Simple and powerful principle

[perpetual]

I know perfectly well pressure at the bottom of a tank of water is not dependent upon the diameter of the tank. I wrote that wrong in a hurry.

I know perfectly well width does not matter, only height.

I always give example of a lake on the mountain when talking about potential, it may be infinitely wide or just a puddle and it would have same potential cause height is all that matters, but not the same available current.

That aside, this is different from a regular tank. Very different.

Have you considered my example with a hand etc.

Here, i'll help you, do you think boy when putting stuff under the tube is fighting any pressure
higher than he experiences in the rest of the tank at that level.

https://youtu.be/rxFXsoqbfrk?t=57

Do you understand now that your claim is unrealistic.

Will you now admit you were wrong that pressure at the bottom of the tube is great and that energy to insert the float and open the small valve on the top is equal to energy float generates by falling up to the top and back down.

PS See how that pen goes up swiftly, that is pretty much how a 10kg or 100kg or 1000kg torpedo float would go, slightly slower due to bigger resistance, but not much slower. All for free.

Nix

[perpetual]

Seems kitty ate his tongue.

I consider this satisfactorily proven to all reason and scientific inquiry.

Nix

[Willy]

In order to get a float into the bottom of a tank of water (or a tube of water)

It takes the same amount of energy to insert the float at depth, as it takes to push it
down from the surface to that same depth.

Generally, less force to sink it from the top, but a greater distance of travel
               or
a greater force to insert it but a shorter distance of travel.

Simplifying and ignoring friction and some other factors, these two energy inputs are equal.

1. lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. push float to the bottom (energy input)
3. float rises to the surface (energy output)
4. Float falls exterior to the tank (energy output)

numbers 1 and 4 cancel to zero
numbers 2 and 3 cancel to zero

or

1. insert float directly into the bottom of tank (energy input)
2. float rises to the surface (energy output)
3. Float falls exterior to the tank (energy output)

numbers 1 and 2 cancel to zero

and

number 3 is free ?

or else

it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to push
it to the bottom of the tank from the surface.

if

it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to push
it to the bottom of the tank from the surface

then

the float would be ejected with more energy due to pressure at the bottom of the tank
than is the energy required to sink the float to the bottom from the surface.

1. Lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. push float to the bottom (energy input)
3. float is ejected by pressure from the bottom of the tank (energy output)
what if the float is made of lead ?

1. Lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. float sinks on its own, to the bottom of the tank (energy output)
3. float is ejected by pressure from the bottom of the tank (energy output)

in which case, the float can definitely be ejected at the bottom of the tank
with more energy than was required to sink it to the bottom of the tank.

also then

it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to
sink it to the bottom. 

what if the float has the same density as water ?
what if the float has 1/2 the density of water ?

[perpetual]

I gave you the example with the hand in the tank.

I helped you with video example, i asked you do you think boy experiences greater pressure straight below the tube compared to rest of the tank on the same level.

I asked you do you still claim pressure is great at the bottom of the tube.

You have not addressed/answered any of this, you are again expounding from the wrong premise and thus you tangle yourself in horrible confusions upon confusions and based on them you come to wrong "conclusion" that input is equal to output.

You are now really wasting my time with nonsense.

Understand, this is not a regular tank, this is a tank with closed top and open bottom which does not spill out due to the fact air presses on the water it is immersed in from all sides equally with immense force while from the top of the tube there is no pressure at all since there is no air.

Surrounding air pressure also eliminates the pressure at the bottom that would be present in regular tank. And this is the key. So here, unlike the regular tank, float can be inserted at the bottom FOR FREE, that is, input is so minimal it is nothing.

Nothing is equal here. Input is absolutely minimal, zero for all practical purposes. ALL work done by float free falling up and then free falling down is completely free work.

Input is thousands of times smaller than output.

I will ask you again, do you still claim pressure at the bottom of the tube is greater than in rest of the tank which is 1 atmosphere.

Nix

[Willy]

Very cool

I was writing and posting as you were also.  I did not see your post until
I had already posted my last post. It happens that way some times.

Your design is very cool indeed.

Problems to over come.

1. Removing the float from the top of the tank will be against a vacuum or
negative pressure relative to the pressure outside of the tube, but this can be
overcome by closing a gate valve across the bottom of the tube after the float enters.
Then allowing the same volume of water as is the volume of the float, into the tube
(at the top of the tube) to enter the tube as the float is extracted from the tube.

2. What ever the height of the tube, the energy expended in lifting a volume of water
equal to the float's volume, to that height, must be subtracted from the gain of the float's rising
in order to keep the tube full during successive cycles of operation.

3. If the tube is tall enough the vacuum against the top of the tube, (caused by the weight of
the water hanging in the tube) will cause the water to boil (even at room temperature).

Still and all, very creative thinking on your part.  Nice !