Reactionless device using the principle of Pascal for fluids

[esposcar]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moving fluid is flow.

If you take Bernoulli’s equation and set v=0, you get Pascal’s law.

You insist it’s static and yet it’s not. I think this is part of the problem. You insist on things rather than analyze them.

You can have a dynamic system where fluid doesn’t escape. Your idea of static vs dynamic is just wrong.

You don’t have to worry about flow in what you are calling a “pascal system” because you really only care about the initial and final state, when it is indeed static. But you’re talking about a dynamic system when you claim propulsion.

Which is flow. It has energy, and needs to be accounted for. When fluids move, the pressure drops.

If the fluid is moving it has momentum, so this is nonsense. You are hand-waving instead of applying physics.

 

It can be tested at earth, to see how works and I will have a direct prove. If works as you say, then excuses but You are giving opinions which is a way of calling it analyze in a subjective way. But in this case, we are just talking without any empirical prove from my side and from your side. But in the second device maths where done, and the way of proving me wrong is to turn out my results, or just indicate me what I have done wrong in the equations.Obviously if there is a stronger force that pulls more from one side than the other, well we can call it propulsion

Edited March 30, 2019 by esposcar

[studiot]

 

[esposcar]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

I will send you the link of the video, when I will do the test, and then lets see who knocks the wall

[studiot]

1 minute ago, esposcar said:

I will send you the link of the video, when I will do the test, and then lets see who knocks the wall

Will you employ messers Dunning and Kruger as assistants?

[esposcar]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Will you employ messers Dunning and Kruger as assistants?

You can also try it by yourself and show me wrong!!!!

Edited March 30, 2019 by esposcar

[Ghideon]

The issues can be put into two groups and may be discussed separately. First part:

7 hours ago, esposcar said:

But in the second device maths where done, and the way of proving me wrong is to turn out my results, or just indicate me what I have done wrong in the equations.Obviously if there is a stronger force that pulls more from one side than the other, well we can call it propulsion

I already* applied your math and your assumptions in earlier posts and highlighted the issues. May i suggest that you address those issues now? They shows that the equations and/or basic assumptions are wrong. Since those issues and equations are independent of how the cylinders works internally, as described in my analysis, you can provide answers without going into hydraulics and flow fluids.
 

Second:

8 hours ago, esposcar said:

Of course it moves, totally logic and even might be have some friction, but understand this, it dont moves as a river it moves as a block, as a solid and adapts its shape as a fluid to all the sizes, but moves as a solid.Pressure is everywhere and moves ther fluid like that. Thats the reason why the output piston feels inmediatley the pression if you move the input system, that can be 10 km away, and with flow, its not like that. This is a very very basic concept, its all around the net, I dont need to show you the links. Just surf, and if you find something that contradictes what I say show it, but please have clear how static fluids work.

Thanks for the response. Since we agree that fluid moves through the system, how come the equations presented in the idea* fails to take this important fact into account?  I'll make some additional drawings hopefully later today, if necessary. 

 

 

*) link for convenience comment-1098947
**) every presented version of the idea, as far as I can tell

[studiot]

12 hours ago, esposcar said:

You can also try it by yourself and show me wrong!!!!

 

I don't need to, the rules here require you to show us that you are right.

 

As far as I can tell you wish to use Pascal's principle to create a reactionless device.

The success of each of these aims depends in part on your understanding of 'Pascal's principle' and 'reactionless', neither of which is actually simple.

Sadly, you stubbornly refuse to acknopwledge that anyone else knows anything about fluid mechanics and thus don't listen to them, instead constantly issuing challenges and worse.

 

Producing an apparently reactionless device using proper fluid mechanics is actually quite easy.

Why do you think a helium balloon rises in the atmosphere?

But you have to abandon Pascal to explain it.

 

Equally you need to take notice of your own notes from Brown University, which spell out quite clearly when and how Pascal's Principle applies and when it does not.

 

A final question

If I fill a bottle (partly or fully) with a liquid and transport that bottle, standing in my bag alongside me in a train,

Do I consider the fluid mechanics of the liquid to be fluid statics or fluid dynamics?

 

Two simple questions designed to help you and promote understanding.

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, esposcar said:

I will send you the link of the video, when I will do the test, and then lets see who knocks the wall

!

Moderator Note

Any discussion until this happens seems pointless, so I'm going to lock the thread. When the test is ready for review, send me a message and I'll re-open it.