Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Fletcher]

Breaking the “Law of Levers� barrier with fluids. re: Asymmetric torque about a fulcrum.

The following is my background to & theory about the possibility of breaking the ‘Law of Levers’ barrier. It also proposes a Prime Mover candidate & description to act as a switch to change system Center of Mass [CoM] by creating a virtual displacement of mass in a symmetrical wheel [rotary] format.

Part One:

Some Background:

Years ago I conducted a set of experiments to investigate Archimedes Buoyancy Force & the Law of Floatation, & Pascal’s Principle of undiminished fluid pressure transfer as relates to Hydraulic Levers. This required knowing a little about Fluid Dynamics. I was well aware that Fluid Dynamics Principles were predicated on Conservation of Energy doctrine [CoE of closed systems] which was a fundamental of the overarching Laws of Thermodynamics.

I built various simple mechanical ‘balance beam’ experiments using the lever & fulcrum format i.e. reciprocating devices, which later morphed into exploring rotary formats. I released some of these experiments to www.besslerwheel.com discussion board around 2007 but held some concepts back, for a rainy day, as they required further careful thought, not just from the experimental design & engineering perspective.

The purpose of these generic experiments was an attempt to dissect, observe if possible, or deduce, an anomaly in ‘ordinary’ accepted physics & mechanics that would not be readily apparent [if one existed], that could ultimately lead to a self sustaining reciprocating or rotary ‘engine’. One that did not require an input of external fuel energy source or the harnessing of an environmental gradient or differential such as barometric pressure or temperature changes [that was a parallel line of inquiry]. In short, trying to find a method to invoke Asymmetric Torque around a fulcrum, i.e. breaking the Law of Levers & Newton’s Laws. Conservative gravity’s strengths & weaknesses might be coerced to cooperate.

During these experiments a thought coalesced. From the empirical study of these properties of fluids an oversight in understanding of fluid behaviour application [or misapplication] began to emerge as a possibility. If the theory proved correct the result would be profoundly paradigm changing in its implications, if not complete scientific heresy.

General Comment:

Critics who read my presentation here may label it as a convenient arrangement of discreet ‘factoids’ & ill-conceived speculations cobbled together into what could only generously be described as a loose argument. Whilst that may be one interpretation I am quite relaxed about my presentation methodology here. I prefer to present my hypothesis & theory in this way, for simplicity, as a series of ‘stepping stones’ & bullet points of the thought processes I went thru, as a potential pathway for further inquiry & understanding, & facilitating open discussion & development of ideas & concepts in an open source environment.

Optimistically perhaps, setting the groundwork to potentially developing a working mechanical self sustaining Intrinsic Motion Machine [IMM], or free-energy OU device, or PMM in the vernacular. Some of my speculations & conclusions that trickled out of the inquiry process I leave out for the moment to invite & encourage alternate views, discussion, experiments, interpretations or conclusions.

.................................

Some of the experiments I conducted & what I found or deduced:

Firstly, I conducted experiments in buoyancy & floatation to empirically compare against what I believed I knew about the subjects i.e. that buoyancy force was an artefact of gravity force due to differences in density. In the process of manifesting buoyancy or flotation the system Center of Mass [CoM] is lowered to its position of least Potential Energy of Position [PE]. We are all familiar with the phrase that ‘you can float a battleship in a bathtub’, i.e. a suitably sized one, shaped like the ship’s hull of slightly greater volume & dimensions. This means that only a small volume of ‘filler’ fluid is needed to raise & float the battleship & that the ‘actual’ fluid volume can be significantly less than the displacement volume of the ship’s hull. However the PE increase in system CoM raising [future Output joules] is equal to Work Done in potentializing the system [Input joules], not considering losses - nothing new here, just Archimedes Laws in action.

Whilst studying ‘floats’ on levers depressed ever greater distances into buckets of water I noted that the depth of fluid increased with a resultant greater force [pressure] on the bottom of the bucket due to head depth, & this was a linear relationship as expected. Since the bucket, lever & float mechanism was counterbalanced by an exact same mechanism on the opposite side of a fulcrum [where the float was neutrally buoyant in the bucket water] the coupled arrangement rotated away from the applied force so that the float would attempt to separate out from the water. This was an example of Newton’s ‘for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction’. Nothing further to be observed or learned here.

