Quote from: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 05:28:11 PM
Uh-oh. Looks like somebody has an even better buoyancy drive than MrWayne. Quieter, smaller, and already making lots of electrical energy. And his explanation is simple enough that even Koalas can understand it.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2728359.shtml?cat=565

Are you serious? How many time does that concept have to fail, before it is put to rest.

Quote from: mondrasek on August 15, 2012, 09:18:27 AM

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 05:27:56 AM

Well, OK, then.... I guess we all agree that the Work, or equivalently the Energy... of the three systems LarryC presented are not the same and there isn't any magic happening. The fact that the "head pressures" are logically the same in all three cases is the Red Herring of the week. Pressure is not energy, it is not work, it is NOT a conserved quantity.

So I am afraid I don't get the point. Reduced work IN for the same pressure -- and reduced work OUT -- , with no other considerations deemed important?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTSMyKdKDR0

Well I guess I assume too much if I think that Larry's post made a clear point.  It is clear to me probably only because of all the diagrams and calcs I've done on this system.

Let me try to explain a different way:

First, the diagrams that Larry showed are only a good explanation for the INPUT side of the ZED work analysis.

The OUTPUT side of a ZED is not drawn at all.  But please consider that the analysis of the Output system needs for you to consider the amount of buoyant force that can be produced by a given Head of water.  And then the distance that this buoyant force can work over (stroke) to create the Output work for comparison with the Input work.

It is agreed that the Input work of the single U system (left side) that Larry illustrated in post #1376 is greater (edited) than the Input work of the 3U system (right side).  However, the water Head pressure created and therefore the buoyant force *potential* of the two systems are the same.  Stroke height potential is not equal, just the buoyant force potential.

In the classical Archimedes float setup or the single U system it is known that the Input work only produces (at most) an equal and opposite Output buoyancy force potential.  I believe this is the explanation why a buoyancy device cannot be OU.  So Work In = Work Out.

But in the 3U system we have now reduced the Input work to achieve the *same* Output buoyancy force potential as the classical examples.  So Work In < Work Out is a possibility.  The next step would be to find a way to capture the Work Output while in this unbalanced condition?

M.

Hi Mondrasek ..

Since TK hasn't specifically replied to your explanations I will take the liberty.

First, before I go there, TK had a problem to test the relative pressures in the multi-tubes experiment [re Larry's spreadsheet], to see if indeed you guys were or were not correct about the multi-tubes having the same head [i.e. pressure] as the standard much higher vertical water depth single U tube that demonstrated equal Input_Output energy.

I gave TK a few quick potential methods to test the pressures - since sleeping on it two more rather obvious methods have come to mind - the first is a small stand alone mechanical dial pressure gauge dropped into the bottom of each U set in series [these are just spring loaded dials that register pressure] - then you can read the pressures at each stage for comparison.

The second came to mind with a bit more lateral thinking [excuse the pun] - if a hole is pierced in a tank of water the water will exit horizontally under pressure - the velocity of the water exiting will be the same velocity as water falling vertically from the meniscus to the hole, at the hole - this relationship is due to Pascal's law - therefore this is a 'one_shot' method of testing your theory of same head & pressure for all 3 systems - it means attaching a stop  that you turn on & off to test the relative horizontal distance each stream from each stage achieves compared to the 7 foot head single U tube.

..............................................

Now, onto your post & I'll keep it brief.

I believe you are erroneous in your assumptions about the 3 systems having the same buoyancy force potential & this stems from a wrong belief that all 3 systems have the same pressure head - they don't, head is a function of height all else being equal.

1. the systems you cite are open to air systems on the right side.

2. air can be compressed - when it is done so it acts as a spring storing PE - is has the capability to give back energy in equal amounts of KE, less losses. EDIT: as per a toy pressurized pump water cannon.

3. clearly for air to be compressed & then give back KE to water Work must be done on the air - this work is equal to the stored PE in the compressed air.

..............................................

General Comments & Observations:

It occurred to me last night that after having viewed Dennis's excellent pdk drawings that the ZED system [when taken in context of Larry's & your's defence of the multi_tubes systems] that I was recognizing an underlying theme I'd seen before I thought.

That was that Wayne appears to have all the essential elements of a 'force pump' & that it is cobbled with a buoyancy system.

I attach a couple of pics from an old text book of mine that I scanned today - they show an ordinary lift pump & the compressed air augmented force pump - notes in margins etc are previous reminders to myself over something at the time.

