Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-15-2019, 09:23 PM
Cadman Cadman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 179
Cadman’s Hydrostatic Displacement Engine © 2019 Cadman Weyland

Cadman’s Hydrostatic Displacement Engine
An open source self sustaining gravity powered device. Free for personal or commercial use.

Please download the attached document

Main discussion here
https://overunity.com/18243/cadmans-...gine/msg535315

Cadman
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Cadmans Hydrostatic Displacement Engine.pdf (92.2 KB, 47 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 06-23-2019, 11:39 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadman View Post
Cadman’s Hydrostatic Displacement Engine
An open source self sustaining gravity powered device. Free for personal or commercial use.

Please download the attached document

Main discussion here
https://overunity.com/18243/cadmans-...gine/msg535315

Cadman
Thanks for posting your work here. I carefully read over the pdf one time, further scanning over the info at the link, and I take it you have yourself built a quasi-operational system? Quasi meaning that it might not be pretty nor ready for prime time, but one which proves the design? Just asking is all out of personal interest. Any kind of pictures of your set-up would be useful if you have constructed a prototype.

What can I say? If this is working then it is certainly something which many people can reproduce. I'd love to see any multi-cylinder designs you may have, now or later, and once more thanks for posting this here.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-23-2019 at 07:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-24-2019, 01:21 PM
Cadman Cadman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 179
Hello Gambeir,

I have not finished a complete prototype yet. I repeated the lift test I had done previously and posted a photo of it at OU. Not that that is any kind of proof to those who would think it's a fake.
I have also posted a detailed analysis with drawings of a prototype similar to the one being constructed, and I invite anyone to calmly and rationally point out any errors they think I might have made as long as they can back it up with the math.

When it is finished I intend to post the complete design and also a video if I can get it on line at Youtube.

Regards,
Cadman
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:33 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadman View Post
Hello Gambeir,

I have not finished a complete prototype yet. I repeated the lift test I had done previously and posted a photo of it at OU. Not that that is any kind of proof to those who would think it's a fake.
I have also posted a detailed analysis with drawings of a prototype similar to the one being constructed, and I invite anyone to calmly and rationally point out any errors they think I might have made as long as they can back it up with the math.

When it is finished I intend to post the complete design and also a video if I can get it on line at Youtube.

Regards,
Cadman
Thanks for answering and as for what others think; well you can lead a horse to water but you're never going to force it to drink if it hasn't the mind to do so.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:23 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
OK, all caught up on the amusing discussion over at OU; along with the great video's. Just for your own comfort, take heart in the fact that in general some egg head's get wrapped up in singularities, and I am fairly certain that's what happened with some of your fans at OU. Further, since many of the people involved in these topics are male, that amounts to a double strike against seeing what should have been obvious from the get go, and that's a fact of nature proven in numerous studies, and being aware of that fact is important to recognize if you are a male because it is our inclination to become blind to the surrounding information.


Objects that have more density than the surrounding matter will sink. The greater the density the higher the sink rate. The navies of the world have pretty much tried every conceivable way to make that happen, mostly by making holes in ships, which then obviously allows the lighter density of water to surround the object ship.

Steel is never going to find an equilibrium with water, as evidently someone over at OU thought, and such that it is suspended at some depth, which seems to have been one argument, and which seems to have arisen out of some disjointed notions about pressure. The displacement piston can only be supported by pressure density, which means the water must be contained since the water is not itself of the same density as the piston, and a hole through the piston makes that impossible even when connected to a riser tube. The piston is going to sink and the fluid is going to move up the riser tube. Evidently that concept was lost to some in the discussion, and whom seem to have thought even with a hole in the piston the piston would sit atop the water, but a hole allows the less dense water to move; a de facto envelopment.

As a side note: Pressure altitude density is an important factor in aviation and worth remembering because variables can alter the density of space. That understanding finally lead to the hypothesis that maybe the oceans themselves do funky things, from time to time, and not just the sky's over our own heads. This includes the possibility that gas release from oceans might explain the vanishing of ships since that would change the density of the surrounding volume of water: I'm sure you're familiar with the concept. In truth we are probably just now getting the some kind of similar concept about the atmosphere itself as a possible explanation for mysterious aviation disasters.

My point is, if there is a will, there is a way, and just because you begin with one density does not mean you have to end up only using that density in fluids and gases, and if Ken Wheeler is correct, and he is, then that also applies to solid objects as well: Understand? It's just something I think is worth bearing in mind because options always exist to make the impossible and improbable possible.

As you are obviously aware, the weight of a piston determines the pressure applied to the fluid beneath, while the diameter of the inlet determines the head pressure and therefore how high or far it can potentially move. Head pressure being akin to temp in thermometer, but in addition what isn't being taken into account by fans over at OU is the water pressure at the inlet that leads down from the holding tank, and which falls slightly more than five feet down to the first point of inlet where: *Atmospheric pressure is double for every ten feet of depth. So that pressure is further exploitable by the diameter of the inlet hole.

A potential force multiplication exists since a 63" inch depth is slightly over 5 feet, so you have a 1.5 atmospheric pressure potential, and not just the 14.7lbs standard air pressure at sea level. * Note that this varies according to the actual outside air pressure (*real and true air density is altitude pressure), but standard is 14.7 lbs at sea level for calculation purposes. Therefore slightly over 22.5 Lbs of pressure exists at the bottom of pipe leading down from the the holding tank. I'm not sure if the fans you're accumulating have considered the aforementioned and so I bring these to you for consideration.

