Quote from: TinselKoala on August 14, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
So in the one on the left, the water columns would equalize in the new tube and the receiver tube of the 2-tube system. So the water columns would both be at  the height equal to the piston travel, just like at the beginning but in different tubes. Right? (corrected the "half", sorry)

And in the one on the right, the water columns would also equalize between the new tube and the second tube of the 4 tube system?
At the same height of the piston travel? Or would it rise to the same height as in the 2-tube system on the left?

So in the one on the left, the water columns would equalize in the new tube and the receiver tube of the 2-tube system. So the water columns would both be at  the height equal to the piston travel, just like at the beginning but in different tubes. Right? (corrected the "half", sorry)

Right.

And in the one on the right, the water columns would also equalize between the new tube and the second tube of the 4 tube system?

Yes.

At the same height of the piston travel?

Yes.

Or would it rise to the same height as in the 2-tube system on the left?

No.

Regards, Larry
PS: Thanks for taking an interest.

Thank you for explaining, Larry. Sorry about that crossed post above.



So... work, or energy, is force x distance. In LarryC's example, in the first case on the left, we are applying a certain force (the pressure of the 100 lb weight) and we are using that force to move a column of water the length of the piston stroke. Right?

And in the third case on the right, we are applying that same force, and we are using it to move the (essentially) same column of water..... the length of the piston stroke.

We have attained the same pressures in each case... and the work input / work output _in each case_ balances.

But the work input in the case on the left is greater than the work input in the case on the right.

The system on the right neither takes in... NOR RETURNS... the same amount of work as the system on the left in LarryC's illustration, even though both systems are operating at the same "head" pressure. And it will feel different "by hand" because the system on the right only needs a small displacement to get to the full pressure, while the one on the left needs a "softer, longer" push to get to the full pressure.


Congratulations, you have just invented the lever.

I congratulate everyone on a spirited debate, but unfortunately I think the fog remains as thick as ever.

However, I take issue with Wayne's posting #1364.

This one:

QuoteWhat???
Output does not mean we take it out of the system.... are you playing with me lol
I will try one more time.
OUR PRODUCTION - is 28-30
Our INTERNAL CONSUMPTION is 15-18
With A NET of 12-15

Specifically concerning our "little model" - A single Zed needs 6-7 inches and it is a half stroke - a double Zed s requires 15-18
and one Zed produces 14-15, and the double produces 28-30
A cycle is One zed at the bottom of the stroke - the other at the top starting - and then returning to the same spot.
all of the presures inside The Zed return to the starting posistion.

@All
I meet with my engineers and I played "Semous tennis" with them from 4:30 -10:40
They gave me the current optimized model and its spreadsheets - and I threw my hands up and dramatically said:

"This is all bunk - how can you tell me with physics - that you have 800percent efficiency when physics says it cannot be done!!!! "You can not prove with physics that which can not be done in physics!!!"

Then I ignored the answer as they moved to the input and output and said "Impossible!!! Can't be done and I stomped my foot!!!"

And they turned and pointed at the Zed ten feet away and started to say just look......I said "trickery - you have hidden some secret compartment that with electro magnets .....helium.. something...some-thin pumps inside the plumbing....."

I continued "What about the FIRST LAW!!!!" they started to explain that we were not thermal - and that we have excess - black box - I interrupted ..... "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM? (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif) ??"

They started back at the Physics - and I shouted "ALREADY DISCOUNTED!"

They turned to explain the rational mind needed to realize we had achieved what is impossible.. I shouted "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM!!!!!!!!"

"You Are playing Games, Stonewalling, avoiding the fact - DO YOU CREATE ENERGY? (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif) ??"

One engineer said.... Yes... I Said Calmly - "no we don't......" he turned to the black box - Zed, the models, the physics, ...but these say we do...

I said "We don't - you have not yet fully explained where the energy comes from - the question we have to answer is NOT does it work - no one really cares about that  - they really want you to explain how you appear to create energy from nothing."

He said - we put nothing in and get power out - that is energy creation - I said "What are you not counting - that is inside the box even if you don't put it in..."

