-
#20 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 16:39
-
Well, possibly a bad communication. But I am from Spain, so its not the same. This 3 pics in the entry of the topic, is my version 1, but I have 2 other versions of the same invention.
Your profile says Canada, and you mixed in a couple French words, so French was my assumption. While your English seems better than my out of practice Spanish, if anything I said is particularly confusing to you, I can attempt a Spanish translation to clarify.1. Pascals Law
You left off the fact that this is only true when the fluid is stationary, not while it is transferring from one container to another. When flowing through a bent pipe, there are additional forces present beyond what is stated in that equation.
This states that the fluid transmits equal pressure in all directions. This law is also responsible for the derivation of the hydrostatic law
Dell P = rho*g*h.2. Bernoulli's principle
Mercury is a strawman and irrelevant. The issue in that case is friction with the side of the pipes, which is again an additional force, it doesn't make forces due to other things go away, and to some extent is present with any fluid.
This is an application of conservation of energy. This is normally used to find conditions at a particular point when we know the conditions at some other point. But be careful. This is applicable only for non-viscous, incompressible and steady flows. Put mercury in the as the fluid, if you want to be sure that dont applies Bernoulli principle in this case.Bernoulli's equation is about energy conservation within a fluid in motion and is not applicable in hydrostatic situations where pressure differences dominate. Lets begin to give proper arguments.
Yes, it would be nice if you could begin to give proper arguments. You have not described a hydrostatic situation, you have described a situation where fluid is moving from one container to another, and there are forces involved due to the fluid motion that you are ignoring.
I live in Canada, but mixing french and english, make it not easy when comes to describe complicate arguments. I will show you in short -
#21 by meberbs on 12 Mar, 2019 16:47
-
I live in Canada, but mixing french and english, make it not easy when comes to describe complicate arguments. I will show you in short
Luckily there is no complicated argument needed:
-Pressure being equal at all points in a fluid only applies if the fluid is not moving.
-You are describing fluid transferring from one container to another.
-To transfer from one container to another the fluid moves through a pipe.
These are simple facts. Please acknowledge them. -
#22 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 17:16
-
I live in Canada, but mixing french and english, make it not easy when comes to describe complicate arguments. I will show you in short
Luckily there is no complicated argument needed:
-Pressure being equal at all points in a fluid only applies if the fluid is not moving.
-You are describing fluid transferring from one container to another.
-To transfer from one container to another the fluid moves through a pipe.
These are simple facts. Please acknowledge them.
And an hydraulic system that operates with Pascal law, how does it operate? Pascal principle talks about moving a fluid from one side to the other. How do you think all pascal inventions, like compressors etc work. They move the fluid, but as a block. And if you insist about the friction inside the pipe, show me a link that talks about Pascal principle and which forces acts inside the fluid. Find me a link that mentions friction. The fluid is not moving, its like you inside a bus at constant speed, you can walk inside the bus as if you are at earth. And the pipe will have in the exterior of the pipe the same Newton forces as the pipe in the other side. If they weight with the fluid each pipe alone, 4 kilos each, they will keep the same weight no matter what -
#23 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 17:23
-
I live in Canada, but mixing french and english, make it not easy when comes to describe complicate arguments. I will show you in short
Luckily there is no complicated argument needed:
-Pressure being equal at all points in a fluid only applies if the fluid is not moving.
-You are describing fluid transferring from one container to another.
-To transfer from one container to another the fluid moves through a pipe.
These are simple facts. Please acknowledge them.
