Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[neptune]

@LarryC. re your penultimate  post .I see what you are saying regarding the loaded ZED having spring like qualities. Are you just drawing our attention to this as a sort of curiosity? It would have relevance in the complete machine. The ZED is used to compress a hydraulic ram which in turn is used to pump oil into a hydraulic accumulator. The amount of pressure needed to compress that ram increases from the start of the stroke to the end of the stroke, as pressure rises in the accumulator. The effort required is non linear. So if the water being forced into the zed is fed in at a constant rate, this "springiness" of the ZED might be of benefit. This springiness might be useful if two ZEDS were used to operate a crankshaft by connecting rods. It would help to get you through top and bottom dead centres.
        If you had a hydraulic system consisting of a pump and a ram lifting a load, there would be no springiness in the system as you say. You could introduce springiness by having an air pocket inside the top of the ram. But it would be of no advantage, indeed, quite the opposite. So TBH I am not really sure why you are drawing our attention to this springiness.
Regards, Ken.

[TinselKoala]

I'm following as closely as I can but not yet doing calcs of my own... I have no desire to reinvent the wheel. My position, as I've stated before, is that any overunity behaviour must defy conventional analysis in this system, and that IF calcs indicate OU behaviour there must be something wrong in the calcs. I am still taking MrWayne at his word that there is no input and no exhaust and the machine keeps running until it breaks or is deliberately stopped, producing useful power while running itself. That is, I am suspending disbelief for the moment, even though my training and education and experience tells me that it is impossible for it to be true.

So... at this point I have a question for larryc and mondrasek and the other spreadsheet modelers. I know that the mass of the water is in your calcs, else how could you compute the forces exerted by the water head heights. But is the mass of the cylinders themselves included in your calculations?

I just want to point out that many rotary PM designs would work, turning forever, if only just some single small factor were altered or removed, like bearing or seal friction or the mass of a swinging arm... or hydraulic cylinder. Or even viscous drag.

The "moral" being that if your calcs show OU behaviour, especially if it is small wrt the total energy flows in the system.... then the first thing you should suspect is that you have omitted something from your calcs somehow, not that you are about to save the world from the Tyranny of Big Oil.

[mondrasek]

Hi TK.

My analysis has started with a small, three layer model (6 in OD x 12 in tall) of a single ZED.

I began by calculating the entire lifting force due to bouyancy, ie. the "ideal."  This was about 15 lbf.  Initialy I was only looking at the counter force being the weight of the acrylic materials.

Based on info from Mr. Travis I then adjusted my calculations to add additional weight to the Outer Riser for the "floating members" of the model to have a mass of approximately 1/3 or that ideal, or ~5 lbs.

I then calculated what outer ring water level would be necessary for the above described set up to be only neutral bouyant.  This required that the water level in the outer ring be lowered just a bit.

The next step was to load the system to ~80% of "ideal" lift capacity.  So I added weight to the Outer Riser so that the entire Pod/Riser arrangement weighed about 12lbs.

Next began the removal of water from the "ideal" completely stroked up system until the neutral bouyancy condition for the now 12 lb weighted system was found.

Once neutral bouyancy was established I began an iteraitve search for how much the Pod/Risers would drop if 1in^3 of water was removed from the Pod chamber.  I repeated this exercise for every -1in^3 until the Pod/Riser system had dropped .5 inches, as this cooresponds to what Wayne has said is currently the condition of his test system (though he acknowledges that the stroke of his current test system is limited by the volume capacity of the Firestone cylinders he has in use in his mass transfer pump system).

Please let me know if I can help with any other details.

M.

BTW, I used ACAD quite a bit to determine dimensions so the spread sheet does not have all those intermediate steps and calculations.  I am happy to elaborate it it will help anyone.

[mondrasek]

Graphical representation attached.

M.

[LarryC]

@LarryC. re your penultimate  post .I see what you are saying regarding the loaded ZED having spring like qualities. Are you just drawing our attention to this as a sort of curiosity? It would have relevance in the complete machine. The ZED is used to compress a hydraulic ram which in turn is used to pump oil into a hydraulic accumulator. The amount of pressure needed to compress that ram increases from the start of the stroke to the end of the stroke, as pressure rises in the accumulator. The effort required is non linear. So if the water being forced into the zed is fed in at a constant rate, this "springiness" of the ZED might be of benefit. This springiness might be useful if two ZEDS were used to operate a crankshaft by connecting rods. It would help to get you through top and bottom dead centres.
        If you had a hydraulic system consisting of a pump and a ram lifting a load, there would be no springiness in the system as you say. You could introduce springiness by having an air pocket inside the top of the ram. But it would be of no advantage, indeed, quite the opposite. So TBH I am not really sure why you are drawing our attention to this springiness.
Regards, Ken.

Just pointing out that a standalone ZED has similar non-linear characteristics to an auto air shock.

M's comment about air shock reaction: 'Push on the cylinder rod with one unit of force and it will collapse one unit of distance.  But push on the cylinder rod with two units of force and it will NOT collapse two units of distance:  it will collapse less.  And considerably less for the third unit of force.  So, nonlinear.'

Regards, Larry