Quote from: fletcher on August 22, 2012, 05:18:42 PM
No one in the know seems to want to answer your question or it's been missed - I'll give some observations/comments for you to consider - I'm not sure whether you are talking about Webby's build or a single layer ZED build - I'll assume you mean a generic single layer ZED that see3d is simulating, & so I'll relate these comments to his simulation diagrams which you can find by downloading his pdf a few pages back.

If you start with the proposition that the ZED unit is at equilibrium [all forces are equalized] & that the riser is NOT latched, & that the system is not pressurized, then the volume density of the riser dictates where the water levels are up the side of the riser - incidentally, for an unpressurized system this will be the position of least Potential Energy.

Assuming that the riser is made of dense & strong material to reduce deformation then it is likely to be hollow with thin walls - the "Floatation Law" will decide how high the riser would be in relation to the surface [or apparent surface] of the water.

1. If the riser volume density is greater than the same volume of water then it will sink to the bottom.

N.B. there is still an buoyancy force so its apparent weight will still be significant - there will be no upthrust net force.

2. If the riser volume density is equal to the same volume of water then it will be neutrally buoyant [the same as having the same packet of water instead of the riser volume].

3. If the riser volume density is less that the same volume of water then it will rise in relation to the water surface level.

N.B.1. If the riser volume density is very low it would float above a water level with most of it visible above the water line - if its volume density is medium perhaps only 1/3 to a 1/2 etc would be visible - if its volume density is rather high but still less than water not much would be visible above the water line, like an iceberg.

N.B.2. The buoyancy force [using Archimedes examples] is the inverse of the gravitational force of the same volume of water - if the riser had no mass the upthrust force would be equal & opposite to the force of gravity acting on the same volume of water - then you subtract from the buoyancy force the gravity force acting on the actual mass of the riser [this is the apparent weight] - you are left with a NET upthrust force - this upthrust force is inverse & proportional to the riser density/mass, therefore more apparent weight means reduced upthrust force to use to do Work.

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

What this means in the single layer ZED is that we don't have contiguous water surface levels - there is water rising up the sides of the riser.

We can deduce that the riser is at equilibrium, not under pressure, & that it has a medium buoyancy & therefore a medium upthrust capability.

Change the materials of the riser to change the mass & all those relationship reach a new equilibrium & Work capability, including water levels.

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

Where it becomes important in the ZED is because it is purportedly not a true Archimedes buoyancy system - so what we see when the ZED is at the START of a cycle [i.e. in equilibrium & position of least PE] is water pressure levels & head developed - the head is from the meniscus of the outside water column adjacent the pod wall & open to ambient air.

The water pressure increases with depth from that datum [which moves upwards when the cycle is started & the piston does Work on the system] - the important bit is that water pressure has no shearing moment, IOW's, it acts at right angles to any & all surfaces.

So there will be an upward force [water pressure] on the underside of the riser [this pressure cum force is derived by apparent depth from head height] - there will be a greater water pressure cum force acting downwards vertically on the piston head, also derived from apparent water depth - N.B. there is no normal Archimedes water volume displacement to create this head depth but the pressures/force 'feel' & act as though there was. EDIT: i.e. the pressures developed mean that the piston has to do Work as though it were lifting an equivalent mass of water.

Remembering that as the piston does Work [expends energy] on the system the water head rises & since the riser is latched & released when the upthrust force is optimized, it will move upwards generating a useable force to do Work - then the system enters the second stage of the cycle & returns to equilibrium & position of least PE, to start over.

That's my take & hope it helps.

P.S. - the traditional science view says that the Work Done/Energy Input on the piston, which in turn pressurizes the air pocket & raisers the H2 water level, which creates the head [when the riser is in locked down mode], is the same Work Done/Energy as the riser upthrust capability in Work/Energy Output, less system losses of energy.

So we are trying to identify where the anomaly is that allows apparent OU if measurements are correct as reported by Mr Wayne - it would seem that it might be contained in the pneumatic portion of the system somehow, but then that fly's in the face of some contributors comments about different density fluids [non compressible] showing the same potentials which would seem to rule out pneumatic contribution as the cause.

The upshot being that more energy out than in, empirically proven, would prove that gravity [from which buoyancy is a considered a  downstream effect] is not conservative & that the laws of thermodynamics would need amendment IF no environmental energy entered the system - this would be a game changer at so many levels that its importance couldn't be underestimated.

I am a little overwhelmed at the quality of this response -
So let me say a few things that popped in my head when trying to follow it.

The Neutral buoyancy question (for the riser) - normally - less weight means more output - that is in a traditional system - but our is Non- linear.

This means - a certain amount of weight - at the right range of the polynominal - is a great advantage - cheap to lift and valuable to sink - cost reduction in both directions. Loss of ideal output - but a great reduction in the cost of a less than ideal output.

The density of the water is also important - yet it is not the "expansion of the air"  where we operate the piston - or pull power out of the system - this is a mistaken understanding of our operation. - at the end of the up stroke - all the air is still compressed to the highest point - which is the same as the precharge compressed value - only we raised the height of the water below the pod to stroke - inch for inch - after precharge.
(side note - the air does expand - but while we are lowering - not rising - and not all the way - just until the weight of the risers equalize with the head).

