Quote from: TinselKoala on September 29, 2012, 07:04:10 PM
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.

My Post:
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.


Jumping to conclusions again. What i stated was:  The Hydraulic Force/PSI shows it is linear, Travis Force / PSI shows it is not linear, varying slowly. They were not shown in the original graph so I attached a new chart below.


The numbers don't seem to match because there is 289 Rows of data.


The important part of the original graph as stated:   More important is the greater slope of the Travis to the Hydraulic. Travis doubles the output difference from Sunk precharge to Final precharge.


That is amazing, of course this would only be important to the open minded who would try to understand why.   


Regards, Larry

Thanks Webby
Will try it.
Can't see where the result will be any different than the original 24Lb max lift: but what the heck
Dale

Quote
@Larry: Based on info from Wayne's model for all to relate, which had PSI of 10.3 at Ideal, 8.4 at Final precharge or Production ready to lift, 5.0 at Sunk precharge or Starting position. Wayne didn't mention the 10.3, but that is the ideal for the 72" Ht, with the 30" Diameter Pod from the calculator.

My Initial precharge should have been Initial Setup Sunk Precharge and the one time only that you would lower the water level in the Pod retainer and add air to reset the water head to Sunk precharge.

Care to comment on or relabel as fitting 1 through 4 in the illustration attached for clarity?
Dale

OK - last for now:
The main reason I'm trying to be very clear on the cycle terminology is I'm still struggling with the philosophy or methodology of the post stroke fluid transfer.

Many of the test results posted seem to show going from barely floating to some lifted value and then returning JUST to the starting point. But the cycle described by Wayne sometimes (my confusion) reads like the head values are taken lower - to the point of also removing at least some of the "precharge". - That's why I keep asking.

I see a lot of motion in the levels on mine while lifting, and I need to raise the head some - I'm attributing most of that to the wall thickness; actually loosing some lift potential while lifting because the water levels re-balance,  filling in the void left by the walls.

Sinking ( just a rise / sink cycle, no load removed ) - the point of this posted question - is similar. As water is vented from the POD area and it starts to sink it actually regains that lost buoyancy as the walls come down so I have to vent from a lower point.

The real question though is: Once the risers are back at rest there is still the "precharge?" remaining. That head value stored in the differentials.

It only takes another 2 fluid ounces to remove most of it. In the real device is that energy transferred to the other ZED?
I'm pretty sure Wayne has answered yes. If so, it would seem important to the energy cycle.

My mental block is not seeing value in transferring energy past what's need to sink, out of the system....

3 PSI values in the previously posted illustration; guess I need to work on relating the 5 - 6.7 - 8 PSI values to the heads I'm seeing in this model.

Questions - Questions.....
Dale

Hi Dale,

This may help or confuse more, reply 963:

Post by: mrwayne on July 21, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
I might suggest that we move on to the next portion of the system.
The next phase is to understand how much Head is transferred to the second Z.E.D
Things to consider - The weight of the risers and added weight - they allow the system to sink when partially charged (head)
When You calculate how much (minimum) head it requires to float - amount of weight - you have the minimum exhaust pressure.
Next - you need to Know what your stroking pressure is - so your weight plus your production load - maximum head needed.
Take the average of the two pressures - and this gives you the post free flow pressure.
The value of the free flow is the head at max (end of stroke) to the post free flow pressure.
The value of the remaining exhaust is the post free flow pressure to the Minimum head pressure (sinking pressure)
The head less than the sinking pressure always remains in the Z.E.D and never needs replaced.
This is a good start.
Our pressure is:
Minimum 5.0, 8.4 max, and 6.7 post free flow.
Since the true input cost to each side it the diffirence between these pressures and the Max - this is very important.


Regards, Larry