Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

My own experience with trying to design a model made it very clear that it is very difficult to accurately calculate the changing water heights and air volumes as the Pod and Risers begin to move.  And accurate calculations are necessary when trying to made a ZED device small enough to have as a desk top demonstrator.  As has been shown, the lift forces become too large to manage once the device becomes larger than about 6 inches in diameter.  More layers also increases the forces, but would more easily show the "OU" effects.

One of the critical design parameters has to do with thin walls and gaps for all the members.  My own attempts to use commercially available acrylic tube of 1/8 inch wall thickness and gaps might be workable, but the amount of water that must transfer between ZEDs is proportionally larger than what Wayne is doing with his large units.  This is because the wall thicknesses and gaps of a model with those material limitations are much larger proportionally than Wayne's device.

The gentleman who has been "authorized' by Wayne to build teaching models plans to make tooling for the model pieces.  So he needs a very precise design first.  To that end he has been working on a parametric software simulator where every dimension can be adjusted.  Including air and water density.  It is very cool, IMO.  Unfortunately he is using a commercial software package now so you would have to purchase that to run his code.  But he has told me that it should be easy enough for someone to transfer into VB, Java, etc.

FWIW.

M.

[LarryC]

Developed a new Water Height Calculator for a 4 Riser system. With that information I updated the Water Input for Different Layers spreadsheet. Attached picture shows the volume of water input for different layers when raising water around the pod. It considered the cost of input with just the Pod, Pod plus 3 layers and Pod plus 4 layers.

The most significant values are in red and green.

Red is what the cost was for the many failed buoyancy machines, part losses, but mainly due to the volume of water input and obvious time of input to get to the Pod rise force required and the volume of water output and time of output to lower the Pod after rise.

Green is what the cost is for a 3 layer and 4 layer Travis system. Any of those failed buoyancy machines would have worked with that advantage. Remember the simple formula 'Power = Force X Distance / Time'.

One of the advantages of the Layering system is that
The Layer system reduces the volume of water and time required to load and unload a system.

The spreadsheets are attached. The 'Volume of Water Input for Different Layers' spreadsheet has simple calculations as it is using data from the more complex Water Height calculators.

Regards, Larry



 

[wildew]

I'm new to this forum as a registered user but not so new to the discussion or the development of this device.
I've read the patent, watch the HER site for updates and have had a couple of direct questions for mrwayne.

If I'm reading the current developments correctly the pod needs to be neutrally buoyant but no-longer needs the sealed chamber to accomplish that. (?) And in the patent drawings, air is the fluid medium being passed between the ZED devices.

Larry's calculators seem to be focused on water levels in the outer risers.

I'm just trying to keep up with the developments and understand the principles involved.
Is air still being transferred between pods or is the water level in the outer risers the connection between them?

Sorry if I'm a little slow to keep up
Dale   

[mrwayne]

I'm new to this forum as a registered user but not so new to the discussion or the development of this device.
I've read the patent, watch the HER site for updates and have had a couple of direct questions for mrwayne.

If I'm reading the current developments correctly the pod needs to be neutrally buoyant but no-longer needs the sealed chamber to accomplish that. (?) And in the patent drawings, air is the fluid medium being passed between the ZED devices.

Larry's calculators seem to be focused on water levels in the outer risers.

I'm just trying to keep up with the developments and understand the principles involved.
Is air still being transferred between pods or is the water level in the outer risers the connection between them?

Sorry if I'm a little slow to keep up
Dale

Hello Dale,

The patent covers moving both water and air or separately - as well as moving separate bodies of both - in and out. All will work - but water is better - pumping a non compressable is easier than a compressable.

Having two separate by related bodies makes controlling the system much easier.

We have built systems and tested those three and a couple more methods that are being covered in our new patent.

Currently - we move two separate bodies of water related by pressure through the pumping system.

The Pod adds to the lift, but that is its least effective use.

The pod is the internal mass discplacement that chases the riser to keep the differentials in place during stroke.

We do match the desired stroke length, clearances and weights of the risers and added weight to take the best advantage of the Pod.

The Pod can act to neutralize the weight of the system.

Larry wisely noticed that the outer layers add more lift to the system than the Pod - utilizing the outer layers requires less pressure to create more lift - because it is outer layers that have the larger diameter.

Our Pod has a si of 707 and the outer riser has a si of 1100 1 psi in the outer layer adds 1100 pounds of lift - and one psi in the pod lifts 707 - using the outer layer "more"  is better.

Understanding this - and how the pressure changes between each layer during a stroke - explains the non linear function.

Larry is on the ball.
p.s.
The pod was sealed during the air movng and the water moving - I am not sure what you meant.

Thanks Dale,
Wayne

[mrwayne]

Larry hit on a very important note - Time, distance and mass.

I thought one could not escape the confines of "work"
By comparing "work" - you must consider those three.

I first studied these as Horse power -

If in 1 minute, you move 330 pounds 100 feet that  was 1 hp

if you moved 660 pounds the same time and distance = 2hp

Or if you move 330 pounds 200 feet in 1 minute = 2hp

and if you moves 330 pounds,  100 feet in 30 seconds = 2hp


I studied many designs, and watched many inventors overjoyed about a system - only to later realize - the trap  that time distance and mass had on "Creating Energy".

Free energy seemed impossible, impossibility made sense.

When I saw the "Travis effect" I did not see a "creation even" nor was I looking for one -

I saw a system that had a "lift" proportional to the whole mass,  moved faster, a short distance - utilizing a very small mass of input.

I saw the ability to do work - cheaper and faster and with less input than any other buoyancy system in the world.

Thru hard work and testing, measurement and observation - I finally understood the "Why" the "How" and the later the "Where"

The "Where" was the hardest - because a false label had been given to the idea of Free Energy - that label "Energy Creation.........."

We are not allowed to create or destroy energy...................................

One of the lessons I learned in my critical thinking studies - does the argument apply......?

The Argument - If you claim Free Energy - you must also be claiming to be a "Creator of Energy".......

The obvious comparison - solar and wind - are they energy creators?

No, of course not - are they free Energy - Yes.
But we understand where thier energy comes form.

So do we just apply the label of "Energy Creation" to everything we do not understand?

Some Do, they are mistaken -  I do not - and that makes some people uncomfortable, I understand - I used to feel the same way.

As I have said before - We have a mechanical marvel - our system of interacting layers and the unique attributes residing in liquids and in discplacements - each effected by gravity and has giving rise to a system - a robust system - that has an internal operating cost - less than the total production.

We have "left over" Energy - which is free - just not "created from nothing".
We continue to find ways to save even more for the customer, but we will never be able to provide more than the system is capable. Reduce costs - we have - amazingly reduced - Energy creation - you can find it on another link - not this one.

Larry has been very keen in his investigation, the data he provides is very usefull in understanding our system.

If you get misled by biters into chasing a "creation system" that is not what we have or have ever described - the baiter misleads - that is his purpose - we have been very clear.

Wayne Travis