Cadman’s Hydrostatic Displacement Engine [free to all]

[F6FLT]

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.

[TinMan]

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.

As you would have seen,i bowed out once i looked at the PDF for obvious reasons.

But we should let others experiment without ridicule from fellow members.
It is just as easy to sit back and let others do what they will as it is to start new threads devoted to criticism.

If i could show you a system --no,in fact 2 systems that yield extra energy,would you be as quick to jump on all those that claim the same?.

So just sit back for the ride F6,and lets continue on with that !other! work we are looking into 


Brad

[F6FLT]

As you would have seen,i bowed out once i looked at the PDF for obvious reasons.

But we should let others experiment without ridicule from fellow members.
It is just as easy to sit back and let others do what they will as it is to start new threads devoted to criticism.

If i could show you a system --no,in fact 2 systems that yield extra energy,would you be as quick to jump on all those that claim the same?.

So just sit back for the ride F6,and lets continue on with that !other! work we are looking into 


Brad

I'm quick to jump on anyone who claims extra energy, only when:
- they claim to violate the laws of physics without experimental evidence
- they claim theoretical overunity but explain it on the basis of the known laws of physics

If someone calmly presents a hypothesis by asking why they find apparent overunity, they may have something, I'll try to answer, we're on this forum for that.
If someone calmly presents an experiment, with a diagram, the measurement protocol and the data, asking why there is apparent overunity in the measurement, he may have something, I will try to answer, we are on this forum for that.

But when I'm told "overunity 150, my calculation proves it!", or "my experiment proves it!", by presenting us only a school equation or an obscure youtube video without serious measurements, I say that this guy is as pretentious as he is incompetent. For at least 20 years we've been hearing that without getting anything out of it, aren't you tired of it, Brad? I do.
The result is that many people who are more competent and modest than those who claim overunity trust these dummies and spend their time testing ridiculous ideas rather than their own. This is counterproductive.
That said, I've never stopped anyone from experimenting.

[Chet K]

You are aware you referenced a private discussion  between a few fellows trying to help access a claim ...?
as well as help a new [pending] member .

what you just did .... Break a confidence and write such words about a person from a private discussion ...as well as the persons handle ...on the front page of this forum in a Headline ?

that has never happened before at this forum .and we have been doing things like this for a long time here,
to help experimenters in the open source community any way we can, without humiliating them.

That discussion was halted so as to engage the claimant and review his proof of concept [which he would willingly share.



YEESH

[F6FLT]

You are aware you referenced a private discussion  between a few fellows trying to help access a claim ...?
as well as help a new [pending] member .

what you just did .... Break a confidence and write such words about a person from a private discussion ...as well as the persons handle ...on the front page of this forum in a Headline ?

that has never happened before at this forum .and we have been doing things like this for a long time here,
to help experimenters in the open source community any way we can, without humiliating them.

That discussion was halted so as to engage the claimant and review his proof of concept [which he would willingly share.



YEESH

Chet,

Should we pretend to agree with everything that is said, under the pretext that it would be presented by people of good will? Sincerity and good intentions do not mean that the idea or object in question would be valid.
In this case, I know that the idea is wrong, it seems to me that it is my duty to say it, and when I say it, I say why, so that I can be subject to scientific objections. But I have not seen any, only visceral reactions.

Whoever had this idea didn't make enough effort to study the question, what the pressure is and its link to potential energy, he spent his time on a design software to get us a pretty image but no equation that would prove a paradox. He can be blamed for that, much more than me for the fact of saying it. There is no paradox anywhere except in Candman's mind.
Sorry that my opinion bothers you, you showed enthusiasm before any serious analysis, and now you are disappointed by my message and in the denial of a truth that shatters dreams.
Physics is austere, there is one Einstein or one Tesla for hundreds of thousands of obscure physicists, engineers, do-it-yourselfers or "inventors" in their garage, of which we are part. Candman didn't find anything at all, Chet.

Do you remember Rosh and their public demonstration of their miracle machine in 2015? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5qd7bEiqA
They used floats in a chain rotating in the water, claiming to draw energy by playing on the size of the floats. They had also understood nothing (or deliberately cheated). The inflation of a float consumes the same energy as the potential energy of water that is expelled and raised.
And of course 4 years later nothing came out of their machine, and Rosh no longer highlights his device on his site.  Has the world of "free energy" learned any lessons from this failure?  Of course not, he forgets gradually; now a Candman comes along with similar simpleton ideas, and then, hop,  the dreamers get excited again for the same buggy principle they forgot, or that they don't recognize because they didn't understand the first failure, and they start again indefinitely the same talk, for nothing.

