Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: ramset on April 26, 2015, 03:52:03 PM

Title: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 26, 2015, 03:52:03 PM
http://pesn.com/2015/04/22/9602609_Gaia-Energy_demonstrating_5-kW-home-power_Rosch-KPP-prototype_Germany,_taking-orders/

I know the TinMan is working on a similar Claim.
in the open systems thread

thanks for looking

Chet K
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 26, 2015, 04:37:48 PM
http://pesn.com/2015/04/22/9602609_Gaia-Energy_demonstrating_5-kW-home-power_Rosch-KPP-prototype_Germany,_taking-orders/

I know the TinMan is working on a similar Claim.
in the open systems thread

thanks for looking

Chet K
Rosch is a complete fake.  See Overunity.DE.  See Stefan's comments to Sterling.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 26, 2015, 05:14:15 PM
From April 25 - May 6, GAIA will be demonstrating a 5 kilowatt version of Rosch' technology that harnesses power of rising floats using pressurized air, which then descend after the air escapes above the water chamber. They will be making 500 units in their first round, half of which are already sold.

perhaps Someone  could be enticed to go visit and investigate ??
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 26, 2015, 05:26:22 PM
I think that people who post on overunity.de are way ahead of you on that.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 26, 2015, 06:51:53 PM
have you got any MEAT to go with those potatoes...?
perhaps some independent test lab reports ??
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 26, 2015, 08:25:21 PM
Damn.de-ja-vu?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 26, 2015, 09:12:15 PM
have you got any MEAT to go with those potatoes...?
perhaps some independent test lab reports ??

Shirley you don't think they'll ever allow any independent testing.

I hope Stefan doesn't mind me copy-pasting this post that he made, with a quote from a visitor to the demonstration, posted at overunity.de:

Quote
So there is a first visit report:
  by:
  http://www.allmystery.de/fcgi/?m=mposts&user=156099 (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.allmystery.de/fcgi/%3Fm%3Dmposts%26user%3D156099&usg=ALkJrhiOFKY_8JN4UD0M5M0QgYeP1LM86Q)

  I was there and had a look at the "demonstration or presentation".

  I'm sure none of this would-physics Nobel Prize winners, but what there at 25.04.  was shown was more than poor.
  An approximately 500 square meter hall with an approximately 4 m high pipe in a corner, from which one could infer any indefinable noises.

  On the device itself could not approach.
  Window did not exist.
  Answer: Technically not solvable.

  When asked why not the input and the output has been shown separately.
  Answer: It works, you have to believe or leave.

  With such an argument they will also lose the few customer (about 330 orders) yet.

  Basic tendency was: You have to believe it, or just leave.
  The whole has rather reminds me of a church visit.  Just believe none of it.
  It's a pity about the time you wasted with this topic.

  I'm not technically, I come from the sale.

  So a PR action, however, I have never seen.

  They have done everything so that even the last doubts of the non-functioning was eliminated.

  In our group with more than 5 persons were all more or less disappointed.

  So you can not sell anything.  There have been a few arguments be present, which can be used to convince potential buyers.

  I will not talk about technical possibilities.  The were also not addressed.

  Actually, I think it comes as many people to lure to yourself to nothing to show, and then to pocket times 40 Euro as profit the number of visitors.

  Photos could be done but of what?
  in the other corner was the first demonstration next to light a blue police lamp.
  For what was necessary or what purpose, should fulfill.  White Gaia !!!!!

  On the tube sits the compressor and motor.

  I'll see that I can later adjust images.

It works, believe or leave.

That comes through the google-translation very well, don't you think?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 26, 2015, 09:28:40 PM
Shirley you don't think they'll ever allow any independent testing.

I hope Stefan doesn't mind me copy-pasting this post that he made, with a quote from a visitor to the demonstration, posted at overunity.de:

It works, believe or leave.

That comes through the google-translation very well, don't you think?

TK:

Wow, that sure looks like a lot of "Meat" to me.  Probably enough "Meat" to get through next winter.

Good find.

Bill

PS  I take it that Stefan chose the latter choice of Believe or Leave.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 26, 2015, 09:58:01 PM
have you got any MEAT to go with those potatoes...?
perhaps some independent test lab reports ??
Surely you jest.  The premise is that a wet bag of hammers magically produce free energy.  Interviews with wet hammers of distinction reveal that the hammers resent being drawn into such a scam.

There are plenty of detailed analyses on overunity.de.  In five words or less: "Gravity is a conservative field."
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 26, 2015, 10:33:54 PM
Here are the first pictures of the Gaia KPP.

Don´t you find it also strange, that these
come from a visitor and ROSCH-GAIA was not able
to post them themself ??


http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/l2ooeups_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/l2ooeups_jpg.htm)
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/hzm9ff8i_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/hzm9ff8i_jpg.htm)
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/u5xjt4nv_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/u5xjt4nv_jpg.htm)
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/rsmgccew_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/rsmgccew_jpg.htm)
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/o3h8ku4b_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/o3h8ku4b_jpg.htm)
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/rkb9946t_jpg.htm (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3969/rkb9946t_jpg.htm)


Seems to be probably a scam to get money from gullible people...

The orders have to be fixed at the 6th of May already before all
preorder guys have had a chance to take even a look at it...
All very fishy right now...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 26, 2015, 10:50:04 PM
They probably have a hidden cable again inside their Tube holder rods which are fixed to the hall walls. There they probably input the power going up to the generator sitting ontop which will again idle only with no real load and as it is about 4.5 Meters up you can not see it very well from the ground, so nobody will again see the shaking chains, that a Lenz law generator can not have at 5 KWatts load...!

( This was also the case at the Belgrade demo unit)

The only way, they could have pulled it off, if they would have a Lenz law violating generator, which would have no backdrag , but then they would not need these buoyancy floats and could just couple a good motor to this special generator and then they would just have a QMOGEN...no need for all this water floats bullshit...

The maximum theoretical possible power coming out of such a device would be around
160 Watts mechanically from the buoyancy of these floats, but not 5 KWatts ! Also it would then need more than 160 Watts for the compressor...but they claim only 100 Watts input into the compressor...very strange...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 26, 2015, 10:53:37 PM
Well have a look at this diagramm:

http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/dlattach/attach/14769/

There is definately less output than input calculated by normal physics.

Here is an Excel Spreadsheet to calculate it all:
http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/berechnung-auftrieb.xls

Here is the calculation of engineer Brugmueller:
http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/Wirkungsgrad_eines_Auftriebskraftwerks_pb.pdf

Hope this helps.

There is now a first witness report who also posted these 6 pictures and he said, that Rosch-Gaia said:
"Believe in it and buy it or get lost..."

This seems to be their attitude right now...

No technical measurements allowed in this moment... maybe only at the last
day at the 6th of May and then only on certain measurement points they provide...

They even did not publish a complete picture of their system !
Sounds all very fishy...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 26, 2015, 11:04:21 PM
Surely you jest.  The premise is that a wet bag of hammers magically produce free energy.  Interviews with wet hammers of distinction reveal that the hammers resent being drawn into such a scam.

There are plenty of detailed analyses on overunity.de.  In five words or less: "Gravity is a conservative field."

And, of course.... "Buoyancy is nothing but gravity misspelled."

Wait... that's six words.

 :P
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 26, 2015, 11:12:05 PM
And, of course.... "Buoyancy is nothing but gravity misspelled."

Wait... that's six words.

 :P

Buoyancy: Nothing but gravity misspelled.

There, 5 words.

Seems like Stefan has given us even more meat to go along with those potatoes.

Thanks Stefan.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 01:59:31 AM
Hi Bill and All,
yes, I am watching this Gaia-Rosch buoyancy thing already for about half a year now.

Last year in October 2014 I was in Bregenz, Austria for this conference from Netjournal
(Adolf Schneider) to have a closer look at the 2 Meter Modell, which was powered
by batteries and never ran longer than 2 hours...(probably until the batteries needed to be recharged...)

Here you can still see my videos I took at this conference:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=overunitydotcom+Auftriebskraftwerk+GAIA+-+ROSCH (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=overunitydotcom+Auftriebskraftwerk+GAIA+-+ROSCH)


Well, we the overunity.de measurement team (  a few users from the overunity.de forum)
wanted to measure that 2 Meter modell and Rosch invited us also to do this, but they never gave us any
real date to do it and then always had an excuse to shift the dates...

so the measurements never took place although we already did a lot of preparation for it...

Anyway, we decided to wait for the 5 Meter Modell, which would only be a few days away they told
us in October, but then things got delayed and delayed, Rosch bought their new location
at Spich first and then needed to renovate it.
Then Gaia did not raise enough money for
paying Rosch and so the time went on and on....
Okay, then a mysterious TUEV Report surfaced, which was done for the 2 Meter
modell, but was never published, but only it came out up until now, that it was done
by an Italian friend of Mr. Gaedke, having worked with him at an Italian outlet
of the TUEV Saarland or so...
The TUEV Report was never published until now, but Gaia members say, it contained
only gibberish language and unreadable diagramms and strange measurements, not
showing what was really measured... so it probably was just written by somebody
who could just stamp his TUEV stamp onto it and that was it...
Rosch just wanted to have any TUEV report, also if it was bullshit, so they could claim
it was TUEV approved...

Anyway, the GAIA team ( about 20 people) travelled only to see this TUEV report from
Austria to Spich ( near Cologne in Germany) and they only saw this
paper and nothing else... then they raised the rest of the required money again
from their member fees and ordered the 500 units at Rosch of the 5 KWatts modell.

Then Rosch got these tubes delivered from a metal factory, probably the company Haslach,
which also tried to build such a KPP with 8 Meters height, but never got it to work and
resigned to do any further work with it...anyway, now Rosch in Spich got the parts at the middle of March and needed
until now to put it all together with a generator bought from China and  a mebrane air compressor pump,
probably again the ALITA AL-120  or AL-200 or AL-300 or so..
See:
http://www.alita.com/airpump/pi_100u_en.php (http://www.alita.com/airpump/pi_100u_en.php)
or
http://www.alita.com/airpump/pi_250u_en.php (http://www.alita.com/airpump/pi_250u_en.php)

And now they claim 4.8 KWatts of output, although such a device can mechanically only
deliver around maximum 150 to 200 Watts with about 100 Liters/minute air driven into the floats
at this height...

It is really all very fishy and the only question I still have is, was Gaia really scammed by Rosch or
is Gaia fully involved in this possible scam ?

Well, we will see...but it does not look good so far...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:22:34 AM
Here you can see a chart which tells you, how much
mechanical output power such a paternoster system can
deliver depending on the height and the liters per minute pumped
into the floats...

At about 4.5 meters deepth you can see, that if around 300 liters air are delivered by a pump
it can not output more than  about 200 Watts mechanically at the upper gear axis at maximum...

If you pump only around 100 Liters air down to 4.5 Meters deepth,
you can only get around less than 100 Watts out...
So you see, that it is impossible by using normal physics formulas to extract 4.8 KWatts,
what they claim !

Here is the chart:

http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/dlattach/attach/14592/image// (http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/dlattach/attach/14592/image//)

it was made by using all the current physics formulas by the engineer Dipl. Ing. Bruggmüller report calculations
by user uatu from the allmystery forum.
Here is the calculation of engineer Brugmueller:
http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/Wirkungsgrad_eines_Auftriebskraftwerks_pb.pdf (http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/Wirkungsgrad_eines_Auftriebskraftwerks_pb.pdf)

Here is an Excel Spreadsheet to calculate it all:
http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/berechnung-auftrieb.xls (http://gaia.ws1.eu/files/berechnung-auftrieb.xls)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 27, 2015, 02:36:15 AM
I am concerned by the level of investors who I understand have bought into this, I have sent Stirling quite a few emails suggesting he should not give them any positive promotion, but Stirling is gung-ho on doing otherwise.


As to how the scam can be done, might I suggest that a close inspection of the float chambers might be a good idea, perhaps they hold highly compressed air, or a battery powered cylinder. Given the size of the floats it would be easy to hide 50% of the volume for the purpose of hidden compressed air storage.


Indeed if a hidden compressed air tank is within the float then it would be a trivial mechanism to let them bleed the highly compressed air continuously into the remainder of the float chamber,  after all it would be disguised with the operation of the visible compressed air injection at the bottom. The operating time would then be limited to the bleed rate of the hidden cylinders, probably 2 hours going by what Hartiberlin has noted.


If so there would be no need to have any hidden drive to the actual chain, and so no rattling.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:47:12 AM
Well no, the scam is probably done by a hidden cable going through these hollow wall hoider rods
to the tube and then directly into the generator, which is probably only idling
from the buoyancy and the hidden power cable is then directly wired to the generator output plugs
so that it seems, the generator is all doing the 4.8 KWatts output... but in reallity it is just idling
and does never see a load.

So the whole thing is just powered by the grid.

You could test this, if the main power for this building would
be shut down.
If then this KPP will still work I will appologize, but it is highly possible,
that then this KPP will also stop working...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:50:41 AM
I asked Mr. Reuter from Gaia to do this test to shut down the main power supply
of the whole building complex to see if it still works, but he got mad about me and just only called names...

Another proof that there is something fishy...they really don´t want to proof it,
that it really works...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 27, 2015, 03:15:14 AM
so what does this mean?
within two hours of the first delivery the scam will be revealed [longest run time to date??] ,or perhaps sooner if they need to hook to the mains to get it working in the first place.

and these men all are known individuals with lives ,families and homes?
Do they not fear retribution from scammed persons as well as financial government penalties or prison sentences?

at what personal cost would they take such a risk??

that sounds even crazier in this day and age of instant worldwide media..

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 27, 2015, 03:31:39 AM
so what does this mean?
within two hours of the first delivery the scam will be revealed [longest run time to date??] ,or perhaps sooner if they need to hook to the mains to get it working in the first place.

and these men all are known individuals with lives ,families and homes?
Do they not fear retribution from scammed persons as well as financial government penalties or prison sentences?

at what personal cost would they take such a risk??

that sounds even crazier in this day and age of instant worldwide media..
Well what does that suggest to you about delivery?  Does it suggest Perendev?  Does it suggest Magnacoaster?  Does it suggest Steorn?

Here is a bit of an observation and a riddle:  They have this machine that is supposed to be sloshing around weights with at least 5kW kinetic energy.  Does the machine vibrate heavily?  Do they secure the machine to the floor?  I don't see any bolts in the flange plate on the floor.   But they do attach pipes to the wall as Stefan has noted several times.   
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 03:34:51 AM
well  ramset.
that is also a question, what still puzzles me...

The money they will make with it is not soo much, that they could hide on
an island for years in this modern world of top detectives and money
always leaves trails...

Well lets just still wait a few days, until we will get more test reports from
more technical people. Until now we have only this one witness report
which was only somebody with not much technical knowledge.

At least we have a few first pictures...
Gaia seems wanted to wait, until they will publish themself more infos
cause they wanted to have more visitors paying 40 Euros entrance fees...

but so far not many people have visited this event.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 27, 2015, 03:43:09 AM
Mark E
Soo the laws in their country are very Weak?
no real enforcement to worry about?
and they'll only sell to little old lady's that wouldn't hurt a fly
if you robbed them ??

where I come from guys that do what you suggest here walk into shovels and much worse.
there is no amount of money that is worth that.

** I see Stefan posted whilst I was Plunking the keys.
yes we shall see hopefully

Chet K

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 03:48:16 AM
Yes MarkE you are right the device should be also bolted to the floor
and it seems it is not...

Well lets just wait for a good video of it where we can also
see and hear the device.

Gaia seems to have wanted to build up the tension so high, that
they though many people would flock to their demo events during the
next days, but so far only around maybe 20 people have visited there.

They just wanted to get the entrance fees of 40 EUros for just seeing
the device for around 1 hour and then the next groups should
come in and see it and so on...
That is probably why they only publised no photos and videos yet, so
the people would come and pay their entrance fees...

Also as the device runs it costs around 30 cents/KWh, so if they have already
burned 500 KWh from the grid in about 1 week, it has costs them already 150 Euros to have wasted this
electricity there from the grid by showing it and working on it during the last days...

They published only the picture of the power meter showing 482 KWh so far...
http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/250415-rosch-gaia-aukw-besichtigung03-752x211.jpg

Well, so it seems they need the people to visit them so the entrance fees could compensate
their new big electricity bill... ;)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2015, 03:49:23 AM
There certainly are laws in Germany. Just ask Mike Brady (Perendev). What these people expect to get out of all of this is not clear to me either. Maybe it's a new reality show or Candid Camera clone, to see how many people can actually be duped.

But it really looks like there is a "crisis of belief". Not many people have bothered to attend the "demonstration"... and no wonder! Why attend something so obviously staged, and pay money for it to boot? As I understand it, attendees cannot even approach the thing closely, and of course no measurements of anything are allowed. And Stefan's "Pull the mains plug to the building" test suggestion just makes the claimants mad, rather than being seen as a perfect opportunity to prove the skeptics wrong.

"Rosch: Believe it or Leave!"  I think I'll have some bumper stickers printed up with that saying on it. 

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 27, 2015, 04:01:17 AM
Mark E
Soo the laws in their country are very Weak?
no real enforcement to worry about?
and they'll only sell to little old lady's that wouldn't hurt a fly
if you robbed them ??

where I come from guys that do what you suggest here walk into shovels and much worse.
there is no amount of money that is worth that.

** I see Stefan posted whilst I was Plunking the keys.
yes we shall see hopefully

Chet K
Chet, history is littered with brazen frauds.  The strict anti-fraud laws in Germany did not stop Mike Brady from his brazen fraud.  Some people go to great lengths to present false claims.  Surely you remember Steorn who according to their filed financial reports burned through over 20 million euros.  Steorn's own jury found unanimously that Steorn failed to ever demonstrate production of energy.  Yet Steorn claimed from the outset that they had proven to do so multiple times.  Steorn over the years told a number of whopper stories that were ultimately proven false.  One of those included a claim by Steorn that they had made their system work during the Spring of 2009, which was before their jury disbanded and subsequently made their public declaration.

Another scam artist Carl Tilley, hired Al Unser to drive his fraud mobile around a track as part of his promotion.  The DeLorean had a "break down" in one of the axles.  An observer offered parts from his DeLorean that was on the scene.  Nothing doing.  Carl Tilley and his wife became fugitives.  John Rohner spent around $100,000. on one trade show alone promoting engines that never worked and he never had any idea how to make work.  He has been found liable on all charges by the SEC in his civil case.  Odds are high that he will face criminal charges when that case is done.

In matters of controversy:  Always examine the direct data.  Side data, such as how much money someone spends, or if they have famous people endorsing them is often very misleading.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 04:03:28 AM
Well the problem is also, the whole concept was setup as selling kits !

So the question is, if these kits will ever get delivered at all and if,
how long will it take until the buyers would be able to build it up
themself and if it will not work at the buyers homes, Rosch and Gaia
could still blame the buyers, that they had done something wrong...

So it is a very complex situation.

Also  Gaia claimed in the past, that the about 250 to 300 people who have preordered
the device and already have paid 2400 Euros until now, can decide after the
prototype is ready, if they want to have kits and pay the rest of about 12.000 Eruos still
or quit and get their money back. But they told it like everybody would have a chance to come
to the Austria Gaia offices ( As Gaia is from Austria) and could have a good look at it with no
hurrying and that it would be shown in all details to all Gaia members and then they could decide
if they would order the kit or not and get their money back.

Now we hear today, that Gaia and Rosch are telling the visitors, that  the preorder guys
have to decide until the 6th of March, if they want the kits or not and will only
have a chance to see the prototype there in Spich in Germany...
So all the Austrian Gaia members would need to travel to Spich in Germany to see
the device and then decide in a hurry until the 6th of May...which is just ridiculous,
without real measurements being done...
And only on this last day the 6th of May are a few measurements allowed only
by electricians with approved papers and the measurement points where they will
be able to measure are only provided by Rosch... so no real measurements will be
probably be able to be made...and each electrician can only have 1 hour to make
measurements...really ridiculous...

Well...that is why I don´t trust the whole thing anymore and Mr. Dohmen CEO from Rosch
also lied to us the overunity.de measurement team in last October by telling us,
that a second small 2 Meter machine existed, which
was not true.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 27, 2015, 04:05:30 AM
In four words:  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 04:14:05 AM
@TinselKoala

yes, you are right. The normal visitors only can get to a distance of 5 Meters to it,
where there is a chain. so not nearer...
They have 2 white infrared heating plates there as the load and a few lamps.

The visitor today said, one could only hear strange noises, but could not really see,
if the generator was turning..
Well even no ladder there to go up and see it from the close distance...
so he was very disappointed...
at least they serve some juices and some breads ( fingerfood) for the 40 Euros entrance fee.

But that is all you get to see there...and to technical questions Mr. Beiser
did not answer much and the other guy Mr. Otto, also from Gaia , just only said:
Believe it and buy... or get lost...

not very friendly.....
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 27, 2015, 07:42:01 AM
I've posted the following at: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Rumblings

There are some rumblings over at Overunity.com (http://www.overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/15/#.VT2uRfBF7m4) about this demonstration. The general sentiment seems to be that this must surely be some kind of scam. Scientifically, the numbers just don't add up. And they're not happy with the lack of access to the apparatus to take measurements. The security perimeter is 5 meters.
Meanwhile, the folks at GAIA are miffed at the skepticism in what to them is a straightforward demonstration of the first in a series of 500 production devices. This isn't transparent on rollers like the previous Plexiglas one, because it's designed for function, providing power, not proof.
It seems to me that both sides need more empathy for one another. GAIA needs to realize that extraordinary claims are going to require extraordinary proof. Those two fastening points of the tube to the wall are obvious points of possible trickery. This could be dispelled by cutting the power to the facility and showing that the device still runs. They shouldn't be put off by such a suggestion, but be grateful for it, as a good idea.
Meanwhile the skeptics should realize that from GAIA's point of view, they see this as a disruptive technology, and they need to keep their security apparatus wired up, and if they shut the power, that become compromised. This is just one thing that comes to mind to me as why GAIA might resist such a suggestion.
I have to admit that as I look at the numbers and info and the lack of transparency on the part of GAIA, I'm becoming more skeptical.
If this is a fraud of some kind, I doubt that very many people are in on it. Maybe two or three at most. The rest are blindly following along, thinking it is real because it looks real.
Tilley and others had a lot of people fooled.
Of course, I want this to be real.
I would hope that GAIA will allow some third party individuals to be present when the AuKW 1 is disassembled at the end of the demo May 6, so that the observers can see that the two fastening points are just that: fasteners, with no trickery embedded. At a minimum, they should allow 2-3 insider GAIA individuals to be present to observe this and report what they see.
Now that I have a better idea of what this demo entails and what the set-up is, I don't see why GAIA might be expecting big numbers to show up. The control panel is too complicated for most people. They can't see inside the tube. They can't get close. They can't climb high enough to look down inside. They just hear it operating. They could do that via YouTube.
If I had been in charge of the demonstration, I would have made sure that it was obvious that it was a stand-alone system with no way for external power to be applied. The supporting mechanism must be transparent. An easy way to do this would be to have the support mechanism removable, such as by having three fasteners so one could be removed at a time, leaving two to hold it in place. Or the supporting rods could be made see-through. I would have made the measurement instruments simple, not complex.
I'm not ready to put these guys in the Top 5. Not enough evidence yet.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 27, 2015, 07:56:17 AM
Here are some thumbnails of the images Stefan sent me, minus all the spammy stuff the links included.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 08:29:33 AM
I'm wrecking my mind trying to figure out HOW it could work IF real.I understand that the density of water increases as it cools,maybe this has something to do with it? It is obviously a compression/decompression cycle involved here
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:12:49 PM
Here is their Livestream now.

If you are in Germany you need to use the Firefox Plugin ProxTube to get it working,
cause in Germany LiveStreams are prohibited by Youtube due to licensing problems
with the GEMA license company:

GAIA AuKW-Livestream


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0&pxtry=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0&pxtry=1)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:14:54 PM
Here is a picture I just grabbed from the Livestream when 30 people just have watched.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
By the way these white shields there are infrared heater plates..
they have 2 there but in the last picture from the Livestream you can only see only one.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:36:37 PM
Here is again the picture, where you can see the 2 white infrared heating elements:
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 02:39:20 PM
Here is still the last missing picture:
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: DENA on April 27, 2015, 04:16:21 PM
Hi All,

what would happen if we apply some changes in shape and materiel ( using mercury to increase the water column's height and also get use of conic plastic shape filled with air ) , i have seen a design recently by one Iranian engineer which has been proposed several yrs back?

https://sites.google.com/site/alipouratom2/alipour-free-energy-generator
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 27, 2015, 04:46:35 PM
@DENA,

wouldn´t these conic plastic shape filled with air-floats not just have
more buoyancy in mercury compared to water and thus it would not work,
cause it would equalize again ??
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 27, 2015, 04:51:32 PM
That's right.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 27, 2015, 06:46:22 PM
Stefan
Any close ups of the anchor points for the device ?
seems a poured concrete or perhaps even precast wall...If that is precast or structural concrete the anchors I can see [seems 4  on 6 inch flange? ] would hold at the very least a ton on each arm or easily twice that if done properly.
However if there was a thru hole in the middle of the anchor cluster  the edge or void would greatly diminish the holding power unless Epoxy was used, However you would see a stud with Nut if this was the case. [unless they epoxied inserts into the wall ..a pain to do]

can you call building maintenance ,and get some one on the phone to ask if there are any through holes to the other side ?
Running and hiding an electric line along the concrete wall would be hard to do, getting permission to see whats on the other side of the wall at those mounting points would be a step in the right direction.


this is a rented public display/convention center correct ?
maintenance would be culpable if they new a wire had been run to power this unit..and in Most places their men would have to provide that power.[if it is a convention center]
deception and fraud would not bode well for them either..?

or get some one at the demo to Grab a janitor or Maintenance guy to ask whats on the other side.
I guarantee if they powered that unit up in a sneaky way the electrician knows and so do most of the other maintenance crew.
Being part of a Fraud is a very big deal at a big deep pocket convention center...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
The wall brackets could themselves be conductors, connected through the wall by the bolts to a power feed on the other side, or inside, the visible wall. No weakening by a cable hole is needed. I read on ou.de that the Rosch people spent some time "refurbishing" the display building area before the demonstration. Plus... nobody knows (except the builders) what is actually inside the tube, or inside the power control box connected by cables to the tube.

But consider: if it has the mechanism inside it that is what they claim, similar to the transparent rectangular thing shown previously... there isn't very much room in there! The thing has to have sprockets at top and bottom that separate the chain by the diameter of the sprockets. Then it has to have the buoyant chambers attached to the outside of the chain. Then also there must be an internal pipe from the compressor down to the bottom, and the mechanism for coupling or transferring air from the pipe outlet into the floats at the correct place and time in the sequence. The floats must be small!

The air pump they are using isn't really a "compressor" but a high volume low pressure diaphragm pump, like a glorified fishtank aeration pump. Its working pressure is only 2.6 psi, according to the data sheet for the pump. But the pressure at the bottom of a 4 meter column of water is 39 kiloPascals or about 5.7 psi, over twice the working pressure of the air pump. How is the pump able to fill the floats at the bottom of this column of water?

So, if the thing _does_ work as claimed, where is the extra energy coming from? None of the parts are unusual, it uses COTS air pump and generator, there is nothing special or particularly clever about the chain, floats, sprockets, or water. The only "tricky part" is the mechanism for getting the air into the floats at the bottom of the rising part of the cycle, and that's easy enough to do, IF there is sufficient pressure of air (which there doesn't seem to be). Yet the math clearly shows that there is nowhere near enough power available from a bunch of smallish floats bobbing up through 4 meters of water to make 4.8 kW continuous output. So where is the "magic" coming into the system? There _must_ be an outside source of power because there is nothing _inside_ the system that is mysterious, not understood, new or special.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: mscoffman on April 27, 2015, 07:53:50 PM
If you have a straight forward buoyancy machine, substituting mercury for water should work...Except air gas is going
to compress 13 times as much. I like to also replace all compressible objects with spring piston, vacuum filled objects
as you will drop out the gas temperature coefficients in equations. Though, mercury working fluid has expansion coefficients
with higher temperature like medical thermometers have. What you have done is convert a hard to analyze gas plus hydraulic
system into a one working fluid hydraulic and mechanical system.

Now, did you destroy your overunity buoyancy mechanism with the conversion or not? 

Actual mercury experiments would be difficult as heck to do safely, but are fun to think about.

..S..MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: DENA on April 27, 2015, 08:06:42 PM
@Hartiberlin,

I believe we need to do some math before saying this dose not work  ,
We have to see number of plastic balls ,which are already immersed in water , and see how much force these are creating ? (let's name it F1)
then also adding the small gravity force ,resulted by weight of balls ,when they are going down in air (another phase) we name it F2,
and buoyancy force against these two:

i still believe by right calculation of number of balls attached to chain and height of water we will get the F1+F2> F3
correct?

pls check the pic he had some figures ,H1 and H2, L1 L2, density ,...
 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2015, 08:33:50 PM
@mscoffman: no, mercury will not make it work.

@DENA: no, chambers with different density fluids will not make it work. The math has been done _properly_ , and many people have even tried actual experiments. They don't work!

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 09:35:39 PM
Dena:' still believe by right calculation of number of balls
attached to chain and height of water we will get the
F1+F2> F3
correct?'


Nobody.and I mean nobody is taking into account the density change of water while it cools while the bubbles expand upwards.more density of water more work obtainable,at the same time.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2015, 11:08:45 PM
Dena:' still believe by right calculation of number of balls
attached to chain and height of water we will get the
F1+F2> F3
correct?'


Nobody.and I mean nobody is taking into account the density change of water while it cools while the bubbles expand upwards.more density of water more work obtainable,at the same time.

You have got to be kidding me. The change in the density of water between 5 degrees C and 95 degrees C is LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT.  For the very slight temperature change that _might_ occur in a device such as has been pictured... where the volume of surrounding water is much greater than the possible amount displaced by the floaters filled with air... the density change will be so small as not to have any significant effect on efficiency. Less than one half of one percent under generous assumptions about temperature change.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 28, 2015, 12:38:47 AM
Well today were no new pictures and no new reports from visitors.

It seems everybody is only watching the Livestream, but there you can also not see much...
Just Mr. Beiser a few times before the panel boxes explaining stuff to visitors that you can´t see,
as the LiveCam is pointed into the tube direction....

Anyway we had a few new calculations inside the overunity.de forum today but
it is getting clear, that it is all a big fake and the generator can not generate 5 KWatts
from this torque and mechanical power there..
See:
http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/msg40107/#msg40107

Use Google translator.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 28, 2015, 02:08:09 AM
Did they tell folks on the live Youtube feed to "Believe or leave?"

That statement alone should tell you all you need to know.

Holy cow.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 28, 2015, 06:01:17 AM
Stefan
Its unusual for a group of honest fellows to suddenly go bad , Do any of these guys have a shady history?

this Mr.Bieser  is he a learned man ..scientist or . . . a Carnival sideshow hawker ?
any of the others  ??

Looking at your calculations and Tinsels observation  ..either there is a Huge misunderstanding of how this is doing what they say it can do ...
or somebody is really Nutty to think that this will not end very very badly.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 28, 2015, 06:09:53 AM
Stefan
Its unusual for a group of honest fellows to suddenly go bad , Do any of these guys have a shady history?

this Mr.Bieser  is he a learned man ..scientist or . . . a Carnival sideshow hawker ?
any of the others  ??

Looking at your calculations and Tinsels observation  ..either there is a Huge misunderstanding of how this is doing what they say it can do ...
or somebody is really Nutty to think that this will not end very very badly.

Chet:

I know you asked Stefan, but see my above post based upon what Stefan first reported and ask yourself if learned science type guys would cop that attitude.  Even an uneducated guy that stumbled upon a working device through invention and hard work doing tests would not say that would they?  Even Sterling is being a bit cautious on this one.  I think this will end badly.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 28, 2015, 06:33:10 AM
Stefan
Its unusual for a group of honest fellows to suddenly go bad , Do any of these guys have a shady history?

this Mr.Bieser  is he a learned man ..scientist or . . . a Carnival sideshow hawker ?
any of the others  ??

Looking at your calculations and Tinsels observation  ..either there is a Huge misunderstanding of how this is doing what they say it can do ...
or somebody is really Nutty to think that this will not end very very badly.
Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on April 28, 2015, 11:03:42 AM



 The way I look at it is what would happen if you ran the thing with a 5Kw. motor?
 I reckon if you did this it would go crazy, Just look at the output of a 5Kw, water
 pump with virtually no head,that's shifting a whole lot of water!
            J.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 28, 2015, 11:07:34 AM
Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.

Buoyancy, as described by commonly accepted physics, is a force.

Gravity is also a force.
Where there is a difference in force, there exists an energy potential between two defined points.
In the proper confinement, the buoyant force can be used to impart motion on an object in the vertical direction.
When the buoyant force is then removed, there exists another potential energy within the gravitational field.
The difference between these forces, over distance, represents a potential energy than can be used to perform work.
There exists no laws of physics that restrict this from occurring.
The only restrictions that exists are in our ability to create and remove the conditions of buoyancy, which boils down to human ingenuity.

This is one example of such ingenuity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 28, 2015, 11:16:43 AM
Buoyancy is really just a force derived from gravity.

You spend your entire life combating the tyranny of gravity.  You are trying to push up and it always works to push you down.  When you climb up high, you have the illusion of energy when you fall.

It wins in the end, and you never got one iota of energy from it.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 28, 2015, 12:45:25 PM
Buoyancy, as described by commonly accepted physics, is a force.

Gravity is also a force.
Where there is a difference in force, there exists an energy potential between two defined points.
In the proper confinement, the buoyant force can be used to impart motion on an object in the vertical direction.
When the buoyant force is then removed, there exists another potential energy within the gravitational field.
The difference between these forces, over distance, represents a potential energy than can be used to perform work.
There exists no laws of physics that restrict this from occurring.
The only restrictions that exists are in our ability to create and remove the conditions of buoyancy, which boils down to human ingenuity.

This is one example of such ingenuity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be)
Smoky-do you have any more info on that device in the video ?. There will be those here that just blow it away as rubbish-cant happen,but i see potential in this one. From what i can make out,the bouyant ball's/weights-what ever they are,rise to the top of the fluid filled tube,and push the top ball out back down the tube without the fluid in it. The fluid looks quite dense-like oil or something. Im guessing the balls pass through some sort of one way clacker valve at the bottom. If there is enough kinetic energy in the balls to overcome the pressure the fluid is exerting on the valve,then this device may actually work. Watching the video several times,i could actually see the balls pass through the one way valve,and then start the journey back to the top in the fluid filled tube.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: pomodoro on April 28, 2015, 01:21:40 PM
Something in the lower tank is pushing the ball back into the tube. It will require a huge force to do so. That's why it is not shown close up.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 28, 2015, 01:56:25 PM
Something in the lower tank is pushing the ball back into the tube. It will require a huge force to do so. That's why it is not shown close up.
pomodoro
I have watched the video several times in full screen,and you can see the balls enter the valve,and flow through a U bend,and straight up the fluid filled tube. I dont think the large box on the bottom is any sort of power source,i think it's just a frame for the rest of the tank to sit on.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 28, 2015, 02:32:25 PM
Buoyancy, as described by commonly accepted physics, is a force.

Gravity is also a force.
Where there is a difference in force, there exists an energy potential between two defined points.
Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.
Quote
In the proper confinement, the buoyant force can be used to impart motion on an object in the vertical direction.
When the buoyant force is then removed, there exists another potential energy within the gravitational field.
Buoyant force is the difference between the gravitational force on a mass, and the equivalent mass of the atmosphere that the first mass displaces.  Buoyancy introduces an offset to the net force just as a counterbalance does.  Counter balances don't make energy sources.
Quote
The difference between these forces, over distance, represents a potential energy than can be used to perform work.
That is just wrong as energy is the integral of F*ds.
Quote
There exists no laws of physics that restrict this from occurring.
The only restrictions that exists are in our ability to create and remove the conditions of buoyancy, which boils down to human ingenuity.
That is a steaming load of poo.  It is equivalent to saying:  "The only restrictions that exist in our ability to make gravity non-conservative and thus a source of energy traversing a path one way and an energy destroyer in the other."
Quote

This is one example of such ingenuity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be)
LOL.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
Milehigh'you spend your entire life combating the tyranny of
gravity.  You are trying to push up and it always
works to push you down.  When you climb up high,
you have the illusion of energy when you fall.
It wins in the end, and you never got one iota of
energy from it'


Well I guess your new to capillatory and its deviancies
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 28, 2015, 03:44:30 PM
Sigh:    .Buoyant force is the difference between the gravitational force on a mass, and the equivalent mass of the atmosphere that the first mass displaces.  Buoyancy introduces an offset to the net force just as a counterbalance does.  Counter balances don't make energy sources.That is just wrong as energy is the integral of F*ds.LOL.

Quote
Gravity is a conservative field.
Another bunch of cod's wollop. How can gravity be a conservative force when it's not a constant?

Quote
Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada

More rubbish. This is time dependant only,as gravitational forces change during the day. Do we live on planet earth here,or some other planet? :o

Quote
There exists no laws of physics that restrict this from occurring.
The only restrictions that exists are in our ability to create and remove the conditions of buoyancy, which boils down to human ingenuity.

Quote
That is a steaming load of poo.  It is equivalent to saying:  "The only restrictions that exist in our ability to make gravity non-conservative and thus a source of energy traversing a path one way and an energy destroyer in the other."

Gravity is not a constant,and thus,it is NOT conservative.
No,a source of energy traversing one way is then transformed into another type of energy upon it's return on that same path.

It amazes me how fast the guru's here are to jump on some ones comment's,when working modles exist right here on planet earth that proves the guru's wrong. It's no wonder we are getting no where with rubbish like this being hammered into those that have great idea's.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: camelherder49 on April 28, 2015, 03:51:41 PM
Tinman,

I agree completely. Please check your PM's.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 28, 2015, 03:54:26 PM


This is one example of such ingenuity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPEOlQ2_uA&feature=youtu.be)

This is a really interesting device !
Normally you loose the water at the top, when the floats have reached the top,
but here you don´t see the water falling...
Hmm,...

also they have  have a 3rd Tube there seemingly only filled with water.. hmm,
maybe this helps ?? Or they just have a hidden water pump there also, that you can not hear...

Anyway back to Gaia-Rosch, today they published a comparison between their power meter and the
Hall power meter, but the time difference between taking these pictures was only 1 minute shown on the mobile phone...

That is really ridiculous, as the hall is pretty big and nowhere a Power Meter to see there, so they really
need a fit runner to get this all sprinted outside the hall to the next Power Meter and hold thze camera still
besides the power meter and taking another picture... all in just under 1 minute ???
Probably fake again...





Anyway, at least this Ronny Korsberg took now a video of the event, although it is shaky you can hear at least the unit now a bit.


http://pesn.com/2015/04/28/9602613_Ronny-Korsberg_is-very-confident_Rosch-KPP-GAIA-AuKW_is-real/ (http://pesn.com/2015/04/28/9602613_Ronny-Korsberg_is-very-confident_Rosch-KPP-GAIA-AuKW_is-real/)

Here is the Video, that Sterling has edited together from the things Ronny took at Spich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjTw-jLE9I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjTw-jLE9I)

Here is the Interview from Sterling with Ronny:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2015/04/28/9602613_Ronny-Korsberg_is-very-confident_Rosch-KPP-GAIA-AuKW_is-real/ronny778898_2015-04-27_16-03-00.mp3 (http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2015/04/28/9602613_Ronny-Korsberg_is-very-confident_Rosch-KPP-GAIA-AuKW_is-real/ronny778898_2015-04-27_16-03-00.mp3)

Well, it is all very fishy and I am more and more beleaving Rosch and Gaia together are into this Fake...
Mr. Beiser, from whom I thought he would be a good guy, cause he helped to build this great HHO double cell
at GAIA, now seems to be in it with Rosch faking it all...too bad...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 28, 2015, 04:11:13 PM
Anyway back to Gaia-Rosch, today they published a comparison between their power meter and the
Hall power meter, but the time difference between taking these pictures was only 1 minute shown on the mobile phone...

That is really ridiculous, as the hall is pretty big and nowhere a Power Meter to see there, so they really
need a fit runner to get this all sprinted outside the hall to the next Power Meter and hold thze camera still
besides the power meter and taking another picture... all in just under 1 minute ???
Probably fake again...

<img src="http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150428-Zaehlersta%CC%88ndeROSCH.jpg (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150428-Zaehlersta%CC%88ndeROSCH.jpg)" />

Hi Stefan,

It's not THAT big of a facility. I could easily conceive of myself getting the two readings one minute apart, at even a brisk walk. But with me, I would have run.

Do you really believe a company that big, with as many employees as they have, and all the volunteers at GAIA, would be together on a scam? These are Germans/ Austrians we are talking about. You should know better than that, about your own people. Maybe one or two isolated bad apples might be possible, but not a whole team of them. Doesn't measure up.

Here are a couple of photos from Ronny that give a new angle to the facility. It's big, but not huge.

I'm guessing that the plastic thing inside the 100 kW demo tube is one of the floats.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
Mark E'Gravity is a conservative field.'

Besides the point.we're interested in heat not gravity
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 28, 2015, 06:35:44 PM
Another bunch of cod's wollop. How can gravity be a conservative force when it's not a constant?

More rubbish. This is time dependant only,as gravitational forces change during the day. Do we live on planet earth here,or some other planet? :o

Gravity is not a constant,and thus,it is NOT conservative.
It is very disappointing that you do not grasp the difference between a conservative field and constant force, or the meaning of conservative even when I have spelled that meaning out.
Quote
No,a source of energy traversing one way is then transformed into another type of energy upon it's return on that same path.

It amazes me how fast the guru's here are to jump on some ones comment's,when working modles exist right here on planet earth that proves the guru's wrong. It's no wonder we are getting no where with rubbish like this being hammered into those that have great idea's.
You do yourself no favors with nonsense posts like these.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 28, 2015, 06:37:46 PM
Mark E'Gravity is a conservative field.'

Besides the point.we're interested in heat not gravity
So you think that white tube in the corner is some kind of heat engine? Sources and sinks. We see the white IR panels presumably radiating 4.8 kW of heat power into the space of the building. That means that at least that much heat power must be being absorbed by the white tube apparatus somehow, moving the float chain (since we know gravity cannot do it and even if it could it could only provide 200 watts or less of mechanical power), driving the generator and air compressor and eventually winding up as heat coming out of the panels?

Take three portable electric heaters of 1500 watts rating each, turn them on and stand in front of them. Feel anything? Now go over and put your hand on that big white tube full of water. Feel anything? 

I ask yet again: Where is the power supposed to be coming from? It has been clearly shown that it cannot actually be coming from gravity aka buoyancy, and water density doesn't vary enough over any reasonable temperature range for that to be effective, and the device as a whole isn't frosting up or even condensing water on the outside. It's made of commercial off the shelf items like the generator and air pump, chain and sprockets, and some purpose-built floats (allegedly). So where is the power supposed to be coming from? Clearly, it is _not_ a heat engine because there is no _source_ sufficient to provide that much heat power and there is no _mechanism_ by which any heat source could be converted to mechanical motion in the device. And it's not a gravity/buoyancy engine, as many different sets of calculations have shown -- the mechanism, operating at any conceivable speed, cannot provide more than a few hundred watts of power.
So where is the power supposed to be coming from?

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 28, 2015, 06:37:59 PM
Hi Stefan,

It's not THAT big of a facility. I could easily conceive of myself getting the two readings one minute apart, at even a brisk walk. But with me, I would have run.

Do you really believe a company that big, with as many employees as they have, and all the volunteers at GAIA, would be together on a scam? These are Germans/ Austrians we are talking about. You should know better than that, about your own people. Maybe one or two isolated bad apples might be possible, but not a whole team of them. Doesn't measure up.

Here are a couple of photos from Ronny that give a new angle to the facility. It's big, but not huge.

I'm guessing that the plastic thing inside the 100 kW demo tube is one of the floats.
Do you really believe that 2000 years of hydrostatics is fundamentally wrong?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 28, 2015, 07:16:51 PM
Quote
I'm guessing that the plastic thing inside the 100 kW demo tube is one of the floats.

lol  That white demo tube looks about as strong as a giant Styrofoam cup.

I have no idea what "the facility" is supposed to be, but it looks pretty barren to me.  You know that Australian guy that made the fake solar trackers?  He set up a fake "production plant" which was just a few tables in this big empty building with people "on the line" feigning making some of those solar contraptions.  Otherwise the place was empty.  It was a big stock pump and dump scam.

An output shaft, and low RPM...  Imagine the astronomical toque that baby must put out.  Any mechanical engineers out there?  It might require a steel shaft that's 5 inches in diameter!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: The Observer on April 28, 2015, 08:34:17 PM
Hey Mark.. or anyone familiar with the physics/math problem being touted as proof that Buoyancy Tower can't work.
I have some questions.

I was in the shower trying to fathom how this might work
when a little song came into my head.
it went something like this.

hmm ~ 9 TANKS A PULLING WHILE 1 TANK IS FILLING ~ hmm

So here's my thought...

If there is a limit to the energy it takes to fill 1 tank,
   then there is a limit to the number of air filled tanks
          that together would possess the potential energy required to fill 1 tank.
              (given a movement of about a foot that releases a small portion of the total potential)

Since the apparatus must be started by mains power my questions are this.

 1.Does the Problem start with the potential energy of the pulling floats and their movement when it compares to the energy to fill a  single float?
    (this is the logical place to start since this is where the Unexplained Energy Source starts)

2. Why couldn't X number of floats above the empty one ... possess the potential energy released through a small movement to to fill 1 float with air?

Thanks so much to anyone who can answer these questions !

Best Regards,
                      The Observer
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2015, 09:00:15 PM
Tinselkoala' Clearly, it is
_not_ a heat engine because there is no _source_
sufficient to provide that much heat power and there
is no _mechanism_ by which any heat source could
be converted to mechanical motion in the device'

 I can think of a good few mechanisms if electrolysis is involved here but I can't makeout if it is.but as you say the cop-claim is far out wild
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 28, 2015, 10:04:30 PM
I can't make any claims to the Rosch device, it may very well be all a scam.
But if we want to just make blanket assumptions and apply them to all buoyancy devices claiming them to "not work", maybe someone didn't have enough balloons as a kid.

Consider this: a weighted diver under 100 feet of sea water requires a sustained 40 newtons of force to pull him to the surface.
                     
This is provided, using Buoyancy, with only a short burst of 1.6 Newtons of force, inflating his life vest from a CO2 cartridge.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 28, 2015, 10:07:26 PM
So you think that white tube in the corner is some kind of heat engine? Sources and sinks. We see the white IR panels presumably radiating 4.8 kW of heat power into the space of the building. That means that at least that much heat power must be being absorbed by the white tube apparatus somehow,

Or it could just be 41 degrees in Germany and they need to heat their workspace....
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 28, 2015, 10:21:54 PM
It is very disappointing that you do not grasp the difference between a conservative field and constant force, or the meaning of conservative even when I have spelled that meaning out.You do yourself no favors with nonsense posts like these.

I think what he means mark, is that if you lift an object through the gravitational field during a time of day when the gravitational force is lower,
Then hold it there until the force fluctuates to a higher value, you have a gain in potential energy with no cost.

That should not be defined as solely "conservative". Because it could be used in a non-conservative manner.
    albeit not economical

This difference in force, is the basis for all gravity powered devices. Whether they utilize buoyancy, magnetism, or fluctuations in the gravitational field.

What we should be looking at, is " change in force". And how much energy is involved to initiate this change.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 28, 2015, 11:49:45 PM
Quote
I think what he means mark, is that if you lift an object through the gravitational field during a time of day when the gravitational force is lower,
Then hold it there until the force fluctuates to a higher value, you have a gain in potential energy with no cost.

You might pay a price with the slowing or speeding up of the Earth's rotation and/or the changing of the moon's orbit.

The point being that you are making crazy talk.  Does your position relative to the center of mass of the Earth change a bit over the course of a day, perhaps because of the way the tidal waves move across the Earth?  It might.  The question is how much.

Why don't you take on the challenge?  See if you can find any real data about some kind of "wobble" in the position of the center of mass of the Earth over the course of one day and a given point on the surface of the Earth.

Then all that you have to do is crunch the numbers.  Use one kilogram moving up and down one meter as your test apparatus.

Let's see your calculation in Joules gained by this process.

I can take a wackadoo guess for you:  It may be smaller than 10^-30 Joules.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 29, 2015, 12:21:59 AM
Gaia AuKW failure Power went out at Rosch in Spich Germany

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

These are the last Seconds where the Gaia Rosch AuKW KPP Power Plant was still functioning...
Now it seems the whole hall room lost its power and then also the AuKW was dead !
Seems to support the claim, that it is only a scam and that the AuKW does not produce its own power...

I captured this video from their Website at:
http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream (http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream)

There you still can see the JWPlayer Stream.

JWPlayer has a bug, so that it still shows abandomed
Live Streams which are no longer accessible at Youtube,
so you still can see the failure yourself.

Shutdown at 3:20:10. Blinking stops at 3:26:30 .

Stream ends at around  hour 4:00:02 at the Rosch siite in JWPlayer.

German Explanation:
Leute, eben ist der Strom am AuKW ausgefallen., aber der Livestream lief noch einige Zeit weiter,
so dass man sehen konnte, wie der Strom in der ganzen Halle ausgefallen ist und dann nur am Gaia
Panel eine Rote Lampe blinkte und dann die Hallen-Notstromversorgung anging !

Also ist wohl klar, dass das AuKW am Stromnetz hängt und da halt einfach mal der
Strom der Halle ausgefallen ist und das auch noch vom Livestream mit eingefangen wurde...

WIe peinlich für Gaia und Rosch, jetzt wissen wir also , dass es ein Betrug ist, denn
wenn es wirlich autark wäre, dann wäre das AuKW beim Stromausfall einfach weitergelaufen !

