Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

there i go again, saying what i think, instead of what people interpret from my thoughts......

You know it's like russian roulette talking to me. Y never know when I'm gonna "go off".

let me try this again...    the volume of water exiting the spout required to create a siphoning effect is equal to the entire volume of the "straw".  The straw can only take in / put out so much water at a time,

Yes, time is the key and you tune your siphon appropriately. The size of the tube in the graphic is to bring out the point that it fills more slowly than it empties and it could be variable with the addition of a slightly larger tube with a valve on it.

that is LESS than the ammount of water exiting the spout at any given time.  suppose you had a vacuum EVEN at the exit spout!!  - the water is still falling out,. how are you going to get it back up into the tank to use it again for raising the siphon-water??

There you go assuming sizes.
(Actually that last part I'm not exactly following, but I'll take a stab at it.)

I picked the "ever-siphon" because I've always liked it as an energy recycler, but it needs to be pretty air-tight to keep vacuum.
It also needs to be "pre-seeded" with energy, but after time the energy created outweighs the cost.

Let's say the spout dumps 1.2L in 3 sec and the arm cycles completely in 15 sec.

That gives you 5X the amount of time for the siphon tube to do it's job, and if you have a sight glass on the upper tank, you can tune it to precision with the valve.

I'll post the instructions for my version too.

[sm0ky2]

im not understanding how the water in the LL gets up higher than the RL Ls ?

this siphon thing...  im not assuming any sizes. you can make it any size you want. YES the size of the tube is controllable, up to a maximum, then you have to increase the size of the output to sustain it. they are proportional by volume traveling in the verticle plane. What goes up must come down.

if you decrease the ammount of water going out, the ammount of water comming in decreases accordingly.

[exxcomm0n]

"My" version instructions:

This is a CONCEIVED device, not a built device, and I'm sure will have mechanical "gotchas", but it seems like it should work and i bet I could make it AND make it work.

So.....anyway.......

In the "new"pic you'll kind of see the concept.
The ratios are NOT correct, but this was "shooting from the hip", and as good as you might be at it, you are never as accurate as when you set up the shot in a normal fashion.

So......anyway....again........

On the light/long end we have a balance pan. When it travels up a wheel on the lever catches the valve arm on the lower tanks spout and while becoming a lever itself, opens the valve.

Water will fall and fill the pan(instead of being sucked back into the tank) because it has a greater weight than the smaller draw tube will allow to be sucked back to the bottom pool. This causes MORE vacuum (the tanks always have vacuum present, but in a static state until the valve is opened) which will slowly suck water from the bottom through the smaller draw tube when the valve is closed.
The vacuum is caused by the weight of the water "falling" and filling the pan.

Not sure what the fill to draw tube ratio would be, but of course fill will be much larger than draw.

It (draw) has the time of the lever cycle to refill the upper tank.
So say it takes 2-3 seconds for pan fill, and 10-12 seconds per lever cycle.
Think that'd work?


It's like the rope analogy Archer used a little while ago.

The vacuum is steady "tension" on the rope. When the valve opens the weight causing the tension "falls", drawing up more rope.

Look, this will probably need to be looked at a LOT harder than I am right now and the pump efficiencies mentioned by Archer will make it much easier without the calculations needed for the 2 upper tank capacities, tubing diameter, water weight, etc.

But that is a hard and fast overview of the light/long side.

Next post is the heavy side which I'm still being tweaked mentally by.

just got mail (actually, at least an hour ago now).

....and of course I'm still way out in left field with this concept, but I'll finish it anyway since I started.

So......now we travel to the short/heavy end.

It IS a bucket.

In fact 1/2 of its weight almost a box of water, but the bottom is a hinged flapper valve that opens towards the open top.
It's weighted so when the box has no water, the flapper is open at 12/6-ish , depending on the arc point of the lever arm.
The weight could be pretty close to the hinge of the flapper.

It doesn't have to be a box, that's just easier to draw.

So the short/heavy end is in the pool of water, bottom open.

If you're wondering how it was able be submersed, it's that the box is empty and instead of having the surface area of the bottom, it has only the knife edge of it's outline for surface area.
Even the flapper hinge is now shaped like an arrow point.