However, for as long as I can remember it was apparent that for an object to float in a fluid that the objects mass must equal the volume mass of displaced fluid. IOW’s, that density was constant & uniform in a non compressible fluid where an object floated on the surface. This means that an object [e.g. say a ship, to purposely exaggerate the example for visualization purposes] can be positioned anywhere in a large enough swimming pool, on one side or another etc, & because density is uniform from lower to upper water level there will be no torque [turning force] produced around a hypothetical fulcrum [or pivot/axle] at the Center of Rotation [CoR] of the swimming pool system, providing the floating object has degrees of freedom.

To cross check my thought experiment with another I also imagined a rectangular ‘U’ shaped trough supported at each end by a set of bathroom scales. The trough was filled with water, each scale reading the same & showing half the weight force of trough & water. Next, a toy boat was introduced that could move in any direction as long as it didn’t touch the sides. Both scales read higher weight force to account for the toy boat addition but still read equal, regardless of where the boat was positioned in the trough. Therefore the position of the floating boat created no turning moment or system torque.

This I consider was a self evident deduction that many have probably also made just through observation & a little thought experimenting. No stunning revelation or anything new here.

See pictures of ships in swimming pool & boats in trough on scales.

My next objective was to examine Pascal’s Principle more closely as it relates to Hydraulic Leverage for which it is most familiar in a mechanical sense. To recap, Pascal’s Principle says that ‘pressure is transferred undiminished to all points in a static enclosed fluid’. We use this principle daily & in many mechanical applications in the form of the hydraulic press, where pressure created by application of a force multiplies that force [proportional to areas] to do Work at another position. N.B. a major benefit of hydraulic principles is transmission of forces over large distances where mechanical levers & linkages are inferior or constrained. IOW’s, the hydraulic press is used as a force multiplier machine that gives us a force advantage but it does not change or alter the ‘Law of Levers’ or Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP].

i.e. f1 x d2 joules of energy Input [Effort] = f2 x d1 joules of energy Output [Load] – the ‘Law of Levers’.

In this format & use the hydraulic press is a zero sum energy game, & is a facsimile of a mechanical lever, which creates mechanical advantage at the expense of speed ratio. CoE is preserved, not counting losses, & Newton & Thermodynamics are safe.

See pictures (2) of hydraulic press & transmission of pressure & force multiplication doing Work.

The thought experiments continued:

However, these experiments & further contemplation opened a pathway of possibility to me. What if I could use the ship floating in a swimming pool analogy & change conditions such that I could create torque around a fulcrum on demand, create a switch ? In effect, be able to turn torque on & off when required to create a terrestrial machine whose natural preferred state was inherent instability & dynamic motion, the antithesis to all other terrestrial man made machines which seek & will find their position of lowest PE & thus static stability, without additional energy input. So I set about envisaging mechanical devices that could theoretically achieve this inherent animation & instability outcome.

N.B. the following descriptions & pictures throughout are deliberately simple & generic in nature. They are metaphors for what I consider needs to happen to create asymmetric torque around a fulcrum [i.e. mitigate torque on one side of a pivot], to potentially break thru the Law of Levers barrier. They are in no-way intended as full & accurate, or to scale, schematics or blue prints to a working device. Simply ideas & concepts in picture form to illustrate concepts & ideas presented here.

1. My first thoughts were around a method to treat the hypothetical swimming pool analogy as a horizontal fluid filled open lever pivoted at the CoR . Then an object [the ship] floating in the fluid could be positioned at one end. This scenario would then require the ‘fluid lever’ to act like a cannel lock in reverse i.e. the ship is latched to the end at full water height & then a portion of fluid is removed to a reservoir leaving the ship no longer fully buoyed by the fluid. Once the ships degrees of freedom are restricted in this way, by latching & dropping the water level beneath it, the lever density would no longer be uniform. The lever would become end heavy which would create torque around the pivot & create momentum & Kinetic Energy [KE] in the system. N.B. this could be used to do Work [f x d .. or .. m.a.d = 1/2mv^2 (rotational KE)]. When the timing was right the extracted portion of water could be reintroduced to the fluid lever to raise up water levels & cause full floatation of the ship [once unlatched] which would restore the system to uniform density & zero torque conditions again, & have no further effect on momentum already gained. IOW’s, turning torque on & off strategically could cause momentum accumulation conditions & rotational KE in a system & the concept could be either in reciprocating or rotary format. Of course this was a thought experiment that had considerable engineering problems to overcome. For instance torque manifested by lowering water levels around a fixed object in an open U shaped lever would cause the lever to tilt & the water would run down hill. This would cause the water to overflow & also lower the system CoM further reducing system PE which would have to have Work done on it later to restore system PE, in order to complete a cycle.