Note that physics as we now understand it says that the Work done Input [the Effort] to raise the water [by lift or force method] equals the Output energy [the Load], less friction losses.

I think TK's continued call for good data for a complete single ZED cycle analysis of claims is even more important now than ever.

I think it important to test the Larry tube theory of equal head gives rise to equal buoyancy force potential [Output] for reduced Input with multi-tubes, because it is a first principle for understanding the basis & accuracy of the ZED claims.

I do hope we skeptics can be proved wrong because we'd all be winners in the end after the dust had settled & the jaws closed.

Best -fletcher

Quote from: see3d on August 15, 2012, 04:27:25 PM
Hi All,

I just finished uploading 5 short animations (about 35 seconds each), to my public ZED dropbox.  They are about 3.8 MB each.  A low resolution video can be seen in your browser, but to get a good look, you will have to download them to your machine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6vdnbk72ywyckns/zB501rT78P

One shows a zero layer system as a reference.  The other four are for the 1 layer system.  They go along with the simulator PDF description.

I have presented the animations that I thought would be helpful in understanding the simulation.  However, my simulator program is built modular enough that I can change any dimension, add or remove views, do multiple simulations at once, show different internal parameters on the graph, or list different parameters in the table.  I am open to requests for additional views that you think would improve the understanding of how this works.

I can also dial in a simulation for a physical model that someone else has built to compare simulation to real world.  I currently only have 1 layer simulated until it is verified before adding additional layers.  How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

One private comment I had questioned if because I am not showing an over unity case on 1 layer, does that mean that the ZED can not work?
No, what have done so far does not rule out a working ZED because:

1. My simulation has not been verified to accurately reflect the real world
2. The test case geometry presented is far from an optimum configuration
3. I must include the middle layers to see the contribution for each added one to the overall efficiency.

I plan on making this a friendly and robust process.  Skeptics are welcome to contribute to this effort.

As I see the situation:

- We have a concept (the Travis effect) which seems to describe a OU machine.
- Theoretical considerations (repeatedly presented by Mr. Travis and followers) seem to support the OU claim.
- Some experiments, some simulations and some calculations seem to support the OU claim.

On the other hand:

- The Travis effect is difficult to describe.
- The theoretical arguments may be flawed (because they do not take the whole energy flow into consideration).
- The experiments, the simulations and the calculations may be flawed (because they do not take the whole energy flow into consideration).

A way out of the endless discussion:

- Build a machine that works in the sense that it puts out "useful net energy" over a longer period of time.
- This would prove the concept empirically and would encourage "real scientists" (who have a deep understanding of hydraulics and physics) to have a closer look.

What I suspect:

- There is no working machine. (At least no proof of a working machine has been presented or reported by witnesses.)
- There seems to exist a machine (may be even several) but it is not self running and does not prove the concept in the trivial sense that "useful net energy" is put out for a longer period.

Greetings, Conrad

(Sorry, I repeat myself, but the discussion has become so convoluted, that I again wanted to present a "status check".)

@see3d

Thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it.

(But it is cruel torture that you chose Imperial units rather than SI. I had to look up and check that water has a density of 0.036 pounds per cubic inch.)

It is interesting that the riser displaces a variable amount of water without itself varying in volume, because you are able to raise the water level around it by keeping it locked as you press up the piston from below. This variable volume of displacement is what varies the riser's buoyancy of course; the pressure of the water... its "head"... only affects buoyancy because it raises the water level around the riser. This of course depends on the volume of the water being pushed up by the piston, not its pressure. The addition of the partially airfilled spaces between the walls allows some of the input work to be stored in compression of the air pockets as the water level is pushed up by the piston, before the riser is allowed to rise.  It appears to me that the "buoyant force potential" depends on the water 'head' pressure, only in so far as this pressure changes the effective riser volume (the underwater volume) by raising the water between the walls by compressing the air pockets while the riser itself is locked. The water pressure raises the water around the riser; it's the increased water displacement that increases the buoyancy, not the water pressure per se.
The Inverted TE effect that I showed in my first video would then appear to obtain in the locked riser case. The total downward force that must be offset by the piston to push up includes the weight of the displaced water, so it increases as the water level rises around the locked riser.