There has to be enough force to completely submerse the box at least 1/4 again it's depth.

The other 20kg could be a dense heavy thing like concrete (denser the better) and doesn't have to have the wide area that the box bottom would be either.

Maybe a collar or sleeve on the fulcrum arm?
Or a control arm? Wink

Again, a box was easier to draw (BS! I'm still shooting from the hip here and it was another one of those "floater" thoughts that you can't see if you try looking at it.
Like seeing the organisms that live on your eyeball). Very Happy

The light end is getting its spill pan filled, causing the heavy end to "scoop" water (which is easy since it's in water and the bottom isn't closed).
The scoop catches the edge of the bottom/flapper and causes it to close due to the inertia of the water.
By the time the box edges reach the waters surface the bottom should be closed holding 20kg water in the box.

(I have to keep bopping back and forth to the pic. C'mon, I'm a stoner here. Wink )

So when the box gets up near the upper tank from the long end being filled to capacity................

Did I mention that the flapper valve had a long actuating arm?

Let's say 5:1 with the :1 being the box bottom.

Damn, that means the heavy end supply pool has to be DEEP!

I'll get back to you on that one.

Anyway, it does.

This actuating arm is sticking straight out like, but not as, an extension of the lever because of the weight of the water keeping it closed.
(Damn, more weight.Even if it's small, it has leverage now.)

Near the apex of arc, about the distance of the box bottom or perhaps a skosch more, the arm hits a stationary peg very near it's end, opening the bottom and dumping the water.

But wait!

Shouldn't the bottom be really hard to open into the box as it has the weight of the water?

Not if we have a long actuating arm.

Now, if we made our peg distance so that the heavy end dumps just before the light end hits it's 45 degree spill slope, it will gather momentum as it's 2x as heavy now making sure the light end goes all the way to the bottom of it's arc and hits the spill tray (Actually, if you had materials strong enough, you might even be able to reap a little rebound energy).

How is the heavy end dumped water collected into the top tank?

I dunno yet.

Therein lies the magic of this for me if I want to sleep.

If I want to see it through it'll take coffee and cigarettes and a lot of pacing, or bouncing a ball with zen-like concentration, and I could still draw a blank by morning.

We'll see which side wins out since I didn't get a lot of sleep last night.

Stay tuned.............

And of course another bloated pic


*somebody* wrote:
the only thing wrong with that is that if the vacum pulls up water for free, you dont need the lever at all, you would have a free energy hydro??

not sure i follow what creates and keeps the vacumm
<snip>


That vacuum is not free.

In fact, think of it as more of the energy of the manufacturing process.

Both the bottom tank and the top tanks have to be filled with water.

Esiest way I see to do both is to hook a hose to pan fill spout and "back flush it".

If you put a vacuum tight air bleeder valve, on the top of the highest tank and open it while the draw tube is closed with a valve you can fill both upper tanks completely with water and then close the bleeder and open the draw tube valve to have it start filling the pool below while the hose is still hooked up.

When the bottom pool is about 2/3 full, close the fill spout valve and let gravity start creating your vacuum.

Adjust accordingly.

Find out where gravity stops creating vacuum and then top off the bottom pool.

Sound plausible?





Possible idea idea for the H (heavy) end upper tank fill.

What if the bucket bottom wasn't a class 1 lever, but a class 2 lever with a catch?

It still has an actuator arm, but instead oh projecting out the back, projects to the side?

And the arm is more than an arm now, it's a chute or tube?

Not even a actuator arm but just a sloped chute for water delivery?

Are you tired of me asking questions yet?

So near the top of the H side arc, a peg releases the catch and water runs out of the bottom, down the chute, and into the upper tank.

When emptied, the H side still submerses below the surface, the class 2 bottom hits the bottom of the tank and re-latches the catch, sealing the bottom.

Now this has extra resistance to lift since the bottom of the box is closed and so instead of gradually having more resistance, it has all the resistance to water inertia it ever will, and we'll have to adjust weights accordingly.
But it only happens until the top of the box breaks the water surface.

But then there's surface tension drag.
If it can float boats, it'll have friction.

