Quote : A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero.

Like i said-crap. As the gravitational field is NOT constant,then net work can be done-->there for meaning that the gravitational field is not conservative. This is one great example of the crap that is peddled through the teaching of physics. So i say once again-->if the gravitational force is not constant,and work can be done from this non consistant force,then how can it be a conservative force?.

It is not i that is doing one's self no favors Mark,as my post is not nonsense. I CAN !without doubt! show you energy being produced using !your! conservative force(both gravitational and bouyant).You say that the gravitational force cant do work-->rubbish. You say that a bouyancy device cant do work-->more rubbish. Neither of these forces(when combined) is conservative,as they are not constant forces.

I am not wrong,confused or rude. The rude part is your insistance that you are always correct,and as i have shown you before,you are not. You come into threads with the attitude that you are better than anyone else,and yet time and time again you have been proven to be incorrect-as in this example. You say gravity can do no useful work-a gravity device will not work-nor will a bouyant device,and yet it dose day in day out,and i have given a simple example of this that you cannot refute. The only two forces at play are gravity and bouyancy,and the two can indeed generate power-do useful work. So,there you have it,a working gravity/bouyancy device. So now,please tell us all once again that a gravity/bouyancy device can never work due to the fact that garvity and bouyancy forces are conservative.

Quote reply 27: Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 51; Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 58: Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.

All completly wrong when the two forces work together.
Gravity is the force which raises the tide's 14 meters.
Bouyancy is the force that raises the ship that has a displacement of 50 000 tons.
6860000000 joules of energy has just been placed on that ship.
Did gravity have to do extra work to raise that ship?-no,it did not,as the 50 000 ton's the ship added was the very same as the 50 000 tons of water that was displaced that gravity no longer has to raise.

I too grow tired of your negativity Mark,and your partner in crime-LE.
Im not sure where you two live,but for us here on earth,we see the two forces doing work twice a day in most cases. You have tunnel vision,and that tunnel lead's to a dead end. There are devices that clearly dont work,but you put a blanket NO on all such devices that use the same principle. You say that neither bouyant or gravity powered devices will work,and yet we see it daily here on earth. Maybe in 4 to 5 billion years when the moon is to far away from the earth to raise tide's,then you may come back and make your claim. But for now,we have the worlds largest bouyant/gravity driven generator working 24/7.

I am not wrong,confused or rude. The rude part is your insistance that you are always correct,and as i have shown you before,you are not. You come into threads with the attitude that you are better than anyone else,and yet time and time again you have been proven to be incorrect-as in this example. You say gravity can do no useful work-a gravity device will not work-nor will a bouyant device,and yet it dose day in day out,and i have given a simple example of this that you cannot refute. The only two forces at play are gravity and bouyancy,and the two can indeed generate power-do useful work. So,there you have it,a working gravity/bouyancy device. So now,please tell us all once again that a gravity/bouyancy device can never work due to the fact that garvity and bouyancy forces are conservative.

Quote reply 27: Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 51; Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 58: Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.

All completly wrong when the two forces work together.
Gravity is the force which raises the tide's 14 meters.
Bouyancy is the force that raises the ship that has a displacement of 50 000 tons.
6860000000 joules of energy has just been placed on that ship.
Did gravity have to do extra work to raise that ship?-no,it did not,as the 50 000 ton's the ship added was the very same as the 50 000 tons of water that was displaced that gravity no longer has to raise.

I too grow tired of your negativity Mark,and your partner in crime-LE.
Im not sure where you two live,but for us here on earth,we see the two forces doing work twice a day in most cases. You have tunnel vision,and that tunnel lead's to a dead end. There are devices that clearly dont work,but you put a blanket NO on all such devices that use the same principle. You say that neither bouyant or gravity powered devices will work,and yet we see it daily here on earth. Maybe in 4 to 5 billion years when the moon is to far away from the earth to raise tide's,then you may come back and make your claim. But for now,we have the worlds largest bouyant/gravity driven generator working 24/7.

I'm convinced you are completely clueless about basic physics concepts.  The earth - moon system can of course provide energy in the form of tides to move ships or whatever up and down. This does NOT mean gravity is "non- conservative".  The tides is powered by the earth - moon rotation slowing and the two bodies slowly moving apart.

Gravity would be "non conservative" ONLY if we could magically restore the earth and moon to their original positions without expending the same amount of energy as is dissipated as they move apart.  Given the tides dissipate gravitational potential at the rate of about 5 terawatts, that's a whole lot of energy going the be required to move them back into their original positions. 

Maybe Wayne Travis can help us with that...

Well, if you want to improve your understanding, the tidal ship in the Bay of Fundy does not use gravity as an energy source.  It uses the Earth's rotational energy as the energy source.  You slow down the rotational speed of the Earth when you do that.

Does the number 6.67 x 10^-11 mean anything to you?  If not, you have to look it up.  That will explain the gravity field.

@TKI believe you are making the same flawed argument as most here and we start with a fairly complex buoyancy machine and then you say why not metal balls as it's the same thing with weight on one side and if we use this same flawed logic we could take the next step. Why not just say it is the same as bouncing a ball and expecting it to bounce higher?. The problem here is that obviously they are not the same thing and to presume they are is absurd. I understand this is the same false premise most critics like to use however this old same/same argument game doesn't imply a great deal of intelligence in my opinion.

Obviously the most intelligent person would be the one smart enough to have figured out how to get the air into the bottom of the tank without all the losses normally involved. There is one question that matters here and that is how can we get the air across the pressurized boundary condition into the water without the normal losses however you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole would you?. Because you have literally no idea do you and in fact you have no idea where to even start.
So how about we have an intelligent conversation for a change of pace?, tell me how would you get the air into the tank without all the losses normally involved?... any idea's?.

AC

You slow down nothing,because the mass of the earth as a whole has not increased. Regardless of wether that ship was there or not,the earths rotational rate would decrease by the same amount,as the same mass was moved in the rise of the tide. What you say MH is like saying a ton of grass is heavier than a ton of rock. So what will slow down the earths rotation more-->50 000 tons of water being raised 14 meters,or 50 000 tons of ship being raised 14 meters?. Mass is directly proportional to gravity,and as we have the same mass amount,then nothing has changed as far as gravitational pull go's,and thus the earths rotation would slow no more than it would if the ship wasnt there. The earth has a set amount of mass,and only things like meteorites can increase the mass of the earth. So as our mass remains constant,then so dose the decrease in rotational speed of the earth due to gravitational drag.