Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83955
  • *Latest: serials

  • *Total Posts: 525622
  • *Total Topics: 15645
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed  (Read 46547 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2014, 07:38:07 PM »
I am not wrong TK,you misunderstood what i said-Quote: a heavier than water object will float in water. My statement is correct,and i said nothing about displacement. I was refering to net weight of the bouyant object-EG,steel is heavier than water per net volume,but can be made(shaped) to float in water-made to be bouyant.
Yes, you are indeed wrong. The only reason a heavier-than-water object floats is because the water it displaces weighs more than the dry object itself. Look at how ships are labeled: Their "weight" are given in _displacement_, that is, how many tonnes, etc. of water they will displace when placed into the water. And the same is true for air: if your object displaces more air mass than it "weighs" it will float in the air. Do you think a packed-up blimp will float in air? Of course it won't. But when it is expanded to full size by filling it with some gas that is lighter than air, so that it _displaces_ a volume of air that weighs more than its "packed" weight, it will float in air. There is no difference in the dynamics, except that water is virtually incompressible and gases aren't. You can fill a balloon with kerosene and it will float in water, you can make a "balloon" out of carbon aerogel (as close as you can get to hollowing out a rock), fill its gaps with helium and it will float in air, because it displaces as much (neutrally buoyant) or more (positively buoyant) weight of air than it weighs itself.
Quote

Quote TK: No, you are comparing apples and oranges. If your hollow rock displaces enough air mass, it will float, sure enough. Our air isn't dense enough for any real hollow rock to float, but it will float just fine in a much denser gas environment.

No ,im not the one comparing apples to oranges. Im the one saying that the apples and oranges are differnt-Quote: the mechanics between water and air are very different. My statements are also based on the makeup of our planet,not Helion Prime,thus my statement is correct-hollow out a rock all you like,but it will not float in air(planet earths air/atmosphere)

Quote TK: Again, you are confounding your facts with false comparisons. Take a look at how high-altitude research balloons work. They start at the ground only "partially" inflated, just enough to be buoyant (they displace slightly more airmass than they weigh) and as they rise, the gas inside expands, so they displace more and more volume, of less and less dense air, so they continue to rise until they finally burst from being completely overfull. If you sink a balloon in water by deflating it at the surface, the only way to get it to rise up again is to pump gas into it, and you will have to pump harder the deeper the balloon is. A volume of water must be displaced that has a mass that is greater than the balloon's mass for it to rise up, and the deeper the balloon the more gas must be pumped into it, because the gas is compressible and the pressure inside the balloon must be slightly greater than the pressure of the water, for the balloon to expand and displace the necessary volume of water. When the balloon is expanded enough to displace more mass of water than the balloon weighs, the balloon will begin to rise _and expand even more_ as the gas inside expands to match the water pressure at whatever depth it is at

Although i quoted:-->we are asumeing the balloon is strong enough to withstand crushing forces in this example.lets look at this a different way. Let's use a steel sphere insted of our crushless balloon. I will take my steel sphere(lets say with a volume of 1 cubic meter),and pump air into it to a pressure of 100psi-->my sphere will float in water. Now do the same with your sphere of the same size,and see if it floats in air.
Second test. I will now pull an absolute vacume in my sphere,and my sphere will still float just as well as it did with a pressure of 100psi-->now do the same with your sphere,dose it float in air yet?.
Nice strawman argument. Anything will float in any fluid if it displaces as much or more _weight_ of the fluid than it itself weighs. It doesn't matter what the pressure is inside of a _rigid_ object, only the volume of the object matters. Don't you know the story of Archimedes, the gold crown and "Eureka"? You put any object in water, the level of the water rises because the object displaces the same volume of water as its own volume, no matter the shape or composition of the object. If the object is heavier (dry weight) than the water it displaces it will sink, if it is lighter than the water it displaces it will float... and guess what, a floating object on the surface displaces exactly as much water by weight as it weighs itself. You can dunk your scale into the water and prove this to yourself easily enough. Measure the volume of water that a thing displaces, this will of course give you the weight of that displaced water since the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimeter. The weight of your object fully submerged and sitting on the bottom, on the scale, is exactly the (object's dry weight outside the water) - (water displaced weight). Do the experiment yourself and see. This is buoyancy.
Quote

