Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: Floor on December 14, 2014, 06:05:50 PM

Title: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 14, 2014, 06:05:50 PM
If Ou can be done any where, then it can be done any where ?

Please find the attached file OUfloater 3.pdf

Cheers
       floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 14, 2014, 06:48:46 PM
Place a negative gas pressure inside (vacuum)  "sealed gas tank" to eliminate air friction.

Yes, pressure will be the same at both valves, so it won't help with inserting the bottom float. 
But the bouyancy of the floats will contribute some amount to the insertion of the bottom float.


                  Cheers
                           floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 14, 2014, 07:13:20 PM
The surface area of the floats can be changed with out changing the volumn of the floats.

The shape of the floats can be changed without changing the volumn of the floats.
This can make the floats more streamlined after they pass through the valves.

                               floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 14, 2014, 07:28:42 PM
The shape of the floats and the smoothness of their surfaces will affect the energy lost
as the floats rise through the fluid.

The viscocity of the fluid will affect the friction against the floats.

The turbulence in the fluid opposing the floats riseing, will DRAMATICALLY
increase with the speed of the floats riseing. 

Slow the riseing of the floats by collecting the energy of their riseing.

                    floor

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala on December 14, 2014, 11:09:51 PM
If you are allowed to use "magic" anywhere in your design, it's not allowed in the real world.

For example, I have permanent magnet motors that only need negative-coefficient of friction bearings to run without outside power.

It is real-world losses that prevent most every Free Energy device from operating in the real world. Magic valves are nice, though. Wake me up when you can buy them from your local sorcerer and we'll see if they will work in your design. Please pick up some negative friction bearings for me while you are shopping, won't you?

Don't forget that as you push up the bottom floater through the bottom magic valve, you are not only lifting it against gravity but you are also pushing out the top floater through its magic valve, lifting it up against gravity as well.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 15, 2014, 12:43:15 AM
@ T.K.

For sure, I'll let you know if I run across any negative friction
bearings.

So the "Magic Valve" Is described on the last page of the previous PDF  file (OUfloater 3). and also
reproduced in the  (MagicValve.pdf) attached below.

As you have probably guessed, it's not realy magic ! But it can let an object in or out of a
fluid or gas filled chamber with out letting fluid or gas, in or  out.

Quote "Don't forget that as you push up the bottom floater through the bottom magic valve, you are not only lifting it against gravity but you are also pushing out the top floater through its magic valve, lifting it up against gravity as well "End Quote

Between the bouyancy of the two floats, only the weight of one of the floats will be lifted, (before losses).

        floor


Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 15, 2014, 01:21:23 AM
If Ou can be done any where, then it can be done any where ?

Please find the attached file OUfloater 3.pdf

Cheers
       floor
It doesn't work for reasons that have been explained concerning buoyancy schemes before.

At the bottom of the tank the float entering has zero impetus to enter the fluid section, magic valves or not.  The only way to get that float into the fluid section is to displace a volume of fluid equal to the float volume.  The fact that one is doing work lifting another float out the top does not help.  It just complicates the bookkeeping.  The problem can be simplified to a representation of the linear sum of two processes:  A first process of inserting a buoyant float into the bottom of a fluid column and allowing that float to rise up through the fluid, and a second process of withdrawing the float from the top of the fluid column and recovering the added energy by dropping the float.  Even in the ideal case the first process is always lossy as shown in the attached diagram.  In the ideal case the second process can at best be break even.  The sum of the two processes is therefore always lossy even before any practical problems of magic valves or other special pleadings are addressed.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 15, 2014, 02:52:24 AM
@Mark E

I see some similarity,  (a fluid and a float)

But

1. There is fluid dispalcement in what I presented, but there is no fluid rise above the
starting fluid level in what I have presented.

2. There is no drop in the fluid level, or falling of the fluid in what  I presented.

3. There is no air lock in what I presented.

Quote "Even in the ideal case the first process is always lossy as shown in the attached diagram. "End Quote

4. The diagram "first process" you presented, does not apply to the example (except to illustrate the the volume
exchanges are equal ?)

5. "Lossy" or not, the insertion of the float into the fluid vessel and the rise of the float (before losses) are
equal.

6. You made no representation of the energy in the free fall of the float (in air or vacuum),
in comparison  to the equal exchange (before losses), of the first two process I presented
(the insertion of the floats against pressure and floatation).

I respect your experience and knowledge, and I wish your input had been more relevent
to my query.  If you will please review my presentation with closer scutiny, I would
welcome the more relevant input.

                       Sincerely
                            floor




Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 15, 2014, 05:08:01 AM
@Mark E

I see some similarity,  (a fluid and a float)

But

1. There is fluid dispalcement in what I presented, but there is no fluid rise above the
starting fluid level in what I have presented.

2. There is no drop in the fluid level, or falling of the fluid in what  I presented.

3. There is no air lock in what I presented.

Quote "Even in the ideal case the first process is always lossy as shown in the attached diagram. "End Quote

4. The diagram "first process" you presented, does not apply to the example (except to illustrate the the volume
exchanges are equal ?)

5. "Lossy" or not, the insertion of the float into the fluid vessel and the rise of the float (before losses) are
equal.

6. You made no representation of the energy in the free fall of the float (in air or vacuum),
in comparison  to the equal exchange (before losses), of the first two process I presented
(the insertion of the floats against pressure and floatation).

I respect your experience and knowledge, and I wish your input had been more relevent
to my query.  If you will please review my presentation with closer scutiny, I would
welcome the more relevant input.

                       Sincerely
                            floor
The principles at work are the same.  Go ahead and make a state diagram for one cycle and track the energy in out and stored at each state.  If you can show a gain in energy over the course of one cycle.  For the reasons I have already explained you will not be able to do that.  Let's review again:

1) No float can rise in a containing fluid in any finite time without a greater mass of fluid falling.  Ergo the system always loses stored energy between the state with the float at the bottom and the state with the float at the top.

2) No energy can be gained by removing a float from the top of a tank and dropping it.  In the ideal case the GPE lost by the float is completely transferred outside the system as useful work and the there is zero sum gain.

Ergo buoyancy machines consume rather than generate net energy each cycle.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 16, 2014, 01:47:16 AM
@MarkE

I'll do some diagrams as you suggest.  Thanks, untill then.
 

                   floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 22, 2014, 06:28:45 PM
Work from gravity.

Since it's "all been tried before ?" and "humanity has not learned anything new in the last 1.000 years ?"
and since "there are no new available materials ?" and "resources like mineature super computers on our desk tops
don't exist ?" and "there is no such thing as the global networking of information and ideas and resources" and because
some say it can't be done, so don't even try! BS

                  merry christmas
                  floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: dieter on December 22, 2014, 10:58:28 PM
Hi Floor,


I like the concept, tho the valve system may be tricky to implement. However, I think you must consider the waterpressure will rise, the deeper you go. Which is why you get a strong pressure feeling in your ears when you dive in a pool or lake down to like 10 meters.


But that does not render the entire concept impossible. It just alters the gain calculation. You may also think about a compressible floater that is compressed just as much as is needed to equalize the pressure diffrence, which would then result in a variation in buoyancy.


Merry christmas to you too.


Peace

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 22, 2014, 11:02:19 PM
One of the basic fallacies is caused by a failure to account for all the pertinent energy at any given state.  Calculate the gravitational potential energy at each state.  If you do the work correctly, you will find that going from a state where the float is at the bottom to where the float reaches the top results in a net loss of potential energy.

Ask yourself what causes the float to rise?  A. Denser fluid falling.  If you question that idea get some oil, water and food coloring.  Fill a vessel 1/3 with water.  Add a drop or two of food coloring to the water.  Then pour in vegetable oil.  The vegetable oil floats to the top.  The system finds its lowest energy state.  You will have to do work to force the lower density oil down, thus displacing a greater mass of water upward.  The same thing happens with a float.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 24, 2014, 03:01:24 PM
@ Dieter

Thank you for the suggestion, thats an interesting idea.

                          cheers

                                 floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 24, 2014, 03:05:10 PM
@ MarkE

            Thank you for your input and time.

I have some specific questions I would like to ask you.

They are in the attached pdf file "markE 1.pdf

                               cheers
                                    floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor 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.


Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 27, 2014, 05:08:57 AM
................................
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: dieter 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

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman 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.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor 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 ?

                             
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor 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











Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE 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
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor 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




Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE 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.)
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 02:49:26 AM
@ MarkE

"At the bottom of the tank the float entering has zero impetus to enter the fluid section, magic valves or not." from MarkE

Agreement, not in dispute, I never implied or said otherwise !  Why do you ASSUME here otherwise ? CONDISCENTION ?

"The only way to get that float into the fluid section is to displace a volume of fluid equal to the float volume." from MarkE

Agreement, not in dispute, I never said otherwise ! 

The above kind of a reply is a pain in the neck.  It's such a waste to spend time takeing words out of ones
mouth which one has not him self placed there.  Those who are into such a poor style of communication
should refrain from posting in other people's topics at all.  Those who habitually / deliberstely do so have a mental
disorder.

Perhaps they really are shills, if not they at least give people good reason to suspect so.
 
                            The following is another "style" of reply.  It is an example of poor communication and some
thing we can all work on.  I'm playing fair here by giving you fore warning. I don't have to, except,  to
keep from falling to this kind of perons level, and because I don't really wish to cause you any harm.
................................................
Mark, sometimes when you come into a topic, it's like a vampire has come into the room sucking all of the life out of it,
while at the same restoreing that once fresh air with the smell of some rotting carcus he's been feeding on.
Yes that's It, vampire breath.

I think it's like a suffocating ASSUMING / CONDESCENIG  air.

Is this because you have some kind of a disability?  Is this, perhaps the cause of this assuming /condescending
behavior ?  Has this allways been a issue for you in your life?  An issue perhaps from a controlling mother or father
that used a similar method ?
............................

Now let's look at the kind of effect this poor style of comunication may have upon the recipient as well as it's effects upon
the complexion of the OU community as a whole. 

What kind of an effect might it have is practiced upon you for example.  Try to keep your empathy intact here.
                                   Not good huh ? 
We wouldn't approve of this kind of communication would we?

Consider now, that this "style of communication method" is something that a person may have endured for some course
of time which is not just a day, but perhaps for a week, or months or even a year.


Not done yet

           floor




Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 03:14:16 AM
@ MarkE

"At the bottom of the tank the float entering has zero impetus to enter the fluid section, magic valves or not." from MarkE

Agreement, not in dispute, I never implied or said otherwise !  Why do you ASSUME here otherwise ? CONDISCENTION ?
Establishing clear lines of what is and is not in dispute is good communication.  In any dispute it is important to understand what is agreed upon and what is not, so that attention can be focused on the actual crux of the dispute.
Quote

"The only way to get that float into the fluid section is to displace a volume of fluid equal to the float volume." from MarkE

Agreement, not in dispute, I never said otherwise ! 
Again, good, that's one less thing in the way of the proof that the proposed machine does not work as you propose.
Quote

The above kind of a reply is a pain in the neck.  It's such a waste to spend time takeing words out of ones
mouth which one has not him self placed there.  Those who are into such a poor style of communication
should refrain from posting in other people's topics at all.  Those who habitually / deliberstely do so have a mental
disorder.

Where did I say that you said otherwise?  It seems to me that you would do well to take note of your complaints concerning assumptions.  I made a series of true statements as part of the groundwork of disproving your proposal.  Here you complain that I did so even as you acknowledge that you agree with the truth of my statements.
Quote

Perhaps they really are shills, if not they at least give people good reason to suspect so.
 
                            The following is another "style" of reply.  It is an example of poor communication and some
thing we can all work on.  I'm playing fair here by giving you fore warning. I don't have to, except,  to
keep from falling to this kind of perons level, and because I don't really wish to cause you any harm.
................................................
Mark, sometimes when you come into a topic, it's like a vampire has come into the room sucking all of the life out of it,
while at the same restoreing that once fresh air with the smell of some rotting carcus he's been feeding on.
Yes that's It, vampire breath.

LOL, I hope you can see the irony in what you just wrote.
Quote

I think it's like a suffocating ASSUMING / CONDESCENIG  air.

Is this because you have some kind of a disability?  Is this, perhaps the cause of this assuming /condescending
behavior ?  Has this allways been a issue for you in your life?  An issue perhaps from a controlling mother or father
that used a similar method ?
............................

Speaking of assumptions and speculation ...
Quote

Now let's look at the kind of effect this poor style of comunication may have upon the recipient as well as it's effects upon
the complexion of the OU community as a whole. 

What kind of an effect might it have is practiced upon you for example.  Try to keep your empathy intact here.
                                   Not good huh ? 
We wouldn't approve of this kind of communication would we?

You have been treating the board to a barrage of ad hom attacks against me.  Do you think that those attacks have advanced your proposed buoyancy scheme?  Do you think that it has countered my explanation of why your scheme does not work?
Quote

Consider now, that this "style of communication method" is something that a person may have endured for some course
of time which is not just a day, but perhaps for a week, or months or even a year.


Not done yet

           floor
Well, whenever you would like to get back to the topic as you introduced it in the OP you are welcome to do so by me.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 04:13:26 AM
Quote MarkE: If it is gas tight, then by definition gas cannot enter or leave.
Answer-incorrect.

Quote MarkE: but it sounds like you want to change the volume of your submerisble.
Answer correct.

Quote MarkE: Once what is eliminated?
The question was very clear-->What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.

Quote MarkE: it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
Quote TinMan:but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.

Quote MarkE: it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
So 500kg's of grass is heavier than 500kg's of bricks ???
Regardless of being in a vacume or in a fluid,the continual force would be 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 kilometers.

This one would not be a waste of $20 000. This is one that would work.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 04:51:05 AM
@MarkE
As I said

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

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: ramset on December 28, 2014, 04:53:49 AM
So floor
this is like "charm School" for Mark E??


Wow......



Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 05:04:59 AM
@MarkE

As I said

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

As I said before

"The title of the topic is What's wrong with this.
The subject is broadly speaking, how to improve the OU forum through self
improvement.

This is not an attack upon you or any other particular person.
However, I will say that for you to think the topic is about you or for some other to think so
does seem rather narcissistic ?

As is stated previously I respect both your knowledge and experience.

              floor

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 05:25:20 AM
Not done yet

For the record


        floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 05:34:07 AM
Quote MarkE: If it is gas tight, then by definition gas cannot enter or leave.
Answer-incorrect.
Then you have a different definition of gas tight than I do.
Quote

Quote MarkE: but it sounds like you want to change the volume of your submerisble.
Answer correct.

