Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

I can see why we have some misunderstanding towards your idea and Wayne's invention in the past. The delta appears in the understanding of buoyancy as laid out by Archimedes ( the prime theory that encompasses all and how these characteristics relates to each other). From this flows forth all other related systems that use a subset of Archimedes buoyancy.  Our discrepancy lies in the communication, in the way we understand these principles and the terminology that categorize these related systems. Then comes Pascal as a add-on.

Pascal defines the pressure as an integral aspect of everything that is submerged into a liquid or gas. In the end there is a separation related to submersion (full or partial or not at all), the only difference to other categorization of related systems is how this pressure differential comes about and is achieved and manipulated, submersion level is a big influence factor in this.

<fletcher2>  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].

<Michel2>  Here you abandoned buoyancy and forfeited its benefits and this is the pivot of our argument. Here you changed the relationship between pressure and gravitational mass.   By moving from "partial submersion" to "no submersion",  as from a "free floating buoyancy mass" to and "hydraulic piston mass", a totally different situation. 

In this process you were able to maintain the same upward pressures but gave up the gravity weight balance in the beam, meaning the integration (absorption) of "piston + weights + fluid" to be seen as one homogeneous gravitational mass as shown in device-2.

Regards, Michel

My apologies, I've been offline with a 2 day internet outage.

Before I answer your second lot of questions I want to say again that Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of forces - I may be labouring the point but you will soon see why - the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.

On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me, but to do that they would have to understand the arguments first - I was not & am not after opinions so much [anyone can give those with little of no thought] but analytical deductions & facts to challenge & support an opinion.

I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.

For those considering further experiments I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.

[Red_Sunset]

........................................ I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.

Fletcher,
I would want your concept to work, just as much as you do. The issue is not me or you.  The main point of what we are discussing here is the correctness of the logic used.
I am not stating opinions because I back it up with accepted theory.  If I misinterpret the theory, pls say so.
Some of the communication is obviously not understood by one or the other party, I do not exclude myself from this.  One thing I do know is that we will not be going forward without answering the main questions already presented.  It is already clear that we are not going to achieve our objective by side stepping principle physic's questions that can easily be demonstrated and understood.

<fletcher-1>  Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of force,
<Michel-1>   I agree,

<fletcher-2>   the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.
<Michel-2>   I agree, so long we agree that water displacement occurred progressively between picture 1, 2 and 3 (and water was added)

<fletcher-3>   On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me.
<Michel-3 >    My objective is to share my view on the material presented to the best of my ability.  I might divert to playing when the counter part becomes non-serious.

<fletcher-4>    I will be introducing an anomaly .........................as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance ..........................why again I have emphasized it over & over.
<Michel-4 >     Archimedes floating requires an open system which you achieve with the peppette.  Your statement " once filled the peppettes can be closed off" will change your system from open to closed. Your system at that point no longer relies on a self regulating head but on increasing pressure due to fluid space restriction. It becomes now a hydraulic system and you forfeit the self weight balancing mechanism.  Your forces will remain acting as before, but these forces do not act around the fulcrum. The weight forces act around the fulcrum but you forfeited control on those.

Fletcher, I have repeated this same thing over and over,  "How does a floating weight not impact the balance of a fluid vessel by using displacement buoyancy " and compare this to the  "hydraulic system that uses restricted and contained fluid spaces" where this balance is not maintained.  Once you understand this mechanism better you would not ignore this change.
I think this requires some more research on your part to reveal this major characteristic behavior change when restricting fluid in your beam. 
It will help to answer the basic questions posed to gain a better understanding. 
If we want to go forward on a anomaly hunch that doesn't fit basic physic rules, sure than we better wait for a physical test but it wouldn't me who does the test without having my homework tell me a better possibility forward, to ensure a better margin of success.

Regards, Michel

[fletcher]

General:

Inertia is constant regardless of the environment.

Gravitational Force 'g' is variable depending on the local gravity field acceleration.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

The System Balancing Problem, when not using Archimedes uniform density floatation:

Unequal piston masses apply their Weight Force downwards equidistant from the fulcrum.

