Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.  (Read 210200 times)

d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #300 on: May 02, 2015, 12:05:35 AM »
Either we are talking about two different things or you are very confused.  Buoyancy is basically borrowed gravitational energy.  Output work is only available from decreasing mgh of previously lifted atmosphere above the float.  Using water as the atmosphere:  work is performed lifting the water atmosphere, and a portion of that expended work is reclaimable as useful work.
what is mgh? 
I'm stating that 100% of the energy from the input is entirely lost disregarding any bouyancy effect.  So given 0 input energy used to move the floats it's obvious that input has nothing to do with output.

d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #301 on: May 02, 2015, 12:09:35 AM »
I'll vote for "very confused".

Let DXor consider the case where you have a vertical column of water in a tube... paint it white if you like. There is only one float chamber and it is at the bottom of its chain loop full of water, ready to be inflated.

Note the level of the _TOP_ of the water column by making a mark against the side of the tube.

Now, by any means you like, fill the float chamber with air, displacing the water that is in it. Don't let it go anywhere yet.

Climb back up to the top of the tube and measure the water level. What do you find? Is the mark you made, now submerged? Of course it is.  And, by clever calculations, you adeptly find that the height increase x the surface area equals _exactly_ the volume of the float that you have filled with air !! The float that is all the way down at the bottom of the tube!!

Do you see the consequences? You have _raised up_ a volume of water equal to the volume of the float, _all the way up_ to the top of the tube! You cannot do this without performing work, and you can calculate precisely how much work it costs to _raise up that volume of water_. This, then, is the INPUT that you must consider, and you must multiply this INPUT energy by the number of floats you fill! 

When the floats reach the top of their travel and flip over, filling once again with water, that volume of lifted water is "falling" and that is the only return of work that you will be able to get out of the system: What you put in to raise the water in the first place, minus losses.
but whether there is a chamber there or not the water level is raised as the air causes displacement at the bottom.
And it is displaced further as the bubble rises and is not under such great pressure, causing further displacement.
Yes that work is where the energy on the input goes.... 100% to displacing water. 
0% to moving the chamber.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #302 on: May 02, 2015, 02:44:09 AM »

Quote
Sure they did.  But being enslaved to big oil the magic bag of wet hammers machine hasn't got out.  It's been suppressed and only the valiant nutter community knows about it.  You do understand that a buoy moved up and down by tidal motion is powered by the tide and not buoyancy don't you?

Lol,the guy that designed it and own's it IS the big power company owner lol.
Oh,and it's no where near the ocean.

Quote
Then you are saying that you did not read it?  WTC 1 and WTC 2 are covered in one report and WTC 7 in another

I found no full report on building 7,and in the !what they call a report!,they actually admit to not testing for explosives :o. In fact,everything was shipped of that fast to china to be melted down,no real investigation was done. All the reports you put forth are government backed lol. You havnt shown one report from an independent body of any type. The reason for that is-all the real engineers,and true experts in the field all know the buildings were brought down by explosives-not fire. You cant even understand as to why building 7 came down slightly faster than free fall speed lol. The reason you dont understand is because the only way building 7 could fall slightly faster than free fall speed go's against your blind faith.

Quote
They aren't hard to find.  They are not difficult to read and understand.  No magic nano thermite or dustifying beams required.

Im sorry Mark,but i am the one that has so far provided credible evidence-along with scientific fact,that the buildings did not fall due to fire. And dont forget-they didnt test for explosive residue at all in your reports. ::)

Quote
Your absurd claims as to what the planes could do have already been refuted.

No Mark, a stock 757 and 767 just cannot do 500 and 570MPH at sea level without falling apart. The only thing you presented is a Mach.86 speed-->which is at cruising altitude lol-not sea level.

You call your self a man of science and fact's,and yet here you are backing rubbish lol. You shun people for not being able to read a scope,you say there is no excuse for some one of that stature to get it wrong,and yet a simple circuit analysis seems to be beyond your limit's.
You know what they say-people that live in glass houses :D

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #303 on: May 02, 2015, 03:01:40 AM »
I'll vote for "very confused".

Let DXor consider the case where you have a vertical column of water in a tube... paint it white if you like. There is only one float chamber and it is at the bottom of its chain loop full of water, ready to be inflated.

Note the level of the _TOP_ of the water column by making a mark against the side of the tube.

Now, by any means you like, fill the float chamber with air, displacing the water that is in it. Don't let it go anywhere yet.

Climb back up to the top of the tube and measure the water level. What do you find? Is the mark you made, now submerged? Of course it is.  And, by clever calculations, you adeptly find that the height increase x the surface area equals _exactly_ the volume of the float that you have filled with air !! The float that is all the way down at the bottom of the tube!!