Quote MarkE: Once what is eliminated?
The question was very clear-->What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.
Again once what is eliminated?  Which noun does the pronoun "it" refer to that is eliminated:  the gas, energy added to the gas by the source, energy in the gas above and beyond that added by the source, or the energy source?
Quote

Quote MarkE: it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
Quote TinMan:but remains in the vessle to be used once again once the vessle has reached the ocean floor.
You are changing the order of the questions.  The question as stated was: 
Quote
Quote
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
To which the answer was:

Quote
Quote
MarkE: it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.

Quote MarkE: it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
So 500kg's of grass is heavier than 500kg's of bricks ???
How could you possibly infer such a thing from the dependency on what if any surrounding fluid mass has to be displaced?
Quote

Regardless of being in a vacume or in a fluid,the continual force would be 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 kilometers.
Tinman, the GPE change required to lift a mass in air is:  Ge*h*m*(1-pair/pmass).  In water it is: Ge*h*m*(1-pwater/pmass).  Do you see how when the density of the mass is less than the density of water that the sign reverses and work is required to submerge the mass, and is released allowing the mass to rise.  How much work do you think that it takes to sink or raise 500kg of water in a column of water?
Quote

This one would not be a waste of $20 000. This is one that would work.
2000 years of human experience with buoyancy says that you are most certainly mistaken.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 05:38:31 AM
@MarkE
As I said

"The title of the topic is What's wrong with this.
The subject, is the conversation we are having, not the floating device."
Yes you keep saying that even though your statement is inconsistent with the content of your OP:

Quote
Quote
    ***
    Posts: 236
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Online)

What's wrong with this
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:05:50 PM »

    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 95 times.)
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 05:43:41 AM
@ MarkE

Where was I ?

Ah yes.

"Consider now, that this "style of communication method" is something that a person may have endured for some course
of time which is not just a day, but perhaps for a week, or months or even a year." quote from floor.

More than a few people have had nervous break downs, gone into the loony bin, or commited suicide from attacks through
social media.  Some one very dear to me lost his boy friend.  This was by his suicide.  And yes is was spurred by
an orchistrated attack via social media.  An attack that had gone on for only a few weeks.  A teenager.

Doing such a thing to another human being, holds no appeal to me.

not done yet
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 05:58:15 AM
@ MarkE

Where was I ?

Ah yes.

"Consider now, that this "style of communication method" is something that a person may have endured for some course
of time which is not just a day, but perhaps for a week, or months or even a year." quote from floor.

More than a few people have had nervous break downs, gone into the loony bin, or commited suicide from attacks through
social media.  Some one very dear to me lost his boy friend.  This was by his suicide.  And yes is was spurred by
an orchistrated attack via social media.  An attack that had gone on for only a few weeks.  A teenager.

Doing such a thing to another human being, holds no appeal to me.

not done yet
And yet, you fail to see the irony in your own posts.  It's a curious world.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 07:43:53 AM
@ MarkE

Dude-come on :o

Quote:Again once what is eliminated?
Are you serious ::)
Question was-What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.
Now,if we eliminated the source,then the energy return would have no place to go.
I placed !GAS! in red letter's incase it is still confuseing for you.

Quote: You are changing the order of the questions.  The question as stated was:What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
And your answer Mark was,Quote:it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
That is bollock's. It dose not matter wether a mass is falling through a fluid or a vacuum,the energy displacement remains the same for the parameters of the mass and distance i gave.This i thought you would know.

Quote: Then you have a different definition of gas tight than I do.
No i do not. You only assume that in order for the gas to be removed from the vessle,that is has to escape the vessle.Not correct.

Quote: Tinman, the GPE change required to lift a mass in air is:  Ge*h*m*(1-pair/pmass).  In water it is: Ge*h*m*(1-pwater/pmass).  Do you see how when the density of the mass is less than the density of water that the sign reverses and work is required to submerge the mass, and is released allowing the mass to rise.  How much work do you think that it takes to sink or raise 500kg of water in a column of water?
The questions were-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.

I said nothing about trying to lift a 500kg mass through water,i asked what is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometers-remember,we are talking about buoyancy here,so the vessle is raising itself.

Quote:2000 years of human experience with buoyancy says that you are most certainly mistaken.
Has man stood on mar's?,is it impossible.

My system will work in acordance with all laws of physics as we know them today.A mixture of todays tech can be used to make it happen.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 07:56:30 AM
It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here.

I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong.

However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.

Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.

If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest.

                            not done yet

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 08:07:37 AM
@ MarkE

Dude-come on :o

Quote:Again once what is eliminated?
Are you serious ::)
Question was-What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.
Now,if we eliminated the source,then the energy return would have no place to go.
I placed !GAS! in red letter's incase it is still confuseing for you.

Quote: You are changing the order of the questions.  The question as stated was:What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
And your answer Mark was,Quote:it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
That is bollock's. It dose not matter wether a mass is falling through a fluid or a vacuum,the energy displacement remains the same for the parameters of the mass and distance i gave.This i thought you would know.
Tinman I am sorry but you are completely wrong on this point.  Something that has the same density as the surrounding fluid neither gains nor expends GPE moving up or down because for every gram of that something that moves up, a gram of the surrounding fluid moves down an identical distance, and vice-versa.  You are conflating the absolute GPE that the object has due to its height with the energy that is gained or lost by changing its height inside a fluid volume.
Quote

Quote: Then you have a different definition of gas tight than I do.
No i do not. You only assume that in order for the gas to be removed from the vessle,that is has to escape the vessle.Not correct.
Well that creates an interesting riddle:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?  n remains fixed.  PV and/or T change.
Quote

Quote: Tinman, the GPE change required to lift a mass in air is:  Ge*h*m*(1-pair/pmass).  In water it is: Ge*h*m*(1-pwater/pmass).  Do you see how when the density of the mass is less than the density of water that the sign reverses and work is required to submerge the mass, and is released allowing the mass to rise.  How much work do you think that it takes to sink or raise 500kg of water in a column of water?
The questions were-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.
And the answer remains the same:  If the mass is immersed in some fluid then moving the mass up or down requires doing the exact opposite to a volume of the surrounding fluid equal to the volume of the object you move.  It's important to keep the books straight.
Quote

I said nothing about trying to lift a 500kg mass through water,i asked what is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometers-remember,we are talking about buoyancy here,so the vessle is raising itself.
No buoyant object raises itself with buoyancy.  It is fluid that surrounds the submersible falling that causes the submersible to rise.  A submarine can cause that to happen by reducing its density:  IE blowing water out of its ballast tanks.
Quote

Quote:2000 years of human experience with buoyancy says that you are most certainly mistaken.
Has man stood on mar's?,is it impossible.
That is a terrible analogy.  We have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy.  In all that time the behavior has been evaluated countless times and always found to behave the same.
Quote

My system will work in acordance with all laws of physics as we know them today.A mixture of todays tech can be used to make it happen.
I am sure that you sincerely believe that.  I am also quite sure that you are mistaken.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 08:10:50 AM
It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here.

I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong.

However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.

Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.

If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest.

                            not done yet
Your diatribe is entering Theatre of the Absurd territory.  If you don't see the irony between what you espouse and what you are doing, then literally the joke is on you.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 08:56:22 AM
@ MarkE

I think your living in a fantacy here. or is lying a part of the the scientific method,
you pretend to be defending, by posting here?

             floor


    not done yet
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: orbut 3000 on December 28, 2014, 09:07:26 AM
@floor


Calm down, why are you so upset? Marke seems to be very polite and patient.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 09:24:40 AM
Tinman I am sorry but you are completely wrong on this point.  Something that has the same density as the surrounding fluid neither gains nor expends GPE moving up or down because for every gram of that something that moves up, a gram of the surrounding fluid moves down an identical distance, and vice-versa.  You are conflating the absolute GPE that the object has due to its height with the energy that is gained or lost by changing its height inside a fluid volume.
Well that creates an interesting riddle:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?  n remains fixed.  PV and/or T change.And the answer remains the same:  If the mass is immersed in some fluid then moving the mass up or down requires doing the exact opposite to a volume of the surrounding fluid equal to the volume of the object you move.  It's important to keep the books straight.No buoyant object raises itself with buoyancy.  It is fluid that surrounds the submersible falling that causes the submersible to rise.  A submarine can cause that to happen by reducing its density:  IE blowing water out of its ballast tanks.That is a terrible analogy.  We have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy.  In all that time the behavior has been evaluated countless times and always found to behave the same.I am sure that you sincerely believe that.  I am also quite sure that you are mistaken.
Maybe i didnt make myself clear on this point. Would it make it better and a little clearer if i said-what is the total energy of a 500 kilogram mass falling 3.2 kilometers and impacting the ground,and that same mass sinking 3.2 kilometers and impacting the sea floor. The total energy disipation in both cases would be the same. Now what would be the total energy of an applied force of 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 KM's?.

Quote:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?
Yes-you get rid of something while keeping it. No,the gas is not compressed,it is removed,but can be made to reappear once the vessle hits the sea floor.This is not a riddle,it is a reality. And from this we can see that although we have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy,not everything has been thought of yet.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 10:10:07 AM
Maybe i didnt make myself clear on this point. Would it make it better and a little clearer if i said-what is the total energy of a 500 kilogram mass falling 3.2 kilometers and impacting the ground,and that same mass sinking 3.2 kilometers and impacting the sea floor. The total energy disipation in both cases would be the same. Now what would be the total energy of an applied force of 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 KM's?.
But they are not the same.  They only approach each other if the density of each mass approaches infinity.  Take 500kg of sea water and place it in a vessel with 1um thick walls.  The gravitational potential energy gained or lost moving that container of sea water up or down any distance in other sea water is negligible.  500kg of seawater in the container goes down a meter, displacing 500kg of surrounding seawater up for a net GPE difference in the system of nearly zero.  Or lift the vessel 1m and 500kg of seawater falls 1m.
Quote

Quote:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?
Yes-you get rid of something while keeping it. No,the gas is not compressed,it is removed,but can be made to reappear once the vessle hits the sea floor.This is not a riddle,it is a reality. And from this we can see that although we have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy,not everything has been thought of yet.
Where does this gas go when it is removed such that it can be reclaimed someplace else?  Are you proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 10:46:56 AM
But they are not the same.  They only approach each other if the density of each mass approaches infinity.  Take 500kg of sea water and place it in a vessel with 1um thick walls.  The gravitational potential energy gained or lost moving that container of sea water up or down any distance in other sea water is negligible.  500kg of seawater in the container goes down a meter, displacing 500kg of surrounding seawater up for a net GPE difference in the system of nearly zero.  Or lift the vessel 1m and 500kg of seawater falls 1m.Where does this gas go when it is removed such that it can be reclaimed someplace else?  Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
re
As we are talking buoyancy here,the mass weigh's 500kg's while submerged in water(sea water). So the disipated energy of it's 3.2km fall to the ocean floor must take into account all factors-eg,the energy to move the water being moved around the mass(displaced),and the energy of the final impact on the ocean floor. A mass of the same 500kg falling 3.2km through a vacume and then impacting the ground will have only the energy disipation of the impact on the ground. The total disipated energy of these two situations will have the same net result.

This is why i said-a kg of grass weighs more that a kg of brick's,because your 500kg weighs more in a vacuum than it dose in water,where as my 500kg's of mass is relative to the enviroment in which it is in. So this brings to reason my question-what energy do we gain from a falling 500kg mass a distance of 3.2km,and what energy dose it take to raise a 500kg mass 3.2km. By my questions are based around that 500kg mass being in the same enviroment,where as you took them and placed them in two different enviroment's.

Quote: Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
Now your getting close,but no energy is required to condence this gas into fluid.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 12:00:34 PM
As we are talking buoyancy here,the mass weigh's 500kg's while submerged in water(sea water).
OK, now we are getting somewhere.  You mean that the object has 4900N wet weight.
Quote
So the disipated energy of it's 3.2km fall to the ocean floor must take into account all factors-eg,the energy to move the water being moved around the mass(displaced),and the energy of the final impact on the ocean floor.
Impulse and energy are different.
Quote
A mass of the same 500kg falling 3.2km through a vacume and then impacting the ground will have only the energy disipation of the impact on the ground. The total disipated energy of these two situations will have the same net result.
OK here is a problem:  You are referring to two objects one with 4900N wet weight, and a different mass that has 4900N dry weight.  If that's what you want, and it seems so, then you really need to qualify each of them as wet or dry weights.  Their masses are different.  That matters because when you go to calculate kinetic energy you need the mass of each which are different values.
Quote

This is why i said-a kg of grass weighs more that a kg of brick's,because your 500kg weighs more in a vacuum than it dose in water,where as my 500kg's of mass is relative to the enviroment in which it is in. So this brings to reason my question-what energy do we gain from a falling 500kg mass a distance of 3.2km,and what energy dose it take to raise a 500kg mass 3.2km. By my questions are based around that 500kg mass being in the same enviroment,where as you took them and placed them in two different enviroment's.
I get your reasoning, but it is backwards.  Absent viscous drag the work that we have to do to accelerate xxx kg mass is independent of density or the local value of G.  yyy N weight depends on the environment: G locally and what if any fluid atmosphere it is immersed in.  From an energy standpoint we can equate wet and dry weights under the conditions:  Acceleration is negligible, and viscous drag is negligible.  That pretty much means that they remain at rest at static heights, or we accelerate and move them very slowly.
Quote

Quote: Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
Now your getting close,but no energy is required to condence this gas into fluid.
I am pressed to think of a substance that does not have a heat of evaporation.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 01:21:29 PM
OK, now we are getting somewhere.  You mean that the object has 4900N wet weight.Impulse and energy are different.OK here is a problem:  You are referring to two objects one with 4900N wet weight, and a different mass that has 4900N dry weight.  If that's what you want, and it seems so, then you really need to qualify each of them as wet or dry weights.  Their masses are different.  That matters because when you go to calculate kinetic energy you need the mass of each which are different values.I get your reasoning, but it is backwards.  Absent viscous drag the work that we have to do to accelerate xxx kg mass is independent of density or the local value of G.  yyy N weight depends on the environment: G locally and what if any fluid atmosphere it is immersed in.  From an energy standpoint we can equate wet and dry weights under the conditions:  Acceleration is negligible, and viscous drag is negligible.  That pretty much means that they remain at rest at static heights, or we accelerate and move them very slowly.I am pressed to think of a substance that does not have a heat of evaporation.
I mean the bloody thing weighs 500kg's submerged-in other word's,you would have to apply a 500kg force in the opposite direction(up) to stop the mass sinking.This thing about vacume's was your instal to the conversation,and i fail to see what it has to do with any vessle or it's weight,or it's kinetic energy in regards to buoyancy. Im not interested in simulator's,im interested in real device testing and result's.Dose your simulator have an LED?,most i know do not. You have to simulate an LED to simulate a circuit that has an LED in it. Dose it take into account earth's gravity and magnetic field's?. Can it simulate a sinking object that weigh's 500kg when submerged-will it take into account the difference between salt and fresh water. What about current's and temp changes?.