Wir hatten Glück das zu sehen, da anscheinend die Kamera an einem eigenen Stromkreis hing oder eine eigenen Akkus hat
und es einen Bug im JWPlayer gibt, der abgeschaltete Livestreams totzdem noch weiter anzeigt...auch wenn es auf Youtube schon abgeschaltet ist...
Deswegen war es auf der Roschseite immer noch zu sehen...

Ich habe das von der Webseite:
http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream (http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream)
abgefilmt. Hier der Screenshot-film:

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

Shutdown ab 3:20:10. Rotes Blinken hört bei 3:26:30 auf.

Kann man sich da noch anschauen auf:
http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream (http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/live-stream)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 12:54:36 AM
Quote
It is very disappointing that you do not grasp the difference between a conservative field and constant force, or the meaning of conservative even when I have spelled that meaning out.

Quote : A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero.

Like i said-crap. As the gravitational field is NOT constant,then net work can be done-->there for meaning that the gravitational field is not conservative. This is one great example of the crap that is peddled through the teaching of physics. So i say once again-->if the gravitational force is not constant,and work can be done from this non consistant force,then how can it be a conservative force?.

Quote
You do yourself no favors with nonsense posts like these.

It is not i that is doing one's self no favors Mark,as my post is not nonsense. I CAN !without doubt! show you energy being produced using !your! conservative force(both gravitational and bouyant).You say that the gravitational force cant do work-->rubbish. You say that a bouyancy device cant do work-->more rubbish. Neither of these forces(when combined) is conservative,as they are not constant forces.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 29, 2015, 01:03:23 AM
That's hilarious!

I wonder why the camera kept running though. Is it connected to a laptop with battery power, and to an internet router on uninterruptable power supply? And did it switch somehow to a "low light" mode that is now in black-and-white? Odd that in total darkness we still see the Red light blinking Red, but when the Emergency Lights come on, the scene is in black and white, and the "red" light now shows up white...

Thank you for capturing and publishing this, Stefan! It will be very interesting to see what Rosch/Gaia have to say about this...

Them:  :-\    :-[ :-[ :-[
Us:      :o    ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 01:26:26 AM
You might pay a price with the slowing or speeding up of the Earth's rotation and/or the changing of the moon's orbit.

The point being that you are making crazy talk.  Does your position relative to the center of mass of the Earth change a bit over the course of a day, perhaps because of the way the tidal waves move across the Earth?  It might.  The question is how much.

Why don't you take on the challenge?  See if you can find any real data about some kind of "wobble" in the position of the center of mass of the Earth over the course of one day and a given point on the surface of the Earth.

Then all that you have to do is crunch the numbers.  Use one kilogram moving up and down one meter as your test apparatus.

Let's see your calculation in Joules gained by this process.

I can take a wackadoo guess for you:  It may be smaller than 10^-30 Joules.

Why limit it to just one KG MH ?
Lets scale it up a bit. Lets take a small ship that displaces say 50 000 tons. Lets place this ship at Nova Scotia where the average tidal range is around 14 meters. So how much energy is required to lift 50 000 tons 14 meters ? = around 6860000000 joules of energy. Now,what if that ship was suspended once the tide hit it's peak,and then the tide was aloud to once again drop while the ship remained suspended in the air?. Do we not now have another 6860000000 joules of potential energy?. Now 50 000 tons of displacement is quite a small ship when we consider that there are ship's that displace over 500 000 ton's,and each and every day these ship's are raised and lowered by a conservative force-->aint that a hoot.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Hope on April 29, 2015, 02:19:31 AM
I am still living on the island,  lots of room for these here.   Can someone just put the build link forum group up for us about every two pages   TY
AND as you can see what didn't kill me has made me stronger.   
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 02:43:46 AM
Why limit it to just one KG MH ?
Lets scale it up a bit. Lets take a small ship that displaces say 50 000 tons. Lets place this ship at Nova Scotia where the average tidal range is around 14 meters. So how much energy is required to lift 50 000 tons 14 meters ? = around 6860000000 joules of energy. Now,what if that ship was suspended once the tide hit it's peak,and then the tide was aloud to once again drop while the ship remained suspended in the air?. Do we not now have another 6860000000 joules of potential energy?. Now 50 000 tons of displacement is quite a small ship when we consider that there are ship's that displace over 500 000 ton's,and each and every day these ship's are raised and lowered by a conservative force-->aint that a hoot.

I'd suggest you just give up trying to understand physics... The term 'conservative field' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that the tide caused the ship to gain gravitational potential energy.

Conservative means the amount of energy dissipated by the tide to raise the ship is 6860 MJ and the amount recoverable by moving the ship back to the original position will be exactly the same, independent of how fast or over what path the ship takes during those movements.


   
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 29, 2015, 03:02:59 AM
Here also a Screenshot of the Youtube Channel from Verein Gaia at:
https://www.youtube.com/user/VereinGAIA (https://www.youtube.com/user/VereinGAIA)

Now there is also the Thumbnail icon to see from the old Livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0)

If you click it, unfortunately it can´t be viewed anymore there comes only the message

"This Livestream is finished.
ProxTube could not unlock this stream. Probably it is also locked in the USA ."

Without Proxtube Plugin it says:

"Diese Liveveranstaltung ist beendet.
Das tut uns leid."

This Livestream is finished ( has stopped). We regret this.

So this is again for documentation, that people do not say that I lie...

You can see yourself the greyscale thumbnail there, where only the emergency light is on in the hall.

We are lucky that  Youtube seems to store the last frame from the old Livestream
as the Thumbnail Icon for that video !
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 04:16:21 AM



(scribbles really.... I'll attempt to make some sense out of it) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M)


(some figures below are rounded or just close to what the actual are)

First... let's take a system with an arbitrary 32 'buckets' (these are the things that hold the air and cause bouyancy), we'll discount 4 on the top and bottom in transition from upright to downright (inverted to non-inverted?) leaving 28, 14 with air rising and 14 empty and falling.  The mechanism tying them together and material of the buckets themselves essentially irrelavent because it's balanced on rise and falling side.  It will play a role as inertia, it will take a bit of time to accelerate/decelerate the mass of the mechanism.




Buckets can be constructed of PVC tube, with holes drilled out with a holesaw of any appropriate size... I started looking at largest in-stock and nearby materials, which are 8" tubes.  Tubing is measured by Inner Diameter... so we can compute from a diameter of pipe and a length cubic space (ft^3)... and can translate that to gallons which is 8 pounds per gallon... (I know all this non metric stuff, whatever)... anyway, a certain separation between buckets is also required to get air into them in-between...so I chose and arbitrary 4 inches to make 1 foot per bucket, which means I'd need a tank at least 14 feet in depth, which is 4.2m... let's round up to 5m.  Every 10m of water is +1 atmosphere.... so 1.5 atmospheres of pressure at the bottom.




It is also considered that the buckets at the bottom will be under more pressure, making the volume of air in them less... and the displacment also less.. if the were filled to 100% capacity, air would leak out as they rose uselessly... so if we fill them to 66% capacity ( 1.5  atmosheres is 3/2 atmospheres and  1 is 2/2 atmospheres ... anyway the three in there makes it be 1/3 something)  so as they rise, at the top they will be 100% full and no bouyant force is every lost.... but... this means that each bucket going down has slightly less displacement... and therefore slightly less bouyant force. (top+bottom * one_side_bucket_count / 2 ) ends up being the calculation for total displacment of all buckets rising... (1+0.66 * 7 ) or 11.62 buckets... which is only 83% capacity.  But this is 'optimal' and one could overfill the bottom so there is 14 buckets of force always ... with air spilling out as they rise and get slightly more work out of them.  (sterling allan'snews suggested there is possiblility of load-following, which reminded me of this).




Force of a bouyant object is strictly the mass of the displacement of liquid times gravity. (please do correct me if I'm wrong, because actually I neglected that 32.1 ft/sec^2 in my later calculations... which means the output is always G times the input... and actually would work)




(this was later refined, and this is an erroroneous calculation) adding up the total I found the rising side would have some 1080 gallons of displacment causing them to rise... to get force have to multiply by 'g' ..
32.174 ft/s^2 .. which gives some 32000 ft-pounds/sec or 58HP... or
44683 Watts!  44KW !  well... that will certainly power MY house... this looks promising.
[size=78%]--------------
So.. let's scale this back a little, and see if maybe I can make a table-top version.




so if we have a 3 inch pipe, 1 foot in length, it will have 0.05 cubic feet or hold 0.367 gallons... which will be a displacment of 2.93 pounds per tube.




if I use a 1 inch separation, there's 3 tubes per foot of vertical space... if I use the same 32 sections (14 effective floats), it will be about 5 feet in height... which is only 0.14 addtional atmospheres of pressure...




This well have an optimal displacement of 40.7 pounds. 




That's all well and good, but, how much work is it to compress normal air from 1x to 0.86x of it's volume? (increasing pressure the of air from 1 to 1.14 )
---------------
Well turns out this is all over ... and it's




nRT * ln(V2/V1)...




where n is moles of air (1.19804 per cubic foot)
R is 'gas constant'   (6.13244 ft-lb/ k-mol)  (multiplying this by n and K remove the divid and you get ft-lb)
K is the tempurature of the gas (I used 65 farenheight ... 291.3333 Kelvin)


0.1472578125 cubic feet (v1)
0.1289202028 cubic feet (v2) .. (v1 * 0.86) (the 0.86 is from the computed atmosphere pressure difference above.... assume tempurature remains the same,   P1V1T1 = P2V2T2 ... or V2 = P1(1)/P2(1.14) * V1 )


which yields
41.91757564  ft-lb. 


-----------------------
So now I'm discouraged... because 40.7(pounds lift) is slightly less than 41.9(ft-lb to compress)... but I guess my units are not matched there... I figured the feet came from the distance the thing traveled... (3 buckets fit in 1 foot, so the volume was computed as the bottom 3 buckets) ... BUT I forgot to mulitply by G. 


so no matter what I did with the sizes... unless I had negative distance separating the buckets (overlap) I could not exceed the force to compress the air.... So the conclusion yesterday was 'this is barely break even'... but ... I forgot to multiply the displacment weight times gravity force... so maybe this IS possible.


Some things to consider... increasing the operating bucket count (extending the height) did not increase pounds above ft-lb  ... because the taller column of water increased the required pressure...
---------------------------


So now... to source some parts... this thing turns very slowly, so it will have to be geared up, it will lose HP output what it gains in speed... so if I was at 36RPM to start, and wented to get to 3600RPM to power a gas-powered generator instead of the motor, I am at 100x less power I can apply to the generator... so a wind turbine that works 360RPM would be better... being only a 10x loss.




Was considering what I might be able to use instead; a continuous pump would be better than a piston pump if I were to directly drive the pump from the output shaft... Might be able to use an archemides screw sort of thing with a light oil seal (only dealing with 0.15 an addtional 2psi ).. but not sure what to make the screw out of... what other sort of continuous pumps?  (displacment pumps, but they do higher pressure at lower volume, and really I want high volume)




--------------
3 sections per section of the 3 inch/1 foot PVC buckets is 0.147 cubic feet/sec) or 8 CFM.... that's a lot more than an aquarium pump will output (can get 12V aquarium pumps, which reduces the voltage requirements of output generator)...




can get a 3.5CFM at 90psi   2.5HP pump for  $80... but then that's 120V AC... (though this was when I was looking at 8inch diameter by 2feet tubes, which is
55.84CFM ... and a 25+CFM pump is $2500!


but maybe I can manufacture a cheap pump with concentric PVC... a 1 foot stroke pump for 8CFM is only 5.16 inch diameter tube...
the problem with that is it's only 50% duty cycle so it would pump for 3 tubes and be drawing in air for 3 tubes... so really could make it a 2 inch stroke and do 2 strokes per bucket (1 draw, 1 pump)... or maybe some sort of sterling engine... saw a very large solar heat engine using a very large rubber membrane (rubber sheets?)...


And; again if I forget the conversion to electric to drive a pump and recover from a generator it should simplify the system, and at least demonstrate closed-loop self running... can attach a fan or something to drive a generator (tinman's venturi thing... also dyson has a air accelerator that's a ring making a very thin drive force around a very large venturi ( http://www.dyson.com/fans-and-heaters/cooling-fans/am06/am06-desk-fan-10-inch-iron-blue.aspx (http://www.dyson.com/fans-and-heaters/cooling-fans/am06/am06-desk-fan-10-inch-iron-blue.aspx)   (small fan in base, feeds air out through the outer edge of the ring)
 ) 


then hook up some other load to it...


------------
fewer buckets generates less lift... but requires less work to pressurize the air.
But then there's also that G is ft-per-second-squared ... and maybe that squared is more signifcant giving more tubes more travel time?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 29, 2015, 04:40:26 AM
I think your mixture is a bit off. You need more alcohol and less caffeine, or maybe vicey-versey.

Look. The whole contraption is based on one side being heavier than the other side, right? So just get rid of the water altogether, it just creates drag you don't need. Drop a series of heavy balls into the buckets on the descending side and have them roll out on the bottom. Use an Archimedes Screw to elevate the balls back up to the top so they can be dropped back into the descending buckets. Power the Archimedes Screw with a simple pulley-belt linkage off the top sprocket of the bucket-chain. Have the bottom sprocket drive your generator. There will be so much mechanical advantage from the Screw-Pulley system that you'll have to install a brake mechanism to keep it from speeding up to self-destruction.

Right?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 29, 2015, 04:54:26 AM
I had an Archimedes Screw once.  I'll never forget....I was traveling in Greece a long time ago...it was summer...and she was beautiful.  There was alcohol involved and...it is quite possible that we broke several laws of physics that night.

I'll never forget it, ha ha.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 05:01:04 AM
I think your mixture is a bit off. You need more alcohol and less caffeine, or maybe vicey-versey.
:)  Probably.   Been too many months without clove cigarettes and THC.
I don't drink... and caffine is about once a week but none of that counts.
Look. The whole contraption is based on one side being heavier than the other side, right? So just get rid of the water altogether, it just creates drag you don't need. Drop a series of heavy balls into the buckets on the descending side and have them roll out on the bottom. Use an Archimedes Screw to elevate the balls back up to the top so they can be dropped back into the descending buckets. Power the Archimedes Screw with a simple pulley-belt linkage off the top sprocket of the bucket-chain. Have the bottom sprocket drive your generator. There will be so much mechanical advantage from the Screw-Pulley system that you'll have to install a brake mechanism to keep it from speeding up to self-destruction.

Right?
Might as well be the same, but use water to fill the empty buckets like a water wheel, then the issue is to lift the water back up to the top... But.  This isn't the weight of water water that's moving it's air being pressurized... (which also results in water moving... but only inches instead of the full height of the apparatus.)


Chains are expensive... though I did find some cheap parts at a bicycle shop, and maybe could raid a motorcycle junkyard for drivechain; or auto yard for timing chains.  Bike sprockets don't have narrow mounts.. they're all wide in the center... But could use 4 u-bolts 2 on each end to attach the tubes to the chain... but then the u-bolts will interfere with the teeth on the gears...


Okay; maybe I should consider this a little differently and approach it as making a vaccuum in the top of the chamber to reduce the pressure of the bottom below atmosphere and use the natural air pressure to pull it in... (power from the vacuum! :) )   only need to be -20% air pressure for my 5 foot model.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html  (only need to go up 2000 feet from sea level to be at 80% pressure... not that that helps... just sayin that's not a lot of work to produce)  (back to the scribble-board)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 05:08:42 AM
Quote : A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero.

Like i said-crap. As the gravitational field is NOT constant,then net work can be done-->there for meaning that the gravitational field is not conservative. This is one great example of the crap that is peddled through the teaching of physics. So i say once again-->if the gravitational force is not constant,and work can be done from this non consistant force,then how can it be a conservative force?.

It is not i that is doing one's self no favors Mark,as my post is not nonsense. I CAN !without doubt! show you energy being produced using !your! conservative force(both gravitational and bouyant).You say that the gravitational force cant do work-->rubbish. You say that a bouyancy device cant do work-->more rubbish. Neither of these forces(when combined) is conservative,as they are not constant forces.
You are completely lost.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 05:11:04 AM
Hey Mark.. or anyone familiar with the physics/math problem being touted as proof that Buoyancy Tower can't work.
I have some questions.

I was in the shower trying to fathom how this might work
when a little song came into my head.
it went something like this.

hmm ~ 9 TANKS A PULLING WHILE 1 TANK IS FILLING ~ hmm

So here's my thought...

If there is a limit to the energy it takes to fill 1 tank,
   then there is a limit to the number of air filled tanks
          that together would possess the potential energy required to fill 1 tank.
              (given a movement of about a foot that releases a small portion of the total potential)

Since the apparatus must be started by mains power my questions are this.

 1.Does the Problem start with the potential energy of the pulling floats and their movement when it compares to the energy to fill a  single float?
    (this is the logical place to start since this is where the Unexplained Energy Source starts)

2. Why couldn't X number of floats above the empty one ... possess the potential energy released through a small movement to to fill 1 float with air?

Thanks so much to anyone who can answer these questions !

Best Regards,
                      The Observer
N*0 = 0.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 05:14:31 AM
I can't make any claims to the Rosch device, it may very well be all a scam.
But if we want to just make blanket assumptions and apply them to all buoyancy devices claiming them to "not work", maybe someone didn't have enough balloons as a kid.

Consider this: a weighted diver under 100 feet of sea water requires a sustained 40 newtons of force to pull him to the surface.
                     
This is provided, using Buoyancy, with only a short burst of 1.6 Newtons of force, inflating his life vest from a CO2 cartridge.
In your balloon example, the balloons get inflated pushing up the local atmosphere as they get inflated, and you can reclaim most of that energy leaving you in deficit.  Similarly, work was done compressing the CO2 cartridge.  Some of that work is reclaimed when the diver opens the cartridge to surface.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 05:15:53 AM
I think what he means mark, is that if you lift an object through the gravitational field during a time of day when the gravitational force is lower,
Then hold it there until the force fluctuates to a higher value, you have a gain in potential energy with no cost.

That should not be defined as solely "conservative". Because it could be used in a non-conservative manner.
    albeit not economical

This difference in force, is the basis for all gravity powered devices. Whether they utilize buoyancy, magnetism, or fluctuations in the gravitational field.

What we should be looking at, is " change in force". And how much energy is involved to initiate this change.
He is once again confused.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 05:18:11 AM
Quote : A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero.

Like i said-crap. As the gravitational field is NOT constant,then net work can be done-->there for meaning that the gravitational field is not conservative. This is one great example of the crap that is peddled through the teaching of physics. So i say once again-->if the gravitational force is not constant,and work can be done from this non consistant force,then how can it be a conservative force?.

It is not i that is doing one's self no favors Mark,as my post is not nonsense. I CAN !without doubt! show you energy being produced using !your! conservative force(both gravitational and bouyant).You say that the gravitational force cant do work-->rubbish. You say that a bouyancy device cant do work-->more rubbish. Neither of these forces(when combined) is conservative,as they are not constant forces.
You are: confused, wrong, and rude.  I am really tired of it.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 06:05:38 AM
You are: confused, wrong, and rude.  I am really tired of it.
I am not wrong,confused or rude. The rude part is your insistance that you are always correct,and as i have shown you before,you are not. You come into threads with the attitude that you are better than anyone else,and yet time and time again you have been proven to be incorrect-as in this example. You say gravity can do no useful work-a gravity device will not work-nor will a bouyant device,and yet it dose day in day out,and i have given a simple example of this that you cannot refute. The only two forces at play are gravity and bouyancy,and the two can indeed generate power-do useful work. So,there you have it,a working gravity/bouyancy device. So now,please tell us all once again that a gravity/bouyancy device can never work due to the fact that garvity and bouyancy forces are conservative.

Quote reply 27: Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 51; Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 58: Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.

All completly wrong when the two forces work together.
Gravity is the force which raises the tide's 14 meters.
Bouyancy is the force that raises the ship that has a displacement of 50 000 tons.
6860000000 joules of energy has just been placed on that ship.
Did gravity have to do extra work to raise that ship?-no,it did not,as the 50 000 ton's the ship added was the very same as the 50 000 tons of water that was displaced that gravity no longer has to raise.

I too grow tired of your negativity Mark,and your partner in crime-LE.
Im not sure where you two live,but for us here on earth,we see the two forces doing work twice a day in most cases. You have tunnel vision,and that tunnel lead's to a dead end. There are devices that clearly dont work,but you put a blanket NO on all such devices that use the same principle. You say that neither bouyant or gravity powered devices will work,and yet we see it daily here on earth. Maybe in 4 to 5 billion years when the moon is to far away from the earth to raise tide's,then you may come back and make your claim. But for now,we have the worlds largest bouyant/gravity driven generator working 24/7.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 06:08:48 AM
I am not wrong,confused or rude. The rude part is your insistance that you are always correct,and as i have shown you before,you are not. You come into threads with the attitude that you are better than anyone else,and yet time and time again you have been proven to be incorrect-as in this example. You say gravity can do no useful work-a gravity device will not work-nor will a bouyant device,and yet it dose day in day out,and i have given a simple example of this that you cannot refute. The only two forces at play are gravity and bouyancy,and the two can indeed generate power-do useful work. So,there you have it,a working gravity/bouyancy device. So now,please tell us all once again that a gravity/bouyancy device can never work due to the fact that garvity and bouyancy forces are conservative.

Quote reply 27: Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 51; Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 58: Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.

All completly wrong when the two forces work together.
Gravity is the force which raises the tide's 14 meters.
Bouyancy is the force that raises the ship that has a displacement of 50 000 tons.
6860000000 joules of energy has just been placed on that ship.
Did gravity have to do extra work to raise that ship?-no,it did not,as the 50 000 ton's the ship added was the very same as the 50 000 tons of water that was displaced that gravity no longer has to raise.

I too grow tired of your negativity Mark,and your partner in crime-LE.
Im not sure where you two live,but for us here on earth,we see the two forces doing work twice a day in most cases. You have tunnel vision,and that tunnel lead's to a dead end. There are devices that clearly dont work,but you put a blanket NO on all such devices that use the same principle. You say that neither bouyant or gravity powered devices will work,and yet we see it daily here on earth. Maybe in 4 to 5 billion years when the moon is to far away from the earth to raise tide's,then you may come back and make your claim. But for now,we have the worlds largest bouyant/gravity driven generator working 24/7.
But you are as anyone with a basic working knowledge of physics and reading comprehension can see.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 07:31:12 AM
The term 'conservative field' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that the tide caused the ship to gain gravitational potential energy.

Conservative means the amount of energy dissipated by the tide to raise the ship is 6860 MJ and the amount recoverable by moving the ship back to the original position will be exactly the same, independent of how fast or over what path the ship takes during those movements.


 
Exactly
Gravitational and bouyant forces have now given rise to a potential energy source-->a gravity/bouyant generator. Why you and your partner in crime continue to say things just wont work,when they work day in day out is nothing more than a joke.

Quote
I'd suggest you just give up trying to understand physics...


this is the biggest joke of all-->give up trying to understand physics.
Even the best that think they understand physics really dont know all they think they know. The same answer is always given--how could hundreds of years of understanding be wrong. These are the same people that cannot to this day even explain what the magnetic force actually is,or what the hell gravity even is-->how dose it work,what is the gravitational force?. they have no answer to these question's,and yet here you are claiming that a PM,gravity or bouyancy device can never do useful work-->and yet neither of you(or anyone else) even knows what these forces actually are lol. What creates gravity-->answer-mass lol. No,mass is the quantity of that force,it is not the creator.
What is the magnetic force-->answer-we dont know,but the current modle work's,so we'll stick with that,A PM motor will never work.

What you are saying is-this fuel will not run your motor,even though we dont know what the fuel is.

Quote sm0ky2 :The only restrictions that exists are in our ability to create and remove the conditions of buoyancy, which boils down to human ingenuity.

This statement is spot on,and very correct. Only our non understanding of these forces and what they actually are is stopping us from achieving our goal-and nothing more.
So when you guys actually know what the magnetic or gravitational force is,then you may have a case to argue. Until then,you have nothing but theory,and a ! so far so good! attitude.

Here is a good example of energies that await us when we gain this understanding.
Matter and antimatter. Quite same when they are not together,but when the two opposites are bought together,well,all hell breaks loose,and the energy created from this union is extreem. It took some time for scientist to learn of this!antimatter!,and it will be some time before they come up with some form of antimagnetic field,or antigravity field. But when the time come's,im afraid you two will be out of a job-and it's only a matter of time.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 07:37:03 AM
I am not wrong,confused or rude. The rude part is your insistance that you are always correct,and as i have shown you before,you are not. You come into threads with the attitude that you are better than anyone else,and yet time and time again you have been proven to be incorrect-as in this example. You say gravity can do no useful work-a gravity device will not work-nor will a bouyant device,and yet it dose day in day out,and i have given a simple example of this that you cannot refute. The only two forces at play are gravity and bouyancy,and the two can indeed generate power-do useful work. So,there you have it,a working gravity/bouyancy device. So now,please tell us all once again that a gravity/bouyancy device can never work due to the fact that garvity and bouyancy forces are conservative.

Quote reply 27: Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 51; Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Buoyancy drives don't work.
Quote reply 58: Sigh:  Gravity is a conservative field.  Take something through an arbitrary path from one point and back to that point and there is no gain or loss in gravitational potential energy:  Zero, nada.

All completly wrong when the two forces work together.
Gravity is the force which raises the tide's 14 meters.
Bouyancy is the force that raises the ship that has a displacement of 50 000 tons.
6860000000 joules of energy has just been placed on that ship.
Did gravity have to do extra work to raise that ship?-no,it did not,as the 50 000 ton's the ship added was the very same as the 50 000 tons of water that was displaced that gravity no longer has to raise.

I too grow tired of your negativity Mark,and your partner in crime-LE.
Im not sure where you two live,but for us here on earth,we see the two forces doing work twice a day in most cases. You have tunnel vision,and that tunnel lead's to a dead end. There are devices that clearly dont work,but you put a blanket NO on all such devices that use the same principle. You say that neither bouyant or gravity powered devices will work,and yet we see it daily here on earth. Maybe in 4 to 5 billion years when the moon is to far away from the earth to raise tide's,then you may come back and make your claim. But for now,we have the worlds largest bouyant/gravity driven generator working 24/7.

I'm convinced you are completely clueless about basic physics concepts.  The earth - moon system can of course provide energy in the form of tides to move ships or whatever up and down. This does NOT mean gravity is "non- conservative".  The tides is powered by the earth - moon rotation slowing and the two bodies slowly moving apart.

Gravity would be "non conservative" ONLY if we could magically restore the earth and moon to their original positions without expending the same amount of energy as is dissipated as they move apart.  Given the tides dissipate gravitational potential at the rate of about 5 terawatts, that's a whole lot of energy going the be required to move them back into their original positions. 

Maybe Wayne Travis can help us with that... :)
 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 07:39:33 AM
Well, if you want to improve your understanding, the tidal ship in the Bay of Fundy does not use gravity as an energy source.  It uses the Earth's rotational energy as the energy source.  You slow down the rotational speed of the Earth when you do that.

Does the number 6.67 x 10^-11 mean anything to you?  If not, you have to look it up.  That will explain the gravity field.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 08:20:29 AM
I'm convinced you are completely clueless about basic physics concepts.  The earth - moon system can of course provide energy in the form of tides to move ships or whatever up and down. This does NOT mean gravity is "non- conservative".  The tides is powered by the earth - moon rotation slowing and the two bodies slowly moving apart.

Gravity would be "non conservative" ONLY if we could magically restore the earth and moon to their original positions without expending the same amount of energy as is dissipated as they move apart.  Given the tides dissipate gravitational potential at the rate of about 5 terawatts, that's a whole lot of energy going the be required to move them back into their original positions. 

Maybe Wayne Travis can help us with that... :)
Poor "honest" Wayne Travis had a disappointing 2014 and 2015 isn't shaping up to be any better.  When he "wasn't looking for investors" he was hoping to land a big whale to the tune of $1 billion dollars.  Guess what?  It never happened. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 08:25:34 AM
But you are as anyone with a basic working knowledge of physics and reading comprehension can see.
You pride your self on thinking you know all there is to know Mark. You sit and type with the feeling that you are infallible,and yet,even I(along with my terrible comprehension),a truck driver,have proven you wrong before. You frequent this forum often,dismissing idea's that others have,simply because it dosnt comply with your book's. How is it you can state things like a PM only motor will never work,and yet not even you know what the magnetic force is. This is a !best guess! you are having when you make claims like this. Just last week on the !open systems! thread,we were doing some calculation's. All was good until i gave you some results which you calculated,and because these results didnt conform with the ideal's,you just quit the job-->no more input until i gave you the workings of the device. What a copout that was,but typical in this situation.

I called you on your statements here on this thread,and showed how (in the here and now)that gravity and bouyancy can give rise to potential energy for us to use as we will. But you guys always want to see a self contained system that sit's on the bench running away,while you overlook the vast amount of energy that can be had with a device that you say dosnt work.

You have two opposite forces working here.
The bouyant force acting on a bouyant vessel gives an upward force on that vessel.
The gravitational force pulls down on that same vessel. here you have a sine wave of energy waiting to be tapped into,and one day this will be achieved when man is smart enough to enclose the system.

Im sorry Mark,but your negativity and tunnel vision is getting boaring and quite annoying.
I gave you one example of an energy increase in a device,and you took off like a chicken that spotted a fox. That was an extreemly clear example of energy being taken from the enviroment,which could then be made to do useful work. And the thing is,that energy(after doing work)was put back into the enviroment from where it came-->energy conserved.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 08:52:26 AM
Well, if you want to improve your understanding, the tidal ship in the Bay of Fundy does not use gravity as an energy source.  It uses the Earth's rotational energy as the energy source.  You slow down the rotational speed of the Earth when you do that.

Does the number 6.67 x 10^-11 mean anything to you?  If not, you have to look it up.  That will explain the gravity field.
You slow down nothing,because the mass of the earth as a whole has not increased. Regardless of wether that ship was there or not,the earths rotational rate would decrease by the same amount,as the same mass was moved in the rise of the tide. What you say MH is like saying a ton of grass is heavier than a ton of rock. So what will slow down the earths rotation more-->50 000 tons of water being raised 14 meters,or 50 000 tons of ship being raised 14 meters?. Mass is directly proportional to gravity,and as we have the same mass amount,then nothing has changed as far as gravitational pull go's,and thus the earths rotation would slow no more than it would if the ship wasnt there. The earth has a set amount of mass,and only things like meteorites can increase the mass of the earth. So as our mass remains constant,then so dose the decrease in rotational speed of the earth due to gravitational drag.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 29, 2015, 09:02:41 AM
Gaia AuKW failure Power went out at Rosch in Spich Germany

I saw this unfold. I happened to check the feed when it was dark (except for emergency light overhead). I informed Roberto.

I've posted my take on this at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#AuKW_goes_dark.3B_Livestream_goes_down

I don't see it as evidence of fraud. I see it as Murphy's law in action. The system went down. They fired it back up.
Title: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: sterlinga on April 29, 2015, 09:04:43 AM
(http://peswiki.com/images/d/d5/Motor-generator_Ronny-Korsberg_sq_95x95.gif) (http://pesn.com/9602614_Is-the-motor-and-generator_atop_the_Rosch-KPP_actually-a-QMoGen)
  Featured (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Latest): Buoyancy (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Buoyancy) > Rosch (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thrust_Kinetic_Generator_by_Rosch_Innovations_AG) > GAIA (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gaia-Energy_--_Global_Association_for_Independent_Energy_&_Altruism) > Demo (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA's_AuKW_Demo) >
 Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen? Is the buoyancy system unnecessary? (http://pesn.com//2015/04/29/9602614_Is-the-motor-and-generator_atop_the_Rosch-KPP_actually-a-QMoGen) - Someone who attended the AuKW demo and is satisfied it is for real, is also convinced that buoyancy is not the heart of the system. Rather, the air compressor motor and the generator are working together like a QMoGen, with the buoyancy system acting like the belt between them. (PESN; April 29, 2015)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 29, 2015, 09:08:15 AM
@TK
Quote
Look. The whole contraption is based on one side being heavier than the other
side, right? So just get rid of the water altogether, it just creates drag you
don't need. Drop a series of heavy balls into the buckets on the descending side
and have them roll out on the bottom. Use an Archimedes Screw to elevate the
balls back up to the top so they can be dropped back into the descending
buckets. Power the Archimedes Screw with a simple pulley-belt linkage off the
top sprocket of the bucket-chain. Have the bottom sprocket drive your generator.
There will be so much mechanical advantage from the Screw-Pulley system that
you'll have to install a brake mechanism to keep it from speeding up to
self-destruction.
I believe you are making the same flawed argument as most here and we start with a fairly complex buoyancy machine and then you say why not metal balls as it's the same thing with weight on one side and if we use this same flawed logic we could take the next step. Why not just say it is the same as bouncing a ball and expecting it to bounce higher?. The problem here is that obviously they are not the same thing and to presume they are is absurd. I understand this is the same false premise most critics like to use however this old same/same argument game doesn't imply a great deal of intelligence in my opinion.

Obviously the most intelligent person would be the one smart enough to have figured out how to get the air into the bottom of the tank without all the losses normally involved. There is one question that matters here and that is how can we get the air across the pressurized boundary condition into the water without the normal losses however you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole would you?. Because you have literally no idea do you and in fact you have no idea where to even start.
So how about we have an intelligent conversation for a change of pace?, tell me how would you get the air into the tank without all the losses normally involved?... any idea's?.

AC
 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 09:42:49 AM
@TKI believe you are making the same flawed argument as most here and we start with a fairly complex buoyancy machine and then you say why not metal balls as it's the same thing with weight on one side and if we use this same flawed logic we could take the next step. Why not just say it is the same as bouncing a ball and expecting it to bounce higher?. The problem here is that obviously they are not the same thing and to presume they are is absurd. I understand this is the same false premise most critics like to use however this old same/same argument game doesn't imply a great deal of intelligence in my opinion.
You assert a distinction that you fail to establish.
Quote

Obviously the most intelligent person would be the one smart enough to have figured out how to get the air into the bottom of the tank without all the losses normally involved. There is one question that matters here and that is how can we get the air across the pressurized boundary condition into the water without the normal losses however you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole would you?. Because you have literally no idea do you and in fact you have no idea where to even start.
So how about we have an intelligent conversation for a change of pace?, tell me how would you get the air into the tank without all the losses normally involved?... any idea's?.

AC
Unless you wish to rely on magical thinking, the minimum work to force the air into the buckets is identically the increase in mgh of the water that the air displaces.  That places the whole affair at zero sum gain in the best case.  This is all very black letter.  If you are going to make the ridiculous request that someone propose to you a means of imparting free energy to air, why not cut to the chase and just ask for a free source of electricity to run your appliances?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:01:59 AM
You assert a distinction that you fail to establish.Unless you wish to rely on magical thinking, the minimum work to force the air into the buckets is identically the increase in mgh of the water that the air displaces.  That places the whole affair at zero sum gain in the best case.  This is all very black letter.  If you are going to make the ridiculous request that someone propose to you a means of imparting free energy to air, why not cut to the chase and just ask for a free source of electricity to run your appliances?
if  nRT ln(V2/V1 ) is the work to compress the gas to greater than the pressure at the bottom... what more work is required than that? Oh I see... once the gas does start flowing, then its pressure becomes less and you have to apply more force to maintain the pressure ( or have compressed a larger volume to a greater pressure )...

okay.  So if I compress 5 times the volume of air to twice the required additional pressure it's still less work than the total bouyance force.

and bouyancy is ( mass_displaced - mass_displacing ) * G.  (the air weighs something so should be subtracted from the mass displaced...)

... So, having an understanding of these basic physics principles where is the discontinuity? 


How does one relate the force required to displace X with pressure?  Or.. why does it matter how much water is moved?  The pressure is enough to overcome the additional weight of the water.. and if it was under a solid plunger and moved the whole body of water, why does moving that water imply any more work than it took to presureize the gas?




input... (compress 5x the required air; twice the required exess pressure @ height of 14 buckets)
2.366602913    Work (ft-lb)

(edit: or even 4x the volume and 4x the pressure, so if I take 1 unit of volume out it's still 75% of the increased pressure... something; ya it's some differential
 edit2: hmmm ya that needs to be looked at it's probably the missing work)

output...(14 buckets)
36.61705229    lift force (ft-lb/sec^2)

(fixed some annotions, grouping and colored related things)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M/edit?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 11:04:41 AM
You slow down nothing,because the mass of the earth as a whole has not increased. Regardless of wether that ship was there or not,the earths rotational rate would decrease by the same amount,as the same mass was moved in the rise of the tide. What you say MH is like saying a ton of grass is heavier than a ton of rock. So what will slow down the earths rotation more-->50 000 tons of water being raised 14 meters,or 50 000 tons of ship being raised 14 meters?. Mass is directly proportional to gravity,and as we have the same mass amount,then nothing has changed as far as gravitational pull go's,and thus the earths rotation would slow no more than it would if the ship wasnt there. The earth has a set amount of mass,and only things like meteorites can increase the mass of the earth. So as our mass remains constant,then so dose the decrease in rotational speed of the earth due to gravitational drag.

If you'd like to propose a free energy machine that is powered by the steaming pile of crap that equates to this analysis then I'd probably be willing to invest.

Sure, the masses do not change significantly but the distance between them does. The last time I looked the force due to gravity was equal to (G *m1 * m2)/r^2 . If you alter the distance between the two masses then the gravitational potential changes as the inverse square of the distance.

Also mass is NOT proportional to gravity. A 1 kg mass on earth is the same as a 1kg mass on  the moon or floating in space somewhere in the universe.

The quantity you are referring to is weight or mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: markdansie on April 29, 2015, 11:11:48 AM

 Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen? Is the buoyancy system unnecessary? - Someone who attended the AuKW demo and is satisfied it is for real, is also convinced that buoyancy is not the heart of the system. Rather, the air compressor motor and the generator are working together like a QMoGen, with the buoyancy system acting like the belt between them. (PESN; April 29, 2015)


Hi Sterling,
unlike your site where most comments are suppressed and posters banned (again) you are always welcome to post your opinions here or at Revolution-Green.com
As you know form many years experience, not one QMoGen you either reported on or promoted with you fee for story journalism approach has ever worked out. Not one has been independently verified or gone into production. So why carry on with this delusional fantasy?


Speaking of fantasy, on a personnel note I was wondering
1. Did Jesus ever come for supper after you invited him ?
2. Did the young ,famous violinist you were stalking ever take you up on a date ?
3. Are you still expecting to be arrested for your self confessed inappropriate sexual behavior ?
4. Do you still believe anyone takes you seriously anymore or wants to be associated with you given the above questions?


I also find it amusing you would post here given the hatchet job and bad mouthing your moderator Stuart is giving Stefan. Stefan is well respected by all and is also entitled to an opinion without emotive and derogatory comments being made.


On a positive note some of your recent stories have been balanced and well written


Kind regards and best wishes
Mark Dansie


Kind Regards
Mark

Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 11:17:37 AM

Hi Sterling,
unlike your site where most comments are suppressed and posters banned (again) you are always welcome to post your opinions here or at Revolution-Green.com
As you know form many years experience, not one QMoGen you either reported on or promoted with you fee for story journalism approach has ever worked out. Not one has been independently verified or gone into production. So why carry on with this delusional fantasy?


Speaking of fantasy, on a personnel note I was wondering
1. Did Jesus ever come for supper after you invited him ?
2. Did the young ,famous violinist you were stalking ever take you up on a date ?
3. Are you still expecting to be arrested for your self confessed inappropriate sexual behavior ?
4. Do you still believe anyone takes you seriously anymore or wants to be associated with you given the above questions?


I also find it amusing you would post here given the hatchet job and bad mouthing your moderator Stuart is giving Stefan. Stefan is well respected by all and is also entitled to an opinion without emotive and derogatory comments being made.


On a positive note some of your recent stories have been balanced and well written


Kind regards and best wishes
Mark Dansie


Kind Regards
Mark
Lol-Bang.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 11:20:37 AM
if  nRT ln(V2/V1 ) is the work to compress the gas to greater than the pressure at the bottom... what more work is required than that? Oh I see... once the gas does start flowing, then its pressure becomes less and you have to apply more force to maintain the pressure ( or have compressed a larger volume to a greater pressure )...

okay.  So if I compress 5 times the volume of air to twice the required additional pressure it's still less work than the total bouyance force.

and bouyancy is ( mass_displaced - mass_displacing ) * G.  (the air weighs something so should be subtracted from the mass displaced...)

... So, having an understanding of these basic physics principles where is the discontinuity? 


How does one relate the force required to displace X with pressure?  Or.. why does it matter how much water is moved?  The pressure is enough to overcome the additional weight of the water.. and if it was under a solid plunger and moved the whole body of water, why does moving that water imply any more work than it took to presureize the gas?




input... (compress 5x the required air; twice the required exess pressure @ height of 14 buckets)
2.366602913    Work (ft-lb)

(edit: or even 4x the volume and 4x the pressure, so if I take 1 unit of volume out it's still 75% of the increased pressure... something; ya it's some differential)

output...(14 buckets)
36.61705229    lift force (ft-lb/sec^2)

(fixed some annotions, grouping and colored related things)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M/edit?usp=sharing)

You seem to have forgotten that your compressed parcel of air needs to be moved down in the water or, if you compressed it on the bottom the water above it is displaced upwards.

The end result is that the energy expended in sinking or creating a buoyant object is exactly the same amount that can be recovered by allowing the object to rise.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
if  nRT ln(V2/V1 ) is the work to compress the gas to greater than the pressure at the bottom... what more work is required than that? Oh I see... once the gas does start flowing, then its pressure becomes less and you have to apply more force to maintain the pressure ( or have compressed a larger volume to a greater pressure )...

okay.  So if I compress 5 times the volume of air to twice the required additional pressure it's still less work than the total bouyance force.

and bouyancy is ( mass_displaced - mass_displacing ) * G.  (the air weighs something so should be subtracted from the mass displaced...)

input... (compress 4x the required air; 1.5 the required total pressure  @ height of 14 buckets)
13.98181442    Work (ft-lb)


output...(14 buckets)
36.61705229    lift force (ft-lb/sec^2)


so if I compress to 1.82 atmospheres 4x the air it's 13.9 ft-lb and the output is still nearly 3x that... (4kw in 12kw out is in the ballpark of product performance)


taking out 1/4 of the volume of it results in 1.36 atm (75% of 1.82atm), and only 1.05 atm is required with current setup of 0.5 inch 1 foot tubes.


so... it's still probable.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
You seem to have forgotten that your compressed parcel of air needs to be moved down in the water or, if you compressed it on the bottom the water above it is displaced upwards.

The end result is that the energy expended in sinking or creating a buoyant object is exactly the same amount that can be recovered by allowing the object to rise.
it's compressed outside of the container, and piped in at the bottom.  does not have to additionally travel through the water.
  I did forget surface tension of the water.



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 11:31:12 AM
it's compressed outside of the container, and piped in at the bottom.  does not have to additionally travel through the water.
  I did forget surface tension of the water.

What about the column of water above the air that needs to be lifted up to make way for the air? does it just magically float upward?

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 11:34:21 AM
If you'd like to propose a free energy machine that is powered by the steaming pile of crap that equates to this analysis then I'd probably be willing to invest.

Sure, the masses do not change significantly but the distance between them does. The last time I looked the force due to gravity was equal to (G *m1 * m2)/r^2 . If you alter the distance between the two masses then the gravitational potential changes as the inverse square of the distance.

Also mass is NOT proportional to gravity. A 1 kg mass on earth is the same as a 1kg mass on  the moon or floating in space somewhere in the universe.

The quantity you are referring to is weight or mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.
Might i suggest you go and have a peak at exactly what happens to the tide's around the world before you start calling other peoples opinions a steaming pile of crap. Then also have a look into fluid balancing harmonics in a rotating device-such as the earth. Take a flywheel and cut a small piece out of it that would represent our ship,and glue that small piece a little further out toward the outer perimeter of the flywheel. Now spin that flywheel in the vacuum of space and tell me that it will slow down quicker than it would if that piece was placed back to where it came from.

Your fancy numbers(G *m1 * m2)/r^2) mean nothing in this instant,and are only relevant when the forces are confined to earth-->which in this case,they are not,and have no meaning at all in space where there is no gravity-->which is the medium our planet resides in.

So who is talking a steaming pile of crap now.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:38:15 AM
What about the column of water above the air that needs to be lifted up to make way for the air? does it just magically float upward?


well see that's why I'm asking how does the pressure relate to that?  I mean... if the pressure is more, it's going to displace... the whole point in needing the excessive pressure over 1atm is the weight of the water... but the weight of the water turns out to be a very small percentage of 1atm additional... so at 1.053atm it can displace 21 inches of water easily.


(increasing the pipe size at this time does improve additional gain... to go 0.5inch which is 2.6x to 3inch is from 4.86x and an 8 inch pipe is 7.5x... increasing the length doesn't help (the height of water is computed based on the pipe diameter) but then requires much more pressure.. and almost 2HP to compress...)


so at 8 inches the height is 10.5 feet, and the pressure required is 1.32atm minimum... (10.5feet is 3.2m and 10m is +1 atm)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 11:43:53 AM
if  nRT ln(V2/V1 ) is the work to compress the gas to greater than the pressure at the bottom... what more work is required than that? Oh I see... once the gas does start flowing, then its pressure becomes less and you have to apply more force to maintain the pressure ( or have compressed a larger volume to a greater pressure )...

okay.  So if I compress 5 times the volume of air to twice the required additional pressure it's still less work than the total bouyance force.

and bouyancy is ( mass_displaced - mass_displacing ) * G.  (the air weighs something so should be subtracted from the mass displaced...)

... So, having an understanding of these basic physics principles where is the discontinuity? 


How does one relate the force required to displace X with pressure?  Or.. why does it matter how much water is moved?  The pressure is enough to overcome the additional weight of the water.. and if it was under a solid plunger and moved the whole body of water, why does moving that water imply any more work than it took to presureize the gas?




input... (compress 5x the required air; twice the required exess pressure @ height of 14 buckets)
2.366602913    Work (ft-lb)

(edit: or even 4x the volume and 4x the pressure, so if I take 1 unit of volume out it's still 75% of the increased pressure... something; ya it's some differential
 edit2: hmmm ya that needs to be looked at it's probably the missing work)

output...(14 buckets)
36.61705229    lift force (ft-lb/sec^2)

(fixed some annotions, grouping and colored related things)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzocJ_dc7pXwHq1Vr9mzXBdS5-nP51xNjlSPsEVPN_M/edit?usp=sharing)
Your premise fails right when you start conflating force and energy.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 11:44:53 AM
Might i suggest you go and have a peak at exactly what happens to the tide's around the world before you start calling other peoples opinions a steaming pile of crap. Then also have a look into fluid balancing harmonics in a rotating device-such as the earth. Take a flywheel and cut a small piece out of it that would represent our ship,and glue that small piece a little further out toward the outer perimeter of the flywheel. Now spin that flywheel in the vacuum of space and tell me that it will slow down quicker than it would if that piece was placed back to where it came from.

Your fancy numbers(G *m1 * m2)/r^2) mean nothing in this instant,and are only relevant when the forces are confined to earth-->which in this case,they are not,and have no meaning at all in space where there is no gravity-->which is the medium our planet resides in.

So who is talking a steaming pile of crap now.

Astounding!  this is "free energy" at it's best. Not content to produce power from steaming bullshit you multiply the effect by digging an even bigger hole for the theory to reside in.

My advice is to stop digging before the fall becomes painful.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:46:06 AM
Your premise fails right when you start conflating force and energy.
well... they are both expressed as answers to
1) how much work is done by bouyancy
and
2) how much work is required to compress air


I realize that the result is in different units; but which equation is wrong? 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 11:47:03 AM
You seem to have forgotten that your compressed parcel of air needs to be moved down in the water or, if you compressed it on the bottom the water above it is displaced upwards.

The end result is that the energy expended in sinking or creating a buoyant object is exactly the same amount that can be recovered by allowing the object to rise.
And let's not forget, you can only reclaim all of the energy if:  There are no viscous losses and you take infinite time to reclaim the energy.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 11:49:00 AM

so if I compress to 1.82 atmospheres 4x the air it's 13.9 ft-lb and the output is still nearly 3x that... (4kw in 12kw out is in the ballpark of product performance)


taking out 1/4 of the volume of it results in 1.36 atm (75% of 1.82atm), and only 1.05 atm is required with current setup of 0.5 inch 1 foot tubes.


so... it's still probable.
It is no more probable then compressing a spring returns free energy, or hoisting a weight attached to a counter weight via a rope over a pulley.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 11:53:50 AM
well... they are both expressed as answers to
1) how much work is done by bouyancy
and
2) how much work is required to compress air


I realize that the result is in different units; but which equation is wrong?
Force and energy are expressed in different units because they are unique from each other.  They do not equate with one another.

1) Zero, nada, de minimus, squat. 
2) A lot more than anyone has ever been able to recover letting it expand again.

So from 1) you get:  The machine can't perform any net useful work. And, from 2) you get:  The machine cannot transfer work between a source and a load efficiently.  It is a very expensive room ornament / heater.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 11:53:52 AM

well see that's why I'm asking how does the pressure relate to that?  I mean... if the pressure is more, it's going to displace... the whole point in needing the excessive pressure over 1atm is the weight of the water... but the weight of the water turns out to be a very small percentage of 1atm additional... so at 1.053atm it can displace 21 inches of water easily.


(increasing the pipe size at this time does improve additional gain... to go 0.5inch which is 2.6x to 3inch is from 4.86x and an 8 inch pipe is 7.5x... increasing the length doesn't help (the height of water is computed based on the pipe diameter) but then requires much more pressure.. and almost 2HP to compress...)


so at 8 inches the height is 10.5 feet, and the pressure required is 1.32atm minimum... (10.5feet is 3.2m and 10m is +1 atm)

The amount of energy you will need to impart to the air will be (at minimum) the amount of energy required to lift a mass of water represented by the column of water with the horizontal component of the surface area of the float times the depth that it is submerged to. Fairly easy to calculate.

