Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[johnny874]

Until you can demontrate actual quantum gravity effects as being important as the scale of Bessler wheels (or any size other  than Planck scale),  the Newtownian view of the world works just fine for detemining that what you propose is impossible.

  Gianna,
What Bessler realized is something everyone over looks. For what Fletcher is discussing can be found in Bessler's drawings and with examples of how balance can be shifted.
I think the problem this creates is that if someone wants an original solution using fluids as a means of propulsion that it will be difficult. This could be why so many dislike me in these forums. it is not because I came up with the answer but because Bessler did a long time ago.
Even in besslerwheel.com they will not discuss what he knew of engineering. It does not allow them to talk about what they might know. But for a rotating wheel, I doubt anyone will improve upon Bessler's work.

                                                                                                                                        Jim

[Red_Sunset]

@ All ..
Back on line.
  To complete the concept ..

Hi Fletcher,
You appear to be changing the design for certain good reasons you might have.  These mods are not very clear without you addressing the underlying reasons why you are doing so.  I am not disputing if the concept works or doesn't work, sure a practical proof can surprise us all.
From a pure reasoning standpoint, I still do not see how you are going to get away with a buoyancy concept that can not displace fluid because the fluid is fully enclosed and pressurized.  You have not expanded on that point.  The logic you are using is jumping over a logical step that is critical in the natural process, ignoring this step allows you to reach your conclusion.  But this makes the conclusion incomplete and premature.  Do you have any replies on previous reply posts that address this process?

The new design with the truss and sliding pivots needs some more explanation from you side to be clear what you are intending to achieve with it? and its difference with the previous designs. The scale below the beam should be sufficient to demonstrate the concept. A practical working design can be a separate exercise.
Regards, Michel

[minnie]

Hi,
    I take it that the red T shape associated with the piston is a locking pin.
                                                                John.

[fletcher]

Yes John, else the mass would act on the lhs piston in a hydraulics fashion & displace fluid volume & move the rhs piston upwards compensatorily - I want the mass to use its own weight force to increase internal fluid pressure [P = F / A] until equilibrium of forces is achieved at the lhs piston interface - however the overall system is still not in equilibrium of forces because there is no opposing force acting downwards against the rhs piston [locked] - hence the need for the pantograph [parallelogram of forces] to provide an equal down thrust [force] to rhs piston - since the force source is the masses weight force which is applied over the piston surface area to create higher fluid internal pressure & the piston area is doubled with the inclusion of the pantograph mechanism acting on the rhs piston then the internal fluid pressure increase is halved, but the system has now established equilibrium of forces at both piston interfaces - it is balanced i.e. no torque, IINM.

[fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

You appear to be changing the design for certain good reasons you might have.  These mods are not very clear without you addressing the underlying reasons why you are doing so.  I am not disputing if the concept works or doesn't work, sure a practical proof can surprise us all.

Michel .. it can't be all bad, its only taken 5 pages & two weeks & the noise level has been low & discussion civil.

From a pure reasoning standpoint, I still do not see how you are going to get away with a buoyancy concept that can not displace fluid because the fluid is fully enclosed and pressurized.  You have not expanded on that point.  The logic you are using is jumping over a logical step that is critical in the natural process, ignoring this step allows you to reach your conclusion.  But this makes the conclusion incomplete and premature.  Do you have any replies on previous reply posts that address this process?



Well 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 - but 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], aircraft in straight & level flight at constant velocity [here lift force equals weight force but the engine provides the thrust to overcome drag which is substantially less than lift & weight force i.e. the four forces are in equilibrium but not equal] - these forms of "buoyancy equivalent" don't rely on equal mass & volume displacement but require an input of energy to create that pressure differential - in my case I am using gravity force to create its own underside pressure increase in an enclosed non compressible fluid system.

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 - 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.

The new design with the truss and sliding pivots needs some more explanation from you side to be clear what you are intending to achieve with it? and its difference with the previous designs. The scale below the beam should be sufficient to demonstrate the concept. A practical working design can be a separate exercise.

Regards, Michel

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.