Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[daxwc]

***If your intention is the displacer was intended for unequalizing stress forces (pressure) to equalize the weight of the pistons.

Instead of calculating around buoyancy, I would be calculating around applied pressure and hydrostatic pressure. I don’t think of it as a buoyancy problem, get rid of the up thrusts it is an applied pressure problem till one of the masses move.

In your last example:
There is no down thrust net force reduction LHS of 10N. Mass #1 applies its pressure effectively at surface (since water compress very little) and the pressure is felt everywhere in the system. It doesn’t care about the displacer unless the piston touches it. The pressure mass #1 is supplying is the same as the pressure mass #2 is supplying (so no mass movement) and left side will be heavier by 1kg.

[Tarsier79]

I hope you don't fare too badly with that cyclone Fletcher. Just make sure you haven't overlooked an important property of cyclonic winds ;)

[Fletcher]

***If your intention is the displacer was intended for unequalizing stress forces (pressure) to equalize the weight of the pistons.

Instead of calculating around buoyancy, I would be calculating around applied pressure and hydrostatic pressure. I don’t think of it as a buoyancy problem, get rid of the up thrusts it is an applied pressure problem till one of the masses move.

In your last example:

There is no down thrust net force reduction LHS of 10N. Mass #1 applies its pressure effectively at surface (since water compress very little) and the pressure is felt everywhere in the system. It doesn’t care about the displacer unless the piston touches it. The pressure mass #1 is supplying is the same as the pressure mass #2 is supplying (so no mass movement) and left side will be heavier by 1kg.

Just had power restored after the cyclone, got wacked pretty bad but got off lightly compared to some - on holiday now till January.

Dax & Tarsier ..

The usual fluids we consider are Newtonian fluids [water is one] - if this is the case then in my previous example it will not balance as you suggest dax - the reason is this - the masses [1 & 2, total 2 + 1 kgs = 3kgs] exert a pressure on the fluid in the filled container - they are met by an equal pressure from beneath - this means that the forces are equalized i.e. equilibrium - I'd call that buoyancy but you think of it any way you wish - at this stage the two masses have no turning moment around the pivot.

Now we consider the fluid under pressure - we do the calculations & we see that there is a total upthrust force & a total downthrust force - when the upthrust is subtracted from the downthrust we have a net downthrust of 420N [42kg] - this equals the fluid mass of 39kg plus the 3kg of the masses influence - this is hydrostatics - we can calculate the fluids Center of Pressure [CoP] by working backwards from the turning moments - we find that the CoP is thru the pivot i.e. balanced turning moments [except for the additional 1kg displacer].

The interesting thing about Newtonian fluids is that they have a CoM or CoG but is has no relevance - we are just interested in turning moments & CoP - solids on the other hand always use the CoM.

N.B. the Hydrostatic Paradox teaches us that the sum of the down forces minus the sum of the up forces will always equal the total fluid weight force, in either an open or completely closed system & in most cases the CoP will be located where the CoM is in regular shaped vessels - therefore if the solid displacer can be attached to a thin sealed shaft & weight beneath it it can sit on the bottom as seen or be surrounded by fluid when upside down & just be part of it.

The answer to the problem I suspected could be found in Non_Newtonian Fluids [see a couple of sites, they are very interesting] - in particular fluids that once pressure was applied changed their viscosity &/or their shearing stress also changed - there are many types of Non_Newtonian fluids, including pitch, clay slurry's, starches, suspensions of various sorts etc.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?source=i ... XuV80CeJek

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

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

Maxwell fluids have combination properties of both fluids & solids - I was rather hoping that for some Non-Newtonian fluid that it would have some hydrostatic properties in one mode & exhibit solid behaviour in another i.e. when under pressure the fluids CoM/CoG would take precedence rather than CoP, in which case the example, with the 1kg displacer, could work as per the sim because we used fluid CoM/CoG rather than CoP.

Have a good break.

P.S. the pantographs might come in handy if you want to rotate it.

[daxwc]

Pressure is just a stress force. Problem is one can’t utilize this force in any way without mass displacement, that I know of. You can turn nothing without the fluid mass displacement.

Yes, you could take hydrostatic pressure off of the horizontal plane by shocking a Non-Newtonian fluid, but then what? To get anything changed (moving) it needs mass movement somewhere not just a stress force taken off. The Non-Newtonian fluid weight doesn’t change when shocked, nor does its density change.

In your example the hydrostatic pressure at any point horizontally is the same, pressurizing it does nothing, but add onto it at any related vertically point. Just as compressing a metal spring; the spring weighs the same compressed with the energy as uncompressed, such is hydrostatic pressure and applied pressure; one can’t say he is using the stress of the spring for changing COM without moving the spring and mass.

One thing that is interesting about Non-Newtonian fluid is that you could use it as a lever (shock it) then let the mass sink through it or the lever drain away.

[rlortie]

Boy! I am sure glad I am not involved in this debate.

You guys are twisting my brain! Makes me want to dig out my stowed canoe, put in the nearest pond, sit in one end of it and wonder why it does not move in an attempt to perpetually displace itself. :-)

All in jest!

Ralph

[daxwc]

The discussion now has moved towards a Non-Newtonian fluid which if shocked or pressurized will turn into a solid and the hydrostatic pressure sideways from the fluid will be taken off.

[barksalot]

As this thread is over my head in terms of higher levels of science and math I just skim over the discussions and avoid details because it hurts my brain.

But with the talk of fluids turning solid from being shocked made wonder how fluid viscosity was left out of previous discussions. Maybe I just did not catch it because it was buried in the details.

[daxwc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUMX_b_m3Js

[daxwc]

To make things clearer.

Dax & Tarsier ..

