Finally I think I got it !

[Gravitator]

Hi all,


I had quite a brainstorm (and headache) trying to figure this out. I also thought a lot
how much time (I think a lot) will it take to lift water using airpressure. And much much more...

During this brainstorm I got the following idea how to do the weight lifting without water.
Basic idea is still the same: lift weight up and then turn the whole thing upsidedown and lift up again.

BR,
Gravitator

[tbird]

hi truth,

nice bunch of figures.

do you think PhiScience really didn't check the contents of the cylinder to make sure he had filled it?  or that maybe he just told us a story without doing the test at all?

i think not.  if his test is valid, that would mean you have a flaw in your last post.  what could it be?

i don't see anywhere PhiScience states he pulled up 5lbs of water, just "it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely." 

do you remember what makes syphoning work?  and not work?  doesn't one side have to weight more than the other to have movement to its side?  if so, if the hose used is the same size everywhere, to make water syphon one side (after being draped over a higher point) would have to be longer to make the content weight more, right?  since the end would now be lower than the source end, couldn't you make water flow?

what if we replaced the lower 5lbs of water in the syphon tube, which let's say is 5' long, with a 6", 5lb weight that seals inside the tube, but could still move inside the tube freely?  let's say the top (where the hose makes the turn from up to down) was 5' off the ground and the source side hose is put in the source water so the end is deep enough to always have positive supply.  just so we know, source water level is 6" off the ground.  if we prime the hose so there is no air inside (just as when the syphon effect works), would the water transfer from source to the side of the weight?

i think the bottom line is your relationship of the 5lb weight and the weight of the water (in the tube) is wrong.  the fact that a 5lb weight is used is not relevant.  as long as the weight is heavier than the weight of the water in the tube, we'll have transfer.

won't we?

tom

[sm0ky2]

@grav,

[edit]

if you have 100kg, opening the piston, enough to draw up water and offset the balance of the double piston...

once it flips to the bottom, do you not then have to LIFT that 100kg, to close the piston, allowing for the re-fill to take place??

that "G Module" thing seems more pheasable.  as long as the total spooled wire weighs more than the weight that turns the spool.

have to figure out the turn-ratio, and torque needed, tension of the cable, ect.

also will have to be counter-weighted on one side, or "locked" slightly off the verticle so it will have a direction to turn, requiring no starting energy to flip it.

[spinner]

Hi, Gravitator!
You are very productive with your ideas!
However,  the latest g-thingy is just a mix of a lever(pulley) mechanics - dropping/raising weights (winding the heavy wire to the top drum)...
For a flipping action, the weight of the wound up heavy wire on the top should overcome the dropped weight + the bottom wire "leftovers"....
In order to do that, the weight must be heavier from the wound up wire at least for the transmission factor of pulleys(wire drum diameter/falling weight pulley diameter)...
It "works" until it ... "keels".

Just IMHO... The concept is simple, so if you want to be sure, just build it.
Cheers!

[TinselKoala]

For just one thing, how do you expect your little weight, on a small spool, to fall, turning a big spool enough to lift a bunch of cable to another spool?
Look at the distances and lever arms (spool radii) involved. It's impossible, as you have drawn it. If the cable weighs less than the falling weight, there's no benefit from moving it. If it weighs more than the falling weight, moving it all to the other spool is impossible because of the lever arms involved.

And that's just one thing wrong.