Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Fletcher]

Hi, sorry about confusing post. Does exactly what it says on the tin was a U.K. advertising slogan for paint and is now often used to describe something that works as described.

Having a struggle transforming it into rotary motion, but can see other
possibilities.

Sorry to hear your property has been damaged, hope it's not too bad.

John.

Thanks John ..

Just minor damage it seems, trees uprooted & garage doors mangled, no roofing or leaks issues as yet - finding available people to fix things might be another matter, but I'm onto it.

I wonder if you could describe in detail just what it was you did & how ? - are you able to upload any photo's [cell phone or camera] etc of your setup & testing so that others might have a better idea of what was going on ?

Attachments are allowed below a post by clicking on "click to add an attachment", then scroll down as it's out of sight a bit.

My father was English so I new what you meant by that phrase but not what you actually did, though I think you are a farmer so will be resourceful.

[greendoor]

Sorry to hear you were affected by the tornado Fletcher.

I've been trying to follow your concept here, but I don't get it. Using compressed fluids is just basic hydraulics, and hydraulics is all about trading Force for Distance.

Solids are incompressible too, and basically any hydraulic system can be replaced with a mechanical system that is more efficient. The internal friction of fluid is a big loss of energy - it's just convenient for industry to use hydraulics and supply as much energy as is need to overcome the losses.

I think you are trying to create a hydraulic version of the old hinged weight perpetual motion ideas. I think the fluid design just complicates it and adds massive friction losses that are harder to reduce.

It's all just mass - whether solid or liquid. What goes up has to come down, etc.

Buoyancy is just about using the weight of falling mass to squeeze a lighter density object upwards. It just reverses the problem: you have to expend energy to force the lighter density object down instead of up.

[daxwc]

For those that haven’t pushed mickegg’s green dot you should, nothing takes more effort than building an experiment to confirm or deny somebody else’s idea.

Mickegg, if you still have the setup maybe you could do the following test. Make the setup into a U of considerable height. Extend the sides up with copper tube but block off the right side, where I put the green line so no water can get in there. Then fill the left side (and bottom) with water and the apparatus should balance and be level.

If Fletcher’s principle was true than the following setup would also have to be true. That the hydrostatic head of the left would apply its pressure to the horizontal run and move the COM and level into the horizontal position. It does not matter if the left hand side is a piston with a solid weight or the fluid that is an illusion.

[mickegg]

Hi daxwc and all

I still have the rig.

I re-ran the experiment a few more times without seeing any noticeable imbalance.
I then eased the bearings by de-greasing...tried again...same result
Then tried to ease the seals a bit more so that they definitely fell under the piston weight. I've overdone this now and will have to re-work or change the pistons.


Prior to that, as the rig responded to 1 gram of imbalance, I thought I would try seeing how it responded to the pistons transferring the swept volume of fluid in a modified setup.
As I only manufactured to give a small piston travel, to give a reasonable weight to this volume I used mercury as a fluid...........oops!

Fortunately, I set the rig inside a large plastic tray!!

The mercury simply pushed past the seals as I tried to fill it up!!

Have since had some surgery(cyst removal in a rather sensitive area)
....so when my eyes stop watering, and I feel up to it, I'll have a look at your suggestion

To clarify, do you mean the water to replace the piston and weight on the one side leaving the other piston and weight in place?
Open to atmosphere or closed tube containing the water?

Regards

Mick

[daxwc]

To clarify, do you mean the water to replace the piston and weight on the one side leaving the other piston and weight in place?

No, remove both pistons and weights. But you also need to block off the right hand tube so it is only air. The really only need for the right hand side tube is to compensate for mass for adding the tube to the left hand side.

Open to atmosphere or closed tube containing the water?

Both open to atmosphere.

The end result will be a large copper tube u, that has one up rise leg blocked off and a L shaped column of fluid on the other side.




Mercury!!! Water is fine unless you want to start seeing patterns and numbers in everything.



This is Tarsier79 experiment and has to be true if Fletcher’s principle is true. There will be small loss due to cohesion (there is a small loss in fletcher’s due to piston seal) but will be close enough to say whether the principle is true or false. The hydrostatic head of the right side column of water is now taking the place of the piston and weight. Fletcher’s principle would have this setup balance with the water or without.

[daanopperman]

mickegg ,
With your rig you could have removed the trouble yourself , just a good spin ...

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the thoughts greendoor as mine were/are for you.

I am well aware of how buoyancy manifests & have used your exact same explanations for a very long time - it describes well Archimedes buoyancy principle & floatation law - you may call my balancing device hydraulics if you like to think about it that way - it disagrees with me because no fluid is moved about like a hydraulic lever acts [Work In = Work Out] - the masses weight force creates pressure in the contained non-compressible fluid - a pressure increase also gives rise to a temperature increase & also an energy density increase in the fluid, but no Work is done - this device is self adjusting & finds equilibrium or symmetry of forces to a Center of Torques [CoT] thru pressure & surface area relationships of masses & pistons interfaces as per the diagrams.