That inlet pressure is a factor to take into consideration, and when taken in with the diameter of the inlet hole, should determine the head pressure of the inlet water. I'm not sure this is something taken into account and probably needs some more figuring to see if this matters, and if so is it an exploitable matter to consider?

The other thing was this discussion which resulted in some video's. Water has a density that is less than steel/iron and because of that fact any material of greater density will sink if the displacement of the volume of mass is breached. In other words, the a hole in the middle of your design reproduces that breach, and therefore the displacement piston sinks forcing the volume below it to rise. I can't believe it took a video to show that. Nevertheless, I still enjoyed the work and effort of that was put forth to prove the point.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-28-2019 at 10:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2019, 11:52 PM
Solarlab Solarlab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 63
Hi Cadman;

Great work and very interesting, thanks!

The links below might be similar to your concept development and may possibly contain some valuable design and construction insight and info.


Design and Construction of a Hydraulic Ram Pump

(including a bit of history and analysis)
Shuaibu Ndache MOHAMMED
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria
Design and Construction of a Hydraulic Ram Pump from Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies

Abstract
The Design and Fabrication of a Hydraulic Ram Pump (Hydram) is undertaken. It is meant to lift water from
a depth of 2m below the surface with no other external energy source required. Based on the design the
volume flow rate in the derived pipe was 4.5238 × 10-5 m3/s (2.7 l/min), Power was 1.273 kW which results
in an efficiency of 57.3%. The overall cost of fabrication of this hydram shows that the pump is relatively
cheaper than the existing pumps.
Keywords
Hydram; Pump; Volume Flow Rate; Power; Efficiency; Impulse Valve; Delivery Valve.

Home Built Hydraulic Ram Pumps
http://www.inthefieldministries.org/...am%20Pumps.pdf
"Complete detailed and illustrated instructions from locally available pumping parts - 1" Hydraulic RAM"
How to build a RAM PUMP
French River Springs
Published on Jul 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enBEMgDR3-A

How to Make a Large Size Free Energy Water Pump - Ram Pump
Tradisional Channel
Published on Dec 28, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esln877z4IE

Hydraulic RAM Pumps - Amazon (wxamples)
Small - $125US - - - Large - $185US
https://www.amazon.com/Hydraulic-Ram.../dp/B072J2Q7L6

Regards and good wishes, SL

[also posted these a few days back on OU but it's still waiting censor/moderator approval ]
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-06-2019, 02:06 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
always liked Most of your contributions

SolarLab
glad to see you posting somewhere ,I know there was a ruff time at
Stefan's forum with Wesley's blog spot [his notebook]

I had read there that you work to help Kids understand the "whatifs" ?
and hunt outside the box.

a more noble cause would be hard to imagine .

I know the topic here makes for very strong opinions .
member Evolvingape forwarded these few words for perspective...
and just how much we really still have unknowns or "Whahtifs"
to consider.

NOTE : I post this for perspective in fluid systems , not specific to Cadman's design principle.

the simple siphon [or is it ....?
snip
For much of scientific history, scientists have believed that siphons work because of the force of atmospheric pressure. A basic siphon consists of a tube in a larger container that goes up over a hump (the edge of the container) to empty out into a container at a lower level.

When liquid is sucked through the tube over the hump and begins to empty into the other container, a decrease in atmospheric pressure is caused at the highest point in the tube (where it passes over the hump). This decrease results in the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid pushing liquid up into the tube toward the area of lower pressure.

While the atmospheric pressure theory seems to make sense, some scientists noted that it requires the presence of air. When tested in a vacuum, a siphon still worked, so it seemed that some other force must also be at work.

More recently, scientists who have studied siphons have theorized that the key force is gravity. When liquid is sucked up the tube and over the hump, the force of gravity continues to pull the liquid through the tube. This theory relies upon liquid cohesion, which means a continuous chain of cohesive bonds must exist in the liquid.

Some scientists refer to this as the chain model, because you can think of the water like a chain being pulled through the tube instead of a liquid. When you begin to pull the chain through the tube and over the hump, gravity will take over and continue to pull the entire length of the chain through the tube.

Unfortunately, most liquids don't necessarily have strong cohesive bonds to make them act this way. Other scientists have created flying droplet siphons and carbon dioxide gas siphons that feature gas bubbles that exist between liquid molecules.

It may be the case that atmospheric pressure, gravity, and liquid cohesion all work together to make siphons work the way they do. Scientists will continue to study siphons to figure out once and for all how they work.
end snip
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO these type of experiments or concepts should never be dismissed
as settled science ...

our ability to manipulate the environment around us grows with each passing second.
and persons like Cadman stir that Pot...and encourage more "outathebox"
thoughts.
besides its Funn !!

respectfully
Chet K

PS
to SL
would be nice to read you in other places too..maybe things can get sorted?
respectfully
Chetkremens@gmail.com
pps as an example member Kator 01 [a wonderful contributor ]
made a comment here on some "plasma cloud" ??
https://overunity.com/18269/revoluti...msg536149/#new

Note : not looking to side track this topic
will remove off topic bits in a few days [or the whole post if requested]
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:51 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Honestly, scientists or idiots, because I'm not sure the former fits. I had no idea that any other explanation for how a siphon works even existed other than by gravity. Totally crazy theorizing but greatful and amused for the trouble.

