Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 636812 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1245 on: February 27, 2014, 11:54:26 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UoaFXyKN54
That looks and sounds like the useless scheme promoted by James Kwok around the same time period.  Buoyancy schemes to a one only aggravate inefficiency.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1246 on: February 28, 2014, 01:06:06 AM »
I asked Wayne for this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

and the attached drawing.

What this is, is a simple solution to the pressure equalization loss issue.

By having the elevated ZED discharge its pressure into the arm that connects the two bags together via the bag, it also moves the weights and the tube filled with fluid that move with that arm as well.  This in effect allows for the pressure that is not needed by the other ZED to be used to raise the GPE of the pole, weights and tube, and after mid-stroke that GPE is returned and used to assist the the descending ZED in providing further input to raise the other ZED.

This is an older design, and this exact method is no longer needed due to design changes.


I am still working on my homework :)
Webby, unfortunately that doesn't work either.  First, lets get our terms right:  pressure doesn't charge and discharge.  Energy does.  We can communicate forces and pressures.  Next let's talk about the pressure that the "other ZED needs".  Unless you have a third source of air, which you would then need to account for, each cc of air that goes into the second ZED comes from the first one.  If you don't get the air from the second one to the first, then you are stuck.  IE if you direct any amount of that air volume someplace else to do work, you still have to get that air back so that you can put it in the second cylinder.  So the scheme Wayne has outlined to you does not work as claimed.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1247 on: February 28, 2014, 02:27:38 AM »
Yes MarkE.

I can then only lift one weight on the output side of a lever even if there is enough on the input side to raise 2 or 3.

Likewise the volume of fluid exiting the ZED expanding the bag can not do the same thing,, that is fluid moving under pressure over a distance,, interacting with 2 external resistances,,

Sure thing MarkE.

The other bag that is filling the other ZED is connected via an arm, there is no transfer of medium between the two ZEDs,,,
Webby work on it any way that you want and you will end up losing quite a bit of energy.  This is a common problem that occurs in multiple disciplines.  In electronics it occurs when charging an empty capacitor from a charged capacitor, or charging a discharged inductor from one with an established current.  It happens if energy is stored in a compressed or extended spring and energy is transferred to a relaxed spring.  And in hydraulics it occurs when transferring fluid from a column filled to some height into an empty column.  But by all means if you think that you have a way to conserve the volume and also even approximately conserve the energy, then detail out your proposed mechanism and show your work.

Offline mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1248 on: February 28, 2014, 02:40:30 AM »
Webby work on it any way that you want and you will end up losing quite a bit of energy.  This is a common problem that occurs in multiple disciplines. ...  And in hydraulics it occurs when transferring fluid from a column filled to some height into an empty column.

MarkE, again I thank you.  You have provided some very useful information (at least form me!). 

M.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1249 on: February 28, 2014, 04:35:29 AM »
I asked Wayne for this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

and the attached drawing.

What this is, is a simple solution to the pressure equalization loss issue.

By having the elevated ZED discharge its pressure into the arm that connects the two bags together via the bag, it also moves the weights and the tube filled with fluid that move with that arm as well.  This in effect allows for the pressure that is not needed by the other ZED to be used to raise the GPE of the pole, weights and tube, and after mid-stroke that GPE is returned and used to assist the the descending ZED in providing further input to raise the other ZED.

This is an older design, and this exact method is no longer needed due to design changes.


I am still working on my homework :)
Didn't you notice that that machine is only "half" working? One side is considerably weaker than the other... yet it still "works". If you look closely at the stills and screenframes you will see some cables or hoses snaking off into the building behind, and you will also note that there IS a battery and that the control system display is powered by the battery -- and there doesn't seem to be any hydraulic motor or generator, like there may have been in the larger indoor system we first saw. Wayne gave me a ration of the usual ...er... rhetoric when I asked him about the things that look llike cables and hoses. I do not believe that that thing actually runs, or ran, itself.... and neither did Mark Dansie, I don't think. Surely it would have to have both sides working equally in order to "run itself". Don't you remember teeter-totters? If you have a scrawny little kid on one side and a... Wayne Travis-type on the other side and the moment arms are the same, pretty soon the system is gonna wind up with Travis at the bottom and the little kid at the top _unless_ somebody starts pushing the thing, supplying energy from outside or the precharge represented by Travis's breakfast.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1250 on: February 28, 2014, 05:01:29 AM »
Examine the diagram. How can it move at all, there is a triangular bracket shown connecting the crosspiece across the bags, to the vertical member.

