Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: wizkycho on February 16, 2009, 01:55:05 PM

Title: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 16, 2009, 01:55:05 PM
Hi all !

green - moveable part (MP)
1 condition : (weight of water)>MP(weight)>(weight of air)

Remmeber MP doesn't have to do action all the way to the top - that way weight of water (allready in upper part of cilinder) is doing pump action even if MP is very low weight.

what do you think !? COP=infinity
free water pump, free electricity - electrolysis, energy independancy ...can even be build underground (not to waste space), Sahara as fertile land possible...
works at night...

take it to production....I give it free

Wiz
Knitel Igor

this is so simple that it just can't work!?! can it ?

QuestionProblem: ...weight is pushing down water
A: weight is only sucking water up... I allow in this setup that air ,(while V2 is open), is entering through V2 at a same time as water comes out.
     (I have not animated air bubbles entering through V2)

P: Only problem that I see in it is, that the air will not lift the weight up. I think it will only move up through V3
A: air can not lift moveable part (MP) water can. MP has lower overall density (pe. stirfoam in metal box - like ship, tanker...) then water. if MP is in tank of water it gets boyancy force   and since there is no preassure from above (V3 is open - no preasure) water can lift the MP .Oil tanker can not float in air - but floats on water it is overall lighter than ammount water it replaced by its space. on the other hand tanker in air weights thousends of tons. MP is stirfoam filled "tanker". Of course when V3 is opened all the remaining air (if there is any) will escape through V3 to the upper part of cilinder.

P: if so then air after few cycles replace all the water needed for boynacy (lift up of MP)
A: then MP should be allowed to completely submerge to bottom and put all the air out before V2 closes.(cilinder tank in this case has flat bottom - not like in anim)

QP:...output water pipe should be connected with input water pipe for better operation...
A: if so than air can not enter through V2 (while opened) - if air is entering V2 then weight of MP is 100% cleared to fall down, If air is not entering boyncy may occur before it is nedded
and MP could stop. MP goes down only in air - and goes up only submerged in water (and no pressure from above - V3 opened).
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 16, 2009, 02:07:01 PM
I totally don't get it.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 16, 2009, 02:12:36 PM
I totally don't get it.

what part ?
filling cillinder with water or MP going up ?

wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Koen1 on February 16, 2009, 02:23:30 PM
I think it's an interesting idea.

The animated pic shows very clearly how this is supposed to work,
I really don't see what there is "not to get" about this.

Not sure if it really will work, but the idea is clear and quite nice, I think.
Water fills tank, weight floats up, weight is allowed to drop down while
pushing water out the bottom and sucking fresh water in at the top,
cycle repeats... 

Thanks for posting Knitel :)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 16, 2009, 03:31:59 PM
I totally don't get it.
I've been thinking about a similar idea, I think, where the falling weight pumps air into a bottom compartment that releases to the weight/compartment which takes it up to the top releasing the air to fall again.  More to the whole idea but that part is similar to this, i think.  How is the air entering your system? where is it going out?  Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong or something.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Gravitator on February 16, 2009, 03:51:00 PM
Hi wizkycho,

I think this a great idea. Only problem that I see in it is, that the air will not lift the
weight up. I think it will only move up through V3. One solution for this might be that
you lift up little V2 and leave some water at the bottom. And to V3 you add a tube that leads
the water directly to left water at the bottom. This will rise the bottom water and keep the air in
where it should be.


@Hugo Chavez

I think that the water will fall faster out than 100 kg weight moves down and because of this
the air will "bubble" into tank.

br,
Gravitator
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 16, 2009, 05:22:01 PM

thanks for the input !

i have unswered some questions and possible problems where the anim is (the very first post).
the most interesting part would be not to allow air to accumulate in cilinder and that would be done if bottom of cilinder is flat - then all the air that has entered and was nedded to "release" MP to fall down will be pushed out by MP itself at the very bottom of cilinder. Then V2 is closed.
Will do the new animation tomorrow.

many thanks...don't you think this idea needs to be pushed further although it doesn't allow verticall take off and traveling through space :))) but it does allow
to build surface space station on any planet (but Sun of course):):)


Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 16, 2009, 09:49:03 PM
hi all,

please see reply #59 here  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6660.50;topicseen

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 17, 2009, 10:25:33 AM
hi all,

please see reply #59 here  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6660.50;topicseen

tom

again, if you think weight of MP is problem (too small) - (although you two havent even put diamters of in pipe or cilinder in your calculus)
Weight of water in small diameter pipe is smaller then Weight of water in large diameter pipe (same lenght). We have to agree on that that diameter matters ?!? it gives it Volume and then weight.
here is quick solution: again (allready written many times),
 MP doesn't have to go all the way up - this way weight of MP adds up with weight of water already in upper part of cilinder and make suction faster. this can be observed in every days pumping . at the begining pumping is harder cose there is no counter weight (only air) but when water passes the pump there is counterweight and pumping is easier to that extent that if output is lower (lenght and counterweight now bigger) then input pump can even be disconnected and counter weight pumps by itself (agree on that)
This is not situation in my setup that output is lower then input (but cilinder has larger diameter) conterweight of MP (and water) make it work(suction).

so initially weight of MP (in air) must be somewhat heavier than weight of water in input pipe since MP is not bellow surface of pumping water allso.
allso must be understood that water is initially allready in input pipe to the top - that is easily achieved.

InfinityPump has wide range in wich it still works by itself. so one should really mess up big time with calculus and/or mechanism if it doesn't work.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: jadaro2600 on February 17, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
It's all just utterly brilliant.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on February 17, 2009, 12:13:27 PM
Hi every one

its brilliant!

Let say this thing is working, where can we use this one?  ;D



otits
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on February 17, 2009, 12:34:56 PM
i mean, how can we use it?


i think it cannot push itself up it should have other weigth to push it up.



sorry it cannot work, tried it already.  :(



otits
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 17, 2009, 02:04:41 PM
i mean, how can we use it?


i think it cannot push itself up it should have other weigth to push it up.



sorry it cannot work, tried it already.  :(



otits

...boyancy lifts it up...

if Floater(Weight) occupies 100dm3 of space but weighs(in air) only 99Kg then it is lighter then water and will have constant force up . If there is no presssure
on floater from above and there is none cause Valve 3 is opened resultant force is boyant force that lifts that floater up.

when it lifts up you have 99Kg but now in Air (cause bottom valve is opened) and this 99Kg is sucking up water from input pipe

wiz

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 17, 2009, 03:31:37 PM
Hi Knitel,
Super great idea, this design should really work !
Congratulations.
Maybe you can still post again an animation that runs slower, so that one can see it more slowly.

Who is going to build this and try it ?
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 17, 2009, 03:46:13 PM
Hmm, what about valve V2 ?
Will the water really run out, when it is opened or does the external air pressure prevent this ?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Steven Dufresne on February 17, 2009, 06:36:50 PM
Hmm, what about valve V2 ?
Will the water really run out, when it is opened or does the external air pressure prevent this ?

V1 is open when V2 is open. There is the same external air pressure pressing down on the water in the bottom tank so air pressure is balanced. If I recall correctly, air pressure is the same at all points on a fluid, so the fact that the bottom tank has a large surface area doesn't multiply the air pressure.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 17, 2009, 08:43:05 PM
Okay, I edited the GIF animation and made the animation slower
and included Igor´s name with it.

Here it is:
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 17, 2009, 08:56:27 PM
V1 is open when V2 is open. There is the same external air pressure pressing down on the water in the bottom tank so air pressure is balanced. If I recall correctly, air pressure is the same at all points on a fluid, so the fact that the bottom tank has a large surface area doesn't multiply the air pressure.
-Steve


Okay, you are right Steve,
I can not find any error , why this should not work !

I think this is the most brilliant and easy idea I have ever seen with
a gravity type water using converter.

I made this topic now sticky and added it under the news section.

As I am involved in some other projects right now, I hope somebody
could test it as soon as possible at least in a basic way and let us
know, how it works with real hardware.

Many thanks in advance and many thanks to Igor having it released
freely !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 17, 2009, 09:33:39 PM
Why not put a water wheel under valve 2 so the thing will do work?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 17, 2009, 09:41:39 PM
This device is functionally identical to the Sinclair Siphon.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#sinclair

The 100kg weight is just a red herring. If the device was going to work, it would work without the weight. But it won't.

Don't believe me? It's a simple device. Build one, and show it working. PROVE ME WRONG.

(One problem lies with getting the weight to be buoyant and to rise up after it hits bottom.)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: jwk on February 17, 2009, 09:56:52 PM
This device is functionally identical to the Sinclair Siphon.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#sinclair

The 100kg weight is just a red herring. If the device was going to work, it would work without the weight. But it won't.

Don't believe me? It's a simple device. Build one, and show it working. PROVE ME WRONG.

(One problem lies with getting the weight to be buoyant and to rise up after it hits bottom.)




Hello TinselKoala,

Please bear in mind im a noob in this OU stuff but i have noticed you have a lot to say about what won't work but i have'nt yet seen you state openly what you think might work or where you think resources would be best spent. Do you have an opinion on this or do you think all these people are wasting thier time ?
I understand you have been around the block once or twice when it comes to OU claims but if say someone offered you an unlimited budget to explore just one avenue of potential OU where would you go ? What specific field would you choose ?

If im just repeating noobish questions that have already been answered ad-nauseum then i apologise. If thats the case the could you provide links or even a shove in the right direction ? It would be appreciated.

best of.

jwk
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 17, 2009, 10:07:07 PM
Why not have a siphon tube from V 2 to the tank at the bottom?
You are wasting the energy of the water coming out of V 2.
Than just above the bottom tank add a turbine to the siphon tube coming out of
V 2.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 17, 2009, 10:10:07 PM
I wanted to point out how similar this was to the "I think I finally got it" thread. Until I read that thread to the end and noticed that design inspired you into this design. The design is indeed interesting. The second part (that is when the weight rises back up) I have no doubt in its working. But the first part was the same part I got stuck at with Gravitator's design. If his negative pressure principle is proven then you have a winner. To be honest it's not that difficult to demonstrate. The biggest hurdle will be friction due to the cylinder walls, but this can be minimized with the right solution.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: turbo on February 17, 2009, 10:15:35 PM
Okay, you are right Steve,
I can not find any error , why this should not work !

Regards, Stefan.

Ever heard of Displacement?

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 17, 2009, 10:19:29 PM
Cola nailed it.
(One problem lies with getting the weight to be buoyant and to rise up after it hits bottom.)

If the weight at the top is heaver than the liquid it displaces it will push the liquid down,
But if the weight at the top is heavier than the liquid it displaces it will not float back up.


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: reada on February 17, 2009, 11:17:37 PM
To be honest it's not that difficult to demonstrate. The biggest hurdle will be friction due to the cylinder walls, but this can be minimized with the right solution.

what is if one would reduce friction to a minimum by plastic bags - one on the upper half of the wheight the other plastic bag containing the lower half - no tight cylinder - inflateable volumes, depends on the material of the bag, but weight could be reduced
and one should use springs to pull the empty bag back up, while emptying the upper one

our maybe its just a stupid idea
i didnt do the math - just brainstorming
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ramset on February 18, 2009, 12:44:40 AM
-[marco]-

Excellent observation/animation

Will save lots of time

Raises a point that appears could be solvable ?

 Chet

Although Tinsel Koala is not to be taken lightly
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Bulbz on February 18, 2009, 01:35:05 AM
I think it's worth a try after a few refinements. The problem would be creating a seal around the piston, that will allow easy movement in both directions.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: AB Hammer on February 18, 2009, 02:01:41 AM
-[marco]-

 I like how you animated the displacement. Out of these designs I think the one I drew has a better chance, if at all. Would you please animate mine?

« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2009, 01:04:24 AM »

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6660.30

Bulbz

 If you are learning about wheel and self movement every build is worth something for there is always a lesson.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 02:27:11 AM
Here's an improved animation I did that should fill the holes  ;D. Cooperation leads to success. Btw I don't think that indention is needed at the bottom.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ramset on February 18, 2009, 02:50:13 AM
Broli

Nice skills !!

I believe as marco said

 The air will still push past the water [screwing things up]

I also feel a seat/seal manifold at the bottom could deal with this problem

 [I can feel the snickers TK  Marco ]

   Chet







Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 05:15:20 AM
Well,
yes, Hans also pointed out in the German overunity.de
forum, that the air going through V3 is a problem

I am enclosing a single frame of the original animation
where you can exactly see, that when V3 opens,
that the air will be compressed in the bottom and it will
go up through V3.

So I ask myself if Broli is correct with his new animation, that
it will still work this way, or if with each cycle more air will come in
and will make it worse , so the 100 Kg steel swimmer unit
will not go up anymore to the top ?

Maybe there could be introduced a fix, so that all the air will
go out at the side via another valve  and not through V3 ?

Maybe we can find a solution for this ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 05:37:56 AM
Hmm,
I pondered again about the idea of user broli
from here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6836.msg158227#msg158227

and I agree, that if we can keep the air volume in the device as he has
shown and no additional air will come in,
that this principle will work.

I can not find any error now.

Anybody else ?

Many thanks to broli for fixing it.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
I reedited the Broli Animation and edited the 100 Kg weight out, so that
you can see it better , that it is a hollow 100 Kg Steel weight, which is swimming
on the water.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Gravitator on February 18, 2009, 09:18:00 AM
Hmm,
I pondered again about the idea of user broli
from here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6836.msg158227#msg158227

and I agree, that if we can keep the air volume in the device as he has
shown and no additional air will come in,
that this principle will work.

I can not find any error now.

Anybody else ?

Many thanks to broli for fixing it.
Regards, Stefan.



I think the problem is still the air on top of cylinder. The weight will not rise to top but little bit lowere
and because of this there will be after every cycle little bit more air and the machine will stop. Solution for
this might be that you don't let the air go to top. To do this you need to add tube from V3 to bottom of cylinder
and leave some water to bottom of cylinder. This way the air can not go through V3 up.

I think it is really difficult to avoid additional air coming from V2. If the pressure in cylinder get negative,
then the air will come into cylinder. I'm wondering does it matter if the air comes into cylinder if we don't let
it move up - the V3 tube...

br,
Gravitator
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 09:25:38 AM
Hi Gravitator,
with the last animation from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6836.msg158272#msg158272

there is no way, that additional air will come into the system,
cause the 100 Kg weight swimming on the water will
press and push all the water out beneath it,
so through V2 should only go the water out with pressure and
no air will come in.

It is like pushing at the end of the rod of a syringe filled with water.

Do you agree ?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Gravitator on February 18, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
Hi Stefan,

If we need pressure to push water out how does this affect to negative pressure needed on top?
I think we should let the air come into cylinder to get maximum negative pressure from weight.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
Why are people talking about air? There is no air in the system, those white empty spaces are vacuum.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Gravitator on February 18, 2009, 10:34:01 AM
If they are vacuum then I think the air will come into cylinder from V2.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 10:43:29 AM
If they are vacuum then I think the air will come into cylinder from V2.

Why?

1)The whole atmospheric pressure isn't even needed unless I'm hugely misunderstanding something here.
2) I highly doubt that even there was any, air would gush in. It would have to be quite a dense day  ;D.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 18, 2009, 10:51:27 AM
Any air entering a system that relies on a siphon effect kills the phenomenon.

But this is not the only thing that is wrong here. I will try to draw a diagram to show why such a system cannot work, regardless what you do with it.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Gravitator on February 18, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Hi broli,


If you have a open bottle of water and you turn it upsidedown then you get vacuum to top (bottom
of bottle, because it's upsidedown) of bottle and the air will come into bottle. How I see this machine
might work is following

1. the weight moves from top to down. This will create negative pressure which will
   lift the water from pool to cylinder. The bottom of cylinder is filled with air. (the bottle
   thing)

2. After the weight is down V3 will be opened. The lifted water goes through tube to
   bottom of cylinder, which contains little water. This way the air can not go up
   through V3. While weight moves up more water will go through V3 tube to bottom of
   cylinder, which will rise the water level.


In here the atmospheric pressure lifts the water from pool to cylinder by negative pressure created by weight.


I guess I have missunderstand the idea of this machine...


br,
Gravitator
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 18, 2009, 11:00:49 AM
@harti
Q: Hmm, what about valve V2 ?
   Will the water really run out, when it is opened or does the external air pressure prevent this ?
A: It will act like common bottle filled with water and rotated upside down, air bubbles enters and water comes out
. after a while when MP and above water has enough weight air is not comming in but water,now under preassure, comes out.
again if that presssure is not sufficient air bubble enters and water comes out - leaving MP (bubble by bubble) heavy in air.


@brian334
Q: Why not put a water wheel under valve 2 so the thing will do work?
A: Yes a geneartor would be nice, allso there is additional untamed energy from MP movemet so something could be attached to it.


@TinselKoala
Q:This device is functionally identical to the Sinclair Siphon.
A: mentioned device is not using boyancy (main part of this pump) - and no weight

Q:The 100kg weight is just a red herring. If the device was going to work, it would work without the weight. But it won't.
A:red herring,like it roasted. Suction part works like a kitchen scale with two same lenght levers. if MP by itself in air is heavier then
water in input pipe then MP can make suction of this water. MP can be heavier cause diameter of input pipe is not big.
If MP is 99Kg in air and water in input pipe is 98Kg or less then MP can slowly start to suck water from that pipe.
Further on, by doing so weight of water now in cilinder is added to MP weight so suction goes faster and faster.

If, as you said MP would weight only 1Kg(not 99Kg) (water in incoming pipe is 98Kg) then this 1kg cannnot start to lift 98Kg in pipe.

above description is worst case when water is not yet in inner pipe. in my setup water is already in pipe so even less weight of MP
is neccesery to start suction

So weight Of MP matters to esatblish initial succtionability.thx to Gravitator


@[marco]
Q:Ever heard of Displacement? ...of air ??

