Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

@see3d: that looks very nice indeed.

It would be nice to have some reference across the horizontal axis, like sample number or "time", just for reference. The blue triangle of applied force is a nice way of visualising it but it's not easy to describe.

If I may interpret:
You are pushing up with the piston with constantly and linearly increasing force (the blue triangle at bottom, the area of which corresponds to the total work input). The output graphs show a clear knee when the riser lifts off, at an input of about 3.3 pounds or so. The green line shows the "effective" weight of the weightless riser and the lifted weight, decreasing until it reaches zero at the liftoff point. So you're pushing upwards with about 3.3 pounds at that point and the 5 pound weight begins to rise upwards (the knee in the output graphs.) You've already pushed the input piston in by about 0.15 or 0.20 inch at that point (the blue line on the output graphs). Then the riser/weight rises, so the "output force" the green line is zero, but I'd call this the "effective weight" or something like this myself. You have to keep pushing with increasing force, moving the piston in another half-inch or so (the steep part of the blue line). Then you hit the top stop and the second "knee" or leveloff in the graphs is seen. The PSI line (black) looks like it might even show LarryC's little swervy curvy thing along in there once the riser starts moving upwards.


So, I note that 2.609 inch-lbs (input work) > 2.536 inch-lbs (output work) and if you let any air out of the pressurised chamber.... you will have to replace it somehow to complete a cycle. It might be interesting to see how much you could bleed out at the top, though, before the weight/riser starts to sink.

I hope I got the interpretation right... I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't.

So, can we then see what the descent cycle looks like, and where/how there is supposed to be any apple to toss to the other Zed?

[CuriousChris]

My apology for TK... Chris
I catch your humor (or what you think is humor at this point)_- we have been sharing this discovery with constant badgering and interuption from some - I hope you do not join the effort - we have plenty of that.
Wayne

No need to apologise for TK. It was a bit of an in joke from a comment I made on another thread.
Read it here if your interested
http://www.overunity.com/12711/developing-ideas/msg338441/#msg338441

[AmoLago]

The upstroke analysis looks to be correct, but I don't think that the downstroke is. If the water was allowed to free flow back then the pod would not end up in the position shown. It would be floating and require the amount energy that appeared in the upstroke to reset it to the start position.

Hi Seamus,

Thanks for taking a look and giving feedback. Could I trouble you to expand on your reply a bit though.

From what I have interpreted and understand in what I have read, using the values from spreadsheet as example, due to the pod's weight, when the buoyancy and pod forces are in equilibrium, the pod will be 40% submerged, or 0.36m of the total 0.9m in this case.

This is the starting height of the water inside the pod tank, and overall head height. So at the start, I am thinking that the pod doesn't even need to be locked down, it might be considered virtually weightless due to the forces acting on it, and might only be just touching the base of the tank, but I would think that the pod will be touching the bottom none the less.

Now in this thought experiment, the same quantity of water is added to and then removed from the pod. There's no removal or addition of weight from or to the pod. It is simply locked down while the fill takes place and then let go for the stroke and left to sink as the water retreats.

So as the same amount of water is added and then removed, why would the pod not re-settle back to the bottom of the tank?

[mondrasek]

This is a short update on build modifications that are ongoing with the little three layer (1 Pod, 2 Riser) system that has been reported on and shown in the video earlier.

The "Top Stop" that I showed in post #2491 was very stable in and of itself, but presented two problems:

1)  The Top Stop made contact with the edge of the Outer Riser which is not a precision cut.  That edge also has some flexible GOOP cement on it that will make contact with the Top Stop in variable ways.  The Outer Riser is free to rotate and so high and low spots on the edge rotate and can result in the top surface tillting slightly in different directions when in contact with the Top Stop.  The flexible cement also allows for compression.  Both of these issues caused the reading on the Digital Indicator to fluctuate more than desired as the ZED was brought into and away from the Top Stop and when the Load Mass was removed and added.

2)  The entire Top Stop was installed about two mm above the maximum of the stroke in the previous testing.  And that was just too far.  It was impossible to get a 10 mm stroke up that high with the same weights that were used in the previous tests.

The solution to both issues was to add three equally spaced domed contact pins on the underside of the Top Stop.  These were made by smoothing and slightly rounding the head of three finishing nails.  These were driven into predrilled holes in the Top Stop and glued in place.  So now the Outer Riser makes contact by its Lexan endcap with these three contact points.  Very repeatable.  These three new contact points also protrude about one mm below the lower surface of the Top Stop and bring the stroke range back into a workable position for using the same weights that were tested previously.

I have replaced the wobbly electrical tape and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and the Tupperware container "preweight" that contained wet sand with a precision machined steel spacer (borrowed from a previous project) and a bar magnet that gives the Indicator a very stable touch point.  The result is that now while "locked" by being in contact with the Top Stop at the top of stroke the Lift Mass can be removed and returned again and again and the Indicator only fluctuates a maximum of approx. .05 mm. 

FWIW.

M.

[see3d]

Hi Dennis,

Fantastic development, great effort, congrats.
Would it be possible to include a graph line that shows the lift/psi, a trend that Wayne always referred to in his early mails.
This would highlite a diversion from the symmetrical input/output relationship (since overall psi is an input cost and lift is output).
Something you (we) would be looking for, I imagine.

Regards, Michel

Thanks Michel.  Yes, I have a plot of input vs output work, and I can plot any 4 internal parameters that I choose.  I did not show it, because I did not want people to start picking apart details on an unfinished product, looking for meaning, where none can be certain yet.  The picture is just to be taken as a general progress overview at this point.  Stressing over details are for later, after I have more confidence in the sim results.

~Dennis