The down Pressure exerted on the lever internally contained fluid by the masses is equal for both but the Weight Forces are not the same - the fluid at the piston interface exerts an equal up pressure so that the downthrust & upthrust forces at each piston interface are in equilibrium but both piston & fluid forces are not equal with each other.

The system is NOT in Total Force Equilibrium because the masses have an ability to move tangentially - this means that when looking at the EXCEPTIONS case [as all else is equalized] there is a NET upthrust force, from the internal fluid acting upwards on the RHS of the fluid filled lever, of 10N i.e. 1 kgf.

Until this excess force can be mitigated the system as a whole will be Unbalanced with a RHS NET CCW torque of 10N at the appropriate arm distance - the CCW torque is due to Force Imbalance of excess upthrust on the RHS due to fluids being Isotropic & Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [force], & not due to excess downthrust on the LHS.

If the lever were a solid then it would experience CCW torque also, as solids do support a shearing stress, so there would be excess downthrust on the LHS.

[fletcher]

I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.

My Solution to Finding Total System Force Equilibrium [Balance], when NOT using Archimedes uniform density distribution floatation:

General:

A. We must treat the piston masses as separate from the fluid filled lever & work the Force Profile from top to bottom.

B. Pressure & Force are quite separate but interrelated by proportion to Area.

The deeply hidden yet simple answer ?

1. the piston forces are in equilibrium with the fluid at the interface because both the pistons & the fluid exert the same pressure.

2. the pistons Weight Force is fully supported by the fluid pressure [the opposing force] i.e. their weight forces have been transmitted equally thru the fluid as undiminished fluid pressure increase & pressure is linear.

3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever - this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.

4. we want to mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever.

5. to do this we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.

6. the 'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.

7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface - the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces.

Notes:

Follow the logic carefully.

Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.

The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.

-fletcher

[Red_Sunset]

...............................................................
Notes:
  Follow the logic carefully.
  Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.
  The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.
  -fletcher 

Hi Fletcher,
I am going to leave you at this,  I have looked carefully at your proposal and have provided my comments.  I do not see a road forward that will be fruitful nor beneficial.
It is clear that you do not address specific questions and change the design from post to post and do not consider a full cycle as a requirement. 
Your simulator most likely will tell your what happens when the LHS arrives and 6:00 or 3:00 O'clock and what will happen when these forces you are discussing change from static to dynamic and 'need to'  or 'can' exert a force by a certain distance, and against what base reference these forces act.

The following statements surprise me,
3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever - this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.
4. we want to mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever.
5. to do this we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.

**   The piston upthrust created by the fluid is a direct result from the pressure created by the total piston weight (RHS+LHS) distributed over the total piston surface presented to the fluid. The LHS will have a greater upthrust because it presents a greater surfaces area to the fluid. If the pistons are made out of the same material and height, they will position themselves the same. If there weight/SqInch is different, then they will position themselves also differently into the fluid as a equilibrium position between LHS & RHS, at this initial point water displacement will take place and for the heavier piston (weight/SqInch) a supplemented buoyancy situation occurred and a head is created under need the lighter piston to supplement the pressure of the heavier piston. The lighter piston is not suspended by buoyancy but by hydraulic pressure created by the contained fluid.
So to support pistons of different weight/SqInch, buoyancy will alter the fluid level in order to alter the pressure and the pressure per SqInch would no longer the same under each piston. Although this is not what you are claiming although there could be something in it.

Your solution is,
6. the 'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.

    **  I am sorry but I do not get how the paradox is going to solve your issue.

7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface - the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces. 

    **  The solid displacer is the same than a water filled container, it would be in suspension, with no up or down force because of the same density as the fluid. All force vectors are neutralized to zero. 
•   Pls explain how it will cause a down thrust force on he LHS ? 
•   And how this force would be equal to the RHS upthrust ? 
•   And how this force would be opposite e.g. sinking ?

You are forcing me to make leaps of assumptions, or you are presenting great leaps of assumptions, it doesn't matter because,
If this water beam is to rotate somewhat, the bottom is not going to be the bottom for long. Can you give an inkling of how you see this shift to be handled?

Regards, Michel