Buoyancy Wheel Design

[Silvertiger]

I agree, Jim, but only within the confines of a wheel being supported by nothing BUT fluid, and not having one buoy linked to another. And from that standpoint, would it be erroneous to state that the weight of the entire wheel, which includes the weight of each buoy, will be supported entirely by an axle, through which the weight of any single buoy is distributed throughout the spokes and wheel, such that you are not hoisting an entire buoy's weight at any one time? And because of this, and the fact that this does not change the amount of water displaced by a buoy, wouldn't there still exist a potential difference? A spiked heel in a soaked cornfield versus snowshoes (or a "bed of nails" of the spiked heels sitting on the same cornfield), so to speak? I may be wrong, of course, but this has been my line of reasoning so far. (Yes, I know I'm talking about pressure, but it is simply to convey a visual of the idea here.)

[Bill_Mothershead]

Started looking at this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiphasic_liquid

and they listed an ingredient of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone_oil

I suppose everyone is somewhat familiar with silicone sealant
or silicone lubricants, but the oil form is useful as
a hydraulic fluid. Indeed, this leads to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid
attention to DOT 5 automotive brake fluid which must
contain 75% silicone oil. Available at a reasonable
price at any good automotive supply store.

Silicone oil does not mix with H20 nor any carbon based oil. It floats above BOTH.
Very good table of liquid densities at:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/liqui ... d_743.html

I hope this information will stimulate the imagination of
creative individuals.

[murilo]

WOW!!!
Thanx!
My individual creative imagination got really stimulated! 8)
Best!
M

[Bill_Mothershead]

A few postings back I said I once had a child's toy that had
liquid blobs flowing through a maze. Here is a link to a similar toy:
http://www.officeplayground.com/1-Wheel ... P1473.aspx

I found out additional information. The clear liquid is NOT water...it is
baby oil...and the red blobs are H2O with FDA approved food coloring.
Since it is a child's toy all ingredients have to be non-toxic and
FDA approved. See:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8608394_make-li ... -toys.html
This one uses food coloring in the oil???
http://www.ehow.com/how_8719491_make-li ... imers.html

I suppose you could heat up an old Crayon in an oil of some kind
and see if some of the color comes out into the oil.
Maybe it won't bleed out into adjoining water.

The physical chemistry of oil/water seem simple until I saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFl1rQoWtzg
Two chambers...one has
clear water ...and... colored oil....the other has
colored water ...and... clear oil
Image is too fuzzy to see if there is actually any "sand" involved.

[Jon J Hutton]

Jim,

I certainly understand that what you are saying about the height difference is exactly equal to the work required to lift the float from the low side to the high side. If the depth was 3 inches or 30 feet the height difference would be the same at the top of the 2 levels........but, the number of floats would be different causing one float to be pushed up above by all the floats underneath overcoming the height difference.....overcoming the width for height problem as long as the float was a solid to account for atm compression of the float......what am I missing. Sorry to beat a dead horse but it makes for a good puzzle to me.

JJH

[jim_mich]

If the depth was 3 inches or 30 feet the height difference would be the same at the top of the 2 levels.

No it would not.

The height difference at the top of the two fluids will always be a ratio. If the specific gravity of the oils is 0.8 then whatever height of oil you have will support water that is 0.8 as high as the oil.

If the oil is 3 inches then the water will be 0.8 × 3 = 2.4 inches high and the space between the top of the water and the top of the oil will be 0.6 inches.

If the oil is 30 feet then the water will be 0.8 × 30 = 24 feet high and the space between the top of the water and the top of the oil will be 6.0 feet.

[Jon J Hutton]

ok, thanks.....how is your project going.

[Silvertiger]

Jim,

Consider these two images below. The height from the bottom to the top of the fluids has been scaled to 6 ft (approx).

In this first image, the difference in height at the top is 5 inches. I calculated the percentage, 5/72, which yielded 6.94% - not 20.


In this second image, I calculated the difference from the bottom of the oil only, 5/49, which yielded 10.20% - not 20.


Now, in this third image, the difference in height between the 5 inches at the top and the water level at the bottom of the oil is 5/23, which yielded 21.74% - that's the 20% you were talking about, but it is 20% of the water on the oil side.


Overall, the percentage to consider is the first one - 6.94%.

And here's an updated 6 ft model design with the correct levels and force directions.


Do you still think that it will balance out?

P.S. - I forgot to mention in the notes that D & E cancel at their current positions. So what you are left with is BC sinking with A to help them along, while FGHI are rising. J is just along for the ride in its current position. Also, I could move the wheel a few inches lower so that I is more fully submerged at that point.

P.S.S. - Aside from all this, couldn't I achieve equal levels by changing the shape of the container? Like this?:

[Tarsier79]

Below is picture showing the comparison you should be making between the fluids.

