Breaking the "Law of Levers" barrier with fluids. re: Asymmetric torque about a fulcrum.
The following is my background to & theory about the possibility of breaking the 'Law of Levers' barrier. It also proposes a Prime Mover candidate & description to act as a switch to change system Center of Mass [CoM] by creating a virtual displacement of mass in a symmetrical wheel [rotary] format.
Part One:
Some Background:
Years ago I conducted a set of experiments to investigate Archimedes Buoyancy Force & the Law of Floatation, & Pascal's Principle of undiminished fluid pressure transfer as relates to Hydraulic Levers. This required knowing a little about Fluid Dynamics. I was well aware that Fluid Dynamics Principles were predicated on Conservation of Energy doctrine [CoE of closed systems] which was a fundamental of the overarching Laws of Thermodynamics.
I built various simple mechanical 'balance beam' experiments using the lever & fulcrum format i.e. reciprocating devices, which later morphed into exploring rotary formats. I released some of these experiments to www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com) discussion board around 2007 but held some concepts back, for a rainy day, as they required further careful thought, not just from the experimental design & engineering perspective.
The purpose of these generic experiments was an attempt to dissect, observe if possible, or deduce, an anomaly in 'ordinary' accepted physics & mechanics that would not be readily apparent [if one existed], that could ultimately lead to a self sustaining reciprocating or rotary 'engine'. One that did not require an input of external fuel energy source or the harnessing of an environmental gradient or differential such as barometric pressure or temperature changes [that was a parallel line of inquiry]. In short, trying to find a method to invoke Asymmetric Torque around a fulcrum, i.e. breaking the Law of Levers & Newton's Laws. Conservative gravity's strengths & weaknesses might be coerced to cooperate.
During these experiments a thought coalesced. From the empirical study of these properties of fluids an oversight in understanding of fluid behaviour application [or misapplication] began to emerge as a possibility. If the theory proved correct the result would be profoundly paradigm changing in its implications, if not complete scientific heresy.
General Comment:
Critics who read my presentation here may label it as a convenient arrangement of discreet 'factoids' & ill-conceived speculations cobbled together into what could only generously be described as a loose argument. Whilst that may be one interpretation I am quite relaxed about my presentation methodology here. I prefer to present my hypothesis & theory in this way, for simplicity, as a series of 'stepping stones' & bullet points of the thought processes I went thru, as a potential pathway for further inquiry & understanding, & facilitating open discussion & development of ideas & concepts in an open source environment.
Optimistically perhaps, setting the groundwork to potentially developing a working mechanical self sustaining Intrinsic Motion Machine [IMM], or free-energy OU device, or PMM in the vernacular. Some of my speculations & conclusions that trickled out of the inquiry process I leave out for the moment to invite & encourage alternate views, discussion, experiments, interpretations or conclusions.
.................................
Some of the experiments I conducted & what I found or deduced:
Firstly, I conducted experiments in buoyancy & floatation to empirically compare against what I believed I knew about the subjects i.e. that buoyancy force was an artefact of gravity force due to differences in density. In the process of manifesting buoyancy or flotation the system Center of Mass [CoM] is lowered to its position of least Potential Energy of Position [PE]. We are all familiar with the phrase that 'you can float a battleship in a bathtub', i.e. a suitably sized one, shaped like the ship's hull of slightly greater volume & dimensions. This means that only a small volume of 'filler' fluid is needed to raise & float the battleship & that the 'actual' fluid volume can be significantly less than the displacement volume of the ship's hull. However the PE increase in system CoM raising [future Output joules] is equal to Work Done in potentializing the system [Input joules], not considering losses - nothing new here, just Archimedes Laws in action.
Whilst studying 'floats' on levers depressed ever greater distances into buckets of water I noted that the depth of fluid increased with a resultant greater force [pressure] on the bottom of the bucket due to head depth, & this was a linear relationship as expected. Since the bucket, lever & float mechanism was counterbalanced by an exact same mechanism on the opposite side of a fulcrum [where the float was neutrally buoyant in the bucket water] the coupled arrangement rotated away from the applied force so that the float would attempt to separate out from the water. This was an example of Newton's 'for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction'. Nothing further to be observed or learned here.
However, for as long as I can remember it was apparent that for an object to float in a fluid that the objects mass must equal the volume mass of displaced fluid. IOW's, that density was constant & uniform in a non compressible fluid where an object floated on the surface. This means that an object [e.g. say a ship, to purposely exaggerate the example for visualization purposes] can be positioned anywhere in a large enough swimming pool, on one side or another etc, & because density is uniform from lower to upper water level there will be no torque [turning force] produced around a hypothetical fulcrum [or pivot/axle] at the Center of Rotation [CoR] of the swimming pool system, providing the floating object has degrees of freedom.
To cross check my thought experiment with another I also imagined a rectangular 'U' shaped trough supported at each end by a set of bathroom scales. The trough was filled with water, each scale reading the same & showing half the weight force of trough & water. Next, a toy boat was introduced that could move in any direction as long as it didn't touch the sides. Both scales read higher weight force to account for the toy boat addition but still read equal, regardless of where the boat was positioned in the trough. Therefore the position of the floating boat created no turning moment or system torque.
This I consider was a self evident deduction that many have probably also made just through observation & a little thought experimenting. No stunning revelation or anything new here.
See pictures of ships in swimming pool & boats in trough on scales.
My next objective was to examine Pascal's Principle more closely as it relates to Hydraulic Leverage for which it is most familiar in a mechanical sense. To recap, Pascal's Principle says that 'pressure is transferred undiminished to all points in a static enclosed fluid'. We use this principle daily & in many mechanical applications in the form of the hydraulic press, where pressure created by application of a force multiplies that force [proportional to areas] to do Work at another position. N.B. a major benefit of hydraulic principles is transmission of forces over large distances where mechanical levers & linkages are inferior or constrained. IOW's, the hydraulic press is used as a force multiplier machine that gives us a force advantage but it does not change or alter the 'Law of Levers' or Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP].
i.e. f1 x d2 joules of energy Input [Effort] = f2 x d1 joules of energy Output [Load] – the 'Law of Levers'.
In this format & use the hydraulic press is a zero sum energy game, & is a facsimile of a mechanical lever, which creates mechanical advantage at the expense of speed ratio. CoE is preserved, not counting losses, & Newton & Thermodynamics are safe.
See pictures (2) of hydraulic press & transmission of pressure & force multiplication doing Work.
The thought experiments continued:
However, these experiments & further contemplation opened a pathway of possibility to me. What if I could use the ship floating in a swimming pool analogy & change conditions such that I could create torque around a fulcrum on demand, create a switch ? In effect, be able to turn torque on & off when required to create a terrestrial machine whose natural preferred state was inherent instability & dynamic motion, the antithesis to all other terrestrial man made machines which seek & will find their position of lowest PE & thus static stability, without additional energy input. So I set about envisaging mechanical devices that could theoretically achieve this inherent animation & instability outcome.
N.B. the following descriptions & pictures throughout are deliberately simple & generic in nature. They are metaphors for what I consider needs to happen to create asymmetric torque around a fulcrum [i.e. mitigate torque on one side of a pivot], to potentially break thru the Law of Levers barrier. They are in no-way intended as full & accurate, or to scale, schematics or blue prints to a working device. Simply ideas & concepts in picture form to illustrate concepts & ideas presented here.
1. My first thoughts were around a method to treat the hypothetical swimming pool analogy as a horizontal fluid filled open lever [U shaped] pivoted at the CoR . Then an object [the ship] floating in the fluid could be positioned at one end. This scenario would then require the 'fluid lever' to act like a cannel lock in reverse i.e. the ship is latched to the end at full water height & then a portion of fluid is removed to a reservoir leaving the ship no longer fully buoyed by the fluid. Once the ships degrees of freedom are restricted in this way, by latching & dropping the water level beneath it, the lever density would no longer be uniform. The lever would become end heavy which would create torque around the pivot & create momentum & Kinetic Energy [KE] in the system. N.B. this could be used to do Work [f x d .. or .. m.a.d = 1/2mv^2 (rotational KE)]. When the timing was right the extracted portion of water could be reintroduced to the fluid lever to raise up water levels & cause full floatation of the ship [once unlatched] which would restore the system to uniform density & zero torque conditions again, & have no further effect on momentum already gained. IOW's, turning torque on & off strategically could cause momentum accumulation conditions & rotational KE in a system & the concept could be either in reciprocating or rotary format. Of course this was a thought experiment that had considerable engineering problems to overcome. For instance torque manifested by lowering water levels around a fixed object in an open U shaped lever would cause the lever to tilt & the water would run down hill. This would cause the water to overflow & also lower the system CoM further reducing system PE which would have to have Work done on it later to restore system PE, in order to complete a cycle.
See picture of ship in swimming pool latched & unlatched with changing water levels.
Further considerations for me weren't only mechanical & engineering but also brought into question the relationship of Work & Energy in the guise of the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP], an important mandate in physics when comparing Work [f x d = m.a.d] joules to energy joules. CoE says that they should be equal, not counting losses. The proposed hypothetical system should create torque on demand [asymmetric force] via a periodically displaced system CoM. It relied on a reservoir & pumping in & extracting out small volumes of fluid [Work Done] to float & unfloat an object which according to current physics understanding was consistent with the view that Work & Energy are interchangeable, both using the same units, & therefore should be of equal magnitude with no excess energy capability or OU potential. This should be an excess energy dead end because of conservative gravity.
The following are two formats & three variations on a theme for illustrative & conceptual purposes.
i. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with a single buoyant device one end & a counterweight the other, alternating system CoM position from CoR to one side & back again, by floating, latching & draining, then filling, unlatching & refloating an object less dense than the fluid medium.
ii. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with two buoyant devices located at opposite ends of the lever that alternated their roles in mitigating torque at the appropriate times, much as above. This would have better power density than a single counterweighted reciprocating device, therefore be more efficient.
iii. A fluid filled fully enclosed tube rotary lever device, with one or more fluid filled cross diameter levers, for momentum & KE accumulation, & to act as efficient energy storage device as a flywheel does, possibly at a higher energy density configuration than i. or ii. above.
N.B. it was my contention however that any system [such as a wheel] based on a concept that created asymmetric torque around a fulcrum on demand [the switch] using properties of fluids could also potentially give rise to greater rotational KE in joules than the energy cost associated with it, including losses. That is, be self sustaining, restore PE & have excess KE & momentum that could be bled of to do Work. This would cause scientific apoplexy until understood, if it could be engineered & it worked.
2. The thoughts & concepts in 1. above quickly matured & morphed into a more heretical approach & design, both for reciprocating & rotary devices. What if I should disassociate WEEP so that Work & Energy were treated discreetly, & not be viewed as opposite sides of the same coin ? Then a device such as a wheel might be designed that was physically [real mass position wise] symmetrical at all times i.e. in terms of radial positions of mass it is symmetrical. But the system would respond with momentum & KE gain due to asymmetric torque about a fulcrum or axle via oscillating system CoM shifts. [In Part Two I'll explain why & how this might work out]. This causes continuous instability & continuous dynamic motion. This would be breaking the Law of Levers barrier using a property of fluids & gravity force.
Part Two:
The Theory is ... 'Virtual Displacement (of) Mass Principle', aka 'MAD-VD' Theory.
V.D. stands for Virtual Displacement (of Mass). M.A.D. stands for Mass, Acceleration, Distance [i.e. Work Done = force times distance joules of energy]. The theory proposes that a symmetrical wheel can mitigate turning forces on one side of the fulcrum [i.e. generate asymmetric forces] making the wheel behave as if it were continuously overbalanced. i.e. whilst there is no actual physical mass displacement of note there is a virtual displacement of mass caused by a fundamental property of fluid to transmit [communicate] pressure equally to all points in an enclosed fluid & it is this that the system responds to as a result of interpreting a system change in CoM.
N.B. from the rotating systems point of view the mass [weight force pressure inducing input] is almost instantaneously lifted upwards & shifted to a new position & repositioned back again later, creating torque, although the reality is the mass does not change its relative position within the wheel. See accompanying diagrams for further clarification.
The Hypothesis is ... A Prime Mover modelled on a modified symmetrical Hydraulic Press arrangement [i.e. a reservoir/bladder etc] acting as a pivoted fluid filled cross diagonal structure, or structures, in reciprocating or rotary format can be used as a switching technology.
Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [i.e. communication] to all points in an enclosed fluid system is the crux of the Prime Mover's modus operandi & constitutes a switching technology.
Fluids do not support shearing stress. Fluids do have viscosity. The molecular arrangement of a non compressible fluid is not a restrictive lattice or matrix like structure. This is why Pascal's Principle allows for undiminished transmission of pressure in all directions in an enclosed static fluid. The nature of water molecules allows for the communication [via connectedness] of information between molecules.
Any force applied to a modified hydraulic press [as pressure inducing input] structure will increase pressure from top to bottom & to the sides of the fluid reservoir equally. That input force can be weight force in the form of application of a mass.
The weight force acting on the modified hydraulic press structure creates pressure within the internal fluid but does not allow for volumetric exchange of fluid i.e. pressure & force is created but actual volume displacement does not occur so the Prime Mover uses one part of the Hydraulic Press principle i.e. it does no Work on the system per se but creates a real system CoM change almost instantaneously [the switch], while there is a virtual displacement of mass occurring internally.
See picture of symmetrical POP structures with active mass, on scales.
The Question in parts is ...
1. Can a bench top proof of principle [POP] experiment be designed & demonstrated to confirm whether or not a modified hydraulic press Prime Mover structure arrangement with a weight force at one end will increase internal fluid pressure ?
2. Can the POP equally transmit fluid pressure [& create virtual displacement of mass] such that no turning moment is observed about a fulcrum if the reservoir/structure is pivoted or placed on scales, much the same as a floating object in a tank does not create a turning moment about a fulcrum or change the readings on top of two scales ?
3. Can this technology, if valid, be used to create a useful switching mechanism & prove the theory of asymmetric torque production around a fulcrum ?
The Requirements & Considerations for a rotary format are ... an elastic membrane/boots or piston & sleeve recess etc to allow weight force transmission to fluid. A communicating diaphragm located at or near the CoR, which allows pressure transmission/communication but does not allow fluid volume transference/movement. A flow restrictor to slow minor fluid movement that may occur due inertia. A weight receiving cage that still allows some degrees of freedom for the mass to operate in [weights could be attached to short levers etc]. Opposing mechanisms are needed to provide symmetry. On the descending side the mass in its cage [or connected to a short lever] hangs beneath the structure relinquishing its pressure inducing role for this sector & creates torque. On the ascending side its role is to induce pressure which is transmitted equally & change the system CoM. Inertia of the wheel is affected by fluid mass therefore rigid piping/tubing [plastic etc] length & volume dimensions need to be considered [i.e. only need small fluid communication channels which will reduce weight & inertia]. Rotation rate is affected by diameter as is output & power, also increased with multiple cross diagonal structures with mechanisms.
