A machine to convert gravity to mechanical energy # 2

[TinselKoala]

TK
The falling tanks do not lift the rising tanks.

I stand corrected, sorry. Apparently you expect the rising tanks to be lifted by buoyancy.
But that's a minor point, really, compared to the others.

I see how you could believe this device could work, though. As I sit here thinking about it, I almost can convince myself that it would. I see that the tank's buoyancy might be varied by the method you describe. In the compression and expansion stages there will be frictional losses, and these losses will increase with speed and size and number of active elements.  But the main problem (other than the various sources of drag and friction) is that you just won't be able to achieve or maintain the overbalanced condition without external energy input, even through your clever buoyancy changing system. Why? Because you are dealing with conservative fields. Just as the potential energy of a mass depends only on its height, and not how it got there, so too, in a "buoyancy field" encountered by displacing water, the energy (work) available from floating a mass is never greater than that required to sink it in the first place.
Or vice versa.
Or something.

"Drag is based on the amount of liquid moved."
Not quite. Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity, and is proportional to the wetted area in contact with the water (hence your simplification of "amount of liquid moved.") While you do get some advantage from moving a long narrow shape thru the water (think racing shells) it isn't as great as you seem to think, and your tanks and the suspension arrangement aren't nearly as streamlined as they need to be to get any significant drag reduction from the configuration during descent. And don't the tanks make drag all the way around, not just on descent?

You might be able to simulate the behaviour of your device in the "phun" simulation, if you play around enough. I know of at least one gravity wheel that does go continuously in "phun".

@Mond: Thanks, and hang in there!

[allcanadian]

@TinselKoala

Why? Because you are dealing with conservative fields. Just as the potential energy of a mass depends only on its height, and not how it got there, so too, in a "buoyancy field" encountered by displacing water, the energy (work) available from floating a mass is never greater than that required to sink it in the first place.

I don't think you understand the principals involved,  Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a hollow tube full of air with a valve like the aperature of a camera on the bottom, this tube extends from just above the surface of the water to 30 feet under water. I take a 20lb torpedo shaped weight that will exert a boyant force of ten pounds under water---the weight is hollow and has air in the middle. I drop the weight in the tube and it freefalls in the tube full of air and accelerates downward, the tube wall is wide enough that air can move around the torpedo weight. It is easy to calculate the speed of the torpedo just before the aperature valve and a sensor detects the torpedo just before it reaches the valve. Next the valve opens presicely as the torpedo passes throught it with less than 0.01mm clearance between the torpedo and the aperature, the water below has mass thus momentum and cannot move instantly and the valve opens and closes in perfect harmony with the torpedo passing through so no water enters the tube. The impact of the torpedo against the water will also push some water downward and the torpedo floats to the surface performing work in some mechanism. In this case the velocity of the torpedo has displaced the water below--they are equal forces, but the boyant force which lifts the torpedo has no relation to the falling velocity, the inertia on impact nor the displacement of water. This is because the torpedo has moved through fluids of differing densities, water and air. The only reason this can work is because of the control function, that is intelligent control of the process through a boundary condition--water and air-----the valve makes it work . LOL, it's funny I could sit here all day and just make up new devices that violate your cherished "laws" and it is actually quite easy once you understand the mechanism as to how the laws are violated. However do not misunderstand what I am saying here, the conservation of energy applies in every case. But in this case the weight falling through air versus water has caused it to gain energy in the form of velocity, If it cannot "gain" energy then this device cannot work. As well I am not saying anyone should build this nor would it be economical to do so, I am saying it does what you say cannot be done. ------- and it took me all of 30 minutes to invent it
Regards
AC

[spinner]

@TinselKoalaI don't think you understand the principals involved...

Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a hollow tube full of air with a valve like the aperature of a camera on the bottom, this tube extends from just above the surface of the water to 30 feet under water. I take a 20lb torpedo shaped weight that will exert a boyant force of ten pounds under water---the weight is hollow and has air in the middle. I drop the weight in the tube and it freefalls in the tube full of air and accelerates downward, the tube wall is wide enough that air can move around the torpedo weight. It is easy to calculate the speed of the torpedo just before the aperature valve and a sensor detects the torpedo just before it reaches the valve. Next the valve opens presicely as the torpedo passes throught it with less than 0.01mm clearance between the torpedo and the aperature, the water below has mass thus momentum and cannot move instantly and the valve opens and closes in perfect harmony with the torpedo passing through so no water enters the tube. The impact of the torpedo against the water will also push some water downward and the torpedo floats to the surface performing work in some mechanism. In this case the velocity of the torpedo has displaced the water below--they are equal forces, but the boyant force which lifts the torpedo has no relation to the falling velocity, the inertia on impact nor the displacement of water. This is because the torpedo has moved through fluids of differing densities, water and air. The only reason this can work is because of the control function, that is intelligent control of the process through a boundary condition--water and air-----the valve makes it work .

LOL, it's funny I could sit here all day and just make up new devices that violate your cherished "laws" and it is actually quite easy once you understand the mechanism as to how the laws are violated. However do not misunderstand what I am saying here, the conservation of energy applies in every case. But in this case the weight falling through air versus water has caused it to gain energy in the form of velocity, If it cannot "gain" energy then this device cannot work. As well I am not saying anyone should build this nor would it be economical to do so, I am saying it does what you say cannot be done. ------- and it took me all of 30 minutes to invent it
Regards
AC

Great entertainment, thanks.
Cheers!

[jeffc]

@TinselKoalaI don't think you understand the principals involved,  Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a hollow tube full of air with a valve like the aperature of a camera on the bottom, this tube extends from just above the surface of the water to 30 feet under water. I take a 20lb torpedo shaped weight that will exert a boyant force of ten pounds under water---the weight is hollow and has air in the middle. I drop the weight in the tube and it freefalls in the tube full of air and accelerates downward, the tube wall is wide enough that air can move around the torpedo weight. It is easy to calculate the speed of the torpedo just before the aperature valve and a sensor detects the torpedo just before it reaches the valve. Next the valve opens presicely as the torpedo passes throught it with less than 0.01mm clearance between the torpedo and the aperature, the water below has mass thus momentum and cannot move instantly and the valve opens and closes in perfect harmony with the torpedo passing through so no water enters the tube. The impact of the torpedo against the water will also push some water downward and the torpedo floats to the surface performing work in some mechanism. In this case the velocity of the torpedo has displaced the water below--they are equal forces, but the boyant force which lifts the torpedo has no relation to the falling velocity, the inertia on impact nor the displacement of water. This is because the torpedo has moved through fluids of differing densities, water and air. The only reason this can work is because of the control function, that is intelligent control of the process through a boundary condition--water and air-----the valve makes it work . LOL, it's funny I could sit here all day and just make up new devices that violate your cherished "laws" and it is actually quite easy once you understand the mechanism as to how the laws are violated. However do not misunderstand what I am saying here, the conservation of energy applies in every case. But in this case the weight falling through air versus water has caused it to gain energy in the form of velocity, If it cannot "gain" energy then this device cannot work. As well I am not saying anyone should build this nor would it be economical to do so, I am saying it does what you say cannot be done. ------- and it took me all of 30 minutes to invent it
Regards
AC

I think if you add a valve at the top of the tube which seals airtight after the hollow weight has entered, then you could count on air pressure to prevent water from entering at the bottom, thus eliminating the need for such a fancy valve and tight tolerances at the bottom.  This might make a functional experiment more obtainable.  Although I'm still not sure as to the best configuration for the exit valve.  I tend to believe using multiple forces is a key to producing free energy, in this case gravity and buoyancy.

Regards,
jeffc

[TinselKoala]

You are wrong in your conjecture that I don't understand the principles involved. Nay, I submit that I understand them better than you do (and I can spell them, as well.)

I have no doubt that the device you describe would float--once. That is, given the functioning of your miraculous intelligent leakproof and instantly-acting valve.

But what, pray tell, resets the weight at the top of the tank, so the cycle can repeat, and a chain of these devices continue forever?

And, now that we've asked that fundamental question having to do with those pesky conservative fields and forces, what about that valve? You design it, I'll build it, and together we'll get richer than Croesus.