Also, your last suggestion won't work. To understand this, you need to do some research on hydrostatic pressure This may help: http://todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp/chap23/page47.htm

[jim_mich]

44 inches ÷ 49 inches = 0.89796 specific gravity of your oil.

Your oil has a specific gravity of about 9/10 of water.

Your important dimensions are the 49 inches of oil and the 44 inches of water, which leaves an air space of 5 inches.

The 72 inches (6 feet) is not relevant. You could put 1000 feet of water under the 44 inches of water and 49 inches of oil. It would make no difference. You could use a huge wheel submersed 1000 feet and again it would make no difference. Only the air gap, oil and water that are above the bottom of the oil level, determine the out come.

All buoys below the red line (the bottom of the oil) cancel.
All buoys above the blue line (the top of the oil) cancel.

Assume each buoy displaces water weighing 1.000 units, which can be kilogram, pounds, ounces, whatever units you desire.

Assume the buoys have a specific gravity of 0.950, which makes each buoy weight 0.950 weight_units

This will make each buoy weigh 0.050 weight_units lighter than water and 0.05204 weight_units heavier than oil.

The torque on the left, caused by the buoys sinking in oil, will be 0.05204, and it will be for a distance of 49 inches. Thus you get 0.05204 × 49 = 2.54996 inch/weight_units of CCW work force.

The torque on the right, caused by the buoys rising in H2O, will be 0.050, and it will be for a distance of 44 inches. Thus you get 0.050 × 44 = 2.200 inch/weight_units of CCW work force.

The two CCW work forces added together are 2.54996 + 2.200 = 4.74996 inch/weight_units of CCW work force.

The buoys must be lifted upward through the 5 inch air gap. They exert their full weight of 0.950 weight_units. Thus lifting the buoys requires 0.950 × 5 = 4.7500 inch/weight_units of CCW work force, which equals the 4.74996 inch/weight_units of CCW work force provided by the buoys.

The force produced by the buoys exactly matches (except for rounding errors) the force needed to lift the buoys through the 5 inch air gap distance.


PS, You really should upload your pictures to the forum, so that they don't disappear in the future.

PPS, Your 'Model 2' will never happen except when the density of your oil is equal to the density of water.

[Dwylbtzle]

ALL RIGHT!
PAPA LIKE!

the buoyancy boys!
i think the buoyancy boys are on to something!

let me just say that buoyancy IS INDEED the gravity of the earth pressing down on the water
which causes the water to press UP on whatever is less dense

wait--correction: it would press up on anything--but that thing would only FLOAT if it was less dense than water

so, with the correct arrangements, one is tapping gravity
and breaking no physical laws
and the only thing it's costing you (in whatever system) is what it takes
one to arrange the specific neccessary circumstances that would allow one to tap the gravity in some (wartever) way

every time a boat doesn't sink it's because yer tapping gravity to keep it afloat
and THAT cost you nothing
and never stops functioning--till gravity runs out
which it never does
FREE FRIKKIN ENERGY!
right there!

every time a balloon rises--yer tapping gravity till the gas cools down or leaks out

if you have to heat the air to get the balloon to rise, f'rinstance
fine
but that has NOTHING to do with the energy that is lifting the balloon
they are NOT connected as far as the conservation of energy is concerned

the way i can prove that statement is: you don't even have to heat hydrogen or helium
do you?

now, if you heated the air to expand it
and then used the hot air to spew outta the damn balloon like a jet engine
and tried to run a turbine, or something, with it
then, yes, you could never get as much energy back as it took to expand the air

likewise--if you spent some energy to fill a baloon with helium and then
used the balloon like a jet to run a turbine--you wouldn't get any more
energy outta the balloon than it took to expand it
but if you let that balloon go
and it started to rise
the energy making it rise has nothing to do with whatever energy you
expended to get the gas into the balloon
yer tapping gravity

*********

there's a hint
run with it, boys (and girls of course)
:)

by the way--no--don't neccessarily make a wheel with a balloon attached to it
hell MAYBE something like that might lead to something
but i dunno--not anything i can think of
i'm just using the balloon example to illustrate the principle
you can TAP gravity
you CAN tap gravity
i just proved it to you intellectually
(if that helps ya any) heheheeeeeeeeeee!

