Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

TK .. Action & Equal Opposite Reaction - when you depress the floater, water viscosity resists its direction of motion, as the water is forced out of the way => gives higher reading on scale just coincidentally similar to displacement, IMO.

There is a couple grams of this when the floater is actually moving, but at whatever depth I hold it still,  you just get the 221 or 222 grams plus a bit for rod length.

The pressure phenomenon you've cited above isn't what's going on in the inverted TE in my videos. The pressure in the jug acts in all directions, not just on the bottom. The bottom has more pressure because of the static water weight. But there is no airspace, and the force of the stopper is transmitted to all parts of the vessel by pressure. The bottom breaks out because of the stress concentration at the "corners" and because of the static weight added to the pressure from driving the stopper in.
In my ITE experiments the added weight is a downward force only, the reaction force to the buoyancy which is "anchored" to the outside world by my hand or a fixed mounting stand. This is caused by the displacement of the floater pushing water (or virtual water) up as it is pushed down. Once it's completely submerged it doesn't need to push up any more water so the buoyant force is constant.
In the Cartesian Diver, there is a flexible membrane or water surface. As the diver goes deeper, the external pressure _changes the volume_ that the diver displaces. This is why its buoyancy varies with depth and why it can be made to rise and sink with externally applied pressure to the water.
The Pod, inflexible and sealed, is not a Cartesian diver, it's a dead lump of matter and its displacement doesn't vary once it's fully submerged.

AYK the pressure force of water with depth acts in all directions - therefore it acts on the bottom of the vessel [internal force] & also pushes up on the bottom of the pod just above it as buoyancy.

The first part is right... therefore the second part isn't, because the same force is also acting on the top of the pod pushing it down. Buoyancy is not a result of pressure in this way.

ETA: You can think of the water and buoyancy as a simple spring. The spring simply transfers the push from my hand, down to the body of the reservoir which of course increases its "weight" on the scale. But if I compress the spring and then latch it to the side of the jar, there is no external frame for it to push against, so the scale weight doesn't increase.

ETA2: If I have a container, half full of water, half with air, sealed, and I start pumping air pressure into the top part.... does the weight of the container increase? Even when I get to 1000 psi, I've added only a small amount of matter to the system, but the downward pressure on the bottom of the container is huge.

[MT]

NO. Whenever I see false precision......  ten digits after the decimal point ... I pretty much go blind !! Come on..... all that means is that the number is WRONG. I mean, if you say you have 3.456789236 ounces of something.... and it turns out that you "really" have 3.456789235 ounces or any other number than that precise billionth of an ounce value.... then you were wrong, weren't you.
But since your input measurements cannot possibly be more accurate than, say, the tenth of an ounce, you should really only use two or three sig digs at the most. You say "3.46" ounces.... and you will still be right if the true value is from 3.455 to 3.465 ounces, which is within the limit of precision and accuracy of your measurement.

Hi TK,
not sure I understand you correctly. If you say 3.46 ounces I expect it is exactly this volume and not an interval 3.455 to 3.465. Rounding is left to the table processor. I assume they are using double for internal computings [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format[/size] and when displaying it they look how many digits is fitting into cell and rounding last one.


thank you,
Marcel

[MT]

Here is my set up for the above calculations. We have a main tank [A] , containing a pod, same dimensions as your . This tank has two connections fitted into the sidewall. |One is level with the top of the pod, and one os near the bottom. We have a second tank [C] this tank is 0.9 metres tall, and contains enough water for precharge. It is connected to the bottom connector of tank A by a flexible hose . To precharge we lift this tank 0.9 meters. This tank very shallow, and large in diameter.
To stroke, we have a Third tank , one meter diameter and 0.1 metres deep, connected by a flexible hose to the top connector of tank A. To stroke we need to raise it 0.2 metres , cso the bottom of tank B is level with the top of tank A.

I just realised my initial mistake. I assumed that we needed to raise tank C by 0.9 metres . If tank C is 0.9 metres tall we would need to raise it 1.8 meters.  But if we made it only 10 one   centimetre tall, we would only need to raise it one meter to precharge .
So now energy to precharge is 27.7 Kg metres.
So now total input27.7 +15.1 =42.8 Kg metres
So COP is now 67.8 /42.8 = 1.584.
If I am wrong, please tell me where.

Hi neptune,
Not sure about your calc yet but I like your approach with two extra tanks: for precharge and  for stroke. If I go further with simplification we can have next to main tank only one auxiliary tank for precharge and stroke together (very wide and very shallow) with bottom at height 1m. In my sheet I use 28l for precharge and 78l for stroke. 28+78=106kg of water. To lift the auxiliary tank we would need 106kg * 10 * 1m = 1060kgm of work done. Pod can make 678kgm of work so 0.63% efficiency.


I'll use this approach to cross check my spreadsheet again. It can very well be that it is still not correct. Problem is I'm going to have very little free time coming days 
[size=78%]
[/size]
take care,
Marcel

[neptune]

Thanks to TK and MT for considering my calculation theories.
@MT. I need to work this out but, I think that there may be an advantage in having two tanks at different levels.[Tanks B and C} . However it is  even possible, that even more than two tanks at different levels could lead to less input work.
     Another thing to think about, which has been previously mentioned, is that the more we lift an auxiliary tank, and the more it empties, the less it weighs, and the less force is needed to lift it. I guess that is what you educated guys mean when you talk about calculus and iterations. The calculations I have tried to do, ignore this factor, so the real work done may well be less than I have allowed for.First of all can we agree on some basic figures. Here are mine.


Volume of pod= 678 Litres


Volume of space above pod =78.55 Litres[previously incorrectly stated as 75.5]


Volume of precharge water =28.9Litres. This is volume of outer tank to depth of 0.9 metres minus volume of pod, previously incorrectly stated as 27.9


Are these figure correct please?
Edited to add. It looks like my figures pretty well agree with MT
.

[squigglelicious]

    Lets play a game:     

How long will it take until:
MrWayne realizes that he doesn't have an overunity device?

Post your answer as a date and time of the first email to this board
from MrWayne that admits it.

Closest to the actual date wins!

I am going to go with: 
9/21/2012 at 3pm.