We use the heavy density "water" to pressurize the lighter density air - and when the equilibrium of the load is met - we maintain this equilibrium to stroke.

The lighter density is what pushes up - if you could measure the density of the air - you would see that the force applied to the riser is minus the value of that density - it would be easy to measure in a mercury water set up.

Mercury More density) could replace the water, and Water could replace the Air (less density) and the system would work much better - not thirteen times better -  because water has more density than air (twelve times better would be a safe bet).

A mercury water system would not have expansion and allow for extreme control of the water levels during operation.

I hope this helps - it is important to understand that this system is a pressure diffirential system - casued by gravitys effect on density - the seperating walls redistribute where the diffirential is focused.
The mass "reuse" is what causes the ZED to be Over Unity ....TK's Virtual Mass is the begining of the real understanding.
It also answers where the Energy Comes from - hope to see you all their!

Wayne

Quote from: neptune on August 22, 2012, 12:55:31 PM
@Webby1.Can i ask you a few questions please.
1. I suppose you have thought of this, but is the piston in the feed tube neutrally buoyant? If not, and it tends to float, you are wasting energy sinking it.


2. Could you give your best rough estimate of how many cycles per minute are possible in a Zed of the size you built?


3. Wayne has said that in proposed very large machines he proposes to use a crankshaft. I, and no doubt others have thought of using a crankshaft in a small model.In using a crankshaft, a flywheel is desirable to carry the crank over the dead centres.  If the crankshaft turns slowly, as it must, we need to gear up the flywheel to run at reasonable RPM, to preclude the need for a large heavy flywheel.
My question is this. From your observations, would you say that the pause at top dead centre and bottom dead centre can be short enough to avoid stopping the crankshaft at those points?


If I am thinking right, and we use a crankshaft, then it would be possible to operate the piston on your feed tube by a separate crank on the same crankshaft, having a larger "throw" than the crank connected to the ZED.

The rpm is pretty slow - 3.7 stroke per minute on our system.

One of my engineers wants to use a crankshaft -
I "flat top" my output - but with a crankshaft you can charge to ideal and capture.
The value - while the ideal decreases during stroke (this is how they get overunity out of  a single ZED).

So the crankshaft is better use of the size of the machine - but making it a little bit bigger and flat topping is easy to capture.

Wayne

Hey TK,
My very first pod was a glass mason jar - -- it was heavy and since the pod floats due to direct discplacement - a lighter pod turned out to be the best.

But you can measure the additive characteristics - the pod and your first riser pretty simply.

The Pod will "virtually" be a mass displacement for each layer after that.

If you account for all the virtual mass - in each successive layer - all the buoyancy - compared to Archimedes' displacement -will be accounted for.

Have fun!

Wayne

Quote from: johnny874 on August 22, 2012, 08:05:29 PM
tk,
didn't you tell me the engineering books you know of say these things can't work ?
yep, have to believe your posts to me were personal.

No, Jim, what I _suggested_ to you is that you take a look at one particular engineering textbook , the fundamental course in engineering mechanics, Beer and Johnston's "Statics and Dynamics" ... one that is used by many colleges of engineering, in its 9th edition, 2010, and I gave you the website for the Student Edition where you have access to just about the entire text. Did you look?
And I also think I reminded you and everyone else that violating the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics is Big News, not some matter for internet forum chitchat and tinkering. If... that is... it is actually happening. Is that what you are referring to?

Yah, that's pretty personal, I guess.

Quote from: mrwayne on August 22, 2012, 09:59:14 PM
Hey TK,
My very first pod was a glass mason jar - -- it was heavy and since the pod floats due to direct discplacement - a lighter pod turned out to be the best.

But you can measure the additive characteristics - the pod and your first riser pretty simply.

The Pod will "virtually" be a mass displacement for each layer after that.

If you account for all the virtual mass - in each successive layer - all the buoyancy - compared to Archimedes' displacement -will be accounted for.

Have fun!

Wayne

Thanks, it is already fun. I'm just looking at the geometry right now and making several variants. Drinking lots of instant coffee ! This that I showed above will just be a single layer, if I understand the term. Pod, riser 1, ringwall, outer chamber wall. I made it so that riser2 can go, I hope, over the inner parts and between the ringwall and the outer chamber wall, making a 2 layer system. I haven't been able to find the right jar for riser2 yet though.

You think I am just clowning around, but I think that your Zed system -- or rather my variant of it, with the permanently sunken pod -- might actually work, to increase the air pressure in the input reservoir of my PerPump and drive the head even higher.... than the 8 1/4 measured inches it can already pump above the base of the input cup. Maybe. In my dreams, anyway.

Some more irrelevant irreverent video for your amusement: measuring the pressure head of the Fountain of Heron perpetual self-powered water pump, with several variants tested. You can already see one effect of the precharged TinselZed variant: the "gulping" that is caused by the variation in the internal water levels when I provide some back pressure as I make the head height measurement on that system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0P50ra2go