3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[TinselKoala]

This is a PDF that has the original doc, the validation and notes, and full mechanical design instructions as well now on the end. all in one doc.

if you are building one as a model you can reverse the side drives, so the chain is simply a bicycle chain and the protruding post are on the box. clear perspex is ideal or glass and silicone for models.

Feel free to show us your working model.

[TinselKoala]

This is a PDF that has the original doc, the validation and notes, and full mechanical design instructions as well now on the end. all in one doc.

if you are building one as a model you can reverse the side drives, so the chain is simply a bicycle chain and the protruding post are on the box. clear perspex is ideal or glass and silicone for models.

This is just silly, your pdf document is a bunch of nonsense. Are you Archer Quinn, of "sword of god" fame?

"Full mechanical design instructions"... bull hockey. Not even a sketch. Where are the dimensioned blueprints, but more importantly... where is your working model? Why don't you "teach" us how to build it, like you did your "sword of god".

[TinselKoala]

Being validated as we speak, no human can "Not" do this at home with a small glass jar in a bucket of water. It is over. and this is the third machine all different physics, number 4 is one its way with another physics application.

NO ONE ON EARTH CANNOT DO THIS AT HOME

as per usual will be no comments read or written by the author except the validation note from the engineers not that this needs it

Yep... my "gandmother" (sic) could make it, but for some reason YOU can't.

[tinman]

Sorry, you are wrong. An object that is heavier than the water it displaces will not float in water, and an object that is heavier than the air it displaces will not float in air.  An object that is lighter than the air it displaces, like a big blimp, will float in air, and an object that is lighter than the water it it displaces, like a huge container ship, will float in water. Buoyancy is buoyancy, no matter the surrounding material.  No, you are comparing apples and oranges. If your hollow rock displaces enough air mass, it will float, sure enough. Our air isn't dense enough for any real hollow rock to float, but it will float just fine in a much denser gas environment. Again, you are confounding your facts with false comparisons. Take a look at how high-altitude research balloons work. They start at the ground only "partially" inflated, just enough to be buoyant (they displace slightly more airmass than they weigh) and as they rise, the gas inside expands, so they displace more and more volume, of less and less dense air, so they continue to rise until they finally burst from being completely overfull. If you sink a balloon in water by deflating it at the surface, the only way to get it to rise up again is to pump gas into it, and you will have to pump harder the deeper the balloon is. A volume of water must be displaced that has a mass that is greater than the balloon's mass for it to rise up, and the deeper the balloon the more gas must be pumped into it, because the gas is compressible and the pressure inside the balloon must be slightly greater than the pressure of the water, for the balloon to expand and displace the necessary volume of water. When the balloon is expanded enough to displace more mass of water than the balloon weighs, the balloon will begin to rise _and expand even more_ as the gas inside expands to match the water pressure at whatever depth it is at.
When you sink a closed, constant volume thing like your hollow rock, the water level rises. Take a bucket and mark the water level on the side of the bucket, then sink your rock to just below the surface. You will note that the water level is now above your mark; an equal volume of water has been _lifted up_ as your rock has been sunk. This lifting of water takes work. Now let your rock sink more, say one-rock-diameter further. Now you have lifted up another volume of water, but you don't see the water level increase because you aren't changing the overall volume of the system any more, but you still have displaced one rock's worth of water from underneath the rock and moved it to above the rock. This takes work. If you have a rope attached to the rock, the work available by the rock pulling on the rope is _less than_ the work available from dropping the rock/rope in air, less by the amount of work it takes to raise up that water, continuously all the way down. When you pull the rock up, it's easier than in air because the water is flowing back underneath the rock as you lift it. This is buoyancy. There is no free lunch, even underwater.

I am not wrong TK,you misunderstood what i said-Quote: a heavier than water object will float in water. My statement is correct,and i said nothing about displacement. I was refering to net weight of the bouyant object-EG,steel is heavier than water per net volume,but can be made(shaped) to float in water-made to be bouyant.

Quote TK: No, you are comparing apples and oranges. If your hollow rock displaces enough air mass, it will float, sure enough. Our air isn't dense enough for any real hollow rock to float, but it will float just fine in a much denser gas environment.

No ,im not the one comparing apples to oranges. Im the one saying that the apples and oranges are differnt-Quote: the mechanics between water and air are very different. My statements are also based on the makeup of our planet,not Helion Prime,thus my statement is correct-hollow out a rock all you like,but it will not float in air(planet earths air/atmosphere)

Quote TK: Again, you are confounding your facts with false comparisons. Take a look at how high-altitude research balloons work. They start at the ground only "partially" inflated, just enough to be buoyant (they displace slightly more airmass than they weigh) and as they rise, the gas inside expands, so they displace more and more volume, of less and less dense air, so they continue to rise until they finally burst from being completely overfull. If you sink a balloon in water by deflating it at the surface, the only way to get it to rise up again is to pump gas into it, and you will have to pump harder the deeper the balloon is. A volume of water must be displaced that has a mass that is greater than the balloon's mass for it to rise up, and the deeper the balloon the more gas must be pumped into it, because the gas is compressible and the pressure inside the balloon must be slightly greater than the pressure of the water, for the balloon to expand and displace the necessary volume of water. When the balloon is expanded enough to displace more mass of water than the balloon weighs, the balloon will begin to rise _and expand even more_ as the gas inside expands to match the water pressure at whatever depth it is at

Although i quoted:-->we are asumeing the balloon is strong enough to withstand crushing forces in this example.lets look at this a different way. Let's use a steel sphere insted of our crushless balloon. I will take my steel sphere(lets say with a volume of 1 cubic meter),and pump air into it to a pressure of 100psi-->my sphere will float in water. Now do the same with your sphere of the same size,and see if it floats in air.
Second test. I will now pull an absolute vacume in my sphere,and my sphere will still float just as well as it did with a pressure of 100psi-->now do the same with your sphere,dose it float in air yet?.

Quote TK: When you sink a closed, constant volume thing like your hollow rock, the water level rises. Take a bucket and mark the water level on the side of the bucket, then sink your rock to just below the surface. You will note that the water level is now above your mark; an equal volume of water has been _lifted up_ as your rock has been sunk. This lifting of water takes work. Now let your rock sink more, say one-rock-diameter further. Now you have lifted up another volume of water, but you don't see the water level increase because you aren't changing the overall volume of the system any more, but you still have displaced one rock's worth of water from underneath the rock and moved it to above the rock.

This we know.

Quote TK: If you have a rope attached to the rock, the work available by the rock pulling on the rope is _less than_ the work available from dropping the rock/rope in air, less by the amount of work it takes to raise up that water, continuously all the way down. When you pull the rock up, it's easier than in air because the water is flowing back underneath the rock as you lift it. This is buoyancy. There is no free lunch, even underwater.

This is not correct as far as my device is designed to work,and another reason that the mechanics/dynamics between water and air are very different. A bouyant vessle correctly engineered can be made to sink and then rise again in water without the addition of any air(or gas of any type),as bouyancy in water is not reliant on a gas volume of any kind. As i stated above,the internal area of a sealed bouyant vessle can be under an absolute vacume,and it will have no effect on the bouyancy of the vessle-->not the case with air im afraid. Now you take what ever vessle you want,and make it float in air without the use of a gas,but by simply increasing the size of that vessle.

You must also take into account the weight of the vessle it self when calculating bouyancy,not just the volume of water it displaces.

[telecom]

This is a French patent I was referring too:
http://vitanar.narod.ru/files/02830575A1.pdf
I would like to hear what you, guys, think about its viability.
Regards