Above all else suction is what defines a siphon. A siphon is a gravity powered suction device, I can't really say motor, but something near enough that it might be seen as such. I didn't see any reference to the concept of a vacuum in the entire litany of retarded thinking. Thanks for the extreme effort it must have taken to put in writing the idea's of the truly mentally incompetent.

These people seemed to have asked every possible combination of question in trying to understand a simple siphon except the most important one. Like say for example how a vacuum works. Good God, seriously stupid; I mean the closest any of them got was by some convoluted logic in applying Bernoulli's principle by way of atmospheric pressure change, a highly dubious concept in it's own right, especially considering that would mean it's possible to levitate a bucket of water by way of a siphon, at least if I read the logic to that one correctly.

How a siphon works is not a mystery, except evidently to contemporary self proclaimed scientists, and God help all of us if these are actually certified rubber stamped and tagged one's. Just imagine having your kid get a PHD in physics and not even be able to grasp the basics of how a siphon works. Well there's a 100K well spent huh? Christ Sakes the thinking is just otherworldly.

First you have to have a vacuum to make a siphon, and the vacuum is enabled by there being a tube, then you have to have enough vacuum in the tube to draw the liquid up and over the highest point: So long as vacuum is maintained, and there is moving fluid in the fall, then the fluid being siphoned will continue to move up and over the high point. The vacuum is maintained by the fact that the feed end is immersed in liquid and must remain immersed in liquid for the siphon to continue working. The vacuum is the motive force driving the siphon and created by the fluid moving on the fall side of the siphon. This moving fluid must be greater in volume than the water it raises above the high point.

Weight, balance, and fulcrum point: Why have they made this so absurdly confusing other than to use this sort of guile to make a buck by making the absurd seem a mystery?
Alternatively, maybe this is like a covert IQ test to see how dumbed down and mind controlled people are? I mean you got "Scientists" telling you these things; must be true huh?
This is truly a case of being blinded by science. With this kind of idiocy polluting the mainstream the future of that profession is seriously in doubt.

Thanks for posting that BTW and I don't think it sidetracks anything either. Well worth reading through I think, mainly because of what it illustrates as supposed scientific thought, I just hope none of them are getting tax payer dollars to study how a siphon works.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 07-09-2019 at 07:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-09-2019, 11:24 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Sorry Gambeir, but your post doesn't make any sense.

You start out by saying that gravity is the way a siphon works but then later you claim that vacuum is what makes it work. And you bashed the post prior to yours, but then explained how a siphon works with a description that is almost identical to the one in the post you bashed. And obviously there is more to how a siphon works than just vacuum because as posted in the prior post a siphon still works even when the whole siphon is in a vacuum.

It should be clear to anyone that has used or worked with siphons that gravity is the primary force that makes a siphon work. The weight of the water pulling down on the output side of the siphon has to be greater than the weight of the water being pulled up into the siphon tube.

But the cohesion of the water does play an important part in the operation. If you try to make a siphon with a very large tube the water will separate as it comes out of the tube and allow air into the tube which will stop the siphon action. In a smaller tube the cohesion of the water prevents this from happening.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:21 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
just paying attention here [or trying]

somebody say Vacuum ?
Member Evolvingape had shared this vid after asking a question.[regarding this topic ...and he is not a naysayer ,quite the opposite.

"what is the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth "

EA quote
So regarding the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth what fluid is the water displacing in a vacuum and therefore what is the buoyancy force?

It can't be the same apparent weight as air or water gives can it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfI2piICvM&app=desktop

to note Evolvingape is helping some of us who have issues with
wrapping our heads around the math the medium and the whatifs..
towards a happy ending to benefit humanity..

BTW the simple siphon "snip"above.. was his contribution,and honestly
flying droplet siphons and carbon dioxide gas siphons
or whatever...
just paying attention here and grateful for the lessons.

I believe the idea of manipulating Mass in the gravity field an amazing area to explore.



respectfully
Chet K
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-09-2019 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:38 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
Sorry Gambeir, but your post doesn't make any sense.
Probably because you didn't read it but reacted to it. There is a difference believe me. Take a time out, and then another, and then see what you think instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
And you bashed the post prior to yours, but then explained how a siphon works with a description that is almost identical to the one in the post you bashed.
Nope; I bashed the ideas in the post. I thanked Ramset for troubling himself with writing them down.

You're completely in error on both counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
You start out by saying that gravity is the way a siphon works but then later you claim that vacuum is what makes it work.
Look, you say exactly what I did in your statement below but without the critical understanding that a vacuum is the motive force. Without a vacuum gravity itself cannot act to pull water over the edge of a bucket.

The motive force is a vacuum. A siphon is by definition a vacuum pump. It is not a weight and balance beam, but rather a weight and balance tube with the fulcrum being the vacuum itself.

The critical part is to not become lost in minutia of absurdities. Water sticks together without any assistance or worry that it will decide to part bonds. Cohesion is an absurdity so far as understanding the motive force because it's given that the reason water flows is because it is a fluid made possible by cohesion. So yes of course it's important but it is a quality. We aren't dealing with sand but with fluids.

