Youtube video of gravity device principle.. ?

[ramset]

Tinsel Koala

I meant where are you  for your critique [I'm sure you knew that] which is greatly appreciated

I thought you were in Australia??

Any way none of my business

Thanks again for your response here

        Chet

[GavinPalmer1984]

At 2:59 in the video it is shown that an unpartitioned "giving" container is lifted its full height ABOVE the top of the receiving container, which would be necessary if the drain hole is in the bottom of the unpartitioned upper container. So it takes 2x the work to lift it this high, to replace the water in the receiving container. The scheme of adding partitions finally reduces to the "giving" container, unpartitioned, at the SAME level as the receiving container, and the water just "pushed over" horizontally. SO the receiving container is re-filled with not 2x the work but with exactly 1x the work received.
The 2x figure from 2:59 in the video is a red herring, as are the multiple partitions. You could use a siphon nearly as effectively. The partition scheme, as the number of partitions increases, converges on the UNITY figure, and will not ever go below that. So, at the end of the day, you can reduce the amount of work it takes to reset the apparatus all the way down to just the amount of work you get out of it (neglecting losses.)
You get out, what you put in, less losses. There is no mechanism for energy gain in this device. Yes, it is possible to make the amount of work to reset variable, especially if you start out with an unnecessarily high figure (like the 2x at 2:59 in the video) but you can never make it smaller than the amount of work you get out of the cycle.

@ramset: I am near Toronto, Canada.

Partitioning reduces the "y" coordinate distance which liquid must be lifted to empty and refill a reservoir.

When there are the theoretical infinite number of containers, the liquid is merely pushed out of the original container and back into the original container.  Hence, the "y" coordinate distance which the liquid must be lifted is zero.

Each individual partition must be lifted 2 * height of a partition.

distance = y-coordinate distance
With one giving container, the distance is 2*X
With two giving containers, the distance is X
With four giving containers, the distance is X/2
With six giving containers, the distance is X/3

Hence, the total distance is 2 * X / n; where n is the number of partitions.  I would also add a distance, c, which will allow the liquid from a partitioned container to "fall" instead of be "pushed".

Total distance = 2 * X / n + c

The UNITY figure will be determined by a minimum size for a partition (based upon the dimensions of the system) and a minimum size for c.  For a very large height of the system, the number of partitions will be quite large, which will reduce the distance to a very small amount.

This device is for learning and will lead to much more efficient perpetual motion devices.

Please note that a constructed device will teach the world about "cooperative systems".  Where each sub-system performs as we currently understand the laws of physics, but sub-systems can work in cooperation to defy our current laws of physics.  Hence, a system which is in constant non-equilibrium whose entropy merely oscillates within a window of max and min values.

[GavinPalmer1984]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIA2rZQgO_c

Is an easy overview of my partitioning discovery.  This is the foundation for my cooperative system.

[spinner]

Partitioning reduces the "y" coordinate distance which liquid must be lifted to empty and refill a reservoir.

True, but it also reduces the mass to be lifted against gravity. In ideal world (without any unwanted losses, your concept potential energy would remain the same (m*h*g), no matter how many partitions there are...)
In a real world, losses are adding to the overall efficiency in any conversion, so a device with many partitions would introduce cumulative losses (wasted energy made through many many pipes, drains, ...).

So, less containers, the better... I'm not kidding, seriously...

When there are the theoretical infinite number of containers, the liquid is merely pushed out of the original container and back into the original container.  Hence, the "y" coordinate distance which the liquid must be lifted is zero.

When there are "infinite" numbers of containers, the "Y" (h) is approaching zero, and the "m" is approaching zero, too. And the "g" factor approaches a finite number. Overall, the whole "potential" is conserved.
In reality, it gets much worse (due to losses which are CUMULATIVE!) than with a "single container".

Each individual partition must be lifted 2 * height of a partition.

distance = y-coordinate distance
With one giving container, the distance is 2*X
With two giving containers, the distance is X
With four giving containers, the distance is X/2
With six giving containers, the distance is X/3

Hence, the total distance is 2 * X / n; where n is the number of partitions.  I would also add a distance, c, which will allow the liquid from a partitioned container to "fall" instead of be "pushed".

Total distance = 2 * X / n + c

The UNITY figure will be determined by a minimum size for a partition (based upon the dimensions of the system) and a minimum size for c.  For a very large height of the system, the number of partitions will be quite large, which will reduce the distance to a very small amount.