A1: see on pic how this can be/is solved ! (one of many ways)

   1. initial state of valve 3 cavity
   2. when v3 is opened (at the bottom) air displaces and that happens only once cause and this air stays there all the time.

      if volume of displacemented air in cavity is same of new needed air to be displaced then there'll be no further
         displacement cause of balanced preassures.

A2:or cilinder bottom is made flat, MP is allso made as whole as cilindrically shaped (now it is composed of two cilinders)
even if cilider goes to bottom water will strongly want to go benneth it (through V3) cause it is heavier then this cilinder.
Try to berry stirfoam plate (or any less dense then water) object in sand at bottom of sea - it will float soon on surface.

A3: air is not entering all the time in cilinder tank... see A: to harti

but the best is

A5: broli did it although not precise.
 this is too much air comming (MP doesn't float not submerged in water at all)...but if bottom of cilinder is lowered - less air and problem is completely and simply solved

broli solved it many THANX and there is allso NO accumulating more and more air

Wiz

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Doug1 on February 18, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
 In the original animation. V3 would need to have a tube that extends down through the air space to the desired length of air space required to provide the weight to float.Controlling the volume of air trapped and allowing the water to flow through the mechanism to the bottom area under the floating plunger.
   A valve for the bottom outlet would work well to operate like the flapper in a toilet connected to the floating weight by some type of linkage not a chain or string that could become sucked into the outlet.
   Providing a good seal from the walls to the floating weight maybe a small tire tube to provide part of the required air volume to counter the mass of the weight. Maybe even two tubes spaced apart enough to keep the thing lined up straight as it travels.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 18, 2009, 01:19:53 PM
It will take a lot of work to open that valve.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: itanimuLLi on February 18, 2009, 01:40:50 PM
Hi all,
This is the solution to the air problem.

Use the weight 100 as a cylindrical weight and use polyurethane foam which are used in toilet syphones or in home insulation, in the the space where air supposed to be and the problem is solved. You can not have air above the weight cose air will expand in vacume the water cant pump up.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tsl on February 18, 2009, 01:44:42 PM
It would be nice if someone take a closer look to the hydrostatic pressures in the device... :-*
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 02:46:30 PM
to all since reply #7,

i don't know if it was too hard to access or just laziness or just over every bodies head, but i think we should read the post and comment on its merit.

for ease of use, i post it here below.



hi wiz,

i'm sorry to say, i think you owe hans an apology.  i agree he is not very specific, but has given enough (if researched) to find the answer.

his comment was basically you can't float the piston.  my come back was to increase the volume of the weight enough to displace more weight (water here) than the weight used to pump the water.   this would be well and fine except that the amount of increase for the given area of the piston/disk would require all of the space given for the stroke, not just some.

this brings us to his statement about  hydraulics.  this has to be applied because of the syphon effect.  liquids being what they are, must follow certain rules (not always what we want or think they should be).  i think where we get thrown off is in the beginning when we hear 100 lbs or 100 kg.  THAT's a lot of weight!!!  but really what we have to look at is how much is applied to each square unit (inch, cm, mm, ect.)  i use U.S. measurements so i would say pounds per sq.in. (psi).  so if we have 100 pounds spread over 100 sq.in. (that's 10 inches by 10 inches), this would equal 1 psi.  now we have to figure how much does the water weight in the supply tube (column) and then how much is that per sq.in .  let's say it is 1" x 1" (make it easy).  from the reseach we find that 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs.  so how many cubic inches can we stack up before we get to 1 lb (100lbs hanging from 10" x10" disk = 1 lb psi)?  well 1 / .036127 = 27.68 inches.  so now we know the "head pressure of a 1 inch square pipe 27.68 inches high, 1 lb psi.  EDIT:  that's as high as we can go with 100 lbs applied to a 10" x 10" disk sealed in a 10" x 10" cylinder.

this is starting to look like a problem.  not much travel.  in this we have to have the weight and volume to displace 100lbs and still have room to move water (stroke).  let's see, how much volume (displacement) does 100lbs require to float?  since we know 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs, we can say 100 lbs will require 2768 cubic inches.  since we already have a given surface area for the disk, 100 square inches, all we need now is the height.  so, 2768 / 100 sq.in. = 27.68 inches high.  that sounds just the length of our supply tube, which will leave NO room for a stroke.  NO STROKE, NO MACHINE!

there is always a possibility i made a mistake, but i don't think so.  if you see one please respond with propper reference (as you have asked hans to do).

btw, Gravitator's machine doesn't work either as drawn, but for a different reason (which he knows about).

i'm not trying to be a wise guy, but right is right.  thanks for your help hans.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Bulbz on February 18, 2009, 02:51:11 PM
Why are people talking about air? There is no air in the system, those white empty spaces are vacuum.

That's what I thought.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: newton2 on February 18, 2009, 02:51:29 PM
Hello Honoured Profiles and the Honoured Administrator of This The Honourable OU-Forum !

Thanks about this other per "Head-Lines" promoted "perhaps"-OU-Methods-Idea !

YES....really a "Point" for further ALL-Classical-Mechanics-founded Discussions (pro)-et-contra :
the Gravity-Force´s Maths-Integral over a Closed Path of a [Force x Way]........there are still some hidden un-discovered possibilities for OU and for Space-Drive in Classical Mechanics´s Foundations
Theses......i.e. to re-formulate the Original Newtonian Mass<->Force<->Acceleration<->velocity/positionsalterings<->etc..........!!

Well-then...now about this per Topic (Page 1) suggested Idea...could a kind of ONE-SHOT/ONE-EVENT-OU be possible ...with kind Reference to theTopic´s enclosed nice clear Drawing/Vdeo-Sequence :

==>>
The 100-kilo-grams CLOSE-Fitting Piston "ends" at "Bottom" of Water-Cylinder......the Piston seemingly is "Internal-Functional as Passive" and seemingly has a "Weight"-to-Volume-Ratio of
more than liquid/Water...........THOUGH because of One-Time-Process-Step , THEN is the NEXT Circumstance : HOW TO COULD LIFT UP AGAIN THE 100-kilo-grams Piston.......a basical Calculation involving also Piston´s Own Weight-to-Volume-Ratio though seems to "get" a Total-ForcexWay-Result as NOT to be even a ONE-SHOT/ONE-EVENT-OU-Process.......!!     <<==

Some very-"loosely-brief comments :
##Gravity-Field is "meant" as a CONSTANTLY-Being Force...NOT to be altered to suppose....then
how  if NOT being a GRAVITY , though if THEN  "performed" in a only-per-rotational-"RxOmegaxOmega"-"force"-Area......THEN though there THEN  is the socalled "Coreolis-Force".....etc......or just etc of "The too established Dogmes-Physics"..........
though such seemingly "counter-OU"-Aspects have been realized about for several Y-Decades.......
still though: OU has NOT been "proven" to be "NOT-possible" "once-for-all-as-all-in-total "NO"......
.......==>>for there are still some un-discovered OU-Aspects hidden in Classical Mechanics.........<<==.....!

NO,I am NOT intending for to would DE-courage any Ideas about socalled Gravity-Caused-SELFRUNNERS/SELFLIFTERS...for many requested for interesting Discussions have been based on such Methods-Ideas as pointed-out in the Topic (Page 1)..........

FOR IF...FOR IF........some "Classical-Mechanics´s defined "Force" ELSE than THE GRAVITY might be applied and the Video-Sequence´s Moving Drawing be slightly modified , THEN there could be an OU-Acting.........!!

THANKS about this Ideas-Method as mentioned in the Topic (Page 1) about such suggested OU-Methods....also i.e. the "Caterpillar-belt" in liquids/air........also i.e. various suggested OU-Ideas-Methods of i.e. altering of Weight-to-Volume-Objects in Air/Liquids/Frozen<->Liquids<->Steams-Conditions-dynamically-acting-in-a-Gravity-Field,etc......
FOR ALTERNATIVE PHYSICS ARE NOT FOUNDED ON "too-established-Dogmes", though are
Forums of Creative Discussions of Novel Ideas and Theses , etc !

WKR & have Yourselves a nice Day ; thanks about Your All Participations in The Honourable Course of OU !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: AB Hammer on February 18, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
wizkycho, Gravitator, and all

 After long evaluation of this design. My findings are you would be better off taking out the piston. At least you would have better reaction for a short time, for what it is worth.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 04:11:13 PM
wizkycho, Gravitator, and all

 After long evaluation of this design. My findings are you would be better off taking out the piston. At least you would have better reaction for a short time, for what it is worth.

surely you understand why that won't work?  since the exhaust is higher than the source, the syphon won't work.  NO FLOW, NO MACHINE.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 04:42:40 PM
My brain might have some loose nuts but can someone explain to me what siphon action there is. Because my small brain can't find it. Wiz, I think you're past convincing people and have to try and build it yourself. For convenience sake you can only make a proof of concept. For ease sakes all you have to do is prove that the two actions to work separate. If they do then combined they can also work.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 18, 2009, 04:51:42 PM
Hi all !

new anim.(not perfect)

@tbird

You just refuse to admit that 1000t (tons) can float on water. There is no sifoning effect ?? Where do You see it ?
You forgot to enter in calculation that input pipe has much smaller diameter than cilinder ...why ?

principle and mathematics behind this is simple. it is see through

Weight(MP) is changing media in which it is.

In Air this weight has its maximum weight - say 1000Kg, in water is boyant and has less then 0Kg.

You now say that this change in weight can not produce pumping (sucking action).

It is obvious You mess up your calculus and messed it up big time...why ?

I haven't offended Hans so I don't have to appologise.


@ABhammer
You are using hammer in a wrong place


Wiz  InfinityPump runs in OverunityMode


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 04:53:50 PM
@ABHammer:
Your concept will not work.
Air will come in and kill it.
You need the weight and the valves.

@TBird,
I don´t understand your problem.

You can make the weight also 1000 kg
if it will still float ( have positive buoyancy force = will swimm)

This way you will have enough "sucking power" to suck
up all the water through V1 through the small pipe ( also helped via the external 1 bar air pressure
of the environment)
and push-press down the water beneath it.

@All,
the wite space surely can be air inside the cylinder as
long as no more air will come into the system after several cycles, the system
will work im my humble opinion and will pump water infinitely.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 05:00:13 PM
Hi Igor,
yes, this new animation should also work very good !

Brilliant, Well done !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 05:03:41 PM
hi all,

you make it sound like this heavy weight will float on the surface of the water.  it won't!  it will displace water (make a hole) and set inside (not sink).  to do this it needs to displace more water than it weights.  this much water has volume.  1 cubic inch weights .036127 lbs.  how many cubic inches will it take to weight the same  (really more) than your weight?  since the disk only has so much area, you have to gain the rest in depth.  any clearer now?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 18, 2009, 05:05:11 PM
P.S:. Igor,you can also use 2 x V2 valves at the bottom, so the air will come easier
into the lower water cylinder in your new animation.

You could also even open the hole lower cylinder plate until
the lower water has all flown out.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 05:33:50 PM

There is no sifoning effect ?? Where do You see it ?
You forgot to enter in calculation that input pipe has much smaller diameter than cilinder ...why ?


if there is no syphoning effect, how is the water moved from lower to higher?  you are doing the same thing as syphoning.  the difference is you have replaced the longer end of the hose which has more weight (water) which causes the transfer, with a lesser volume weight.  the force is still there to draw the water up.

input pipe can be any size diameter.  as long as you have enough weight to move 1 square unit, you can raise the column of all square units.  to compare, think of a syphon hose.  it is the same diameter for its total length.

i think everyone (like me long ago) thinks the large weight applies its force to the small tube.  it doesn't unless the tube is as large as the cylinder.  even then it is spread evenly over the total area of the disk.  that is why you have to figure the weight of a column (sq.in., cm2, etc.) not total tube.  if you have a disk surface area larger than the input tube area, the extra weight is applied to the top of the closed cylinder (not used by input tube).  after all, gravity's force is only down, not side ways.

i'm sure i have said things here that you can't believe.  that is why hans said to study.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ramset on February 18, 2009, 06:07:50 PM
Third

Siphon, no

 Mechanical suction yes[upside down bicycle pump]

If the big weight displaces more than the pick up tube

The weight will not stay up,and will suck [not siphon] water from the tank below

Chet
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: AB Hammer on February 18, 2009, 06:09:06 PM
Stefan, tbird, wizkycho, and all

 What I posted on « Reply #50 on: Today at 03:04:28 PM » of course will not work LOL. It was meant  to show a point. With a piston or without there are some of the same properties to deal with. Adding a piston inside is allot of extra friction and you are having to deal with vacuum, valving, and more. I just don't see a working device. At best I see the weight at the bottom and the valves open to to try to allow fluid in and it goes out and it goes nowhere. How are you going to control those valves with the reaction of the system to work in sequence?

Thus the reason I said.
After long evaluation of this design. My findings are you would be better off taking out the piston. At least you would have better reaction for a short time, for what it is worth.
A short time watching the water poor out till the drip stops.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 18, 2009, 06:23:06 PM
@tbird

I'see what you mean. but diameter of input pipe maters.

If pipe is smaller in diameter then it holds less weight of water per meter of altitude(height). Bigger pipe in diameter holds larger weight of water per meter of height. isn't it so ?

So in order to lift water column to 1m height you would need less energy (m*g*h) to do so if pipe is smaller in diameter cause weight of this 1m column of water is smaller. can we agree here ?

If this is not so then with say 100W of input energy you would be able to lift infinite weight of water at 1m height. and here we have a type of nonworkable overunity.

By the way.

Calculus and mathematics is nothing more then attempt of describing laws of physics,
Sometimes it is more egzact and sometimes just like artist painter tries to capture natures beauty - it is never that beautifull.
Physics is first.
After that proper mathematics (with right brushes and pallete colours) should be applied to describe what was obviously seen.
False Mathematics can allso be used to overpaint someones sight and to blind one and convince that what really is - isn't. hope you are not doing it.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 18, 2009, 06:41:07 PM
@ABhammer

yes, without piston (MP as heavy in air and allso ultra light in water object moveable ponton type part), water will eventually stop driping,
allso all of the cilinder's water and pipe water will end up in container below and water will overflow and
spill outside of animation boundaries.

that is why I draw a piston (MP as heavy in air and allso antigravity properties in water object, moveable ponton type part), see !

Wiz

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 18, 2009, 06:50:16 PM
@ABHammer:
Your concept will not work.
Air will come in and kill it.
You need the weight and the valves.

@TBird,
I don´t understand your problem.

You can make the weight also 1000 kg
if it will still float ( have positive buoyancy force = will swimm)

This way you will have enough "sucking power" to suck
up all the water through V1 through the small pipe ( also helped via the external 1 bar air pressure
of the environment)
and push-press down the water beneath it.

@All,
the wite space surely can be air inside the cylinder as
long as no more air will come into the system after several cycles, the system
will work im my humble opinion and will pump water infinitely.

Regards, Stefan.


Hi Stefan,
are you willing to spend some of the "overunity prize" in order to build it?
This is just my humble question if you are so confident with it.
The concept does not seem to be too hard to build by a professional craftsman.
.... At least as an imperfect proof of concept.

My contribution offer is to deliver professional blueprints and 3D drawings if it helps.
But as lazy as i am, i dont want to calculate dimensions.
So please put some numbers on it.

 8)

regards,
sushi


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 07:25:28 PM
@tbird

I'see what you mean. but diameter of input pipe maters.

If pipe is smaller in diameter then it holds less weight of water per meter of altitude(height). Bigger pipe in diameter holds larger weight of water per meter of height. isn't it so ?

So in order to lift water column to 1m height you would need less energy (m*g*h) to do so if pipe is smaller in diameter cause weight of this 1m column of water is smaller. can we agree here ?


Wiz

hi wiz,

you are right.  you don't have to have a disk 10 times the area (give or take) of the tube size. as long as the weight was just heavier than the water and not spread over a larger area, that's all you would have to have.  it would be like a rope over a pulley.  if more is on one side, it will fall off on the side the rope was longer.  gravity.

 but if you do have a disk 10 times the size, you will need 10 times the weight.   from here you could add more tubes of any size (as long as you didn't exceed the area of the disk and were the same length) without adding more weight.  what you effect is the flow rate in the pick up tubes.

the benefit of the bigger disk is more volume in shorter distance.

now we start to chase our tail.  this bigger disk now weights more, so it will require more water displacement to float.  see where i'm going?  i think you said now you understand what displacement really means.  very good!!

you caught me off guard with the 100w statement, so i won't address it until i get a better handle on your meaning.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 07:37:41 PM
Hi Stefan,
are you willing to spend some of the "overunity prize" in order to build it?

The competition has rules. It's indeed too bad stuff like this doesn't get sponsored by non profit organizations or something. The amount of free minds on here is astounding, give them the right tools and equipment and they will make amazing things.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 08:01:44 PM
Third

Siphon, no

 Mechanical suction yes[upside down bicycle pump]

If the big weight displaces more than the pick up tube

The weight will not stay up,and will suck [not siphon] water from the tank below

Chet

hi chet,

i can see where one may not think they are the same.  one thing different in your example is the tire pump uses air (gas) and the syphon is used with liquid.

to help farther, using a liquid suction pump, how high can you suck water before the pump doesn't work and why?  answer, about 10 meters.  after that the tension on the water is too great and it breaks, so to speak.  some have said the pressure decreases to the point it boils.  either way you end up with cavitation.

now if we put our syphon hose in a bucket with water level at 2 feet and start the syphon to a bucket on the ground, no problem.  but if we extend the loop from the bucket's edge to 10+ meters, what happens?  that's right, it stops due to this same cavitation.

so no matter if you call it suction or syphon, the effect is the same.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 18, 2009, 08:02:12 PM
@tbird

displacement...
1dm3 (that is weight of 1kg of water (in air))

100dm3 is 100Kg of water
100dm3 is 1130 Kg of Lead
100dm3 is 0.1293Kg of air

100dm3 is Volume of displacement. it is same , but we should more concentrate on density of material. every material or combination of them that has lower density
then factor 1 (water at 4 deg.) will go to surface of water cause it weighs less then same ammount of displaced water. If material's density factor is higher then 1 then
that object goes to bottom gravity prevails over boyancy (this never happens in infinity pump.)

