Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 716124 times)

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #705 on: January 30, 2014, 08:28:26 AM »

What property do you think materializes buoyancy in FORCE  equivalent to displace volume ?


The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object.  The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.

If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.

The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

 

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #706 on: January 30, 2014, 08:42:48 AM »



 Hello Sunset,
                  One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
                           John.
 ETA.  Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #707 on: January 30, 2014, 09:07:11 AM »
The buoyancy force arises out of the difference in force between the top and bottom of the submerged object.  The top experiences a force equivalent to the weight of the column of fluid above it. The same is true for the bottom surface. The difference between the two equates to the weight of a column of fluid that is the vertical height of the object between the top and bottom surfaces.

If you integrate those forces with over any enclosed volume you can show that the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid of the volume displaced. Any standard fluids text book will give you a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the above so I won't do that here.

The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

EnergiaLibre,
You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick.  Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.

All you said is correct and matches which I stated in a previous post of mine, you are not saying anything new.
What point are you trying to make ?

Quote
MARKE,   that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.  But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure.   It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter).

The Travis set of inverted cooking pot's terminate to the standard atmospheric environment (a hydro system),   So like the ship example in my previous post, no pressure above, only pressure below to provide the LIFT FORCE, we call buoyancy. 

Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced.  A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water.  Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.

But the importance lies in a slightly different viewing angle,
Lets assume we build a dry dock molded exactly to the hull shape of the USS Saratoga. We pour 1 bucket of water in it and some big cranes put the USS Saratoga in this dock, it will float. 

What is the lesson here, We can displace a 1,000,000 Tons ++ of weight  from standing to floating with just the volume of one bucket full of water,   We do not have to displace the volume 1,000,000 Tons++ of water to do it

This reduces the pumping cost and time.

An other example,
You might have seen a large smooth granite ball floating on a film of water.   The stone ball can easily moved by hand. The water pressure of the water film area matches obviously the weight of the ball.
Water volume displacement does not come DIRECT into the picture,  although it does so indirectly because it is a side effect not the primary effect.  Pressure can be directly equated to water column height

Over to you,  Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #708 on: January 30, 2014, 09:11:13 AM »
Hello Sunset,
                  One thing that has emerged is that I now know the meaning of "travesty"!
                           John.
 ETA.  Fletcher knows a thing or two, he's obviously researched Travis quite thoroughly.

John,
I do not doubt that Fletcher is very knowledgeable,  and is clever enough to save time by posting some wikipedia links to standard physics references to try to get everybody on the same level
But I do not see how does that changes your position regarding your previous post

Red_Sunset


Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #709 on: January 30, 2014, 09:20:54 AM »
..........................................................................
The 'Travis Effect' attempts to confuse the above by introducing the equivalent of a spring that varies the volume of the object depending on the submerged depth.

LibreEnergia,
This process of air compression that acts like a spring unfortunately adds a complexity to the system,  but it is not there to confuse, although it could induce that experience.
Red_Sunset


Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #710 on: January 30, 2014, 09:50:01 AM »
EnergiaLibre,

To avoid any confusion, I have been addressing STATIC BUOYANCY in my previous post.

Red_Sunset

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #711 on: January 30, 2014, 09:59:18 AM »



   Hi,
      can we add a gallon of water and raise our 1,000 ton ship?
                               John.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #712 on: January 30, 2014, 10:37:14 AM »
Energy Libre

A small add-on note on buoyancy to correct your erronious or incomplete statement "Buoyancy is a function of displaced VOLUME,  nothing else"

The Buoyancy SYMMETRY
 Bouyancy Lift Force  = "Head pressure x horizontal float area"      of the float object
                                 =  "liquid volume weight of the displaced liquid"     by the submerged portion of the floating object   
                                 =  "Overall weight"     of the floating object

Can you now retract your previous statement ?,
Quote
This is the crux of the matter,  and it is where you, Wayne Travis and anyone else who believes in this is absolutely wrong.

Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #713 on: January 30, 2014, 10:45:32 AM »
Webby,
One of the upside down cup aquarium demonstrations was exactly done to prove that Buoyancy is a FORCE due to PRESSURE .  To understand buoyancy in this context is pivotal to understanding the working of the Zed.

I think MarkE has the wrong end of the stick here.

MARKE,   that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.  But in the workings of nature, bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure.   It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter).  Integral formula's do not aid understanding


Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset your statement:  "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false.  Please avail yourself to a physics text.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #714 on: January 30, 2014, 11:28:34 AM »
Red_Sunset your statement:  "bouyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water" is absolutely false.  Please avail yourself to a physics text. 

MarkE,
That is not exactly what I said !
I said,
Quote
MARKE,   that pressure equates in the end to volume and this makes it easy to calculate the lift force of uneven shapes is correct.

This means to say that in practical & formula form the relationship is there! No dispute !
Then I said,

Quote
But in the workings of nature, buoyancy is a FORCE and this has nothing to do with volume/displ.water., but it has all to do with pressure.   It is this way because pressure is directly related to submerged height.(also a volume parameter).  Integral formula's do not aid understanding

This means "aside from formula's that equal the same answers for good reasons",  IN NATURE, what keeps the ship floating is a FORCE, called a buoyancy force,  without LIFT FORCE the ship would sink.

This means that
1..  The primary and most important effect is the Buoyancy LIFT FORCE that materializes due to Pressure
2..  The Secondary to that is an equivalence called "displacement" that matches the same (for good reasons), BUT this is not the actual manifestation in Nature that keeps the ship on the surface. It is a derivative !!!

