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

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 199909 times)

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #375 on: May 05, 2015, 07:40:27 AM »
Approached the math from another direction... P=F/A (pressure = force over area)
was able to match computed&experimental weights used on pumps of various sizes to get required pressure at required depths.
Then at the ends comparing ratio of pump stoke vs float travel and pump-head required weight vs float displacement weight.

Since gearing to get required pump stroke will reduce the weight applied to the pump from the float... (L2*W2)=(L1*W1)...or (L2/L1) = (W1/W2) [L is length, W is weight]...  or (L2/L1)/(W2/W1) = 1 (or should)... turns out it's greater than 1 (1.03-1.06) , requiring more loss to get travel distance required than the floats travel... and therefore the displacement of the float is less than what's needed to keep the desired compression.

*sigh*

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #376 on: May 05, 2015, 08:42:12 AM »
Just an observation, followed by advice
Have you ever questioned why you receive this attitude in this forum ?  These extreme reactions and insults ?
It is not that what you say is incorrect, oh no,   it has way more to do with how you say it !!

I agree that many OU enthusiasts are quickly jumping to optimistic but incorrect conclusions.  What starts the conflict is that you (the 3 musketeers, TK, MH, MarkE......) jump even faster to the opposite side with final conclusions that are 5 steps ahead. 
Because they are 5 steps ahead, they are very negative and discouraging, notwithstanding that your conclusion might be correct.  This behaviour is destructive rather than supportive, constructive or guiding/sharing. 
Naturally this type of response will create emotions of a negative kind.

 Think about this for a moment

In the last preceding 3 mails (by MarkE, EnergyLibre, TK) is there any inquiry of interest on how thngr thinks his idea can possibly be realized with the attributes shown in his picture, that depict a pretty regular sterling engine?

I do realize that "thngr" doesn't present anything of substance yet and that you guys have been through the mill of many OU projects that showed promise in their time but led to nothing except to confirm that the late 1800 scientist were right.

Notwithstanding the hope of finding a possible anomaly towards energy of a currently unknown source is still in you. The reason you float around on this website, where you can enjoy some satisfaction of the power of you knowledge and experience.
This knowledge made you skeptical and arrogant when put OU-post to OU-post.  You are technically correct in most of your statements but you are not helpfull or aiding the exchange of idea's.   I agree that many idea's, maybe look to one as gold is trash to experienced eyes, especially when you have seen it before and have been there. 
Although showing some genuine interest, engaging into discussion of interest goes a long way to possibly making / uplifting a weak idea to a brilliant idea.

You can not 'tango' on your own, you need two

My 2 pennies worth,  Red_Sunset
Are you objecting to getting to the crux of an idea quickly?  Why shouldn't the critical aspects of an idea be examined at the start?

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #377 on: May 05, 2015, 11:22:09 PM »
Are you objecting to getting to the crux of an idea quickly?  Why shouldn't the critical aspects of an idea be examined at the start?
MarkE,

No, I am not objecting to a swift clear view into the crux of what matters.  I acknowledge that your input and advice dispensed is of a high and precise level, although most ofter too generic to be useful to the level of the presenter.  I see it more as a matter of diplomacy, not being perceived to be constructive or helpful.  A  stance then seen as being disruptive.
The techniques you have adopted does not appear to be working very well,  so it might be worthwhile to try a change of strokes in order to achieve a better and more productive interaction.

 A new project starts with an idea then evolves into a process through the use of logic,  the idea and associated logic should be the focus of forum interests ( having achieved OU is an unlikely consideration, if this would be the case, the idea would be most likely no longer be on this forum) 
The idea and logic presented most likely needs guidance towards the logical over-unity objective.  An outright judgment with finality, is the most unlikely reason for the presenter to come on this forum.  Help / assistance is the most likely reason . 
Therefore an idea needs to be explored by the team, even to be willed for possible workability in a unmodified or modified form BEFORE a verdict is given that the no aspect analyzed can possible further a promise towards OU.
The benefit exists that an unworkable idea presented can unlock a additional complimentary idea that makes a desired result a reality

I believe that this approach would be more productive and come across better than the daggers drawn on first encounter.
I think we should be prepared to walk away from a response that was rejected but is confirmed correct by peers and refrain of going into an escalating merry go round of insults.  Convincing an opposing believer is useless and serves no purpose.