This device is for learning and will lead to much more efficient perpetual motion devices.

Simply, NO. Sorry.

What the fuck are the "more efficient perpetual motion devices"?
I'd really like to see just one of those...
   

Please note that a constructed device will teach the world about "cooperative systems".  Where each sub-system performs as we currently understand the laws of physics, but sub-systems can work in cooperation to defy our current laws of physics.  Hence, a system which is in constant non-equilibrium whose entropy merely oscillates within a window of max and min values.

Ah, well... Why there are so many FE enthusiasts questioning the laws of physics?
The "laws of physics" are the best we (the Earthlings) can do at the moment to describe the Nature...

No problem if somebody wants to break them. Nobody would cry after them. Lol!

If you have to offer anything better, good.  Simply, just do it.

[GavinPalmer1984]

True, but it also reduces the mass to be lifted against gravity. In ideal world (without any unwanted losses, your concept potential energy would remain the same (m*h*g), no matter how many partitions there are...)
In a real world, losses are adding to the overall efficiency in any conversion, so a device with many partitions would introduce cumulative losses (wasted energy made through many many pipes, drains, ...).

The mass is not reduced when adding containers.  I am not addressing potential energy.  I am simply emptying and refilling a container efficiently.  Ass you add containers, the distance decreases and the mass of the liquid remains the same.  The mass of the containers increases when adding containers, but an opposing force can negate the mass of the containers.  Pipes and drains are merely conduits for the liquid to pass through.  The system can be designed so that pipes open in an automatic, sequential manner so that the net energy needed to empty and refill a container is:

Work = g * M * d + f * d
g = gravity
M = mass of liquid exchanged + a constant for the containers
f = friction encountered during lift
d = 2 * X / n + c
X = height of original container
c = constant amount needed so that liquid can fall from one side to the other.

So, less containers, the better... I'm not kidding, seriously...

So, no... please try to understand that the mass can be constant and the distance is reduced.  You might assume that energy is lost due to opening valves, etc.  But then you have specified  an inefficient design.  There exists potential in each stage which can trigger an event to occur.  Designing the system intelligently will allow you to empty and refill a container with my above equations for work.

When there are "infinite" numbers of containers, the "Y" (h) is approaching zero, and the "m" is approaching zero, too. And the "g" factor approaches a finite number. Overall, the whole "potential" is conserved.
In reality, it gets much worse (due to losses which are CUMULATIVE!) than with a "single container".

Simply, NO. Sorry.

Yes, "Y"(h) approaches zero and "m" for each container approaches zero.  But "m" * n = mass of the liquid being exchanged.  Gravity is constant.  You keep talking about potential in odd areas... I am addressing work needed to empty and refill a container.

What the fuck are the "more efficient perpetual motion devices"?
I'd really like to see just one of those...
   
Ah, well... Why there are so many FE enthusiasts questioning the laws of physics?
The "laws of physics" are the best we (the Earthlings) can do at the moment to describe the Nature...

No problem if somebody wants to break them. Nobody would cry after them. Lol!

If you have to offer anything better, good.  Simply, just do it.

More efficient perpetual motion devices will output more KW-Hours for less cost (in materials).  And they will not need replacement parts as frequently.
I do not break a law.  I break our interpretation.  The laws exist at each moment in time, but multiple systems can work cooperatively to achieve what our laws say is impossible.
I encourage you to simply understand this:

1. Through the partitioning system, work needed to empty and refill a container is reduced by decreasing the distance which the mass must be lifted.
2. An output unit which resets to its initial state due to an emptying and refilling of its container produces a constant amount of output energy.
3. If you transfer the liquid, initiate the flip of the output unit, and lock/engage events with potential within the processes, statements 1 and 2 allow for perpetual motion.
    more sources of energy which may be harnessed for intermediate steps:
    - There is potential in each individual container being filled and lowered.
    - There is potential in the rising reservoir.
    - There is potential in the actual rotation of the output unit.
    - There is potential in the falling output unit.

The way you would eliminate costs for transferring liquid is to design the system with triggered events which occur under certain conditions.  And before the next cycle, each trigger is reset.  I have solved further problems dealing with these more specific designs (utilizing rising water or falling objects)... but I want the readers to agree with statements 1, 2, and 3.  Once the readers understand and agree with statements 1, 2, and 3,  I hope the online community will assist in designing/building a unit.

GVP