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 46546 times)

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2014, 12:57:20 AM »
You mean the "inventor" THINKS it should work, but of course it does not.

Come on people, these buoyancy drives are nothing new, they have been completely and rigorously analyzed for years, and yet every once in a while somebody thinks he's invented a new one, when he really hasn't. No working model of any such drive has ever been produced.

Here it is again. You will note that the devices shown and analyzed in this link are functionally _identical_ to what is described in that patent application link.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm

Or rather... non-functionally identical, since they do not function, and of course neither does the one in the patent app. link.



If you want to do some experiments that show otherwise, please go ahead, but be sure to report your _negative results_ honestly as well as any positive results you get. The reason you don't hear of all the failures is because people don't want to report them... hence the perpetuation of the belief that someday one of the same-old-same-old ideas will suddenly start working. But they won't.
Hi,
I really enjoy reading your informative responses, but this case is different from what have been described.
He is using the weights to create or limit the buoyuncy, quite different from the described examples,
which are short of this application of the weights, or at least, not pointed out in the design.
They write:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.
This is the critical mistake they are making by pointing out at the pairs of the cylinders during the transition,
at the same time not mentioning that there can be many more cylinders at the vertical stage of the machine,
producing the work ( for free).
BTW, this is not a patent application, but the actual patent.
Regards.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2014, 06:25:09 AM »
Hi,
I really enjoy reading your informative responses, but this case is different from what have been described.
He is using the weights to create or limit the buoyuncy, quite different from the described examples,
which are short of this application of the weights, or at least, not pointed out in the design.
They write:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.
This is the critical mistake they are making by pointing out at the pairs of the cylinders during the transition,
at the same time not mentioning that there can be many more cylinders at the vertical stage of the machine,
producing the work ( for free).
BTW, this is not a patent application, but the actual patent.
Regards.

Note that the pdf in your link says, in great big letters on the first page, DEMANDE DE BREVET, in all caps.
Please put "Demande de brevet" into your Google French translator and tell me what you get back.

If you think it will "produce work for free" then why, since the document was published in 2003, are we not seeing working buoyancy drives based on this _really simple_ plan all over the place by now?

And you are wrong that it is not fully covered by the designs and analyses in the Simanek museum. There is nothing new in your "patent" and furthermore it will not work. Go ahead and build it yourself and see. Be sure to report your costs and the test results you get, even, or especially, if they are negative. If they are positive, that is, if you can make it work,  then we will all benefit from your investment and hard work. When will you be starting?


Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2014, 06:54:45 AM »
Note that the pdf in your link says, in great big letters on the first page, DEMANDE DE BREVET, in all caps.
Please put "Demande de brevet" into your Google French translator and tell me what you get back.

If you think it will "produce work for free" then why, since the document was published in 2003, are we not seeing working buoyancy drives based on this _really simple_ plan all over the place by now?

And you are wrong that it is not fully covered by the designs and analyses in the Simanek museum. There is nothing new in your "patent" and furthermore it will not work. Go ahead and build it yourself and see. Be sure to report your costs and the test results you get, even, or especially, if they are negative. If they are positive, that is, if you can make it work,  then we will all benefit from your investment and hard work. When will you be starting?

Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html
secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...
lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2014, 06:54:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline The Eskimo Quinn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • Archurian
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2014, 03:47:38 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=423HiKP5JGk

explanation video for archurian rocket for pressure, still unbeaten in any mechanics or math by 300 physics professor it was sent to. One tried and after more than 30 emails back and forward and me beating him at every turn and answering every question, he crumbled back to the great netwoinian answer of well it can't work "coz physics says so",(pity none of that physics had the mechanic failure or math proof to go with it, oohh it's like the bible, how can there be different families descended from adam and eve if god wiped them all out in Noahs flood? oohh i get it, his name was Noah Newton)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2014, 04:52:00 AM »
The FACT that you do not actually DEMONSTRATE anything in that waste of time video, except your silly imitation of an adult (we know the child's voice is your real voice) sure means a lot more than any words you might emit. And it is clear that you are simply lying about the "300 professors" just as you lied baldly back in the old days about your "Sword of God" magnet-gravity wheel. How is that going, by the way? Did you apologise to all the people you duped back then, return the money and magnets they sent you? Of course you did not.

Why don't you give us a list of a few of the "professors" who could not figure out what was wrong with your system. You won't, I know, and I know why, too.

Here, once again, is the solid refutation of the system you described in the "Crushing Newton like a bug" pdf document, which I believe describes the same system you fail to demonstrate in that video. And, by the way, even the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians knew that the Earth was spherical, not flat, and anyone with half a brain and the eyes to observe natural phenomena like solar and lunar eclipses can figure that much out for themselves easily enough.

