Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[ionizer]

01-01-2013

but i think he will never admit it.
I think he will leave without saying sorry to all the people who wasted time anf money on his crap.

[Ghost]

he will most likely never admit it (that should be an option too).
people will lose interest all together at some point and that will be the end of it.
then you'll never hear from him again just like many others.
and even if his technology does work it will never be commercialized and will be suppressed by the government just like many others.
then there will be many others alike that will come along doing basically the same thing.
so in the end he will be no different from many others.
the end

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK,
not sure I understand you correctly. If you say 3.46 ounces I expect it is exactly this volume and not an interval 3.455 to 3.465. Rounding is left to the table processor. I assume they are using double for internal computings [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format[/size] and when displaying it they look how many digits is fitting into cell and rounding last one.


thank you,
Marcel

That's right, you are not understanding me correctly. 3.46 ounces is not the same as saying 3.460000000 ounces. Since the advent of calculators, people have forgotten about significant digits and blindly spew out all the numbers that the calculator can display, whether they are meaningful or not.

The basic rule is this: You cannot have more significant digits in your result, than the _least_ number of significant digits in your input data. Integers and Physical constants like pi are considered precise to whatever degree you need, but actual _measurements_  and calculations using them must respect actual levels of precision, not "mathematically correct" numbers, which will be wrong in a real physical situation.
For a calculation involving a measurement of, say, liters of water made in the ordinary way, I would be very suspicious of any measurement that claimed to be more precise than a milliliter, that is, three decimal places.

If you have, say, an electric heater, and there is a safety label on it that says:  "Keep at least 1 meter (39.3701 inches) distance from flammable objects".... what are you gonna do, get out your micrometer to position your heater?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/SIG_dig.htm
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/rounding2.htm

So please..... stop with the false precision already. All that listing a billionth of an ounce (for example) means is that your answer is already wrong.

In spreadsheets, YOU decide how many sig digs to display. Format>Number>digits. Let the machine do the double-precision math, but don't let it make you make false claims of precision that isn't there in reality.

[neptune]

@Webby1. I agree with every item on the "do you agree" list. You are doing great work.
@TK,regarding your video. I found it confusing initially to understand your concept of internal restraint and external restraint. Here is a way that I think I have grasped it, and would like to know if you think it is a valid way to consider it.
     Imagine we have a giant "G" clamp, that has no weight. We dispense with the lid , just keeping the jar and floater.
1. Internal restraint. we hold down the floater with the clamp, one end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the bottom of the jar, and the platform of the scales.


2.External restraint. One end of the clamp fits on top of the floater rod, the other end fits between the base of the scales and the table.

[fletcher]

The pressure phenomenon _{^{[breaking the bottom out of a bottle]}} you've cited above _{^{[force multiplication by pressure transfer - Pascal's principle]}} isn't what's going on in the inverted TE in my videos. The pressure in the jug acts in all directions, not just on the bottom. The bottom has more pressure because of the static water weight. But there is no airspace, and the force of the stopper is transmitted to all parts of the vessel by pressure. The bottom breaks out because of the stress concentration at the "corners" and because of the static weight added to the pressure from driving the stopper in.

Yes - I posted the example as a good exercise to go thru - if you assign a water height you can calculate the pressure on the bottom of the jug - also the force required to break out the bottom of the bottle - what is potentially interesting is what would the bottle weigh on scales when the 10 N force [~1.0 kg weight] is applied to the stopper if you assign it a volume ? - i.e. the pressure P2 = P1 at stopper + pgh but we have a force multiplication effect on the bottom surface - just an interesting exercise.

In my ITE experiments the added weight is a downward force only, the reaction force to the buoyancy which is "anchored" to the outside world by my hand or a fixed mounting stand. This is caused by the displacement of the floater pushing water (or virtual water) up as it is pushed down. Once it's completely submerged it doesn't need to push up any more water so the buoyant force is constant.

The Pod, inflexible and sealed, is not a Cartesian diver, it's a dead lump of matter and its displacement doesn't vary once it's fully submerged.

In the Cartesian Diver, there is a flexible membrane or water surface. As the diver goes deeper, the external pressure _changes the volume_ that the diver displaces. This is why its buoyancy varies with depth and why it can be made to rise and sink with externally applied pressure to the water.

Yes - the purpose of the control experiments was to show that buoyancy was not depth dependent [when the float volume doesn't change] with the same active buoyancy force at all depths, therefore pressure increases linearly, while density remains constant - so an increase in force on the scales must be registering something else & not a change in buoyancy with depth.

The first part is right [_{^{pressure levels increase with depth}}] ... therefore the second part isn't, because the same force is also acting on the top of the pod pushing it down. Buoyancy is not a result of pressure in this way.

ETA: You can think of the water and buoyancy as a simple spring. The spring simply transfers the push from my hand, down to the body of the reservoir which of course increases its "weight" on the scale. But if I compress the spring and then latch it to the side of the jar, there is no external frame for it to push against, so the scale weight doesn't increase.

I can live with the spring analogy quite well - I guess if we [the royal we] wanted to be more technically correct we might say that as the float was depressed the PE of the mass was raised - when the float was latched the system was at lowest PE status - the act of decoupling the forces, which were in equilibrium, shows an increase in force read on the scale - as we push the float down it is raising water into the space it just occupied behind it - Mr Newton seems to be vindicated in that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction.

i.e. water to the sides & above the float wants to flow down into its space, because it has greater density - the PE of the system would be lowered if the float rose upwards, if it could - by pushing the float downwards, by adding a force, the water around it still wants to 'flow' into its space.

The float could be moved downwards by an external force or conversely the vessel could be moved upwards around the stationary float - in both circumstances IINM the bottom of the vessel should see [if it could be measured] an increase in force which is easy to see in the ITE video you did.

These things relate directly to see3d's sim IMO where the piston raises the water volume around the locked down pod, so there is not just the work done to raise the water volume [weight] a height, but also a variable force input as the pod is partially submerging - he is contemplating using a counter balance mechanism for this effort required - IINM these experiments prove that the resistance will increase as pod is submerged, which needs to be factored into the sim as pgh calculation, and so a weight & lever counterbalancing approach [ f x d ] might be difficult to implement to get accurate results.

Man I'm having trouble keeping everybody's descriptions of their thought experiments & real experiments in my head - the mental models are overlapping & detail is fading, lol.

These are just my opinions.

P.S. what brought this train of thought around for me was to investigate potentially where Mr Wayne might be getting a 2/3rd reduction in Input Energy penalty that he claims is happening.