Quote from: mondrasek on September 29, 2012, 09:05:58 AM

I believe you just are asking for the weight of everything being lifted, right? 

From #2377 w/changes to the Lift Mass for the latter experiment:
Pod = 38 gr.
R1 = 30 gr.
R2 = 34 gr.
Lift Mass = 1200 g of water   79 g for container *NEW INFO*
Non-removed mass = 399 gr. (electrical tape spool and plywood disk spacers, Cedar plank, and Tupperware type container w/wet sand)
Weight of Digital Indicator probe (return spring is removed) = 19 gr.

This request is impossible due to the 5kg limit of the scale.  But I have already stated that the riser will move upwards with the slightest change in mass on the ZED (slightest pull on the string).  So with friction ignored, this value would be zero.

I hope this gives you all the info you requested.  If not, please let me know and I'll do what I can to provide your requested measurements.

M.

No, I wasn't asking for the weights of everything being lifted... I was asking for the _difference_ between the dry weights and the _actual effective weight_ that is being lifted when you add water in the input tube. And you've answered that: the difference is TOTAL.
The moving masses are essentially "weightless" due to the precharge. Just as in the automatic spring-loaded bollard. So the raw increase in GPE of the moving mass cannot be used directly to compute the work required to raise it. In fact the work required to raise the moving mass is stored, reversibly, in the spring of the precharge. You are adding a slight upward force, just as the person lifting the bollard does, to make the moving weight rise upwards due to the push of the precharge spring.

In addition, you are not changing MASS of anything unless you cut pieces off of it or add material to it. There is an important difference between WEIGHT, which you can measure with a spring scale, and MASS, which requires a balance to measure it.  Mass is conserved and unless material is removed or added remains constant. Weight, though, is the response of a mass to the force of gravity.... and can easily be modified by, for example... buoyancy and/or U-chambers with pressurised air in them.

So.... can you raise a mass, slide it sideways onto a platform, let the risers sink to the bottom to recover your input water, slide another mass onto the riser and lift it with the same input water, flowing out and in, in a work-neutral cycle, and thus accumulate an arbitrarily large amount of mass at the top by doing this "free" lift over and over?

Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force,  and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.

Regards, Larry

Webby said,

QuoteI am thinking that you do not have a correct process in mind of the way the system works.

setup, getting the air and water balance so that the sink mass is just supported by the internal pressure,, not ground down to the bottom of the ZED but floating or just resting on a stop.

precharge,  adding water into the system raising the internal pressure of the system from rest pressure up to lift pressure, where the risers are now just supporting the lift mass.

(lift mass is the payload that offers the constant resistance to the risers against lifting)

lift, lifting the risers up higher by adding more fluid under pressure.   

Contrariwise, that is exactly how I do have in mind that the system "works". But it is NOT the MASS that is offering resistance against lifting, it is the WEIGHT, which has been modified by the precharge just as you have described.
You have said that you can pull up on the weight at the precharge step and it weighs nothing, but as you pull it up higher and higher, to 3/16 inch higher, then it weighs the full value. But what would happen if the water level rises just at the same rate you are pulling up? The weight that you measure will stay very low, won't it?

Quote from: LarryC on September 29, 2012, 06:56:40 PM
Attached is a new Non Linear Analysis section in my 3 Riser calculator showing PSI, Travis Force, Hydraulic Force,  and Water Height Pod retainer as a small model is loaded from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge. The chart has 289 data points.

Regards, Larry

You have a funny definition of non-linear. Every relationship you show is perfectly LINEAR as far as I can see. You do not use log scales on either axis, and your relations are straight lines. There does not seem to be Any NON-LINEARITY in your data. The relationship between your x and y values can be expressed by the FIRST ORDER LINEAR EQUATION y=mx+b.

It would be nice if you could label the axes of your graphs.... since the numbers along the X and Y axes don't seem to correspond to any of the numbers in your data table.

MileHigh's posting of KanShi's analysis.... which her whole class of engineering students worked on..... unfortunately is only in our PMs. 
I'm not going to post it over to the open forum, although I almost did. Let me just say to all those who did NOT get the PM, that her analysis soundly refutes the claim of excess efficiency, and the analysis was done using hand calculations, mainframe simulations, an entire class of engineering students working AND COMPETING for class credit and rankings, and is confirmed by experiment. Nothing that has been discussed so far in this thread has indicated anywhere in the system where any great efficiencies could be realized.