Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,
I think this will fail due to pressure lock, when you close off the right hand side weight the weight will fall and lower the pressure in its chamber, but when you open the chamber again how will you lift the weight back up? If you rotate on a wheel the heavy side will want to stop at the bottom!
Regards Trevor

Edit, The reset position is higher than the work start position as well

[daxwc]

His principle is about pressure transmission; that the ball’s applied weight get dispersed though all the fluid changing COM. Fletcher needs just to verify the principle first and get it down to its simplest form.

Tarsier79 I don’t know if it will be equal (level on the fulcrum), but all we need right now is proof the COM moves. Difference between fluid mass and solid mass test.

[daanopperman]

Hi all ,
although the medium is different , the results would be the same , the aim is the same , to spread the weight to a different location .

[daanopperman]

Hi all ,
I have to add , during the discussion of the airbag , a suggestion came up that 3 springs would do the same thing , my reply was no it would not be , 3 springs would be the same as 3 separate air bags and that would not spread the pressure the same as in one bag 3x the size .

[Fletcher]

Morning ..

I don't think I've left anything out of today's pics that would seriously hamper understanding.

In summary "Pressure Induced Buoyancy Equilibrium of Forces" is the key to Virtual Displacement of Mass i.e. making a mechanical switch.

Here is a wikipedia page on buoyancy - some of my old texts say a similar thing i.e. that buoyancy is pressure top & bottom of body dependent & 'Archimedes' general understanding & interpretation is a condition of that relationship.

I'm buoying a hydraulic piston [acting as a stopper] while it is causing pressure increase in the fluid due its mass.

No, changing the density of the fluid only changes the inertia of the system IMO - a light non compressible oil would work fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

-fletcher

[daxwc]

I would proceed by forgetting about rotation or even the right hand plunger. Concentrate on evidence the COM moves.

Kaine’s idea should give some indication whether it works in an easy build.

I have no idea what one can do with the property, seems like a Roberval balance situation to me. I guess maybe you could roll a mass on to the plunger, lift it up with less energy and roll it off at the top then try close the loop.

[Fletcher]

I disagree dax - you need a symmetrical setup to take variables out of a POP - say on pair of scales, then see what they read - if the effect is so large & forgiving as I anticipate then a rotary single structure would also show clear results even when rotated 180 degrees [as would a bench top scales version].

The CW system COM follows a D track around the fulcrum IINM - at 'jump' time the system COM almost instantaneously jumps upwards lifting PE to above the fulcrum - so it will be self sustaining restoring PE & having KE each cycle - multiple structures make for more speed & power.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

if the effect is so large & forgiving

If you are right it should be. My thinking is just a simple test should dictate whether time and money should be spent. Doesn’t have to be perfect if the property effect is large.

The CW system COM follows a D track around the fulcrum IINM - at 'jump' time the system COM almost instantaneously jumps upwards lifting PE to above the fulcrum - so it will be self sustaining restoring PE & having KE each cycle - multiple structures make for more speed & power.

You are only going to get so many degrees of torque out of one structure, so a wall is coming at 10 o’clock. Not sure multiple structures will get you through, you are going to have PE loses.

The ball can't supply the same amount of applied pressure past 10 as it starts to rest on the cage. On reset and coming through quadrant 3 the problem is that the ball is working against the hydrostatic pressure of the true vertical as it tries to apply its pressure as it is not surface pressure, (I guess that shouldn't be much).

At 100% you can only get half the COM to move over, which is 3 oclock every other degree of tilt else is less.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

one way you could improve your chances, is with a circular reservoir with multi weights around the outer edges the fluid inside will act like a slip ring even if it is heavier at the bottom it does not take much to turn as my wheel experiments on a round reservoirs has shown, with that said there are still of lot of problems to sort out and do not think it would work, but at least you would keep it nice and compact.

Edit, while you are about it put your round weights on a small off set arm and have your membrane section half round cups to cup and balance the weights on ascending side, and fall out of the cup on the descending side, you are only looking at millimetres just to clear the cups! this is your concept and any input I gladly give! you are winning me over the more I think about it, its is a good concept win or lose, hope its a win though, I have not got 300 years left on the clock!

Edit, a circular reservoir with more like sticking out shapes on the outer edges to allow platforms for the weights to work, a bit like a star, because its full it will still be easy to turn!

Regards Trevor

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the comments guys ..

Trevor .. I deliberately made everything simple & almost child like [no offence intended] then successively built in more complexity to pics as hopefully understanding was forthcoming - I covered simple membranes & balls [yes, it's best to disengage contact on the descending side] then moved to pistons/plungers etc.

The upshot is to do your analysis based on NO frictional losses, then add them back later when you can visualize a complete cycle - for instance the pistons that don't move but apply force have to be fluid tight [no leak past the piston] - that makes them need some sort of sealer like car piston metal rings etc - or you could use ceramic sleeves [almost frictionless] & not need metal rings or rubber or plastic O-rings at all - also you could use a large molecule non compressible fluid & that means tolerances don't have to be fine - there are many improvements that today's technology would allow - you might even think or using air filled bags if you thought they'd do a better job than pistons etc.

