You are talking nonsense as usual. Container made of steel can have any degree of buoyancy, positive or negative simply by increasing or decreasing the size of air chamber it has within itself.

So spindle can be made out of 10kg of steel and contain within itself an air chamber of proper size so that its weight in water is -10kg. These are simple, obvious things.

Of course it sinks some amount below water, it must displace it's own weight. That is totally irrelevant.

Spindle made of 10kg of steel with volume which displaces 20kg of water will have -10kg in water and will rise to the surface with force of 10kg.

My descriptions are perfectly detailed and clear, it is due to the fact you are really really bad at this that your guessing is totally wrong, confused and ridiculous.

You claimed a ship made of steel full of water would float lol, you can't deny it it's there. To make it even more absurd you also claim 10kg weighing container cannot have -10kg weight in water lol.

It is not my fault that you can't understand the simple principle of buoyancy, you are only tricking the wrong descriptions out of yourself and pulling your own teeth.

You still ridiculously deny the simple fact that steel container weighing 10kg can be made -10kg buoyant (or any value) by changing the amount of displaced water by changing the size of the air tank in it.

And again you wrote a confused worthless mess and you missed the key part which you could've used against me - and i literally gave you the answer - but since you are really REALLY bad at this, you of course missed it. I literally told you spindle has to displace 20kg of water to have -10kg weight in water. This means once that air is released at the top it displaces more than 10kg of water, almost 20kg. Of course, you missed it.

BTW are YOU aware you lost on every count during these arguments, ever since you claimed that Travis Effect is not overunity, to your idiotic claim that pressure at the bottom of the tube rises with height of the tube, to your claim that force of the partial vacuum at the top of the tube is equal to the force the tube exerts upon the supports (altho only force tube exerts upon the supports is the weight of the tube itself and that has absolutely nothing to do with force of the partial vacuum, partial vacuum being the function of difference in height between bottom and the top and we cannot even talk of vacuum at all below 10 meter height since up to that height tube is completely filled with water - no empty space, no vacuum, we can only talk difference in pressure), to denying that linked perpetual overbalanced wheel from India is real.....

My descriptions are perfectly detailed and of high worth, only things lacking in detail and practically worthless are your confused constructs. You are incapable to understand even the basics.

Unlike you i admit my errors and i have to point them out to you since you are incapable of, you on the other hand can't even see your own errors and when i point them out to you you refuse to admit them like a 5yo.

It took you days just to admit pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube. Everyone saw how you sleazily tried to confuse the issue and dragged it on and on and on before finally admitting you were WRONG. (just like you are wrong for Travis effect etc).

And to remind of another of your pearls you claimed my spindle will not sink even when full of water, quote...

"The spindle will not sink to the bottom of the tube even when the spindle is full of water. "

Which is literally saying a steel ship full of water floats. LOL. I have never and i really mean NEVER read anything dumber than that.

And to make it more absurd and ironic, AT THE SAME TIME you deny that steel tank weighing 10kg can be made buoyant -10kg (or any degree) in water.

So not only you make absolutely dumb statements, you also totally contradict yourself.

Sorry bud. It is great fun for me to watch you wriggle in your confusions and misconceptions, since i have entered into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Nix