Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[fletcher]

Fletcher,

Thanks for taking a look.  I think your observations are along the same lines that I have been zeroing in on.  I think it will be easier to follow in my revision PDF that I should have updated later today.

I see the Piston transferring PE through H0 to the compressed air and through H1 to H2.  I think the net effect is that H0 and H1 heads are effectively stacked on top of each other as has been stated by others.  I think my latest formulas will represent the various internal heads and pressures in the system.

Agreed - because of relative densities the H2 vertical height determines the pressure head in relation to depth to piston face.

If we assume that the starting configuration [when H1 = H2] is also when the system is in equilibrium [all forces are equalized] then this sets a datum to launch & calculate from - we have to make some assumptions - one would be that the H1 H2 water levels are equal & that there is a communication channel between these two water towers that allows the water to find the same level both sides of the riser wall divide - from that we can assume that the internal air pocket was once of greater volume & at atmospheric pressure but now it has a slightly lesser volume & its pressure is at least the same as the bottom of the H1 H2 towers [which is above 14.7 PSI or 1 atmosphere] - in essence the air pocket can be thought of as a flexible rod that transfers the pressure at bottom of H2 to top of H0 - N.B. if the air pressure were greater then we would not see the Bottom of H1 H2 & top of H0 at the same levels.

Effectively the air pocket is a pressure communication medium & the head height is calculated from the top of H2, IMO.

The conclusion is that for the riser to be in this position in the equilibrium state [with effectively water climbing the sides] then although the riser may be hollow its density is such that it raises the H2 level to where the cycle starts from [in equilibrium] - also that the pressure at ANY vertical height measured will be the same at any horizontal line taken in the system.

However, I have struggled with exactly which elements to include as net lift for the output.

I can now see the PSI of the water at the bottom of the Pod area as one.  The PSI of the water at the bottom of the Riser Wall area as another.  However, that gives a lift force that is less than a straight Archimedes un-convoluted riser.

The Riser air pocket area is not included, but somehow I think it needs to be.  If I include the raw airPSI in that area as part of the Riser lift, the total lift number becomes unbelievably large.

See above - I would say that because of relative densities of the two mediums that we are only concerned with the H2 level for calculating pressure head height.

So my dilemma has been which potential areas of lift are to be included.  My current sim has every potential lift calculated and included on separate lines so I can comment out each one to see the overall effect.  I have not found any combination that feels right yet.  Perhaps it is all in the stacking of the heads, and I will have to get into multiple internal layers before the ZED catches up and passes simple Archimedes.

See end comments below.

You mentioned counteracting forces to the lift that you did not see me taking into consideration.  That was the basis of my original force calculations where I did not include forces that were relative to the Piston, but did include forces that were relative to the Tank.  This is the area that I think needs more conceptual work.

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Fluids/Hydrostatic_Paradox/Hydrostatic_Paradox.html

Hydrostatic paradox examples http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwparad.html - what it means is that there are no free lunches - so if I increase head height by increasing water level height by moving only a small volume so that the system center of mass [CoM] doesn't change much at all I do increase the force [i.e. pressure] on the bottom of the tank/piston face in your sim - the effect of this doesn't seem apparent until one considers a system where a piston is used - the relative pressure levels felt at every vertical level will try to force apart two objects, one of which one is moveable.

...............................

General Comments:

Sims are very useful tools, for predicting outcomes, if constructed accurately - as you know their usefulness is many fold - mainly that once a sim is relatively accurate dimensions & other inputs can be changed at will & the outputs will fall out the bottom - this is way less time consuming than building multiple real world builds.

The other main advantage is that they can then be compared & normalized to a real world build so that the sims behaviour mimics the real world build closely making the sim a reliable predictive tool - then improvements in one can be retro'ed to the other in a leap frog progression.

They have one great advantage over real world builds & that is as you work thru the components & formula's & insight grows they can be simplified dramatically - simple is good - when they are accurate & you have confidence in the sim then complexity can be added.

In your case I can't immediately see how to simplify the setup further because you must have an internal air/lower density fluid pocket - however, as a step in the right direction of simple analysis you can make the assumption the the air pocket is a non compressible fluid the same density as air - then see if the sim behaves as you think it should & you have accounted for all the relevant forces contained in the pressures etc - you can add complexity later by changing the non-compressible pocket fluid to  compressible air [a fluid] & compare the sim outcomes for major differences - you can also add drag losses from vortices & eddy's & viscosity differences but they aren't that important just now.

The primary purpose here is to isolate the ingredient that allows for OU as Mr Wayne asserts is the case - to do that you have to test the systems integrity component by component - if it is the air pocket that makes all the difference then this will be self evident in the sim comparisons & you can delve deeper to find out why.

N.B. One of the easy ways to formulate buoyancy force is volume x density x - gravity acceleration - effectively this is a reverse approach where water volume displaced weight force is the upthrust force.

In more complex cases like you are looking at here this simple approach may not be adequate - buoyancy is actually a factor of sum of pressure forces on a submerged object less the effect gravity has on it downwards.

In the ZED sim the water pressure is artificially increased by moving only a small volume of fluid - so a different formula is required that calculates buoyancy force on pressure differential rather than the ubiquitous volume displacement usually used.

ATEOTD, Mr Wayne has said that the energy advantage comes for gravity not being a conservative force after all - we know that atmospheric pressure & air density is gravity dependent as is pressure of practically non-compressible fluids - so in essence they are both direct artifacts of gravity in traditional thought.

I know you have started from the position of having an open mind & you show that you are intelligent & capable to work this sim thru logically - I'm here to discuss that logic - perhaps there is such a thing as a free lunch after all ;7)

P.S. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, just simplify, identify & follow logic paths - on that note, to Larry, I only have dial up speed internet so I haven't been able to view any pics for a few weeks - I have to rely on good & clear verbal descriptions of what pics show, what the calcs were based on, & what the conclusions were.

Good luck Dennis !

P.S. there may be out there someone who knows of or uses a good sim program that can handle hydraulics & changing volumes & pressures who could replicate against your sim for comparison.

[LarryC]

Have vistors for several days. Today went to the new Infinity building at Nasa Stennis Space Center in southeast Mississippi right across the Louisiana border, and a tour of the Nasa testing facility. If you get a chance to go, it is well worth it. I've attached a picture of a statue at the entrance made of wood and metal parts from past missions and is 33 foot tall. It was very movating and inspiring. Enjoy.

Regards, Larry

[LarryC]

P.S. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, just simplify, identify & follow logic paths - on that note, to Larry, I only have dial up speed internet so I haven't been able to view any pics for a few weeks - I have to rely on good & clear verbal descriptions of what pics show, what the calcs were based on, & what the conclusions were.

You are missing a lot of understanding, if you cannot see the graphics. As the old saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words. Please go to a Library, University, coffee shop, friend, etc. to get access. Your knowledge can be helpful and there is no way that my words can clear up what I am showing.

Regards, Larry

[TinselKoala]

Maybe you just need to try different liquids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qk

[fletcher]

Thanks for the advice.

I get what you are saying about the 3 U devices & that the last far right column of water is raised up - this 'leans' on the air pocket to the left [which was at 1 atmosphere & greater volume] & this ripples back to the piston face which has a comparable head pressure to the single U column.

The point that was being made at the time [by myself & TK in particular] was that this pressure head was useless in this format, that it didn't show an increase in buoyancy potential or energy advantage - that was because the piston was displaced downwards by a force [work done joules] & the net effect was that the far right column of water was raised - the WD Input not only had to equate to the raising of water mass but also to counter the change in PSI at the piston face - the actual Work Output that could be done by this system was exactly like a hydraulic jack [Pascal's Law re force multiplication, not energy/work multiplication] i.e. the pressure at the right side [not left] x distance of stroke.

Perhaps you could assist greatly in explaining how the forces & pressures should develop in see3d's sim so we could actually see how that energy advantage [OU] manifests into sim & real world reality by way of his force & pressure derived sim built with accuracy of formula's & logic.