Quote from: wildew on September 21, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
I look at it this way ( likely wrong ) If your input container was sized so that 74 grams of water was 1mm deep and you lifted the entire container 10mm - yeah I know, adhesion would make this impossible - and the entire 74 grams of water were to flow into the input tube - how much work did you do?

The head changed by 10mm - the same volume of fluid transferred - and the load lifted ?

@wildew

I think this is something myself, MT and Fletcher have being tryinf to think about. Take a look back at:
  Fletcher: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg335936/#msg335936
  MT: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg336027/#msg336027
  Fletcher: http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg336071/#msg336071

What I found was this:
  http://mathdl.maa.org/images/cms_upload/rogers01010340574.pdf

One of things it notes with regards to work done in filling a tank from the bottom is:

QuoteIt is interesting to note that this argument not only highlights how the answer is independent of r, but can be modified to show that the answer is independent of the shape of the cross section of the filler pipe.

What I get from this is that it doesn't seem to matter how you're setup to get the water in to the tank, the work required is the same. Which sort of makes sense, looking at Fletchers work, if you have a container with 74 grams of water 1mm high, all 74grams have to be lifted by the 10mm to fill the tank. However, looking at it simply incrementally, if the container is 10 mm tall, 7.4 grams must be lifted 1mm, 7.4 grams must be lifted 2mm, 7.4 grams ..... must be lifted 10mm. I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.

Also if the container is lower than te tank to start with, you have to do all the work to get the water into the tank, but gravity kindly helps out to get it all back in to the container. Similarly, if it is at the same level, gravity will do the first half of the work and you have to do the rest and vice-versa on the way out. And finally, if the container is above the tank, gravity will do all the work to start with, but you have to do the work to get it out. So it doesn't even really mater where the container is relative to the tank.

Also just to note, I was looking at all the examples on various web sites on how to calculate work for filling/emptying a tank from the top (there's a lot more examples that way!), and at first sight it seems that filling/emptying a tank from the top is the better way to go as you don't have to lift the weight of the existing water in the new tank (or raise the new water higher above the existing water, whichever way you look at it) and therefore you do less work. But then of course I realised, that if you go that route, you have to do the work to get the water in to the tank and out of the tank, with no help from gravity so in terms of the cycle, you have to do all the work, which is very much further away from our goal.

Isn't this what Wayne has been saying all along too, try to reduce you're inputs. Here are two ways of filling and emptying a tank in a cycle, both need the same amount of work, both have the same potential output work, but one of the ways requires only half the work from us as gravity takes care of the other half.


I think!?!?!?

Amo

Hello All, 

This note is just to update everyone where I am on my sim work. 

I have been getting some test inputs from builders to compare to the sim.  This work has not progressed very far though, because I keep finding things I need to change in the sim to adapt to the exact same setups -- along with fixing some bugs along the way (made possible by having real data to compare with).   Thank you builder friends!

I have modified the sim to be able to report results as US inches-pounds, cgs, or mks unit systems at the user interface.  Inputs and internal calculations will still only take place in inches and pounds.  I am also making many more internal states and dimensions available for optional display.

I realized last night that I needed to add a new operating mode.  This mode creates the initial state for the ZED based on an input force required to just sink the Riser without a payload weight.  All calculations for work in and out, start from this initial state.  Previously, all balancing was assumed to have been done external to the ZED.  However, that is not how the builds are actually taking place, so I needed to make the sim match the actual builds.

An observation from the sim:  There is a lift force coming from the bottom area of each Riser wall ring.  The thicker the wall, and the deeper the water level, the more lift force is generated.  This helps counterbalance some of the Riser/Pod weight.  However, as the Riser lifts up, this force diminishes (because the water depth PSI is less at less depth).  This means that in a practical sense, even though the Riser is counterbalanced at the bottom of the stroke, it gets heavier as the Riser moves up.  A fixed weight counterbalancing system is not going to be as efficient as one that takes this into consideration.  It can still be done with a single ZED, but it takes careful design.  A mechanically linked dual ZED will automatically counterbalance this force efficiently.  I need to add a mode to the sim where it has different types of counterbalance methods. 

The simulation sequence:

0.  Find the initial balance point to barely sink Riser with no payload weight on the Riser.  Save state as baseline.  Balancing can take place with only the Pod head, or with all the risers active at the baseline.

1.  Add the payload weight to the Riser.
2.  Add enough input force (weight) to the water piston to raise payload weight to top of stroke. 
     2a.  Calculate work in and work out ratio.
3.  Remove payload weight from riser.
4.  Remove input force from the water piston.
5.  Let Riser sink back to baseline state. 
     5a.  Go to step 1 to cycle animation.

~Dennis

@see3d:

QuoteAn observation from the sim:  There is a lift force coming from the bottom area of each Riser wall ring.  The thicker the wall, and the deeper the water level, the more lift force is generated.  This helps counterbalance some of the Riser/Pod weight.  However, as the Riser lifts up, this force diminishes (because the water depth PSI is less at less depth). 

The pressure of the water due to depth does not affect buoyancy or lift force. It acts in all directions equally. I thought we covered this some pages back. If you are getting some lift force here it's not coming from water pressure per se, I don't think. What is happening in the real world is that as the riser lifts up, it is displacing much less water, so its buoyancy decreases, that is, it's being pressed upwards less by the water trying to flow underneath it. This isn't water depth psi due to depth, but water weight being displaced by thick walls and deep submergence. I think.

@webby: er, um..... perhaps if you tell me how you _think_ transistors work, or don't work, we can talk about why they should or shouldn't in your analogy.

