BUOYANCY

[Fletcher]

Ask Mr Google to find the two principles I pointed you to.

Read & understand these - you will find your answers.

[Dwylbtzle]

i'm doing these multiple posts so as not to write while yer answering one already
and so i don't have to do edits
please bear with everyone

why are they raising that cruise ship with air balloons inside
why don't they just use a huge crane
if it doesn't take less energy to fill the balloons than to just hoist the bitch?

i've seen divers lift cannons by opening a scuba tank and filling a bag with a coupla seconds of air

and it woulda took less than a few seconds of compressing to get that little bit of air in the tank

now how much crane time would one get from that much gasoline
the amt it took to compress that teeny bit of air
powering a heft crane as it lifted the multi ton cannon?

[Fletcher]

Try some reading instead of typing !

[Dwylbtzle]

but what exactly am i gonna read if compressing different gasses ends up bringing in the factor of how molecules act at the micro level
and what energies they deal with?
we're adding energies that aren't in those formulas there
and what energies come into play to compress them?

let's forget uncompressed helium

how about a compressed gas under water
maybe those merely standard newtonian/archimedian/wartever formulas haven't taken into account how much energy it takes to compress them compared to how much energy yer gonna get FROM GRAVITY acting on something they expand when they UNCOMPRESS
(that particular aspect being a factor of molecules at the micro-level)

we're talking about two very separate things going on here

this is if we even say yer right just about helium being blown into a balloon with someone's dang mouth
and what elasticity in the balloon material?
THAT's gonna make a bog deference
and that's a factor of molecules at the micro-level, too
not the archimedian principle alone
hehehe
(hey this is fun, buddy--i'm not barkin at you
ok? yer the man!)

[Dwylbtzle]

edit

[Dwylbtzle]

here's a perfect way i can illustrate what i'm saying:
everyone please watch INTO THE BLUE with jessica alba (just her squirmy heinie underwater alone is worth it--hehehe)
or FOOLS GOLD with mathew mcConnehey (but yer gonna have to watch him with his dang shirt off like in all his movies)
:{/
and yule see scenes with tiny tiny tiny amounts of compressed air doing fantastic amounts of work as it rises
in into the blue they show BOTH: scenes of opening a scuba tank, for a mere second each, into a coupla lift bags
and then a huge chugging crane from a boat
both hoisting the same cannon at different times in the movie
and the crane takes a long time
all the while burning WADS of energy
finally it breaks and the cannon falls back down again.
the other way?:
SQUIRRRRRRT!
SQUIRRRRRRT!
SQUIRRRRRRT!
and that's IT baby-the same amount of work is done and much faster!
and with the crane REMEMBER: when you stop, the engine has to keep chugging as long as you wanna hold it up- unless you tie it off-and that's cheating-then yer using buoyancy again to keep the boat up-(no cheating now)
with the air bag, once it gets to the surface, it just holds it there
free (to you)
forever and ever and ever if you want--all the while requiring horrifying amounts of energy
yet so effortlessly you'd never notice or realize it--so gentle--so beautiful--our loving inverted gravity- ah levity
uness you can show it takes as much energy to put that air into the tank--that tiny bit of air--as that crane burns, then i have something here--think about it... and WHAT IF I'M RIGHT?--what would THAT mean? nothing less than the end of dependency on fossil fuels--we could save it to make plastics and medicines and dyes and fertilizer and explosives etc etc etc and whatever we might come up with ten thousand years from now/if there's a drop left by then
***********
added edited addendum:
(more things to consider, in no particular odor)
the reason they aren't using a powered crane or cranes to raise the cruise ship is because it'd be the biggest screaming CITY of gasoline guzzling machinery the earth had ever seen--and couldn't even be done, so no, they're gonna have a few tiny little air compressors like you would fill scuba tanks with, filling a few big rubber bags inside there for a while
*****
when you go play paintball they don't fill the tank in yer gun with compressed air, even though it's right there all around them, they use more expensive CO2 because even though easier to compress gives a more vital punch when a bit is let loose in the decompression chamber--and it's much better to play than laser tag because baby you GOT skin in the game, and it's almost like really being shot when you get hit, probably a lot more painless and merciful to actually be shot with a real gun, it hurts so much, because with a real gun at least you'd die.-Being as easy to hit as me... (slow, easily confused, and non fleet(flat) of foot) take my word for it/ so what MACRO law covers both equally in any newtonian or archimedean formula when we're talking about things you can do that rely on the energies produced by and/or relating to different molecules? not what substances and compounds do at the MACRO level--we're now considering the forces at the micro level--which trump gravity with ease
*********
if i can't even allow gravity into evidence here (in mr beez defense for maybe not being a fraud) but merely gizmo continued momentum, that magically ignores inertia and friction, then, i'm sorry mrs b, but i can't be his lawyer any more--and shouldn't be called a silly fantasizer by anyone who wants to be, still
*****
he said his wheel worked because it was somehow kept from achieving equilibrium--the word connotes gravity in its very definition
********
he also speaks of something being LIGHT on one side and HEAVY on the other--i must stubbornly still insist we got gravity in play there, no matter if he ever used the word-or knew anything about it--i can't make a phone, yet can make a phone call-- don't know how lots of things work that i can work
******
-also--i'm just personally curious, did newton come before or after him--and if before do we know if he ever read his stuff?
********
the thing about the wheel accelerating back up to speed and then finally reaching a terminal velocity when stopped and then let go again sounds like how all objects act under the influence of gravity
*****
also: this question must be asked:
dragging a bubble DOWN under water some certain distance in a buoy or bag or balloon or something will be hard
compressing it first and then taking it down somehow--maybe in a pressure proof tube so no water pressure is acting on it as it's brought down....? HMMMMM...
is more energy expended just dragging it down with brute force
or is more energy expended compressing it first before piping it down?
the answer is wholly dependant on the nature of those tiny vibrating little molecules
not the law of thermodynamics--i don't think the two sets of circumstances are wed by the law of conservation of energy
not directly linked at all