I realise it is hard to suspend beliefs but I simply ask that you follow the science - & on that note upthrust force [buoyancy] is due to first principles of pressure differentials - Archimedes buoyancy is a sub-set of that first principle.

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

Thanks everyone for trying to understand the principle of a new type of balance device I am proposing - if it is a correct principle it not only makes an Intrinsic Motion Machine a real possibility but also has implications for inertial dampening technology & would have a huge impact on the engineering & design community.

Please take a look at the following pics before deciding on an experiment IMO.

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

Tarsier .. I know you had concerns about torque in the pantogram apparatus so I have rebuilt the pantograph to include sliding pivots [no fixed pivot] with the use of a 'T' in the system - it actually makes no difference to the ordinary pantograph design IMO.

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

It seems my explanations were harder to understand than I imagined - therefore I include some pics below to ease that burden.

First is a swimming pool fill of water - a cubic meter [full of water] is suspended in the pool [the cube walls having the same density as the water at 1000 kg/m^3] - it has neutral buoyancy with a tendency at any depth to neither rise nor sink - that is because the upthrust force equals the downthrust force, they are in equilibrium - because liquid pressure is linear with depth it will be neutrally buoyant at any depth - its upthrust force is due to the pressure differential above & below the cube which can be numerically supported easily by a little math.

The next 3 pics show hanging devices using a water trough with modified pantograph - in each case they are balanced due Archimedes principle - one float mass is balanced as is two identical float masses with same piston water interface areas - the second dual example however uses a lesser float mass on the rhs & smaller piston surface area.

N.B.1. there is a direct relationship between opposing masses & surface areas in contact with the fluid - if one side halves the mass it must also halve the surface area of the piston etc - if it is a 10th the mass it must reduce piston area to a 10th so that forces each side of the fulcrum are in equilibrium to give overall device balance.

N.B.2. the key is that although both float masses weigh different amounts at half the density of the fluid for example they will sink to the same level & have the same pressure beneath the float i.e. different upthrust forces but same pressure, which gives system force equilibrium & device balance.

The last pic is where I have done away with the water trough & transitioned to a containment vessel, with pistons - as before the piston areas in contact with the fluid are proportional to the masses so that the pressure at the piston interface is the same but the upthrust forces are not - we still have equilibrium of forces about the fulcrum & system balance.

N.B.1 since I have abandoned Archimedes upthrust for pressure differential upthrust I can use masses with far greater density that the fluid medium, since they cannot penetrate the fluid but must find equilibrium between fluid pressure increase [upthrust force] & mass pressure [weight force].

N.B.2. if the device were turned upside down the forces would no longer be in equilibrium & there would be torque CW in this example.

[Tarsier79]

Fletcher, I am still unconvinced.

Do away with the water, and just consider the pantogram pushing down on a solid block extending across. The pantogram will balance the force on both sides, but not the weight. The force it directs is onto its own frame and is not referenced to gravity.

The same happens with the water, forces are applied to the frame. The mass applies itself to the whole, and unbalances the device.

[mickegg]

Hi daxwc

I got around to trying the experiment....(Tarsier79)

As you can see I've put a stand pipe on one side only, and sealed the opposite side with a brass plug that I already had.
There was about 5 grams difference between these two parts.

Pic1
As the additions raised the com above the centreline and it was proving too difficult to balance using a small offset added weight,
I attached my original 120 gram weights to a couple of old pipe clips and used them as sliders to correct the balance and lower the com

Pic2
Showing a weight attached to pipe clip

Pics 3 and 4
These show the deflection a 1 gram washer produced when placed on top of the stand pipe or brass plug respectively


When filled with water the setup was overbalanced.

The weight of the water in the stand pipe was not dissipated.


The elimination of the pistons and seals appears a good move, as does the weight attributed to the unbalanced water replacing the mass weight

Fletcher, does this experiment satisfy the criteria for testing your hypothesis?
Are you happy with the setup?

Regards

Mick

[Tarsier79]

Great work Mickegg.

I love the setup, and great build quality.

[Fletcher]

My apologies, I've been offline with a 2 day internet outage.

I want to say again that Archimedes Buoyancy Force is not the only type of Fluid Upthrust Force to cause equilibrium of forces - I may be labouring the point but you will soon see why - the diagrams below show that if I were to use a breather/filler pipe the Hydrostatic Paradox will raise the masses just like Archimedes displacement would also do i.e. where pressure beneath is greater than pressure above, in exactly the same way.