Another engineer said "Gravity - the system does not work without it, increasing the gravity would make it work better,"I interrupted "But gravity is a conservative field.... "

He said, "Our system turns up the effect of gravity" - another engineer said "you can't turn gravity off and on" he responded - "we don't we increase the effect of gravity with the reuse of the same displacement thru each layer - and then we relax... it is a ten to three exchange."

I said - "then account for it - show it, We have to educate the people - they do not want to know it works - they won't believe it, they won't listen until you can explain where the energy comes from" - one engineer chimed in - isn't that what Mark and Jim's team are going to do?

I said "Yes - but you need to have a working plausible - verifiable theory before they get here....The machine is good, the physics are good, the energy is real - now is the time to educate the world on what is missing in our texts."

Then I drew the system separated - and I gave a value to each separate mass (displacement) and then I combined them - and said - the only  thing that changed - is the mass was reduced by the number of layers - and we predict in the single layer based off that mass - you should be able to explain how recounting the same mass - at the same time - is pulling from the same field multiple times - our output increases directly proportional to the "presumed" mass repeatedly - even though it is only one mass for all layers.

I have excellent engineers:
Please remember - I never told them how it works or how to model, or how to optimize - that is their job - I gave them the working model and asked them to make it optimized and reliable  - on that same note.......
They had all the same skepticism as the rest of you - and the same excitement and joy once they understood..
They are excellent at their Job.

A point on our current model - it is barely overunity - I call it the little model - not due to its size our its output - but from its optimization - it barely works - We overcome 9 real losses to operate.
I built it - the minimum size I knew how. It cost a lot of money - I was under the idea that seeing was believing - that does not work - for the "Educated" they must know how.

It is too important to stand on a box and insist that people believe... they have to see the relationship.

Yes it does work - it is Overunity - unless you account for the gravity - and then you understand that it is not energy creation - even though we get energy from the Black Box.

At some point the "minds" will understand that we have a 10-3 system - our layering turns up the effect of gravity and then we relax to normal gravity - that is where our differential .....which does work.... and supplies our energy - comes from.

TK, we are not trying to teach you that bicycles can fly - but we are trying to teach you to "see" energy - that you can not "see"............I understand how difficult that is...Your term "virtual" was very clever.

The virtual water - in your wet hands - is compounded in the same space over and over as we add layers - our four layer system has virtually four cups of water in nearly the same space as your one cup demonstration...

I am glad you looked... I hope you begin to see.. I would love for you to know - your own search and hope was not in vain.

This is not about Wayne Travis - but about the future and our generations - it is very important you do not throw the baby away with the bath water because the virtual is hard to "See".

Thank you.

Wayne Travis

I was going to abbreviate the quote but decided to leave the whole thing in to emphasize the point.  What is is?  Some imaginary dialog with engineers plucked from an Ironman script?  These fantasy scenes with "stumped engineers on a mission to save the world driven by their leader" do not advance the discussion by a singe iota.

I have been involved in engineering in one way or the the other for 25 years and what Wayne is describing in his fantasy scene is as far removed from the reality of working with engineers as it can get.  That posting is just pablum mixed with Soma to make the hard core believers comfortably numb again.  It's an attempt at social engineering.

We have to stick with reality.

MileHigh

While we digest the 'laws of levers' TK has so aptly drawn attention to, which incidentally are used in hydraulic presses !

BTW, the air gaps in the systems Larry showed could be replaced with plain water - we are only interested in the net mass of water lifted a certain height - how much Work that took to raise its PE - a larger mass depressing the piston will do the Work quicker in all cases - IOW's the power Input is greater but the Work Done joules of energy doesn't change.

As a matter of interest, here is a 'Hyperphysics' page I found when MH was discussing a few pages back the projected output of the machine & comparing it to hot water cylinders.

In this case it shows the energy requirement [Work Done] to lift a mass of water giving it head & Energy of Position v's the energy requirement to raise the temperature of a mass of water.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/egex2.html

The next two are Pascals Principle [scroll down to use the calculator & see how a hydraulic press works] & Hydrostatic Pressure [also scroll down to use the calculator].

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html

Sorry MH,
You waste so much of my time.............. you don't know what you are talking about - again.
Wayne