Cohesion is not the motive force but rather a requirement for a vacuum draw: A draw being a lift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
It should be clear to anyone that has used or worked with siphons that gravity is the primary force that makes a siphon work. The weight of the water pulling down on the output side of the siphon has to be greater than the weight of the water being pulled up into the siphon tube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
And obviously there is more to how a siphon works than just vacuum because as posted in the prior post a siphon still works even when the whole siphon is in a vacuum.
Changing the operating enviroment to a vacuum does not mean that a vacuum isn't present inside the tube, and which is greater than the outside vacuum chamber, nor does it prove that the siphon isn't working just because the whole is now inside a vacuum.

There's just not enough information to make any rational deduction with this statement. I mean we have no clue what was measured or what was tried. Does the siphon now flow uphill? Did anyone measure the internal vacuum pressure in the siphon? So this is interesting but that's all because we don't have anywhere near enough information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
But the cohesion of the water does play an important part in the operation. If you try to make a siphon with a very large tube the water will separate as it comes out of the tube and allow air into the tube which will stop the siphon action. In a smaller tube the cohesion of the water prevents this from happening.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Well yea, it's not glue, it's water. It doesn't take a genius to understand that concept, but try this with something more sticky than water and you're going to be able to use a bigger pipe, that is if the cohesion story sticks. Environments determine requirements. Change the Enviroment and you've changed the requirements. What may be a requirement in the atmosphere is not the same as it might be in space. I consider the application of a vacuum to be an extreme form of environmental alteration.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 07-09-2019 at 02:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 07-09-2019, 02:47 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
somebody say Vacuum ?
Member Evolvingape had shared this vid after asking a question.[regarding this topic ...and he is not a naysayer ,quite the opposite.

"what is the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth "

EA quote
So regarding the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth what fluid is the water displacing in a vacuum and therefore what is the buoyancy force?

It can't be the same apparent weight as air or water gives can it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfI2piICvM&app=desktop

to note Evolvingape is helping some of us who have issues with
wrapping our heads around the math the medium and the whatifs..
towards a happy ending to benefit humanity..

BTW the simple siphon "snip"above.. was his contribution,and honestly
flying droplet siphons and carbon dioxide gas siphons
or whatever...
just paying attention here and grateful for the lessons.

I believe the idea of manipulating Mass in the gravity field an amazing area to explore.


respectfully
Chet K
I understand Ramset.

Falling weight of water in a tube = vacuum. That's one thing, moving weight by way of a motional fluid is quite another, and water is not so sticky that it can be pulled like a chain, or like glue, nor is it sticky enough to explain away a siphon as something so simple as linked chains. The idea is absurd. You can't pull a stick out of water, toss it over a wall, and thereby drain the swimming pool.

A tube enables a vacuum to be formed because fluids enable seals. The vacuum is what gives water it's cohesion in a tube and so that it can operate as a connected chain. We know this because the next way to move water is by capillary action. Water has to have either a guide which makes bonds as in capillary action or else a tube with a vacuum. That's my understanding.

I could be wrong of course about there being a requirement for a vacuum, but so far as I know a vacuum is the product of a siphon's action, and is what it takes to move water up and over the rim of a bucket. A suction does remain present at the pickup indicating that a vacuum is present in the siphon line when the siphon is running. I don't see any of that being addressed.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 07-09-2019 at 02:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:28 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
I'm sorry if I've pissed people off but the whole idea that "Scientist's Say" is annoying as all get out; like ya know this is God broadcasting.

I was considering caving in slightly however we are living on Planet Earth, not lost in space, and what then is of significance? If there's a correlation which makes sense of the idea of why we would need to even consider a changed enviroment such as a vacuum chamber then it needs to be explained more clearly.

I do not see the relevance to the application at hand.

When liquid is sucked through the tube over the hump and begins to empty into the other container, a decrease in atmospheric pressure is caused at the highest point in the tube

I'm going to stick to my gun's for now. I still think it's idiotic science because obviously you have gravity on Earth and liquid cohesion is a given, but the final analysis of scientists is that gravity and cohesion are critical in explaining how a siphon works? Well maybe so for the crew of the Jupiter II, but for me here in the USofA it's plain old vacuum pressure.

Just remove the vacuum by drlling a hole in that high point of the tube and then see how important cohesion and gravity are in making a siphon work.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 07-09-2019 at 08:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-10-2019, 02:35 AM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
Nah

No worries over here ,and I doubt Carroll holds any ill will.

your a cool dude !!

Glad you share your thoughts !

Mine were never different from yours [on the siphon

but I did learn some new perspective from that link
and now I'm hoping there may be more to the story ...
?
we shall see ? ,one thing is certain...very cool topic to ponder all the whatifs

respectfully
Chet K
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:11 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
No worries over here ,and I doubt Carroll holds any ill will.

your a cool dude !!

Glad you share your thoughts !

Mine were never different from yours [on the siphon

but I did learn some new perspective from that link
and now I'm hoping there may be more to the story ...
?
we shall see ? ,one thing is certain...very cool topic to ponder all the whatifs

respectfully
Chet K
Thanks, I agree with you on the new perspective learning aspect as well ..Lol
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:44 AM
Grumage's Avatar
Grumage Grumage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 73
Hi Gambeir.

A quick question.

Do you know if by making the power piston hemispherical ( convex ) effectively adding to its surface area, if we would see some additional force applied to the piston rod?

The other obvious effect would be a small reduction in the volume of fluid being needed to be transferred during the next stroke.

