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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Knitel's InfinityPump  (Read 130341 times)

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #225 on: February 25, 2009, 09:40:53 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

You'r drawings are close but not same (big difference) to any part in Knitel's InfinityPump (KIP). Where is additional weight applied making underpressure , where is valve that holds water in pipe on it's height.
Still the only thing that applies to KIP is natural paradox pressure.
(but me and many still are in need of an experiment to confirm that it takes huge 50Kg to overcome that pressure to start suction from pipe unde water of only 1cm2 but 5m height)
(or that is needed 10kg on 1m only 1cm2 column to start suction from pipe submerged in water to cylinder of 100cm2)

This infinity pump is just side idea that just bumped in but it, would be much worse if I hadn't shown it and it works (i still would like to see experiment), now it is just a spam mail. but unlike other spam mail with advertising,
credits, pharmacology....... that is real rip off,
this mail,thread, can wait for further idea to develop and solve this paradoxal sticky point (only one).

Let's say I make start pressure zero/cm2 or negative. (now is 500g/cm2) then paradox multiplication dissapears and system is behaving somewhat like a scale ?
weight(floater) now drops fast pumps lot of water and then again input pressure exceeds zero in input and input is again in paradox mode. but inertialy and in total weight in cylinder
I now have enough water+floater height to overcome paradox pressure and pumping goes on. now it is dynamicall

Something like this

if not solved, at least giving you some food for your bouyncy chapter.

Wiz

what to say then people like You just fuell my fire
don't look valves. we now their position.

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #226 on: February 25, 2009, 10:37:48 PM »
@ wizkycho,

If you had read carefully what I wrote about the siphon effect you would have realised by now that a situation as you show in the right hand drawing cannot exist in nature, even if you managed to bring it about in the first place.

Since V2 is above the water level in the trough an imbalance in the system is unavoidable. On opening the valve the water column in the riser tube exerts a stronger downward pressure than the column in the container and drains the container, air enters into the system, an embolism occurs and the siphon effect breaks up. In effect the siphon effect works AGAINST YOU ! End of story.

No system of valves can avoid this.

Hans von Lieven

AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #227 on: February 26, 2009, 12:49:32 AM »
wizkycho

 But what about the bubbles? ::)

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #228 on: February 26, 2009, 10:24:38 AM »
@ wizkycho,

If you had read carefully what I wrote about the siphon effect you would have realised by now that a situation as you show in the right hand drawing cannot exist in nature, even if you managed to bring it about in the first place.

Since V2 is above the water level in the trough an imbalance in the system is unavoidable. On opening the valve the water column in the riser tube exerts a stronger downward pressure than the column in the container and drains the container, air enters into the system, an embolism occurs and the siphon effect breaks up. In effect the siphon effect works AGAINST YOU ! End of story.

No system of valves can avoid this.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans

column in input pipe drains container , although container has additional weight + weight of water (floater not all the way up) and presssure in input pipe is nullified with pump driven with bouyancy from KIP2 (at least for some time) ?!? this means that input pipe (forget about bouyncy driven pump) has infinity pressure ?!? very strange and impossible cause in that case there would be no exsistant container that can hold any fluid.
If this is what you claim then you haven't understood this new drawing ?
but even so floater can be made to prefere only one direction - down and if pressure is pushing it up it has breaks

.once pump is activated by bouyncy from KIP2 pressure drops to zero
and system is no longer in paradoxal pressure it works now in scale like manner. now weight matters !!!

Now this input presssure is allways same it is 500g/cm2 and if cylinder is much wider bouyancy can be very strong and make device work not in paradox pressure mode but in scale mode where only weight counts and now cylinder is allways heavier. no matter the surface of cylinder the only pressure to overcome is allways 500g/cm2 if 5m height pipe. The only thing that changes is speed of floater fall down. wider cylinder slower falling floater.

@ABhammer

bublles must enter and replace water before weight in cylinder acts (now with help of pump). don't look valves in picture. valves are solved.
water that falls down exserts pressure on entered air and floatersweight with vector to fall down. that is why air comes in to level down that positive (for work) pressure

Wiz

have fun !

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #229 on: February 26, 2009, 10:44:17 AM »
@Hans @ABhammer

You seem to forget that V1 is one way valve. (withuot pump driven by bouyncy from KIP2,  water column excerts merely 500g/cm2 on V1)
With pump it is negative or zero. so paradox pressure on floater is 0 * cylindersurface= 0 (zero) or - negative. this is a way of solving paradox influence here.

any simmilar (or different) proposals ?

Wiz
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 11:09:37 AM by wizkycho »

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #230 on: February 26, 2009, 07:12:47 PM »
@ wizkycho,

It does not matter how many of these abortions you latch together they will still do nothing.

