Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[fletcher]

Breaking the "Law of Levers" barrier with fluids. re: Asymmetric torque about a fulcrum.

The following is my background to & theory about the possibility of breaking the 'Law of Levers' barrier. It also proposes a Prime Mover candidate & description to act as a switch to change system Center of Mass [CoM] by creating a virtual displacement of mass in a symmetrical wheel [rotary] format.

Part One:

Some Background:

Years ago I conducted a set of experiments to investigate Archimedes Buoyancy Force & the Law of Floatation, & Pascal's Principle of undiminished fluid pressure transfer as relates to Hydraulic Levers. This required knowing a little about Fluid Dynamics. I was well aware that Fluid Dynamics Principles were predicated on Conservation of Energy doctrine [CoE of closed systems] which was a fundamental of the overarching Laws of Thermodynamics.

I built various simple mechanical 'balance beam' experiments using the lever & fulcrum format i.e. reciprocating devices, which later morphed into exploring rotary formats. I released some of these experiments to www.besslerwheel.com discussion board around 2007 but held some concepts back, for a rainy day, as they required further careful thought, not just from the experimental design & engineering perspective.

The purpose of these generic experiments was an attempt to dissect, observe if possible, or deduce, an anomaly in 'ordinary' accepted physics & mechanics that would not be readily apparent [if one existed], that could ultimately lead to a self sustaining reciprocating or rotary 'engine'. One that did not require an input of external fuel energy source or the harnessing of an environmental gradient or differential such as barometric pressure or temperature changes [that was a parallel line of inquiry]. In short, trying to find a method to invoke Asymmetric Torque around a fulcrum, i.e. breaking the Law of Levers & Newton's Laws. Conservative gravity's strengths & weaknesses might be coerced to cooperate.

During these experiments a thought coalesced. From the empirical study of these properties of fluids an oversight in understanding of fluid behaviour application [or misapplication] began to emerge as a possibility. If the theory proved correct the result would be profoundly paradigm changing in its implications, if not complete scientific heresy.

General Comment:

Critics who read my presentation here may label it as a convenient arrangement of discreet 'factoids' & ill-conceived speculations cobbled together into what could only generously be described as a loose argument. Whilst that may be one interpretation I am quite relaxed about my presentation methodology here. I prefer to present my hypothesis & theory in this way, for simplicity, as a series of 'stepping stones' & bullet points of the thought processes I went thru, as a potential pathway for further inquiry & understanding, & facilitating open discussion & development of ideas & concepts in an open source environment.

Optimistically perhaps, setting the groundwork to potentially developing a working mechanical self sustaining Intrinsic Motion Machine [IMM], or free-energy OU device, or PMM in the vernacular. Some of my speculations & conclusions that trickled out of the inquiry process I leave out for the moment to invite & encourage alternate views, discussion, experiments, interpretations or conclusions.

.................................

Some of the experiments I conducted & what I found or deduced:

Firstly, I conducted experiments in buoyancy & floatation to empirically compare against what I believed I knew about the subjects i.e. that buoyancy force was an artefact of gravity force due to differences in density. In the process of manifesting buoyancy or flotation the system Center of Mass [CoM] is lowered to its position of least Potential Energy of Position [PE]. We are all familiar with the phrase that 'you can float a battleship in a bathtub', i.e. a suitably sized one, shaped like the ship's hull of slightly greater volume & dimensions. This means that only a small volume of 'filler' fluid is needed to raise & float the battleship & that the 'actual' fluid volume can be significantly less than the displacement volume of the ship's hull. However the PE increase in system CoM raising [future Output joules] is equal to Work Done in potentializing the system [Input joules], not considering losses - nothing new here, just Archimedes Laws in action.

Whilst studying 'floats' on levers depressed ever greater distances into buckets of water I noted that the depth of fluid increased with a resultant greater force [pressure] on the bottom of the bucket due to head depth, & this was a linear relationship as expected. Since the bucket, lever & float mechanism was counterbalanced by an exact same mechanism on the opposite side of a fulcrum [where the float was neutrally buoyant in the bucket water] the coupled arrangement rotated away from the applied force so that the float would attempt to separate out from the water. This was an example of Newton's 'for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction'. Nothing further to be observed or learned here.