Cheers Graham.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:08 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumage View Post
Hi Gambeir.

A quick question.

Do you know if by making the power piston hemispherical ( convex ) effectively adding to its surface area, if we would see some additional force applied to the piston rod?

The other obvious effect would be a small reduction in the volume of fluid being needed to be transferred during the next stroke.

Cheers Graham.
I appologize Graham, yes I did miss your post, and no I can't claim to be that advanced with motor design, but of course there's a reason for doomed and convex/concave pistons. Hopefully this advice is taken in and adopted to the design. Any other suggestions I'm sure would be appreciated.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-27-2019, 11:10 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
A fun idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
"what is the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth "
What an intriguing question.

The phrase 'sea level' is a shorthand to allow the presumption of atmospheric pressure being 14.5psi.

The 'weight of water' presumes containment (how else would you weigh it?)

As we are presuming the presence of atmosphere, 'in a vacuum' implies the contained litre of water is within a vacuum container.

The implied presence of a vacuum container defeats 'sea level'. The weight of a litre of water would be the same in the vacuum container irrespective of its altitude. Unless the vacuum container is so distant from the effect of gravity to discount its effect.

A further twist to this notion is, a vacuum is the absence of matter, which is demonstrably incorrect in the question which includes the presence of one litre of water.

A fun idea though.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:21 PM
Grumage's Avatar
Grumage Grumage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 73
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I appologize Graham, yes I did miss your post, and no I can't claim to be that advanced with motor design, but of course there's a reason for doomed and convex/concave pistons. Hopefully this advice is taken in and adopted to the design. Any other suggestions I'm sure would be appreciated.
Hi Gambeir.

The title says it all.

The various search engines cite many reasons but sadly all are referring to the ICE.

Cadman's design is quite unique insofar as we are working with a low pressure application where, in this case, increasing surface area would seem to be advantageous. In the arena of hydraulics with very large pressures little to no advantage would be noticed IMO.

I've made a start today on ordering a 10" by 6" automotive Rubber tire inner tube. Those that have been following Cadman's progress over at OU.Com will know that I presented an alternative design. Rather than a piston and cylinder I chose to use a " bellows " approach in the hopes of reducing some of the friction and sealing issues.

If anyone is interested I can attach a drawing and explanation of how I see its operation.

Cheers Graham.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:23 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
yes hurts my brain too

HuntingRoss
Grum and I have been struggling to grasp this ...your thoughts
do give more focus ...and are greatly appreciated .

but I have to confess I am still pondering the reasons for the question too
EA is not a sadist...he does and has shared way more than I or Grum can absorb .

There is something about the "annular gap" buoyancy and the gravity field
as it applies to mass manipulation ?
and Vacuum or establishing a nullification of atmospheric pressure by
utilizing this vacuum which manifests at times in these systems.
to cycle when it should not cycle...[the holy grail ?]

Grum
IMO you should post your idea ? the nice thing is the ITP [original thread
Poster Cadman] can ask us to remove or whatever ...

nice feature of this Venue IMO

also will try to post a quick link To EA open source work here or get a PDF ?

thx
Chet
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-27-2019, 04:25 PM
Grumage's Avatar
Grumage Grumage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 73
Ok Chet.

Here goes.

My single drawing shows the device at rest with water from the upper cistern piped down to the underside of the bellows/concertina, admission valve closed.

Upon opening of the admission valve the water fills the bellows causing it to rise ( transfer valve is shut ) we have allowed it to rise by 150mm or 6" lifting the displacement cylinder vertically through a sliding seal in the centre of the cistern 2 meters above.

We close the admission valve and open the transfer valve. The combined weight of the " bias " and cylinder now causes the water to flow into the displacement cylinder and travel upward round the sides of the solid Steel displacer piston. The bellows have now returned to rest as in my picture.

The next upward stroke see's the bellows fill and rise again, as we have 75Lbs of force available acting against just the volume of water plus that of the bias and cylinder. The displacer which is rigidly fixed from above the device, displaces the water through a cup washer at the top.

We now open the transfer valve and the bellows and cylinder collapse once again. As the cylinder collapses any water above the displacer piston falls over the sides to refill the cistern.

Back at rest again and ready for the next cycle.

For an automatic reciprocating engine we shall have to design some mechanism to operate the two valves.

But....

This all seems far too easy, what has been missed, am I dreaming?

Cheers Graham.

Post script.

I felt that perhaps my description of operation was lacking one detail, I'd forgotten to mention that the system had been previously purged of any air.

Sorry for any inconvenience.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Concept2rev2.JPG (39.7 KB, 22 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by Grumage; 07-27-2019 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Aditional text.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 07-28-2019, 10:49 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
My tuppence worth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumage View Post
Ok Chet.

Here goes.

My single drawing shows the device at rest with water from the upper cistern piped down to the underside of the bellows/concertina, admission valve closed.

Upon opening of the admission valve the water fills the bellows causing it to rise ( transfer valve is shut ) we have allowed it to rise by 150mm or 6" lifting the displacement cylinder vertically through a sliding seal in the centre of the cistern 2 meters above.

We close the admission valve and open the transfer valve. The combined weight of the " bias " and cylinder now causes the water to flow into the displacement cylinder and travel upward round the sides of the solid Steel displacer piston. The bellows have now returned to rest as in my picture.

