Quote from: see3d on September 22, 2012, 08:29:37 AM
TK, I work with pressure differential in my sim math.  Read about the Archimedes Paradox again.  Buoyancy force is independent of the total mass of displaced water.  You might be confusing force with potential energy here.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for some support for that statement.

In every system I know about, even the inverted Travis effect, buoyancy FORCE does indeed depend on the mass of the water displaced by the displacer, whether it's a floater or a sinker. This FORCE is offset, some of it, by the WEIGHT of the displacer, which is also a FORCE acting towards the center of the earth. Buoyancy is a result of the displacer _raising water_; the force of gravity acting on this water's mass trying to make it run down underneath the displacing object. The resultant Total Force, upwards or downwards, is the algebraic sum of these two _gravitational_ forces: Upwards from the mass of the displaced water, and downwards from the mass of the displacing object.

No, I'm not confusing force with potential energy here, and if your sim is pushing up on riser walls due to the _pressure differential due to water depth_ that is an error, and it's easy to prove that it is, just as I have done empirically some pages ago _using actual measurements on a real system_.

Please take a displacing mass, and attach it to a long thin rod so you can push it underwater without adding much volume to the displacement by your pushing method. Push the mass until it is just barely submerged and measure the force required to keep it there. Then push it as deeply as you can, and measure the force again. Report your results here, and then tell me if I'm confusing  force with potential energy again.

You can measure the force as I did, by simply placing the outer container on a scale and reading the "travis effect" added weight as you push, or you can use a force gauge like this Mark-10 I have here to measure the push in the pushrod directly... they both will give the same value, and this force value will be the same no matter the depth, as long as your displacing volume does not change. Does it take work to push your displacer further downward? Yes, of course. Does the PE of the system increase, even though the buoyant force is constant? Yes, because when you release the displacer it will float upwards through a greater distance. In essence you are lifting the displaced water amount by the same distance as you are submerging the displacer. You are not just raising the surface water, you are raising the slug of water that the displacer displaces, through the entire height represented by the depth of the displacer.

Only a Cartesian Diver responds to changes in water pressure due to depth or outside applied pressure, and it does so because it is deformable: its volume changes with applied pressure, so its displaced mass changes, thus its buoyancy changes. This is a secondary effect caused by the deformable Diver's change in volume, not directly by the applied pressure itself, as you can prove to yourself very easily just by doing this simple experiment.

@mondrasek:

You appear to be claiming an "overunity work ratio" of sixteen to one. Now, I don't know about you, but I can instantly come up with several schemes to take advantage of such a claim RIGHT AWAY. For example, instead of just lifting a weight, we can use the output piston to move the short arm of a simple lever, the long arm lifting a smaller weight through a much greater distance in the same time interval. This smaller weight can then be allowed to fall, driving an electrical generator (windlass, linear gear, there are dozens of methods, I'm sure a robotics engineer could come up with many more.) Like the driving weights of a cuckoo clock. Even with lousy mechanical and electrical efficiencies we should be getting overunity electrical output by the end of the day tomorrow, by using some of the output to "reduce the input" used to push against the short arm of the lever to raise up the weight.

Remember those little kid's toy cars and trains, where you push a short plunger over and over, and this spins up a little flywheel in a gearbox and then the little car or train will run for a while on the stored energy from the short plunger pushes? Of course you do.

So.... what's wrong with this picture?  Is there some real problem here? I can tell you this for certain, and I think that I will be believed by those who know me: If I had, two years ago, a simple system that produced a 16:1 ratio of output to input work.... By now you would be seeing it in production by manufacturers of hydraulic tooling systems, and I'd be running my house off of it.

Show me the sausages, if you don't mind. I'd like to see a video of the whole process including the preload/precharge, and I'd like to see the process repeat several times, so that I can find out where your error is. Or if there isn't one, we can grab MrWayne and all three of us go down to SwRI with a carload of plumbing parts and we can demonstrate your 16:1 effect somewhere where it will count, and get some immediate action that doesn't depend on anonymous teams of amateur hobbyists.

Quote from: powercat on September 22, 2012, 10:48:38 AM
Michel
I do hope you're right as it is all beginning to take a long time and we just seem to get more excuses,
while this situation continues the argument about whether there is really OU or not will continue as well.

Hi Powercat,
Ooops my apologies if my last message was a bit strong and felt harsh. I had to leave in a hurry, when I read my own message on my return, together with your reply,  I thought mine was unintentionally ruff in content wording.

You are correct, the delay doesn't give a good impression, but neither would a failed test with Mark due to hardware problems.
It is a judgement call to chose the best of two evils. I a confident it will be looked upon as a minor hick-up in the near future.
Michel

TK,

I'll do what I can to comply with your request. 

Please note that I am also quite taken back by what my test data has shown.  It is not what I would have expected at all.  So I am looking for the error(s).

The digicam that I have is an HD unit that is intended to output directly to a video input of a TV only (that I am aware of).  I have put an axillary output through my PC and two or three conversion programs in the past to make a computer viewable file for my wife.  Those pirated softwares include several dozen viruses/Trojans IIRC. 

I'm not very familiar with YouTube, but am willing to learn.

Any advice is appreciated.

M.

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 22, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for some support for that statement.

TK, How do you explain the paradox where you can float a battleship with a bucket of water?

I am currently working with real build data to verify these various forces in the sim.  I am quite willing to admit any mistake and correct my sim to match real world data.  I don't currently see how I can ignore differential pressures at different water depths.  This is the key element of the Archimedes Paradox which is a key principle in the ZED.  It seems to me that your experiment proves rather than disproves my methods.  The differential pressure from the top to the bottom of your float does not change no matter what depth it is sunk after it is completely underwater, so no forces will change. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_paradox

Are we even talking about the same thing?
Perhaps it is a semantics issue.