However, for as long as I can remember it was apparent that for an object to float in a fluid that the objects mass must equal the volume mass of displaced fluid. IOW's, that density was constant & uniform in a non compressible fluid where an object floated on the surface. This means that an object [e.g. say a ship, to purposely exaggerate the example for visualization purposes] can be positioned anywhere in a large enough swimming pool, on one side or another etc, & because density is uniform from lower to upper water level there will be no torque [turning force] produced around a hypothetical fulcrum [or pivot/axle] at the Center of Rotation [CoR] of the swimming pool system, providing the floating object has degrees of freedom.

To cross check my thought experiment with another I also imagined a rectangular 'U' shaped trough supported at each end by a set of bathroom scales. The trough was filled with water, each scale reading the same & showing half the weight force of trough & water. Next, a toy boat was introduced that could move in any direction as long as it didn't touch the sides. Both scales read higher weight force to account for the toy boat addition but still read equal, regardless of where the boat was positioned in the trough. Therefore the position of the floating boat created no turning moment or system torque.

This I consider was a self evident deduction that many have probably also made just through observation & a little thought experimenting. No stunning revelation or anything new here.

See pictures of ships in swimming pool & boats in trough on scales.

My next objective was to examine Pascal's Principle more closely as it relates to Hydraulic Leverage for which it is most familiar in a mechanical sense. To recap, Pascal's Principle says that 'pressure is transferred undiminished to all points in a static enclosed fluid'. We use this principle daily & in many mechanical applications in the form of the hydraulic press, where pressure created by application of a force multiplies that force [proportional to areas] to do Work at another position. N.B. a major benefit of hydraulic principles is transmission of forces over large distances where mechanical levers & linkages are inferior or constrained. IOW's, the hydraulic press is used as a force multiplier machine that gives us a force advantage but it does not change or alter the 'Law of Levers' or Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP].

i.e. f1 x d2 joules of energy Input [Effort] = f2 x d1 joules of energy Output [Load] – the 'Law of Levers'.

In this format & use the hydraulic press is a zero sum energy game, & is a facsimile of a mechanical lever, which creates mechanical advantage at the expense of speed ratio. CoE is preserved, not counting losses, & Newton & Thermodynamics are safe.

See pictures (2) of hydraulic press & transmission of pressure & force multiplication doing Work.

The thought experiments continued:

However, these experiments & further contemplation opened a pathway of possibility to me. What if I could use the ship floating in a swimming pool analogy & change conditions such that I could create torque around a fulcrum on demand, create a switch ? In effect, be able to turn torque on & off when required to create a terrestrial machine whose natural preferred state was inherent instability & dynamic motion, the antithesis to all other terrestrial man made machines which seek & will find their position of lowest PE & thus static stability, without additional energy input. So I set about envisaging mechanical devices that could theoretically achieve this inherent animation & instability outcome.

N.B. the following descriptions & pictures throughout are deliberately simple & generic in nature. They are metaphors for what I consider needs to happen to create asymmetric torque around a fulcrum [i.e. mitigate torque on one side of a pivot], to potentially break thru the Law of Levers barrier. They are in no-way intended as full & accurate, or to scale, schematics or blue prints to a working device. Simply ideas & concepts in picture form to illustrate concepts & ideas presented here.

1. My first thoughts were around a method to treat the hypothetical swimming pool analogy as a horizontal fluid filled open lever [U shaped] pivoted at the CoR . Then an object [the ship] floating in the fluid could be positioned at one end. This scenario would then require the 'fluid lever' to act like a cannel lock in reverse i.e. the ship is latched to the end at full water height & then a portion of fluid is removed to a reservoir leaving the ship no longer fully buoyed by the fluid. Once the ships degrees of freedom are restricted in this way, by latching & dropping the water level beneath it, the lever density would no longer be uniform. The lever would become end heavy which would create torque around the pivot & create momentum & Kinetic Energy [KE] in the system. N.B. this could be used to do Work [f x d .. or .. m.a.d = 1/2mv^2 (rotational KE)]. When the timing was right the extracted portion of water could be reintroduced to the fluid lever to raise up water levels & cause full floatation of the ship [once unlatched] which would restore the system to uniform density & zero torque conditions again, & have no further effect on momentum already gained. IOW's, turning torque on & off strategically could cause momentum accumulation conditions & rotational KE in a system & the concept could be either in reciprocating or rotary format. Of course this was a thought experiment that had considerable engineering problems to overcome. For instance torque manifested by lowering water levels around a fixed object in an open U shaped lever would cause the lever to tilt & the water would run down hill. This would cause the water to overflow & also lower the system CoM further reducing system PE which would have to have Work done on it later to restore system PE, in order to complete a cycle.