[JimBoot]

I think the point is that you have betrayed a confidence. Not the tech.

Chet,

Should we pretend to agree with everything that is said, under the pretext that it would be presented by people of good will? Sincerity and good intentions do not mean that the idea or object in question would be valid.
In this case, I know that the idea is wrong, it seems to me that it is my duty to say it, and when I say it, I say why, so that I can be subject to scientific objections. But I have not seen any, only visceral reactions.

Whoever had this idea didn't make enough effort to study the question, what the pressure is and its link to potential energy, he spent his time on a design software to get us a pretty image but no equation that would prove a paradox. He can be blamed for that, much more than me for the fact of saying it. There is no paradox anywhere except in Candman's mind.
Sorry that my opinion bothers you, you showed enthusiasm before any serious analysis, and now you are disappointed by my message and in the denial of a truth that shatters dreams.
Physics is austere, there is one Einstein or one Tesla for hundreds of thousands of obscure physicists, engineers, do-it-yourselfers or "inventors" in their garage, of which we are part. Candman didn't find anything at all, Chet.

Do you remember Rosh and their public demonstration of their miracle machine in 2015? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5qd7bEiqA
They used floats in a chain rotating in the water, claiming to draw energy by playing on the size of the floats. They had also understood nothing (or deliberately cheated). The inflation of a float consumes the same energy as the potential energy of water that is expelled and raised.
And of course 4 years later nothing came out of their machine, and Rosh no longer highlights his device on his site.  Has the world of "free energy" learned any lessons from this failure?  Of course not, he forgets gradually; now a Candman comes along with similar simpleton ideas, and then, hop,  the dreamers get excited again for the same buggy principle they forgot, or that they don't recognize because they didn't understand the first failure, and they start again indefinitely the same talk, for nothing.

[TinMan]

I'm quick to jump on anyone who claims extra energy, only when:
- they claim to violate the laws of physics without experimental evidence
- they claim theoretical overunity but explain it on the basis of the known laws of physics

If someone calmly presents a hypothesis by asking why they find apparent overunity, they may have something, I'll try to answer, we're on this forum for that.
If someone calmly presents an experiment, with a diagram, the measurement protocol and the data, asking why there is apparent overunity in the measurement, he may have something, I will try to answer, we are on this forum for that.

But when I'm told "overunity 150, my calculation proves it!", or "my experiment proves it!", by presenting us only a school equation or an obscure youtube video without serious measurements, I say that this guy is as pretentious as he is incompetent. For at least 20 years we've been hearing that without getting anything out of it, aren't you tired of it, Brad? I do.
The result is that many people who are more competent and modest than those who claim overunity trust these dummies and spend their time testing ridiculous ideas rather than their own. This is counterproductive.
That said, I've never stopped anyone from experimenting.

Well this is as good a place as any,so a thought experiment only.

Below is a diagram of our thought experiment.
We have 2 x 100 liter air tanks.
Tank A is filled with compressed air,with a gauge pressure of 100psi
Tank B is empty,and shows a gauge pressure of 0psi.
Tank A stores X amount of energy,and tank B stores none.
The valve is opened,and the air from tank A rushes over to tank B until pressure equilibrium is reached.
What is the value of energy now stored in both tanks in relation to that of which we started with in tank A ?.

If it is more,please state as to where it came from.
If it is less,please state as to where it went.


Brad

[Centraflow]

Well this is as good a place as any,so a thought experiment only.

Below is a diagram of our thought experiment.
We have 2 x 100 liter air tanks.
Tank A is filled with compressed air,with a gauge pressure of 100psi
Tank B is empty,and shows a gauge pressure of 0psi.
Tank A stores X amount of energy,and tank B stores none.
The valve is opened,and the air from tank A rushes over to tank B until pressure equilibrium is reached.
What is the value of energy now stored in both tanks in relation to that of which we started with in tank A ?.

If it is more,please state as to where it came from.
If it is less,please state as to where it went.


