@Marcel: In the system we are studying the upper inverted "U" is movable: it is formed by the riser sitting over the first ringwall. Please add one more picture: what happens to the levels when the "riser" is released and goes up by _one unit vertically_.

Also.... are you adding your units of water "for free", or do they have to push against the  heads of water already in the chamber in order to wind up inside?

Since the potential difference you've noted is the difference between the two water levels...... as one goes up the other goes down, and it only takes one unit of total travel to cancel out the "two units" of potential difference.

Quote from: MT on October 02, 2012, 05:31:42 PM
Hi guys,


maybe an interesting observation...


Marcel

Very good observation, you are near one of the diamonds of the ZED.

Be careful not to make the not so obvious mistake (very common) of stroking too far, one of the things my engineers struggled with - they wanted a long stroke - it makes sense to long stroke  (unless you understand doing so drops your efficiency - it is a give and take ratio).

Eventually they learned to stop looking at a 'single Zed assembly' as whole ZED, when one zed is sinking - the other is stroking -
What is the other half of the ZED doing - and how does that change the relationships - is something only a few have started to understand.

keeping the stroke short allows you to stay within the highest value of the 2 -1 differential gain, makes managing the replacement head (for the new volume above the ring wall) simple, and keeps you within the higher value / efficiency of the system.

Second Part of the Diamond - you only drew one layer - if you had six layers - the one unit in the pod would have resulted in how many units of differential?

Third part of the Diamond - weighting the riser reduces the compression and expansion - how does this effect the unitized differential?

Good observation!

Wayne

Quote from: LarryC on October 02, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
Hi Michel,
Thanks for checking. The low PSI is because of the small model. I used a small model because of its greater SI advantage. The trend is negative and I been looking into that with the attached spreadsheet, see notes at top. It seems to have something to do with the difference ratio of PSI increase in the columns, basically air compression effects. I added the fields in light yellow to copied data from the 3 Riser spreadsheet.
Regards, Larry

Hi Larry,
The usual problem I have with xls, even if they are my own older ones, is figuring out afterwards the logic that was applied to them during their creation. In the end, I give up because of the time consumed.
I would agree with the xls graphs and data, because it appears to support the expected natural tendency of the medium and nature.
Give me some more time to work my way through this one, for lady luck to smile

Michel

Hi All,

This is just a screenshot of the sim output for a sample short stroke 3 riser ZED.  It has a zero weight counterbalanced riser.  I am still debugging the auto initialization balance code and looking for edge conditions and fixing bugs, but this picture is worth more than a thousand lines of code to me.   

~Dennis

Quote from: see3d on October 02, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Hi All,
This is just a screenshot of the sim output for a sample short stroke 3 riser ZED.  It has a zero weight counterbalanced riser.  I am still debugging the auto initialization balance code and looking for edge conditions and fixing bugs, but this picture is worth more than a thousand lines of code to me.   
~Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Fantastic development, great effort, congrats.
Would it be possible to include a graph line that shows the lift/psi, a trend that Wayne always referred to in his early mails.
This would highlite a diversion from the symmetrical input/output relationship (since overall psi is an input cost and lift is output).
Something you (we) would be looking for, I imagine.

Regards, Michel