3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[TinselKoala]

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.

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The only reason a heavier-than-water object floats is because the water it displaces weighs more than the dry object itself. Look at how ships are labeled: Their "weight" are given in _displacement_, that is, how many tonnes, etc. of water they will displace when placed into the water. And the same is true for air: if your object displaces more air mass than it "weighs" it will float in the air. Do you think a packed-up blimp will float in air? Of course it won't. But when it is expanded to full size by filling it with some gas that is lighter than air, so that it _displaces_ a volume of air that weighs more than its "packed" weight, it will float in air. There is no difference in the dynamics, except that water is virtually incompressible and gases aren't. You can fill a balloon with kerosene and it will float in water, you can make a "balloon" out of carbon aerogel (as close as you can get to hollowing out a rock), fill its gaps with helium and it will float in air, because it displaces as much (neutrally buoyant) or more (positively buoyant) weight of air than it weighs itself.

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?.

Nice strawman argument. Anything will float in any fluid if it displaces as much or more _weight_ of the fluid than it itself weighs. It doesn't matter what the pressure is inside of a _rigid_ object, only the volume of the object matters. Don't you know the story of Archimedes, the gold crown and "Eureka"? You put any object in water, the level of the water rises because the object displaces the same volume of water as its own volume, no matter the shape or composition of the object. If the object is heavier (dry weight) than the water it displaces it will sink, if it is lighter than the water it displaces it will float... and guess what, a floating object on the surface displaces exactly as much water by weight as it weighs itself. You can dunk your scale into the water and prove this to yourself easily enough. Measure the volume of water that a thing displaces, this will of course give you the weight of that displaced water since the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimeter. The weight of your object fully submerged and sitting on the bottom, on the scale, is exactly the (object's dry weight outside the water) - (water displaced weight). Do the experiment yourself and see. This is buoyancy.

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.

Your last statement is of course correct. But you cannot make an object that is heavier than the water it displaces, to float, unless you can increase its volume somehow without also increasing its dry weight. A balloon's volume is increased by putting some gas into it. We just don't have the magic materials (except for aerogels) that are strong enough to float in air unless they contain some lighter than air gas that can balance the internal and external pressures. If we had such a material that could be strong enough to hold outside air pressure against a vacuum inside, it certainly would float in air as long as it displaces more airmass than it weighs itself.
How is your rigid sealed object to increase its volume, against the pressure of the water surrounding it,  so that it will  float? The only way is to do work against the water pressure somehow or another. Expanding nested cylinders, for example? You have to push the cylinder outward against the water pressure trying to push it in. And watch the water level in your container rise as you are doing this: you are lifting water, which requires work. 

ETA: You might enjoy watching my various buoyancy and "wayne travis" demonstrations on YouTube. And I'd love to see anything you can come up with in support of your arguments.
Here are a couple of mine selected more or less at random (it's been a long time since I've had this discussion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEOPWG_gh8

[MarkE]

There is a very large difference between the mechanics of air and water. A heavier than air object will not float in the atmosphere,but a heavier than water object will float in water. You can hollow out a rock all you like,and it will not float in air,but it will in water.This means the mechanics are different between fluid displacement and atmospheric displacement. No work is required to alter the objects volume when submerged,as the work is done by way of pressure equilization between the internal and external pressures of the submerged object. Work is only required to reduce surface area of the object at the begining of the cycle,which is while the object is afloat.Once that work is done,the object will sink an infinite depth that is limited only to the deepest water body.If we take a balloon and fill it with a lighter than air gas,the balloon will loose lifting force as it gains altitude,while the same balloon would maintain the same lifting force in water regardless of depth(we are asumeing the balloon is strong enough to withstand crushing forces in this example)

Tinman there is no difference.  Something that is denser than air falls through air.  Something that is denser than water falls through water.  The reason that hollowing a rock out doesn't work is that the net density is still greater than air because the hollowed out volume is filled with air and the rest of the rock is still denser than air.  The analogy with water would be to fill the rock with water.  We call those things water logged ships.  And they do sink.