Red_Sunset

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #378 on: May 06, 2015, 12:47:18 AM »
MarkE,

No, I am not objecting to a swift clear view into the crux of what matters.  I acknowledge that your input and advice dispensed is of a high and precise level, although most ofter too generic to be useful to the level of the presenter.  I see it more as a matter of diplomacy, not being perceived to be constructive or helpful.  A  stance then seen as being disruptive.
The techniques you have adopted does not appear to be working very well,  so it might be worthwhile to try a change of strokes in order to achieve a better and more productive interaction.
I do what I can to avoid personalizing issues.  Things are what they are.  I see no reason or benefit to pretend that we can not get down to cases when we have sufficient information to do so.  Occassionally someone will assert something that is not clear enough to evaluate and that's when I or other skeptics ask clarifying questions.  There are any number of times that someone has asked for help in an experiment design where I have been happy to help despite the probabilities of finding anything unusual being extremely low.  If someone wants to learn by doing then I am happy to help.  When someone believes that they have evidence that supports a conclusion then it's time to evaluate the evidence they have and see what it means.

I don't know what standard you use to establish whether what I do works well or not.  I want people to learn.  Some are up for that, and some of those I have been able to assist.  Some other people have very fixed ideas and then there are others knowingly promote nonsense.  Few of either of those would ever admit to being swayed by anyone.  I do not expect to exert much influence on what people in either group say.
Quote

 A new project starts with an idea then evolves into a process through the use of logic,  the idea and associated logic should be the focus of forum interests ( having achieved OU is an unlikely consideration, if this would be the case, the idea would be most likely no longer be on this forum) 
The idea and logic presented most likely needs guidance towards the logical over-unity objective.  An outright judgment with finality, is the most unlikely reason for the presenter to come on this forum.  Help / assistance is the most likely reason . 
If you are suggesting that we suspend evaluation of data because some folks want to live a fantasy, then I simply disagree.    What time period would you suggest that we knowingly mislead people by pretending that there is insufficient data to reach a reliable conclusion before telling them what the evidence actually tells us?
Quote

Therefore an idea needs to be explored by the team, even to be willed for possible workability in a unmodified or modified form BEFORE a verdict is given that the no aspect analyzed can possible further a promise towards OU.
Again I disagree.  Evidence should be evaluated as it becomes available.  I consider it very disrespectful to people to assume that their egos are so weak or their minds so addled that they cannot handle honest evaluation of evidence.  If someone does not understand that extraordinary results are unlikely things, then they are living a fantasy.  If they are grounded enough to understand that the extraordinary is unlikely then they won't be heart broken to find out that any particular idea fails for some reason or another.  They do not need to be protected from such truth, and it is a disservice to them to engage in deceit.
Quote

The benefit exists that an unworkable idea presented can unlock a additional complimentary idea that makes a desired result a reality
That may be so, but in no way justifies deceiving people by pretending that something that is unworkable is actually viable.
Quote

I believe that this approach would be more productive and come across better than the daggers drawn on first encounter.
I think we should be prepared to walk away from a response that was rejected but is confirmed correct by peers and refrain of going into an escalating merry go round of insults.  Convincing an opposing believer is useless and serves no purpose.
Showing that an idea doesn't work is not a personal issue.  Where did insults ever come into this?
Quote

Red_Sunset

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #379 on: May 06, 2015, 04:13:03 AM »
I've yet to see an idea surface on this forum that was worthy of more than a cursory examination before dismissing it.

The laws of physics are just that, and are not broken by wishful thinking, imprecise measurement or even honest misunderstanding of the consequences of the first and second laws.