See picture of ship in swimming pool latched & unlatched with changing water levels.

Further considerations for me weren’t only mechanical & engineering but also brought into question the relationship of Work & Energy in the guise of the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP], an important mandate in physics when comparing Work [f x d = m.a.d] joules to energy joules. CoE says that they should be equal, not counting losses. The proposed hypothetical system should create torque on demand [asymmetric force] via a periodically displaced system CoM. It relied on a reservoir & pumping in & extracting out small volumes of fluid [Work Done] to float & unfloat an object which according to current physics understanding was consistent with the view that Work & Energy are interchangeable, both using the same units, & therefore should be of equal magnitude with no excess energy capability or OU potential. This should be an excess energy dead end because of conservative gravity.

The following are two formats & three variations on a theme for illustrative & conceptual purposes.

i. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with a single buoyant device one end & a counterweight the other, alternating system CoM position from CoR to one side & back again, by floating, latching & draining, then filling, unlatching & refloating an object less dense than the fluid medium.

ii. A fluid filled U shaped or enclosed tube reciprocating lever device with two buoyant devices located at opposite ends of the lever that alternated their roles in mitigating torque at the appropriate times, much as above. This would have better power density than a single counterweighted reciprocating device, therefore be more efficient.

iii. A fluid filled fully enclosed tube rotary lever device, with one or more fluid filled cross diameter levers, for momentum & KE accumulation, & to act as efficient energy storage device as a flywheel does, possibly at a higher energy density configuration than i. or ii. above.

N.B. it was my contention however that any system [such as a wheel] based on a concept that created asymmetric torque around a fulcrum on demand [the switch] using properties of fluids could also potentially give rise to greater rotational KE in joules than the energy cost associated with it, including losses. That is, be self sustaining, restore PE & have excess KE & momentum that could be bled of to do Work. This would cause scientific apoplexy until understood, if it could be engineered & it worked.

2. The thoughts & concepts in 1. above quickly matured & morphed into a more heretical approach & design, both for reciprocating & rotary devices. What if I should disassociate WEEP so that Work & Energy were treated discreetly, & not be viewed as opposite sides of the same coin ? Then a device such as a wheel might be designed that was physically [real mass position wise] symmetrical at all times i.e. in terms of radial positions of mass it is symmetrical. But the system would respond with momentum & KE gain due to asymmetric torque about a fulcrum or axle via oscillating system CoM shifts. [In Part Two I’ll explain why & how this might work out]. This causes continuous instability & continuous dynamic motion. This would be breaking the Law of Levers barrier using a property of fluids & gravity force.

[Fletcher]

Part Two:

The Theory is ... ‘Virtual Displacement (of) Mass Principle’, aka ‘MAD-VD’ Theory.

V.D. stands for Virtual Displacement (of Mass). M.A.D. stands for Mass, Acceleration, Distance [i.e. Work Done = force times distance joules of energy]. The theory proposes that a symmetrical wheel can mitigate turning forces on one side of the fulcrum [i.e. generate asymmetric forces] making the wheel behave as if it were continuously overbalanced. i.e. whilst there is no actual physical mass displacement of note there is a virtual displacement of mass caused by a fundamental property of fluid to transmit [communicate] pressure equally to all points in an enclosed fluid & it is this that the system responds to as a result of interpreting a system change in CoM.

N.B. from the rotating systems point of view the mass [weight force pressure inducing input] is almost instantaneously lifted upwards & shifted to a new position & repositioned back again later, creating torque, although the reality is the mass does not change its relative position within the wheel. See accompanying diagrams for further clarification.

The Hypothesis is ... A Prime Mover modelled on a modified symmetrical Hydraulic Press arrangement [i.e. a reservoir/bladder etc] acting as a pivoted fluid filled cross diagonal structure, or structures, in reciprocating or rotary format can be used as a switching technology.

Pascal’s Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [i.e. communication] to all points in an enclosed fluid system is the crux of the Prime Mover‘s modus operandi & constitutes a switching technology.

Fluids do not support shearing stress. Fluids do have viscosity. The molecular arrangement of a non compressible fluid is not a restrictive lattice or matrix like structure. This is why Pascal’s Principle allows for undiminished transmission of pressure in all directions in an enclosed static fluid. The nature of water molecules allows for the communication [via connectedness] of information between molecules.

Any force applied to a modified hydraulic press [as pressure inducing input] structure will increase pressure from top to bottom & to the sides of the fluid reservoir equally. That input force can be weight force in the form of application of a mass.