Quote from: AmoLago on September 21, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
.................................................... I think that adding up all those 7.4 grams over the various distances equates to lifting the all 74 grams over the one larger distance.
Also if the container is lower than te tank to start with, you have to do all the work to get the water into the tank, but gravity kindly helps out to get it all back in to the container. Similarly, if it is at the same level, gravity will do the first half of the work and you have to do the rest and vice-versa on the way out. And finally, if the container is above the tank, gravity will do all the work to start with, but you have to do the work to get it out. So it doesn't even really mater where the container is relative to the tank.
.................................................................

Gents,
A quick note to think about
The laws of nature (physics) that have been discovered over the last few hundred years have been tested over and over again and have been proven to work correctly,  with other words they describe the behavior around us correctly.
So when it comes to "Newton and conservation law" in order to lift water into a tank, with bucket or otherwise...ect.  Believe me that works exactly as described in the physics text books. No free lunch here. Sure you can setup potential energy that can halve what you need to expend at that moment, but if calculated from ground "0" up, it all adds up correctly and in balance.

The question has always been, is the description complete, does encompass and describe all manifestation of a phenomenon in every condition. The question or statement that comes up very often in OU situations is about creating a condition that disturbs the balance of the environment (universe) and opens a window to extract energy, often referred to as "zero point energy", the universal energy that maintains the overall balance. 
Why would this question come up, because the physics laws as we know then are proven to be pretty foolproof,  Seamus & all are pretty right about that, nobody is disputing that fact.  What is being disputed and often confused across the "line divide" is the ability to disturb the natural environment in order to mess with the known physics laws.  Because that is ONE of the known possible ways around the "law of thermodynamics" and "conservation".  I have posed the question on many occasions, can we fool nature to believe something different that what really is? or can we fool nature, so it carries on undisturbed but you have disturbed/re-directed something underpinning the processes or parameters and thereby predicting a different outcome of its natural flow, different that what really should be as predicted by the known physics formula.
Is this hocus pokus?, it might sound like it, but it is often more like, I could have thought about that. Looking back at any invention you know of, how many could you have invented ?  Everything becomes easy after the fact when you know the answer and solution. Step you mind out of the box (you don't need to forget about the box) and you will find it easier to discover things.  Compare it to religious believe, because this routed deep in you, can you think outside your believe and be rational ?
Our minds are to impaired by conditioning experienced in our early life, notwithstanding there was a purpose for that to.
Just my two cents of philosophy.....

Suggestion for water measurement (during testing)
There are two distinct different water aspects in buoyancy 
1.. Head water (the water that gives head height and pressure, also a measurement of water displaced by the float)
2.. Stroke displacement water (the water vacated by the float when moving vertically, this water needs to be supplied in order for the float to be able to rise vertically)

Your Zed has vertical zigzag head, to know the total head (pressure),  you can have a vertical transparent pipe, from the bottom of the pod upwards. Because of pressure equalization, this pipe will show exactly the pressure (total head) at any time more precisely than measuring on the zed iself (1psi = 0.703 Mtr or 27.7 inch). Depending on the number of zed layers, you might need a ladder to get higher up.

Free rise
As you add water, the first thing that happens is adding head until you will reach float pressure (float pressure depends on the weight and lift area of your zed).  Once float pressure is reached (take note), then displacement water begins, no further head water is taken.
With stopper
As you add water beyond float pressure, only head is added and the pressure and head height will increase accordingly.  If you hang a measuring tape along side, you can calculate quickly the force on the stopper, knowing the previous float height and weight.
Water volume measurement
Having a water tap at the bottom of the zed (or vertical pipe), you can drain water into a measuring cup and read immediate the volume and pressure and force from the pipe. The water between the zed and the pipe will always equalize, visually the water levels are at different height but in pressure reality they are the same, no matter what you do,  you can also add water from the top of the pipe with funnel.

I hope this can help,  Michel

PS:  Webby1 has somewhere a picture with a vertical pipe in that way

Dear Wayne,

RE: My thank you for your sharing generosity

I should have done this earlier in time and it is way overdue. Considering you had more public attacks on your integrity than you had on your invention. I think a public thank you note for sharing your brilliant inventive concept is in order and way overdue. 
You have my greatest admiration for sharing your discovery work of several years so unselfishly on a public forum. You definitely made a difference in my life that will impact the years to come for the better.

What is most amazing to me is the assimilation capability of nature (alike to birds of a feather flock together) and I am grateful that we found the same flock. What I really regret now was for not traveling to Oklahoma back in July when I was sweating my xxx off under the brilliant Red Sunset of a Chesapeake heat wave.  I realize now, this was an golden opportunity missed.
Any creation carries the reflection of the creator, the brilliant ingenuity of your  invention is a reflection of your creative thought process and your sharing a reflection of your individuality and your chosen path through life.
Notwithstanding what certain individuals are baseless proclaiming on the web.  I base my character assessment on my own interaction experiences and can only smile at the attackers for being so foolishly.…….
By understanding the workings of your invention and I can only guess at the hardship it took to reach the current level and knowing there is still a long way to go before you sleep, I regret that you had to meet such an inferior welcome reception for such large bounty shared..
But rest assured, the bounty of satisfaction is still to come, the balance of forces will be in your favor!

Yours Sincerely, Michel

PS1: In order to see where the majority lies, I invite everybody who had a similar experience to post a similar thank you note

PS2: I know this will most likely open the floodgates for more baseless criticism, lets hope they will be able to come up with a good technical rebuttal this time.