Quote: I am pressed to think of a substance that does not have a heat of evaporation.
Please explain in english
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala on December 28, 2014, 02:23:39 PM
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluids-evaporation-latent-heat-d_147.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluids-evaporation-latent-heat-d_147.html)
Fluids require input of energy to change from liquid at a given temperature to gas at that same temperature. This energy is returned when the fluid condenses from a gas into a liquid again, at the same temperature.
The latent heat of evaporation for water, for example, is 2257 kiloJoules per kilogram, a not insignificant amount of energy.

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/ (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/)
If you run the applet and then select from the "Circuits" top menu item, "Sequential Logic", you will find the LED Flasher which shows some example LEDs in a circuit, and by right-clicking on any of the LEDs you can see how to set the desired forward voltage and color of your LEDs in the simulation. They are diodes, after all, with a specific forward voltage drop. This is a very simple LED model, though.

More sophisticated circuit simulators like LTSpice  allow you to build your own more complete models for LEDs. Here is a company that makes some pretty sophisticated LED models for several circuit simulators:
http://electro-designs.ucoz.com/index/0-2 (http://electro-designs.ucoz.com/index/0-2)


Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 02:35:32 PM
I mean the bloody thing weighs 500kg's submerged-in other word's,you would have to apply a 500kg force in the opposite direction(up) to stop the mass sinking.This thing about vacume's was your instal to the conversation,and i fail to see what it has to do with any vessle or it's weight,or it's kinetic energy in regards to buoyancy. Im not interested in simulator's,im interested in real device testing and result's.Dose your simulator have an LED?,most i know do not. You have to simulate an LED to simulate a circuit that has an LED in it. Dose it take into account earth's gravity and magnetic field's?. Can it simulate a sinking object that weigh's 500kg when submerged-will it take into account the difference between salt and fresh water. What about current's and temp changes?.

Quote: I am pressed to think of a substance that does not have a heat of evaporation.
Please explain in english
Tinman:  mass and weight are related but very different things.  Newtons are a measure of force.  Kilograms are a measure of mass.  When you used the words:  "mass" and "kilogram" to describe weight and Newtons / 9.8m/s/s you conflated two different concepts.  I have explained to you that while one can talk about wet weight for GPE purposes, when you get around to doing any energy calculations that involve movement in a finite amount of time you need the mass.

Different simulators have different capabilities.  Any of many free circuit simulators will readily model your spinning wheel two coil arrangement with stunning accuracy.

You said that it takes no energy to convert the material you have in mind between liquid and gas states.  The energy to make that transition is called the heat of vaporization.  I don't know of any material where that value is zero.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 28, 2014, 02:51:50 PM

You said that it takes no energy to convert the material you have in mind between liquid and gas states.  The energy to make that transition is called the heat of vaporization.  I don't know of any material where that value is zero.
No i didnt. I said it takes no energy to turn the gas into liquid. And like i said before,when this transition is taking place,energy is returned to the source that created it.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
No i didnt. I said it takes no energy to turn the gas into liquid. And like i said before,when this transition is taking place,energy is returned to the source that created it.
Are those blue berries blueberries???

Quote
Quote
Re: What's wrong with this
Quote


    Quote: Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
    Now your getting close,but no energy is required to condence this gas into fluid.
Quote

I am pressed to think of a substance that does not have a heat of evaporation.
OK, so it's your idea that you are going to condense gas into denser liquid so that you can sink, and that when you make the transition in that direction, you will rely only on passive cooling to do so?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
@ markE

not done yet

So as I said before this is not an attack upon you or anyone else.  As I said before
I respect both your experience and your knowledge.  My goal has been, to give you a taste
of bad behavior, a PERSONAL affront,  sufficient to make you begin to wonder if it wasn't
maybe going to get really bad for you,  and at leat to wonder if it might not stop soon or if it might
continue for a really long time, even perhaps follow you through the forum. 

An exemplary bad behaviour.
Which you returned but not in kind, different / academic style.

As I said, I have no REAL ill will towards you, nor has my intent been to do any harm to you.  Not my goal
on the forum.  My hope is that you,  in having this FRESH experience, might consider becomeing
more vocal in reguard to this sort of stinky behaviour.  It wastes a lot of time.  And often does real harm.

My story about the suicide was not BS.

Maybe that kind of experience doesn't bother ypu at all,  I don't know.
In which case do nothing. and neither consider makeing  improvements in your own methods either.

Sorry I love the neither either.

I'll say this, your pretty good at feigning that it doesn't.

                            cheers
                                floor
                                           PS
                                                    You said
                                                     some thing about establishing the baiscs of the discussion
                                                     of the buoyance idea.   In case you are actually intrested in
                                                     proceding with it, and as gentle men.  I'm posting the PDF again.

                                           please find the attached MarkE PDF below

                                                       
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 28, 2014, 05:49:23 PM
@ markE

not done yet

So as I said before this is not an attack upon you or anyone else.  As I said before
I respect both your experience and your knowledge.  My goal has been, to give you a taste
of bad behavior, a PERSONAL affront,  sufficient to make you begin to wonder if it wasn't
maybe going to get really bad for you,  and at leat to wonder if it might not stop soon or if it might
continue for a really long time, even perhaps follow you through the forum. 

An exemplary bad behaviour.
Which you returned but not in kind, different / academic style.

As I said, I have no REAL ill will towards you, nor has my intent been to do any harm to you.  Not my goal
on the forum.  My hope is that you,  in having this FRESH experience, might consider becomeing
more vocal in reguard to this sort of stinky behaviour.  It wastes a lot of time.  And often does real harm.

My story about the suicide was not BS.

Maybe that kind of experience doesn't bother ypu at all,  I don't know.
In which case do nothing. and neither consider makeing  improvements in your own methods either.

Sorry I love the neither either.

I'll say this, your pretty good at feigning that it doesn't.

                            cheers
                                floor
                                           PS
                                                    You said
                                                     some thing about establishing the baiscs of the discussion
                                                     of the buoyance idea.   In case you are actually intrested in
                                                     proceding with it, and as gentle men.  I'm posting the PDF again.

                                           please find the attached MarkE PDF below

                                                     
Do you see the irony yet?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 28, 2014, 10:21:04 PM
@ the reader

For the benifit of both my self and that of MarkE
Let it be under stood that the hypothetical and mock character assault during the
course of the prior discussion was intended to have has no basis in fact.
   
Any resmblance to MarkE's actual character is purely coincidental, and no
resemblance is implied or intended to be applied.

To the best of my knowledge MarkE is a highly knowledgeable and experiecned researcher in the
feild of free energy research,  and a respected member of the OverUnity forum.

The facts are that I have practically no knowleged of MarkE upon which I could actually base
any other characterization of him.

I have not made this statment at the request of, or the insistence of any one, but as my own choice.

                                floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: dieter on December 29, 2014, 02:45:54 AM
Wow Floor, this sounds like somebody holds a knife right at your balls. I hope you're ok.  Let us know when you need help from the OU Vendetta Squad. ("To the OU Mobile !!")  8)


Peace
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: ramset on December 29, 2014, 02:59:18 AM

 ;D :o .................... 8)




Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 29, 2014, 05:23:39 AM
@ MarkE
  I get it.
                peace
                    floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 29, 2014, 05:30:32 AM
Thanks
           for the support ya all
           and the timley reminders last night
           Right on.
           
            And thanks for the offers, but homey don play that s**** unless he has to.
            No one here at OU was connected to the suicide event.
                                             

                                    peace = no war
                     floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 29, 2014, 06:03:37 AM
Are those blue berries blueberries???
    Now your getting close,but no energy is required to condence this gas into fluid.
OK, so it's your idea that you are going to condense gas into denser liquid so that you can sink, and that when you make the transition in that direction, you will rely only on passive cooling to do so?
There maybe a 2 to 3 degree C temp rise during the gas to liquid transition, but what dose that matter when your in a sea of cold water. Once the vessle reaches the sea floor, the transition is reversed, and liquid once again becomes gas. This increases the vessel's displacement area, and also decreases its weight-and up she goes again.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 29, 2014, 02:39:24 PM
There maybe a 2 to 3 degree C temp rise during the gas to liquid transition, but what dose that matter when your in a sea of cold water. Once the vessle reaches the sea floor, the transition is reversed, and liquid once again becomes gas. This increases the vessel's displacement area, and also decreases its weight-and up she goes again.
I think that you may have overlooked that the energy to reinflate the gas containers is at least equal to the energy removed from the gas by the sea water heat sink.  Put another way, you can calculate the energy required to expel some amount of ballast sea water as the product of the mass of that ejected ballast and the distance to the sea surface.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 29, 2014, 10:14:32 PM
@MarkE

quote "And yet, you fail to see the irony in your own posts.  It's a curious world." from MarkE

quote "It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here. I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong. However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.
Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.
If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest."  from floor

Correct me if I am  wrong here,  but I think that you felt as if your were being attacked at that point in the converstion.

Also that you thought that it was ironic that some one you perceived as attacking you, would at the same time be
adressing the issue of poor comunication practices.

I see now that this was the result of your failure to comperhend the basics of the topic.  Go ahead and review the first
few pages of the topic.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 29, 2014, 10:24:38 PM
I think that you may have overlooked that the energy to reinflate the gas containers is at least equal to the energy removed from the gas by the sea water heat sink.  Put another way, you can calculate the energy required to expel some amount of ballast sea water as the product of the mass of that ejected ballast and the distance to the sea surface.
No,i didnt over look anything,in fact,the more heat that is removed from the transition from gas to liquid,the more energy we get back.The energy ratio from liquid to gas,and then from gas back to liquid is about 10:7.5. In other words we have a 25% loss at this time. But then come's my previous questions-what energy can be gained from a constant 500kg pull over 3.2km. Another way to see this is looking at the under water hydro turbine's,where as the flow of water past the propellors generate's electricity,but in this case,we are moving the propellors through the water to gain our water flow over those propellors-->3.2km up,and 3.2km down.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: allcanadian on December 29, 2014, 10:51:01 PM
@tinman
Quote
No,i didnt over look anything,in fact,the more heat that is removed from the transition from gas to liquid,the more energy we get back.The energy ratio from liquid to gas,and then from gas back to liquid is about 10:7.5. In other words we have a 25% loss at this time. But then come's my previous questions-what energy can be gained from a constant 500kg pull over 3.2km. Another way to see this is looking at the under water hydro turbine's,where as the flow of water past the propellors generate's electricity,but in this case,we are moving the propellors through the water to gain our water flow over those propellors-->3.2km up,and 3.2km down.


I hear ya, I once did similar experiments. While completely shit faced I once bent over very carefully and jerked furiously upwards hard and fast on my heavy bootstraps. The next thing I know I'm waking up on the floor... why my head must have hit the roof with such force it damn near broke my neck and knocked me out cold. The ratio was 10 shots of Rye whiskey to my 7.5 inch bootstraps if I remember correctly which is kind of questionable but somehow amazing.
There may be something to this 10:7.5 ratio, I may need to try this on the roof of a moving car or bus to confirm my suspicions but I'm still trying to figure out how not to spill my drinks in the process...that would be wrong.


AC

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 29, 2014, 11:53:33 PM
@MarkE

What's ironic from my point of view rather than from yours ?

The topic sky rockets to a large number of readings, while the subject gets lost.

Is it a waste of band width ? maybe maybe not.

I tend to think so.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 12:13:57 AM
@ markE

@ MarkE
 
                            The following is another "style" of reply.  It is an example of poor communication and some
thing we can all work on.  I'm playing fair here by giving you fore warning. I don't have to, except,  to
keep from falling to this kind of perons level, and because I don't really wish to cause you any harm.
................................................
Mark, sometimes when you come into a topic, it's like a vampire has come into the room sucking all of the life out of it,
while at the same restoreing that once fresh air with the smell of some rotting carcus he's been feeding on.
Yes that's It, vampire breath.

I think it's like a suffocating ASSUMING / CONDESCENIG  air.

Is this because you have some kind of a disability?  Is this, perhaps the cause of this assuming /condescending
behavior ?  Has this allways been a issue for you in your life?  An issue perhaps from a controlling mother or father
that used a similar method ?
............................

On the other hand the following comment, does not offend me, and for lots of reason.

................................................
flo, sometimes when you come into a topic, it's like a vampire has come into the room sucking all of the life out of it,
while at the same restoreing that once fresh air with the smell of some rotting carcus he's been feeding on.
Yes that's It, vampire breath.

I think it's like a suffocating ASSUMING / CONDESCENIG  air.

Is this because you have some kind of a disability?  Is this, perhaps the cause of this assuming /condescending
behavior ?  Has this allways been a issue for you in your life?  An issue perhaps from a controlling mother or father
that used a similar method ?
............................

Different context and so on.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 12:18:23 AM
@MarkE

quote "And yet, you fail to see the irony in your own posts.  It's a curious world." from MarkE

quote "It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here. I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong. However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.
Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.
If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest."  from floor

Correct me if I am  wrong here,  but I think that you felt as if your were being attacked at that point in the converstion.

Also that you thought that it was ironic that some one you perceived as attacking you, would at the same time be
adressing the issue of poor comunication practices.

I see now that this was the result of your failure to comperhend the basics of the topic.  Go ahead and review the first
few pages of the topic.
Apparently you either do not see the irony or relish in it.  It is indeed a curious world.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 12:25:52 AM
@ MarkE

Some other coment or context might have ofended me, or have been seen as a threat in some
way, reputation and so on.



Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 12:29:51 AM
No,i didnt over look anything,in fact,the more heat that is removed from the transition from gas to liquid,the more energy we get back.The energy ratio from liquid to gas,and then from gas back to liquid is about 10:7.5. In other words we have a 25% loss at this time. But then come's my previous questions-what energy can be gained from a constant 500kg pull over 3.2km. Another way to see this is looking at the under water hydro turbine's,where as the flow of water past the propellors generate's electricity,but in this case,we are moving the propellors through the water to gain our water flow over those propellors-->3.2km up,and 3.2km down.
Tinman, so far what you have described as far as I can tell is that you intend to collapse a volume, thereby allowing seawater ballast in by releasing thermal energy from the ballast.  Volume decreases under the ideal gas law until a phase change that then results in a step-wise drop in volume.  Contact with the sea water continues to sink energy until some time later when you either choose to reverse the process or thermal equilibrium is established with the sea water heat sink.  Is this correct?