Quote TK: When you sink a closed, constant volume thing like your hollow rock, the water level rises. Take a bucket and mark the water level on the side of the bucket, then sink your rock to just below the surface. You will note that the water level is now above your mark; an equal volume of water has been _lifted up_ as your rock has been sunk. This lifting of water takes work. Now let your rock sink more, say one-rock-diameter further. Now you have lifted up another volume of water, but you don't see the water level increase because you aren't changing the overall volume of the system any more, but you still have displaced one rock's worth of water from underneath the rock and moved it to above the rock.

This we know.

Quote TK: If you have a rope attached to the rock, the work available by the rock pulling on the rope is _less than_ the work available from dropping the rock/rope in air, less by the amount of work it takes to raise up that water, continuously all the way down. When you pull the rock up, it's easier than in air because the water is flowing back underneath the rock as you lift it. This is buoyancy. There is no free lunch, even underwater.

This is not correct as far as my device is designed to work,and another reason that the mechanics/dynamics between water and air are very different. A bouyant vessle correctly engineered can be made to sink and then rise again in water without the addition of any air(or gas of any type),as bouyancy in water is not reliant on a gas volume of any kind. As i stated above,the internal area of a sealed bouyant vessle can be under an absolute vacume,and it will have no effect on the bouyancy of the vessle-->not the case with air im afraid. Now you take what ever vessle you want,and make it float in air without the use of a gas,but by simply increasing the size of that vessle. ;)

You must also take into account the weight of the vessle it self when calculating bouyancy,not just the volume of water it displaces.
Your last statement is of course correct. But you cannot make an object that is heavier than the water it displaces, to float, unless you can increase its volume somehow without also increasing its dry weight. A balloon's volume is increased by putting some gas into it. We just don't have the magic materials (except for aerogels) that are strong enough to float in air unless they contain some lighter than air gas that can balance the internal and external pressures. If we had such a material that could be strong enough to hold outside air pressure against a vacuum inside, it certainly would float in air as long as it displaces more airmass than it weighs itself.
How is your rigid sealed object to increase its volume, against the pressure of the water surrounding it,  so that it will  float? The only way is to do work against the water pressure somehow or another. Expanding nested cylinders, for example? You have to push the cylinder outward against the water pressure trying to push it in. And watch the water level in your container rise as you are doing this: you are lifting water, which requires work. 

ETA: You might enjoy watching my various buoyancy and "wayne travis" demonstrations on YouTube. And I'd love to see anything you can come up with in support of your arguments.
Here are a couple of mine selected more or less at random (it's been a long time since I've had this discussion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEOPWG_gh8

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2014, 09:50:47 PM »
There is a very large difference between the mechanics of air and water. A heavier than air object will not float in the atmosphere,but a heavier than water object will float in water. You can hollow out a rock all you like,and it will not float in air,but it will in water.This means the mechanics are different between fluid displacement and atmospheric displacement. No work is required to alter the objects volume when submerged,as the work is done by way of pressure equilization between the internal and external pressures of the submerged object. Work is only required to reduce surface area of the object at the begining of the cycle,which is while the object is afloat.Once that work is done,the object will sink an infinite depth that is limited only to the deepest water body.If we take a balloon and fill it with a lighter than air gas,the balloon will loose lifting force as it gains altitude,while the same balloon would maintain the same lifting force in water regardless of depth(we are asumeing the balloon is strong enough to withstand crushing forces in this example)
Tinman there is no difference.  Something that is denser than air falls through air.  Something that is denser than water falls through water.  The reason that hollowing a rock out doesn't work is that the net density is still greater than air because the hollowed out volume is filled with air and the rest of the rock is still denser than air.  The analogy with water would be to fill the rock with water.  We call those things water logged ships.  And they do sink.