Do you see the consequences? You have _raised up_ a volume of water equal to the volume of the float, _all the way up_ to the top of the tube! You cannot do this without performing work, and you can calculate precisely how much work it costs to _raise up that volume of water_. This, then, is the INPUT that you must consider, and you must multiply this INPUT energy by the number of floats you fill! 

When the floats reach the top of their travel and flip over, filling once again with water, that volume of lifted water is "falling" and that is the only return of work that you will be able to get out of the system: What you put in to raise the water in the first place, minus losses.

Only you dont have to put that much air in the bucket when the bucket is at the bottom of the column of water. If your bucket has say a 10ltr capacity,then you only need to displace 1ltr of water with your compressed air. As the bucket rises,the pressure around it decreases,and more water is displaced from the bucket making gain bouyancy. This also raises the head level of the water in the column,and thus the bucket can provide more work. The energy used to put the air into the bucket is regained as the bucket makes it's way to the top-along with extra energy,as the head of water has been raised as the bucket displaced more water on it's way up. Then the buckets fill with water and make there way back down,and although slight,there is an energy gain there as well,but what energy was used to fill the buckets with water?-gravitational ?.

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #304 on: May 02, 2015, 03:30:58 AM »
That is a bit of a confusing post to read with no back reading. But if you displace one liter of water with air while the bucket is at the bottom then the air remains compressed to some degree and as the bucket rises in the water column the air will become decompressed and expand to more than one liter due to a lowering of external pressure which would in turn displace more water as it rises up.

It would seem some input energy remains in the compression of the air until the air reaches the atmosphere or equivalent pressure to it.

The decompression of the air is what would displace more water even if no more air is added. The water at the bottom being under more pressure means the air at the bottom is also under more pressure, and a relation would exist between the water pressure and the air pressure right from the get go.

All needs to be considered, the energy used to compress the air, the energy needed to generate the electricity to compress the air as well.

A stand alone system does not connect to the grid or other power source. We pay money because of the cost associated to the generation of electricity and it's distribution the cost is due to the energy involved in the pre generation work such as providing the fuel and plant. And that is all part of the energy considerations.

We cannot begin our calculations at the compressed air cylinder or even at the wall plug, true cost also considers fuel and generation losses.
For a transformation system we can evaluate efficiency at the input to the device and the output of the device. But for a complete system all energy must be accounted for that is involved in producing the end result.

Compress the air by hand and see how free the energy is. Or if using a battery the energy required to put the battery back to it's original SOC would be the input. Not what is actually measured coming from the battery, that is just the usable input.

..

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #305 on: May 02, 2015, 03:32:02 AM »
Where is James Kwok when you need him?!!   lol

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #306 on: May 02, 2015, 03:43:44 AM »
Tinman, you are simply wrong about the speeds of a 767 aircraft. I see that you have now changed your "speed limit" from the previously stated "220" maximum, though.


Vmo is the maximum _allowable_ speed, Va is the "maneuvering speed". The airplane will not "come apart" if you exceed Vmo, though, as long as you are gentle on the controls and don't hit much turbulence. There is considerable design margin built in to the Vmo speed limit.  If you don't care about those things you can easily exceed Vmo in level flight, even at sea level. The 767 is powerful enough to take off fully loaded _on one engine_. It is easily powerful enough to exceed Vmo at sea level in level flight, and do it without "coming apart."

See the graph below, of Vmo vs. altitude for the 767 series.

You may find the following article of interest:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #307 on: May 02, 2015, 03:52:42 AM »
I believe a Chinese pilot committing suicide flipped the airliner he was piloting upside down and performed an upside down pull up maneuver which he controlled all the way to the ground where the plane dove almost vertically into a river at over Mach 1 pretty much intact. No doubt it would have lost some bits but he did it, he was a Air Force show pilot bankrupted by the financial crash so he crashed for real and on purpose and in some kind of control.

How many knots is Mach 1 ? 661 Knots equals Mach 1.

.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #308 on: May 02, 2015, 03:55:40 AM »
TK is very knowledgeable when it comes to aviation.

I remember seeing these huge aluminum slabs get cut by a giant NC machine to form the main wing members  (sorry no vocabulary for this stuff.)   It was very impressive to see.

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #309 on: May 02, 2015, 04:04:21 AM »
The old war pilots told of overspeed events in their old spitfires and Hurricanes and so forth, the problem was that the faster they went the harder it became to effect any control surface movements, well before any parts came off the planes, this prevented them from pulling out of attacking dives if they dove too long and gained too much speed. The plane then becomes kind of like a plain old rocket but only powered by an ICE. No control. But with fly by wire now that becomes either the hydraulics refuse to exert the force required or the force is exerted and the surfaces get damaged or torn off.

the plane would want to keep going in it's native trim in relation to its orientation to the ground.

..