The next upward stroke see's the bellows fill and rise again, as we have 75Lbs of force available acting against just the volume of water plus that of the bias and cylinder. The displacer which is rigidly fixed from above the device, displaces the water through a cup washer at the top.

We now open the transfer valve and the bellows and cylinder collapse once again. As the cylinder collapses any water above the displacer piston falls over the sides to refill the cistern.

Back at rest again and ready for the next cycle.

For an automatic reciprocating engine we shall have to design some mechanism to operate the two valves.

But....

This all seems far too easy, what has been missed, am I dreaming?

Cheers Graham.

Post script.

I felt that perhaps my description of operation was lacking one detail, I'd forgotten to mention that the system had been previously purged of any air.

Sorry for any inconvenience.
Stage 1.
The displacement cylinder, bellows and displacement cylinder above the non-return valve (DP2) contain only air. The transfer valve and inlet valve are closed.

Stage 2
The inlet valve opens and water flows from the cistern through the supply column to the bellows.

The head of water in the cistern is sufficient to displace the bellows, bias weight, weight of the displacement cylinder and some random friction from the sealing ring to raise it 6" (150mm). Pressure in the bellows and cistern equalise.

The inlet valve closes.

Stage 3.
The transfer valve opens allowing the pressurised water to flow into the displacement cylinder and annular gap around the displacement piston. The bellows, bias weight and displacement cylinder move down to 0" (0mm).

The transfer valve closes.

The bellows, displacement cylinder and DP2 contain only water.

Stage 4.
Repeats as Stage 1 with the exception that the displacement cylinder, bellows and DP2 are flooded.

Thoughts.
The open end of the displacement cylinder at Stage 1 must be level or higher than the water level in the cistern.

The head of water at Stage 4 will equal the head of water in the cistern and no water will flow.

The presence of air or not doesn't effect the outcome as the conditions in the cistern is shared with DP2.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2019, 01:07 PM
Grumage's Avatar
Grumage Grumage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 73
Thanks for your two penneth.

Hi HuntingRoss.

I can get to stage 3 without a problem in your description.

At stage 4 we have a collapsed bellows that is flooded. With the transfer valve shut we can now refill with a fresh charge of water. This action causes the fluid above to be displaced through the annular gap and through the cup washer
( non return valve ) at the top.

Some of the displaced mass is now held above the displacer piston leaving a small amount below.

I wonder if by adding some dimensions we can get the figures needed to see if the design is plausible?

Cheers Graham.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:25 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
Dims may help

Evening Grumage

Dimensions would help but I think the assessment is accurate based on current data. Assumptions include the level of the cistern water and open ended displacement cylinder per your drawing AND the cistern is the same diameter as the lower section containing the bellows.

On that basis the bellows would draw down a considerable volume to raise 6" (150mm) reducing the head pressure significantly.

Good hunting
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2019, 02:03 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
seems odd for a reason

The question and I suppose this is the point !

"what is the weight of a liter of water in a vacuum at sea level on Earth "

just updating here .

this question has roots in our measurement standards and "their beginnings or roots" and has relevance toward a specific observation and claim.
EDIT
Apparent weight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_weight

International System of Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...ystem_of_Units

Kilogram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

Snip
This information forms the basis of what we work from, not our own personal opinion on the matter which can differ. If we do differ then we have to calmly and rationally explain why.

Pay particular attention to the following statement and try and identify what information it does not state clearly:

“The kilogram was originally defined in 1795 as the mass of a litre of water. “

Ask yourself the question... Was the kg defined as it's actual weight in 1795 or was it defined as it's apparent weight ?

I can find no reference anywhere, ever, of the measurement being done inside a vacuum chamber. Therefore I must draw the conclusion that it was not..

What this means is that if we assume that the scientists at the time were breathing air, and they were immersed in air as was the 1 litre of water and measuring scales, then they measured the apparent weight of 1 litre of water and not it's actual weight.

Therefore it follows that the weight they measured was the actual weight of 1 litre at sea level (1 atmospheric pressure) with a prime moving stress force of 1g. The actual weight of that 1 litre of water should be 1kg of water + 1 kg of air because the buoyancy force acting on that 1 litre of water is equal to the amount of air displaced by that 1 litre of water, and this must be taken into account in the measurement.

So, 1 litre of water = 1kg is the apparent weight of that mass and not the actual weight.

When I ask “what does 1 litre of water at sea level weigh in a vacuum?” I am asking you to do an apparent weight measurement.

Do not get sidetracked by “sea level”, I ask this to provide location where g = 1, and as we know the column of air that covers 1 square inch of surface area starts at sea level and stretches upward to the upper atmosphere and weighs 14.7 pounds... therefore we have a pressure at the bottom of that column that is equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi).

To weigh 1 litre of water at sea level in a vacuum the mass and scales must be inside a vacuum chamber. The air pressure at sea level acts on the vacuum chamber walls and not the 1 litre of water inside the vacuum chamber. The vacuum chamber walls are strong enough to withstand 14.7psi of pressure and therefore do not collapse inward.

So atmospheric pressure is absent inside the vacuum chamber and therefore there can be no buoyancy force because the 1 litre of water is immersed in a vacuum, nothing! Therefore the measured weight at sea level is the actual weight of 1 litre of water under 1g of stress from Earth's gravity, and not the apparent weight of water, which is the actual weight minus the buoyancy force from the air that is acting upon it in opposition to gravity.

