Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

What are all these numbers from Marcel? They seem almost deliberately designed to obfuscate what should be a simple and clear measurement and calculation.

Here are the facts and numbers we need:
Position of all moving parts at the start of one cycle.
Input work, or energy, from outside the system, over the complete cycle.
Output work, or energy, delivered to an outside load (or loads, see below), over the complete cycle.
Position of all moving parts and fluids at the end of the cycle: should be the same as at start.

Example:
Start: All risers and pod bottomed out, water levels even at height x, load mass of M_L sitting on top of the output riser at height H₀.
Something is injected into the system, a fluid. To aid calculation, this injection is done by depressing a piston of area A_P through a stroke of S_P with an average force of F_P. This piston, cylinder and plumbing are considered external to the ZUT (zed under test), so the work done by depressing the piston is input work to the ZUT.
At the end of the injection, we pause and allow the system to settle, then we measure H_L, the lifted height of the load mass. This gives us an output work value.
Then we go to the input piston and _pull it back out_, or allow it to come out "on its own", with some assist if necessary, until the same volume of fluid is withdrawn from the ZUT. This "assist" could be in the form of pushing down on the lifted output mass or by pulling out on the input piston. Any work that we do here to restore the initial state must also count as input work, though. Ideally the piston will come out on its own with the same force and stroke as the original input as the lifted mass sinks back to H₀.
End: Everything is back where it started from: one complete cycle, nothing added nothing taken away.

With the numbers A_P, S_P, F_P, M_L, H₀, and H_L we would be in a position to calculate some actual efficiency numbers that meant something and that might allow us to discriminate between a simple hydraulic lever system, and the discovery of Water 2.0.

Where would excess energy be manifested in such a system? Well, hopefully we are not claiming the creation or destruction of matter, so "conservation of volume" applies: there won't be extra water or air beyond what we started with and the resultant pressures and positions will be the same. So excess energy must appear in some parameter of the lift or input piston stroke. It could be that the mass is lifted extra high, so that the simple output work is greater than the input work depressing the piston. It could be that the input piston is pushed back out with excess force for the same distance, as the lifted mass descends in the second half of the cycle, working against a different load. (I'm not sure if this wouldn't violate conservation of volume, though.)

@seamus10n: Hey, virtual water is no more -- or less -- ludicrous than centrifugal force. I've measured them both myself in various systems, and found them both very amusing, convenient sometimes, hilarious even, but certainly not ludicrous.   

[mrwayne]

Garbage. Any engineer worthy of the title would take one look at this idea and dismiss it out of hand. There is absolutely no valid mathematical analysis based on known physics that could validate this device. This is because any such simulation would have the conservation of energy mass and momentum as the starting point. By definition this will not lead to an overunity result.

As such it is up to those claiming it works to present solid experimental evidence that it does. That is something that has not been forthcoming as yet.

Circular logic must prove itself, lest we accept the illogical as true, or that something has been left out of the ring.
Wayne

[Red_Sunset]

Seamus & TK,
You appear to be and live the USA and so is the inventor.  This would mean that you would be more akin in understanding each other than I would. The inventor could help me quite fine and I could understand him fine, notwithstanding that I come from and reside on the other side of the world.   I could understand his invention quite fine after doing some homework on his prompting that that would oil the wheel, why is he not able to do that with you two is my question?

*  Here are the facts and numbers we need: ....give me...give me
I think the basic issue might lie with the understanding and expectation certain people have with the forum.   Certain people just want blueprints so they can built/replicate, others want animations, video...ect.
The inventor was clear on what he wants to share on this forum, sure this did not match all our or your wants....He initiated the topic to share what he wanted to share to a defined extent, that is clear by now.  The shared information is sufficient to draw further conclusions from with some effort from the reader side.  Give me...give me..is too easy.

*  Demonstrating where and when the energy arises out of no-where would.
I omitted this on purpose, since the inventor did not show it directly,  I will not show it either (although it has been said where to find it.  You know what to do,

From where I come from, we have saying that describes certain people, very much alike to a overcast sky.

Regards, Michel




:

[mrwayne]

155 % efficient?  So can I ask why this device does not appear to produce energy for more than 4 hours at 36 watts peak. (by my estimate about the same amount of energy in the 'pre -charge' based on the volumes , masses and initial displacements mentioned so far.)

