Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

[daanopperman]

Gday all ,

Tarsier 79 ,

On page 1 of this topic you stated that a weight dropped in water will not register on a scale till the weight hits the bottom of the container holding the water .
Thinking about it for a while I come to a different conclusion .
The weight will displace it's own volume of water , and it is this weight that will read on the scale as the weight enters the water immediately , but the scale will read a higher reading once the weight hits the bottom of the container .
So I think a 1\2 inc ball of lead and a 1\2 inc ball of alu will give the same initial reading on the scale , but will change once the weights reach the bottom of the container .
If I string a weight above the same setup , with the weight not able to sink all the way to the bottom , it will only read the displaced water on the scale . If I stand next to this same setup on a scale and dip my finger into the water , the scale I am standing on will lose the same amount of reading as the scale the container is on will gain .
What would be true is if you have 2 scales , one on each end of the container and drop the weight into the water at one end , both scales will read the same till the weight hits the bottom at one end above one scale , this scale will then read a higher reading .
I think it does not matter if the weight is submerged or floating on the surface , it will read on the scale .
This is just to make sure I understand the concept and not to say you have erred .

[johannesbender]

I would like to ask a question indirectly .

if I understand , weight is the measurement of the
force applied on an object by gravity , and when
a mass is the process of falling through a medium like air you cannot measure it's weight because you
must measure its weight acting against something
,so if you had a type of hanging scale you could
measure the falling weight , so it does sound
correct to me that you cannot measure the weight
of that ball when its falling into the water because
all that force is going to only move water around
until it reaches the bottom where it then could
be weighed ..

am I even close to understanding weight correct ?

jb

[triplock]

IMO the weight of a mass can only be determined when it is re-acting or acting against another body in opposition.

For all intents and purposes, a transient mass is weightless, but that is a mute point as it cannot fall forever. It will, at some point, make contact, thus its weight component will be realized.

Chris

[rlortie]

jb,

I agree with Chris, a falling weight cannot be weighed until it comes to rest. Need not matter if it is resting on the bottom, dropped in a container of water it will first add weight by displacement until coming to rest at the bottom of the container.

Lets use a submarine for an example; when surfaced it is displaced by weight, but once submerged the displacement is by volume. Its actual weight cannot be determined until it is resting on the bottom.

My design works by displacement of fluid, there is no falling weights, other than the mechanisms (weights) that create/control the displacement from one side of the wheel to the other. These so called weights weigh in at 257 grams (.566 pounds) including cross bars! A far cry from Bessler's alleged/estimated four pounds.

A witness report stated that there was a box of weights removed from Bessler's machine while being trans-located from one stanchion to another.
My design requires 70 of these cylindrical weights, (.566 X 70 = 39.62 pounds, or 17.97133kg).

Ralph

[triplock]

Ralph,

I hope your build is progressing well mate. Send me some more progress photos when able. We can catch up also as things have moved forward.

Best wishes,

Chris

[rlortie]

In initiating this thread, Fletcher went to great lengths composing his opening post. it is quite clear that this thread should emphasize on the following links and not get involved with the properties of falling weights!

Pascel's (unit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_%28unit%29

Mechanical fluid properties; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics

Fluid dynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_ ... e_equation

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/press ... _1354.html

Ralph

[rlortie]

To enlighten everyone, Triplock's above post confirms that he is involved as the appointed pessimist to see if he can throw a monkey wrench into my design.

To date I have given positive response to all he has tried to shoot me down with!

Chris, Erick, and I, make up the team that is fully aware of my design. I will release what I can as we go farther in depth with this topic.

