Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2012, 09:13:00 PM
Am I making sense to you?   To me you seem to be saying that if the 4-riser requires two seconds to do a cycle but the Archimedes requires five seconds to do the equivalent cycle then the 4-riser is "more powerful."  But if the total cycle time for the two methods is ten seconds and they both do the same lifting job then the average power for the whole cycle is the same for the two versions and nothing remarkable is taking place.

Am I making sense to you?  LOL
Let's see, if the 4-riser is 2 seconds for a half cycle and Archimedes is 5 seconds for a half cycle, so the total cycle for the 4-Riser is 4 seconds and the total cycle for the Archimedes is 10 seconds. Where did you come up with the both being 10 seconds, liar? .
   

LarryC:

You have got to be kidding calling me a liar.  If you got what I said it really doesn't matter if the cycle time for the Archimedes system is different from the 4-Riser system.  To make your life simple you can look at the energy per cycle in both cases.

If one system does a full cycle faster than the other system you can address that issue later.  The thing to do is focus on the energy per cycle for each system.

I don't even know what the cycle times are for the two systems.

MileHigh

To the flock:

I am going to go out on a limb and make some "forward looking statements."

My gut feel is that I discovered the root explanation behind "a process of reduced Input energy which gives rise to a larger Output energy."  It's all explained in my previous postings.  You are looking at start pressure and end pressure for regular Archimedes and "Travis Effect" setups.  You are looking at how much water you need to use for each setup.

What you see is that the numbers are apparently showing you that you can do the lifting cycle with less energy with the "Travis effect" because you use less water and the start and end pressures are comparable to the standard Archimedes setup.

What you now know is that there is an error in the start and ending pressure calculations.  They are much higher for the "Travis effect" than you thought and when you calculate the energy needed to lift a weight for the Archimedes and the "Travis effect" setups they are approximately the same.

I think the other thing that you learned is that it's not really difficult to make energy calculations.  If you know the number of cubic inches of water that you are using and the required PSI you have all the tools that you need to calculate energy in inch-pounds.  The only "trick" is that when you are lifting a weight you can split the energy calculation into two separate parts and then add them together.  One part is the energy to lift the weight itself, and that's almost trivial.  And the other part is to overcome the head pressure, and if that goes up like a linear ramp as you pump cubic inches of water in, then that's trivial also.

Note that for those of you that have done spreadsheets, they are just a few simple steps away from becoming energy-based and in the "proper language."  The language that you have been using over the past 88 pages to evaluate these systems is frankly nonsensical.

So the message here is that if I am on track and this is resonating with some of you, then it's time to start thinking outside of the "Travis box" and speak up for yourselves.  I know that there is a peer-pressure phenomenon and it's very strong.  It can be stifling.  Just think for yourselves and you will be fine.  This is a place where you are supposed to be open-minded to all ideas.

MileHigh

Mondrasek ..

Has anyone made an animation of one ZED in operation thru one cycle ? If they have perhaps they could share it again ?

See3d mentioned using a sim of some sort to support his case, to be presented in a few days.

Quote from: microcontroller on August 13, 2012, 12:31:09 AM
Please go.
I will too pay you.

Shipping doesn't seem right.
We need somebody on the spot.

Thanks... but.....

Work in, versus work out.

I would really like to see the answers to some of the simple questions that are being asked, before I make any travel plans.
I'm not much of a "people" person. I get along much better with dogs and machines than I do with people, as you can probably tell. I've been known to get up and walk out of meetings when I feel that I'm being snowed or talked down to or being subjected to inordinate obfuscation. I don't want to make anyone look bad, least of all me, and I don't want to embarrass myself or anyone else who is acting in good faith. So let's see if we can get any answers in the form of work in versus work out, before we pack me up in a box and ship me off to Oklahoma with a pressure gauge, a tape measure, and a DMM.

Time is money, and none of us have all that much of either one to be tossing them about in the wind.

Plus, isn't there a report from Mark Dansie coming soon? I have some confidence in him (not 100 percent... the only reason I even know who my daddy is, was that my momma told me so....)