(i'm an asshole--yeh--i know)

[Dwylbtzle]

see post here
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... p?p=101419

if yer just doing something that is just moving the water around
i wouldn't be able to see how that helps
but that means NOTHING it just means i can't see it

if something in there is tapping the energy yer getting from ANY buoyancy
effect then you might be on to something
because whatever energy or force or function yer getting as a result of buoyancy
is free energy that you managed to glean from the earth's gravity

see post here
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... p?p=101420
any system that includes some function provided by buoyancy
well THAT function gets whatever energy it supplies (or needs)
from the earth's gravity
because buoyancy is the earth's gravity pushing down on something--which then causes that something to push UP on something else

if wood floats in water
it's because gravity is pushing the water down and that forces the water
to push the wood up

but nothing HAS to be water (or wood)
and nothing has to end up floating
the something is gonna get pushed down and then that something is gonna push UP on something

just because a lead weight doesn't float doesn't mean it doesn't weigh less in water
because it does
that difference in weight is the free energy (or potential energy, rather) that you just got from gravity!
and it cost yer system nothing except whatever the hell it took you to get
that piece of lead under the water
and that object (in this case: that piece of lead) retains that potential
forever
as long as yer in a gravity field
it doesn't run out
you don't have to replenish it
and you don't have to bring anything back around

(this wouldn't work in a freefall of course--
or in space
like in a spaceship
unless they had a deck that was on the outside of a spinning wheel
or had some kinda science fiction artificial gravity field in play
on board)

"every action has an equal, and opposite, reaction"
sometimes these pesky laws actually end up helping you
not always just busting you

[Dwylbtzle]

another post from a different thread:

if the fluid is imparting some facility of buoyancy and
you worked that into the system then you WOULD gain free energy from
the gravity causing the buoyancy effect
BUT you wouldn't want it arranged so that that free energy is being
applied to both sides of the wheel
only one side
otherwise it would cancel itself out
and yer back to a boring static balanced ol' wheel again

if youse puts a wheel under a waterfall and it's actually SITTING under
the waterfall, so that the water is streaming down over the wheel equally
on all parts--then yer sure gonna be dealing with the immutable effect of
conservation of energy aren't you?
hehehe
but if you get that flow to only hit one side
yer spinnin baby
and you've violated no law
you won't even get an infraction ticket

this seems to me to be what most or all of the wheel diagrams in history are
trying to deal with:
essentially, they have a waterwheel sitting directly under the waterfall-
-with the water (which would be the gravity) pouring and sloshing right
down onto it--and all over it --and they're desperately trying to come up
with internal levers and pendulums and ramps and hinges and cylinders
and trips and triggers and doodads and thingamabobs to try and trick it
into turning one way and yes--those will always be violating the law of
conservation of energy

i take it that's why you guys are trying to come up with a dish with
unequal levels of liquid?
so's you get more buoyancy on one side?
well if you can get a big enough difference in levels
and can get a wheel to spin in it without the liquids running and leaking
out of the chambers
maybe that would work
the theory is sound, at least

but why not try and utilize buoyancy without using a wheel?

there IS a way
you get rid of the wheel and use a whole different concept
but yer still tapping gravity with buoyancy

that was my BFD (to build) original idea

there IS a way to make a gravity WHEEL
i can think of a way that doesn't use buoyancy
and if bessler wasn't a fraud he mighta used what i'm thinking of
or, if he used buoyancy, he musta had some apparatus that was OUTSIDE the wheel
just nudging one side from without somehow
and i haven't bothered to figure something like that out
someone could probably think of a way
maybe more than one way
maybe maybe not
i dunno for sure, though

if i had to GUESS
GUESS mind you
i'd say bessler did use buoyancy somehow
so the buoyancy boys are on to something
i believe

the only reason i say that is because i'm not sure a certain technology
that my WHEEL idea uses
was that available back then

and i could even be wrong about that
gotta brush up on my history of technologies a bit

[Dwylbtzle]

There is no rotation from merely gravitation!
In physics you need force differentiation

i agree with that
that's absolutely correct

that's what i meant in the above post
if you just have a wheel sitting in gravity
good luck tricking it, internally, to spin
yer gonna have to have sOMething--ANOTHER energy nudging just one side
pushing one direction
or resetting the lever on the fulcrum
or bringing some weights "back"
or whatever it would take
but it would take something

if bessler wasn't a hoaxter-he maybe coulda used something that gave
him another outsidely arranged push--which energy he coulda been
getting from gravity
gleaned "freely" through buoyancy--i just don't know how he woulda done it

OR he coulda used another force i'm thinking of that is "free"-...
-but that would be telling, and i have no idea if people in his century coulda come up with it
but he'd definately need another OUTSIDE source of energy...

BUT--when all was set up to allow it--the wheel would be getting turned because of gravity
in the final analysis it would be the gravity that would be doing the work
so it WOULD be a "gravity wheel"
just not an "ONLY, (stand-alone, internally flipping) gravity wheel"

i fully understand someone getting pissed if he thinks people are continually insisting on THAT
(especially if they largely all end up flipping out and start calling everyone names
and screaming various desperate things in multiple thread titles, posted atwitter thither across the landscape,
and getting snotty)
but they MAY not be (insisting on that)
SOME, in here, may not be
and bessler may not have been

[murilo]

Woooshhhh...
Friday/13th surge! 8(