That is what I said, spelled out for the second time today.
To play with nature it is important to understand nature, not just playing with mathematical formula's alone !!

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #715 on: January 30, 2014, 12:14:00 PM »
Powercat the script goes on until there is no audience left:

P1 "We have something wonderful that redefines physics!"
P2 "That's great, please show me."
P1 "It's right here behind this curtain.  It's really wonderful."
P2 "OK please show me."
P1 "Really it's wonderful and it's just right behind this curtain."
P2 "You just said that, please show me."
P1 "You have a closed mind."
P2 "Please show me your wonderful device."
P1 "I told you it is right behind this curtain, what's wrong with you?  You just can't see it because your mind is closed."
P2 "I can't see anything because you refuse to show me anything.  Please just show me this wonderful device you claim."
P1 "It's people like you who keep wonderful inventions like mine from reaching the market."
P2 "If you want me to believe that your invention does what you say it does, then please just show your invention working as you claim it does."
P1 "You are being obstructionist.  I told you many questions ago that the invention is right behind this curtain."
P2 "Please just show me what you claim."
P1 "Really smart people can see that I wouldn't be standing here telling you all about the wonderful device behind the curtain if there wasn't really a wonderful device there.  You must be stupid to keep asking me to show you this wonderful device."
...

Great analogy of the show being put on by Red_Sunset and Wayne_Travis, it's like a bad magic act, all they have is words and more words, they can never shows something working continuously or have anything verified, they know themselves that the magic only works with words and faith.

LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #716 on: January 30, 2014, 12:30:04 PM »


Now the PARADOX,
The water that surrounds a floating object does not have to be as large in volume as the volume displaced.  A typical example provided in books is that you can float the USS Saratoga within the volume contained in a bucket full of water.  Sure this has not much to do with the voulume the USS Saratoga displaces.

Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.


Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #717 on: January 30, 2014, 01:05:26 PM »
Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

Quote
<< PowerCat>> We can present situations and references and analyses that falsify your conjectures.  This isn't a joke, it's reality.

Red_Sunset

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #718 on: January 30, 2014, 01:26:10 PM »
Hi PowerCat,

I am still waiting ! 
Do you want to abandon your claim to present situations and references and analyses?
If you do, I have no problem!

Red_Sunset

You're such a control freak, and you keep distorting and twisting reality to suit your argument, despite being told numerous times by people that show your theory and opinion are flawed, you insist that you know better, here is a recent example of your twisted words.

[/font]I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!Red_Sunset
[/font]

But you do care, anyone reading through your previous posts will see that, and after making that statement within a number of hours you make this statement

[/font]EnergiaLibre,You are not playing a fair game by ATTACKING Travis & his endeavors with accusations for which you appear to hold the WRONG end of the stick.  Please leave your attacks until it is proven that you are right, so you don't make a fool of yourself.Red_Sunset
[/font]

Are you struggling to find an argument that doesn't show you to be contradicting,  I know you want to talk about theories and promote your own opinions, you have already filled this thread with your arguments and opinions and virtually everyone disagrees with you, and virtually everyone keeps asking you to show some evidence, but all you ever give back are more words.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #719 on: January 30, 2014, 01:35:48 PM »
Except from an energy perspective there is no paradox.

The amount of energy required to lift any buoyant object a vertical distance is equal (or more than) its mass times the vertical distance it travels. The amount of energy we can recover from the descent of the object is (at most) the same as the amount used to raise it.

Lets say we have the USS Saratoga sitting in our close fitting dry dock and we add a gallon of water. How much energy is used in pumping the water in? How far would the ship rise? How much energy can we recover by letting the ship fall?
In all cases we need to return both the ship and the gallon of water to their starting positions or we are not describing a cyclical process that can be reused over and over.

Now, no matter what the geometry of the ships hull or the dry-dock or the sequence of events of pumping, holding etc. the amount of energy required on the up stroke is equal to the weight of water the ship displaces multiplied by the vertical height the ship moves. The amount of energy that can be recovered on the down stroke is at most equal to the amount used to raise it.

Lets hear your best shot at breaking this 'symmetry'. I'd love to hear a sequence of events that can describe how this could be broken. The analysis must analyse ENERGY , not FORCE.  (Energy is equal to force times DISTANCE  , remember.)

Bear in mind that if you move some water anywhere you have to return that water to the same starting height or you are not describing a cyclical process.

Hi LibreEnergia,

I know it is hard to admit that you were not exactly on the correct track ....!
What you are presenting now is good and correct, but I am not clear what you are trying to prove in relationship to the topic at hand..

The paradox only came up to demonstrate that you can create a large force (not dynamic displacement) with very little water.     The paradox concept is regular good physics that has not been claimed to violate any known rules.
The paradox concept has been used in the risers of the Zed to minimize the water requirement and flow during strokes (to reduce overhead and associated losses)  but it has no direct function in getting anything for free in the form presented by you.  I am not clear why you thought it would.

As to making the Saratoga float, you only have to bring the bucket up to the designed waterline and empty it.  Lets assume an XXL bucket is used,  sufficient to cover the whole designed underwater surface with a water layer of 1 mm thick, the Saratoga will float up 1 mm.  She will float due to the pressure exerted by the water layer height levels at the various underwater locations. So the deeper the hull depth, the more pressure per sq area.  The thickness of the water layer is immaterial for this theoretical example.  All energies expanded and PE accomplished will match.

Red_Sunset