Ralph

[daxwc]

Ralph from another thread:

Does a liquid that seeks to displace itself into a common head meet with laws of conservation? Don't forget adhesive force, a property which when water is in motion it tends to pull itself as it wishes to remain in one mass. It can even pull itself vertically known as capillary action.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:


Quote:
"Capillary action (sometimes capillarity, capillary motion, or wicking) is the ability of a liquid to flow in narrow spaces without the assistance of, and in opposition to, external forces like gravity. The effect can be seen in the drawing up of liquids between the hairs of a paint-brush, in a thin tube, in porous materials such as paper, in some non-porous materials such as liquefied carbon fiber, or in a cell. It occurs because of intermolecular forces between the liquid and surrounding solid surfaces. If the diameter of the tube is sufficiently small, then the combination of surface tension (which is caused by cohesion within the liquid) and adhesive forces between the liquid and container act to lift the liquid. In short, the capillary action is due to the pressure of cohesion and adhesion which cause the liquid to work against gravity."


Remember my joke about vacuum packed instant post holes? They are not vacuum packed but are definitely holes. Make a hole and you have molecular movement of mass filling said hole until the liquid becomes level. If the machine is topped off with liquid it is always level and the lifting of mass on the ascent is negated.

Ralph from last page:

In due time I will begin laying out what I can of my build and findings.

Interested in what you have to say Ralph, not so much the layout but the general concept, please get on with it.

[Fletcher]

I'm also interested in what you have to say & present Ralph, coz fluids fascinated me for a while.

I'd sure like to see the loop hole you are attempting to squeeze thru.

[rlortie]

Moved from Grimer's "Priority Claim" thread.

Ralph wrote:

Does a liquid that seeks to displace itself into a common head meet with laws of conservation?

Bill responded;

Ralph, until someone can prove otherwise, yes.

Bill, you have responded with the answer I was hoping for! You have added points in my favor!

My pessimistic collaborator (although he has tried) has not found a way to invoke conservation as a reason my proposed and plausible design will not work. He has thrown many "what if's" and "how comes" my way. To date I have been able to give him an objective answer.

I am not the person to say that Chris has or has not an understanding in fluid dynamics or mechanics. I have posted required links and charts in preceding posts. I have left little out of my presentation to him that requires struggling with the basics.

You ask for what energy input my design requires: It is a hybrid of both motion and gravity. Best and first example is motion of the earth and moon regarding reference to barycenter amplitude of ellipsoid orbit creating tides. Centripetal force plays an important part while inertia provided by impellers build kinetic energy.

When complete, my 72.25" (1.835m) wheel will take more than a moderate impulse to engage, I anticipate it weighing close to 500 pounds (226.79kg).

And thank you for the wish of "good luck"

Ralph

[rlortie]

Where as my intelligence has recently been questioned and I left this thread hanging with unanswered questions, it seems like an appropriate time to revisit.

Fletcher did a bang up job with his introduction on the subject of fluids, especially on page one and eight. For those interested in the possibilities of using molecular mass rather than Bessler's levers and weights, I suggest you refresh yourself with this topic.

I am currently on the second build of a machine that does not rely on weights or buoyancy but rather by displacement. My first proto that showed me my flaws in engineering can be seen in my album at:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

Current build is 72" (11.99 m) in diameter, one half the size of Bessler's 12 foot wheels. It is built from 1/8" tempered laminated hardboard, PVC,and CPVC pipe. It contains 73' (22.25 m) of 4" (10.16 cm) ID pipe. All internal bushings, bearings and dis-placers are machined from UHMW plastic (Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene)

A cross sectional view of the axle by coincidence or chance resembles the depiction in Bessler's AP drawing. it contains a center pipe, then a structural heavy wall pipe with an outer pipe of 4.25 " (10.79) PVC, half the diameter of Bessler's alleged 8" (20.32 cm) coopered axle.

My design also has the handle or lever protruding from the axle as depicted in the Merseburg drawing. This portion of the axle does not turn with the drum, the lever allows 180 degrees of manual movement controlling direction, amount of torque and stopping.

The usual liquid designs we are familiar with contain bellows and cross over piping making for poor lift ability and latency. My goal was to circumvent these problems. The answer came from a torque converter as found in most all autos with an automatic transmission. The cross over piping has been replaced with a rotational accumulator with 105 turbine blades keeping the fluid in motion as a flywheel dampener and Cf to keep it symmetrical around the rim. This of course removes any head pressure in getting the fluid to flow from bottom to top.