Using air will require more than that due to the losses to heat when compressing the air, and depends on the efficiency of the compressor.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 11:57:46 AM
It is no more probable then compressing a spring returns free energy, or hoisting a weight attached to a counter weight via a rope over a pulley.
the decompression of this 'spring' is over a greater distance and longer time than it took to compress.  so this isn't a spring.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 12:01:33 PM
The amount of energy you will need to impart to the air will be (at minimum) the amount of energy required to lift a mass of water represented by the column of water with the horizontal component of the surface area of the float times the depth that it is submerged to. Fairly easy to calculate.

Using air will require more than that due to the losses to heat when compressing the air, and depends on the efficiency of the compressor.
Yes.. the whole point is the depth of the water and it IS an easy calculation.  Horizontal component is irrelavent.  .. other than a larger surface moves less; but that doesn't imply that it does any less work.


well... market compressors are like 30 (2atm) to 90(6atm) of pressure and I only need +20%.  Yes, a slight amount of heat will be imparted, but that only serves to increase the effective pressure at the input.  Disappation as the air rises in the water will shed that heat.   



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 12:05:21 PM
well... they are both expressed as answers to
1) how much work is done by bouyancy
and
2) how much work is required to compress air


I realize that the result is in different units; but which equation is wrong?
d3x0r
You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain your concept to the guru's. These guy's are the !physics hold all the answers! guy's,and have no room for indifferent. You are closer to the right answer than they are,as they have missed one big effect that tips the scales in favour of it working. The buckets do not have to have all the water diplaced when at the bottom of the tube,and only a small portion of air need be pumped into each bucket. As the bucket rises,more water is diplaced from the bucket,and the bucket becomes more bouyant. At the same time,the water level in the tube rises,and your bucket now has a longer duration of lift than it did at the start. The closer to the surface the bucket get's,the less the pressure is,and more water is displaced from the bucket-->and ofcourse,the higher the water level climbs. So while they go on calculations that see a fixed head of water,and thus a fixed distance the buckets can travel,is infact wrong,as both these valuse change for each bucket cycle.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 12:05:27 PM
Force and energy are expressed in different units because they are unique from each other.  They do not equate with one another.

1) Zero, nada, de minimus, squat. 
2) A lot more than anyone has ever been able to recover letting it expand again.

So from 1) you get:  The machine can't perform any net useful work. And, from 2) you get:  The machine cannot transfer work between a source and a load efficiently.  It is a very expensive room ornament / heater.


1) if I have a force, it can do work... and all the calculation are based on 1 second, so applying time is X * 1 = X... and the seconds in the units disappear.  if I have a whole bunch of ping pong balls, their bouyant force is enough to raise many tons of wreckage from very deep depths.  If there was no work able to be done, then it wouldn't have moved.  It would have taken infinite time, or moved 0... 


2) nRT ln(V2/v1)  I even did the work to put it out.


Look if you don't actually KNOW anything, then stop quoting useless rules of thumb.


Just because noone used a stick to throw a spear doesn't mean that the american indians weren't able to leverage more power because they did.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 12:12:25 PM
Quote
Take a flywheel and cut a small piece out of it that would represent our ship,and glue that small piece a little further out toward the outer perimeter of the flywheel. Now spin that flywheel in the vacuum of space and tell me that it will slow down quicker than it would if that piece was placed back to where it came from.

I think the above quote helps explain why you are "out there" on this one.  Who said anything about the flywheel or Earth slowing down like some kind of flywheel or pulse motor spin down?  If you do the boat thing just one day, then the Earth slows down by a fixed amount.  You have taken a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy and turned it into electrical energy with your system.  It's not a spin-down, it's a single step down in rotational speed.  It's closely related to how the tides take a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy every day and pass it to the moon, resulting in a step down in rotational speed.

All that you have to do is read about the Earth-moon system.  The Earth is putting torque on the orbiting moon and throwing it into a higher orbit.  With the tidal ship system you just kind of hitch a ride on the tidal system and "steal" a bit of that energy for your generator.  It's where leap seconds come from - the Earth is always slowing down.

However the Earth slowing down, it's not a spin down in the conventional sense like a flywheel.  It's more like the Earth-moon system is trading energy, the Earth's rotational energy is being transferred into the moon's orbital energy.  Ironically enough, your ship system is in a way comparable to friction slowing down a flywheel.  Because you are "stealing energy from the moon" and turning it into heat.  Just like bearing friction on the flywheel becomes heat.

It has nothing to do with the mass of the Earth changing, and nothing to do with gravity in the conventional up-down sense.

It may all sound confusing, but it should all start to make sense if you read about the Earth-moon system.   You system does not get energy from gravity.  It's just one of those cases where you have to dig a bit deeper to see what's really going on.  What you sometimes see, like a ship going up and down in the tides through a gravity field, is not necessarily what your first crack at understanding it really is.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 29, 2015, 12:13:03 PM
d3x0r
You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain your concept to the guru's. These guy's are the !physics hold all the answers! guy's,and have no room for indifferent. You are closer to the right answer than they are,as they have missed one big effect that tips the scales in favour of it working. The buckets do not have to have all the water diplaced when at the bottom of the tube,and only a small portion of air need be pumped into each bucket. As the bucket rises,more water is diplaced from the bucket,and the bucket becomes more bouyant. At the same time,the water level in the tube rises,and your bucket now has a longer duration of lift than it did at the start. The closer to the surface the bucket get's,the less the pressure is,and more water is displaced from the bucket-->and ofcourse,the higher the water level climbs. So while they go on calculations that see a fixed head of water,and thus a fixed distance the buckets can travel,is infact wrong,as both these valuse change for each bucket cycle.
ya; I know... and they don't actually know details, or spend a few minutes to go learn the details they have a very general knowledge of; I keep forgetting. 

(actually the water rises also as the bubble expands... it forms a hump where divers are for instance... the expansion is real and does work...)

that and to go back to TK's 'get rid of the water' idea... AIR is all around and available partially presurized, so the additional work there is very minor compared to moving the same amount of water from the bottom to the top of an apparatus. 

I looked up 'bellows bouyancy device' and found some clever wheel sort of images... was wonder if there was like a DaVinci invention along that line... surely someone had tried?  but even a foot pump(a bellows) used for inflating air matresses is high CFM and low pressure, but enough pressure to overcome a few feet of water .



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 29, 2015, 12:29:13 PM
@MarkE
Quote
You assert a distinction that you fail to establish.
I believe TK started that little fiasco and I finished it.
Quote
Unless you wish to rely on magical thinking, the minimum work
to force the air into the buckets is identically the increase in mgh of the
water that the air displaces.  That places the whole affair at zero sum gain
in the best case.  This is all very black letter.  If you are
going to make the ridiculous request that someone propose to you a means of
imparting free energy to air, why not cut to the chase and just ask for a free
source of electricity to run your appliances?
I wouldn't call it magical thinking more so creative problem solving where we actually think about how the problem could be solved rather than the tedious same/same argument. You know I have to ask why you are compelled to reduce and compare everything to the simplest worst case scenario?. Me I'm always looking for the best case scenario where an action may be transformed in some way and become separate or distinct relative to it's reaction. Don't get me wrong the basics are important however thinking that is all there is or ever could be is obviously a losing proposition as far as progress is concerned. 
 
To be clear I am not asking that someone propose a means of imparting free energy to the air I am asking if they have any idea of how one could get the air into the tank and performing work more efficiently. Obviously your lost so I will start, Compressed air get's hot and hot air entering a cool tank contracts displacing less water... are you with me Mark?. Now if we moved all or most of the heat losses and heat of compression to the water it would get hot and the air would cool. Cool air bubbles entering a tank of hot water will expand displacing more water so we have less losses and the air bubbles in themselves are acting more like a heat engine. That is the bubbles are expanding and performing work however they do carry this heat out of the system but the fact remains we have not just rejected this heat energy to atmosphere like unthinking primates.
 
Now if we went a little further we might consider how a heat pump or venturi system might effect this proposition in moving heat, can it increase the efficiency and if it could where might the balance point be?. Could we concentrate this heat to lower the density of the water where the air enters the system and to what effect?. You see that wasn't so hard was it?, we have just thought about the problem and made a simple improvement which has raised the effieciency. On the other hand you haven't actually said anything as usual nor have you improved anything. Okay Mark I made a simple improvement now it's your turn.
 
AC
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 12:30:59 PM
d3x0r
You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain your concept to the guru's. These guy's are the !physics hold all the answers! guy's,and have no room for indifferent. You are closer to the right answer than they are,as they have missed one big effect that tips the scales in favour of it working. The buckets do not have to have all the water diplaced when at the bottom of the tube,and only a small portion of air need be pumped into each bucket. As the bucket rises,more water is diplaced from the bucket,and the bucket becomes more bouyant. At the same time,the water level in the tube rises,and your bucket now has a longer duration of lift than it did at the start. The closer to the surface the bucket get's,the less the pressure is,and more water is displaced from the bucket-->and ofcourse,the higher the water level climbs. So while they go on calculations that see a fixed head of water,and thus a fixed distance the buckets can travel,is infact wrong,as both these valuse change for each bucket cycle.

Who is going on about a fixed head of water? BUT, If you  DO move water about to create or vary a head then that requires energy, correct?  Energy you then conveniently ignore when coming to a conclusion that over-unity is possible in this device.

Further, the statement "has a longer duration of lift" is IRRELEVANT when determining an energy balance for a single cycle. The net change in potential of any masses within the system is independent of how long those changes occurred over. (Except in ways that can only hurt efficiency such as rapid viscous flows causing losses to heat)


Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 12:41:19 PM
I think the above quote helps explain why you are "out there" on this one.  Who said anything about the flywheel or Earth slowing down like some kind of flywheel or pulse motor spin down?  If you do the boat thing just one day, then the Earth slows down by a fixed amount.  You have taken a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy and turned it into electrical energy with your system.  It's not a spin-down, it's a single step down in rotational speed.  It's closely related to how the tides take a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy every day and pass it to the moon, resulting in a step down in rotational speed.

All that you have to do is read about the Earth-moon system.  The Earth is putting torque on the orbiting moon and throwing it into a higher orbit.  With the tidal ship system you just kind of hitch a ride on the tidal system and "steal" a bit of that energy for your generator.  It's where leap seconds come from - the Earth is always slowing down.

However the Earth slowing down, it's not a spin down in the conventional sense like a flywheel.  It's more like the Earth-moon system is trading energy, the Earth's rotational energy is being transferred into the moon's orbital energy.  Ironically enough, your ship system is in a way comparable to friction slowing down a flywheel.  Because you are "stealing energy from the moon" and turning it into heat.  Just like bearing friction on the flywheel becomes heat.

It has nothing to do with the mass of the Earth changing, and nothing to do with gravity in the conventional up-down sense.

It may all sound confusing, but it should all start to make sense if you read about the Earth-moon system.   You system does not get energy from gravity.  It's just one of those cases where you have to dig a bit deeper to see what's really going on.  What you sometimes see, like a ship going up and down in the tides through a gravity field, is not necessarily what your first crack at understanding it really is.
MH
I took this all into account many post ago-maybe you missed it?. I said to MarkE-maybe in 4 to 5 billion year's,come back and make your point. Do you think we will still be here in 4 to 5 billion years from now?. Well if we stick to what we think we know is correct,then yes,man will still be stuck on this planet-->if there is any planet left. But for the here and now,regardless of what may or may not be happening as far as earths rotational speed go's,gravity and bouyancy can do useful work,and the impact that that work will have is next to nothing. There is also the fact(that if you believe that the ship is offsetting the ballance) that a counter force can soon be implaced to counteract that effect-every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 12:50:28 PM
You are wrong on this one Brad, but I am not going to push it further.   Something to think about or look up if you are curious, is how many Joules of energy are there available due to the angular momentum of the rotating Earth?  Then suppose you give yourself the "right" to harvest just 10% of that rotational energy.  How much energy is there in that 10% chunk?  How many Bay of Fundy ship tidal power up and down "rides" does that give you?   That might be an interesting number.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 12:56:05 PM

 
To be clear I am not asking that someone propose a means of imparting free energy to the air I am asking if they have any idea of how one could get the air into the tank and performing work more efficiently. Obviously your lost so I will start, Compressed air get's hot and hot air entering a cool tank contracts displacing less water... are you with me Mark?. Now if we moved all or most of the heat losses and heat of compression to the water it would get hot and the air would cool. Cool air bubbles entering a tank of hot water will expand displacing more water so we have less losses and the air bubbles in themselves are acting more like a heat engine. That is the bubbles are expanding and performing work however they do carry this heat out of the system but the fact remains we have not just rejected this heat energy to atmosphere like unthinking primates.
 
Now if we went a little further we might consider how a heat pump or venturi system might effect this proposition in moving heat, can it increase the efficiency and if it could where might the balance point be?. Could we concentrate this heat to lower the density of the water where the air enters the system and to what effect?. You see that wasn't so hard was it?, we have just thought about the problem and made a simple improvement which has raised the effieciency. On the other hand you haven't actually said anything as usual nor have you improved anything. Okay Mark I made a simple improvement now it's your turn.
 
AC
LOL AC
And now the highlighted parts have come full circle,and thus begins the explination on how my bouyancy device works. The answer is yes,a given quantity of energy in the form of a compressed gas can indeed be increased without the requirement of an additional energy input. we hit 110% with just the venturi setup,and this is all posted on the (open systems)thread for all to try-the results will speak for them self. The second set of results was refused to be calculated unless i disclose the system as a whole,even though we still used no additional energy to create the result's. The calculations were carried out by a third party,and the results show an increase in energy of close to 33%-->that is 133% efficieny.

This is so funny watching this all unfold ;)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 01:02:21 PM
@MarkEI believe TK started that little fiasco and I finished it. I wouldn't call it magical thinking more so creative problem solving where we actually think about how the problem could be solved rather than the tedious same/same argument. You know I have to ask why you are compelled to reduce and compare everything to the simplest worst case scenario?.
LOL, I started with the best case:  The device doesn't consume any net energy.  All real cases are worse.  Please pay better attention.
Quote
Me I'm always looking for the best case scenario where an action may be transformed in some way and become separate or distinct relative to it's reaction. Don't get me wrong the basics are important however thinking that is all there is or ever could be is obviously a losing proposition as far as progress is concerned. 
Evidence, you should look into that concept.
Quote

To be clear I am not asking that someone propose a means of imparting free energy to the air I am asking if they have any idea of how one could get the air into the tank and performing work more efficiently.
LOL, to be "more efficient" than the work evolved is to ask for free energy.
Quote
Obviously your lost so I will start, Compressed air get's hot and hot air entering a cool tank contracts displacing less water... are you with me Mark?. Now if we moved all or most of the heat losses and heat of compression to the water it would get hot and the air would cool. Cool air bubbles entering a tank of hot water will expand displacing more water so we have less losses and the air bubbles in themselves are acting more like a heat engine. That is the bubbles are expanding and performing work however they do carry this heat out of the system but the fact remains we have not just rejected this heat energy to atmosphere like unthinking primates.
The thermal losses only take you downhill from the starting point of no net energy being available from buoyancy.
Quote

Now if we went a little further we might consider how a heat pump or venturi system might effect this proposition in moving heat, can it increase the efficiency and if it could where might the balance point be?. Could we concentrate this heat to lower the density of the water where the air enters the system and to what effect?. You see that wasn't so hard was it?, we have just thought about the problem and made a simple improvement which has raised the effieciency. On the other hand you haven't actually said anything as usual nor have you improved anything. Okay Mark I made a simple improvement now it's your turn.
 
AC
Zero less any positive value is less than zero.  You start with zero net energy available and suffer losses.  If you get rid of all of the losses you are back to nothing.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 01:05:26 PM
LOL AC
And now the highlighted parts have come full circle,and thus begins the explination on how my bouyancy device works. The answer is yes,a given quantity of energy in the form of a compressed gas can indeed be increased without the requirement of an additional energy input. we hit 110% with just the venturi setup,and this is all posted on the (open systems)thread for all to try-the results will speak for them self. The second set of results was refused to be calculated unless i disclose the system as a whole,even though we still used no additional energy to create the result's. The calculations were carried out by a third party,and the results show an increase in energy of close to 33%-->that is 133% efficieny.

This is so funny watching this all unfold ;)
It will be a lot funnier when you get to the end.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 01:09:00 PM


Quote
Who is going on about a fixed head of water? BUT, If you  DO move water about to create or vary a head then that requires energy, correct?  Energy you then conveniently ignore when coming to a conclusion that over-unity is possible in this device.

NO-there you go with your faulse accusations. I have always stated that overunity is not possible,and many here know this. I do NOT believe in any overunity device,nor do i believe that overunity is possible. Overunity is a term that will be used when the creator of the device cannot relate to,or knows from where the extra energy is coming from. To them(and many others) ,overunity is a term used until the power source becomes known.

Quote
Further, the statement "has a longer duration of lift" is IRRELEVANT when determining an energy balance for a single cycle. The net change in potential of any masses within the system is independent of how long those changes occurred over. (Except in ways that can only hurt efficiency such as rapid viscous flows causing losses to heat)

Only relevant when only a primary system exist,and irrelevant when a primary system give rise to an easier path for a secondary system.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 01:17:47 PM
NO-there you go with your faulse accusations. I have always stated that overunity is not possible,and many here know this. I do NOT believe in any overunity device,nor do i believe that overunity is possible. Overunity is a term that will be used when the creator of the device cannot relate to,or knows from where the extra energy is coming from. To them(and many others) ,overunity is a term used until the power source becomes known.

Only relevant when only a primary system exist,and irrelevant when a primary system give rise to an easier path for a secondary system.

And yet you describe devices that IF they worked as you claimed then the only possible energy source would be a first or second law violation. That to my mind is overunity, but you can call it what ever you want.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 01:20:12 PM
, I started with the best case:  The device doesn't consume any net energy.  All real cases are worse.  Please pay better attention.Evidence, you should look into that concept The thermal losses only take you downhill from the starting point of no net energy being available from buoyancy.Zero less any positive value is less than zero.  You start with zero net energy available and suffer losses. 

Quote
LOL

Quote
LOL

I just love how you continue to laugh at peoples ideas and thought's MarkE. This is a common occurrence with you. You always laugh at those you consider to be below you.

Quote
.LOL, to be "more efficient" than the work evolved is to ask for free energy.

No,as i proved useing your calculations,the energy you call free actually came from the enviroment. And at the end of the cycle,it will be returned to where it came from-the conservation of energy :D

Quote
If you get rid of all of the losses you are back to nothing.

And yet i showed a net energy gain(useing your calculations),even with the losses. This is there along with a simple schematic for all to try,and see the results for them self.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 01:28:15 PM
I just love how you continue to laugh at peoples ideas and thought's MarkE. This is a common occurrence with you. You always laugh at those you consider to be below you.

No,as i proved useing your calculations,the energy you call free actually came from the enviroment. And at the end of the cycle,it will be returned to where it came from-the conservation of energy :D

And yet i showed a net energy gain(useing your calculations),even with the losses. This is there along with a simple schematic for all to try,and see the results for them self.

So why don't you make comment on the concept of chaining several of your venturi nozzles together? Should be a no brainer to produce an ever increasing output, no?

Or does the effect miraculously disappear when it knows the secret to eternal free energy is under threat of exposure. These things must remain hidden after all :)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 01:59:43 PM
You are wrong on this one Brad, but I am not going to push it further.   Something to think about or look up if you are curious, is how many Joules of energy are there available due to the angular momentum of the rotating Earth?  Then suppose you give yourself the "right" to harvest just 10% of that rotational energy.  How much energy is there in that 10% chunk?  How many Bay of Fundy ship tidal power up and down "rides" does that give you?   That might be an interesting number.

I know what your saying MH,and to a point-i agree. But then ask yourself this-how much energy (in this offset you speak of) would Mt everest be taking away from the earths rotation. Lets just knock 50 000 tons off the peak,and where done-right?--we have gained ballance?. No,we havnt. The midway point is the ballance with the ship. Do you see it as being raised 14 meters,or being raised 7 meters,and dropped 7 meters?. It's all the same thing-the mass remains the same,so the energy required remains the same. The earth is fluid ballanced,and that ballance is offset by the moons gravitational pull. We are loosing no energy,only transforming energy. It is also interesting to note that since man has been building huge steel ships that displace 100s of 1000s of tons,and put up on dry dock during high tide,that the earths rotation speed reduction has not increased above the 2 microseconds each day since over 200 000000 years ago-it has remained constant regardless of mans intervention. If we take a large ball,and tether a small ball to it some distance away from it,and then set it in a spinning motion in space-will it stop spinning?,no,it wont,and regardless of what you do on that large ball,it wont stop spinning unless you eject mass into space,and form some sort of rocket engine device or effect. So why do you think that the same would not apply here on earth?,why would anything we do on earth effect the spin of the earth when we are just that big ball with a smaller balled tethered to it spinning in space. Did the thought ever cross your mind that the slowing of the earths rotation may have something to do with the earths position in the galactic plane?. How do you know that once we pass through the galactic plane to the other side where the earth will now be seeing a counter rotation in relation to the rotation of the galaxy,that the earth wont once again start to speed up?. Only another 65 million years,and we will know the answer to that.

The fact that the earths decreasing rotational speed has remained constant for over 200 000000 years that we know of,clearly shows that mans intervention has had no effect-and we are talking microseconds here,so a very precise measurement.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 02:04:57 PM
So why don't you make comment on the concept of chaining several of your venturi nozzles together? Should be a no brainer to produce an ever increasing output, no?

Or does the effect miraculously disappear when it knows the secret to eternal free energy is under threat of exposure. These things must remain hidden after all :)
Sure-you send the cash to pay for the equipment and my time,and i will give you a looped system.
You seem to think this is some sort of miracle,when it is nothing more than useing the enviroments energy to power a device. The solar pannel dose this with ease,and to you it's just a common item that can be bought and used at will. So why dose this system that uses a different enviromental energy seem so far fetched to you? Your partner in crime even stated that the enviroment gases hold a huge amount of energy,and yet you seem bewildered as to how enviromental gases could be used to increase the energy within a system. :o
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 29, 2015, 02:18:36 PM
Sure-you send the cash to pay for the equipment and my time,and i will give you a looped system.
You seem to think this is some sort of miracle,when it is nothing more than useing the enviroments energy to power a device. The solar pannel dose this with ease,and to you it's just a common item that can be bought and used at will. So why dose this system that uses a different enviromental energy seem so far fetched to you? Your partner in crime even stated that the enviroment gases hold a huge amount of energy,and yet you seem bewildered as to how enviromental gases could be used to increase the energy within a system. :o

I'd have thought that you'd recognise that performing such a test would perhaps be the simplest way to test your hypothesis that this device provides for an energy increase. What you have done so far does NOT preclude the result that all you have done is create a more efficient nozzle.

I've got absolutely zero interest in providing cash for you to test a looped system though, as I already know what the result would be.

This device has nothing in common with the well established principle of turning light into electrical energy such as occurs in a solar panel. Solar panels are ~30% efficient at best. There is no chance of them becoming anywhere near 100 per cent efficient, let alone the 133% you seem to be claiming for a venturi nozzle.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 02:20:13 PM
With the apparatus as set-up you have not performed any useful work.  See how much useful work you can do by any means from your now 30 liters of 16.2 psi gauge air.  A simple test to see if it is more than 10 liters of 40 psi gauge air is to devise a scheme where you end up with 10 liters of 40 psi gauge air again, and some additional non zero quantity of air still above zero gauge, or alternately fill more than 10 liters to 40 psi gauge, or 10 liters to more than 40 psi gauge.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2015, 03:47:03 PM
Quote Libre-energia:'Solar panels are ~30% efficient at best. There is no chance of them becoming anywhere near 100 per cent efficient.'

You sure about this?there are caesium based panels which can push 60% and up
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 29, 2015, 04:32:02 PM

I've got absolutely zero interest in providing cash for you to test a looped system though, as I already know what the result would be.


Quote
I'd have thought that you'd recognise that performing such a test would perhaps be the simplest way to test your hypothesis that this device provides for an energy increase. What you have done so far does NOT preclude the result that all you have done is create a more efficient nozzle.


Please explain as to how a nozzle can increase the energy within two vessel's to over 100%.

Quote
This device has nothing in common with the well established principle of turning light into electrical energy such as occurs in a solar panel. Solar panels are ~30% efficient at best. There is no chance of them becoming anywhere near 100 per cent efficient, let alone the 133% you seem to be claiming for a venturi nozzle.

Nope-you got it wrong again. The venturi increased the energy within the two vessels to 110%-->this was MarkE's calculations with the numbers i provided,not the 133% you claim. The 133% result was with the use of a ram-->not the venturi.

If you are going to quote people,make sure you are quoting the correct results with the correct device. All the information on these results is on the open systems thread-which i thought you were following correctly when you made your statements.

Quote
Solar panels are ~30% efficient at best. There is no chance of them becoming anywhere near 100 per cent efficient

Another incorrect statement. You mean to say-->solar pannels only convert 30% of the suns energy that they recieve to electrical energy,the rest is transformed into heat,and a portion is reflected. For some one that insists on going by the book,you sure do miss a lot.

Oh,and for the record,over here in Australia,we have solar pannels that top 40% sun light to electrical energy conversion. The good news is that now they have managed to put all this into one cell insted of four.
http://rt.com/business/212383-australia-record-solar-energy/
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 29, 2015, 05:48:23 PM
Hey tinman
Quote
Please explain as to how a nozzle can increase the energy within two vessel's to over 100%.


I don't see much sense in trying to debate this with the critics because there is no real debate in it. However others might be interested in finding creative solutions that work. Your venturi nozzle is an interesting idea because if the pressure is converted to kinetic energy then it may absorb heat from ambient and add it when this kinetic energy is converted back to pressure inside the tank. In effect a heat pump and some early refrigeration systems used compressed air.


I have done a great deal of R&D and over the years found most all Free Energy relates to a single statement. Action A is transformed into another form having no direct relation to reaction B allowing it to interact with C (the external environment) thus A-C upon conversion may increase B. The reaction B is not dictated by action A alone but the extent of interaction with C.


So simple and yet the critics must in every case deny the external environment even exists. It is a fools game played out by senile old men stuck in the past in my opinion. It's the same old story and if were not part of the solution then we are the problem.


AC
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: sterlinga on April 29, 2015, 06:08:36 PM

Hi Sterling,
unlike your site where most comments are suppressed and posters banned (again) you are always welcome to post your opinions here or at Revolution-Green.com
As you know form many years experience, not one QMoGen you either reported on or promoted with you fee for story journalism approach has ever worked out. Not one has been independently verified or gone into production. So why carry on with this delusional fantasy?


Speaking of fantasy, on a personnel note I was wondering
1. Did Jesus ever come for supper after you invited him ?
2. Did the young ,famous violinist you were stalking ever take you up on a date ?
3. Are you still expecting to be arrested for your self confessed inappropriate sexual behavior ?
4. Do you still believe anyone takes you seriously anymore or wants to be associated with you given the above questions?


I also find it amusing you would post here given the hatchet job and bad mouthing your moderator Stuart is giving Stefan. Stefan is well respected by all and is also entitled to an opinion without emotive and derogatory comments being made.


On a positive note some of your recent stories have been balanced and well written


Kind regards and best wishes
Mark Dansie


Kind Regards
Mark

Unlike you, I have patience and hope in a better future. Things don't have to happen today for them to be viable future possibilities.

Yes, I'm still holding out for amazing things in my personal quest. Yes, I did have some interesting conversations with a certain celebrity.

As I told you in the PESN comments where you posted your usual pathological skepticism:

REPRINT:
 Remember, this comment [referring to Dansie] is coming from Mr. "guilty until proven innocent" attitude, who has no qualms about that and is actually proud of it.   It's also coming from Mr. "show me the data" who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job (lack of core courage/honesty to see/accept what is blatant). It also comes from someone who doesn't see any core problems with Socialism, which is another word for tyranny by government.
There are over 50 independent groups worldwide from 17+ countries who think they have come up with this on their own, and have shown interesting videos demonstrating it. I think it's safe to say there is something to it.
See our listing at http://QMoGen.com (http://QMoGen.com)
I think the reason none of them have given an indisputable proof, and why none of them have come to market is because free energy is all about freedom; and right now, having sewn wickedness, the world doesn't yet deserve freedom, they deserve the tyranny they are getting. That's why I've been focusing on spiritual stuff in recent times, to help bring about a major spiritual awaking on the planet, so we can avert the incarceration the world is heading toward, aka New World Order, global police state, martial law, Jade Helm, etc.
That Rosch/GAIA are now coming forward, so close to market, makes me think we might be on the brink of a major spiritual awakening, or this wouldn't be so close. If that awakening doesn't happen, then things will keep "popping up" to prevent the full  roll-out until it does -- unless they opt to target individuals and groups who are awake, and don't try to go mainstream. To a large extent, I would argue that this is what has been going on by default, since at this point, it is mostly only the "awake" who have been attracted to this to the point of being pioneers to get the first systems as they become available.
 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on April 29, 2015, 06:17:57 PM
"So simple and yet the critics must in every case deny the external environment even exists."
most discussions are about a closed system; using the environment will turn the system in question from a closed one to an open one.
Why is it that the OU enthusiasts seem to use very poor English, even allowing for differences between countries?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 29, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
Here also a Screenshot of the Youtube Channel from Verein Gaia at:
https://www.youtube.com/user/VereinGAIA (https://www.youtube.com/user/VereinGAIA)

Now there is also the Thumbnail icon to see from the old Livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaspEl8WJW0)


As I stated at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Official:_Club_GAIA_on_Outage

From my limited perspective, what is seen in that video is consistent with GAIA's description.

Prior to the outage (of the 5 kW system), the power for the lighting was coming from the lamps around the system. Then the AuKW went down, so the lights went out. The other lights in the hall were already off.

The darkness triggered the light-sensing safety lighting, which then turned on.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on April 29, 2015, 06:44:38 PM
"The darkness triggered the light-sensing safety lighting, which then turned on." In my experience the emergency lights are NOT triggered by light sensors. They turn on when their MAINS POWER has been removed, if they are not permanently on to start with (many are).
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on April 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PM
   As if the lights would be powered by that silly contraption????
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on April 29, 2015, 06:56:42 PM



  You have to hand it to old Rossi,he had the wit to hire in a 500kva Diesel generator!
 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 29, 2015, 07:06:29 PM
Hey tinman

I don't see much sense in trying to debate this with the critics because there is no real debate in it. However others might be interested in finding creative solutions that work. Your venturi nozzle is an interesting idea because if the pressure is converted to kinetic energy then it may absorb heat from ambient and add it when this kinetic energy is converted back to pressure inside the tank. In effect a heat pump and some early refrigeration systems used compressed air.


I have done a great deal of R&D and over the years found most all Free Energy relates to a single statement. Action A is transformed into another form having no direct relation to reaction B allowing it to interact with C (the external environment) thus A-C upon conversion may increase B. The reaction B is not dictated by action A alone but the extent of interaction with C.


So simple and yet the critics must in every case deny the external environment even exists. It is a fools game played out by senile old men stuck in the past in my opinion. It's the same old story and if were not part of the solution then we are the problem.


AC
Fantasy offers diversion.  Fantasy does not solve problems.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2015, 07:37:00 PM
Quote Memoryman'most discussions are about a closed system; using the environment will turn the system in question from a closed one to an open one.'

There's no such thing as a closed system anyways thus every system in existence will involve the environment and heat-traffic with it.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on April 29, 2015, 07:48:40 PM

As I stated at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Official:_Club_GAIA_on_Outage (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Official:_Club_GAIA_on_Outage)

From my limited perspective, what is seen in that video is consistent with GAIA's description.

Prior to the outage (of the 5 kW system), the power for the lighting was coming from the lamps around the system. Then the AuKW went down, so the lights went out. The other lights in the hall were already off.

The darkness triggered the light-sensing safety lighting, which then turned on.
Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines. This really shows how you often jump to false assumptions or just plain wrong. If they were light sensitive they would come on every night. LOL
You should go check things out before embarrassing yourself.
Kind Regards



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 08:06:46 PM
It is also interesting to note that since man has been building huge steel ships that displace 100s of 1000s of tons,and put up on dry dock during high tide,that the earths rotation speed reduction has not increased above the 2 microseconds each day since over 200 000000 years ago-it has remained constant regardless of mans intervention.

If we take a large ball,and tether a small ball to it some distance away from it,and then set it in a spinning motion in space-will it stop spinning?,no,it wont,and regardless of what you do on that large ball,it wont stop spinning unless you eject mass into space,and form some sort of rocket engine device or effect.

The fact that the earths decreasing rotational speed has remained constant for over 200 000000 years that we know of,clearly shows that mans intervention has had no effect-and we are talking microseconds here,so a very precise measurement.

Extracting energy from the rotational energy of the Earth with the ship will slow it down and you can work it out with a hand calculator.  It's just a question of the order of magnitude.  It's too small to affect the 2 microseconds each day.  It would affect the moon too.  It's a good college physics problem.

The ball will slow down if there is an unbalanced force on it.  Why don't you read up on the Earth-moon system.  The clockwise and counter-clockwise torques on the Earth from the Earth-moon gravitational attraction are NOT equal.  There is more of the Earth's mass on one side of the center line than the other when looking at the Moon's gravitational attraction towards the Earth.  That causes the torque.  That's why the Earth is slowing down.  That's what you are not getting.  Just find a web page and look at the diagram.

There is torque on the Earth's rotation slowing it down, and there is torque on the moon's orbit throwing it farther out into space.  The moon's orbit is going "up the orbital potential energy elevator" because of that torque.

The Earth is undergoing toque because the tides put more of the Earth's mass on one side of the center line of the Earth-moon system than the other.  Because of that, the Earth is acting like a "gravitational tug boat" pulling on the moon which is equivalent to putting torque on the orbit of the moon.   Since the Earth is acting like a "tug boat" there is a N3 tug back on the rotating Earth, slowing it down.  It's like there is an elastic band under tension between the "heavy" side of the Earth and the moon.  To the moon, it looks like it is at the end of a slingshot pulling on it and speeding it up.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 10:28:41 PM
Yes Mark,, it surely does, and it surely can.

What a fantasy it was then to think about harnessing electricity,, or going to the moon,, or many other "breakthroughs".

Fantasy, or creative thinking, is the spark that drives innovation.

You know what is getting really fatiguing in the world in general?  It's the redefining of words on the fly just because.

"Fantasy" means that it's not true.  Whereas going to the moon and a pistol shrimp are not fantasy, they are real.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2015, 11:50:31 PM
Yes, and this is the one that readily comes to mind when reading some of this thread:

<<< A fanciful mental image, typically one on which a person dwells at length or repeatedly and which reflects their conscious or unconscious wishes.  >>>
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: PIH123 on April 29, 2015, 11:59:59 PM
Yes, I did have some interesting conversations with a certain celebrity.

Sterling, sorry to break this to you, but I am the Peter Hughes who commented on your youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI) - Seeking some kind of reply from Lindsey Stirling -- Day 54 of Sup Quest

Myself and John Doe chatted a bit, and well, we have been messing with you.

You have never had a conversation with Lindsey or anyone  who has relayed your "stuff" to her.

Sorry.

Pete


BTW, I don't feel bad about this due to your 911 ravings.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 12:19:40 AM
Seems like somebody  spiked the Punch bowl...

Whacky party indeed...
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 01:26:35 AM
Sterling, sorry to break this to you, but I am the Peter Hughes who commented on your youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI) - Seeking some kind of reply from Lindsey Stirling -- Day 54 of Sup Quest

Myself and John Doe chatted a bit, and well, we have been messing with you.

You have never had a conversation with Lindsey or anyone  who has relayed your "stuff" to her.

Sorry.

Pete


BTW, I don't feel bad about this due to your 911 ravings.

That is astounding. One single comment from "John Doe" reaching to 8036 words. Talk about TLDR ! That's not a comment, that's a novelette !

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 01:31:54 AM
Yes Mark,, it surely does, and it surely can.

What a fantasy it was then to think about harnessing electricity,, or going to the moon,, or many other "breakthroughs".

Fantasy, or creative thinking, is the spark that drives innovation.
Faantasy may inspire.  It does not solve problems.  Electricity was not harnessed because someone imagined it was harnessed.  It was harnessed when they worked it out.  We did not get to the moon when Jules Vern wrote about it.  We got there after thousands of people worked each of the many problems that had to be overcome.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: PIH123 on April 30, 2015, 01:36:05 AM
That is astounding. One single comment from "John Doe" reaching to 8036 words. Talk about TLDR ! That's not a comment, that's a novelette !

And by some freak coincidence, when put through ASCII.com, that post added up to exactly 84627 (Sterlings Zipcode)
(when divided by 23.468 of course).

I really think he is onto something here.

Maybe I am HMITF, sans perky boobies.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 01:42:55 AM

As I stated at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Official:_Club_GAIA_on_Outage (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Official:_Club_GAIA_on_Outage)

From my limited perspective, what is seen in that video is consistent with GAIA's description.

Prior to the outage (of the 5 kW system), the power for the lighting was coming from the lamps around the system. Then the AuKW went down, so the lights went out. The other lights in the hall were already off.
This statement appears to make no sense. "The power for the lighting was coming from the lamps around the system." So lamps provide power for themselves, now? Well considering some of the other wild claims you have championed.... I suppose this is par for the course.
Quote
The darkness triggered the light-sensing safety lighting, which then turned on.
As others have explained to you, most emergency lighting is triggered by loss of mains power, not "darkness". Do you have any evidence for the assertion that this hall has some unusual emergency lighting system that is triggered by darkness rather than loss of mains power? Do these emergency lights then come on whenever the building's main lights are simply turned off and it gets dark inside? You really aren't making much sense here.

The explanation from Gaia also doesn't make a lot of sense. The thing failed 2 or 3 hours after the heavy load was removed, because somebody forgot to plug the heating panels back in? And this was an error in "control programming"? And a few minutes of programming found and fixed that problem?

You really will believe just about anything, that's clear enough.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 02:30:42 AM
Hey tinman


So simple and yet the critics must in every case deny the external environment even exists. It is a fools game played out by senile old men stuck in the past in my opinion. It's the same old story and if were not part of the solution then we are the problem.


AC

Quote
I don't see much sense in trying to debate this with the critics because there is no real debate in it.

In the past couple of week's,i have found this to be very true.

Quote
I have done a great deal of R&D and over the years found most all Free Energy relates to a single statement. Action A is transformed into another form having no direct relation to reaction B allowing it to interact with C (the external environment) thus A-C upon conversion may increase B. The reaction B is not dictated by action A alone but the extent of interaction with C.

This is exactly what i did. I had two tanks-1 x 10ltr volume and 1 x 20ltr volume. The 10ltr tank was tank A. This was the tank that stored the energy in the form of compressed gas. Tank B was the receiver. When the venturi was added to the system,this became what you call C.

Now,a series of 5 test were carried out,where the gas in tank A was aloud to flow into tank B via way of a ball valve. MarkE done the calculations,and we were getting an efficiency of 98% in the transfer when the gas temperature was aloud to settle to ambiant temperature. At this time,all was good. Then i fitted the venturi between tanks A and B,so as external gas(ambiant air) was drawn into tank B when the ball valve was opened between tank's A&B. I then gave MarkE the results in way of pressure and temperature when the gas was once again aloud to settle to ambiant temperature-->both test carried out in identical circumstances and conditions,only one could draw in gas from the enviroment. I got back--this makes no sense,as the result was 110%.

From there on in,it just went down hill from there. I continued to implement the ram into the system,and once again obtained the results over 5 test runs. As in the last two test,the results were averaged out over the 5 test runs. I once again gave the figures to MarkE to calculate. From there on in,everything went pear shaped. I was told that no results would be given until i disclose the units working as a whole. I was told they were nonsense figures,and mean nothing until i disclose the system as a whole,and exactly how it work's. This can be read by all those that are interested in the open systems thread.

I had some one else crunch the number's,and we ended up with around 133% efficiency.
We now see comments like-wait until you try to do useful work with your stored energy :o-->What kind of an idiotic comment is that?. I think we can be quite confident that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 18psi over the two tank's is going to do more work that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 12psi over the two tanks-->when both temperatures are the same.

It is funny to see how the guru's bail out when things dont make sense to them,and when things start looking better than they should,they demand to see the system as a whole before helping out any further.

The truth is that-the energy stored in tank A was able to create a situation where it could draw energy in from the enviroment without loosing any energy itself. I dont know why the guru's find it so hard to understand that when you allow gas from the enviroment to flow into the tank's,and no gas can escape the tank's,that the end result wont be a higher gas mass amount in the two tanks when the cycle has finished.

MarkE was confused as to why i would use the small tank as the energy storage tank,and not the large one,as i would loose less energy during the transfer if i used the large tank as tank A,and the small tank(the receiver)as tank B. Well im sure there are those that will understand now as to why i did it that way,and the results speak for them self.

I think some guru's have a diode like mind,where there physics(or known physics)may leave,but if results dont agree with there physics,then that cannot enter-and everything comes to a holt for them-->as it did in my case.

So there you go AC,we started with 100% energy in tank A,and when the cycle was complete,we ended up with 133% of stored energy in tanks A&B. The extra 33% came from the enviroment,and that is exactly where it will be returned when put to work. No laws broken here,as when the energy stored in the tanks is returned to the enviroment,energy has been conserved.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 30, 2015, 02:32:56 AM
Newest findings:

Gaia admitted, that they use 2 IPCameras with Infrared Nightvison InfraredLEDs
with Power over Ethernet.
So there was no Emergency light from the hall, but this was the second IP Camera switching on its
Infrared LEDs and both cams were powered by Power over Ethernet cables
and IMHO probably the router was on an USV, so no power outage for the cams and router,
but the AuKW shut down, because the hall had a power outage..-> SCAM...


Also Gaia just posted 2 new videos themself here:

http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-30-04-2015/
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 30, 2015, 03:07:01 AM
Newest findings:

Gaia admitted, that they use 2 IPCameras with Infrared Nightvison InfraredLEDs
with Power over Ethernet.
So there was no Emergency light from the hall, but this was the second IP Camera switching on its
Infrared LEDs and both cams were powered by Power over Ethernet cables
and IMHO probably the router was on an USV, so no power outage for the cams and router,
but the AuKW shut down, because the hall had a power outage..-> SCAM...


Also Gaia just posted 2 new videos themself here:

http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-30-04-2015/ (http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-30-04-2015/)

Stefan:

Bingo.  Their device can not operate without power supplied to the hall.  What does this tell us about this FREE energy device?

They are busted, and so is Sterling if he continues to try to defend, deflect, make excuses (using false facts about emergency lighting) and offer other ridiculous explanations.

Remember this and do not forget:  "Believe Or Leave!"

Sterling should have T-shirts made with this slogan printed on them.  The sales of which can help him pay his electric bill to the power company since none of his Qmogens appear to be doing the job.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 03:27:34 AM
Stefan:


Quote
since none of his Qmogens appear to be doing the job.

Aint that the truth.
In fact,none of the devices Sterling has presented as free energy device has ever paned out-->unless he has one in there with solar pannels some where ::)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 03:58:23 AM
Often very true,, but sometimes it has something.

Someone wondered if we could,, then those that can, did.

Jules thought that it could be done,, somehow,,, and then those that can, did.

Science in a way is a closed system,, all hung  up on what is known and how things are done and used,, where as someone that does not have those things already in place may just make a "stupid" suggestion that in the end is not so silly, or stupid or unreasonable,, but by itself is useless.  Now give that to one of those who can,, and they will take it to the next step and make it useful.

If I had something that showed something new,, I myself could only take that so far,, but give it to some in this group that are talented,, then watch the stuff hit the fan :)
The imagined possibility is exactly that:  Imagined.  The fantasy does not make the reality.  It sometimes inspires people to do the work to make the reality, when such a thing is possible.

Your concept of science is at best poor and at worst completely wrong.  Science seeks to learn what is real through employment of the scientific method:  A reason and evidence based methodology.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 04:00:18 AM
In the past couple of week's,i have found this to be very true.

This is exactly what i did. I had two tanks-1 x 10ltr volume and 1 x 20ltr volume. The 10ltr tank was tank A. This was the tank that stored the energy in the form of compressed gas. Tank B was the receiver. When the venturi was added to the system,this became what you call C.

Now,a series of 5 test were carried out,where the gas in tank A was aloud to flow into tank B via way of a ball valve. MarkE done the calculations,and we were getting an efficiency of 98% in the transfer when the gas temperature was aloud to settle to ambiant temperature. At this time,all was good. Then i fitted the venturi between tanks A and B,so as external gas(ambiant air) was drawn into tank B when the ball valve was opened between tank's A&B. I then gave MarkE the results in way of pressure and temperature when the gas was once again aloud to settle to ambiant temperature-->both test carried out in identical circumstances and conditions,only one could draw in gas from the enviroment. I got back--this makes no sense,as the result was 110%.

From there on in,it just went down hill from there. I continued to implement the ram into the system,and once again obtained the results over 5 test runs. As in the last two test,the results were averaged out over the 5 test runs. I once again gave the figures to MarkE to calculate. From there on in,everything went pear shaped. I was told that no results would be given until i disclose the units working as a whole. I was told they were nonsense figures,and mean nothing until i disclose the system as a whole,and exactly how it work's. This can be read by all those that are interested in the open systems thread.

I had some one else crunch the number's,and we ended up with around 133% efficiency.
We now see comments like-wait until you try to do useful work with your stored energy :o-->What kind of an idiotic comment is that?. I think we can be quite confident that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 18psi over the two tank's is going to do more work that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 12psi over the two tanks-->when both temperatures are the same.

It is funny to see how the guru's bail out when things dont make sense to them,and when things start looking better than they should,they demand to see the system as a whole before helping out any further.

The truth is that-the energy stored in tank A was able to create a situation where it could draw energy in from the enviroment without loosing any energy itself. I dont know why the guru's find it so hard to understand that when you allow gas from the enviroment to flow into the tank's,and no gas can escape the tank's,that the end result wont be a higher gas mass amount in the two tanks when the cycle has finished.

MarkE was confused as to why i would use the small tank as the energy storage tank,and not the large one,as i would loose less energy during the transfer if i used the large tank as tank A,and the small tank(the receiver)as tank B. Well im sure there are those that will understand now as to why i did it that way,and the results speak for them self.

I think some guru's have a diode like mind,where there physics(or known physics)may leave,but if results dont agree with there physics,then that cannot enter-and everything comes to a holt for them-->as it did in my case.

So there you go AC,we started with 100% energy in tank A,and when the cycle was complete,we ended up with 133% of stored energy in tanks A&B. The extra 33% came from the enviroment,and that is exactly where it will be returned when put to work. No laws broken here,as when the energy stored in the tanks is returned to the enviroment,energy has been conserved.
It is disheartening to see you implode this way.  Complete your project.  Maybe then you will learn.  God knows you have your eyes wide shut right now.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 04:22:18 AM
Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines.

I sent the following email to Roberto just now (they're asleep presently):

Dansie said: "Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines. "   The safety lighting was on during the said time of the AuKW outage.   This is a pretty good point that needs a better explanation than what we've received so far.

/ END OF EMAIL

I just posted the following story:

   
(http://peswiki.com/images/b/b6/150429_5-kW-generator_top-of-tube_sq_95x95.gif) (http://pesn.com/2015/04/30/9602615_Roberto-Reuter-GAIA-CEO_interview/)
Featured (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Latest): Buoyancy (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Buoyancy) > Rosch (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thrust_Kinetic_Generator_by_Rosch_Innovations_AG) > GAIA (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gaia-Energy_--_Global_Association_for_Independent_Energy_&_Altruism) > Demo (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA's_AuKW_Demo) >
 Interview with GAIA CEO, Roberto Reuter (http://pesn.com/2015/04/30/9602615_Roberto-Reuter-GAIA-CEO_interview/) - Highlights: AuKW is a kinetic power plant; two new videos showing 1) close-up of generator on top of 5 kW tube and 2) changing load by unplugging heater; yesterday's outage, infrared camera; distance between kW-h meters is ~50 M; wall fasteners. (PESN; April 30, 2015)

In there, he explained why there was a lag between the time of forgetting to plug the heaters back in and the generator shutting off.


GENERAL COMMENT REGARDING PERCEPTION:

I wrote the following to someone else by email:

[/color][/color]It's amazing how one's world view can taint your outlook. Remember the photo
of the old woman versus the young woman. Exact same image is seen by half as
a young woman, and by the other half as an old hag.

I see the young woman. You see the old hag. Same image. Different
perspective.

Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 04:26:35 AM
Sterling, sorry to break this to you, but I am the Peter Hughes who commented on your youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9WSRDwUiI) - Seeking some kind of reply from Lindsey Stirling -- Day 54 of Sup Quest

Myself and John Doe chatted a bit, and well, we have been messing with you.

You have never had a conversation with Lindsey or anyone  who has relayed your "stuff" to her.

Sorry.

Pete


BTW, I don't feel bad about this due to your 911 ravings.

So, Pete, by your saying "your 911 ravings," I take it that can add you to the list of "show me the data" doofuses who believe the establishment line on 9/11. I bet you're in the bottom 5 percent in this crowd on that one. Pretty obvious. Come one. Can a building fall at free-fall speed without help from the inside? Any non-political physicist knows the answer to that one, easily.

I can't disclose details, but I assure you my conversations were extensive with LS. I'm not referring to the one post you're referring to.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 04:33:43 AM
Aint that the truth.
In fact,none of the devices Sterling has presented as free energy device has ever paned out-->unless he has one in there with solar pannels some where ::)

To prove that you're "full of it" on the pathological skeptic end of the spectrum, let me cite AN example that obliterates what you just said.

SHT has had three third-party tests by highly reputable organizations doing quantitative analysis showing ~500x, ~1300x, and ~900x output. Four third-party tests showing ~97% H output, from H2O input.

Also, Rossi has had considerable testing done, not to mention that his technology was purchased by Industrial Heat, as part of a 2 billion dollar fund, if I remember right, after 1 year due diligence.

You're like the Wright Brothers skeptics who for four years continued to say heavier-than-air flight would not be possible, despite the FACT that they were flying around doing demonstrations. Now that is obvious, then it wasn't. Guess where I would have been back then... Versus you...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 04:57:30 AM
I don't follow SHT so I can't comment.  If I recall MarkE said they are bogus.