--------------------------
So you have Quinn's "boot" shaped system of water locks. The foot of the boot is where you insert your "just barely sunk" box with the heavy block in it. It is sealed off from the tall "leg" of the boot by a water and pressure tight door. The "foot" is, say, 1 meter deep and has a pressure and watertight lid somehow. You start with ten meters of water in the "leg" of the boot and one meter of water in the foot. You put your block in the foot part and the water level rises in that part, and the rise in water level indicates a volume increase, equal to the volume of the box you just put in. Now you put the watertight lid on the foot part so that there is no air in there. Remember that the water level is higher than it was before you put the block in there. Now you open the sealed door into the leg of the boot. Boom, the pressure in the foot is now the pressure resulting from the full 10 meter head in the leg of the boot. You slide your barely sinking box over into the bottom of the leg, and close the watertight and pressuretight door between the foot and the leg. But the pressure in the foot is still the same 10 meter head as before. You raise up your barely sinking box with little work, with your "12 volt" automobile winch. You raise it up to the top and remove it from the leg -- and the water level in the leg _drops_ indicating that you have now removed a volume (the box volume) from the leg. The water level in the leg is now lower, by the same volume that the water level in the foot rose up when you put the box in the foot. When you open the lid on the foot, you find that that pressure now reduces, perhaps some water splashes out or not, but the level of the water is still higher than it was for the first block, and the water level in the leg is lower, by the same amount. You now put another box in the foot. The water level rises _again_ by that same volume amount. You now seal off the roof of the foot with your pressuretight seal, and open the door into the leg of the boot. Boom, the pressure in the foot is now equal to the _somewhat less than_ 10 meters head in the leg. You slide your barely sunk box over into the leg and close the water and pressuretight door between foot and leg. You raise up the box with the winch and remove the box at the top... and the water level in the leg _drops again_ by the same volume as the volume of the box. And the water level in the foot is higher by that same volume amount. Lather rinse repeat. Do you see what is happening? You are LOWERING THE WATER LEVEL IN THE LEG by a volume amount equal to the volume of the box, every time. This volume transfers from the leg, all the way down to the foot. You are working with the _stored energy_ of the lifted water in the leg of the boot. By the time you've lifted a dozen, or however many, blocks, the water level in the leg is waaaay down and the water level in the foot is waaaay up, by the same amount. It is this falling water, a volume equal to the volume of the box, that is adding to the power of the winch in order to lift up your blocks. Without some way to replace the water in the leg of the boot, you will run out of stored energy in short order. So for this scheme to work you need a river flowing water into the top of the boot, replacing the water that falls into the foot with each block transfer. There was no river at the top of the pyramid, just one at the bottom (the Nile).

There is no free lunch, Newton is resting happily in his grave, not crushed like a bug, and Quinn is an idiot, still. I would not be calling him an idiot, except for the fact that he is so disrespectful and arrogant in his own statements in the PDF, in addition to being utterly and totally WRONG.
--------------------

And that is why you can only wave things around and make silly voices, rather than actually DEMONSTRATING anything.

We remember you Archer Quinn and we expect just the same nonsense from you now, as you delivered all those years ago. And you are showing us that our expectations will be fully met.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2014, 04:52:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2014, 04:59:59 AM »
Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html
Fine, you set me up by presenting the APPLICATION first. And there are many non-functional patents in every country's patent database as I am sure you must know.
Quote
secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...
Really? Someone who has invented a _working_ free energy device as simple as that can't develop it because of lack of funds? Come on, pull the other one why don't you. That is a garbage excuse. Are you telling me that you can't build a model of that device for a few tens or hundreds of dollars, to show that it works? That is a load of bull hockey. The reason it hasn't gone any farther is because it _does not work_ and every person who has tried to build a model of it knows that.
Quote
lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.
If you think you have found a serious "flow" in Simanek's explanations you really should email him and let him and his graduate students and the rest of the engineering world know about it. Be sure to let us know the results of your correspondence with Simanek. Or, just go ahead and build the design that you think he has explained incorrectly and show it working.

Take an intelligent look at this design? Are you now questioning my intelligence, or perhaps you know more information than you are telling us, like when you presented the _application_ instead of the granted patent?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2014, 05:16:53 AM »
Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html
secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...
lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.
I have some really bad news for you:  Buoyancy:  the weight of displaced fluid exerted upward on the displacing object doesn't provide free energy anymore than the weight of a sack of rocks does on one side of a teeter-totter or a pulley.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2014, 05:16:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2014, 09:14:48 AM »
Doing the calculations or building and measureing.