See picture of ship in swimming pool latched & unlatched with changing water levels.

Further considerations for me weren't only mechanical & engineering but also brought into question the relationship of Work & Energy in the guise of the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP], an important mandate in physics when comparing Work [f x d = m.a.d] joules to energy joules. CoE says that they should be equal, not counting losses. The proposed hypothetical system should create torque on demand [asymmetric force] via a periodically displaced system CoM. It relied on a reservoir & pumping in & extracting out small volumes of fluid [Work Done] to float & unfloat an object which according to current physics understanding was consistent with the view that Work & Energy are interchangeable, both using the same units, & therefore should be of equal magnitude with no excess energy capability or OU potential. This should be an excess energy dead end because of conservative gravity.

The following are two formats & three variations on a theme for illustrative & conceptual purposes.

i. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with a single buoyant device one end & a counterweight the other, alternating system CoM position from CoR to one side & back again, by floating, latching & draining, then filling, unlatching & refloating an object less dense than the fluid medium.

ii. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with two buoyant devices located at opposite ends of the lever that alternated their roles in mitigating torque at the appropriate times, much as above. This would have better power density than a single counterweighted reciprocating device, therefore be more efficient.

iii. A fluid filled fully enclosed tube rotary lever device, with one or more fluid filled cross diameter levers, for momentum & KE accumulation, & to act as efficient energy storage device as a flywheel does, possibly at a higher energy density configuration than i. or ii. above.

N.B. it was my contention however that any system [such as a wheel] based on a concept that created asymmetric torque around a fulcrum on demand [the switch] using properties of fluids could also potentially give rise to greater rotational KE in joules than the energy cost associated with it, including losses. That is, be self sustaining, restore PE & have excess KE & momentum that could be bled of to do Work. This would cause scientific apoplexy until understood, if it could be engineered & it worked.

2. The thoughts & concepts in 1. above quickly matured & morphed into a more heretical approach & design, both for reciprocating & rotary devices. What if I should disassociate WEEP so that Work & Energy were treated discreetly, & not be viewed as opposite sides of the same coin ? Then a device such as a wheel might be designed that was physically [real mass position wise] symmetrical at all times i.e. in terms of radial positions of mass it is symmetrical. But the system would respond with momentum & KE gain due to asymmetric torque about a fulcrum or axle via oscillating system CoM shifts. [In Part Two I'll explain why & how this might work out]. This causes continuous instability & continuous dynamic motion. This would be breaking the Law of Levers barrier using a property of fluids & gravity force.

[fletcher]

Part Two:

The Theory is ... 'Virtual Displacement (of) Mass Principle', aka 'MAD-VD' Theory.

V.D. stands for Virtual Displacement (of Mass). M.A.D. stands for Mass, Acceleration, Distance [i.e. Work Done = force times distance joules of energy]. The theory proposes that a symmetrical wheel can mitigate turning forces on one side of the fulcrum [i.e. generate asymmetric forces] making the wheel behave as if it were continuously overbalanced. i.e. whilst there is no actual physical mass displacement of note there is a virtual displacement of mass caused by a fundamental property of fluid to transmit [communicate] pressure equally to all points in an enclosed fluid & it is this that the system responds to as a result of interpreting a system change in CoM.

N.B. from the rotating systems point of view the mass [weight force pressure inducing input] is almost instantaneously lifted upwards & shifted to a new position & repositioned back again later, creating torque, although the reality is the mass does not change its relative position within the wheel. See accompanying diagrams for further clarification.

The Hypothesis is ...  A Prime Mover modelled on a modified symmetrical Hydraulic Press arrangement [i.e. a reservoir/bladder etc] acting as a pivoted fluid filled cross diagonal structure, or structures, in reciprocating or rotary format can be used as a switching technology.

Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [i.e. communication] to all points in an enclosed fluid system is the crux of the Prime Mover's modus operandi & constitutes a switching technology.