You intend the increased density to cause the submersible to sink 3.2km.  Is this correct?

You intend to reclaim energy that the submersible gives up in its descent using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

You then intend to raise the submersible by ejecting ballast that you have taken on.  Is this correct?

You intend to eject the ballast by adding thermal energy back to your fluid so that it returns to the gas phase and then develops sufficient pressure to reinflate the containers.  Is this correct?

You believe that you can collect energy on the way up using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

Once we get square on the particulars I will explain the various fallacies.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 12:35:28 AM
@ MarkE

Some other coment or context might have ofended me, or have been seen as a threat in some
way, reputation and so on.
This is just getting stranger and stranger.  If you have some point I have no idea what it is.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 12:40:58 AM
@MarkE

First I'd like to look at what are some of  the consequences / results are.

1. topic soars

2. real value of topic is lost in the frey (probably)
 a. People may disagree as to what this value is.
 b. The value of the topic is in part defined by how many can learn from it.
 c. People are at different levels in their pursuit of knowledge.
 d. People disagree as to what is a valid discussion.

3. goon squads an apear, posts increase, topic soars more.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 12:47:10 AM
If you no longer wish to attempt argument that the device described in the outfloater.pdf file of you OP is viable, then I will take it that you have conceded that it is not viable.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 01:07:03 AM
This is just getting stranger and stranger.  If you have some point I have no idea what it is.

Are you asking me what my point is, or implying that there is no point.
For the sake of the comminication, please be more concise, less crytic.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 02:08:44 AM
@MarkE

Are you asking me what my point is, or implying that there is no point.
For the sake of the comminication, please be more concise, less crytic.

Should I restate this question in some other way ?

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: ramset on December 30, 2014, 02:31:08 AM


























                                                                                                                                                            .
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 03:05:30 AM
@MarkE

If you no longer wish to attempt argument that the device described in the outfloater.pdf file of you OP is viable, then I will take it that you have conceded that it is not viable.

You're not trying to put words into my mouth again are you ? 

Yes the device is viable, for it's intended purposes. and in the context of the subject of the discussion.

What your imply with your use of the word viable, is not the subject of the argument.

You have been informed at least two times as to the subject of this topic.

The fact that you have previously, responded to that information. is evidence that you know what the
subject is.

Please do not now, contend the subject is other than you know it to be, or that you have not understood.
Eespecially with me, the topics originator.

There is a problem here, with your honesty.

I think therfore it is you who should concede on this basis.
and withdraw form the topic.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 03:29:16 AM
@MarkE

You're not trying to put words into my mouth again are you ? 
Since in nearly two weeks you have failed to provide the state diagram that you promised, or provide any other counter to facts that I have presented that shoot the scheme outlined in the pdf attached to the OP, I think it is reasonable to infer that you have conceded.  I asked you to confirm whether or not that is the case.
Quote

Yes the device is viable, for it's intended purposes. and in the context of the subject of the discussion.
The device is inoperable as a source of energy.  External energy must be added so that in Slide 2, the float 2 can be pressed into the tank.  There is a direct correlation of denser water taking up volume at the top of the fluid tank 2 for the volume of the lower density float 2 being pressed into the bottom of tank 2.  That's real work that has to be done to get the float 2 in and float 1 out, magic valves or not.  The total energy consumed  in that process is always greater than the energy that can be reclaimed from the float once it is forced out in a subsequent operation.  Slide 3 fails to note that the GPE gained by float 2 rising is more than lost by the water that falls to take up the space at the bottom of tank 2 previously occupied by float 2.
Quote
What your imply with your use of the word viable, is not the subject of the argument.
The device presented in the OP does not work as the pdf attached to the OP claims.
Quote

You have been informed at least two times as to the subject of this topic.

The fact that you have previously, responded to that information. is evidence that you know what the
subject is.
I've read and responded to the OP.
Quote

Please do not now, contend the subject is other than you know it to be, or that you have not understood.
Eespecially with me, the topics originator.
I trust that since you wrote it, you know the contents of the OP as well.
Quote

There is a problem here, with your honesty.

I think therfore it is you who should concede on this basis.
and withdraw form the topic.
Your assertion does not address the claims of your OP.  It does not address the factual disproof I have offered against the claim of the OP.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 04:12:44 AM
@ MarkE

From where I'm standing,  your persistence in remaining off topic appears to be an intentional. 

If you will agree to NOT do that, on my topics, or other peoples topics.  I'll let it slide,  and we can continue these talks.

Other wise leave this topic now, and stay off of any of my topics in the future. 

I hope that you will give it some time before you respond.

                      best wishes
                                floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 30, 2014, 04:15:03 AM
OOPS that's

 intentional disruption.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: orbut 3000 on December 30, 2014, 04:55:47 AM
What is wrong with answering the question "What's wrong with this" by explaining what's wrong with it?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 05:07:52 AM
The OP is:

Quote
Quote

    Sr. Member
    ****
    Posts: 254
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

What's wrong with this
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:05:50 PM »

    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 116 times.)
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 30, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
@tinman

I hear ya, I once did similar experiments. While completely shit faced I once bent over very carefully and jerked furiously upwards hard and fast on my heavy bootstraps. The next thing I know I'm waking up on the floor... why my head must have hit the roof with such force it damn near broke my neck and knocked me out cold. The ratio was 10 shots of Rye whiskey to my 7.5 inch bootstraps if I remember correctly which is kind of questionable but somehow amazing.
There may be something to this 10:7.5 ratio, I may need to try this on the roof of a moving car or bus to confirm my suspicions but I'm still trying to figure out how not to spill my drinks in the process...that would be wrong.


AC
Always knew you were an ass clown AC,sounds like you have already had to much to drink.
One thing is for sure-you wont be getting your hands on this one and running like you did at OUR.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 30, 2014, 02:18:21 PM
Tinman, so far what you have described as far as I can tell is that you intend to collapse a volume, thereby allowing seawater ballast in by releasing thermal energy from the ballast.  Volume decreases under the ideal gas law until a phase change that then results in a step-wise drop in volume.  Contact with the sea water continues to sink energy until some time later when you either choose to reverse the process or thermal equilibrium is established with the sea water heat sink.  Is this correct?

You intend the increased density to cause the submersible to sink 3.2km.  Is this correct?

You intend to reclaim energy that the submersible gives up in its descent using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

You then intend to raise the submersible by ejecting ballast that you have taken on.  Is this correct?

You intend to eject the ballast by adding thermal energy back to your fluid so that it returns to the gas phase and then develops sufficient pressure to reinflate the containers.  Is this correct?

You believe that you can collect energy on the way up using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

Once we get square on the particulars I will explain the various fallacies.
Sorry Mark-the discussion is now closed.There are now undesirable eyes watching,and i aint done with this idiot yet. He is a walk in take all kind of guy. He's done it before,and he'll do it again. He dribble's endless crap about how much he know's,and the best we have seen from him was some crappy electromagnet device my grand daughter could have built.

By the way,just so as i dont leave your questions unanswered-no,there is no intake of ballast water-the vessle is gas/water tight. Propellors driving onboard generator's on the way up and then on the way back dow-yes. The secret is in being able to get back most of the energy used to reintroduce the gas. With todays technology,it is possable to get back 75% of the used energy from the gas to liquid phase.This means that the generators only have to produce 25% of the power used to make the device work-self run. I have serched the internet for 6 month's now,and although you say we have 2000 years of experiance with buoyancy,i dont see any actual attempts at building such a device(other than a few youtube no hopers frauds) that was designed to self run. Maybe you could point to some that say that this is not possable,or a real organisation that has tried?. Mother nature provides many different ways of giving us free energy,and this device would be seen as that-run by mother nature,not an OU device.

Remember,the deeper you dive in the ocean,the colder it get's.Most gases we know require less pressure to return back to liquid the colder they are,and expand with a lot more pressure the warmer they get. ;) Now all you need to do is turn it all ass about.

This project has now been moved to where the undesirable remains blind.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
Sorry Mark-the discussion is now closed.There are now undesirable eyes watching,and i aint done with this idiot yet. He is a walk in take all kind of guy. He's done it before,and he'll do it again. He dribble's endless crap about how much he know's,and the best we have seen from him was some crappy electromagnet device my grand daughter could have built.

By the way,just so as i dont leave your questions unanswered-no,there is no intake of ballast water-the vessle is gas/water tight. Propellors driving onboard generator's on the way up and then on the way back dow-yes. The secret is in being able to get back most of the energy used to reintroduce the gas. With todays technology,it is possable to get back 75% of the used energy from the gas to liquid phase.This means that the generators only have to produce 25% of the power used to make the device work-self run. I have serched the internet for 6 month's now,and although you say we have 2000 years of experiance with buoyancy,i dont see any actual attempts at building such a device(other than a few youtube no hopers frauds) that was designed to self run. Maybe you could point to some that say that this is not possable,or a real organisation that has tried?. Mother nature provides many different ways of giving us free energy,and this device would be seen as that-run by mother nature,not an OU device.

Remember,the deeper you dive in the ocean,the colder it get's.Most gases we know require less pressure to return back to liquid the colder they are,and expand with a lot more pressure the warmer they get. ;) Now all you need to do is turn it all ass about.

This project has now been moved to where the undesirable remains blind.
Tinman the conversation has been interesting.  In order to change the buoyant state of a submersible the density has to change.  So, something gives:  mass and/or the fluid volume that the submersible displaces.  If we change the density but not not total mass of material inside a sealed and constant volume container, that container's buoyancy does not change.  That is why I speculated that maybe you were hoping to develop enough pressure in whatever contains the phase change material to change that container's volume, expelling sea water ballast.

From the: "It can't produce free energy." camp,  what you have cycling a submersible up and down are the UP and DOWN states.  We can pretty much ignore everything in between.  In the up state the system including the surrounding fluid is at its potential energy minimum, even though the submersible is at its potential energy maximum.  When the submersible is at the bottom of the travel, the system energy is at its maximum.  Before your submersible can rise you need to change its density.  You can either eject mass, or increase the submersible's volume, or a bit of both.  To do either you must expend work.  Since rising removes energy from the system, expending additional work at the bottom only aggravates the energy loss going from the down to up state.  On the way from the top to the bottom you have to be able to get all the energy that the system lost just to break even.  Sinking the submersible requires increasing its density.  That lowers the center of gravity of the system at the top without changing mass, so system energy is again lost.  The bottom line:  A submersible only moves up or down by expending energy from the system that includes the submersible.  The submersible moves up or down because the end position represents a lower energy state than the starting position.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: minnie on December 30, 2014, 05:16:58 PM



  Oh dear Tinman, looks as if you've come a gutser!!
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: allcanadian on December 30, 2014, 05:55:21 PM
@tinman
Quote
Always knew you were an ass clown AC,sounds like you have already had to much to drink.One thing is for sure-you wont be getting your hands on this one and running like you did at OUR.


To be honest I had way to much to drink and I apologize for my interruption. I can only hope you see some humor in the fact the other 99% of the people out there may honestly believe you are trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps hence the analogy. I know what your trying to do, I have been all over the same problems and failed. I can only hope you may succeed where I have failed and I mean that sincerely.


Personally I know of two instances which show promise in this area, one is out-gassing (google CO2 geiser) which relates directly to Victor Schaubergers work. The other is a thought experiment made by Tesla where water is transformed into H2 and O2 which I proved by calculation but is impractical in my opinion.


I wish you all the best and can only hope you may see the humor in what were trying to do, I will leave you to it then.


AC
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 30, 2014, 10:24:51 PM


  Oh dear Tinman, looks as if you've come a gutser!!
And why is that dear minnie?.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 30, 2014, 10:32:59 PM
Tinman the conversation has been interesting.  In order to change the buoyant state of a submersible the density has to change.  So, something gives:  mass and/or the fluid volume that the submersible displaces.  If we change the density but not not total mass of material inside a sealed and constant volume container, that container's buoyancy does not change.  That is why I speculated that maybe you were hoping to develop enough pressure in whatever contains the phase change material to change that container's volume, expelling sea water ballast.

From the: "It can't produce free energy." camp,  what you have cycling a submersible up and down are the UP and DOWN states.  We can pretty much ignore everything in between.  In the up state the system including the surrounding fluid is at its potential energy minimum, even though the submersible is at its potential energy maximum.  When the submersible is at the bottom of the travel, the system energy is at its maximum.  Before your submersible can rise you need to change its density.  You can either eject mass, or increase the submersible's volume, or a bit of both.  To do either you must expend work.  Since rising removes energy from the system, expending additional work at the bottom only aggravates the energy loss going from the down to up state.  On the way from the top to the bottom you have to be able to get all the energy that the system lost just to break even.  Sinking the submersible requires increasing its density.  That lowers the center of gravity of the system at the top without changing mass, so system energy is again lost.  The bottom line:  A submersible only moves up or down by expending energy from the system that includes the submersible.  The submersible moves up or down because the end position represents a lower energy state than the starting position.
You do know ofcourse Mark,that the mass of an object can be changed without changing it's size,and also without ejecting any material.

