Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset, one can lift and drop things all day long hoping ......................................................
...................................................... you will need to:  Stop substituting power and force for energy, and perform the energy calculations correctly.  ...............................................

MarkE,

You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach! 

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE,

You are entitled to your opinion, the moot arguments and English Essay Syntax corrections.
Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.
You know what was explained, not an accounting balance for the last penny of energy that is a surety.
I also get the impression that you pretend to know better before you even looked at the idea flow.
A hopeless approach! 

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful. 

Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors.  No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton.  Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy.  They are entirely different concepts.  On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly.  Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers.  If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny.

You can declare:

Sure,  Energy is an integral, that doesn't take away it is proportionate to force over distance.

all day long and it will not make your prior representations:

OUTPUT Energy is therefore >> AREA X PRESSURE X DISTANCE
      with a weight loaded >>  WEIGHT X DISTANCE
INPUT Energy is therefore  >>  VOLUME X PRESSURE

So the energy output to input direct relationships are "Distance", "Volume", "Area"

correct outside the special circumstances of:  constant pressure.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset, I welcome any evidence that you or anyone else might bring to the table of extraordinary behaviors or new discoveries. If the "idea flow" relies on erroneous concepts and/or methods, then it leads nowhere that is useful. 

Conflating force or power for energy are fundamental, not trivial errors.  No one can tell you truthfully how many Joules are in a Newton.  Nor can they tell you how many Joules are in a Watt because there is no equivalence between either force and energy or power and energy.  They are entirely different concepts.  On the other side, if one wants to know whether they have lost or come out ahead they have to account properly.  Using a method to calculate quantities that applies to a special case that is not operative in the situation being considered just yields junk answers.  If the concept is valid then it does not have to rely on conflation of properties or application of formulas that are invalid for the circumstances.  If a concept is valid it holds up to scrutiny. 

MarkeE,
What you are saying is,
  That if we lift a weight of 100kg and put it on a elevation that is 5 meters higher,  we have not increased that weight PE with 500KgMtr ? I am not after the pennies or cents

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset I am saying that the pressure is not constant therefore you cannot calculate the "energy in" as you put it based on pressure at a single point in the travel.

MarkE,

I thought you would have known some of the working details since you had many objections & opinions posted on PESN in 2012
So I didn't re-state that Wayne primes the jack to full pressure and then lets go for stroke, keeping the pressure constant during travel. 

Didn't I mention " Don't assume this is the whole story" at the beginning.
It is only a high level conceptual story, with the purpose to bring you up within range (or up to speed, so to speak). The rest you can figure out, I can see you would have no problem there with the finer details.

I normally appreciate questions structured more like: 
What is the reason? or why do you think that?, or how did you come to that conclusion?.

Red_Sunset