And an hydraulic system that operates with Pascal law, how does it operate? Pascal principle talks about moving a fluid from one side to the other. How do you think all pascal inventions, like compressors etc work. They move the fluid, but as a block. And if you insist about the friction inside the pipe, show me a link that talks about Pascal principle and which forces acts inside the fluid. Find me a link that mentions friction. The fluid is not moving, its like you inside a bus at constant speed, you can walk inside the bus as if you are at earth. And the pipe will have in the exterior of the pipe the same Newton forces as the pipe in the other side. If they weight with the fluid each pipe alone, 4 kilos each, they will keep the same weight no matter what
https://www.quora.com/Is-Pascals-law-valid-under-a-dynamic-condition this link of quora talks about static water, and explains exactly what I mean. CONSTANT VELOCITY TO WORK. -
#24 by meberbs on 12 Mar, 2019 17:51
-
And an hydraulic system that operates with Pascal law, how does it operate? Pascal principle talks about moving a fluid from one side to the other.
No, Pascal's law applies to the static case where the fluid is not moving. I gave you a link many posts ago to the definition on wikipedia that clearly says "at rest."How do you think all pascal inventions, like compressors etc work.
They work by fluid dynamics. As you have been told repeatedly in this thread, there are forces in a moving fluid beyond those described by Pascal's law. The forces described by Pascal's law don't just suddenly disappear, but other forces are added on top, so the statement that "pressure is the same at all points" is no longer true.They move the fluid, but as a block.
different parts of the fluid are moving in different directions, please stop repeating this nonsensical statement.And if you insist about the friction inside the pipe, show me a link that talks about Pascal principle and which forces acts inside the fluid. Find me a link that mentions friction.
The forces I am talking about are not friction. They are pressure gradients in the fluid due to the motion of the fluid, present even if there is no friction at all.
You apparently still haven't read the definition of Pascal's law that I previously linked you to, but here are the first 2 links from a google search of "pressure in fluid moving through a bent pipe."
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/fluid_mechanics/force_exerted_by_a_flowing_fluid_on_a_pipe_bend.asp
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130691/pressure-at-a-bend-in-a-pipeThe fluid is not moving, its like you inside a bus at constant speed, you can walk inside the bus as if you are at earth.
The fluid is moving, otherwise it can't get from one container to the other. You can only walk on a bus by exerting a force on the floor of the bus. Either the force the bus is exerting on the ground also changes to match, or the outside of the bus changes velocity (by a small amount since the bus is very heavy.)And the pipe will have in the exterior of the pipe the same Newton forces as the pipe in the other side. If they weight with the fluid each pipe alone, 4 kilos each, they will keep the same weight no matter what
The mass of the fluid doesn't change but its velocity does. The forces would not be equal, because the fluid has changed speed. At the first bend, forces need to change the velocity from the speed of box A pointed to the left, to some velocity pointed to the right to match the fluid flow rate. Since box B is stationary in the lab frame, the fluid only needs to slow to a stop not switch directions, so less force is exerted there. This is all nicely balanced and obeys Newton's laws. (I am ignoring the vertical components of velocity which are unimportant for this discussion, though necessary when considering conservation of energy.)
Of course to actually calculate these forces, first you need to acknowledge their existence.https://www.quora.com/Is-Pascals-law-valid-under-a-dynamic-condition this link of quora talks about static water, and explains exactly what I mean. CONSTANT VELOCITY TO WORK.
No, it says the exact opposite of that. It uses the phrases "at rest" and "not moving." You have described a situation where one container is emptying of liquid, and another is filling. That is by definition a dynamic situation. It cannot be considered static. More so, the water is moving at different velocities in different locations, therefore, no matter what frame you pick, you will always see water moving. -
#25 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 18:04
-
And an hydraulic system that operates with Pascal law, how does it operate? Pascal principle talks about moving a fluid from one side to the other.
No, Pascal's law applies to the static case where the fluid is not moving. I gave you a link many posts ago to the definition on wikipedia that clearly says "at rest."How do you think all pascal inventions, like compressors etc work.