It absolutely takes work in one direction or another to change the volume of a submerged object.  The pressure on the hull is the surrounding water pressure.  Increasing the volume does the incremental work in each direction:  dWx = p * dx, dWy = p * dy, dWz = p * dz.

The reason that the balloon loses lifting force is that air is compressible.  As you go up the air density changes.  The basic mechanics in air and water remain the same.

 

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2014, 12:07:58 AM »
Yes, you are indeed wrong. The only reason a heavier-than-water object floats is because the water it displaces weighs more than the dry object itself

 Look at how ships are labeled: Their "weight" are given in _displacement_, that is, how many tonnes, etc. of water they will displace when placed into the water. And the same is true for air: if your object displaces more air mass than it "weighs" it will float in the air. Do you think a packed-up blimp will float in air? Of course it won't. But when it is expanded to full size by filling it with some gas that is lighter than air, so that it _displaces_ a volume of air that weighs more than its "packed" weight, it will float in air. There is no difference in the dynamics, except that water is virtually incompressible and gases aren't. You can fill a balloon with kerosene and it will float in water, you can make a "balloon" out of carbon aerogel (as close as you can get to hollowing out a rock), fill its gaps with helium and it will float in air, because it displaces as much (neutrally buoyant) or more (positively buoyant) weight of air than it weighs itself.  Nice strawman argument. Anything will float in any fluid if it displaces as much or more _weight_ of the fluid than it itself weighs. It doesn't matter what the pressure is inside of a _rigid_ object, only the volume of the object matters. Don't you know the story of Archimedes, the gold crown and "Eureka"? You put any object in water, the level of the water rises because the object displaces the same volume of water as its own volume, no matter the shape or composition of the object. If the object is heavier (dry weight) than the water it displaces it will sink, if it is lighter than the water it displaces it will float... and guess what, a floating object on the surface displaces exactly as much water by weight as it weighs itself. You can dunk your scale into the water and prove this to yourself easily enough. Measure the volume of water that a thing displaces, this will of course give you the weight of that displaced water since the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimeter. The weight of your object fully submerged and sitting on the bottom, on the scale, is exactly the (object's dry weight outside the water) - (water displaced weight). Do the experiment yourself and see. This is buoyancy.Your last statement is of course correct. But you cannot make an object that is heavier than the water it displaces, to float, unless you can increase its volume somehow without also increasing its dry weight. A balloon's volume is increased by putting some gas into it. We just don't have the magic materials (except for aerogels) that are strong enough to float in air unless they contain some lighter than air gas that can balance the internal and external pressures. If we had such a material that could be strong enough to hold outside air pressure against a vacuum inside, it certainly would float in air as long as it displaces more airmass than it weighs itself.
How is your rigid sealed object to increase its volume, against the pressure of the water surrounding it,  so that it will  float? The only way is to do work against the water pressure somehow or another. Expanding nested cylinders, for example? You have to push the cylinder outward against the water pressure trying to push it in. And watch the water level in your container rise as you are doing this: you are lifting water, which requires work. 

ETA: You might enjoy watching my various buoyancy and "wayne travis" demonstrations on YouTube. And I'd love to see anything you can come up with in support of your arguments.
Here are a couple of mine selected more or less at random (it's been a long time since I've had this discussion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iijUjtkV-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEOPWG_gh8

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2014, 12:07:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2014, 12:10:09 AM »
OK-how do i split quote's so as i can sepperate the quotes in my reply. This copy paste crap is driving me. :-\

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4065
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2014, 12:53:01 AM »
OK-how do i split quote's so as i can sepperate the quotes in my reply. This copy paste crap is driving me. :-\

Hi Brad,

You can quote text as follows:
start the text to be quoted with this symbol and word:   [quote and now use this symbol ] right after the word quote like this quote] and then include the text to be quoted.
And at the end of the text include the following symbols and word:   [/quote and again use this closing symbol ]  right after the word quote without a space.  Of course, no need for using bold characters.

For the next text to be quoted, apply the same symbols and words,  i.e. embed the text to be quoted between the two symbols and words.
Hope this may be useful.