Ludicrous appeals to the notion of "virtual water" won't help here. Demonstrating where and when the energy arises out of no-where would.

Seamus, I do not take it lightly that the Discovery of the ZED system counters much you believe and have been taught.

I felt the loss, eventually - like the many of us - you will be excited for the benifit this will bring to the world.
I think this Giraffe video does a good job of showing the stages of dealing with loss - pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Z3lmidmrY

[mondrasek]

I'm amazed that the lap joints came out so well. Could you detail for us, please, your gluing method and materials? (I know you told me already but maybe the rest of the readers might like to know too.)
Have you done any pressure testing? I'm worried that the open ends of the tubes won't hold their shapes without a reinforcing ring at the open end (a half-inch ring of the same material?, doubling the wall thickness and with the lap join 180 degrees opposite the tube's lap seam). Also, what is your inter-tube spacing, and have you been able to test for the self-centering phenomenon yet?

Step 1.  Acquire two liter diet Pepsi product.

Step 2.  Save some of the diet Pepsi for lunch and pour the rest of that crap down the drain.

Step 3.  DO NOT remove the label!  It is the only chance you have to make one of the end cuts straight.  Use it as a guide for scissor cuts while removing the ends.

The label glue and remnants comes off with mineral spirits and a lot of scrapping since the label material is a pretty good shield for the mineral spirits.  PITA.

So the entire system OD will be one complete two liter section which is ~4.25" dia.  The next smaller cylinder (Outer Riser) is made by cutting another two liter cylinder along it's length with a skill knife and straight edge.  Once cut you will find that it wants to roll up even smaller, and usually not very round.  So far NO two bottles have been the same.  Again, PITA.  But every once in a while the stresses in the material do make a fairly round shape.  I scored a line at 1/2" from the cut and sanded where the lap joint will be.  Then the glue...

I had told you of the Threebond plastic cement, but that was wrong.  It is actually a Loctite product and NOT recommended for the primary joint!  Instead, I now am using a product called GOOP.  It is a clear and flexible contact type cement that you apply to both sides of the lap joint, wait a couple minutes, and then join.  It drys by solvent evaporation, so I hold the assembly together with some little neo magnets that I seem to have EVERYWHERE in my garage now.  I move the magnets around while it is drying to help even out the glue.  The neos will squeeze it all out from directly underneath themselves and leave a void if they are not shifted during the set up time.

Excess GOOP peals off from the edges of the seam very nicely, but it take a lot of effort!  I run a bead of the Loctite plastic cement along the edges of the seam inside and out to smooth and guarantee the seal.  That stuff dries fairly hard and not as rubbery as the GOOP or silicon.

End caps are .10" lexan from LOWES.  I score and snap close to round using a compass and skill knife.  Final rounding is against an orbital sander that is held on it's side on the edge of my work bench.  Again, a major PITA, but a fairly round disk can be made with some patience.  These are roughed with sandpaper along the edges and bonded inside similarly roughed up cylinders with GOOP again to make the Pod and Risers.  I've been running a bead of the Loctite on the inside to double the seal and stiffen the joint as it makes a good fillet.

The Pod bottom has a 1/4" hole in the center to allow for air to be circulated to dry the glue that holds it in place on the inside.  I blew air inside with a ball inflator needle on my little air compressor a couple times during it's cure time until the vapors were no longer obvious.  Then I sealed the air hole with silicon.  And yes, I did do this by first chilling the Pod in the freezer and applying the silicon to it while it was cold (I let it cure in the freezer until it had skinned as well).  So now at room temp it should have positive pressure inside to hopefully assist with keeping it air tight.  It is currently at the bottom of a full 5 gallon bucket for testing.

The only other pressure testing has been to fill things with water and look for leaks.  I've been overly generous with the sealing materials and hope for the best, but this is still a lousy choice of materials!  But it is cheap!

Some day I'll break down any get a mini lathe...

Subsequent smaller cylinders were all made by removing 1/2" increments of material from the two liter PET before creating the lap joints.  So they are all nesting with 1/2" differences in circumference.  Except for the Pod, none are perfectly round on their open ends.  So they touch in the dry fit testing, but still slide smoothly against each other, so I am hoping for no problems.  I have no idea if any hydrostatic centering will occur and do NOT believe it would have enough force to round out the deformed cylinders anyway.

M.