They work by fluid dynamics. As you have been told repeatedly in this thread, there are forces in a moving fluid beyond those described by Pascal's law. The forces described by Pascal's law don't just suddenly disappear, but other forces are added on top, so the statement that "pressure is the same at all points" is no longer true.They move the fluid, but as a block.
different parts of the fluid are moving in different directions, please stop repeating this nonsensical statement.And if you insist about the friction inside the pipe, show me a link that talks about Pascal principle and which forces acts inside the fluid. Find me a link that mentions friction.
The forces I am talking about are not friction. They are pressure gradients in the fluid due to the motion of the fluid, present even if there is no friction at all.
You apparently still haven't read the definition of Pascal's law that I previously linked you to, but here are the first 2 links from a google search of "pressure in fluid moving through a bent pipe."
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/fluid_mechanics/force_exerted_by_a_flowing_fluid_on_a_pipe_bend.asp
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130691/pressure-at-a-bend-in-a-pipeThe fluid is not moving, its like you inside a bus at constant speed, you can walk inside the bus as if you are at earth.
The fluid is moving, otherwise it can't get from one container to the other. You can only walk on a bus by exerting a force on the floor of the bus. Either the force the bus is exerting on the ground also changes to match, or the outside of the bus changes velocity (by a small amount since the bus is very heavy.)And the pipe will have in the exterior of the pipe the same Newton forces as the pipe in the other side. If they weight with the fluid each pipe alone, 4 kilos each, they will keep the same weight no matter what
The mass of the fluid doesn't change but its velocity does. The forces would not be equal, because the fluid has changed speed. At the first bend, forces need to change the velocity from the speed of box A pointed to the left, to some velocity pointed to the right to match the fluid flow rate. Since box B is stationary in the lab frame, the fluid only needs to slow to a stop not switch directions, so less force is exerted there. This is all nicely balanced and obeys Newton's laws. (I am ignoring the vertical components of velocity which are unimportant for this discussion, though necessary when considering conservation of energy.)
Of course to actually calculate these forces, first you need to acknowledge their existence.https://www.quora.com/Is-Pascals-law-valid-under-a-dynamic-condition this link of quora talks about static water, and explains exactly what I mean. CONSTANT VELOCITY TO WORK.
No, it says the exact opposite of that. It uses the phrases "at rest" and "not moving." You have described a situation where one container is emptying of liquid, and another is filling. That is by definition a dynamic situation. It cannot be considered static. More so, the water is moving at different velocities in different locations, therefore, no matter what frame you pick, you will always see water moving.
If you are at a train at constant velocity what diference you see, when its accelerating? Your glass of water in the train is moving out of the glass, when you are at constant speed or does that when accelerating. About the pipe how it will work, if you got a container of 10.000 kilos and a pipe of 4 kilos, for example to bring it to an extream, the pipe would be something with no sense. What is important, is that the container that will transfer the fluid is in a constant velocity and the container that receive it, is stationary. If you still say that at constant velocity, the water is jumping out of your glass, then sorry, but I cannot believe it.
And this works in space, so at a constant speed, sorry, but if there is water over it, it will be the most quiet water, that you will ever see. The problem is that mathematicaly, this two laws have never been together.
About the link, in any moment talks about a closed statical fluid system, as Pascal law. It dont applies. Not valid. In any moment talks about Pascal law sorry. Not even once, they talk about a piston for example. Read more about Pascal, because you seem lost. We are talking about fluids at rest, thats why I mention always constant speed. CONSTANT SPEED. If you travel in a spaceship at 1000 km second, you wont notice the diference even if you are at stop. You will move the same, and the fluid will be quiet quiet. Newton laws will work, but not during the tranfer at constant velocity -
#26 by Stan-1967 on 12 Mar, 2019 18:17
-
If you are at a train at constant velocity what diference you see, when its accelerating? Your glass of water in the train is moving out of the glass, when you are at constant speed or does that when accelerating. About the pipe how it will work, if you got a container of 10.000 kilos and a pipe of 4 kilos, for example to bring it to an extream, the pipe would be something with no sense. What is important, is that the container that will transfer the fluid is in a constant velocity and the container that receive it, is stationary. If you still say that at constant velocity, the water is jumping out of your glass, then sorry, but I cannot believe it.
