Total force 6181
Minus pod 4582
Hydraulic 5799
Travis-Hyd 382

These are force figures?
Do we have the distances through which these forces are expected, or measured, to act?

Force is not a conserved quantity. Work is. Do your figures indicate a gain in _work_, or just in force?

Quote from: webby1 on August 07, 2012, 11:48:29 PM
Hey TK,

The TB you play with inspired you to build, why not this.

What is an ampere.

What is the electric force.

The first one can not be answered without the second, not to your standards.

If you can not answer these then why ask others to answer the same style of question.

Build and you will understand.

You are not dumb, you are not stupid, you ARE capable, you MAY answer questions we all have,,, but not if you don't try.

In short to your questions,

When lift pressure is met the lift distance is made by a constant value of input, this is a no brainer, what YOU are not addressing is the conservation of that constant input.  Tar Baby,,

I don't detect an answer to my question. (It was referring to the spreadsheet's numbers anyway.) If there was one, it would look like this: the hydraulic force of xxx Newtons can be exerted over a distance of xxx centimeters. And the Travis Effect force of yyy Newtons can be exerted over a distance of yyy centimeters.
Two simple sentences, four numbers.

Yet you say this:

QuoteWhen lift pressure is met the lift distance is made by a constant value of input, this is a no brainer, what YOU are not addressing is the conservation of that constant input.  Tar Baby,,

and I find this difficult to interpret. Can you explain more clearly please? I really don't think I have to "address" anything, since I'm not making any claims. All I am doing is asking if you've made the proper measurements to draw correct conclusions.

Or do you wish to insult me instead?

Just on casual inspection of the projects I see involving electricity, electric fields and forces,  and electronics on this forum... I suspect I understand the Ampere and the electric field and electric forces better than many. Better than you? I don't know.... I haven't seen any electrical projects of yours. But there are plenty of my electrical projects available for inspection and criticism.

If you want to understand why and what I'm doing with Tar Baby, you are welcome to ask questions in that thread, and I assure you that MY answers to you will be informative. I don't see a real question in your latest post there, though.

Quote
Funny is it not, that you make this claim.

Things are not what Heavisides made it out to be.       

The claim referred to , of course, is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.... and three hundred pages later, that claim has been profoundly confirmed many times over in many different ways. I don't know what that has to do with Oliver Heaviside -- I have simply found that the claims of Rosemary Ainslie are not supported by her own data, much less that of replications like mine. Heaviside wasn't consulted and didn't need to be--- the independent laboratory that she sent her device off to, confirmed that her batteries DO discharge... .just as I did with Tar Baby months ago.

Now, let me ask you again, in a different way: are you claiming that the total work output of your nested cylinders is greater than the total work input, when all input sources are considered, including lifting masses during setup?

(I'm using "work" in its precise technical meaning here: force x distance)

Hello Webby,
Yes - the ability to access each layer air and water separately - moved our control of the process in such a positive direction.

Then when we added Pressure transducers to each - and are able to display water and air levels - it reduced our effort to set up - from a four hour ordeal - to minutes.

We also have prediction modeling - a "what happens if" any change is made to any one point - and warnings if a system capability is exceeded.

We do not blow skirts anymore - unless we forget to open a production valve and run the system.

To All:  It has always been my position to be open and honest - this means sharing lessons learned - troubles - and successes.

Let me be clear about where we are  in our process - Leaks and all:

We currently have a two Z.E.D. system - with both sides overunity by themselves- barely - 750 pounds extra Net - same time and distance - in our three layer set up.

The Recycle of the Exhaust adds to the other side or reduces the input cost another 55% - each side.

Our current problem is a good one - Both sides are overunity - and one side is much better than the other.

The better working Z.E.D. needs less input - this means less exhaust - the other Z.E.D. needs more input - so the 55% is less from the better working Z.E.D - and having the Z.E.Ds tied together - meant a common output pressure. Not anymore - this is the problem we have been working on - and have now solved.

The actual issue "The separate  performance of the two Z.E.D.s" has been painstakingly solved and traced to our shop construction - basically our construction - welding the layers so that they did not match - actually a small amount one tenth of one percent in the outer riser resulted in a 90 psi production difference.

(Or you could look at it as less input to reach the same output value as the other Z.E.D.)

We have solved this problem - we have installed two separate production capture systems...

Having a problem is just an opportunity for some - it is something else for a prognosticator "baiter".

We do not have leaks in our water and air portion of the Z.E.D.s - we did have a drip of production fluid - which was annoying.

@ Webby,
We built ours large enough to be robust - we have a very large range of testing - resolution was important at this stage - actually our 2-5 models were 6 foot diameter and 12 feet tall -

That is a two layer system - laying in the Yard - for sale if someone wants to buy it lol - I will donate the money to JCCA (a small private school). Have a part of History ;-)

Be warned - you need three layers to have robust over unity - 5 and 6 layers are the best numbers of layers.
The two layer model was only 104% efficient upstroke - a simple capture method to use the exhaust will boost that.

Wayne

@Webby1 Just a couple of points. It might be worthwhile to experiment with having all the risers stuck together to asses if there is any advantage/disadvantage. You could also include the pod [or not] in this stuck-together group. Double sided sticky tape would serve the purpose on a temporary basis.
 
The size/length of the pod is an issue that Wayne might help with if you ask him, assuming that he has investigated models of this small size.
   
It might be better, rather than limiting the speed of rise with finger pressure, to have a "ballast weight" on top of the risers consisting of, say, a small container of sand. The weight is then easily adjusted.


You have probably thought of all these things, but then again...
Carry on, and thanks for sharing your great work.

@webby: thank you for this answer. It is close to an answer to my questions. I'm still not quite clear though. Are you saying that the lifting force is increased, but the travel distance is decreased, like a compound gear reduction?

QuoteIf I look at the distance traveled of each riser and pod compared to the distance traveled for the lift, I see, in essence, a compound gear reduction. I have almost 2 inches of pod travel and only 1 inch of lift plus the added distance for 4 of the risers.