It absolutely takes work in one direction or another to change the volume of a submerged object.  The pressure on the hull is the surrounding water pressure.  Increasing the volume does the incremental work in each direction:  dWx = p * dx, dWy = p * dy, dWz = p * dz.

The reason that the balloon loses lifting force is that air is compressible.  As you go up the air density changes.  The basic mechanics in air and water remain the same.

[tinman]

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The only reason a heavier-than-water object floats is because the water it displaces weighs more than the dry object itself

Look at how ships are labeled: Their "weight" are given in _displacement_, that is, how many tonnes, etc. of water they will displace when placed into the water. And the same is true for air: if your object displaces more air mass than it "weighs" it will float in the air. Do you think a packed-up blimp will float in air? Of course it won't. But when it is expanded to full size by filling it with some gas that is lighter than air, so that it _displaces_ a volume of air that weighs more than its "packed" weight, it will float in air. There is no difference in the dynamics, except that water is virtually incompressible and gases aren't. You can fill a balloon with kerosene and it will float in water, you can make a "balloon" out of carbon aerogel (as close as you can get to hollowing out a rock), fill its gaps with helium and it will float in air, because it displaces as much (neutrally buoyant) or more (positively buoyant) weight of air than it weighs itself.  Nice strawman argument. Anything will float in any fluid if it displaces as much or more _weight_ of the fluid than it itself weighs. It doesn't matter what the pressure is inside of a _rigid_ object, only the volume of the object matters. Don't you know the story of Archimedes, the gold crown and "Eureka"? You put any object in water, the level of the water rises because the object displaces the same volume of water as its own volume, no matter the shape or composition of the object. If the object is heavier (dry weight) than the water it displaces it will sink, if it is lighter than the water it displaces it will float... and guess what, a floating object on the surface displaces exactly as much water by weight as it weighs itself. You can dunk your scale into the water and prove this to yourself easily enough. Measure the volume of water that a thing displaces, this will of course give you the weight of that displaced water since the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimeter. The weight of your object fully submerged and sitting on the bottom, on the scale, is exactly the (object's dry weight outside the water) - (water displaced weight). Do the experiment yourself and see. This is buoyancy.Your last statement is of course correct. But you cannot make an object that is heavier than the water it displaces, to float, unless you can increase its volume somehow without also increasing its dry weight. A balloon's volume is increased by putting some gas into it. We just don't have the magic materials (except for aerogels) that are strong enough to float in air unless they contain some lighter than air gas that can balance the internal and external pressures. If we had such a material that could be strong enough to hold outside air pressure against a vacuum inside, it certainly would float in air as long as it displaces more airmass than it weighs itself.
How is your rigid sealed object to increase its volume, against the pressure of the water surrounding it,  so that it will  float? The only way is to do work against the water pressure somehow or another. Expanding nested cylinders, for example? You have to push the cylinder outward against the water pressure trying to push it in. And watch the water level in your container rise as you are doing this: you are lifting water, which requires work. 

ETA: You might enjoy watching my various buoyancy and "wayne travis" demonstrations on YouTube. And I'd love to see anything you can come up with in support of your arguments.
Here are a couple of mine selected more or less at random (it's been a long time since I've had this discussion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEOPWG_gh8

[tinman]

OK-how do i split quote's so as i can sepperate the quotes in my reply. This copy paste crap is driving me.

[gyulasun]

OK-how do i split quote's so as i can sepperate the quotes in my reply. This copy paste crap is driving me.

Hi Brad,

You can quote text as follows:
start the text to be quoted with this symbol and word:   [quote and now use this symbol ] right after the word quote like this quote] and then include the text to be quoted.
And at the end of the text include the following symbols and word:   [/quote and again use this closing symbol ]  right after the word quote without a space.  Of course, no need for using bold characters.

For the next text to be quoted, apply the same symbols and words,  i.e. embed the text to be quoted between the two symbols and words.
Hope this may be useful.

Gyula