A machine to convert gravity to mechanical energy # 2

[truth]

@ Brian,

How about his number?

The total amount of people confident enough in your project to actually do any further work on it including yourself equals zero.

Sorry, but that is just the truth.

[brian334]

Lies,
That’s a silly post, I applied for a patent on this invention. I paid $515. To the United States Patent Office for the application fee.
If you think I am not serious about this invention you are kooksville.
brian

[utilitarian]

Lies,
That’s a silly post, I applied for a patent on this invention. I paid $515. To the United States Patent Office for the application fee.
If you think I am not serious about this invention you are kooksville.
brian

OK, so the number may need to be adjusted to 1.  Let us know when you get it running.

[TinselKoala]

You are really wasting your money. But it's your money, so OK.

But you really must deal with this: You think your descending column will be a continuous column. But you know that you have to abruptly stop a tank at the bottom, so the 64 pound weight can continue moving and expand the tank by its "momentum."
But since the tanks are in a continuous column, this means that ALL THE TANKS must also stop. So, once the tank at the bottom is expanded, the next tank can only fall ONE TANK LENGTH before it too must stop and (try) to be expanded. And so forth. You don't have any momentum, and your column cannot accelerate--because it has to stop each time a tank is expanded.
Not only that, even if there was enough momentum from the falling weight (which there cannot be, as the weight only falls one tank length, see above), that momentum goes into lifting the water--the same water that then "falls under" the rising buoyant tanks to give them their lift. Thus there is no energy gain, no momentum gain, possible in the system.
There is no need to put numbers to any of this. When you think about it clearly you can see that the mechanism won't do what you think it will, and even if it did, it still wouldn't work because you have omitted thinking about all the water that must be LIFTED when your tanks expand. One atmosphere of pressure every 33 feet of depth! That's a lot of water pushing against your tanks, keeping them from expanding. You think lifting a tank's volume of water, in water, is free because the water has the same buoyancy as the water surrounding it. But you are forgetting about the pressure of the water above. You must do work against this pressure. The same amount of work that you get back when the expanded tanks rise. Less the large losses in your mechanism.

[hansvonlieven]

@ Tinsel Koala

You are wasting your breath. I gave him the figures at 10 ft depth and advised him to study some hydraulics before embarking on designing a hydraulic system. His answer was "You are embarrassing yourself" when he saw my calculation. I challenge anyone to prove my figures wrong.

There simply is no substitute for an education. Postulating garbage just doesn't get you there.

Hans von Lieven