Brad

High Brad

Two things have happened:-

1.   The volume has increased but at a cost of lower pressure.
2.   The surface area inside and outside of the tanks with relation to the pressure at the point of equilibrium

Due to the pressure drop of 1. the temperature has dropped also.   Due to 2. the external temperature has a higher heating effect on the internal temperature (delta Tº to surface area).
So overall you have A tank + B tank = higher pressure than you started with in tank A (this is at an ideal heat transfer).

Regards

Mike

[TinMan]

High Brad

Two things have happened:-

1.   The volume has increased but at a cost of lower pressure.
2.   The surface area inside and outside of the tanks with relation to the pressure at the point of equilibrium

Due to the pressure drop of 1. the temperature has dropped also.   Due to 2. the external temperature has a higher heating effect on the internal temperature (delta Tº to surface area).
So overall you have A tank + B tank = higher pressure than you started with in tank A (this is at an ideal heat transfer).

Regards

Mike

Ah,so we have a slightly higher energy now than when we started,due to the higher combined temperatures.

But lets just say that the small gain due to temperature increase is overlooked for now,will we still have the same amount of stored energy?.
PV1=PV2 ?.


Brad

[Chet K]

F6FLT
you entirely miss the point
it has nothing to do with you and your opinions on the science
never did .

a small group of fellows were discussing a member and his "work" PRIVATELY so as to not cause issues such as you have done here.

You have mistaken my ever present ZEAL for finding good honest men who have great reputations in the FE groups

you have mistaken that ZEAL for some opinion on his recent work .

I could care less about the ultimate accuracy of his theory  ...and give much more credence to his willingness to help and contribute and share open source 

it is the Man we need ...I have watched CadMan for a long time and greatly appreciated his efforts and honesty in the FE community ,and here he feels he has the greatest gift of all...
and gives it away.
a man of character and integrity ...it flows thru all the posts he ever made ..

a Man apart IMO...
   When he reached out for me a few months ago I was delighted to help [though we exchanged not one word on what he was actually doing ]....but events in my life
took me away for a while and reminded me how precious and special and fleeting this life can be.

Your behavior in this matter is reprehensible ,we don't do what you did here , your delight
in assaulting your fellow man and mocking him on the front page of this forum makes me ill

your willingness to post private discussions [which you are privy to] between a few members
just to attack this man ?


speaks volumes .

perhaps you do not recognize how fortunate you are to be among such "good men" that you would throw another away as if the trash.


I have read soo many of your posts with delight ,your mission statement still bolsters my
day when I reflect.
some things you wrote perhaps I would not have written.
but that is you and I respect that.

This part of you...the part that delights in roasting good men on the front page....

sigh...

hearing from our own membership the apprehension to sharing their work and ideas here ?

thats horrible  !! and has never happened before. 

We have a goal to grow this forum and invite more people ...some extremely interesting persons
one in particular was the driving force for this forum to be established [his work with speaker systems lead to
a device]

and many other things in the works.

we need a mission statement and code of conduct ,we never really needed a code of conduct before
but now I feel we do .

and I think you should write it !! [since your translate machine seems to be the best I have ever seen]
and your mind mostly similar.

[Centraflow]

Ah,so we have a slightly higher energy now than when we started,due to the higher combined temperatures.

But lets just say that the small gain due to temperature increase is overlooked for now,will we still have the same amount of stored energy?.
PV1=PV2 ?.


Brad

It is not a higher combined temperature.

Both tanks before transfer are at the same temperature to start with. on transfer one cools and the other heats. What I said is the volume has changed and also the surface area which has it seems an effect on the amount of energy stored in the end which in theory should not happen. But if you look at time in relation to pressure and volume eg. 100psi in both tanks you do not have 200psi you still have 100psi but the volume has doubled and the time for energy extraction is a variable factor. But if you do not change the temperature you will have the same amount of energy, in the end, T1+T2 = T1, T2.
Cooling of one and heating of the other should cancel any gain, but the air temperature outside the tanks would have changed and the surface area as well, so by manipulating those temperatures you just maybe have an energy gain, but that manipulation must have energy from somewhere.

Regards

Mike

[CITFTA]

In Cadman's latest post he gives all the math to prove his device is workable.  He also in an earlier post shows his prototype he used for testing his idea.

Here is a link to his latest post:  https://overunity.com/18243/cadmans-hydrostatic-displacement-engine/msg535599/#msg535599

He invites anyone to show any mistakes in his math.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[poynt99]

@ F6,

The other thread was a private thread, and was eventually locked. You were not the only one locked out from posting, FYI. In the future, I trust you will respect the privacy of these threads.

