I have snaked a siphon tube into the fill tube connected to the funnel in the system I have been testing.  This allows me to add and remove water through that tube with a syringe.  The benefits are: 1) no longer need to use the bottom vent to remove fluid/pressure to cause the system to drop to the bottom of stroke, 2)  stroke in both directions can be performed very slowly and smoothly compared to before, 3)  can measure lift distance and input pressure vs. input volume very accurately now, in both directions of the stroke.

First thing tested with the new input method was not related to that modification.  The modification happened while I was testing a different setup "precharge' method per @webby1.  Previously the system had been precharged by locking at the top stop and then introducing air until is escaped through the outer annulus.  Then the system would be stroked multiple times until skirt blows and removal of extra water causing flooding of the Outer Riser was eliminated while cycling.  The alternative method was to do the same setup but while starting locked in the bottom position.  For your reference, the first method caused more flooding of the Outer Riser while the second cause more skirt blows whie stabilizing by cycling over and over.  But ultimately they both resulted in almost identical setups as far as I can tell.  The volume of added water to stroke is exactly the same, but the pressure required did increase by 2 g/cm² which I hope is probably insignificant or related to how gently the system can be cycled now.

Next tests will be input pressure and stroke height vs. input volume for the positive and negative portions of a full cycle.

One very interesting observation with regards to hysteresis and/or stiction:  While cycling using a 12 ml syringe it is possible to reverse direction of the syringe and see NO change in the lift height until approximately 8 ml of fluid has reversed direction.  I can see the water and air levels changing in the ZED but not lift change.  So, is it stuck?  Or is there hysteresis?  Otherwise the system strokes so smoothly that I can easily dial the lift into exactly any 0.01 mm value with the new syringe input method.

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on November 03, 2012, 03:22:25 PM
(snip)

One very interesting observation with regards to hysteresis and/or stiction:  While cycling using a 12 ml syringe it is possible to reverse direction of the syringe and see NO change in the lift height until approximately 8 ml of fluid has reversed direction.  I can see the water and air levels changing in the ZED but not lift change.  So, is it stuck?  Or is there hysteresis?  Otherwise the system strokes so smoothly that I can easily dial the lift into exactly any 0.01 mm value with the new syringe input method.

M.

Well, there probably is some hysteresis combined with sticktion, and some of the stiction will come from viscosity and capillary effects, which likely won't be overcome by your vibrator.
Consider a neutrally buoyant floater, like a cake of Ivory Soap, just barely floating at the surface of water. To get it to start rising or sinking visibly, it might be necessary to vary its effective density by a finite amount, not an infinitesimal one. That is, a neutrally buoyant floater might need several grams (effective) weight change in order to start moving, either sinking or rising further up out of the water, even though "theoretically" it should start moving as soon as any infinitesimal alteration to its effective density is achieved.
I suppose you could call this "hysteresis".

But the fact that your hysteresis is repeatable and controllable, and you can get your desired position of the floater at will, using the same input each time, is good news. It's hard to reconcile that degree of hysteresis with the performance (or alleged performance) of a twin-Zed HDPE system, though.

Quoting LarryC:

QuoteYou are wasting your time with the concrete brains. Only Mark's observations can start to change their opinion, then they will attack Mark. In the end they will understand, and the real men will admit they were wrong and the others will slither off in the grass. I already know the results, so I patiently wait for Mark's results.

For what it's worth Larry, I don't think the concrete brains or the mush brains on this thread can understand any of the spreadsheets that you have posted in this thread.  I can't recall a single comment about one of your spreadsheets that was indicative of an understanding of what you are trying to communicate with those spreadsheets.

Well, I am very confident that we will never see a successful launch of any kind of ZED.  As TK stated, we are now in the phase where allegedly working prototypes are abandoned for "new and improved" prototypes.  Well, the allegedly just-abandoned allegedly working prototype would have been enough in itself to rock the scientific world right to it's foundations and become the main event in the history of the 21st century.  How many times have we seen that before?  Scientists would almost be going insane to see the first prototype if it actually worked even if it was held together by plastic bands and band-aids.  Yet, Hydro Energy Revolution LLC have apparently abandoned that Earth-shattering technology for a "new and improved" Earth-shattering technology.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this thread starts to coast off into the frozen void and blackness of space because nothing happens.  In other words the whole thing is dead.  Let me suggest an arbitrary time for calling this thread dead.  Suppose that we pronounce the thread dead on March 31st, 2013.  That gives Wayne and company five more months to show something.  Considering a "pre-validation" is supposed to be happening this weekend, and all of the talk about dates for demos and all of the slippages, I think that March 31st, 2013 is being petty generous.

What I would propose is that on April 1st, 2013, assuming no successful demo and no product launch, that we all contribute to a post-mortem on Hydro Energy Revolution LLC and this thread.

He is my big question:  What were the motivations of Wayne and company for coming here?  Why was this thread started?  What purpose did it serve?  What is the real reason for all of this discussion?  Who does it benefit, who does it hurt?

Those are serious questions and I would encourage all participants in this thread to express their opinions when we cross that hurdle.

Permit me also to preemptively raise an issue.  I have seen free energy schemes get busted and then all of the believers in the thread might go mute or simply write off the whole experience and say almost nothing.  I have seen them say, "Well I learned something" without saying what they learned.  For the believers, show some spirit!  If you are frustrated and angry for whatever reason then say it!  Surely you must have some thoughts and feelings about being used!  Express yourselves, don't just end up as passive patsies.

But again, the real post-mortem for this thread should be to examine and speculate about the motives and reasons that the promoters of this free energy scheme came here in the first place.  I would like to see an honest and open discussion about that take place.  This includes parties from ALL sides of the debate.  The losers should not just pack up and run.  Let's all have a good stimulating debate and try to learn something from this experience.

MileHigh

Hey M.
While you're at it - a test you might want to run.
Now that you can see and measure the pre-charge.
Note the volume and pressure increase before lift - with the lift weight on.
Then, after removing the lift weight at the top.
Note the volume and pressure drop - before - it starts to sink. ( post-charge ?? )

Dale

Quote from: wildew on November 03, 2012, 07:14:14 PM
Hey M.
While you're at it - a test you might want to run.
Now that you can see and measure the pre-charge.
Note the volume and pressure increase before lift - with the lift weight on.
Then, after removing the lift weight at the top.
Note the volume and pressure drop - before - it starts to sink. ( post-charge ?? )

Dale

K.