See pictures of fletchers' wheels, single cross diagonal & multiple fluid filled structures in rotary format.
See the short thread in General Discussion forum titled IS it or, is it NOT ? ... http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104202#104202 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104202#104202) for additional context.
Closing Note:
Have fun thinking about this. May every man who has the space, inclination, time & ability one day be able to inexpensively build his own 'garage' free-energy Intrinsic Motion Machine for his own use & enjoyment.
-fletcher teasdale
Morning ..
I have a request for some clarification.
The mechanism is a mechanical switching technology.
There is NO movement of fluids in the Work Done sense, as per a hydraulic press lever analogy.
The mass 'rests' on top the structure on the ascending side - it does NO work [i.e. f x d = joules] BUT it does create internal pressure.
Please work thru the 'Hyperphysics breaking the bottom out of a bottle' example in the attachments below to grasp this concept further - I have modified the second image to include an analysis I did for myself some time ago - some assumptions had to be made about height etc.
Hi,
I read through this and was lost. I tried again, studying the diagrams and reading the text carefully, it all made sense and is
an elegant piece of work.
I've studied mrwayne's animation and can get nowhere with it. As for his claim or running a house, let alone a mall, I can't
see it. I wanted 10 kw power out and decided I would need 20 hp. for that. With a "magic" see-saw I would need a water container
on each side 4x4x11 ft. high, with a stroke of 1 ft. and timed at 1 second. I think I need to start and build a decent sized garden shed!
John.
Hi,
thanks for that Seamus, won't worry my head over it any more, did feel an experiment coming on there!
John.
Hi,
mrwayne put me into a thinking mood. Everything, save a bit of heat in the Earth's core has been driven by the Sun. Everything
in the future will be too!
Even if we come up with fusion, it's the Sun that will have given us the original energy to do the task. There's abundant energy
coming to us, we must learn how to use it.
John.
I am quite disappointed in the lack of inquiry of this thread. Fletcher is one of the brightest minds on these forums. I would have expected others on the same level to at least try to understand what he was trying to convey and see where the discussion would lead. Fletcher has offered input on many a thread. Let's return the favor.
Hi,
I think that Seamus103 has been trying to tell us something. His offer of $50,000 dollars within a year for a result.
Liquids just don't like being stopped when flowing, because of inertia, coupled with the fact that gravity is very weak.
If a way of harvesting gravity could be found, using a liquid, a device would have to be hundreds of tons and the speed of
each cycle would be severely limited due to resistance.
Now it's up to one of you to show me where I'm going wrong,
John.
Yes They Have been overlooked. Hydraulics, double acting hydraulic pistons, transfer force. What if a portion of that force came from the downward force of gravity, and no by the way you did not provide that energy, you do not provide that downward force of gravity. Just a thought...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7id0SCgRzk&list=PLFE742D3CA92894B4&index=1&feature=plcp
Who said anything about a membrane? Gonna take a better comment than that to discredit this. I was agreeing with fletcher with this design I came up with couple days ago, I am sure that I am not the first.
It would not rotate fast at all, so no...centripetal forces would be a problem because it would be rotating to fast, if centrifugal force kicks in to strongly, it would counter act the basis of operation. I believe that by using the Hydraulic system, the basis of hydraulic systems to transfer force, only moving the attached weights. I would assume that the attached weights would be the driving factor and force multiplier. In this I envision it to turn by breaking the so called "Law of the lever" because you are constantly shifting the rotating elements center of mass, balance, gravity etc.. I believe that a slow moving wind turbine generator would be the best choice, and then you can load it up with weighs increasing the rotational torque. If the piston only lifted each weight only 12 inches, that means it would swing down and travel a total distance of 18.84 inches. In this I kept it simple, When the weight reaches the top most position of rotation it is moved outward and then when the piston reaches the bottom most position the weight moves inward.
Hi,
previous comments were on gravity devices in general, but, I can't foresee with this device that you could get any speed up.
Would centripetal force become involved?
John.
The only power source we have that is not ultimately Solar energy is nuclear fission. The heavy metals involved in fission were created in supernova explosions, and recycled into new star and planetary systems made from the debris. Every element heavier than iron was created in a supernova or nova event, the death of a star. Every element heavier than lithium, and even most of the lithium we see today, was created within a star and blown off as "wind" or smoke from old stars as part of the "ash" of fusion reactions releasing energy. But for nuclei heavier than iron, energy must be supplied to fuse smaller units into the large nuclei, and this energy comes from the gravitational collapse of burned-out upper layers of the bodies of stars. Supernovae.
We are stardust, we are golden, and we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 08:03:53 PM
We are stardust, we are golden, and we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.
i think you forgot... 'we are billion year old carbon'. ;)
Five billion years old carbon, at least. None of it was made locally.
So thats all you two crusty burned out Charcoal briskets got?
Whatsamatter fraid of the water, Yeh might get "muddy"?
Can't even come up with a way to "Check" the concept? [besides breaking bottles].
Tk, your sittin on a planet full of H2O and all you do is Lust after " sexed up naked space dirt pics"!
"W" Put down your "tool" and pick up the pencil! [while you can still see]
Your the guys with the big craniums..........
Busta move.....
Chet
Quote from: ramset on November 22, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
So thats all you two crusty burned out Charcoal briskets got?
Whatsamatter fraid of the water, Yeh might get "muddy"?
ahh the godtard who has never shown or presented any of the data from his 'alleged' projects is engaging in psychological projection... how cute. ::) anyways, tk and myself are covered in mud... from all that mud you slung at us in your last post. jesus is so proud of you i'm sure... ::)
Quote from: ramset on November 22, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
Can't even come up with a way to "Check" the concept? [besides breaking bottles].
cant you?
Quote from: ramset on November 22, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
Tk, your sittin on a planet full of H2O and all you do is Lust after " sexed up naked space dirt pics"!
"W" Put down your "tool" and pick up the pencil! [while you can still see]
Your the guys with the big craniums..........
Busta move.....
Chet
neither tk nor myself work for you. whining for someone else to do what you cannot, as you godtards are wont to do, isn't helping anyone... ::) nobody is putting it on a silver platter for you. get off your lazy ass and educate yourself, that way
you might actually be able to accomplish something yourself... like coming up with a way to 'check' the concept on your own... ::) instead of being nothing but a godtarded cheerleader, who sucks at cheerleading.
Weak, Soft and mushy ...........
So thats it Huh?
Fletch busts his but, establishes his understanding of the "rules of the game"[known science] ,shares what he feels to be a probable exception.
Backed up by what seems to be years of hard work ..Much Mental rigor , scrutiny and math.........
And you bring "do it yourself Chester"!!
Thats all you got?
I don't have the skills or the education to evaluate this presentation,YOU TWO OBVIOUSLY MUST !!
[sans comments] .
Where is he going wrong ?
Thx
Chet
Thanks for the inputs fella's.
I always reserve the right to be wrong - I have brain farts & moments of temporary insanity like most of us willing to put time into this OU enigma I suspect - I dare to dream every once in a while too - I'm in good company as all these discussion boards will attest to so its really nothing to be afraid of here - I'm simply looking for an experiment that could prove or disprove a concept - the concept to me appears counter-intuitive but it could also just be plain wrong because of my error - either way hopefully I will learn something of value.
For those who might want to follow the discussion or join in it can be viewed here in General Discussion forum.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5504
cheers -fletcher
The "Property Of Fluids" cannot be adequately discussed without due consideration given to the work of Viktor Schauberger.
Regards...
Hi,
I've been looking at Fletcher's besslerwheel discussion pages and found it very fascinating. I'm stuck trying to get to grips with
the concept of a fluid filled plinth with a stanchion supporting a structure, sited on a corner of that plinth.
Said plinth must be of two parts otherwise it would just act as a block stone. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
My overall feeling is that a gravity machine,even if it worked, would be very feeble. Fletcher's machine would be limited to a very
few RPM. therefore the weights would have to be massive to get a useful output. Who'd want a five ton machine to charge a
phone?
Thank you Fletcher, very stimulating!
John
You mentioned "who would not want a 5 ton machine to charge a phone, but if you look at the big picture, "if" a true gravity driven device were possible, then "they" really did not need to build that nuclear reactor 21 miles from my home here in Virginia and could now replace it. How close are you to a nuclear reactor? I have children, I want them to live a long happy life...not to mention coal burning power plants...Climate change? "If" climate change is real, and I only say "if" because some still claim that it is only a political thing and not real...anyway if climate change is "real" and gravity driven generators are possible, then we no longer would need coal burning power plants either, and could go back to just using coal for barbecues.
Otherwise it stands as more proof to me that the "powers that be" actually do not care about you nor I. Besides if you want to charge your phone they already resolved that...go to PESWIKI, it is called a solid state generator, I'm certain that if it is true and not a hoax, unless it is blocked, it would soon be in every mobile device worth owning. Hydroelectric dams produce virtually free and there is very little carbon footprint-effect to the planet, if gravity generators could be built of a size to power my home and still fit inconspicuously in my back yard, I am all for true energy independence.
http://pesn.com/2012/11/13/9602218_Mark-Dansie_Demonstrates_Solid-State-Chip_and_Water-Flashlight/
Hi,
Michael I take your point. The trouble is that gravity works on the macroscopic side of things and a machine would have to be
very large for a little output. What you have to factor in is the environmental cost of making that machine compared to it's output.
Virtually all our energy come from the Sun one way or another, save for a bit from fission.
I share your concerns about nuclear, my 10 yr old daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer, makes you think doesn't it.
I'm sure that direct harvesting of solar, and very importantly storing that energy is going to be a good way to go.
I really got interested in this a while back looking at a video of mrwayne's machine. Started me thinking, wouldn't it be nice
to have one of those at my house, but, the more I studied the less I could see it being of any practical use.
John.
Here Is My Concept & Theory In Short:
1. That buoyant force is a result of pressure differentials of which Archimedes volume displacement & uniform fluid density is a sub-set [see Archimedes Paradox re Hydrostatic Paradox].
2. That floatation is a function of buoyancy where buoyant force is in equilibrium with mass weight force.
3. That a mass buoyed by a contained fluid will create pressure in said fluid - the pressure will be transmitted undiminished to all parts of the fluid [as per Pascal's Principle] - the pressure distribution is effectively a redirection of the mass weight force evenly thru the fluid medium even though the weight is the sum of the parts [hydrostatic paradox] - that the greater the mass the greater will be the pressure increase & the buoyancy force [synchronicity].
4. That the torque on the ascending side of such a symmetrical structure will be less than the descending side.
5. That only the vertical component of gravity force is displaced in this way & the horizontal component has a normal effect on the structure, so the proposed Virtual Displacement of Mass effect is maximum at the horizontal orientation & diminishes accordingly.
Thank you, Fletcher. I'm marking this so I can catch up and follow along.
M.
Hi Fletcher,
Interesting development on gravity, buoyancy and pressure.
I did an analysis on your post #24, and I need some clarification of the purpose of the central located air bags or spring loaded piston. I guess it is to keep the pressure regulated but I am not clear how that is achieved once the arm is vertical (and mass are horizontal) . The pressure will never be equal within all fluid locations in all positions.
From my initial view, mass2 will be outward as the lever starts turning clockwise, mass2 position from 1:00 O'clock to 5:00 will be held out by gravity, this force will be overlapped by pressure a force between 4:30 and 7:30 and by 9:00 O'clock the pressure would have relinquished and gravity will take over have positioned mass2 inward.
Is this a plausible operating mode from your viewpoint or could you give a corrected projection of behavior for the different angle positions.
Regards, Michel
Quote from: fletcher on November 23, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
Here Is My Concept & Theory In Short:
1. That buoyant force is a result of pressure differentials of which Archimedes volume displacement & uniform fluid density is a sub-set [see Archimedes Paradox re Hydrostatic Paradox].
2. That floatation is a function of buoyancy where buoyant force is in equilibrium with mass weight force.
3. That a mass buoyed by a contained fluid will create pressure in said fluid - the pressure will be transmitted undiminished to all parts of the fluid [as per Pascal's Principle] - the pressure distribution is effectively a redirection of the mass weight force evenly thru the fluid medium even though the weight is the sum of the parts [hydrostatic paradox] - that the greater the mass the greater will be the pressure increase & the buoyancy force [synchronicity].
4. That the torque on the ascending side of such a symmetrical structure will be less than the descending side.
5. That only the vertical component of gravity force is displaced in this way & the horizontal component has a normal effect on the structure, so the proposed Virtual Displacement of Mass effect is maximum at the horizontal orientation & diminishes accordingly.
Fletcher,
I get what you are getting at here. I tried discussing something similar along time ago. No one got it.
I tried using 4 bellows, one every 90 degrees to explain how balance shifts. For the design I'm working on, I think you are the only who understood it. The difference with it is instead of pumping water across the wheel, it pumps it around the wheel. This maintains the imbalance as a maximum value of torque.
I think what everyone is missing when they look at your example is the volume being displaced. If water occupies 1,000 cubic centimeters per kilogram, then a cylinder 1/2 the size could move a little over 1 pound of water with a weight moving the distance
that H equals in PiR^2H=Vol. And if the weights weight 1/2 kg, then working together, the maximum amount of weight they can move is more than 1 kg. Water can also act on itself when moving downward.
The question to be asked then is how much does the movement of water slow when it is being moved through a tube ? If the tube is the same diameter as the weights or plungers, then it could move fairly quickly.
Jim
Quote from: fletcher on November 23, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
....................................
4. That the torque on thes acending side of such a symmetrical structure will be less than the descending side.
.....................................................
Fletcher,
With further reference to post #23, tossing the idea over for a while, need some more detail clarifications,
1.. In item #4, what do you mean with "ascending and descending side" ? , can you define this better to avoid misunderstanding.
2.. Can you confirm that we have a balance of both Masses across the fulcrum ? The target imbalance is the fluid across the fulcrum. Can you confirm ?
3.. You also mention "Buoyancy is a function of prressure differential &................ " and " piston has equilibrium of forces, buoyancy and weight force" So the mass is buoyant, and the mass movement effect is not gravity directly, instead it is buoyancy that is the controlling positional movement force ? The visual picture doesn't seem to conspire to that. Can you clarify ?
Regards, Michel
Fletch,
What everyone has missed about Bessler is that if a lever generates 4.9n-m of torque with a 1 kg weight,
with a 3:1 gear down (make 3 stones fly as 1), then you would have 14.7n-m of torque. And if the piston moves 2.5cm's and the 1 kg weight moves 7.5cm's, the fluid being pumped can be moved a greater distance which would all09ow for free energy. Res sunset, if a weight drops 15 cm's on both sides of the fulcrum, it can move a volume of water PiR^2 15 cm's on the opposing side. If you have 1/2 kg of water, then with a weight moving 15 cm's, the center of mass of the water can be moved to the other side of the fulcrum.