Either way it's still trying out ideas that are new to the explorer.

Making claims that can't be backed up is the only problem.

This is what I would Try/calculate/measure in a bouancy/O.U. experiment.

Cheers
     floor

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2014, 03:02:49 PM »
Doing the calculations or building and measureing.

Either way it's still trying out ideas that are new to the explorer.

Making claims that can't be backed up is the only problem.

This is what I would Try/calculate/measure in a bouancy/O.U. experiment.

Cheers
     floor
As has been shown time and time again whenever these types of machines have been proposed:

In the idealized case that can never be realized, the work performed pushing the buoyant object into the bottom of the column can exactly be recovered as the displaced fluid falls back down and the buoyant volume rises.  In the real world, the energy cannot be fully recovered for several reasons.  There is never any energy gain possible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2014, 03:02:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2014, 03:38:12 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=423HiKP5JGk

explanation video for archurian rocket for pressure, still unbeaten in any mechanics or math by 300 physics professor it was sent to. One tried and after more than 30 emails back and forward and me beating him at every turn and answering every question, he crumbled back to the great netwoinian answer of well it can't work "coz physics says so",(pity none of that physics had the mechanic failure or math proof to go with it, oohh it's like the bible, how can there be different families descended from adam and eve if god wiped them all out in Noahs flood? oohh i get it, his name was Noah Newton)
It's a silly presentation that is full of fallacies.  An object is buoyant when its SG is less than the surrounding fluid.  Under the premise that you have filled up a uniform cross-section tower with water, you performed work filling that tower with mfluidGhtower/2.  That is a sunk energy cost.  Now, using any mechanism that you like and as perfect as you like you introduce a float of some smaller height and lower SG into the tower.  Water from the tower surrounds the float and it rises.  What you ignore is the absolute fact that water from the tower must flood the airlock you placed your float in, dropping the level of water in the tower, which will either have to be drained from the airlock or pushed back up into the tower during the next cycle.  If you go the drain route you lose energy that you expended filling the tower in the first place and the machine runs down.  If you push the water back up into the tower then "Jimmy" is right and you are wrong.  Your scheme does not work.

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2014, 05:08:40 PM »
QUOTE "In the idealized case that can never be realized, the work performed pushing the buoyant object into the bottom of the column can exactly be recovered as the displaced fluid falls back down and the buoyant volume rises.  In the real world, the energy cannot be fully recovered for several reasons. "  END QUOTE

Agreement.  The work performed in EITHER sinking or inserting the cube is equal to the work of the cube riseing
BEFORE LOSSES.......There will always be losses in either and or both of these actions.

These losses may or may not be equal to each other.

These losses are caused by friction / turbulence / inertia versus acceleration.

Let's call these losses "LOSS SET 1"

Lets calll the force of PUSHING the cube into the column (sinking the cube) BEFORE LOSSES  " EXPENDITURE 1"
Let's call the force in the riseing of the cube through the fluid within the column (floating up) BEFORE LOSSES "RETURN 1 "

Before the losses in "LOSSS SET 1",   "EXPENDITURE 1" and "RETURN 1" are equal.

The falling of the qube while exterior to the fluid column, will have air friction losses ?

Let's call these losses "LOSS SET 2"

Let's call the Force in the falling of the cube while exterior to the fluid column, 
BEFORE FRICTION LOSSES "RETURN 2 "

Lets calll the following  losses combined " LOSS SET 3"

Overcoming:
1 the inertia of the cube during lateral repositioning,
2 friction of the cube against the seal in the column wall,
3 friction and inertia of the door movements

EXPENDITURE 1 and RETUN 1 are equal before losses.

Do we still have a gain in energy after subtracting LOSS SETS
1, 2, and 3 from RETURN 2 ?

Consider this, the material from which the walls of the hollow cube are composed
is all so buoyant in the fluid.  The energy in it's buoyancy is RETUN and it's weigh
is not not subtracted from the energy of the cube's fall while exterior to the column.







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2014, 05:08:40 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2014, 08:12:09 PM »
I have some really bad news for you:  Buoyancy:  the weight of displaced fluid exerted upward on the displacing object doesn't provide free energy anymore than the weight of a sack of rocks does on one side of a teeter-totter or a pulley.

You probably didn't bother to read the actual document.
why not to read it first before breaking the " really bad news"?


Offline telecom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2014, 08:18:38 PM »
Fine, you set me up by presenting the APPLICATION first.

That wasn't my intent, I didn't know the difference until you pointed it out.

