Big try at gravity wheel

[minnie]

     Webby,
                 one thing I find confusing is that obviously you supplied information to
    Travis, therefore are you under any sort of agreement to withhold that information?
         If not, have you still got said plans, and if the thing worked why not show us?
     I feel that MarkE is giving 100% to this and that he should be allowed to have the
    best info/drawings to save wasting his time.
       I have to say that I've learned quite a bit about the scientific method for
    analysing these sort of systems,
            thank you John.

[minnie]

    Webby.
               thank you for reply, you didn't say if you could share that information or  that
    you must withhold it,
                                   John.

[MarkE]

When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses.  When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:

1) An initial charged state:  One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.

2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.

3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.

4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3.  It increases the stored potential energy slightly.

5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight.  At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder.  The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it.  The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.

6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.

7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.

The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).

The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights.  A simple pulley and a string would have done much better. 

[MarkE]

That is interesting MarkE,, I posted my number at 83 percent.

I also explained the change in the transfer pump.

How did you go from 90 percent to 33 percent?  Seems to me that if that 10 percent were added the next cycle would still be 90 percent and still require 10 percent.

Webby, The 90% figure you latched onto is not a net cycle efficiency number.  It is the amount of work that has to be added during the lift phase versus the amount of external work that is extracted during that phase.  If we lived in such a wonderful world that the other phases did not require input work, then we would have a net excess energy out versus in.  But, that is not the case.  Each of the two preceding transfer phases require quite a bit of work.  The work that must be added in Step 3 requires around twice as much work as that added in Step 5, and the work that must be added  in Step 4 requires a similar amount of work as in Step 5.

I listed what happens qualitatively to the energy step by step.  I have highlighted those statements below, just in case you missed them or I did not make myself sufficiently clear the first time. The losses occur despite stipulating a number of unrealizable conditions: a 100% efficient transfer pump, lossless and massless feed lines, massless cylinders, and massless, incompressible "air".  Should you ever decide to post your hypothetical set-up as you promised you would back on Feb. 3, then we can go through the steps and put numbers to each step on your set-up.  Assuming that your problem is similar to what was diagrammed before you withdrew, I get less than 1/3 net efficiency for that arrangement as well. 

If your favorable impression of HER depends on getting free energy from a special transfer pump, then that transfer pump is the thing that IMO you should be analyzing and testing first.  If not, then stipulating a 100% efficiency for the pump as we had previously agreed is generous towards HER's claims and investigation into a particular pump design expends effort without revealing anything about HER's claims.

Online MarkE

    Sr. Member
    ****
    Posts: 472
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Online)

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1100 on: February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 PM »

When I walk through a cycle of using a pair of these inverted cylinders to lift a mass by a small fraction of the inverted cylinder height, I get losses, losses, and more losses.  When I look at the problem, I divide it into phases:

1) An initial charged state:  One cylinder up with the entire bubble under it, the other cylinder down.
1.1) A payload weight gets slipped over the down cylinder.

2) The pressure between the two cylinders gets equalized by connecting the two with a volumeless, massless tube with zero resistance to flow.
This phase doesn't involve adding energy, but it loses a lot of potential energy by redistributing one bubble into two smaller bubbles each under roughly half the differential pressure of the first.

3) "Air" is pumped from the first cylinder to the second until water reaches the top of the piston in the first cylinder.
This phase requires a lot of added energy, and still manages to end up with less stored potential energy than at the end of step 2.

4) "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second until the second is completely filled with "air" and just becomes neutrally buoyant.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I have posted, this phase requires about half the added energy of Step 3.  It increases the stored potential energy slightly.

5) The remaining "Air" is pumped out of the first cylinder to the second, lifting the payload weight.  At the end of this phase the second cylinder is at the same elevated height as the first cylinder.  The payload weight can be removed, thus delivering the useful work of lifting it.  The stored potential energy has been restored.
For dimensions similar to the drawings I posted, this phase requires about 90% of the work extracted lifting the payload weight.

6) The neutrally buoyant first cylinder is pushed back down to the bottom position.
6.6) A payload weight gets slipped over this cylinder.

7) - 11) Repeat of phases 2) - 6) with the cylinders reversed.

The machine is now at the same state as at the end of phase 1).

The total input energy that I calculate is more than three times the work extracted lifting weights.  A simple pulley and a string would have done much better. 

[MarkE]

webby, on Feb. 3 you said that you would post your work so that we could go through it.  You never did so.  Now you are back to basically saying:  "There is some magic behind the curtain."  The available evidence doesn't treat that statement very kindly. None of the people from or supporting HER have ever shown actual evidence of an energy gain.  There has been lots of hand waving around pumping gases into cylinders with pistons and such as supposedly being the basis for energy gains.  However, as far as I have seen, such mechanisms are actually very energy inefficient.  The only person who stopped walking was you when you objected to my proposal to trim the 150mm piston height by 0.01mm, which is less than 0.01%.

Declarations of cost are just claims until one does the book keeping through an entire cycle.  If you are confident that you've got some combination of things that when you run them through a complete cycle, you end up with a net gain in energy, then just present that set-up and we can go through it together.  You object to my drawings so it is up to you to diagram the arrangement that you propose. 

If you had a hydraulic ram, you ran the pump and moved the ram 5 inches, when you stop how much of anything is left??  what if you could conserve 10 percent of the internal forces that YOU put into the system, what if you took that and added it to your next stroke, that would reduce your stroke input by 10%,,what if to set this up it cost you 5%,, so now your ram is only supplying 95% of the output but you are only supplying 90% of the input.

If you can view it this way you will notice that nothing new is being created, you have supplied all of the force to start with and that force is only being conserved and recycled.

Force is not a conserved quantity.  Energy is conserved.  If force were a conserved quantity then almost nothing in mechanics would work:  levers, gears, pulleys, pumps, would all be impossible.