What's wrong with this

[MarkE]

Consider a solid object immersed in a completely full, sealed container of liquid.
It should be obvious that the solid object displaces its own volume of liquid. Right?

Now move the solid object up by the distance of its own height.

Notice that the liquid that was above the object, before the raising, has to go somewhere for the object to occupy that space. Where does it go?
It goes to fill up the space where the object was before raising. That is, the object goes up, and an equivalent volume of liquid goes _down_. Right?

This has to be true whatever the densities of the object and liquid. Right?

Now start considering densities. If the object weighs less than the fluid it displaces, it is positively buoyant. So it rises, and a volume of fluid that is _heavier_ than the object sinks, to fill up the space where the object was before it rises. Right?

Is this beginning to "sink in" yet? 

The rising object rises, because an equal fluid volume that is _heavier_ than the object, sinks.  How the hell can you expect to get net work out of that situation? 

The situation is exactly analogous to a rope over a pulley, with a light weight tied to one end of the rope and a heavy weight tied to the other end. The light weight rises because _the heavier weight falls_.  It takes work to set up the situation with the heavy weight up and the light weight down; this work -- and no more -- is returned while the system runs toward equilibrium with the heavy weight down and the light weight up; then you have to do work again to reset the system with the heavy weight up and the light weight down.

By Archimedes you've got it!  (Of course you always did.) 

It boggles my mind that these very straightforward concepts give some folks so much trouble.  Whether it's the liar Wayne Travis or people honestly mistaken: Lots of folks just don't seem to get that buoyancy is just denser fluid pushing less dense objects out of the way as the denser fluid tries to make its way towards terra firma.  As the fluid moves towards Mother Earth the center of gravity of the fluid plus submersible(s) falls and therefore the stored gravitational potential energy also falls.  No amount of trap doors, gears, levers, inflatable bags, or any other contraptions can change the basic energy relationships:  The GPE is greatest when the submersibles are at the bottom of the vessel, and lowest when they are at the top.

[TinselKoala]

By Archimedes you've got it!  (Of course you always did.) 

It boggles my mind that these very straightforward concepts give some folks so much trouble.  Whether it's the liar Wayne Travis or people honestly mistaken: Lots of folks just don't seem to get that buoyancy is just denser fluid pushing less dense objects out of the way as the denser fluid tries to make its way towards terra firma.  As the fluid moves towards Mother Earth the center of gravity of the fluid plus submersible(s) falls and therefore the stored gravitational potential energy also falls.  No amount of trap doors, gears, levers, inflatable bags, or any other contraptions can change the basic energy relationships:  The GPE is greatest when the submersibles are at the bottom of the vessel, and lowest when they are at the top.

Yep. That's why I've said before: Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled. And when you start thinking about the loss mechanisms involved in pushing all that water around, you really would be better off with a pulley on good bearings and a piece of rope, out in the open air.

Still, I'd like to see a comprehensive diagram of Tinman's idea.

[Floor]

@ MarkE

"It doesn't work for reasons that have been explained concerning buoyancy schemes before." from MarkE

                             If you had said that you are not aware of any way to get work out of buoyancy.

While this might not be news, it wouldn't have placed you into a positon of supposed superiority, whould it?

It would not have been CONDESCENDING ?

You might have asked your self, if probably, the reason for that other persons are investigating
"buoyancy schemes" (DERISIVE term), was precisely that it's not been done before,
(not can't be done)  instead of ASSUMING that person is unaware of such an obvious thing ?

Can you honestly say to your self that this is not CONDESCENTION.

......................................

Did not heavier than air flight, not work "FOR REASONS THAT HAVE (had) BEEN EXPLAINED" ?

The question here is whether "reasons" are stated to

A. discourage some one, for their own good and to save them from a wasted life.
or
B. to clairify the goal.

If case A. mind your own business.
If case B. it is the experimenter that needs to ask those questions, and unless you are the
experimenter your self, but out.

BTW

Iv'e changed my mind and I'm not done yet.

Stick around Mark, If you can find the strength, to look at your self a little bit.

The title of the topic is "whats wrong with this ?".

The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.

                   floor

[TinselKoala]

Heavier than air flight by Man had precedent: birds, rubber-band-powered stick and paper things, paper airplane gliders. So it's an invalid comparison to make. There are no precedents in Nature or in models that would suggest that buoyancy drives are possible at all.

One way to improve the forum, if that's really your goal, is to stop with the personal attacks like you are making, Floor. 

It is a perfectly valid goal for some of us to try to help others avoid wasting their precious time, money and creativity on _schemes_ that have no possibility of working, like gravity wheels, permanent magnet motors, and... buoyancy drives.

Any given experimenter is perfectly free to ignore the advice, analyses and even derision coming from those of us who are attempting to keep them from wasting their time. But I think we reserve the right to say "I told you so, long ago" when they eventually get frustrated with their failures and move on to something else. If someone can support their claims and conjectures with solid data, checkable valid outside references, and/or demonstrations and experiments of their own, that's great. Submitting them for examination and review by the other posters here is the closest many of us will ever get to actual "peer review"... and the real thing can be brutal, take my word for it. 


https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/free-energy-drive-power-station-level

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

"It doesn't work for reasons that have been explained concerning buoyancy schemes before." from MarkE

                             If you had said that you are not aware of any way to get work out of buoyancy.

While this might not be news, it wouldn't have placed you into a positon of supposed superiority, whould it?

It is just a statement of fact.

It would not have been CONDESCENDING ?

The fact was stated in an objective and impersonal manner.

You might have asked your self, if probably, the reason for that other persons are investigating
"buoyancy schemes" (DERISIVE term), was precisely that it's not been done before,

Let's see what the very first definition of "scheme" is:

noun
noun: scheme; plural noun: schemes

    1.
    a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.
    "a clever marketing scheme"
    synonyms:   plan, project, plan of action, program, strategy, stratagem, tactic, game plan, course/line of action; More

That is the definition of "scheme" when used as a noun, as I did.  You chose to interpret the word "scheme" as a verb, which is not how I used it.

verb
verb: scheme; 3rd person present: schemes; past tense: schemed; past participle: schemed; gerund or present participle: scheming

    1.
    make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong.

(not can't be done)  instead of ASSUMING that person is unaware of such an obvious thing ?

Can you honestly say to your self that this is not CONDESCENTION.

Why do you think facts are condescending when they oppose an action or proposed course of action?

......................................

Did not heavier than air flight, not work "FOR REASONS THAT HAVE (had) BEEN EXPLAINED" ?

I am sorry do you labor under the idea that I dispute HTA flight?

The question here is whether "reasons" are stated to

A. discourage some one, for their own good and to save them from a wasted life.
or
B. to clairify the goal.

If case A. mind your own business.

Well it is all fine and well that you do not like to see opposition to your ideas.  If you do not want opposition:  vett your ideas before placing them on a public comment board.

If case B. it is the experimenter that needs to ask those questions, and unless you are the
experimenter your self, but out.

Again this is a public comment board.  If you would like an echo chamber where ideas including unworkable ideas are not burdened by criticism there are ways to set one up.

BTW

Iv'e changed my mind and I'm not done yet.

Stick around Mark, If you can find the strength, to look at your self a little bit.

The title of the topic is "whats wrong with this ?".

The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.

                   floor

Your OP posted an unworkable buoyancy scheme.  How does the jive with your present claim that the topic is:

The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.

?

Your OP:

If Ou can be done any where, then it can be done any where ?

Please find the attached file OUfloater 3.pdf

Cheers
       floor
* OUfloater 3.pdf (348.04 kB - downloaded 92 times.)