Energy is collected on the way up,once the vessle has surfaced, and on the way down.
I can take a sealed steel sphere and make it sink or rise as i see fit-no ejected mass,no ballast intake or exausting-->nothing enters or leaves the steel sphere.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 10:50:41 PM
You do know ofcourse Mark,that the mass of an object can be changed without changing it's size,and also without ejecting any material.
No that is a new one on me.  If I have some quantity of some material then it has a fixed mass.
Quote

Energy is collected on the way up,once the vessle has surfaced, and on the way down.
This is where we are at odds.  I contend based on state analysis that you have to put energy into the system in order to make the submersible fall from its elevated state, or to make it rise from its more submerged state.
Quote

I can take a sealed steel sphere and make it sink or rise as i see fit-no ejected mass,no ballast intake or exausting-->nothing enters or leaves the steel sphere.
Are you claiming that you can make that sphere rise or fall without changing either the volume it displaces or the total mass of the sphere and its contents?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 12:54:40 AM
No that is a new one on me.  If I have some quantity of some material then it has a fixed mass.This is where we are at odds.  I contend based on state analysis that you have to put energy into the system in order to make the submersible fall from its elevated state, or to make it rise from its more submerged state.Are you claiming that you can make that sphere rise or fall without changing either the volume it displaces or the total mass of the sphere and its contents?
Unless you change the state of that material.
Energy is used to convert the liquid to gas, 75% of which is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid. This leaves the onboard turbines a task of generating the remaining25%
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: minnie on December 31, 2014, 02:05:40 AM



 Yes Tinman, MarkE has explained very clearly and you're still skeptical.
  Your videos are brilliant, you explain everything in a scientific way and
  people can understand perfectly. Sometimes you may be wrong with
  your conclusions but your experiments certainly aren't made to defraud.
     This thing now sounds like Tin Man-Tin Brain! Just get a fish tank and
   embarrass me and Mark with your proof.
     I'll certainly believe-if you can prove!!!
                   John.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 02:19:33 AM
Unless you change the state of that material.
Energy is used to convert the liquid to gas, 75% of which is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid. This leaves the onboard turbines a task of generating the remaining25%
No, a thousand times no.    A mole is a mole is a mole is a mole.  Material state is related to the volume a given mass occupies.  It does not change the material's mass.  The mass is determined by how many molecules of the material there are, and what elements compose those molecules.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 02:38:36 AM
No, a thousand times no.    A mole is a mole is a mole is a mole.  Material state is related to the volume a given mass occupies.  It does not change the material's mass.  The mass is determined by how many molecules of the material there are, and what elements compose those molecules.
Mark-what is mass?
Is it the weigbt an object weighs?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 02:50:57 AM
Mark-what is mass?
Is it the weigbt an object weighs?
First: mass is not weight.  Mass determines:  1) Resistance to acceleration, and 2) Force of acceleration towards other mass separated by a distance.  In proximity to a dominant mass, IE such as anything here on earth relative to the earth, mass will relate to weight:  equivalent force acting on the mass from the acceleration due to gravity by a nearly uniform scalar.  For instance on earth we use Ge as ~9.8 m/s/s.

Second: The weight of a particular number of moles of a given material does not change with phase.  A mole of: ice, water, or steam all have the same mass.  And barring locations with radical gravitational gradients: at any given location they experience the same gravitational force that we describe as weight.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 03:25:35 AM

Mark-what is mass?
Is it the weigbt an object weighs?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_plUS353US488&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ie=UTF-8&q=what%20is%20mass%3F (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_plUS353US488&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ie=UTF-8&q=what%20is%20mass%3F)

Unless you change the state of that material.
 Energy is used to convert the liquid to gas  75% of which is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid. This leaves the onboard turbines a task of generating the remaining25%
No i didnt. I said it takes no energy to turn the gas into liquid And like i said before,when this transition is taking place,energy is returned to the source that created it.
Energy is used to convert the liquid to gas but no energy to turn the gas into liquid.? ???  What's going on here??
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 03:52:51 AM
My understanding of what Tinman is saying is that he does need external energy to condense the gas to liquid.  If one has a heat sink below the phase change temperature for the pressure one is at, then simply cooling the gas and in the process giving up stored energy to the heat sink will condense the gas to liquid.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 04:23:26 AM
My understanding of what Tinman is saying is that he does need external energy to condense the gas to liquid.  If one has a heat sink below the phase change temperature for the pressure one is at, then simply cooling the gas and in the process giving up stored energy to the heat sink will condense the gas to liquid.
No
Energy is needed to turn the liquid into gas-this I have said many times already. Energy is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid.
Mark-what is mass?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 04:47:33 AM

My understanding of what Tinman is saying is that he does need external energy to condense the gas to liquid.  If one has a heat sink below the phase change temperature for the pressure one is at, then simply cooling the gas and in the process giving up stored energy to the heat sink will condense the gas to liquid.


I see. We need to present him to the Nobel Prize. ;D ;)  For the courage of presenting new theories.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 04:51:58 AM
No
Energy is needed to turn the liquid into gas-this I have said many times already. Energy is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid.
Mark-what is mass?

What about Oxygen-gas (for example) turning into liquid?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 04:59:19 AM
No
Energy is needed to turn the liquid into gas-this I have said many times already. Energy is returned when the gas is converted back to liquid.
Mark-what is mass?
We agree that it takes energy to convert material from liquid phase to gas phase.  We agree that gas can be converted to liquid by removing heat.  We agree that heat can be removed without adding energy when one has a heat sink that is below the phase change temperature for the pressure.

I answered you on mass a couple of posts back.  It is a property of matter.  That property establishes both resistance to acceleration (inertia) and force attributable to acceleration towards other masses commonly referred to as gravitational force.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 05:09:42 AM
We agree that it takes energy to convert material from liquid phase to gas phase.  We agree that gas can be converted to liquid by removing heat.  We agree that heat can be removed without adding energy when one has a heat sink that is below the phase change temperature for the pressure.

I answered you on mass a couple of posts back.  It is a property of matter.  That property establishes both resistance to acceleration (inertia) and force attributable to acceleration towards other masses commonly referred to as gravitational force.


So do you agree that a stationary objects mass here on earth is its weight?
Next-and this is important, so answer carfully. Dose electrical power have mass-eg, volts, current
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 05:27:59 AM
 Volts, current are elements of energy. The massenergy relation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence)

Relation between mass and weight:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mass-weight-d_589.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mass-weight-d_589.html)


Wouldn't be better to search internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge? Or, even better, go back to school; also for English improvement.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 05:34:51 AM
So do you agree that a stationary objects mass here on earth is its weight?
Next-and this is important, so answer carfully. Dose electrical power have mass-eg, volts, current
No.  Weight is an expression of the apparent force associated with the acceleration between multiple masses.  A mass's resistance to acceleration: its inertia, is independent of its proximity to other mass.

No, no one has successfully unified: the electric force, the two nuclear forces, and gravitation.  For now we only know how to treat them as separate phenomena.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on December 31, 2014, 10:17:34 AM

Wouldn't be better to search internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge? Or, even better, go back to school; also for English improvement.

Thanks for the inquiry

Your question is one of the first to be asked, that's relevant to the topic, and I think it's
very relevant.

The topic is for discussion of precisely this kind of question.

As to whether it is better to “search the internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge”.

I think that the internet and the O.U.site,  are both valuable in this respect. I use both for this purpose.

Some of the subjects of discussion on this site are “fundamental knowledge” to me, while others are too “advanced”.  This depends on the area of discussion.

“Or even better, go back to school”

I for one have a passion for learning, but I do not enjoy a class room like environment, and this for me, is reason enough to not go back to school. 

Please excuse me for going on so long with this reply.  It's just that the ideas you have brought in to the discussion are so important to the topic.

  “also for English improvement”

If English is your native language, I do not know.  It seems to me that the English you speak, is a little different than the American English I speak. However, you have communicated your points, very well. Thank you for doing so.

I would like to ask you a several specific questions,  perhaps when you have time it.


                  floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 12:58:39 PM
No.  Weight is an expression of the apparent force associated with the acceleration between multiple masses.  A mass's resistance to acceleration: its inertia, is independent of its proximity to other mass.

No, no one has successfully unified: the electric force, the two nuclear forces, and gravitation.  For now we only know how to treat them as separate phenomena.
Quote: In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A man standing on the Moon would weigh less than he would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but he would have the same mass (he would have to recalibrate his bathroom scale for lunar gravity).

As we are not standing on the moon Mark,and i clearly stated that we only need to be calculating things that are relative to us here on earth,then the SI unit for mass is the KG. I fail to see why you continually must make things so hard and difficult. You have the habbit of turning the simplest of questions into an extreemly difficult task.

So im going to leave you with this question.
lets froget about mass,lets use a measurement term that wont go into some full debate on what something is.
Do you believe it possable to decrease the weight of a vessle where nothing leaves or enters that vessle-->yes Mark,the vessle is air/gas/water tight-->and yes Mark,we are working here on earth and will be testing the device hear on EARTH-->not mar's,not jupiter,and not the moon.
Is it possable to have the same device(vessle)-(once again,air,gas and water tight-nothing enters,and nothing leaves)that dose NOT change shape or physical size,be made to change from being non buoyant to buoyant-->(sink then float,just so as you dont get confused),by changing the state of the fluid inside that vessle.?.

These are very simple questions Mark,and depending on your answer,will depend on wether or not i continue with this experiment.


Edits; I should add that i have already done these experiment's,and now it is up to you to decide as to wether or not you can become some one that i (and many others) can work with,or you wish to continually have a high tech dribble contest with other high tech dribbler's,just so as you can see who has the biggest set of technical gonad's.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 01:12:03 PM


 Yes Tinman, MarkE has explained very clearly and you're still skeptical.
  Your videos are brilliant, you explain everything in a scientific way and
  people can understand perfectly. Sometimes you may be wrong with
  your conclusions but your experiments certainly aren't made to defraud.
     This thing now sounds like Tin Man-Tin Brain! Just get a fish tank and
   embarrass me and Mark with your proof.
     I'll certainly believe-if you can prove!!!
                   John.
Minnie and qwert.
I am asking Mark these question's not because i dont know the answers,but i want to show(yes show) you the truth using Mark's exact description as to what is what,and if he thinks it is a can do,or a cant do. We will test text book science against actual experiment's,and we will be using Mark's very own words to proove what is true,and what is faulse. We will put up his assumption that we know all there is to know about buoyancy and physics because we have 2000 years of it under our belt,against that of the experiment's of a truck driver. Should be a slam dunk for the 2000 year's of colective data,wouldnt you say?.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 01:17:09 PM
We agree that it takes energy to convert material from liquid phase to gas phase.  We agree that gas can be converted to liquid by removing heat.  We agree that heat can be removed without adding energy when one has a heat sink that is below the phase change temperature for the pressure.


Do we agree that a gas(of a certain type)can give of heat when returning to a liquid?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 01:36:16 PM
Thanks for the inquiry

Your question is one of the first to be asked, that's relevant to the topic, and I think it's

This site I found good in case when I cannot find an answer for my question(s) otherwise. And there are really much more reliable sites (on the net and out of the net) comparing this one.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on December 31, 2014, 01:48:07 PM
Minnie and qwert.

The way you present your knowledge, I see as you don't know what you are talking about. Despite that I'm not an expert here.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 02:11:14 PM
The way you present your knowledge, I see as you don't know what you are talking about. Despite that I'm not an expert here.
What i know is what i see in front of me.
Let me ask you this Qwert. If you seen something happen right before your sober eyes,and then read in a text book,or had others tell you that it's not possable,which would you believe?.

If i said i could show you !what you call! an OU event,would you believe me-->probably not. That is why Mark is going to do all the explaining in his very own word's.

What you need to understand is that every device that uses electrical power is unity when every source of energy coming from that device is taken into account. The law that states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed confirms this. Your little 12 volt DC electric motor is a unity device when all energy output's are taken into account-mechanical output,heat output,vibrational output,and the likes. It all equals the energy input when added up. My device is already unity before anything after the transformation takes place. We then use the forces that mother nature provides to gain a total output that is greater than the input. It is not an OU device to me,but more a device that taps an as yet unused energy source. The simple solar pannel dose just this,uses energy that the sun already provides to give a power output that is free energy to us. The sun is also the source of hydroelectric power generation-no sun ,no evaporation-no evaporation=no rain,and no rain means no hydroelectric power station. No sun also means were all cactus anyway,so no need for any sort of power.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 03:01:05 PM
Do we agree that a gas(of a certain type)can give of heat when returning to a liquid?
Of course it gives off the heat of evaporation.  However, its mass:  That stays the same.  (I am ignoring the tiny adjustment for mass/energy equivalence.)
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 03:06:52 PM
Of course it gives off the heat of evaporation.  However, its mass:  That stays the same.  (I am ignoring the tiny adjustment for mass/energy equivalence.)
Lets use weight(eg,kg's)Mark,forget mass. So did you see my questions above,and do you agree that every thing that uses electrical energy(eg,an electric motor) runs at unity?.I using electrical energy here,as that is the energy required to convert the liquid to gas-maybe a pressure or vacume pump.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 03:30:18 PM
Quote: In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A man standing on the Moon would weigh less than he would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but he would have the same mass (he would have to recalibrate his bathroom scale for lunar gravity).

As we are not standing on the moon Mark,and i clearly stated that we only need to be calculating things that are relative to us here on earth,then the SI unit for mass is the KG. I fail to see why you continually must make things so hard and difficult. You have the habbit of turning the simplest of questions into an extreemly difficult task.
Tinman, I am being picky because misuse of the terms can easily lead to incorrect conclusions in what is an energy problem.  The energy that is required to accelerate a mass between two non-relativistic velocities depends on those velocities and the mass.  The energy that is required to separate a mass from the center of the earth depends on the mass of the earth and the mass of the object, and the object's density with respect to the atmosphere surrounding the object.  If you work only with the latter, your energy balance will in virtually all cases end up wrong.
Quote

So im going to leave you with this question.
lets froget about mass,lets use a measurement term that wont go into some full debate on what something is.
Do you believe it possable to decrease the weight of a vessle where nothing leaves or enters that vessle-->yes Mark,the vessle is air/gas/water tight-->and yes Mark,we are working here on earth and will be testing the device hear on EARTH-->not mar's,not jupiter,and not the moon.
Stipulating that Ge is constant within the space of the problem:  The submerged weight of a vessel depends on:

1) Total mass of the vessel and its contents.
2) Total volume of the vessel.
3) Density of the fluid that the vessel displaces.