The weight force acting on the modified hydraulic press structure creates pressure within the internal fluid but does not allow for volumetric exchange of fluid i.e. pressure & force is created but actual volume displacement does not occur so the Prime Mover uses one part of the Hydraulic Press principle i.e. it does no Work on the system per se but creates a real system CoM change almost instantaneously [the switch], while there is a virtual displacement of mass occurring internally.

See picture of symmetrical POP structures with active mass, on scales.

The Question in parts is ...

1. Can a bench top proof of principle [POP] experiment be designed & demonstrated to confirm whether or not a modified hydraulic press Prime Mover structure arrangement with a weight force at one end will increase internal fluid pressure ?

2. Can the POP equally transmit fluid pressure [& create virtual displacement of mass] such that no turning moment is observed about a fulcrum if the reservoir/structure is pivoted or placed on scales, much the same as a floating object in a tank does not create a turning moment about a fulcrum or change the readings on top of two scales ?

3. Can this technology, if valid, be used to create a useful switching mechanism & prove the theory of asymmetric torque production around a fulcrum ?

The Requirements & Considerations for a rotary format are ... an elastic membrane/boots or piston & sleeve recess etc to allow weight force transmission to fluid. A communicating diaphragm located at or near the CoR, which allows pressure transmission/communication but does not allow fluid volume transference/movement. A flow restrictor to slow minor fluid movement that may occur due inertia. A weight receiving cage that still allows some degrees of freedom for the mass to operate in [weights could be attached to short levers etc]. Opposing mechanisms are needed to provide symmetry. On the descending side the mass in its cage [or connected to a short lever] hangs beneath the structure relinquishing its pressure inducing role for this sector & creates torque. On the ascending side its role is to induce pressure which is transmitted equally & change the system CoM. Inertia of the wheel is affected by fluid mass therefore rigid piping/tubing [plastic etc] length & volume dimensions need to be considered [i.e. only need small fluid communication channels which will reduce weight & inertia]. Rotation rate is affected by diameter as is output & power, also increased with multiple cross diagonal structures with mechanisms.

See pictures of fletchers’ wheels, single cross diagonal & multiple fluid filled structures in rotary format.

See the short thread in General Discussion forum titled IS it or, is it NOT ? ... http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 202#104202 for additional context.

Closing Note:

Have fun thinking about this. May every man who has the space, inclination, time & ability one day be able to inexpensively build his own ‘garage’ free-energy Intrinsic Motion Machine for his own use & enjoyment.

-fletcher teasdale

[daxwc]

Interesting, I have worked on some of this before Fletcher, might sound a little too simplistic, problem as I see it, is force and mass movement are two different things. And if you restrict the transmission of force (such as fluid pin hole), in just results in slower movement and ends up the same density of mass displaced as fluid is still compressable. Maybe I misunderstand you and somebody needs to test it. Both scales would read the same. I will need to think about it when I am less tired.

[Tarsier79]

Gday Fletcher

I imagine quite a few people have contemplated using various fluid hydrostatic/hydrodynamic principles. My personal opinion, is you can quite often build an solid analogy to most hydro principles. I have also looked into the equal distribution of forces in fluid. One of the more interesting, and not immediately obvious thing I found, is dropping a heavy weight into water: the weight does not register till it hits the bottom.

1. Can a bench top proof of principle [POP] experiment be designed & demonstrated to confirm whether or not a modified hydraulic press Prime Mover structure arrangement with a weight force at one end will increase internal fluid pressure ?

We know it will and does. It could occur via a spring as well. A simple proof would be a piston/bellows (I purchased a foot pump a while ago that did the job for tests like this,) acting on a column of water should prove the point. More pressure will mean a higher column.

2. Can the POP equally transmit fluid pressure [& create virtual displacement of mass] such that no turning moment is observed about a fulcrum if the reservoir/structure is pivoted or placed on scales, much the same as a floating object in a tank does not create a turning moment about a fulcrum or change the readings on top of two scales ?

Interesting question, I don't believe it would be possible to create such a mechanism, as any movement of fluid either way would create that unwanted mass imbalance. In your suggestion, you wish to use this as a prime mover. To do so, you need fluid movement.

Unlike the ship floating in the open tank, by enclosing the system, you confine the pressure variations between the top and bottom of the tank.

I also do not agree with your virtual COM, in the diagrams as shown. It may be something like that with the second option improvement below.

