Quote from: TinselKoala on October 07, 2012, 08:59:13 PM
Refute my points, Dennis. Can you? Do you even try, or would you rather just insult and denigrate me?

TK,

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else.  My agenda has been clearly stated from before you showed up and repeated in your time.  It has not changed.  And yes, your railings have caused me to stop working on my simulator (not a spreadsheet) on more than one occasion to respond to your misunderstandings.  Wading through a lot of other trash posts is also time consuming.

When I first showed up, there were 60 or so pages already here.  I took the time (days) to go through them all first.  I was never mislead about the nature of the pending patent that had just been published.  I was surprised that you were (or pretended to be).  In any case, I am not interested in refuting your points -- most of which have nothing to do with my agenda.  I have actual important work to do -- bummer, wasted 30 min on this reply.

Your time would also be better spent on technical work or conversations where you are adding value.  Repeating your hunger for sausages is tiresome and not very cute after the 2nd time.

Thanks for the video -- I like to watch Shark Tank now and then.

~Dennis

Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 05, 2012, 08:33:57 AM
AmoLago, I am sure you treat your one layer float as symmetrical, if you think it is, then the “out” will equal the “in”.  The normal standard physics processes are symmetrical ?
Can a multi layer float be symmetrical?, absolutely yes,  although it offers many more possibilities to tamper and/or interfere with the buoyancy processes to change the symmetry and then it would depend on how you use it. 

AmoLargo,  Any calculation that is based on symmetry will always give a balance in-output. The laws are not wrong.
So the first to do is,  to look for non-symmetry. The solution to the complex is in the simple.

Hi Red,

There's a lot to digest there and I'll try my best to understand it all and evaluate and incorporate what you're saying in to any things I try.

One thing I will say though is that I didn't actually try to find symmetry in the work produced in the spreadsheet. Indeed I believe I simply posted what I found in calculating PE differences in several parts of the system and posed the idea that there was possibly an imbalance. This resulted in posts from Seamus, TK, and Fletcher trying to help me out in discussing those values calculated.


And on thinking about the post from TK regarding a string attached to the pod, I was wondering; If a removable weight is on the other end of the string applying the force described then as the pod falls, this weight would be lifted. So as was said, the pod would not make it all the way back to the starting position at the base of the tank. Everyone seemed happy with that, and that the energy required to reset the system, would be that lost through the increased buoyancy.

However, if instead of using more energy in draining the tank further, we simply removed the weight entirely moving it on to some platform to keep it at the same height, then without that force applied to the pod, it would now sink as before back to the bottom.

So as I see it, the system would now would be back to the start, but we'd have 1 of two outcomes; either a weight was moed up and down as the pod dropped, or a weight is in a lifted position that wasn't before the start.... plausible?

Amo

Good point M.

QuoteBUT it will also rest on the three dowels that have been added to the test setup.

I need to add that feature too, THANKS
Dale

Amo said,

QuoteSo as I see it, the system would now would be back to the start, but we'd have 1 of two outcomes; either a weight was moed up and down as the pod dropped, or a weight is in a lifted position that wasn't before the start.... plausible?

Well, is it plausible or not? I think you are saying that the reversible, break-even work in-work out of adding and recovering the lift water will either do one of two things. It will lift and lower the weight, also reversibly and break-even, or it will raise the weight up, you can leave it there, and the system will come back down and you still recover your input water break-even. Leaving the lifted weight at the top; slide it sideways onto a platform or something. Thus you have overunity. Right? And you can use some of this weight in a second system somehow, as an "assist" to compress a bag or something, for free. Right?

Well, why stop there, with just the one weight lifted for free. Leave your lifted weight up and lift _another weight_ up. And another. And another. When you have lifted a hundred thousand weights up, with your reversible input water in and out break-even.... then let's talk about what to do with that COP > 100,000 you have attained.

So.... as you see it, is this plausible.... or not? If you have even a tiny bit of excess _anything_ in the system anywhere, it can be made to accumulate until its loss rate equals its rate of continued accumulation. If you have no loss rate, then you can accumulate your excess until.... your platform breaks from overloading, or you blow a gasket or a fuse or let out the magic smoke or your lab blows up.

As I see it, this idea of leaving the lifted weight in the lifted position, and still recovering the input work in a reversible manner, is indeed implausible, for the reason of the accumulation described above. It allows arbitrarily large OU ratios, and for me to believe in _that_, I will just have to see it for myself.

Quote from: webby1 on October 08, 2012, 11:57:32 AM
What I expect is that Dale's outcomes resemble the ones I have.

That's good, right? Sims and hardware performance iteratively converge on some reality that's repeatable and understandable. Carry on.

Quote
The more resistance to lift the shorter the lift, I get that from mine.

Is this the same as saying that the greater forces are only available over shorter lift distances? Maybe it is. Is it a consequence of air compression, or a fundamental fact of hydraulic levers? I'd like to see tested the conjecture that 2 incompressible fluids of different densities would "work" as well as water/air. Got mineral oil?

Quote
The setup changes the performance of the system when comparing in to out.

No surprise there. Different "bollard springs", different lift and sink forces, for the same weight bollard. Different weight, different lift and sink forces for the same setup.

Quote
The setup changes the performance of the system for recovery.

Also ditto.

Quote
The lift resistance can be too much and performance degrades, it can be too little and performance degrades.

The latter is interesting. This would appear to me to indicate that the compression of the air involving volume change is important, and thus would be different if two incompressible fluids were used.

Quote
The fluid entering the pod chamber gains in height faster than the pod\risers raise.

Also, I'm guessing, a consequence of the volume change of the airspace as the air is compressed. Again, it would be nice to compare the performance of an all-liquid system.

Quote
The applied force to fluid in is not the same as the applied force to fluid out, what I mean here is that I lift the water up to lift height right off the bat and the risers go up with that full value, plus the increase to compensate for the growing head in the pod chamber, and then the fluid comes back out starting at the high pressure value and drops off as the risers sink.

I don't understand how the first part of the statement fits with the second part. I'd say they are contradictory... can you explain further?

Quote
The minimum return pressure will be created by the weight left on the risers.

So if there is no weight left on the riser there is no return pressure? Then how do you get "sink" and recovery of the input water?

Quote
There are "sweet spots" in the setup where the choices made all work together.

As in life, and everything else too.

Quote
I also found a way to increase lift height for very little extra input, and I believe that it also makes for more output.

Well, good, I hope you share your discovery so it can be critiqued. How's your skin thickness today?