Also the geometry is wrong, there needs to be a crosshead or the kind of shape that's on the head of an oilfield pumpjack, so that the arcs travelled by the rocking members are translated into straightline, axial lifts and sinks on the bags. The larger model also suffered from this gross inefficiency and I think that's why it groaned like a sick whale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCEcjJxPZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kt9vOFzAjQ

I told all this to Travis back in the old thread and he wasn't aware of crossheads. If he now uses anything like a crosshead or a jack head... he owes me bigtime because it was my suggestion that brought them to his attention.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1251 on: February 28, 2014, 06:02:34 AM »
That is part of my homework.

I understand exactly what you are talking about, I have no problems that the usual outcome is as you describe.

Even with that understood, the energy converted into "heat" or whatever waste product that happens, is a process that can be utilized.  I am not arguing that the normal conditions are false, I am arguing that there are methods to minimize that loss.

The bag that the ZED is connected to will expand, or extend, when the pressure inside the ZED is allowed to do so.  When that bag is converting that volume and pressure into a change in distance with force, aka pressure,, aka whatever is the "correct" term, that bag is now what is providing the input to the lever connected to the pole, weigh, tube and other bag, and it is that change in distance with prejudice, it is that input that pushes the lever arm and that arm moves the pole, weight and tube as well as compress the other bag squeezing the fluid out of that bag and into the other ZED.

It takes a certain amount of input to move the pole, weight and tube, any more input can then be used to compress the other bag, that is left over input from the pole, weight and tube NOT providing enough resistance against the input.  If designed correctly these two resistances can exactly match the input that the bag can provide and the force curve that it can provide it with.

In other words, the lifted ZED is applying its stored potential against an external resistance and NOT directly against another column of fluid\air.  It is more like the cap lighting a diode than charging another cap, or spinning up an electric motor,, losses sure, but they are very small when compared to the direct inverse interaction.
Webby, the basic problems are such:  Even in the best case which the junk pile from Chickasha does not even begin to approximate energy/matter is conserved and gravitational fields are conserved.  Beyond that, each thing that HER / Zydro do is lossy.  Loss multiplied by loss yields more loss.  The air transfer problem is a a classic one and there is no way of getting around the conserved volume.  In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much.  You do not have such an option here alternately emptying and filling the cylinders.  Work out any scheme that you like, and then walk through the states performing the calculations for each.  The ZED is not only not over unity, it is very inefficient.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1252 on: February 28, 2014, 05:29:07 PM »
Quote
I would suggest that you email Mark D. and ask him about those things that your are deluding to

The word is "allude" but I like your version much better.   ;)

I've been in communication with Mark Dansie for quite some time, and I consider him a good personal friend and I hope he feels the same about me, although I haven't heard from him in the past few weeks. If you want to know his feelings about what Travis told him and what he saw and concluded, you can find Gary Hendershot's Smart Scarecrow shows where Mark is interviewed and tells what he can tell, and how he felt about it.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1253 on: February 28, 2014, 07:04:19 PM »
MarkE,

A lever is a lever, even if that lever is run by a hydraulic jack.  this is simple and VERY self evident.  If what you are saying is correct then all jacks require twice the input energy than what we get from the output.


'In switched capacitor power conversion systems efficiency is maintained by not letting any of the capacitors discharge by much.'

Kind of like a ZED,, a smaller change in pressure by leaving some of the weight on the risers,, less volume to bring them up to charge pressure due to the nested risers,, lots of things that for some reason you choose to ignore.

I am currently slowly changing the filler, a static part, into a pod, an interactive part.  In this step the percent of volume needed to bring the system up to pressure is 1\3 the total volume that will be moved.