And this works in space, so at a constant speed, sorry, but if there is water over it, it will be the most quiet water, that you will ever see. The problem is that mathematicaly, this two laws have never been together.
Language barrier or not, this is inane. You have not shown anything mathematically or logically about what you are suggesting. Meberbs has done all the work here. The system you show in your diagram will not behave as you say for the reasons you state. ( 100 m/s constant velocity!? no accelerating?) Nor will it behave differently for the reasons, as given by Meberbs & others, that you are ignoring. In sum, it is an uninteresting system with inconsequential implications. Fluid flows under a pressure gradient, electrons flow within an electric field gradient, apples fall from tree's in a gravitational field, so what? You are not violating Pascal's law because it does not apply to your system. You are not violating conservation of momentum either, & I haven't seen any math showing how you think the momentum & energy put into the system are accounted for. -
#27 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 18:24
-
If you are at a train at constant velocity what diference you see, when its accelerating? Your glass of water in the train is moving out of the glass, when you are at constant speed or does that when accelerating. About the pipe how it will work, if you got a container of 10.000 kilos and a pipe of 4 kilos, for example to bring it to an extream, the pipe would be something with no sense. What is important, is that the container that will transfer the fluid is in a constant velocity and the container that receive it, is stationary. If you still say that at constant velocity, the water is jumping out of your glass, then sorry, but I cannot believe it.
And this works in space, so at a constant speed, sorry, but if there is water over it, it will be the most quiet water, that you will ever see. The problem is that mathematicaly, this two laws have never been together.
Language barrier or not, this is inane. You have not shown anything mathematically or logically about what you are suggesting. Meberbs has done all the work here. The system you show in your diagram will not behave as you say for the reasons you state. ( 100 m/s constant velocity!? no accelerating?) Nor will it behave differently for the reasons, as given by Meberbs & others, that you are ignoring. In sum, it is an uninteresting system with inconsequential implications. Fluid flows under a pressure gradient, electrons flow within an electric field gradient, apples fall from tree's in a gravitational field, so what? You are not violating Pascal's law because it does not apply to your system. You are not violating conservation of momentum either, & I haven't seen any math showing how you think the momentum & energy put into the system are accounted for.
You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?
? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not -
#28 by whitelancer64 on 12 Mar, 2019 18:48
-
*snip* We are talking about fluids at rest, thats why I mention always constant speed. CONSTANT SPEED. If you travel in a spaceship at 1000 km second, you wont notice the diference even if you are at stop. You will move the same, and the fluid will be quiet quiet. Newton laws will work, but not during the tranfer at constant velocity
If you are transferring fluid - even at a constant velocity - then it is not at rest. It is moving. -
#29 by Coastal Ron on 12 Mar, 2019 18:56
-
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not
I'm not a scientist so I'm not passing judgement on what you are presenting, but I just wanted to point out that YOU came here with an unsolicited proposal, and now you are not happy because no one is agreeing with you.
It's not our job to agree with you, and you have received a LOT of free advice.
So if your goal in coming to NASASpaceFlight.com was not to learn from its members, why are you here? -
#30 by meberbs on 12 Mar, 2019 19:02
-
You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?
You are the one who has been repeatedly claiming that fluid somehow goes from a moving box to a stationary box (or a stationary box to a moving box if you pick a different frame) without moving, accelerating, or feeling any net force. In no case does this make the slightest bit of sense. Your claims have been self-contradictory from the very first post, as I pointed out in my first post.? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not
You have not listened to a single thing for this entire thread (my first post in this thread stated a fear that you would react that way to hearing "no"), ignoring the definitions of terms that have been given to you. It seems to me that your questions in your first post were insincere. You never acknowledged the inherent contradiction I pointed out in my first post. You have refused to accept basic facts about fluid flow, despite one of your slides asking if there are any mistakes in your analysis....The problem is that mathematicaly, this two laws have never been together.
