.....................................................
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.[/b]

Fetcher, lets not loose sight of the core issue.

The main  issue:  Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!
(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight)

ONLY 2 questions need to be answered. 
1..  Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement?  (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example)
1..  Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example  ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)

< Fletcher #1 > -  Michel you seem to be fixated on Archimedes buoyancy of an open system as the only means of producing upthrust - as I've taken pains to point numerously that Archimedes volume displacement buoyancy where the fluid medium density remains uniform is certainly one kind of buoyancy & the best known –
<Michel r1> - The example you presented has no relationship with buoyancy, it is a hydraulics example. The sole difference between buoyancy and hydraulics is the water column to create a differential.
 
  **   A refresher (I am sure, you do not need it, but in order the clarify my position angle)
In hydraulics as in your example, the feedback mechanism from the fluid is different than in buoyancy, hydraulics is a closed system where no head is created. The fluid DOES NOT give way, and therefore creates automatic back pressure no matter how much weight is loaded on the piston. The pressure in the fluid increases to equal the pressure imposed by the increasing weight.

Buoyancy on the other hand is a self regulating mechanism, when increasing the weight of a float, the sinking deeper process will increase the head that in turn will increase the differential pressure.  What you forget and leave out of your equation is that water level in the container has also increased as we increased the float weight (that is done by the displacement water that will match the water weight equal to the added weight in the float).

< Fletcher #2 > - Archimedes isn't the only type of buoyancy/upthrust - the upward force experienced on an object in the final analysis is due to [e.g. using a cube or cylinder analogy] the pressure differential above & below that object, however the pressure differential was created – for example types of pseudo buoyancy are hovercraft [where pressure beneath is higher than above], pucks on air tables [same reason as previous], - these forms of "buoyancy equivalent" don't rely on equal mass & volume displacement but require an input of energy to create that pressure differential
<Michel r2> - To avoid introducing confusion with air- and hover crafts, lets keep it simple and stick to your water beam fluid example and the other simple pictures we shared that clearly addresses the balance issue (with scales).

< Fletcher #3 > - in my case I am using gravity force to create its own underside pressure increase in an enclosed non compressible fluid system.
<Michel r3> - Understood, using weight to pressurize a enclosed fluid

< Fletcher #4 > - If you use simulation software for example you can create buoyancy force in either of two ways - in an open system calculate the fluid displacement & if you know its density you can make a direct comparison to the weight of fluid displaced etc - that's the simple way & the most common –
<Michel r4> - Agree,  but regardless of simulation software, it pays to understand the underlying buoyancy mechanics and that hydraulics is only a subset.

< Fletcher #5 > - the other is to calculate from fluid pressure levels - since we know the density of the fluid, for example water, we know that 10 meter head has 14.7 PSI so we can calculate the pressure & vector force on a surface area at any depth in the fluid - the net [assuming we zero out 1 atmospheric pressure starting point] when we convert to a vector force gives us the same buoyancy/upthrust force as volume displacement method - this means that anytime we know the pressure increase we can calculate the upthrust of an immersed object or in this case an object unable to penetrate the fluid but still having created an increase in fluid pressure by virtue of applying its own weight force to that enclosed fluid.
<Michel r5> - Agree, the main difference between buoyancy and hydraulics to me is that the weight on the hydraulic piston creates a pressure due to gravity.  This pressure is counter acted by a counter pressure from a different source,  not from a buoyancy force, defined as the pressure from a water column height.

< Fletcher #6 > - See my above post to minnie [John] - the pantograph demonstrates parallelogram of forces which every text book on leverage & forces shows - the top pivot in my diagram is fixed to the rigid upright & the bottom pivot has the ability to slide up & down but not laterally, as I have shown - equally the bottom pivot could be anchored & the top have the ability to slide vertically but then there would be a tendency for the pantograph arms to move outwards rather than inwards - since the fluid volume & density for all intents & purposes doesn't change however, this is arbitrary - this is a concept & not presented as a final & most efficient engineering solution.
P.S. you will note that the diagram above is symmetrical around the vertical y axis [except for the mass weight] instead of back to back structures symmetrical about the x axis as before.
<Michel r6> - The truss beams will adjust the balance of forces, but this balance movement will take place by the movement of fluid and position of the pistons. The volume quantity might be small but it is proportional, and it will move.