Fluids do not support shearing stress. Fluids do have viscosity. The molecular arrangement of a non compressible fluid is not a restrictive lattice or matrix like structure. This is why Pascal's Principle allows for undiminished transmission of pressure in all directions in an enclosed static fluid. The nature of water molecules allows for the communication [via connectedness] of information between molecules.

Any force applied to a modified hydraulic press [as pressure inducing input] structure will increase pressure from top to bottom & to the sides of the fluid reservoir equally. That input force can be weight force in the form of application of a mass.

The weight force acting on the modified hydraulic press structure creates pressure within the internal fluid but does not allow for volumetric exchange of fluid i.e. pressure & force is created but actual volume displacement does not occur so the Prime Mover uses one part of the Hydraulic Press principle i.e. it does no Work on the system per se but creates a real system CoM change almost instantaneously [the switch], while there is a virtual displacement of mass occurring internally.

See picture of symmetrical POP structures with active mass, on scales.

The Question in parts is ...

1. Can a bench top proof of principle [POP] experiment be designed & demonstrated to confirm whether or not a modified hydraulic press Prime Mover structure arrangement with a weight force at one end will increase internal fluid pressure ?

2. Can the POP equally transmit fluid pressure [& create virtual displacement of mass] such that no turning moment is observed about a fulcrum if the reservoir/structure is pivoted or placed on scales, much the same as a floating object in a tank does not create a turning moment about a fulcrum or change the readings on top of two scales ?

3. Can this technology, if valid, be used to create a useful switching mechanism & prove the theory of asymmetric torque production around a fulcrum ?

The Requirements & Considerations for a rotary format are ... an elastic membrane/boots or piston & sleeve recess etc to allow weight force transmission to fluid. A communicating diaphragm located at or near the CoR, which allows pressure transmission/communication but does not allow fluid volume transference/movement. A flow restrictor to slow minor fluid movement that may occur due inertia. A weight receiving cage that still allows some degrees of freedom for the mass to operate in [weights could be attached to short levers etc]. Opposing mechanisms are needed to provide symmetry. On the descending side the mass in its cage [or connected to a short lever] hangs beneath the structure relinquishing its pressure inducing role for this sector & creates torque.  On the ascending side its role is to induce pressure which is transmitted equally & change the system CoM.  Inertia of the wheel is affected by fluid mass therefore rigid piping/tubing [plastic etc] length & volume dimensions need to be considered [i.e. only need small fluid communication channels which will reduce weight & inertia]. Rotation rate is affected by diameter as is output & power, also increased with multiple cross diagonal structures with mechanisms.

See pictures of fletchers' wheels, single cross diagonal & multiple fluid filled structures in rotary format.

See the short thread in General Discussion forum titled     IS it or, is it NOT ?    ...    http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104202#104202    for additional context.

Closing Note:

Have fun thinking about this. May every man who has the space, inclination, time & ability one day be able to inexpensively build his own 'garage' free-energy Intrinsic Motion Machine for his own use & enjoyment.

-fletcher teasdale

[fletcher]

Morning ..

I have a request for some clarification.

The mechanism is a mechanical switching technology.

There is NO movement of fluids in the Work Done sense, as per a hydraulic press lever analogy.

The mass 'rests' on top the structure on the ascending side - it does NO work [i.e. f x d = joules] BUT it does create internal pressure.

Please work thru the 'Hyperphysics breaking the bottom out of a bottle' example in the attachments below to grasp this concept further - I have modified the second image to include an analysis I did for myself some time ago - some assumptions had to be made about height etc.

[minnie]

Hi,
  I read through this and was lost. I tried again, studying the diagrams and reading the text carefully, it all made sense and is
an elegant piece of work.
  I've studied mrwayne's animation and can get nowhere with it. As for his claim or running a house, let alone a mall, I can't
see it. I wanted 10 kw power out and decided I would need 20 hp. for that.  With a "magic" see-saw I would need a water container
on each side 4x4x11 ft. high, with a stroke of 1 ft. and timed at 1 second. I think I need to start and build a decent sized garden shed!
                                John.

[minnie]

Hi,
   thanks for that Seamus, won't worry my head over it any more, did feel an experiment coming on there!
                                      John.