Jim
edited to add; Red Sunset, think of it this way, when the 2 weights on opposite sides of the wheel move downward, the over balance created by the water moves all the way across the wheel.
Quote from: johnny874 on November 26, 2012, 07:19:23 AM
Fletch,
What everyone has missed about Bessler is that if a lever generates 4.9n-m of torque with a 1 kg weight,
with a 3:1 gear down (make 3 stones fly as 1), then you would have 14.7n-m of torque. And if the piston moves 2.5cm's and the 1 kg weight moves 7.5cm's, the fluid being pumped can be moved a greater distance which would all09ow for free energy. Res sunset, if a weight drops 15 cm's on both sides of the fulcrum, it can move a volume of water PiR^2 15 cm's on the opposing side. If you have 1/2 kg of water, then with a weight moving 15 cm's, the center of mass of the water can be moved to the other side of the fulcrum. Jim
edited to add; Red Sunset, think of it this way, when the 2 weights on opposite sides of the wheel move downward, the over balance created by the water moves all the way across the wheel.
Hi Jim,
I can see that the idea is to imbalance the water with the Masses, ok.
The mass movements are initiated / executed by weight (gravity) or buoyancy, mass2 in the picture appears like held by weight (gravity) by the absence of buoyancy assuming a water sealed piston. Mass1 should take the same position than 2, if buoyancy is the force producer.
Just a matter of understanding the detail correctly
Michel
I followed along with Fletcher's material from the Bessler wheel site, until he got to the bouyant weight added to the fluid. It seemed to me that the buoyant weight would have an effect on the balance/weighting of the fluid. I was wrong. I balanced a 4 gallon pot, 3/4 filled with water, on a 3/4" nut (tippy) and pushed a tall (empty) one gallon pitcher down, and around in the pot slowly. It had no effect on the balance of the pot.
So moving right along, has anyone attempted a build yet?
Quote from: GreenHiker on November 26, 2012, 02:26:38 PM
I followed along with Fletcher's material from the Bessler wheel site, until he got to the bouyant weight added to the fluid. It seemed to me that the buoyant weight would have an effect on the balance/weighting of the fluid. I was wrong. I balanced a 4 gallon pot, 3/4 filled with water, on a 3/4" nut (tippy) and pushed a tall (empty) one gallon pitcher down, and around in the pot slowly. It had no effect on the balance of the pot.
Yes, but you used a buoyant weight, didn't you? Your experiment used a weight that was balanced by a displacement of the fluid, causing a rise in the water level in the pot. Fletcher's wheel design does not allow for displacement, only weight transfer. So pressure is created in the fluid, but no buoyancy "absorbs" the mass. The weight of the "ball" is not evenly distributed throughout the fluid. In the POP1.gif, the correct answer is on the right side, IMHO.
M.
Hi,
with Fletcher's glass of water on scales with a finger dipped in experiment give us a potential gain or does it
work out to be an exact balance?
John.
@ All ..
Everybody is very nearly right in their interpretation of my concept.
As Mondrasek says, it is a symmetrical system therefore it is a flywheel able to store momentum & KE.
No, there is no appreciable mass movement in a F x D [work done joules] sense - it stays fairly well symmetrical with its CoM [as we describe it] located at the Center of Rotation [CoR].
Non compressible fluids [liquids] under these sorts of pressure maintain uniform distribution of mass & their volume does not change [appreciably], aka density is constant - that means there is no lowering of system CoM & loss of PE, aka symmetrical.
When a force is applied to a contained fluid it builds pressure in that fluid - in hydrostatics that means an increase in the energy density of the liquid i.e. energy per unit volume - the reason that liquid density [& volume] remains constant [at non extreme pressures] is varied but I think of it like this - liquid molecules are tightly packed into a volume with no spaces between them, but they are able to move in all directions [fluids are isotropic] - so when they are squeezed by applying a force they can't easily move closer together - pressure creates heat & that energy must be radiated into the environment - so the radiation pressure exactly equals the forces trying to push molecules closer together [like the sun thermonuclear system in equilibrium] & so we have equilibrium of forces.
If the application of a mass weight force increases pressure in the liquid [I say liquid because its easier to increase PSI than compressing gases for experimental purposes] & this increases the liquids energy density then some things become apparent - first off, the liquid sealed piston with mass on top must be in equilibrium of forces with the pressure on the piston face, so the buoyant force equals the mass weight force - this is in synchronicity because the greater the mass the higher the pressure etc [self adjusting to find equilibrium of forces] - the second thing is that if the increase in liquid pressure has increased the liquids energy density per unit volume [volume didn't change] then effectively the mass's PE is absorbed into the liquids increased energy density - I don't have a better term for it at the minute but it conveys an idea.
Next, this concept is one about redirection of forces on one side of a pivot - Newton's Laws of equal & opposite reactions might have an exception i.e. equal force but not always opposite.
I am attempting to redirect the ascending side [left side] mass's weight force into the liquid medium at the axle due a special type of buoyancy which is just an extension of the hydrostatic paradox of which Archimedes paradox is an example.
So, if forces can be redirected into the fluid medium [MUST BE UNDER PRESSURE FROM THAT MASS] then the rotary format will be given an impulse force so that it gains momentum & KE - when not receiving that impulse force because it is effectively symmetrical it coasts like a flywheel - so you have a flywheel that self accelerates thru periodic & repeating force impulse.
The crux is to find a verifiable experiment to prove that a mass/piston analogy pressurizing an enclosed fluid acts & behaves just like a buoyancy force weight force equilibrium as per Archimedes volume displacement method.
...........................
.. for Red .. I added the bell housing compression chamber & gas bags etc into the concept presented because some people have a hard time grasping that pressure can be built in a contained liquid without the piston actually moving [ f x d ] - it was the same reason for pictorial purposes that I show a small air gap by each end mass - it's more familiar.
Additionally, whilst liquids maintain their volume under temperature change, metal casings/containers etc do not - they have different thermal expansion rates etc - I could add alcohol [methanol & ethanol etc], to say water, to stop it freezing & expanding & blowing the system I could also just be prudent & allow for naturally occurring flexing & small changes that might lock things up otherwise, hence the compression/expansion chamber - btw this could be located anywhere almost providing they are symmetrically balanced around the CoR.
............................
Quote from: fletcher on November 26, 2012, 05:09:52 PM
@ All ..
Everybody is very nearly right in their interpretation of my concept.
...........................
.. for Red .. I added the ............................
Hi Fletcher,
An interesting approach, so let me summarize my unbiased understanding and conclusion from a critical angle. If you feel different, don't hesitate to state you counter response
PresentedWe have an enclosed liquid that has no room to spare with 2 weighted floats in opposing positions (one floats, other does not & visa versa). For the buoyancy to assert itself, a certain amount of compressibility must be present in the liquid to allow a certain amount of submersion (amount of compressibility is allowed by a certain amount of dissolved air in the liquid and a practical expansion diaphragm at the center of the see/saw). The massed buoyancy intrusion will create a pressure in the liquid that will force the other mass to "out position". The different positions of the mass floats will change the balance of liquid in the see/saw every time near the horizontal position.
Static AnalysisThe shown "massed float buoyancy" from my view has not much to do with buoyancy. No matter how you take it, the vertical mass/float movement is a direct result of gravity. The liquid is presenting an opposing counter force because it has nowhere to expand to. You call it a buoyancy if its limits the sink travel, but I see it as a direct gravity force. The limit of how much the float mass can penetrate the liquid is determined by float/mass gravity weight and counter pressure produced by the compressibility of the confined liquid (this also includes the force required to position the other mass float outward and the vacated space this produces)
When the liquid now moves to the right, there is some energy applied by gravity to move the liquid from left to right instigated by the 2 mass float movements (you could say the 2 mass/float plungers are akin to 2 hydraulic pistons in series with a liquid in between).
Having now more liquid mass on the right side, the see-saw will start to tilt to the right and the turn cycle begins. At the end of 90dgr movement, max. gravity force will re-assert itself and should restart the cycle but with mass1 & 2 locations reversed
Dynamic AnalysisOnce the rotation starts, the picture changes. The centrifugal force on the liquid is your "reaction force". It will apply a force on the liquid from the center pivot outwards in both arms. It sure will do its best to nullify this horizontal liquid movement that originates in the left arm. This also means that this reaction force will prevent the "sinking" of the left mass/float, because of the pressure increase in the outer extremity. (pressure is no longer equal everywhere)
In the right arm, when rotating, the water movement/pressure from the left is not needed, because the centrifugal force has taken over and will try to keep the mass/float in the "out" position for as long it can.
ConclusionAs with any of the Bessler type devices, the centrifugal force is your counter force of the symmetry and in the end will prevent anything more than a very slow movement with a weak force. You can call it a marginal condition = slow static condition.
Why? Because when you look at the problem in a singular dimension, a singular frame reference, in this view, all relationships are referenced to each other (the reason for symmetry, the reason for Seamus existence).
I feel in a way sorry for this conclusion, I always try to be as objective as possible. I am open to be refuted with a good counter argument, no hard feelings
SolutionWhen thinking in a multi dimension, multiple frames, multiple movies on the same screen. A Einstein type time view, akin to the neighbor train in the station departing. Here the relationship in one dimension does not reference the other dimensional frames for its existence. Because of that, the symmetry is broken.
Ask the only person who knows but has been called too many bad names under the red sun on this site, akin to being FRIED to a sizzle for trying to tell everybody, believe me, he got the answer !
Ask Wayne Travis !!, he will tell you how it is done !!
Regards, Michel
Hi Fletcher,
love the way you describe things. I'm not a scientist, so you'll have to forgive me for some of my questions.
I enjoyed the beaker and glass of water and I think I've got it. In a way is it like having a toy boat with a sail and moving
it with a hand held fan, then putting the fan onto the boat?I did this experiment, I cut my finger off and suspended it from
the rim of the glass, either way, immersed or not of course it weighed the same. The overall result was that I've lost a
few grams!
In your proposed device I take it that the pistons do "actually move", because in your original description it all
seemed to make sense, now I'm not so sure.
John.
Quote from: GreenHiker on November 26, 2012, 02:26:38 PM
I followed along with Fletcher's material from the Bessler wheel site, until he got to the bouyant weight added to the fluid. It seemed to me that the buoyant weight would have an effect on the balance/weighting of the fluid. I was wrong. I balanced a 4 gallon pot, 3/4 filled with water, on a 3/4" nut (tippy) and pushed a tall (empty) one gallon pitcher down, and around in the pot slowly. It had no effect on the balance of the pot.
So moving right along, has anyone attempted a build yet?
I've had my own project I've been working on. Got banned from besslerwheel because they considered it fraudulent.
Don't think they really support Bessler's work.
Quote from: webby1 on November 27, 2012, 07:00:39 PM
Quote from: fletcher
The crux is to find a verifiable experiment to prove that a mass/piston analogy pressurizing an enclosed fluid acts & behaves just like a buoyancy force weight force equilibrium as per Archimedes volume displacement method.
Hi Fletcher,
Could I replace your two mass pistons with tubes filed with water? with all internal space connected together of course.
[[[ ... I was just thinking that the tube that is vertical from center up has no pressure applied to its end cap and the one that is vertical from center straight down transfers the full system pressure to its end cap. With no air in the system there would also be no change in the CoM and leave only the applied pressure differences ... ]]]
Or does this change your parameters?
Hi Webby ..
You got it - the parameters are flexible because this is a concept presented here for investigation - btw the pistons I envisage have a far greater density than say a water fluid interior.
Quote from: RedHi Fletcher,
An interesting approach, so let me summarize my unbiased understanding and conclusion from a critical angle. If you feel different, don't hesitate to state you counter response
Presented
We have an enclosed liquid that has no room to spare with 2 weighted floats in opposing positions (one floats, other does not & visa versa). [Correct] For the buoyancy to assert itself, a certain amount of compressibility must be present in the liquid to allow a certain amount of submersion (amount of compressibility is allowed by a certain amount of dissolved air in the liquid and a practical expansion diaphragm at the center of the see/saw). [Near enough] The massed buoyancy intrusion will create a pressure in the liquid that will force the other mass to "out position". [No – gravity positions it, pressure only assists after it is thru about 3 o'cl] The different positions of the mass floats will change the balance of liquid in the see/saw every time near the horizontal position. [No – the mass of the liquid & the CoM of the liquid remains the same for intents & purposes – it is a flywheel analogue – the buoyed mass on the ascending side has its mass & inertial effects shifted to the CoR [it is unhitched from the wagon]]
Static Analysis
The shown "massed float buoyancy" from my view has not much to do with buoyancy.
[I disagree – this is the crux of the matter & why I am attempting to prove or disprove the concept with an experimental approach which would clear the road block to shifting CoM & inertia effects as per normal Archimedes displacement buoyancy]
No matter how you take it, the vertical mass/float movement is a direct result of gravity. [Correct – gravity acceleration acts on the mass which pressurizes the liquid & the pressure in the liquid pushes back with an equal force] [/color]The liquid is presenting an opposing counter force because it has nowhere to expand to. [Correct] [/color]You call it a buoyancy if its limits the sink travel, but I see it as a direct gravity force. [Partially correct – buoyancy is an artefact of gravity however the buoyancy force as I call in this concept is a result of pressure differential & not liquid displacement] [/color]The limit of how much the float mass can penetrate the liquid is determined by float/mass gravity weight and counter pressure produced by the compressibility of the confined liquid (this also includes the force required to position the other mass float outward and the vacated space this produces) [No – it doesn't penetrate the fluid because liquid can't rise up the sides of the piston, it is liquid sealed, say using ceramic sleeves & ceramic piston head, for example]
When the liquid now moves to the right [No, it doesn't or if so it is so small amount of displacement to be negligible], there is some energy applied by gravity to move the liquid from left to right instigated by the 2 mass float movements (you could say the 2 mass/float plungers are akin to 2 hydraulic pistons in series with a liquid in between). [Correct, but these pistons don't move, they just have the ability/freedom to move & at micro levels they would – remember the compression chamber allows for thermal expansion & contraction of enclosures etc]
Having now more liquid mass on the right side [No, see above][/color], the see-saw will start to tilt to the right and the turn cycle begins. At the end of 90dgr movement, max. gravity force will re-assert itself and should restart the cycle but with mass1 & 2 locations reversed [Correct]
Dynamic Analysis
Once the rotation starts, the picture changes. The centrifugal force on the liquid is your "reaction force". [No] [/color]It will apply a force on the liquid from the center pivot outwards in both arms. [Correct] [/color]It sure will do its best to nullify this horizontal liquid movement that originates in the left arm. [Incorrect assumptions] This also means that this reaction force will prevent the "sinking" of the left mass/float, because of the pressure increase in the outer extremity. (pressure is no longer equal everywhere) [Incorrect – pressure was never equal everywhere – in fact I rely on pressure levels forming that are linear & volume & density not changing - Centrifugal Force is Centripetal Force – it is an acceleration of v^2/r – this means that velocity has a far greater effect on Cp than radius – any pressure increase at the extremity's helps the equilibrium of forces between the lhs piston & the liquid N.B. the piston mass has a greater density than the liquid – Cp acts inwards to center while at 9 o'cl gravity force acts downward N.B. the Cp force in the liquid is a result of hydrogen bonding & covalency etc that effectively make the molecules hold hands, they are connected & they communicate – additionally since the enclosure is limited in volume & rigid in shape then the mass of liquid can't take up any shape or volume other than the enclosure allows
In the right arm, when rotating, the water movement/pressure from the left is not needed, because the centrifugal force has taken over and will try to keep the mass/float in the "out" position for as long it can. [See comments above – at 3 & 9 o'cl the force [in Newtons] due to Cp & g is the same – at 12 ocl the Cp force is less because it is opposed by g, at 6 o'cl the Cp force & g combine] so the combined force is greatest.