This may not seem like anything big, but it impacts the equalization in a noticeable way,, you loose less without having any secondary interaction to get rid of the exchange losses.  Use both methods,, think about it,,,
Webby either you do the math or you don't.  Hand waving does not cut it.  And yes a lever is a lever is a lever and that is self evident.  It is as self evident as a conserved volume by definition doesn't change.  I have been very specific that the loss is a result of starting with one volume filled and equalizing to another volume.  I will not play straw man with you. 

So feel free to detail any method that you like for getting the air volume from the charged cylinder to the empty cylinder, keeping track of the input work you have to add along the way.  Eventually, you will see that the problem is starting with one full and one empty.  If the problem continues to elude you, then you may consider a simple "U" tube filled half way with water.  It takes real work to force the water all into one side.  Let go and the water redistributes to equal volume in each side.  If the energy were the same in both states then we should be able to get the water to spontaneously move from the equalized condition to one side full or the other.  But, we can't.  Dream up any machinery you want to try and go from full on one side to full on the other. 

You have yet to show your work for any claims you make for a ZED.  Of course I ignore extraordinary claims that consist of handwaving.  When you make a claim that can be checked then I will evaluate it.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1254 on: February 28, 2014, 07:10:10 PM »
TK,

I do not want to mess up the other thread,, so I will say this here,, if you do not mind :)

The stored energy in the "pressure" of the incompressible fluid is not in the fluid "pressure" but in the change of position resulting in the applied input.

When the input is applied the water stands up in a tall column and that raises the GPE of that water column and that is where energy is stored, so you are correct that the "fluid" does not store it internally per-say but the fluid standing up stores it by virtue of it standing up.
There is no stored energy in the fluid due to the pressure.  There is stored energy in the GPE.  It is easy to get mislead focusing on the pressure.  If I have a 1x1x1 m box of water on the ground, then the pressure is 9789Pa, and the work that it took to fill that box works out to the same value as half the pressure times the volume.  If I lift that whole box by 1m the pressure does not change, but yet I just had to perform twice as much work as when I filled the box.  Integrating F*ds gives the correct answer every time.  Pressure values only give the right results under special circumstances.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1255 on: February 28, 2014, 08:25:06 PM »
That is what I said MarkE.

The stored anything is in the elevated GPE,,

That elevated GPE came from the input of a volume of something under pressure from some source.
The pressure that is under a 1m x 1m x 1m box of water is 9789Pa.  But the energy expended can be anywhere from 4894J used to fill that box at ground level to millions of J used to lift the box to some height.  Yet the pressure does not change.  Pressure and volume only indicate energy under special circumstances.  Work is the integral of F*ds.  Always use integral of F*ds and always get the right answer.  Use a proxy under the wrong circumstances and get the wrong answer.
Quote

In my way of thinking you are describing 2 different things, one is filling the box and the other is lifting a full box because if the box was empty it would take less work :)

So when I say V*P I mean the volume moved,, not what the whole volume is,, I could have a 1000 L container and it takes the same "force" to raise it up to 1000pa as a 1 L container, but if I have a movement of some total volume at 1000pa then that volume and pressure are energy aka work.
Use integral of F*ds: Always.
Quote

Pressure is nothing without a change happening,, it is only a potential and therefore useless by itself, but when that pressure acts by moving some volume of something, then work has been done.
That is utter nonsense.   Work is the integral of F*ds.  It is not pressure.  It is not pressure times the volume of an incompressible fluid.  It has the same value as 0.5*pressure*volume for the special case where a fluid is pumped into an empty vessel.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1256 on: February 28, 2014, 09:18:12 PM »
Webby said,
Quote
The difference between us is that I see a possible functioning device and you do not, I take an approach of "how could I do that" you take an approach of "how can I fake that".

Not quite true. You left out something very very important. When I see someone present a device that appears to, or rather is claimed to, function in contradiction to all physical science and all experimentation from the past two thousand years I begin my examination from the approach that it is likely NOT to actually do what is claimed. Then I try to figure out, if I care to, how the presented effects could be produced.
Furthermore, when the presenter of such a device is engaging in rather classic "three card monty" behaviour and will not show the sausages that his wonderful sausage maker is supposed to produce.... well, we know upon which side of the teetertotter I'll put that little bit of non-evidence, don't we.