That sounds like good news about Rossi with some qualifications.  If the tech is real, it's not free energy, it's atomic energy.  I know that you know that but so many people refer to it as free energy.  Rossi has a very shaky reputation so I can hope it's real.  Do you know when Industrial Heat is supposed to deploy the tech or put products on the market?

You are completely and utterly wrong on the Wright Brothers.  I read it all the time so this is push back.  Many scientists knew that flight was coming, but the people that controlled public opinion, the newspaper editors, where not scientifically literate and said it could not be done.  Do your proper research and you will never repeat that worn out and false cliche again.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 30, 2015, 05:00:51 AM
I sent the following email to Roberto just now (they're asleep presently):

Dansie said: "Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines. "   The safety lighting was on during the said time of the AuKW outage.   This is a pretty good point that needs a better explanation than what we've received so far.

/ END OF EMAIL


Sterling:

Good for you.  I am glad you sent this email because Mark Dansie is 100% correct in his assertions about emergency lighting.  I have never seen any variations of emergency lighting work other than in the way he described.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on April 30, 2015, 05:29:52 AM

We now see comments like-wait until you try to do useful work with your stored energy :o-->What kind of an idiotic comment is that?. I think we can be quite confident that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 18psi over the two tank's is going to do more work that a 30ltr volume of gas at a pressure of 12psi over the two tanks-->when both temperatures are the same.


No one is disputing that you end up with more 'energy' inside the two tanks.  The point being made is that you will NEVER be able to do is end up back at the starting condition with the 40 psi tank refilled and  net external  work done.

The 'extra energy' you claim appears by 'drawing in from the ambient' is in fact coming from the work you must expend to raise the pressure in the 40 psi tank from atmospheric initially.  You don't even account for that energy in your analysis, so you can't claim 133% or 110% or whatever.. such numbers are meaningless drivel.

It's the same mistake that people make when analysing SMOT's and so forth by ignoring the energy their hand imparts to the system by bring the components to the starting configuration.

Rant all you like about 'senile old men who are still thinking in the dark ages' but until I see some analysis on your part that  is actually meaningful I'll continue to call you out.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 30, 2015, 05:47:08 AM
@Mark E
Quote
The imagined possibility is exactly that:  Imagined.  The fantasy does not make the reality.  It sometimes inspires people to do the work
to make the reality, when such a thing is possible.
Your concept of science is at best poor and at worst completely wrong. 
Science seeks to learn what is real through employment of the scientific method:
 A reason and evidence based methodology.
Science observes and studies natural phenomena while the inventor uses knowledge and understanding to create what others could not possibly imagine. The inventor makes fantasy reality and this has been proven throughout history. They invented the locomotive, the car, the airplane, the rocket and they will carry on inventing things in the future which others cannot possibly imagine and think is fantasy...that's the way it has been proven to work Mark. Your vote does not count and you don't actually have a say in the future because it is defined by whatever the inventors can dream up and make reality. I understand you have a great sense of self-importance but your nobody until such time as you become part of a solution to make things better in reality. Any fool can tell other people something cannot be done but some inventor somewhere always seems to show people different and this is the way it has always been.
 
Quote
The imagined possibility is exactly that:  Imagined.  The fantasy does not
make the reality.  It sometimes inspires people to do the work
to make the reality, when such a thing is possible.
To be honest I find you guys kind of comical because you pretend to be some kind of authority and yet you have absolutely none, you are nobody so far as the future is concerned. People will understand new things and they will invent new things we could not possibly imagine and that is a fact which has been proven throughout our history. Let's put it this way, where do you think we will be 1000 years from now?, I will give you a little hint... based on how far we have come in the last 100 years you and most everything you know will be completely irrelevant and you will be seen in the same light as we look at chimpanzees. Right now due to the exponential growth of knowledge a person enroled in a 4 year university technology program will graduate to find 90% of what they were taught during that time is now obsolete. Put's a whole new spin on things doesn't it?.
 
AC
 
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: PIH123 on April 30, 2015, 06:26:36 AM
I bet you're in the bottom 5 percent in this crowd on that one.

But at least I have a lot of things to be happy about.

I am glad your wife left you.
I am glad that you have not "Supped" yet.
I am glad that you were kicked out your church.
I am glad you are living with your parents.
I am glad that you have major financial issues.
I am glad that not one person has stepped forward to support you in alphabetics. (is Andrew Bradley helping you out financially ?).
I am glad that almost no-one funded your recent "begging campaign"
I am glad that you support Stuart as your moderator (since he is helping bring down what is left of your business).
I am glad that you have been wrong about EVERY single scam you have promoted as real.

I am probably in the bottom 5 percent on all of that lot as well.

but wait ..................................
In the last two weeks only:
You have started posting material which on the surface, shows you are willing to question obvious scams.
You also seem to have dropped the workload on the supping quest and are not stalking Lindsey nearly as much.
None of you recent PESN energy postings contain alphabetics, where many previous ones did.

So maybe you are starting to care about your reputation ?
And I guess you don't like being goofed with on your youtube channel and at greaterthings ?

Not that you are seeking advice (you being god and all), but maybe you might want to strongly consider
taking a more balance approach on all of your online content.
I believe it will attract more people to your business and enable you start supporting your family
again without having to resort to "begging for groceries for Cherie" on your website.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 30, 2015, 06:50:03 AM
@PIH123
Quote
But at least I have a lot of things to be happy about.
I am glad your wife
left you.
I am glad that you have not "Supped" yet.
I am glad that you
were kicked out your church.
I am glad you are living with your parents.
I
am glad that you have major financial issues.
I am glad that not one person
has stepped forward to support you in alphabetics. (is Andrew Bradley helping
you out financially ?).
I am glad that almost no-one funded your recent
"begging campaign"
I am glad that you support Stuart as your moderator (since
he is helping bring down what is left of your business).
I am glad that you
have been wrong about EVERY single scam you have promoted as real.

I am probably in the bottom 5 percent on all of that lot as well.
That may be the most offensive post I have seen here at OU to date and your in the top 1% of the complete asshole department in my opinion.
AC
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 06:56:57 AM
Newest findings:

Gaia admitted, that they use 2 IPCameras with Infrared Nightvison InfraredLEDs
with Power over Ethernet.
So there was no Emergency light from the hall, but this was the second IP Camera switching on its
Infrared LEDs and both cams were powered by Power over Ethernet cables
and IMHO probably the router was on an USV, so no power outage for the cams and router,
but the AuKW shut down, because the hall had a power outage..-> SCAM...


Also Gaia just posted 2 new videos themself here:

http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-30-04-2015/ (http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-30-04-2015/)
Well, that explains why the image is in black&white after the light came back on, and accounts for the specular reflection on the heating panel that is in view. But if you look up at the top of the frame, it is pretty evident that there is some kind of lighting coming from up there, illuminating the top of the AuKW and casting shadows on the back wall that are not coming from the IR LEDs... I think.  I thought this was from the emergency light fixture, which typically has two spotlight-type bulbs in it pointing down and away at angles. Whatever is casting that light is out of the frame, but it certainly looks like there is light coming from up there.

Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 06:57:33 AM
So, Pete, by your saying "your 911 ravings," I take it that can add you to the list of "show me the data" doofuses who believe the establishment line on 9/11. I bet you're in the bottom 5 percent in this crowd on that one. Pretty obvious. Come one. Can a building fall at free-fall speed without help from the inside? Any non-political physicist knows the answer to that one, easily.

I can't disclose details, but I assure you my conversations were extensive with LS. I'm not referring to the one post you're referring to.
Any physicist that isn't a few eggs short of a dozen will tell you that there is no such thing as "free-fall speed".  There is acceleration due to gravity.  And there is velocity dependent viscous friction with air that changes with atmospheric conditions.  For a given vertical drag coefficient a terminal velocity exists that is reached after falling for a sufficient time.  For skydivers jumping around 10,000' that's about five seconds and almost 1000' drop.

To find out what happened physically to buildings damaged and destroyed at the WTC on 9/11 you could always read the NIST report.  That report was written by knowledgeable people who evaluated the evidence in detail.  And contrary to your evil and unfounded accusations not one of those people is part of the heinous cover-up plot that you allege without a shred of evidence.  You accuse those people of being part of a plot to cover up the murder of thousands of their country mates.  Consider how you will explain the false witness you've born and continue to bear when you eventually face your creator.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:24:35 AM
To prove that you're "full of it" on the pathological skeptic end of the spectrum, let me cite AN example that obliterates what you just said.

SHT has had three third-party tests by highly reputable organizations doing quantitative analysis showing ~500x, ~1300x, and ~900x output. Four third-party tests showing ~97% H output, from H2O input.

Also, Rossi has had considerable testing done, not to mention that his technology was purchased by Industrial Heat, as part of a 2 billion dollar fund, if I remember right, after 1 year due diligence.

You're like the Wright Brothers skeptics who for four years continued to say heavier-than-air flight would not be possible, despite the FACT that they were flying around doing demonstrations. Now that is obvious, then it wasn't. Guess where I would have been back then... Versus you...
You have been taken in by SHT just as badly as you were taken in by Mylow.  The third party tests performed for SHT did not establish an input / output energy balance.  They did not establish their claim that they convert water to hydrogen gram for gram.  The test reports published reported on:  1) Electricity supply to the unit under test, 2) Gas outflow volume, and 3) Chemical analysis of the outflow. 

What you seem to gloss over every time is that SHT's device uses a metal consummable that they admit is part of an oxidation reduction reaction evolving hydrogen.  That admission alone kills the gram for gram water to hydrogen claim, independent of the absurdity of the notion that they would transmute an oxygen atom consisting of 8 N, 8P, 8e to 16 hydrogen atoms of 1P + 1e each.  All fission for elements lighter than iron is energetically unfavorable.  That means that if SHT's claims were true, the energy value of hydrogen to oxidize  would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear energy imparted to fission the oxygen.  SHT's crack team would have you believe that they have a process that turns sand into small sapphires that just happens to make Hope sized diamonds as a side effect.

Rossi is yet another scam artist.  After more than four years of claims, and three years of supposedly delivering those trailer load MW power plants he still shivers each winter in his long coat and propane heated offices in Bologna. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 07:27:06 AM
It is disheartening to see you implode this way.  Complete your project.  Maybe then you will learn.  God knows you have your eyes wide shut right now.
What is disheartening Mark,is when those that you thought were there to help you,are only interested in seeing what you have,and how you are getting the results you are getting when the results seem to defy what they believe in. You were happy with the tests until such time as the results went against your beliefs,then you put up the ultimatum-->show me what you have,or no more measurement calculations-when nothing about the measurements change. We had what we always had-gas pressure,temperature and tank volume.

I havnt stopped doing my test,the only difference now is i have some one else doing the calculations for me-->some one that dosnt need to see the device to calculate given measurements.

The venturi effect dose add energy to a system,and this i have shown in two ways now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQkEp0iDGo
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:32:11 AM
What is disheartening Mark,is when those that you thought were there to help you,are only interested in seeing what you have,and how you are getting the results you are getting when the results seem to defi what they believe in. You were happy with the tests until such time as the results went against your beliefs,then you put up the ultimatum-->show me what you have,or no more measurement calculations-when nothing about the measurements change. We had what we always had-gas pressure,temperature and tank volume.

I havnt stopped doing my test,the only difference now is i have some one else doing the calculations for me-->some one that dosnt need to see the device to calculate given measurements.

The venturi effect dose add energy to a system,and this i have shown in two ways now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQkEp0iDGo
You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy.  Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere.  Such is the operation of a heat pump.  If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices.  If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help.  It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:36:18 AM
@Mark EScience observes and studies natural phenomena while the inventor uses knowledge and understanding to create what others could not possibly imagine. The inventor makes fantasy reality and this has been proven throughout history. They invented the locomotive, the car, the airplane, the rocket and they will carry on inventing things in the future which others cannot possibly imagine and think is fantasy...that's the way it has been proven to work Mark. Your vote does not count and you don't actually have a say in the future because it is defined by whatever the inventors can dream up and make reality. I understand you have a great sense of self-importance but your nobody until such time as you become part of a solution to make things better in reality. Any fool can tell other people something cannot be done but some inventor somewhere always seems to show people different and this is the way it has always been.
 To be honest I find you guys kind of comical because you pretend to be some kind of authority and yet you have absolutely none, you are nobody so far as the future is concerned. People will understand new things and they will invent new things we could not possibly imagine and that is a fact which has been proven throughout our history. Let's put it this way, where do you think we will be 1000 years from now?, I will give you a little hint... based on how far we have come in the last 100 years you and most everything you know will be completely irrelevant and you will be seen in the same light as we look at chimpanzees. Right now due to the exponential growth of knowledge a person enroled in a 4 year university technology program will graduate to find 90% of what they were taught during that time is now obsolete. Put's a whole new spin on things doesn't it?.
 
AC
Fantasy is not reality.  Fantasy sometimes inspires talented people to develop new and wonderful technologies.  If you do not comprehend the distinction that is unfortunate for you.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 07:38:35 AM
Any physicist that isn't a few eggs short of a dozen will tell you that there is no such thing as "free-fall speed".  There is acceleration due to gravity.  And there is velocity dependent viscous friction with air that changes with atmospheric conditions.  For a given vertical drag coefficient a terminal velocity exists that is reached after falling for a sufficient time.  For skydivers jumping around 10,000' that's about five seconds and almost 1000' drop.

To find out what happened physically to buildings damaged and destroyed at the WTC on 9/11 you could always read the NIST report.  That report was written by knowledgeable people who evaluated the evidence in detail.  And contrary to your evil and unfounded accusations not one of those people is part of the heinous cover-up plot that you allege without a shred of evidence.  You accuse those people of being part of a plot to cover up the murder of thousands of their country mates.  Consider how you will explain the false witness you've born and continue to bear when you eventually face your creator.

Okay, so you're also among the "show me the data" crowd who believe the "official" 9/11 lies. Pathetic.

Building 7 came down in classic demolition manner. Anyone can see that. No college degree required.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 07:43:48 AM
You have been taken in by SHT just as badly as you were taken in by Mylow.  The third party tests performed for SHT did not establish an input / output energy balance.  They did not establish their claim that they convert water to hydrogen gram for gram.  The test reports published reported on:  1) Electricity supply to the unit under test, 2) Gas outflow volume, and 3) Chemical analysis of the outflow. 

What you seem to gloss over every time is that SHT's device uses a metal consummable that they admit is part of an oxidation reduction reaction evolving hydrogen.  That admission alone kills the gram for gram water to hydrogen claim, independent of the absurdity of the notion that they would transmute an oxygen atom consisting of 8 N, 8P, 8e to 16 hydrogen atoms of 1P + 1e each.  All fission for elements lighter than iron is energetically unfavorable.  That means that if SHT's claims were true, the energy value of hydrogen to oxidize  would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear energy imparted to fission the oxygen.  SHT's crack team would have you believe that they have a process that turns sand into small sapphires that just happens to make Hope sized diamonds as a side effect.

Rossi is yet another scam artist.  After more than four years of claims, and three years of supposedly delivering those trailer load MW power plants he still shivers each winter in his long coat and propane heated offices in Bologna.

Euthenasia, is a good name for you. Apt for your pseudonym. How much do you get paid to do this disinfo?

There are huge differences between Mylow and SHT. He was alone. SHT is filled with guys, the lest intelligent of which is smarter than you; and I see you as being very smart, though much of that could be from working in some kind of intel team, and it's not just you that is being represented as just you.

Yes, they have some chemistry among their 16 processes, but it isn't the sole source, and it certainly isn't a scam. You don't get that many smart people in on a scam. Usually not even one.

People should weigh your judgement ability by the fact that you buy the NIST report, which is the biggest fraud ever, which is obvious to any honest person.

My dad, David W. Allan, worked at NIST and still speaks there annually, going next month. He's a leading atomic clock physicist, and he agrees with my assessment of the NIST report on 911 being a fraud. He's good friends with Steven E. Jones. Saw him last week. Intentional community project together.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 07:44:25 AM
To prove that you're "full of it" on the pathological skeptic end of the spectrum, let me cite AN example that obliterates what you just said.

SHT has had three third-party tests by highly reputable organizations doing quantitative analysis showing ~500x, ~1300x, and ~900x output. Four third-party tests showing ~97% H output, from H2O input.

Also, Rossi has had considerable testing done, not to mention that his technology was purchased by Industrial Heat, as part of a 2 billion dollar fund, if I remember right, after 1 year due diligence.

You're like the Wright Brothers skeptics who for four years continued to say heavier-than-air flight would not be possible, despite the FACT that they were flying around doing demonstrations. Now that is obvious, then it wasn't. Guess where I would have been back then... Versus you...
No Sterling-->it is you that is(and always has been)full of sh*t. You took other peoples money ,and went on your little vacations with nothing to show in the end-->every time.
You think im full of it,then please show us all a looped system running itself with excess energy left over-->you never have,and you never will-that is fact.

You are sick,and you need help-->or just locked up to keep us all safe.

Quote
SHT has had three third-party tests by highly reputable organizations doing quantitative analysis showing ~500x, ~1300x, and ~900x output.

The only letter missing in SHT is the I,and that is what it is.
Any thing you post is never third party tested by anyone that knows what there doing-->your record speaks for itself. 500 X the input hey,cool-no problem there to perform a self looped system,and have 499% of the input left to do work. This will be another device you cannot back up-->just as you have not been able to do since you started on your crowd funded holidays.

The only thing you have ever gotten right is that 911 was an inside job. Maybe you should stick with that,and leave your epic fails behind you.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 07:51:19 AM
You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy.  Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere.  Such is the operation of a heat pump.  If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices.  If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help.  It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.
Mark
I can only do so much in a given amount of time. I simply dont have a money tree out in the back yard,so i do what i can when i can. I have managed to achieve good results with what i have so far,and the results can only get better given the equipment i need. As im doing it off my own back,i simply have to wait for the funds to become avaliable. As much as i'd like to be able to complete the whole system in a couple of day's,it just isnt going to happen. I got the effect and results i was looking for with the venturi setup,and i got better results with the venturi removed,and the ram put into place. ATM this is as far as i can go until i have the rest of the equipment.

If it fails,then it is only my loss. If it works,then it is everyones gain.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 07:53:37 AM
No Sterling-->it is you that is(and always has been)full of sh*t. You took other peoples money ,and went on your little vacations with nothing to show in the end-->every time.

The only thing you have ever gotten right is that 911 was an inside job.

Tinman, they weren't "vacations." I worked my butt off. Even when we went to Fabrice Andre's place, I was publishing stories about what was going on as we were there. Only took an hour to walk around the mountain top.

Yildiz is likely to eventually make it. I still think he's for real.

In my world, the glass is half full, not the other way around.

Glad to hear you're clued into 9/11 being an inside job. Says a lot.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 07:53:38 AM

Building 7 came down in classic demolition manner. Anyone can see that. No college degree required.
This much is true.
One also has to wonder as to why traces of thermite was found all around the collaps buildings.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Okay, so you're also among the "show me the data" crowd who believe the "official" 9/11 lies. Pathetic.

Building 7 came down in classic demolition manner. Anyone can see that. No college degree required.
I believe the NIST report researched and written by the: skilled, upstanding, and patriotic men and women who work for the same organization where your own father spent his career.  I've read the report.  Have you?.

Building 7 failed because of massive damage done when it was struck by debris from WTC1 and fires that burned uncontrolled on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 throughout the day.  Just prior to the collapse there is footage with a lone reporter at Barclay and West Broadway.  The fires shooting out of the building over Broadway were in a word:  ferocious.  He and his camera man were right there to the collapse, eventually running for their lives.  Contrary to your conspiracy theory there is no sound of sequential explosives as used in a controlled demolition.  The building failed first near where the reporter was and subsequently failures spread out.  The camera footage you like to point to views the building looking at it from the north west which failed last.  If only you spent half the time you spend screaming controlled demolition watching the available footage and studying the NIST report you would realize just how wrong you are.  Maybe you can ask Jesus to bring a structural engineer with him to supper and they can disabuse you of this fantasy you insist upon.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:57:54 AM
This much is true.
One also has to wonder as to why traces of thermite was found all around the collaps buildings.
You mean you wonder why a steel framed building that had 200,000 pounds of aluminum crash into it and huge aluminum facades had aluminum and iron in its debris?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 08:00:13 AM

 


Glad to hear you're clued into 9/11 being an inside job. Says a lot.

Quote
Yildiz is likely to eventually make it. I still think he's for real.

Even though he claimed to have a working device when in fact,he didnt.

Quote
In my world, the glass is half full, not the other way around.

There is a simple answer to this. If you are drinking from the glass,the glass become's half empty at on point. If you are refilling the glass,the glass becomes half full at one point. It's the same when drawing power from a battery,or recharging that battery.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:08:28 AM
Euthenasia, is a good name for you. Apt for your pseudonym. How much do you get paid to do this disinfo?
So once again you just make up accusations that you cannot support.  You bear false witness as easily as breathing.
Quote

There are huge differences between Mylow and SHT. He was alone. SHT is filled with guys, the lest intelligent of which is smarter than you.
Whatever the intelligence of any of SHT's employees may be their claims are patently false, just as Mylow's claims were patently false.  As with Mylow they have released misleading information in order to promote their absurd claims.  As with Mylow, it is just a matter of time before their tent folds up and blows away.  As with Mylow you have accepted the BS:  hook, line, and sinker.
Quote

Yes, they have some chemistry among their 16 processes, but it isn't the sole source, and it certainly isn't a scam. You don't get that many smart people in on a scam. Usually not even one.
Was Bernie Maddoff a moron?  Were the people working for him morons?  How about the boys and girls at Enron?  Do you think they were dull knives?  They were highly educated, and by all accounts highly intelligent.  What mattered is that they were also corrupt.
Quote

People should weigh your judgement ability by the fact that you buy the NIST report, which is the biggest fraud ever, which is obvious to any honest person.
Show your evidence.  Show that the hundreds of signatories to that report are corrupt and / or addle minded.  If WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition as you claim then how do you account for the fact that there were no sequenced explosion sounds heard on the live news feed taken right in front of the building?  Hush a boom?  Nitro whispering?
Quote

My dad, David W. Allan, worked at NIST and still speaks there annually, going next month. He's a leading atomic clock physicist, and he agrees with my assessment of the NIST report on 911 being a fraud. He's good friends with Steven E. Jones. Saw him last week. Intentional community project together.
So your dad accuses his ex colleagues of being co-conspirators in a mass murder?  I tell you what:  Why don't you get a camera and go visit the authors of the NIST report one by one and share your accusation with them face to face?
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 08:16:34 AM
You mean you wonder why a steel framed building that had 200,000 pounds of aluminum crash into it and huge aluminum facades had aluminum and iron in its debris?
No,im talking about thermite residue found blocks away in the settled dust. The engine on the ground below the WTC was the wrong engine for the planes that supposedly hit the WTC. Science has proved beyound doubt that the planes impact could not have brought down those buildings-period. The black smoke shows the fires were starved for oxygen,and so the temperatures from those fires wouldt be any higher than it's maximum temperature that 1800*F. Steel needs around 2500*F to melt. So why so much melted steel found in the basements of the building's?

You may think this video is funny,but it is the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXyB5GtfBU
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 30, 2015, 08:21:21 AM
QuoteMilehigh'If the tech is real, it's not free energy, it's atomic energy.  I know that you know that but so many people refer to it as free energy.  Rossi has a very shaky reputation so I can hope it's real'

If this is true then we should be fried in a shower of gamma and x-radiation proportionate to energy excess.youshould go read axil's and others' latest entries on ecatworld concerning zero point field
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:21:54 AM
No,im talking about thermite residue found blocks away in the settled dust. The engine on the ground below the WTC was the wrong engine for the planes that supposedly hit the WTC. Science has proved beyound doubt that the planes impact could not have brought down those buildings-period. The black smoke shows the fires were starved for oxygen,and so the temperatures from those fires wouldt be any higher than it's maximum temperature that 1800*F. Steel needs around 2500*F to melt. So why so much melted steel found in the basements of the building's?

You may think this video is funny,but it is the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXyB5GtfBU
Are you familiar with the terms:  tensile strength, and yield strength?  Do you think that steel suddenly loses its strength at its melting temperature?  Did you read the NIST report?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 08:23:17 AM
@ Tinman

Regarding Yildiz.

Murphy's law works well in demos. I was there when his magnet motor had problems. I could hear the pieces. I saw him before after trying to repair it. I can understand why he went cautious after that. This is his baby.

I'm generous, not an ogre. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Do unto others as you would have others do to you. That's a good motto. I give people a lot of room to prove themselves.
Title: Done over here for a while
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 08:28:27 AM
I've spent way too much time over here bantering with you all. I need to get to work on things more productive. Sorry if I've been too rough. I tend to pound pretty hard on skeptics, in pushback from how relentless they are in their rants.

I so look forward to the day when we are so vindicated and they get to walk off with their tails between their legs.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:31:43 AM
@ Tinman

Regarding Yildiz.

Murphy's law works well in demos. I was there when his magnet motor had problems. I could hear the pieces. I saw him before after trying to repair it. I can understand why he went cautious after that. This is his baby.

I'm generous, not an ogre. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Do unto others as you would have others do to you. That's a good motto. I give people a lot of room to prove themselves.
Ignore the electrical wires comeing out fo the "all magnet motor".  That farce was probably close to if not Yildiz's last hurrah.  The demonstration for Chava like demonstrations for other parties with checkbook in hand did not happen.  It has been two years since the show in Geneva and almost two years since he reneged on Chava. 
Title: Re: Done over here for a while
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:32:37 AM
I've spent way too much time over here bantering with you all. I need to get to work on things more productive. Sorry if I've been too rough. I tend to pound pretty hard on skeptics, in pushback from how relentless they are in their rants.

I so look forward to the day when we are so vindicated and they get to walk off with their tails between their legs.
The available evidence suggests that such a day will never come.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 08:55:29 AM
Are you familiar with the terms:  tensile strength, and yield strength?  Do you think that steel suddenly loses its strength at its melting temperature?  Did you read the NIST report?
Yes,i am quite familiar with tensile and yield strengths,but that is not what i asked. How is it that the steel melted when the temperatures just didnt get anywhere near the temperatures needed to melt the steel columns. Demolition experts also confirmed that building 7 was a controlled demolition. The fire could have guttered that building,and the framework would have still been standing.

See pic below. Now that is what you call a hot fire-->but even so,even the mild steel scafolding is still standing lol,yet the buildings designed to withstand plane strikes come tumbling down-->aint that a hoot,and the building that never got hit by anything other than some debris,managed to fall all in one hit,and do so that resembled a controlled demolition in every way lol.. Oh,and the pilot that couldnt even fly a single engine cessna managed to overcome the ground effect,and fly a 757 just above the ground to crash it into the pentagon-->undetected and unchallenged by one of the worlds most heavily guarded air spaces lol. They even interviewed his flight instructor,who said Quote: the lad couldnt even perform a solo flight in a single engine cessna-->but it seems a 757 was a piece of cake lol.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 30, 2015, 09:21:52 AM

PVC has higher density than I assumed... I grabbed some half-inch PVC and was playing with it... but having air in it and capped and it almost sank on its own :(


So... accounting for pipe wall thickness and applying the 1.3-1.45 density of PVC 0.5" and result is less output than input....


half to go up to at least .75... but will probably 1+ is better so the air displacment exceeds the weight of pvc displacment



Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 09:45:31 AM
Yes,i am quite familiar with tensile and yield strengths,but that is not what i asked. How is it that the steel melted when the temperatures just didnt get anywhere near the temperatures needed to melt the steel columns. Demolition experts also confirmed that building 7 was a controlled demolition. The fire could have guttered that building,and the framework would have still been standing.
Apparently you are not despite your claims or you would understand that structural steel loses 90% of its strength at temperatures of ordinary plastic and wood fires.  Fireproofing applied to structural steel slows down heat penetration.  Those fires burned all day. Have you read the NIST report?
Quote

See pic below. Now that is what you call a hot fire-->but even so,even the mild steel scafolding is still standing lol,yet the buildings designed to withstand plane strikes come tumbling down-->aint that a hoot,and the building that never got hit by anything other than some debris,managed to fall all in one hit,and do so that resembled a controlled demolition in every way lol..
The LOL joke is on you and all the conspiracy theorists who substitute what they think is "common sense" for science.  It is willful ignorance on parade.
Quote
Oh,and the pilot that couldnt even fly a single engine cessna managed to overcome the ground effect,and fly a 757 just above the ground to crash it into the pentagon-->undetected and unchallenged by one of the worlds most heavily guarded air spaces lol. They even interviewed his flight instructor,who said Quote: the lad couldnt even perform a solo flight in a single engine cessna-->but it seems a 757 was a piece of cake lol.
Do you fly?  Do you understand that ground effect helps keep the plane off the ground?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 30, 2015, 12:12:33 PM
Well, Gaia explained now here:
http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-29-04-2015/#comment-337 (http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-29-04-2015/#comment-337)
(you can see this comment only, if you are logged into the Gaia Site...)

what IP-Cameras they used.
It were:

TRENDNET TV-IP310PI with Infrared-LEDs und Power over Ethernet Connections.


Here are the spec sheets:

http://www.trendnet.com/langge/products/proddetail.asp?prod=190_TV-IP310PI (http://www.trendnet.com/langge/products/proddetail.asp?prod=190_TV-IP310PI)

http://www.trendnet.com/langge/products/proddetail.asp?prod=190_TV-IP310PI#tabs-solution02 (http://www.trendnet.com/langge/products/proddetail.asp?prod=190_TV-IP310PI#tabs-solution02)


Due to that they record at 30 frames/sec you can also see the flickering as the difference
frequency 20Hz as interference to the 50 Hz used in Germany.

These cameras toggle to Infrared Mode, if the light went out, so that is why they put on their
Infrared LEDs which illuminated the room, which I thought was an emergency hall light...
but it was only these Infrared LEDs of the cameras.

So as they are powered By Power Over Ethernet, we still are not sure, if there really
was a power outage in the hall, so the cameras still operated from the hall power supply
or if the cameras hang over Ethernet on a different power supply via the router then...


Anyway, here are now the 2 new Videos from Gaia.

http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150410-gaia-rosch-aukw-generator-closeup-shortvideo-copyright-ssb.mp4 (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150410-gaia-rosch-aukw-generator-closeup-shortvideo-copyright-ssb.mp4)
http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150429-gaia-rosch-aukw-generator-loadtest-copyright-ssb.mp4 (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150429-gaia-rosch-aukw-generator-loadtest-copyright-ssb.mp4)


Now it is hard to explain, how they do the frequency change on the load change, if they would have faked
it with a hidden power cable...

As the frequency is very stable if this would be powered by a hidden cable by the grid, this
would be an indication that they really have a generator sitting there acting to a load change with
a frequency change...

So if they would have faked this somehow, they would have needed to manipulate the frequency counter
somehow, so that it reads different frequencies, when the load on the "motor(generator)" is changed...

Hmm, either they use a 3 Phase Frequencychanger unit, which would be really elaborate expensive
or something simpler, like a hacked or modded frequency meter....

Hmm, or I am totally wrong and it really works and they might have really there an OU generator
which does not need much more torque, if more loads are applied..but only changes slightly in output frequenvy...

I am still puzzled a bit now and scratching my head...(from the standpoint of the skeptic)

P.S: Also there is now a new interview from STerling Allan with Roberto Reuter and Ronny Korsberg here:

http://pesn.com/2015/04/30/9602615_Roberto-Reuter-GAIA-CEO_interview/ (http://pesn.com/2015/04/30/9602615_Roberto-Reuter-GAIA-CEO_interview/)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 30, 2015, 12:32:45 PM
Okay, Gaia has just posted a new article that says:

http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-halbzeitbilanz/

Heute am 5. Tag der Livebesichigungen in Spich wollen wir uns ganz herzlich bei Euch bedanken.
DAS ERSTE MEGAWATT IST ÜBERSCHRITTEN ….
Auch die stetige Wiederholung von Argumentationen, weshalb es nicht funktionieren soll,
können die Wahrheit nicht verhindern … unser AuKW läuft stabil und zuverlässig!


 Danke an Alle, die dieses Projekt unterstützen. Danke an Jeden, der bald sein eigenes AuKW errichtet und an Jeden,
der uns sein Vertrauen noch schenken möchte. Wir danken auch den süßen und bitteren Kommentatoren –
auch Ihr habt zur Wahrnehmung dieser großartigen Technologie und deren Weiterentwicklung beigetragen.
 Wir sind eine große Gemeinschaft von Energiepionieren und gemeinsam schreiben wir große Geschichte.
Ohne die zahlreichen Kommentare, Meinungsbekundungen und kritische Hinterfragungen wären
wir vielleciht nicht da, wo wir sind – nach dem erstem Megawatt eigenen AuKW Strom.

That means:
Today is the 5th day of the Live Demo in Spich and we want to thanks you all.
The first produced MegaWatt of power is surpassed... and the contineous argumentation, why it should not work,
can not prevent the truth. our AuKW is running stable and reliable.



Thanks to all who supported this project.
Thanks to those who will soon have their own AuKW at their homes and to all, who still want to trust us and still want to order.
We also thank for all the sweet and bitter comments, also you have contributed to the spreading of this great technology
and their further development. We are a big community of energy pioneers and together we write new history.
Without the multiple comments, opinions and critical thinkings we would not be there where we are now
at the surpassing of the first own produced MegaWatt of power from our own AuKW.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 12:56:35 PM
What connects to meters does not have to connect to loads.  So it is pretty easy to have a driven generator go to the meters and frequency will go up and down with the motor speed that drives it.

There is no need to fret about whether what they have is real or not:  Buoyancy is not an energy source.  That is an immediate and full-stop on their claims that they have a buoyancy driven generator.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 12:58:04 PM
Okay, Gaia has just posted a new article that says:

http://gaia-energy.org/liveticker-aukw-besichtigungen-halbzeitbilanz/

Heute am 5. Tag der Livebesichigungen in Spich wollen wir uns ganz herzlich bei Euch bedanken.
DAS ERSTE MEGAWATT IST ÜBERSCHRITTEN ….
Auch die stetige Wiederholung von Argumentationen, weshalb es nicht funktionieren soll,
können die Wahrheit nicht verhindern … unser AuKW läuft stabil und zuverlässig!


 Danke an Alle, die dieses Projekt unterstützen. Danke an Jeden, der bald sein eigenes AuKW errichtet und an Jeden,
der uns sein Vertrauen noch schenken möchte. Wir danken auch den süßen und bitteren Kommentatoren –
auch Ihr habt zur Wahrnehmung dieser großartigen Technologie und deren Weiterentwicklung beigetragen.
 Wir sind eine große Gemeinschaft von Energiepionieren und gemeinsam schreiben wir große Geschichte.
Ohne die zahlreichen Kommentare, Meinungsbekundungen und kritische Hinterfragungen wären
wir vielleciht nicht da, wo wir sind – nach dem erstem Megawatt eigenen AuKW Strom.

That means:
Today is the 5th day of the Live Demo in Spich and we want to thanks you all.
The first produced MegaWatt of power is surpassed... and the contineous argumentation, why it should not work,
can not prevent the truth. our AuKW is running stable and reliable.



Thanks to all who supported this project.
Thanks to those who will soon have their own AuKW at their homes and to all, who still want to trust us and still want to order.
We also thank for all the sweet and bitter comments, also you have contributed to the spreading of this great technology
and their further development. We are a big community of energy pioneers and together we write new history.
Without the multiple comments, opinions and critical thinkings we would not be there where we are now
at the surpassing of the first own produced MegaWatt of power from our own AuKW.

<img src="http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-Zaehlerstand-gaia-rosch-aukw-752x211.jpg (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-Zaehlerstand-gaia-rosch-aukw-752x211.jpg)" />
5kW * 24h * 5 days would be 600kWh not 1MWh.
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
   

Quote
Apparently you are not despite your claims or you would understand that structural steel loses 90% of its strength at temperatures of ordinary plastic and wood fires.

Absolute rubbish. My own home gas BBQ can run a blue/white hot flame all day right under the cook plate(that is only 4mm thick mind you),and that plate will still maintain 90% of it's strength. I also think you might like to have a look at some brake rotors glowing red hot,and still have enough strength to stop a race car-plain old cast iron. Then there is the old steam engine boilers--how hot do you think they get,and still,the boiler tubes can withstand extream pressures-even though they are glowing red/white hot. And no,boiler tubes are not some fancy steel,they are mild steel with thicker walls. You can cut these tubes with a hacksaw-as i have done many times.-! And i repeat-->the heat generated by the fires in the towers was not hot enough to melt even mild steel,and that is fact.
Im sorry Mark,but your smokey oxygen starved fires in the towers was no where near hot enough to weaken the giant sized columns enough to cause a building designed to withstand fire,plane strikes,and cyclones to collaps.__> now,about those columns that were melted?.

Quote
Fireproofing applied to structural steel slows down heat penetration.  Those fires burned all day.


And so what if they burned all day. Light a candle and place it under a half inch steel rod !all day if you like!,and the steel rod wouldnt even glow red. This is your comparison on the scale we are looking at here.

Quote
Have you read the NIST report?

Yes i have-and what a joke. Both FEMA's and the NIST reports failed to include the core columns dimentions. The NIST report you speak of said there were only 4 core columns on each core corner that had the larger dimention core's,and that is a load of crap.
These core columns had dimentions of 16" x 36",and 22" x 52"-your little fire isnt going to weaken them by 90%. The 9/11 commission report even denied there existance,and said they were hollow steel shafts lol.

Quote
The LOL joke is on you and all the conspiracy theorists who substitute what they think is "common sense" for science.

Your common sense science go's against every other scientific,structual,and just plain impossible outcomes that all independant(not under the governments controll)reports show.These were all done by people that live that industry every day-real experts in there field,and not some one under government influence.

Quote
It is willful ignorance on parade.Do you fly?  Do you understand that ground effect helps keep the plane off the ground?

No,i dont fly-->do you have a degree in physics?
 I do know what is, and how the ground effect work's,and if you knew what the effects of it are,then you would know it takes a skilled pilot to deal with it when it come's. When you come in to land a plane,you have to compensate for the ground effect. It wants to lift you back up,when you want to go down. Pilots use the ground effect to gain takeoff speed when running down the runway. They use the ground effect to lift the plane slightly of the tarmac,and when liftoff speed is gained,they lift off. When you come into land,the ground effect will want to lift the plane back up,so pilots compensate for this. Here we have a pilot that hadnt even finished his cessna licence,and your telling me that he could compensate for the ground effect in a 747 lol-->who is the joke on?.This so called pilot would have come up against the ground effect,and not know WTF to do. If he was the pilot,then that plane would have shot right over the top of the pentagon.

Here is an actual quote from the 9/11 commission report.
Quote: Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, as he is a "terrible pilot,"
LOL-This is the same bloke that apparently piloted flight 77(a boeing 757),managed a 330* spiral dive,overcome and compensated for the ground effect,and hit the pentagon dead on target lol-(which just happened to be the very same section of the pentagon where they were trying to find all those billions of dollars that the armed forces couldnt account for)These are the words of the guys you believe,the guys that wrote the bloody report lol. You can read this for your self-the report is there for all to read.

Here is another good one to read in the report.
The terrorists decided not to target  a nuclear power plant,because(get this) the air space around it would be restricted LOL,so they decided to go for the pentagon insted ::) This is in one of your !so called! reports Mark-along with so much more comedy.

You should take your own advice Mark,and go read the !official! government report's-->it's bloody clasic ;D

You could come join the discussion at OUR so as we dont fill this thread with unrelated stuff (link below),but im guessing that you wont take on an actual physics professor-->the very one that found the traces of thermite at the twin towers site.
Just one of the many guys that actually knows what he is talking about-->with reserch and results to back it up.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.0
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 01:18:22 PM
Quote
How is it that the steel melted when the temperatures just didnt get anywhere near the temperatures needed to melt the steel columns.

I am pretty sure the answer to that is very simple.  The temperatures did get high enough to compromise the steel columns.   In the lay press you read something like, "paper burns at a lower temperature than steel melts."  That is simply dumb.  If you are burning fuel in an enclosed space, then you are creating a flow of heat power.  If the flow of heat power cannot escape, then the temperature must increase.

You have a one-volt voltage source connected to a discharged capacitor.  What happens?  The answer is that the capacitor charges to one volt.

You have a one-amp current source connected to a discharged capacitor.  What happens?  The answer is that the voltage on the capacitor starts at zero volts and increases linearly forever.  Burning paper is modeled as a current source that produces a continuous flow of heat power.  It's not a voltage source.

The idea that the metal would not get compromised or melt is just one example of the silliness and insanity surrounding this tragedy.

Here is a reality check:  There is video that we have all seen with molten metal pouring out of the towers.  The firemen said there were pools of molten metal in the basement.  Yet at the same time you have people saying that the fires could not compromise the steel colums or melt metal.  Can't you see how crazy that is?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on April 30, 2015, 01:56:04 PM
I'm generous, not an ogre. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Do unto others as you would have others do to you. That's a good motto. I give people a lot of room to prove themselves.
So is this your approach to the victims of you sexual inappropriate behavior Sterling to minors. I have many emails from people where you scream at people, make demands, throw tantrums and act like a real bully boy. I think it is in everyone's interest you start seeking professional help and take your meds.


Speaking of generosity I challenge you to donate $1000 (to match mine)to help the people in Nepal. Here is the link


http://www.gofundme.com/tab3b3sc (http://www.gofundme.com/tab3b3sc)


Kind Regards
Mark


Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: markdansie on April 30, 2015, 02:01:36 PM
Okay, so you're also among the "show me the data" crowd who believe the "official" 9/11 lies. Pathetic.

Building 7 came down in classic demolition manner. Anyone can see that. No college degree required.


What has 911 got to do with free energy lol. You really should get some professional advice Sterling from professionals in the mental health area. Its cost you your family, most of your friends and most of all your credibility. I never want to see people fall from grace as you did and help is out there,


Love and hope you recover soon
Mark
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 02:05:57 PM
Absolute rubbish. My own home gas BBQ can run a blue/white hot flame all day right under the cook plate(that is only 4mm thick mind you),and that plate will still maintain 90% of it's strength.
LOL, tested it did you?  Kindly describe your test set up for yield strength and the procedures you followed before and after running your BBQ.
Quote
I also think you might like to have a look at some brake rotors glowing red hot,and still have enough strength to stop a race car-plain old cast iron. Then there is the old steam engine boilers--how hot do you think they get,and still,the boiler tubes can withstand extream pressures-even though they are glowing red/white hot. And no,boiler tubes are not some fancy steel,they are mild steel with thicker walls. You can cut these tubes with a hacksaw-as i have done many times.-! And i repeat-->the heat generated by the fires in the towers was not hot enough to melt even mild steel,and that is fact.
Im sorry Mark,but your smokey oxygen starved fires in the towers was no where near hot enough to weaken the giant sized columns enough to cause a building designed to withstand fire,plane strikes,and cyclones to collaps.__> now,about those columns that were melted?.
Yes you keep repeating stuff that seems intuitive to you but you won't be bothered to do the research.  Did you read the NIST report?
Quote


And so what if they burned all day. Light a candle and place it under a half inch steel rod !all day if you like!,and the steel rod wouldnt even glow red. This is your comparison on the scale we are looking at here.
Gee, you can save builders lots of money with your insights.  According to your claim there is no reason to apply vermeculite to structural steel.
Quote

Yes i have-and what a joke. Both FEMA's and the NIST reports failed to include the core columns dimentions. The NIST report you speak of said there were only 4 core columns on each core corner that had the larger dimention core's,and that is a load of crap.
So it is your contention that the NIST report is pack of lies?  Maybe you'd like to visit them and demonstrate your BBQ based structural analysis.
Quote
These core columns had dimentions of 16" x 36",and 22" x 52"-your little fire isnt going to weaken them by 90%. The 9/11 commission report even denied there existance,and said they were hollow steel shafts lol.

Your common sense science go's against every other scientific,structual,and just plain impossible outcomes that all independant(not under the governments controll)reports show.These were all done by people that live that industry every day-real experts in there field,and not some one under government influence.
Well tinman I have a prime example of just how far you've put your head up your ass.  In early 2002 a petrol tanker overturned on an overpass in the Highway 80 / 880 / 580 interchange in Oakland California.  The heat from that fire weakened, and caused collapse of the undamaged overpass above it.  Heres a nice picture for you:  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/us/collapse2.600..jpg.
Quote

No,i dont fly-->do you have a degree in physics?
LOL are you trying to claim a degree in physics?
Quote
I do know what is, and how the ground effect work's,and if you knew what the effects of it are,then you would know it takes a skilled pilot to deal with it when it come's. When you come in to land a plane,you have to compensate for the ground effect. It wants to lift you back up,when you want to go down. Pilots use the ground effect to gain takeoff speed when running down the runway. They use the ground effect to lift the plane slightly of the tarmac,and when liftoff speed is gained,they lift off. When you come into land,the ground effect will want to lift the plane back up,so pilots compensate for this. Here we have a pilot that hadnt even finished his cessna licence,and your telling me that he could compensate for the ground effect in a 747 lol-->who is the joke on?.This so called pilot would have come up against the ground effect,and not know WTF to do. If he was the pilot,then that plane would have shot right over the top of the pentagon.
Ground effect adds lift making it relatively easy for even remedialy pilots in training to practice flying just above the runway.  Ground effect makes it so that it takes skill for a pilot to touch down at a specific point on the runway.  Drop full flaps and cruising over the runway just isn't very hard.
Quote

Here is an actual quote from the 9/11 commission report.
Quote: Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, as he is a "terrible pilot,"
LOL-This is the same bloke that apparently piloted flight 77(a boeing 757),managed a 330* spiral dive,overcome and compensated for the ground effect,and hit the pentagon dead on target lol-(which just happened to be the very same section of the pentagon where they were trying to find all those billions of dollars that the armed forces couldnt account for)These are the words of the guys you believe,the guys that wrote the bloody report lol. You can read this for your self-the report is there for all to read.
Each side of the Pentagon is nearly 0.2 miles wide.  It's one heck of a big barn door.
Quote

Here is another good one to read in the report.
The terrorists decided not to target  a nuclear power plant,because(get this) the air space around it would be restricted LOL,so they decided to go for the pentagon insted ::) This is in one of your !so called! reports Mark-along with so much more comedy.

You should take your own advice Mark,and go read the !official! government report's-->it's bloody clasic ;D

You could come join the discussion at OUR so as we dont fill this thread with unrelated stuff (link below),but im guessing that you wont take on an actual physics professor-->the very one that found the traces of thermite at the twin towers site.
If you are talking about doesn't know how to operate an oscilloscope ex-physics professor Steven Jones we all know why he retired early.
Quote
Just one of the many guys that actually knows what he is talking about-->with reserch and results to back it up.
And no doubt little people inside his head filling it with ideas.
Quote

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.0
Title: Re: Done over here for a while
Post by: markdansie on April 30, 2015, 02:07:21 PM
I've spent way too much time over here bantering with you all. I need to get to work on things more productive. Sorry if I've been too rough. I tend to pound pretty hard on skeptics, in pushback from how relentless they are in their rants.

I so look forward to the day when we are so vindicated and they get to walk off with their tails between their legs.
You never did answer my questions
1. Did Jesus show up for dinner
2. Are you still waiting to be arrested for your crimes against minors?
3. Do you still believe you will be killed in prison and come back to life?


I think you owe it to your public to dive them an update


Kind Regards
Darth Dansie



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 02:48:54 PM
]

Quote
I am pretty sure the answer to that is very simple.  The temperatures did get high enough to compromise the steel columns.   In the lay press you read something like, "paper burns at a lower temperature than steel melts."  That is simply dumb.  If you are burning fuel in an enclosed space, then you are creating a flow of heat power.  If the flow of heat power cannot escape, then the temperature must increase.

So wrong MH,and the proof is in many people home's. The fires in the towers were oxygen starved,and a fuel needs oxygen to burn hot. In my home,i have a slow combustion heater. This heater is made from mild steel. If i open the vent to allow oxygen into the fire box,i can get that fire white hot-->and guess what,the mild steel box dosnt melt ;) I can close the air vent off a little-along with the flu controll,and the fire will cool-along with the heater box it self-->it dosnt get hotter,it gets colder as we reduce the oxygen. This we have running weeks at a time,and years on end-->and the mild steel fire box is still mickey mouse. So that throws the! fire was really hot enough to melt steel! out the window-->it just simply cannot happen. The molten metal you see flowing out the windows that the firemen explained ,was due to thermite(which those very firemen also stated along with that comment that they could smell a strange smell),that which you forgot to mention.

Quote
The idea that the metal would not get compromised or melt is just one example of the silliness and insanity surrounding this tragedy.

It was indeed a tragedy,there is no debate about that. As for the metal melting within an oxygen starved enviroment,well you best come tell my fire box(that exceeds the heat that was within the trade center)that it is time it melted away.

Quote
saying that the fires could not compromise the steel colums or melt metal.  Can't you see how crazy that is?

Crazy is thinking that the fire was hot enough to melt those giant steel column's,while my white hot fire in my heater hasnt yet destroyed my fire box. So the fire was hot enough to melt steel,but we see paper flying out the windows unscathed :o

Fire has never collaps a steel framed skyscraper,and yet it managed two in a single day.
By the way,my wood fire in my home is running hot--.nice and warm in here tonight.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: calim on April 30, 2015, 02:55:54 PM
Quote
So is this your approach to the victims of you sexual inappropriate behavior Sterling to minors. I have many emails from people where you scream at people, make demands, throw tantrums and act like a real bully boy. I think it is in everyone's interest you start seeking professional help and take your meds.


Speaking of generosity I challenge you to donate $1000 (to match mine)to help the people in Nepal. Here is the link


http://www.gofundme.com/tab3b3sc


Kind Regards
Mark

And who are you Mark to judge people you don't ever know (or you think you know) ?
I'm ashamed by this behavior. Please don't post this at the public place, you're spreading very nasty atmosphere.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 03:15:17 PM
Tinman:

It doesn't matter if the fires were oxygen starved or not.  Just the fact that they were burning means that they were producing a continuous flow of heat power within the confined space of the building.

