Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

I would be happy to analyze a system of someone's choice if they:

1) Think that it is OU
2) Are prepared to describe it sufficiently so that a reasonably accurate analysis can be performed

Five days is more than long enough for such a person to describe what it is that they propose.

And yes, these schemes have never been shown to offer a chance at OU.  In fact just the pressure equalization step  where a "charged" side is connected to an "uncharged" side depletes a sizable percentage of the stored energy.  Webby states that he thinks his riser scheme is about 83% efficient.  Maybe it is more and maybe it is less efficient.  Anything short of OU is by itself relatively uninteresting. 

Perhaps someday: someone, anyone who thinks that there is something to HER's OU claims will diagram a mechanism that they think can actually have a chance at being OU.  Shuffling incompressible fluid between cylinders over pistons is lossy as Webby found with his 83% figure.  Shuffling compressible fluid increases the losses.

For a thought problem, consider what happens when equalizing pressure between one submerged column containing a tall bubble and another column resulting in two shorter bubbles.  The total displaced volume of water remains the same.  Yet the stored energy falls by almost half for the example.  Increasing the percentage displacement fluid volume that is in the annular ring worsens the energy loss, asymptotically reaching 50% when only the annular ring holds displacing fluid.  How can it be that the defenders of HER keep telling us how they hope to gain energy by leveraging a piston when the more piston  there is, the greater the loss?

[minnie]

   Hi,
      what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
     Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
  device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
  the  thing will wind down.
      All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
   gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
                     John.

[MarkE]

   Hi,
      what MarkE has shown me is that by discounting unwanted factors it makes
calculations much easier and basically unless you add energy you've just got a
pail of water.
     Webby, I don't see it matters how many lift systems we have, to me I see the
  device as a see-saw. Unless we get more than 100% from our first power stroke
  the  thing will wind down.
      All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
   gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
                     John.

Minnie that is more or less true.  However, because of this precharge business the various schemes run into a common problem seen in other areas, where transferring energy ends up being quite lossy.  If for example we roll a 1kg ball going 1m/s into a 1kg cart with superglue on it where the ball hits, and frictionless bearings on the ground, then by conservation of momentum we know that the speed after the collision will be: 1kg * 1m/s / 2kg = 0.5m/s.  But we also know that the kinetic energy before the collision was: 0.5 * 1kg * (1m/s^2) = 0.5J.  After the collision it is:  0.5 * 2kg * (0.5m/s)^2 = 0.25J.  The same problem happens if we charge one capacitor up and connect it to another capacitor of the same value that is discharged.  The charge is conserved but half the energy is lost to radiation and heat.  And so it also happens when we connect one uncharged cylinder to one that is charged.  In my book, inserting very lossy processes is not a good start towards trying to get over unity.

[Marsing]

      All we need Webby is a good drawing of the set-up iiwhich you say works and
   gives us a bit more back than what we put in. Simple!
                     John.

don't forget the "magic lever" in your drawing.

[MarkE]

I do find it funny that information that gave out already is being shown as something "new".

MarkE,

You have not supported your claim at all, so please supply the actual support that allows you to say that the ZED can be reduced down to a single piston.

To do this would mean that you would have to run the numbers, so you could just show as all what those numbers were, not to mention that you would have to check a few conditions,, you can show us all that.

Since YOU seem to be the king of OU,, why don't YOU tell US how to do it.

You have not even covered which riser you would use,, they all have different potentials, I take it you are aware of that.

Webby yesterday you were inventing things that you had said.  Now you are inventing things that you claim I have said.  My comments have always been rather specific.  If you wish to debate any of them, then kindly clip the quote and I will be happy to address any concerns or dispute you might offer.

The fact remains that you proposed to show something that would support HER's claims. 

This is where you began Feb. 03:

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #901 on: February 03, 2014, 11:21:05 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 11:05:21 PM

    Since you already have tried to perform an analysis just show the work that you have done so far and we can go through that.


I will go over it again and draw a picture,, it will take me a bit I have some stuff that I need to do,,

The Hawks sure did trounce the Broncos

Eight days later you seem to have abandoned your efforts.  You offered the one sparse sketch.  You have objected to my drawings.  That leaves it back to you to deliver on producing the work that you have done that leads you to your favorable outlook on HER.  You can supply drawings and calculations that show something interesting: an energy gain somewhere, some refutation of Archimedes' Principle, etc, or you can leave your abandoned claims to sink into the same mud hole that has swallowed HER's extraordinary claims.