Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

MarkE,
A rough calculation from back in time, 3 Sept 2012
////////////////
Gravity powered devices / Re: Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.   It might help you some !
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:16:07 AM »
..........................................
Example;We have a nested lifting device, 4 layers that share the same water displacement volume space but each have their own water column. We can control the total daisy chain water column from its bottom section 'which is the pod area'.
We have it setup that for the limited stroke length only. To stroke we inject water into the pod area to lift the head, that will also rise the heads in the above layers until we have 8psi, then we follow the stroke movement with displacement water for the pod area so it has a base to rise on. The risers have sufficient balanced water in the U-bend for the stroke length without impacting the head heights.

Sample Specs
Total lifting area (risers + pod)= 26031cm2
Control lift area (pod)  = 4902

Lift efficiency ratio = Total Lift Area/Pod area
                                 =  26031/4902
                                 = 5.31

Pod efficiency ratio = Pod area / Total Lift area
                                 =  4902/26031
                                 = 18.8%

Virtual displacement water for stroke 3” or 7.5cm
Virtual volume = Displacement volume  - Pod volume
                         = 195.23 â€" 36.78
                         = 158.5 Ltrs
** The virtual water is non existing water that plays a role as real water as per standard Archimedes

Pod volume ratio = pod volume/displacement volume
                             = 36.76 / 195.23
                             = 18.8%
** Pod volume and efficiency ratio’s match

Note: Do not be fooled that this makes this clever layered lifting device over-unity, all what is demonstrated in the figures above is how much less 'displacement' water we need than Archimedes.  There is a penalty for the weightless non-existing water.  Also do keep in mind that energy is calculated by nature in the 'displacement water weight' and not in the "water of the heads", the heads are a mediator and must be considered as a overhead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL OUTPUT = (RiserWeight + Load) x 3”
                                 = (1000 + 2000) x .075mtr
                                 = 75 + 150
                                 = 225 KgMtr

NET OUPUT = Load
                        = 150 KgMtr

RECYCLED OUTPUT = Riserweight
                                          = 75 KgMtr


GROSS INPUT = Recycled + Add-on costs  (input referenced to zero level)
              = 198 + 99
              = 297 KgMtr
** Gross Input figures include adjustment for pressure down to zero level reference  (8 psi = 5.62 Mtrs)

GROSS EFFICIENCY = Output/Input  (absolute efficiency)
                                         = 225 / 297
                                         = 75.7 %

REAL EFFICIENCY = Load output/ Add-on costs   (Effective operational efficiency)
                                   = 150 / 97
                                   = 155 %
** Real efficiency is the load output received minus the cost we need to pay

Please Note: Figures should be accurate within a 5-10% margin either way.   The figures  listed are rudimentary and intended to show the general operational energy flow of the Zed device. No overheads incurred by mechanical or other losses have been included.

Red_Sunset

[mondrasek]

Mondrasek, I am sorry if I my replies have been too brief for you.
I hope that we agree that the volumes of the two pipes are respectively:  pi * 7.5 m^3 for the 1m diameter diameter pipe and pi * 30 m^3 for the 2m diameter pipe, a volume ratio of 4:1, ie the ratio of the cross-section areas.

I hope that we agree that the pressure at any height within each of the two pipes is identical.  Therefore if we were to connect the pipes they would naturally equalize to the same height.

From your statements above, it appears that you agree that the energy required to fill each pipe is the energy available to extract by emptying each pipe, and that the relative energy we can store as GPE of water in the larger pipe is four times that which we can store in the smaller pipe owing to the relative mass being 4:1 and the heights being the same.

I hope that it is also obvious that we will gain / lose identically four times the water height in the 1m pipe for each increment height we would lose / gain moving water from the wider pipe or to the wider pipe.  IOW, moving water between the pipes offers no gain or loss in total energy stored by the pair.