Newton's laws work in all cases without caveat (even in relativity if you define force and momentum correctly.) Pascal's law is a special case (actually derivable from Newton) That only works in a very specific case.
About the link, in any moment talks about a closed statical fluid system, as Pascal law. It dont applies. Not valid. In any moment talks about Pascal law sorry. Not even once, they talk about a piston for example. Read more about Pascal, because you seem lost. We are talking about fluids at rest, thats why I mention always constant speed. CONSTANT SPEED. If you travel in a spaceship at 1000 km second, you wont notice the diference even if you are at stop. You will move the same, and the fluid will be quiet quiet. Newton laws will work, but not during the tranfer at constant velocity
You are the one repeating a mantra here of "constant velocity" when by the definition of your setup, the fluid has different velocities at different locations. For a fluid to be not moving, one basic condition is that the shape of the volume occupied by the fluid can't be changing. That is simply untrue in your system. (Of course even if the shape of the volume was constant, the fluid still could be moving within that volume.) As long as you continue to deny basic properties of your system as described by you, productive conversation can't happen.
Your complaints about the links I provided don't even make sense. The links describe basic facts about fluid flow that are true regardless of where the fluid is coming from or where it is going. Pascal's law is not discussed, because as you have been told repeatedly, it does not apply, a more general approach needs to be used. -
#31 by Stan-1967 on 12 Mar, 2019 19:15
-
You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not
You keep using the word "math", & don't think we share a common definition. Your step 1 has a semblance of a free body diagram with static forces displayed at time T=+0, but there is a huge gap to step 2 & 3. Show me your math of how you get to 100 m/s instantaneously? Tell me mathematically what is happening in that bendy pipe of your diagram that allows it move with the system to get to 100m/s. Show me your math for the work done by the piston imparting momentum into the fluid flow out of the cylinder and into the bendy pipe. Please do so in vector form for x/y/z components of the fluid flow. Show me that & I'll retract my math criticisms.
I may have slept through my college history class when they taught me about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, but I was pretty awake through my engineering calculus/differential equations, statics, dynamics, fluid dynamics, materials, & thermodynamics that I think I still recognize "math" when I see it. Your steps 1-3 do not contain consequential math. -
#32 by Stan-1967 on 12 Mar, 2019 19:24
-
I think you may have invented a double barreled stomp rocket, with one barrel rigged with hold down clamps (your cylinder C)
-
#33 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 20:36
-
You have not understood anything. Its acellerated and then what happens after acceleration, what comes?? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not
You keep using the word "math", & don't think we share a common definition. Your step 1 has a semblance of a free body diagram with static forces displayed at time T=+0, but there is a huge gap to step 2 & 3. Show me your math of how you get to 100 m/s instantaneously? Tell me mathematically what is happening in that bendy pipe of your diagram that allows it move with the system to get to 100m/s. Show me your math for the work done by the piston imparting momentum into the fluid flow out of the cylinder and into the bendy pipe. Please do so in vector form for x/y/z components of the fluid flow. Show me that & I'll retract my math criticisms.
I may have slept through my college history class when they taught me about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, but I was pretty awake through my engineering calculus/differential equations, statics, dynamics, fluid dynamics, materials, & thermodynamics that I think I still recognize "math" when I see it. Your steps 1-3 do not contain consequential math.
Acelleration from a type of spring, you can have the acceleration you want. I am not here to discuss about engineer problems, thast not my issue. I just give a concept of a device. I find difficult to find equations that describes how the mass is transfered. Do you have any clue?. Step one goes in Newton, step two also, step three of course, the only thing that in my idea makes it reactionless is the transfer of fluid, once the container have a final velocity, say 5 metres per second or whatever, the fluid aboard is at rest. NEVER IN ACCELERATION the transfer of fluid must happen. Now I post you two systems of the same version so you can view it, and tell me if you see at first sight something that can work in reality, and I will post you a pic, with a problem. Find me the equations, because it does not exist, to explain how is the fluid transfer done.
