|
As my messages on the other thread are commented on and I am now prevented from responding, here is my point of view on this defective engine, supported by no facts and no experiment, and invalidated by all the observations and experiments made so far and the solid theories that have emerged.
As it seems that no one answered on the subject about what I said, but simply defended blindly the author of this pseudo-idea, I remind a few of you:
_______________________
A pressure is a weight per unit area. The pressure on a certain surface at the bottom of the container is the weight of water above it, divided by the surface.
The weight of water depends on the volume, therefore on the product of the height by the surface considered, and since the weight is divided by the surface to get the pressure, the pressure depends only on the height. There is no paradox.
The paradox comes from the belief that it would depend on the shape of the container. If the container is a truncated cone with the tip down, one would think that the pressure would be greater than with a cylindrical container, but not, because the weight on the bias part is exerted on the wall, which transmits the weight to the container support, but the weight of water exerting pressure on the bottom surface remains the same.
Playing with pistons of different sections changes nothing to the question. The work coming from a water pressure because of its weight, it is like any mechanical work, the product of the weight of water above the piston by the displacement. This work, which is a question of potential energy, proportional to the mass of the volume of water concerned, whatever the piston that raises it or uses it when descending, does not depend on the size of the piston.
Cadman says: "At first glance, it would seem that conservation of energy would prevent the latter method. However, this is not so. It can be done if you use gravity to raise the water by displacement instead of using the water pressure to raise it it the full distance". No way, it's exactly the same thing!
_________________________
What don't you understand there?
I have already seen much more subtle ideas than Candman's in terms of pressure, Archimedes' force, hydraulics in general. That's why I studied these possibilities closely a few years ago and can now see the bug of a similar idea much more easily. I must confess that I have had ideas similar to Candman's. But I spend time either studying, or asking questions to more competent than me, or testing the ideas before talking about them publicly, which allows me to see the flaws before alerting everyone for anything.
Finally, I remind a few of you of the other thread that I do not have to prove that the Candman system does not work. I've already been very cooperative in saying why. It's now up to Candman to prove that it works. He is the one who has the burden of proof. So let him build his experiment if he is so convinced that it works, or let his followers experience it for him rather than talk about it in the vague, censoring those who criticize it, and not answering objections probably because of the same misunderstanding that prevents them from seeing the buggy principle of the device, preferring illusions to realities.
I notice that the fabulous announcements are what appeals, especially to those who want to believe rather than understand, and to those, often the same, who know nothing about physics. They do not even see their own limits compared to scientists like Archimedes or Pascal who discovered these laws of nature, nor the need for them to seriously study physics to get out of their ignorance rather than to dwell on misunderstood popularization of science, nor the poverty of their ideas already thought of sometimes even in the 19th century, and rejected for good reasons by scientists more intelligent than themselves.
Show us your achievements, pretentious self-proclaimed overunity inventors and followers, if you are so strong, your principles so subtle that they remain misunderstood and never anticipated by the experts, your indisputable ideas so bright, the laws of physics so flawed, and the scientists so misguided.
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|
Author
Topic: Cadman’s Hydrostatic Displacement Engine [free to all] (Read 2945 times)