TinselKoala has recently relinked two of his videos done about two years ago.  In the latter video he dealt with Archimedes' Paradox, which really isn't much of a paradox at all.  In fact it is just Archimedes' Principle at work.  It is the very mechanism that Grimer took advantage of when measuring the volume of his concrete samples in that story he likes to tell.  In the video, TinselKoala had a flask that contained:  water, and another flask held down in the water by a rigid stand.   The larger flask with water in it was supported by a weigh scale, while the rigid stand was independently supported on the table.  TinselKoala showed that the weigh scale indicated 380g initially, and that after removing the larger flask and returning the water to its original height, the scale indicated 382g, a value within ~0.5% of the original.  IOW within experimental error, the upward force exerted by the water with the smaller flask inserted was identically the weight of the equivalent displaced water, even though as shown in the middle of the video the weight of the initial water volume + flask was only 200g.  Had the flasks been a tighter match even less initial water would have been needed.  Now if we go back to Grimer's story, his concrete object had an SG greater than 1 so he could hang it in his flask.  And as long as it did not touch the bottom, the effect of submerging it, just as TinselKoala submerged his flask was to displace an equivalent weight of water as the volume of the concrete sample.  In other words:  a fluid exerts a force against anything that displaces volume within the fluid equal to the weight of an equal volume of the fluid.  The paradox, which IMO is no paradox at all, is that the displaced volume: the "hole", can vastly exceed the volume of the fluid that surrounds the displaced volume.

The other video that TinselKoala linked showed that using a tube filled with air to connect to vessels of water under static conditions results in the water level being the same within each end of the tube that is submerged in each vessel.  That tube of air is equivalent to the air pockets that connect the various concentric cylinders in the ZED.

I hope this explains things for you.  But if it does not, by all means ask any questions you like and I will be happy to add to the explanations.

MarkE, thanks for taking the time to write all that up, but it was not necessary.  I do understand all those concepts and didn't mean to have you go through that effort.

You missed my point that was made after my train of thought that you again summarized in your post.  That point was:

To get more out than in (work/energy) from a ZED I think it would need to be shown that the nested riser arrangement can produce an output integral of force x distance that is greater than the input force x distance.  Or not, of course.  One way to do that may be to fix an input pressure and volume (to simply comparisons) and then see if different proportions and layers of ZED construction will result in exactly the same output pressure/2 x stroke.  This (I think) can be calculated relatively easily.

Later I also explained that I believe this is a way to possibly test the assertion that the ZED stroke can be simplified to a simple hydraulic cylinder.  If it can, your logic and analysis, and that of the Japanese Engineering class, are correct for that substitution.  But if a ZED does not act exactly as a hydraulic cylinder, those analyses are in error (but the assertion that the ZED systems is OU is in no way proved).  I'm interested to know if you, and anyone else, agree?  I also welcome anyone who would like to do these maths as I don't look forward to doing them myself!  But I would only go that far if it were agreed that such a mathematical analysis is a valid test.

M.

[Red_Sunset]

Can we please keep our facts straight?
.......................................................... 

TinselKoala,
After 2 years, we are still circling around the same issues and posts.

The real standing fact is that it is impossible to proof that someone "Doesn't have something" from a distance
It was the same for Saddam Hussein when he was cornered by the GW Bush gang. 
They knew very well that a proof couldn't be provided, since "nothing" can never be produced, it is intangible

So as I said in previous posts, approach the issue from a positive "there is something" angle instead of the negative "there is nothing " angle, that is by default doomed.

I think you are outfoxed
Red_Sunset

[TinselKoala]

No, Red, you STILL don't get it.

It is the responsibility of the CLAIMANT to provide positive proof of his claims which go against all of known physics. If he refuses or for some other reason cannot or does not do so, then the rational position is that the claims are false UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE by the claimant.

Simulations do not provide the required positive PROOF because, as I'm sure you will agree, the simulations all "assume" that physics is correct, and for a Travis device to produce OU then physics must not be correct or complete. We have given illustrations from known physics that _prove_ that the various individual steps in Travis's scheme are all underunity. So at this point it becomes necessary for the proponents like yourself to provide _actual demonstrations_, not sims or calculations based on incorrect assumptions, that support the contentions. So far, none has been presented, not by Travis, not by Webby, and certainly not by you.

Outfoxed? Hardly.... since I am right -- and can demonstrate each and every bit of my contentions, and have done so repeatedly -- and you are wrong, having presented exactly ZERO experimental evidence of your own.

[minnie]

   Please help, anyone? Is there a drawing to accompany Sunset's post 849?
   What info would the Japanese students have had to do their evaluation?
   If it's as good as Sunset says, surely it can't fail to work.
                                   John