Conclusion
As with any of the Bessler type devices, the centrifugal force is your counter force of the symmetry and in the end will prevent anything more than a very slow movement with a weak force. You can call it a marginal condition = slow static condition. [Incorrect – slow & weak, yes, comparatively - that's why you have the piston masses at a large radius & the rotation rate slow – it is scalable]
Why? Because when you look at the problem in a singular dimension, a singular frame reference, in this view, all relationships are referenced to each other (the reason for symmetry, the reason for Seamus existence). I feel in a way sorry for this conclusion, I always try to be as objective as possible. I am open to be refuted with a good counter argument, no hard feelings [None taken, however you have made a number of incorrect assumptions IMO – I'm sure everybody has opinions]
Solution
When thinking in a multi dimension, multiple frames, multiple movies on the same screen. A Einstein type time view, akin to the neighbor train in the station departing. Here the relationship in one dimension does not reference the other dimensional frames for its existence. Because of that, the symmetry is broken.
Ask the only person who knows but has been called too many bad names under the red sun on this site, akin to being FRIED to a sizzle for trying to tell everybody, believe me, he got the answer ! Ask Wayne Travis !!, he will tell you how it is done !!
Regards, Michel
Quote from: fletcher on November 27, 2012, 08:28:41 PM
The different positions of the mass floats will change the balance of liquid in the see/saw every time near the horizontal position.
* Fletcher reply#1: [No – the mass of the liquid & the CoM of the liquid remains the same for intents & purposes – it is a flywheel analogue – the buoyed mass on the ascending side has its mass & inertial effects shifted to the CoR [it is unhitched from the wagon]]
Fletcher,
I think my perceived understanding of the cause of imbalance has still some way to go ...
Sorry, I missed that subtle detail in your previous post, and that is maybe the cause of my confusion.
"« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2012, 11:09:52 PM »
then effectively the mass's PE is absorbed into the liquids increased energy density - I don't have a better term for it at the minute but it conveys an idea."Just to test my understanding, are you saying that when a piston weight applies pressure to a fluid, becomes an integral uniform part of that fluid PE? Even when having different densities?
Would it be correct to think that you are also implying that the PE incorporation also changes the gravity attraction distribution, meaning that in the left hand arm, the PistonWeight+fluid will become one uniform densisty gravity object and thereby shifting the CoG more inward to the center, in comparison with the right side, where the fluid and PistonWeight are looked upon as separate gravity entities with its own densities ?
An alternative view, The piston, is a pressure vessel wall with a certain amount of flex, it is a pure pressure situation, rather than a buoyancy situation. At least in terms of organization of physics, your model and pistons are hydraulic systems, not a hydro buoyancy system. I believe that the 2 hydraulic piston model separated by pressurized fluid would serve as a good model to analyze the desired effect. The fulcrum can be added later.
This is obvious not clear to me yet at this point, some more explaining would be in order to further the understanding of the desired effect. A basic force drawing (before and after, the way you see it) would help a great lot ( a couple of arrows in relation to the fluid and mass)
Regards, Michel
That is close enough Red.
Forget about whether it will turn a complete revolution or not - that is incidental to the proposition.
Here is the link to the other forum where I am discussing it also.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104925#104925
I include a couple of drawings in a series for you & others to work thru - the hypothesis is that buoyancy force is solely dependent on pressure differentials & not on volume displacement & uniform density doctrine.
The proposition briefly is that in a symmetrical system as described that mass 1 induces pressure increase in the structure fluid [increases energy density] - when that pressure is vectored into thrust [up-force against the piston face] then mass 1 is effectively buoyed & its weight force is in equilibrium with the up-thrust force from the fluid pressure beneath it [the vertical component of gravity] - this is akin to buoyancy - because of Pascal's Principle mass 1 creates the internal pressure increase by applying its weight force in the form of pressure increase which is spread to all parts of the fluid equally - therefore the proposition is that the structure will have one centralized position where vector forces act & that will be at or near the Center of Rotation [as opposed to the downward side where mass 2 has no influence on the fluid pressure relationship so is independent of it] - furthermore, since the entire structure is symmetrical & designed to rotate all parts have a degree of freedom of movement - at any stage whilst in motion the internal fluid pressure against the piston head will be in flux, waxing & waning at the small level, so some lag occurs & equilibrium of forces can not be established unless it is stopped.
Quote from: fletcher on November 28, 2012, 09:29:02 PM
............................................I include a couple of drawings in a series for you & others to work thru - the hypothesis is that buoyancy force is solely dependent on pressure differentials & not on volume displacement & uniform density doctrine.
...........................................................................
Hi Fletcher,
Thanks for the nice graphical representations, I feel obliged to reciprocate with the same clarity, that is good.
I think I am getting closer to your logical reasoning and I think I can see the subtle detail that escaped me, but this detail also appears to be the Achilles heel that drives the spike into the wheel of progress.
The graphical details shown in your last post #41 does not represent the piston in your original design. Your original design has no snorkel or water head. By not having a self regulating water head, also means you do not have buoyancy and associated behavior (that doesn't mean it can not be designed in), but as it stands now, it is pure hydraulics and that will not work as you thought of.
I see it as a mix-up between the behavior of Buoyancy & Hydraulics, the picture below show the difference withing the context, I believe it is self explanatory
Michel .. I found some time this morning - follow the drawings thru I provide as attachments to this post.
I am proposing a new type of balancing mechanism - you might think of it like a Roberval Balance but doesn't required a vertical anchored post.
Forces are fundamental to our universe - you will need to do force analysis.
-fletcher
Quote from: fletcher on November 30, 2012, 08:30:44 PM
Michel .. I found some time this morning - follow the drawings thru I provide as attachments to this post.
I am proposing a new type of balancing mechanism - you might think of it like a Roberval Balance but doesn't required a vertical anchored post.
Forces are fundamental to our universe - you will need to do force analysis.
-fletcher
Hi Fletcher,
Sorry this turned into a long write-up, my previous post might have been too short to get the point across.
From my viewpoint, you see the problem incomplete and a mix-up between apples and pears. Sure buoyancy is pressure that keeps the object floating but it also automatically implicates the other Archimedes concepts of displacement...ect, even in the paradox, there is no getting away from it. (it is no different for Wayne's Zed as a Hydro device with its weightless virtual displacement). There should be no doubt that our physics laws are correct. Although it is just a question of finding ways around it that satisfies all criteria, a thinking process of trying to fool Archimedes and Nature !
Your desired objective is based on the physics rule of pressure as in buoyancy, but your implementation, by progressively removing things in your drawings took you all the way to hydraulics. You would still like to call it buoyancy in order to enjoy some of the Archimedes buoyancy benefits, aaaai that is a bit of a far stretch if you do not satisfy all necessary criteria, this is a tuff inventive bridge to cross that will need more thinking.
Weight for fluid substitution is an Archimedes buoyancy property, handled by the displacement rule that received a call from the pressure rule.
To see this more clearly, see the observation in two frames. (attached picture should makes this more clear)
Frame 1.. Pressure distribution of fluid within the holding vessel.
Frame 2.. Weight distribution of the whole picture, "vessel+liquid+object"
** You will see that pressure within a vessel doesn't equate necessary to weight outside the vessel. Because the pressure is always the same by depth (or height), regardless of the floating weight.
The pressure distribution does not have to synchronize with the weight distribution or visa versa, inside or outside the container (vessel). Several other factors come into play for weight distribution as shown in the attached picture.
Looking at the pictures provided in your postA good show of progression, your main focus is the integral balance of weight and fluid. Looking at the plausibility of the other detail depicted, I can gather that the weight shown equals the full vertical segment of the piston in fluid weight (pict#4-5).
Forgive me for highlighting all my observations, even if several of them have no relevance to the purpose of discussion, Only done for the purpose of accuracy and to ensure I do not overlook or ignore important detail
Buoyancy_Experiments #3: All picture shown are realistic & plausible
Buoyancy_Experiments #4: All picture shown are realistic & plausible
Pict#4-6 - is heavier to the left and should tilt according (piston water + weight)
Buoyancy_Experiments #5: All pictures should tilt to the left because "piston area water weight" + "weight of block" make left side heavier than the right side
Buoyancy_Experiments #6: Pict#6-1&2 - Tilt to the left
If brown weight is the same than green weight
Pict#6-3 - Tilt to the left
Pict#6-4 - balanced
Buoyancy_Experiments #7: Pict#7-1 - The pepette water column creates a buoyancy similarity that will provide a pressure that is limited or enhanced by the air pressure contained in the gas bag.
* The pressure with the pipette in vertical position would be Water Column weight + gas pressure.
* The pressure with the pipette in horizontal position would be just gas pressure.
Although we can play with pressure, it does nothing in regards with the external weight balance because the weight is not floating in the liquid.
Pict#7-2 - A capped snorkel stops to provide pressure once any demand is made due to vacuum creation at the place where the gas bag should have been
Pict#7-3 - Here the piston is lying on top of the liquid and is held in place by the fluid that has not other place to go to. Buoyancy does not come into play here. It is a clear hydraulic piston configuration.
A central positioned pepette would takes us back to Pict#7-1 or 2.
The main difference between hydrostatic buoyancy and hydraulics is how the upwards force is achieved.
In buoyancy,The upwards force is achieved through the height of the water column.
It doesn't matter if this water column is created in the space between the vessel wall and the object or an open pepette within, or a distance away. The water column height is proportional to the weight of the floating object and is self regulating.
If the floating object increases in weight, so does the water column (look at a ship being loaded at the dock, it sinks deeper as more weight is loaded).
If the weight is not evenly placed within the floating object, the buoyancy will adjust automatically to this balance change. The side of the more weight must have more upward pressure, to regulate more upward pressure, the float must sink deeper into the water in the area of more weight to receive more pressure. ( for the ship being loaded unevenly, you would see the more weighty side deeper in the water).
What is notable,1.. To observe is that the floating object sinks when the water column height increases to a point larger than the freeboard (water level becomes higher than the top of the floating object)
2.. Pressure is proportional to depth and on each depth level is evenly distributed throughout the fluid, no matter the size of the float, weight or position of the weight.
3.. Weight distribution is measured by pressure and is determined by depth and is therefore evenly distributed on every horizontal plane throughout the fluid vessel. The weight distribution over the whole inside bottom will measure the same.
4.. The weight distribution of the combined "vessel+fluid+float+weight" as measured on the outside bottom of the fluid housing is proportional to the total vertical weight of each measurement square (assuming a symmetrical fluid vessel). Since the heavier side of the floating object is compensated for by being deeper submerged, each measurement square will measure identical regardless of the location of the floating object and its weight.
In hydraulics, The upward force is created by the fluid inability to compress and having nowhere to go to equalize the pressure. Therefore a weighted piston on top of a liquid in a closed vessel will increase the pressure in the liquid proportionate to the weight and area. Increasing the weight will increases the pressure.
An position change due to uneven piston loading is dependent on the flexibility of the piston, piston housing and build, a rigid device will prevent any positional change due to an uneven weight on top of the piston.
What is notable,1.. To observe is that the piston can never sink no matter how much weight is loaded on the piston (except when the device breaks due to overloading)
2.. Pressure is evenly distributed throughout the fluid, no matter the size of the weight or position of the weight.
3.. Weight distribution measured by pressure on the inside bottom of the piston and bottom of the fluid housing is determined by the pressure and is therefore evenly distributed
4.. The weight distribution of the combined, " vessel+fluid+piston+weight" as measured on the outside bottom of the fluid housing is proportional to the total vertical weight of each measurement square (the heavier weighted side weights more)
If I missed to see a critical point you made, let me know.
I hope this helps, Michel
Quote from: fletcher on November 30, 2012, 08:30:44 PM
Michel .. I found some time this morning - follow the drawings thru I provide as attachments to this post.
I am proposing a new type of balancing mechanism - you might think of it like a Roberval Balance but doesn't required a vertical anchored post.
Forces are fundamental to our universe - you will need to do force analysis.
-fletcher
Hi Fletcher,
To mention a critical point, using the right words, (to supplement previous drawings)
For an object to merge into a fluid and be identified as one mass with that fluid, it needs to be submerged into that fluid to its floatation point, so its weight will equal the displaced water weight. At this point the water line would have increased to accommodate the displacement water.
This action would be impossible in a confined space completely filled with fluid. Fluid expansion needs to happen to absorb the additional weight. This is because the weight absorption/distribution by a fluid is part of the fluid displacement properties.
Regards, Michel
A dilemma of balance between a buoyancy and hydraulic example.
What is the overall gravity balance of the Hydraulic piston assembly that is loaded with a weight to one side ? The hydraulic cylinder is installed with a piston floor to measure the weight distribution inside and out.
How could the hydraulic example measure more weight on the right side than the left with an even pressure distribution in the fluid.?
Do you have an explanation as compared to the buoyancy example ?
Quote from: mondrasek on November 26, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
Yes, but you used a buoyant weight, didn't you? Your experiment used a weight that was balanced by a displacement of the fluid, causing a rise in the water level in the pot. Fletcher's wheel design does not allow for displacement, only weight transfer. So pressure is created in the fluid, but no buoyancy "absorbs" the mass. The weight of the "ball" is not evenly distributed throughout the fluid. In the POP1.gif, the correct answer is on the right side, IMHO.
M.
Hi Mike,
Backtracking through the thread, I remembered your mail which wasn't too clear to me at the time when I read it first. Your analysis is spot on.
Should re-read your post earlier, would have saved me time
Regards, Michel
Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155
Thanks!
Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 04:42:00 AM
Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
Thanks Aman,
Good links, interesting information
Michel
Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 04:42:00 AM
Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155)
Thanks!