Conclussion:
Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.
But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bent the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.
Do you agree or feel different?

 

Fletcher, let’s not loose sight of the core issue.
 
 The main  issue:  Can the balance of a water beam be changed by applying a pressure or creating a pressure differential in the water beam but without fluid movement by using a weighted hydraulic piston on either side!?

I believe so & although it might be counter-intuitive & even unpalatable, that it is also self evident  – it all comes down to Pascal’s Principle & isotropic fluids - whilst pressure is scalar forces are not, therefore a weight force creates a rise in pressure which is felt as a force normal to all container internal surfaces.

(I call it hydraulic because there is no water column to proportional counteract the pressure created by the weight).

Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the science of fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the science of fluids in motion is fluid dynamics.

You may call it hydraulics if you prefer but to me that indicates fluid movement in the form of the principle of the hydraulic lever used to do Work – hydraulic leverage shows no ability to break the law of levers as it is volume movement dependent – as in the case of Pascal’s  hydraulic jack force can be multiplied but Work In & Out cannot – my device does not do work per se as no real fluid movement occurs – i.e. no work is done, the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle does not hold in this special case – e.g. as for a book resting on a table the table does no Work in the Physics sense – stack books & the table still does no Work.
 

ONLY 2 questions need to be answered.

 1..  Can weight absorption take place without fluid movement?  (if you say yes, pls prove it in a simplified example).




I won’t be providing a weight absorption example any time soon as that’s a misnomer  - what you are proposing is that an example should be seen in nature as we all model from nature & follow her example – what I am saying is that there is no natural occurring example, this is purely a man made artificial construct, an evolution of natures fundamental principles.

The mass is not absorbed, it is still located where it is – the weight force is redirected thru the use of parallelogram of forces [or you can use pulleys for example] to cause equilibrium of forces or force symmetry i.e. torque nullification or neutralizing – effectively what I loosely coined Virtual Displacement of Mass – what is consistent with known physics is that pressure is a form of energy density so an increase in pressure sees a rise in energy density per volume – since fluid dynamics is based on Bernoulli equations which was predicated on Conservation of Energy then fluid energy = P + Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy – since the fluids are not moving [at the local reference frame] then by deduction there is an increase in energy density from pressure alone [however that pressure increase occurred] – this increase in energy state must be accounted for in an energy budget if this line is taken – it is an easy target to look to the gravity field as the source of that energy gain & see gravity as a flow of energy but that might be an erroneous conclusion IMO – what would be shown is that the masses have not changed nor altered position so the true system CoM has not changed – the CoG has also not changed for the same reason that there has been no physical displacement of mass, & acceleration 'g' is still the same acting on all mass – the system forces have however been redirected so that a Center of Force Equilibrium has been established that is not coincident with the CoM/CoG Center of Rotation.

Quote from: Michel

1..  Do we agree that your example presented is a hydraulic example  ? (if you disagree, pls define you view on hydraulic vs buoyancy)

Wikipedia: Fluid statics (also called hydrostatics) is the science of fluids at rest, and is a sub-field within fluid mechanics. The term usually refers to the mathematical treatment of the subject. It embraces the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium. The use of fluid to do work is called hydraulics, and the science of fluids in motion is fluid dynamics.

Archimedes Principle – when a body is immersed in a fluid it experiences an upthrust, or apparent loss of weight, equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the body – this important principle is only an extension of the idea of the increase in the pressure of a fluid with depth, which means that there is a greater pressure pushing up on the body from underneath than there is pushing down on it from on top.

In physics, buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid, that opposes the weight of an [immersed] object.

The qualification of the above statement with the word ‘immersed ‘ is IMO a restrictive covenant to specifically describe Archimedes principle & the Law of Floatation [for both, objects must be immersed partially or wholly] – the important principle is that an upthrust force is experienced on an object who applies its weight force to an enclosed non-compressible fluid – if it could not apply its weight force then there would be no compensatory increase in fluid pressure & upthrust force equilibrium normal to the objects surface & applied weight force.

Since no Work is done, yet it is an example of Pascal’s Principle, it is not a Hydraulic example in the true physics definition sense – since there are other examples of pseudo buoyancy effects that do not include volume displacement but do invoke pressure differentials then it is legitimate to call the piston buoyed by the underneath fluid pressure providing an upthrust, IMO, because it certainly does no matter how you paint it.
 
