A machine to convert gravity to mechanical energy # 2

[brian334]

Simanek machine won’t work because.
1. All the water would leak out the hole in the bottom.
2. Even if some magic valve could be invented that would allow the ball to go thru it without all the water leaking out, the ball would need to be pushed into the column with a force sufficient to lift the entire column of water. Nothing is gained.

O.K. now you explain why me machine won’t work.
The momentum of the falling 65 lb weight is the force used to expand my submersed tank.

[TinselKoala]

Once again: When you expand your submerged tank, you are displacing water. This takes work. The deeper the column, the more work it takes. But the buoyant force on an expanded tank doesn't depend on depth, it's relatively constant. But the deeper you go the greater the water pressure you must overcome to expand your tanks. Your chain of tanks won't accelerate, for the reasons Mondrasek has tried to explain to you. Your idea about using the momentum of the falling tanks to expand the submerged tanks won't work, because there isn't any acceleration and the force (not momentum) needed to expand the tanks is too great. In addition, the cable and pulley system adds drag and doesn't give you the mechanical advantage you would need.

Your device fails at every stage.

But by all means, go and build it and see for yourself.

After all, it's simple enough.

(But I really don't see how your invention is in any significant way different from the below "junk" invention that is thoroughly analyzed on Simanek's site.)

[brian334]

The velocity of the tanks being feed into the top of the continuous column is the same as the velocity of tanks falling in the continuous column.

A tank is feed into the top of the continuous column, the tank is than attached to the continuous column. The continuous column is heavier than the liquid it displaces and will sink. As the continuous column sinks it will accelerate do to the force of gravity, how can it not accelerate? As the tanks in the continuous column accelerate the 65 lb weight in the tank builds momentum. How could the 65 lb in the tank not build momentum as it accelerates?

As to the loss of energy because of friction I don’t see it as a issue. If the tanks double in volume at the bottom relatively small loses from friction won’t matter.

[TinselKoala]

You're making that same mistake about acceleration again.
The first sentence, about the velocity of the tanks being fed in is the same as the velocity of tanks falling--
is incompatible with the tanks accelerating on the way down. If they are attached to a belt and maintain the same distance apart, that is.
Oh, perhaps you mean that the whole belt accelerates, as in goes around faster and faster. Nope, not with the expansion and contraction mechanisms trying to operate, it won't.

Have you ever heard of "terminal velocity?" Even in air, things don't accelerate without limit. Your tanks will have a quite low terminal velocity in the water, and the whole assembly won't go faster than that. No, the tanks won't clear a path for one another, unless they are very close together. Then you have problems with flipping and articulation. They can't be that much heavier than the water anyway, if the expansion at the bottom is to make them float up--you don't have the luxury of excess mass, that's for sure. Anything that doesn't contribute to the volume change is a drag on the system.

When you somehow extract the momentum from the moving weight to expand the deeply submerged tank against the water pressure (about 15 psi per every 33 feet of depth), that momentum will be gone from the motion of the belt. Where do you think it goes, since momentum is conserved? It goes into displacing the water and moving it around. There is no mechanism for momentum gain in your system.

You seem to think that the tanks can be expanded instantaneously and at a single location. But even if the rest of your mechanism worked as you think, it still takes time to expand and compress the tanks. If the belt is moving along while this is happening, there goes your presumed overbalanced situation. Now you have no overbalance from the buoyancy, a slow starting belt motion, and massive losses from friction and operating the pulley system.

You are relying on water pressure to re-collapse the tank at the top of its travel. How do you think that can possibly happen, if the water pressure at the bottom of the travel is small enough for your 64-pound weight to push against it successfully? The pulley system doesn't give you the advantage you need, because compound pulleys trade off distance for force.

Your system simply has too many losses, and no way for momentum gain.

But you don't have to believe me. I encourage you to get up, get out of your armchair, or if you're in a wheelchair, send somebody else out, and build a model yourself. Get your hands dirty. Maybe the experience will teach you something.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Have you ever actually built anything? If you have built some models that work, or demonstrate a principle, let's see them. Please.

[brian334]

Three things I learned about posting here.
1. Don’t post whilst drunk.
2. It’s no fun to post hear unless you are drunk.
3. Either way it does not matter.