3. Can this technology, if valid, be used to create a useful switching mechanism & prove the theory of asymmetric torque production around a fulcrum ?

My translation of your theory is that you wish to use this as a power supply, IE. to shift weights to an OB position. To do this you need force x distance. Where does the distance come from without weight shift across the wheel in the prime mover mechanism?


Improvements?:

As soon as the mass touches its "Cage", a portion of that mass will be directed in proportion to its position on the wheel. I believe a simple way to get around this would be to support the mass from a lever extending from the axle. I guess you could use this to your advantage by installing a ledge just below the 3:00 weight, so that it presses down at that point, and the ledge opposite will have a small gap between it and its corresponding weight.

I look forward to your counter-argument

Cheers

Kaine

[daxwc]

Tarsier79

One of the more interesting, and not immediately obvious thing I found, is dropping a heavy weight into water: the weight does not register till it hits the bottom.

Yes , but as soon it is submerged it raises the water level to a higher PE though. In a sealed container the air pressure rises so you should see it right away.




Tarsier79

Interesting question, I don't believe it would be possible to create such a mechanism, as any movement of fluid either way would create that unwanted mass imbalance. In your suggestion, you wish to use this as a prime mover. To do so, you need fluid movement.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Hydrostatic pressure or pressure transmission is just a force, trying to use the force causes/requires mass (fluid) movement as soon as the fluid moves you start losing your transmission pressure and now start needing volume.

What I was looking into before is a fluid that you could shock into a solid and remove the hydrostatic pressure to the side of a vessel, same issue though in reverse.

[bobriddle]

edited to restate post.

Fletcher,
One thing people tend to over look is f = ma. When pumping a fluid against gravity, the speed at which it is to operate to rotate a wheel will require force.
If a wheel is to rotate at a velocity as slow as 2 m/s, then how much force would this require from a hydraulic type pump ?
If a pump is working at a 5 to 1 ratio then the pump itself, would accelerate to 2 m/s. That's accelerate and that means it is not constant at 2 m/s but accelerates from 0 which would give an average velocity of 1 m/s.
What is nice about such an arrangement is that gravity can be used against itself. After all, gravity would be reisting the upward movement of the fluid which would cause the wheel to rotate.

[Fletcher]

Morning fellas ..

Tarsier .. yes, you could use a mass attached to a short lever etc.

.......................

Just to clarify an apparent misconception coming thru in all your comments.

There is no fluid movement i.e. no volumetric exchange in this arrangement so the fluid CoM doesn't change - it is simply a mechanical switching technology.

N.B. a hydraulic press is just a lever where force is multiplied elsewhere to do work but the lever effect is conditional on volume movement, & this obviously will change CoM position of a hydraulic press.

Please read thru & understand the attachments below which I pulled from the Hyperphysics's web site [I previously ran some figures so that's why I modified the second] - here a force is applied to a stopper in a bottle - this force is multiplied to the bottom of the bottle breaking it out - but the really interesting thing is that the force increases the pressure at the top of the bottle & this is transmitted equally everywhere else in the bottle including the bottom [increasing pressure there too] as per Pascal's Principle.

N.B. the other interesting thing is that no fluid is moved to create a pressure increase in the bottle. - so when a weight force 'rests' on a stopper & the fluid is completely enclosed the mass is not doing work [f x d = joules] BUT it is increasing internal pressure.

Background:

'Fluid head' increases pressure linearly in fluids - the addition of extra pressure beneath the stopper [from a small applied force over an area] is just added to the lower level pressures that the contained fluid had previous - if it was open to the atmosphere that would be 1 atmosphere at the fluid surface & after addition of weight force that increases all the way thru & down.

force = pressure x area
pressure = force / area

[Tarsier79]

I understand you are increasing the pressure in the entire liquid, but why do you think there is a virtual mass displacement? Pressure and mass will operate independently. I think it is a problem of the reference frame.

Getting Back to basics, consider the diagram below:

At the top, the mass is where it is, the left scales will show a greater mass.

At the bottom, the pressure is transferred to the scales on the right, but will that effect the scales on the left?

[daxwc]

the really interesting thing is that the force increases the pressure at the top of the bottle & this is transmitted equally everywhere else in the bottle including the bottom [increasing pressure there too] as per Pascal's Principle.

True; surface applied pressure will transmit throughout the liquid no matter of depth. Can moving energy horizontal gain gravitational PE?