At Newtonian velocities, you cannot change the weight of the object without changing at least one of the above three parameters.
Quote

Is it possable to have the same device(vessle)-(once again,air,gas and water tight-nothing enters,and nothing leaves)that dose NOT change shape or physical size,be made to change from being non buoyant to buoyant-->(sink then float,just so as you dont get confused),by changing the state of the fluid inside that vessle.?.
Absolutely not.  See the list above.  You must change one or more of those variables to change either the submerged weight or the buoyancy.
Quote

These are very simple questions Mark,and depending on your answer,will depend on wether or not i continue with this experiment.
Just as 10kg of feathers has the same mass as 10kg of lead shot, 10kg of some material in gas form has the same mass as the same material in liquid or solid states.  If you are thinking hot-air balloon, lower density heated air and higher density cold air exchange  from underneath the bottom opening of the balloon.  When you seal your vessel, no such exchange takes place.  I suggest a very simple experiment for you:

Take a small vessel such as a half liter water bottle and fill it 3/4 or so with crushed ice.  Tightly seal the top.  Thoroughly dry the outside of the bottle.  Hot glue a precision scale to the side of the water bottle.  Get a bucket and fill it half way with room temperature water.  Place the half liter bottle in the bucket.  Snap a picture that captures the where the water surface in the bucket registers on the scale.  Take another picture after the ice has melted.  Guess what?  The scale will read the same value as when the ice was solid.   You can repeat the experiment using a bit of dry ice provided that you seal the cap really well and don't use so much dry ice that the bottle deforms.
Quote


Edits; I should add that i have already done these experiment's,and now it is up to you to decide as to wether or not you can become some one that i (and many others) can work with,or you wish to continually have a high tech dribble contest with other high tech dribbler's,just so as you can see who has the biggest set of technical gonad's.
I am only interested in correct physics.  I admire your experimenting.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 03:39:48 PM
Lets use weight(eg,kg's)Mark,forget mass. So did you see my questions above,and do you agree that every thing that uses electrical energy(eg,an electric motor) runs at unity?.I using electrical energy here,as that is the energy required to convert the liquid to gas-maybe a pressure or vacume pump.
Tinman the difference in our positions is that you assert that you can change the buoyancy of a fixed volume vessel by changing the state, but not the mass of some of its contents, and I say that unless you change one or more:

1) Total mass of the vessel plus its contents.
2) Total volume of the vessel.
3) Density of the surrounding fluid.

That you cannot affect the weight or buoyancy of the vessel.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 03:46:06 PM
Tinman the difference in our positions is that you assert that you can change the buoyancy of a fixed volume vessel by changing the state, but not the mass of some of its contents, and I say that unless you change one or more:

1) Total mass of the vessel plus its contents.
2) Total volume of the vessel.
3) Density of the surrounding fluid.

That you cannot affect the weight or buoyancy of the vessel.

Thank you Mark.
That is all i wanted to hear(read).

See you here sunday with an intersting video to show you.
Happy new year to you and all. ;)

P.S-i will be changing the state of the mass contained within the vessle. Hope that still counts as a  no can do on your side of the fence?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 03:51:08 PM
Thank you Mark.
That is all i wanted to hear(read).

See you here sunday with an intersting video to show you.
Happy new year to you and all. ;)

P.S-i will be changing the state of the mass contained within the vessle. Hope that still counts as a  no can do on your side of the fence?
If you can change the weight or buoyancy without changing at least one of the above three parameters then it will indeed be very interesting.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 04:17:52 PM
If you can change the weight or buoyancy without changing at least one of the above three parameters then it will indeed be very interesting.
I will be changing the state of the liquid inside the vessle Mark. The vessle will remain sealed at all time's,and the only input will be electrical power-and no,no electromagnets involved. The transition will be slow,but it will be.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: camelherder49 on December 31, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
But how could that be possible!!!

That would make physics as we know it completely in error!!!!!

Everything has already been decided and accounted for.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: minnie on December 31, 2014, 04:31:29 PM



   The way to go is to increase the volume of the vessel, but that requires energy to
    displace the liquid as per Archimedes. So that's a definite no-no!
             John.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 04:42:05 PM


   The way to go is to increase the volume of the vessel, but that requires energy to
    displace the liquid as per Archimedes. So that's a definite no-no!
             John.
The vessle's external volume/shape/size will remain the same.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 04:43:52 PM
But how could that be possible!!!

That would make physics as we know it completely in error!!!!!

Everything has already been decided and accounted for.
As i said before,all will comply with the law's of physics.
And as i said before,2000 years or not,not everything has been tried.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 05:00:21 PM


   The way to go is to increase the volume of the vessel, but that requires energy to
    displace the liquid as per Archimedes. So that's a definite no-no!
             John.
Tinman speaks as though he really believes that he has already successfully changed the weight and/or buoyancy of a submersible without changing any:  The total mass of the submersible, the total volume of the submersible, or the density of the surrounding fluid.  Sunday awaits!
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: minnie on December 31, 2014, 05:01:22 PM



  Flamin' Gallahs,
                     my crystal ball is showing me a Nobel prize winner!!!!!!
                          John.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on December 31, 2014, 05:11:31 PM
Tinman speaks as though he really believes that he has already successfully changed the weight and/or buoyancy of a submersible without changing any:  The total mass of the submersible, the total volume of the submersible, or the density of the surrounding fluid.  Sunday awaits!
Like i said many time's,the fluid inside the vessle is changed to a gas state. This increases the internal buoyancy volume of the vessle-the vessle rises to the surface. The gas is then returned to a liquid state,and the buoyancy volume once again becomes a negative-the vessle sink's. I am finding it hard to believe as to why this seems so dificult to believe-what laws of physics dose this break?.
Below is a quick crappy sketch. Which vessle(vessle's) has/have the most buoyancy.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala on December 31, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
Like i said many time's,the fluid inside the vessle is changed to a gas state. This increases the internal buoyancy volume of the vessle-the vessle rises to the surface. The gas is then returned to a liquid state,and the buoyancy volume once again becomes a negative-the vessle sink's. I am finding it hard to believe as to why this seems so dificult to believe-what laws of physics dose this break?.
Below is a quick crappy sketch. Which vessle(vessle's) has/have the most buoyancy.
The spheres of steel all have the same weight, or rather mass,  and volume, but the addition of water in one of them, and air in another one, will mean that their actual "as filled" weights will be different. And since density is defined as mass/volume, the one with water in it will be the most dense and so will have the least buoyancy. The one with compressed air in it will have slightly less buoyancy than the ones that are completely empty (0 psi).
The one with the 20 liters of water inside will have the _least_ buoyancy.  If you flash the water to steam without letting any escape ... the thing will still have the same mass, therefore the same density, so its buoyancy _will not change_.


Negative 20 psi pressure? Whaaat? How do you get less pressure than a total vacuum (0 psi)?
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 06:06:19 PM
Like i said many time's,the fluid inside the vessle is changed to a gas state. This increases the internal buoyancy volume of the vessle-the vessle rises to the surface. The gas is then returned to a liquid state,and the buoyancy volume once again becomes a negative-the vessle sink's. I am finding it hard to believe as to why this seems so dificult to believe-what laws of physics dose this break?.
Below is a quick crappy sketch. Which vessle(vessle's) has/have the most buoyancy.
If the volume of all spheres are the same then the buoyant force exerted by a surrounding fluid is the same for each.  If the dry weights of the spheres including their contents are the same then because the buoyant forces are the same, the wet weights are the same for each, and the net buoyancy is the same for each.

As long as there is the same number of moles of H2O and air ( mostly N2 and O2 ) in each sphere the state of the H2O :  solid, liquid, gas, or plasma inside the sphere does not alter any:  the mass, the dry weight, the wet weight, or the buoyancy.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 06:36:24 PM
That one is kind of a nit pick,, important as it may be, but still,, the intent is showing a high pressure and a low pressure.
I tend to agree.  I think Tinman meant gauge pressure and just didn't think much about the value.
Quote

That one also raises one of those strange questions,, "what if" you can have a negative pressure?
What would a negative pressure be?  Proximity of attractive particles?
Quote

Would the only problem be that the scale we use would need to change?
It requires a concept that something in the environment pulls in all directions.
Quote

Would that mean that you could suck the atoms apart?
That all depends on how strong this unknown pulling force is and what it acts on.
Quote

Is there any data from actual tests to see if indeed the mass and its interaction with gravity is indeed the same regardless of its state?
There are countless tests.  The ice melting experiment is a common grammar / middle school science demonstration.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 08:14:30 PM
not sure, it is one of those things I do actually think about from time to timeSo far as I know we only have forces that work in one direction,, but that might not be the case.indeed,, and just how that might work.
That test has a volume change,, so not really a good example.
No, there is no volume change:  Fill a plastic bottle mostly with crushed ice, seal the cap and add marks to the bottle or add a scale to it so you can track the water line outside.  When the ice melts, the air pressure inside will change a bit, but the bottle should not deform unless it is really weak.  If the bottle deforms the experiment is no good.
Quote

I was just thinking Tinmans test over,, and it takes time to heat up the contents of the sphere,, a metal sphere,, could it be that that heat source also heats up the water in the container so that it expands ever so slightly reducing the mass density of the water in the vessel??
I don't think so.  I suspect weak seals result in gas being driven out when he heats his sphere, and cold gas being drawn in when he cools and condenses.
Quote

Not sure if that could happen or not, but water does have a lot of other things, including gasses, dissolved within it.
Heating the water enough to drive out dissolved gasses would tend to lower the density of the water and make the sphere sink.  That's the opposite of what Tinman reports.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala on December 31, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
I tend to agree.  I think Tinman meant gauge pressure and just didn't think much about the value.

But he refers to "one atmosphere" of pressure in two of the spheres. That's 14.7 psi absolute or zero psi gauge pressure. So I can buy that +20 psi might refer to +20 psig, or even +20 psi absolute, which is +5.3 psig. But -20 psig would be.... -5.3 psi absolute. So how can you have a negative absolute pressure? That means that you have to put _in_ 5.3 psi to get to zero psi absolute (i.e.  vacuum) . It makes no sense either way, as far as I can tell.

Quote
What would a negative pressure be?  Proximity of attractive particles?It requires a concept that something in the environment pulls in all directions.That all depends on how strong this unknown pulling force is and what it acts on.There are countless tests.  The ice melting experiment is a common grammar / middle school science demonstration.

Another common demonstration is to boil some water in a can, then seal the can with a tight seal, then cool the can by splashing cold water onto it. The steam inside the can condenses back to water, leaving a partial vacuum behind. Ambient air pressure then crushes the can... which changes its volume. Maybe it will sink then!

The only way I know of to change an object's buoyancy is to change its density. This can be done by changing its displacement volume, or changing its mass, or both (assuming external conditions, like the density of the fluid it is in, don't change.) The stipulated conditions are that the displacement volume of the rigid steel sphere does not change. Phase change of any material does not change its mass. A kilogram of water inside a rigid container, changed to steam, still masses a kilogram, and if the container's displaced volume doesn't change, then its density does not change, so its buoyancy cannot change.

One might here like to review the Cartesian Diver and explore just how it is made to rise and sink by application of pressure to the outer container of fluid it floats in. The Diver is _not rigidly sealed_ and the pressure change on the outer container changes the volume of the Diver, which changes its density, thus changing its buoyancy.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Qwert on January 01, 2015, 12:38:12 AM
What i know is what i see in front of me.
Let me ask you this Qwert. If you seen something happen right before your sober eyes,and then read in a text book,or had others tell you that it's not possable,which would you believe?.

I would learn first how to properly measure such a "something" since my experience tells me that my eyes not always tell me the truth. And that might be only my interpretation what I see. There is lot of "somethings" that I don't see and they still exist. There are also possibilities that others say something exist and that is only a lie or their mis-interpretation.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 02:30:19 AM

But he refers to "one atmosphere" of pressure in two of the spheres. That's 14.7 psi absolute or zero psi gauge pressure. So I can buy that +20 psi might refer to +20 psig, or even +20 psi absolute, which is +5.3 psig. But -20 psig would be.... -5.3 psi absolute. So how can you have a negative absolute pressure? That means that you have to put _in_ 5.3 psi to get to zero psi absolute (i.e.  vacuum) . It makes no sense either way, as far as I can tell.
I think he just threw the -20psi value up as an example value.  I don't think too much of it.  To tell what he really meant you will have to ask him.
Quote

Another common demonstration is to boil some water in a can, then seal the can with a tight seal, then cool the can by splashing cold water onto it. The steam inside the can condenses back to water, leaving a partial vacuum behind. Ambient air pressure then crushes the can... which changes its volume. Maybe it will sink then!
That's a fun demonstration, but alters the envelope.  Tinman says that he is holding his envelope constant.
Quote

The only way I know of to change an object's buoyancy is to change its density. This can be done by changing its displacement volume, or changing its mass, or both (assuming external conditions, like the density of the fluid it is in, don't change.) The stipulated conditions are that the displacement volume of the rigid steel sphere does not change. Phase change of any material does not change its mass. A kilogram of water inside a rigid container, changed to steam, still masses a kilogram, and if the container's displaced volume doesn't change, then its density does not change, so its buoyancy cannot change.
That is what I have said to Tinman a couple of times now.  In order to alter the buoyancy, one or more of the following must change:

1) Total mass of the vessel and its contents.
2) Total volume of the vessel.
3) Density of the surrounding fluid.

Quote
One might here like to review the Cartesian Diver and explore just how it is made to rise and sink by application of pressure to the outer container of fluid it floats in. The Diver is _not rigidly sealed_ and the pressure change on the outer container changes the volume of the Diver, which changes its density, thus changing its buoyancy.
I think that the crux of the matter is that Tinman believes that the average density of material inside the vessel changes when density of some of the material inside the vessel changes.  I admire Tinman's willingness to conduct experiments and his honesty with his experiments.  I have no doubt that ultimately Tinman will observe and accept the truth.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 01, 2015, 03:58:09 AM
  I have no doubt that ultimately Tinman will observe and accept the truth.
I hope this go's both way's Mark,despite what you may believe physics is trying to tell you..
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 03:59:29 AM
I hope this go's both way's Mark,despite what you may believe physics is trying to tell you..
The data always tells the story.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 01, 2015, 11:48:11 AM
I decided to spend the $60,00 odd today,and throw together a quick device to show the effect taking place. The workings of the internals of this vessel are a very quick throw together job,and quite inefficient for the size of the vessel. But none the less,you can see what happens when i apply power to the internal working's. The effect is small,but it is there. I have run the test 11 times now,and the results are always the same. The one problem with running the device out of the water is the heat created,although it is very little with this one,as the P/in is only about 2 watts. Higher power levels produce much faster and higher result's in weight loss,but cooling is also needed when the power levels are that high.

It may be time to open up your mind's,and give rise to the possability that man hasnt tried all there is to try,regardless of his 2000 years experiance with buoyancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPVk0JaweA
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 12:09:33 PM
Tinman:

I am not here to argue about the buoyancy issue you are discussing, but rather to comment on your experimental procedure.

Why didn't you place the device when not powered on the scale and wait a few minutes to see what happens?  You have to rule out the possibility that the scale readout will drift over time.

Also, why not put the device on a higher pedestal so that you can keep the electrical wires at least say nine inches away from the scale to rule out any electrical interference from the wires affecting the electronic guts of the scale?

MileHigh
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 01, 2015, 12:38:09 PM
Tinman:

I am not here to argue about the buoyancy issue you are discussing, but rather to comment on your experimental procedure.