Air in combination with lead inside container gives us wide range of factors that can be used 0.001293 to 1  (say 1 - 1000) to make our MP heavier then air And lighter than water And MP overall heavier(weight in air) then complete weight of water in input pipe...to make enough preassure to start suction...

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 18, 2009, 08:18:11 PM
@tbird

I'see what you mean. but diameter of input pipe maters.

If pipe is smaller in diameter then it holds less weight of water per meter of altitude(height). Bigger pipe in diameter holds larger weight of water per meter of height. isn't it so ?

So in order to lift water column to 1m height you would need less energy (m*g*h) to do so if pipe is smaller in diameter cause weight of this 1m column of water is smaller. can we agree here ?

If this is not so then with say 100W of input energy you would be able to lift infinite weight of water at 1m height. and here we have a type of nonworkable overunity.

By the way.

Calculus and mathematics is nothing more then attempt of describing laws of physics,
Sometimes it is more egzact and sometimes just like artist painter tries to capture natures beauty - it is never that beautifull.
Physics is first.
After that proper mathematics (with right brushes and pallete colours) should be applied to describe what was obviously seen.
False Mathematics can allso be used to overpaint someones sight and to blind one and convince that what really is - isn't. hope you are not doing it.

Wiz

What you are saying is incorrect.

In a hydraulic or hydrostatic system the only thing that matters is PRESSURE.

The pressure of a water column is determined by the column height. Therefore the pressure at the bottom of a pipe with a diameter of 1 meter is exactly the same as the pressure at the bottom on a pipe with a diameter of 1 centimeter.

The weight of the larger diameter water column is much higher, but it is spread over a larger area.

You should read up on hydrostatic paradox, that will tell you why your device cannot work.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 08:19:03 PM
@tbird

displacement...
1dm3 (that is weight of 1kg of water (in air))

100dm3 is 100Kg of water
100dm3 is 1130 Kg of Lead
100dm3 is 0.1293Kg of air

100dm3 is Volume of displacement. it is same , but we should more concentrate on density of material. every material or combination of them that has lower density
then factor 1 (water at 4 deg.) will go to surface of water cause it weighs less then same ammount of displaced water. If material's density factor is higher then 1 then
that object goes to bottom gravity prevails over boyancy (this never happens in infinity pump.)

Air in combination with lead inside container gives us wide range of factors that can be used 0.001293 to 1  (say 1 - 1000) to make our MP heavier then air And lighter than water And MP overall heavier(weight in air) then complete weight of water in input pipe...to make enough preassure to start suction...

Wiz

i think i understand what your post is saying.  if i am right, to know how much air/lead you need for the transfer from supply water, we need to know how high the pickup tube is (from water level).  this gives us head pressure to overcome.

as long as you are at it, what are the other sizes, cylinder height and disk surface area?

tom

ps   don't you mean cm3 instead of dm3?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 08:46:19 PM

hi stefan,

your comment

"This way you will have enough "sucking power" to suck
up all the water through V1 through the small pipe ( also helped via the external 1 bar air pressure
of the environment and push-press down the water beneath it."

is not all true.  the air pressure you refer to is on both sides of the water via "swimmer" (in your words).  if it were not, your swimmer would be in water and swim.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tsl on February 18, 2009, 08:53:45 PM
@tbird

It seems to me that you're the only one that have paid some attention in physics class.

@Stefan

cmon man, you're a engineer, have you forgot all about hydraulics??
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 18, 2009, 09:00:54 PM
@tbird

It seems to me that you're the only one that have paid some attention in physics class.

@Stefan

cmon man, you're a engineer, have you forgot all about hydraulics??

thank you for saying so, but i never had the class.  i did have some training (40+ years ago) in the air force.

awhile back stefan and i had a bit of a disagreement, but it was me on the wrong side then.  stefan do you remember E.L.S.A.?  i'm still sorry for the comments i made then.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Did you ignorant people perhaps forget how these hydraulics formulation came to exist? That's right...EXPERIMENTATION. I'm even 100% sure that almost anyone who thinks this doesn't work because their physics books tell them so has never made an experiment based on hydraulics. But that's alright noone expects you to do so, sit there in your comfy couch until the world passes by and you stay behind like a little lamb. Ofcourse you also have people that don't care about right ot wrong but have their own debunk-everything-that-gets-posted agenda going on.

Like I said before, this thread doesn't not to have go on anymore. The concept is lead out, experiment should follow.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tsl on February 18, 2009, 09:16:37 PM
Did you ignorant people perhaps forget how these hydraulics formulation came to exist? That's right...EXPERIMENTATION. I'm even 100% sure that almost anyone who thinks this doesn't work because their physics books tell them so has never made an experiment based on hydraulics. But that's alright noone expects you to do so, sit there in your comfy couch until the world passes by and you stay behind like a little lamb. Ofcourse you also have people that don't care about right ot wrong but have their own debunk-everything-that-gets-posted agenda going on.

Like I said before, this thread doesn't not to have go on anymore. The concept is lead out, experiment should follow.
It would be much wiser to think that some others may really be in the area they are talking about ....
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 18, 2009, 09:18:49 PM
Broli, I've done a few hydraulic experiments in my time. And I've pointed this forum to analyses that explain exactly why these devices cannot work. Nobody has refuted the analyses. Nobody has constructed one of these devices that works, even though they are pretty simple. Everybody who has done an experiment in these directions discovers that they were mistaken.
The unescapable conclusion is that these devices cannot work and the people who think they can, are mistaken, and the people who reject conventional explanations of why they cannot work, like you, without providing actual refutations, are just flaming.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 18, 2009, 09:30:42 PM
Well said TK,

I am a mechanical engineer with over 40 years in the field. During my career I have moved liquids in any which way with dozens of different devices. Ever since I studied the subject I have not seen one instance where actual observation and field data varied from the textbooks.

I don't know of any engineer either who has observed variance from the textbook explanations.

Engineers are not bound by the rules of academia and by having to defend everything textbooks say, engineers use what works, textbooks are only a guide to us.

However the rules of nature cannot be overruled by fancy postulates or wishful thinking. In the case of hydraulics the textbooks describe exceedingly well what nature presents us with. Study them.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 18, 2009, 09:36:54 PM
Hi Stefan,
are you willing to spend some of the "overunity prize" in order to build it?
This is just my humble question if you are so confident with it.
The concept does not seem to be too hard to build by a professional craftsman.
.... At least as an imperfect proof of concept.

My contribution offer is to deliver professional blueprints and 3D drawings if it helps.
But as lazy as i am, i dont want to calculate dimensions.
So please put some numbers on it.

 8)

regards,
sushi

PS. At this point, I get tired beetwen all the "Religion" and "Science" here.
Lots of people simply dont see the "open Valve" text and just steering at the pixel of always closed valves.
At least, a better animation should take place.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 18, 2009, 10:21:07 PM
Tk,Hans...It can take a toddler to point out something that you would not have noticed in 1.000 years.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 18, 2009, 11:00:25 PM
Not in something as fundamental as this in science. For over 2000 years the best engineers and scientists have researched hydraulics. There is no chance they would have overlooked something as simple as this.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 19, 2009, 12:12:46 AM
Tk,Hans...It can take a toddler to point out something that you would not have noticed in 1.000 years.

How is this device fundamentally different from the Sinclair Siphon, and what is wrong with the analysis given here? Please be specific, and I don't mind if you have a toddler do it. JUST DO IT.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#sinclair
Give some experimental data that supports the contention. Point out exactly where the flaws are in Simanek's analysis of self-driving pumps like this one, and buoyancy devices in general.
And we won't even mention that fundamental physical laws, which have NEVER been shown to be wrong, prohibit the functioning of these devices. Will we. Because that toddler probably hasn't thought that far ahead, yet.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: broli on February 19, 2009, 12:18:50 AM
TK. I will not waste any more time or breath on your closed mind. The fact you approach everything skeptically shows you do not belong on this forum. "I did X and found Y instead of Z...thus I declare Z impossible". No it just means that's as far as you're willing to take it. If you can't do it leave it to someone else, but by all means stop the crap spreading of your own limitation. We're not here to fight over how we can embarrass physicist with their theories although they will leave no chance to ridicule us. We or me are/am here for the purpose of free abundant energy for the whole world.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Bulbz on February 19, 2009, 03:21:43 AM
This thread has given me ideas... So I just had to pimp it  ;D

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6859.new#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6859.new#new)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: infringer on February 19, 2009, 03:55:58 AM
The problem is water does not just suck up a tube by itself there is a point of equal to get past water will not just keep getting sucked up...

This is where the problem lies I think.

Defeat the point of equal and you have a winner...
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ResinRat2 on February 19, 2009, 04:03:11 AM
This thread has given me ideas... So I just had to pimp it  ;D

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6859.new#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6859.new#new)

I love it!

PIMP MY PUMP, BABY! --- YEAH!!!

LOL!!!  --  ROFL!!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 08:07:13 AM
hi stefan,

your comment

"This way you will have enough "sucking power" to suck
up all the water through V1 through the small pipe ( also helped via the external 1 bar air pressure
of the environment and push-press down the water beneath it."

is not all true.  the air pressure you refer to is on both sides of the water via "swimmer" (in your words).  if it were not, your swimmer would be in water and swim.

tom

Tom,
the 100 Kg or 1000 Kg ( or whatever weight it needs) swimmer is only swimming, when both upper and lower valves are closed and V3 valve is opened.
Then there is no external air pressure happening inside the water cylinder.

If you open up the whole lower cylinder case bottom, sure all the water will just splah out,
so just imagine V2 being much bigger in diameter.
Then the whole weight has no force up anymore ( No more swimming) and pulls down
with all its weights (100 Kg or 1000 Kg ( or whatever weight it needs))
the upper water above it.

I still see no real calculations from the skeptics to show that it does not work...



Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 08:12:44 AM
How is this device fundamentally different from the Sinclair Siphon, and what is wrong with the analysis given here? Please be specific, and I don't mind if you have a toddler do it. JUST DO IT.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#sinclair
Give some experimental data that supports the contention. Point out exactly where the flaws are in Simanek's analysis of self-driving pumps like this one, and buoyancy devices in general.
And we won't even mention that fundamental physical laws, which have NEVER been shown to be wrong, prohibit the functioning of these devices. Will we. Because that toddler probably hasn't thought that far ahead, yet.

This is quite different, as this is only a siphon with different heights and the Sinclair Siphon can not work.

But it is a totally different principle than the Knitel pump.

So please all skeptics let us know your calculations why the Knitel pump can not work
and please don´t try to explain it with other devices...
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 08:15:42 AM
Not in something as fundamental as this in science. For over 2000 years the best engineers and scientists have researched hydraulics. There is no chance they would have overlooked something as simple as this.

Hans von Lieven

Hans, I am  still missing your calculation, why you think it will not work ?

Maybe we should now put some numers to it and calculate it on an expample ?

So with what size should we start ?

Just lets have some numbers please...

P.S: Before I will put any money into this, I really want to see some calculations pleeeeeeease.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 19, 2009, 08:43:50 AM
OK Stefan,

I will try to do just that. Give me a day or so, because I will have to teach the fundamentals of fluid mechanics to a group of people who evidently don't understand the first thing about it. I will start with the hydrostatic paradox and then lead into the specific case here and prove why it cannot work.

I'll start finishing the drawings now.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 09:03:08 AM
Okay, I just looked it up again,
had to refresh my memory:

With 1 bar normal air pressure you can lift water 10 Meters up.
So in our case when the 100 Kg swimmer weight is at the top of the cylinder,
the right pipe can be maximum 10 Meters above the lower bassin water level.m
So we have 10 Meters to play with the height parameters.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on February 19, 2009, 09:12:19 AM
Hi everyone


I think we could use this to pump that thing


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 19, 2009, 09:41:45 AM
Okay, I just looked it up again,
had to refresh my memory:

With 1 bar normal air pressure you can lift water 10 Meters up.
So in our case when the 100 Kg swimmer weight is at the top of the cylinder,
the right pipe can be maximum 10 Meters above the lower bassin water level.m
So we have 10 Meters to play with the height parameters.

Correct Stefan, but in order to move the water column you have to exert a downward pressure greater than 1 kg/cm2 which is heavier than the water column. So how are you going to get it back up again?

Forget about the 100 kg, this is meaningless only kg/cm2 is important.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 09:54:36 AM
Hi all !

this site is completely bad physics and calculus and it is not refreshed as new proofs comes in or
site claims that one setup can be reduced to something simmilar...well only sometimes.

I saw a film where boyant principle is made practical and works in its every part - has only technicall difficulties in quality sealing. this is greatly solved in InfinityPump

this works and it is prooven experimentaly:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy4

they even claim half truts, that these perpetuummobiles when set in motion are gaining speed (indefinetly ??) forgotting to say ...gaining speed till energy gain equalizes with counter
energy(loss) of friction.

in that film eggolike objects lighter then water climbs in water column with diameter allmost same as floted object. (This means that V3 (on MP) doesn't have to be wide - small easy operable vent is sufficient and  MP can go all the way to the bottom and then still be able to be displaced with heavier water).
when it comes to surface it drops (through air) back into water and back to climb up cilinder.
think is a china guy who made an experiment.
can someone find that link...the climb up cilinder and whole setup is 2 or 3 m high

so that unworkable site should really UPDATE it's false calculus and just "wannabe" nonworkable principle. Experiment is significantly first then mathematics must comply.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 11:29:00 AM
yep, the museum must be updated.
... Or renamed to "Museum of  Incredible Devices"

They describe the "Capillary wheels" as non working.
But look at the left sidebar of OU.com.
There is an "Incredible Water Motor".

Huhh.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
hi stefan,

i can not believe you missed my numbers twice (reply 7 & 47).  did you really read them?  and you still say there are no numbers?  what more do you want?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 01:35:50 PM
Hi all !

anim_3 (the best anim so far)

@tbird

see in picture called WeAreMany. Input pipe stays the same diameter - but there are now four weights in air (can be 100),
therefore pump action must happen and if it does it is faster . the weigths are going down same speed.
but now One weight can be lighter and smaller so bouyancy action will be faster.

weights are "suspended" in air

this is obvious
to Hans and Tbird this is "Check Mate"="Sucction Must Happen"

so Welcome to Brave New Overunity World

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 01:37:14 PM
Hi Guys,
I worked the last few hours to "pimp" the pump from Igor and added another Valve V4,
so here is my best design so far that should really work.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 01:38:43 PM
And here the slow version,
step by step where you can see exactly how it works.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 01:58:52 PM
stefan,

again i see you have avoided me.  have you read my post with the numbers yet?  even if you think i am full of s**t, please acknowledge.  what more do you want?

if i should rewrite my post, i will.  if you give me your sizes for the parts you use, i'll reference them.

as you know from my position in the E.L.S.A. thread, i am not a naysayer.  i am the first to be happy if something works.  this one just can not the way it is given.

TALK TO ME!!

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 02:00:47 PM
Hi all !

anim_3 (the best anim so far)

@tbird

see in picture called WeAreMany. Input pipe stays the same diameter - but there are now four weights in air (can be 100),
therefore pump action must happen and if it does it is faster . the weigths are going down same speed.
but now One weight can be lighter and smaller so bouyancy action will be faster.

weights are "suspended" in air

this is obvious
to Hans and Tbird this is "Check Mate"="Sucction Must Happen"

so Welcome to Brave New Overunity World

Wiz

hi wiz,

where are your numbers too?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 02:17:08 PM
stefan,

again i see you have avoided me.  have you read my post with the numbers yet?  even if you think i am full of s**t, please acknowledge.  what more do you want?

if i should rewrite my post, i will.  if you give me your sizes for the parts you use, i'll reference them.

as you know from my position in the E.L.S.A. thread, i am not a naysayer.  i am the first to be happy if something works.  this one just can not the way it is given.

TALK TO ME!!

tom

Okay, Tom,
so let´s calculate,
what if the height is 5 Meters from the lower water surface to the top of the pipe ?
The pipe will be 1 cm in diameter.
So how much does the water weight in it ?

This is the only weight the 100 Kg weight must overcome.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 02:25:49 PM
Okay, Tom,
so let´s calculate,
what if the height is 5 Meters from the lower water surafce to the top of the pipe ?
The pipe will be 1 cm^2 in diameter.
So how much does the water weight in it ?

This is the only weight the 100 Kg weight must overcome.


ok, but we still need to know the area of your swimmer.  let's use a square so calcs will be easier to see.  in use, round would probably be easier to seal.

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 02:27:32 PM
Hey,

Why not adding a spring to store some of the gravitational energy
in order to support the buoyancy - upward motion?

best, sushi


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 02:39:36 PM
hi wiz,

where are your numbers too?

tom

my numbers are from -infinity to +infinity and that is range in which this device works.
You haven't given any real numbers or equations because, according to what you tried to explain pumping in any existing todays device is impossible.
You gave false numbers without diaemters, without density, without volumes.

