Big try at gravity wheel

[camelherder49]

For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??

[MarkE]

For Mark:

Do an experiment--

Hold a bowling ball under water at arms length and release it with
your nose barely touching the water

Then hold a volleyball(very near same size) at arms length and
release it with your nose barely touching the water.

See any difference??

Camelherder it should come as no surprise that if we weigh each prior to the experiment that we will find that given identical volumes that the force we have to exert downward on the volleyball is identically greater than the force we have to exert on the bowling ball by the difference in their weights.  The math works as such:

Wdry_bb = weight of the bowling ball on land.
Wdry_vb = weight of the volley ball on land.
VOL_b = volume of each ball.
Fbuoyant = the buoyancy force exerted on either ball
Fnet_bb = the net vertical force on the bowling ball
Fnet_vb = the net vertical force on the volley ball.

Force direction convention:  -up +down

Fbuoyant = -VOL_b * 1kg/liter
Fnet_bb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb
Fnet_vb = Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb

Fnet_bb - Fnet_vb = (Fbuoyant + Wdry_bb) - (Fbuoyant + Wdry_vb) = Wdry_bb - Wdry_vb

[camelherder49]

Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.

[MarkE]

Doesn't matter. You still get a face full of volley ball in potential energy.

You do only because of all that water you have to lift in order to submerge the volley ball.  For equal volumes it's identically the water that you have to lift in order to submerge the bowling ball.  The bowling ball's extra weight  provides the extra assist.  Just mind the toes.

In Saugus California in 1928, and in Malpasset France 1958 entire dams failed because of buoyant lift from water that weeped under them.

[Grimer]

I see that Mark hasn't being doing so well with his hypocritical pretence of co-operation so Screwtape has sent his friend TK to assist him by sowing FUD.


For the benefit of those who actually want free lunches I'll go over things again.


The cycloid is the fastest path of descent - and ascent for that matter.
A cycloid pendulum has a string connection between the bob and the pivot. A string cannot take bending stress (3rd derivative energy).


A conventional pendulum has a connection between the bob and the pivot which can take bending stress.


Th bob of a conventional pendulum takes longer from apogee to nadir than the bob of a cycloid.


Why?


Pehaps T(al)K thinks it's Mary Yugo's freudian slip pink unicorns which are holding it back.


It isn't.


It's the EG energy put in by the bending action, the same moment/couple that leads to the breaking of a falling chimney which is week in bending.


So the circular path bob on a conventional shaft arrives at the nadir with more total energy than the cycloid. If this energy is transferred from conventional to cycloid then the cycloid will manifest this energy as an increase in gravitational potential.


It will finish at a apogee which is higher than the start apogee.


(Anyone not familiar with mary's pink unicorn can Google
"mary yugo" pink unicorn and find how fond she is of them).