@LarryC: Did you notice that your "Travis force/PSI Ratio" actually only varies from CONSTANT by a value of 0.24 units, out of a total of around 20 units? That is, by a bit over ONE PERCENT? 

From 20.15 to 19.91... and in a perfectly LINEAR manner over that range. Wow.....

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 07:22:29 PM
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.

I should also point out that I ask KanShi months ago if she would produce or have her students produce a transfer function graph of the ZED principle so that I could understand "HOW" it works.  She refused, saying that it would be a waste of her time.  I was not impressed.  Another engineer type agreed to do that task, but failed to deliver.  It seems many can point out that it can't work, but can't do a bottoms up analysis of how it works.  I do not believe KanShi really understood how it works either.  Understanding how it works, means being able to explain through technical analysis all the observed behaviors. 

Quote from: MT on September 29, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
Hi AmoLago,
I do not know how other but I could not open your simpleZED file, seems corrupted.

Hi MT,

Yeah I found that when I tried to download it at work to check some things out. I zipped it on a Mac as opposed to Windows, don't know if that made a difference. I'll save it as xls next time and I've ditched the macro too so people might feel safer opening it.

Anyway...

Quote from: MT on September 29, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
If understand you correctly you are not keeping pod completely submerged during stroke right? Just precharge and then let waters in gap fall.
To you your calculation how I understood it:
You start with some water with PE 19.8J
Pod is locked.
Adding water increases potential to 123.5J

Workin 103.7

Yep that's how I had it.

Quote from: MT on September 29, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
Pod workout 56.9J (with no losses 71.2J)

COP of first ZED 56.9 / 103.7 = 46%  (you are saying without losses 71.2 / 103.7 = 68.66%)

I'm confused about this part myself. The two values quoted were not for the same thing.

Ignoring the actual stroke for a second, when the pod is at it's equilibrium point of buoyancy, the PE of the water has dropped by 71.2 because the hight of the water drops from 0.9m to approximately 0.38m (CoM 0.45 -> 0.19 ), a difference of 0.52m, however, the pod only rises 0.02m giving it a gain of 56.9 J.

So I don't really know whether the maximum work we can theoretically take is that of the difference of the water PE or the pod PE. Or indeed, some other value still!?

Quote from: MT on September 29, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
PE water left after stroke 52.3J
Since you started with 19.8J your usable exhaust is 52.3 - 19.8 = 32.5J

This exhaust can be used for second ZED.
Now assume adding exhaust on top of initial 19.8J will increase PE of second ZED to 52.3J.
You still need 123.6J - 52.3J = 71.3J to get it fully precharged. First ZED can provide only 56.9J but without losses 71.3 which basically means that all workout of first ZED is needed to finish precharge of second ZED leaving nothing net left.

Nicely spotted! A quick double check of my spreadsheet and I can see exactly what you're saying.

But I have a follow up question. The pod sinks as the water retreats in to the other ZED or back to an auxiliary tank. The water will level off in the two tanks regardless of how the pod sinks, so long as it does so fully back to it's starting point. So if the pod is being used to do work as it is lifted, can it also do work as it sinks? Is this the extra we're looking for?

Quote from: see3d on September 29, 2012, 08:30:12 PM
I should also point out that I ask KanShi months ago if she would produce or have her students produce a transfer function graph of the ZED principle so that I could understand "HOW" it works.  She refused, saying that it would be a waste of her time.  I was not impressed.  Another engineer type agreed to do that task, but failed to deliver.  It seems many can point out that it can't work, but can't do a bottoms up analysis of how it works.  I do not believe KanShi really understood how it works either.  Understanding how it works, means being able to explain through technical analysis all the observed behaviors.

I agree with you fully, See3d, an interesting situation is developing

The believers:   Led to the waterhole by Wayne, the water can be seen, but it was initially not clear how the water got into waterhole. Clarification is received from looking around in detail, but these clarification details are not directly shared to open the willing or unwilling blind eyes.

The unbelievers: The one's that cannot figure out the path of the water flow, claim that there is no water in the waterhole. They claim to have the clarification details that support their empty waterhole, but these clarification details are not shared to remove the sunshades that obstruct the view the seeing eyes.

Physical proof:  The physical proof is pending a rebuild in order to incorporate performance and reliability improvements.

The result :  An interesting Status Quo

Best action: Choose your best position and wait patiently for "status quo" to equalize  " sit on the fence is not a bad option if you can not break the status quo"

RE: Post #2411 by MRWayne on: September 25, 2012

I don't think I've seen this responded to during the original challenge or last week - here are my current numbers.

Quote
Design your single ZED to be able to observe, measure, and record the: Base Line
Determine the Maximum head or Ideal of your design (pressure and volume in the locked down position)

31.5"

Quote
Minimum pressure/volume to float with Riser weight only.

2" head - not clear on volume

Quote
Please report the clearance between your pod and pod chamber in square inches (this will allow to see how much volume is required to precharge).

* pod is 4.5" x 10.5"
* inner retainer wall is 4.75
Area under POD: 17.7 sq in
Area of GAP: 1.8 sq in         

QuoteWhat is the maximum load (total load) you can lift the distance of .75 inch (based on the average size of the replications).

24 lb

QuoteRecord the pressure and volume of that stroke from the neutral base line position.
Barely floating is at 24.5"

.75" lift of 24 Lb takes 13 fluid ounces max head is 32.5"

QuoteNow the preload -
add 1/3 of your total load to the riser - reset the neutral point (to just barely floating).

Added 8Lb to the completely unloaded riser

QuoteRecord the volume and pressure - to stroke that load.

9.5" head barely floating - 17.5" at full lift
Same volume, 13 fluid ounces.

QuoteNow add the total load you lifted 3/4 of an inch and record the volume and pressure needed to stroke 3/4 of an inch.

? Add the 8Lb to the previous max lift of 24Lb ? ( wouldn't lift )

Dale