What do you think "room flashover" is in house fires?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk)

It's exactly the same thing.  Stuff burning in the room creates heat.  The heat has nowhere to go so the ambient temperature in the room keeps increasing.  Eventually it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously catches on fire by itself - it doesn't even need to be in contact with a flame.

When the planes crashed into the towers, they created cavities with limited air flow and lots of combustible material.  The temperature inside those cavities rose to the point were the steel got soft and failed.  This is a no-brainer.  If you have a source of heat and nowhere for that heat to go then the temperature will climb.

The current source is the continuous source of burning material.  The capacitor is the cavity in the building.  The voltage across the capacitor is the temperature.

That's it - it's a no-brainer.  Eventually the burning inside the towers brought them down because of the effects of the trapped heat on the structural steel.

These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets.

The WTC towers were big and big means the steel is proportionally "weaker."  The burning fires made the temperature too high for the already "weak" steel.  It is no surprise at all that the towers came down.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 03:30:33 PM
A voice tells tinman what he wants to hear:  A person who thinks he's found free energy because he does not understand how to use an oscilloscope also found bits of aluminum and iron in the wreckage of a steel framed, aluminum facaded building, impacted by more than 80 tons of aircraft aluminum.  Therefore it must be "nano thermite".
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 30, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Yeow @markdansie what's with the intensity.sterlinga's just a reporter not a mass killer
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on April 30, 2015, 03:44:43 PM
@MH
Quote
These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get
proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if
an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the
aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you
go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets
Have you been drinking MH, the metals tensile strength does not magically change with size.
AC

 
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 03:52:26 PM
   

Quote
Yes you keep repeating stuff that seems intuitive to you but you won't be bothered to do the research.  Did you read the NIST report?

I have already answered this question. Lets have a look at that NIST report-along with the FEMA report.
FEMA report states that the 767 was traveling at roughly 590MPH when it hit the tower
NIST report states that the 767 was traveling at around 546MPH when it hit the tower

First-what would you say the hight above sea level was where the planes impacted the two towers. Im guessing around 700 feet at best.
It is interesting to note that boeing states that the engines thrust for a 767 at 700 feet would max out at 330MHP,but the plane would begin to shake it self to peices at 220MPH at this altitude due to the density of the air. It's all there in plain !plane! english for you to read.

Like i said before,yes i have read many reports,and like your beloved NIST report,they are just comical,and your very own physics proves them to be incorrect.

Quote
Gee, you can save builders lots of money with your insights.  According to your claim there is no reason to apply vermeculite to structural steel.

Please supply links and pictures of any other steel framed highrise building that has collapsed due to fire.

Quote
So it is your contention that the NIST report is pack of lies?

It is a pack of-we dont know what the hell were talking about-->but they seem to be able to defy the laws of physics with there plane speeds.

Quote
Well tinman I have a prime example of just how far you've put your head up your ass.  In early 2002 a petrol tanker overturned on an overpass in the Highway 80 / 880 / 580 interchange in Oakland California.  The heat from that fire weakened, and caused collapse of the undamaged overpass above it.  Heres a nice picture for you:  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/us/collapse2.600..jpg.

LMAS-are you serious Mark lol. And you say i have my head up my ass. I think you just ploted your own demise. If you cant see the difference between the two situations or circumstances,then maybe grade school would be more up your alley.

Quote
LOL are you trying to claim a degree in physics?

Unlike some,no-->but you seem to be lacking a bit in the area.


Quote
Ground effect adds lift making it relatively easy for even remedialy pilots in training to practice flying just above the runway.  Ground effect makes it so that it takes skill for a pilot to touch down at a specific point on the runway.


Or a specific building in a strange country. Not to forget the 330* spiral dive to line up this extreemly small land mark with the big barn doors.
Just wondering if you could post a clear picture of the impact on the pentagon,and show us all where exactly the wings and engines impacted the building?,and how none of the street signs or structures were hit or damaged as they should have been if a 757 where on such a flight projectory.

.
Quote
Each side of the Pentagon is nearly 0.2 miles wide.  It's one heck of a big barn door.

Here is a little reserch for you Mark. Find me just one pilot that could execute that flight path with sucess,and then we will move on to the fact that a bloke that couldnt even get his cessna licence due to lack of skills could execute that same flight path with such accuracy

Quote
If you are talking about doesn't know how to operate an oscilloscope ex-physics professor Steven Jones we all know why he retired early.And no doubt little people inside his head filling it with ideas.

You truly are a small man Mark,and without heart. Due to his reserch and discoveries(the truth),he was forced out-shuned for doing such reserch. It has nothing to do with his abilities as a physicist. He(unlike you) was able to open his eyes,and show courage in what he did. He is 10x's the man you will ever be,and i now know what sort of a person you really are. Your a closed book,and your HD is full-no room for new data with you. You are old school etched,and have no room for the truth or the new that go's against what you think is correct. Well i got some bad news for ya-->the walls are closing in,and soon there going to smack you right between the eye's. Your little world is going to come crashing down around you. This may knock some sense into you,but i have the feeling that you will just go off line. Like i said before,you belittle everyone you think is beneath you,but when one of the big guns takes you on,you never take up the challenge-you hide like the small man you are.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: truesearch on April 30, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Since this is a "buoyancy" thread, here is a "slightly" related link to something that I just noticed on GIZMAG:
An airplane that flies with no fuel (concept) ~ based on buoyancy:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/


truesearch
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 03:58:35 PM
Of course the tensile strength does not change with size.  But what about Superman?  Can he really pick up an entire train by getting underneath a boxcar in the center of the train and lifting it up from there?  Or would he actually just punch a hole in the boxcar because the bottom of a boxcar could not possibly support the weight of a 15-boxcar train?

I tried to find it but I couldn't.  It was an article about naturally occurring grains of sand.  A grain of sand will only get so small, and then it will not get any smaller than that.  Why is that?  The answer is that proportionally the smaller the grain of sand gets, its relative strength increases and its resistance to the external environment increases.  Eventually it gets to a point were for all practical intents and purposes it is indestructible.  The smaller you go the stronger you get.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 04:02:33 PM
Since this is a "buoyancy" thread, here is a "slightly" related link to something that I just noticed on GIZMAG:
An airplane that flies with no fuel (concept) ~ based on buoyancy:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/


truesearch
Unlike others here(the few) would say,i believe this could work,but it would be due to thermal energy-thermal updraft,much the same way a glider remains in the air for such long periods. It would have to also take advantage of this enviromental energy to work as the claim,but it would work.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 04:05:58 PM
Quote
It has nothing to do with his abilities as a physicist.

Trust me, he couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag when it came to electronics.  When he arrived at OUR to pitch his circuit, it was absolutely shocking to see how clueless he was.  This was a _physics professor_ and in first year physics they teach you basic electronics.

I sent an email to Poynt, ION, and perhaps TK saying how shocked I was that a physics professor could come an present a simple circuit and seem so completely lost and clueless.

I am telling you in all sincerity that I was shocked.  Shocked because there was no comparison at all between this guy and the real physics professors that I encountered at school.  I don't know how he managed to get away with that while being on the payroll.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 04:10:52 PM
Tinman:

It doesn't matter if the fires were oxygen starved or not.  Just the fact that they were burning means that they were producing a continuous flow of heat power within the confined space of the building.

What do you think "room flashover" is in house fires?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk)

It's exactly the same thing.  Stuff burning in the room creates heat.  The heat has nowhere to go so the ambient temperature in the room keeps increasing.  Eventually it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously catches on fire by itself - it doesn't even need to be in contact with a flame.

When the planes crashed into the towers, they created cavities with limited air flow and lots of combustible material.  The temperature inside those cavities rose to the point were the steel got soft and failed.  This is a no-brainer.  If you have a source of heat and nowhere for that heat to go then the temperature will climb.

The current source is the continuous source of burning material.  The capacitor is the cavity in the building.  The voltage across the capacitor is the temperature.

That's it - it's a no-brainer.  Eventually the burning inside the towers brought them down because of the effects of the trapped heat on the structural steel.

These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets.

The WTC towers were big and big means the steel is proportionally "weaker."  The burning fires made the temperature too high for the already "weak" steel.  It is no surprise at all that the towers came down.

MileHigh
MH
As i stated,my fire heater gets hotter than that.
Also,as i asked Mark,can you post links to any other highrise building that has collaped due to fire.

Quote: Indeed, in all of the history of structural engineering, not a single steel-framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

Can you find one-just one MH?

Edit
MH
i will add this picture of the windsor building that burned for over two days-
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on April 30, 2015, 04:24:49 PM
Some steel towers were still partially standing after atomic bombs were blownup at the top of them in tests
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 04:36:16 PM
Trust me, he couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag when it came to electronics.  When he arrived at OUR to pitch his circuit, it was absolutely shocking to see how clueless he was.  This was a _physics professor_ and in first year physics they teach you basic electronics.

I sent an email to Poynt, ION, and perhaps TK saying how shocked I was that a physics professor could come an present a simple circuit and seem so completely lost and clueless.

I am telling you in all sincerity that I was shocked.  Shocked because there was no comparison at all between this guy and the real physics professors that I encountered at school.  I don't know how he managed to get away with that while being on the payroll.
Well MH,he is a physics professor,not an EE-->there is a big difference.

I started life as a motor cycle mechanic,then moved onto HD mechanics,and then onto mechanical engineering. I now have my degree in all three. Just to throw a spanner in the work's,i also did my four year degree in green keeping lol-that was different,but it has come in handy. I now drive trucks for a living. I have all these skill's,but my grade with electronics and useing the scope is junior-->my spelling is also crap.

So just because we know our way around one thing,dosnt mean we are gun at another.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 04:38:22 PM
I doesn't matter Brad, what you have shown is not proof of anything except the examples you are showing are true.

I gave you the logical reasoning for why the towers would fall.  If you have a source of heat power, and you cannot evacuate that heat power fast enough, then the temperature must increase.  It's the same thing for a car engine.  It's just the physical reality and it can't be ignored.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 04:46:53 PM
Quote
Well MH,he is a physics professor,not an EE-->there is a big difference.

Nope, because physics and basic electronics are exactly the same thing.  In junior college physics courses they typically teach you about capacitors and inductors and how they work.  That was my experience.

As far as I am concerned, it is essentially impossible for any physics professor to not be able to demonstrate complete competency with basic electronic circuits.  And that means that you use differential and integral equations to explain how capacitors and inductors work and you use the same equations to show how simple circuits work.

A real physics professor is supposed to be ROCK SOLID when it comes to this stuff.  They should know it as a reflex, without really having to think.

How do you calculate the escape velocity for Earth?   Do you think the average physics professor needs to remember the formula?  They answer is they don't.   They can simply derive it on paper using basic calculus in one minute flat.  That's a real physics professor.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on April 30, 2015, 04:58:57 PM
I doesn't matter Brad, what you have shown is not proof of anything except the examples you are showing are true.

I gave you the logical reasoning for why the towers would fall.  If you have a source of heat power, and you cannot evacuate that heat power fast enough, then the temperature must increase.  It's the same thing for a car engine.  It's just the physical reality and it can't be ignored.
MH
In order for the temperature to rise,you must increase the oxygen(or an oxident of some type),or the heat will never reach a high level-->this is physics that determonds this,not me. The same go's for a car engine-->when dose it reach higher temperatures-->when the throttle is open full,or only half open?-disconect the cooling fan,and try it your self.

I stand by what i say,and that is-the fire alone never got close to being hot enough to bring down those buildings.This has been proven time and time again by those that know,and are not under the shadow of the government.

There are so many holes and untruths about that whole deal that just dont fit. 6 of the blokes that were suppose to be flying those planes are still alive today-->how is that?. One of the planes was still listed as ! in service! until 2006. We could go on for ever here,and this thread will take a dive in the wrong direction like so many have before.

So i say now,we either open a sepperate thread,or maybe there is an existing one here on OU,or we just say-each to there own,and leave it at that.

Agree or disagree MH,i do appreciate you being civil-->unlike some here. This is why i have respect for you and others like you. Even though we dont always agree,we tend to get along .

Cheers
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 05:09:16 PM
heat power....
well I was in Building 7 many times during its construction for testing
I worked with the fire proofer for building seven Too [attaching and wrapping beams and columns
with wire lathe to help hold the sprayed on fireproofing.

I have to say most buildings that I worked in or around [mostly new construction]
had run of the mill columns beams etc etc ,Building seven was built out of iron
with dimensions that were stupendous..quite extraordinary ,especially the lower levels.

funny how crosswalks over the street remained intact and the whole complex across the street
and surrounding buildings have mostly  window damage
but building seven comes down ....,and as Brad points out a first in history..
BTW the building Brad sited most likely did not have state of the art fireproofing and still remained standing.

Not  buying building 7....

Brad
How can we help you go further with your work??




Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: The Observer on April 30, 2015, 05:19:26 PM
9/11 - yea...  at this point there is no use in trying to convince either side.
Cognitive Dissidence is as powerful as hypnosis.


Anyone who believes that the BBC reporting that building 7
fell 20 minutes before it did was real report
based on reality is quite hypnotized.

No need to waste a breathe on this.. the past is the past.

I am still wondering about the Gadget this thread purports to be about.
Certainly will remain positive til the fat lady sings.


Sterling... I appreciate your time and efforts.
No need waste your time convincing anyone of anything...
just continue your path reporting and posting your thoughts.

That is where your time is best spent.

Best Regards to all,
                               The Observer
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 05:21:56 PM
5kW * 24h * 5 days would be 600kWh not 1MWh.

It's been running continuously since Saturday, April 18, not just 5 days.

Regarding my quest to sup, I've been updating that daily as I go along, and will continue to do so. I've been very transparent in its unfolding.

Also, regarding the "power outage" See my recent blog posting, which I'll copy here
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Power_Outage_Coincided_with_AuKW_Outage.3F

I just sent this to Roberto by Skype:
[14:20 GMT] "Hi Roberto, That email I sent ~8 hours ago asks a very important question that needs to be addressed. It points out that the emergency lighting only comes on during power outages; and that that power outage to the building coincided with the outage of the AuKW, which is supposed to be independent of mains power. This needs to be addressed, as people are using it as the smoking gun evidence that there is trickery going on."
Dansie had said, for example: "Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines."
Here is Roberto's reply to my email:

 
  From: "Verein GAIA | Roberto Reuter"  To: "Sterling Allan"  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 13:36 [GMT]  Subject: Re: safety lighting 
 
  Dear Sterling,   The so called "safety light" is the emitted light from the IR diodes of both cameras.   I attached a link to a pic from the cam - so its maybe more easy to understand..   (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg) (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg)   P.S: We use a TRENDNET TV-IP310PI   with best Regards from Roberto  Just now, he explained by Skype that their website is presently "offline - as we move our webspace to a more powerful server ;)"
I suggested "You might also take a photo of that portion of the ceiling in relation to the demo to show there is no safety light situated there."
He said he would.
/END OF BLOG EXCERPT

So, those of you who jumped to the conclusion that this was absolute evidence of fraud, how do you feel now, being shown wrong on this point? Are you going to apologize?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 05:42:56 PM
Quote
Not  buying building 7....

I took a quick look but I couldn't find it.  It was a PBS Nova or something like that.

Building 7 took a nasty gash in the back of the building from falling debris that literally ripped the building from top to bottom.  For hours the building was buckling and creaking and they kept people out of it for fear it would collapse.

Then when it did collapse, it did not all go down in one piece, that's a lie.  The part in the back of the building with the nasty gash collapsed first.  You can clearly see it in the video plain as day.  Then that caused the rest of the building to collapse.

In this day and age, buildings are built to be "just strong enough to stand up and make the building code."   You would have to watch the documentary for all the details.  But once the back section of the building was gone, then the other main beams started to buckle because the building was "just strong enough to stand up" with caveat that this building needed to he structurally integral also.  It was a big mother of a building, about 70 stories?

So the moral of the story is that even a big building like that can be mortally wounded and collapse after several hours if it is hit by a high-velocity 300-ton projectile that causes a zipper-like gash that runs down the back of the building.  It was a good, serious, legit documentary that I saw.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 05:52:54 PM
MH
Your getting your buildings confused...

Not that it matters here  ,,but a slashed curtainwall is by no means a fatal blow.

Not even a flesh wound...A Joke actually [to use as a reason for collapse] ...

it would be good to see what you are talking about tho...
I never really followed any of this ,to close to home ,doesn't feel good at all.

maybe you could post it in the relevant thread.
some of us are very interested in This threads topic.
as well as the Tinmans experiments.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
Sterling:

Quote
So, those of you who jumped to the conclusion that this was absolute evidence of fraud, how do you feel now, being shown wrong on this point? Are you going to apologize?

What are you even saying here?  So the guy explained that the light was IR light done with IR LEDs?  So what, what does that prove?  What is  the point here?

I suppose that security cameras have their own IR lighting and visible emergency power lighting for people can be a totally separate thing.  So what?

I am missing something because even when it is supposedly running I don't see much in the clip that is convincing me that it is running.  Then when the power failure happens, besides the switchover to IR lighting, I still don't see much happening.  For me, I can't tell one way or the other before and after the power failure.  I just see a static image.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on April 30, 2015, 05:56:17 PM
MH
Your getting your buildings confused...

Not that it matters here  ,,but a slashed curtainwall is by no means a fatal blow.

Not even a flesh wound...A Joke actually ...

It was not just a curtain wall, it was one of the "tubes" that make up the building that was gashed from top nearly to bottom.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 06:37:57 PM
Also, regarding the "power outage" See my recent blog posting, which I'll copy here
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Power_Outage_Coincided_with_AuKW_Outage.3F (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Power_Outage_Coincided_with_AuKW_Outage.3F)

Here is Roberto's reply to my email:

 
  From: "Verein GAIA | Roberto Reuter" 
  To: "Sterling Allan" 
  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 13:36 [GMT] 
  Subject: Re: safety lighting 
 
  Dear Sterling,   The so called "safety light" is the emitted light from the IR diodes of both cameras.   I attached a link to a pic from the cam - so its maybe more easy to understand..   (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg) (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg)   P.S: We use a TRENDNET TV-IP310PI   with best Regards from Roberto  Just now, he explained by Skype that their website is presently "offline - as we move our webspace to a more powerful server ;) "

I suggested "You might also take a photo of that portion of the ceiling in relation to the demo to show there is no safety light situated there."

He said he would.
/END OF BLOG EXCERPT

So, those of you who jumped to the conclusion that this was absolute evidence of fraud, how do you feel now, being shown wrong on this point? Are you going to apologize?

Hmm.  Waiting for response from Roberto. I asked him:

"In this photo, could you tell me what the circled item is? It looks like a light that you installed, either as part of this demonstration in particular, for showcasing, or for emergency lighting compliance. It appears to be in the right location to provide what appears to be emergency light in the attached image. Maybe it had some kind of LED on it?"
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 06:41:06 PM
@MHHave you been drinking MH, the metals tensile strength does not magically change with size.
AC
I think he is talking about maximum load versus cantilever length. 
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:22:30 PM
I have already answered this question. Lets have a look at that NIST report-along with the FEMA report.
FEMA report states that the 767 was traveling at roughly 590MPH when it hit the tower
NIST report states that the 767 was traveling at around 546MPH when it hit the tower

First-what would you say the hight above sea level was where the planes impacted the two towers. Im guessing around 700 feet at best.
It is interesting to note that boeing states that the engines thrust for a 767 at 700 feet would max out at 330MHP,but the plane would begin to shake it self to peices at 220MPH at this altitude due to the density of the air. It's all there in plain !plane! english for you to read.
Jesus H ...  Well maybe if you have the flaps extended.  These silly ideas have been debated many times over the past 13 years.  A 767 does not come apart at 220MPH at sea level.  You've been drinking more of the conspiracy theorist mind altering Kool-Aid.  Go calculate Mach 0.86 at sea level.  It's a lot faster than 220MPH. 
Quote

Like i said before,yes i have read many reports,and like your beloved NIST report,they are just comical,and your very own physics proves them to be incorrect.
The people running around like the Mad Hatter are not the professionals at NIST who carefully investigated and then composed that report.
Quote

Please supply links and pictures of any other steel framed highrise building that has collapsed due to fire.
I just showed you a steel reinforced freeway intersection that failed due to heat from a petrol fire.  Show me how many 1000' or higher buildings have survived a 767 full of fuel crashing into them at 500mph.
Quote

It is a pack of-we dont know what the hell were talking about-->but they seem to be able to defy the laws of physics with there plane speeds.
No it is some really screwed up people bent on conspiracies who do not perform proper investigation who come up with lame ideas like a 767 coming apart at 220mph at sea level.  It is worse than wrong.
Quote

LMAS-are you serious Mark lol. And you say i have my head up my ass. I think you just ploted your own demise. If you cant see the difference between the two situations or circumstances,then maybe grade school would be more up your alley.
I see:  The conspiracy nut Kool-Aid gets you all giddy.
Quote

Unlike some,no-->but you seem to be lacking a bit in the area.

 

Or a specific building in a strange country. Not to forget the 330* spiral dive to line up this extreemly small land mark with the big barn doors.
Really?  You think that one of the largest office buildings ever built is a speck?  Take another swig of that Kool-Aid.
Quote
Just wondering if you could post a clear picture of the impact on the pentagon,and show us all where exactly the wings and engines impacted the building?,and how none of the street signs or structures were hit or damaged as they should have been if a 757 where on such a flight projectory.
Again really?  It's not like the video didn't get released:  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/video-of-9-11-pentagon-attack/
Quote

.
Here is a little reserch for you Mark. Find me just one pilot that could execute that flight path with sucess,and then we will move on to the fact that a bloke that couldnt even get his cessna licence due to lack of skills could execute that same flight path with such accuracy
Well you put yourself into a logical pickle with that idea.  If you believe the FDR then the plane flew the path the FDR indicated and either overflew the Pentagon behind an invisible cloaking device to some secret hangar where the passenger and crew were murdered and the evidence destroyed or the plane hit the ground and the building.  Take your pick.
Quote

You truly are a small man Mark,and without heart. Due to his reserch and discoveries(the truth),he was forced out-shuned for doing such reserch.
He is one crazy person who insisted on pressing his unfounded ideas.  His colleagues who actually worked in specialties like structural engineering were some of the ones who complained the most.  Nutty is as nutty does.  You apparently partake that Kool-Aid which I find disappointing.  But, there you go.
Quote
It has nothing to do with his abilities as a physicist. He(unlike you) was able to open his eyes,and show courage in what he did. He is 10x's the man you will ever be,and i now know what sort of a person you really are. Your a closed book,and your HD is full-no room for new data with you. You are old school etched,and have no room for the truth or the new that go's against what you think is correct. Well i got some bad news for ya-->the walls are closing in,and soon there going to smack you right between the eye's. Your little world is going to come crashing down around you. This may knock some sense into you,but i have the feeling that you will just go off line. Like i said before,you belittle everyone you think is beneath you,but when one of the big guns takes you on,you never take up the challenge-you hide like the small man you are.
You're getting nuttier and nuttier.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:27:32 PM
Well MH,he is a physics professor,not an EE-->there is a big difference.

I started life as a motor cycle mechanic,then moved onto HD mechanics,and then onto mechanical engineering. I now have my degree in all three. Just to throw a spanner in the work's,i also did my four year degree in green keeping lol-that was different,but it has come in handy. I now drive trucks for a living. I have all these skill's,but my grade with electronics and useing the scope is junior-->my spelling is also crap.

So just because we know our way around one thing,dosnt mean we are gun at another.
There is something really wrong when a tenured physics professor doesn't know material required to get through second semester freshman physics.  His experimental technique purely from a:  hypothesis, null experiment, falsification standpoint was total crap.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 07:33:08 PM
It's been running continuously since Saturday, April 18, not just 5 days.

Regarding my quest to sup, I've been updating that daily as I go along, and will continue to do so. I've been very transparent in its unfolding.

Also, regarding the "power outage" See my recent blog posting, which I'll copy here
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Power_Outage_Coincided_with_AuKW_Outage.3F

I just sent this to Roberto by Skype:
[14:20 GMT] "Hi Roberto, That email I sent ~8 hours ago asks a very important question that needs to be addressed. It points out that the emergency lighting only comes on during power outages; and that that power outage to the building coincided with the outage of the AuKW, which is supposed to be independent of mains power. This needs to be addressed, as people are using it as the smoking gun evidence that there is trickery going on."
Dansie had said, for example: "Safety lighting is triggered by power failures in Germany , the USA and even here in the Philippines."
Here is Roberto's reply to my email:

 
  From: "Verein GAIA | Roberto Reuter"  To: "Sterling Allan"  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 13:36 [GMT]  Subject: Re: safety lighting 
 
  Dear Sterling,   The so called "safety light" is the emitted light from the IR diodes of both cameras.   I attached a link to a pic from the cam - so its maybe more easy to understand..   (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg) (http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/150430-aukw-besichtigung-halbzeit-2.jpg)   P.S: We use a TRENDNET TV-IP310PI   with best Regards from Roberto  Just now, he explained by Skype that their website is presently "offline - as we move our webspace to a more powerful server ;)"
I suggested "You might also take a photo of that portion of the ceiling in relation to the demo to show there is no safety light situated there."
He said he would.
/END OF BLOG EXCERPT

So, those of you who jumped to the conclusion that this was absolute evidence of fraud, how do you feel now, being shown wrong on this point? Are you going to apologize?
See the light coming down from just above the frame?  See it spread out and the equipment that it strikes cast shadows?  Is Roberto offering the preposterous claim that the flood light like pattern of light is from the IP cameras?  Is he also offering waterfront land in Florida?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 07:58:21 PM
TinMan
Don't you know that 200 years is a long time...?
it really really means something...
>>>>REALLY<<<<<.

maybe Roger Shawyer didn't listen either..
and now he's gonna rewrite the Book .

here
http://www.overunity.com/15741/april-29-2015-nasa-conforms-roger-shawyers-space-drive-works/msg448608/#new

Oh yes I forgot Mark E says Roger Shawyer and NASA are full of Garbage too..

yeah, its pot luck all the Garbage they fire into space across squillions of miles
and land on a Fleas Buttocks .
all Garbage pot luck ..
their Clueless ...

Just ask Mark E he'll tell you all about it.

probably right now......

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sterlinga on April 30, 2015, 08:02:04 PM
Hmm.  Waiting for response from Roberto. I asked him:

"In this photo, could you tell me what the circled item is? It looks like a light that you installed, either as part of this demonstration in particular, for showcasing, or for emergency lighting compliance. It appears to be in the right location to provide what appears to be emergency light in the attached image. Maybe it had some kind of LED on it?"

At 17:36 GMT, Roberto wrote: "Sterling, hi, this is the Second Webcam, we can access locally only to show a video of the generator & compressor. This Cam also has IR LEDs."

That makes sense. The livestream camera was on infrared, so any light would be amplified, so a little light from this second camera, poised above the AuKW would be exaggerated. Consistent with LED as described.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 30, 2015, 08:24:24 PM
9/11 - ALWAYS REMEMBER


Whatever your reason's; don't let it be forgotten.


------
Meanwhile - ABS pipes have a density that's only 1.04 - very close to water.  (PVC is 1.3-1.45) 30-45% heavier than water
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 08:28:37 PM
http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B763ERFOM.pdf
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 08:35:21 PM
At 17:36 GMT, Roberto wrote: "Sterling, hi, this is the Second Webcam, we can access locally only to show a video of the generator & compressor. This Cam also has IR LEDs."

That makes sense. The livestream camera was on infrared, so any light would be amplified, so a little light from this second camera, poised above the AuKW would be exaggerated. Consistent with LED as described.

This is at least plausible. Thanks for running this down.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:47:33 PM
TinMan
Don't you know that 200 years is a long time...?
it really really means something...
>>>>REALLY<<<<<.

maybe Roger Shawyer didn't listen either..
and now he's gonna rewrite the Book .
He has been trying for over a decade and his math is still crap.
Quote

here
http://www.overunity.com/15741/april-29-2015-nasa-conforms-roger-shawyers-space-drive-works/msg448608/#new
Except that they didn't.  In order to actually test that the device generates its own tiny accelerating force, all other forces have to be reduced to a much lower level so that they do not blind what the device does or does not do.  That requires testing in a very low pressure environment so that charged gas molecules don't push the thing around.  They were not equipped to do that and did not test in a vacuum.  So basically, it was a waste of time and resources. They set up plans to test in a vacuum.  I don't know when those tests will be complete. But never let facts get in your way.  When the Kool-Aid's running, something has to give.
Quote

Oh yes I forgot Mark E says Roger Shawyer and NASA are full of Garbage too..

yeah, its pot luck all the Garbage they fire into space across squillions of miles
and land on a Fleas Buttocks .
all Garbage pot luck ..
their Clueless ...

Just ask Mark E he'll tell you all about it.

probably right now......
Hey what's a little misquoting, and mischaracterization huh Chet? Because if you had an actual argument you wouldn't have to resort to such techniques.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:57:02 PM
http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B763ERFOM.pdf
So flaps need to be fully retracted at 260mph.  The plane obviously is not coming apart with the flaps retracted at 220mph.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 08:58:37 PM
This is at least plausible. Thanks for running this down.
There is definitely a light source up there.  The picture isn't clear enough for me to see if that is a camera head or not.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 09:01:56 PM
From the IBT link:
Quote
The researchers explain that the reason why Shawyer's EmDrive models and EmDrive experiments carried out by Chinese researchers had been criticised in the past was because none of the tests had been carried out in a vacuum.
Physics says particles in the quantum vacuum cannot be ionised, so therefore you cannot push against it, but Nasa says Shawyer's theory does indeed work.
"Nasa has successfully tested their EmDrive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organisation has reported such a successful test. To this end, Nasa Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection," the researchers wrote.
Nasa says its researchers joined forces with a large community of enthusiasts, engineers, and scientists on several continents to discuss EmDrive theories on the NasaSpaceflight.com EmDrive forum, and "despite considerable effort within the NasaSpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artefact, the EmDrive results have yet to be falsified".


But... from the NASA blog forum:


Quote
A bit of clarification:  The Eagleworks crew hope to have the 1.2kW magnetron teeter-totter test-rig up and running by the END of June or perhaps now the first couple of weeks of July 2015.  At the moment we are in the middle component procurement & fabrication, and that task is taking longer than expected due to mill breakdowns in the NASA fabrication shop and the usual supply vendor's taking their time to fill and ship orders.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 09:11:12 PM
Mark E
GIGO you use it like aftershave...Garbage in Garbage out...
your denying this GIGO reference to NASA ??

Monday morning quarterbacks .. a Dime a ton.

Guys that experiment outside the Box

PRICELESS.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 09:14:14 PM
Mark E
GIGO you use it like aftershave...Garbage in Garbage out...
your denying this GIGO reference to NASA ??

Monday morning quarter backs .. a Dime a ton.
Got actual data taken in a vacuum there Chet?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 09:19:06 PM
why don't you put your NASA Jersey on and go show those GIGO boys at NASA
How its Done MarkiE....??

so to be clear your previous statement was disingenuous .
where you said I was fetching and making stuff up??

that is... your GIGO reference to NASA??
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 09:27:08 PM
why don't you put your NASA Jersey on and go show those GIGO boys at NASA
How its Done Marky....??

so to be clear your previous statement was disingenuous .
where you said I was fetching and making stuff up??
NASA alreaady acknowledged that the tests they did without pumping down a vacuum were worthless. 

No you are the person who is making up things I have not said.  It's pretty sad.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 09:32:37 PM
From the IBT link:

But... from the NASA blog forum:
Excitable editor they all said.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on April 30, 2015, 10:23:51 PM
You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE



I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on April 30, 2015, 10:29:56 PM

There is no need to fret about whether what they have is real or not:  Buoyancy is not an energy source.  That is an immediate and full-stop on their claims that they have a buoyancy driven generator.
then gravity is also not an energy source; but yet gravity can be used to release stored potential energy(which also wouldn't exist without gravity).  CLocks for many centuries+ have used gravity to move weights to supply power.
 Sure the weights have to be reset, and I guess you'd argue that it's the mass of the weight having potential energy which is the energy source; but without gravity that source wouldn't exist.


Bouyancy is directly related to gravity.  Without gravity there is no bouyancy.
So if gravity can be used to make something do work, so can bouyancy.


Whatever, this is like arguing that batteries aren't an energy source.  (it's the chemical reaction within them is the energy source)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 10:58:22 PM
I don't think anyone with a brain is arguing that buoyancy, aka gravity, cannot be used in the performance of work. The clock driven by weights on cords is one simple example. However the _source_ of the energy that drives the clock, which is released slowly by the descending weights and the clock's mechanism, is not gravity, it is whatever raised the weights up in the first place. The Bank is not the Source of your money! And if you take money out of the bank faster than you are putting it in, pretty soon you run out completely.

And it is perfectly true that if you bubble some air into a "paternoster" chain of floats as are in the AuKW device, you can have usable work coming out of the output shaft. Nobody, I hope, is disputing that.
 
What is clearly _impossible_ is for complete cycles (using gravity aka buoyancy)  to be performed without outside input of energy, once the stored energy is used up. This is the problem. Something has to reset the weights of the clock back to the elevated position or the clock will stop running, and that energy is coming from the breakfast of the clock-keeper, and the energy in that breakfast ultimately came from the sun (and perhaps a little bit from a nuclear fission power plant).
Ditto the PaterNoster float system: efficiency calculations (and many years of experimental failures) prove that there is not enough work available at the shaft, or other output mechanism, to compress  and pump the air that is needed to keep the thing running. Outside energy must be provided, and _after losses_ some portion of this outside energy is available to perform work at the output shaft. No energy comes from gravity/buoyancy that you didn't put there in the first place, using a _real_ energy source. 

Anyone trying to run computations on these systems (using gravity in the regions where it is indeed constant and conservative, that is, on Earth and most other places) has to take into account the initial state of the system, the energy stored in the initial state, where that energy came from, and what happens or needs to happen to get the system to return to the _exact initial state_ so the cycle can proceed again. Full cycles, accounting for stored energy, are what really matter in a device that is claimed to _produce_ work or energy from gravity/buoyancy.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 11:05:32 PM
Remember that many of John Keeley's devices were powered by compressed air, piped into the devices by hidden plumbing or even thin tubing masquerading as single wires. The AuKW device might simply have another hidden air pump somewhere, putting more air into it, through hidden plumbing, perhaps coming in through the wall brackets or some other route. Electrical measurements would not reveal this source of extra power input; it would take a careful teardown and inspection of the apparatus (and the environment) to rule out something like this.
But it would take a lot of air to enable a 4.8 kW output, and float system would have to be moving pretty fast. Certainly faster than what is shown in the video of the operating top part of the assembly, using reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of the floats attached to the chains inside that particular tube.

How is the power from the actual chain of floats transferred to the sprocket that is connected to the pulleys that actually drive the generator?

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 11:19:40 PM
You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE
So says the individual who concocts nonsense like this, and then denies he made it up:

Quote
Quote
yeah, its pot luck all the Garbage they fire into space across squillions of miles
and land on a Fleas Buttocks .
all Garbage pot luck ..
their Clueless ...

Just ask Mark E he'll tell you all about it.
Somehow you miss that NASA is a large organization that sometimes does great things and sometimes makes terrible blunders.  Not bothering to test the mirror in the Hubble before it went up cost hundreds of millions.  Mistaking 1/3 burn through on o-rings for 300% safety margin cost seven people their lives.  Testing for micro Newton forces when pumping 100's of Watts of E/M energy without drawing a vacuum was useless for that purpose.  The Eagleworks team acknowledged that.  That is why they plan tests with a hard vacuum, which despite the editor's zeal the team leader says that they haven't conducted those tests yet.  But that's OK, don't let facts get in the way of your anger.  It's not physics that holds back your fantasies.  It's those darn skeptics always wanting actual evidence to go with extraordinary claims.  If you have followed the Shawyer saga you should be familiar with the fact that SME's have carefully checked his math and found that he misaccounted for the effects of his tapers.
Quote



I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.
Well you can fantasize all you want about what you think I've said and how indignant you want to feel about it.  If you want to call me out on something I've said then find what I actually said or wrote and get it right.  Otherwise you just make yourself look like a stammering fool.  If you are suggesting that being confronted with that lends you to violence then I think you need some therapy.
Quote

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??
LOL, if you want to hold me to anything I've said, find the quote and its context.   Go ahead and try to find some quote where I take all of NASA to task.  Or bettery yet get a new prescription for your reading glasses.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 11:29:23 PM
then gravity is also not an energy source; but yet gravity can be used to release stored potential energy(which also wouldn't exist without gravity).  CLocks for many centuries+ have used gravity to move weights to supply power.
 Sure the weights have to be reset, and I guess you'd argue that it's the mass of the weight having potential energy which is the energy source; but without gravity that source wouldn't exist.
Gravity is not the energy source.  Gravity is a conservative field.  Someone put gravitational energy into the weight of that grandfather clock by raising the weight.  That potential energy was subsequently released as the clock ran down and the weight fell to its starting position.  Over any traverse from starting point to starting point gravity neither added nor took away any energy from the weight.
Quote


Bouyancy is directly related to gravity.  Without gravity there is no bouyancy.
So if gravity can be used to make something do work, so can bouyancy.
But gravity is not an energy source and so neither is buoyancy.  The scam artists at Rosch are trying to convince people that they lift water and lower water ending up at the same state as they started but with energy left over.  It is a bald faced lie.
Quote


Whatever, this is like arguing that batteries aren't an energy source.  (it's the chemical reaction within them is the energy source)
Batteries are energy stores.  If you have primary batteries, then you get to use the stored energy once and then you have a trash problem.  If they are secondary batteries, then first you have to charge them, and then you can get most of that energy back.  At least you do with the common commercially available chemistries.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 30, 2015, 11:34:31 PM
How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on April 30, 2015, 11:40:11 PM
Remember that many of John Keeley's devices were powered by compressed air, piped into the devices by hidden plumbing or even thin tubing masquerading as single wires. The AuKW device might simply have another hidden air pump somewhere, putting more air into it, through hidden plumbing, perhaps coming in through the wall brackets or some other route. Electrical measurements would not reveal this source of extra power input; it would take a careful teardown and inspection of the apparatus (and the environment) to rule out something like this.
But it would take a lot of air to enable a 4.8 kW output, and float system would have to be moving pretty fast. Certainly faster than what is shown in the video of the operating top part of the assembly, using reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of the floats attached to the chains inside that particular tube.

How is the power from the actual chain of floats transferred to the sprocket that is connected to the pulleys that actually drive the generator?
I have estimated based on the small visible bubble volume that the bubble flow is imparting far less than 10W mechanical power.  It may well be that the "generator" is a motor required to drive the whole thing.  The folks on overunity.de have done a good job of performing lots of calculations on how much power could be transmitted through the mechanisms under various conditions.  It is all moot because as you have just eloquently summarized:  Buoyancy is not an energy source.  Water in the tank moves up, water in the tank falls down, and the result is zero sum gain.  The promised free energy source does not exist anymore than that security case full of cash in Amsterdam.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 01, 2015, 12:46:30 AM
How is the chain of floats connected to this sprocket which transfers the rotation to the gearing that speeds up the motion to drive the generator? What happens to the floats at the top of the assembly? How do they follow the chain around the top sprocket without interfering with this secondary chain and sprocket that must be driving the transmission?

This puts further constraints on the shape and size of the float buckets.
Chain sprocket A
|    Chain sprocket B
|    |  Output sprocket - another chain entirely
V   V V
|---|-|


|     |
|     |
|     |   chain paths - do not interfere.  simple enough.


|---|   <-- bottom shaft without extension and extra drive gear


During operation - it doesn't return to initial condition... because air is added.  If the air pupmp stops, then most of the buckets will empty of air, but it will stop with some partially filled with air... will have to apply some work to force the mechanism around to fully empty (friction losses will keep some buckets submerged.)


But; working with that premise...
-----
Let me interject a experimental note -
    I have a trash can filled to a depth of about 1.5 feet of water; it has a diameter of about 1 foot. 
   I have a 3 inch inner-diameter pipe also filled with.. less... feet of water.
   I have a pump with a weight of certain mass attached to the handle, so when the nozzle is at the bottom of a container and it's displacement of the water makes the water level equal.  raising the pump so the weight pulls the handle, the same mass is required to get air to come out of the end of the pipe.  It is depth and not overall mass that matters.  Need some refinement; I keep knocking things over and losing water, so it is only a very rough approximation.
-------


Initial condition - 1atm ambient air.  and most buckets empty, and water at its lowest level (having none displaced)
work is applied to compress 4 times the volume of air required to 2 atm (which is enough for an apparatus less than 5 meters in height). (nRT * ln(V2/V1) where ln is natural log function and n R and T are all constants.. can substitute P2/P1 instead of V2/V1 since the tempurature change is irrelavent at such low compression and low volumes)


This compressed air is allowed to enter the water vessel, at the bottom.  This air is captured in a bucket, which imparts a lifting force due to displacing the water from the bucket (the water is already displaced in the entire chamber as the air is allowed to enter)  the moving of the displaced volume requires no work.   In this case actually 100% of the work put into compressing the air is lost in its decompression... as the decompression happens 0 work from its expansion is recaptured. 


The rising bucket will eventually invert and release its decompressed air back to the 1atm ambient.
But a bucket with displaced air in it will move, and its force across time can do work.  This force is (mass displaced * g).  But, this is not connected at all to the work required to compress the air.  So there is no way you can say 'input=output' and be done with it.  Since 100% of the work applied to the input is lost, but the output definatly has more than 0 energy available.




there is lost work is in the friction of the chain links bending around the sprocket and whatever bearings the sprocket's shaft is attached to so it can rotate.
 (note: a larger sprocket allows more toque at a lower speed.... a smaller sprocket will make the shaft turn faster, but reduce torque.  (much like a transformer where I1*V1=I2v2 ...   torque1 * speed1 = torque2 * speed2 ) )



Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 01, 2015, 01:04:15 AM
I've never once melted a basketball or tire compressing air into it... nor has it been significantly above ambient tempurature.   so even 2 degrees celcius increase is less than 1% loss to heat.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: sm0ky2 on May 01, 2015, 02:40:02 AM
In your balloon example, the balloons get inflated pushing up the local atmosphere as they get inflated, and you can reclaim most of that energy leaving you in deficit.  Similarly, work was done compressing the CO2 cartridge.  Some of that work is reclaimed when the diver opens the cartridge to surface.

the balloon thing wasn't an example, it was a comment...

as for the CO2 cartridge, there is plenty of info available on this. The force required to fill them (+ a little extra to seal it) is give or take 1.6 newtons, Which is exactly what you get back out. its compressed gas, in actuality you gain a little extra because the gas is cooled before it is filled, so you have extra pressure from the ambient heat.

In either case, it doesn't come anywhere close to the energy gained by the sustained buoyant force over time required to lift the diver 100 feet through ocean water.

Do your math
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on May 01, 2015, 03:03:32 AM
Mark E
You should get another act ,  trying to peddle your way around a context for your comment as it applies to NASA and their research into propulsion drives ...your   garbage in garbage out comment to the engineers at NASA ,makes you sound like some pompous ignoramus
that sweeps all claims with the same broad brush of ignorance and assumption.

But that's what you love to do ... throw insults in the wind from behind the Curtain of alleged anonymity at those who actually do the hard work and research .

as if it really mattered ..to anyone but yourself.
your a legend in your own Mind Mr......





 
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on May 01, 2015, 03:05:08 AM
Jesus H ...  Well maybe if you have the flaps extended.  These silly ideas have been debated many times over the past 13 years.  A 767 does not come apart at 220MPH at sea level.  You've been drinking more of the conspiracy theorist mind altering Kool-Aid.  Go calculate Mach 0.86 at sea level.  It's a lot faster than 220MPH.  The people running around like the Mad Hatter are not the professionals at NIST who carefully investigated and then composed that report.I just showed you a steel reinforced freeway intersection that failed due to heat from a petrol fire.  Show me how many 1000' or higher buildings have survived a 767 full of fuel crashing into them at 500mph.No it is some really screwed up people bent on conspiracies who do not perform proper investigation who come up with lame ideas like a 767 coming apart at 220mph at sea level.  It is worse than wrong.I see:  The conspiracy nut Kool-Aid gets you all giddy.Really?  You think that one of the largest office buildings ever built is a speck?  Take another swig of that Kool-Aid.Again really?  It's not like the video didn't get released:  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/video-of-9-11-pentagon-attack/Well you put yourself into a logical pickle with that idea.  If you believe the FDR then the plane flew the path the FDR indicated and either overflew the Pentagon behind an invisible cloaking device to some secret hangar where the passenger and crew were murdered and the evidence destroyed or the plane hit the ground and the building.  Take your pick. He is one crazy person who insisted on pressing his unfounded ideas.  His colleagues who actually worked in specialties like structural engineering were some of the ones who complained the most.  Nutty is as nutty does.  You apparently partake that Kool-Aid which I find disappointing.  But, there you go.You're getting nuttier and nuttier.
Mark
I really think that YOU should go and do some reserch your self on a 767's speed capabilities at sea level-start with boeings spec sheets first. Take note of the built in speed limits to avoid things like bird strikes taking out the plane at low altitudes. Also see the calculations on maximum thrust v air density v mass of the plane.. Also try and sepperate cruising altitude speed from sea level speed.

Hey,who knows,maybe the guys that couldnt even fly a cessna that managed to pilot a 757 and 767 beyond there capabilities also worked out how to hack into the planes main frame,and disable all the built in safty limits of the aircraft.

A little graph from boeing on the 767-200-->you should go read up a bit Mark,and get YOUR head out of ya ass. Im not seeing the mach .86 at sea level Mark-->who is on the cool aid?.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:11:41 AM
I've never once melted a basketball or tire compressing air into it... nor has it been significantly above ambient tempurature.   so even 2 degrees celcius increase is less than 1% loss to heat.
Get a tub of water.  Fill it 3/4s full.  Let it set for at least an hour so that the water  reaches ambient temperature.  Get a: empty inner tube, air pump of any kind, and good pressure gauge.  Fill the inner tube to a normal pressure reasonably quickly, say less than 1 minute.   Record the pressure.  Place the inner tube in the tub of water and let it set for 15 minutes.  Read the pressure again.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 01, 2015, 03:15:28 AM
Get a tub of water.  Fill it 3/4s full.  Let it set for at least an hour so that the water  reaches ambient temperature.  Get a: empty inner tube, air pump of any kind, and good pressure gauge.  Fill the inner tube to a normal pressure reasonably quickly, say less than 1 minute.   Record the pressure.  Place the inner tube in the tub of water and let it set for 15 minutes.  Read the pressure again.
Irrealvent, the pressure required only exists for ... well less than a second in reality but for 1 second.  So... ya even if the temp is lost and therefore pressure goes down, the amount that is transferred from air to water in 1 second is nil.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:16:10 AM
the balloon thing wasn't an example, it was a comment...

as for the CO2 cartridge, there is plenty of info available on this. The force required to fill them (+ a little extra to seal it) is give or take 1.6 newtons, Which is exactly what you get back out. its compressed gas, in actuality you gain a little extra because the gas is cooled before it is filled, so you have extra pressure from the ambient heat.
Newtons are units of force, not work.
Quote

In either case, it doesn't come anywhere close to the energy gained by the sustained buoyant force over time required to lift the diver 100 feet through ocean water.

Do your math
Please do.  Please show an energy gain by comparing energy values.  We'll see if there is a business making free energy compressing CO2 and plumbing it into submersibles.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:18:52 AM
Mark E
You should get another act ,  trying to peddle your way around a context for your comment as it applies to NASA and their research into propulsion drives ...your   garbage in garbage out comment to the engineers at NASA ,makes you sound like some pompous ignoramus
that sweeps all claims with the same broad brush of ignorance and assumption.

But that's what you love to do ... throw insults in the wind from behind the Curtain of alleged anonymity at those who actually do the hard work and research .

as if it really mattered ..to anyone but yourself.
your a legend in your own Mind Mr......
Chet you are a hoot.  You are either too lazy to dig up the quote that you refer to, or you know that it doesn't say what you represent. 
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:22:25 AM
Mark
I really think that YOU should go and do some reserch your self on a 767's speed capabilities at sea level-start with boeings spec sheets first. Take note of the built in speed limits to avoid things like bird strikes taking out the plane at low altitudes. Also see the calculations on maximum thrust v air density v mass of the plane.. Also try and sepperate cruising altitude speed from sea level speed.

Hey,who knows,maybe the guys that couldnt even fly a cessna that managed to pilot a 757 and 767 beyond there capabilities also worked out how to hack into the planes main frame,and disable all the built in safty limits of the aircraft.

A little graph from boeing on the 767-200-->you should go read up a bit Mark,and get YOUR head out of ya ass. Im not seeing the mach .86 at sea level Mark-->who is on the cool aid?.
LOL, your limit line is at 0.55 Mach.  When did 0.55 Mach at sea level fall significantly below the 220 mph that you claim would tear the plane apart?  0.55 mach is on a typical day at sea level about 420mph.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: PIH123 on May 01, 2015, 03:24:30 AM
There is definitely a light source up there.  The picture isn't clear enough for me to see if that is a camera head or not.

So given that we take evidence as presented, we cannot conclude if it is emergency lighting or light emitted from an infrared camera.
So a plausible explanation as TK said.


Now even without seeing an image taken from that location, I hope you will agree, we have to let that piece of the puzzle go.

Pete
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:27:08 AM
Irrealvent, the pressure required only exists for ... well less than a second in reality but for 1 second.  So... ya even if the temp is lost and therefore pressure goes down, the amount that is transferred from air to water in 1 second is nil.
The two salient points are:  Compression does heat the gas (air).  Given the opportunity that heat conducts out of the gas, losing energy to the surroundings.  That is the same change in energy that can later be absorbed back from the surroundings to displace additional fluid as the elastic bubble rises.  Soda water can be a refreshing treat.  It is not a source of free energy.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:30:43 AM
So given that we take evidence as presented, we cannot conclude if it is emergency lighting or light emitted from an infrared camera.
So a plausible explanation as TK said.


Now even without seeing an image taken from that location, I hope you will agree, we have to let that piece of the puzzle go.

