Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

MarkE,
That is not exactly what I said !
I said,
This means to say that in practical & formula form the relationship is there! No dispute !
Then I said,

This means "aside from formula's that equal the same answers for good reasons",  IN NATURE, what keeps the ship floating is a FORCE, called a buoyancy force,  without LIFT FORCE the ship would sink.

This means that
1..  The primary and most important effect is the Buoyancy LIFT FORCE that materializes due to Pressure
2..  The Secondary to that is an equivalence called "displacement" that matches the same (for good reasons), BUT this is not the actual manifestation in Nature that keeps the ship on the surface. It is a derivative !!!

That is what I said, spelled out for the second time today.
To play with nature it is important to understand nature, not just playing with mathematical formula's alone !!

Red_Sunset

You are stuck in a loop.  Archimedes' Paradox does not alter Archimedes' Principal.  Archimedes' Paradox does not change in the slightest the work that has to be done, or the work that can be liberated raising or lowering an object in a surrounding fluid.

[MarkE]

I will just jump to the end and share *MY* crazy view,, it must be crazy because the universe is all figured out and there is no need for what I came to for a conclusion.


*IF* at the end of the day, there is a method to extract more work out of a buoyant lift than work in.


This would mean one of 2 things,  First, is that gravity is not conservative, or second, that another surce of input is present within the fluid itself.


I am not of the opinion, as of right now, that gravity is not conservative, that leaves for me the option that there is another source.


I think that this source is a quality of the fluid itself while interacting under the influance of gravity and that by adding another outside influance to the system that source can be controlled or directed and work with the outside input.


This, to me, leaves that quality within the molecular bonds of the fluid and for me this makes the univesre itself a little more "electric" than what is currently appreciated.

That idea is all fine and well.  Now what you need is evidence to support it, despite 2000 years of experience by the rest of the world that does not agree with it.

[minnie]

    Sunset,
              Who's the one besotted with Travis anyway?
                                John.

[fletcher]

I do believe on this one you have the test backwards, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outside water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p0EX4IHSk

Webby .. I'm just not getting your point [seems Red agrees with you] that TK's 'test' is backwards.

TK was demonstrating the rams probable purpose & function - perhaps if I step it out you can tell me where the wrong assumptions or conclusions have been made ?

START: a float is partially submerged in a container of fluid - the float displaces a volume of fluid such that the weight force of the float is equal to the weight force [upthrust] of the displaced fluid [Archimedes Law of Floatation].

1. TK took a small reservoir & dipped it into the outer annular container of fluid, filling it.

N.B. whilst dipping it the outer container water level rose slightly because of displaced volume from the reservoir penetrating the fluid.

2. TK did work on this reservoir now filled with fluid & raised its Pe by lifting it a sufficient height to be placed on top of the float.

N.B. when the reservoir was being lifted clear of the outer annular fluid the water level dropped to below the starting datum height.

3. He placed the reservoir filled with fluid on top of the float - the float plus load sank further into the outer fluid until new floatation equilibrium was established i.e. upthrust force equals weight force.

N.B. this further displaced outer fluid which caused the outer annular fluid level to rise - END:

Conclusion:

At all times, other than when reservoir & fluid were transitioning, the system CoM remained at the same datum height, as did the outer annular fluid levels [same Pe] - however, not considering ordinary system frictional losses, work was done on the system could be recovered/offset from the temporary raising of Pe, if an energy budget approach was considered.

N.B. If it was considered that the purpose of the ram was to move fluid from the reservoir on top of the float to the outer annular fluid then this would cause the float plus load to lighten & move upwards as it displaced less fluid, whilst increasing the volume of the outer annular fluid thus raising its level.

However, as can been seen from TK's test, & according to "Archimedes Law of Floatation" where any float plus load must have equilibrium of forces of upthrust & weight force then there is no NET change in system potential [not counting system losses].

In short, Archimedes says that for any object to 'float' [partially submerged] in a medium then the average density of the fluid medium plus float & load is the same as an equivalent measure in volume of fluid alone to the same datum level - IOW's, there is no GAIN from changing the relationship between float density to fluid density in a closed system.

These are my opinions, I would like to know how it is backwards ?

[TinselKoala]

I do believe on this one you have the test backwards,, that is the water on top of the float will make it sink by the added weight on the float and the loss of fluid from the outisde water, then putting the water from the top container back into the water will lighten the float and raise the water level.

Did you not notice that the water level _does not change_, except for the slight amount due to the added weight of the empty transfer bottle?