Why didn't you place the device when not powered on the scale and wait a few minutes to see what happens?  You have to rule out the possibility that the scale readout will drift over time.

Also, why not put the device on a higher pedestal so that you can keep the electrical wires at least say nine inches away from the scale to rule out any electrical interference from the wires affecting the electronic guts of the scale?

MileHigh
This is as far as im going with this here MH,but yes,you are right-we shouldnt ruel anything out.
Some things we see,and some things we dont. I have spent enough time and money on a backward step to where my (and others)reserch is at on this effect at the moment. In time to come the blindfolds will be lifted,and a new light will shine on what possabilities lie ahead. There is no claim of any OU event,nor will there ever be one-but more an untapped power source provided to us by nature. The one thing i can say for sure is that despite 2000 years of buoyancy experience,they havnt tried everything yet,and that holds true with fluids reactions with electrical current. Maybe people should look a little further into makeing spirits a little more electrically conductive,or something like that. ;)
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
Nice demonstration, I can appreciate the time and effort that went into that. But let me relate a little story:

We had a very similar experiment presented to us at ISSO back in 1999 or 2000. Viktor Roznyay had been funded by Joe Firmage to the tune of nearly a million dollars, and he was applying for a renewal of his grant. He had an "antigravity" device that was supposed to work by passing a heavy arc inside a mercury ignitron tube. He made a completely self-contained demonstrator that could be set up on his balance. The device had batteries, a power supply, the ignitron tube and a load bank made of a row of standard cement power resistors, and could be turned on and off by remote control.  The balance was a symmetrical beam balance with a sensitive straingauge readout. We made a draftproof enclosure for it, used a totally wooden table with no metal fasteners, etc. The device was set on the scale and turned on by remote control. Sure enough, it got lighter according to the scale readout over the span of a few minutes, and even at about the same rate and by the same amount as what Tinman shows in the video above. It got lighter and lighter, the weight being continuously recorded by a LabView system on a laptop, making a  nice realtime graph of weight vs time. Ken Shoulders, Hal Puthoff, Hawkins Kirk, and some other big names were there witnessing the event. Viktor assured us all that it was not any kind of thermal effect. When the device was turned off the device slowly returned to its "normal" weight. I still remember Ken Shoulders saying "so antigravity has a memory?" His point was that perhaps a real AG device would have regained its full weight as soon as the power was off. Perhaps.
Well, everyone was amazed in different ways, and we broke for lunch. During the break, several of us thought of some further tests. Since the balance was a beam balance with equal arms and a counterweight on the other "pan", the first thing we did was to swap sides. We put the device on the other pan, and the CW where the device had been for the first test. But we made an " error " in setting it up: The front face of the device faced in the same direction as it had before. That is, the morning test had the device on the left pan, facing away from the balance fulcrum. For the afternoon test we placed it on the right pan, but we didn't turn the device around, and so it faced _toward_ the balance fulcrum.
So we all gathered around, with Viktor and his assistant sitting off to the side. We used the remote control to turn the device on. What do you suppose happened? You can probably guess... it proceeded to get _heavier_ according to the scale readout. Dead silence, eyes turned to Viktor. "Did you know about this?" he was asked. "Yes, but we couldn't explain it so we didn't report it."  Facepalms all round. Clearly there was something wrong. Some further experimentation showed that the weight result depended on the orientation of the device on the balance; if you rotated it to just the right angle, it showed no weight change. It could be made to show a heavier, or a lighter, result depending on the rotation angle.
I had already seen inside the device (I took the covers off to look inside the night before the testing) and I began to suspect what was happening. And we were able to confirm that my guess was right: the framework supporting the load bank resistors was warping slightly from the heat, and this changed the position of the center of mass of the device, tilting the bank towards, or away from, the balance fulcrum. Since Viktor's custom-made balance did _not_ have tilting pans, this effect changed the lever arm of the balance and so produced a false indication of actual weight change. Very subtle, an interaction between something moving inside the device and the odd design flaw in the balance itself.
Needless to say, Viktor didn't get his further million dollars, and went away mad and embarrassed.

I'm not suggesting the _exact_ thing could be happening with Tinman's apparatus, but the story is interesting, isn't it? A laboratory of smart people with a _lot of money_ to support them, over the span of a year, were thinking they had a real weight change effect in their apparatus, when in fact it was a subtle artifact of both the construction of the device and their measuring equipment. They were so confident that they travelled all the way from Hungary to California, set up their equipment in front of an "all star" team of scientists and investigators and a _deep pocket_ funder for a demonstration... and were shot down in flames in a single day of proper experimentation and analysis.

There are some big differences between Tinman's setup and Viktor's, the most easily observable one being the electronic scale, vs. Viktor's balance beam. However... since the time course and magnitude of the weight effect is so similar to what we saw then, it seems very important to me to rule out a similar cause or set of causes.
Remember, Viktor thought that he had ruled out thermal effects... but he hadn't. He thought his very sensitive beam balance was precise and accurate... and it was, but for the design flaw that allowed center-of-mass changes to affect the reading. He thought that his experiments were bulletproof... but they weren't, since he had not done the _critical control experiment_ of putting the device on the other pan, without rotating it. He thought he was a shoo-in for another million dollar grant... but he failed to get it, and in fact based on this experience JF decided not to fund him any more at all, and liquidated the remains of Viktor's local setup.

So the first thing I'd suggest to Tinman is to find another weight measurement system and see if the effect is the same, in both direction and magnitude and time course, with the different system. Vibration, for example from bubbles being released from a submerged heating element, can affect scales of the type used in the video, and this is something that has caused many researchers to believe that they have discovered something. Sandy Kidd, Dean, Cox, and other people have fallen for the vibration artifact-- but different weighing systems respond differently to the vibration effect. Next, I'd examine carefully the innards of the device to make absolutely sure that nothing is moving to change the center of gravity. The device is pretty tall and it is possible that a tilted force on the scale is altering its reading. It is also true that these kinds of scales are subject to faulty readings due to EMI from power supplies and other circuitry, although in that case one would expect the indications to be more strongly related to the on-off state of the power feed. Nevertheless it must be solidly ruled out; using a different weighing system should take care of that.

Good for you, Brad, for setting up your demonstration and showing the result. It's a very good starting point. I especially like the balloon, showing that there is not any buildup in pressure which might have swollen the outer container and produced some change in buoyancy in air. (Don't laugh... this buoyancy in air due to a swollen container was the cause of another reproducible measured weight loss in a device designed by Jim Woodward, that was finally tracked down by another scientist with a proper control experiment. The effect is larger than you might think, easily capable of producing a few grams change in a large device like Tinman's.) But the non-swollen balloon _probably_ rules out that effect here.

Cheers mate, and keep experimenting, and don't forget the +proper+ control experiment.
--TK   ;)

----------------------

"The easiest person to fool is... yourself."
--Richard Feynman
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 03:07:15 PM
I decided to spend the $60,00 odd today,and throw together a quick device to show the effect taking place. The workings of the internals of this vessel are a very quick throw together job,and quite inefficient for the size of the vessel. But none the less,you can see what happens when i apply power to the internal working's. The effect is small,but it is there. I have run the test 11 times now,and the results are always the same. The one problem with running the device out of the water is the heat created,although it is very little with this one,as the P/in is only about 2 watts. Higher power levels produce much faster and higher result's in weight loss,but cooling is also needed when the power levels are that high.

It may be time to open up your mind's,and give rise to the possability that man hasnt tried all there is to try,regardless of his 2000 years experiance with buoyancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPVk0JaweA
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

1) A vessel containing some liquid and (a heating element?) indicates an initial weight of 2.773
2) Over a period of several minutes powered the weight indication decreases to 2.768 or -0.18%
3) Statements that the experiment has been performed repeatedly with similar results each time
4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)
5) A proposed conclusion that the heating process reduces the weight of the vessel plus contents

Is this correct?

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

So, now we have the issue of how to perform adequate null experiments within your time and budget.  I have a couple of suggestions.  If the hypothesis is that state change of whatever liquid is being used reduces weight, then a shorter container with the same initial amount of liquid and a similar heating element should indicate weight loss at the same absolute rate.  If however, the CoG is shifting, then the absolute rate will probably change much more slowly with a shorter structure.  Alternatively, without building anything else, you might just repeat the experiment by carefully rotating the tower 90 degrees then 180, and then 270 degrees even before heating the innards to see how that affects your scale.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 06:30:39 PM
TK:

Quote
Dead silence, eyes turned to Viktor. "Did you know about this?" he was asked. "Yes, but we couldn't explain it so we didn't report it."  Facepalms all round. Clearly there was something wrong. Some further experimentation showed that the weight result depended on the orientation of the device on the balance; if you rotated it to just the right angle, it showed no weight change. It could be made to show a heavier, or a lighter, result depending on the rotation angle.

Quote
Since Viktor's custom-made balance did _not_ have tilting pans, this effect changed the lever arm of the balance and so produced a false indication of actual weight change.

That's an amazing story.  For the first highlight the guy deserves a cut-off in funding and a kick in the ass as he went out the door.   That even looks like a scam for another million dollars so they could ultimately sit at their desks and surf the Internet and try to look busy like what I always speculated about Steorn.

The second highlight is again almost unbelievable because the moment you mention "beam balance" you see the "scales of justice" balance in your mind.  No pans and no fixed fulcrum for the pans means it is not even a beam balance.  It's a retarded Bizarro balance.  That deserves a second swift kick in the ass as the guy went out the door and consulting with the local district attorney.

That's just as bad as the university guy that made the "retarded rotating spaghetti laser interferometer experiment" in search of the ether but all that it did was deform under the varying stresses of gravity as it rotated through a complete cycle.  Or the 10-coiler powering a house!

MileHigh
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 07:17:36 PM
The difference with Tinman is that AFAICT he is honestly trying to approach the situation objectively. 

Another thought occurred to me:  Get a second scale, and place the tower on a stiff platform of plastic or wood that spans the two identical scales.  Take the sum of the readings from the two scales.  Then repeat the experiment with the platform rotated 90 degrees relative to the scales.  This will show any shift in CoG along one axis in each experiment.  It should also allow one to null out any shift in CoG in one axis during each experiment by using the sum of the readings from both scales.

Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 02, 2015, 10:29:08 AM
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

4)-I find it hard to believe that a man of your tallent and knowledge wouldnt know how something as simple as this could be done. When the scales switch off and then turned back on,they zero back out with the vessel still on them. When the vessel is removed the scales read a negative value that is equal to the weight value of the vessel. 2nd method-the vessel is removed from the scales,and then after cooling off,is placed back onto the scales to read a value that is the same as the test starting point value.

There is 3 pieces of timber glued under the vessel acting as feet, as there is two S/S bolts protruding out of the bottom cap of the vessel which are the conections to the cell inside the vessel.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 02, 2015, 10:55:36 AM
The difference with Tinman is that AFAICT he is honestly trying to approach the situation objectively. 

Another thought occurred to me:  Get a second scale, and place the tower on a stiff platform of plastic or wood that spans the two identical scales.  Take the sum of the readings from the two scales.  Then repeat the experiment with the platform rotated 90 degrees relative to the scales.  This will show any shift in CoG along one axis in each experiment.  It should also allow one to null out any shift in CoG in one axis during each experiment by using the sum of the readings from both scales.
The thought im haveing is to get away from the same old same old. What i mean by this is,insted of you top guns telling us wee little people what we should be doing as far as testing go's,would be to get off ya a-s and do them your self ;). What i and many others have found over time is that it dosnt matter what test we do,until our test show a result you top guns like to see,and meets your expected outcome,you just insist that we do more and more test. Saying things like the scales might read wrong if there is some sort of imballance of the device on the scale,is like saying a glass of water will weigh more on the left side of the scales than it dose on the right side of the scale-which it dosnt with these scales.

So like i said before,i have no intention of going backwards and carrying out test i have already done-like the buoyancy test. There is also the fact that there are eyes here that take other peoples ideas and run off with them ,hoping to make a quick buck. Some years back i did a very controlled test on a simple ssg pulse motor clearly showing that alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) were the most efficient way to go(video on my youtube account with time and date). So about a month later Arron the rookie and Peter blo-dy Lindermann come out with a new and far more efficient ssg setup that uses alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) on the rotor-->whats the chances of that after them saying for years that it must be all north fields out ::) There was also another design i came up with that used a water battery,and a way to reverse the electroplating effect with the copper and zink plates-and guess what,that was taken and used by some one else,and it is actually making them money. Chet knows about this one,but i wont take it any further because i still like the guy that is useing the effect to run his product.

For these reasons along with mechanical failure,i didnt release my video of the generator running on 70% water on the 1/1/15 like i was going to.

But i leave you with 2 questions Mark-what weighs more,a vessel with a vacuum of say negative 5psi,or the same vessel with 1atm of HHO gas inside it?2- How and what happens to HHO when it itself is under vacuum in that vessel-would the vessel be heaver or lighter when the HHO gas was at 1atm?. These are all test i have done,and will be doing again because it is called for at this time in a different place-a place where there is no one to run off with your work.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on January 02, 2015, 08:42:31 PM
@Tinman

I believe I owe you a debt on several accounts.  Additionally, I hope that you will accept this apology
for my poor behavior during some particular exchanges between us.  I was assuming, condescending, and insinuating etc. .  This was due only to my own perceptual experience, not your fault.  Sorry.

You have my respect.

My gratitude to you also for remaining on topic here.   


I don't know the following to be true with absolute certainty,  but I think

1. you may have been goaded into making your presentation prematurely,
                and
2. you may have been goaded into making your presentation out of the context that is your actual intention as well.

If so,  would you say something about it, in a reply and  from your perspective. ?

