Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

A Quote from perpetual
2) No. You still don't get it, no energy is expended to lift the float, IT LIFTS ITSELF.
The end of that quote

The float does not lift itself. Gravity lifts it by buoyancy.
The energy expenditure I am referring to is the energy of the water flowing from above
the float to beneith the float as the float rises.

Now you are just spamming instead of admitting you are wrong.

Sure, air from the float is released into the tube. So what. Since pressure in the tube is uniform one atmosphere it is effortless to once in a while pump that air out.

Then this nonsense that float does not lift itself but gravity does. LOL You are really desperate. I have perfectly clearly stated that float lifts due to buoyancy, due to gravity. You have started grabbing onto semantics altho everything is perfectly clear. You are desperately trying to find some flaw stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong.

I know you were referring to energy of the water flowing from above the float to beneath the float as the float rises but you made a false conclusion due to the same false premise that this is a regular tank i already explained to you but in vain. Like i wrote above, pressure in the tube is one atmosphere, it is effortless to periodically suck that air out just like it is effortless to insert the float into the tube. So your "argument" is wrong.

As for the vacuum, no. I know how a drinking straw works and that trick with putting a finger on top of it. But it is not kept up due to vacuum, it is keep due to the fact atmospheric pressure is pressing on the water from below while nothing is pushing from above except weight of the water but atmospheric pressure is much greater, i already explained this.

If hole was opened in the top of the tube water in the tube would feel atmospheric pressure from above and below and it would fall due to gravity and as it falls it would create partial vacuum which atmosphere would immediately fill. But since there is no hole in the top of the tube this cannot happen, there is no vacuum, no boiling of water no matter how high the tube, even 1000km.

Need i remind you you claimed pressure at the bottom of the tube is great due to weight of the water above.

It is not, as clearly proven.

You claimed energy input is equal to energy out.

It is not, as clearly proven.

Stop spamming and admit you are wrong.

oops

At the point in time (above) of which you are referring to. You may have had the tube idea in mind,
but you definitely had not presented nor described "that" tube / design variation, into our discussion.

The first reference by you, NIX to me, Will,y of a tube. is here @

https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/dlattach/attach/190511/

Previous to that point I at one point, used the word tube instead of the word tank but
you Nix, had not.

Other wise Nix, you had not as yet discussed this other / new tube. The word "tube" was only ever in use in reference to the tank. 

As I said, you had not introduced nor described nor explained your modified design, as having a  new tube (one which was not previously in the design).

Until

You present a photo as

during your reply as

« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »

You just witnessed a miracle, history in the making, and in a way, you were a part of it.
And you still deny it, ccc. And with what kind of silliness. What you wrote is totally ridiculous.

Do you have a slightest idea the amount of work a negative 10kg weight free falling up and
then 10kg weight free falling down does even from far far lesser height, let alone the imagined 1000km.

And how incomparably tiny is the energy needed to momentarily push that float into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is underwater as much as float is thick, say 20cm. Input is nothing.

It is ridiculous to even compare the tiny, momentary input with the long long and heavy work
it does falling up and falling down, gain is in thousands and thousands of times, in a tube so long
it would surely be in MILLIONS of times.

and again here @

« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »

Quote
It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.

But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.

Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.

Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.

So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.

Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.

Easy-peasy indeed!
The end of that quote

These statements by you, were made before your photo of "the" tube and before any other
references  to a tube, by you, other than in the context of  and reference to the outer most tank.

I myself made a similar error, when I made several statements without having first
qualified them in a context as being applicable, only when the float is assigned a 100 % buoyancy.  However you never corrected me in that error.