The usual fluids we consider are Newtonian fluids [water is one] - if this is the case then in my previous example it will not balance as you suggest dax - the reason is this - the masses [1 & 2, total 2 + 1 kgs = 3kgs] exert a pressure on the fluid in the filled container - they are met by an equal pressure from beneath - this means that the forces are equalized i.e. equilibrium - I'd call that buoyancy but you think of it any way you wish - at this stage the two masses have no turning moment around the pivot.

That is the problem the two masses, they do have a turning moment around the pivot in your set up. Just Center of Pressure is at the pivot. Center of mass is to the left 1kg, because mass #1 of 2kg minus mass #2 of 1kg = 1 kg. The masses weight doesn’t care about COP unless there is fluid displacement with the onset of the applied pressure and will be felt on the lever where they are at. To get your last setup to equalize the 1kg displacer would have to weigh 0KG, the displacer is doing nothing, because Center of Pressure doesn’t change Center of Mass.

Getting Center of pressure to move does not induce movement of the system, mass displacement does. It doesn't matter that the masses are even suppling the applied pressure force because it is a stress force. After stressing the fluid (pressurizing it) the mass's will be felt on the lever where they are at.

Example:
If you have a bathroom scale, stand on it holding in your hand a metal spring and get a reading. Now put the big metal spring on the scale and stand on the spring and compress it. The scale reading will be the same reading, the scale doesn't care that you have stressed (energized) the spring.

[barksalot]

Fletcher I have been thinking about this for some time and was wondering if this idea has any merit in what you have been talking about.

In more layman terms the weight on the left side drops on to a neutrally buoyant float and disperses the weights pressure uniformly to the fluid.
The floats should have enough volume to prevent the weight from pushing the float down against the container wall.

On the right side the weight falls on to the container wall and concentrates its pressures at a pinpoint spot.

Mike

Edit- did my post cause this thread to scroll sideways to view, sorry.

[barksalot]

It probably would be better to have the pivots of the floats at the axle.

I drew them showing a different point of pivot to show they operated independently and not connected by a crossbar as it may have appeared that way had I dawn them pivoting at the axle.

[Tarsier79]

Dax, I suspect a non newtonian fluid would still provide that static pressure against the side wall, otherwise there would be a release of pressure, and the fluid would return to its liquid form.

[Fletcher]

Pressure is just a stress force. Problem is one can’t utilize this force in any way without mass displacement, that I know of. You can turn nothing without the fluid mass displacement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_nN5oU0kaM

Note that the fluid pressure is derived by fluid height only - this causes a force on all walls in contact with the fluid - the forces on the curved surfaces have no influence on torque at the pivot because the curve is a constant radius from the pivot therefore these forces are centered, regardless of the height of fluid.

The force & arm on the flat left hand vertical surface of the container matches the turning moment of the suspended masses.

It appears the traditional CoM of each mass about the pivot times the horizontal distance [displacement] to pivot has no bearing or meaning in this context ?!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,
Why not get a length of 2 or 3 inch (drainage hose seal it, I use 2 flat plates, mastic, and bolt the plates together with the hose in the middle, fix a bit of board to a bike wheel with a gap in the middle then tie rap the hose in place facing up on one side and down on the other, you now have your fluid and your membrane so all you need now is two pivoting weights, one sitting on the up facing hose side, and one hanging just off the bottom of the hanging down side, that’s it the end, or should I say the beginning.
I have done a lot of this sort of stuff and still have some builds waiting, but what I have found out is that I now need reservoirs with air locks to prevent the balancing problem, they also act as anti syphon back systems.
Like I have said early on this thread, disc reservoirs do not take much turning, yes there is more pressure at the bottom ( weight ) but the fluid cannot grip the reservoir sides so it is easy to turn.

One of my V wheel inventions that is still work in progress (still needs building ), being a round reservoir, which is used to extend out on one side a weighted ring which is the out of balance weight, I built a rubber ring filled with water in between two V wheels and it was in a static balance, but did not take a lot to turn, I even sunk a air filled V wheel in my sailing centre water, this leads me to compartments thinking!

I do not have any soft ware yet so cannot load videos or drawings, my old lap top was XP and my new one is windows 7 so all my stuff will not load.
Hope this of interest, with respect Trevor

Edit, the above mentioned V wheel when built would more likely be air filled as it is to replace a mechanism to extend out the ring weight, the ring may also contain levers that fall outward on the extended side and inward on the ascending side, just to keep you up to date, but first and foremost is my work on the Geo Genny push over wheels build, if and when I get the time and parts!

[rlortie]

I had to dig through twelve pages of "General Discussion" to find this thread!

Started by Fletcher; November 16, 2012 (how time flies). I hope he does not mind me bringing it back to the top!

As some of you are aware, I decided to put Bessler, his books, and drawings aside while I researched "molecular mass in motion. Sparked by an idea received from member Erick. This in turn was also kindled after receiving a paper from Glenn Rouse regarding the disquisitions of one "William Kenrick".

I chose to re-light a fire under this thread as it contains nine pages of good info mixed with some I consider miss-leading. I will bring this to attention as my rebuttal.

I have been occupied with research and hands on experiments now since March 2013 on A fluid concept and although I do not have a runner yet, I believe that with the help of Blaise Pascal, William Kenrick, Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler, I have plausible reason to believe I have solved the mystery leading to Kenrick's patent application. He died before it was approved or denied and it was never issued.

In due time I will begin laying out what I can of my build and findings. For those interested, I suggest you review this thread from it start. Please make note of what you believe is in error for farther discussion.

You will have to be tolerant with me, I am under a self-inflicted NDA as the idea leading to my design was prompted by Erick!

Ralph