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: 525621
  • *Total Topics: 15645
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: What's wrong with this  (Read 41267 times)

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2014, 05:04:42 AM »
@ MarkE

Thank you for not responding

A no responce, is better than your first irrelevant one,

And better than your second responce, which lacked either admission of and/or
appology for having not read or understood the materials I first presented.


asssuming
condescending
derisive
dismissive
evasive
0 acknowledgement

No class

The title of this topic / the question set I addresed to you, just bait.

And look who were the bait takers were.

When I'm asking questions on this forum, just understand I'm not addressing either of you.

If suddenly you realize that I'm running a con game, well then by all means call a cop.
Untill that day stay away.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2014, 05:04:42 AM »

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2014, 05:08:57 AM »
................................

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2014, 12:05:50 PM »
I am not one of the 25 who downloaded the pdf that was addressed specificly to MarkE ^^


You know, from a conventional point of an opinion ( not saying view), such devices are impossible. Yet there are simple yet puzzling features. The floater is heavier than air and lighter than water. A perfect condition for an Oscillation. Furthermore, work can be done by buoyancy and gravity as well, not just the circulation.


To discuss it with somebody who is bound in dogmata is fruitless. You can think about it for some time, but at some point you have to do practical experiments. After all it is not about discussing, but about inventing, hacking. Right?


One thing I think needs correction:


."it is possivle to submerge the cube without to significantly rise the height of the fluid"


The rise of height does not matter, the volume is always the same. Well, it does matter in that there is more pressure the deeper you go, but this may be not significant in a practical application.


Peace


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2014, 12:05:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2014, 12:17:13 PM »
@ MarkE

Thank you for not responding
You're welcome, but it was an oversight.
Quote

A no responce, is better than your first irrelevant one,
Sadly you do not see that my first response was very relevant.  How are doing preparing those state diagrams that you promised?
Quote

And better than your second responce, which lacked either admission of and/or
appology for having not read or understood the materials I first presented.
Unfortunately, I think the lack of understanding is on your part.
Quote


asssuming
condescending
derisive
dismissive
evasive
0 acknowledgement

No class

The title of this topic / the question set I addresed to you, just bait.
So, let me get this straight, you say that you are baiting, but you are criticizing others' behavior?
Quote

And look who were the bait takers were.

When I'm asking questions on this forum, just understand I'm not addressing either of you.
Is that true even when you explicitly address me?  Exactly how does that work?
Quote

If suddenly you realize that I'm running a con game, well then by all means call a cop.
Untill that day stay away.
Your buoyancy machine ideas are just wrong.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2014, 12:20:47 PM »
I am not one of the 25 who downloaded the pdf that was addressed specificly to MarkE ^^


You know, from a conventional point of an opinion ( not saying view), such devices are impossible. Yet there are simple yet puzzling features. The floater is heavier than air and lighter than water. A perfect condition for an Oscillation. Furthermore, work can be done by buoyancy and gravity as well, not just the circulation.


To discuss it with somebody who is bound in dogmata is fruitless. You can think about it for some time, but at some point you have to do practical experiments. After all it is not about discussing, but about inventing, hacking. Right?


One thing I think needs correction:


."it is possivle to submerge the cube without to significantly rise the height of the fluid"


The rise of height does not matter, the volume is always the same. Well, it does matter in that there is more pressure the deeper you go, but this may be not significant in a practical application.


Peace
Dieter a set of ideas are not dogma when they are shown to be correct every time they are reliably tested.  If one is going to find an exception to a well established principle it almost has to be through experiment.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2014, 12:20:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2014, 01:05:27 PM »
Dieter a set of ideas are not dogma when they are shown to be correct every time they are reliably tested.  If one is going to find an exception to a well established principle it almost has to be through experiment.
If i had a spare(estimated) $20 000,i would show you a self powered device that opperates on buoyancy principles.

Now what gas can be eliminated from an air tight vessle that dosnt need to be expelled,but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.
What gas can return most of it's energy to the source that created it once it is eliminated :D

What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.


Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2014, 04:55:47 PM »
@MarkE

The title of the topic is What's wrong with this.
The subject, is the conversation we are having, not the floating device.
Get it ?

                             

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2014, 04:55:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2014, 06:08:26 PM »
@Dieter

Yes I agree, you are correct.

The fluid rise in fluid level (to the top of the container) along with an air lock was the subject of the
state diagrams that were posted by MarkE, and are irrelevent in the context of what I presented.

Hence the "discussion" MarkE and I are having.

