Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Red_Sunset]

.....................................................
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.[/b]

Fetcher, lets not loose sight of the core issue.

The main  issue:  Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!
(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight)

ONLY 2 questions need to be answered. 
1..  Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement?  (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example)
1..  Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example  ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)

< Fletcher #1 > -  Michel you seem to be fixated on Archimedes buoyancy of an open system as the only means of producing upthrust - as I've taken pains to point numerously that Archimedes volume displacement buoyancy where the fluid medium density remains uniform is certainly one kind of buoyancy & the best known –
<Michel r1> - The example you presented has no relationship with buoyancy, it is a hydraulics example. The sole difference between buoyancy and hydraulics is the water column to create a differential.

  **   A refresher (I am sure, you do not need it, but in order the clarify my position angle)
In hydraulics as in your example, the feedback mechanism from the fluid is different than in buoyancy, hydraulics is a closed system where no head is created. The fluid DOES NOT give way, and therefore creates automatic back pressure no matter how much weight is loaded on the piston. The pressure in the fluid increases to equal the pressure imposed by the increasing weight.

Buoyancy on the other hand is a self regulating mechanism, when increasing the weight of a float, the sinking deeper process will increase the head that in turn will increase the differential pressure.  What you forget and leave out of your equation is that water level in the container has also increased as we increased the float weight (that is done by the displacement water that will match the water weight equal to the added weight in the float).

< Fletcher #2 > - Archimedes isn't the only type of buoyancy/upthrust - the upward force experienced on an object in the final analysis is due to [e.g. using a cube or cylinder analogy] the pressure differential above & below that object, however the pressure differential was created – for example types of pseudo buoyancy are hovercraft [where pressure beneath is higher than above], pucks on air tables [same reason as previous], - these forms of "buoyancy equivalent" don't rely on equal mass & volume displacement but require an input of energy to create that pressure differential
<Michel r2> - To avoid introducing confusion with air- and hover crafts, lets keep it simple and stick to your water beam fluid example and the other simple pictures we shared that clearly addresses the balance issue (with scales).

< Fletcher #3 > - in my case I am using gravity force to create its own underside pressure increase in an enclosed non compressible fluid system.
<Michel r3> - Understood, using weight to pressurize a enclosed fluid

< Fletcher #4 > - If you use simulation software for example you can create buoyancy force in either of two ways - in an open system calculate the fluid displacement & if you know its density you can make a direct comparison to the weight of fluid displaced etc - that's the simple way & the most common –
<Michel r4> - Agree,  but regardless of simulation software, it pays to understand the underlying buoyancy mechanics and that hydraulics is only a subset.

< Fletcher #5 > - the other is to calculate from fluid pressure levels - since we know the density of the fluid, for example water, we know that 10 meter head has 14.7 PSI so we can calculate the pressure & vector force on a surface area at any depth in the fluid - the net [assuming we zero out 1 atmospheric pressure starting point] when we convert to a vector force gives us the same buoyancy/upthrust force as volume displacement method - this means that anytime we know the pressure increase we can calculate the upthrust of an immersed object or in this case an object unable to penetrate the fluid but still having created an increase in fluid pressure by virtue of applying its own weight force to that enclosed fluid.
<Michel r5> - Agree, the main difference between buoyancy and hydraulics to me is that the weight on the hydraulic piston creates a pressure due to gravity.  This pressure is counter acted by a counter pressure from a different source,  not from a buoyancy force, defined as the pressure from a water column height.

< Fletcher #6 > - See my above post to minnie [John] - the pantograph demonstrates parallelogram of forces which every text book on leverage & forces shows - the top pivot in my diagram is fixed to the rigid upright & the bottom pivot has the ability to slide up & down but not laterally, as I have shown - equally the bottom pivot could be anchored & the top have the ability to slide vertically but then there would be a tendency for the pantograph arms to move outwards rather than inwards - since the fluid volume & density for all intents & purposes doesn't change however, this is arbitrary - this is a concept & not presented as a final & most efficient engineering solution.
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.
<Michel r6> - The truss beams will adjust the balance of forces, but this balance movement will take place by the movement of fluid and position of the pistons. The volume quantity might be small but it is proportional, and it will move.