I was meaning the device knowledge, not your personal knowledges, sorry.
The links are:
This one is like the pics
This one begins the animation at second 37.
-
#34 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 20:38
-
By the way, what empirical or mathematical argument have your colegge given? no one, just insisting like a mantra one and another time, that it violates a device like that Newton law and is unable to show me why not
I'm not a scientist so I'm not passing judgement on what you are presenting, but I just wanted to point out that YOU came here with an unsolicited proposal, and now you are not happy because no one is agreeing with you.
It's not our job to agree with you, and you have received a LOT of free advice.
So if your goal in coming to NASASpaceFlight.com was not to learn from its members, why are you here?
Sorry but I dont have the same opinion and the forum is to exchange opinions, right? I dont blame anybody, but no god is able to tell me why it would not work EMPIRICALLY, and I say why. -
#35 by 1 on 12 Mar, 2019 20:43
-
If you travel in a spaceship at 1000 km second, you wont notice the diference even if you are at stop. You will move the same, and the fluid will be quiet quiet.
This is the source of your misunderstanding. You're attempting to treat a system of moving parts as if it were a single monolithic entity.
The definition in wikipedia states:QuoteA change in pressure at any point in an enclosed fluid at rest is transmitted undiminished to all points in the fluid.
Bold mine. Here's the issue. When you read this, you're equating at rest with "constant velocity." This is incorrect. What you should be doing, is asking yourself "at rest relative to what?". The answer is given earlier in the definition; enclosed. This means that the fluid must be at rest relative to whatever is enclosing it. In this case, the piping in your system. So:
Piping moving at 0m/s, fluid moving at 0m/s: Pascal's law works.
Piping moving at 100m/s, fluid moving at 100m/s: Pascal's law works.
Piping moving at 0m/s, fluid moving at 100m/s: Pascal's law breaks down; and a more general approach must be used.
Piping moving at 100m/s, fluid moving at 0m/s: Pascal's law breaks down; and a more general approach must be used.
Any mismatch between piping velocity and fluid velocity invalidate the approximations made in Pascal's law. Here on Earth, the reactive motion of the piping (and whatever it's attached to!) is usually too small for us to care about; but it will definitely be noticed by a system floating up in space. You can move your blocks and fluids with whatever acceleration profile you want. Your center of mass will not change, and the drive will go nowhere. -
#36 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 20:47
-
If you travel in a spaceship at 1000 km second, you wont notice the diference even if you are at stop. You will move the same, and the fluid will be quiet quiet.
This is the source of your misunderstanding. You're attempting to treat a system of moving parts as if it were a single monolithic entity.
The definition in wikipedia states:QuoteA change in pressure at any point in an enclosed fluid at rest is transmitted undiminished to all points in the fluid.
Bold mine. Here's the issue. When you read this, you're equating at rest with "constant velocity." This is incorrect. What you should be doing, is asking yourself "at rest relative to what?". The answer is given earlier in the definition; enclosed. This means that the fluid must be at rest relative to whatever is enclosing it. In this case, the piping in your system. So:
Piping moving at 0m/s, fluid moving at 0m/s: Pascal's law works.
Piping moving at 100m/s, fluid moving at 100m/s: Pascal's law works.
Piping moving at 0m/s, fluid moving at 100m/s: Pascal's law breaks down; and a more general approach must be used.
Piping moving at 100m/s, fluid moving at 0m/s: Pascal's law breaks down; and a more general approach must be used.
