Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[see3d]

@see3d: that looks very nice indeed.

It would be nice to have some reference across the horizontal axis, like sample number or "time", just for reference. The blue triangle of applied force is a nice way of visualising it but it's not easy to describe.

If I may interpret:
You are pushing up with the piston with constantly and linearly increasing force (the blue triangle at bottom, the area of which corresponds to the total work input). The output graphs show a clear knee when the riser lifts off, at an input of about 3.3 pounds or so. The green line shows the "effective" weight of the weightless riser and the lifted weight, decreasing until it reaches zero at the liftoff point. So you're pushing upwards with about 3.3 pounds at that point and the 5 pound weight begins to rise upwards (the knee in the output graphs.) You've already pushed the input piston in by about 0.15 or 0.20 inch at that point (the blue line on the output graphs). Then the riser/weight rises, so the "output force" the green line is zero, but I'd call this the "effective weight" or something like this myself. You have to keep pushing with increasing force, moving the piston in another half-inch or so (the steep part of the blue line). Then you hit the top stop and the second "knee" or leveloff in the graphs is seen. The PSI line (black) looks like it might even show LarryC's little swervy curvy thing along in there once the riser starts moving upwards.


So, I note that 2.609 inch-lbs (input work) > 2.536 inch-lbs (output work) and if you let any air out of the pressurised chamber.... you will have to replace it somehow to complete a cycle. It might be interesting to see how much you could bleed out at the top, though, before the weight/riser starts to sink.

I hope I got the interpretation right... I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't.

So, can we then see what the descent cycle looks like, and where/how there is supposed to be any apple to toss to the other Zed?

TK, your interpretation is pretty good.  Things have a linear transfer function between a couple of breakpoints around the start and end of the riser lift.  There are some curvy lines on other chart parameters in other charts, but they are derived from this chart, so not unexpected.

This is about all I can say with confidence until I get more debugging and verifications done.

~Dennis

[AmoLago]

I don't see that happening. I would expect it to remain floating as the water surface equalizes on both sides. (This is all it can do without any extra energy input). Bear in  mind that the total volume that the water can occupy changes as it moves up.

Hi Seamus,

Hmm, as I wasn't sure I decided to set up something up as an approximation of spreadsheet and, with respect, I believe you are incorrect.

I took some crude measurements, and I repeated this several times to ensure that what I saw occurred every time. It's very crude to simply demonstrate the proof of concept so I beg you judge me too harshly. Attached are some pictures I took as I went through the process:
PA050003s.jpg - Close-up of the mark on the pod to show it is level with the level of the water.
PA050004s.jpg - Close-up levels of water in the two tanks to show they start level.
PA050005s.jpg - Showing the whole setup, pod is free floating, siphon tube is full and ready to go.
PA050006s.jpg - Pod mechanically locked down with a tub of Maltesers. You can see it's not perfect as the line is now just below the surface of the water.
PA050007s.jpg - Now I don't have a pump, so the fill tanks is lifted and the siphon kicks off taking the water from the fill tank to the pod tank.
PA050008s.jpg - A couple of minutes later and the two water levels are level, pod is still locked down.
PA050009s.jpg - Just to show position of everything before stroke.
PA050010s.jpg - Pod restraint is removed, pod rises and you can see again the water level in the pod tank is level with the mark on the pod.
PA050011s.jpg - Just to show position of everything at end of stroke.
PA050012s.jpg - Fill tank lowered back to starting point, water level now higher in pod tank.
PA050014s.jpg - A long time later (definitely need a bigger exhaust pipe!), we are back to the starting point.

Pod tank diameter 13.5cm, height 16.9cm.
Pod diameter 10cm, height 13.5cm, weight 374g.
Height of water with pod locked and pod tank filled 12cm.

According to the spreadsheet, these values give a stroke height would have been 3.5cm (really should have measured that, doh! I think I'll set this up again tomorrow just for that.), and would have had 0.13 J PE difference from the down stroke.

So, I don't think the question is whether the pods sinks back after cycling the water, but how much useful work can be taken out whilst it does? And depending on losses up to that point, would it be enough to cause an imbalance between work in/work out?

Again, please let me know if I've messed up anywhere thus making my conclusions incorrect.

Right back to adding risers/layers to the spreadsheet.

Amo

[TinselKoala]

@AmoLago:
Thanks for doing that demonstration and documenting it so well. A ruler somewhere in the picture, next to the tank, would help; one could go over the still pictures with dividers or calipers and get good measurements that way. But it's not really necessary for what you are showing, which is that the water levels will equalize and the system will end up back where it started.
But the situation you have demonstrated isn't what Seamus 10n was talking about, I don't think. It looks to me like what he finds objectionable is the situation that the pod _starts out floating_ above the bottom, then sinks back all the way down to the bottom at the end. In your demo the pod starts on the bottom, and winds back up there. If you started with just a bit more water in the system to begin with, so that the pod started at, say, 1 cm high, then that is where it would wind up, not all the way down at the bottom.
So you are both right: If you are adding nothing and subtracting nothing and your input winds back up at the same place where you started.... so will your output.

So, I don't think the question is whether the pods sinks back after cycling the water, but how much useful work can be taken out whilst it does? And depending on losses up to that point, would it be enough to cause an imbalance between work in/work out?

To answer this question, imagine a string attached to the top of the pod. What force would you have to pull upwards with to prevent the pod from starting to sink?
Or, conversely, imagine that you are taking work from the water pressure as it flows during the pod sinking. This is equivalent to pushing against a little bit of elevated head. So, to simulate this, don't put the input reservoir back down completely on the table at the "recovery" but rather elevate it, by say, 1 cm. Now where do the water levels and pod wind up?

[Xaverius]

Any update on the "Zed for Dummies"  book and where one can be purchased?

[mrwayne]

Any update on the "Zed for Dummies"  book and where one can be purchased?

My thoughts were to offer the book after the Validation.
We are concerned that it would send mixed signals releasing it before.
Thanks for asking - Michel put a lot of work into it.
Wayne