Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Statement 3, claims an imbalance of force due to a longer meniscus on the
outside pulling down on the rubber (statement 2),
however, the first half of
statement 1 clearly points out that the rubber must pull UP on the water to
form the meniscus.
Therefore, there is a longer section of rubber on the
outside pulling up on the water then there is on the inside. Yet one more
unbalance set of forces. However, it should be clear by now that when the
upward forces of the rubber on the water are compared to the downward
forces of
the water on the rubber, all forces will balance out.
The result would be
that, regardless of viscosity, material of the toroid, or any other factor not
involving some external energy source, this setup will NEVER produce any sort
vortex rotation, much less perpetual motion (that is after initial microscopic
oscillations induced during the placement of the toroid die out).
Is this your mis-direction? Kind of like the hidden division by zero in the
"proof" that 1+1=3 ?