...please can you comment my last animation and picture with Many weights cause I commented your numbers allready three times...
I made this last picture cause you claim that weight and no matter of its ammount "suspended" in air can not make underpreassure and make water go up.
Allso with Your numbers you claimed that diameter of input pipe doesn't matter.
We eventually agreed that diameter counts...so I lefted diameter constant and added 3 more weights and they can now be 3 times lighter (boyancy per each easier) and still be as whole heavier then initiall one and therefore more destin to be able to pump. do you really need drawing with 100 infinitypumps to see wide range in which this works.
would be nice if you would take one picture and make some arrow on it to point where exactly do you see problem in operation.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
ok, but we still need to know the area of your swimmer.  let's use a square so calcs will be easier to see.  in use, round would probably be easier to seal.



Why ?

Okay, the right 1 cm diameter  pipe has about 15.7 Liters of water in it.
From Volume= Pi x r^2 x 5 Meter height= 15.7 Liters= 15.7 Kg.

So the weight must only be heavier than 15.7 Kg to suck up the water through the
pipe...
Or do you calculate somehow with the hydrostatic paradoxon ?

I guess this does not apply here.

Did you see my lastest 2 animations ?
There is no water beneath the 100 Kg weight, so it weights just 100 Kg and
this can fully overcome the 15.7 Kg weight of the 5 Meter high 1cm diameter water pipe at the right side.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 02:43:09 PM
stefan,

again i see you have avoided me.  have you read my post with the numbers yet?  even if you think i am full of s**t, please acknowledge.  what more do you want?
if i should rewrite my post, i will.  if you give me your sizes for the parts you use, i'll reference them.

as you know from my position in the E.L.S.A. thread, i am not a naysayer.  i am the first to be happy if something works.  this one just can not the way it is given.

TALK TO ME!!

tom

Hi Tom,
I already asked all these question one week ago (Friday 13th:).
Since then, i have not seen any serious calculations from Archimedes.

In the original Thread, were the original Idea came from Gravitator.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6660.30

Now, suddenly its "Knitel's pump" and this is the best place to get ignored by egocentric people.

Never mind, a good thing has been born and that is what counts.

best,
sushi

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 03:31:20 PM
Hi Tom,
I already asked all these question one week ago (Friday 13th:).
Since then, i have not seen any serious calculations from Archimedes.

In the original Thread, were the original Idea came from Gravitator.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6660.30

Now, suddenly its "Knitel's pump" and this is the best place to get ignored by egocentric people.

Never mind, a good thing has been born and that is what counts.

best,
sushi

@all

Every now and then I gave bouyancy a tought as the mechanism that can do "it"...(haven't we all)  I allways stumboled on completing circle. Gravitrons idea has nothing to do with bouyancy and that is 60 to 70% of (50% path and 10% to 20% of defining properties of weight)..InfinityPump. So please call it Knitel's InfinityPump cause I made it as whole possible or call it Knitel-Gravitron's InfinityPump or Archimedes InfinityPump cause he is the guy that made it start in a first place.
Without Gravitron threre would be no sucction part... I added weight's lighter then water properties and let it do it's bouayncy and closed the circle...from this point of view anyone could have done it...(well except Tom and Hans)
but indeed I done it...and I still can not believe it is afterall that plain.

So it is called Knitel's InfinityPump...because 60%-70% and closing the loop is done by that fabulous, wonderfull, brilliant, careing, goodlooking, civilized, magicall, explorer, brain stormer, extraordinary mind, protector of weak, justfull, leader, strong carrisma,with prodigy, dexterity, agility,...what to say then perfect...

the very same Knitel Igor

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 03:34:20 PM
hi wiz,

Quote
my numbers are from -infinity to +infinity and that is range in which this device works

i understand this, but we first have to show 1 size working so it can be scaled from there.

Quote
You haven't given any real numbers or equations because, according to what you tried to explain pumping in any existing todays device is impossible.
You gave false numbers without diaemters, without density, without volumes

not true.  my post was full of numbers.  it's not that i think it can not pump using the weights, it's because if you have the weight volume large enough to float, there will not be any room left for a stroke (up & down).


Quote
]...please can you comment my last animation and picture with Many weights cause I commented your numbers allready three times...[/

if we make it work, that will be a clever way to scale it up.

Quote
I made this last picture cause you claim that weight and no matter of its ammount "suspended" in air can not make underpreassure and make water go up.

not true.  this can pump/syphon water as long as it has room to travel (stroke).


Quote
Allso with Your numbers you claimed that diameter of input pipe doesn't matter.
We eventually agreed that diameter counts...

you still seem to be confused here.  if the cylinder/piston diameter is the same size as the input tube diameter, then the weight of the piston/weight only has to be a little heavier than the weight of the water in the tube.  if you increase the area (diameter) of the cylinder/piston and leave the tube the same, then you have to add weight to the piston/weight.  for every square unit you add, you have to add the amount equal to the square unit of the tube.  from there you can increase the tube diameter (up to the cylinder/piston diameter) without adding more weight to the piston/weight.

Quote
so I lefted diameter constant and added 3 more weights and they can now be 3 times lighter (boyancy per each easier) and still be as whole heavier then initiall one and therefore more destin to be able to pump.

this is just scaling up.  but all parts of the added units have to use the same relationships as the first.  these extra assy don't change the over all design other than create more output.
just like when you add cylinders/pistons to you internal combustion engines.  these extra units don't effect the principle of the internal combustion engine.  one is enough to show how it works.

Quote
would be nice if you would take one picture and make some arrow on it to point where exactly do you see problem in operation.[/b

the problem that i point to is the fact the piston/weight has to displace so much water for its given size, it leaves no room for a stroke.  if it can't move, it can't work.


thanks for your patience and allowing me the chance to explain.

i'll be working on a "numbers" page for stefan.  maybe when posted, you will see the detail i'm trying to get across.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 04:00:42 PM
hi stefan,

i think i found where you are going wrong.

Quote
So the weight must only be heavier than 15.7 Kg to suck up the water through the
pipe...


this is not a 100% true.  from your first set of givens, you said the tube would have 1 cm2 (not 1 cm diameter).  so for your above statement to be true, the swimmer can not exceed 6.369 cm2.  did that turn on a light?

the 100kg isn't applied to just the 1 cm2 of the tube unless the swimmer is only 1 cm2.  it is divided over the intire area evenly.  so if you have a 100 cm2 swimmer, your weight would have to be 100 x 15.7kg (tube area 1 cm2) = 1570 kg.  much more volume (and mass) than 100kg.

i'm sure you want to tell me i'm wrong here and i don't need to go on so i will stop.  but this point is what hans was trying to get you to learn by studying.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: PhiScience on February 19, 2009, 04:27:18 PM
Hi,

When working with hydraulics you must use the correct formulas to base your answers on.
 
5 meter of head = 0.499 871 996 66 kilogram-force/square centimeter.

This may help  http://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm (http://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm)

Wayne
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 04:35:07 PM
@all

<SNIP>

So it is called Knitel's InfinityPump...because 60%-70% and closing the loop is done by that fabulous, wonderfull, brilliant, careing, goodlooking, civilized, magicall, explorer, brain stormer, extraordinary mind, protector of weak, justfull, leader, strong carrisma,with prodigy, dexterity, agility,...what to say then perfect...

the very same Knitel Igor

Wiz

Okay Wiz,
Whatever, However.

I love it. And I love you too, if you want. ;D

....And what do you think about of adding a spring to store some of the gravitational energy
in order to support the buoyancy - upward motion?

best,
sushi
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 04:36:09 PM
Hi,

When working with hydraulics you must use the correct formulas to base your answers on.
 
5 meter of head = 0.499 871 996 66 kilogram-force/square centimeter.

This may help  http://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm (http://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm)

Wayne

i knew i should have checked his work, considering 1 cm3 weights only 1 gram. in 5 meters you have 500 cm3, so 500 x 1 = 500 grams.  pretty close numbers.  thanks for the correction.

stefan, as you can imagine, this will change the values, but the principle still is the same.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: xnonix on February 19, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
hi stefan,

i think i found where you are going wrong.


this is not a 100% true.  from your first set of givens, you said the tube would have 1 cm2 (not 1 cm diameter).  so for your above statement to be true, the swimmer can not exceed 6.369 cm2.  did that turn on a light?

the 100kg isn't applied to just the 1 cm2 of the tube unless the swimmer is only 1 cm2.  it is divided over the intire area evenly.  so if you have a 100 cm2 swimmer, your weight would have to be 100 x 15.7kg (tube area 1 cm2) = 1570 kg.  much more volume (and mass) than 100kg.

i'm sure you want to tell me i'm wrong here and i don't need to go on so i will stop.  but this point is what hans was trying to get you to learn by studying.

tom




Hi all, nice thread...

Then tbird,

are you saying that if you put the 5 meters tube coming from ocean you need a weight in the other side equivalent to the ocean's weigth for sucking the water?

Just trying to understand the 2 versions.

Thx,

xnonix
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
hi stefan,

i think i found where you are going wrong.


this is not a 100% true.  from your first set of givens, you said the tube would have 1 cm2 (not 1 cm diameter).  so for your above statement to be true, the swimmer can not exceed 6.369 cm2.  did that turn on a light?

the 100kg isn't applied to just the 1 cm2 of the tube unless the swimmer is only 1 cm2.  it is divided over the intire area evenly.  so if you have a 100 cm2 swimmer, your weight would have to be 100 x 15.7kg (tube area 1 cm2) = 1570 kg.  much more volume (and mass) than 100kg.

i'm sure you want to tell me i'm wrong here and i don't need to go on so i will stop.  but this point is what hans was trying to get you to learn by studying.

tom


Sorry, I meant the tube to have a 1 cm diameter.

So the height of 5Meter will have 15.7 kg of water in it.
As the air pressure is pressing on the water surface,
it is just as a syringe, which needs to pull 15.7 Liters of water up 5 Meters
high.
So you need to overcome 15.7 Kg of weight....

Tom do you mean, the dimensions of the 100 kg swimmer body play any role
in it ?  because the 1 cm diameter pipe is changed into a bigger cylinder
at the top at the V1 valve ?

Okay, than make the swimmer weight body 2000 Kg, where is the problem ?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 04:51:18 PM


Hi all, nice thread...

Then tbird,

are you saying that if you put the 5 meters tube coming from ocean you need a weight in the other side equivalent to the ocean's weigth for sucking the water?

Just trying to understand the 2 versions.

Thx,

xnonix


hi xnonix,

i think most of the water weights are using fresh water, so if you use sea water, the weights will have to be a little heavier.  you don't need the weight of the sea, just a little more than in the tube per square unit of area of tube diameter.  did i say that well enough?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 19, 2009, 05:14:26 PM
Okay, Tom,
now I see, what you mean, if we compare it with a syringe,
sucking up water,
we have to calculate in the diameter ratios of the "syringe rod" versus the needle diameter,
so in our example
the ratios of the diameter of the main big cylinder versus the right 1 cm diameter tube.

So the pressure ratios are behaving like a lever ratio,
where the
diameter tube 1 / diameter tube 2 = watermass1 / watermass 2

So if we have watermass 1 = 15.7 Kg  and diameter tube 1 = 1 cm
and diameter of tube 2= 100 cm we get for watermass 2= 1570 Kg.

Okay, so we need more than 1570 Kg to suck the 15.7 Kg in the small
tube up.

Now the question is, if we make the weight 2000 kg,
if we can make it in such a volume, that it will
still have a boyuant force up, when it is at the bottom
of the main cylinder and valve V3 opens ?


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 05:19:02 PM
Sorry, I meant the tube to have a 1 cm diameter.

So the height of 5Meter will have 15.7 kg of water in it.
As the air pressure is pressing on the water surface,
it is just as a syringe, which needs to pull 15.7 Liters of water up 5 Meters
high.
So you need to overcome 15.7 Kg of weight....

Tom do you mean, the dimensions of the 100 kg swimmer body play any role
in it ?  because the 1 cm diameter pipe is changed into a bigger cylinder
at the top at the V1 valve ?

Okay, than make the swimmer weight body 2000 Kg, where is the problem ?

hi stefan,

the tube can not have that much weight in it.  volume of a cylinder is pie (3.14) times radius squared (1cm) times height (500cm).  so we have 3.14 x 1 x 500 = 1570 cm3  1 cm3 of water weights 1 gram so we have 1570 grams.  isn't that 1.57 kg?

air pressure has no place in these calcs, except to the degree the valve (like your thumb over the end of a straw) at the top prevents the water from flexing its weight and falling back into the supply.  let's not get distracted yet.

i see you just posted again.  i'll pass this along and then address the other.

tom

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: xnonix on February 19, 2009, 05:39:09 PM
Someone wants to make the model in this software? Its free lincensing. As I am computer engineer I need to see the system working to believe it.

http://www.filebuzz.com/fileinfo/17608/20sim_Viewer.html

xnonix
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 05:55:45 PM
Okay, Tom,
now I see, what you mean, if we compare it with a syringe,
sucking up water,
we have to calculate in the diameter ratios of the "syringe rod" versus the needle diameter,
so in our example
the ratios of the diameter of the main big cylinder versus the right 1 cm diameter tube.

So the pressure ratios are behaving like a lever ratio,
where the
diameter tube 1 / diameter tube 2 = watermass1 / watermass 2

So if we have watermass 1 = 15.7 Kg  and diameter tube 1 = 1 cm
and diameter of tube 2= 100 cm we get for watermass 2= 1570 Kg.

Okay, so we need more than 1570 Kg to suck the 15.7 Kg in the small
tube up.

Now the question is, if we make the weight 2000 kg,
if we can make it in such a volume, that it will
still have a boyuant force up, when it is at the bottom
of the main cylinder and valve V3 opens ?




hi stefan,

not sure if what you said is true here, but if we get to the same place for the same basic reason, good!

the volume to make it float is where the problem lies.  by the time it is big enough, there is no more room to travel.

in your other post, you asked about shape.  can you now see it has to increase to DISPLACE more water weight than it weights itself?  it doesn't matter if it is long and skinny or short and fat.  it still needs to DISPLACE 2000 kg (last size suggested) of water.  how big is that?  how much water is that?

are we getting a handle now?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 05:57:53 PM
Someone wants to make the model in this software? Its free lincensing. As I am computer engineer I need to see the system working to believe it.

http://www.filebuzz.com/fileinfo/17608/20sim_Viewer.html

xnonix

It is restrictet.
You can not save your work in the freeware-version.

 :(
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: PhiScience on February 19, 2009, 06:23:17 PM
Hi friends,

I will do some physical experimenting on this to fill in the missing lines below and find the true answer.

Problem:
Can a buoyant weight pull enough water to the top of a cylinder to re-displace it self?

Hypotheses:
Based on the principles of hydraulic and hydrostatic pressure this cannot be achieved.
Or can it?

Materials:
The materials needed to conduct this experiment are still to be determined.

Procedure:
The procedures of conducting this experiment are still to be determined.

Results:
No data has been collected yet.

Conclusion:
?
   
Wayne
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 08:13:41 PM
hi stefan,

just for kicks, i did some calcs with your numbers.  since your weight in the tube was off by 10 x, i used 200kg instead of 2000kg.  let's see where this takes us.  since metric is foregin to me, i won't be surprised if i make a mistake.  let me know.

5 meters intake tube with 1 cm diameter.
    area of diameter = 1 squared times 3.14 (pie) =3.14 cm2
    weight of water per cm2 = .5kg

swimmer weights 200kg with radius of 11 cm.
   area of swimmer = 3.14 times 11 squared = 379.94 cm2
   weight per cm2 = .52639    since this is more than is in the tube, we can raise the water.

volume needed to float 200kg swimmer; since 1 cm3 of water weights 1 gram, for 200kg of water,
   we need a volume of 200,000 cm3
   200,000 divided by 379.94 cm2 = height (or depth) in cm
   height = 526 cm  or 5.26 meters

not pretty.

we can try other numbers, but i'm sure the results will be the same.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 08:37:32 PM
Hi all !

1cm2 is surface of water quadratic pipe
100cm2 is surface of quadratic destination container

total weight of water in pipe is 1cm3=1g   times 500cm = 500g
height of pipe is 5m

tbirds claim, if I got it right, that pressure in quadratic pipe is 500g per 1cm2 and that negative preassure is multiplied 100 times cause quadratic surface is 100 times bigger.
so it would be 50000g or 50Kg per 100cm2

I'm going to "attack it" from above
Ep=W*h (W is weight in Kg)

floater-swimmer will have to move 5cm i order to pump up 500cm3
so it did 50Kg*0.05m = 2.5W of work
with this we actually lifted 500g to 5m
and this is 0.5kg * 5m =2.5W

now this says you are right

10cm height in container makes 1000cm3 and is 1kg of displaced water or
88.5cm3 of lead for 1kg (density of lead is 11.3) or
0.885cm of height in container for 1kg of lead so
0.885cm * 60 to have 60Kg for certain start of suction

that makes 53.1cm of height
then I add another 53.1cm of air

container is now 106.2 cm in height and displaces only 10.6Kg

and height of floater is allready over 1m


it dosn't float *************

buhuuuuuuuu my star exploded (but only if you are right)

let's make another one

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: xnonix on February 19, 2009, 08:40:00 PM
Clear enough tbird ;)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 08:54:45 PM
All!

still must admitt I'm still puting in perspective
that even 40Kg is not enough to lift that 0.5kg of water.
that still seems impossible to me.

must make experiment

this is 3D Force times lever width. What a magicall fluid we drink

Wiz !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 19, 2009, 08:55:34 PM
hi wiz,

not 100% sure of what you said, but it sounds like you agree.

i'm ready for the next.  what did you have in mind?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 09:43:25 PM
hi wiz,

not 100% sure of what you said, but it sounds like you agree.

i'm ready for the next.  what did you have in mind?

tom

to proceed

wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 19, 2009, 09:44:41 PM
The magic 100 kg. weigh is heavy enough to lift the same water it floats in.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 19, 2009, 09:54:45 PM
I suggest this test.
Get yourself a balance, put 100 kg on one side and 1 kg on the other.
Watch what happens.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 10:28:58 PM
Hi all !

any idea on how to make this negative preassure for suction smaller...elastic fluid, differently shaped entrance from input pipe
by introducing helium or vacuum to make it able to float with smaller volume...