Any mismatch between piping velocity and fluid velocity invalidate the approximations made in Pascal's law. Here on Earth, the reactive motion of the piping (and whatever it's attached to!) is usually too small for us to care about; but it will definitely be noticed by a system floating up in space. You can move your blocks and fluids with whatever acceleration profile you want. Your center of mass will not change, and the drive will go nowhere.
So if you have viewed my last pic, fluid will move container B as enters, right? -
#37 by 1 on 12 Mar, 2019 21:27
-
So if you have viewed my last pic, fluid will move container B as enters, right?
If your piping is rigid, the the transfer of fluid from container A to B essentially moves fluid mass to the right. This is countered by motion of both containers to the left. The center of mass of the entire system, however, remains unchanged. In moving the fluid from container B back to container A, both motions are reversed, and the entire container/fluid/pipe system returns to its original location. It does not matter how much time either transfer takes to occur.
If your piping is flexible, the container B could move left, could move right, or could even stand still depending on what quantity of fluid+piping moves beyond the right edge of the container. Difficult to tell what would happen from your drawing, but in all cases, center of mass would remain unchanged. -
#38 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 21:32
-
So if you have viewed my last pic, fluid will move container B as enters, right?
If your piping is rigid, the the transfer of fluid from container A to B essentially moves fluid mass to the right. This is countered by motion of both containers to the left. The center of mass of the entire system, however, remains unchanged. In moving the fluid from container B back to container A, both motions are reversed, and the entire container/fluid/pipe system returns to its original location. It does not matter how much time either transfer takes to occur.
If your piping is flexible, the container B could move left, could move right, or could even stand still depending on what quantity of fluid+piping moves beyond the right edge of the container. Difficult to tell what would happen from your drawing, but in all cases, center of mass would remain unchanged.
Then what happens if one of the container pulls the system with more force than the other after the transfer, because have more fluid in it? the center of mass, wont move? I really see it difficult that stays the same. Then Newton third law would not work. Since when two opposite mass forces, both tied up, the opposite object with more weight, will not able to pull the other object and the system to its side, if both have the same speed? its not logic. Explain me visually how it would be arranged, that no force win. What would be the momentum of one deposit full of fluid respect to the other deposit going light?
Can you show what you say with an equation? So it will move container B to the same direction as container A has. Sorry but you cannot show that. -
#39 by esposcar on 12 Mar, 2019 21:51
-
So if you have viewed my last pic, fluid will move container B as enters, right?
If your piping is rigid, the the transfer of fluid from container A to B essentially moves fluid mass to the right. This is countered by motion of both containers to the left. The center of mass of the entire system, however, remains unchanged. In moving the fluid from container B back to container A, both motions are reversed, and the entire container/fluid/pipe system returns to its original location. It does not matter how much time either transfer takes to occur.
If your piping is flexible, the container B could move left, could move right, or could even stand still depending on what quantity of fluid+piping moves beyond the right edge of the container. Difficult to tell what would happen from your drawing, but in all cases, center of mass would remain unchanged.
It can be like a garden pipe, and very long, the two deposits will hit their respective wall, one with more fluid and the other with less fluid, at the same speed, because the transfer wont affect the their final speed, so you can see it as you want, but there will be an unbalance of momentum, and with that and enough force, it can move the hole center of mass.
By the way, the piping or better the flexible garden pipe, will be affected by the same forces as in the other pipe, going opposite direction, Newton will be there, but that dont affect the moving containers. You dont see it ehhh?
BY THE WAY THE THIRD LAW OF NEWTON THAT RELATES TO THE CENTER OF MASS, EXPLAIN THAT NO INTERNAL FORCE CAN MOVE THE CENTER OF ITS OWN MASS BECAUSE OF ACTION-REACTION, BUT IN THIS DEVICE HOW IT LOSES MASS THE CONTAINER B, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEWTON.
? constant speed. I find here a big lack of knowledges about basic things. Understand the device and the make the critic, I would suggest you. The clue of the system is the transfer. And maths are on the pics, so you did not red anything.