Wikipedia has it wrong. A machine that generates more energy than it consumes would be an over unity device, not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion machine needs no energy input as it's engineering would allow it to sustain motion without the input of any energy. Since gravity acts equally on all parts of a true perpetual motion machine, it's changes to it's structure allows it to manipulate it's own mass increasing it's potential (allowing it to rotate or move continuously). Why a working one would be considered perpetual motion.
The usual reason given why it is not possible is that an atom or a molecule can not change it's behavior, ie. it's potential remains constant unless acted on by another force, Newton's Second Law of Motion. This is where the use of the term macroscopic actually applies to matter which is smaller than microscopic as a mountain is just as macroscopic as an electron. Vague definition, if it's not seen through a microscope, then it is macroscopic. Only 2 views of observation.
Jim
Even if Wikipedia mentions wrong,neither perpetual nor overunity machine is possible.However,Gravity powered devices are possible.I hope that you read the analogy(meaning,similar phenomeneon) of my idea of a Gravity powered engine.Few inventors are already working on such free energy devices which convert naturally available energy from surroundings into usable form of energy,efficiently.
Free energy devices only mean devices which take in naturally freely available energy to convert it into usable form energy.Example is solar cell (the efficiency of solar cell as of now is not even reached 35 percent as of now and this inefficiency in technology is the main problem).
If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input?My common sense says No!Never.Hence perpetual or user unity machine is Impossible.Free energy machines do not generate power from nothing.
The need of the day is highly efficient and safe Free energy technologies,not like Nuclear fission which gives out toxic elements.
It seems silly for me to explain all these here,but many people have made a mess of overunity or gravity power,etc.I am not a conservative persion,but anything that is against a very very very basic Commonsense is not accepted by me.The important parts of my blog there is how gravity can be used a free usable source of energy,technically.
If you are wondering what can be the most most most basic principle of any real gravity powered device then its is as I mentioned in my blog:
"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."
Yes,that's right,that's the secret,but its not a secret for those who apply their Commonsense to invent new technologies like gravity powered devices.
Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.But I have a basic concept which follows this pronciple as disscussed as a detailed analogy in my above mentioned Blog Articles.
If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy and mass conservation equation.
I believe you cannot ever get any balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation for a perpetual or overunity device.
Any device which has a balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation would follow the laws of physics or else would never and can never follow laws of physics.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 01, 2012, 07:09:20 AM
A dilemma of balance between a buoyancy and hydraulic example.
What is the overall gravity balance of the Hydraulic piston assembly that is loaded with a weight to one side ? The hydraulic cylinder is installed with a piston floor to measure the weight distribution inside and out.
How could the hydraulic example measure more weight on the right side than the left with an even pressure distribution in the fluid.?
Do you have an explanation as compared to the buoyancy example ?
What would happen if you froze solid the water in each case? Would the weight distribution felt by the bottom scales suddenly change as the water solidified?
Where is the Center of Mass of your system that is being weighed by the bottom scales?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 03:18:43 PM
What would happen if you froze solid the water in each case? Would the weight distribution felt by the bottom scales suddenly change as the water solidified?
Where is the Center of Mass of your system that is being weighed by the bottom scales?
TinselKoala,
Having let it simmer for a while in the brain's back room, I think the solution to the dilemma is easy.
My view; In both cases, as liquid or as ice (with the assumption of no binding of the ice on the side walls), the inner scales would measure the same on each side. The outer scale tot he right would measure more than the left
Why, because the upper piston does not have the capability to find its weight balance, it is held in the horizontal position by its construction and the walls it slides in, the upper piston can not take on a equalized position as dictated by the weight on top, it will always be horizontal. It is effectively the top piston that distributes the pressure evenly over the water or ice, and in turn, the water or ice transfers this pressure to the bottom piston or bottom floor equally, this distribution is referenced and seen only on the inside. This is the reason why the behavior is the same with any solid or with liquid.
The outside view sees the whole, including the vessel container walls and the inside pressure does not play a roll in its weight distribution assessment.
See the example below with water only to clarify the point made better. The pressure is equal on both inside floors (same water height). Pressure does not impact weight distribution ! (at least not in this case)
Feel free to comment or disagree, no problem !
Regards, Michel
Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 11:58:13 AM
Even if Wikipedia mentions wrong,neither perpetual nor overunity machine is possible.However,Gravity powered devices are possible.I hope that you read the analogy(meaning,similar phenomeneon) of my idea of a Gravity powered engine.Few inventors are already working on such free energy devices which convert naturally available energy from surroundings into usable form of energy,efficiently.
Free energy devices only mean devices which take in naturally freely available energy to convert it into usable form energy.Example is solar cell (the efficiency of solar cell as of now is not even reached 35 percent as of now and this inefficiency in technology is the main problem).
If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input?My common sense says No!Never.Hence perpetual or user unity machine is Impossible.Free energy machines do not generate power from nothing.
The need of the day is highly efficient and safe Free energy technologies,not like Nuclear fission which gives out toxic elements.
It seems silly for me to explain all these here,but many people have made a mess of overunity or gravity power,etc.I am not a conservative persion,but anything that is against a very very very basic Commonsense is not accepted by me.The important parts of my blog there is how gravity can be used a free usable source of energy,technically.
If you are wondering what can be the most most most basic principle of any real gravity powered device then its is as I mentioned in my blog:
"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."
Yes,that's right,that's the secret,but its not a secret for those who apply their Commonsense to invent new technologies like gravity powered devices.
Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.But I have a basic concept which follows this pronciple as disscussed as a detailed analogy in my above mentioned Blog Articles.
If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy and mass conservation equation.
I believe you cannot ever get any balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation for a perpetual or overunity device.
Any device which has a balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation would follow the laws of physics or else would never and can never follow laws of physics.
Aman Shah,
>> If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input? <<
The perpetual design I am working on (Bessler's Wheel) would be considered gravity powered because gravity is the force that would be manipulated. What the wheel would be doing is converting the kinetic potential energy in a suspended mass (water).
What Fletcher is ignoring with his observations is that wheels rotate and the water needs to be pumped around the outside of the wheel, not from one side to the other.
Later this week, I'll start the design work and this weekend I'll start making some parts.
You are right though, people have made a mess of what is overunity and what is perpetual motion. I think of them this way, overunity requires an external source of power which it increases and a perpetual motion machine would be something that powers itself (manipulates gravity) while magnetic motors are considered free energy devices because they use a property of electro-magnetism that is present in anything that has been magnetized.
Jim
Quote from: johnny874 on December 03, 2012, 07:16:59 AM
Aman Shah,
>> If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input? <<
The perpetual design I am working on (Bessler's Wheel) would be considered gravity powered because gravity is the force that would be manipulated. What the wheel would be doing is converting the kinetic potential energy in a suspended mass (water).
What Fletcher is ignoring with his observations is that wheels rotate and the water needs to be pumped around the outside of the wheel, not from one side to the other.
Later this week, I'll start the design work and this weekend I'll start making some parts.
You are right though, people have made a mess of what is overunity and what is perpetual motion. I think of them this way, overunity requires an external source of power which it increases and a perpetual motion machine would be something that powers itself (manipulates gravity) while magnetic motors are considered free energy devices because they use a property of electro-magnetism that is present in anything that has been magnetized.
Jim
Thanks!In bessler wheel community,there are different variants of definations of perpetual motion machines which different people follow.
For me,a perpetual motion machine is one which creates more energy than input
Or
which makes energy out of nothing.
Atleast this is the defination which I have studied in my 12th standard as well as in degree level.
When you talk of gravitational energy powered engine,it is certain that you are converting gravitational energy into electrical energy and you are not creating any new energy from nothing,neither you are generating any excess energy than input.
What you are doing is simply converting one form of energy(gravity) into other form of energy.
So if your gravity engine stick to the criteria"input (gravitational energy)= output (electrical energy)plus losses",no one can stop you from creating a gravity powered engine.For me,any "energy converter" is not perpetual.
But it seems that for our Gianna,any energy form converter even if its tidal energy due to moon's gravity is a perpetual motion machine.Is it clear,Gianna???
I will seriously like to know what is Gianna's defination of perpetual motion machine.
Let me announce to the forum that Gianna don't know that,in machenics,in study of beams,you calculate reaction forces in beam supports,against weight of beams like simply supported or cantilever beams,just to ensure that potential energy of beam remains constant.Proof:http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/explaining_motion/whatareforcesrev2.shtml (http://proof:http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/explaining_motion/whatareforcesrev2.shtml)
Gianna thinks that "gravitational potential energy remains constant because the masses and positions of the objects are not changing."
Bye for now.A bit busy.But would like to come back after few hours.
...................................................................................
Just make a note that a real gravity engine needs small energy supply like electrical supply similar to that of a catalyst which will be recovered back.
Without such external energy supply and without its recovery,you won't be able to make a gravity powered engine.
A catalyst is a chemical which makes a chemical reaction faster but which is completely recovered back after the reaction is complete.We don't use a catalyst in gravity engine but the principle of operation in most basic is the same.Illustration:
Is this possible???
:" Gravitational energy form=Electrical energy form + losses"
Technically its correct since according to the well accepted law of conservation of energy :
"Energy can neither be created nor it is destroyed, however
energy can be converted from one form energy to any other form of energy"
Now the question is how we make this possible.
So here is my answer.
"Little External energy source (similar to catalyst) + gravitational energy + losses quantity 1= recovered electrical energy converted from extra gravitational energy acted on heavy ball(similar to a catalyst) + converted Electrical energy + losses quantity 2"
Just make a note that a real gravity engine needs small energy supply like electrical supply similar to that of a catalyst which will be recovered back.
Without such external energy supply and without its recovery,you won't be able to make a gravity powered engine.
A catalyst is a chemical which makes a chemical reaction faster but which is completely recovered back after the reaction is complete.We don't use a catalyst in gravity engine but the principle of operation in most basic is the same.
Illustration:
Is this possible???
:" Gravitational energy form=Electrical energy form + losses"
Technically its correct since according to the well accepted law of conservation of energy :
"Energy can neither be created nor it is destroyed, however energy can be converted from one form energy to any other form of energy"
Now the question is how we make this possible.
So here is my answer.
"Little External energy source (similar to catalyst) + gravitational energy + losses quantity 1= recovered electrical energy converted from extra gravitational energy acted on heavy ball(similar to a catalyst) + converted Electrical energy + losses quantity 2"
I would like to hear Mr. Gianna's views on my above comment.
Hi,
I agree, gravity is a force and NOT energy,
John.
Quote from: minnie on December 03, 2012, 08:37:04 AM
Hi,
I agree, gravity is a force and NOT energy,
John.
Mr John,energy is defined as Capacity to do work.
Work done is force times the distance.
Force is mass times the distance.
This shows that work and force are interrelated and inturn force and energy are interrelated.
It's seems like a fiction to hear that gravity is a force and not a energy.
Hence gravity is a source of energy called "gravitational energy" and hence its associated with gravitational force.
Quote from: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 08:41:17 AM
Mr John,energy is defined as Capacity to do work.
Work done is force times the distance.
Force is mass times the distance.
This shows that work and force are interrelated and inturn force and energy are interrelated.
It's seems like a fiction to hear that gravity is a force and not a energy.
Hence gravity is a source of energy called "gravitational energy" and hence its associated with gravitational force.
Aman,
A hydro-electric dam is one form of gravity being converted into work. Just as sloar energy and the wind need mediums to convert their potentials into useable energy, so does gravity. Just trying to help you out ;)
Jim
edited to add; Aman, will take a break from posting but will probably read on your blog some. I do expect tinselkoala and his friend pirate88719 to cause me problems for pointing out that their idea was already on a television show. They have accused me of stealing their idea and have asked me to apologize many times for having done so.
Quote from: johnny874 on December 02, 2012, 11:29:20 AM
Wikipedia has it wrong. A machine that generates more energy than it consumes would be an over unity device, not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion machine needs no energy input as it's engineering would allow it to sustain motion without the input of any energy.
Thanks Jim,when different people follow different definations,its very difficult to follow a single defination whichever is correct.
Hence better to mention that its possible to invent a gravity powered engine that does not violate laws of thermodynamics.
What a mess!!!
Name is just given for identification for a system or process,etc.
When Thermodyanamics textbooks and wiki has created confussions within people,it is too difficult to explain the real definations to public.It's better not to take headache to search for the correct defination and advocate the Same defination everywhere.
Quote from: johnny874 on December 03, 2012, 09:51:55 AM
I do expect tinselkoala and his friend pirate88719 to cause me problems for pointing out that their idea was already on a television show. They have accused me of stealing their idea and have asked me to apologize many times for having done so.
I am surprised with this.I know Jim as a good online friend,very dedicated to work at Bessler Wheel Forum.I don't think he will steal an idea like this.Which television show is this?
Hi
I was looking at it as if gravity was a spring, pulling two things together. Yes, a spring can do some work, but you have
to put that energy into the spring to start with, once it's gone, it's gone!
John.
Quote from: minnie on December 03, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
Hi
I was looking at it as if gravity was a spring, pulling two things together. Yes, a spring can do some work, but you have
to put that energy into the spring to start with, once it's gone, it's gone!
John.
Minnie,
Here is what I posted in besslerwheel.com and will post in the same titled thread in this forum.
@Aman, the show is Numb3rs, season 4, episode 69. Watch the 10 minute mark. They show Heron's Fountain.
The previous post about Bessler;
Quote from: daanoppermandaxwc ,
The pendulum will destroy the wheel if any decrease or increase in wheel rpm takes place .
daanopperman,
I'll give away what Bessler has said many times, the weights work together. When both pendulums are falling together, one on each side of the wheel, their blows to the wheel will be cushioned by the water they are pumping.
This also allows the pendulum moving upwards towards top center to do as much work as the one moving downward not wasting any potential.
With a 4:1 ratio and to weights working together, the ratio baloons up to 8:1. And if you have as an example 98n-m's of torque, it would easily move 5kg's of water.
The torque would be equivalent to 10 kg's at 1 meter. It would take 1.25 kg's at a ratio of 8:1 to generate that much force.
And as Bessler would say, simple enough for him to understand. I'm still amazed by what the guy knew.
Kind of why I am willing to spend the money and what time it takes me, his work is worth more than what it will cost me :-)
edited to add, when Bessler said he made more pulleys and levers, the pulleys would be for connecting the levers/pendulums so they work together. Where you have pulley's, you also have lines/chords/ropes, etc.
edited to add; Stefan Hartmann, moderator of
overunity.com has let me know he is interested in seeing me post more videos detailing different aspects of Bessler's wheel. Since it will take time for the build I am doing, I will in the next week r so be posting some vidoes show how Bessler's water pumps worked as well as how his levers/penulums might have worked together. I have let Stefan know that I think Bessler would be something close to a genius for the work he accomplished.