but i could be wrong, as far as you know
i understand that
who's gonna do the tests first?
that's what it's going to take
not arguing about it
yer gonna blow yer mind

[James_Arne]

deleted as it was an accidental double post

[James_Arne]

@All,
According to Wikipedia, perpetual isn't possible by known ways.
It is often difficult for people to understand new idea's.
With buoyancy, if a cylinder has a volume x and it can expand or contract, then it's density relative to it's environment changes. This would be because air or an inert gas occupies space but has little mass.
This would allow for the top and bottom of the cylinder to have a mass/density that can sink in water and when the space between them becomes greater and is filled with a gas, it's density becomes less.
1g/cm^3 water's density. mild steel is about 7.85g/cm^3.
This would mean that a cylinder that can expand to 16 times it's volume would have the same upward force as it would have downward force when it is in the closed position. Really, really simple.
And as someone from Russia posted in overunity dot com that a submarine has a sufficient mass to develop energy. His point was that if you have something that weighs one metric tonne and it drops 20 meters and then rises 20 meters, that is a lot of potential energy.
Of course, for initial testing, something around the 2 x 5 lbs. or 2 x 2kg's (one weight on top and one on the bottom) would be a good place to start. With something like this, the power would be generated by rotating something similar to an impellor which would drive the generator.

Jim

edited to run spell check

edited to add; @bill_mothershead,
Here is a mathematical proof that a buoyant system could work.
If the cylinder is 18cm's in diameter and can open to have a space of 32cm's between top and bottom weights, it would have about 4,000cm^3
of area (9cm^2*Pi*H=V). This would be enough volume to have the lifting force of 4kg's of mild steel with a density of about 7.85g/cm^3.
Very possible. the trick is to have vent tubes to the atmosphere. These tubes would prevent the pressurization or depressurization of the space between the weights.
With an actual generator, having the impellor type blading for generating power in the center might work best. This would channel the water for maximum efficiency while protecting the impellor type blading as much as possible from flotsam.
Yep, guess I do like math and engineering. And with this design, when the bottom weight stops, the top weight would close the space between the 2 weights and the outer cylinder could drop lower than the inner cylinder. The inner cylinder would be supported from below so there would be no intefrerence from moving parts.
The black inner circle is the shaft the impellor would be using as an axis of rotation. It could be the main support for the generator if an external one is not needed.