The Pdf adressed to MarkE can be read by any one,  other wise I would have sent it as a personal
message.

              and peace be with you as well

floor












Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2014, 06:42:30 PM »
If i had a spare(estimated) $20 000,i would show you a self powered device that opperates on buoyancy principles.
It would be $20k down the tubes so to speak.
Quote

Now what gas can be eliminated from an air tight vessle
If it is gas tight, then by definition gas cannot enter or leave.
Quote
that dosnt need to be expelled,but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.
The question is vague, but it sounds like you want to change the volume of your submerisble.
Quote
What gas can return most of it's energy to the source that created it once it is eliminated :D
Once what is eliminated?  A rival gas gang? Let me introduce you to my leetle molecule!
Quote

What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
Even if we assume that the fall is from a point near sea level, it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
Quote
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.
For the same conditions as the fall, it has the same dependencies.
Quote

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2014, 06:42:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2014, 09:53:31 PM »
Consider a solid object immersed in a completely full, sealed container of liquid.
It should be obvious that the solid object displaces its own volume of liquid. Right?

Now move the solid object up by the distance of its own height.

Notice that the liquid that was above the object, before the raising, has to go somewhere for the object to occupy that space. Where does it go?
It goes to fill up the space where the object was before raising. That is, the object goes up, and an equivalent volume of liquid goes _down_. Right?

This has to be true whatever the densities of the object and liquid. Right?

Now start considering densities. If the object weighs less than the fluid it displaces, it is positively buoyant. So it rises, and a volume of fluid that is _heavier_ than the object sinks, to fill up the space where the object was before it rises. Right?

Is this beginning to "sink in" yet? 

The rising object rises, because an equal fluid volume that is _heavier_ than the object, sinks.  How the hell can you expect to get net work out of that situation? 

The situation is exactly analogous to a rope over a pulley, with a light weight tied to one end of the rope and a heavy weight tied to the other end. The light weight rises because _the heavier weight falls_.  It takes work to set up the situation with the heavy weight up and the light weight down; this work -- and no more -- is returned while the system runs toward equilibrium with the heavy weight down and the light weight up; then you have to do work again to reset the system with the heavy weight up and the light weight down.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2014, 10:32:47 PM »
Consider a solid object immersed in a completely full, sealed container of liquid.
It should be obvious that the solid object displaces its own volume of liquid. Right?

Now move the solid object up by the distance of its own height.

Notice that the liquid that was above the object, before the raising, has to go somewhere for the object to occupy that space. Where does it go?
It goes to fill up the space where the object was before raising. That is, the object goes up, and an equivalent volume of liquid goes _down_. Right?

This has to be true whatever the densities of the object and liquid. Right?

Now start considering densities. If the object weighs less than the fluid it displaces, it is positively buoyant. So it rises, and a volume of fluid that is _heavier_ than the object sinks, to fill up the space where the object was before it rises. Right?

Is this beginning to "sink in" yet? 

The rising object rises, because an equal fluid volume that is _heavier_ than the object, sinks.  How the hell can you expect to get net work out of that situation? 

The situation is exactly analogous to a rope over a pulley, with a light weight tied to one end of the rope and a heavy weight tied to the other end. The light weight rises because _the heavier weight falls_.  It takes work to set up the situation with the heavy weight up and the light weight down; this work -- and no more -- is returned while the system runs toward equilibrium with the heavy weight down and the light weight up; then you have to do work again to reset the system with the heavy weight up and the light weight down.
By Archimedes you've got it!  (Of course you always did.) 

It boggles my mind that these very straightforward concepts give some folks so much trouble.  Whether it's the liar Wayne Travis or people honestly mistaken: Lots of folks just don't seem to get that buoyancy is just denser fluid pushing less dense objects out of the way as the denser fluid tries to make its way towards terra firma.  As the fluid moves towards Mother Earth the center of gravity of the fluid plus submersible(s) falls and therefore the stored gravitational potential energy also falls.  No amount of trap doors, gears, levers, inflatable bags, or any other contraptions can change the basic energy relationships:  The GPE is greatest when the submersibles are at the bottom of the vessel, and lowest when they are at the top.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2014, 10:32:47 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2014, 10:58:29 PM »
By Archimedes you've got it!  (Of course you always did.) 

It boggles my mind that these very straightforward concepts give some folks so much trouble.  Whether it's the liar Wayne Travis or people honestly mistaken: Lots of folks just don't seem to get that buoyancy is just denser fluid pushing less dense objects out of the way as the denser fluid tries to make its way towards terra firma.  As the fluid moves towards Mother Earth the center of gravity of the fluid plus submersible(s) falls and therefore the stored gravitational potential energy also falls.  No amount of trap doors, gears, levers, inflatable bags, or any other contraptions can change the basic energy relationships:  The GPE is greatest when the submersibles are at the bottom of the vessel, and lowest when they are at the top.

Yep. That's why I've said before: Buoyancy is just gravity misspelled. And when you start thinking about the loss mechanisms involved in pushing all that water around, you really would be better off with a pulley on good bearings and a piece of rope, out in the open air.

Still, I'd like to see a comprehensive diagram of Tinman's idea.

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2014, 11:23:21 PM »
@ MarkE

"It doesn't work for reasons that have been explained concerning buoyancy schemes before." from MarkE

                             If you had said that you are not aware of any way to get work out of buoyancy.