Phew... got that ?

Ok, so what does 1 litre of water weigh at sea level immersed in a container of Mercury ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm5D47nG9k4
end snip
just a partial snip of the query..
more info to come


HuntingRoss ...I see your contributions here and elsewhere recently

I am grateful you take the time to analyze,critique and comment here.
this is the only way forward...brutal honesty [the scientific method}
and 100% transparency .
hopefully you will not be disappointed.


respectfully
Chet K
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-29-2019 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:19 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
Having fun with units

Hello Ramset

"Ask yourself the question... Was the kg defined as it's actual weight in 1795 or was it defined as it's apparent weight ?"

Unless I am missing a nuance, the litre (a measurement of volume) defined the Kg. A litre does not vary according to altitude or proximity to a planet.

Gravity is attraction of mass and is measured as force (SI units - Newtons). Measuring gravity = 1 (atmosphere) at sea level is to quantify pressure.

To discuss weight, one is always considering it relative to its surroundings. The weight of 1kg in space maybe 9.8N (for sake of discussion) but in orbit the same Kg weighs 0N because it is in a permanent state 'of falling' and is therefore absent the effect of gravity.

Gravity acts at the centre of Earth, so 1kg at the centre of the Earth weighs 0N (there is no acceleration at the centre of the Earth).

"So, 1 litre of water = 1kg is the apparent weight of that mass and not the actual weight."

1kg is not the apparent weight - only it's mass.

"When I ask “what does 1 litre of water at sea level weigh in a vacuum?” I am asking you to do an apparent weight measurement."

At sea level, the mass of 1 litre of air is 1.225kg/m^3 divided by 1000 (litres/m^3) = 0.001225kg

1kg of water displaces 0.001225kg of air = 9.787995 N (assuming 9.8m/s^2)...A metric ton of water 1000kg would displace 1.225kg of air.

Absent the buoyancy effect of the air, 1kg in a vacuum container at sea level would weigh 9.8N and would probably weigh that for some considerable distance from the surface.

Hope this makes sense

Happy hunting
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:55 AM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
a reply ...and a build is moving forward.

“Unless I am missing a nuance, the litre (a measurement of volume) defined the Kg. A litre does not vary according to altitude or proximity to a planet. “

A litre is a measure of volume and does not vary, correct. The litre defined the Kg, correct. Was this litre's weight measured with the buoyancy force of air acting on it at 1g of acceleration, or without the buoyancy force of air acting on it, is the question. In the absence of air's buoyancy force a litre would not weigh 1 Kg if it was originally defined immersed in air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_weight

“The apparent weight can also differ from weight when an object is "partially or completely immersed in a fluid", where there is an "upthrust" from the fluid that is working against the force of gravity.[2] “

“To discuss weight, one is always considering it relative to its surroundings. The weight of 1kg in space maybe 9.8N (for sake of discussion) but in orbit the same Kg weighs 0N because it is in a permanent state 'of falling' and is therefore absent the effect of gravity. “

This statement is incorrect. w=mg therefore an astronaut weighs the same as the same as he would on Earth because his mass and his acceleration have remained the same. What the astronaut experiences as the feeling of weightlessness is the absence of stress forces acting in opposition from a normal plane. What you can say is that the 1Kg has a weight of 9.8N but exerts a force of 0N on it's surroundings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness

Weightlessness in Newtonian mechanics

In Newtonian mechanics the term "weight" is given two distinct interpretations by engineers.

Weight1: Under this interpretation, the "weight" of a body is the gravitational force exerted on the body and this is the notion of weight that prevails in engineering. Near the surface of the earth, a body whose mass is 1 kg has a weight of approximately 9.81 N, independent of its state of motion, free fall, or not. Weightlessness in this sense can be achieved by removing the body far away from the source of gravity. It can also be attained by placing the body at a neutral point between two gravitating masses.

Weight2: Weight can also be interpreted as that quantity which is measured when one uses scales. What is being measured there is the force exerted by the body on the scales. In a standard weighing operation, the body being weighed is in a state of equilibrium as a result of a force exerted on it by the weighing machine cancelling the gravitational field. By Newton's 3rd law, there is an equal and opposite force exerted by the body on the machine. This force is called weight2. The force is not gravitational. Typically, it is a contact force and not uniform across the mass of the body. If the body is placed on the scales in a lift (an elevator) in free fall in pure uniform gravity, the scale would read zero, and the body said to be weightless i.e. its weight2 = 0. This describes the condition in which the body is stress free and undeformed. This is the weightlessness in free fall in a uniform gravitational field. (The situation is more complicated when the gravitational field is not uniform, or, when a body is subject to multiple forces which may, for instance, cancel each other and produce a state of stress albeit weight2 being zero. See below.)

To sum up, we have two notions of weight of which weight1 is dominant. Yet 'weightlessness' is typically exemplified not by absence of weight1 but by the absence of stress associated with weight2. This is the intended sense of weightlessness in what follows below.

A body is stress free, exerts zero weight2, when the only force acting on it is weight1 as when in free fall in a uniform gravitational field. Without subscripts, one ends up with the odd-sounding conclusion that a body is weightless when the only force acting on it is its weight.

