Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[parisd]

Unfortunately we all know that air is compressible and making such false assumption would make laugh a high school student, with false assumptions you will be able prove anything you wish to prove, lets be rigourous !

MT .. Mr Wayne has categorically stated that the system would perform equally well using two incompressible fluids of different densities, so your example for analysis purposes of considering air as non compressible is valid.

/quote]

[see3d]

Unfortunately we all know that air is compressible and making such false assumption would make laugh a high school student, with false assumptions you will be able prove anything you wish to prove, lets be rigourous !

In my simulation, the compressibility is so slight that it makes little difference to the operation.  First learn if you are talking about a first order issue or a second order issue in the particular application.  If you want to prove a point, do it with numbers to show what difference it will make.  If you are looking at 300% issues, then 3% issues can be ignored.  I do not know the answer for a multiple layer system yet, so I would not make such a statement.

[see3d]

See3d .. I would have thought the obvious way to test efficiency in [& integrity of] the sim [assuming it has no losses] is to calculate PE start & top of cycle ? - Energy Input into the piston should equal the PE gain at any vertical height cross section after start - no where should it exceed 100% ? - this applies to releasing the riser to do work as well.

N.B. In the single riser layer ZED sim PE joules gained should never exceed joules of energy input [ f x d ] - if it does at any position then OU is being indicated then & there IINM & gravity would not be conservative.

P.S. for those following the piston raising PE of fluid while riser is locked down is doing the same job of injecting fluid into the riser chamber under pressure I believe.

Fletcher, I do calculate some of those things also, but they are meaningless at this point to me.  I shared the parts I want to have verified by others experience.  I will share more details when I am sure they are more true than false.  No point in wasting time discussing things before their time -- it just invites fruitless speculations about things that have a high probability of being wrong anyway (due to my lack of mathematical skills).  One step at a time.  This is my learning experience, not my teaching others.  Besides, I am really only interested in how high I can lift a 1 pound weight with a 1 pound input over the same travel -- work in, work out.  Simple ideas for my simple brain! :-)

[fletcher]

Yes, I can understand your approach of physical verification against model behaviour.

I was suggesting that cross sectional analysis of PE + KE v's Work Done is highly indicative that your formula's are indeed correct or near enough to not matter - if something is way out of kilter then it would be cause for concern & looking closer at the formula.

One thing you should be prepared for Dennis - that is, that criticism will rain down whether the sim [or sonsofsim] shows OU or does not - on one hand you will get comments about not capturing the true effect rigorously therefore not a reliable predictor of behaviour - And, on the other hand, that should it/they show OU that the formula's need work or that a sim that follows physics laws can never show OU.

That's why I admire your determination to accurately model a simple system first which matches real world behaviour & extrapolate the evolution thereafter with more sims from a solid first principles foundation.

[Red_Sunset]

Hi Seamus,
Home delivery...Piza hut does it...most take-outs do....why is the OVER-UNITY ZED not on the home delivery menu....
Do not despair!......here it is.....
Since you are hungry and have been repeating the same thing over and over. Let me fix you your favorite sandwich, I will prepare it for you and bring it to you on the couch. What I will not do is spoon feed it you. If you like some more cheese or mayo on the sandwich, you will need to get yourself from the fridge. Remember that you need to get off the couch for that.
There will be no further interaction from me beyond what is provided below, OK.

For more details, try to understand what is written and explained by Wayne in the previous 12x pages. Also an effort to understand an XLS worksheet, would help you. Especially for you, I laid it out in normal text format. I could have added some pictures but I think I should leave this for some other time (follow Barney's advice).

Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.

Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod)  = 4902

Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
                                 =  26031/4902
                                 = 5.31

Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
                                 =  4902/26031
                                 = 18.8%

Virtual displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume  - Pod volume
                         = 195.23 â€" 36.78
                         = 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes

Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
                             = 36.76 / 195.23
                             = 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match

Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes.  There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water.  Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3”
                                 = (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
                                 = 75 + 150
                                 = 225 KgMtr

NET OUPUT = Load
                        = 150 KgMtr

RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
                                          = 75 KgMtr


GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs  (input referenced to zero level)
              = 198 + 99
              = 297 KgMtr 
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference  (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)

GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input  (absolute efficiency)
                                         = 225 / 297
                                         = 75.7 %

REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs   (Effective operational efficiency)
                                   = 150 / 97
                                   = 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay

Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way.   The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.

Regards, Michel