Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Red_Sunset]

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.

I agree with your proposal in logical reasoning without going into the working of the pantogram (we assume this works as you said). I have no issues until you transitions to the last device (device-3),  that leap frog changes the playing field. In this process you do not answer crucial questions posed in previous posts.

Our disagreement comes about the differences between the balances you refer to, and I do not feel they are addressed comprehensively, you appear only address #1 and assume it to match #2
1.. The balance of forces, water beam, piston, pantogram
2.. The gravitational balance of the overall device (as seen at the fulcrum) >> final objective of interest in the device

From device2 to device3
<fletcher1>   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.
<Michel1>   Your equilibrium of forces around the fulcrum does not match the gravity profile of the overall system (Water beam, piston weights and pantogram).

<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.

Some questions that would assist the understanding
1.. Can you demonstrated how you compensate for this shortfall as you moved from device-2 to device-3. (device2 & 3 are not the same system)
2..  How you change the external gravitational balance without shifting some mass in the vertical projection from one side of the fulcrum to the other side.( I know mass movement is not your objective)
3..  Is there any way you can show how the piston changes the gravitational balance of the system without changing the beam  gravitational balance and that no movement of the piston, nor water is going to change the pantogram in order to change the overall gravitational balance of the system needed to create rotation around the fulcrum?

A picture of the external gravitational mass balance of this device as seen externally in relation to the fulcrum, would demonstrate the viability of this concept. No matter how I try, I can not do it without displacing mass.
Am I correct to assume that we need to see a gravitational mass difference between the left and right side of the fulcrum in order to expect rotational movement ?

Regards, Michel

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ

Dansie: I was down there, there's a project which we've been following for nearly eighteen months now, it was a buoyancy-gravty device- ah.. Wayne Travis, and ah.. It was something I had found that I wasn't sure either way, ah whether they could achieve what they are claiming, and that is a mechanical device, if you like, that could self-run and produce excess energy. And as you know in the history of Mankind, nobody's ever achieved that.  I saw enough evidence for me to be convinced that (shrug) yeah, it's worthwhile having a go at it. But it's dragged on a bit, but I have been impressed and encouraged by two things. It's TOTALLY (emphasis Dansie's) evolved into something else, there's no big tanks and all that now, it's nearly solid state, it's still moves but it's very simple, can (or can't? unsure here) be flat-packed, and they are very close.. to the point ...  where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run. Ah .. (Hendershot cuts him off for a commercial break....)

after break:
Dansie: The Wayne Travis buoyancy device...

(Hendershot asks, laughing,  "What's goin on in Oklahoma")

Dansie: Well... I'm still encouraged by what I've seen...ah However (emphasis) it's got down to the point now with the second device that... it's interesting he's got some very clever engineers and people, people flown from Greece and Switzerland and Canada to come and lend a hand, he's got some clever engineers, they've all predicted it will, ah, self-run and produce excess energy, but as you know the final proof (coughs) for me to see it self-run and produce excess energy. So they are very close for the latest prototype to be able to demonstrate that and that will bring it to conclusion one way or the other; I'm very encouraged, I still rank it highly, ah they are a very great group, a very honest group, ah However (emphasis) ah you know (come on? unclear) well half the scientists and engineers saying "hey this could really work", Half the scientists and engineers I know saying "pixie dust, this is a lot of BS" So, but they've done a great job, I can see why it had to evolve, I can see huge improvements where from manufacturing and logistics point, you could flat-pack this like an Ikea system, they've got a third one in the wings that would be the one you'd throw in the basement...But I expect within the next two months that this will be brought to a conclusion. I am speaking positively of it yet but I have NOT signed off on it. So that's about as far as I can take it at this stage.

Errr, um ...... solid state, can be flatpacked, but has NOT been shown to produce excess energy OR self run..... and what happened to the other devices we have been assured DO self run? They  must have had to do a lot of work to hide them all in preparation for Dansie's visit... what, nine different ones? ... so that Dansie couldn't see them self-running.

Sorry, Red ... you mentioned Mister Wayne, and it is as though you weren't aware that he has evolved beyond big tanks and can create a _flat-packable_ buoyancy device that is "solid state"....