The apocryphal apple that fell on Newton's head can be used to illustrate the issues involved. An apple weighs approximately 1 newton. This is the weight1 of the apple and is considered to be a constant even while it is falling. During that fall, its weight2 however is zero: ignoring air resistance, the apple is stress free. When it hits Newton, the sensation felt by Newton would depend upon the height from which the apple falls and weight2 of the apple at the moment of impact may be many times greater than 1 N. It was great enough—in the story—to make the great man invent the theory of gravity. It is this weight2 which distorts the apple. On its way down, the apple in its free fall does not suffer any distortion as the gravitational field is uniform.

A complicated subject indeed...

https://www.livescience.com/46560-ne...econd-law.html

Force, Mass & Acceleration: Newton's Second Law of Motion

Acceleration and velocity

Newton's second law says that when a constant force acts on a massive body, it causes it to accelerate, i.e., to change its velocity, at a constant rate. In the simplest case, a force applied to an object at rest causes it to accelerate in the direction of the force. However, if the object is already in motion, or if this situation is viewed from a moving inertial reference frame, that body might appear to speed up, slow down, or change direction depending on the direction of the force and the directions that the object and reference frame are moving relative to each other.

The bold letters F and a in the equation indicate that force and acceleration are vector quantities, which means they have both magnitude and direction. The force can be a single force or it can be the combination of more than one force. In this case, we would write the equation as ∑F = ma

The large Σ (the Greek letter sigma) represents the vector sum of all the forces, or the net force, acting on a body.

It is rather difficult to imagine applying a constant force to a body for an indefinite length of time. In most cases, forces can only be applied for a limited time, producing what is called impulse. For a massive body moving in an inertial reference frame without any other forces such as friction acting on it, a certain impulse will cause a certain change in its velocity. The body might speed up, slow down or change direction, after which, the body will continue moving at a new constant velocity (unless, of course, the impulse causes the body to stop).

There is one situation, however, in which we do encounter a constant force — the force due to gravitational acceleration, which causes massive bodies to exert a downward force on the Earth. In this case, the constant acceleration due to gravity is written as g, and Newton's Second Law becomes F = mg. Notice that in this case, F and g are not conventionally written as vectors, because they are always pointing in the same direction, down.
The product of mass times gravitational acceleration, mg, is known as weight, which is just another kind of force. Without gravity, a massive body has no weight, and without a massive body, gravity cannot produce a force. In order to overcome gravity and lift a massive body, you must produce an upward force ma that is greater than the downward gravitational force mg.

The key part here to note is the last sentence...

An upward force ma that is greater than the downward gravitational force mg will lift a massive body, as demonstrated in the real world by the Mythbusters team:

Mythbusters - Ping pong salvage

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...C02E9ABC7C1144

In conclusion it is possible to switch a massive bodies apparent weight by manipulating the buoyancy force acting upon it. The ratio between water and air density is:

1000/1.225 = 816.3265306122449

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-0iJ25zbcs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfI2piICvM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDfXC7GKHZw
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:28 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
Moving forward to where ?

Hello Ramset

I'm not certain where all of this is going and I'm not seeing any questions that need addressing.

My only comment / observation :

A 1kg mass sitting in a plane flying in the same direction around the earth as a 1kg mass in orbit do not weigh the same. The plane is slow and the wing lift exerts an equal and opposite force on the mass. The orbiting mass is fast to the point where it's not slow enough to drop to Earth and not fast enough to be thrown out to space, it is therefore considered to be constantly falling. The centrifugal / centripetal forces cancel. The same mass in space would have weight unless it is so far distant from the attractive mass that it is considered weightless. I think in your comment "What you can say is that the 1Kg has a weight of 9.8N but exerts a force of 0N on it's surroundings" you are resolving the two definitions of weight. Fair enough.

"In the absence of air's buoyancy force a litre would not weigh 1 Kg if it was originally defined immersed in air". A litre of water does not weigh 1kg and I haven't seen a definition for the weight of water and the conditions under which it was measured where the buoyancy effect should/would have been considered.

I'm assuming this path of enlightenment is leading to a bigger question or point from your title "a build is moving forward" ?

Good hunting
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:45 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
HuntingRoss
Quote
I'm not certain where all of this is going and I'm not seeing any questions that need addressing.
end quote

Thanks for your reply , energy harvesting and repurposing ,a proof of
concept empirical test bed.

Open sourced .

should not be possible !

respectfully
Chet K
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:09 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
Was this litre's weight measured with the buoyancy force of air acting on it at 1g of acceleration, or without the buoyancy force of air acting on it, is the question. In the absence of air's buoyancy force a litre would not weigh 1 Kg if it was originally defined immersed in air.

In conclusion it is possible to switch a massive bodies apparent weight by manipulating the buoyancy force acting upon it.
Hello Ramset

I've been reflecting on your reply. Was your question relating to the weight of water rhetorical or do you know the answer ? I am unaware of a defined weight of 1kg of water because it is dependent on so many other factors...to the point that I doubt it has ever been defined.

In my previous post I gave a quick estimation for the weight of 1kg of water at sea level by accounting for the bouyancy effect of air but you have returned to the question with the misconception that "a litre would not weigh 1kg"...was this a typo error ?

It seems elementary to comment on the buoyancy force manipulating the apparent weight of a body, hot air balloons for example, which still makes me think you are alluding to something 'bigger' but your response seems quite cryptic. Are you at an early stage of something ?

Happy hunting
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cadman, cadman’s, displacement, engine, hydrostatic, weyland

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers