Author Topic: Knitel's InfinityPump (Read 131133 times)

spinner · « **Reply #210 on:** February 22, 2009, 02:45:30 PM »

Quote from: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 12:05:50 PM

certain positive:
.most of water here is allready lifted so input path to cilinder is not 5m.it is now and can be drawn/made 1mm

maybe negative:
.new paradox point might have been created at a bottom ...but that allso is in mm.

counter maybe negative:
although I don't think so cause water is not solid. it will create many small wortex-es.that I think will add to mechanism of pump up action.
...but now water from bottom container allso has to climb millimeters to refill the addon tank

You don't even think it deserves experiment. Is there some simmilar experiment ?

Wiz

It seems to me you didn't got the "paradox" stuff (known for more than 100years ) correctly...

Please, check out all the basic hydrostatics stuff again....

wizkycho · « **Reply #211 on:** February 22, 2009, 02:50:14 PM »

Quote from: tbird on February 22, 2009, 02:38:45 PM

hi wiz,

did you understand this from the link i gave above?

Why the pressure does not depend upon the shape of the vessel or the amount of fluid in the vessel rests upon three things:
a. Pressure is force per unit area and this is not same as the total weight of the liquid in a vessel.
b. A fluid can not support its self without a container. Thus the walls of the container exert a pressure on the fluid equal to the pressure of the fluid at that depth.
c. The pressure at given level is transmitted equally throughout the fluid to be the same value at that level.

tom

well since I'm not ashamed standing infront of paradox and look so silly (anyone does)

so I'll give it/us another tought
would rubber type hose input pipe make any difference ?

Wiz

wizkycho · « **Reply #212 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:01:56 PM »

Quote from: spinner on February 22, 2009, 02:45:30 PM

It seems to me you didn't got the "paradox" stuff (known for more than 100years ) correctly...

Please, check out all the basic hydrostatics stuff again....

If you don't want to explain it to me...what do You want?

Wiz

spinner · « **Reply #213 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:21:27 PM »

Quote from: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 03:01:56 PM

If you don't want to explain it to me...what do You want?

Wiz

I want that all the newbies would understand at least the basics before they cry for the "fame".... OK!?

Wizkycho, learn a bit more... Before you claim the impossible.

As 1+1=2 in mathematics, there is an equivalent in physics knowledge..

How many times this basics stuff was explained? God knows....
Check out the facts.... Your textbooks, for a start...

Cheers!

sushimoto · « **Reply #214 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:58:58 PM »

Quote from: spinner on February 22, 2009, 03:21:27 PM

I want that all the newbies would understand at least the basics before they cry for the "fame".... OK!?
Wizkycho, learn a bit more... Before you claim the impossible.
As 1+1=2 in mathematics, there is an equivalent in physics knowledge..
How many times this basics stuff was explained? God knows....
Check out the facts.... Your textbooks, for a start...

Cheers!

... If you dont want to explain it to us.
What do you want?

Do you have any constructive or creative proposal as Wiz has?

Cheers.

wizkycho · « **Reply #215 on:** February 22, 2009, 09:01:16 PM »

Quote from: spinner on February 22, 2009, 03:21:27 PM

I want that all the newbies would understand at least the basics before they cry for the "fame".... OK!?

Wizkycho, learn a bit more... Before you claim the impossible.

As 1+1=2 in mathematics, there is an equivalent in physics knowledge..

How many times this basics stuff was explained? God knows....
Check out the facts.... Your textbooks, for a start...

Cheers!

Many Many times more and here and everywhere else cause nobody is that old as You are. what did you say You are 100 years old ?

I am an electrotechnician not a pneumatics repair man (god bless them) like yourself.

Have you something against that Magnetic Transistor works ?....

Wiz

Overunity is something beyond, who cannot offer at least a tought beyond (even false one) doesn't belong here.
Your cheap way of teaching, and not even slightest bit of courage to give at least a tought beyond, does not belong here.
I reccomend You to watch Death Poet Society over and over again. You make it Hard with no real reason whatsoever, not giving nothing beyond.
I gave at least emotion beyond.
Change Your Ways.

or just
spinn off to Hanses arms (I guessed it didn't I)

Wiz

here in overunity, even a poet and economist is welcome

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #216 on:** February 22, 2009, 10:24:09 PM »

Quote from: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 12:05:50 PM

certain positive:
.most of water here is allready lifted so input path to cilinder is not 5m.it is now and can be drawn/made 1mm

maybe negative:
.new paradox point might have been created at a bottom ...but that allso is in mm.

counter maybe negative:
although I don't think so cause water is not solid. it will create many small wortex-es.that I think will add to mechanism of pump up action.
...but now water from bottom container allso has to climb millimeters to refill the addon tank

You don't even think it deserves experiment. Is there some simmilar experiment ?