There are 35 pair (70) dis-placers each capable of holding 113.09 cubic inches (1853.213 CC ). In internal combustion engines this is equal to an engine with 7,916.3 cubic inches (129.7 litre)

Time for dinner, more later after I see how much response this gathers.

Ralph

Edited to correct math error!

[justalabrat]

It contains 73' (22.25 m) of 4" (10.16 cm) ID pipe.

WOW! 73 FEET! of 4 inch dia pipe!

[ME]

Ralph, that sounds like it was a huge project !!
But I have no idea what it should do.

[rlortie]

ME,

It is not a "was" project as it still is not finished.

It is the most time consuming and financial busting design I have ever attempted to build. Months go by that I do nothing but think about ways to improve it by increasing possible efficiency or make modification in the structural build itself.

My earlier estimated "curb" weight of five hundred pounds (226.79 kg) now appears to be an under estimate! I have constructed a roll away platform that is forklift capable utilizing four movers dollies with 16 3" (7.62 cm) castors.

The accumulator alone will hold 62.89 gallons US (52.332 gallons UK). I have yet to calculate the total gallons utilized in the dis-placers.

As for what it should do: It will either rotate or be so far out of balance that it will tip over. Not unlike a steam engine or electric motor, it will deliver maximum torque at stall. When I am ready to start filling it, I will have a Prony Brake attached supported on a platform scale. From this actual torque values can be determined.

Ralph

[rlortie]

I borrowed this post from Fletcher, (hope he does not mind) posted on Jim Mich's thread. It explains l the problems faced when using weights levers and ropes. my design is an attempt to circumvent these problems by looking where others have looked and failed.

I need not worry about lifting or changing the path of solid mass. Angular momentum is symmetrical and constant. I believe I have solved the problem in surpassing the last paragraph in the below quote.

Museum of Unworkable Devices:

Relates to this discussion. It is how most of us view the problem I guess.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm

Quote:
Imagine a wheel with regularly spaced spokes and masses on spokes. The masses are located at the middle of each spoke. Let the wheel's rotation axis be vertical, so the wheel is rotating in a horizontal plane. Suppose one of the masses is suddenly released so it moves out to the end of its spoke, where it is stopped by some restraint or catch. How will this change the rotation speed of the wheel?

To illustrate what really happens, consider an experiment that anyone can perform. Attach a weight on the end of a rope and swing the weight around a horizontal circle. Anyone who has done this knows that if the rope is released to allow the weight to suddenly move to a larger radius, the stone's angular speed (revolutions/time) decreases. Also, the weight's speed decreases, though that fact is not readily apparent to the eye. Its kinetic energy of motion is now smaller. That's not encouraging. This happens because the rope does negative work on the stone during the change of radius. If the rope is "let out" gradually, or if the rope only exerts force to stop the stone at the new radius, the force the rope exerts on the stone is opposite to the stone's displacement. Therefore the rope does negative work on the stone. This is equivalent to saying that the stone does positive work on the rope, and ultimately work is done on whatever the rope is attached to at the center of rotation. [For physicists reading this, we note that conservation of angular momentum applies, and the rope tension provides nearly zero torque, so the product of moment of inertia and angular velocity remains nearly constant.]

Perpetual motion wheels are invariably cyclic, that is, all motions of the wheel and its parts are repeated exactly during each complete revolution. So if a weight moves to a larger radius once per cycle, it must also be pulled back to the original radius later during the cycle. The work done in changing the radius by a certain amount from large to small is equal and opposite to the work done in changing the radius by the same amount from small to large. We gain no net energy per cycle.

Now imagine such a rotation in a vertical plane, so that gravity can play a role. Since the wheel's motion is cyclic, and the motion of the mass is cyclic, the work done on the mass by gravity as the mass moves down is of equal size to the work it does against gravity moving back up. There's no gain in net energy per cycle.