Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[Fcdriver]

The vacuum to lift water more than 35 ft becomes a problem, in wells we use a jet pump anything over 35 ft. any moving of water quickly by vacuum causes it to boil, loosing prime. The pushing of water down to get up, is not that hard, but the GPM are reduced. A siphoned based wheel is not possible, with water. What method of pumping, is low vacuum high volume GPM with low friction ?

[justsomeone]

Interesting experiment Unbalanced. The problem I see is as the fluid is pushed over to the desending side and is traveling down to the 6 o'clock position, it still has to be raised back up just like any other weight design.

[AB Hammer]

Did Bessler get there first? Take another look at MT 108, but change the air for fluid & fluid for air.

http://www.orffyre.com/MTHard108.jpg

Edit, I wonder why Bessler showed cups when there was weighted bellow designs using the same principle prior to Besslers drawings, IMMSMC, and most, if not all the other fluid and air reservoirs show bellows in the MT drawings.

Trevor L W

In MT108, to change it around it would become more like MT125 for the air bags are like an earlier form of bellows. Also the problem under water, the water pressure that get harder the lower it goes will make the air harder to be forced to lower air bags.

Unbalanced

Your test was cool and useful for explaining the effect.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan,

it was the cup shaped membranes I was looking at in MT 108 the rest would be of no use.

IMO, you would need cupping membranes for the weights, to allow the weights on the ascending side of the wheel to balance across the wheel, by dispersing their weight throughout the reservoir for more degrees of the cycle, that and all of the other stuff on the post above the MT 108 post.

I am well aware of the column of water effects, and have done many real experiments with fluid weight reservoirs, and tank tested buoyancy reservoirs, but thanks all the same.

[Unbalanced]

Rather than a central, water filled membrane, be it round, star shaped etc, we use a peripheral reservoir, a water filled inner tube glued to the rear wheel of a fat tired bicycle or motorcycle, mounted between two uprights.

Significant weights, if mounted properly, would depress/compress the inner tube on the ascending side making a declevity for the weight to park in while forcing the liquid within to the opposing side.

These heavy weights could be mounted to fender shaped plates that would allow for a greater surface area of the inner tube to be depressed.

Perhaps it is just the jury-rigging /Rube Goldberg in me looking for a simple means to test a theory.

Liquid would be forced over and around the top and bottom vs being displaced horizontally.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Unbalanced,

I think first it needs a more simple experiment, a fluid filled seesaw similar to your experiment but longer, to see how that reacts across a longer frame, that would see if Fletcher's design has merit, if the seesaw dropped 45 degrees off the horizontal It would be worth a full on build.

My thinking is that this design will only unbalance about 45 degrees on the descending side each side of the horizontal, about 90 degrees in total being the unbalanced positive work zone of the cycle of a rotating wheel.

It is a shame I had to thrown away most of my experiments when I off hired my work unit, one of which was a soft flat drainage blue hose 100 mm across 4 meters long and clamped at both ends between flat section metal bolted together, it was on top of the fixed board on one side and under the fixed board on the other side, and crossed over through a gap in the middle, that was a water fill reservoir test, as seen on page three on my web site. I have still got the blue hose but not the compression boards, if I had, I could have done this experiment in a couple of hour, just locked the boards equal distance gap and fit the weights.

[Mark]

..

[Unbalanced]

I too had a roll of that blue drainage hose from back when I was trying without success to construct billows for another brainstorm. Gone by way of so many parts and pieces when the dream faded for a while.

The seesaw experiment is worth the few doocklets I'll blow to retool.

Better perhaps to duplicate the confined liquid experiment that is the point of this thread.

It is the only configuration that won't add the slosh effect once the liquid deviates from horizontal except the center or periferal reservoirs.

[daxwc]

Must be me as I don't see the difference between this and the Newton's Cradle.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

I too had a roll of that blue drainage hose from back when I was trying without success to construct billows for another brainstorm. Gone by way of so many parts and pieces when the dream faded for a while.

The seesaw experiment is worth the few doocklets I'll blow to retool.