There is no point at all in proposing a device where the working principle proposed simply has ZERO chance of fracturing the realities that those laws represent. This immediately disqualifies any device that attempts to utilize gravity,  buoyancy, levers, gears, magnetism ,  or any thermodynamic process. 

We know how those quantities act at normal scales and time dimensions, even if we can't say for sure what some of them actually ARE.

But, you are simply wasting your time in persisting with 'over-unity' energy production in a device that does not have a working principle that breaks the bounds of Newtonian physics.

If you can describe the operations of your machine in Newtonian terms then there is simply no chance that it will break those laws.

If you can't describe your machine in terms of  Newtonian mechanics  then you are either

a. On to something big, or
b. Incapable of understanding how such physics accurately describes your device.

Everyone so far has fallen into category b.







Offline oscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
    • Latest News
buoyancy plus thrust according to Newton's third law
« Reply #380 on: May 06, 2015, 06:39:20 AM »
DE:
Ein üblicher raketenantrieb basiert auf dem prinzip der ausströmenden (ausgestoßenen) masse.
Die formel für die dabei entstehende  schubkraft ist:
schubkraft = ausströmende treibstoffmasse pro zeiteinheit mal ausströmgeschwindigkeit,
siehe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feststoffrakete

Wenn nun die "auftriebskörper" auf der steigenden seite über ihre halter (siehe bild
http://gaia-energy.org//wp-content/gallery/funktionsmuster-rosch-auftriebskraftwerk/Funktionsmuster-ROSCH-Auftriebskraftwerk-6.jpg)
mit luft befüllt werden, und dadurch das während der absinkphase eingeströmte wasser ausgepresst wird, dann arbeitet das AuKw mit "Raketenantrieb" (zusätzlich zum "auftrieb").


EN:
Rocket engines create thrust (force) according to the formula
thrust = exhaust gas mass times effective exhaust velocity
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

If the air is presed into the containers via their mounting brackets (see http://gaia-energy.org//wp-content/gallery/funktionsmuster-rosch-auftriebskraftwerk/Funktionsmuster-ROSCH-Auftriebskraftwerk-6.jpg)
, the water that is in the containers will be expelled.
With properly designed and directed exhaust nozzels that equals a rocket engine.

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #381 on: May 06, 2015, 07:50:44 AM »
I do what I can to avoid personalizing issues.  Things are what they are.  I see no reason or benefit to pretend that we can not get down to cases when we have sufficient information to do so.  ............................
...
.............................................  If they are grounded enough to understand that the extraordinary is unlikely then they won't be heart broken to find out that any particular idea fails for some reason or another.  They do not need to be protected from such truth, and it is a disservice to them to engage in deceit.That may be so, but in no way justifies deceiving people by pretending that something that is unworkable is actually viable.Showing that an idea doesn't work is not a personal issue.  Where did insults ever come into this?

MarkE, LibreEnergia,

I know this is a difficult and an emotional topic one for many, especially if a lot of thinking and experimenting has gone into a project, then when presented on this forum looking for a solution that possibly could save the project, it becomes a sensitive matter that can break hearts (what do think is the reason why Stefan Marinov killed himself ?)

Believe me, in principle , I do not disagree with your viewpoints.
The main point I was trying to make is to have consideration to the reason why someone communicates on this forum, he is usually looking for help, not for preaching.  He knows the thermodynamics bible and he is not looking for a outright dismissal based on its ten commandments when he is actually looking for idea collaboration.

If we follow LibreEnergia position, not many idea's would be posted on this forum.  Any simple idea can  always mature into a fantastic idea, or contribute to a light bulb inspiration on a unrelated project. Like OSCAR input above.

MarkE,  your reply in "Partnered coils" as to why the Heins Thane does not work is not very explanatory.  Sure everybody knows that energy is conserved, the mutual induction interaction....ect. 
Heins core idea was to break this interaction and thereby break the feedback (the Lenz).  You do not come close to explaining how his choosen mechanism fails with attention to a practical focus.  Because once we understand that we can take the idea possibly to the next level rather than killing it before it had a chance to live.