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #310 on: May 02, 2015, 04:26:00 AM »
The old war pilots told of overspeed events in their old spitfires and Hurricanes and so forth, the problem was that the faster they went the harder it became to effect any control surface movements, well before any parts came off the planes, this prevented them from pulling out of attacking dives if they dove too long and gained too much speed. The plane then becomes kind of like a plain old rocket but only powered by an ICE. No control. But with fly by wire now that becomes either the hydraulics refuse to exert the force required or the force is exerted and the surfaces get damaged or torn off.

the plane would want to keep going in it's native trim in relation to its orientation to the ground.

..

That was called compressibility.  Shock waves would form on the edges of the control surfaces and render them useless at various times...even before Mach 1 was reached.  Yeager, from diving Mustangs wide open in WWII, knew that as you approached the speed of sound, you lost some of the control-ability of the aircraft.  As he discovered flying the Glamorous Glennis over Mach 1, you actually regained some of the control you lost in approaching Mach 1 as the shock waves moved beyond the control surfaces.

You could probably loop a 767 and have the airframe survive.  There are a lot of safety margins built into the design of an aircraft like this.
A good example is some of the photos of the B-17's returning to the airfields in WWII with major portions of the fuselage and control surfaces totally gone...yet they made it back safe.  I believe that was due to not only incredible design and engineering efforts, but also to the fudge factors giving a greater safety margin than most folks realize.

Bill

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #311 on: May 02, 2015, 04:29:07 AM »
Tinman, you are simply wrong about the speeds of a 767 aircraft. I see that you have now changed your "speed limit" from the previously stated "220" maximum, though.


Vmo is the maximum _allowable_ speed, Va is the "maneuvering speed". The airplane will not "come apart" if you exceed Vmo, though, as long as you are gentle on the controls and don't hit much turbulence. There is considerable design margin built in to the Vmo speed limit.  If you don't care about those things you can easily exceed Vmo in level flight, even at sea level. The 767 is powerful enough to take off fully loaded _on one engine_. It is easily powerful enough to exceed Vmo at sea level in level flight, and do it without "coming apart."

See the graph below, of Vmo vs. altitude for the 767 series.

You may find the following article of interest:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/
TK
I respect what you are saying,and yes,it seems that the 220MPH is off (i can admit when im wrong).BUT you show a Vmo of 414.25MPH at sea level to 26000 feet. MarkE and his !so called !reputable reports insist on air speeds of 500MPH and 570MPH. This is way way above Vmo,and no unmodified 757 or 767 can travel at that speed at just above sea level. If you can provide evidence to the contrary,then i will be happy to conceed. Also take into account that the guys that apparently managed to fly these planes way over Vmo speed-(not just a little over,but way over) couldnt even fly a single engine cessna very well at all.

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #312 on: May 02, 2015, 04:39:27 AM »
Pirate I was referring to over speed events in aircraft under the speed of sound, even without approaching Mach 1 many older planes became almost uncontrollable and just continued to dive into the ground it is well documented, and spoken by the pilots themselves. The controls become so heavy
the pilot cannot pull out of the dive in time. So a lack of control due to over speed but no breaking up of the plane until ground strike.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #313 on: May 02, 2015, 04:46:36 AM »
Tinman, you are simply wrong about the speeds of a 767 aircraft. I see that you have now changed your "speed limit" from the previously stated "220" maximum, though.


Vmo is the maximum _allowable_ speed, Va is the "maneuvering speed". The airplane will not "come apart" if you exceed Vmo, though, as long as you are gentle on the controls and don't hit much turbulence. There is considerable design margin built in to the Vmo speed limit.  If you don't care about those things you can easily exceed Vmo in level flight, even at sea level. The 767 is powerful enough to take off fully loaded _on one engine_. It is easily powerful enough to exceed Vmo at sea level in level flight, and do it without "coming apart."

See the graph below, of Vmo vs. altitude for the 767 series.

You may find the following article of interest:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/
Here is a limitations review from boeing.

A quote from that review-: Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding
design structural integrity and design stability & control
criteria of the airplane.

http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/groundschool/VMO_MMO_Limitations_Review.pdf

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #314 on: May 02, 2015, 04:48:39 AM »
Once the suicide pilot inverted the plane and pointed it towards the ground all he had to do was keep it going down and the plane exceeded Mach 1 without breaking up much at that point it would be uncontrollable for all intents and purposes. Any forced control surface movements or even trim surfaces may have been caused to tear away, but the plane would continue on an almost direct path. So diving into a building at well up to Mach 1 is possible in my opinion.

That doesn't mean the official story is correct about 911 though, the planes could still have been remotely controlled. After all they can fly a Global Hawk from the U.S. to Australia and land it then fly it back again all with no pilot on board, unmanned. The very same or similar Tech could be utilized.

The first plane was seen be traveling at what looked to me like normal speeds anyway.

..