On that note I have zig-zagged around, sometimes openly inviting to be slammed - in some ways that was my intent - to bring forward people, even if to criticize me, but to do that they would have to understand the arguments first - I was not & am not after opinions so much [anyone can give those with little of no thought] but analytical deductions & facts to challenge & support an opinion.

I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.

For those considering further experiments I suggest we work together through the next & last phase - if I am wrong, so be it, but I'll make my case & somebody should learn something from the challenge & response process I hope takes place.

P.S. Nice effort Mickegg & it is appreciated.

[mickegg]

Thanks guys

The debate has encouraged me to read up on fluid mechanics.

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

General:

Inertia is constant regardless of the environment.

Gravitational Force 'g' is variable depending on the local gravity field acceleration.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

The System Balancing Problem, when not using Archimedes uniform density floatation:

Unequal piston masses apply their Weight Force downwards equidistant from the fulcrum.

The down Pressure exerted on the lever internally contained fluid by the masses is equal for both but the Weight Forces are not the same - the fluid at the piston interface exerts an equal up pressure so that the downthrust & upthrust forces at each piston interface are in equilibrium but both piston & fluid forces are not equal with each other.

The system is NOT in Total Force Equilibrium because the masses have an ability to move tangentially - this means that when looking at the EXCEPTIONS case [as all else is equalized] there is a NET upthrust force, from the internal fluid acting upwards on the RHS of the fluid filled lever, of 10N i.e. 1 kgf.

Until this excess force can be mitigated the system as a whole will be Unbalanced with a RHS NET CCW torque of 10N at the appropriate arm distance - the CCW torque is due to Force Imbalance of excess upthrust on the RHS due to fluids being Isotropic & Pascal's Principle of undiminished pressure transmission [force], & not due to excess downthrust on the LHS.

If the lever were a solid then it would experience CCW torque also, as solids do support a shearing stress, so there would be excess downthrust on the LHS.

[Fletcher]

I will be introducing an anomaly I think I have found that allows my Pressure Differential/Pascal Upthrust to equalize forces at the the masses whilst allowing system equilibrium of forces as well, much as Archimedes floatation allows the trough/container vessel to balance - it involves manipulating the Hydrostatic Paradox which is why again I have emphasized it over & over.

My Solution to Finding Total System Force Equilibrium [Balance], when NOT using Archimedes uniform density distribution floatation:

General:

A. We must treat the piston masses as separate from the fluid filled lever & work the Force Profile from top to bottom.

B. Pressure & Force are quite separate but interrelated by proportion to Area.

The deeply hidden yet simple answer ?

1. the piston forces are in equilibrium with the fluid at the interface because both the pistons & the fluid exert the same pressure.

2. the pistons Weight Force is fully supported by the fluid pressure [the opposing force] i.e. their weight forces have been transmitted equally thru the fluid as undiminished fluid pressure increase & pressure is linear.

3. because the RHS piston has a smaller interface area there is an excess of upthrust from the internally contained fluid acting on the RHS of the lever - this causes CCW torque when what we want is NO System Torque i.e. Balance Conditions.

4. we want to mitigate the excess upthrust on the RHS of the lever.

5. to do this we need to reduce the downthrust on the LHS of the lever by the same amount so that the System Forces balance.

6. the 'Hydrostatic Paradox' allows us to achieve this, IINM - the paradox says that the system mass & weight will be the sum of all the masses weight forces, regardless of the shape of fluid containment or the height of the fluid column - IOW's, forces acting against internal surfaces cancel out to a net force & internal bottom pressure is only conditional upon density & height N.B. fluid pressure acting normally to any surface is a vector force of magnitude & direction, whilst pressure is scalar.

7. by inserting a solid displacer [same density as fluid] into the fluid on the LHS we are able to manipulate the Hydrostatic Paradox to an advantage N.B. fluids have scalar pressure but when in contact with a surface this quantity is expressed as a force vector at right angles to that surface - the solid displacer reduces the downthrust force on the LHS in equal & opposite magnitude to the excess upthrust on the RHS causing System Equilibrium of Forces.

Notes:

Follow the logic carefully.

Yes, it works in simulation & system balancing is achieved.

The sim was built from the above principles, anyone else can sim it too.

-fletcher

[daxwc]

Pressure is a stress and is a scalar given by the magnitude of the force per unit area. Pressure is simply the force experienced by an object divided by the area of the surface on which the force acts. The force is acting perpendicular to the surface.

I don’t understand your displacer and what your trying to achieve with the hydrostatic pressure and applied pressure on it. Internal outward pressure of an object equals the external fluid pressure, otherwise the object could be crushed. Your intention is the displacer is just for equalizing forces on the pistons?

Balancing a system’s forces through stress does not balance mass of the system. Why doesn’t Mickegg’s experiment prove that?