Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[minnie]

    Webby,
             you can be awarded 100% marks for spouting crap!
                               John.

[minnie]

   Webby,
            even if you get past 90% you're miles off the  140% needed to get the thing
   working.
        Remember, the compression spring can achieve  99%, see if you can argue your
   way out of that one.
        A real world hydraulic cylinder couldn't match the spring, in my opinion.
                               John.

[MarkE]

Whatever Marke,

You are discrediting yourself, I am not doing that, I am only pointing out an error in assumption that you have made.

Remember, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong.

Tom, you have been proven wrong many, many times now.  You present yourself as unfamiliar with basic physics and unable to perform the associated math.  You make claims that you can't support.

Passing water,, that is funny.

I wonder if the heat from the resistors in your cap test accounts for the lost energy,, so it was not "lost" it was wasted as heat.

Since you can manage a charge pump you can manage the experiment.  Conduct the experiments.  Then feel free to discuss the results.

I suppose you are saying that it takes more work to fill the column than what is stored in the column when it is full,, does that not sound like a violation of something??

In the real world there are definitely losses filling a column.  If you fill the column from a constant pressure source guess what the losses are.  Guess what they are independent of the pressure value, just so long as it is greater than the ending pressure in the column.

That's right,, you keep blaming it all on those pesky pipes and the compression of water burning up all that energy.

Water is incompressible.  Why are you confused on that point?

Your drawing would be better labeled as  "the force from the falling water MUST be used up in the pipes by friction to convert it into heat to account for all the energy not used".

Force is not a conserved quantity.  You are again confused.

I must assume you have NEVER run a test like this,, when you first open the connection valve the water will gush into the other container,, with a LOT of force. 

In the case where we connect at the bottom of course it does.  I told you it does.  You are either not paying attention or deliberately misrepresenting.

As a matter of FACT you can use a pipe to run up inside the receiving column just under halfway and open the valve and the water will still flow from the source column into the receiving column,, now what to do with the water falling from the end of that pipe while it is filling up the receiving column? the mind boggles.

It will only do so until the columns equalize.  Did you miss that point?

One step further is to take that pipe up just under the top of the receiving column and lower that pipe as the source is draining,, less oomph out of the feed pipe but a longer drop.

That is a similar arrangement as what you see in the lower drawing.  The receiving column lowers down to keep the top of its water column just beneath the top of the water column from the source side.  The available head and consequent force are kept close to zero.  If you manipulate a siphon hose you get the same result.  You still suffer energy loss all the way to the point where the columns are equalized, there is no more head and no amount of leverage gain multiplied by zero head results in any force to move additional fluid from the source column to the receiving column.  This has been explained to you many times already.  Still you act as though you do not understand.

With both of these you still end up at the 1\2 way point, but the energy you are speaking of has been used for something other than heating up the area, it has been put to work.

Where?  What work was done to what.

This stuff I have done and so have MANY other people.

Whatever you may or may not have done you present incorrect statements as though you do not understand.

MY frictional real world losses stopped me from getting 100%, I already stated that, but I CAN get way over 90% easy

Prove that you can get over 50%.  Show a mechanism that does in action.  You say that you have such a thing.  Let's see it.

[MarkE]

Yes Mark.

There are pumping losses, these are real world things.

So tell me, how do you calculate pumping loss?

You think that having almost no head difference is the same as having the water come out the end of an elevated pipe so that the water can fall down through some strange device that takes that kinetic energy and can convert it into useful work.  I guess we do not have any such devices in use today,, what a shame that is.

I guess that you think that running on with phrase after phrase in meaningless prose is the same as articulating some sort of meaningful statement instead of the thing that you are doing which is more or less stringing words together in long incomprehensible run on sentences devoid of any specific meaning that someone who might accidentally take you seriously might confuse for an actual attempt at intelligent conversation when in fact you are just building more men of straw.  Or to put it another way:  You've written a bunch of bafflegab, and you've built yet another straw man argument. 

The elevated pipe was your proposal.  In order to get water to move from one column to the other without using outside energy, there has to be a force gradient between the two columns to push the fluid from one to the other.  You can with levers or their equivalents multiply the force at a cost of distance or distance at the cost of force.  But what you cannot do is passively get past the half way point unless you first convert some portion of the potential energy to kinetic and then reclaim that kinetic energy.  This is one of the things that makes your transfer pump proposal so hilarious:  It interferes with converting potential energy to kinetic energy.  I could suggest a simple demonstration with a couple of clear flexible tubing sections of different diameters.  However, you keep presenting yourself as unable to comprehend basic physics.

I guess you answered before you read the whole response Mark,, since I stated that both methods stop at the point of equalization.

This was my point Mark, that there are simple means to extract the work out of the system as the two columns are moving towards equalization, when equalization is reached each column will have 25% of the starting potential.

The other 50% will be a combination of loses and the work performed by the moving water.

In which case you have conceded the point after months of fighting it.

[MarkE]

My,, more words more poking at me more of nothing and more of the same.

You are twisting around there MarkE,,

You are what you are, and that is just fine.

Water has mass, water moves,, moving water can do useful work,, go figure that something with mass moving can do something,, who-da thunk such a thing is possible.

You have conceded that your 50% loss is in error, that is fine.

Tom do you think repeating a lie will make it true?  Do you think it will make it seem true? 

You are free to show a mechanism that will defeat the energy loss issue that you face trying to transfer the "air" between your two lifting cylinders.  Your transfer pump impedes conversion from potential energy into kinetic energy. After more than two months, it's very obvious that you do not now have and never did have a mechanism to overcome the loss.  The loss was news to you.

Drone one as you wish.