Is it possible to unbalance the pressure in a closed container.
 re: newlifter.tripod.com

Yes, all you would need to do is take a cylinder and place a fan
inside it. The fan would blow fluid through the cylinder from one end
to the other much like a ducted fan. You could cap both ends of the
cylinde and measure the pressure in both ends. You would find that the
pressure in end after the fan would be higher than the pressure in the
half before the fan.
However, you could not use this to create movement in the directon of
the higher pressure area. There would be an force acting on the shaft
of the fan(oreinted along the axis) in the direction of the low
pressure area. This force would be the equal and oppsite force that
arises from the action of moving fluid through the fan. It would
cancle out the extra force acting on the end of the cylinder in the
high pressure area.
Also, from your name, I would assume that you are the one responsible
for the newlifter.tripod.com web site. I am sorry to have to give you
the bad news that the idea will not work, but I applaude you for
thinking outside the box, as they say.

To unbalance the pressure in a closed container?
Very easy. 
Say fuel tank. Put in some liquid. Not full tank. Then pump in air,
compressed to some pressure p1.
So, pressure on tank wall not in liquid is p1. 
Pressure on tank wall in liquid is p1 plus pressre due to liquid's weight. 
Even the tank walls in liquid have unequal pressures. Pressure due to
liquid's weigth varies with the depth of the wall relative to the free
surface of the liquid.

Wait a minute, you mean unbalanced pressure, not unequal pressures?
Ummm, what is an unbalanbced pressure? Pressure is force over area.
How can we unbalance that?
If on the same plate, to unbalance the pressure on that plate is to
apply unequal pressures in different directions. Then the plate will
tend to move towards the direction of the resultant pressure.

In the linked article, pjacoby was trying to explain to prospective
financiers that by building or putting his ideas into a lifting
machine that will make use of unequal pressures inside the closed
machine, they (jacoby and the partners) could invent powerful
mini-propellers for helicopter-like flying machines.
In the closed lifting machine, the idea was to induce more pressure on
the upperr disc than on the lower disc so that a lifting effect will
happen. He is trying to impress the wide-eyed moneymen by mentioning
Bernoulli and Newton to fool around some Physics laws. So that in the
end, mighty powerful mini propellers could be fitted into contraptions
that will surely add to the frustrations of military men in combat (in
addition to those cyborg nightscopes and complex computers, the poor
combatmen would be strapped to automatic mini-helicopters so that they
could sneak or hover closer to the enemies at will) or fly men to the
moon.
 
Or, did I understand your question?
Did I understand the article of pjacoby?

To anotherbrian-ga;
I agree with and already new of your description of the fan in a
cylinder but you don't say why my machine wont work. Notice there is
no "down draft" from the surfaces. Please look at the open version on
the web sight and realize that when the fluid leaves the gap the lift
is already made. then find a way it is nutralized by recirculating the
fluid. There is no place where it is nutralized.

To ticbol-ga
Or, did I understand your question?    unbalance to get a net lift
Did I understand the article of pjacoby? most of it but please don't
suggest that I am being deceptive.
I am trying to clear up some confusion about Newton's laws. 
A Dr. of engineering and dept. chairman told me that a mexican jumping
bean could not jump if it was hanging from a string because it has
nothing to push off from.
He failed to realize that the bean does not push off from anthing. It
has no moving parts to do that. It is the worm inside that causes the
movement. That should appear to violate Newton's first. But it
doesn't. Why?

A mexican jumping bean doesn't violate Newton's law because it is just
a transfer of momentum. It cannot be sustained beyond the initial
'jump' because any continued attempt to propel itself inside the shell
of the bean causes the bean to be pushed back to the ground.
Unbalanced or momentum transfer is a possible transporation method but
is limited to the ground. You may have seen those balls with the
racoon tail? They contain a small electric motor that rotates
off-center inside the plastic ball. The resulting motion is a random
wobbling motion suitable for the entertainment of small children or
pets. It works, but is not a very efficient means of transport.
I regret to say that any lifting attempt using this method just won't
get off the ground.

To flajason-ga;
You missed the point. Newton is saidd to require that a force be
applied from outside but the worm is inside.
I have that toy and it wobbles when hung from a string. 
All movement is the result of a transfer of momentum. That's the
result of Newton's third.
The bean is not being proposed as a transportation method. Only as
proof that it is possible to move a container from inside.
The rest of what you say is correct.

