Big try at gravity wheel

[powercat]

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."
...

Great analogy of the show being put on by Red_Sunset and Wayne_Travis, it's like a bad magic act, all they have is words and more words, they can never shows something working continuously or have anything verified, they know themselves that the magic only works with words and faith.

[LibreEnergia]

Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced.  A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water.  Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.

Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.

[Red_Sunset]

Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

<< PowerCat>> We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures.  This isn't a joke, it's reality.

Red_Sunset

[powercat]

Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

Red_Sunset

You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed, you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.

[/font]I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!Red_Sunset

[/font]

But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement

[/font]EnergiaLibre,You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick.  Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.Red_Sunset

[/font]

Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting,  I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.

[Red_Sunset]

Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.

Hi LibreEnergia,

I know it is hard to admit that you were not exactly on the correct track ....!
What you are presenting now is good and correct, but I am not clear what you are trying to prove in relationship to the topic at hand..

The paradox only came up to demonstrate that you can create a large force (not dynamic displacement) with very little water.     The paradox concept is regular good physics that has not been claimed to violate any known rules.
The paradox concept has been used in the risers of the Zed to minimize the water requirement and flow during strokes (to reduce overhead and associated losses)  but it has no direct function in getting anything for free in the form presented by you.  I am not clear why you thought it would.

As to making the Saratoga float, you only have to bring the bucket up to the designed waterline and empty it.  Lets assume an XXL bucket is used,  sufficient to cover the whole designed underwater surface with a water layer of 1 mm thick, the Saratoga will float up 1 mm.  She will float due to the pressure exerted by the water layer height levels at the various underwater locations. So the deeper the hull depth, the more pressure per sq area.  The thickness of the water layer is immaterial for this theoretical example.  All energies expanded and PE accomplished will match.

Red_Sunset