the ACTUAL WEIGHT being lifted in that test, determined in the manner I suggested? If we had this data, we would be able to use your test data to compute the work balance correctly.

But pages and pages have gone by without this simple data point being supplied.

[wildew]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
For the moment anyway, I'm going to leave the POD in its current configuration and do some testing. I do need to extend my sight tube and input container, the additional head requirements are above what 1U and 2U could work within. I also need to accommodate the additional load required, haven't had time to make the bracket I want to move the ballast lower for better balance.

From Larry

The POD should be barely sunk at initial pre-charge. Backing down your pod retainer water from ideal to initial pre-charge may leave it floating. If so, you can back down the pod-retainer water until sunk, then add air until your water head is back to what is was before the water back down from initial pre-charge. Or you can add more weight to the pod. But keep in mind the pod retainer water is important to be at a low enough level, so the water can be brought up around the pod so that the water head remains the same doing the rise without overflowing the Pod retainer wall.

Hopefully we're all using the same terminology here. There do seem to be times when the terms are used in different ways?
"Barely sunk at initial pre-charge"  then: "from ideal to initial pre-charge"

I picture "ideal" as being the state at full (restricted) lift where all layers are on the verge of "blowing a skirt" or overflowing.

And pre-charge as the state where, fully loaded, ballast and lift weight, the riser unit is just slightly floating - fully energized but not quite able to lift.

"Initial" pre-charge?

Just trying to be clear
Dale

[TinselKoala]

I have to agree with TK about the test setup.  I have outlined in detail what measurements I would like to see for comparison to my sim results.  I did have a setback with my sim formulas not matching what was being built for pre-charging, so I have had to go back to square one for a bit, but the tests I outlined have not changed.  They were designed to give an accurate transfer function that is needed to understand the basic ZED device.

1.  Bottom "float" the total weight of the Pod/Riser + whatever weight will not be "payload" that is removed at the top.  This is the low energy state of the ZED.  It should be just a hair negative to weightlessly touch the bottom.
2.  Add the payload weight.  This will press the riser hard against the bottom.
3.  Add water to raise the payload weight to different heights along the stroke.  Measure the heads and amount of water added at each point.
4.  Remove the payload weight at the top position.  Keep the riser from shooting up with a top stop or other restraint if required to keep from blowing the skirts.
5.  Drain the amount of water added.  It should come back to the starting position again if Newton does not turn over in his grave.

Stop right here, because Newton IS rolling over in his grave at this point. If your draining and adding the same amount of water is supposed to be energy-neutral as has been claimed, then why haven't you already made a perpetual water pump? It doesn't have to be the _same_ object weighing the "payload" weight, does it? So after a bunch of your energy-neutral adding and draining water cycles, you could accumulate an arbitrarily large bunch of "payload" weights up at the top of the lift, on a platform of some kind. These could then be used however you like.... and at whatever efficiency level you like. Accumulate a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand of them, for free. Then slide them downhill powering a generator or a water pump.

Or.... perhaps the adding and draining of water is NOT energy neutral. If you are removing the lifted weight at the top, then can you recover the added water at the same level that you added it? Or do you have to provide a "suck" by lowering the receiving chamber much lower than it was when adding?

6.  The test can be repeated a few times to average the results.  The test can be repeated with different payload weights to understand that variable.

From the data gathered, the transfer function can be graphed and the work in and out calculated, with the remaining being what is stored in the ZED.  The ZED could be operated between any two points along the transfer curve.

There can be some variations about how the input water is measured, input , and drained -- depending on the build setup.