Jim
edited to add; made a quick video showing how 2 opposing levers move in a wheel and suggest how they might work together.
The other links are for how much over balance is required to rotate a wheel and also a demonstration of a basic water pump shooting water which Bessler did mention that his weights "shot out".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFE9Gz8A-c8&feature=youtu.behttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJRhqXdRrbghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOl2dJaavS8with pumps, when one pumps or discharges, it will be into another pump above it on the wheel. If you watch the first link, imagine as the wheel rotating that it is constantly pumping water upwards into an empty chamber. And once you can understand that, then you can start to understand everything Bessler said. And hopefully everything he wrote won't be made known so some people can realize some things for themselves.
Thanks Red & TK, minnie etc - I have computer & on-going internet connections problems so will be back to discuss when I can.
Hi Fletcher,
you could well have got mixed up with the spring thing. We were arguing whether gravity is a force or energy.
I felt that gravity was only a force. I likened it to a spring in that to make a spring have energy you have to tension it.
Although not quite there, the fellow with his copper pipe has made a real good effort.
I've got a couple of questions but I'll leave it for now as it sounds as if you're very busy at the moment and also have internet
probs. I'm really enjoying it, thank you for giving your time,
John.
Quote from: minnie on December 03, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
Hi
I was looking at it as if gravity was a spring, pulling two things together. Yes, a spring can do some work, but you have
to put that energy into the spring to start with, once it's gone, it's gone!
John.
Strange thought!
Anyway,what made you think this.Have you come across any research papers related to quantum physics,suggesting this hypothesis?If yes,then this may be interesting.
please answer.
..............................................................
Let me just tell all of you that something needs capacity to do work on a body at a height to let it fall down.Nothing can fall down without doing any external work on it.If some body falls down without external work on it ,it would mean you have not supplied energy to move that body.It would then mean anything would move on its own without supply of energy.This would be violation of law of Thermodyanamics.It would be like Output without input energy.
Hence gravitational force is associated with Gravitational energy.And hence gravity is both Force as well as Energy.
Energy is capacity to do work.
The creation of force needs energy.Just think logically.
This is like,most of you guys are telling that force and energy can be seperate quantities,out of which any one is needed to move a body,but
it cannot be true.
Hi,
what I've been looking at is in the context of a little toy we were trying to make. I just felt that gravity just pulls two masses
together and to put energy into the system we must pull them apart.
I honestly haven't a clue about gravitational energy and quasars or whatever, just my thoughts on making a curiosity here
on Earth.
I'm just enjoying a few of Fletcher's ideas and really appreciate being put right by others who know a lot more than me.
What I have learned is even if we get our toy to work it won't have much power unless built on a massive scale.
John
Quote from: minnie on December 04, 2012, 12:41:39 PM
Hi,
what I've been looking at is in the context of a little toy we were trying to make. I just felt that gravity just pulls two masses
together and to put energy into the system we must pull them apart.
I honestly haven't a clue about gravitational energy and quasars or whatever, just my thoughts on making a curiosity here
on Earth.
I'm just enjoying a few of Fletcher's ideas and really appreciate being put right by others who know a lot more than me.
What I have learned is even if we get our toy to work it won't have much power unless built on a massive scale.
John
Thanks Minnie.I hope you can also learn quiet a good amount of information by visiting my blog on Bessler wheels.Do visit all my articles on my blog on Bessler wheels.com
Hi,
thank you Aman. I found your blog O.K. and there's quite a bit for me to take in. I think about these concepts
as I'm doing my job, then I come back to it for another go.
John.
Welcome.Do read all the 4 articles as of now of my blog.
@ All ..
Back on line.
To complete the concept ..
I set out in this thread with the intention to come up with a POP mechanism that could be built & tested for validity & I went thru a series of progressive & more complex steps, building a picture to a reciprocating or rotary device.
The crux of any asymmetric device is the ability to find balance in one configuration & unbalance in another.
I said that I had a new type of theoretical balance mechanism that could achieve that goal - it had similarities to the Roberval Balance - the Roberval has torque issues & will remain upright with the use of a wide base for support - this one does not, IINM.
I propose that my non compressible fluid lever & pantograph balance has no torque wherever a mass is applied in a symmetrical system.
Mass & pressure are scalar quantities - they can be vectored as forces - the use of the pantograph parallelogram redirects weight force to the other side of a symmetrical non compressible fluid filled enclosed container [i.e. pascals principle of undiminished pressure transmission re hydrostatics] - the pantograph is rigidly attached to the fluid container - pressures & forces are spread evenly throughout the liquid, all forces are in equilibrium therefore there is no torque & the system is balanced - the system self adjusts for different mass loadings - like the hydrostatic paradox the total weight of the system is the combined masses however the contention is that torque can be removed.
The 'balance apparatus' does not work upside down & is unbalanced.
Quote from: Gianna on December 04, 2012, 02:59:01 PM
Until you can demontrate actual quantum gravity effects as being important as the scale of Bessler wheels (or any size other than Planck scale), the Newtownian view of the world works just fine for detemining that what you propose is impossible.
Gianna,
What Bessler realized is something everyone over looks. For what Fletcher is discussing can be found in Bessler's drawings and with examples of how balance can be shifted.
I think the problem this creates is that if someone wants an original solution using fluids as a means of propulsion that it will be difficult. This could be why so many dislike me in these forums. it is not because I came up with the answer but because Bessler did a long time ago.
Even in besslerwheel.com they will not discuss what he knew of engineering. It does not allow them to talk about what they might know. But for a rotating wheel, I doubt anyone will improve upon Bessler's work.
Jim
Quote from: fletcher on December 04, 2012, 04:54:55 PM
@ All ..
Back on line.
To complete the concept ..
Hi Fletcher,
You appear to be changing the design for certain good reasons you might have. These mods are not very clear without you addressing the underlying reasons why you are doing so. I am not disputing if the concept works or doesn't work, sure a practical proof can surprise us all.
From a pure reasoning standpoint, I still do not see how you are going to get away with a buoyancy concept that can not displace fluid because the fluid is fully enclosed and pressurized. You have not expanded on that point. The logic you are using is jumping over a logical step that is critical in the natural process, ignoring this step allows you to reach your conclusion. But this makes the conclusion incomplete and premature. Do you have any replies on previous reply posts that address this process?
The new design with the truss and sliding pivots needs some more explanation from you side to be clear what you are intending to achieve with it? and its difference with the previous designs. The scale below the beam should be sufficient to demonstrate the concept. A practical working design can be a separate exercise.
Regards, Michel
Hi,
I take it that the red T shape associated with the piston is a locking pin.
John.
Yes John, else the mass would act on the lhs piston in a hydraulics fashion & displace fluid volume & move the rhs piston upwards compensatorily - I want the mass to use its own weight force to increase internal fluid pressure [P = F / A] until equilibrium of forces is achieved at the lhs piston interface - however the overall system is still not in equilibrium of forces because there is no opposing force acting downwards against the rhs piston [locked] - hence the need for the pantograph [parallelogram of forces] to provide an equal down thrust [force] to rhs piston - since the force source is the masses weight force which is applied over the piston surface area to create higher fluid internal pressure & the piston area is doubled with the inclusion of the pantograph mechanism acting on the rhs piston then the internal fluid pressure increase is halved, but the system has now established equilibrium of forces at both piston interfaces - it is balanced i.e. no torque, IINM.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 05, 2012, 12:46:19 AM
Hi Fletcher,
You appear to be changing the design for certain good reasons you might have. These mods are not very clear without you addressing the underlying reasons why you are doing so. I am not disputing if the concept works or doesn't work, sure a practical proof can surprise us all.
Michel .. it can't be all bad, its only taken 5 pages & two weeks & the noise level has been low & discussion civil.
Quote from: Red
From a pure reasoning standpoint, I still do not see how you are going to get away with a buoyancy concept that can not displace fluid because the fluid is fully enclosed and pressurized. You have not expanded on that point. The logic you are using is jumping over a logical step that is critical in the natural process, ignoring this step allows you to reach your conclusion. But this makes the conclusion incomplete and premature. Do you have any replies on previous reply posts that address this process?
Well Michel you seem to be fixated on Archimedes buoyancy of an open system as the only means of producing upthrust - as I've taken pains to point numerously that Archimedes volume displacement buoyancy where the fluid medium density remains uniform is certainly one kind of buoyancy & the best known - but Archimedes isn't the only type of buoyancy/upthrust - the upward force experienced on an object in the final analysis is due to [e.g. using a cube or cylinder analogy] the pressure differential above & below that object, however the pressure differential was created - for example types of pseudo buoyancy are hovercraft [where pressure beneath is higher than above], pucks on air tables [same reason as previous], aircraft in straight & level flight at constant velocity [here lift force equals weight force but the engine provides the thrust to overcome drag which is substantially less than lift & weight force i.e. the four forces are in equilibrium but not equal] - these forms of "buoyancy equivalent" don't rely on equal mass & volume displacement but require an input of energy to create that pressure differential - in my case I am using gravity force to create its own underside pressure increase in an enclosed non compressible fluid system.
If you use simulation software for example you can create buoyancy force in either of two ways - in an open system calculate the fluid displacement & if you know its density you can make a direct comparison to the weight of fluid displaced etc - that's the simple way & the most common - the other is to calculate from fluid pressure levels - since we know the density of the fluid, for example water, we know that 10 meter head has 14.7 PSI so we can calculate the pressure & vector force on a surface area at any depth in the fluid - the net [assuming we zero out 1 atmospheric pressure starting point] when we convert to a vector force gives us the same buoyancy/upthrust force as volume displacement method - this means that anytime we know the pressure increase we can calculate the upthrust of an immersed object or in this case an object unable to penetrate the fluid but still having created an increase in fluid pressure by virtue of applying its own weight force to that enclosed fluid.
Quote from: Red
The new design with the truss and sliding pivots needs some more explanation from you side to be clear what you are intending to achieve with it? and its difference with the previous designs. The scale below the beam should be sufficient to demonstrate the concept. A practical working design can be a separate exercise.
Regards, Michel
See my above post to minnie [John] - the pantograph demonstrates parallelogram of forces which every text book on leverage & forces shows - the top pivot in my diagram is fixed to the rigid upright & the bottom pivot has the ability to slide up & down but not laterally, as I have shown - equally the bottom pivot could be anchored & the top have the ability to slide vertically but then there would be a tendency for the pantograph arms to move outwards rather than inwards - since the fluid volume & density for all intents & purposes doesn't change however, this is arbitrary - this is a concept & not presented as a final & most efficient engineering solution.
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.
Quote from: fletcher on December 05, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
.....................................................
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.[/b]
Fetcher, lets not loose sight of the core issue.
The main issue: Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!
(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight)
ONLY 2 questions need to be answered. 1.. Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement? (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example)
1.. Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)
< Fletcher #1 > - Michel you seem to be fixated on Archimedes buoyancy of an open system as the only means of producing upthrust - as I've taken pains to point numerously that Archimedes volume displacement buoyancy where the fluid medium density remains uniform is certainly one kind of buoyancy & the best known –
<Michel r1> - The example you presented has no relationship with buoyancy, it is a hydraulics example. The sole difference between buoyancy and hydraulics is the water column to create a differential.
** A refresher (I am sure, you do not need it, but in order the clarify my position angle)
In hydraulics as in your example, the feedback mechanism from the fluid is different than in buoyancy, hydraulics is a closed system where no head is created. The fluid DOES NOT give way, and therefore creates automatic back pressure no matter how much weight is loaded on the piston. The pressure in the fluid increases to equal the pressure imposed by the increasing weight.
Buoyancy on the other hand is a self regulating mechanism, when increasing the weight of a float, the sinking deeper process will increase the head that in turn will increase the differential pressure. What you forget and leave out of your equation is that water level in the container has also increased as we increased the float weight (that is done by the displacement water that will match the water weight equal to the added weight in the float).
< Fletcher #2 > - Archimedes isn't the only type of buoyancy/upthrust - the upward force experienced on an object in the final analysis is due to [e.g. using a cube or cylinder analogy] the pressure differential above & below that object, however the pressure differential was created – for example types of pseudo buoyancy are hovercraft [where pressure beneath is higher than above], pucks on air tables [same reason as previous], - these forms of "buoyancy equivalent" don't rely on equal mass & volume displacement but require an input of energy to create that pressure differential
<Michel r2> - To avoid introducing confusion with air- and hover crafts, lets keep it simple and stick to your water beam fluid example and the other simple pictures we shared that clearly addresses the balance issue (with scales).
< Fletcher #3 > - in my case I am using gravity force to create its own underside pressure increase in an enclosed non compressible fluid system.
<Michel r3> - Understood, using weight to pressurize a enclosed fluid
< Fletcher #4 > - If you use simulation software for example you can create buoyancy force in either of two ways - in an open system calculate the fluid displacement & if you know its density you can make a direct comparison to the weight of fluid displaced etc - that's the simple way & the most common –
<Michel r4> - Agree, but regardless of simulation software, it pays to understand the underlying buoyancy mechanics and that hydraulics is only a subset.
< Fletcher #5 > - the other is to calculate from fluid pressure levels - since we know the density of the fluid, for example water, we know that 10 meter head has 14.7 PSI so we can calculate the pressure & vector force on a surface area at any depth in the fluid - the net [assuming we zero out 1 atmospheric pressure starting point] when we convert to a vector force gives us the same buoyancy/upthrust force as volume displacement method - this means that anytime we know the pressure increase we can calculate the upthrust of an immersed object or in this case an object unable to penetrate the fluid but still having created an increase in fluid pressure by virtue of applying its own weight force to that enclosed fluid.
<Michel r5> - Agree, the main difference between buoyancy and hydraulics to me is that the weight on the hydraulic piston creates a pressure due to gravity. This pressure is counter acted by a counter pressure from a different source, not from a buoyancy force, defined as the pressure from a water column height.
< Fletcher #6 > - See my above post to minnie [John] - the pantograph demonstrates parallelogram of forces which every text book on leverage & forces shows - the top pivot in my diagram is fixed to the rigid upright & the bottom pivot has the ability to slide up & down but not laterally, as I have shown - equally the bottom pivot could be anchored & the top have the ability to slide vertically but then there would be a tendency for the pantograph arms to move outwards rather than inwards - since the fluid volume & density for all intents & purposes doesn't change however, this is arbitrary - this is a concept & not presented as a final & most efficient engineering solution.
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.
<Michel r6> - The truss beams will adjust the balance of forces, but this balance movement will take place by the movement of fluid and position of the pistons. The volume quantity might be small but it is proportional, and it will move.
Conclussion: Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.
But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bent the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.
Do you agree or feel different?
"I'll be back" , as soon as I can.