Wiz

There are some things that work and others that cannot. The laws of nature are dictating all of us what can and what cannot be done.

Now, I am not saying that we understand all there is to understand as far as nature is concerned, far from it. There is much to be discovered yet. However, when it comes to fundamental principles of hydraulics and hydrostatics the phenomena associated with it are well understood and there is nothing further to add.

Before you can have a vortex action you must have a flow. There is NO continuous flow possible in your latest device.

My next chapter in hydrostatics (the one I am writing at the moment) goes into the siphon effect and what you can and cannot do with siphons. This will address the principal flaw in your designs.

Hans von Lieven

0c · « **Reply #217 on:** February 22, 2009, 10:46:13 PM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 22, 2009, 10:24:09 PM

Now, I am not saying that we understand all there is to understand as far as nature is concerned, far from it. There is much to be discovered yet. However, when it comes to fundamental principles of hydraulics and hydrostatics the phenomena associated with it are well understood and there is nothing further to add.

Certainly, you are more knowledgable about fluid mechanics than I. But, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is "nothing further to add". Much of Viktor Schauberger's work is still not thoroughly understood and there have been several recent discoveries WRT fluid dynamics. There's still room for the field to grow.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #218 on:** February 22, 2009, 11:39:27 PM »

Correct.

When I said that there is more to be discovered I was especially thinking of Schauberger's and Helmholtz's work on vortices, a subject of immense interest and study to me.

But, I only said that the fundamentals are understood and there is nothing further to add. That is a correct statement.

Hans

wizkycho · « **Reply #219 on:** February 24, 2009, 10:01:11 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 22, 2009, 11:39:27 PM

Correct.

When I said that there is more to be discovered I was especially thinking of Schauberger's and Helmholtz's work on vortices, a subject of immense interest and study to me.

But, I only said that the fundamentals are understood and there is nothing further to add. That is a correct statement.

Hans

btw.
(I have digested hydrostatic paradox to point I can say that container is handeling all the weight and only pressure is left as factor, and knowing what that means.)

You dare to compromise COE but wouldn't dare to further speculate on this paradox.(how to make this pressure lower)
...another material instead of water, elastic input container..., elastic cyilnider

Water doesn't change volume neither under pressure nor under negative preassure. therefore we observe paradoxal pressure of water that is under negative pressure.
the bottom line is if instead of water there is air even 100g swimmer will fall down (of course it wouldn't be bouyant in air). air is gas and is changing its volume,
can we say so it is elastic ?
We could find material(gas) that is much heavier then air but has same changeable volume under negative pressure (maybe not under positive cause we need bouyancy) and therefore we have lowered preasure at paradox point enough to make (it work) now much lighter swimmer to go down.

Or inserting wonderfull resonant Milkovich's pendulum in input pipe... to lower down paradoxal pressure

This is very far from nothing more to add. Just like in many many other things.

would be nice to hear some speculation about that from people with more expirinece in a pressure handling field, if they would only had some courage.

Wiz

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #220 on:** February 25, 2009, 02:14:11 AM »

G'day all,

Here is the next segment of my paper on hydrostatics and hydraulics. This segment addresses the siphon effect and what you can and cannot do with it. From here on in I will cover buoyancy, the different non working PM designs and hopefully hydraulics proper, if there is enough interest.

Contrary to what some of you believe, I am not here to discourage anyone or sabotage the free energy movement. I simply attempt to teach the scientific foundations that are necessary to understand such systems to give you guys a chance to design something worthwhile instead of chasing down dead alleys.

What I am talking about is not some esoteric physics theory. My paper only deals with verifiable facts that have stood the test of time (say 3500 years!)

Again, I have simply attached the latest segment to the balance of the paper so everything stays neatly together. Suggestions and questions are welcome. You can send your queries to hans@keelytech.com if you don't want to post it.