While this might not be news, it wouldn't have placed you into a positon of supposed superiority, whould it?

It would not have been CONDESCENDING ?

You might have asked your self, if probably, the reason for that other persons are investigating
"buoyancy schemes" (DERISIVE term), was precisely that it's not been done before,
(not can't be done)  instead of ASSUMING that person is unaware of such an obvious thing ?

Can you honestly say to your self that this is not CONDESCENTION.

......................................
 
Did not heavier than air flight, not work "FOR REASONS THAT HAVE (had) BEEN EXPLAINED" ?

The question here is whether "reasons" are stated to

A. discourage some one, for their own good and to save them from a wasted life.
or
B. to clairify the goal.

If case A. mind your own business.
If case B. it is the experimenter that needs to ask those questions, and unless you are the
experimenter your self, but out.

BTW

Iv'e changed my mind and I'm not done yet.

Stick around Mark, If you can find the strength, to look at your self a little bit.

The title of the topic is "whats wrong with this ?".

The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.

                   floor





Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2014, 11:52:33 PM »
Heavier than air flight by Man had precedent: birds, rubber-band-powered stick and paper things, paper airplane gliders. So it's an invalid comparison to make. There are no precedents in Nature or in models that would suggest that buoyancy drives are possible at all.

One way to improve the forum, if that's really your goal, is to stop with the personal attacks like you are making, Floor. 

It is a perfectly valid goal for some of us to try to help others avoid wasting their precious time, money and creativity on _schemes_ that have no possibility of working, like gravity wheels, permanent magnet motors, and... buoyancy drives.

Any given experimenter is perfectly free to ignore the advice, analyses and even derision coming from those of us who are attempting to keep them from wasting their time. But I think we reserve the right to say "I told you so, long ago" when they eventually get frustrated with their failures and move on to something else. If someone can support their claims and conjectures with solid data, checkable valid outside references, and/or demonstrations and experiments of their own, that's great. Submitting them for examination and review by the other posters here is the closest many of us will ever get to actual "peer review"... and the real thing can be brutal, take my word for it. 


https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/free-energy-drive-power-station-level

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2014, 12:15:43 AM »
@ MarkE

"It doesn't work for reasons that have been explained concerning buoyancy schemes before." from MarkE

                             If you had said that you are not aware of any way to get work out of buoyancy.

While this might not be news, it wouldn't have placed you into a positon of supposed superiority, whould it?
It is just a statement of fact.
Quote

It would not have been CONDESCENDING ?
The fact was stated in an objective and impersonal manner.
Quote

You might have asked your self, if probably, the reason for that other persons are investigating
"buoyancy schemes" (DERISIVE term), was precisely that it's not been done before,
Let's see what the very first definition of "scheme" is:

Quote
Quote
noun
noun: scheme; plural noun: schemes

    1.
    a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.
    "a clever marketing scheme"
    synonyms:   plan, project, plan of action, program, strategy, stratagem, tactic, game plan, course/line of action; More

That is the definition of "scheme" when used as a noun, as I did.  You chose to interpret the word "scheme" as a verb, which is not how I used it.

Quote
Quote
verb
verb: scheme; 3rd person present: schemes; past tense: schemed; past participle: schemed; gerund or present participle: scheming

    1.
    make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong.

(not can't be done)  instead of ASSUMING that person is unaware of such an obvious thing ?

Can you honestly say to your self that this is not CONDESCENTION.
Why do you think facts are condescending when they oppose an action or proposed course of action?
Quote

......................................
 
Did not heavier than air flight, not work "FOR REASONS THAT HAVE (had) BEEN EXPLAINED" ?
I am sorry do you labor under the idea that I dispute HTA flight?
Quote

The question here is whether "reasons" are stated to

A. discourage some one, for their own good and to save them from a wasted life.
or
B. to clairify the goal.

If case A. mind your own business.
Well it is all fine and well that you do not like to see opposition to your ideas.  If you do not want opposition:  vett your ideas before placing them on a public comment board.
Quote

If case B. it is the experimenter that needs to ask those questions, and unless you are the
experimenter your self, but out.
Again this is a public comment board.  If you would like an echo chamber where ideas including unworkable ideas are not burdened by criticism there are ways to set one up.
Quote

BTW

Iv'e changed my mind and I'm not done yet.

Stick around Mark, If you can find the strength, to look at your self a little bit.

The title of the topic is "whats wrong with this ?".

The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.

                   floor
Your OP posted an unworkable buoyancy scheme.  How does the jive with your present claim that the topic is:

Quote
The subject is broadly speaking how to improve the OU forum through self improvement.
?

Your OP:
Quote
Quote
If Ou can be done any where, then it can be done any where ?

Please find the attached file OUfloater 3.pdf

Cheers
       floor
* OUfloater 3.pdf (348.04 kB - downloaded 92 times.)

 

OneLink