Finally I think I got it !

[rlortie]

This gets confusing as one moment you are comparing mass displacement by volume and on the other displacement  volume by weight.

There is an old question of logic;  A barge full of rocks is in a navigation lock, both end gates are sealed. The barge is displacing water by weight.  For some unknown reason the barge tips over and all the rocks fall to the bottom of the lock. The barge rights itself, it is empty and floating higher in the water. The water level has dropped as the rocks are setting on the bottom, they are now displaced by volume.

I do not condone this debate nor overlook the possibilities, so I have suggestion to make;

The piston is hollow and contains two valves not unlike the cylinder. It fills first adding weight and falls sucking water into the cylinder. After the cylinder cycles its dump action the piston also drains. Now the pistons displacement is buoyant and will float.

This is only a suggestion to work on! no claims by me is stated, one reason is you will have to contend with a vacuum problem draining the piston. Of course few seem to realize you already have this problem dumping  the cylinder.

As a person trained in the field of mechanical engineering, I must agree with Hans analysis. Engineers are taught to think in straight lines. My training is to look for the in obvious.   

Ralph

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

It has always been an enigma to me that in this subculture the people who design devices that rely on hydrostatic and hydraulic phenomena have no understanding of either.

Even the most casual study of these subjects would reveal why devices of this sort cannot work.

Normally the fundamentals of the subject are taught in the second or third year of high school depending on which country you come from. We are not talking rocket science here but fundamental physics. This area of physics is very well understood and has been rigorously tested by science for over 2000 years!  (No, I am not joking, how else do you think the Romans, Greeks, not to mention the Babylonians have managed to get water to places where it does not naturally go.)

You cannot overturn the laws of nature with idiotic postulates.

Study the subject - then design your machines if you must.

Hans von Lieven

[sevich]

 author=hansvonlieven link=topic=6660.msg157994#msg157994 date=1234831796]
G'day all,

People who design devices that rely on hydrostatic and hydraulic phenomena have no understanding of either.

Maybe the first invented hydraulic device was made by a person with no understanding 

Even the most casual study of these subjects would reveal why devices of this sort cannot work.

Forgive my ignorance, but some may not be as educated as Han's 

Normally the fundamentals of the subject are taught in the second or third year of high school depending on which country you come from.

again, not all people have been taught "fundamentals" of the subject 

We are not talking rocket science here but fundamental physics.

This is a forum!!!  .... Not a prestigious University of the type you might of attended 

This area of physics is very well understood and has been rigorously tested by science for over 2000 years! 

Ok.....so where do you want to go with this 

You cannot overturn the laws of nature with idiotic postulates.

The most silliest ideas can be a source for furthering new ideas!

Study the subject - then design your machines if you must.

How abrupt !

Hans von Lieven

[hansvonlieven]

sevich, your ignorance is showing.

Hans von Lieven

[wizkycho]

hi wiz,

i'm sorry to say, i think you owe hans an apology.  i agree he is not very specific, but has given enough (if researched) to find the answer.

his comment was basically you can't float the piston.  my come back was to increase the volume of the weight enough to displace more weight (water here) than the weight used to pump the water.   this would be well and fine except that the amount of increase for the given area of the piston/disk would require all of the space given for the stroke, not just some.

this brings us to his statement about  hydraulics.  this has to be applied because of the syphon effect.  liquids being what they are, must follow certain rules (not always what we want or think they should be).  i think where we get thrown off is in the beginning when we hear 100 lbs or 100 kg.  THAT's a lot of weight!!!  but really what we have to look at is how much is applied to each square unit (inch, cm, mm, ect.)  i use U.S. measurements so i would say pounds per sq.in. (psi).  so if we have 100 pounds spread over 100 sq.in. (that's 10 inches by 10 inches), this would equal 1 psi.  now we have to figure how much does the water weight in the supply tube (column) and then how much is that per sq.in .  let's say it is 1" x 1" (make it easy).  from the reseach we find that 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs.  so how many cubic inches can we stack up before we get to 1 lb (100lbs hanging from 10" x10" disk = 1 lb psi)?  well 1 / .036127 = 27.68 inches.  so now we know the "head pressure of a 1 inch square pipe 27.68 inches high, 1 lb psi.  EDIT:  that's as high as we can go with 100 lbs applied to a 10" x 10" disk sealed in a 10" x 10" cylinder.

this is starting to look like a problem.  not much travel.  in this we have to have the weight and volume to displace 100lbs and still have room to move water (stroke).  let's see, how much volume (displacement) does 100lbs require to float?  since we know 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs, we can say 100 lbs will require 2768 cubic inches.  since we already have a given surface area for the disk, 100 square inches, all we need now is the height.  so, 2768 / 100 sq.in. = 27.68 inches high.  that sounds just the length of our supply tube, which will leave NO room for a stroke.  NO STROKE, NO MACHINE!

there is always a possibility i made a mistake, but i don't think so.  if you see one please respond with propper reference (as you have asked hans to do).

btw, Gravitator's machine doesn't work either as drawn, but for a different reason (which he knows about).

i'm not trying to be a wise guy, but right is right.  thanks for your help hans.

tom

You are again wrong by saying that there is no such body that floats on water and drops in air - this is the only condition to be met for InfinityPump to work. such body exists.

every boat is such body. Oil tanker floats on water its weight is almost zero - but in air oil tanker weights thousend of tons and drops down. In my setup tanker is filled with stirfoam

and still has same properties. Oil Tanker IS Lighter than water (lower density) - boyancy (Force UP)...Oil tanker IS heavier then air - droping to center of gravity (Force DOWN)

.If buld properly those forces will prevail. It is simple as that and if Hans and Tom you just after all this can not see it then You are ignorant people that never saw a boat float.

Guys don't listen to Hans and Tom they are pompously blinded by rules of phisics they do not understand. They are confused with weight and mass and of course jelous of our super simple

IninityPump...they still can not comprehend. They even deny that boat can float on water but doesn't in air - they are lost in simplicity, or just having a bad day.

I allways tought that boyancy could be simple answer to counter gravity force...but it wasn't enough i just needed this Suction action form gravity proposed by Gravitron.

Thanks again Gravitron...Thanks to You now We have Overunity InfinityPump that really works everywhere where gravity exists.


Wiz - Overunity InfinityPump works