I think the question would be better rephrased as "can you pull
yourself up by your own bootstraps?"

Nice to see the perpetual motion inventors are still around though!

To lostpost-ga;
There are two ways to move an object (body at rest).
1- push on it directly.
2- remove a force that is holding it at rest (remove a prop that is holding it up).
When you remove a counter force you are using a force that is already there.

 "can you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps?" No you can't but
if you had a way to remove gravity you would go up.
This machine is suposed to remove the down force inside a closed
container but not remove the up force. So it should go up.

I aggree that the open version would produce lift. It would come from
the air being forced out of the bottem. Thus incressing the pressure
below the device and decressing the pressure above it. And the equal
and oppsite reaction of expelling mass in the direction oppsite the
intended lift direction.
The problem comes when one tries to redirect the exaust up. The force
of the exaust will push aginst the inside of the redirection pipe and
cause a down force on the device which will neatly cancle out any lift
you have gained by causing the fluid to move.
If I understand your theory correctly this shuldn't matter because you
will have a the lift from the plates + the lift from the exaust - the
down force from the exaust redirection = lift from the plates.

You seem to have left me in quandry. I can't quite put my finger on
it, but it seems like this shouldn't work as the device is not pushing
aginst or pulling on any of the fluid that it is moving through to
make it move. I have thought about this for quite awhile and have not
been able to come up with a clear explnation for why it won't work (my
gut just says it won't), however I could cerently be wrong as I am not
highly educated in this field. My advice would be to build a prototype
and test it. Thanks for the interesting puzzle anyhow.

To anotherbrian-ga second comment.
I think you have the dynamics analyzed correctly. The open version
doesn't interest me as a potentialy powerful machine except by using
high temp metal and blowing combustion exhaust gas between the disc.
This could increase the pressure on one disc and still decrease the
pressure on the other.
 This is exactly where I am in this effort. I must build it to prove
it. Aren't we lucky that President Truman didn't say that to Einstien.
Ah but you left out the down movement of the fluid from the blower to the gap.
 Background of me. retired custodial supervisor. no shop training. no
machine shop experience. no business experience.
Can I do this?      
www.newlifter.tripod.com
Pjacoby@charter.net

Paul, 
Your invention baffles me. I do not understand what empirical data you
have that makes you think it might work nor your background in
physics. However, you patented the idea and are now looking for
financial backers for an unproven technology. When I look at it I see
a bunch of problematic things which would only give diminishing
returns on your lifter.

One big one is the internal "friction" of the mechanics inside. Then
there is the need of a constant gas source for top port air (or gas)
injection. Is your conjecture that because you feel you throughly
understand Newton and Bernoulli theories that this thing will produce
more mass lift via counter-rotating disc rotors and gas pressure
output than conventional 2nd & 3rd generation helicopters? Have you
looked at the new NOTOR helicopter technology? Have you computed in
the total completed lifter's mass/wieght versus gravity? Have you
computed structural thermal breakdown due to ever increasing friction?
Or do you compute in exotic lubricants in your design?  Have you
considered mag-lev technology to overcome the friction problem? If so
where does the mag-lev monsterous power come from? Have you computed
in that you would need a never ending supply of gas for space travel?
That's because your constantly exhausting the gas supply and not
recycling it. You can forget LOX too.

In my humble opinion if you haven't built a working protype then my
guess is that this gadget won't work or get off the ground under its
own power. Maybe I just don't understand your thought processes and
detailed and confusing patent gazette explainations, but I doubt that
seriously. Is there any REAL scientists or working aeronautical
engineers that support your invention and its basic concept? I think
your are making the same observational-based mistakes that DaVinci did
with his flying machine designs in the 15th century.

My advice is to look at BAE's work at Phantom Works
(http://www.boeing.com) in Seattle Washington. They are working on new
lifter technologies involving Podkletnov anti-gravitics which make
more sense then your strange invention. I'm sorry if this is coming
off negative but I just think your claims are very enigmatic and not
mature enough for financial backer presentations. You need to be able
to explain your "proof of concept" model on a very very basic laymen
level so that even a CEO or senior executive could understand it and
explain it to his/her kids.

Spooky