Pete
As I posted a day or two ago on PESN:  Even if the building power went down, there was always an out that they could claim of the controller interrupting power from the AuKW to its loads.  Building power still looks like it failed because other lighting and the TV remained on for several seconds after the AuKW display lights and controller shut down. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on May 01, 2015, 03:30:54 AM
I'll look when I get the time, and you know exactly the context .
your credibility has come into question in Debates and discussions and has lead many here to realize you will
stretch the boundaries of personal integrity and  the rules of fair play [ being honest at all costs]
as well as distort and change intent on your positions if it does not fit your agenda/position.

translation ...you try to cheat...
but fool nobody but yourself.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: PIH123 on May 01, 2015, 03:33:07 AM
At 17:36 GMT, Roberto wrote: "Sterling, hi, this is the Second Webcam, we can access locally only to show a video of the generator & compressor. This Cam also has IR LEDs."

That makes sense. The livestream camera was on infrared, so any light would be amplified, so a little light from this second camera, poised above the AuKW would be exaggerated. Consistent with LED as described.

Sterling, you seem to have turned a corner.

You are now questioning issues raised and appear more balanced.

I hope this bodes well for your business since that is what is needed for you to take care of your family in the manner which they deserve.

Having followed what has gone on with you for the last 5 months, I still do not agree with your "lust addiction" and actions thereof,
or the alphabetics, 9/11 and the chemtrails stuff.
But if you keep all of this out of the free energy business, you may be able to win it back yet.


Pete
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on May 01, 2015, 03:35:44 AM

Quote
I just showed you a steel reinforced freeway intersection that failed due to heat from a petrol fire.  Show me how many 1000' or higher buildings have survived a 767 full of fuel crashing into them at 500mph.

You just posted a pic of a concrete overpass that has steel reinforcing. If you do not know the difference between the two structures,then it is you who needs to go and do some reserch. Apples and oranges is what you just posted. The pic below is a better indication,and a lot closer than your orange from the apple tree. See the huge chunk missing from the building that would be more than that created by any plane. It burnt for two day's,and yet it still stand's. Once again,show me a highrise building that collapsed from fire like the WTC did.

And no-the planes wernt,cant and never did hit the buildings at the speeds claimed-->just not possable.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 01, 2015, 03:37:09 AM
Sterling, you seem to have turned a corner.

You are now questioning issues raised and appear more balanced.

I hope this bodes well for your business since that is what is needed for you to take care of your family in the manner which they deserve.

Having followed what has gone on with you for the last 5 months, I still do not agree with your "lust addiction" and actions thereof,
or the alphabetics, 9/11 and the chemtrails stuff.
But if you keep all of this out of the free energy business, you may be able to win it back yet.


Pete

Maybe...when he gets out of jail.  Boy, will he learn a few lessons in there.

My advice to Sterling:  Don't drop the soap.

Bill

PS  I have no knowledge of Sterling's alleged transgressions other than those admitted to by Sterling himself.  He is the one that said he may do jail time, not me.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: PIH123 on May 01, 2015, 03:37:37 AM
As I posted a day or two ago on PESN:  Even if the building power went down, there was always an out that they could claim of the controller interrupting power from the AuKW to its loads.  Building power still looks like it failed because other lighting and the TV remained on for several seconds after the AuKW display lights and controller shut down.

I agree.

I was merely pointing out that they had provided a reasonable explanation for ONE concern.
It was not meant to be an "out" for them. Just an acceptance of this issue.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:42:02 AM
I agree.

I was merely pointing out that they had provided a reasonable explanation for ONE concern.
It was not meant to be an "out" for them. Just an acceptance of this issue.
Even the famous violinist Lindsey Stirling would have to agree with you on that.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: PIH123 on May 01, 2015, 03:43:17 AM
Even the famous violinist Lindsay Stirling would have to agree with you on that.

You mean me and John Doe
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:50:35 AM
I'll look when I get the time, and you know exactly the context .
your credibility has come into question in Debates and discussions and has lead many here to realize you will
stretch the boundaries of personal integrity and  the rules of fair play [ being honest at all costs]
as well as distort and change intent on your positions if it does not fit your agenda/position.

translation ...you try to cheat...
but fool nobody but yourself.
Evidence Chet, you should look into it.  You put forth an argument it is up to you to support your argument with verifiable evidence or suffer yourself as a fool.  It's quite amusing that you speak of personal integrity and fair play.  You might want to review your posting habits if that is a genuine concern to you.  So:  By all means go dig up any of my posts and shove them in my face.  See if you can find anything embarrassing that sticks.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 03:51:50 AM
You mean me and John Doe
Lindsey Stirling is a male deer???  Those bastards at Monsanto know no boundaries!
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: tinman on May 01, 2015, 04:09:27 AM
LOL, your limit line is at 0.55 Mach.  When did 0.55 Mach at sea level fall significantly below the 220 mph that you claim would tear the plane apart?  0.55 mach is on a typical day at sea level about 420mph.
Where is your 500MPH Mark. Maybe a job at boeing as an engineer is the way to go for you. You can show the engineers there what they dont know.

You insist that we all go do some reserch,when it is clear that you do none of your own. Blind faith is your reserch,and you own misguided conceptions. NIST report is not only wrong about the plane's speed,but also just impossible. Im afraid you have fell in your own hole,and data/reserch that i have done,that is obtained from the people that designed and built the bloody planes clearly shows you are FOS. So now you have to go do some reserch your self,and find two things.
1-Another highrise building that has completely collapsed(as the WTC did) from fire weakening the steel structure to a point of failure.
2- A document from boeing that states that it is possible for a 767 to fly at 500MPH at sea level-which it is not,the engines simply cannot provide the thrust required to do so,and the plane also has built in safty parameters that dont allow these speeds at sea level even if they were possible.

What has happened here is,-you have asked that we all do our reserch,while all you do is quote NIST,NIST,NIST-which is full of so many holes it's not funny.

So,1&2 Mark,lets see how you go with your reserch ;)

Oh,and a little something extra.

WTC engineers have confirmed that the WTC was designed to withstand the inpact of a 707,which was one of the largest passenger planes at the time-->fuel load was also accounted for. The 707 also had a higher cruising speed than that of the 767,and even though slightly smaller than the 767,it would have hit with a higher energy impact.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 01, 2015, 04:33:27 AM
The WTC was not built according to its design, notably in the use and distribution of the fireproofing on the columns.

But never mind all that.  Read the following:

Quote
Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;
1.   The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
 2.   A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
 3.   The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
 4.   The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
 5.   Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
 6.   The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.
Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US).  For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.
Boeing 767-300 Simulator Experiment on the 29th of April 2009
The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation.  Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.
We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test.  I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.
Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.
The writer is John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
http://911blogger.com/node/20232
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 01, 2015, 05:40:56 AM
The WTC was not built according to its design, notably in the use and distribution of the fireproofing on the columns.

But never mind all that.  Read the following:
The writer is John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
http://911blogger.com/node/20232 (http://911blogger.com/node/20232)

So, basically, when the terrorists flew the 747s 500 mph at sea level, all they really did was to void the manufacturer's warranty?  (no airframe damage at those speeds at all)  I really don't think they cared too much about that.  Obviously, to me, it was possible because they did it.

Also, the design engineers of the WTC specified a certain grade bolt be used to attach the cross frames to the exoskeleton.  (These supported the floors on each level)  As it turns out, a much lesser grade bolt was used (which was much cheaper, of course) and they failed which caused the pancaking of the floors once the upper floors collapsed.  Hard to believe that any NY contractor would substitute an inferior component to put cash in his pocket but....this is evidently what happened.  Actually, it is very easy to believe as it happens all the time up there.  Sometimes they get caught, sometimes not.

Bill 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 01, 2015, 06:21:27 AM
The WTC was not built according to its design, notably in the use and distribution of the fireproofing on the columns.

But never mind all that.  Read the following:
The writer is John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
http://911blogger.com/node/20232

TK'
This is a big load of crap-again.

Quote:  We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test.  I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots  /h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale.

See a problem here ?.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on May 01, 2015, 05:40:42 PM
Mark E
stop playing with the buttons...

only Stefan knows how to work that stuff...

We're Back... 8)
Title: Re: Is the motor and generator atop the Rosch's KPP actually a QMoGen?
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 06:15:49 PM
Where is your 500MPH Mark. Maybe a job at boeing as an engineer is the way to go for you. You can show the engineers there what they dont know.

You insist that we all go do some reserch,when it is clear that you do none of your own. Blind faith is your reserch,and you own misguided conceptions. NIST report is not only wrong about the plane's speed,but also just impossible. Im afraid you have fell in your own hole,and data/reserch that i have done,that is obtained from the people that designed and built the bloody planes clearly shows you are FOS. So now you have to go do some reserch your self,and find two things.
1-Another highrise building that has completely collapsed(as the WTC did) from fire weakening the steel structure to a point of failure.
2- A document from boeing that states that it is possible for a 767 to fly at 500MPH at sea level-which it is not,the engines simply cannot provide the thrust required to do so,and the plane also has built in safty parameters that dont allow these speeds at sea level even if they were possible.

What has happened here is,-you have asked that we all do our reserch,while all you do is quote NIST,NIST,NIST-which is full of so many holes it's not funny.

So,1&2 Mark,lets see how you go with your reserch ;)

Oh,and a little something extra.

WTC engineers have confirmed that the WTC was designed to withstand the inpact of a 707,which was one of the largest passenger planes at the time-->fuel load was also accounted for. The 707 also had a higher cruising speed than that of the 767,and even though slightly smaller than the 767,it would have hit with a higher energy impact.
You claimed the planes could not have gone 500mph because they would supposedly fall apart at 220mph.  Your claim is completely refuted.  Have another drink of that delicious Kool-Aid tinman.  "AS SEEN ON TV!" A 767 crashed into each building at high speed.  "AS SEEN ON TV!" the impacts and fires caused catastrophic damage when the floor supports expanded and failed.  If you want to drink Jones' Looney Tunes nano thermite Kool-Aid, you go right ahead and do that.  Then you can argue with other nutters like Judy Wood about space beams "dustifying" the towers.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 06:22:44 PM
TK'
This is a big load of crap-again.

Quote:  We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test.  I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots  /h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale.

See a problem here ?.
The problem is that you have taken up with nutters.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 01, 2015, 06:31:00 PM
The problem is that you have taken up with nutters.
You have your eyes wide shut Mark,there is no doubt about that.
Oh,and i got some bad news for you in regards to bouyancy/gravity devices not being able to do work. How about a 10Kw unit thats been running since 2010,and was the show piece at the united Nations  COP15 conference in Copenhagen ;). Bet you would love to know all about that one.

Oh,could you direct me to the building 7 part in the NIST report-->i cant seem to find it?
What planes can really do. But i doubt you will even give it the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 01, 2015, 06:38:33 PM
The two salient points are:  Compression does heat the gas (air).  Given the opportunity that heat conducts out of the gas, losing energy to the surroundings.  That is the same change in energy that can later be absorbed back from the surroundings to displace additional fluid as the elastic bubble rises.  Soda water can be a refreshing treat.  It is not a source of free energy.

point 1 : good, then I get more pressure for the same volume; +1 goodness.  (edit: err alright I guess I have to increase pump character a little ... because I will end up with less volume of correct pressure at increased temp or the correct volume at slightly reduced pressure at increased temp... but the temp increase on nitrogen&oxygen ... which apparently is a constant that can be looked up is apparently neglegible in 90%+ of applications... because *spoiler* the temp is given in Kelvin, and is a small delta compared to either pressure of volume deltas.)
point 2 : after leaving the compressor I don't care if it sheds the heat to the environment, other than it will end up decompressing less.... it won't go below the initial ambient temperature... and slowly increasing heat in the water does make it less dense... but the overall molarity of the particles above will increase, slightly increasing the required pressure, but allowing more force from bouyancy.   (water expands above 4 degrees C... but the expansion is so slight it's got to be on the order of 0.00001x increase... )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage) (generalities...)


------
Dug around a lot and read a lot of questions asking for 'how much tempuratue changes' mostly on physics forums... they almost always just go back to an adiabatic process and relate V1P1=V2P2 and disregard tempurature because ... what's gained in compression is returned during decompression without regard to heat transfer.... (if it needs heat after shedding some heat it will absorb it back from the system) ... so the bottom of the water vessel will be hotter than the top- other than the buckets end up mixnig it.


The other factor that affects tempurature increase in amount of volume change in time... only a very small pressure increase (relatively to tempurature which is in kelvin) is required in this system, and it's nowhere near 'fast' requirement... 1 foot/sec  (for a 5 inch diameter) is only 0.681818MPH... nowhere near the speed of sound (compressing with with the volume changing at the speed of sound induces excessive heat, since the air colliding with the compressing surface causes heat also).
------


I also realized not 100% is lost, as the air in the bucket rises, it is expanding and causing increased displacement... and assuming there is no increased displacement only 0.75% is lost to that for my calculations.


So, less than 1% of the energy to compress the air is recovered.
The output is still grossly more than this.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 06:58:40 PM
You have your eyes wide shut Mark,there is no doubt about that.
Oh,and i got some bad news for you in regards to bouyancy/gravity devices not being able to do work. How about a 10Kw unit thats been running since 2010,and was the show piece at the united Nations  COP15 conference in Copenhagen ;). Bet you would love to know all about that one.
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?
Quote

Oh,could you direct me to the building 7 part in the NIST report-->i cant seem to find it?
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.  They aren't hard to find.  They are not difficult to read and understand.  No magic nano thermite or dustifying beams required.
Quote

What planes can really do. But i doubt you will even give it the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k
Your absurd claims as to what the planes could do have already been refuted.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 07:00:20 PM
point 1 : good, then I get more pressure for the same volume; +1 goodness.  (edit: err alright I guess I have to increase pump character a little ... because I will end up with less volume of correct pressure at increased temp or the correct volume at slightly reduced pressure at increased temp... but the temp increase on nitrogen&oxygen ... which apparently is a constant that can be looked up is apparently neglegible in 90%+ of applications... because *spoiler* the temp is given in Kelvin, and is a small delta compared to either pressure of volume deltas.)
point 2 : after leaving the compressor I don't care if it sheds the heat to the environment, other than it will end up decompressing less.... it won't go below the initial ambient temperature... and slowly increasing heat in the water does make it less dense... but the overall molarity of the particles above will increase, slightly increasing the required pressure, but allowing more force from bouyancy.   (water expands above 4 degrees C... but the expansion is so slight it's got to be on the order of 0.00001x increase... )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage) (generalities...)


------
Dug around a lot and read a lot of questions asking for 'how much tempuratue changes' mostly on physics forums... they almost always just go back to an adiabatic process and relate V1P1=V2P2 and disregard tempurature because ... what's gained in compression is returned during decompression without regard to heat transfer.... (if it needs heat after shedding some heat it will absorb it back from the system) ... so the bottom of the water vessel will be hotter than the top- other than the buckets end up mixnig it.


The other factor that affects tempurature increase in amount of volume change in time... only a very small pressure increase (relatively to tempurature which is in kelvin) is required in this system, and it's nowhere near 'fast' requirement... 1 foot/sec  (for a 5 inch diameter) is only 0.681818MPH... nowhere near the speed of sound (compressing with with the volume changing at the speed of sound induces excessive heat, since the air colliding with the compressing surface causes heat also).
------


I also realized not 100% is lost, as the air in the bucket rises, it is expanding and causing increased displacement... and assuming there is no increased displacement only 0.75% is lost to that for my calculations.


So, less than 1% of the energy to compress the air is recovered.
The output is still grossly more than this.
What all this adds up to is that in the very best of overly optimistic cases you get zero sum gain and the machine simply transmits input power to the output without loss.  In real life it is much worse than that.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 01, 2015, 09:42:21 PM
What all this adds up to is that in the very best of overly optimistic cases you get zero sum gain and the machine simply transmits input power to the output without loss.  In real life it is much worse than that.
No you mis-understand.  less than 1% of the input energy is used for any useful work.
the output energy has nothing to do with the input.
again saying output=(input-losses) is obviously incorrect... because output would be a negative amount, because output = (0 - losses) implies you would have to turn the output shaft yourself to get it to go.  the force available from the lift of bouyancy will definatly produce positive output.
output has nothing to do with input in this case.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 01, 2015, 11:20:16 PM
No you mis-understand.  less than 1% of the input energy is used for any useful work.
the output energy has nothing to do with the input.
again saying output=(input-losses) is obviously incorrect... because output would be a negative amount, because output = (0 - losses) implies you would have to turn the output shaft yourself to get it to go.  the force available from the lift of bouyancy will definatly produce positive output.
output has nothing to do with input in this case.
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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 01, 2015, 11:31:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman 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 ?.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand 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.

..
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on May 02, 2015, 03:32:02 AM
Where is James Kwok when you need him?!!   lol
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala 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/
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand 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.

.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand 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.

..
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand 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.

..
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 02, 2015, 04:51:51 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.

I agree, that is true.  What I was trying to say was, not only do the control forces for the pilots (back then prior to hydraulics and computer controls) get heavier and heavier, way before Mach 1 shock waves move around the airframe also causing control ability problems.  Yeager, in his books, said he could see shock waves on his wings when diving his Mustang wide open, and that was probably just under 600 mph.

The early dive bombers had the problem you speak about.  My 2nd flight instructor told me many tales of guys he knew not being able to pull out in time after dropping the bombs.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 04:56:05 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.

The guys(some of who are still alive and well today ???)who couldnt handle a cessna well enough to get there licence managed to handle a 757 and 767"s at way over Vmo-and Mmo speeds with no problem Farmhand lol. MarkE will tell you that the target's were huge-couldnt miss them,but last time i went up in a plane,things seem'd really small at just 2000ft. But these guys hit them all spot on traveling at way over Vmo speed(1 at 570MPH) with no problem at all. one even managed to make a 330* turn while diving at over 470MPH,and to this day,every trained pilot that has tried has not been able to pull that off in a 757-->but the guys with the box cutters nailed it. ;)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 02, 2015, 05:01:30 AM
The guys(some of who are still alive and well today ??? )who couldnt handle a cessna well enough to get there licence managed to handle a 757 and 767"s at way over Vmo-and Mmo speeds with no problem Farmhand lol. MarkE will tell you that the target's were huge-couldnt miss them,but last time i went up in a plane,things seem'd really small at just 2000ft. But these guys hit them all spot on traveling at way over Vmo speed(1 at 570MPH) with no problem at all. one even managed to make a 330* turn while diving at over 470MPH,and to this day,every trained pilot that has tried has not been able to pull that off in a 757-->but the guys with the box cutters nailed it. ;)

Brad:

What you might be missing is, when they took flight training here in the states, and this should have been a HUGE red flag, they did not want to learn how to land.  Just fly.  No take offs, no landings...just fly.  Flying is pretty easy when you eliminate those other two events.  If you had a lot of hours to learn how to just fly...you could have done what they did.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand on May 02, 2015, 05:10:36 AM
Tinman the point is that once the plane is pointed in a direction and accelerated it does not take much control.

And I did say that the plane could well have been remotely controlled by a remote pilot who would of course be very skilled.

In fact once the plane was pointed at the building and reached an over speed condition then missing the building would be
more difficult than keeping the plane in a direct route.

..
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 02, 2015, 05:10:50 AM
The one part of the whole 911 conspiracy airplane story that I can agree with is the Pentagon maneuver. This is indeed an exceedingly difficult one to pull off and it does seem improbable that someone who was essentially a non-pilot could pull it off the first time, even though he may have practiced it a lot on computer-based flight sim programs.

(For many years in my life I made my living as a sailplane flight instructor, tow pilot, and I gave airshow aerobatic demonstrations in heavy sailplanes like the Lark IS-28B2, culminating in a low pass at just below Vne, in ground effect, finished by a pullup, circle-to-spot-landing maneuver. The Pentagon maneuver, in a large heavy airliner, is precision flying of the highest order. Beginner's Luck? It's a mystery to me, all right.)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 05:18:19 AM
Where is James Kwok when you need him?!!   lol
Lol-go for a little stroll over to OUR did we MH.

James Kwok
Mr James Kwok is the inventor/technologist of numerous world patents pending including vortexodial turbine for wind energy; vortexodial turbine for wave energy; PortalGen and Solar-Prism for solar PV. James Kwok has been granted with nine Innovation Patents 2004100467-475, all with multiple commercial applications for various mechanical-components and systems used in low-emissions coal gasification plants and Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC) Reactors. James Kwok holds the granted Patents for the commercially ready technology, hydrodynamic-cycle for deep water pressure energy conversion technology (Hidro+™).

During the 80’s James Kwok was the senior project planner and project manager, leading teams of engineers on major heavy engineering project for CMPS&F, then Australia's largest consulting engineering organization with over 2000 engineers.

During the 90’s to 2000, James Kwok owned engineering and construction firm Energy Equipment (EE Power Systems), conducting commercial project deployments and research and development in renewable energy technologies

In 1995 James Kwok designed and built a 30,000Nm3/hr commercial low-emission coal gasification plant using lignite (brown-coal) fuel, completed in Henan Province PRChina for State owned Steel company, Lou Yang Heavy Machineries. This plant is still in commercial operation

Other plants include in 1996 a commercial plant using 25t/d waste-water treatments sludge as feedstock, part of a bio-diesel production plant for Waste Management Authority at Subiaco Waste Water Works, in Western Australia.<-- just up the road from me. ;)

In 1998 James Kwok initiated and co-developed with Prof Dr Udo Hellwig of ERK Germany the unique integrated 'shell-tubes' rated at 35t/h superheated steam generator at T400degC and P40barg to power 7MWt steam-turbine which was incorporated in the EE Power Systems proprietary and patented Fluidized-Bed Reactor Technology (FBR). The FBR processes includes low-temperature gasification followed by high-temperature combustion, commercially verified by independent experts as meeting the world's best practice for power generation using either fossils and organic materials such as biomass, coal and lignite (brown coal).

In 1999 James Kwok designed and completed a large-scale (5MWe) biomass (70,000 t/yr garden pruning waste) renewable power plant. This plant includes a specially designed and commercially completed 25m high FBR-boiler rated at 35t/h and T400degC constructed as an embedded generator for an Industrial complex in South East Queensland, Australia. In 2001 this plant was granted with Australia’s first renewable energy generation and transmission license and renewable energy certification from the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO in Canberra). In 2002 this plant was successfully commissioned with independent experts verifications from GHD Black and Veatch; Burns Roe Worley; Sinclair Knight Mertz

James Kwok was granted with Tasmania’s first generation and transmission license granted and issued by the Office of Tasmanian Electricity Regulator in the State of Tasmania, Australia; the first renewable energy generation and transmission license granted and issued by Western Power in the State of Western Australia; and subsequent 20-100MW capacity projects permits granted and issued in the State of Victoria.

James Kwok is a Member of the Australian College of Mechanical Engineers, the Panel of the Australian National Registered Professional Engineers and on the panel of Chartered Assessment with the Institution of Engineers Australia.

Yea-your right MH,this guy has no idea what he's doing :D
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 02, 2015, 06:13:22 AM
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.
I have no interest in entering this debate other than the speed the aircraft hit recently in southern France tragedy where the plane was deliberately crashed was faster than  220 MPH. . "After their analysis of the aircraft's flight data recorder, the BEA stated that Lubitz deliberately crashed the aircraft. He set the autopilot to descend to 100 feet (30 m), modifying the autopilot setting several times to increase the aircraft's descent speed.[/font][/size][112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-118)[/color][/font][113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-119)[/color][/font] The aircraft was travelling at 700 kilometres per hour (430 mph) when it crashed into the mountain.[/font][/size][106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-bbc1-112)[/color][/font]
Kind Regards
Mark
Can this please get back on topic?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand on May 02, 2015, 06:34:00 AM
Is there any way to know how many orders they've taken and who from ?

If not how do we know any actual orders have been taken ? Seems there should be some evidence of this as it would hardly go unnoticed, if even one single person installed one and it was working as described then anyone that seen it would want one and anyone who did have one but isn't promoting it is very selfish.

Or do they mean they have half of the desired rip offs completed ? Should be world news on all alternative news outlets. And it should persist being such an exotic new Tech=free energy.

If they actually work anyone that has the money would buy one. The price is similar to solar.

..

Quote
In this first batch, of which their AUKW demonstrator is the first system, they plan on making 500 units, over half of which have already been purchased. These will be available for delivery within two months. They will come as kits requiring assembly, arriving on one or two pallets with the tube shipping separately. If a person wants a fully operational system, then they'll need to pay extra for someone to do the assembly for them.

Home hook-up will need to be done by a licensed electrician. Assembly and installation of the units is expected to take around 40 man hours. GAIA is providing training for those who would like to become installers. Training will take 1-2 days. Though they are presently wanting to stay under the radar and focus on the European market, they will ship internationally, though the conversion of the system to comply with local power parameter (110V vs 220V; 50 Hz vs 60 Hz, single-phase vs 3-phase, etc, see table) and pass required safety certifications will be up to the customer / potential licensee.

The European 5 kW AUKW system output is 400 V, 50 Hz, 3-phase. The load on each of the three phases needs to be consistent, so these are fed to an inverter, which provides the external power and manages the power. It can adjust its output for a changing load.

The cost for the 5 kW system is € 14,160.00 EUR gross including standard local VAT. The costs include the workshop and the complete material of construction of the plant.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand on May 02, 2015, 06:38:50 AM
Hold on, the PESWIKI article says that three phases totaling 5 kw is fed to an inverter. Anyone got any ideas how they would do that ? How would the three phases be rectified ? The inverter would require a DC input wouldn't it ?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 07:17:38 AM
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.
If you are trying to say that all of the input energy is lost to waste heat due to compression and expansion, then that is also wrong.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 07:20:26 AM
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.

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.

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. ::)

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
You have descended fully into nutterdom.  You haven't read, because you say you were never able to locate the report.  Try these hints:  WTC 7, and NIST report.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 07:22:26 AM
Where is James Kwok when you need him?!!   lol
He's leaving phone messages for Sterling Allan!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 07:29:25 AM
I have no interest in entering this debate other than the speed the aircraft hit recently in southern France tragedy where the plane was deliberately crashed was faster than  220 MPH. . "After their analysis of the aircraft's flight data recorder, the BEA stated that Lubitz deliberately crashed the aircraft. He set the autopilot to descend to 100 feet (30 m), modifying the autopilot setting several times to increase the aircraft's descent speed.[/font][/size][112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-118)[/color][/font][113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-119)[/color][/font] The aircraft was travelling at 700 kilometres per hour (430 mph) when it crashed into the mountain.[/font][/size][106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#cite_note-bbc1-112)[/color][/font]
Kind Regards
Mark
Im not sure how this relates to the planes used in the 9/11 attacks Mark. You show an experianced airline pilot hitting a mountain at 430MPH,when we are looking at non experianced persons hitting buildings at 470,500,570MPH.

Quote
Can this please get back on topic?

Dont mean to be rude Mark,but this all started with your comments toward Sterling
Quote your first post on this thread- post 105. I think you spotted sterling,and decided to come give him what he deserves,insted of being on topic. But i will say,it was much deserved. I know how he has treated you in the past,and do understand how you feel.

Anyway-back on track here.
Can some one tell me what the amount of energy in joules is required to compress a vessel volume of 1 ltr to 290 psi gauge pressure?-just ambiant air as gas.
Just wanting to see how that compares to a bouyant systems graph i have drawn up.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 07:30:49 AM
The guys(some of who are still alive and well today ???)who couldnt handle a cessna well enough to get there licence managed to handle a 757 and 767"s at way over Vmo-and Mmo speeds with no problem Farmhand lol. MarkE will tell you that the target's were huge-couldnt miss them,but last time i went up in a plane,things seem'd really small at just 2000ft.
That is utter freaking nonsense.  Learn to use a protractor.
Quote
But these guys hit them all spot on traveling at way over Vmo speed(1 at 570MPH) with no problem at all. one even managed to make a 330* turn while diving at over 470MPH,and to this day,every trained pilot that has tried has not been able to pull that off in a 757-->but the guys with the box cutters nailed it. ;)
Or just drink more Kool-Aid.  Is your bet on nano thermite or dustification?  Maybe you think invisible giant space zombies pounded the buildings down with their giant invisible fists.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 07:36:52 AM
Lol-go for a little stroll over to OUR did we MH.

James Kwok
Mr James Kwok is the inventor/technologist of numerous world patents pending including vortexodial turbine for wind energy; vortexodial turbine for wave energy; PortalGen and Solar-Prism for solar PV. James Kwok has been granted with nine Innovation Patents 2004100467-475, all with multiple commercial applications for various mechanical-components and systems used in low-emissions coal gasification plants and Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC) Reactors. James Kwok holds the granted Patents for the commercially ready technology, hydrodynamic-cycle for deep water pressure energy conversion technology (Hidro+™).

During the 80’s James Kwok was the senior project planner and project manager, leading teams of engineers on major heavy engineering project for CMPS&F, then Australia's largest consulting engineering organization with over 2000 engineers.

During the 90’s to 2000, James Kwok owned engineering and construction firm Energy Equipment (EE Power Systems), conducting commercial project deployments and research and development in renewable energy technologies

In 1995 James Kwok designed and built a 30,000Nm3/hr commercial low-emission coal gasification plant using lignite (brown-coal) fuel, completed in Henan Province PRChina for State owned Steel company, Lou Yang Heavy Machineries. This plant is still in commercial operation

Other plants include in 1996 a commercial plant using 25t/d waste-water treatments sludge as feedstock, part of a bio-diesel production plant for Waste Management Authority at Subiaco Waste Water Works, in Western Australia.<-- just up the road from me. ;)

In 1998 James Kwok initiated and co-developed with Prof Dr Udo Hellwig of ERK Germany the unique integrated 'shell-tubes' rated at 35t/h superheated steam generator at T400degC and P40barg to power 7MWt steam-turbine which was incorporated in the EE Power Systems proprietary and patented Fluidized-Bed Reactor Technology (FBR). The FBR processes includes low-temperature gasification followed by high-temperature combustion, commercially verified by independent experts as meeting the world's best practice for power generation using either fossils and organic materials such as biomass, coal and lignite (brown coal).

In 1999 James Kwok designed and completed a large-scale (5MWe) biomass (70,000 t/yr garden pruning waste) renewable power plant. This plant includes a specially designed and commercially completed 25m high FBR-boiler rated at 35t/h and T400degC constructed as an embedded generator for an Industrial complex in South East Queensland, Australia. In 2001 this plant was granted with Australia’s first renewable energy generation and transmission license and renewable energy certification from the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO in Canberra). In 2002 this plant was successfully commissioned with independent experts verifications from GHD Black and Veatch; Burns Roe Worley; Sinclair Knight Mertz

James Kwok was granted with Tasmania’s first generation and transmission license granted and issued by the Office of Tasmanian Electricity Regulator in the State of Tasmania, Australia; the first renewable energy generation and transmission license granted and issued by Western Power in the State of Western Australia; and subsequent 20-100MW capacity projects permits granted and issued in the State of Victoria.

James Kwok is a Member of the Australian College of Mechanical Engineers, the Panel of the Australian National Registered Professional Engineers and on the panel of Chartered Assessment with the Institution of Engineers Australia.

Yea-your right MH,this guy has no idea what he's doing :D
LOL.  If you're singing the praises of James Kwok you've taken an extra deep draw on the Kool-Aid.  You can always treat yourself to his "conversations" with Sterling Allan.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL4d3ZzV0fI
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 02, 2015, 08:07:39 AM

Can some one tell me what the amount of energy in joules is required to compress a vessel volume of 1 ltr to 290 psi gauge pressure?-just ambiant air as gas.
Just wanting to see how that compares to a bouyant systems graph i have drawn up.

The answer depends on how you compress it and the properties of the gas being compressed.

For air, isothermal compression uses less energy compared with adiabatic, but takes an infinite amount of time vs adiabatic that can occur rapidly but requires perfect insulation.

During compression the work required is equal to the integral of P.dV from V1 to V2

The isothermal case is easiest to  derive.  Ideal gas law tells us P = nRT/V and the integral evaluates as W = -nRT ln(V1/V2)

So, to answer the question and actually put numbers to it you need to tell us how the air is compressed.




Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 08:14:47 AM

Quote
That is utter freaking nonsense.  Learn to use a protractor.Or just drink more Kool-Aid.
A protractor to get a 757 to do a 330* spiral dive at 470MPH,and nail the target-->thats a good one MarkE lol. Even TK has stated that the maneuver that was supposedly carried out on the pentagon attack would be extreemly dificult even for an experianced pilot-but the box cutter boys pulled it off no problem.
Oh,and by the way,we dont have kool aid here in OZ-we deal in facts-unlike your self.

 
Quote
Is your bet on nano thermite or dustification?  Maybe you think invisible giant space zombies pounded the buildings down with their giant invisible fists.

You have completely lost the plot MarkE. Your fire scenario is absolute junk-can never happen. Im sorry,but office furniture cant burn hot enough to turn steel to molten metal-like seen flowing out of the window's,and dug up from the rubble weeks later still molten hot.

You have failed to provide a picture(just 1) of another steel framed highrise building that has collapsed from fire-i have provided many that have not-even after days of burning.
In fact,you have failed to deliver on any credible evidence that supports your theories.

I am done debating this with you any further,as you are simply blind to the fact's that may upset the ballance of your perfect little world.

Now,if you would care to get back on topic,i have posted a question on the energy(in joules) required to fill a 1 ltr volume vessel to a pressure of 290psi gauge pressure. This IS in relation to this topic,and i believe this is something you can get right.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 08:20:34 AM
If you are trying to say that all of the input energy is lost to waste heat due to compression and expansion, then that is also wrong.
No it's lost to displacement of the water.  the heat gained/lost results in overall isothermal.  "Since air is a great insulator" ( http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Rates-of-Heat-Transfer  ) the heat it gets is going to remain for the few seconds it's compressed... it takes a long time to freeze a bottle of air so it's pressurized at room temp for instance (did this so my water vortex bottles had pressure).

what few milli-watts it sheds to the low water in pulled back when it decompresses at the top... so again tempurature difference is irrelavent.

but still none of that is used to make the motion.

There's no energy in displacement.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 08:26:00 AM
The answer depends on how you compress it and the properties of the gas being compressed.

For air, isothermal compression uses less energy compared with adiabatic, but takes an infinite amount of time vs adiabatic that can occur rapidly but requires perfect insulation.

During compression the work required is equal to the integral of P.dV from V1 to V2

The isothermal case is easiest to  derive.  Ideal gas law tells us P = nRT/V and the integral evaluates as W = -nRT ln(V1/V2)

So, to answer the question and actually put numbers to it you need to tell us how the air is compressed.
Thank you LE for the civil answer.
I mean to use a standard compressor-a high efficiency one.I know there will be losses in heat,but what is the energy we have in that 1ltr vessel at 290psi gauge pressure. Enviromental temperature will be close to 8*C
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 08:44:32 AM

Anyway-back on track here.
Can some one tell me what the amount of energy in joules is required to compress a vessel volume of 1 ltr to 290 psi gauge pressure?-just ambiant air as gas.
Just wanting to see how that compares to a bouyant systems graph i have drawn up.

290psi is 19.7atm.  So 20x the pressure... which is 20L to 1L ...

a standard cubic foot represents 1.19804 moles  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_cubic_foot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_cubic_foot) )
1 cubic foot = 28.3168L

n (moles of gas in 20L) =  (0.706 cubic-feet) * 1.19 = 0.84
R  8.3145 J/mol K    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_constant) )
T 291.3333K (18.3333C)

ln(V2/v1)  (20L/1L) -2.995732274

= 0.84 * 8.3145 * 291.3 * -3
= 2031.491634J

divide by seconds to get watts.
---------------
applying these revisions to my spreadsheet to come out to J and therefore W/s increases COP to 1600 from 400 :) 
Just looks better all the time.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 08:54:47 AM
290psi is 19.7atm.  So 20x the pressure... which is 20L to 1L ...

a standard cubic foot represents 1.19804 moles  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_cubic_foot )
1 cubic foot = 28.3168L

n (moles of gas in 20L) =  (0.706 cubic-feet) * 1.19 = 0.84
R  8.3145 J/mol K    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_constant )
T 291.3333K (18.3333C)

ln(V2/v1)  (20L/1L) -2.995732274

= 0.84 * 8.3145 * 291.3 * -3
=
divide by seconds to get watts.

Quote
2031.491634J

Well if that is the correct answer,we can take that 2031.491634 joules,and get it to perform 5780.5 joules of work by using a bouyant device. It will be slightly higher than this,as i never took into account temperature rise as the vessel rises closer to sea level-the surface.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 08:58:25 AM
Well if that is the correct answer,we can take that 2031.491634 joules,and get it to perform 5780.5 joules of work by using a bouyant device. It will be slightly higher than this,as i never took into account temperature rise as the vessel rises closer to sea level-the surface.
temperature falls on decompress.. rises on compression...
(canned air gets cold, decompressing)

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 09:21:49 AM
temperature falls on decompress.. rises on compression...
(canned air gets cold, decompressing)
Yes,but the ocean water temperature rises as you get closer to the surface. At 200 meters deep,the ocean temperature this time of year in the indian ocean is around 8*C,and near the surfact it is around 18*C-that is a 10*C rise in temperature which will be transfered through the vessel to the gas. In my experiments of late,i have seen how fast enviromental temperatures can raise or lower the temperature of a gas in a sealed vessel/tank.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 02, 2015, 09:28:18 AM
In reply regarding jams Qwok h spent jail time. His devices never worked or panned out, I have covered many articles on him over the years.

Mark
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 02, 2015, 09:41:56 AM
Thank you LE for the civil answer.
I mean to use a standard compressor-a high efficiency one.I know there will be losses in heat,but what is the energy we have in that 1ltr vessel at 290psi gauge pressure. Enviromental temperature will be close to 8*C

You may want to check the numbers but working in SI,

290 psi gauge is 2100.8 kPa absolute.

during isothermal compression PV = constant so 2100.8 * 1 litre = 101.3 * x => starting volume was 20.73 litres.

The amount of air is n = PV/RT where R = 8.313  J  K-1 mol-1,  and T = 280.15 K (8 Celsius) =   (101.3 * 20.73) / (8.313 * 280.15 )  =  0.9 mol of air.

So,  work performed during isothermal compression = -  nRT ln(V/Vo) = -0.9 * 8.313 * 280.15 * ln(1/20.73) = 6354.2 J or 6.35 kJ

You compressor will be less efficient than that so adjust by whatever efficiency factor you think is appropriate,

lets say it is 65% efficient so 6.38 / .65 = 9.8 kJ

The value is moot though. The same maths that allows you to calculate this number can also be used to deduce that you can never achieve more output than input and the overall efficiency is proportional to the temperatures of the hot and cold sources.

There is energy to be extracted by utilising the difference in temperatures between water at the surface and at depth. Overall efficiency is low though because the temperature difference is low. A very large structure that did not pump air using and external compressor, but rather was the compressor itself would be the best for achieving maximum efficiency.

 

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on May 02, 2015, 09:54:34 AM



    I can remember the day James Kwok "flew into a temper"
     The people that flew into the building were obviously highly competent and had
   planned the whole thing meticulously.
     I have come to dislike anything to do with Peswiki.
   I've lost faith in the Tinman.
      Try putting a 7kw motor on those buckets and water contraption and see what
   happens! My sewage machine runs off a half kw motor and it's amazing how that
  tiny motor turns a 6ft x 12ft rotor that weighs a ton or more.
     It's amazing how much current that little motor uses on no load versus on load.
   There is very little difference,ie. efficiency must be very poor,try telling that to the
  motor-generator crowd.
    Sorry Tinman-I really do appreciate your enthusiasm!!!!!!
                 Elderly farmer John.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 10:27:54 AM
In reply regarding jams Qwok h spent jail time. His devices never worked or panned out, I have covered many articles on him over the years.

Mark
He spent time in jail for a land rental bungle,not because his device dosnt work. Im sure the UN it self wouldnt promote a non workable device to the world.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 10:30:48 AM


    I can remember the day James Kwok "flew into a temper"
     The people that flew into the building were obviously highly competent and had
   planned the whole thing meticulously.
     I have come to dislike anything to do with Peswiki.
   I've lost faith in the Tinman.
      Try putting a 7kw motor on those buckets and water contraption and see what
   happens! My sewage machine runs off a half kw motor and it's amazing how that
  tiny motor turns a 6ft x 12ft rotor that weighs a ton or more.
     It's amazing how much current that little motor uses on no load versus on load.
   There is very little difference,ie. efficiency must be very poor,try telling that to the
  motor-generator crowd.
    Sorry Tinman-I really do appreciate your enthusiasm!!!!!!
                 Elderly farmer John.
I in no way support the device being discused in this thread-no evidence to back it up.
I also in no way support peswiki or sterling allan.
I do my own thing,and my own reserch,and as it stands now,all the evidence supports the hidro+ unit.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 10:43:20 AM
You may want to check the numbers but working in SI,

290 psi gauge is 2100.8 kPa absolute.

during isothermal compression PV = constant so 2100.8 * 1 litre = 101.3 * x => starting volume was 20.73 litres.

The amount of air is n = PV/RT where R = 8.313  J  K-1 mol-1,  and T = 280.15 K (8 Celsius) =   (101.3 * 20.73) / (8.313 * 280.15 )  =  0.9 mol of air.

So,  work performed during isothermal compression = -  nRT ln(V/Vo) = -0.9 * 8.313 * 280.15 * ln(1/20.73) = 6354.2 J or 6.35 kJ

You compressor will be less efficient than that so adjust by whatever efficiency factor you think is appropriate,

lets say it is 65% efficient so 6.38 / .65 = 9.8 kJ

The value is moot though. The same maths that allows you to calculate this number can also be used to deduce that you can never achieve more output than input and worse still the overall efficiency is proportional to the temperatures of the hot and cold sources.

 
So 6.35kJ of energy is stored in our 1 ltr vessel at 290psi.,__im guessing the 6.38 is a typo?.
And 3.45kJ is lost via the compressors efficieny asuuming it is around 65% efficient.

And is it right that to halve the pressure,we double the vessel volume ?

Thanks LE
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 02, 2015, 10:53:45 AM
So 6.35kJ of energy is stored in our 1 ltr vessel at 290psi.,__im guessing the 6.38 is a typo?.
And 3.45kJ is lost via the compressors efficieny asuuming it is around 65% efficient.

And is it right that to halve the pressure,we double the vessel volume ?

Thanks LE

Yes 6.38 should have been 6.35. Halving pressure will double volume.

I see here that the device you seem to be describing is similar to an OTEC generator of which a few exist in Hawaii I believe.

There is nothing to stop you utilising buoyancy to take advantage of the temperature gradient in the ocean to generate energy. However due to the small difference in temperature overall efficiency is low. Unless pumping losses are low it will not function.

The solution is to make the device very large and make it the compressor itself rather than use small external pumps to evacuate a chamber at depth. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on May 02, 2015, 12:12:49 PM



   Far from people getting murdered as a way of suppressing free energy devices
 my idea is that "if ever" a free energy machine was invented I can see murder
 being done to get hold of it.
     If James Kwok's thingy had worked it would have taken off like a rocket, it
 hasn't even mustered the impact of a damp squib.
    Basic scientific "laws" are robust and have to be respected, anomalies do occur
 but need to be well authenticated and none so far seem to have given us much.
    I just see the future of renewables very exciting and I'm disappointed in the
 realisation that my life is almost over, I'd love to be involved.
    Speed is needed to get useful output and the acceleration due to gravity is
 poor when related to energy, try whirling a hex nut on a bit of string vertically
 and you'll realise you're soon beating gravity. Most generators run about 3,000rpm.
 so do a comparison-not good!!!
                John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 12:28:10 PM
Yes 6.38 should have been 6.35. Halving pressure will double volume.

I see here that the device you seem to be describing is similar to an OTEC generator of which a few exist in Hawaii I believe.

There is nothing to stop you utilising buoyancy to take advantage of the temperature gradient in the ocean to generate energy. However due to the small difference in temperature overall efficiency is low. Unless pumping losses are low it will not function.

The solution is to make the device very large and make it the compressor itself rather than use small external pumps to evacuate a chamber at depth.
Well i just plotted a graph in 20 meter incroments,and using your 6.35kJ as the target. I reached 6.28kJ at a depth of .1 meters of potential energy. So im guessing i must be doing my calculations right,as that is very close to the target of 6.35kJ. I didnt account for temperature increase as depth decreases,but i dont imagine we will see kJ's of extra energy there. This graph was ploted from a depth of 200 meters below sea level,so i must concede that the presented bouyancy devices thus far are not looking good.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 01:56:18 PM
A protractor to get a 757 to do a 330* spiral dive at 470MPH,and nail the target-->thats a good one MarkE lol. Even TK has stated that the maneuver that was supposedly carried out on the pentagon attack would be extreemly dificult even for an experianced pilot-but the box cutter boys pulled it off no problem.
Oh,and by the way,we dont have kool aid here in OZ-we deal in facts-unlike your self.

 
You have completely lost the plot MarkE. Your fire scenario is absolute junk-can never happen. Im sorry,but office furniture cant burn hot enough to turn steel to molten metal-like seen flowing out of the window's,and dug up from the rubble weeks later still molten hot.

You have failed to provide a picture(just 1) of another steel framed highrise building that has collapsed from fire-i have provided many that have not-even after days of burning.
In fact,you have failed to deliver on any credible evidence that supports your theories.

I am done debating this with you any further,as you are simply blind to the fact's that may upset the ballance of your perfect little world.

Now,if you would care to get back on topic,i have posted a question on the energy(in joules) required to fill a 1 ltr volume vessel to a pressure of 290psi gauge pressure. This IS in relation to this topic,and i believe this is something you can get right.
LOL, you've joined in with a bunch of nutters and become one yourself.    You like to tell yourself that you are objectively evaluating data, but make it obvious that you have started with conclusions and filtered data going backwards.  Case in point:  You assert that the NIST report is a pack of lies.  You offer as your evidence:

1) Claim that the aircraft could not fly at the speeds estimated by NIST. 
2) Claim that the planes could not have been aimed at and hit their targets by the hijackers.
3) Claims of "nano thermite"  iron oxide and light metal, IE aluminum
4) Claim that the damage done by the planes and the ensuing fires could not have caused the structures to fail, in particular because the fires were not hot enough
5) Claim that Flight 77 could not have executed the descending turn reported by ground monitoring.



1) Has been completely destroyed as BS.  Ergo it's the people who filled your head with that crap who are full of shit and not the engineers and scientists at NIST.  BTW, NIST has within its ranks top caliber engineers and scientists.

2) Prominent objects that are visible for miles are used as navigation aids.  Line up on the object and keep focused on the object and a very precise heading can be set.  That's how pilots line up on these prominent objects called runways.  It is another nutter idea that an ordinary person cannot be taught to focus on an object in the distance and point themselves at it.  Here again the nutters discredit themselves and do not discredit NIST.

3) Nano thermite was used to perform controlled demolition of the building: This one is just stupid.  Of course aluminum and iron are going to be found at the site of a: steel framed, aluminum facaded building, impacted by ~80 tons of aircraft aluminum.   Thermite deflagrates slowly.  Controlled demolitions are performed by precisely timed detonations.  The nano thermite idea is about as far out as someone discovering a can of tuna fish and declaring that space dolphins brought the towers down as an act of revenge.  The NIST report if you actually read it, thoroughly describes the expansion by heat, weakening by heat, and ultimate failure of the floor supports that set off the chain reaction collapse.

4) That the damage and heat of the fires was not enough to bring down those steel framed buildings.  A subclaim is that steel doesn't weaken at the temperatures of office fires.  This is one that really takes the nutter cake.  The whole reason that vermiculite fire proofing is applied to the steel in buildings is to slow down the transfer of heat from fire gasses to structural members.  The peak gas temperature of adiabatic flames for: paper, plastic, butane, propane, methane, and petrol are all very close in the 1850C to 1950C range. Unusual substances like nitro-methane burn much hotter.  In real fires the conditions are not adiabatic.  Gas temperature drops to between 1000C and 1200C.  At 800C the strength of structural steel falls to 10% of its room temperature strength.  A good example of what that means is the Highway 80 overpass collapse caused by a burning petrol tanker in Oakland CA in 2002.  An overpass designed to withstand a major earthquake collapsed because the steel reinforcement weakened from the heat of the tanker burning more than 30 feet below. 

NIST showed how at the onset of the collapse WTC1 and WTC2 opened like zippers.  The floor supports failed and that caused the chain reaction pancake collapse.  The nutter siren cry of "No steel framed building failed from fire alone prior to 9/11" ignores the 1000' elephant in the room that the WTC1 and WTC2 both had nearly half a million pounds crash into them at over 500 miles per hour then burned and then collapsed.  Nutters see what they want:  Dustifying space beams, horizontal plumes of smoke from one building as plumes of smoke reaching into space from another, or steel and aluminum as evidence hordes of suicidal munchkin welders cut the buildings apart to destroy them.

5) The flight path of flight 77 being impossible for the supposed hijackers to execute.  First, this has nothing to do with the NIST reports on the WTC.  It has only to do with the idea that 9/11 was some sort of acted out false flag operation.  The nutters attacks on NIST 1) - 4) above fail.  Ergo despite what the population of Nutterville scream and shout, NIST was not in on some grand conspiracy.  The NIST report is the product of many professional engineers and scientists objectively evaluating the physical evidence of the damage and failures of WTC structures on 9/11.

Back to lining up on a prominent object:  The freaking Washington monument is on a direct line behind the side of the Pentagon that was hit:  http://www.911myths.com/assets/image/Monument.jpg.  If you are not so filled with the poisonous Kool-Aid that you have capacity to read an actual expert opinion on Flight 77, then go here:  http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf. 

In the end the assertion that the NIST report is some sort of cooked up hatchet job is refuted crap.  The claims that Flight 77 maneuvers were impossible is also discredited crap.  So, what we are left with is that Nutterville has consumed all the ergot blighted rye they can eat and is busy looking for witches to burn.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
...
I do my own thing,and my own reserch,and as it stands now,all the evidence supports the hidro+ unit.
LOL.  Do better research.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 03:39:53 PM


Quote
1) Claim that the aircraft could not fly at the speeds estimated by NIST.
Has been completely destroyed as BS.  Ergo it's the people who filled your head with that crap who are full of shit and not the engineers and scientists at NIST.  BTW, NIST has within its ranks top caliber engineers and scientists.

