Simple and powerful principle

[perpetual]

As you wish, more spamming based on nonunderstanding, and he runs away refusing to admit he is wrong, like a 5yo.

The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom

But the energy inputs are equal.

Oops

Nix

[Willy]

At the point in time (above) of which you are referring to. You may have had the tube idea in mind,
but you definitely had not presented nor described "that" tube / design variation, into our discussion.

The first reference by you, NIX to me, Will,y of a tube. is here @

https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/dlattach/attach/190511/

Previous to that point I at one point, used the word tube instead of the word tank but
you Nix, had not.

Other wise Nix, you had not as yet discussed this other / new tube. The word "tube" was only ever in use in reference to the tank. 

As I said, you had not introduced nor described nor explained your modified design, as having a  new tube (one which was not previously in the design).

Until

You present a photo as

during your reply as

« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »

You just witnessed a miracle, history in the making, and in a way, you were a part of it.
And you still deny it, ccc. And with what kind of silliness. What you wrote is totally ridiculous.

Do you have a slightest idea the amount of work a negative 10kg weight free falling up and
then 10kg weight free falling down does even from far far lesser height, let alone the imagined 1000km.

And how incomparably tiny is the energy needed to momentarily push that float into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is underwater as much as float is thick, say 20cm. Input is nothing.

It is ridiculous to even compare the tiny, momentary input with the long long and heavy work
it does falling up and falling down, gain is in thousands and thousands of times, in a tube so long
it would surely be in MILLIONS of times.

and again here @

« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »

Quote
It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.

But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.

Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.

Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.

So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.

Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.

Easy-peasy indeed!
The end of that quote

These statements by you, were made before your photo of "the" tube and before any other
references  to a tube, by you, other than in the context of  and reference to the outer most tank.

I myself made a similar error, when I made several statements without having first
qualified them in a context as being applicable, only when the float is assigned a 100 % buoyancy.  However you never corrected me in that error.

[perpetual]

Lol, what. You are making a fool out of yourself.

I have been using the term tube since page two....

Tube with two valves as i depcited it is the simplest and best design.

Also, i presented the new tube idea here.

https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576431/#msg576431

And tube was never a reference to the outer tank, lol, what bs are you writing. Tube always meant the tube, clearly and obviously.

You are a liar on multiple accounts. There are no errors on my side. You are trying to distract with bs from the errors you made you still refuse to admit.

The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom

But the energy inputs are equal.

You claimed pressure at the bottom of the tube rises with height of the tube.

And that energy input/output is the same.

I already corrected you on these and others like the claim that water would boil in the tube.

Key errors you made are the first two.

Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube, it is one atmosphere regardless of the height.

And energy due to float falling up to the top and then sinking down is not the same but orders of magnitude larger than input energy.

These are the key errors you made, admit them.

Nix

[nix85]

I have been thinking about this principle again and revisiting my old idea of making the tube rise above the cylinder, possible solution to air released at the top. When we consider A Vacuum Suspended Fish Tank like this

https://youtu.be/6RnorkCkEqI?t=63

Obviously, if he opened the tube, water in the cylinder would immediately drop because partial vacuum is broken and atmospheric pressure is equalized from above and below.

But if that tube extended all the way up into space into vacuum then water would not fall down despite the fact tube is open for there would be no way to equalize the pressure.

Now, question is what is the minimum height of the tube at which water inside the cylinder would not drop.

If that height is, say just few meters above the top of the cylinder, then once the float floats up to the top (doing useful work) is opened on one side so water can enter and other side is connected and opened to the tube, if air pressure in the tube is less than pressure at the top of the tank, then air at 1 atmosphere trapped inside the float should discharge into the area of lower pressure and at the same time water should easily fill the float. When float fills up, vents are closed and float now has weight of 10kg (compared to -10kg it had on the way up) and does useful work once again as it falls to the bottom.

And once on the bottom everything is at 1 atmosphere again and so it's easy to pump in the air again or simply take the float out and spill the water from it and repeat the process.