Quote from: wildew on September 28, 2012, 06:40:35 AM
Hoping to do some testing on 3U this weekend and have a question on POD weight.
-- Yes, 3U is using a fully separate POD
As pictured this POD weighs 11oz, is 4.5 inches diameter and 10.5 inches tall / long.
It displaces about an inch free floating.
POD retainer wall is 4.75 ID
Seems there have been a few mentions of POD weight / system setup but I haven't been able to find them in my notes or saved posts.

So 2 related questions for anyone that may have those references:
1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?
2. What percentage of the POD should be submerged in a free floating state?

Thanks
Dale

Hi Dale,


1. During normal cycles should the POD actually sink or would the setup values preclude that condition?

The POD should be barely sunk at initial pre-charge. Backing down your pod retainer water from ideal to initial pre-charge may leave it floating. If so, you can back down the pod-retainer water until sunk, then add air until your water head is back to what is was before the water back down from initial pre-charge. Or you can add more weight to the pod. But keep in mind the pod retainer water is important to be at a low enough level, so the water can be brought up around the pod so that the water head remains the same doing the rise without overflowing the Pod retainer wall.


I don't know about 2, and don't remember it being mentioned. But doing testing to make sure the Pod retainer water doesn't overflow during rise will get you the answer.


For those that don't know, I'd like to point out the print bottom at the bottom of the page, which will list all post from the beginning in an HTML file. After using it the result can be saved and searched or just searched to make finding keywords like 'sunk', 'sink' real easy.
The google search at top will give you similar information but it is not limited to just this subject. And it easier to work with the HTML file.

Regards, Larry

Quote from: mrwayne on September 28, 2012, 11:11:26 AM
p.s.
Broken promises? - it is trash like that that makes Seamus not worth reading -  get real - Research and development takes time - it has been worth the work - from 160% efficient to 600% - I guess that the results are pretty well worth pot shots taking insults like that.

Yes broken promises, the times we heard there was going to be a visit by mark to verify your device
Maybe promise was the wrong word to use, either way the visit didn't happen.

Seamus is saying a lot more then your device doesn't work,
he mentions a reference to a previous post but if you don't like his attitude
I guess you don't have to read his post properly.

Personally I'm not convinced either way at the moment,
and yes your research is wonderful like many other threads on this forum that do research,
But when you claim you have overunity performance then the challengers challenge.

I'm not surprised that you have convincing answers,
For me the only answer is a self-runner that can be replicated.

Time will tell
All the best

Quote from: webby1 on September 28, 2012, 10:29:06 AM
TK,, all the numbers I have posted are with the lift mass on for lift and of for sink,, my outside riser has a weight of 90g which is the only weight that stays with the system,, the lift mass is removed after lift, and yes when setup nicely recovery starts right away, that would be fluid flowing out of TBZED.

You only quoted half my suggested, simple, test.
My test was directed mostly at Mondrasek, but I think it applies to your system as well. I don't know what exactly is happening in your system, but I think that Mondrasek's test which generated the numbers I plotted DOES depend on the riser/weight being floated and lifted by the precharge. Hence the precharge IS indeed acting as a spring for some part of the travel of the moving parts-- made up of buoyancy and the pressure in the "U" spaces -- otherwise the parts would be resting hard on the floor of the chamber. But in Mondrasek's setup they are not, they are floating near the bottom of the chamber.

Why don't you just perform the simple, easy, quick test I suggested and report your results? I mostly am asking mondrasek for this, since it is his system that is making the numbers I plotted and is producing the reproducible, stable behaviour. But I'd like to know the answer from your system as well. What is the value of the weight that the system is _actually_ working to raise by the input, and what is being raised by the precharge spring?

It is extremely frustrating to me to ask this simple question, and to get pages and pages of rationalization and conjecture in return, instead of a report of the performance of the test. Sure, you owe me nothing, and you can do whatever you like with your apparatus. But until you or somebody else DEMONSTRATES OTHERWISE, I am going to continue to believe that mondrasek and perhaps you and MrWayne are dealing with an automatic bollard-type of lift, where much of the actual lifting isn't actually done by the simple input water.

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong in my conjecture here, but it's going to take some actual numbers to do it. Numbers that would seem very easy for you, and mondrasek, to obtain.

Once it is "confirmed" that the FULL WEIGHT of the moving parts is being lifted by the addition of the lift water in mondrasek's system, then  Mile High's GPE method of accounting for the output work in mond's system can be applied with confidence. But at the present time we don't know the magnitude of the _effective_ lifted weight, because some of it is UNDENIABLY carried by the precharge in mondrasek's system. His riser/weight is already floating at the start of the experiment.

I have to agree with TK about the test setup.  I have outlined in detail what measurements I would like to see for comparison to my sim results.  I did have a setback with my sim formulas not matching what was being built for pre-charging, so I have had to go back to square one for a bit, but the tests I outlined have not changed.  They were designed to give an accurate transfer function that is needed to understand the basic ZED device.

1.  Bottom "float" the total weight of the Pod/Riser + whatever weight will not be "payload" that is removed at the top.  This is the low energy state of the ZED.  It should be just a hair negative to weightlessly touch the bottom.
2.  Add the payload weight.  This will press the riser hard against the bottom.
3.  Add water to raise the payload weight to different heights along the stroke.  Measure the heads and amount of water added at each point.
4.  Remove the payload weight at the top position.  Keep the riser from shooting up with a top stop or other restraint if required to keep from blowing the skirts.
5.  Drain the amount of water added.  It should come back to the starting position again if Newton does not turn over in his grave.

6.  The test can be repeated a few times to average the results.  The test can be repeated with different payload weights to understand that variable.

From the data gathered, the transfer function can be graphed and the work in and out calculated, with the remaining being what is stored in the ZED.  The ZED could be operated between any two points along the transfer curve.

There can be some variations about how the input water is measured, input , and drained -- depending on the build setup.

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 28, 2012, 04:12:56 AM
Wait a minute. That's not how you described your system working before. Are you telling me now that, at the top of the 4mm lift, you can lock the riser at that point, REMOVE the weight, unlock the riser (doesn't it pop up? ) and then recover your 74 ml water without pushing the risers back down to the start position, they just settle on their own, then you replace the weight, pour the water in and it lifts again?

TK, the lift was 10mm (not 4mm).  At the top of the lift I do not lock anything (yet).  But at the top of the lift the Lift Mass of 1217 g is removed.  Yes, the ZED does pop up at this time (and the input tube water level drops).  When the 74 ml of water is vented the ZED does drop down again.  Even with the Lift Mass removed the ZED is still loaded with the mass of the Pod, Risers, spacers, and a preload mass (all weighed and posted earlier in the thread).  At the bottom the Lift Mass is reinstalled to complete the cycle.  Sorry if this was not all clear.

M.