Better perhaps to duplicate the confined liquid experiment that is the point of this thread.

It is the only configuration that won't add the slosh effect once the liquid deviates from horizontal except the center or periferal reservoirs.

Hi Unbalanced,

Thank you for taking on this experiment, I do not have the time, I have to prove my own theory's first, then I can start looking at the many experiments I have planned.

My curiosity is boiling over with Fletcher's design, if it passes this test then it could open the door to all sorts of stuff.

[Unbalanced]

@TLW I'll be so bold as to say if Fletcher's hypothesis bears out, that it will prove to be the key. It will amount to being a gravity shadow in manner of speaking. It is the only means I have seems to potentially circumvent Newton's laws.

@daxwc I would like it if you would care to elaborate as , try as I might, I don't see the correlation.

As for the next few hours, I have some gravity experiments of my own to test on Mt Bachelor as its a powder day on the mountain. Nothing like a chairlift to add some PE.

[ME]

Specifically for Ralph (sure ok, also for who's interested)

YAIPOF : Yet Another Important (or otherwise 'Interesting') Property Of Fluids

It just comes to mind that nanobubbles can be formed inside fluids.
Those tiny gaseous bubbles can be simply air, CO2 or other concentrations of dissolved gasses. (as studies are time/money-limited most seem to over-saturate things to speed things up)
Short version: One gets more of those bubbles with rising pressure, temperature and fluid disturbances.. all been done by the waterwheel.

What could be important with all this is the fact that those nanobubbles are negatively charged and want to cling on to the surface (when the fluid doesn't want to: this does).
Therefore you could (also) (un-)willingly create a Van-de-Graaf generator .
(or not, because this possibility is for now just hypothetical).

Nothing to worry about, just something to keep in mind in case you either witness or experience electrostatic discharges.

I tried to find a nice reference, but most/all articles are safely guarded behind a paywall while searching for: Nanobubbles on Hydrophobic Surfaces in Water
To give at least some reference: this link is a non-paper (but still sciency):
http://personal.chem.usyd.edu.au/Phil.A ... /nanob.htm
This one is better: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nanobubble.html

---
ah well, in case of too much text: there's also this (unrelated) water thing:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... kscyp.html

[rlortie]

Marchello,

Thanks for the above links! I studied them in depth and am happy to report that the final results weigh in my favor. The more Nanobubbles on Hydrophobic Surfaces in Water, the more I like it!

As the old timers here are aware, I have made it through life and my working career inhibited with an overwhelming phobia for math. even basic algebra is beyond my comprehension.

I need help!... I am trying to calculate the volume of my accumulator design and it just is not coming out right, or at least it does not appear right to me. Here are my figures:

MY prototype is 72.25" (1.828m) in diameter. The final thickness is yet to be confirmed. Thickness wise, it is made up of three significant sections the first being the accumulator taking up 3.5" (8.89cm) of external width negating hub/axle shaft and supports.

The internal dimensions and description of accumulator are; (think of a doughnut)

Internal rim: 24.75 (62.865cm) radius
Outer wall: 36" (91.44cm) radius.
Internal width or depth: 3� (7.62cm)

The inner ring with a diameter of 49.5“(125.73cm) makes for a circumference of 155.5� (3.95m). The outer rim inner circumference is 226.11� (5.997m). Add these two together then divide by two: gives a mean or average 195.8� circumference. Using this figure time’s width; 3� (7.62cm) gives me a cubic inch reading of 587.4 cubic inches (9.625 liter- cc)
This is equivalent to 2.54 US gallons, which I know is obviously not correct.

What am I or my calculator doing wrong?

Any help from the math intellects would be appreciated.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

The volume for a torus is (pi r2) (2 pi R)
r is minor radius, R is major radius.

Google has a calculator ,search volume of a torus.

[rlortie]

eccent,

Thanks for the input, but it is all over my head! Maybe it will be of help to someone that knows what your formula or equations mean.

I would like to know how many gallons this thing will hold so I can get an idea of what it will weigh.

Ralph