 
 

Quote from: Michel

Conclussion:

 Fletcher, I have no problem if you base your logic on a hunch that you feel can possibility be true. Only a practical test will then prove that and that is how often new discoveries are made. No problem.

 But as part of a logical reasoning process, we need to be objective and it would be an injustice to bend the logic to suit the objective. If we do , we need to be clear where and why we bent the logic.

 Do you agree or feel different?

 
See above - these are my opinions - bolding mine.

Thanks for the thoughts Michel.

 I am well aware of how buoyancy manifests & have used your exact same explanations for a very long time - it describes well Archimedes buoyancy principle & floatation law - you may call my balancing device hydraulics if you like to think about it that way - it disagrees with me because no fluid is moved about like a hydraulic lever acts [Work In = Work Out] - the masses weight force creates pressure in the contained non-compressible fluid - a pressure increase also gives rise to a temperature increase & also an energy density increase in the fluid, but no Work is done - this device is self adjusting & finds equilibrium or symmetry of forces to a Center of Torques [CoT] thru pressure & surface area relationships of masses & pistons interfaces as per the diagrams.
 
 I realise it is hard to suspend beliefs but I simply ask that you follow the science - & on that note upthrust force [buoyancy] is due to first principles of pressure differentials - Archimedes buoyancy is a sub-set of that first principle.
 
 ...............................
 
 Thanks everyone for trying to understand the principle of a new type of balance device I am proposing - if it is a correct principle it not only makes an Intrinsic Motion Machine a real possibility but also has implications for inertial dampening technology & would have a huge impact on the engineering & design community.
 
 Please take a look at the following pics before deciding on an experiment IMO if you are motivated to do so.
 
 ...............................
 
 Webby1 .. I know you had concerns about torque in the pantogram apparatus so I have rebuilt the pantograph to include sliding pivots [no fixed pivot] with the use of a 'T' in the system - it actually makes no difference to the ordinary pantograph design IMO.
 
 ...............................
 
 It seems my explanations were harder to understand than I imagined - therefore I include some pics below to ease that burden.
 
 First is a swimming pool fill of water - a cubic meter [full of water] is suspended in the pool [the cube walls having the same density as the water at 1000 kg/m^3] - it has neutral buoyancy with a tendency at any depth to neither rise nor sink - that is because the upthrust force equals the downthrust force, they are in equilibrium - because liquid pressure is linear with depth it will be neutrally buoyant at any depth - its upthrust force is due to the pressure differential above & below the cube which can be numerically supported easily by a little math.
 
 The next 3 pics show hanging devices using a water trough with modified pantograph - in each case they are balanced due Archimedes principle - one float mass is balanced as is two identical float masses with same piston water interface areas - the second dual example however uses a lesser float mass on the rhs & smaller piston surface area.
 
 N.B.1. there is a direct relationship between opposing masses & surface areas in contact with the fluid - if one side halves the mass it must also halve the surface area of the piston etc - if it is a 10th the mass it must reduce piston area to a 10th so that forces each side of the fulcrum are in equilibrium to give overall device balance.
 
 N.B.2. the key is that although both float masses weigh different amounts at half the density of the fluid for example they will sink to the same level & have the same pressure beneath the float i.e. different upthrust forces but same pressure, which gives system force equilibrium & device balance.
 
 The last pic is where I have done away with the water trough & transitioned to a containment vessel, with pistons - as before the piston areas in contact with the fluid are proportional to the masses so that the pressure at the piston interface is the same but the upthrust forces are not - we still have equilibrium of forces about the fulcrum & system balance.
 
 N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].
 
 N.B.2. if the device were turned upside down the forces would no longer be in equilibrium & there would be torque CW in this example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ

Dansie: I was down there, there's a project which we've been following for nearly eighteen months now, it was a buoyancy-gravty device- ah.. Wayne Travis, and ah.. It was something I had found that I wasn't sure either way, ah whether they could achieve what they are claiming, and that is a mechanical device, if you like, that could self-run and produce excess energy. And as you know in the history of Mankind, nobody's ever achieved that.  I saw enough evidence for me to be convinced that (shrug) yeah, it's worthwhile having a go at it. But it's dragged on a bit, but I have been impressed and encouraged by two things. It's TOTALLY (emphasis Dansie's) evolved into something else, there's no big tanks and all that now, it's nearly solid state, it's still moves but it's very simple, can (or can't? unsure here) be flat-packed, and they are very close.. to the point ...  where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run. Ah .. (Hendershot cuts him off for a commercial break....)

after break:
Dansie: The Wayne Travis buoyancy device...