@tbird
any suggestions, has someone solved it.

pump action part must be made plane...although without seeing actual experiment still can not believe that this preassure just multiplies
and takes over 50kg to start pump action from tube that contains 0.5kg. are there more details on this...

have no time for this exp. we would need obvious method

thx
it was and is interesting

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 19, 2009, 11:00:43 PM
<SNIP>
So it is called Knitel's InfinityPump...because 60%-70% and closing the loop is done by that fabulous, wonderfull, brilliant, careing, goodlooking, civilized, magicall, explorer, brain stormer, extraordinary mind, protector of weak, justfull, leader, strong carrisma,with prodigy, dexterity, agility,...what to say then perfect...

the very same Knitel Igor

Wiz

Come on Wiz,
As I mentioned before; I love this.... learning curve.
And you for always bringing in such brain-jogging.

 ;D

Thought about Capilar tubes?
A Tree does not need any pump to lift its water
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 19, 2009, 11:05:29 PM
any idea on how to make this negative preassure for suction smaller...elastic fluid, differently shaped entrance from input pipe
by introducing helium or vacuum to make it able to float with smaller volume...

I suggest this - put rocket engines on the bottom of the 100 kg weigh so it will go back up.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 19, 2009, 11:37:23 PM
any idea on how to make this negative preassure for suction smaller...elastic fluid, differently shaped entrance from input pipe
by introducing helium or vacuum to make it able to float with smaller volume...

I suggest this - put rocket engines on the bottom of the 100 kg weigh so it will go back up.


My allmost public embarresment seems to amuze You.
no meaningfull ideas whatsoever... so i must make You sad again

principle of work changing media Air/Fluid(water) and making therefore heavier/lighter floater works and unlike You guys Knitel's infinity pump
has only one and very noneconvincing flaw. are You convinced in this flaw ? and that is unworkable ?

This is strong workable principle to further build on. but I see you stopped on some minor tecnicality.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on February 20, 2009, 12:04:56 AM
If you can’ t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 12:45:57 AM
G'day all,

This is the first in a series that shows why devices such as the Knitel device cannot work. The first segment explains the hydrostatic paradox, which is fundamental to the understanding of any hydrostatic and hydraulic system.

Since I can no longer embed my graphics here I was forced to use Microsoft word for the paper as the graphics need to be in their correct places. I apologise for this. I will later put the whole paper on my website in HTML form since it appears to be a popular subject.

I hope you guys appreciate this, this is a lot of work.  ;D

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 01:34:35 AM
G'day all,

This is the first in a series that shows why devices such as the Knitel device cannot work. The first segment explains the hydrostatic paradox, which is fundamental to the understanding of any hydrostatic and hydraulic system.

Since I can no longer embed my graphics here I was forced to use Microsoft word for the paper as the graphics need to be in their correct places. I apologise for this. I will later put the whole paper on my website in HTML form since it appears to be a popular subject.

I hope you guys appreciate this, this is a lot of work.  ;D

Hans von Lieven

Principle of work changing media Air/Fluid(water) and making therefore much heavier/much lighter floater works and this 60% - 70% is mine in Knitel's Infinity pump and works as such.
Only the suction action that is not introduced by me is not working as easily as it should. I just embrased the idea. It would be differently made if introduced by me,certanly.

Me or somone else will sooner then later build something on this principle.

This is strong workable principle to further build on.

Anyway Hans thanks for these 2 pages now when its to late, as I recall It I should read a whole book of how many pages ?...aren't you having a wicked laugh now.
I asked you to point out Your dissagremment in a plain way (edit simple picture), you acted god. drawing even simpler pictures for two days.
Kind of man that sees someone is going to abyys has a chance of warning him but is silent and waits what...It is not funny it is wicked
This is not guessing Quiz, You say what you know or don't even participate here. These politicant games you play are not nullified with 2 pages you could have copied
from anywhere, anytime...

This is how You look now, so don't repeat it...cause it's just nasty, not smart and leads knowhere. You should learn from Hildenbrand
From You I don't wan't any knowledge cause it comes with too too too many other ingridients.

please don't bump again into my topic if you mean to explain nothing - and afterwards make a point on my behalf. this is not gladiators game.
this is for civilized people.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 20, 2009, 01:35:33 AM
Thank you Hans! Excellent work and very clearly explained. Looking forward to the next chapter!!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 01:42:57 AM
Thank you Hans! Excellent work and very clearly explained. Looking forward to the next chapter!!


What? Has he solved some problem ? Him ? I wouldn't think so ?
Just another politician - wanting glory bah ...full of them

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 20, 2009, 01:43:15 AM
"Principle of work changing media Air/Fluid(water) and making therefore much heavier/much lighter floater works and this 60% - 70% is mine in Knitel's Infinity pump and works as such."

Wiz, what the heck are you talking about? In the first place, the statement above is incorrect. You can't get work from bouyancy even by changing the medium the balls or floats are travelling through. Once again, I will link to Simanek's analysis of this problem, and I ask anybody to refute it, by stating specific points where it is wrong. So far, I've done this several times and nobody has said where the analysis on Simanek's site is wrong. Not surprising, really--because he ISN'T wrong, mostly.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy4
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm

And in the second place, Hans knows what he's talking about and you should pay attention, instead of throwing a "hissy fit".


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ResinRat2 on February 20, 2009, 01:45:35 AM
I hope you guys appreciate this, this is a lot of work.  ;D
Hans von Lieven

Thanks Hans, this is one RAT that does. LOL!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 20, 2009, 01:52:22 AM
What? Has he solved some problem ? Him ? I wouldn't think so ?
Just another politician - wanting glory bah ...full of them

Wiz

So you were not looking for Glory?

<SNIP>
So it is called Knitel's InfinityPump...because 60%-70% and closing the loop is done by that fabulous, wonderfull, brilliant, careing, goodlooking, civilized, magicall, explorer, brain stormer, extraordinary mind, protector of weak, justfull, leader, strong carrisma,with prodigy, dexterity, agility,...what to say then perfect...

the very same Knitel Igor

Wiz

But I am still confident that there is a lot of space left
beetween crative thinkers like You and scientists like Hans.
Hans is very much open-minded and so should you be.
Keep cool wiz. Your day will come.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ramset on February 20, 2009, 02:02:02 AM
Yes WIZ

YOUR DAY WILL COME!!

Chet

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:03:51 AM
"Principle of work changing media Air/Fluid(water) and making therefore much heavier/much lighter floater works and this 60% - 70% is mine in Knitel's Infinity pump and works as such."

Wiz, what the heck are you talking about? In the first place, the statement above is incorrect. You can't get work from bouyancy even by changing the medium the balls or floats are travelling through. Once again, I will link to Simanek's analysis of this problem, and I ask anybody to refute it, by stating specific points where it is wrong. So far, I've done this several times and nobody has said where the analysis on Simanek's site is wrong. Not surprising, really--because he ISN'T wrong, mostly.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy4
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm

And in the second place, Hans knows what he's talking about and you should pay attention, instead of throwing a "hissy fit".


TinselKoala and Hans are banned from my topic cause of heresy (politicant action and nothing in good will) against Overuity Principles and inhuman blindness

cause device based on this exists and works,
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy4

tbird may stay if he wants he explained it to me cause he knew what he was talking about.

Hans and Tinsel your too late barbaric enjoyment over my lost hopes and your too late half knowledge forbid you to evevn open topic started with WizKycho - in future
All you have done here is ok with one but huge flaw You are OVERDOING IT, berrying even devices that are workable... please not on my topic.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 20, 2009, 02:09:57 AM
Once again, I see no refutation of Simanek's analysis. Just another BOGUS claim. If there is a device like this that works, SHOW IT.

And next time, do your homework, it will save you (and the rest of us) a lot of trouble.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:17:11 AM

Ramset, Hans, Tinsel, Sushimoto  You are in a wrong place, wrong time, wrong site and especially wrong topic
so let Simanek make you a forum called "let's brake anything that works" where you can chat your brains out.

and Ramset
what do You mean Your Day Will come

is this a threat or warning ?


Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 02:17:28 AM
@ wizkycho,

Your attack is totally unwarranted. I have never gloated over you, all I have tried to do is to teach you  and everyone else who is interested  some physics. To that extent I have gone to considerable length to explain the underlying principles and phenomena that this subject engenders.

You cannot alter the laws of nature with postulates that run contrary to it. You seem to be under the impression that you can alter the laws of nature simply by repeating something that is not real.

I am not talking about weird theories here, I am talking about repeatable experimentation, something you cannot offer.

You are the one that is blind, but maybe that suits you.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:19:53 AM
Once again, I see no refutation of Simanek's analysis. Just another BOGUS claim. If there is a device like this that works, SHOW IT.

And next time, do your homework, it will save you (and the rest of us) a lot of trouble.

...please be civilized and leave my topic...

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:21:02 AM
@ wizkycho,

Your attack is totally unwarranted. I have never gloated over you, all I have tried to do is to teach you  and everyone else who is interested  some physics. To that extent I have gone to considerable length to explain the underlying principles and phenomena that this subject engenders.

You cannot alter the laws of nature with postulates that run contrary to it. You seem to be under the impression that you can alter the laws of nature simply by repeating something that is not real.

I am not talking about weird theories here, I am talking about repeatable experimentation, something you cannot offer.

You are the one that is blind, but maybe that suits you.

Hans von Lieven

...be civilized and leave my topic as asked ,make yours...

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: ramset on February 20, 2009, 02:25:12 AM
wIZ
iT IS A GOOD THING NOT A BAD THING

THINKING OUT SIDE THE BOX

YOUR DAY OF SUCCESS WILL COME!!

Chet
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 02:32:30 AM
...be civilized and leave my topic as asked ,make yours...

Wiz

This is NOT your topic!

Granted you started it but this is where it ends. This is a forum. All of us that put our ideas forward put them up to the scrutiny of our peers.

We may be right, we may be wrong.

Whenever we are wrong the contribution of the other members help us by pointing out what is incorrect. Hopefully we all learn that way. That is what a forum is all about.

If you think that starting a thread entitles you to force wrong ideas down other people's throats you are in the wrong place.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:49:27 AM
wIZ
iT IS A GOOD THING NOT A BAD THING

THINKING OUT SIDE THE BOX

YOUR DAY OF SUCCESS WILL COME!!

Chet

I allready am successfull, every day of my life.
but appritiate a tought.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 03:15:52 AM
So you were not looking for Glory?

But I am still confident that there is a lot of space left
beetween crative thinkers like You and scientists like Hans.
Hans is very much open-minded and so should you be.
Keep cool wiz. Your day will come.

now what is this ?

You think I'm down and You won something. You Hans guys lost (since you started win loose "teach" situation). My principle of operation is working. remember that - changing media Air/Fluid... None of You can say or claim different. It is You who have failed to in 13 pages explain simple thing as multiplication of preassure, to me and others. and knowing that for so long not be able to give slightest modification or even a tought on how it can be even closely compensated.  talking about expirienced scientists in a field of hydrostatics.
Pumping action with weight can/might/has allready some workaround or solution...I can not think of it now.
    But without positive ideas (even false ones), with ambush style knowledge teaching.
...this is not productive at all. Not even teching not even communicating NO nothing.


Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 03:20:22 AM
To conclude !

Knitel's InfinityPump is not working in Overunity mode as it is, but it's main principle of work stays intact and solid.
"Only" or Only multiplication of preassure in pumping action needs to be solved - lowered in ammount - or some other workaround.
...
Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 05:20:13 AM
hi wiz and all,

i see you guys have had some extended chats.  if all the venting is finished, maybe we could kick another thought around for a bit.

what if we took the output from a different place?  might it be possible to put the float part via extensions in the supply water (could be deeper)?  and tap the power from the transfer flow?

i only just came up with this and haven't put any thought into it, but it's food for thought.

time to rest now, see ya tomorrow.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 05:28:28 AM
one other last thought.

or could we float the weight in steps?

good night for sure now.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: TinselKoala on February 20, 2009, 05:36:58 AM
What, you think that by editing out my posts and links you can change reality?
Your claims are bogus and you know it, or you would address the issues.
But go ahead and waste your time on this idea, it will keep you out of danger.

Be sure to let me know when you've got a working model. But I won't be holding my breath.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 20, 2009, 06:08:17 AM
Hi Wiz,
well please calm down.

Hans has done a good work in explaining a few facts so far and I am looking forward to
see the next chapter...

I myself am seeing now the problem with the pressure ratios at the top of the device,
where the diameter change from the small pipe to the main cylinder diameter makes
these introduced animation NOT functional..

But wait, maybe we can use ourself the hydrostatic paradoxon to our advantage ?

What about making the right small pipe  bigger in diameter, shortly before it touches
the water of the bassin ?

Then we still must move only a bit more water up,
but we don´t have anymore the diameter ratios at the top,
cause it it compensated by the bigger diameter at the bottom pipe ?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 06:10:40 AM
@ Tinsel Koala,

Methinks the fellow is a solipsist.  I bet he won't even look up the word. In their idea of the world nothing truly exists outside themselves. They believe that everything they perceive is of their own creation.

The corollary to this is that if they repeat a lie often enough and in enough fictitious spaces (for no space outside themselves is real) it becomes truth in their world, which is the only world that exists in their tiny little minds.

You cannot argue with someone like this because you don't really exist as far as they are concerned, except as a negative flow in their own consciousness that is trying to divert them from knowing the ultimate truth.

That is why they get so pissed off in the presence of reality.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 20, 2009, 07:27:11 AM
Hi All,
what about something like this ?

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: turbo on February 20, 2009, 09:22:43 AM

I hope you guys appreciate this, this is a lot of work.  ;D

Hans von Lieven

I know what it takes to make such papers.

THANKS  8) HANS!!!!!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 09:45:30 AM
What, you think that by editing out my posts and links you can change reality?
Your claims are bogus and you know it, or you would address the issues.
But go ahead and waste your time on this idea, it will keep you out of danger.

Be sure to let me know when you've got a working model. But I won't be holding my breath.

@harti

I assure You I'm calm as forest tree.

@Hans and his minioins

I claimed and still do that there is such object that is ultra heavy in air and in a same time has properties that is bellow 0g ultra light in water, well known, even to You. and that this huge change in weight can be used to tame wast ammounts of energy. I still claim that.
This is what Hans and You on account of some other problem (pressure multiplication) traying to deny. That is why You are slightly said OVERDOING IT
cause of inertia of Your nay saying toughts. So Hold on guys We are not competing who is smartest but trying to solve a problem.
You had many chances to point and explain egzact problem and were asked politely to do so,
But no You asked me to shush and wait till the King Hans and his minions passes through, when he want's and how he wants, and be sure to have enough flowers to gloryfy his words, saying nothing new, not explaining nothing, saying few words in riddles...

Is this the way You wan't me to participate here, as humble shut up minion and not to ask for further explanation, which I fairly did...
If so why are you seraching for overunity then or better to ask do you honestly ? Cause when You have inertia of saying nay no even grass is growing where there was a forest
and this is typicall behaviour of "Energy Conservation" knowhere leading head. Would be nice of You to reveal youself in right light.

On the other hand true Overunity researcher is sometimes OVERDOING IT in going up...So You guys go your way down...I'm going UP, even if I fall I can not fall that deep in ignorance as You can.

I was learning just fine before You came. I will still learn but not from You cause You have simply plain wrong and wastefull methods in every aspect.
Suggesting that I wouldn't stop if I'm only told properly - that I need to leran only by getting a scar - the hard way. You are on very slippery teritory here.

Wiz

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 20, 2009, 09:54:08 AM
now what is this ?

You think I'm down and You won something. You Hans guys lost (since you started win loose "teach" situation). My principle of operation is working. remember that - changing media Air/Fluid... None of You can say or claim different. It is You who have failed to in 13 pages explain simple thing as multiplication of preassure, to me and others. and knowing that for so long not be able to give slightest modification or even a tought on how it can be even closely compensated.  talking about expirienced scientists in a field of hydrostatics.
Pumping action with weight can/might/has allready some workaround or solution...I can not think of it now.
    But without positive ideas (even false ones), with ambush style knowledge teaching.
...this is not productive at all. Not even teching not even communicating NO nothing.
Wiz


Wiz, you are such a Diva. ;D

This forum ist not an arena, were one tries to kill another.
There are no "Hans-Guys".
Just different opinions, skills and experiences.
We are investigating all of that and the goal is to bring it under one hat.
In almost every one of my posts, i were positive about the theoretical aspects of your concept.
Since nobody builds or simulates it by now, we just have words.

Its your problem, if you just take everything here personally.

Concerning your machine, there were plenty of proposals on how to theoretically overcome technical problems.
You just overread them. No reply on them. Instead, there is a lot of personal ego-stuff.

When somebody complained about too weak buoancy for the piston,
i proposed to add a spring.
When somebody complained about hydrostatic paradoxon,
i proposed to involve capilar forces by making a bunch of thin tubes like in a tree

Maybe my proposals are silly, stupid and not academical funded,
but that is what we need in order to have a mutual brainstorming instead of personal fightings.

regards,
sushi





Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 10:12:35 AM
@ Tinsel Koala,

Methinks the fellow is a solipsist.  I bet he won't even look up the word. In their idea of the world nothing truly exists outside themselves. They believe that everything they perceive is of their own creation.

The corollary to this is that if they repeat a lie often enough and in enough fictitious spaces (for no space outside themselves is real) it becomes truth in their world, which is the only world that exists in their tiny little minds.

