Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[LarryC]

Might have the logic. At rest, with low or no water, each Riser sits on a retainer wall, enough that would allows them to separate from the spacers. So each retainer wall from inner to outer is higher by spacer plus separation gap. Thus, when lifted and the separation gap is lost, the longer Riser walls would be the outer most. So it seems 14, 15 and the 'One Zed through complete cycle' is more likely.

I did some manual drawing and the logic appears correct. The slope of the riser walls at bottom will end up being a function of the combined lost separation gap and it will slope downward from the inside riser to the outside.

@M,
Sorry, but the latest MTO is attached. There is a couple of  retainer wall calculation correction. One to adjust for the fact that the inside of the riser is reduced by the thick top plate, while the retainer does not have that issue, and the other is a compounding error on my original calculations.

The gaps between retainer, riser, etc should be the same size as the material thickness. They appear a lot smaller, could you look into that issue.

Regards, Larry

[mondrasek]

The gaps between retainer, riser, etc should be the same size as the material thickness. They appear a lot smaller, could you look into that issue.

@LarryC, right now you have all the gaps at .125".  The material thickness is .25".

If I can ask, what is driving all the dimension changes?  Is there something in the design you are trying to optimize?

If you are trying to replicate the patent drawing proportions, please first find out if they are from production model drawings.  Patent drawing do not need to be correct to scale.  They only need to be representative for the purpose of explaining the device.  They may not be the correct proportions to create a working device at all.

M.

[LarryC]

@LarryC, right now you have all the gaps at .125".  The material thickness is .25".

You're right, I forgot to split the difference for the two sides. The new attachment gets it to .25 gap.

If I can ask, what is driving all the dimension changes?  Is there something in the design you are trying to optimize?

If you are trying to replicate the patent drawing proportions, please first find out if they are from production model drawings.  Patent drawing do not need to be correct to scale.  They only need to be representative for the purpose of explaining the device.  They may not be the correct proportions to create a working device at all.

Agree in part, but I keep in mind Travis's honesty policy. So I think of the issues as drafting issues. Your drawing led me to look at the drafting issue at the bottom riser height and then to logically figure out how the system should look after the initial lift.

Regards, Larry 

[see3d]

Agree in part, but I keep in mind Travis's honesty policy. So I think of the issues as drafting issues. Your drawing led me to look at the drafting issue at the bottom riser height and then to logically figure out how the system should look after the initial lift.

Regards, Larry

Keep in mind that in a patent application, the drawings are cartoon drawings designed to help the patent examiner understand the claims.  Scaling a patent drawing is not advised.  Use the drawing to understand the words, which are designed to claim far more than the drawings show, even to things the inventor never tried out in a practical way, and may not even work.  Pay attention to what Wayne says on his site and on the posts, and he said he would respond to a single question at a time in an email.  Take him up on the offer.

[mrwayne]

 
Hello all,

A quick not on the spacers between layers - they are not necessary - We built our system large for a large range of testing - yard stick measurements instead of micrometers -
The spacers were to direct the lifting force - In our new patents - we show them attached together and as a solid.

Now - on that topic - we have four primary forces:

The last riser has full lift - like the Travis effect

Each layer increases the pressure into the "inner riser" (above the pod or under the pod if the pod is attached)

The Pod acts as its own float - Archimedes'

And the layering diameter "increase adds a Little lift" - in our three foot wide six foot tall model - about 250 pounds additional per layer.

The four of these combined - in relationship to the head of each layer - as Larry and others have calculated

I added that clarity - because of the question of surface areas "between layers" - they are not necessary.

They do help the system because the pressures in the system naturally center the layers and make assembly simple.

Just another note:
The thickness of our three foot wide and six foot tall model - is .20 per wall, and per gap.
the pressure you have to prepare for is only the head of one layer.

Wayne