(Hendershot asks, laughing,  "What's goin on in Oklahoma")

Dansie: Well... I'm still encouraged by what I've seen...ah However (emphasis) it's got down to the point now with the second device that... it's interesting he's got some very clever engineers and people, people flown from Greece and Switzerland and Canada to come and lend a hand, he's got some clever engineers, they've all predicted it will, ah, self-run and produce excess energy, but as you know the final proof (coughs) for me to see it self-run and produce excess energy. So they are very close for the latest prototype to be able to demonstrate that and that will bring it to conclusion one way or the other; I'm very encouraged, I still rank it highly, ah they are a very great group, a very honest group, ah However (emphasis) ah you know (come on? unclear) well half the scientists and engineers saying "hey this could really work", Half the scientists and engineers I know saying "pixie dust, this is a lot of BS" So, but they've done a great job, I can see why it had to evolve, I can see huge improvements where from manufacturing and logistics point, you could flat-pack this like an Ikea system, they've got a third one in the wings that would be the one you'd throw in the basement...But I expect within the next two months that this will be brought to a conclusion. I am speaking positively of it yet but I have NOT signed off on it. So that's about as far as I can take it at this stage.

Errr, um ...... solid state, can be flatpacked, but has NOT been shown to produce excess energy OR self run..... and what happened to the other devices we have been assured DO self run? They  must have had to do a lot of work to hide them all in preparation for Dansie's visit... what, nine different ones? ... so that Dansie couldn't see them self-running.

Sorry, Red ... you mentioned Mister Wayne, and it is as though you weren't aware that he has evolved beyond big tanks and can create a _flat-packable_ buoyancy device that is "solid state"....

 


(Is Mister Wayne reading from Steorn's script, or what? )

Hi
  I suppose it had to start, Fletcher's thread now polluted with stupid arguments. Let's settle something, if it's a gravity machine,
even a few watts, will be a hefty thing, tons, and you won't get it in a shopping trolley. Has anyone tried my little experiment
with a nut on a piece of string, swing it vertically and see how many rpm you can do before you're beating gravity, not many.
As power is the rate of doing work you need 1000's rpm for a small machine.
  I've been working on Fletcher's ideas and his little balance mechanism seems to work, but, there is an issue with torque in
the vertical member. I'm making a little set-up where I hope to be able to get round this, there always has to be a snag, it
looks as if it may be balanced all the time, time will tell.
   Part of our operation is involved in industrial pipelines, we can handle up to 1.5 metre stuff and there's loads of valves, fittings,
test equipment so I could have a go at something- if I can get a viable plan drawn up.
  The weather in this country has been stupid, I've been on the farm for 50 yrs. and 2011 was the driest year I've seen and 2012
has been the wettest.
                                  John.

Hi Fletcher,

I can see why we have some misunderstanding towards your idea and Wayne’s invention in the past. The delta appears in the understanding of buoyancy as laid out by Archimedes ( the prime theory that encompasses all and how these characteristics relates to each other). From this flows forth all other related systems that use a subset of Archimedes buoyancy.  Our discrepancy lies in the communication, in the way we understand these principles and the terminology that categorize these related systems. Then comes Pascal as a add-on.

Pascal defines the pressure as an integral aspect of everything that is submerged into a liquid or gas. In the end there is a separation related to submersion (full or partial or not at all), the only difference to other categorization of related systems is how this pressure differential comes about and is achieved and manipulated, submersion level is a big influence factor in this.

<fletcher2>  N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].

<Michel2>  Here you abandoned buoyancy and forfeited its benefits and this is the pivot of our argument. Here you changed the relationship between pressure and gravitational mass.   By moving from “partial submersion” to “no submersion”,  as from a “free floating buoyancy mass” to and “hydraulic piston mass”, a totally different situation. 