You cannot argue with someone like this because you don't really exist as far as they are concerned, except as a negative flow in their own consciousness that is trying to divert them from knowing the ultimate truth.

That is why they get so pissed off in the presence of reality.

Hans von Lieven

...Yes I'm allways pissed when in reality who knows why ?
I'll tell You

I'm still 100% and completely enslaved,...
Is that ultimately how it was, how it should be, how it will allways be. is that your ultimate truth ?

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 10:30:47 AM
Wiz, you are such a Diva. ;D

This forum ist not an arena, were one tries to kill another.
There are no "Hans-Guys".
Just different opinions, skills and experiences.
We are investigating all of that and the goal is to bring it under one hat.
In almost every one of my posts, i were positive about the theoretical aspects of your concept.
Since nobody builds or simulates it by now, we just have words.

Its your problem, if you just take everything here personally.

Concerning your machine, there were plenty of proposals on how to theoretically overcome technical problems.
You just overread them. No reply on them. Instead, there is a lot of personal ego-stuff.

When somebody complained about too weak buoancy for the piston,
i proposed to add a spring.
When somebody complained about hydrostatic paradoxon,
i proposed to involve capilar forces by making a bunch of thin tubes like in a tree

Maybe my proposals are silly, stupid and not academical funded,
but that is what we need in order to have a mutual brainstorming instead of personal fightings.

regards,
sushi







.. You are right, it is becuse i'm trying to make King Hans and his Minions to teach to stop on time and not to make OVERRIDICULOUS every topic they apper in
not just mine, or on the other hand to leave and join another tribe that has less civilized ways. And You may allso as his devoted admierer
(based on who knows what) and lawyer join that tribe and together you'll find the ultimate truth you seek very fast using your very own methods...
do it on yourselves.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 10:40:01 AM
...
I will continue to dream...
and write here every detail of my dreams no matter how impossible they might sounds, for thy
and still walk proudly...

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: turbo on February 20, 2009, 12:31:51 PM
Your dreams are useless, what we need is proof of concept, repeatable results.
This begins exactly where dreaming ends so maybe it's time for you to wake up  :)

Marco.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 12:43:15 PM
thanx to all for proposals on resolving pumping action problem due to hydrostatic paradox
- cappilar action (many capillares could help)
- reshapeing
...
this pic is another proposal of solving that problem
with two (as I can see it) drawbacks that V2 should be wider
and preassured air inside container allso would enter cilinder
and will make unwanted preassure from bellow on floater

we know much lighter then water and much heavier then air is wide wide range.

can X range fall into that range or is it outside in other or same paradox.

is there a range of X that device now works
I know paradox is strong (by prediction calculus, haven't seen experiment myself to be a believer)
would this help any ?
I'm not very at home with hydrostatic calculus

what do you think or calculate !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 12:45:02 PM
Hi all !

My hope is back and my/our device is now more likeliy works over 100%
So All are invited and try to dissmantle it...
I wan't play boogie man and now even if you do.

C'mon and stop it.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 20, 2009, 01:30:20 PM
.. You are right, it is becuse i'm trying to make King Hans and his Minions to teach to stop on time and not to make OVERRIDICULOUS every topic they apper in
not just mine, or on the other hand to leave and join another tribe that has less civilized ways. And You may allso as his devoted admierer
(based on who knows what) and lawyer join that tribe and together you'll find the ultimate truth you seek very fast using your very own methods...
do it on yourselves.

Wiz

THATS IT Wiz.
To speak in your words;

You with your minions are a "King of Creativity" and Hans with his minions is a "King of Academics".
So King Hans should help to find what is possible and King Igor should help to figure out what is impossible.
Somewere in beetween is the future of our World containing all the Kingdoms.

I am a Minion of both of you "Kings".  8)

best,
sushi
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
hi hans,

nice start on your educational material.  will you cover flow relationships?

i think i may have given gravitator some bad info. 

question...if you double the diameter of the supply tube (in wiz's 1st design), will the travel time of the piston/weight be  longer, same or shorter?

since your time is limited, a 1 word answer will be fine.

thanks

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 02:02:21 PM
calling Earth !

Anybody thea...?

or waiting in ambush again and then to LOL to ridiculosity.

C'mon dissmantle it

maximal preassure of air that can be applied on bottom of floater
still be able to go down is 49Kg (less then 50Kg) per 100cm2. right ? (lets say at first no friction on floater:))
.....

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 20, 2009, 02:38:49 PM

here is a real infinity pump ( for more than 100 years )

http://www.anpei.org/Le-balancier-hydraulique-de

how it works ?



Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 20, 2009, 02:41:33 PM
I think you can understand it without reading the french legend
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 02:42:30 PM
hi wiz,

i'll take a shot.

what ever effect the air pressure has on the system will will stay until you change something.  say if the air pressure forces the supply water up, it will stay there until you remove (or redirect it) the air pressure.

still early for me, so short reply for now.

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 02:54:36 PM
here is a real infinity pump ( for more than 100 years )

http://www.anpei.org/Le-balancier-hydraulique-de

how it works ?


hi tagor,

i'm sorry, but i don't have a clue.  can you write up something to explain?

tom

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Paul-R on February 20, 2009, 03:35:41 PM
TinselKoala and Hans are banned from my topic...
Why have their posts been turning up? maybe you should repeat the banning process and save Stefan
a little data. The Lord knows we have a data problem on this web site.
Paul.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 20, 2009, 04:01:15 PM
Hi Igor,
the problem I see with the pressurized air is,
that the air will also come to the lower side of
the weight in the main cylinder and then you again have no
advantage, cause the pressurized air will also push against the weight
to not go down but to push it up in the cylinder...

So this does not help there..

Did you look in my proposal to use the hydrostatic paradoxon
and use the bigger tube at the lower watersurface for the pipe ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 20, 2009, 04:14:38 PM
hi wiz,

i'll take a shot.

what ever effect the air pressure has on the system will will stay until you change something.  say if the air pressure forces the supply water up, it will stay there until you remove (or redirect it) the air pressure.

still early for me, so short reply for now.

tom

if V2 (bottom valve is closed) swimmer in start position
I now put air pressure of 490g/per cm2 in system 
I think now in pipe is pressure 10g/cm2 (height of pipe 5m and 1cm2) not anymore 500g/cm2

since swimmer has 100 bigger surface the min. weight of swimmer should be now only 1kg (10g/cm2*100cm2)
not 50kg as without air pressure.

so let swimmer to be 3Kg

now if V2 is opened will the pressure of air below swimmer (transfered with bubbles through water) immidiately create counter swimmer moving
force of 49000g/100cm2 ? this is counter 49Kg of pressure (so floater instead to go down goes up) and make it unworkable
or will fast water leak out take the main pressure...of air entering

somehow I'm hoping that water (under the swimmer) that goes down from container will take most of the outer air pressure "strenght" and not bump straight
with 49kg anti pump force. and cancel my 3 kilos.
somehow it is hard to imagine that preassure will immidiately be at a bottom of swimmer

in another words that air transfered as bubbles through water can not immidiately create counter preassure on swimmer and stop it
First some ammount of water must fall down and some ammount pumped up with swimmers height. Ithink

if that pressure does bump right in shouldn't that pressure make pumping in undesired direction

can it happen that way

I know its an delicate situation and question and I might sound illogicall but at least I made negative pressure lot smaller, at least at first.
still learning how to surpass this multiplication of preassure. maybe its impossible ...this way.


Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: twosox on February 20, 2009, 05:11:56 PM
Minus valves and backchecks but drawing it out helped me get my head round this one.
(need a ciggie and a broo now) :-)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 05:13:21 PM
hi wiz,

if you pressurize the supply tank, it will raise the water by itself.  you will need no weight in the cylinder.

with the cylinder full of water, still with a portion of your 49kg/cm2 (pressure will go down with increase of volume being pressurized), your 500g will fall thru v2, since the pressure is the same everywhere now.

at this point you are almost back to the start of the cycle.  all you have to do is pressurize the supply tank, without an external source, to original pressure and remove the pressure in the cylinder. :(

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: twosox on February 20, 2009, 05:13:28 PM
sorry about the image size, oooops. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 05:25:56 PM
sorry about the image size, oooops. ;D ;D

hi,

i just downloaded it.  looks great!!  do you know if the pictures at the website are of a real working unit?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: twosox on February 20, 2009, 05:40:32 PM
I got google to translate the page, it did a good enough job to work out that the machine was left to fall apart for a good few years then was rediscovered and renovated back to a working setup, seems like it is a working machine, not a closed loop one though, it continually pumps water from a well.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 20, 2009, 05:46:46 PM
I got google to translate the page, it did a good enough job to work out that the machine was left to fall apart for a good few years then was rediscovered and renovated back to a working setup, seems like it is a working machine, not a closed loop one though, it continually pumps water from a well.

could you tell if it could pump the water from the well itself?  or have to use grid power?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 20, 2009, 05:48:53 PM
I got google to translate the page, it did a good enough job to work out that the machine was left to fall apart for a good few years then was rediscovered and renovated back to a working setup, seems like it is a working machine, not a closed loop one though, it continually pumps water from a well.

yes it is a real machine , but not a closed loop ...
a lot of water is flowing away
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 20, 2009, 06:25:21 PM
yes it is a real machine , but not a closed loop ...
a lot of water is flowing away

So it is powered by a well where the flowing water is the input energy ?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 20, 2009, 06:31:32 PM
So it is powered by a well where the flowing water is the input energy ?

yes Stephan
the flowing water is the input energy

daniel
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: twosox on February 20, 2009, 08:11:42 PM
it's built close to a river, the river enters at the middle (top of the diagram just under the tower that holds the lever thing) to fill up the left or right 'pan', they fall from the weight forcing the piston down, the water from the 'pan' drains away, they didn't pump the river water up just the water from a well (in the diagram, the box like item near the bottom inbetween the 2 pistons is the well). The funny thing is they kept the mechanical pump working as a model for visitors but replaced the water feed to the castle with an electric pump !! ???
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 10:10:37 PM
it's built close to a river, the river enters at the middle (top of the diagram just under the tower that holds the lever thing) to fill up the left or right 'pan', they fall from the weight forcing the piston down, the water from the 'pan' drains away, they didn't pump the river water up just the water from a well (in the diagram, the box like item near the bottom inbetween the 2 pistons is the well). The funny thing is they kept the mechanical pump working as a model for visitors but replaced the water feed to the castle with an electric pump !! ???

I am not surprised. As simple as the French pump is it has a number of drawbacks, the main one being the high maintenance of the system. Chief enemy is algae build up in the pans that operate the device.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 20, 2009, 11:33:15 PM
G'day all,

I have updated my paper on hydrostatics. The updated version contains the first part as well so everything is kept neatly together.

There is more to come as I get the time.

Have fun,

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 21, 2009, 05:04:03 AM
Hi Hans,
many thanks.
I am just reading it.
Well done.

I converted it to PDF for those who dont have WORD installed.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 21, 2009, 08:23:40 AM
it's built close to a river, the river enters at the middle (top of the diagram just under the tower that holds the lever thing) to fill up the left or right 'pan', they fall from the weight forcing the piston down, the water from the 'pan' drains away, they didn't pump the river water up just the water from a well (in the diagram, the box like item near the bottom inbetween the 2 pistons is the well). The funny thing is they kept the mechanical pump working as a model for visitors but replaced the water feed to the castle with an electric pump !! ???


you can look also at :

La fontaine de Heron ( used in the flowing water of Versaille )


how it works in english
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

you can read the pic but text in french
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9ron_d'Alexandrie
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tagor on February 21, 2009, 08:41:45 AM


some video

sorry it is in french

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKcL5bDKk_U


http://media.scienceamusante.net/A5_Fontaine_de_Heron.mov
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: spacetrax on February 21, 2009, 09:19:34 AM
I gave a lot of thoughts to this fountain in my younger years (math calculations included) and I tried to make it run forever by combining two such fountains to get the water from one to another and vice versa, over and over again -  but I only got an oscillating system which eventually stops. If I have time I will draw a schematic on my computer - in those times there were no computers and I threw all hand drawn schematics back then when I realized it was no perpetuum mobile.


you can look also at :

La fontaine de Heron ( used in the flowing water of Versaille )


how it works in english
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

you can read the pic but text in french
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9ron_d'Alexandrie

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hartiberlin on February 21, 2009, 09:19:40 AM
Here is a great explanation video in plain english:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyNln0T6Jc

The water just flows from the top vessel into the lower vessel.
That is the energy source.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 21, 2009, 10:39:19 AM
hi wiz,

if you pressurize the supply tank, it will raise the water by itself.  you will need no weight in the cylinder.

with the cylinder full of water, still with a portion of your 49kg/cm2 (pressure will go down with increase of volume being pressurized), your 500g will fall thru v2, since the pressure is the same everywhere now.

at this point you are almost back to the start of the cycle.  all you have to do is pressurize the supply tank, without an external source, to original pressure and remove the pressure in the cylinder. :(

tom

Quote
if you pressurize the supply tank, it will raise the water by itself.  you will need no weight in the cylinder.

this can't be right (only some ammount at start cause of lowering level of bottom supply container but then stops) cause still water in pipe has 10g/cm2 weight by gravity.
so swimmer must have weight over 1kg suck it further up (if given 1:100=inpipe:cylinder (surface))
if applied preassure on air is over 50kg/100cm2 then is is bigger then 500g/cm2 and water in input pipe (all the time) tries to go to cilinder if it has space to go in
since water has properties that can not be made smaller volume by appliyng preassure.

...but what I would like to know is what happens with preassure at bottom surface of swimmer when V2 is opened since there is water "shield" between swimmer and preassurized
air outside given that water has unpressurizeable property...would that make preassure (that will make swimmer go up) on bootom of swimmer any smaller.
(V2 is biger and air bubbling in container at same time that water goes out)
Or would preassure on bootom of swimmer rise immidiately ?

i know this is a streach...

and another one
this is question outside actuall InfinityPump

Two closed boxes and only one is preassurized
between them is some pipe with some V valve on it.
Is there such valve or combination of valves that will allow exchange of some fluid (not by primary pressure - something else is pumping water) but wouldn't allow transfer of primary preassure from one box to other.

something like on animation...but here cycle by cycle pressure is still lost ? is it ?

many thanx
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 21, 2009, 11:07:23 AM
Hi Igor,
the problem I see with the pressurized air is,
that the air will also come to the lower side of
the weight in the main cylinder and then you again have no
advantage, cause the pressurized air will also push against the weight
to not go down but to push it up in the cylinder...

So this does not help there..

Did you look in my proposal to use the hydrostatic paradoxon
and use the bigger tube at the lower watersurface for the pipe ?

Regards, Stefan.

...I would need further explanation since I'm still heaving problem of "visualizing" and putting this paradox in perspective...
I certanly can apply it where pipe enters cylinder... this is diferent...this is other way arround and preassure doesn't multiply

i see for certain here that inner pipe is shorter by small ammount of height of your Addon

further speculation will be helpfull

thx
Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: multiuser on February 21, 2009, 11:51:41 AM
@ tagor


YEAH, COOL, i tried it - the water runns really!!!! COOOOOOL
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 21, 2009, 01:38:24 PM
...I would need further explanation since I'm still heaving problem of "visualizing" and putting this paradox in perspective...
I certanly can apply it where pipe enters cylinder... this is diferent...this is other way arround and preassure doesn't multiply

i see for certain here that inner pipe is shorter by small ammount of height of your Addon

further speculation will be helpfull

thx
Wiz

At this point I am happy to bring King Hans to King Igor ;D
Hans would be helpful pbly.

If we do now have peace beetween the two kingdoms, i finally like to conclude it with my new footer:
hope, somebody can translate it by meaning..

DAMIT DAS MÖGLICHE ENTSTEHT MUSS IMMER WIEDER DAS UNMÖGLICHE VERSUCHT WERDEN

Best luck,
sushi
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 21, 2009, 02:12:15 PM
Quote
this can't be right (only some ammount at start cause of lowering level of bottom supply container but then stops) cause still water in pipe has 10g/cm2 weight by gravity.
so swimmer must have weight over 1kg suck it further up (if given 1:100=inpipe:cylinder (surface))
if applied preassure on air is over 50kg/100cm2 then is is bigger then 500g/cm2 and water in input pipe (all the time) tries to go to cilinder if it has space to go in
since water has properties that can not be made smaller volume by appliyng preassure.

hi wiz,

let's start with a post from another reply

Quote
maximal preassure of air that can be applied on bottom of floater
still be able to go down is 49Kg (less then 50Kg) per 100cm2. right ? (lets say at first no friction on floater:))

this is not the right way to express air (gas) pressure.  since a gas is compressible, just looking at it (in a closed container) we can't really tell how much is there as compared to a liquid or solid.  to know how many cubic feet (or any other unit, could be a metric measure) the container holds, we need to know the psi (pressure per square inch).  after reading closer i see what you meant was .49kg/cm2 (amount of pressure per square cm).  this is what you would see on an average air gauge, like for checking tire pressure.   the real pressure (read on an absolute gauge, not common) would add the atmospheric pressure too.  my mistake for thinking you were saying 49kg/cm2.

to continue,  maybe best to put a legend on your drawing of the starting position showing all sizes, valve status, pressures in each area and anything else you might think needed.  from there i will try to describe what happens when the unit is put into motion.

fair enough?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 21, 2009, 06:21:44 PM
Your dreams are useless, what we need is proof of concept, repeatable results.
This begins exactly where dreaming ends so maybe it's time for you to wake up  :)

Marco.

very important: (for who doesn't now that)

dream(tought, idea...) is first then and only then comes proof of concept...or not.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 21, 2009, 08:12:19 PM

you can look also at :

La fontaine de Heron ( used in the flowing water of Versaille )


how it works in english
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

you can read the pic but text in french
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9ron_d'Alexandrie


Here is the whole system described in detail. It alsy shows why this is NOT a perpetual motion machine and why it stops after a short time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron%27s_fountain

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 11:25:09 AM
Hi all !

First:
I'm not drawing this pictures to keep You occupied from something more important
please All ! give it a tought

Paradox still applies but now the height of input pump is actually in milimeters (not 5m),
so initiall preassure must be smaller by significant ammount.

have I, by lowering paradox at entrance, created some other impposibility ?
I think not, V1 can still hold preasssure when closed not to allow water in input "pipe" to fall down.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 22, 2009, 11:48:47 AM
@ wizkycho


This cannot work either, for very much the same reasons as the previous version.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 12:05:50 PM
@ wizkycho


This cannot work either, for very much the same reasons as the previous version.

Hans von Lieven

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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 22, 2009, 12:46:17 PM
hi wiz,

the thing you may not be understanding is called a column.  when we talk about forces (especially gravity) we break the subject (here it's water, a liquid) down to smaller units (say cubic centimeters,  cm3).  now if we stack these units, we get a column.  in your new drawing, can you not still see a continuous column of 1 cm3s stacked 5 meters high?  i do, so you still have the same problem. 

btw, have you checked your messages here lately?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 22, 2009, 01:05:12 PM
hi wiz,

i don't know if this page will help, but if you can follow it, it will help you with your designs.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Pressure/HydroStatic.html

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 02:19:38 PM
hi wiz,

the thing you may not be understanding is called a column.  when we talk about forces (especially gravity) we break the subject (here it's water, a liquid) down to smaller units (say cubic centimeters,  cm3).  now if we stack these units, we get a column.  in your new drawing, can you not still see a continuous column of 1 cm3s stacked 5 meters high?  i do, so you still have the same problem. 

btw, have you checked your messages here lately?

tom

I certanly see a column but tought it might be realized through rows...in other words there are rows now...so something should change at least preassure distribution.
would love If someone could make comparison using force/lenght of lever analogy of input pipe now widened.

yes I did.

Why ?

Wiz

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 22, 2009, 02:30:32 PM
hi wiz

i sent you a message, but don't see a reply.  also from the tone of your answer, it sounds like you may not have received it.  can you confirm?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: spinner on February 22, 2009, 02:45:30 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....

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 02:50:14 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 03:01:56 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: spinner on February 22, 2009, 03:21:27 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!

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: sushimoto on February 22, 2009, 03:58:58 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.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 22, 2009, 09:01:16 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

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 22, 2009, 10:24:09 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: 0c on February 22, 2009, 10:46:13 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.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: 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. ;D

Hans
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 24, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
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. ;D

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

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 25, 2009, 12:13:56 PM
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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Tink on February 25, 2009, 05:00:47 PM
Wizkycho,

Hans is only trying to help, please be kind to him.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: spinner 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?  ;D

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... :o
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: AB Hammer on February 26, 2009, 12:49:32 AM
wizkycho

 But what about the bubbles? ::)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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 !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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 !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 27, 2009, 11:00:46 AM
Go home little boy, but first wipe the snot off your nose.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Koen1 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
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Koen1 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

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho 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


Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: spinner on February 27, 2009, 03:46:00 PM
@Wyzkycho
You're very unfair. Hans just wanted to open your "overenthusiastic" eyes.. If there would be something of a real value, I'm sure Hans would be one of the first to applaud and/or help you...
You're behaving like a spoiled child...
I think Hans will not spend another minute on "your concepts"...

Quote
@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 !
That is obviously just your opinion... Look again at Hans posts, he never said something like that. Mean.


Quote
1. There are systems that work in COE mode, but there are others that works in overCOE mode. it is prooven by now.
Oh, really? Which systems don't work in a "CoE mode"? Lol... And, where is the proof??? I'm sure you'll provide the facts pronto....

Quote
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 approach any system.
You can continue to talk about your "OU pump" in superlatives, but  as long as you have it on paper (or in your mind) only, or as long as you don't prove it's workings with some real experiments, it's all just a wishfull thinking...

Quote
3. Not one post I saw from you (not just here) has any constructivity or idea.
That is just a mean remark. Hans helped with his knowledge countless times... It's just your fault that you've missed that...
I'm surprised that he's willing to teach you after all of the nasty remarks you've made so far...

Quote
4. objects heavier then air can fly
Lol, really? All by itself? Or maybe they need special conditions, and an input of "external energy"? So, after inventing the !magnetic transistor!, KIP floater, an AG is next on target?

Quote
5. find your imagination you could use it.
I'd say the imagination is the most obvious thing which most of the people here have in common....

Quote
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
Milković's pendulum is not an OU device. OK?
If it is, it would be a piece of cake to make it a "self-sustaining" PM.... A PERPETUAL MOTION DEVICE.

Quote
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.

I think you're the one who needs a lesson. (Nothing personal.) Childish rudeness, "I know it all" complex, etc...

You're so "green" that the grass looks gray when you speak... (lol) ;D
...

Quote
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 ?
...Wiz

These are all IDIOTIC remarks,... I think (and believe) you can do better than that? So, "WyzzKid", just prove it...
Cheers!

P.S.
have fun !
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 27, 2009, 07:54:29 PM
hi all,

since wiz's first language is not english, maybe i can put it in a way easier to understand.

for all those who have been following this thread, we understand the function (in first design) of the weight/floater is to both suck (pump) the water into the cylinder (on down stroke) and float back up to repeat the cycle.  since the weight/floater would require more water volume than is in the cylinder to float, the unit would not work.

wiz's thought (if i follow correctly) is to reduce the weight of the weight/floater so it does have enough volume in the cylinder to float the weight/floater and still have a decent stroke.  if we do this, it will no longer be able to suck (pump) the water up.  his answer to this is to use the weight/floaters motion going up (not sure about going down) to generate electric power to drive a small pump in the input tube.  since the timing is wrong for it to pump water into itself, he offers a second unit to provide this work and the first unit then could provide that work for the 2nd unit.

since he is the electronics guy, i'll leave the electric pump part for him to explain.  my thought is there is not enough work being done by the weight/floater going up to be changed to another form that would power the small pump in the input tube long enough to transfer the amount of water needed in the cylinder.

have i left anything important out?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 27, 2009, 09:09:17 PM
@ Koen1,

You say in an earlier posting:

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.


This is not correct. This urban myth originated from a famous statement by Lord Kelvin  who said :'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.'  The only reason this statement became famous is because at the time Kelvin was president of the Royal Society, 1895.

There were most likely political motives behind the statement as he was pushing for lighter than air aircraft.

This was never part of physics books and was not generally taught. The first heavier than air flying machine in modern times was a model aeroplane that flew, built in 1804 by George Cayley who discovered the fundamental laws governing heavier than air flying machines. for a history of early flight see : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/tribute_history.html#index01

At the time of Kelvin's statement there were few that believed him. It was never part of mainstream science.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 27, 2009, 09:19:56 PM
hi all,

since wiz's first language is not english, maybe i can put it in a way easier to understand.

for all those who have been following this thread, we understand the function (in first design) of the weight/floater is to both suck (pump) the water into the cylinder (on down stroke) and float back up to repeat the cycle.  since the weight/floater would require more water volume than is in the cylinder to float, the unit would not work.

wiz's thought (if i follow correctly) is to reduce the weight of the weight/floater so it does have enough volume in the cylinder to float the weight/floater and still have a decent stroke.  if we do this, it will no longer be able to suck (pump) the water up.  his answer to this is to use the weight/floaters motion going up (not sure about going down) to generate electric power to drive a small pump in the input tube.  since the timing is wrong for it to pump water into itself, he offers a second unit to provide this work and the first unit then could provide that work for the 2nd unit.

since he is the electronics guy, i'll leave the electric pump part for him to explain.  my thought is there is not enough work being done by the weight/floater going up to be changed to another form that would power the small pump in the input tube long enough to transfer the amount of water needed in the cylinder.

have i left anything important out?

tom

now this answer means something, it is negative and points exactly at a part of device that might not work, and why.
And someone can answer to this, communicate.

So please everybody, Hans especialy, can we forget rudeness (or you want me to shout out of my balcony, sorry I offended You) from both sides
and keep ourselves from describing each other personality and focus on what might work what doesn't.
Knowing that the one who says it doesn't is allways in better position. and looks like a cool and very smart guy. When that one doesn't have any proposals he looks supersmart.
(but that leads knowhere)

but when insisting further on those two I think he is working against someone.
and doesn't even bother to analyze new picture new proposal. If one don't give enough effort in comprehending how can he
let himself comment it. those are politicant tactics and visible from the space.

So let's get rid of such approach. here anyway !

If I made that mistake it was due hard to see hidrostatic paradox that I didn't know of. Everyone state that it is not as it looks like (paradox).

Besides original KIP is working just fine by itself with proposed numbers (on paper). 50kg floater etc. at least to the point where it needs to be constructed as whole. there is not enough volume in cylinder to make floater of such characteristics, or is but then movement would be 1cm up-down. I haven't finished calculation.

You may even take any animation, or picture and put some arrow and say this is problem and shortly describe it.

So to continue and try to make it work I proposed wider cylinder and pump in input pipe that I believe now has to overcome 250g/cm2(not 500g/cm2) since there is 5kg weight of floater (it must mean something just a bit maybe), and flaoters bouyant part is driving that pump , since floater is now only 5kg and cylinder is 25 times wider biger surface floater can be made to have -10Kg or even -50Kg....I have not yet made calculus and (don't know where to start and it might render it unworkable), parhaps I'm waiting to show me some other paradox. or to propose some non radioactive heavier available material, I found Tungsteen....

allso there is water in first cylinder that is going down and makes underpressure in phase with floater going down...

I don't know -  I said - but it might work.(paradox pressure will appear but pump keeps pumping cylinder lowering that pressure and even negating it...)

Wiz

@Koen1

MIlkovich's pendulum is Free Energy device and by any means prooveable. Once set in motion mouse can lift 100Kg. not once (so it is not just E accumulator) - every time and with a very short lewer. and it's an open system to gravity so it does use gravity for it's work, but gravity is at least to say "renewable". nobody really tried to make it OU. not here.
And has to be as you wrote,and I agree,(like any other under COE machine) made to meet some conditions. These are conditions we are searching here.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 27, 2009, 10:20:15 PM
@ wizkycho,

You still do not seem to understand the difference between pressure and mass (weight). In order to "draw" water the piston needs to be heavier than water. In other words the downward pressure exerted must be larger than the downward pressure in the riser pipe.

A piston that can "draw" water cannot float, whatever you do with it. Certainly, you could make it hollow and fill it with water, drain the water when it reaches bottom and get it to float this way. Then you have the problem to fill it again with water when it reaches the top, which you cannot do because the air pressure inside becomes many times the pressure in the water column. air gets into the system and the water column in the riser tube collapses.

Whatever you do this idea cannot work. You don't need calculus to do the mathematics on this, simple arithmetic is sufficiently accurate to show why it cannot work.

You need to understand what I have written up so far it is all there already. I will write up on buoyancy when I get a chance just to show the whole system in a different way. It's not really necessary though if you understand what I have said so far.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 27, 2009, 11:04:22 PM
hi hans,

i think you missed the change.  wiz is suggesting to pump the water up with an external pump installed in the riser tube that he hopes can be powered by the 2nd unit when the now mainly float (reduced weight) floats up.  with the pump, the sucking (pumping) job of the weight is not needed.

the question now is will the float's motion be enough when converted to work the pump long enough to fill the cylinder.

any new thoughts here?

tom
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on February 27, 2009, 11:28:53 PM
If the float is lighter than water it will rise to thee top and stop there, blocking the water flow in the riser tube.

If you need an external pump to power the thing what is the point, the contraption does not amplify energy, it wastes it. You are better off with the external pump in its own.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 28, 2009, 08:13:59 AM
all !

What ?

No new paradoxes ?
 
Listen to this relationship that renders it more likely to work:
while increasing bouyant ability (force) of floater in the same time is lowered volume of water needed to fill the cylinder to the top. (cause volume of floaster increases)

for now I'll fly with this rubber dingy...and when i'm ready to land I'll do calculus...or you may...I'll land anyway

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: tbird on February 28, 2009, 08:22:16 AM
hi hans,

i guess i have to say i'm sorry to you.  from your last 2 posts, i get that my descriptions (reply 241 & 245, if you read them) of how wiz changed the design wasn't good enough for you (and maybe others) to follow.

let me try again for the 3rd time to get you on track with us.

yes there is an external pump involved, but no external power.  the pump, as suggested by wiz, will get its power from the motion of the float.  since he talks about a magnet, i believe he will attempt to collect this energy in the form of electricity.

as i said before,
Quote
the question now is will the float's motion be enough when converted to work the pump long enough to fill the cylinder?


Quote
If the float is lighter than water it will rise to thee top and stop there, blocking the water flow in the riser tube.

where's your imagination?  are you getting the cart before the horse?  if you get how wiz is trying to make his unit work, can't it be constructed so that this is not a problem?  if you are still not getting it, please say so.

hans, i was very impressed with the completeness of your reply #242 to Koen1 about flight. it would help me (and maybe others) if you could use that style when replying to posts here in the future.

tom



Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on February 28, 2009, 08:23:47 AM
If the float is lighter than water it will rise to thee top and stop there, blocking the water flow in the riser tube.
but is in HTA phase (heavier then air - air is bellow diver) so it wan't, although nothing is impossible

Quote
If you need an external pump to power the thing what is the point, the contraption does not amplify energy, it wastes it. You are better off with the external pump in its own.

Hans von Lieven

but then nothing would oscilate. I'm trying to make diver to oscilate and pump little water.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 28, 2009, 08:24:36 AM
Well Hans, you tried.

Bill
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: truth on February 28, 2009, 04:45:32 PM
Just a thought,

ALL of these ideas hinge on one thing and FAIL on that same thing.

A mass must change volume without changing its weight  while under pressure in order for gravity to be tricked into utilizing its own force against itself.

Working on HOW that can be done would be much more productive than daydreaming about having done it already, or arguing over ideas that do not succeed in changing volume without changing weight while overcoming pressure obstacles.

Is there anyone here that does not understand this concept?

There may be a solution that works, but suggesting the same things over and over will never help discover it.

EVERYTHING HANS STATED is correct. Use that knowledge to be creative.

Please remember that it is the responsibilty of the person suggesting an idea to PROVE that idea is correct and workable. It is not the other way around.

Good Luck Everyone
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: grayone on March 01, 2009, 04:24:49 AM
wizkycho; I think your idea is all wet.  ;) You need to pay attention to the engineer Hans von Lieven.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hammuraby on March 01, 2009, 12:44:36 PM
i haven't read evryting, for my easy English...but my be can be better, follow my idea on this system:
i think that this can work, and w/out heavy-loud inside,  but:
1)  when the "piston" have to such water from the long tube have NOT to start on the hiest point possible, but this have to save upside a quantity of water a little more heavy then the heavyness that pull into the long tube....
2) never the air have to came inside , when you open under from the descharge tube ... the only air in the reservoire, have to stay into the under side of the piston ||-----||; then the under walls of this piston have "to be contained" the air when this is expanded from the action from down sucking movement..
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Thaelin on March 16, 2009, 07:57:13 PM
   Twenty six pages and did anyone even make a mock up?  This would be a fun afternoon
project just to see what it would do. The piston needs a bouyency block in it and multiple
valves. Dual drain valves in the bottom and one for the up tube. The size of the up tube will
need to be correct for the piston weight. That including the weight of the water or fluid on top
of it.
   No takers?

thay
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 04, 2009, 07:39:40 AM
Hi Guys,

I think I see a way to make the original design work. Whats missing is an exhaust cycle at the top of the stroke. When V3 opens, air will escape to the top of the cylinder. V3 can then be closed and can force the water out of v2 and in through v1, when mp hits bottom, the air under it will be refilled, but there is now a bubble at the top. If we add a V4 that releases this air at the top of the stroke, and move the v1 valve down a little bit we can have a repeatable cycle. As a matter of fact, if V4 can be fed back into V2 somehow, V1 and V2 can be connected to each other in a closed loop. Wouldn't this work? :o

PS, yeah, I think I'm going to try to build one.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 04, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
Hi Guys,

I think I see a way to make the original design work. Whats missing is an exhaust cycle at the top of the stroke. When V3 opens, air will escape to the top of the cylinder. V3 can then be closed and can force the water out of v2 and in through v1, when mp hits bottom, the air under it will be refilled, but there is now a bubble at the top. If we add a V4 that releases this air at the top of the stroke, and move the v1 valve down a little bit we can have a repeatable cycle. As a matter of fact, if V4 can be fed back into V2 somehow, V1 and V2 can be connected to each other in a closed loop. Wouldn't this work? :o

PS, yeah, I think I'm going to try to build one.

Knowone really prooved that it couldn't work, bur there are some pressures that are developing and are tough to handle - at least , although this animation and the hole idea looks simply doable, actuall real world design is complex for majority of us that do not have easy access to real industry and technology (cad/cam machines especially) so we could use it's potentials
to quicly and easily build prototypes. this is not just case with this one - many other prooven free energy and overunity processes are hard to replicate in garage conditions,
although very simple and understandable.......on the other hand global industry is in dead end without us - we can only expect they develop "new" design of cars with "new" motors in them.
(and they are doing it over and over again - like some short circuited robot)
I suggest you to find or develop some simpler to build concept...btw. energy surplus of infinity pump that might be developed is not very high unless build as a huge tank in a back yeard.