Also, you make good arguments for your point of view regarding the disclosure of claims etc., and I agree with most (see the site guides), but please refrain from making it personal.

Thanks.

[TinMan]

It is not a higher combined temperature.

Both tanks before transfer are at the same temperature to start with. on transfer one cools and the other heats. What I said is the volume has changed and also the surface area which has it seems an effect on the amount of energy stored in the end which in theory should not happen. But if you look at time in relation to pressure and volume eg. 100psi in both tanks you do not have 200psi you still have 100psi but the volume has doubled and the time for energy extraction is a variable factor. But if you do not change the temperature you will have the same amount of energy, in the end, T1+T2 = T1, T2.
Cooling of one and heating of the other should cancel any gain, but the air temperature outside the tanks would have changed and the surface area as well, so by manipulating those temperatures you just maybe have an energy gain, but that manipulation must have energy from somewhere.

Regards

Mike

Hi Mike.

Im sure you mean 50psi in both tanks after the transfer.


Brad

[Magluvin]

It is not a higher combined temperature.

Both tanks before transfer are at the same temperature to start with. on transfer one cools and the other heats. What I said is the volume has changed and also the surface area which has it seems an effect on the amount of energy stored in the end which in theory should not happen. But if you look at time in relation to pressure and volume eg. 100psi in both tanks you do not have 200psi you still have 100psi but the volume has doubled and the time for energy extraction is a variable factor. But if you do not change the temperature you will have the same amount of energy, in the end, T1+T2 = T1, T2.
Cooling of one and heating of the other should cancel any gain, but the air temperature outside the tanks would have changed and the surface area as well, so by manipulating those temperatures you just maybe have an energy gain, but that manipulation must have energy from somewhere.

Regards

Mike

Hey Mike

Maybe the tanks could be made differently.  If temperature change is an issue, what if the tanks were made so the the tank that is heating up transfers its heat to the tank that is getting cooler. Maybe an aluminum tank with 2 chambers. May be more complicated than that, like heat sinks in the tanks, etc.  This should increase efficiency by at least partially or more by neutralizing the issue.

Mags

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
you entirely miss the point
it has nothing to do with you and your opinions on the science never did .

a small group of fellows were discussing a member and his "work" PRIVATELY so as to not cause issues such as you have done here.
...

Candman pretends that there is a paradox related to the pressure and shows us a diagram for a possible overunity.
A small group of fellows were discussing this member (of ou.com) and his "work" PRIVATELY and I was among them.
That are the facts.

As I was allowed to answer in this thread, I gave my point of view which has not to remain private since the Candman's device is a public subject published on ou.com, so here it is in brief:
- there is no paradox, pressure is only related to potential energy, and no extra energy can be drawn from potential energy in a loop, whether the water is moved by communicating hydraulic circuits or by an elevator.
- Candman gives no experimental evidence
- Candman gives no theoretical evidence (which would implies a hidden energy source)

So Candman didn't understand Pascal and from what I read from him, and his method being to assert inconsistencies in the elementary laws of physics before studying and proving it, I don't see the necessity he comes here.
That's only what I said.

I don't prevent anyone from taking a different view, from not following my advice or from discussing anything, I'm just saying what I think it is.
Now if I didn't have to say in the private thread that it's all nonsense for me, I had to be warned that the thread wasn't made to try to understand a device, but to please a person of good will and their enthusiastic followers by encouraging them to persist whatever failure we could anticipate.

I am amazed to have to say this kind of evidence and simple things and to be answered on things other than operational and physics questions.

[F6FLT]

@ F6,

The other thread was a private thread, and was eventually locked. You were not the only one locked out from posting, FYI. In the future, I trust you will respect the privacy of these threads.

Also, you make good arguments for your point of view regarding the disclosure of claims etc., and I agree with most (see the site guides), but please refrain from making it personal.

Thanks.

Hi poynt99,

I agree with what you're saying.
Nevertheless, would I be wrong to think that the opening of a private thread on a public subject does not prohibit the opening of a public thread on the same subject?

I respect the private thread because I don't quote here what is said privately but I answer possible comments about me personally (right of reply) because this thread is also visible to all members not only to those allowed to write in, and I'm also talking about the Candman's device since it is not a private subject but a public one published on ou.com.