Same with a phi toroid device,  everybody think that containing the flux within the core is sufficient to overcome the Lenz, it isn't, The question and answer to this issue is not " because of the law of thermodynamics,  No..no..
The question is how does the loading torque manifest itself on a macro level, how it function. This must be understood before an attempt can be made to resolve it to move to the next level. If it could be resolved

I am sure you get the idea, this is the only intent of my message

Red_Sunset

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #382 on: May 06, 2015, 12:58:31 PM »
MarkE, LibreEnergia,

I know this is a difficult and an emotional topic one for many, especially if a lot of thinking and experimenting has gone into a project, then when presented on this forum looking for a solution that possibly could save the project, it becomes a sensitive matter that can break hearts (what do think is the reason why Stefan Marinov killed himself ?)

Believe me, in principle , I do not disagree with your viewpoints.
The main point I was trying to make is to have consideration to the reason why someone communicates on this forum, he is usually looking for help, not for preaching.
When did evaluating evidence become "preaching"?
Quote
He knows the thermodynamics bible and he is not looking for a outright dismissal based on its ten commandments when he is actually looking for idea collaboration.
There are two basic phases someone can be in:  They are not offering a claim, or they are offering a claim. If they are not offering a claim, and that has happened numerous times here, they could be looking for help on how to design an experiment or help understanding a concept.  Such assistance has been freely offered by myself and others.   If someone offers a claim then their evidence for that claim should be evaluated.  It isn't dogma that has found every claim offered to date wanting.  It is nature itself.
Quote

If we follow LibreEnergia position, not many idea's would be posted on this forum.  Any simple idea can  always mature into a fantastic idea, or contribute to a light bulb inspiration on a unrelated project. Like OSCAR input above.
LE's position is built on rock solid science.  99% if not more of the proposed free energy ideas that I have seen here all have close if not direct spots in the Museum of Unworkable Devices. 

If an "overunity" mechanism is to be discovered one of two things will be true:  An exception will be found to one or both of the First and Second Laws of Energy, or a new previously undiscovered fuel source will be discovered.  Looking at the same old kinematics and electrodynamics that have been carefully studied for hundreds of years offer nil probability of discovering either.  That ground has been gleaned, and gleaned and gleaned again.  If someone wants to have some sort of fighting chance at discovering the extraordinary, they need to look in new places.
Quote

MarkE,  your reply in "Partnered coils" as to why the Heins Thane does not work is not very explanatory.  Sure everybody knows that energy is conserved, the mutual induction interaction....ect. 
Heins core idea was to break this interaction and thereby break the feedback (the Lenz).  You do not come close to explaining how his choosen mechanism fails with attention to a practical focus.  Because once we understand that we can take the idea possibly to the next level rather than killing it before it had a chance to live.
First:  It's Faraday that describes induction.  Lenz simply sets the sign of induced voltage consistent with the First Law of Energy/Matter.  Thane Heins has done nothing that even begins to suggest that Faraday induction does not occur, or that the sign is not as dictated by Lenz.  There is no small irony that the large leakage inductance that Thane Heins is trying to use to "overcome Lenz" is a direct manifestation of Faraday induction.  Where there is not even a starting point, there is no "next level".  Dead on arrival is dead, nails holding it to its perch or not.
Quote

Same with a phi toroid device,  everybody think that containing the flux within the core is sufficient to overcome the Lenz, it isn't, The question and answer to this issue is not " because of the law of thermodynamics,  No..no..
Any actual advance will come with reliable evidence.  It is the lack of reliable evidence that kills these various claims.  Please stop blaiming the messenger.
Quote
The question is how does the loading torque manifest itself on a macro level, how it function. This must be understood before an attempt can be made to resolve it to move to the next level. If it could be resolved

I am sure you get the idea, this is the only intent of my message

Red_Sunset
I keep seeing upset with the messenger because the message is something other than what someone might want to hear.

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #383 on: May 06, 2015, 02:00:00 PM »
.....................................................
............................................
.I keep seeing upset with the messenger because the message is something other than what someone might want to hear.