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2014, 12:53:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2014, 01:05:00 AM »
yes
and I hope you learn so you can teach Me
 :o

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2014, 01:15:13 AM »
@ TK,MarkE

You are telling me thing's i already know.
What you are not doing is showing me that what can be done with water can also be done with air in regards to bouyancy.
Quote: We just don't have the magic materials (except for aerogels) that are strong enough to float in air unless they contain some lighter than air gas that can balance the internal and external pressures. If we had such a material that could be strong enough to hold outside air pressure against a vacuum inside, it certainly would float in air as long as it displaces more airmass than it weighs itself.

So as we are dealing with devices we can build, and do have the material's for,then the pratical mechanics between air and water are different.They only become the same once the materials become avaliable to put together a device that act's like a bouyant vessle dose in water. Your statements remain theoretical until such time as you can prove otherwise-->is this not what you demand of anyone that claims things are different to what you think they are. My claims are in the here and now. The facts i state remain until such time as you can show me a device that contains a vacume,but will rise in air when the device is expanded or increased in outer surface area. I can do this right now in water with the avaliable materials we have here on earth-can you do the same right now in air? If's and but's are something we cannot work with. Lets deal with builds we can actually build,and have the material for. I think a strawman argument would be more of one of a device made from materials that dont yet exist ;)

Quote TK: you are lifting water, which requires work.
This i know,what you dont understand is that the work has already been done before the vessle hits the bottom.

Quote MarkE-It absolutely takes work in one direction or another to change the volume of a submerged object

Once again,this i know-please see reply 8- Quote: Work is only required to reduce surface area of the object at the begining of the cycle.

Guy's
I can build my device right now with materials at hand-can you do the same-->can you build a device with materials we have right now,so as it performs the same in air as mine will in water?.
Also,please read what i have said,as you are making statements that seem to imply that i disagree with things that i have already agreed with,or have posted before you actually made your statement.

@TK
I think you may remember this video. Now,why wouldnt this work?,and how would it be different if we used the same type of theory in water?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nKltbQ8PBQ


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2014, 01:15:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2014, 01:23:19 AM »
Hi Brad,

Quote
You can quote text as follows:
start the text to be quoted with this symbol and word:   [quote and now use this symbol ] right after the word quote like this quote] and then include the text to be quoted.
And at the end of the text include the following symbols and word:
   [/quote and again use this closing symbol ]  right after the word quote without a space.  Of course, no need for using bold characters.

For the next text to be quoted, apply the same symbols and words,  i.e. embed the text to be quoted between the two symbols and words.
Hope this may be useful.

Gyula
Test

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2014, 01:27:12 AM »
Hi Brad,

Quote
You can quote text as follows:
second test
Quote
start the text to be quoted with this symbol and word:
third test 
Gyula
Still screwing this up some how ???
Now my replies are in blue too lol.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2014, 01:27:12 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4065
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2014, 10:46:45 PM »
Hi Folks,

I have made this explanation as attached, I cannot explain it simpler or better...  8)

Gyula

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2014, 08:37:54 AM »
Hi Folks,

I have made this explanation as attached, I cannot explain it simpler or better...  8)

Gyula
Thanks Gyula
Even a dumbass like me should be able to get this right now :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2014, 08:37:54 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline murmel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2014, 12:52:46 PM »
Gangmother or Grandmother ?

Offline murmel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2014, 12:56:22 PM »
Funny, my grandmother invented a wave generator (in the sea) in the 70:tis
pity she did not patented it....

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2014, 03:03:02 PM »
Gyula
that makes it very clear.
@Archer
I sent you a message ,please let me know if your interested.

Thanks
Chet

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2014, 09:42:55 AM »
Doesn't anyone else see the rather obvious (to me) and glaring flaw in the "boot" device described in this document? I've been waiting for someone to post their analysis that shows the flaw, but I'm getting tired of waiting. I sent my analysis to a couple of people a little while ago but perhaps they are sleeping.


Archer, if that's you, you are all wet, and that's no joke.

 

OneLink