My property in NZ got wacked by a tornado yesterday afternoon & there is some damage I will have to organise to have fixed.
Quote from: Michel
Fletcher, let's not loose sight of the core issue.
The main issue: Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!?
I believe so & although it might be counter-intuitive & even unpalatable, that it is also self evident – it all comes down to Pascal's Principle & isotropic fluids - whilst pressure is scalar forces are not, therefore a weight force creates a rise in pressure which is felt as a force normal to all container internal surfaces.
Quote from: Michel
(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight).
Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the
science of
fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within
fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which
fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the
science of fluids in motion is
fluid dynamics.
You may call it hydraulics if you prefer but to me that indicates fluid movement in the form of the principle of the hydraulic lever used to do Work – hydraulic leverage shows no ability to break the law of levers as it is volume movement dependent – as in the case of Pascal's hydraulic jack force can be multiplied but Work In & Out cannot – my device does not do work per se as no real fluid movement occurs – i.e. no work is done, the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle does not hold in this special case – e.g. as for a book resting on a table the table does no Work in the Physics sense – stack books & the table still does no Work.
Quote from: MichelONLY 2 questions need to be answered.
1.. Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement? (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example).
I won't be providing a weight absorption example any time soon as that's a misnomer - what you are proposing is that an example should be seen in nature as we all model from nature & follow her example – what I am saying is that there is no natural occurring example, this is purely a man made artificial construct, an evolution of natures fundamental principles.
The mass is not absorbed, it is still located where it is – the weight force is redirected thru the use of parallelogram of forces [or you can use pulleys for example] to cause equilibrium of forces or force symmetry i.e. torque nullification or neutralizing – effectively what I loosely coined Virtual Displacement of Mass – what is consistent with known physics is that pressure is a form of energy density so an increase in pressure sees a rise in energy density per volume – since fluid dynamics is based on Bernoulli equations which was predicated on Conservation of Energy then fluid energy = P + Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy – since the fluids are not moving [at the local reference frame] then by deduction there is an increase in energy density from pressure alone [however that pressure increase occurred] – this increase in energy state must be accounted for in an energy budget if this line is taken – it is an easy target to look to the gravity field as the source of that energy gain & see gravity as a flow of energy but that might be an erroneous conclusion IMO – what would be shown is that the masses have not changed nor altered position so the true system CoM has not changed – the CoG has also not changed for the same reason that there has been no physical displacement of mass, & acceleration 'g' is still the same acting on all mass – the system forces have however been redirected so that a Center of Force Equilibrium has been established that is not coincident with the CoM/CoG Center of Rotation.
Quote from: Michel
1.. Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)
Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the science of fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the science of fluids in motion is fluid dynamics.
Archimedes Principle – when a body is immersed in a fluid it experiences an upthrust, or apparent loss of weight, equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the body – this important principle is only an extension of the idea of the increase in the pressure of a fluid with depth, which means that there is a greater pressure pushing up on the body from underneath than there is pushing down on it from on top.
In physics, buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid, that opposes the weight of an [immersed] object.
The qualification of the above statement with the word 'immersed ' is IMO a restrictive covenant to specifically describe Archimedes principle & the Law of Floatation [for both, objects must be immersed partially or wholly] – the important principle is that an upthrust force is experienced on an object who applies its weight force to an enclosed non-compressible fluid – if it could not apply its weight force then there would be no compensatory increase in fluid pressure & upthrust force equilibrium normal to the objects surface & applied weight force.
Since no Work is done, yet it is an example of Pascal's Principle, it is not a Hydraulic example in the true physics definition sense – since there are other examples of pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement but do invoke pressure differentials then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.
Quote from: Michel
Conclussion:
Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.
But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bend the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.
Do you agree or feel different?
See above - these are my opinions - bolding mine.
Quote from: fletcher on December 07, 2012, 04:42:58 PM
................................................... then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.[/b]
Hi Fletcher,
I think I lost you, are you trying to prove that you can keep this fluid beam horizontal by means of this external parallelogram truss and we are we resolved that the left weight is not distributed throughout the fluid and so causes an imbalance to the right?
a.. Meaning the truss is concept is replacing the original argument ?
b.. Or a combination of the old with the new combined?
Notwithstanding this or that, one of your statements needs expanding,
<Fletcher> Since no Work is done, yet it is an example of Pascal's Principle, it is not a Hydraulic example in the true physics definition sense since there are other examples of pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement but do invoke pressure differentials then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.
<Michel> Can you post some of these examples "pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement", this would be helpful in order to understand the legitimacy of how you call your piston, AND I am not so sure that it doesn't matter on how you paint it.
Michel
Thanks for the thoughts Michel.
I am well aware of how buoyancy manifests & have used your exact same explanations for a very long time - it describes well Archimedes buoyancy principle & floatation law - you may call my balancing device hydraulics if you like to think about it that way - it disagrees with me because no fluid is moved about like a hydraulic lever acts [Work In = Work Out] - the masses weight force creates pressure in the contained non-compressible fluid - a pressure increase also gives rise to a temperature increase & also an energy density increase in the fluid, but no Work is done - this device is self adjusting & finds equilibrium or symmetry of forces to a Center of Torques [CoT] thru pressure & surface area relationships of masses & pistons interfaces as per the diagrams.
I realise it is hard to suspend beliefs but I simply ask that you follow the science - & on that note upthrust force [buoyancy] is due to first principles of pressure differentials - Archimedes buoyancy is a sub-set of that first principle.
...............................
Thanks everyone for trying to understand the principle of a new type of balance device I am proposing - if it is a correct principle it not only makes an Intrinsic Motion Machine a real possibility but also has implications for inertial dampening technology & would have a huge impact on the engineering & design community.
Please take a look at the following pics before deciding on an experiment IMO if you are motivated to do so.
...............................
Webby1 .. I know you had concerns about torque in the pantogram apparatus so I have rebuilt the pantograph to include sliding pivots [no fixed pivot] with the use of a 'T' in the system - it actually makes no difference to the ordinary pantograph design IMO.
...............................
It seems my explanations were harder to understand than I imagined - therefore I include some pics below to ease that burden.
First is a swimming pool fill of water - a cubic meter [full of water] is suspended in the pool [the cube walls having the same density as the water at 1000 kg/m^3] - it has neutral buoyancy with a tendency at any depth to neither rise nor sink - that is because the upthrust force equals the downthrust force, they are in equilibrium - because liquid pressure is linear with depth it will be neutrally buoyant at any depth - its upthrust force is due to the pressure differential above & below the cube which can be numerically supported easily by a little math.
The next 3 pics show hanging devices using a water trough with modified pantograph - in each case they are balanced due Archimedes principle - one float mass is balanced as is two identical float masses with same piston water interface areas - the second dual example however uses a lesser float mass on the rhs & smaller piston surface area.
N.B.1. there is a direct relationship between opposing masses & surface areas in contact with the fluid - if one side halves the mass it must also halve the surface area of the piston etc - if it is a 10th the mass it must reduce piston area to a 10th so that forces each side of the fulcrum are in equilibrium to give overall device balance.
N.B.2. the key is that although both float masses weigh different amounts at half the density of the fluid for example they will sink to the same level & have the same pressure beneath the float i.e. different upthrust forces but same pressure, which gives system force equilibrium & device balance.
The last pic is where I have done away with the water trough & transitioned to a containment vessel, with pistons - as before the piston areas in contact with the fluid are proportional to the masses so that the pressure at the piston interface is the same but the upthrust forces are not - we still have equilibrium of forces about the fulcrum & system balance.
N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].
N.B.2. if the device were turned upside down the forces would no longer be in equilibrium & there would be torque CW in this example.
Hi Fletcher,
I can see why we have some misunderstanding towards your idea and Wayne's invention in the past. The delta appears in the understanding of buoyancy as laid out by Archimedes ( the prime theory that encompasses all and how these characteristics relates to each other). From this flows forth all other related systems that use a subset of Archimedes buoyancy. Our discrepancy lies in the communication, in the way we understand these principles and the terminology that categorize these related systems. Then comes Pascal as a add-on.
Pascal defines the pressure as an integral aspect of everything that is submerged into a liquid or gas. In the end there is a separation related to submersion (full or partial or not at all), the only difference to other categorization of related systems is how this pressure differential comes about and is achieved and manipulated, submersion level is a big influence factor in this.
I agree with your proposal in logical reasoning without going into the working of the pantogram (we assume this works as you said). I have no issues until you transitions to the last device (device-3), that leap frog changes the playing field. In this process you do not answer crucial questions posed in previous posts.
Our disagreement comes about the differences between the balances you refer to, and I do not feel they are addressed comprehensively, you appear only address #1 and assume it to match #2
1.. The balance of forces, water beam, piston, pantogram
2.. The gravitational balance of the overall device (as seen at the fulcrum) >> final objective of interest in the device
From device2 to device3
<fletcher1> The last pic is where I have done away with the water trough & transitioned to a containment vessel, with pistons - as before the piston areas in contact with the fluid are proportional to the masses so that the pressure at the piston interface is the same but the upthrust forces are not – we still have equilibrium of forces about the fulcrum & system balance.
<Michel1> Your equilibrium of forces around the fulcrum does not match the gravity profile of the overall system (Water beam, piston weights and pantogram).
<fletcher2> N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].
<Michel2> Here you abandoned buoyancy and forfeited its benefits and this is the pivot of our argument. Here you changed the relationship between pressure and gravitational mass. By moving from "partial submersion" to "no submersion", as from a "free floating buoyancy mass" to and "hydraulic piston mass", a totally different situation.
In this process you were able to maintain the same upward pressures but gave up the gravity weight balance in the beam, meaning the integration (absorption) of "piston + weights + fluid" to be seen as one homogeneous gravitational mass as shown in device-2.
Some questions that would assist the understanding
1.. Can you demonstrated how you compensate for this shortfall as you moved from device-2 to device-3. (device2 & 3 are not the same system)
2.. How you change the external gravitational balance without shifting some mass in the vertical projection from one side of the fulcrum to the other side.( I know mass movement is not your objective)
3.. Is there any way you can show how the piston changes the gravitational balance of the system without changing the beam gravitational balance and that no movement of the piston, nor water is going to change the pantogram in order to change the overall gravitational balance of the system needed to create rotation around the fulcrum?
A picture of the external gravitational mass balance of this device as seen externally in relation to the fulcrum, would demonstrate the viability of this concept. No matter how I try, I can not do it without displacing mass.
Am I correct to assume that we need to see a gravitational mass difference between the left and right side of the fulcrum in order to expect rotational movement ?
Regards, Michel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
QuoteDansie: I was down there, there's a project which we've been following for nearly eighteen months now, it was a buoyancy-gravty device- ah.. Wayne Travis, and ah.. It was something I had found that I wasn't sure either way, ah whether they could achieve what they are claiming, and that is a mechanical device, if you like, that could self-run and produce excess energy. And as you know in the history of Mankind, nobody's ever achieved that. I saw enough evidence for me to be convinced that (shrug) yeah, it's worthwhile having a go at it. But it's dragged on a bit, but I have been impressed and encouraged by two things. It's TOTALLY (emphasis Dansie's) evolved into something else, there's no big tanks and all that now, it's nearly solid state, it's still moves but it's very simple, can (or can't? unsure here) be flat-packed, and they are very close.. to the point ... where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run. Ah .. (Hendershot cuts him off for a commercial break....)
after break:
Dansie: The Wayne Travis buoyancy device...
(Hendershot asks, laughing, "What's goin on in Oklahoma")
Dansie: Well... I'm still encouraged by what I've seen...ah However (emphasis) it's got down to the point now with the second device that... it's interesting he's got some very clever engineers and people, people flown from Greece and Switzerland and Canada to come and lend a hand, he's got some clever engineers, they've all predicted it will, ah, self-run and produce excess energy, but as you know the final proof (coughs) for me to see it self-run and produce excess energy. So they are very close for the latest prototype to be able to demonstrate that and that will bring it to conclusion one way or the other; I'm very encouraged, I still rank it highly, ah they are a very great group, a very honest group, ah However (emphasis) ah you know (come on? unclear) well half the scientists and engineers saying "hey this could really work", Half the scientists and engineers I know saying "pixie dust, this is a lot of BS" So, but they've done a great job, I can see why it had to evolve, I can see huge improvements where from manufacturing and logistics point, you could flat-pack this like an Ikea system, they've got a third one in the wings that would be the one you'd throw in the basement...But I expect within the next two months that this will be brought to a conclusion. I am speaking positively of it yet but I have NOT signed off on it. So that's about as far as I can take it at this stage.
Errr, um ...... solid state, can be flatpacked, but has NOT been shown to produce excess energy OR self run..... and what happened to the other devices we have been assured DO self run? They must have had to do a lot of work to hide them all in preparation for Dansie's visit... what, nine different ones? ... so that Dansie couldn't see them self-running.
Sorry, Red ... you mentioned Mister Wayne, and it is as though you weren't aware that he has evolved beyond big tanks and can create a _flat-packable_ buoyancy device that is "solid state"....
::)
(Is Mister Wayne reading from Steorn's script, or what? )
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 11, 2012, 10:55:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
Errr, um ...... solid state, can be flatpacked, but has NOT been shown to produce excess energy OR self run..... and what happened to the other devices we have been assured DO self run? They must have had to do a lot of work to hide them all in preparation for Dansie's visit... what, nine different ones? ... so that Dansie couldn't see them self-running.
Sorry, Red ... you mentioned Mister Wayne, and it is as though you weren't aware that he has evolved beyond big tanks and can create a _flat-packable_ buoyancy device that is "solid state".... ::)
(Is Mister Wayne reading from Steorn's script, or what? )
Fletcher, my apologies for this one and only transgressing post from me in your topic.
TinselKoala,
I read one time that certain animals have an incredible ability to smell their target prey from several miles away. From sharks smelling blood in the water to ants finding water or sugar.
This always amazed me, so I got thinking, could a human nose be trained and honed to find genuine OU concept in this melee of flea market choices or are we too close to animals and a human nose can only be trained to smell a human target from a few forum topics away, and ready to draw blood. A discomforting notion......
Lets not limit the diversity in nature, the possibilities opened by Wayne go beyond our visible horizon. It is like what Columbus did with his first voyage. It wasn't his actual trip that was important, it were the doors he opened which became floodgates in that age of discovery.
In the course of history, it will have very little to do with "big tanks".
Regards, Michel
Hi
I suppose it had to start, Fletcher's thread now polluted with stupid arguments. Let's settle something, if it's a gravity machine,
even a few watts, will be a hefty thing, tons, and you won't get it in a shopping trolley. Has anyone tried my little experiment
with a nut on a piece of string, swing it vertically and see how many rpm you can do before you're beating gravity, not many.
As power is the rate of doing work you need 1000's rpm for a small machine.