Jim

[Tarsier79]

I believe a submarine is designed to be neutrally buoyant, meaning its overall density is equal to that of water. The submarine rising and lowering in the water is not affecting PE of the system.

In your buoyancy generator, you need to take into account hydrostatic pressure, which increases at depth. this will try to squish your weights back together.

[Dwylbtzle]

I think tars is right marshall dillon
but i think yer on the right track
if yer gonna use a buoyancy device
or a wheel
i think one needs a cheat, (and each would be different for both)
that takes in to account molecular energies as they effect the micro levels and not the macro level
which you HAVE attempted to do there

and i gotta quit using throwaway "examples" that i know don't work, and have nothing to do with my idea, except in a feeble attempt to illustrate some other concept--every time i try to use a balloon or a buoy or imaginary wheel set up with a hyopthetical (that i'm asking to be let to get away with) people ask if that's how i would actually leverage something or do some work with it or would i tie it to a wheel with a string or what?
my own fault

edit in red

[James_Arne]

Kaine,
Wedges/braces could be used to control the movement of different sections.
One thing I have realized is that the top would need to expand outward when the generator is near the bottom. This would be how it would open again. And once open, the bottom could be realed.
it's something that would take work to develop but for something that could generate thousands of volts of power, it would have the potential.
Just not sure how much thrust ineither dierection would be needed to generate how much electricity.

Jim

edited for content and elaborate more on the concept's potential

[Dwylbtzle]

you can do what yer saying but throw wedge and lever and stint and brace etc and "stuff" straight out, would be my advice
you'll go mad and bang yer finger
and you'd be trying to bring in things that have to do work to accomplish
i could tell you what i'd do but i made a decision not to tell anyone on the internet
all i can do is give general hints for anyone who wants to to try various ways
surely someone will come up with something even better than anything i've thought of
that way

[James_Arne]

Dwylbtzle
When I was in the Navy, we were taught the KISS principle, keep it simple stupid.
Most idea's are so over thought it makes them next to impossible to do anything with.
I've done that with Bessler's wheel and now realize building it in 1/4 sections would work better than anything i have tried. would also take less room.
With this, probably for starters, using pvc, one piece can slide inside another and something as simple as a bolt could slide into place locking them in position.
there are other similar ways that might be just as simple that would work better.
The critcial part to me would be getting the top piece to open so it could float upwards expanding the tube so it becomes less dense. Even with that, i've given thought to 1/4 sections that can rotate outward allowing water under them. It would have to eb a timed expansion then rotation but would get the most use out of what's in the water.

Jim

edited to add, when the top rolls out, think jellyfish or squid. of course, once the tube is expanded, it may be possible to bring the top chambers back in to prevent excessive drag.
Jim

[Dwylbtzle]

when i was in the navy you could get kicked out for kissing a shipmate
now i guess it's fine

anyway--i believe you are TRYING to be using the idea that compressing air before bringing it asunder takes less energy than dragging it back down ass-is
fighting the earth all the way
(even when you consider the energy it took to compress the air)
and that is correct which is a miracle of the micro issue not the macro issue

[Dwylbtzle]

if anyone would like to test that (my previous), statement: take a compressor and pump some air down a 100 ft steel tube immune from water pressure and guage how much gas you burned

then try to push a balloon with the same amt of air--in other words say as big as a barn
straight down 100 ft with brute force
and tell saudi arabia yer sorry about all that
now that they gotta starve and all
(cause you sucked em dry to do it)
the reason this is so is because fighting air molecules and squishing them is easier than fighting water on mother earth and her gravity
and who knows why
but there's yer cheat in this instance
the cheat for a gravity wheel also uses a miracle of modern medicinal molecules
(and their attending energetic phenomenae at the micro level--not their gross newtonian physics at the macro)