Hans von Lieven

wizkycho · « **Reply #221 on:** February 25, 2009, 12:13:56 PM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 25, 2009, 02:14:11 AM

G'day all,

Here is the next segment of my paper on hydrostatics and hydraulics. This segment addresses the siphon effect and what you can and cannot do with it. From here on in I will cover buoyancy, the different non working PM designs and hopefully hydraulics proper, if there is enough interest.

Contrary to what some of you believe, I am not here to discourage anyone or sabotage the free energy movement. I simply attempt to teach the scientific foundations that are necessary to understand such systems to give you guys a chance to design something worthwhile instead of chasing down dead alleys.

What I am talking about is not some esoteric physics theory. My paper only deals with verifiable facts that have stood the test of time (say 3500 years!)

Again, I have simply attached the latest segment to the balance of the paper so everything stays neatly together. Suggestions and questions are welcome. You can send your queries to hans@keelytech.com if you don't want to post it.

Hans von Lieven

This is mostly waste of time in this topic: - cause You are not adding what could make InfinityPump overcome pressure at paradox point
- You have disassebled original setup to parts that can not work by themselves as such.
- many things that are not working or not working good enough can be twiked to work and work better (this is what to concentrate on).
- Nobody knows or ever heard of Knitel's InfinityPump, so nobody will know of hidrostatic facts.

So open Your own topic and call it facts about hydrostatics. talk to harti so You put this nonworkable manual where would be available all the time.
Again we need workable overcome of paradox pressure point in Knitel's InfinityPump. Can you help ? but not using radioactive or price unpredictable dirty fossil fuels ??
I have some serious investors (finally) so please do not scare them.

Wiz

Tink · « **Reply #222 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:00:47 PM »

Wizkycho,

Hans is only trying to help, please be kind to him.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #223 on:** February 25, 2009, 07:55:15 PM »

@ wizkycho,

You must be really thick.

If you have read and understood what I wrote so far you must by now have seen, assuming even a modicum of intelligence, that Knitel's infinity pump is an abortion designed by an idiot who is ignoring the simplest facts of nature. Such a system cannot be made to work!

Your so called investors better be careful because with this project they are bound to lose their money.

Maybe this is the reason you are so belligerent, you can see your little rip-off falling apart.

Hans von Lieven

spinner · « **Reply #224 on:** February 25, 2009, 09:33:39 PM »

Thanks, Hans, for your good work.. (I admire your persistence at teaching the ungrateful, too!)

Too bad that at least a few people didn't got a message...

OK, they could get the same knowledge out of their basic physics books, or by "Googling" the stuff... Why didn't they?
....
AH, because they don't trust the "Orthodox.., bookwise.., corrupt,.. mislead..." knowledge... Ok... Possibly....

...
@Wyzkicho , don't behave like that.... "Your" concept (the gravity exposed vertically oriented water cylinder with a combined piston/air buoyancy and a few controlling valves and some stuff) is a very very old (but still unworkable) idea...

Nothing wrong with discussing such stuff (it's very educative....). But it seems you were exaggerating with the "workability" factor... Or, with the "infinity working" claim... It was never beyond a paper idea, was it?

I mean, on paper, many things seems logical. But in reality...?
It's actually very easy (to prove your OU concept). Simply, build the self sustaining device based upon your concept....

Hydrostatical paradox, ... siphoning "trick", ... buoyancy,... What's next, I wander?

Do you think, maybe, that there were no people who were dealing with similar concepts in the past
...

"If OU would be that easy, it would be invented many centuries ago"...

Anyway, just keep on with the tinkering!

Cheers!

Btw, as I'm not a "pneumatics maintenance guy", I'd like to ask you a question about your "magnetic transistor" principle (the hot topic of yours before you discovered more simple truths about OU...)....

It could be closer to my understanding than all of this "pneumatics" stuff... I think...

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Knitel's InfinityPump (Read 131133 times)

spinner

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

wizkycho

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

wizkycho

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

spinner

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

sushimoto

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

wizkycho

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

hansvonlieven

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

0c

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

hansvonlieven

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

wizkycho

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

hansvonlieven

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

wizkycho

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

Tink

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

hansvonlieven

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump

spinner

Re: Knitel's InfinityPump