N.B. the other interesting thing is that no fluid is moved to create a pressure increase in the bottle. - so when a weight force 'rests' on a stopper & the fluid is completely enclosed the mass is not doing work [f x d = joules] BUT it is increasing internal pressure.

Agreed, but if no work or movement it can’t switch anything. But the COM of the system is still the same after lowering minus the PE for the space between buoyed and air.

Hmm I guess if there was a spring loaded trap door it might release it.





Fill a propane tank up and you get a lot out, like a spring it takes lots of energy in.
Compress water, it still compresses but without the volume or near the energy release.
A stick moved horizontally compresses none and no energy release.

If the object floats the scale shows the weight right away and buoyancy of the mass is applied as pressure through hydrostatic head in displacement. But if you weighed both individually they weigh the same as together (mass and fluid). To use any of the energy of the applied pressure will require a drop in PE of the mass in the fluid.

[Fletcher]

I understand you are increasing the pressure in the entire liquid, but why do you think there is a virtual mass displacement?

Pressure and mass will operate independently. I think it is a problem of the reference frame.

Your pic is the wrong example to use Kaine - virtual displacement occurs because a weight force applied one end creates pressure internally in a container - as long as the container is symmetrical the mass creating the weight force & internal pressure increase can only be felt as pressure on the bottom of the container [which is the same at all horizontal levels] - effectively, the pressure can be vectored into one mid point vector of pressure OR force - if that was where a pivot or fulcrum is then the force is acting at right angles to the pivot/fulcrum & has no torque.

This means the mass that created the pressure increase has no torque effect because its weight force was converted into internal pressure across the entire diameter [if it was pivoted half way across].

Getting Back to basics, consider the diagram below:

At the top, the mass is where it is, the left scales will show a greater mass.

At the bottom, the pressure is transferred to the scales on the right, but will that effect the scales on the left?

I don't follow you Kaine - I've modified the pics you used - your first one reads higher on the left scale because the fluid container is not symmetrical & has mass, therefore once mirrored symmetry is restored the CONTAINER mass distribution problem is not there.

The diaphragms make no difference - pressure is the same at every horizontal depth regardless of shape of container.

I don't follow the fulcrum inclusion reasoning on the right ?

[Tarsier79]

Sorry Fletcher,

The point I try to make always makes sense to me;)

The diaphragm is to allow the pressure act on the scale.
At the bottom of that diagram, the pivot creates a different reference frame for the pressure to act. So the left scale will remain the same, but the right scale will increase, because the right scale now only measures pressure.

It is to show the difference between increased fluid pressure, and weight.


Sorry, I am confusing how you are trying to cause rotation. You are simply trying to redistribute the weight on the left all the way across the tube containing the water.

virtual displacement occurs because a weight force applied one end creates pressure internally in a container - as long as the container is symmetrical the mass creating the weight force & internal pressure increase can only be felt as pressure on the bottom of the container

Could you clarify this? I agree, but I think I am agreeing with something slightly different to what you are trying to convey.

The pressure increase will be felt on the top and the bottom of the container, except where it is open to air, or has movement in the diaphragm. This has no effect on the mass of the total system, which is ok, since you are only trying to distribute the weight on the left evenly along the bottom.

Once the water supports the left diaphragm and the weight, will the weight be felt as if it was glued to the Cage? This brings to mind the case where a levered weight, once supported is felt where it is on the wheel.

Also, the boat floating in the long tub, the boat equals the density of the water. Is the weight distributed simply due to the water rising equally right along the top of the container? IE Mass shift. Unless you have the other end open, there will be no weight distribution(I think).

Sorry about the jumping around, I just realised half way through this post what you are trying to accomplish.

[daxwc]

Empty the saucer tips the pan over, full of water the saucer can float anywhere without tipping it.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Daxwc,

gently push down on the saucer even if it is on one side of the pan and the pan should still be in balance!

Regards Trevor

[daxwc]

gently push down on the saucer even if it is on one side of the pan and the pan should still be in balance!

Of course that was the whole point, the water distributes pressure from the mass of the saucer (in your case force of your finger) evenly to the fulcrum in the center of the lever. To use any of the energy of the applied pressure will require a drop in PE of the saucer in the fluid.

[mickegg]

Hi to All

Interesting topic Fletcher

With regard to your "wheel" drawings and referring to the attached clip:

without any displaced fluid to offset the mass of the weight, the CoM must surely be slightly below center?

After all, you have equal weights, cages, fluid volumes and pipe mass on either side of the fulcrum

The pressure in the fluid has NO mass.

Regards

Mick