For some reason you simply don't want to accept the realities of hydraulic systems and insist on silly postulates and even sillier arithmetic.

It is obvious you don't understand the first thing about physics and you have never built anything of that nature. If you had you would not be talking such nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #231 on: February 27, 2009, 09:52:24 AM »
@ wizkycho,

It does not matter how many of these abortions you latch together they will still do nothing.

For some reason you simply don't want to accept the realities of hydraulic systems and insist on silly postulates and even sillier arithmetic.

It is obvious you don't understand the first thing about physics and you have never built anything of that nature. If you had you would not be talking such nonsense.

Hans von Lieven


@Hans von COE that just can't go further by any means

you again for second time make it personal so:


0. You just said that there is no such powerfull pump to pump a ballon !
1. There are systems that work in COE mode, but there are others that works in overCOE mode. it is prooven by now.
2. It is obvious You are not talking about Knitel's InfinityPump but trying to simplify or removing (on purpose or ignorance) parts of system that might make it work.
    It is irational way to approach any system.
3. Not one post I saw from you (not just here) has any constructivity or idea.
4. objects heavier then air can fly
5. find your imagination you could use it.
6. What about bringing Mlkovichs pendulum (that is by itself OU device) as pump in input pipe and get ridd of start pressure. OU pendulum would be driven with bouanycy
7. I'm establishing new rule, What ever childish rudeness You say in future bumps to you back with paradoxall multiplication. You could really use a lesson.
8. You are broken robot ? cause functionall one would still have logic.
9. Do not attenuate or turn off music when you come to the party !
10. You wouldn't be able to replicate even simplest working device ! because it would be overcreative to You.
11. Are You working on Your bouancy chapter ?
12. can you even change light bulb or is it too creative for you ?

hope those questions keeps you occupied

Wiz

have fun !
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 10:25:31 AM by wizkycho »

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #232 on: February 27, 2009, 11:00:46 AM »
Go home little boy, but first wipe the snot off your nose.

Hans von Lieven

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #233 on: February 27, 2009, 11:23:44 AM »
Go home little boy, but first wipe the snot off your nose.

Hans von Lieven

Since again You are personal

You haven't answered not one question ?
I give - You take
Aren't You just OverStupid ?

Wiz
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 11:51:48 AM by wizkycho »

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #234 on: February 27, 2009, 11:25:33 AM »
@Hans

So you started to read about bouyancy and found out it just might work ?

now it is larger diameter (25 times) - weight needed of floater only 5kg - now is possible to construct floater in given space
negative pressure to overcome still only 500g/cm2

paradox multiplication is zeroed with pump that uses bouyant F=m*g from KIP2, it is gravity in reverse and since volume of floater can be now much bigger that force is
many times sufficient to continuously overcome 500g/cm2 pressure in input pipe !!!!!!!!!!!!

Knitel's InfinityPump now certanly works in Push-Pull mode  !!!!!

Wiz
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 12:04:28 PM by wizkycho »

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #235 on: February 27, 2009, 12:19:31 PM »
Hi All !

Since Hans was somwhere arround all the time doing silly things,
 disassembling everything in order to find out how things work, as any young apprentice would,
I propose to call this Push-Pull setup Knitel-Lieven InfinityPump.
It is consisted of two Knitel's InfinityPumps (that may but not prooven expirience pressure paradox)

Wiz

Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #236 on: February 27, 2009, 01:48:52 PM »
Come on guys, keep your cool!

@Wizkycho: I am sorry but I can't really disagree with Hans and the others...
That paper Hans presented seems to be a very good one, and from your posts
I do get the impression that you don't fully grasp fluid mechanics and hydrodynamics,
just like Hans basically said...

But if you are so convinced that your setup will work, then why don't you build one
and show all of us that you're right? It doesn't look like a very difficult setup to build.
You should be able to get a couple of valves, a weight, and the right size containers?
Who knows, you might just prove us all wrong eh? :)

regards,
Koen

wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #237 on: February 27, 2009, 02:45:00 PM »
@koen1 and all

I'm a newbie here (hidrostatics, hidrodynamics) and nobody said that you have to pay something here to learn something
and I manged to learan about interesting hidrostatic paradox.

Now I introduced 2 KIPs mechanically conected in first KIP's floater(LTW - lighter then water) and pump on input pipe of other KIP
they are in counter phase one KIP's floater is in LTW and other KIP's floater is in HTA (heavier then air) state.

So KIP1(HTA) expirience pressure that makes him unable to pump, and cause of it is initial pressure 500g/cm2 (5m height input pipe and surface cm2).
To lower down that pressure I'm trying to use bouancy of KIP2's(LTW) state. Is that bouancy sufficient ? is question that I would like to be logically
explained (and Hans is unable to stick to the exact topic and problem). Both floaters are made to be 5kg in air and is overall lighter then water by 10kg (-10Kg).