Dax .. the cycle starts when the structure is orientated at say 5 mins past 12 o'cl - so a complete cycle is 180 degrees from 12 o'cl to 6 o'cl - when thru 6 o'cl it "switches" & the bottom is now the top & top the bottom i.e. the masses change roles every half turn - it rotates CW slowly & gathers speed - the biggest CoM offset is at 3 o'cl & it gets less the more to vertical it gets - but since it switches there is always positive torque IMO.

Yes, optimal COM shift is at the horizontal orientation - as you say depending on angle to vertical the cage [or shaft] transfers some of the weight force to the external structure - that is why I said it is a D shape track - it is more like a open ended & backward 'C' for a CW cycle [180 degs] - that would be a 'C' for a CCW 180 degs.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Dax .. the cycle starts when the structure is orientated at say 5 mins past 12 o'cl - so a complete cycle is 180 degrees from 12 o'cl to 6 o'cl - when thru 6 o'cl it "switches" & the bottom is now the top & top the bottom i.e. the masses change roles every half turn - it rotates CW slowly & gathers speed - the biggest CoM offset is at 3 o'cl & it gets less the more to vertical it gets - but since it switches there is always positive torque IMO.

Yes, I understand the cycle just my opinion more realistic number is 20% COM movement after friction and losses. Hard to get any mechanical device to work above 80% It was just an opinion, I guess there is not that many moving parts. ;)

Maybe you can get a Roberval balance to give your ball more time on the piston. 8P

I just think the weight will be on the cage too much at 10.


Anyhow somebody has to prove it first. Unfortunately I can’t at the moment, I am away.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I like what you have done here, and it makes me smile at the irony, what was making a lot of my experiments fail could be the answer! To think how many times I have seen it in action but never see it as a prime mover! sorry for jumping the gun, but sometimes trying to make things easy to understand can have the opposite effect where as showing the whole concept makes it more visible and easier to way up.

It was more my way of showing you I fully understand your concept. I do prefer your use of the word membrane it sounds so much less friction than piston.

The main thing is I like it and its up there with the best!

With thanks Trevor

[Fletcher]

Ta guys .. just while I remember - when I said the the COM track would look like a 'C' for a CCW rotation I meant that the structure would have to be designed for that direction - as it is it is strictly CW one-direction.

[daxwc]

After thinking about it, I go back right to my first statement and what Tarsier79 and Jim also pointed out.

Fletcher, might sound a little too simplistic, problem as I see it, is force and mass movement are two different things.

The test will likely fail as you are not moving any mass; just a force is getting applied.

[Fletcher]

This is the way I rationalize it dax - for an IMM [or PMM] to self sustain at earths surface, which doesn't use any environmental energy input [which is an open system], or has stored internal energy which must be replenished, then it must uses forces found in nature - these forces are likely well known to science but perhaps not used in a way that could accomplish such a task.

The next thing is that since Newton's time we have come to believe his laws at the macro level are immutable & I agree with that - for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction [equilibrium of forces is achieved] - the trick here is to mitigate that reaction, not in magnitude but where it is applied - in my theory of using fluid pressure to create an upthrust force equal to the weight force of the mass [piston, plunger, ball etc, I don't really have a proper descriptive name for it & piston implies stroke distance] equilibrium of forces is established also - this is just like Archimedes [volume displacement] buoyancy or upthrust force except I am creating the upthrust to equalize weight force with a pressure differential to create that equilibrium of forces.

As Archimedes displacement buoyancy can disguise a mass's 'effect' in a fluid medium so I am proposing that pressure induced upthrust can do the same thing - here the mass's weight force itself creates the fluid pressure, yet it cannot penetrate the fluid, just increase its pressure N.B. the fluids volume cannot be changed because it is non compressible for all intents & purposes - by deduction an equilibrium of forces will be established [just like Archimedes buoyancy situation] & if that happens the mass's 'effect' on the system is disguised in the same way.

However if virtually no movement of the mass occurs we cannot forefill one of the tenets of the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle that requires a force to move a distance - I simply use the mass's weight force to create pressure [force] in a contained fluid which must reach an equilibrium of forces state i.e. it is self-adjusting or equalizing if you prefer - the more the mass weight force is applied to the fluid [i.e. the vertical component of gravity] the more the fluid is pressurized & pushes back - one pushes & the other pushes back - one pushes harder & the other pushes back harder, always finding equilibrium of vertical component of gravity force on the mass with internal fluid force in the form of pressure.

If we have the vertical component of mass's weight force in equilibrium with fluid pressure expressed as force then gravity's effect on the mass [the vertical component of] cannot double dip & effect the system a second concurrent time.

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

I had been asked privately to explain that further anyway - I'll probably make up some pics today to aid that process as hard concepts to convey by words sometimes are easier in picture form.