Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Red_Sunset]

Yes, but you used a buoyant weight, didn't you?  Your experiment used a weight that was balanced by a displacement of the fluid, causing a rise in the water level in the pot.  Fletcher's wheel design does not allow for displacement, only weight transfer.  So pressure is created in the fluid, but no buoyancy "absorbs" the mass.  The weight of the "ball" is not evenly distributed throughout the fluid.  In the POP1.gif, the correct answer is on the right side, IMHO.
M. 

Hi Mike,
Backtracking through the thread, I remembered your mail which wasn't too clear to me at the time when I read it first. Your analysis is spot on.
Should re-read your post earlier, would have saved me time
Regards, Michel

[Aman Shah]

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155

Thanks!

[Red_Sunset]

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.

Thanks Aman,
Good links, interesting information
Michel

[johnny874]

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155

Thanks!

  Wikipedia has it wrong. A machine that generates more energy than it consumes would be an over unity device, not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion machine needs no energy input as it's engineering would allow it to sustain motion without the input of any energy. Since gravity acts equally on all parts of a true perpetual motion machine, it's changes to it's structure allows it to manipulate it's own mass increasing it's potential (allowing it to rotate or move continuously). Why a working one would be considered perpetual motion.
The usual reason given why it is not possible is that an atom or a molecule can not change it's behavior, ie. it's potential remains constant unless acted on by another force, Newton's Second Law of Motion. This is where the use of the term macroscopic actually applies to matter which is smaller than microscopic as a mountain is just as macroscopic as an electron. Vague definition, if it's not seen through a microscope, then it is macroscopic. Only 2 views of observation.

                                                                                                                                Jim

[Aman Shah]

Even if Wikipedia mentions wrong,neither perpetual nor overunity machine is possible.However,Gravity powered devices are possible.I hope that you read the analogy(meaning,similar phenomeneon) of my idea of a Gravity powered engine.Few inventors are already working on such free energy devices which convert naturally available energy from surroundings into usable form of energy,efficiently.

Free energy devices only mean devices which take in naturally freely available energy to convert it into usable form energy.Example is solar cell (the efficiency of solar cell as of now is not even reached 35 percent as of now and this inefficiency in technology is the main problem).

If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input?My common sense says No!Never.Hence perpetual or user unity machine is Impossible.Free energy machines do not generate power from nothing.

The need of the day is highly efficient and safe Free energy technologies,not like Nuclear fission which gives out toxic elements.

It seems silly for me to explain all these here,but many people have made a mess of overunity or gravity power,etc.I am not a conservative persion,but anything that is against a very very very basic Commonsense is not accepted by me.The important parts of my blog there is how gravity can be used a free usable source of energy,technically.

If you are wondering what can be the most most most basic principle of any real gravity powered device then its is as I mentioned in my blog:
"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

Yes,that's right,that's the secret,but its not a secret for those who apply their Commonsense to invent new technologies like gravity powered devices.
Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.But I have a basic concept which follows this pronciple as disscussed as a detailed analogy in my above mentioned Blog Articles.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy and mass conservation equation.   

I believe you cannot ever get any balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation for a perpetual or overunity device.
Any device which has a balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation would follow the laws of physics or else would never and can never follow laws of physics.