One would think you've never seen a stage magician perform. And you haven't yet said how a dual Zed system could operate if one side has a tummy ache, like the one in the video.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1257 on: February 28, 2014, 09:23:31 PM »

Quote
Describe force.

F = mA.  The letters F and A are bolded because they are vector quantities, with both magnitude and direction.

Therefore, FORCE is that which causes ACCELERATION of a MASS.

This is not a "description", it is a Definition, in the same way that Ohm's Law defines the relationship between its three quantities Resistance, Voltage and Current.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1258 on: February 28, 2014, 10:38:43 PM »
MarkE,

Here is a little homework for you.

Choose weights and distances to ease the calculations.

What is the amount of work that can be harvested.

From the final resting state after the harvest, how much work needs to be done to reset the system back to the starting postion.

How much difference is there between the harvested work and that required to reset.

This system is the same as a pressure vessel interaction.
In all cases we determine energy as the integral of F*ds.  (I will keep repeating this until it takes.)  In the case of the two weights you can't anymore get from left arm horizontal right arm vertical to left arm vertical right arm horizontal without adding energy than you can transfer the "air" between cylinders without adding energy.  Go ahead and do the experiment:  Set-up as in your drawing with the left arm pointing at 180 degrees, and the right arm pointing at 270 degrees and then let go:  The system will come to rest with the left arm pointing at 225 degrees, and the right arm pointing at 315 degrees.  You will then have to do work to get the system back to where it was, or similarly to continue on to the horizontal mirrored condition.  That means that you lost energy in the transaction.

And since this has been explained to you multiple times, and since you can easily confirm it from any of many available references it really makes me wonder why you are having such difficulty understanding this issue.
Quote

You do not need to do the math, it is more for a POV check.

And I see that you do not understand what I said,,

Pressure and volumes are calculated using surface area and distance of motion,, that is how I do it, so I use F*ds.  The added volumes are applied against a given surface area and that moves an appropriate distance by the volume added at a given pressure value.
Once again:  Pressure and volume are related to work only under the special circumstances that the work performed was used only to build head in the specific volume and only the specific volume.  Work is always the integral of F*ds.
Quote

Describe force.
I'll let the University of Georgia explain force to you:

Quote
Force

One of the foundation concepts of physics, a force may be thought of as any influence which tends to change the motion of an object. Our present understanding is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe, the gravity force, the nuclear weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong force in ascending order of strength. In mechanics, forces are seen as the causes of linear motion, whereas the causes of rotational motion are called torques. The action of forces in causing motion is described by Newton's Laws under ordinary conditions, although there are notable exceptions.

Forces are inherently vector quantities, requiring vector addition to combine them.

The SI unit for force is the Newton, which is defined by Newton = kg m/s2 as may be seen from Newton's second law.
You can study your pendulum problem and try and reconcile how it works statically and dynamically.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #1259 on: February 28, 2014, 11:12:15 PM »
Actually TK your response is my point.

I have a tendency to describe things, describe what I am thinking or playing with, you and MarkE and all the other well educated and talented people "define" things.
In order to communicate it is necessary to use the same definitions.  I don't define scientific terms.  I adhere to the published, accepted definitions.
Quote

I say force, and to me that is a description more often than it is a definition.

I apply a force and to me that means I am causing something to move or change, then I describe how or which way, close to what you would prefer but not the same as a defined interaction with strict boundaries.
You are free to define a Webby specific physics.  You are then burdened with proving that your personal physics work.  Those who use proven physics get to rest on all those very smart people who came up with the existing ideas and then rigorously tested them.  It saves a lot of work.
Quote

I see stored potential within the ZED, I do not care about "what" it is, only what I can do with it, and then what I must do to use it the way I want to.
Well if you want "stored potential" to do "work" in the sense that the entire world of industry and academia understand "work", IE the stuff that the power company bills you for when you consume it, then you will have to show that the "stored potential" is actually released energy.  Unfortunately for you, the ZED does not produce any net energy cycle to cycle.  It consumes energy cycle to cycle.