In this process you were able to maintain the same upward pressures but gave up the gravity weight balance in the beam, meaning the integration (absorption) of “piston + weights + fluid” to be seen as one homogeneous gravitational mass as shown in device-2.

Regards, Michel

My apologies, I've been offline with a 2 day internet outage.

Before I answer your second lot of questions I want to say again that Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of forces - I may be labouring the point but you will soon see why - the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.

On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me, but to do that they would have to understand the arguments first - I was not & am not after opinions so much [anyone can give those with little of no thought] but analytical deductions & facts to challenge & support an opinion.

I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.

For those considering further experiments I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.

General:
 
 Inertia is constant regardless of the environment.
 
 Gravitational Force 'g' is variable depending on the local gravity field acceleration.
 
 Force = Mass x Acceleration
 
 The System Balancing Problem, when not using Archimedes uniform density floatation:
 
 Unequal piston masses apply their Weight Force downwards equidistant from the fulcrum.
 
 The down Pressure exerted on the lever internally contained fluid by the masses is equal for both but the Weight Forces are not the same - the fluid at the piston interface exerts an equal up pressure so that the downthrust & upthrust forces at each piston interface are in equilibrium but both piston & fluid forces are not equal with each other.
 
 The system is NOT in Total Force Equilibrium because the masses have an ability to move tangentially - this means that when looking at the EXCEPTIONS case [as all else is equalized] there is a NET upthrust force, from the internal fluid acting upwards on the RHS of the fluid filled lever, of 10N i.e. 1 kgf.
 
 Until this excess force can be mitigated the system as a whole will be Unbalanced with a RHS NET CCW torque of 10N at the appropriate arm distance - the CCW torque is due to Force Imbalance of excess upthrust on the RHS due to fluids being Isotropic & Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [force], & not due to excess downthrust on the LHS.
 
 If the lever were a solid then it would experience CCW torque also, as solids do support a shearing stress, so there would be excess downthrust on the LHS.

...............................................................
 Notes:
  Follow the logic carefully.
  Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.
  The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.
  -fletcher 

Hi Fletcher,
I am going to leave you at this,  I have looked carefully at your proposal and have provided my comments.  I do not see a road forward that will be fruitful nor beneficial.
It is clear that you do not address specific questions and change the design from post to post and do not consider a full cycle as a requirement. 
Your simulator most likely will tell your what happens when the LHS arrives and 6:00 or 3:00 O'clock and what will happen when these forces you are discussing change from static to dynamic and 'need to'  or 'can' exert a force by a certain distance, and against what base reference these forces act.

The following statements surprise me,
 3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever - this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.
 4. we want to mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever.
 5. to do this we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.

**   The piston upthrust created by the fluid is a direct result from the pressure created by the total piston weight (RHS+LHS) distributed over the total piston surface presented to the fluid. The LHS will have a greater upthrust because it presents a greater surfaces area to the fluid. If the pistons are made out of the same material and height, they will position themselves the same. If there weight/SqInch is different, then they will position themselves also differently into the fluid as a equilibrium position between LHS & RHS, at this initial point water displacement will take place and for the heavier piston (weight/SqInch) a supplemented buoyancy situation occurred and a head is created under need the lighter piston to supplement the pressure of the heavier piston. The lighter piston is not suspended by buoyancy but by hydraulic pressure created by the contained fluid.
So to support pistons of different weight/SqInch, buoyancy will alter the fluid level in order to alter the pressure and the pressure per SqInch would no longer the same under each piston. Although this is not what you are claiming although there could be something in it.

Your solution is,
 6. the 'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.
 
    **  I am sorry but I do not get how the paradox is going to solve your issue.

 7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface - the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces. 

    **  The solid displacer is the same than a water filled container, it would be in suspension, with no up or down force because of the same density as the fluid. All force vectors are neutralized to zero. 
•   Pls explain how it will cause a down thrust force on he LHS ? 
•   And how this force would be equal to the RHS upthrust ? 
•   And how this force would be opposite e.g. sinking ?

You are forcing me to make leaps of assumptions, or you are presenting great leaps of assumptions, it doesn't matter because,
If this water beam is to rotate somewhat, the bottom is not going to be the bottom for long. Can you give an inkling of how you see this shift to be handled?

Regards, Michel