I've been working on Fletcher's ideas and his little balance mechanism seems to work, but, there is an issue with torque in
the vertical member. I'm making a little set-up where I hope to be able to get round this, there always has to be a snag, it
looks as if it may be balanced all the time, time will tell.
Part of our operation is involved in industrial pipelines, we can handle up to 1.5 metre stuff and there's loads of valves, fittings,
test equipment so I could have a go at something- if I can get a viable plan drawn up.
The weather in this country has been stupid, I've been on the farm for 50 yrs. and 2011 was the driest year I've seen and 2012
has been the wettest.
John.
Quote from: minnie on December 12, 2012, 04:39:59 AM
Hi
I suppose it had to start, Fletcher's thread now polluted with stupid arguments. Let's settle something, if it's a gravity machine,
even a few watts, will be a hefty thing, tons, and you won't get it in a shopping trolley. Has anyone tried my little experiment
with a nut on a piece of string, swing it vertically and see how many rpm you can do before you're beating gravity, not many.
As power is the rate of doing work you need 1000's rpm for a small machine.
I've been working on Fletcher's ideas and his little balance mechanism seems to work, but, there is an issue with torque in
the vertical member. I'm making a little set-up where I hope to be able to get round this, there always has to be a snag, it
looks as if it may be balanced all the time, time will tell.
Part of our operation is involved in industrial pipelines, we can handle up to 1.5 metre stuff and there's loads of valves, fittings,
test equipment so I could have a go at something- if I can get a viable plan drawn up.
The weather in this country has been stupid, I've been on the farm for 50 yrs. and 2011 was the driest year I've seen and 2012
has been the wettest.
John.
I promise John, you will not see more than you have already seen from me.
With regards to gravity, It is sure a given that the limitations of achieving sufficient speed/cycle time will drive up the weight requirement to get to some power, and weight has a relationship with size. Virtual water reduces this relationship for a large extent, but for sure it will never achieve the compactness of an electrical motor.
But considering it is basic technology and low cost, size should not be a prime issue, only running cost would matter. It is clear that it is not the solution for everything, but that is not the issue today. The prime points that it can be done and that is more than we had before this point was made. How you use it is an other economic & business issue.
What do you mean with torque in the vertical member? How big is your setup ?
The vertical member is bolted to the horizontal water beam, the side arms form the balancing mechanism for the pistons, any rotational movement introduced by the pistons has to come through this vertical beam. So you think the device can reset itself so the weight is always on the right side ?
Regards, Michel
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 11, 2012, 04:48:30 AM
Hi Fletcher,
I can see why we have some misunderstanding towards your idea and Wayne's invention in the past. The delta appears in the understanding of buoyancy as laid out by Archimedes ( the prime theory that encompasses all and how these characteristics relates to each other). From this flows forth all other related systems that use a subset of Archimedes buoyancy. Our discrepancy lies in the communication, in the way we understand these principles and the terminology that categorize these related systems. Then comes Pascal as a add-on.
Pascal defines the pressure as an integral aspect of everything that is submerged into a liquid or gas. In the end there is a separation related to submersion (full or partial or not at all), the only difference to other categorization of related systems is how this pressure differential comes about and is achieved and manipulated, submersion level is a big influence factor in this.
<fletcher2> N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].
<Michel2> Here you abandoned buoyancy and forfeited its benefits and this is the pivot of our argument. Here you changed the relationship between pressure and gravitational mass. By moving from "partial submersion" to "no submersion", as from a "free floating buoyancy mass" to and "hydraulic piston mass", a totally different situation.
In this process you were able to maintain the same upward pressures but gave up the gravity weight balance in the beam, meaning the integration (absorption) of "piston + weights + fluid" to be seen as one homogeneous gravitational mass as shown in device-2.
Regards, Michel
My apologies, I've been offline with a 2 day internet outage.
Before I answer your second lot of questions I want to say again that Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of forces - I may be labouring the point but you will soon see why - the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.
On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me, but to do that they would have to understand the arguments first - I was not & am not after opinions so much [anyone can give those with little of no thought] but analytical deductions & facts to challenge & support an opinion.
I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.
For those considering further experiments I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.
Quote from: fletcher on December 13, 2012, 07:26:25 PM
........................................ I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.
Fletcher,
I would want your concept to work, just as much as you do. The issue is not me or you. The main point of what we are discussing here is the correctness of the logic used.
I am not stating opinions because I back it up with accepted theory. If I misinterpret the theory, pls say so.
Some of the communication is obviously not understood by one or the other party, I do not exclude myself from this. One thing I do know is that we will not be going forward without answering the main questions already presented. It is already clear that we are not going to achieve our objective by side stepping principle physic's questions that can easily be demonstrated and understood.
<fletcher-1> Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of force,
<Michel-1> I agree,
<fletcher-2> the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.
<Michel-2> I agree, so long we agree that water displacement occurred progressively between picture 1, 2 and 3 (and water was added)
<fletcher-3> On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me.
<Michel-3 > My objective is to share my view on the material presented to the best of my ability. I might divert to playing when the counter part becomes non-serious.
<fletcher-4> I will be introducing an anomaly .........................as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance ..........................why again I have emphasized it over & over.
<Michel-4 > Archimedes floating requires an open system which you achieve with the peppette. Your statement " once filled the peppettes can be closed off" will change your system from open to closed. Your system at that point no longer relies on a self regulating head but on increasing pressure due to fluid space restriction. It becomes now a hydraulic system and you forfeit the self weight balancing mechanism. Your forces will remain acting as before, but these forces do not act around the fulcrum. The weight forces act around the fulcrum but you forfeited control on those.
Fletcher, I have repeated this same thing over and over,
"How does a floating weight not impact the balance of a fluid vessel by using displacement buoyancy " and compare this to the
"hydraulic system that uses restricted and contained fluid spaces" where this balance is not maintained. Once you understand this mechanism better you would not ignore this change.
I think this requires some more research on your part to reveal this major characteristic behavior change when restricting fluid in your beam.
It will help to answer the basic questions posed to gain a better understanding.
If we want to go forward on a anomaly hunch that doesn't fit basic physic rules, sure than we better wait for a physical test but it wouldn't me who does the test without having my homework tell me a better possibility forward, to ensure a better margin of success.
Regards, Michel
General:
Inertia is constant regardless of the environment.
Gravitational Force 'g' is variable depending on the local gravity field acceleration.
Force = Mass x Acceleration
The System Balancing Problem, when not using Archimedes uniform density floatation:
Unequal piston masses apply their Weight Force downwards equidistant from the fulcrum.
The down Pressure exerted on the lever internally contained fluid by the masses is equal for both but the Weight Forces are not the same - the fluid at the piston interface exerts an equal up pressure so that the downthrust & upthrust forces at each piston interface are in equilibrium but both piston & fluid forces are not equal with each other.
The system is NOT in Total Force Equilibrium because the masses have an ability to move tangentially - this means that when looking at the EXCEPTIONS case [as all else is equalized] there is a NET upthrust force, from the internal fluid acting upwards on the RHS of the fluid filled lever, of 10N i.e. 1 kgf.
Until this excess force can be mitigated the system as a whole will be Unbalanced with a RHS NET CCW torque of 10N at the appropriate arm distance - the CCW torque is due to Force Imbalance of excess upthrust on the RHS due to fluids being Isotropic & Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [force], & not due to excess downthrust on the LHS.
If the lever were a solid then it would experience CCW torque also, as solids do support a shearing stress, so there would be excess downthrust on the LHS.
Quote from: fletcher
I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.
My Solution to Finding Total System Force Equilibrium [Balance], when NOT using Archimedes uniform density distribution floatation: General: A. We must treat the piston masses as separate from the fluid filled lever & work the Force Profile from top to bottom.
B. Pressure & Force are quite separate but interrelated by proportion to Area.
The deeply hidden yet simple answer ? 1. the piston forces are in equilibrium with the fluid at the interface because both the pistons & the fluid exert the same pressure.
2. the pistons Weight Force is fully supported by the fluid pressure [the opposing force] i.e. their weight forces have been transmitted equally thru the fluid as undiminished fluid pressure increase & pressure is linear.
3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever - this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.
4. we want to mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever.
5. to do this we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.
6. the 'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.
7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface - the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces.
Notes: Follow the logic carefully.
Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.
The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.
-fletcher
Quote from: fletcher on December 14, 2012, 10:35:42 PM
...............................................................
Notes:
Follow the logic carefully.
Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.
The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.
-fletcher
Hi Fletcher,
I am going to leave you at this, I have looked carefully at your proposal and have provided my comments. I do not see a road forward that will be fruitful nor beneficial.
It is clear that you do not address specific questions and change the design from post to post and do not consider a full cycle as a requirement.
Your simulator most likely will tell your what happens when the LHS arrives and 6:00 or 3:00 O'clock and what will happen when these forces you are discussing change from static to dynamic and 'need to' or 'can' exert a force by a certain distance, and against what base reference these forces act.
The following statements surprise me, 3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is
an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever -
this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.
4. we want to
mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever. 5. to do this
we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.
** The piston upthrust created by the fluid is a direct result from the pressure created by the total piston weight (RHS+LHS) distributed over the total piston surface presented to the fluid. The LHS will have a greater upthrust because it presents a greater surfaces area to the fluid. If the pistons are made out of the same material and height, they will position themselves the same. If there weight/SqInch is different, then they will position themselves also differently into the fluid as a equilibrium position between LHS & RHS, at this initial point water displacement will take place and for the heavier piston (weight/SqInch) a supplemented buoyancy situation occurred and a head is created under need the lighter piston to supplement the pressure of the heavier piston. The lighter piston is not suspended by buoyancy but by hydraulic pressure created by the contained fluid.
So to support pistons of different weight/SqInch, buoyancy will alter the fluid level in order to alter the pressure and the pressure per SqInch would no longer the same under each piston. Although this is not what you are claiming although there could be something in it.
Your solution is, 6. the
'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.
** I am sorry but I do not get how the paradox is going to solve your issue.
7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface -
the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces.
** The solid displacer is the same than a water filled container, it would be in suspension, with no up or down force because of the same density as the fluid. All force vectors are neutralized to zero.
• Pls explain how it will cause a down thrust force on he LHS ?
• And how this force would be equal to the RHS upthrust ?
• And how this force would be opposite e.g. sinking ?
You are forcing me to make leaps of assumptions, or you are presenting great leaps of assumptions, it doesn't matter because,
If this water beam is to rotate somewhat, the bottom is not going to be the bottom for long. Can you give an inkling of how you see this shift to be handled?
Regards, Michel
Hi Fletcher,
this is really challenging. I'm hoping to come up with something, if I do I'll have to try and learn how to post
drawings, photos etc.
I've got a son-in-law who's fairly conversant with these latest gadgets and I'm hoping he'll give me a bit of instruction
on how to post drawings and pictures.
We get a bit of good, no-nonsense, farm equipment that's made in New Zealand, obviously you don't put `up with
too much junk over there!
Keep up the good work,
John.
Hi John .. just had my power restored after the cyclone here in Fiji, got wacked pretty bad but got off lightly compared to some - on holiday now till January.
I hope this last post for a while helps - it will make you scratch your head some more - but it has been my purpose to get people to think thru every step of hydrostatics & buoyancy & challenge statements - perhaps I was a bit optimistic that discussion would evolve openly & go forward without having to be telegraphed but you I'm sure will get some fun out of thinking about it & around it some more - it's really an interesting topic.
@ all ..
The usual fluids we consider are Newtonian fluids [water is one] - if this is the case then in my previous example it will not balance as is suggested - the reason is this - the masses [1 & 2, total 2 + 1 kgs = 3kgs] exert a pressure on the fluid in the filled container - they are met by an equal pressure from beneath - this means that the forces are equalized i.e. equilibrium - I'd call that buoyancy but you think of it any way you wish - at this stage the two masses have no turning moment around the pivot.
Now we consider the fluid under pressure - we do the calculations & we see that there is a total upthrust force & a total downthrust force - when the upthrust is subtracted from the downthrust we have a net downthrust of 420N [42kg] - this equals the fluid mass of 39kg plus the 3kg of the masses influence - this is hydrostatics - we can calculate the fluids Center of Pressure [CoP] by working backwards from the turning moments - we find that the CoP is thru the pivot i.e. balanced turning moments [except for the additional 1kg displacer].
The interesting thing about Newtonian fluids is that they have a CoM or CoG but is has no relevance - we are just interested in turning moments & CoP - solids on the other hand always use the CoM.
N.B. the Hydrostatic Paradox teaches us that the sum of the down forces minus the sum of the up forces will always equal the total fluid weight force, in either an open or completely closed system & in most cases the CoP will be located where the CoM is in regular shaped vessels - therefore if the solid displacer can be attached to a thin sealed shaft & weight beneath it it can sit on the bottom as seen or be surrounded by fluid when upside down & just be part of it.
The answer to the problem I suspected could be found in Non_Newtonian Fluids [see a couple of sites, they are very interesting] - in particular fluids that once pressure was applied changed their viscosity &/or their shearing stress also changed - there are many types of Non_Newtonian fluids, including pitch, clay slurry's, starches, suspensions of various sorts etc.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?source=ig&rlz=&q=for+viscous+fluids+stress+is+proportional+to+what+&oq=viscous+fluids&gs_l=igoogle.1.5.0l4j0i30l3j0i5i30l3.51.1118.0.20756.7.6.0.1.1.1.531.1229.2j1j2j5-1.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.AXuV80CeJek (http://www.google.co.nz/search?source=ig&rlz=&q=for+viscous+fluids+stress+is+proportional+to+what+&oq=viscous+fluids&gs_l=igoogle.1.5.0l4j0i30l3j0i5i30l3.51.1118.0.20756.7.6.0.1.1.1.531.1229.2j1j2j5-1.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.AXuV80CeJek)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_solid)
Maxwell fluids have combination properties of both fluids & solids - I was rather hoping that for some Non-Newtonian fluid that it would have some hydrostatic properties in one mode & exhibit solid behaviour in another i.e. when under pressure the fluids CoM/CoG would take precedence rather than CoP, in which case the example, with the 1kg displacer, could work as per the sim because we used fluid CoM/CoG rather than CoP.
Have a good break.
P.S. the pantographs might come in handy if you want to rotate it.
Hi Fletcher,
some lesser minds may have deserted but I realised there was more to come. Some of the things you've been on about
haven't made any sense but hopefully something will emerge...............in the end!
Anyone who's made custard from powder will know how fascinating a high viscosity material behaves.
I must admit I got rather "hooked" on mrwayne's fabulous machine and when that petered out I felt rather lost. Hence I started
following this thread. I'll no doubt be playing with/studying viscous materials for the next few days.
Deep down I feel that a lot more must be done harvesting and storing the power of the sun, nearly all energy we use is of solar
origin, if only we could cut out the middle man!
John.