Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Fcdriver]

Moving water quickly it becomes a solid, the surface of say a ten foot wheel times the rpm, you come up with a ft per second
The wheel would move at maybe ten rpm even then the water would be either gone, or dispersed

[r.henley]

Fcdriver,
Normally you would be right. With the type of pump shown, it is the mass of the water that matters. People are used to the word "pumping" as meaning to use pressure. With Bessler, it means load.
In the drawing I posted, when the piston or bucket moves in a counter clockwise rotation, it will pull water with it. A flat piston would work. The seal wouldn't be difficult to make.
And in the piston, flapper valves could be installed to allow for directional flow. And what this would allow for is that any water that the piston is taking suction on is an opposing force to the weight on the lever.
I'll use bith n-m's and in. lbs.
If an 8 oz. weight is 15 in. from it's fulcrum, it generates 7.5 in. lbs. of torque.
If a 225 gram weight is 37.7 cm's from it's fulcrum, it generates 0.85 n-m's of torque.
This means that an 8 oz. weight can lift 3.75 lbs. 1 in. and the other half of the work will be realized as acceleration.
This means that a 225 gram weight can lift 1.7 kg's 2.5 cm's and the other half of the work is realized as acceleration.
What would actually remain to be seen is how much momentum is developed. It could be that trying to lift more weight than the leveraged force allows for will convert as much force as possible into rotation.
And this would be one thing over looked. If a lever can not lift more than it's leveraged force allows for, will the wheel still rotate ? With this design, it will because the water can drain back into the sump.

[AB Hammer]

Lindgaard

All and all just assumptions, for you need to calculate splash resistance and water turbulence. That is if you can even get it to rotate, to even cause a splash in the first place. That is the reason when you have an idea? It has to be put to the test to see the real effect.

[r.henley]

You are simply unbelievable Alan. Splash test ? I don't need to. I could take your bait and dance for you and show everyone that you know how to lead me but I don't think so. That to me is not working with someone but would instead be letting someone take credit for my work. And you would.

edited to add;
AB Hammer, here is a splash test. But with you, everything has to be an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAKXrBinGD4

[r.henley]

AB Hammer,
If you want to work out the splash problem that you referenced, here is a start for you. Maybe you can figure out what they're getting wrong ?

edited to add; this is what you were referring to, right ?

[ME]

For starters: it's about incompressible fluids... not "splash" related.

[r.henley]

@All,
While I can't do that kind of math, I do understand the problem. What they omit is called a recirculation gyre. It's that when wind flows over water, the air mass in contact with the water will spin in the opposite direction. And this causes an effect in water which could be as simple as slowing the water on the backside of a wave. This means that water upwells. This same phenomena also causes cold water to be drawn up along the coast so that warm water can be in one location and 5 miles away the water can be quite cold.
I would hope that if AB Hammer wanted to discuss this that he could go into more detail than splash test. In engineering and atmospheric sciences, it is given a lot of thought.

[AB Hammer]

Lindgard

No need to answer ME beat me to the answer.

I also seen your sock puppets are busy keeping your red dots down. You where up to 3 then down to 2 then up to 3 again and now 2 again. There are quite a few folks listed for today that have never posted.


I have work to do, and no time for you.

[r.henley]

For starters: it's about incompressible fluids... not "splash" related.

I think it's funny you saw the words incompressible fluids in there. it is about generating waves. The external force referenced is the wind and change in terrain.
Yet you played on one word without actually knowing anything about this equation.
And this is the splash test which AB Hammer requested, water and exterior force.
With what I posted for rlortie, it takes the same things into consideration as my motion machine does. It just uses different mechanics. After all, ever watch the Olympics ? Divers can go into the water from 30+ feet, I think they use meters but I live in America and going into the water isn't the issue. Once in a while someone will be a bit off but with how clean most go in, it's not something I would be concerned with about in a machine.

edited to change singular to plural in one word-words.

[ME]

I don't care about that eq. So it very well could be.
There are simply papers out there describing the boundary dynamics of splashes based on NS.. Good for giving instant headaches.

But I don't expect R. to need any help with his wheel design - that's already done;
He knows exactly what he tries to do and only needs the verification build, and for the parts he doesn't know, I doubt he will deviate.

It's just unfortunate his lecture is disrupted.

[AB Hammer]

For starters: it's about incompressible fluids... not "splash" related.

I think it's funny you saw the words incompressible fluids in there. it is about generating waves. The external force referenced is the wind and change in terrain.
Yet you played on one word without actually knowing anything about this equation.
And this is the splash test which AB Hammer requested, water and exterior force.
With what I posted for rlortie, it takes the same things into consideration as my motion machine does. It just uses different mechanics. After all, ever watch the Olympics ? Divers can go into the water from 30+ feet, I think they use meters but I live in America and going into the water isn't the issue. Once in a while someone will be a bit off but with how clean most go in, it's not something I would be concerned with about in a machine.

edited to change singular to plural in one word-words.

No I did not request that splash test. You need to know how the device you showed does in a tank with side as you would need. Until you do a physical test! You have no answer.