MarkE,
There is a saying:  The glass is half full <-vs-> The glass is half empty.
Question: What is more important,  the "IDEA" or the "EXECUTION"
In the world of MS, Apple, Facebook. as example,why and how did "google" take away the crown from "yahoo".  What was more important at that time, "the idea or the execution".  I bet their initial focus was more on "idea" than on "execution" ?? (although we do recognize both are important)

If the business proposal of those companies would have been tabled here on OU.com.  How do you think it would have been received here ?.  The possibility of building a company of a few billion in a few year ?
 ?? Impossible, the law of common sense forbids it.??

Creativity rather than execution is what matters most in the bigger picture
It is purely a different angle of approach. 

It would be foolish to shoot the messenger, constructive and building criticism is more desirable
Red_Sunset

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #384 on: May 06, 2015, 02:56:04 PM »
Time to leave the germans and fly to ireland peeps.steorn is puttin its new everlasting battery on display to public this friday.. http://www.freeenergytruth.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/steorn-orbo-power-cube-demo-from-friday.html?=1

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #385 on: May 06, 2015, 03:22:57 PM »
MarkE,
There is a saying:  The glass is half full <-vs-> The glass is half empty.
Question: What is more important,  the "IDEA" or the "EXECUTION"
In the world of MS, Apple, Facebook. as example,why and how did "google" take away the crown from "yahoo".  What was more important at that time, "the idea or the execution".  I bet their initial focus was more on "idea" than on "execution" ?? (although we do recognize both are important)
Google did not claim fantastical ideas about physics.
Quote

If the business proposal of those companies would have been tabled here on OU.com.  How do you think it would have been received here ?.  The possibility of building a company of a few billion in a few year ?
 ?? Impossible, the law of common sense forbids it.??
Where is this straw man coming from?
Quote

Creativity rather than execution is what matters most in the bigger picture
It is purely a different angle of approach. 
This is another straw man.  No one has argued against creativity.
Quote

It would be foolish to shoot the messenger, constructive and building criticism is more desirable
Red_Sunset
How does lying to someone by pretending their evidence says something it does not amount to "constructive criticism"?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #386 on: May 06, 2015, 06:56:17 PM »
Time to leave the germans and fly to ireland peeps.steorn is puttin its new everlasting battery on display to public this friday.. http://www.freeenergytruth.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/steorn-orbo-power-cube-demo-from-friday.html?=1
Steorn joins the poser battery in a box clan.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #387 on: May 06, 2015, 08:08:55 PM »
Something has been nagging at me regarding all of these Rosch demo videos.

Prior to the power outage event, the IP camera, TV, and the lamp in front of the control boxes were apparently all very synchronous and phase locked.  After the power was restored, that synchronization was lost.

This can be seen by the video flutter that occurs when looking at the TV or the control box area in all videos made since the power outage (the lamp in front of the control boxes must be a fast response CFL or LED type, i.e., non-incandescent) 

Is it possible a portable generator was used to replace a questionable power connection after the power loss event?  I've  also considered that the IP cameras might have been placed on an asynchronous UPS, but even that would seem to have unexplained issues.

Here is Stefan's video capture of the power loss event:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROOB34xUJwk

There is no indication of frame rate flicker in the above video.

Food for thought...

PW

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #388 on: May 06, 2015, 09:24:11 PM »
I don't know what they were using to synch the IP cameras in the first place.  They definitely aren't locked anymore. 

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
« Reply #389 on: May 06, 2015, 11:12:51 PM »
I don't know what they were using to synch the IP cameras in the first place.  They definitely aren't locked anymore.

It's not just that they lost sync, but the random, noisey nature of it that is what is most puzzling.  If it were just the difference between two stable asynchronous sync lock sources that were remotely close to the correct frequency, one would expect to see rolling bars.

Could they be dicing up the video in a strange manner for compression purposes?  It is just strange that this loss of sync,  or the connection of at least some of the equipment to a noisey power source (phase/frequency wise), only became apparent after the loss of power event.

PW