[Chet K]

Sideways arguments with which you try to justify your behavior ,  you would never have posted this topic
had you not been privy to that discussion .


to try and stifle your fellow man by rubbing his ignorance in his face ...[your perspective]

usually just makes "humanity" try harder

at some level you inspire ,but at other levels you cause angst .

if you don't wish to agree to the rules within a group... that is fine .

that is your choice.

What to do...........
?
perhaps you should have a moderated section ?

we need to make this place more accessible to the community as well as maintain some standards for
how we treat each other.
But our host has no time at all to be a part of this.

but it is very important to him ...and us too

[TinMan]

Hi poynt99,

I agree with what you're saying.
Nevertheless, would I be wrong to think that the opening of a private thread on a public subject does not prohibit the opening of a public thread on the same subject?

I respect the private thread because I don't quote here what is said privately but I answer possible comments about me personally (right of reply) because this thread is also visible to all members not only to those allowed to write in, and I'm also talking about the Candman's device since it is not a private subject but a public one published on ou.com.

This forum is not OU.com F6,this is OUR.com

Here we have private forum's,and here that privacy is to be respected.

There could be and are factors discussed in the private area that are not discussed in the public area,and this is something that the private group demand's.

I am trying to be polite here,but i must also be blunt so as you understand.
Upon being invited to the private groups,you agree that anything or any topic being discussed in that group remains in that group. Should the member that started the topic, or the inventor wish to move it to the open side of the forum,then that is there choice,not yours.

Please respect the wishes of those in that group.

Thanks

Brad

[F6FLT]

This forum is not OU.com F6,this is OUR.com

I sometimes ask me the question.
The first post in the private thread is refering to Cand... device as if anybody was aware of him, presuming that anybody is a user or a regular of OU.com, and the next post gives a link to OU.com.
So we are on OUR.com but if you don't go on OU.com, you miss all the documentation! Moreover, it is a question of bringing here an OU user, while he has opened a thread to discuss his device on OU.com.

I thought it was the stricter selection, therefore the more relevant contributions and the lesser "noise" that follows, and the greater involvement in the experimentation that made the difference, at least that's what makes me interested to be here.
I see that there are indeed remarkable contributors here, but I consider others to be much less rigorous. If there are also interesting things on OU.com, you still have to know how to select them and take stock of the subject when you present here a new one, without forcing everyone to look in the mess of OU.com, otherwise it degrades the quality here and we no longer stand out from the other.

privacy is to be respected.

I agree. If I did not respect it, I apologize and will be more careful in the future. What privacy would I not have respected? The mention of an invitation of a OU.com contributor here?
Because for the rest, especially the first post of this thread where I open the discussion to all, everything is public, it's not privacy, the Candman's device is a public subject so I don't see your point about privacy.

[Grumage]

It's Cadman, by the way!

[Centraflow]

Hi Mike.

Im sure you mean 50psi in both tanks after the transfer.


Brad

Hi Brad

No, I was giving an example from a different angle. 100psi in each tank to start with, you then connect them together and naturally there is no transfer, the pressure is the same 100psi and not 200psi but the volume has changed, it is now double and as so the potential energy is double as well.

So we go back to your 100psi in a tank but this time we magically expand the volume of the tank to double its size, so what pressure is now in the tank? and what energy is in the now double volume tank? can we extract the same amount of energy now as before when it was half its size? we now have no transfer losses!!

Just looking at the same object from different angles

Regards

Mike

[F6FLT]

It's Cadman, by the way!

Do not disclose any privacy! 

Thank you for correcting, and sorry.

[TinMan]

Hi Brad

No, I was giving an example from a different angle. 100psi in each tank to start with, you then connect them together and naturally there is no transfer, the pressure is the same 100psi and not 200psi but the volume has changed, it is now double and as so the potential energy is double as well.

So we go back to your 100psi in a tank but this time we magically expand the volume of the tank to double its size, so what pressure is now in the tank? and what energy is in the now double volume tank? can we extract the same amount of energy now as before when it was half its size? we now have no transfer losses!!

Just looking at the same object from different angles

Regards

Mike

Well as none of the stored energy escaped the system,then the same amount of energy still exists within the system.

But  my original question to F6FLT has to remain,where there is two tanks.
He wanted the math to prove an energy gain,and so i am presenting him with this thought experiment.

Once he has answered the first question,i will then present the second half of the thought experiment.


Brad