But since you are looking at Olympic divers you might need to change to drunken divers who end up belly flopping and check out that for it would be more honest with your floats hitting the water with, all that resistance changing the center of gravity to the device and added friction.

[Unbalanced]

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 ? Yes, but then you knew this. I recommend the use of ABS or similar piping capped with an elastic, flexible membrane (balloon type material) less prone to frictional forces then a piston. Two scales calibrated scales, one weight in the form of a lead ball. If, when the weight is placed on one balloon end, both scales read the same, success in a stationary scenario.

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 ? This question has brought a better experiment to mind... No need for two scales, balance the pipe, as though you are creating a balance scale and observe if the balance is tipped with the addition of a weight to one end. It will Be important to be certain that the diaphragms are able to extend enough to accommodate the entire amount of displaced water.

3. Can this technology, if valid, be used to create a useful switching mechanism & prove the theory of asymmetric torque production around a fulcrum ? It is possible, that to use this unique concept to park a mass such that its weight is spread across the diameter of the wheel structure thus negating the mass's negative influence to rotation while actually adding positive influence. It will be interesting to see this concept once it is put in motion in a closed system. What I anticipate is that more water than that which is displaced by the weight will fill the opposite side bladder which would be a good thing.

This is one of the most original ideas I have seen posted here for quite a long time.

I have been on the sidelines for about a year now but I keep an eye out for new ideas. I got tired of the seemingly constant infighting and l'm not surprised to see how this thread has devolved.

[rlortie]

Moving water quickly it becomes a solid, the surface of say a ten foot wheel times the rpm, you come up with a ft per second
The wheel would move at maybe ten rpm even then the water would be either gone, or dispersed

My design being six feet in diameter (1.828 m) may (if it works) turn less or more than ten rpm. Not unlike an electric motor or steam engine, it creates maximum torque at zero rpm. It is not a motion powered wheel and is without question a very simple and easy to understand OB gravity wheel. If Jim_Mich wishes to debate this statement, I am willing to meet him anytime! The answer is; which one of us will produce a working design first.

The liquid does not get lost or dispersed, any leakage is returned to the accumulator via a pump. This pump may be either mechanical connected to the machine or driven by an electric motor using power generated by the machine. My test prototype will use an alternator capable of 90 amps at 13.5 volts. No, I do not expect to get the maximum of 1215 watts.

I have stated before that if it works, gaining a patent will be as hard as building it. Bessler stated the answer is where everyone has looked. My research has revealed that similar patents to my design were first granted in 1911 and the last to be noted is in New Zealand in 1995. It can even be found in the Gallery of The Science Museum, London.

Scratch the first (item 1.) from Unbalanced (Curtis) above post and pay heed to paragraphs 2, and 3. There are no membranes nor does my machine require any weight force other than the mass seeking its own level. As long as it is turning it like Bessler's, it will never find equilibrium.

There is no splashing nor loss of molecular mass be it water or a heavier density liquid as long as the cohesion and adhesion factors fall within Newtonian fluids, as in the attraction of a liquid molecule to its surroundings. If the fluid is also isotropic (that is, its mechanical properties are the same along any direction), the viscosity tensor reduces to two real coefficients, describing the fluid's resistance to continuous shear deformation and continuous compression or expansion, respectively. The molecular mass I look forward to using weighs 10.5 to 11 pounds (4.76 kg) per US gallon.

Ralph

[Fcdriver]

Fcdriver,
Normally you would be right. With the type of pump shown, it is the mass of the water that matters. People are used to the word "pumping" as meaning to use pressure. With Bessler, it means load.
In the drawing I posted, when the piston or bucket moves in a counter clockwise rotation, it will pull water with it. A flat piston would work. The seal wouldn't be difficult to make.
And in the piston, flapper valves could be installed to allow for directional flow. And what this would allow for is that any water that the piston is taking suction on is an opposing force to the weight on the lever.
I'll use bith n-m's and in. lbs.
If an 8 oz. weight is 15 in. from it's fulcrum, it generates 7.5 in. lbs. of torque.
If a 225 gram weight is 37.7 cm's from it's fulcrum, it generates 0.85 n-m's of torque.
This means that an 8 oz. weight can lift 3.75 lbs. 1 in. and the other half of the work will be realized as acceleration.
This means that a 225 gram weight can lift 1.7 kg's 2.5 cm's and the other half of the work is realized as acceleration.
What would actually remain to be seen is how much momentum is developed. It could be that trying to lift more weight than the leveraged force allows for will convert as much force as possible into rotation.
And this would be one thing over looked. If a lever can not lift more than it's leveraged force allows for, will the wheel still rotate ? With this design, it will because the water can drain back into the sump.

Replace the water with the stompers, leverage them to what ever advantage you want? Then rpm is not limited? Do I understand what you are doing? I think I get it.

[Fcdriver]

So you are pushing against the movement of water, to move weights, causing a imbalance,,hmm. But claim that pushing against the stompers, to move weights is not possible? I'm testing mine with a 10kw generator hoping to be able to stall it, because it didn't install a break.