NoMark,it hasnt,and you have provided no proof at all that the planes could exceed there Vmo by such a great margin-->fact 1

Quote
2) Claim that the planes could not have been aimed at and hit their targets by the hijackers.
Prominent objects that are visible for miles are used as navigation aids.  Line up on the object and keep focused on the object and a very precise heading can be set.  That's how pilots line up on these prominent objects called runways.  It is another nutter idea that an ordinary person cannot be taught to focus on an object in the distance and point themselves at it.  Here again the nutters discredit themselves and do not discredit NIST.

 No Mark. How is it you have lined up on an object and keep a very precise heading when you have to make a 330* spiral dive at 470MPH. That target was not lined up at all--Fact 2.

Quote
3) Claims of "nano thermite"  iron oxide and light metal, IE aluminum
Nano thermite was used to perform controlled demolition of the building: This one is just stupid.  Of course aluminum and iron are going to be found at the site of a: steel framed, aluminum facaded building, impacted by ~80 tons of aircraft aluminum is going to have iron and aluminum in the wreckage.   Thermite deflagrates slowly.  Controlled demolitions are performed by precisely timed detonations.  The nano thermite idea is about as far out as someone discovering a can of tuna fish and declaring that space dolphins brought the towers down as an act of revenge.  The NIST report if you actually read it, thoroughly describes the expansion by heat, weakening by heat, and ultimate failure of the floor supports that set off the chain reaction collapse.

1-you have failed to provide an example of any other steel framed building that has totally collapsed due to fire-->
2-Most of the jet fuel burned up within a few seconds of impact-this can be seen clearly on video footage-->fact.
3-Building 7 was not hit by a plane--Fact
4-Building 7 never suffered enough damage to totally collaps in on it self at free fall speed-Fact
5-An office furniture fire that is oxygen starved will never get hot enough to turn any steel into molten metal that flows out of windows--Fact.
6- NIST is controlled by the government,and no test were carried out for explosive residue's. The NIST is one of the most unreliable groups to put forth any type of report. They are your only evidence provider--Fact.

Quote
4) Claim that the damage done by the planes and the ensuing fires could not have caused the structures to fail, in particular because the fires were not hot enough
That the damage and heat of the fires was not enough to bring down those steel framed buildings.  A subclaim is that steel doesn't weaken at the temperatures of office fires.  This is one that really takes the nutter cake.  The whole reason that vermiculite fire proofing is applied to the steel in buildings is to slow down the transfer of heat from fire gasses to structural members.  The peak gas temperature of adiabatic flames for: paper, plastic, butane, propane, methane, and petrol are all very close in the 1850C to 1950C range. Unusual substances like nitro-methane burn much hotter.  In real fires the conditions are not adiabatic.  Gas temperature drops to between 1000C and 1200C.  At 800C the strength of structural steel falls to 10% of its room temperature strength.  A good example of what that means is the Highway 80 overpass collapse caused by a burning petrol tanker in Oakland CA in 2002.  An overpass designed to withstand a major earthquake collapsed because the steel reinforcement weakened from the heat of the tanker burning more than 30 feet below.


And i maintain that,and i am the only one of us that has provided any proof that supports that. You have been unable to provide a single example of another highrise building that has collapsed due to fire. The reason for this is because they simply dont. There have been fires far hotter than any of the fires in the WTC buildings that have burnt for twice as long,and still they didnt collaps-because they just dont--Fact
As far as your overpass go's,you obviously do not know the difference between a reinforced concrete single story structure,and a steel framed highrise building--Fact

Quote
5) Claim that Flight 77 could not have executed the descending turn reported by ground monitoring.
The flight path of flight 77 being impossible for the supposed hijackers to execute.  First, this has nothing to do with the NIST reports on the WTC.  It has only to do with the idea that 9/11 was some sort of acted out false flag operation.  The nutters attacks on NIST 1) - 4) above fail.  Ergo despite what the population of Nutterville scream and shout, NIST was not in on some grand conspiracy.  The NIST report is the product of many professional engineers and scientists objectively evaluating the physical evidence of the damage and failures of WTC structures on 9/11.

Find just one experienced pilot that could make this maneuver in a 757-just one. Many have tried in sim's,and to date not one has succeeded. You may also like to take this up with TK-an experienced pilot. My guess is that you wont,as you only argue with those you think you can beat-but you didnt fair to well on my cool joule circuit opperation--Fact.
There are far greater and more experienced engineers,scientist,explosive,and demolition experts that say the NIST report is rubbish--Fact.

Quote
NIST showed how at the onset of the collapse WTC1 and WTC2 opened like zippers.  The floor supports failed and that caused the chain reaction pancake collapse.

And you say you know physics. If it was any other topic you'd be argueing the point against this.A building that pancakes dose not drop at free fall speed. Every floor the one above hit's when dropping meets resistance--you know,equal and opposite reactions. So the collaps speed would have been a lot slower if it was just a pancake collaps,as each floor met resistance of the floor below. As can be clearly seen in so many video's,there were explosions 6 to 7 floors bellow the last impacted floor as the building collapsed. The only way to bring a building down that fast is to remove or weaken the floors below before the one above hit it--Facts.

Quote
The nutter siren cry of "No steel framed building failed from fire alone prior to 9/11 ignores the 1000' elephant in the room that the WTC1 and WTC2 both had nearly half a million pounds crash into them at over 500 miles per hour then burned and then collapsed.


As i stated before,the bulk of the jet fuel was burned up on impact--Fact
The WTC buildings were designed to withstand the impact and ensueing fires of a 707 jet liner-one of the largest at the time. The 707 was capable of higher speeds that the 767,and also could deliver a far higher energy impact than the 767-Facts.

Quote
Nutters see what they want:  Dustifying space beams, horizontal plumes of smoke from one building as plumes of smoke reaching into space from another, or steel and aluminum as evidence munchkin welders cut the buildings apart to destroy them.

No. I see metal that was heated to temperatures that extreem by oxygen starved fires with office furniture as fuel,that it was turned into molten steel that ran out of the windows,and remained red hot for weeks under ground.
I see no concrete left at ground zero,as most of it has turned to dust. Never in the history of demolition has concrete been totally dustifyed. Show me a picture of a demolition site where thousands of tones of concrete just turned to dust.
Traces of nano thermite(with the rest of the ingredients needed) where found in the (what use to be concrete)dust for blocks away from the towers,along with micro beads.

Everything i have posted are facts Mark(bar the incorrect top speed of 220MPH),and all you have to offer is the NIST report-->kindly bought to you by the government.

What we need from you is credible evidence MarkE,not some cooked up report that is designed to mislead.

1-A link to another highrise building that has collapsed due to fire.
2- A valid reason why all the evidence was shipped of so fast,and a crime seen wasnt astablished around the site,and investigations carried out in the manner they are with every other such incident of this nature,and far less. E.G-if a plane crashes in the ocean,they spend millions on retrieving that plane,and put it back together piece by piece,and dont stop until they have every answer they need to solve the incident
3- A pilot that has or thinks it quite easy/possable to pull of the maneuver that was performed by a bloke that couldnt even get his cessna licence.
4-A link or picture of another building collaps where there is such a small amount of concrete left-also mostly turned to dust.
5- An answer as to how the buildings you say pancake collapsed managed to fall at free fall speed-even though there should have been resistance due to ambiant air.
6- A data sheet or an admision by boeing that the 757 and 767 can fly at speeds far above there Vmo limit 700 feet above sea level-->757 470MPH-while doing a 330* spiral dive.767-500,and 580MPH.
7- Recreate a fire with office furniture(on a small scale of course),and show us how it can gain enough heat to melt(lets say just a 1/2" mild steel rod)to liquid steel-->throw on some jet fuel if you wish to get things cranking. My bet is you wont even get it to glow a dull red--Fact.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: ramset on May 02, 2015, 03:52:19 PM
TinMan
Mark E is a huge advocate of BIG Government ,for you to intimate that anything could possibly go wrong with that process [the government or Big Boys club policing and investigating itself ] is Blasphemy to people that believe in the process.

your considered a heretic to even question such...

where's your faith ??

Building 7 is just fine,
stop making such a fuss and get back in Line.......your annoying the "keeper"

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 02, 2015, 04:30:10 PM
NoMark,it hasnt,and you have provided no proof at all that the planes could exceed there Vmo by such a great margin-->fact 1
Yet another nutter approach.  The nutter claim is that the planes could not fly at that speed near sea level.  Nutter supposed evidence fails to establish the nutter claim.
Quote

 No Mark. How is it you have lined up on an object and keep a very precise heading when you have to make a 330* spiral dive at 470MPH. That target was not lined up at all--Fact 2.
By George you might figure it out if you bother to read the reference I linked.
Quote

1-you have failed to provide an example of any other steel framed building that has totally collapsed due to fire-->
You have failed to prove that angry space dolphins didn't crush the buildings.  More nutterdom.
Quote

2-Most of the jet fuel burned up within a few seconds of impact-this can be seen clearly on video footage-->fact.
I made no reference to the jet fuel.  Nutter straw man.
Quote

3-Building 7 was not hit by a plane--Fact
Did you figure that out all by yourself?  It was hit by debris from a collapsing skyscraper.  It had unique design features due to the ConEd substation.  But don't let anything relevant deter you from the nutter path.  Just drink more Nutter-Aid.  It's what nutters crave!
Quote

4-Building 7 never suffered enough damage to totally collaps in on it self at free fall speed-Fact
So you insist.  The professionals at NIST who actually studied the facts have shown how you are mistaken.
Quote

5-An office furniture fire that is oxygen starved will never get hot enough to turn any steel into molten metal that flows out of windows--Fact.
You insist on this nutter straw man.  The strength of structural steel is reduced to lest to 10% of its room temperature value at 800C, well within the temperature it reaches in a sustained fire.  Add in damaged columns from WTC1 impact and you have a structural machine that has been pressed beyond its limits and fails as WTC7 did.  We are not talking about smoldering papers.  The fire coming out of the east side of the building just prior to the collapse I call ferocious.
Quote

6- NIST is controlled by the government,and no test were carried out for explosive residue's. The NIST is one of the most unreliable groups to put forth any type of report. They are your only evidence provider--Fact.
So what?  This is more examples of nutter logic.  There was no reason to look for something that wasn't there and even your nutter hero Steven Jones did not find.  NIST is one of the premiere organizations of engineers and scientists on the planet.  Like any other large organization they may have a few duds, and like any other organization they will have people who make blunders.  However, the WTC reports are the work product of hundreds with extensive internal review.  Nutters like you and Sterling Allan can't evaluate the evidence, have no comprehension of the process, and want to adhere to nutty conspiracy theories so you just declare that the hundreds of actual professionals who worked on that report are in on a mass murder plot.  You guys are fucking Bugs Bunny Looney Tunes nuts.
Quote


And i maintain that,and i am the only one of us that has provided any proof that supports that. You have been unable to provide a single example of another highrise building that has collapsed due to fire. The reason for this is because they simply dont. There have been fires far hotter than any of the fires in the WTC buildings that have burnt for twice as long,and still they didnt collaps-because they just dont--Fact
Ignoring the elephant in the room again are we?  Go swig some more Nutter Aid.
Quote
As far as your overpass go's,you obviously do not know the difference between a reinforced concrete single story structure,and a steel framed highrise building--Fact
Oh my, apples and oranges.  Your claim was if you can remember through that nutter haze was that the steel could not fail unless it melts.  The overpass failure clearly shows that you are dead wrong.
Quote

Find just one experienced pilot that could make this maneuver in a 757-just one. Many have tried in sim's,and to date not one has succeeded. You may also like to take this up with TK-an experienced pilot. My guess is that you wont,as you only argue with those you think you can beat-but you didnt fair to well on my cool joule circuit opperation--Fact.
I see you did not read the reference I linked written by an experienced heavy aircraft pilot.
Quote
There are far greater and more experienced engineers,scientist,explosive,and demolition experts that say the NIST report is rubbish--Fact.
Every claim that you have tried to make against the NIST report, including linking it to Flight 77 which they did not examine has been refuted.  But in the world of the zealot nutter, evidence goes out the window.  It is the preconceived conclusion that matters.  You are no different than Sterling Allan on this.  Consider the company you are keeping.
Quote

And you say you know physics. If it was any other topic you'd be argueing the point against this.A building that pancakes dose not drop at free fall speed. Every floor the one above hit's when dropping meets resistance--you know,equal and opposite reactions. So the collaps speed would have been a lot slower if it was just a pancake collaps,as each floor met resistance of the floor below. As can be clearly seen in so many video's,there were explosions 6 to 7 floors bellow the last impacted floor as the building collapsed. The only way to bring a building down that fast is to remove or weaken the floors below before the one above hit it--Facts.
There is no such thing as free-fall speed.  You are completely out of your depth.
Quote


As i stated before,the bulk of the jet fuel was burned up on impact--Fact
The WTC buildings were designed to withstand the impact and ensueing fires of a 707 jet liner-one of the largest at the time. The 707 was capable of higher speeds that the 767,and also could deliver a far higher energy impact than the 767-Facts.
Civil engineering advances one disaster at a time.
Quote

No. I see metal that was heated to temperatures that extreem by oxygen starved fires with office furniture as fuel,that it was turned into molten steel that ran out of the windows,and remained red hot for weeks under ground.
Oh so now you contend that steel melted?  You should pick which nutter hypothesis you want to go with.  Are you considering The Wrath of Flipper next?
Quote

I see no concrete left at ground zero,as most of it has turned to dust. Never in the history of demolition has concrete been totally dustifyed. Show me a picture of a demolition site where thousands of tones of concrete just turned to dust.
Traces of nano thermite(with the rest of the ingredients needed) where found in the (what use to be concrete)dust for blocks away from the towers,along with micro beads.
So says the nutter Steven Jones.  Consider the source.  Of course the dustification hypothesis comes from the nutter Judy Wood who says your Steven Jones is a misinformation agent.  When the dark truth comes out that she's covering for Flipper's comrades then the tuna's really going to hit the fan.
Quote

Everything i have posted are facts Mark(bar the incorrect top speed of 220MPH),and all you have to offer is the NIST report-->kindly bought to you by the government.
Ooh, if someone works for the government they must have a Dick Cheney Soul Suppressor Implant.  Is that your concept?  Have another swig of Nutter Aid.
Quote

What we need from you is credible evidence MarkE,not some cooked up report that is designed to mislead.
Oh, so now I am one of those misinformation agents?  The NIST report is quite credible to rational people.  If you ever wash the Nutter Aid out of your system you might come to your senses.
Quote

1-A link to another highrise building that has collapsed due to fire.
Chant the nutter chant.
Quote

2- A valid reason why all the evidence was shipped of so fast,and a crime seen wasnt astablished around the site,and investigations carried out in the manner they are with every other such incident of this nature,and far less. E.G-if a plane crashes in the ocean,they spend millions on retrieving that plane,and put it back together piece by piece,and dont stop until they have every answer they need to solve the incident

3- A pilot that has or thinks it quite easy/possable to pull of the maneuver that was performed by a bloke that couldnt even get his cessna licence.
4-A link or picture of another building collaps where there is such a small amount of concrete left-also mostly turned to dust.
5- An answer as to how the buildings you say pancake collapsed managed to fall at free fall speed-even though there should have been resistance due to ambiant air.
6- A data sheet or an admision by boeing that the 757 and 767 can fly at speeds far above there Vmo limit 700 feet above sea level-->757 470MPH-while doing a 330* spiral dive.767-500,and 580MPH.
7- Recreate a fire with office furniture(on a small scale of course),and show us how it can gain enough heat to melt(lets say just a 1/2" mild steel rod)to liquid steel-->throw on some jet fuel if you wish to get things cranking. My bet is you wont even get it to glow a dull red--Fact.
How about I just ship you another complimentary case of Nutter Aid?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 05:25:58 PM

So,  work performed during isothermal compression = -  nRT ln(V/Vo) = -0.9 * 8.313 * 280.15 * ln(1/20.73) [3] = 6354.2 J or 6.35 kJ

 


When I put that into my calculator I get 2096...
= -0.9 * 8.313 * 280.15 * 3

vs what I said
= 0.84 * 8.3145 * 291.3 * -3   (-2031)

ln(x/y)=-ln(y/x) so +/- ... as appropriate

your moles are higher, but tempurature lower... so it should still be at least in the same ballpark....
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 02, 2015, 06:33:12 PM
Well... the Pentagon flight maneuver clearly wasn't "impossible" since it happened. Highly unlikely certainly. I wonder if any of the pilots who tried to do it in the simulator simply let "George" do it: Select "Flight level change" on the altitude with sea level as the bottom, and "heading change" on the navigation mode with the intercept heading as the ... er... target. Two knobs to twist is all that takes, and all you have to do is be at or near the right "entry point" or initial point IP at altitude when you start the turn. 
I'd love to get into a Boeing simulator and try it myself....

The floors of the WTC were made of some kind of steel mesh pans with a thin layer of concrete poured into them, and these were attached to the columns by, reportedly, substandard bolts. Once one let go and fell down onto the one below, it's easy to imagine how the whole thing successively pancaked down with very little delay as each floor sheared its attach bolts from the weight and momentum coming down from above. The concrete in these floor pans "dustified" very easily as the rebars twisted and snapped during the falling process.

Regardless of the cause of the failures, it did happen, so the "911 truthers" still have a problem, because controlled demolitions don't work that way either.

I do agree that there is a lot of fishy-smelling facts, coincidences, whatever, surrounding the event. I'm not siding with the "truthers" but I don't fully accept the "government approved" explanation either. The buildings came down as a result of being struck by hijacked airliners controlled from within each cockpit by some ragtag suicidal pseudoMuslims, some using assumed identities. The people actually flying may or may not have been skilled pilots, I dunno. The whole plot may or may not have been put together by the "usual suspects", I dunno. One thing I do know is this: there is a lot of corruption in governments and Big Money leads to Big Corruption, and the little people like me who depend on the media for our information can't really do anything about it... we just have to suck it up and hope that we don't get screwed too badly before we finally die.


I also know that it's silly to talk about results with 10 or 12 digits of precision when performing calculations where your input values are only known (or guessed) to three or four digits of precision.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: allcanadian on May 02, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
@TK
Quote
The floors of the WTC were made of some kind of steel mesh pans with a thin layer of concrete poured into them, and these were attached to the columns by, reportedly, substandard bolts. Once one let go and fell down onto the one below, it's easy to imagine how the whole thing successively pancaked down with very little delay as each floor sheared its attach bolts from the weight and momentum coming down from above. The concrete in these floor pans "dustified" very easily as the rebars twisted and snapped during the falling process.


Your theory seems more plausible and government incompetence/corruption seems more likely than some grand master plan. The real conspiracy may be that most government people ain't much smarter than the average used car salesman and are not really prepared for anything out of the ordinary. I know this as a fact from experience so this master plan nonsense doesn't quite fly in my books.


AC
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 06:57:21 PM

I also know that it's silly to talk about results with 10 or 12 digits of precision when performing calculations where your input values are only known (or guessed) to three or four digits of precision.
right... but copy and paste doesn't know how to truncate... and some things don't allow selecting relavent portions.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 02, 2015, 07:20:58 PM
Hi All,
Well I just made a new video from all the pictures been taken there at Rosch in Spich
and explained it all some more.
You can also add this please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13WPD9u-1PQ

I also explained, where they might have tampered with the wall there to
hide a hidden cable...?!

Also here are 2 parts of an interview I did yeasterday with Sterling Allan, J.D. and Ronny Korsberg
about the Gaia Power Plant.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Buoyancy/Rosch/JD/+18629020260_2015-05-01_16-58-40.mp3
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Buoyancy/Rosch/JD/hartiberlin_2015-05-01_17-20-10.mp3

Well, we will see soon, if the allow real measurements to be taken I guess, but I doubt it.
Probably at the 6th of May they will only allow small measurements at only points they provide...

There should be also allowed to look inside the tube and see, if there is no hidden cable going up
to the generator...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset on May 02, 2015, 08:56:35 PM
.............................................

I do agree that there is a lot of fishy-smelling facts, coincidences, whatever, surrounding the event. I'm not siding with the "truthers" but I don't fully accept the "government approved" explanation either. The buildings came down as a result of being struck by hijacked airliners controlled from within each cockpit by some ragtag suicidal pseudoMuslims, some using assumed identities. The people actually flying may or may not have been skilled pilots, I dunno. The whole plot may or may not have been put together by the "usual suspects", I dunno. One thing I do know is this: there is a lot of corruption in governments and Big Money leads to Big Corruption, and the little people like me who depend on the media for our information can't really do anything about it... we just have to suck it up and hope that we don't get screwed too badly before we finally die.
................................................
TK,  Interesting, I think you are not far of the mark
A lot has been written and many movies made about this 911 event.
I am pretty sure that the exact truth will never be known, but what we do know is what the result of that event was on the world and USA specifically.

From the evidence, their is little margin of doubt that this was a desired event evidenced by
     1.. The fast presentation and desire of legislation in the US under home land security (would never been possible at any other time)
     2.. The influence of control throughout the world in shipping and banking (a requirement also for a world economy)
     3.. Control and influence of oil energy resources in the "Stans" and indirectly Russia through Afghanistan.
     4.. Control and influence of oil energy resources in the Persian Gulf through Iraq 
     5.. Make a tons of money quick in every step of the way

Control and influence drive has been well backed up by post events information leaks and the general awareness that we can be surveillance at will.  The political laxness of the general public is docile enough and public media is so well managed for (dis-)information distribution that it is no longer a serious opposition.  It is no longer a secret for the general public to know that they are monitored (or can be at will by MIB),  the fear factor has a greater benefit than a disadvantage.

It is clear that the world is on the move towards a new (world) control rule pursued by the parties that have the power to exercise it.   The 911 event was a planned or aided event for the purpose to further the world trade pact and world control for the purpose to give big business more control in order to make more money than they could have without the event.(setting the world stage for a new era)
A lobbyist world is a world where money gains and exercises the control. In this picture, democracy is an illusion. Iraq was never conquered to introduce democracy, quite the opposite.

Red_Sunset

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on May 02, 2015, 09:10:51 PM
And since 9/11 there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks.  And since 9/11 there have been hundreds and hundreds of terrorist plots thwarted.  It's a trade-off between increased government surveillance and going to the evil Capitalist secular shopping mall and having to worry about being blown up, gunned down, or stabbed to death.

You know how the police have to pull up security footage from local businesses when they do an investigation?  We are not far away from the day where all major commercial streets and public places in the entire country are covered by a cohesive network of police cameras.  Skynet for real.  It sucks but what are you really going to do?  The 'enemy' is not only the bad guys already mentioned, the enemy is ourselves and the human condition.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
And since 9/11 there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks.  And since 9/11 there have been hundreds and hundreds of terrorist plots thwarted.  It's a trade-off between increased government surveillance and going to the evil Capitalist secular shopping mall and having to worry about being blown up, gunned down, or stabbed to death.

In the US?  That weren't inspired by the FBI?  inspired isn't the right word... entrapping setups?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 02, 2015, 10:22:33 PM
And since 9/11 there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks.  And since 9/11 there have been hundreds and hundreds of terrorist plots thwarted.  It's a trade-off between increased government surveillance and going to the evil Capitalist secular shopping mall and having to worry about being blown up, gunned down, or stabbed to death.

You know how the police have to pull up security footage from local businesses when they do an investigation?  We are not far away from the day where all major commercial streets and public places in the entire country are covered by a cohesive network of police cameras.  Skynet for real.  It sucks but what are you really going to do?  The 'enemy' is not only the bad guys already mentioned, the enemy is ourselves and the human condition.

We have seen the enemy, and it is us.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 02, 2015, 11:00:09 PM

When I put that into my calculator I get 2096...
= -0.9 * 8.313 * 280.15 * 3

vs what I said
= 0.84 * 8.3145 * 291.3 * -3   (-2031)

ln(x/y)=-ln(y/x) so +/- ... as appropriate

your moles are higher, but tempurature lower... so it should still be at least in the same ballpark....
Your answer dose seem more plausible d3x0r,as 6.35kW seems a lot just to fill a 1ltr vessel to 290psi. I will have to check that out with my watt meter and high pressure compressor. Only problem is,the tank is 5ltr's. Is it just a matter of dividing the result in watts by 5?.

Im finding it hard to believe that LE would get this wrong.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 02, 2015, 11:51:38 PM
Your answer dose seem more plausible d3x0r,as 6.35kW seems a lot just to fill a 1ltr vessel to 290psi. I will have to check that out with my watt meter and high pressure compressor. Only problem is,the tank is 5ltr's. Is it just a matter of dividing the result in watts by 5?.

Im finding it hard to believe that LE would get this wrong.
I did his own math! 
he's got an extra *3 between that he used for nRT... and what he said for the answer.
It's his numbers that get the same number as me.

-----------
if it's 5L instead it's still 100L source and it's still 20:1 in that...
so it's 5x the energy storage. (J)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 03, 2015, 12:28:58 AM
Your answer dose seem more plausible d3x0r,as 6.35kW seems a lot just to fill a 1ltr vessel to 290psi. I will have to check that out with my watt meter and high pressure compressor. Only problem is,the tank is 5ltr's. Is it just a matter of dividing the result in watts by 5?.

Im finding it hard to believe that LE would get this wrong.

I'm not sure what kind of calculator he is using but I calculate it the same as before. As a sanity check using mental arithmetic lets say it was 1 mol,  the gas constant is 8 and the natural log of (1/20) is 3 and the temperature is 280 K.  then Joules required =  1 * 3 * 8 * 280 =  6720. I'm not sure how he calculates something near a third of that.

Also the result is in Joules. A joule is a measure of energy not power.  If you were using a 10 kW compressor at 65 % efficiency you'd compress that 20 litre volume down to 1 litre  in approx. 1 second.  A 5 kw compressor would take 2 seconds etc..

 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 03, 2015, 12:35:43 AM
I'm not sure what kind of calculator he is using but I calculate it the same as before. As a sanity check using mental arithmetic lets say it was 1 mol,  the gas constant is 8 and the natural log of (1/20) is 3 and the temperature is 280 K.  then Joules required =  1 * 3 * 8 * 280 =  6720. I'm not sure how he calculates something near a third of that.

Also the result is in Joules. A joule is a measure of energy not power.  If you were using a 10 kW compressor at 65 % efficiency you'd compress that 20 litre volume down to 1 litre  in approx. 1 second.  A 5 kw compressor would take 2 seconds etc..
crazy I ran that 3 times before and got the 2k answer...
but ya it's 6.7k...

--------
I see... using -3...
0.84 * 8.3145 * 291.3 * -3
the operator at the end becomes - instead of *
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 03, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
Well i just plotted a graph in 20 meter incroments,and using your 6.35kJ as the target. I reached 6.28kJ at a depth of .1 meters of potential energy. So im guessing i must be doing my calculations right,as that is very close to the target of 6.35kJ. I didnt account for temperature increase as depth decreases,but i dont imagine we will see kJ's of extra energy there. This graph was ploted from a depth of 200 meters below sea level,so i must concede that the presented bouyancy devices thus far are not looking good.
It is always good to work things through and you always learn something along the way.
Kind Regards
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: hartiberlin on May 04, 2015, 12:56:04 AM
I uploaded the conference call with Sterling Allan, J.D. , Ronny Korsberg and
me to youtube now, so it is easier to listen to.

Here it is:

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


Regards. Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 04, 2015, 03:04:12 AM
I uploaded the conference call with Sterling Allan, J.D. , Ronny Korsberg and
me to youtube now, so it is easier to listen to.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpuSFiPERPY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpuSFiPERPY)


Regards. Stefan.

Thanks Stefan, I am going to listen to it now.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 04, 2015, 09:40:49 PM
I uploaded the conference call with Sterling Allan, J.D. , Ronny Korsberg and
me to youtube now, so it is easier to listen to.

Here it is:

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


Regards. Stefan.
Ronny and Sterling really want to believe that Rosch are on the up and up.  They are going to be disappointed.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: thngr on May 04, 2015, 11:11:14 PM
Bouyancy device is not the free energy device here! but the compressor is; combined with stirling pump after. As you know compressed air get wormer; this is the heat source of the stirling pump; box like device near the comp. this is why it can RUN.
about stirling pump: http://calypso53.com/stirling/Stirling_Pump.jpg (http://calypso53.com/stirling/Stirling_Pump.jpg)


From here: http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=427.0 (http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=427.0)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 04, 2015, 11:20:59 PM
Bouyancy device is not the free energy device here! but the compressor is; combined with stirling pump after. As you know compressed air get wormer; this is the heat source of the stirling pump; box like device near the comp. this is why it can RUN.
about stirling pump: http://calypso53.com/stirling/Stirling_Pump.jpg


From here: http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=427.0
Rosch claim that they run all the equipment in a closed loop with energy left over.  Each of the processes that they claim to use or that others have postulated are all lossy.  So aside from the fact that any postulation of an energy source outside buoyancy would mean that Rosch are telling false storis, no such outside source can generate energy for free. Getting power by secretly pluggin an extension cord into the neighbor's outlet does not make free energy.

A good test to indicate the actual source of Rosch's power would be to monitor the phase and frequency of their machine's alleged output with an oscilloscope synchronized to the utility line, and then to periodically step the load on Rosch's machine up and down.  If the output is locked to the utility then Rosch should explain why.  If the output does not wander from the utility when a step load is added or removed then the utility is almost certainly the actual power source.  This does not prevent a clever fake from building equipment that shifts from the utility even though it is powered by the utility.  Such games require sophistication and enough energy storage to manage the shift.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: thngr on May 04, 2015, 11:30:29 PM
Rosch claim that they run all the equipment in a closed loop with energy left over.  Each of the processes that they claim to use or that others have postulated are all lossy.  So aside from the fact that any postulation of an energy source outside buoyancy would mean that Rosch are telling false storis, no such outside source can generate energy for free. Getting power by secretly pluggin an extension cord into the neighbor's outlet does not make free energy.

A good test to indicate the actual source of Rosch's power would be to monitor the phase and frequency of their machine's alleged output with an oscilloscope synchronized to the utility line, and then to periodically step the load on Rosch's machine up and down.  If the output is locked to the utility then Rosch should explain why.  If the output does not wander from the utility when a step load is added or removed then the utility is almost certainly the actual power source.  This does not prevent a clever fake from building equipment that shifts from the utility even though it is powered by the utility.  Such games require sophistication and enough energy storage to manage the shift.


I have done the math dude! I am REAL believer of free Energy. It's a new kind of compressor and it's above %100!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 05, 2015, 12:39:03 AM

I have done the math dude! I am REAL believer of free Energy. It's a new kind of compressor and it's above %100!

So lets see the maths that shows that the device pictured is not powered by a. Your hand or b. the candle..

No such maths exists. If you believe you have some you are simply mistaken.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: TinselKoala on May 05, 2015, 12:47:51 AM
Other people have also done the math, dude... and they have shown their work so that it can be reviewed and critiqued. Those people who have done the math _correctly_ have determined that there is no possible way that the Rosch device could produce more than a few hundred watts, and will always require more than that actually to keep turning.

Why does an "overunity" Stirling Pump need:
1. A heat source
2. A manual operating handle
and does _not_ need:
A brake or limiter to keep it from overspeeding to destruction?

I know why... and so do you.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset on May 05, 2015, 06:55:44 AM
Other people have also done the math, dude... and they have shown their work so that it can be reviewed and critiqued. Those people who have done the math _correctly_ have determined that there is no possible way that the Rosch device could produce more than a few hundred watts, and will always require more than that actually to keep turning.

Why does an "overunity" Stirling Pump need:
1. A heat source
2. A manual operating handle
and does _not_ need:
A brake or limiter to keep it from overspeeding to destruction?

I know why... and so do you. 

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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r 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*
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia 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.






Title: buoyancy plus thrust according to Newton's third law
Post by: oscar 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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"?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: picowatt 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE 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. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: picowatt 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
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 07, 2015, 03:39:23 AM
 

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. 



This is what I have been saying for a while now.  IF a new previously undiscovered fuel source is found to be responsible for the O.U., then, it is no longer O.U.  It is then no different than a solar cell, which all will agree is not O.U.

Bill

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: mscoffman on May 07, 2015, 01:28:25 PM
You know the mechanism behind the Kanarev machine and the mechanism behind the Rosch OU Buoyancy device
have some things in common! This is because the mechanical load on the shaft of the air compressor is completely
decoupled from the force load on the float tanks, simulating the one way clutch.

Kanarev WebLink..

http://overunity.com/14390/motor-generators-free-energy-an-explanation/15/#.VUtFkrt0yW8

This suggests that the energy coming from generator be measured carefully to see if the buoyancy mechanism is actually
driving the generator as it supports a 7Kw load.

..S..MarkSCoffman
                 

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 07, 2015, 04:53:29 PM
The more efficient the machine the more tightly coupled the source and the load.  In the case of the buoyancy device:  Load on the generator resists turning of the chain.  That resists movement of the buckets.  That requires more compressed air to displace more water from each bucket.  That requires more work from the compressor.  The whole thing is complete bollocks to begin with.  Gaia have given themselves ten weeks before they have to start offering excuses as to why they won't have delivered units to buyers.
Title: Clarification on "The other side of the wall" -- could conceal power cable
Post by: sterlinga on May 08, 2015, 12:37:38 AM
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Blog:GAIA%27s_AuKW_Demo#Clarification_on_.22The_other_side_of_the_wall.22_--_could_conceal_power_cable

A photo has been brought to our attention, and now two corresponding photos, that give us a clear visual on what the other side of the wall looks like, opposing where the 5 kW AuKW demo is situation.
I've consulted with J.D. and Ronny, to get clarification and confirmation, and it seems that they were unclear in communicating to us what they saw on the other side of the wall. They confirm that this cubicle structure is on the other side of the wall, and that is where the "shop / lab / engineer area} is situated.
You'll see from my photo that I'm kind of shouting at them that I'm having problem with the depiction that I perceived from their description that the wall was blank and they inspected it for protruding wires/cables and saw none.
Now that I have a visual, I have a hard time seeing how they could rule this out for the higher of the two support beams. It's easily conceivable that a cable could be run through the ceiling level of that cubicle structure.
I'm not saying I think this is the case, I'm just questioning their report that they adequately inspected the wall to rule this out. Neither of them got up on top of that cubicle area.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 08, 2015, 12:53:00 AM
Ronny will not be receiving a working machine, not in 4 weeks, not in 10 weeks,  not ever.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: conradelektro on May 08, 2015, 12:42:51 PM
I followed the Rosch-Gaia-boyancy-machine-story since last autom on the German speaking internet forums. Although I live in Austria I never travelled to any demonstration or presentation of this machine.

So, can I report a verdict? Unfortunately not, because Rosch and Gaia have managed to withhold any useful information from the public.

What can I report? It feels and sounds very suspect, I personally would not give a single Euro to people who behave like Rosch and Gaia. But I have no definitive proof that it is a scam.

And like me, nobody can give you a good answer right now, because Rosch and Gaia withhold all data and all design principles and refuse to let independent observers near the machine.

I want to finish with a personal observation based on my knowledge (from 45 years of experience) how business is conducted in Austria and Germany:

- The people representing Rosch and Gaia and the people speaking in favour of Rosch and Gaia do everything they can (mostly unintentionally) to make you run away in frustration and anger about the way they do business and the way they present technical facts.

- All people who speak out against this machine seem to put forward good technical arguments that it just can not work. But all have the problem, that practically no tangible facts are known.

- Rosch and Gaia seem to be able to find enough people who are willing to spend up to 15.000.-- on a dream and unfounded promises. (I think it shows that quite a lot of people are well off in Austria and Germany and other countries in Europe.)

It will take some time (may be years) to find good proof (whether it works or not) because Rosch and Gaia seem to understand, that withholding all information is the key to perpetuate a mystery.

So, we will discuss this thing for years, because we will not get useful information. And the people who spend money on this strange promise seem to be able to loose the money without really feeling it, and therefore will not make a fuss. The few who cry out could just get their money back.

The big machines (100 KW or even 1 MW) which are promised by Rosch could reel in investors who are willing to part from quite huge sums of money (up to 1 Million) just for a promise. But this remains to be seen. Because of the financial crisis, there are quite a lot of people who have millions and do not know where to invest it. Who wants to give it to banks? The real estate market is totally over heated and practically all enterprises show weaknesses. Therefore there is money for strange investments. We live in strange times where people do strange things.

Greetings, Conrad 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 08, 2015, 01:40:02 PM
There will always be a big supply of people with more cash than sense who can be persuaded by a dog and pony show or even just a story to let loose with some of that cash.  The list of people who have pried some of that cash loose goes on and on.  To me the interesting part is how Rosch and Gaia plan to exit without first being prosecuted for fraud.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: conradelektro on May 08, 2015, 02:17:04 PM
To me the interesting part is how Rosch and Gaia plan to exit without first being prosecuted for fraud.

This speculation was put forward quite often in then last months and some Rosch-Gaia-supporters even try to construct some proof (that Rosch and Gaia are speaking the truth) from that argument.

I have researched the legal angle and I base my legal opinion on this contract which Gaia uses when signing up willing buyers:

http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Anmeldungsformular-GAIA-Workshop-Energieerzeugung-mit-Luft-und-Wasser.pdf

The contract is in German, but even a non German speaker can see, that there is no number in it which promises any output of the machine. The contract does not say that the machine will put out 5 KW. In fact no output at all is specified.

My argument: if one signs this contract one can not sue Gaia or Rosch, because nothing is promised.

The contract states, that one has the right to take part in a workshop (what ever that is) and that one will receive a kit (no finished product, just a heap of parts which one has to put together one self).

The contract says at the end, that "Rosch guarantees the functioning of the machine" but it says nowhere what "functioning" means. No definition of output or input, no definition what the machine does.

One could try to sue Gaia for using a trick-contract, but this is weak. If one accepts this contract one has bought participation in a workshop and a kit which is not specified.

I see no great legal problems for Gaia. Strange "self-exploration workshops" are sold for more money. So, even the price is not that extraordinary for a "strange workshop".

Gaia and Rosch are careful and do not legally expose themselves very much. There are just stupid people who buy something which is very badly specified. Making somebody sign such an ill defined contract ist not proper business practice, but one hardly goes to jail for that. There is no law that really protects stupid people from signing strange contracts.

And one should realise, that the people signing this contract are not poor, they are at least well off or even a bit rich.

One thing I observed: the people showing up at Rosch and Gaia events have almost no technical expertness. I see in them "strange people" with a leaning towards esoterica.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 08, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
This speculation was put forward quite often in then last months and some Rosch-Gaia-supporters even try to construct some proof (that Rosch and Gaia are speaking the truth) from that argument.

I have researched the legal angle and I base my legal opinion on this contract which Gaia uses when signing up willing buyers:

http://gaia-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Anmeldungsformular-GAIA-Workshop-Energieerzeugung-mit-Luft-und-Wasser.pdf

The contract is in German, but even a non German speaker can see, that there is no number in it which promises any output of the machine. The contract does not say that the machine will put out 5 KW. In fact no output at all is specified.

My argument: if one signs this contract one can not sue Gaia or Rosch, because nothing is promised.

The contract states, that one has the right to take part in a workshop (what ever that is) and that one will receive a kit (no finished product, just a heap of parts which one has to put together one self).

The contract says at the end, that "Rosch guarantees the functioning of the machine" but it says nowhere what "functioning" means. No definition of output or input, no definition what the machine does.

One could try to sue Gaia for using a trick-contract, but this is weak. If one accepts this contract one has bought participation in a workshop and a kit which is not specified.

I see no great legal problems for Gaia. Strange "self-exploration workshops" are sold for more money. So, even the price is not that extraordinary for a "strange workshop".

Gaia and Rosch are careful and do not legally expose themselves very much. There are just stupid people who buy something which is very badly specified. Making somebody sign such an ill defined contract ist not proper business practice, but one hardly goes to jail for that. There is no law that really protects stupid people from signing strange contracts.

And one should realise, that the people signing this contract are not poor, they are at least well off or even a bit rich.

One thing I observed: the people showing up at Rosch and Gaia events have almost no technical expertness. I see in them "strange people" with a leaning towards esoterica.

Greetings, Conrad
From the looks of that they might be able to pull off thei scam without consequences.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: conradelektro on May 08, 2015, 04:05:12 PM
From the looks of that they might be able to pull off the scam without consequences.

They will not have a good reputation, but they could go on for years constantly getting some money and never much legal problems.

A model for that is John Bedini. You could even see books based on his "invention" recently advertised in this forum. I am sure they sold a lot (and for a good price). How long is Bedini doing his Spiel? 40 years?

Further models are all financially successful faith healers and fortune tellers.

I add most of the "how to live better" books and most beauty articles sold in the millions.

Well, many religions prosper financially. What do they provide?

People love a good mystery and so do I (and I dare to say you as well).

If something is a very good show, I might myself spend some money on it. I am human, even if some might dispute that. But it has to be a much better show than offered by Rosch and Gaia. I once met a fortune teller and faith healer, who had a tremendous show going on. It was well worth the 100.--, better than any performance I ever paid for in a theatre or movie hall. Some people are really good and charismatic. Let's face it, the show must go on. One can enjoy a show without really believing it. There is entertainment value in many things.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: mscoffman on May 09, 2015, 12:53:33 AM
Sorry,  But a complex machine is going to need to be purchased according to a specification sheet.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Farmhand on May 09, 2015, 03:05:26 AM
Cognitive Dissonance rules, didn't you know MarkE ? Recently at EF first Level then myself posted questionable posts sarcastically showing things similar to what the fake claimants post, and the result was that we were both asked to reveal our OU secrets and told not to be selfish. Even after others clarified that the postings were sarcastic people asked for the details. This also happened a long time ago after several months trying to build the Romero fake claimed OU pulse motor one of the replicators showed a small pulse motor apparently running with no power source and all but two of us believed it. I was even abused for questioning the poster. As it turned out the poster was waiting to see how many people would be taken in and who would post to question it, the device had a hidden battery of course as was plain to see, even though the battery could not be seen, common sense told me it was a hidden battery or large value capacitor. When the poster actually came clean and told of what he did and showed the battery still some people did not believe it and claimed that the guy was lying about the hidden battery so the MIB didn't come after him.

I mean wow what a reality check for me, most posters are off their rocker. And suffering form a serious case of Cognitive Dissonance, probably all chronic cases.

Maybe it's time to create a second you tube account and shame some more people with some fakes for a social experiment. The experiment should be run for a few months at least so that the true effect of peoples failure to have any scepticism is seen by as many as possible and the people that get taken in so easily can be identified for all to see their reality problems.

Maybe a collaboration of a few folks could really put the spotlight on the main offenders for promoting rubbish and fake claims and reposting silly video's claiming OU is real.

Something cannot be created from nothing, it's that simple. But it easy to make things look as though there is anomalous energy to the folks suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.

I won't get my hopes up though as the very people who make themselves look like fools for promoting obvious fakes and measurement errors just keep doing it and do not seem to care they are seen to be outside of reality. For many it is understandable they might get taken in once or twice but the ramifications of so many being so easily taken in so many times and for so long is that the forums are 80 % utilized by these folks that will believe almost anything if it indicates the OU they desire.

I want a unicorn so I cut one horn off a big goat, from a distance side on it looks like what is in the fairy tale books, and it is a uni horned beast, but it is just a goat with one horn cut off. My claiming it is a unicorn does not make it one, unless that is what I call all one horned goats. Just a bunch of words and a one horned goat does not make a unicorn. Just like a bunch of words and a dodgy video does not make OU or over C.O.P. = 1.

The nice talk doesn't work so look out for the fooler video's from a new channel.  ;D Be warned do not be taken in and made to look silly.  ::)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: shinz62 on May 09, 2015, 10:44:24 PM
An alternate power calculation to consider:


Using an air pump that can produce 108 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) that I can buy here (http://www.hottubworks.com/part-A3910121-item-hottub-air-blower.php?utm_source=GoogleProducts&utm_medium=CSE&utm_term=HTW2040&utm_campaign=GoogleProducts&zmam=8865791&zmas=9&zmac=97&zmap=HTW2040&gclid=Cj0KEQjw4LaqBRD60pfSn43ZwLQBEiQAJv5FLIkU4hjBrtfQ_nr5YB2llulhfnO162sl2kZIXB1SFkYaAjNZ8P8HAQ):
for my hot tub that has a 1.5 hp motor and can pump the 108 CFM to a depth of 85 inches {edit... oops, it's actually 105 CFM to a depth of 95 inches, so the calculations below are a little off} of water we can calculate how much power we used for input to be 1.5 * 745.7 = 1118 watts.


Then we can calculate a theoretical horse power output from our device.


Allowing for a mere 85 inches of depth we have ~7 feet, if we have one container per foot to float and
assume that we can fill one per second then we have 108/60 or 1.8 CFS (Cubic Feet per Second) of volume available per container (about 51 liters, or 13.5 gallons each).


Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.


After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.


If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.


This would generate (according to this calculator (http://www.1728.org/mtrtrq.htm)) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


Folks... this seems quite plausible to me... are there any glaring errors in my assumptions or my math?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 09, 2015, 11:29:26 PM
An alternate power calculation to consider:


Using an air pump that can produce 108 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) that I can buy here:
for my hot tub that has a 1.5 hp motor and can pump the 108 CFM to a depth of 85 inches {edit... actually it is 95 inches, nearly 8 feet, so the calculations below are even more conservative} of water we can calculate how much power we used for input to be 1.5 * 745.7 = 1118 watts.


Then we can calculate a theoretical horse power output from our device.


Allowing for a mere 85 inches of depth we have ~7 feet, if we have one container per foot to float and
assume that we can fill one per second then we have 108/60 or 1.8 CFS (Cubic Feet per Second) of volume available per container (about 51 liters, or 13.5 gallons each).


Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.


After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.


If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.


This would generate (according to this calculator (http://www.1728.org/mtrtrq.htm)) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


Folks... this seems quite plausible to me... are there any glaring errors in my assumptions or my math?
Because the force is assumed constant:

P = mgh/t

m = rho * volume = rho * 108 ft3, or 1E3kg/m3*108ft3*0.0283m3/ft3 = 3,058kg
g = 9.8n/kg
h = 85" * 0.0254m/" = 2.159m
t = 60s

P = 3,058*9.8*2.159/60 = 1,078W

At 95" it would be:  1,205W. 

Given that the air pump is likely well under 50% efficient, you might want to verify that you actually get that kind of volume at the specified depth.  But either way your 4.5kW calculations are way off.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: shinz62 on May 10, 2015, 01:27:11 AM
Because the force is assumed constant:

P = mgh/t

m = rho * volume = rho * 108 ft3, or 1E3kg/m3*108ft3*0.0283m3/ft3 = 3,058kg
g = 9.8n/kg
h = 85" * 0.0254m/" = 2.159m
t = 60s

P = 3,058*9.8*2.159/60 = 1,078W

At 95" it would be:  1,205W. 

Given that the air pump is likely well under 50% efficient, you might want to verify that you actually get that kind of volume at the specified depth.  But either way your 4.5kW calculations are way off.


That is the standard gravity formula for hydro power. I considered using it but I always get numbers like yours.


I asked if there was an error in my assumptions or calculations but you didn't point out any error with mine you just offered something else.


But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.


It may be true that its lift is the same by volume, however the bubble does not lift upwards because of the gravitational weight of the air bubble, rather it lifts upwards because of the weight of the water around bubble and its difference in density. So it is the weight of the water around the bubble that gravity is accelerating, not the bubble. And that ends up changing as it rises. So this 9.8 gravitational constant attributed to the volume of the bubble is erroneous, flat wrong. This is in part because the volume of the air expands as it rises and decompresses. Boyle's law. Your calculation doesn't accommodate that.


The volume of the air might be 13.5 gallons (in my example) at the bottom but what is it near the top?


The pressure near the bottom of 85" is 17.8435psi but near the top it is about 14.9psi
so Boyle's law says that the air expands to over 16 gallons and that is a big difference.


But beyond that I believe that I have calculated the lift correctly as long as you can assume there are always  at least 7 containers full at a time there should always be the lifting force I mentioned, nearly 800 lbs of force rising 1 foot per second...is a lot of horse power, even more when you consider Boyle's law.


I believe that is why they're only filling their containers 1/2 way up... so that the air doesn't expand beyond the container size as they rise.  Because in their 14ft of water it is nearly 21 psi at the bottom and 14.9 at the top so Boyle's law says that would be about a 37% expansion in air volume so 1/2 full at the bottom becomes almost 70% full at the top.


Thanks for your consideration.







Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 10, 2015, 02:09:48 AM
So many over complicated calculations................


The input compressed air at the bottom of the water column lifts said mass, the mgh of the raised water column (mass) comes from the energy supplied to compress the air.


Having raised a mass of water there are many ways it could be used to generate power, the usual is a turbine, but a rising bubble pod is another.













Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 10, 2015, 02:12:41 AM

That is the standard gravity formula for hydro power. I considered using it but I always get numbers like yours.


I asked if there was an error in my assumptions or calculations but you didn't point out any error with mine you just offered something else.
It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:

Quote
Quote
Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.