My thinking is that that bouaynt force from KIP2 will be able to pump all the water to KIP1 (of course helped with KIP1's water goes out of cylinder making underpressure on floater and 5kg floater) 
The functioning of This push-pull is totaly identicall to one KIP except added pump on input pipe and connection of bouyant force from another to that pump.
 
I think it now works.


(I put all of my concentration on exact setup not on person - this is the only right way to approach these designs.
Hans has another approach)

I don't know nothing about any person, do You (only think that You do)?

Wiz



Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #238 on: February 27, 2009, 03:25:39 PM »
@koen1 and all

I'm a newbie here (hidrostatics, hidrodynamics) and nobody said that you have to pay something here to learn something
and I manged to learan about interesting hidrostatic paradox.

Now I introduced 2 KIPs mechanically conected in first KIP's floater(LTW - lighter then water) and pump on input pipe of other KIP
they are in counter phase one KIP's floater is in LTW and other KIP's floater is in HTA (heavier then air) state.

So KIP1(HTA) expirience pressure that makes him unable to pump, and cause of it is initial pressure 500g/cm2 (5m height input pipe and surface cm2).
To lower down that pressure I'm trying to use bouancy of KIP2's(LTW) state. Is that bouancy sufficient ? is question that I would like to be logically
explained (and Hans is unable to stick to the exact topic and problem). Both floaters are made to be 5kg in air and is overall lighter then water by 10kg (-10Kg).

My thinking is that that bouaynt force from KIP2 will be able to pump all the water to KIP1 (of course helped with KIP1's water goes out of cylinder making underpressure on floater and 5kg floater) 
The functioning of This push-pull is totaly identicall to one KIP except added pump on input pipe and connection of bouyant force from another to that pump.
 
I think it now works.

Hmm okay I must think about this variation of yours a bit :)

Quote
(I put all of my concentration on exact setup not on person - this is the only right way to approach these designs.
Hans has another approach)
Well, ad hominem is not really a nice way to disagree with people, I agree with you there.

Quote
I don't know nothing about any person, do You (only think that You do)?
Excuse me?
Are you now accusing me of making baseless accusations?
I hope not.
But to answer your question, although I am fairly certain that this is not what you
meant, yes, I do know quite a few things about quite a few people other than myself.
And I see where Hans was coming from, his hydrodynamic analysis does seem to be
correct, and so it was a matter of you maintaining that your idea will, is going to, and must
work, while everything in classical hydrodynamics says it shouldn't.
I don't want to get into the little fight you two were having, and in fact I do not want
to dismiss your idea completely based solely on what the texbooks say,
but the only way to prove that your idea works and the books are wrong is
to build it and show them.

If you like you can look at it like this: back in 1900, all aerodynamics textbooks
said heavier than air flight was impossible. All professors on universities taught this,
and even proved it with experiments.
Then two stubborn bicycle repair men decided to build a flimsy airplane...
... and managed to do what everyone had been taught in school was impossible,
they flew a heavier-than-air vehicle on its own power.
They didn't get stuck in the phase of bickering and arguing with others who did
not believe it was possible. Instead, they agreed they were going to show them
it was possible and hey started working on their design and building test versions.
And after a while they actually managed to make it work.
After that, the nay-sayers could whine and argue all they wanted, but it is very
hard to maintain that something is scientifically impossible if it flies overhead.

See what I'm saying? You can get stuck in the arguing phase, or you can
show people you're right by building a working prototype.
I for one can't wait to see your prototype working. :)

regards,
Koen


wizkycho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
« Reply #239 on: February 27, 2009, 03:34:32 PM »
Come on guys, keep your cool!

@Wizkycho: I am sorry but I can't really disagree with Hans and the others...
That paper Hans presented seems to be a very good one, and from your posts
I do get the impression that you don't fully grasp fluid mechanics and hydrodynamics,
just like Hans basically said...

But if you are so convinced that your setup will work, then why don't you build one
and show all of us that you're right? It doesn't look like a very difficult setup to build.
You should be able to get a couple of valves, a weight, and the right size containers?
Who knows, you might just prove us all wrong eh? :)

regards,
Koen


@Koen1

Hans written very well postulates and some of his drawings has similarities and that is it, just simmilarities. So you approve
actually his harsh crticism based on simmilarities...it is obvious your judgement is wrong and you want to suck up to Hans who thinks that
he is Keely himself.

but such approach I just did (above) and that You two make here all the time is irrelevant. This is not celebrityes we are talking about
we here on the other hand have possible or not working device. And if none of You can point finger and say wrong is this and this and this...
then just go and read Victoryas Secret.

Wiz