The total work output is less than the total work input, when output work is considered to be the lifting of the weight on top of the riser. How could this be, if you are neglecting losses in your sim? It is because some of the input work is stored in the compression of the air pockets and/or the lifted water in the walls,  and is still "stuck" in there at the top of the cycle; this stored work is returned during the second half of the cycle as a necessary part of bringing all levels back to their original state. In other words, some of the input work is done on internal parts of the system, raising and lowering them; this work balances (neglecting heat losses due to the compression and expansion of the air pockets). The remainder of the work goes into lifting the external weight, and this work too is returned as the system goes through the second half of the cycle.

It is as if you are pushing up on a mass through a compression spring. You push up with a certain force, the spring compresses but the load mass doesn't move so you press up harder. Finally it does but it goes up a distance less than you have pushed up, because the spring has taken up some of the distance travelled by your input force. If you look at the lifted weight x distance, it appears that the work out is less than the work in, by the amount stored in the spring's compression. So the total work still balances, as it should.

I think.... I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've gone wrong somewhere in my understanding.

I have to admit... that I see nothing particularly remarkable happening in your sim; if any of the work from either the external lift or internal compression/lift is taken away and used elsewhere, the system cannot reset to the initial state without more input to balance the work taken out. Certainly I see nothing that would indicate that there is a "three layer system that is clearly overunity itself' (as MrWayne has said exists somewhere) being modelled-- and I know that was not (quite) your intent.

But...

If you had the exact dimensions and masses of MrWayne's simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity itself, would you be able to put those values into your sim and show us exactly how it works out to be OU?

OK, tear me up.
--TK

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 16, 2012, 07:46:55 AM
@see3d

Thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it.

...The total work output is less than the total work input, when output work is considered to be the lifting of the weight on top of the riser. How could this be, if you are neglecting losses in your sim? It is because some of the input work is stored in the compression of the air pockets and/or the lifted water in the walls,  and is still "stuck" in there at the top of the cycle; this stored work is returned during the second half of the cycle as a necessary part of bringing all levels back to their original state. In other words, some of the input work is done on internal parts of the system, raising and lowering them; this work balances (neglecting heat losses due to the compression and expansion of the air pockets). The remainder of the work goes into lifting the external weight, and this work too is returned as the system goes through the second half of the cycle.

It is as if you are pushing up on a mass through a compression spring. You push up with a certain force, the spring compresses but the load mass doesn't move so you press up harder. Finally it does but it goes up a distance less than you have pushed up, because the spring has taken up some of the distance travelled by your input force. If you look at the lifted weight x distance, it appears that the work out is less than the work in, by the amount stored in the spring's compression. So the total work still balances, as it should.

...But...

If you had the exact dimensions and masses of MrWayne's simple threelayer system that is clearly overunity itself, would you be able to put those values into your sim and show us exactly how it works out to be OU?

TK,

Thank you for taking a close look at my partial sim model.  Yes, you understand what it is showing for a single layer.  I understood that all the input energy was conserved in the internal air and water head pressures.  From a thermodynamic point of view (and I am no expert in this), even the heat of compressing the air is given back.  If it is dispersed into the surroundings, it will be reclaimed from the surroundings.  Since this is a static model, everything should be conserved except for static friction.

My intent is to understand the ZED from the ground up, not to prove anything one way or the other.  To start with the idea that it does or does not work is to be biased.  To be biased is to have cloudy vision.  I have suspended belief and disbelief from the start of my investigation for this reason.  Proof can only come from experiment, not theory.  Theory guides the design of the best experiments.

However, what I need is a critical look at the conceptual model of forces on which I based my simulation program.  This is not my area of expertise, and I am not sure I have it right in all the fine details.  It is not the easiest thing for me to figure out.

To your question about modeling Wayne's machine -- Yes, that is my plan after verification that a one, two, and three layer model is mathematically consistent and conforms to known principles of physics.  Comparing the simulated output to real machine measurements is critical for believability of the simulator.  Wayne's three layer machine is the most instrumented machine to date and is the current gold standard.  However, that does not preclude modeling and measuring other independent builds that can be translated into the geometry limitations of my simplified simulated model.

I am just now working on the mathematical relationships for the middle layers.  I think I have a handle on that now.  I plan on working closely with Wayne to model what he has now and proposes as the best configuration.  I approach my work with respect for all the hard work done by Wayne and his engineers.

A critical review of my work as it is now and as it proceeds through a logical progression will be educational for me and everyone else who cares about discovery of scientific truth.