At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

Quote
Quote
After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.
Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft3 per minute = 1.8ft3/s = 0.05097m3/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m3 * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E1 second = 0.05097m3*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.
Quote
Quote

If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.
Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.
Quote
Quote


This would generate (according to this calculator) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.
Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere.
Quote


It may be true that its lift is the same by volume, however the bubble does not lift upwards because of the gravitational weight of the air bubble, rather it lifts upwards because of the weight of the water around bubble and its difference in density. So it is the weight of the water around the bubble that gravity is accelerating, not the bubble. And that ends up changing as it rises. So this 9.8 gravitational constant attributed to the volume of the bubble is erroneous, flat wrong. This is in part because the volume of the air expands as it rises and decompresses. Boyle's law. Your calculation doesn't accommodate that.
You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  mdisplacing and mdisplaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with mdisplaced.
Quote


The volume of the air might be 13.5 gallons (in my example) at the bottom but what is it near the top?
If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at the top.
Quote


The pressure near the bottom of 85" is 17.8435psi but near the top it is about 14.9psi
so Boyle's law says that the air expands to over 16 gallons and that is a big difference.
Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.
Quote


But beyond that I believe that I have calculated the lift correctly as long as you can assume there are always  at least 7 containers full at a time there should always be the lifting force I mentioned, nearly 800 lbs of force rising 1 foot per second...is a lot of horse power, even more when you consider Boyle's law.
See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.
Quote


I believe that is why they're only filling their containers 1/2 way up... so that the air doesn't expand beyond the container size as they rise.  Because in their 14ft of water it is nearly 21 psi at the bottom and 14.9 at the top so Boyle's law says that would be about a 37% expansion in air volume so 1/2 full at the bottom becomes almost 70% full at the top.
You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.
Quote


Thanks for your consideration.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: conradelektro on May 10, 2015, 05:31:21 PM
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 11, 2015, 04:15:37 AM
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad


That is a brilliant observation and summary. I copied it and posted it on PESWIKI (may not make the cut)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 11, 2015, 03:13:35 PM
It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:


At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft3 per minute = 1.8ft3/s = 0.05097m3/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m3 * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E1 second = 0.05097m3*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.
But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere. You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  mdisplacing and mdisplaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with mdisplaced.If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at the top.Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: shinz62 on May 11, 2015, 07:12:45 PM
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.


Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque (http://www.cditorque.com/education.html)), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.





Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on May 11, 2015, 07:22:38 PM



  What you have to do is raise more than 3,700 lbs.per foot, per second.
              John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 11, 2015, 08:03:32 PM
Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.
That is true, but it doesn't help.  What you have is energy stored in compressing the air that is released as the bubble rises to lower surrounding pressure.  That complicates the math quite a bit, but when it is all said and done the very best that you can do is get back the energy consumed compressing air to displace the water.  If the air were an incompressible liquid instead of a compressible gas, then we would have the simpler form of the math:  absent losses we would lift rhowater*volume*gh water at the bottom, and as the bubble rose we would have available:  (rhowater - rhodisplacing fluid)*volume*gh energy available, provided we take infinite time in the move.  As the gas is compressible, we displace less water at the start.  We've stored energy that would have gone into lifting the water in the gas bubble. 
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 11, 2015, 08:05:30 PM

Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque (http://www.cditorque.com/education.html)), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.
Rosch/Gaia have had to employ the services of carpenters multiple times to allow their noses to fit through even the widest shipping doors.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset on May 12, 2015, 07:08:46 AM
I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

.........................................................................
...................................................................

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

The other reason is to fish for a solution to a problem in an invention without divulging the invention itself in details.

Red


Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 12, 2015, 07:20:35 AM
Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

Red

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2015, 07:33:15 AM
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill
Considering that our greater concern was legitimately Iran, and considering that in the past 12 years our wars have strengthened Iran's influence, weakened ours, cost us trillions of dollars, and many thousands of casualties among our brave ranks, I disagree with the idea that invading Iraq was anything but a monumentally stupid idea promoted by war mongers and profiteers.  The Iraq war was a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions to us.  Never mind the complete immorality of our unilateral invasion launched when Sadaam Hussein did not leave on the Midget Minded Moron GWB's 48 hour get out of Dodge demand.  There are people who deserve to be tried for their crimes against humanity.  Bush and Cheney are at the top of that list.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset on May 12, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here.  Iraq did have them...they used them (WMD's)  We know they had them as we had sold them some back in the 80's.
Saddam surrendered after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, part of the surrender terms were allowing weapons inspectors in...which he later kicked out.  He also violated the surrender treaty by firing at our aircraft over 900 times!! while they were patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was also buying and refining uranium which was another treaty violation.

So, what happens when a country surrenders and then violates most of the terms of surrender?

You go back in and that is what we did.

Bill

Bill, 
I try to approach any subject from impartiality and I will not dispute that the players in conflict were good or bad guys, not even the reason if they had reason or validation to do what they did.   All I search for is where the TRUTH is, in the end truth is elusive and you end up with best assumptions. In addition I can sense also that this subject has emotional content and this influences objectivity.

In the same way that Rosh buoyancy device has an "OFFICIAL LINE" offered by themselves, their is also an "UNOFFICIAL LINE" that is transpiring here on this web site.     In the same way, the reason for the 2de gulf war has an OFFICIAL LINE and an "UNOFFICIAL LINE".  Where does the truth lie is the good question?

The "OFFICIAL LINE" is what is palatable to the general public supplied though well known public news agencies.  The question is what is true, what is modified for consumption ...ect
The " UNOFFICIAL LINE" comes from other sources,  many alternative sources provide good coverage and many are wayout and biased sources for their interest reasons. Although we had some good sources (leakages) through Wikeleaks and Snowdon.  These leakage sources did confirm many and more of the alternative sources that appeared possibly doubtfull.  It will always be a problem to be assured of credible information.

Back to your assertion: 
Sadam was a bad boy in many respects, a loose canon, no doubt, a reason good enough reason to take him out. (a bit like Castro).  Shooting at planes can be expected in a lock-down situation, an annoyance but not exactly a good reason to invade a country
But I believe that was not the "official line" reason for invasion. He had to proof that he did not have WMD ?  If WMD would be the core issue, there are too many other countries with worse (Pakistan, North Korea...ect), but that is not the aim.  Do not forget from which state the president & vice president was and family relationships with foreign leaders.
Buying uranium:  check history (google: Yellow Cake, Niger, 2003), they made even a movie on it starring Sean Penn " Fair Game".  A book on the story can also be found
Refining uranium:  Perhaps misinformation on the pipes for refining ?
                             Wikipedia "Iraqi aluminum tubes" :      Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many questioned the validity of the claim. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge.

I do not claim to know, but I can apply logic to a fair extent, something did not sound well when Bush wanted to invade. Subsequent information uncovered pretty well what went on and it wasn't the "Official Line"

I am sorry to oppose your "clear cut" view, Red.


Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on May 12, 2015, 08:46:45 AM
I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2015, 09:23:51 AM
I read something interesting a long time ago that if true I feel was grossly under reported.  It was about a process taking place in Iraq's military because of the long-standing rivalry between Iraq and Iran.  During the Saddam era the Iraqi military was engaging in a long-term disinformation campaign to intimidate Iran.  They continuously let on that they had WMDs in their military radio chatter that they knew that Iran was listening to.  Presumably the American military was listening to the same radio chatter.

So it's possible that that factored into America's and Bush's decision to issue the ultimatum.  People always like to complain and whine that the US does not have a crystal ball that tells them exactly how the future will unfold.  The classic line is that "The US created, and is to blame for, the creation of Al Qaeda and OBL because of the war in Afghanistan."  It's a no-win situation.  You can't demand that US intelligence be perfect and they were "supposed to know" that the Iraqi radio chatter was fake and that a huge terrorist organization would ultimately develop due to the 1979 war in Afghanistan.

Just like the thought experiment goes, "JFK had to get shot because we know the world survived afterwards and it's too uncertain to know what would have happened had he lived, the same kind of thought-experiment argument could be made about Iraq.  If there were no 1991 and 2003 wars, then Iraq could have developed the bomb, then lobbed a few at Israel.  Israel retaliates, then perhaps Pakistan would have lobbed some of their own, and before you know it Israeli submarines are unloading their strategic defence nukes and the entire Middle East becomes burnt glass and 50 million people die and the entire world is then completely destabilised because of the ensuing oil shock, etc, etc, etc.

It's like "The City on the Edge of Forever."

You can criticize the "Get out of Dodge" ultimatum, but it is possible that if Saddam and his sons left (one of them was a deranged hyper-violent murderous psycho) that the war would _not_ have taken place.  But Saddam made a decision to the great detriment of his people.  In WWI the Germans surrendered when they were materially spent and exhausted, and that saved millions of lives.  Contrast that to WWII, where the Germans literally fought to the last square block and millions of lives were slaughtered needlessly.

There are no easy answers but to proclaim Bush the "big bad evil guy" is really not true in my opinion.  I think in the long term history is going to be kind to him.  We will have to wait and see.
My suggestion to you is to read the PNAC documents.  The strategy was to invade Iraq and use it as a firebase from which to attack Iran.  The war on Iraq was going to happen no matter what.  In 2002 James Woolsey was working the debate circuit arguing that Afghanistan had been a walk in the park, and all would fall and tremble before the USA's incredible might.  History students might note just how well Afghanistan has really gone.

Bush chose to unilaterally invade a country that had neither attacked the USA nor presented any imminent threat.  The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians, not Iraqis.  The opening of the war was advertised in the terroristic terms of "shock and awe".  The neocons are the "big bad evil guys".  In the promotion of their vision of the "New American Century" they have made the world a far more dangerous place, killed upwards of a million people, and incited an entire generation if not two of nut jobs that think the way to paradise is butchering others.  What other than evil does one call a person prepared to do what these war criminals have done in anything but self-defense?  Sadaam was a nasty evil guy.  There are lots of nasty evil guys in this world.  A bunch of them ran our government for eight years.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MileHigh on May 12, 2015, 10:35:13 AM
You make a lot of good points and I am not as informed as I should be to debate this very serious subject properly.  Nor do I have the fire in the belly for this kind of stuff.  I more or less tuned out of politics and watching the news each day on TV about 10 years ago.  Certainly there is more than enough evil to go around in the world.  Realistically you have to pick and choose your battles also.  There is also the option to just pack up and leave and that may happen also.  You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Is there another "R*** of Nanking" in our future?  I bet you there is for both cases, if you engage, or if you don't engage.  I still believe that in the long run, the war in Iraq will not be perceived in such a negative light.  Meanwhile, some places in the world are such complete messes, that Western countries may completely pull out - morally, financially, and militarily.  Don't be surprised that with the complete falling apart of any form of civil society in some of these places that the very same people crying "Death to America" will be whining and screaming for the West to come back and save their asses.

The world is a real mess in the 21st century for sure.  To paraphrase the Smart Scarecrow, "Fix your own damn problems."
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2015, 12:14:12 PM
I think oppositely.  A very powerful country went womping on another on pretext with all the usual horrors that come with war.  It is the worst of imperialism.  About the only thing that did not happen was widespread mutilation and torture such as occurred in Asia during WWII at the hands of the Japanese.  But I am pretty sure that the specter of silent death from above brought about by drones is still extremely terrifying.  There is no clean way to fight a war.  It should always be the last resort.  It should not be a publicity stunt ala:  "Mission Accomplished", May 2003, troops still on the ground May 2015.  Everytime I think about the idocy that came out of the Mindless Midgit Moron's mouth, like his challenge to Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on", I want to puke. 

Extreme nationalism and dreams of glory by gore are fantasies sold to largely to angry young men.  One of OSB's achieved goals was to provoke the US into a land war.  The neocons gave that miserable PoS everything he hoped for and few bullets more.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Red_Sunset on May 12, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
Mark, MileHigh,

I know we are getting out of context, but to round it off, I need to get this down.  It is all about proper moral & human ground rules.
Interesting character differentiation between MH & Bill (both definitely American) and MarkE (possibly not American) and your reaction to a seemingly improper situation or action.
Bill is Patriotic and justifies on that basis.  MileHigh is aware and conscious of the improper conduct but provides excuses to justify the acts (apparent crimes) committed by his government.  Mark has seen through the smokescreen.

The excuses offered, for the intelligence failures are astounding, considering that the whole of Europe (except UK) were unwilling  to participate, telling Bush that he had the wrong end of the stick. Remember Bush's intimidation statement "you are with us, if not, you are against us"
The assumption of justification that Saddam could/would initiate an aggression if not taken out....sure,  that is like saying I arrest you for murder because you have a hand gun.(Handguns are not for hunting, only for killing, so you sooner or later are going to use it for that purpose).  Like Tom Cruise in "Minority Report".  This is a very skewed moral position without having any direct evidence to warrant a first strike.
There was most likely a good reason for keeping you head under the sand like a ostrich for the last 10yrs because politics is all a charade, it is the opposite of what is required.  I have to admit, you are very correct.

The signals,
1.. What was the financial situation of the USA in 2001 ?
2.. What happened to the financial situation thereafter ?
3.. Who got poorer and who got richer,  and in what proportions?
Once you can clearly put this down into a matrix, you understand the mechanics of the world and what does democracy serve.

We are looking at an evolution that started after WWII in earnest and now has fully and boldly taken over.
The first warning reference to this industrial complex might was Eisenhower,  a warning reference also exist that was made by JFK and later a fleeting reference/acknowledgement exist made by Nixon.  Thereafter silence.  This power complex is now in full control, a government is only a store front.

A good way to look at it is, there is no separation between business and politics.
A country is like a giant corporation that manages many sub-companies, who all lobby to the corporate board for favors, advantages and rulings. The head of the corporation works for stake/share holders. The evolutionary flow since the 199x elevated this structure to a world wide level, with firmer controls instituted in 2001. 
It should be clear that an American corporation has no longer a national allegiance neither a direct US interest apart from a power control viewpoint.   This change impact workers the most and this should be clear to see all over the world, USA in particular.

** The Middle East remodeling started with Saddam is still ongoing and their is a clear objective to purpose and what needs to be achieved.  A couple of Texans, they might be in a better position to inform us.

Just some musing that might possibly be true and help to understand the world around us. 
Red
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 12, 2015, 12:53:56 PM
That is true, but it doesn't help.  What you have is energy stored in compressing the air that is released as the bubble rises to lower surrounding pressure.  That complicates the math quite a bit, but when it is all said and done the very best that you can do is get back the energy consumed compressing air to displace the water.  If the air were an incompressible liquid instead of a compressible gas, then we would have the simpler form of the math:  absent losses we would lift rhowater*volume*gh water at the bottom, and as the bubble rose we would have available:  (rhowater - rhodisplacing fluid)*volume*gh energy available, provided we take infinite time in the move.  As the gas is compressible, we displace less water at the start.  We've stored energy that would have gone into lifting the water in the gas bubble.
I plotted a graph over a depth of 200 meters,and the joules of potential energy gained with the rising/expanding vessel equaled that of the energy needed to compress the 1ltr vessel at 200 meters to 290psig. What i didnt take into account was the fact that the water level would also be raised. Now being in the ocean,we wouldnt see that rise,nor would it make any difference to the potential energy gained. But,what if that ocean was a column that was just slightly bigger than the vessel(that expands). If this column was 200 meters high,and the vessel could expand to 5 times it's displacement in length,then the head of water would be gaining in hight as the vessel rose. So now insted of haveing a 200 meter head at the start and finish,we would end up having say a 205 meter head of water as the vessel neared the top. So not only dose the vessel now have a means of gaining more potential energy,it also means that we only had to account for a 200 meter head pressure,while the vessel can travel 205 meters up.That last 5 meters makes a big difference in potential energy gained,all while we had to put no more energy into the system.

It's a bit of a cascade effect. The higher the vessel rises,the lower the pressure,the more the vessel expands,the more water is displaced,and the higher the head of water rises-->and this continue's throughout the whole cycle. Nothing in the sense of pressure changes,as the water volume remains the same,but the water level rises.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
I plotted a graph over a depth of 200 meters,and the joules of potential energy gained with the rising/expanding vessel equaled that of the energy needed to compress the 1ltr vessel at 200 meters to 290psig. What i didnt take into account was the fact that the water level would also be raised.
I would need to see either the equations used to see what you have included.  If you calculated in small increments, such as 0.1m steps then you should have been able to calculate the energy to better than 1%.  Whatever assumptio you make about the column cross section will reflect back into the pressure that compresses the air and if the calculations are performed properly it is still all a wash.
Quote
Now being in the ocean,we wouldnt see that rise,nor would it make any difference to the potential energy gained. But,what if that ocean was a column that was just slightly bigger than the vessel(that expands). If this column was 200 meters high,and the vessel could expand to 5 times it's displacement in length,then the head of water would be gaining in hight as the vessel rose. So now insted of haveing a 200 meter head at the start and finish,we would end up having say a 205 meter head of water as the vessel neared the top. So not only dose the vessel now have a means of gaining more potential energy,it also means that we only had to account for a 200 meter head pressure,while the vessel can travel 205 meters up.That last 5 meters makes a big difference in potential energy gained,all while we had to put no more energy into the system.
Again, don't forget that the skinny column also applie much higher compression upon the float until you get close to the top.
Quote

It's a bit of a cascade effect. The higher the vessel rises,the lower the pressure,the more the vessel expands,the more water is displaced,and the higher the head of water rises-->and this continue's throughout the whole cycle. Nothing in the sense of pressure changes,as the water volume remains the same,but the water level rises.
Yes that is all true and when you work it out the curve follows a natural logarithm function.  But at the end of the day all that has been done is some energy has been put into compression of the gas and some into immediately raising a volume of water.  As the gas bubble rises and relaxes, it releases energy that increases the volume of lifted water.  If the bubble rises very slowly, then the compression energy identically converts to mgh of water.  The math gets more complicated but the best that you can do remains a theoretical break-even.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on May 12, 2015, 01:43:45 PM



  Tinman,
             make a little video. Take a 20kw. electric pump,low head model, 6 inch delivery,
set it up and take a shower! 100 litres/sec.
               John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: tinman on May 12, 2015, 02:29:44 PM


  Tinman,
             make a little video. Take a 20kw. electric pump,low head model, 6 inch delivery,
set it up and take a shower! 100 litres/sec.
               John.
Well that was an intelligent addition to the conversation John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: minnie on May 12, 2015, 03:31:23 PM



  Yes Tinman,
            trying to get back on topic!
  Grown men looking at a tube with a few floats, just like one of my hens
 would inspect something.
    The reality is that to generate 20kw you're looking at a head of about
 100 feet and  flow-rate of about 20 gallons a second.
    Absurd or what?
                 John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 13, 2015, 05:08:56 PM
I think they are busted. Rosch offered a scientific explanation published at Peswiki. It was copied from an article published in 2004 and from a patent dating back to 1989


http://revolution-green.com/rosch-smoking-guns-and-the-scientific-explanation/


Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: mscoffman on May 13, 2015, 06:13:24 PM
One of those Russian doc's mentions cavitation damage to the turbine from air bubbles, Where there is caviation smoke there is very
often LENR fire.

..S.MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: thngr on May 15, 2015, 01:56:06 AM
this topic is going to wrong way, I think. Look for improving the compressor. do not lose energy by cooling it with water. use the heat, to pump air to higher pressures like 10bar or higher.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2015, 02:01:49 AM
this topic is going to wrong way, I think. Look for improving the compressor. do not lose energy by cooling it with water. use the heat, to pump air to higher pressures like 10bar or higher.
If the right way is reality, then you can begin with the indisputable fact that buoyancy is not a source of energy.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 15, 2015, 04:43:18 AM
If the right way is reality, then you can begin with the indisputable fact that buoyancy is not a source of energy.

Come on Mark, no need to be so conservative  ;)
We know that buoyancy and gravity are conservative by nature but so many people simply cannot be told  :o

Yes, it's me DG but OU has 'guest' reserve; so I figured a freaky handle might be fun here  8)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: thngr on May 15, 2015, 05:32:17 AM
If the right way is reality, then you can begin with the indisputable fact that buoyancy is not a source of energy.

buoyancy is not a source of energy but with one addition to compressor it going to be; if one know how use that heat with stirling pump.(stirling engine but without a work piston insted check valves) but please for give me; I do not have to teach you to design a perfect stirling pump.[/size]
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2015, 05:38:22 AM
buoyancy is not a source of energy but with one addition to compressor it going to be; if one know how use that heat with stirling pump.(stirling engine but without a work piston insted check valves) but please for give me; I do not have to teach you to design a perfect stirling pump.[/size]
1) A Striling or any other kind of heat engine needs both a hot and a cold reservoir.
2) Rosch / Gaia claim that the system is self sustaining.  The compressor and each process that follows it is lossy.  The claim is false.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: thngr on May 15, 2015, 05:48:32 AM
1) A Striling or any other kind of heat engine needs both a hot and a cold reservoir.
[/font][/size]
yes you are right.


2) Rosch / Gaia claim that the system is self sustaining.  The compressor and each process that follows it is lossy.  The claim is false.

that system is lossy mine also but if you take out the heat of compressed air to stirling pump than there will be efficiency increase four times, this is what makes it going but they may lie about it.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: conradelektro on May 15, 2015, 08:23:31 PM
Why the calculation in http://revolution-green.com/rosch-smoking-guns-and-the-scientific-explanation/ or http://pesn.com/2015/05/13/9602617_scientific-explanation-for-Rosch-KPP-buoyancy-system/ is wrong:

The first power calculation in the article is:

== Formula 1 ====   Thus, we get: N = 9.81 x 2 x Q x 0.5 x H x 3 = 9.81 x Q x H x n ====
Further down one calculates:
== Formula 2 === N = 9.81 x 0.167 m3/sec x 2 m x 5 x 0,9 = 14.7 kW  =====
There is the error of putting "2 m" in again, because 2 was cancelled by 2 * 0.5 in Formula 1.
Therefore the corrected Formula 2 is:
== Formula 2 corrected === N = 9.81 x 0.167 m3/sec  x 5 x 0,9 = 7.35 kW  =====
But there is a further error in "Formula 2 corrected", which is the factor 5, because of  "5 working wheels above each other".
If there are 5 wheels above each other the water rises from one wheel to the other only 0.4 meters and not each time 2 meters. Therefore we can calculate with one wheel a height H of 2 meters, or for 5 wheels a height of H 0.4 meters each. We can calculate with one wheel with H = 2, or we can calculate with 5 wheels with a H = 0.4. So, either H = 2 or H = 0.4 x 5, which is the same.
Finally we end up with a correct "final Formula 2":
== final Formula 2 === N = 9.81 x 0.167 m3/sec  x 0,9 = 1.47 kW  =====
In addition we have to factor in a bigger loss than 0.9 because of the very optimistic height H = 2. If the water rises 2 meter it encounters friction at the wheel and some water is lost because it runs through gaps.
Further there will be losses in the gear connecting the wheel with a dynamo and the losses in the dynamo itself.
Therefore we will get much less than 1.47 KW.
Please note: I have not criticised the calculation itself (although one should do that), I only corrected obvious errors.


Criticism of "Formula 1":
The formula stems from water turbines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine#Power and assumes that water is falling down through the turbine. But one is not allowed to assume the same efficiency if "bubbly water (water air mixture with 50% air) rises through a turbine" rather than "smooth water is falling through a turbine". Much higher losses by friction of "bubbly water rising" in contrast to "smooth water falling" have to be assumed. And if things happen slowly (as is necessary in the "bubbly water rising case"), the formula is overly optimistic, because the formula only works with rather fast moving water.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: d3x0r on May 23, 2015, 01:40:09 AM

(for the TL;DR 'So ya, still can't happen.') [/size]


Updated spreadsheet.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c4rZq5sB6CeXymY2mMU1JjbZCuY-WLawfC1VsMNkDbY
Light blue/cyan cells are primary input parameters - everything else is derived from them and constants.


white on Red cells are weight (given in pounds)
white on Orange cells are length (given in inches)
(first sheet is freely editable, a copy is protected readonly for original reference)


At the current state, the floats travel a greater distance than the pump is required to travel and the lift-weight of displacement is greater than the weight required on the pump head to pressurize the air...
so it's a 22% excess of power from the floats than required to pump 1 bottom float full of air.


- The excess gets greater by just adding separation between floats... since less air is required at greater depth, the stroke of the pump is less... but I guess even with a double action pump the excess distance is consumed to repressurize the second action from slightly less than 1atm(vacuum against valves to pull in new air) to the required pressure and then the additional distance to fill the float....


So I guess that's where the 'excess' would be going if accounted...


---
Note: There are 2 'required stroke to fill' the top one is to fill the float to capacity to full volume, the bottom one is required to fill a bottom float and have that be 100% full at the top; without losing air to expansion as pressure decreases on rise.


Hmmm... how to determine total stroke - oh just use the 1atm volume... so yes
any possible gain number turns into a loss


Still not satisfied that the final ratios don't turn out to be closer to 1; I guess it would if I assume that the double-action pump chamber will also self-balance a little... that is the compressed side will help the head move to pressurize the unpressurized side slightly...


So; again... really 1:1 best... unless you have a storage tank that gets depleted with time.
------
was listening to pesn video so decided to clean up the sheet and take another look to see if I missed something.  At least the input/output is in the same units now :)


I guess even on a continuous pump process the input at 1atm to X atm is a loss... cause really it's calculated from already having pressurized air... some sort of differential is required otherwise (integral over time?).


So ya, still can't happen.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2015, 04:17:48 AM
buoyancy is not a source of energy but with one addition to compressor it going to be; if one know how use that heat with stirling pump.(stirling engine but without a work piston insted check valves) but please for give me; I do not have to teach you to design a perfect stirling pump.[/size]
Your statement self contradicts itself.  All the energy that if any that reaches the output shaft of te buoyancy machine comes from energy supplied by the compressor.  The compressor that Rosch/Gaia used had a capacity of ~75W puping air to 5 meters depth.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2015, 04:18:57 AM
[/font][/size]
yes you are right.


2) Rosch / Gaia claim that the system is self sustaining.  The compressor and each process that follows it is lossy.  The claim is false.

that system is lossy mine also but if you take out the heat of compressed air to stirling pump than there will be efficiency increase four times, this is what makes it going but they may lie about it.
The efficiency is less than unity, far less.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: RomanEmpire on May 24, 2015, 12:37:52 PM
It may also work with a system that exploits an effect similar but opposite like this?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: markdansie on May 25, 2015, 03:15:10 AM
It may also work with a system that exploits an effect similar but opposite like this?
Please send your diagram to PESWIKI where it will be warmly welcome.

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 25, 2015, 03:19:42 AM
Please make sure you give a percentage of the sales to Sterling.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 25, 2015, 03:29:21 AM
It may also work with a system that exploits an effect similar but opposite like this?

This system cannot work. At best it will move until the fluid comes to an equilibrium condition and then it will stop.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 25, 2015, 03:33:24 AM
Please make sure you give a percentage of the sales to Sterling.

Also, he needs to donate a working device so Sterling can power his house with it.  I believe this will make like 15 O.U devices Sterling will be using to power his house.  My guess is, that he still pays an electric bill every month.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 25, 2015, 03:33:54 AM
This system cannot work. At best it will move until the fluid comes to an equilibrium condition and then it will stop.

It only works as long as the circulator(water pump) is running.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 25, 2015, 03:35:49 AM
It only works as long as the circulator(water pump) is running.

...and is plugged into the mains through a hidden power cord.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 25, 2015, 03:42:16 AM
"...and is plugged into the mains through a hidden power cord." do you have a problem with that?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 25, 2015, 09:44:50 AM
This system cannot work. At best it will move until the fluid comes to an equilibrium condition and then it will stop.
Thank goodness there is a check valve to keep the thing from going into reverse and flooding from below.  Perhaps the circulator is supposed to be a generator driven by the rising water.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: RomanEmpire on May 25, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
I seem to see a bit of irony in your answers............. I admit that my diagram is elementary and my thinking is simple, but in my defense I say that I posted it on a site called "Overunity - search for free energy and discussing free energy" and your answer seems rather a group that writes on a hypothetical site called "Never Overunity - free energy does not exist and if you believe it you are a fool", I mistakenly thought that this was the right place.. Or maybe you.
However, I think you have me mistaken for someone else. To answer some allusions:
Yes, the circulator* is connected to a source of energy and the hope is, which is probably unfounded,  that using the weight of the water the generator can produce more energy than the circulator can consume. Even the container where there is the mechanism and the generator is part of the closed circuit.

I view of the fact that a small circulator can move up to 4 cubic meters per hour of water, which means 4000 kg of water in an hour, or about 66 kg in a minute, and it consumes a maximum of 75 watts/hour. I wondered if it was possible, but apparently it is not (this is the link of the circulator of which I speak http://productfinder.wilo.com/en/IT/product/0000002e00037bbd0001003a/fc_product_tendertext )

Thank you for your valuable attention and sorry for the loss of time, enjoy your stay on Overunity.com


*Yes -Circulator: http://p.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/B1055392017/Hot-Water-Circulator-Pump.jpg
  No - Water pump: http://www.fufamotors.com/uploadfile/20140704141152932.jpg

P.S. The top pipe which is designed as a spiral is useless, It is done for illustrative purposes and does not have a specific purpose, save yourself the effort and the jokes for a more profitable

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 25, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
I seem to see a bit of irony in your answers............. I admit that my diagram is elementary and my thinking is simple, but in my defense I say that I posted it on a site called "Overunity - search for free energy and discussing free energy" and your answer seems rather a group that writes on a hypothetical site called "Never Overunity - free energy does not exist and if you believe it you are a fool", I mistakenly thought that this was the right place.. Or maybe you.
Why do you think that when you present old, refuted ideas that they should be considered viable now?
Quote

However, I think you have me mistaken for someone else. To answer some allusions:
Yes, the circulator* is connected to a source of energy and the hope is, which is probably unfounded,  that using the weight of the water the generator can produce more energy than the circulator can consume. Even the container where there is the mechanism and the generator is part of the closed circuit.
Aside from wishful thinking, why do you think you are going to cheat gravity's conservative behavior?  You lift a mass of water up, and then you drop that mass of water.  What do you claim adds energy that you hope to tap?
Quote

I view of the fact that a small circulator can move up to 4 cubic meters per hour of water, which means 4000 kg of water in an hour, or about 66 kg in a minute, and it consumes a maximum of 75 watts/hour. I wondered if it was possible, but apparently it is not (this is the link of the circulator of which I speak http://productfinder.wilo.com/en/IT/product/0000002e00037bbd0001003a/fc_product_tendertext )
75W/h is a nonsensical value that expresses a slow power rate of change.  That particular pump tops out at 20% electrical to mechanical efficiency.
Quote

Thank you for your valuable attention and sorry for the loss of time, enjoy your stay on Overunity.com


*Yes -Circulator: http://p.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/B1055392017/Hot-Water-Circulator-Pump.jpg
  No - Water pump: http://www.fufamotors.com/uploadfile/20140704141152932.jpg

P.S. The top pipe which is designed as a spiral is useless, It is done for illustrative purposes and does not have a specific purpose, save yourself the effort and the jokes for a more profitable
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: RomanEmpire on May 25, 2015, 11:12:48 AM
Why do you think that when you present old, refuted ideas that they should be considered viable now?Aside from wishful thinking, why do you think you are going to cheat gravity's conservative behavior?  You lift a mass of water up, and then you drop that mass of water.  What do you claim adds energy that you hope to tap?75W/h is a nonsensical value that expresses a slow power rate of change.  That particular pump tops out at 20% electrical to mechanical efficiency.

a circulator of water in a closed circuit does not lift the water, it circulates the water. What you're talking about is a pump. the only question to be resolved is whether this loop so broken (but still closed) can ensure circulation

75 watt / hour of current consumption are those declared by the manufacturer of the circulator (see the link wilo) are not my invention.

you should take a vacation, I see you very resentful and do not see why you should be, maybe you're nervous and this is not good for health. my best wishes for you
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 25, 2015, 02:08:29 PM
a circulator of water in a closed circuit does not lift the water, it circulates the water. What you're talking about is a pump. the only question to be resolved is whether this loop so broken (but still closed) can ensure circulation

75 watt / hour of current consumption are those declared by the manufacturer of the circulator (see the link wilo) are not my invention.

you should take a vacation, I see you very resentful and do not see why you should be, maybe you're nervous and this is not good for health. my best wishes for you
What do you think a circulator does to circulate the water?  Do you think it waves its vanes with a "come hither" expression, and the water molecules are unable to resist such overtures?

75 W/h is not on the data sheet.  It is a nonsensical term.  What do you think 75W/h means?  The data sheet specifies power consumption between 4W and 75W.  4W is 14.4kJ/h, and 75W is 270kJ/h.

There is no question:  You can build a fountain by powering the pump adequately.  Otherwise the machine quickly finds its rest state and remains there until external energy is added, or the internal configuration of the machine is changed in such a way that a new lower energy state can be reached.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 26, 2015, 11:26:13 AM
In the meantime: The Rosch.ag web site has been down for several days now.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 26, 2015, 10:25:45 PM
In the meantime: The Rosch.ag web site has been down for several days now.

Suspiciously like the absence of S+S on PISN!

I wonder if their trip got cancelled and they are too embarrassed to fess up?

Could be the Rosch gang has already exited the building and the country :-O
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 26, 2015, 10:45:40 PM
Suspiciously like the absence of S+S on PISN!

I wonder if their trip got cancelled and they are too embarrassed to fess up?

Could be the Rosch gang has already exited the building and the country :-O
In the past 48 hours the number of posts on the Gaia blog has gone down due to pruning.  It peaked at 1412.  It is now 1408.  The RPP article is stuck at 195 comments. 

It could be that they have inept IT support.  Or it could be that they have a lousy hosting service.  Or it could be that Rosch have already heard from German law enforcement.   We will have to wait to see.  But it is not looking good for team bag of wet hammers.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 26, 2015, 11:31:22 PM
In the past 48 hours the number of posts on the Gaia blog has gone down due to pruning.  It peaked at 1412.  It is now 1408.  The RPP article is stuck at 195 comments. 

It could be that they have inept IT support.  Or it could be that they have a lousy hosting service.  Or it could be that Rosch have already heard from German law enforcement.   We will have to wait to see.  But it is not looking good for team bag of wet hammers.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the potential work output of hammers. Here is part of a working bucket of hammers OU device and it only uses 1 bucket, 20 hammers, a couple of saws and one sturdy chain...
http://images.dailykos.com/images/140259/lightbox/photo_2.JPG?1430061137

Notice all the rust; this proves it works as well as the Rosch Tskamverks contraption!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 12:03:41 AM
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the potential work output of hammers. Here is part of a working bucket of hammers OU device and it only uses 1 bucket, 20 hammers, a couple of saws and one sturdy chain...
http://images.dailykos.com/images/140259/lightbox/photo_2.JPG?1430061137

Notice all the rust; this proves it works as well as the Rosch Tskamverks contraption!
The chain is an important touch.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 27, 2015, 02:26:27 AM
The chain is an important touch.

You will notice that it exhibits no signs of rust like the Rosch bicycle chain. That is because it is coated with OU zinc rust proofing!
Those free energy folks just have no appreciation for how much drag rust can create on a mechanism as underunity as the Tskamverks thingy.
A decent zinc plating is work many KW/h of work!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 04:45:29 AM
You will notice that it exhibits no signs of rust like the Rosch bicycle chain. That is because it is coated with OU zinc rust proofing!
Those free energy folks just have no appreciation for how much drag rust can create on a mechanism as underunity as the Tskamverks thingy.
A decent zinc plating is work many KW/h of work!
That's accelerated energy!  It has to be good!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 27, 2015, 04:51:08 AM
That's accelerated energy!  It has to be good!
So should we patent it or open source it?
Makes no difference to me if it saves humanity from itself  ;)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: pa32r on May 27, 2015, 06:25:21 AM
In the past 48 hours the number of posts on the Gaia blog has gone down due to pruning.  It peaked at 1412.  It is now 1408.  The RPP article is stuck at 195 comments. 

It could be that they have inept IT support.  Or it could be that they have a lousy hosting service.  Or it could be that Rosch have already heard from German law enforcement.   We will have to wait to see.  But it is not looking good for team bag of wet hammers.

Shouldn't the TUV validation have taken place yesterday? I know that that was the GAIA claim, but I have no idea how long the process was to have taken. I'm sure that, had it happened and been anything but unequivocally negative, it would have been trumpeted by S+S/.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
So should we patent it or open source it?
Makes no difference to me if it saves humanity from itself  ;)
With something as potent as kW/h open source is the only way to go.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 27, 2015, 08:48:15 PM
With something as potent as kW/h open source is the only way to go.

OK, I'll get the literature printed up and we can sell the free instructions for $19.99  8)

I foresee a huge run on bags of hammers at Home Depot!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 27, 2015, 09:34:34 PM
Isn't it better to use inflatable hammers?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 27, 2015, 10:12:44 PM
Isn't it better to use inflatable hammers?

The trouble there is more lift and less fall. So the motor that spins them will have to be more powerful to return them to the bottom of the well :-(

The best compromise is for equal lifty and equal fally.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 27, 2015, 10:16:10 PM
I understand; so inflate the hammers with water, or even mercury...
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 10:33:39 PM
I understand; so inflate the hammers with water, or even mercury...
Or sell bags of Mexican jumping hammers.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 27, 2015, 10:45:42 PM
MarkE, please stay serious and on topic; Mexican jumping hammers have never shown OU properties (or have they?).
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 27, 2015, 10:48:44 PM
Or sell bags of Mexican jumping hammers.

Good point; Mexican jumping hammers are self inflating. The volatile gases can be used as fuel!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 11:16:29 PM
MarkE, please stay serious and on topic; Mexican jumping hammers have never shown OU properties (or have they?).
I have heard that there are reports of overunity Mexican jumping hammers on the internet.  I have not been able to see actual working examples, proving that any real examples are suppressed by the government.  I feel that if enough of us hum together in harmony that it will cause Mexican jumping hammers to resonate.  I am not sure what we should hum:  "In a Gadda Da Vida" by Iron Butterfly, or "The End" by the Doors.  This may take some trial and error.  If only someone would start an open source project I feel we could crack the code in just a few millenia.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 27, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
It's the government operating through paid disinformants and trolls; aren't you one, MarkE?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 11:28:01 PM
It's the government operating through paid disinformants and trolls; aren't you one, MarkE?
I keep hearing that I am.  I started to suspect myself, but then I heard a voice that advised me against making additional inquiries.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 27, 2015, 11:32:30 PM
That was MY voice (subliminal suggestion).
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Spilled Fluids on May 28, 2015, 12:06:48 AM
I have heard that there are reports of overunity Mexican jumping hammers on the internet.  I have not been able to see actual working examples, proving that any real examples are suppressed by the government.  I feel that if enough of us hum together in harmony that it will cause Mexican jumping hammers to resonate.  I am not sure what we should hum:  "In a Gadda Da Vida" by Iron Butterfly, or "The End" by the Doors.  This may take some trial and error.  If only someone would start an open source project I feel we could crack the code in just a few millenia.

We'll need GoFundMe financing!
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: oscar on June 06, 2015, 04:38:10 PM
DE:
Als nachtrag zu meinem posting vom 6. Mai 2015 http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 (http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365) , in dem ich versuchte, das
prinzip des AuKW-antriebs darzustellen, nachfolgend ein zitat aus dem
Wikipedia-artikel "Wasserrakete":
"Eine Einweg-PET-Flasche entwickelt ohne aufgeschraubte, verengende Düse bei 6 bar 213 Newton
Schub und je nach Nutzlast somit eine Startbeschleunigung vom über
15fachen der Erdbeschleunigung, die nach wenigen Metern sogar noch steigt."

EN:
With reference to my posting of May 06, 2015 about the basic concept of the Rosch "buoyancy device"
http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 (http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365)
here is a brief translated quote from the German Wikipedia article on the topic "Water Rocket":

"A disposable PET bottle powered by 6 bar compressed air - without
an additional mounted nozzle - develops 213 Newton of thrust (depending
on payload) resulting in  acceleration equal to 15 times the gravitational acceleration g."
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on June 06, 2015, 05:00:12 PM
You still get less energy out than input.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on June 06, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
DE:
Als nachtrag zu meinem posting vom 6. Mai 2015 http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 (http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365) , in dem ich versuchte, das
prinzip des AuKW-antriebs darzustellen, nachfolgend ein zitat aus dem
Wikipedia-artikel "Wasserrakete":
"Eine Einweg-PET-Flasche entwickelt ohne aufgeschraubte, verengende Düse bei 6 bar 213 Newton
Schub und je nach Nutzlast somit eine Startbeschleunigung vom über
15fachen der Erdbeschleunigung, die nach wenigen Metern sogar noch steigt."

EN:
With reference to my posting of May 06, 2015 about the basic concept of the Rosch "buoyancy device"
http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 (http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365)
here is a brief translated quote from the German Wikipedia article on the topic "Water Rocket":

"A disposable PET bottle powered by 6 bar compressed air - without
an additional mounted nozzle - develops 213 Newton of thrust (depending
on payload) resulting in  acceleration equal to 15 times the gravitational acceleration g."
Oscar:
Toy air/water rockets do not generate excess energy.  The user pumps up the air and then releases the rocket, wherein the compressed air ejects the water generating thrust and expending the energy used to compress the air.  The pressure in the rocket is several bar while back pressure resisting the ejected water is 1 bar.

In the Rosch device, the air compressor is a low pressure affair.  It develops enough pressure to get air into the buckets against ~1.5 bar.  You can see where the bubbles release that the differential pressure is small.  The bubbles float up from the up rising side resulting in a small amount of downward thrust that works against the operation of the machine.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: MarkE on June 06, 2015, 06:49:58 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.  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
Outside a Douglas Adams book there is no "next level"  or multiplication of nonsense that eventually makes that nonsense sensible.    Anyone is free to entertain whatever wild ideas they like.  However there is zero point at all wasting time pretending that ideas that don't hold up are viable.  There is a trivial triage for wild ideas:

1) Is the idea in an area considered unsettled?
a) Yes - proceed to design experiments to falsify the idea.

b) No -
2) Is reliable evidence available that contradicts the accepted view?
a) Yes - proceed to design experiments to reconcile the contradiction.
b) No - full stop, it's baloney.

Title: Joule their 101
Post by: minnie on May 06, 2016, 09:35:14 AM
You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy.  Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere.  Such is the operation of a heat pump.  If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices.  If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help.  It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.


  To me this statement from Mark says a lot!
          John.
Title: Re: Joule their 101
Post by: Temporal Visitor on May 06, 2016, 01:43:57 PM

  To me this statement from Mark says a lot!
          John.

It did say a lot, about how blind he was. Blinded by "science" and who knows what else.

You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy.  Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere.  Such is the operation of a heat pump.  If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices.  If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help.  It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.

He had it "write" where he wrote: "You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy."

However he was blind to the fact "ENERGY" can be and is "created" and can be and is GENERATED by each and everyone everyday by doing any "WORK".

There is NO WAY AROUND Ek=1/2mV^2
..... other than sitting on your own asses - doing nothing to help yourselves or others trying to help you.

TINMAN: Never saw your video before today. The venturi effect is viable, and can be done mechanically, electro-mechanically, hydraulically, and pneumatically.

It is quite simple to EFFECT motion of Matter, which gives CAUSE to Nature to manifest its Kinetic "energy" without fail, in whatever amounts God see's fit to give us in return for our good "WORK". - Something anyone can deny (MarkE) but is unable to change or control IN TIME. Just ask MarkE .... he now has learned TRUTH: for the rest of TIME.

"Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable." Not a problem: other than finding good people to WORK with IN TIME.





Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 06, 2016, 02:10:10 PM
"ENERGY" can be and is "created" no, Mike. It is CONVERTED. The flow of energy does WORK, not the other way around.
Stop talking, just DEMONSTRATE, Mike.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Temporal Visitor on May 06, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
"ENERGY" can be and is "created" no, Mike. It is CONVERTED. The flow of energy does WORK, not the other way around.
Stop talking, just DEMONSTRATE, Mike.

Prove it yourself as a DEMON-STRATION by doing WORK and inhibiting Nature from MANIFESTING "energy".

You may fool many with your CON-VERTED logic - you don't fool me, I got your number.

No "talking": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mi7_zyuBYk
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 06, 2016, 03:27:52 PM
"You may fool many with your CON-VERTED logic - you don't fool me, I got your number. " It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics; of course you know better.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Temporal Visitor on May 06, 2016, 03:44:09 PM
"You may fool many with your CON-VERTED logic - you don't fool me, I got your number. " It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics; of course you know better.

I told you before: Not necessarily "better" but surely OTHER-WISE and "I don't do re-runs".
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 06, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
Still playing with words; stop talking, just DEMONSTRATE that you can GENERATE energy, Mike.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Turbo on May 06, 2016, 04:14:20 PM
Ah Mr/ Travis and his ZED.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 06, 2016, 04:25:47 PM
Strange, Mike, that you are a year later replying to Mark E, a dead person. Are you fishing for 'investors"?
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Temporal Visitor on May 06, 2016, 10:45:53 PM
Strange, Mike, that you are a year later replying to Mark E, a dead person. Are you fishing for 'investors"?


You appear to have missed my reply was to a post made TODAY by minnie. LOL.



  To me this statement from Mark says a lot!
          John.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: memoryman on May 06, 2016, 11:54:07 PM
Maybe so, but you still have never demonstrated that you can "generate energy" from energy-in-motion.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: profitis on November 15, 2017, 12:41:30 PM
Come I'm gona coat these wit sometin and change the color of that liquid
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: rakarskiy on October 23, 2019, 12:00:15 PM
A bit interesting information on topic.
Question: Are the authors of ROCHE (a method of producing torque in a conveyor with air containers in a water tower) the first? A little information where the legs of this idea grow from, a possible source.
********
Patent RU2059110  (http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2059110)[application: 1989-09-27; the publication of the patent: 27.04.1996]
A method of extracting energy stored in a liquid and gas and converting it into mechanical work.
Author: Markelov Vasily Fateevich
Devices for the production of mechanical energy, not classified elsewhere or using energy sources not classified elsewhere.

Quote
the invention relates to methods for converting the pressure energy of a gas and the thermal energy of a liquid into mechanical and electrical energy and can be used, for example, in hydro - and heat power engineering for heat recovery of liquid media. Summary of the invention: compressed compressor gas is fed under the floats-buckets immersed in a liquid supplied from the discharge water channel TPP or bypass channel rivers. Floats-buckets with gas float under the influence of the force of Archimedes, while the liquid transmits its heat to the expanding gas. The movement of the bucket floats is converted by the transmission into the rotation of the shaft of the electric generator. The gas compression compressor is cooled by a liquid flow passing through the bucket pneumatic-hydraulic motor between its lower and upper parts.

Fig.1 (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/413/2059110/2059110-20.jpg) Fig.2 (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/413/2059110/2059110-21.jpg) Fig.3 (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/413/2059110/2059110-22.jpg) Fig.4 (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/413/2059110/2059110-23.jpg)


Quote
CLAIM
1. METHOD of EXTRACTION STORED IN LIQUID AND GAS ENERGY AND CONVERT IT INTO MECHANICAL WORK by the compression of the gas compressor and feeding it under the floats, buckets, immersed in a fluid filling capacity of the bucket pneumohydrodrives, move the floats-buckets up under the action of positive force of buoyancy with the expansion of gas as you ascend to full fill the gas floats-buckets with heat transfer from the fluid of the expanding gas, movement of the floats with buckets associated with them endless transmission, rotation of the rotor transmission of the generator of electric energy and the release of gas floats buckets when they are inverted, characterized in that the effective volume of compressed gas is changed in accordance with the ratio

a method for extracting stored energy in a liquid and gas and converting it into mechanical work, patent No. 2059110
FORMULA (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/413/2059110/2059110-19t.gif)
where VD - is the effective volume of compressed gas;
Vо - the volume of compressed gas at an absolute pressure of;
P - coefficient of pressure increase depending on the height of the liquid column;
t  - temperature of the fluid ;

t1  - temperature of the gas operating system.
2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the gas compression compressor is cooled by a liquid flow passing through the bucket pneumatic hydraulic motor between its lower and upper parts.
3. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that the liquid in the receptacle bucket pneumohydrodrives is fed from the discharge channel of a thermal power plant or a bypass channel of the rivers, and the liberation of floats-buckets from the gas produced below the liquid level in the tank.
4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the liquid in the lower part of the bucket tank pneumohydrodrive is fed from the reservoir HPP pipeline passing through the dam of newly constructed or siphon in the reconstructed HPP, and from the upper part of the tank pneumohydrodrive, located at the water level in the reservoir, the water is fed to the

I did not notice, though someone paid attention to the temperature-it is fundamental.
There is another point that can probably be applied in the design. Creating a vacuum (ZERO atmosphere) at the top of the water chamber.
Follow the rules. a hundred implosions, always stronger than an explosion.

Personally my opinion such registration all the same will not give super result which declare and build power plants in this company.

This author has another Patent RU2376494 "double-hull pneumohydraulic turbine" (http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2376494)
[publication of the patent: 20.12.2009] Two-body pneumatic-hydraulic turbine belongs to the field of energy.
Quote
The turbine comprises a cylindrical body with impellers placed in it on a vertical shaft. The housing is open at the top and closed at the bottom, filled with water and connected to a compressed air source. Below the impellers and between them on the wall of the housing are fixed guide devices. The housing on the lower and upper level is connected by rectangular cross-section flow pipes to another similar housing. The device does not require a high-level tank.The invention relates to energy and can be used to provide energy consumers through the repeated use of forces in the manifestation of natural imbalances between water and air (density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity).
Fig.1 (http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/87/2376494/2376494-3.jpg)

http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/87/2376494/patent-2376494.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvnVBdqLsvQ - video by the author from 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1AijqP-OAA - replication of this turbine in Ukraine in 2015.

As I understand it, the first patent is no longer valid (demonstration is safe), the second with the copyright in force.

I do not draw any conclusions fundamentally. This is my assumption that these settings are very skillfully hide the real situation. So the same can apply to works of Schauberger.   
All good

Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: E_man on June 27, 2020, 09:21:42 PM

.....
I did not notice, though someone paid attention to the temperature-it is fundamental.
.....

Rakarskiy, You ara absolutely right!
There is mein "Meisterstück" in izoterm compression and izoterm expansion.
With izoterm compression we are extracting energy from compressed air to the water and this is a magic source of energy.
Compressed air traveling in buoyancy power plant is expanding (and cooling) and takes back this energy from water.
Nothing mystic, pure thermodynamic.
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: kolbacict on June 30, 2020, 07:13:12 PM
Quote
I did not notice, though someone paid attention to the temperature-it is fundamental.
Well, this has long been discussed on the skif.biz  :)
Title: Re: Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.
Post by: Magluvin on July 01, 2020, 12:14:28 AM
Come I'm gona coat these wit sometin and change the color of that liquid
Nice concept.  Remember, the air pressure needs to be enough to overcome the weighted pressure of the water in the tank. So the energy it takes to do that needs to be compared to the output of the mech.

Mags