Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Minnie,
How did you check out the fully integrated Sun Drop farm?
With only brak/salt water and giant outside energy source called the sun, nothing else is needed not even soil.
To get aircon, electricity. fresh water, light...ect  with full automation in order to grow everything needed from a garden in the middle of the desert, including fish.
I thought that concept was brilliant.  With a fish pond, then not even fertilizer needed.
A good tried and tested model for Mars
Red_Sunset

PS:  There is a basic principle but one needs to remove the shades to see it

Red_Sunset you are welcome to pull that pony out of the closet anytime you like.  Just repeating that there is a pony in there doesn't make it so.

[MarkE]

You can be open minded, but you don't have to be.

If you choose to discuss something then that item needs to be discussed "as is" not modified into something that it is not.

The setup condition of changing the compressibility of the air with something that is not focuses the function into the main modalities that are present, that is plural from a singular input.

Please show me a hydraulic jack that works with NO seals and NO means of building pressure.


elsewhere I have stated my opinion on whether or not it is actually gravity that may be making these kind of things possible, and I do not think, at this time, that it is gravity actually doing the work.

The buoyant lift is created by gravity *and* the water,, but the lift force does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, that force value stays the same,, so if you  have something under the influence of gravity that does not care about how far it moves in gravity,, almost a paradox.  On the same token you have something that moves through gravity without changing by that motion.

Simple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential.  Buoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.

Out of curiosity,, are there many other forces that care *not* how much the external potential changes?? or the internal potential as well for that matter.

Webby I posed those questions because if there is no difference then we can focus the conversation.  I contend that there is no material difference, which allows us to very quickly see that there is no way for anyone to get a self-sustaining device.  I allow that I am hardly omniscient which is why I posed the questions.  Answers that show reasonable evidence of a material difference would negate my assertion and we would not be able to reasonably simplify the device for purposes of analysis as I proposed.  So if you would be so kind as to answer my questions then perhaps we can make further progress towards a common understanding.

Ignoring the very tiny variation of earth's gravitational force with the kinds of heights that we are talking about, the weight of a fixed volume of displaced water is for practice and purpose constant, yes.  Why do you think that is paradoxical?  For these kinds of heights, neither does the weight of some other fixed object noticeably change.  What do you find strange about that?  All that it means is that the weight of the displaced water represents a force that helps going up and must be opposed going down.  It should be no more paradoxical to you than a counterweight used on an elevator.
 

Simple observations, according to the usual method I can not have something under the influence of gravity move in height without a change in potential.

This is a statement of the potential energy which is correct.

Buoyancy allows this to be seen by the height of the water column and it is the height of the water column that makes the pressure that squishes the float upwards,, same float same lift no matter how deep or shallow, or how much pressure it is within.

Buoyancy is not the result of the water pressure.  Buoyancy is the result of the displaced water weight.  If the net SG of a submersible is greater than 1, then it takes work to surface.  Work = Integral( F*ds ) F > 0.  That work can ideally be identically recovered by resubmerging to the original depth: Work = Integral( F*ds ), sinking F < 0.  If the SG of a submersible is less than 1, then it takes work to submerge:  Work = Integral( F*ds ), F > 0 submerging, and that work may identically be recovered surfacing:  Work = Integral( F*ds ), F< 0. 

There is no energy gain mechanism.  There is an offset force due to the displaced water volume that behaves no differently than if the submersible were an elevator car with a counter weight.  Use a counter weight greater than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to lower the elevator car.  Use a counter weight less than the weight of the elevator car and work has to be done to raise the car.  As with the buoyant object work is the Integral ( F*ds ), and in any cycle that ends with everything at the same height as each element respectively started, for the ideal case, the net energy in is identically balanced by the net energy out.  That's what it means to operate in a conservative field.  That's what we always observe with gravity.

[MarkE]

You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.

Powercat the script goes on until there is no audience left:

P1 "We have something wonderful that redefines physics!"
P2 "That's great, please show me."
P1 "It's right here behind this curtain.  It's really wonderful."
P2 "OK please show me."
P1 "Really it's wonderful and it's just right behind this curtain."
P2 "You just said that, please show me."
P1 "You have a closed mind."
P2 "Please show me your wonderful device."
P1 "I told you it is right behind this curtain, what's wrong with you?  You just can't see it because your mind is closed."
P2 "I can't see anything because you refuse to show me anything.  Please just show me this wonderful device you claim."
P1 "It's people like you who keep wonderful inventions like mine from reaching the market."
P2 "If you want me to believe that your invention does what you say it does, then please just show your invention working as you claim it does."
P1 "You are being obstructionist.  I told you many questions ago that the invention is right behind this curtain."
P2 "Please just show me what you claim."
P1 "Really smart people can see that I wouldn't be standing here telling you all about the wonderful device behind the curtain if there wasn't really a wonderful device there.  You must be stupid to keep asking me to show you this wonderful device."
...

[camelherder49]

What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle,  to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?

[MarkE]

What would be the formula to calculate the energy expended
in the evaporation of water, in the hydrology cycle,  to return
water back to height needed to spill over a dam to operate
a 10MW hydro generator? How would you go about proving
that it would equal 10MW?

When one sets out to perform an energy balance they do not report their result in units of power.
The heat of vaporization has been determined by experiment.  It has been codified for many years.
The work done lifting or released lowering a mass in a gravitational field has been determined by experiment.  It has been codified for many years.

Anyone is free to set-up falsification experiments to try and determine if the codified principles and/or coefficients are erroneous.