Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[mondrasek]

Sorry is right. Surely you recall citing "4 mm" (actually a bit less than 4mm)  and I don't believe that I have been talking about ANY OTHER experiment since you reported that one.

I have been referring to the "reverse" test which you cited earlier, which has the best and most coherent data so far.  I thought that was a repeatable cycle. You have not, as far as I can tell, provided similarly good data for what you are describing above. For example you've not said what the "pop up" height was or how much the input tube water level drops. So PLEASE....

Let us just for the moment continue to discuss the test for which you provided good data that I graphed. What is the ACTUAL WEIGHT being lifted in that test, determined in the manner I suggested? If we had this data, we would be able to use your test data to compute the work balance correctly.

But pages and pages have gone by without this simple data point being supplied.

TK, I will gladly perform the test that you request (though I think that info has already been posted, just not again as a specific answer to your direct request). 

Please understand my (our) confusion.  Your comments in post #2435 were in response to a post I made where I was discussing the former experiment in the video, not the one where I took the data that you charted.  So it should be easy to understand why I did not understand that you were referring to the latter one.

Next I'll comment again on your post #2435 so that we can all get back on the same page.

M.

[mondrasek]

Please, webby and mondrasek, set your riser and weight on the scale. Attach a string to the top of it. Lift upwards, and record the scale reading "just" as the riser starts to actually move and rise up. This is the difference between the actual weight and the weight you are lifting with the string. The scale reading should be.... zero. RIGHT? The thing doesn't move until you have taken up all its true weight on the string, so the scale will read zero just as the thing starts to move upwards.

I believe you just are asking for the weight of everything being lifted, right? 

From #2377 w/changes to the Lift Mass for the latter experiment:
Pod = 38 gr.
R1 = 30 gr.
R2 = 34 gr.
Lift Mass = 1200 g of water   79 g for container *NEW INFO*
Non-removed mass = 399 gr. (electrical tape spool and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and Tupperware type container w/wet sand)
Weight of Digital Indicator probe (return spring is removed) = 19 gr.

Now do the same thing with the precharged system.  Set the whole thing on the scale. Record the weight. Now pull up on the string and record the weight "just" as the riser starts to move upwards. Subtract this reading from the first reading. This is the weight you are ACTUALLY lifting.

This request is impossible due to the 5kg limit of the scale.  But I have already stated that the riser will move upwards with the slightest change in mass on the ZED (slightest pull on the string).  So with friction ignored, this value would be zero.

I hope this gives you all the info you requested.  If not, please let me know and I'll do what I can to provide your requested measurements.

M.

[mondrasek]

Just my opinion.

The buoyant lift add of the pod is small compared to the total lift of the system, the hydraulic lift value of the pod can be huge, the bottom of the pod sees the highest pressure within the system even tho it has the smallest footprint.

In my system even if I were to take the pod buoyancy value up to 80g that is not a large part of the 680g lifts it does easily.

Also, in my system, the pod comes into intimate contact with the lid of the riser,, no air left in the space.

Webby, can you run one of your lifts both with and without the Pod?  Can you achieve the same setup in the remaining risers to confirm an "apples to apples" comparison both with and without the Pod?  This is very interesting to me.

Also, my Pod is up against the top of the Inner Riser and the Inner Riser is up against the top of the Outer Riser in the three layer (1 Pod, 2 Risers) system I am working with.  All of these members are very light and will float very easily.  I do not know if using heavier members would change this operational characteristic.

M.

[mondrasek]

Sure,  I will try and get around to it today,, not sure when.

The last time I tried it I did not even write the numbers down,, it was not a good lift and took way too much fluid.

Well I guess it should take way more fluid since the Pod is not there.  But I am more interested in the resultant lift of the system with and without the Pod.  Regardless of the input fluid volume change.  Just so the rest of the the precharge levels in the risers are similar.

Thanks for offering to do this.

M.

[LarryC]

From Larry
Hopefully we're all using the same terminology here. There do seem to be times when the terms are used in different ways?
"Barely sunk at initial pre-charge"  then: "from ideal to initial pre-charge"

I picture "ideal" as being the state at full (restricted) lift where all layers are on the verge of "blowing a skirt" or overflowing.

And pre-charge as the state where, fully loaded, ballast and lift weight, the riser unit is just slightly floating - fully energized but not quite able to lift.

"Initial" pre-charge?

Just trying to be clear
Dale

Hi Dale,

I agree that this subject needs more clarity and propose the following in bold.

Based on info from Wayne's model for all to relate, which had PSI of 10.3 at Ideal, 8.4 at Final precharge or Production ready to lift, 5.0 at Sunk precharge or Starting position. Wayne didn't mention the 10.3, but that is the ideal for the 72" Ht, with the 30" Diameter Pod from the calculator.

My Initial precharge should have been Initial Setup Sunk Precharge and the one time only that you would lower the water level in the Pod retainer and add air to reset the water head to Sunk precharge.

I also liked webby1's 'Rest pressure'.

Any comments are welcomed.

Regards, Larry