(Is Mister Wayne reading from Steorn's script, or what? )

[Red_Sunset]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
Errr, um ...... solid state, can be flatpacked, but has NOT been shown to produce excess energy OR self run..... and what happened to the other devices we have been assured DO self run? They  must have had to do a lot of work to hide them all in preparation for Dansie's visit... what, nine different ones? ... so that Dansie couldn't see them self-running.
Sorry, Red ... you mentioned Mister Wayne, and it is as though you weren't aware that he has evolved beyond big tanks and can create a _flat-packable_ buoyancy device that is "solid state"....
(Is Mister Wayne reading from Steorn's script, or what? )

Fletcher, my apologies for this one and only transgressing post from me in your topic.

TinselKoala,
I read one time that certain animals have an incredible ability to smell their target prey from several miles away.  From sharks smelling blood in the water to ants finding water or sugar.
This always amazed me, so I got thinking, could a human nose be trained and honed to find genuine OU concept in this melee of flea market choices or are we too close to animals and a human nose can only be trained to smell a human target from a few forum topics away, and ready to draw blood. A discomforting notion......

Lets not limit the diversity in nature, the possibilities opened by Wayne go beyond our visible horizon. It is like what Columbus did with his first voyage. It wasn't his actual trip that was important, it were the doors he opened which became floodgates in that age of discovery.
In the course of history, it will have very little to do with "big tanks".

Regards, Michel

[minnie]

Hi
  I suppose it had to start, Fletcher's thread now polluted with stupid arguments. Let's settle something, if it's a gravity machine,
even a few watts, will be a hefty thing, tons, and you won't get it in a shopping trolley. Has anyone tried my little experiment
with a nut on a piece of string, swing it vertically and see how many rpm you can do before you're beating gravity, not many.
As power is the rate of doing work you need 1000's rpm for a small machine.
  I've been working on Fletcher's ideas and his little balance mechanism seems to work, but, there is an issue with torque in
the vertical member. I'm making a little set-up where I hope to be able to get round this, there always has to be a snag, it
looks as if it may be balanced all the time, time will tell.
   Part of our operation is involved in industrial pipelines, we can handle up to 1.5 metre stuff and there's loads of valves, fittings,
test equipment so I could have a go at something- if I can get a viable plan drawn up.
  The weather in this country has been stupid, I've been on the farm for 50 yrs. and 2011 was the driest year I've seen and 2012
has been the wettest.
                                  John.

[Red_Sunset]

Hi
  I suppose it had to start, Fletcher's thread now polluted with stupid arguments. Let's settle something, if it's a gravity machine,
even a few watts, will be a hefty thing, tons, and you won't get it in a shopping trolley. Has anyone tried my little experiment
with a nut on a piece of string, swing it vertically and see how many rpm you can do before you're beating gravity, not many.
As power is the rate of doing work you need 1000's rpm for a small machine.
  I've been working on Fletcher's ideas and his little balance mechanism seems to work, but, there is an issue with torque in
the vertical member. I'm making a little set-up where I hope to be able to get round this, there always has to be a snag, it
looks as if it may be balanced all the time, time will tell.
   Part of our operation is involved in industrial pipelines, we can handle up to 1.5 metre stuff and there's loads of valves, fittings,
test equipment so I could have a go at something- if I can get a viable plan drawn up.
  The weather in this country has been stupid, I've been on the farm for 50 yrs. and 2011 was the driest year I've seen and 2012
has been the wettest.
                                  John.

I promise John, you will not see more than you have already seen from me.
With regards to gravity, It is sure a given that the limitations of achieving sufficient speed/cycle time will drive up the weight requirement to get to some power, and weight has a relationship with size. Virtual water reduces this relationship for a large extent, but for sure it will never achieve the compactness of an electrical motor.
But considering it is basic technology and low cost, size should not be a prime issue, only running cost would matter.  It is clear that it is not the solution for everything, but that is not the issue today.  The prime points that it can be done and that is more than we had before this point was made.  How you use it is an other economic & business issue.

What do you mean with torque in the vertical member?  How big is your setup ?
The vertical member is bolted to the horizontal water beam, the side arms form the balancing mechanism for the pistons, any rotational movement introduced by the pistons has to come through this vertical beam. So you think the device can reset itself so the weight is always on the right side ?

Regards, Michel