Conclussion:
Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.
But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bent the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.
Do you agree or feel different?

[fletcher]

"I'll be back" , as soon as I can.

My property in NZ got wacked by a tornado yesterday afternoon & there is some damage I will have to organise to have fixed.

[fletcher]

 

Fletcher, let's not loose sight of the core issue.

The main  issue:  Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!?

I believe so & although it might be counter-intuitive & even unpalatable, that it is also self evident  – it all comes down to Pascal's Principle & isotropic fluids - whilst pressure is scalar forces are not, therefore a weight force creates a rise in pressure which is felt as a force normal to all container internal surfaces.

(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight).

Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the science of fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the science of fluids in motion is fluid dynamics.

You may call it hydraulics if you prefer but to me that indicates fluid movement in the form of the principle of the hydraulic lever used to do Work – hydraulic leverage shows no ability to break the law of levers as it is volume movement dependent – as in the case of Pascal's  hydraulic jack force can be multiplied but Work In & Out cannot – my device does not do work per se as no real fluid movement occurs – i.e. no work is done, the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle does not hold in this special case – e.g. as for a book resting on a table the table does no Work in the Physics sense – stack books & the table still does no Work.

ONLY 2 questions need to be answered.

1..  Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement?  (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example).




I won't be providing a weight absorption example any time soon as that's a misnomer  - what you are proposing is that an example should be seen in nature as we all model from nature & follow her example – what I am saying is that there is no natural occurring example, this is purely a man made artificial construct, an evolution of natures fundamental principles.

The mass is not absorbed, it is still located where it is – the weight force is redirected thru the use of parallelogram of forces [or you can use pulleys for example] to cause equilibrium of forces or force symmetry i.e. torque nullification or neutralizing – effectively what I loosely coined Virtual Displacement of Mass – what is consistent with known physics is that pressure is a form of energy density so an increase in pressure sees a rise in energy density per volume – since fluid dynamics is based on Bernoulli equations which was predicated on Conservation of Energy then fluid energy = P + Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy – since the fluids are not moving [at the local reference frame] then by deduction there is an increase in energy density from pressure alone [however that pressure increase occurred] – this increase in energy state must be accounted for in an energy budget if this line is taken – it is an easy target to look to the gravity field as the source of that energy gain & see gravity as a flow of energy but that might be an erroneous conclusion IMO – what would be shown is that the masses have not changed nor altered position so the true system CoM has not changed – the CoG has also not changed for the same reason that there has been no physical displacement of mass, & acceleration 'g' is still the same acting on all mass – the system forces have however been redirected so that a Center of Force Equilibrium has been established that is not coincident with the CoM/CoG Center of Rotation.

1..  Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example  ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)

Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the science of fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the science of fluids in motion is fluid dynamics.

Archimedes Principle – when a body is immersed in a fluid it experiences an upthrust, or apparent loss of weight, equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the body – this important principle is only an extension of the idea of the increase in the pressure of a fluid with depth, which means that there is a greater pressure pushing up on the body from underneath than there is pushing down on it from on top.

In physics, buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid, that opposes the weight of an [immersed] object.

The qualification of the above statement with the word 'immersed ' is IMO a restrictive covenant to specifically describe Archimedes principle & the Law of Floatation [for both, objects must be immersed partially or wholly] – the important principle is that an upthrust force is experienced on an object who applies its weight force to an enclosed non-compressible fluid – if it could not apply its weight force then there would be no compensatory increase in fluid pressure & upthrust force equilibrium normal to the objects surface & applied weight force.

Since no Work is done, yet it is an example of Pascal's Principle, it is not a Hydraulic example in the true physics definition sense – since there are other examples of pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement but do invoke pressure differentials then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.

Conclussion:

Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.

But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bend the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.

Do you agree or feel different?