From where I'm standing it looks like my little topic here has been raided, and that you are being
artfully harassed.


          floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 09:36:36 PM
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

4)-I find it hard to believe that a man of your tallent and knowledge wouldnt know how something as simple as this could be done. When the scales switch off and then turned back on,they zero back out with the vessel still on them. When the vessel is removed the scales read a negative value that is equal to the weight value of the vessel. 2nd method-the vessel is removed from the scales,and then after cooling off,is placed back onto the scales to read a value that is the same as the test starting point value.
There are lots of things that I can guess.  It is far better for you to state your procedure and avoid assumptions.
Quote

There is 3 pieces of timber glued under the vessel acting as feet, as there is two S/S bolts protruding out of the bottom cap of the vessel which are the conections to the cell inside the vessel.
If you obtain a second scale and perform the tests that I suggested we will get closer to resolving what is behind your present observations.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 10:12:19 PM
The thought im haveing is to get away from the same old same old. What i mean by this is,insted of you top guns telling us wee little people what we should be doing as far as testing go's,would be to get off ya a-s and do them your self ;). What i and many others have found over time is that it dosnt matter what test we do,until our test show a result you top guns like to see,and meets your expected outcome,you just insist that we do more and more test. Saying things like the scales might read wrong if there is some sort of imballance of the device on the scale,is like saying a glass of water will weigh more on the left side of the scales than it dose on the right side of the scale-which it dosnt with these scales.
Do you know that for a fact?  Have you taken a 2 - 3 kg weight and weighed it in different positions on the scale?
Quote

So like i said before,i have no intention of going backwards and carrying out test i have already done-like the buoyancy test. There is also the fact that there are eyes here that take other peoples ideas and run off with them ,hoping to make a quick buck. Some years back i did a very controlled test on a simple ssg pulse motor clearly showing that alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) were the most efficient way to go(video on my youtube account with time and date). So about a month later Arron the rookie and Peter blo-dy Lindermann come out with a new and far more efficient ssg setup that uses alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) on the rotor-->whats the chances of that after them saying for years that it must be all north fields out ::) There was also another design i came up with that used a water battery,and a way to reverse the electroplating effect with the copper and zink plates-and guess what,that was taken and used by some one else,and it is actually making them money. Chet knows about this one,but i wont take it any further because i still like the guy that is useing the effect to run his product.

For these reasons along with mechanical failure,i didnt release my video of the generator running on 70% water on the 1/1/15 like i was going to.

But i leave you with 2 questions Mark-what weighs more,a vessel with a vacuum of say negative 5psi,or the same vessel with 1atm of HHO gas inside it?2- How and what happens to HHO when it itself is under vacuum in that vessel-would the vessel be heaver or lighter when the HHO gas was at 1atm?. These are all test i have done,and will be doing again because it is called for at this time in a different place-a place where there is no one to run off with your work.
The weight of an object at some height here on earth tracks the mass of the object and the atmospheric pressure.  For reasonably dense objects, the atmospheric pressure will have such a small effect that it will be below our measurement uncertainty.  For low density things like inflated balloons the atmospheric pressure will make a big percentage difference in the weight.  The mass is a function of the total number of moles of each material that composes the object.  It is independent of the state:  solid, liquid, gas, or plasma of the materials that compose the object.   None of that takes away from your thoughtfully constructed experiment.

There are opportunists out there, and Aaron seems to be one of them.  If you want to discuss things privately with me so that ideas you think are valuable stay away from prying eyes, that is fine with me.

PV = nRT, or P = nRT/V.  The pressure inside a given vessel that contains only gas depends on how many moles of gas are inside and at what temperature and the vessel's interior volume.  HHO (H2 and O2) is roughly 34g/2 moles ~= 17g/mole.  Dry air is denser at ~29g/mole.  So there is considerably less mass at any pressure in a gas mixture of "HHO" than there is dry air.  A volume of air at: 9.7psia * ~29g/mole is about 12% more dense than  the same volume of HHO at: 14.7psia * ~17g/mole.  In order to reduce the pressure inside a vessel you either have to: cool it down, make it bigger, or remove material.  For a vessel that has a constant interior volume and that is held at a constant temperature, the only variable left is the amount of material inside the volume.  When you remove material you reduce the mass inside the vessel.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on January 02, 2015, 10:15:15 PM
@Tinman

I believe I owe you a debt on several accounts.  Additionally, I hope that you will accept this apology
for my poor behavior during some particular exchanges between us.  I was assuming, condescending, and insinuating etc. .  This was due only to my own perceptual experience, not your fault.  Sorry.

You have my respect.

My gratitude to you also for remaining on topic here.   


I don't know the following to be true with absolute certainty,  but I think

1. you may have been goaded into making your presentation prematurely,
                and
2. you may have been goaded into making your presentation out of the context that is your actual intention as well.

If so,  would you say something about it, in a reply and  from your perspective. ?

From where I'm standing it looks like my little topic here has been raided, and that you are being
artfully harassed.

                 Additionally, I would  like to acknowledge that this might not be the case. 
It may be that it's just a bunch of people hav'nt realized that they might not be having a
good effect on the forum ?


          floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 01:05:00 AM
                 

          floor
Quote
I believe I owe you a debt on several accounts.  Additionally, I hope that you will accept this apology
for my poor behavior during some particular exchanges between us.  I was assuming, condescending, and insinuating etc. .  This was due only to my own perceptual experience, not your fault.  Sorry.

Quote
No need to apologise Floor,there will always come a time when we dont agree on everything.

I don't know the following to be true with absolute certainty,  but I think

1. you may have been goaded into making your presentation prematurely,
                and
2. you may have been goaded into making your presentation out of the context that is your actual intention as well.

When you present something that go's against what others may believe,they ofcourse want to see this happen,and ask you to show this takeing place. Once you do that,they then want you to show it in another way,or use a different method. What i have found in the past is the more you do the more they want,and they keep wanting until they have you totally side tracked and going backwards to where you already were.

Quote
From where I'm standing it looks like my little topic here has been raided, and that you are being
artfully harassed.

They do that you know.

Quote
Additionally, I would  like to acknowledge that this might not be the case. 
It may be that it's just a bunch of people hav'nt realized that they might not be having a
good effect on the forum ?

Make no mistake,Mark would be one of the brightest people i has seen on forums like this,and i believe his intentions are good. But wether he know's it or not,he is actually starting(piece by piece) to answer in his own words how something like this could be possable. A Mole is a Mole is a Mole-really ;) So dose one get back 1ltr of water when 1860ltr of HHO is burned?.If so,how can that be?-what fuel gives of heat but is not consumed-all is returned back to it's raw state. If we dont get back 1ltr of water,then where did the missing amount go if it's in a sealed vessel?.


Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 02:19:26 AM
Tinman:

It can be a pain in the ass when people repeatedly question you no doubt.  But it's all part of a process.  Look, let's assume that people have rational minds.  Your rational mind tells you that if the mass of something doesn't change from time A to time B, then it should weigh the same at time A and time B.  I think that everybody can agree with that.

I haven't really followed the thread, but when you observed a weight change, did you try to rule out any possible explanations for what you observed?  How exhaustive were you, did you look at multiple possibilities?

I am sure you are aware that a classic thing with a newbie and electronics is that they observe something that appears to be out of the ordinary, and they just believe it.  They don't try anything at all to refute their own observations.  And that's clearly part of a generic problem with the forums.  I can't tell you how may times I told someone they were wrong because of poor measuring techniques, or they didn't understand what they were looking at, or they were sloppy, etc.  Sometimes they understand and adapt, sometimes they just scowl at you.

Quote
Make no mistake,Mark would be one of the brightest people i has seen on forums like this,and i believe his intentions are good. But wether he know's it or not,he is actually starting(piece by piece) to answer in his own words how something like this could be possable. A Mole is a Mole is a Mole-really (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) So dose one get back 1ltr of water when 1860ltr of HHO is burned?.If so,how can that be?-what fuel gives of heat but is not consumed-all is returned back to it's raw state. If we dont get back 1ltr of water,then where did the missing amount go if it's in a sealed vessel?.

I am not sure if you are being serious here but water is normally a liquid and H2 and O2 are normally gases.  That explains the volume difference at STP (Standard temperature and pressure.)  The number of moles does not change, the mass does not change.

Why does it give off heat but nothing is consumed?  I just use a non-technical explanation for that.  The electric field literally rips apart the water molecule.  That takes energy and that cocks an 'invisible spring.'  Then when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine into water, all of those invisible springs snap back into place and release their stored energy in the form of heat.   So just like separating two magnets apart is cocking an invisible magnetic spring, ripping apart a water molecule is cocking an invisible spring.

MileHigh
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 02:27:20 AM
When you present something that go's against what others may believe,they ofcourse want to see this happen,and ask you to show this takeing place. Once you do that,they then want you to show it in another way,or use a different method. What i have found in the past is the more you do the more they want,and they keep wanting until they have you totally side tracked and going backwards to where you already were.

They do that you know.

Make no mistake,Mark would be one of the brightest people i has seen on forums like this,and i believe his intentions are good. But wether he know's it or not,he is actually starting(piece by piece) to answer in his own words how something like this could be possable. A Mole is a Mole is a Mole-really ;) So dose one get back 1ltr of water when 1860ltr of HHO is burned?.If so,how can that be?-what fuel gives of heat but is not consumed-all is returned back to it's raw state. If we dont get back 1ltr of water,then where did the missing amount go if it's in a sealed vessel?.
Tinman the dirty part of doing science is that when a discrepancy is found it can take many pains taking experiments to bore down to the real reason for the observed discrepancy.  This can be very time consuming, and quite exasperating but it's work that has to be done.  Anything short of that is just jumping to conclusions.

Moles are a measure of how much of any kind of "stuff" (matter) we have.  They are the "n" in the various gas laws.  In different states, at different temperatures and pressures different quantities of matter occupy the same space, and conversely the same amount of matter occupies different amounts of space at different:  states, temperatures, and pressures.  What doesn't get created or destroyed is energy/matter.  In ordinary chemistry experiments where the energy values are low, any mass/energy conversion is so small that it is below what we can usually detect.  That means that for practice and purpose, we can state that in any closed chemistry experiment the mass of the feed stock reagents and the post reaction products is constant.  The total number of moles can change and that means that pressure, temperature, and volume are all up for grabs depending on the reaction(s) that take place.  So, there is no liter of water / liter of HHO.  There is some mass of water that will (for practice and purpose) exactly match the mass of HHO that reacts.


Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on January 03, 2015, 02:37:19 AM
@Tinman

Awesome concept !

A mind which has been heavily conditioned by academia might
be less likely to arrive at a concept like this. (within in any given
period of time). 

The two side of the "contest " manifesting under this subject are
a little like the two side of the brain.   If either one is missing, the body
can still function, but it's a lot better if things go the way nature intended.
I emphasize the word contest with parenthesis, because I want to move
beyond the competitive aspect.

If we can get beyond struggling for dominance a lot of wonderful things will
happen.

Thanks again for hanging in there.   Get some rest you've earned it in my book..

Thank you MarkE for hanging in there as well.


            floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 03:46:33 AM
@Tinman

Awesome concept !

A mind which has been heavily conditioned by academia might
be less likely to arrive at a concept like this. (within in any given
period of time). 

The two side of the "contest " manifesting under this subject are
a little like the two side of the brain.   If either one is missing, the body
can still function, but it's a lot better if things go the way nature intended.
I emphasize the word contest with parenthesis, because I want to move
beyond the competitive aspect.

If we can get beyond struggling for dominance a lot of wonderful things will
happen.

Thanks again for hanging in there.   Get some rest you've earned it in my book..

Thank you MarkE for hanging in there as well.


            floor
There is just to many holes and theories in science and physics Floor,and Mark(in a couple of different threads)has contradicted him self when using his physics and well know science. He says in one instant that mass cannot change regardless of the state that mass may be in-EG,water to HHO. But then he states that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light ???

Well-Mass either can or cannot increase or decrease-which is it?.

In fact,this deserves a thread of it's own
It's time to tare down physics into fact/theory and fiction.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 05:18:36 AM
There is just to many holes and theories in science and physics Floor,and Mark(in a couple of different threads)has contradicted him self when using his physics and well know science. He says in one instant that mass cannot change regardless of the state that mass may be in-EG,water to HHO. But then he states that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light ???

Well-Mass either can or cannot increase or decrease-which is it?.
Context matters as does accurate quotations.  Rest mass is invariant.  The energy required to accelerate a given mass at non-relativistic velocities is essentially just the time integral of the acceleration multiplied by the rest mass.  The energy expended to go between two velocities is:  0.5*m*(VEND2 - VSTART2).  That approximation loses accuracy as velocities become a significant fraction of the speed of light.  Then the velocity dependent term in the denominator of the energy equation starts to grow exponentially.
Quote

In fact,this deserves a thread of it's own
It's time to tare down physics into fact/theory and fiction.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on January 03, 2015, 06:09:07 AM
@tinman

Is it that

1.mass cannot change regardless of the state that mass may be in-EG,water to HHO. or
or
2. that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light) ?

good question, perhaps this does deserve another thread ?

It's been difficult to remain on topic as it is.

                   floor
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 06:48:48 AM
@tinman

Is it that

1.mass cannot change regardless of the state that mass may be in-EG,water to HHO. or
or
2. that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light) ?

good question, perhaps this does deserve another thread ?

It's been difficult to remain on topic as it is.

                   floor
Yes,things seem to have taken a left turn from topic,and thus the new thread i started.
Title: Re: What's wrong with this
Post by: Floor on January 03, 2015, 10:30:04 AM
@MarkE

May be you are multitasking right now ? You may of course do as you wish, but I hope that
you will be able to spend some time with what I'm going to say here.

This is a topic which I have started.  This I think, entitles me to some latitude, what I need to say will take a few words.   
 
The fact that most of the discussion on my topic has been off topic, is only partly your fault.
It is also a result of the tactics I have used to get to this point. It's something that I hadn't fully anticipated.   It's just some thing that I have had to cope with, in order to get to this
point.

Pages and pages of OFF SUBJECT material not just OFF TOPIC material.  The emphasis I have
placed by using capitalization is not to quibble (some fine point) with you.

I have had a strategy and a direction through out this endeavor.  I realize that you may be / should be incredulous and doubting of that.

My strategy required that I put someone LIKE you into a defensive posture, in order to demonstrate something, to that person. I'm glad in one respect that this happened to be you. Because I think/hope you took it unscathed. (I'll explain the emphasis on the word LIKE later, if need be.) Unfortunately it was unlikely that I could do this in a purely technical arena.  This was one of the features of my idea that I really had to struggle with before I could commit to the strategy, and honestly all through it's implementation.   It really upped the anti (my risk) if I needed to create a perceptual experience for that person that was on a personal level.  I had to weigh this level of risk against the potential value.  Believe me when I say that I was also examining  my own motives on a constant basis.

Here is a little less than the full gambit of the plan.

1. attract appropriate person.
2. get the person into a defensive posture.
3. challenge and defeat that person.
4. get that person to be in denial of his defeat.

The sum of this has required a lot of improvisation.

The next part is to (hope fully) regain that persons trust. 

Then to to get them to accept that they were defeated by a some one that was born into dire poverty, completed only one year of high school, and lived a third of his adult life as a homeless person.

This hasn't been “all just for my own vein glory”.  Really.

That's all for now

                           floor