Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[fletcher]

MT .. I suggest you throw your weight in behind Dennis & help him calibrate his sim for a one riser pod initially.

He is correct - when his sim is a reliable predictor of ACTUAL behaviour then it is a very flexible & powerful tool, just like any other bench top tool.

Then he will be able to sim multi-layer riser pods & you can find out a glance what your true inputs & outputs are because the inputs will be fields that have to be entered - the outputs will be self generated.

P.S. part of building a sim is the very laborious task of putting in the correct formula's & interpreting & implementing them correctly.

This can only be tested by debugging the sim i.e. logic testing it for variance from a real world counterpart, or preferably a number of real world counterparts.

P.S. TK had the idea of using a simple lever to find f x d - this can also apply to using a hydraulic lift or modifying the see-saw approach by using a Pearcellier linkage to turn a curved path into a straight path but this is more complex in some ways.

[fletcher]

MT .. I suggest you throw your weight in behind Dennis & help him calibrate his sim for a one riser pod initially.

He is correct - when his sim is a reliable predictor of ACTUAL behaviour then it is a very flexible & powerful tool, just like any other bench top tool.

Then he will be able to sim multi-layer riser pods & you can find out a glance what your true inputs & outputs are because the inputs will be fields that have to be entered - the outputs will be self generated.

P.S. part of building a sim is the very laborious task of putting in the correct formula's & interpreting & implementing them correctly.

This can only be tested by debugging the sim i.e. logic testing it for variance from a real world counterpart, or preferably a number of real world counterparts.

P.S. TK had the idea of using a simple lever to find f x d - this can also apply to using a hydraulic lift or modifying the see-saw approach by using a Pearcellier linkage to turn a curved path into a straight path but this is more complex in some ways.

Perhaps the simplest way to measure the input accurately is to use a Roberval Balance - the weights in the diagram replaced with simple sliding mechs so that the pressure point on the bottom of the ZED does not change.

[wildew]

Hopefully this doesn't get buried on the bottom of a page -- maybe one of the numbers guys can help me out a bit.
I've had a bit of an issue with raising / lowering a cylinder for the input because of the volume transfer involved and experienced it as expected today doing my first setup tests with one riser.

OH - and after 1 day of cure time I had a major leak, cleaned it up, reapplied RTV and gave it 2 days - now; on to testing just 1 riser after 3 days ....

Simplified: Take 2 containers with a hose connected to the bottom of each - just simple open top containers.
Make it easy, 1 has half the area of the other and the empty container weights are also 1 unit and 2
Container 1 weighs .5 lb and has a volume of 1 cup per inch of height
Container 2 weighs 1 lb and has a volume of 1 pint per inch of height
They are both 6" tall and are half full, sitting on a flat surface with a tube from the bottom center of one to the other.
Raise the smaller container 2 inches, how much "work" was done ?

Honest question, would love some feedback
Dale

[GreenHiker]

@GreenHiker: The last I heard from or about Mark Dansie was that he was NOT totally convinced " yet ". I can't speak for him, but after all, he was supposed to be doing another site visit with "reinforcements" and that visit had to be postponed indefinitely because some new problem kept... and I believe is still keeping.... the device from running itself for more than 4 hours... the longest reported run that I am aware of. I don't think he'd be bothering with all that, nor experiencing this delay if he were bothering with it, if he were totally convinced as you allege. So it appears that your set of "facts" and mine are at variance. Of course, we know which set I'm going to be believing, until I'm given some evidence to the contrary. For example, I understand that site visitors get the whole, confusing spiel, certainly... but do they get to see a machine run itself overnight?

TK -
I don't pretend to speak for Mark either. That quote was from Mark's statement on Wayne's homepage. (It was the quickest quote for me to find.) I believe he has said he will not "certify" it until after the two day run.
I don't think our facts are at odds. Wayne said on his site that Mark was tired of the delays. Everyone including me wants to see Mark certify it ASAP.

I don't speak for Wayne either, but from the "Current Objectives" posts on his website, I don't believe Wayne's goal was to get a self runner to the public in the shortest amount of time possible. For a number of weeks on Wayne's updates, the sub-title was something to the effect of building partnerships. One could assume that his efforts were being divided at that point between building his team and developing the Data Model. At present though, there are 4 independent groups in the challenge, plus the experimenters (Mond, Webby et al?), as well as Wayne's tabletop unit team (Kevan and Matthew) and the Data Model team working to get longer runs. Last month we had one horse in the race, now we've got 6 or more. I am optimistic that we all will have answers soon.

Tom
   

[TinselKoala]

Hopefully this doesn't get buried on the bottom of a page -- maybe one of the numbers guys can help me out a bit.
I've had a bit of an issue with raising / lowering a cylinder for the input because of the volume transfer involved and experienced it as expected today doing my first setup tests with one riser.

OH - and after 1 day of cure time I had a major leak, cleaned it up, reapplied RTV and gave it 2 days - now; on to testing just 1 riser after 3 days ....

Simplified: Take 2 containers with a hose connected to the bottom of each - just simple open top containers.
Make it easy, 1 has half the area of the other and the empty container weights are also 1 unit and 2
Container 1 weighs .5 lb and has a volume of 1 cup per inch of height
Container 2 weighs 1 lb and has a volume of 1 pint per inch of height
They are both 6" tall and are half full, sitting on a flat surface with a tube from the bottom center of one to the other.
Raise the smaller container 2 inches, how much "work" was done ?

Honest question, would love some feedback
Dale

It's an interesting problem. At first I thought you had discovered overunity already.

Here's how I reasoned. I use the 2-dimensional side-view simplification and the fact that the water levels in the two vessels should be the equal after the lift, since water "seeks its own level".

You have the mass of lifted water and the mass of the lifted vessel. Is this right? Are you saying that the vessel weighs 0.5 pounds and the water in it also weighs a pound a pint, or are you assuming the vessels are weightless? ETA: I see that the vessels have the weights 0.5 and 1.0 pound, separate from the weight of the water, right?

And the total volume of water is conserved, and Potential Energy is mgh, where g is the force due to gravity, a constant, and so can be neglected during the calculation and put back in when we need real units. So let's just call the PE equal to mh, the mass times the height, and look at the change in PE, which is equivalent to work.

And the mass of the slugs of water in the vessels can be considered to be at the height of the center of mass of the slugs for the PE calculation, and the water in the connecting tube can be ignored.

OK so far?