See above - these are my opinions - bolding mine.

[Red_Sunset]

................................................... then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.[/b]

Hi Fletcher,

I think I lost you,  are you trying to prove that you can keep this fluid beam horizontal by means of this external parallelogram truss and we are we resolved that the left weight is not distributed throughout the fluid and so causes an imbalance to the right?
a.. Meaning the truss is concept is replacing the original argument ?
b.. Or a combination of the old with the new combined?

Notwithstanding this or that, one of your statements needs expanding,
<Fletcher> Since no Work is done, yet it is an example of Pascal's Principle, it is not a Hydraulic example in the true physics definition sense since there are other examples of pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement but do invoke pressure differentials then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.

<Michel>  Can you post some of these examples  "pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement",  this would be helpful in order to understand the legitimacy of how you call your piston, AND I am not so sure that it doesn't matter on how you paint it.

Michel

[fletcher]

Thanks for the thoughts Michel.

I am well aware of how buoyancy manifests & have used your exact same explanations for a very long time - it describes well Archimedes buoyancy principle & floatation law - you may call my balancing device hydraulics if you like to think about it that way - it disagrees with me because no fluid is moved about like a hydraulic lever acts [Work In = Work Out] - the masses weight force creates pressure in the contained non-compressible fluid - a pressure increase also gives rise to a temperature increase & also an energy density increase in the fluid, but no Work is done - this device is self adjusting & finds equilibrium or symmetry of forces to a Center of Torques [CoT] thru pressure & surface area relationships of masses & pistons interfaces as per the diagrams.

I realise it is hard to suspend beliefs but I simply ask that you follow the science - & on that note upthrust force [buoyancy] is due to first principles of pressure differentials - Archimedes buoyancy is a sub-set of that first principle.

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

Thanks everyone for trying to understand the principle of a new type of balance device I am proposing - if it is a correct principle it not only makes an Intrinsic Motion Machine a real possibility but also has implications for inertial dampening technology & would have a huge impact on the engineering & design community.

Please take a look at the following pics before deciding on an experiment IMO if you are motivated to do so.

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

Webby1 .. I know you had concerns about torque in the pantogram apparatus so I have rebuilt the pantograph to include sliding pivots [no fixed pivot] with the use of a 'T' in the system - it actually makes no difference to the ordinary pantograph design IMO.

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

It seems my explanations were harder to understand than I imagined - therefore I include some pics below to ease that burden.

First is a swimming pool fill of water - a cubic meter [full of water] is suspended in the pool [the cube walls having the same density as the water at 1000 kg/m^3] - it has neutral buoyancy with a tendency at any depth to neither rise nor sink - that is because the upthrust force equals the downthrust force, they are in equilibrium - because liquid pressure is linear with depth it will be neutrally buoyant at any depth - its upthrust force is due to the pressure differential above & below the cube which can be numerically supported easily by a little math.

The next 3 pics show hanging devices using a water trough with modified pantograph - in each case they are balanced due Archimedes principle - one float mass is balanced as is two identical float masses with same piston water interface areas - the second dual example however uses a lesser float mass on the rhs & smaller piston surface area.

N.B.1. there is a direct relationship between opposing masses & surface areas in contact with the fluid - if one side halves the mass it must also halve the surface area of the piston etc - if it is a 10th the mass it must reduce piston area to a 10th so that forces each side of the fulcrum are in equilibrium to give overall device balance.

N.B.2. the key is that although both float masses weigh different amounts at half the density of the fluid for example they will sink to the same level & have the same pressure beneath the float i.e. different upthrust forces but same pressure, which gives system force equilibrium & device balance.

The last pic is where I have done away with the water trough & transitioned to a containment vessel, with pistons - as before the piston areas in contact with the fluid are proportional to the masses so that the pressure at the piston interface is the same but the upthrust forces are not - we still have equilibrium of forces about the fulcrum & system balance.

N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].

N.B.2. if the device were turned upside down the forces would no longer be in equilibrium & there would be torque CW in this example.