 And there are many non-functional patents in every country's patent database as I am sure you must know. Really? Someone who has invented a _working_ free energy device as simple as that can't develop it because of lack of funds? Come on, pull the other one why don't you. That is a garbage excuse. Are you telling me that you can't build a model of that device for a few tens or hundreds of dollars, to show that it works? That is a load of bull hockey. The reason it hasn't gone any farther is because it _does not work_ and every person who has tried to build a model of it knows that.

There can me miriads reasons why something isn't built - this is not the issue, but the issue is the merit of the invention.

If you think you have found a serious "flow" in Simanek's explanations you really should email him and let him and his graduate students and the rest of the engineering world know about it. Be sure to let us know the results of your correspondence with Simanek.
I have no idea who this guy is, he can write anything he wants on his web page.

Or, just go ahead and build the design that you think he has explained incorrectly and show it working.
Lets examine it first!

Take an intelligent look at this design?

This is why I ask you to look at it because I value your intelligent opinion.
Regards.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #58 on: December 08, 2014, 08:51:12 PM »
You probably didn't bother to read the actual document.
why not to read it first before breaking the " really bad news"?
I read the document and the bad news still applies.

Offline dvy1214

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: 3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2014, 09:26:30 PM »
Being validated as we speak, no human can "Not" do this at home with a small glass jar in a bucket of water. It is over. and this is the third machine all different physics, number 4 is one its way with another physics application.

NO ONE ON EARTH CANNOT DO THIS AT HOME

as per usual will be no comments read or written by the author except the validation note from the engineers not that this needs it

Did you right this?

"funny because I watch a ton of trapped air, lift hot air balloons every day, so it does not fall at all, in fact it costs energy to get hot air down, no matter how many ton there is. There is always an exception if not many exceptions to the "rules"."

---- Did this air become hot all on its own?-----

"Ok so take your rock, place it in an air filled box and seal it, submerse it in 2 metres of water, and it will sit on the bottom, but with the right amount of air you can lift it up and down all day long."

---- Go see what your actually capable acceleration curve is once hydrodynamic drag is calculated. Plus you have severely underestimated the amount of work that must be done to create your circumstances. Oh and you seem to have forgotten here what you point out at the end,("you lift ten ton ten metres it falls you get the same output")that what you have pointed out is zero sum. Why wouldn't you just set up a pulley system arguably using less energy and wasting fewer precious resources? Remember water is not infinite and it actually takes a lot of energy to move it due to how fucking dense it is! In the ocean you would be forced to use a displacement system to change depth just like a submarine or a scuba diver which both require excess energy because you will loose energy every time you try to manipulate a fluid with human means. So once you have wrapped your head around that adda load against this oscillating system and see how much real usable work you can exert. Remember you mind is abstract reality is concrete.. ----

"So the blocks are all placed in boxes sealed like the rock for semi buoyancy, they are dumped into a canal where a cables pulls them forward into a loch,(think roller coaster car drive from underneath ) the loch is a cube. A gate closes, and the block moves forward into a cubic loch, Remember the entire cube loch is underwater, the gate closes. The next lock is a cube attached to a vertical rectangular cube, so it looks like a boot, the door between the two opens and the vertical water cannot fall because the lochs are sealed, the block is moved forward into the elevator loch, and the gate is closed, a car winch lifts the semi buoyant giant block up to the next loch, the gate opens and it moves across, the gate closes and it is raised again. Unlike an open boat loch where water needs to be pumped or flow downstream to fill the lochs and lift the boats, the sealed loch has no such issues as the water remains where it is always. And yet giant stone blocks with little weight are now climbing Mount Everest. Showing buoyancy does have an energy gain if you know what to do with it. So instead of megawatts of power, it is simply kilowatts. What your are really looking at is a single giant pipe filled with water that has an abject that water displacement took place in the first loch, the same as a submarine only displaces water when it is first submerged after that it is simply an object passing through water just like watching the old retro bubble lamps run, the water displacement never alters, and the top is simply open to a canal where it is removed and then taken away. The boxes simply slid back down at no energy cost. The pressure on each gate is no more than the water weight of two lochs at any one time."

---- Great idea, build the system that can withstand the water weight plus displacement pressure without bursting that takes less energy to build then moving the blocks conventionally. Theory and practice are two very different things i suggest you hit the bench and do some work son. Not to mention show me your methodology for encasing these rocks. You need to keep in mind many things can be abstracted without keeping in mind all pertinent variables, you have kicked your own ass and probably ruined your reputation with people who do not spend their time mentally masturbating. ----

 "I can always get more energy out than in, in every possible use of physics"

---- With your methods of abstraction i am sure you can! ----

May god or someone have mercy on your soul because you are treacherous to those trying to learn something.

- David

 

OneLink