Quote from: fletcher on September 11, 2012, 11:37:46 PM
Hi TK .. knock yourself out - I'd like to see your breakout of his spreadsheet - I don't have time today.

P.S. for those wondering - you can tun the left hand tank raised up on its side & make it very wide & not very tall [like a shallow sea] - that will reduce the PE input requirement.

Thanks, that did the trick, opens fine for me now. I'll have to spend some time looking at it.

Your P.S. is not obvious to me... I'm going to have to think about that one too.
In order to get all the water over to the other side you still have to do the same total lift -I think- because the final liquid level in the second tank doesn't depend on the shape of the first tank at all, and you still have to raise all the liquid in the first tank above, or incrementally above, the level in the second tank as the water is transferred.

Pivot the tank 90 degs on the way up so the bottom of the tank is level [just above] with the top of the tank to be filled.

I'm pretty sure it requires less work than lifting a vertically orientated tank - it just reduces the fall gradient & KE of flowing water component thus less PE of position required [more efficient] - doesn't make it OU though.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on September 12, 2012, 01:19:18 AM
When doing calculations, it is important to follow the natural sequence, we can not build the second floor before the ground floor is completed to support the second floor. In you calculation on line 48 to 61 where you calculate the stroke
1.. Displacement water, your height should be the height of the top of the water (top of precharge or head),
2.. If you want to inject at 0.1mtr, that you need to bring the pressure of the water height into the picture (that is the head), which is the same as step 1

Goeie morgen Michel,
wat een verassing. Ik woon in nederlandse Noord Brabant region. Wereld is klein. 

Hi all,
Michel seems to be my regional neighbour...

Now to the point.
TK the spreadsheet is done via Google Docs and exported to a xlsx file. But this formum does not accept such extension so I changed it to xls and probably your program expected different content for an xls extension. Just rename it to xlsx and it should do it.
BTW the post editor is horrible, inserting empty lines and if it does not accept certain file extension it will tell you AFTER you post it. On clicking back you post text is lost, I had to write in text again couple of times brrr.

As you can see I keep pod completely submersed from precharge to end of stroke. This allow easy calucaltion of work done.

About work spent:
>>>1.. Displacement water, your height should be the height of the top of the water (top of precharge or head),
>>>2.. If you want to inject at 0.1mtr, that you need to bring the pressure of the water height into the picture (that is the head), which is the same as step 1
Water is injected always at bottom. Each iteration inserts a pocket of water. It calculates how much work is needed to insert the new pocket + how much to lift existing waters. I think I'm starting to see your point. Currently each iteration (start weight column) is based on weight of water injected while it should based on water height determined by the previous inserted pockets. We know geometry so the height can be calculated.  I'll adapt spreadsheet as time allows. I'm glad I posted it otherwise I would never know.
I can hear skeptics rejoicing that there is a bug in calculation. What if I correct it and it is still OU?

respect,
Marcel

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
Didn't Wildew, fletcher and I already do this problem? Your splitting things up into "left cylinder" is again disingenuous, because the work done is actually on the water in the right cylinder as its level rises. You _could_ view the lifting of the water in the first cylinder as being "for free" since the PE doesn't change, due to the volume (mass) changing as the height is increased. However this is mistaken. You are increasing the total PE of the entire system when you lift, but it is hidden if you only consider the "left cylinder".  The siphon, once primed, is just like the underslung tube in its working and effect. The work you get out when you lower the left cylinder and let water run into it through the siphon must be replaced by raising the left cylinder to get things back to the start point.

Exactly what I have been saying (or trying to say) for the past several posts.  No energy is gained or lost through one complete cycle, right?

Please do not try to equate this simple siphon setup to the ZED.  It has nothing to do with the complete ZED system.  It is only being used to show how the water input and removal at the fill tube can be considered an energy neutral cycle for simple ideal case analysis.  It in no way involves the ZED Pod/Risers where ZED system output is supposed to be measured.

M.

OK , Its my turn to play the village idiot again, by asking the questions to which I don`t know the answer, and I would wager my last dime that I am not alone.


What, exactly, is the definition of IDEAL LIFT.


What exactly is meant by the Standard Model, does this mean a raised reservoir feeding a standard hydraulic ram in a vertical position?


Thanks in advance, neptune.