Make it the H side a 4 sided pyramid with a hole at the top instead of a box so it will be more hydro-dynamic?
Hole size dependent upon dump?

Yeesh, these ideas mean a whole new drawing from a different aspect (I friggin wish I knew CAD) and I am toast.

I gotta sleep.

Thank you all for your interest. Wink

Wow.

The light side could be a machine in and of itself with just the counter balance weight if you think about it.

Can it do both???

Put magnets on the beam running through an arced series of coils?

This thing can be modified and adapted too?

How the HELL could it have stayed hidden until now?

Archer, you're right.

Man, I feel so stupid.

[dirt diggler]

Hi All
Changed my mind again and desided to post, I know nothing about how planes work but I find dirts statement hard to beleave when he said he uses less fuel going up then comming down.
If thats the case wouldn't the space shuttle need a bigger tank comming down then the 3 or so story tank it uses to go up, how does it come down with no fuel at all, also bransons spaceship lands without fuel, to save weight it uses another places fuel to get it up, its own to fly around and none to land.
Call me stupid but I can't see how you can use less fuel to go up then you use to come down.
Take Care All
Graham

Hi Graham:
Sorry bud, didn't mean to confuse you.
my answer was kinda a play on words, the real reason that I burn less fuel as I climb, and burn more when I descend, is that the air density(mostly oxygen) decreases the higher up I go. so the high up I go, the more i have to lean out my engine(reduce the amount of fuel).
so as I go higher, the air is less dense, so I have to add less fuel to the combustion process, (but at the expense of less horsepower) and as I descend, I will burn more fuel, because as the air gets more dense, I have to add more fuel to maintain the proper air/fuel mixture.
All aircraft gain massive increases in milelage when they cruise at higher altitudes.(gallon/hour, not nessesarily gallons/mile)

ciao, Dirt 

[exxcomm0n]

im not understanding how the water in the LL gets up higher than the RL Ls ?

The LL is a EDIT class2/3 counterbalanced lever (I'm never sure which) with it's fulcrum at 3M above the "ground" and the long side (water dipper) 3.25M long.
EDIT AGAIN:
The reason that it can reach the water is the container assembly's length is 1M.
(Ya had me going back to check the pic and make sure thats the way I drew it. The aspect ratio of the LL is not correct and a little long. I used side measurements for measuring an angle. Sue me.  )

That's the only way it can dip low enough to get water, and high enough to drop it since the lever end at full lift will be about 6M (it does not stand straight up, but at a slight angle towards the RL fulcrum.

This way the RL Ls can swing up UNDER it to actuate the catch and drop the 1.5L.
Remeber the LL Ls is pulled up by the dropping RL Hs weight pulling 0.5M into the 3.25 length (let's not ask me ratios, you know how that goes).
I originally had the "dropped" weight at 20kg but Archer asked for 5kg (on this one) so it would reflect his video example.

this siphon thing...  im not assuming any sizes. you can make it any size you want. YES the size of the tube is controllable, up to a maximum, then you have to increase the size of the output to sustain it. they are proportional by volume traveling in the verticle plane. What goes up must come down.

I thought I labeled the last crook in the spot to have a lever actuated valve.to stop the spill spout from dumping water when not actuated.
That's what the comment about using a backflow preventer valve was all about.

I need to keep water IN to replenish the upper tank level.

Luckily, just water tight and not air tight, and a back flow preventer valve can be had for less than $10. I just dealt with one today on the sump pump.
It uses water weight above it to stay closed, and in the sump pumps use keeps water from running back into the pit from the ceiling.

if you decrease the ammount of water going out, the ammount of water comming in decreases accordingly.

Not if it's being drawn up under steady vacuum.

The weight of the actuated spout dump water creates a more than static vacuum and the "sip" tube starts drawing as soon as vacuum and water weight in the tube are not in balance anymore.

Capiche?

If you don't, I'll do my best to help, but this is still a CONCEPTUAL drawing.

THERE CAN BE, AND PROBABLY ARE THINGS WRONG WITH IT.

I gotta make a toy to prove it out.

EDIT:
Right now I'm pondering materials, and if you've seen my other experimentation, you know how scary that can be.