Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

It is important in these experiments to monitor carefully the water level in the external container. Buoyancy forces arise because of lifted water. The larger the external container, the smaller the _level_ change will be, so it's best to use a container just big enough to hold your cups or other experimental vessels, so that you can see the change in the surface _level_ for a given _volume_ of displacement in your experiment.
Even when you stick a tube from the air pump down into the water and force that first bubble to come out of the tube down at the bottom of the tank: you have just _lifted_ that same _Volume_ of water to the top of the tank, and you can see this volume lift by looking at the small change in the level of the water in the external container. This spherical volume of water that the bubble displaced results in a slight rise in the surface level, spread out over the area of the surface... volume is conserved in the incompressible liquid water. But volume is not conserved with a gas: it is (pressure times volume) that is conserved. PV=nRT.

Take a tank of water, mark the level carefully, then submerge the concrete displacer. The water level rises. Now take a cup with "three ounces" of air in it. (The Fluidounce is a volume measurement so it would be more correct to say "three fluidounces" of air). Submerge the cup. Now the water level rises again, by that same three fluidounces. Now start to lower the cup over the displacer. What happens? Some of the displacer is no longer submerged! It is in air ! In other words, the displacer is trying to occupy the same space as the air does. But half of it, say, is no longer displacing water, it is displacing air, which is pushing water out of its way. Since (pressure times volume) is conserved for a gas (neglecting temperature effects), the gas pressure increases--because the water is pushing back, thanks to gravity-- and the gas volume decreases; this, combined with the fact that part of the displacer isn't displacing water directly any more but is doing it through the "spring" of the trapped air, results in no observable further increase in the external water level... in fact it might drop a bit as the total volume displaced decreases due to the increased compression and decreased volume of the gas. Now you have two stores of energy: the lifted water that raised the level when you first submerged the cup with air, and also the compressed air within the cup itself, which is more compressed by the displacer pushing much of the air further down into the water.

[mrwayne]

I think this explanation could be tested by linking the two submerged cups with a passive air tube across the air chambers, so that the pressures within them would be the same. (Test to make sure by seeing if it takes the same amount of weight to hold the cups down equally. If not... then there is asymmetric stored energy still.) Then bubble air into them from beneath as before.

This is good, it is the same pressure in both cups to lift the same load with the same Surface area, assuming you have them at the same depth in the water.
A simple visual, I like it. Also if - the floats /caps - I call them "risers"  are identical - then the hieght of the air (from top of the air pocket - to the bottom of the air pocket) will be exactly the same length at any depth to lift the same wieght. which is an indication of the pressure diffirential PD needed to lift
My layman terms; PD X si = lift
Thanks Wayne

[mondrasek]

@mrwayne,

I seem to remember (from the patent I believe) that a three layered Zed was considered the most efficient?  To increase power it was better to size up the entire three layer system rather than add additional layers.  Now you are indicating that a six layer system would be more efficient than just three?  Am I mixing apples and oranges?  Or did changing from transferring water between two Zeds vs. transferring air allow for more layers to raise efficiency further?

Could you please point out where I have gotten off track in my understanding?

Thanks,

M.

[mondrasek]

Lastly - if you do this as a group effort - I will donate $2000 for materials. Should cover everything but your efforts.

A generous offer.

TK, do you still have access to a model shop?  Would you be willing to build?

I've sent a PM to Sean (CLaNZeR) to see if he is interested in building.  But I don't know if that bloke has the time.  Plus if he is only at home on weekends it would take much longer than I would like to construct.  And I believe it should be made in the US if at all possible, just to honor Mr. Wayne who is in OK.

Wait, where are you now?  Still in TX, back in Canadia, elsewhere?

You know I don't expect a serious answer to the last question, right?

M.

Edited to add:  Sorry if I might be slighting anyone!  I am sure there are others who have the talent and equipment for a build.  I'm just looking to the ones I know.  Please chime in if you are or know of anyone else who would be a good resource.

[neptune]

@Mondrasek. I would be very grateful if you would comment on my last post. Am I right on the arrangement of cylinders? What about my question on the "shape" of a volume of air .


I would think it unlikely [but not impossible] that there will be a team build on this device, due to members being widely scattered . Individual builds are much more likely .


When I FULLY understand this, I will most likely have a go myself. I am sure this applies to many members.
A patent, being a legal document, is not the best teaching aid.