Wiz
(If someone is interested i can tell anyone what other and prooven free energy devices are - and very worthwile to build and use on everydays basis)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 04, 2009, 04:48:23 PM
The most difficult part of a build like this would be the valves. I think V4 could be a simple ball valve. V2 & V3 need to be some kind of spring loaded rocker valves and they need to be keyed to each other so when one opens, the other is closed. If they were attached to each other via a flexible cable (like a bicycle brake cabled) and were spring loaded, then the natural action of the piston up and down could trip them to change state. I'm still not sure if V1 needs to be valve at all. When the piston rises up to the V1 level, it could effectively shut off V1 without any additional hardware. I'm also thinking the fluid needs to be something more viscous than water. Something like a light weight oil won't have as much of a leaking problem around the piston without adding friction.

Anyone know where to find small little valves that might work for this, or at least suggest keywords so I could google more effectively?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 05, 2009, 06:49:01 AM
I had an idea that I think will make this one work more efficiently, Here is an expanded view of the mp piston. I've drawn two valves, V3a opens to allow air to escape up into the top of the cylindar, V3B is a valve attached to a tube running through the middle of the piston. It can allow water to escape from above down below without letting the trapped air escape. This might also be replaced by an extra tube and valve on the side of the main pump body. Not sure which would be easier to do.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 05, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
you should continue to build on following animation
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6836.msg158565#msg158565
that has flat or conus-down bottom of cylinder and complete air is pumped out
so air is not a problem for now and there is no need to add valves.

here is proposal on how to seal floater-swimmer and be able to control pressure needs and friction
using inflateable rubber...

the only thing here that needs to be experimentaly prooved is that floater with its weight can suck water IN from input pipe and that in same time has LTW (lighter then water) properties. but HTA (heavier then air).
If you succeedd in pumping water up with floaters weight and it can float on water then you have prooved the concept.
sounds as contradiction at first but objects that in same time is HTA and LTW is possible, and allready used.

Wiz

Igor Knitel
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 05, 2009, 06:27:38 PM
Hi Guys,

Here is some more on my ideas for this pump. I moved the V3B valve out into a separate pipe. The top end is parallel to the V1 valve and line but is separate from it. This allows the water to flow from the top to the bottom while the piston is rising without compromising the integrity of the air bubble under the piston. When the piston rises above the V1 & V3B lines, the valve at V4 opens to let the air from the previous cycle exhaust out. Once the piston rises to the top of the stroke, V4 closes and V3 opens to let the trapped bubble escape. V3 then closes V1 opens and the weight of the piston forces the water down drawing more water in from the reservoir. At the bottom, the piston fills with air again, V2 closes and V3B opens, the piston can rise back up to the top until it again forces the air from the last cycle out through V4. Cycle complete.

PS. I'm not a professional in either physics or hydraulics, but I have had a lot of experience with aquariums over the years and I think I understand syphons pretty good. I've drawn a measurement (A &B) on the pic below. This represents the pressure differential that needs to be overcome by the difference in buoyancy of the piston. Its not the whole length of the riser tube, its only the difference between the intake and the outlet.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 05, 2009, 09:00:40 PM
onevoice... wolud be nice if you could make complete animation, although I understand how it should work - animation could help to find obstacles.

the animation I ment one should build on is (wrong link before)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6836.msg158565#msg158565

onevoice
This is when looking it again very inovative approach now floater has better chance to still be bouyant, if it must be heavy for pump up action in the first place, cause it has
now additional air bubble. this is very very close to be understandeable concept - and overcome(overweight) pressure from hidrostatic paradox and still be able to make floater
LTW lighter then water.

can you please make an animation
this is fantastic contribution, if someone could make another such finess change, this pump would be way stronger so paradox can not stop it.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 05, 2009, 09:21:09 PM
onevoice

if V3B opens when floater-swimmer is at the bottom - how is water pumped up ?

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 05, 2009, 11:01:38 PM
@ onevoice,

The trouble with your design is the top valve that supposedly lets the trapped air out. The only way to expel the air is to fill the void with  water. How can a void that sits above the syphon be filled with water?

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 06, 2009, 04:42:26 AM
Hi Igor,

Thanks for the link(s). Will study them after my kids go to be tonight. Would watch out for the inflatable seal because its size will vary with depth. Leak at the bottom and too tight at the top. Lots of questions, will try to answer:

Igor: I'd love to make an animation, but I'm not technical in physics. I don't think the key is so much to make the float between density of air at STP vs water so much as it is to be able to alter the displacement of the piston. To make it as heavy as possible at the top and to make it as light as possible at the bottom while using less energy then can be gained by the potential energy of the water movement. Any suggestion for simple animation s/w I can learn on...PS Must be cheap or free too!

Quote
if V3B opens when floater-swimmer is at the bottom - how is water pumped up ?
A: When the piston goes down, it should be dragging the water in through the intake so the space above it is already full. Yup, I agree, the'res going to need to be some small space so the water can come in under the piston through the V3B pipe.

Quote
The trouble with your design is the top valve that supposedly lets the trapped air out. The only way to expel the air is to fill the void with  water. How can a void that sits above the syphon be filled with water?
Hans, there are two things that 'could' fill the void. One is water, the other is the mass of piston itself. Think of it like an internal combustion engine. On each downstroke, air enters the system below the piston. The added buoyancy drives the piston up but it must also release the trapped air from the last cycle as an exhaust out the top. Once the exhaust has been cleared, the top valve closes and the V3 valve opens in the piston, releasing a new cycle of trapped air. Knitel has a great idea here, I'm just working out details. Here, a new pic. Notice the outlet at V2 can be slightly higher than the top of the lower outlet at V3B. So long as the V3B valve is closed, air can't get into the tube and water can't get out

One other thing that's good about the top air exhaust is that any small air leaks in the system will naturally rise to the top and get purged from the system.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 06, 2009, 08:03:23 AM
Hi Wiz,

Thanks for the hint to look at the animation on page 10, I had seen it before, but was bleary eyed and dismissed it at the time. Upon looking back again, I also saw a fatal flaw in the pic I posted. Your pic has some problems too. First, you show the weight going up in the water, implying that it is less dense but it also shows the weight going down with a bubble of trapped air underneath of it. it can't go both ways unless there's a blackbox changing its density. The second problem is one of basic mechanics, the trapped air is right along the gasket while the weight is going down. That is going to be the point of maximum leakage. Even if everything else goes right, its still going to get enough air trapped in the top over time to stall the pump.

Here's a new pic. I've decoupled the outlet and intake at V2. The outlet now only needs a backflow valve to stop air getting in during the downstroke and the real V2 valve is only used to let air in at the bottom of the stroke. I also added some stops at the bottom so that the piston never gets down so low that it blocks the bypass tube, V3B, and both of the V2 valves are raised up a little so that the bottom of the V3B line never gets air trapped in it and is never cut off. Thanks again Hans for pointing that out.

A suggestion about gaskets, tire pumps use a flange of leather or rubber to keep their seal. Its usually in a cone shape flared outward so that the internal air pressure compresses it closer to the cylinder body keeping a tighter fit. Applied here, the piston needs to be more dense than water to force a downward action. That's the compression stroke. It may seem counterintuitive, but that's the way the gasket has to seal for this to work. It can leak like a sieve going up, but it must keep a tight seal on the way down.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 06, 2009, 09:53:29 AM
Hi Wiz,

Thanks for the hint to look at the animation on page 10, I had seen it before, but was bleary eyed and dismissed it at the time. Upon looking back again, I also saw a fatal flaw in the pic I posted. Your pic has some problems too. First, you show the weight going up in the water, implying that it is less dense but it also shows the weight going down with a bubble of trapped air underneath of it. it can't go both ways unless there's a blackbox changing its density.

please look again (animation (page 10))
this is not trapped-contained air - water comes out through v2 and air is replacing it, since floater is now heavier then air ("suspended" in air) it must go down - none of the air stays when floater reaches bottom (if built properly and smooth surfaces). in other words by changing media (air-water) under the floater - floater becomes HTA and LTW. Floater in this animation
is able to go both ways. although is a question if it can pump the water up due to paradox. this is the only questionable part here.no mistake here in animation.

Quote
The second problem is one of basic mechanics, the trapped air is right along the gasket while the weight is going down. That is going to be the point of maximum leakage. Even if everything else goes right, its still going to get enough air trapped in the top over time to stall the pump.
if we are looking at a same animation (page 10)
no trapped air here - when pressure below due floaters weight rises, floater stops - then water goes out (at v2) lowering pressure and/or (depending on how fast water comes out) air comes in-replacing water lowering pressure again for floaters weight to go down, at the bottom all of the air and water below is pressed out by floaters weight.
If V2 is big enough pressure of air-water below is not as high to penetrate sealing.

no errors here - only yet undetermined ammount of pressure above floater comming from pump up action paradox.

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 06, 2009, 10:25:40 AM
onevoice

althogh animation could help (microsoft Paint for drawing frames - and then Gif Animator that transferes it into animated gif) - it is not supper quick method.

I now completely understand how this works, in KIP there is change of media (air-water) below the floater, now you introduced changing media within floater itself
so overall there is now much wider range in which this can operate.

one thing - you can allow air to go in where water goes out (at gen) and you do not need V2 then. then V3B must be at bottom
if you do this (allow air to go in) you will have less pressure from below - and therefore effectively heavier floater.

air will not accumulate, it is same if you let it go in immidiately or using V2 after.

well done

Wiz



Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 06, 2009, 11:06:38 AM
You guys don't learn, do you ?   ??? ??? ???

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: wizkycho on April 06, 2009, 11:15:04 AM
You guys don't learn, do you ?   ??? ??? ???

Hans von Lieven

...I mentioned paradox enough times - haven't I

Wiz
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 06, 2009, 04:12:57 PM
Hi Hans,

As a matter of fact, my wife is constantly telling me how hard headed I am. The only problem is that I'm usually right. I admit I came upon this thread late and I haven't studied all 26 pages the ideas presented pro and con. If there is something significant that I missed as pertains to the latest graphics I uploaded, please point it out to me so I can learn from it.

Joel
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 06, 2009, 10:49:00 PM
My apologies for my last comment Joel.

I have had a better look at your last drawing and I must admit the idea actually has some merit. I will spend a bit of time on it and give you a better appraisal later.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 06, 2009, 11:34:36 PM
Hi Wiz & Hans,

I've been a little busy today. I downloaded a trial program to make animated gifs. Please see attached. I changed several of the valves to just be one way flow valves. Its now down to 2 mechanical valves that, in the gif, are actuated by trigger bars at the top and bottom. I think these actuators could be spring loaded to delay their opening and closing long enough for the transition phase from positive to negative bouancy to occur. Whatcha think?

Joel aka.

(One voice in the wilderness)
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 06, 2009, 11:59:32 PM
G'day Joel,

The real problem with this device is the evacuation of the top chamber. The internal pressure inside the top chamber is equal to the hydrostatic pressure inside the chamber minus gravity. The atmospheric pressure you are trying to vent it into is considerably higher, resulting in additional air entering into the chamber rather than expelling it.

Just a first assessment.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: brian334 on April 07, 2009, 01:37:25 AM
When water falls it can do work, butt the falling water can only do work
one time. After the water falls it must be lifted back-up to repeat the process.
Are you saying that the same water that is falling can lift the same water
that is falling? Plus power a generator.
The water falling on the down side will push the water rising on the up side
to exactly the same level. And that’s it.

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Thaelin on April 07, 2009, 05:58:00 AM
   In the beginning I did see a good lot of merit to the design. With out the proper things to do
any tests with, I cannot decide if it would work as drawn or not. The slider would have to be a
seal to the sides with multiple vents to let out the water from above to below it. It would also have
to be boyant so as to want to rise to the top of the tank when thoes valves were opened.
   Then it would also have to be strong enough to lift up the water on the side pipe to refill the
upper area. This would require a sealed environment at the top. The water being let out at the
bottom would by fluid vacuum drag it along as it was let out. That would in turn bring water in at
the top. The key factor will be the seal and how much drag it poses over all. I would think that some
kind of seal that would be naturally lubricated could be found to fill that need.
   So many things could make or break this. Overall, I like the design at the first. Main top tank a
sealed environment which drains to an open catch basin at the bottom to be drawn up by the side
pipe. Darn sure wish I could draw out what is in my head. Oh well.

thaelin

     Now I will see how long before Hans shoots me full of holes.   Just kidding Hans, have a beer on me.

Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 07, 2009, 09:06:17 AM
I am not going to shoot you full of holes Thaelin,

I agree that on first inspection it looks quite feasible, until you get to the bit where he has to vent the top cavity. This he cannot do. The only reason air can enter at the bottom is that the internal pressure is less than atmospheric pressure,

The very same thing is preventing him from getting rid of excess air at the top.

Sorry fellows but that is a fatal flaw. The thing cannot work.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. I have a beer in front of me now. Cheers!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 07, 2009, 09:59:03 AM
@ Hans:

Cheers! I am drinking a toast to you.

Bill
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Thaelin on April 07, 2009, 02:37:46 PM
   Ah the holes was a good laugh only. I did however decide on what I think is a good test to
see if the theory will hold water.  ;D   I will try it out in the next few days to see.

thaelin
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 07, 2009, 07:05:11 PM
Ah, pressure differential at the top. I hadn't thought of that. That could be a problem. or it might not. If the air pressure is lower at the top than in the piston, would that make the piston more buoyant or less buoyant? If it makes it more then the design should still be in good shape. If not, there still might be a solution. The Idea I had was that excess air is pushed out of the top by the displacement of the piston when it breaks surface so even if it doesn't rise as much, so long as it can still raise the pressure and\or open the valve at the top before the valve in the piston opens, then it might still complete a cycle. I have a half dozen experiments I want to do to validate various parts of this.

My biggest concern is that it will cycle, but it will lose a little every time until it stops. I think theres going to need to be a secondary pumping system somewhere driven by the piston's rise that replenishes the level at the top. Another issue is how to keep the piston stationary at the top and bottom long enough for the air and water exchange to complete.

Thaelin can you suggest any good sources for parts? I was pricing an 8" plexiglass tube at eplastics and they want more than $300 USD for it.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Thaelin on April 07, 2009, 08:51:05 PM
   In reality on the 8" tube, all you need to do is use a short piece of PVC and then cut out
a clear window just to see the top entry point of the side pipe. Two 8" caps and a few fittings
will do it. Just have to figure out a way to trigger the valves inside the sealed unit.
   I am almost wondering if light oil would be useful here. The seal will still be a concern for me
to come up with. Felt for a quick try but will not last unless in a light oil. "O" rings would be good
but where to get one that big? 

thaelin
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 07, 2009, 09:33:04 PM
Thaelin, you and I are thinking in parallel. I was figuring a light mineral oil instead of water. More viscous, better sealing and less evaporation. That would affect the buoyancy equations. I also had an idea for a pressure compensator. I we put a hollow rubber ball inside the piston, it could compensate for the difference in pressure.

When I was a kid, we had an old tirepump that had a leather gasket. This and the backflow valves would work better in oil.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 07, 2009, 10:48:24 PM
@ Onevoice,

You are missing the point. In a hydraulic system the pressure, apart from the gravity component, is uniform in all directions throughout the system That means that the pressure beneath the piston is exactly the same as the pressure in the top reservoir.

That is not the point though.

In order to get the system to cycle you must get rid of the air in the top reservoir to make room for the air beneath the piston.

That you cannot do as you cannot vent from a low pressure area into a high pressure area without some sort of a compressor. A compressor capable of doing this would consume many times the energy you are likely to generate.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 07, 2009, 11:54:56 PM
Simple experiment. Take a closed cylinder filled with water with a flexible membrane across the middle. Heat up one side, the membrane will deform due to the differences in pressure.

By the same token, a rigid membrane being shifted by gravity should be able alter the pressure on either side. It won't really be higher on the bottom because there is an outlet flow. Now, the interesting thing is that there is an intake flow at the top too but since that one is essentially acting like a siphon, the air pressure would be a little lower at the top. Not uniform on both sides.

My idea was that the evacuation is being done by a compressor. The piston has a positive buoyancy, so it rises. how high it rises is the question. It needs to rise high enough above the top level in the tank to displace a volume of air equal to the amount of air under the piston, give or take the relative pressure differences in the two areas. The math for this is way of my knowledge level.

If its not enough, there are two ways I can think of to mitigate this:

The first would be some kind of compressible object under the piston, like a small balloon that can absorb some of the pressure differential.

Second, since new fluid is pulled into the system during the downstroke. If an insufficient amount of air is pushed out, then that air will displace fluid each cycle and the pump will slowly go dry and stop. If there was a secondary pump that was actuated by the rising of the piston, it could make up for the difference by pumping a small amount of additional water into the top during the up stroke. It seems like almost all of the potential energy of the rising piston is wasted. If we could capture a little to do a little work, it would be easier to close the loop.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 08, 2009, 12:41:13 AM
You are already expending far more energy than the system is capable of generating. A loss situation!

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 08, 2009, 04:29:50 AM
Learning something new is never a loss. I need to do some experiments... :-*

Joel
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 08, 2009, 06:24:34 AM
That one I agree with. Experiment by all means, you will only gain new insights. That is a win in itself.

Good luck

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: itanimuLLi on April 08, 2009, 09:39:02 PM
How about this solution
see the drawing
firsttime start up all system is filled with water. all valves are closed
stage 1
valve2 is open very shortly to remove the air under the weight  valve 3still closed, after that valve 1 opens, weight gos down sucking in water

stage 2
Valve2 +valve3 is open valve 1 closed the weight is at the bottom air flows under the weight.

stage3
Valve1+ valve2 + valve3 are closed weight weight floats to stage1
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 08, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
That might be a solution! Difficult part would be to maintain a seal around the top where vertical pipe goes through the top of the tube. We could make that a flexible hose permanently sealed to the top of the main tank. ;D
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 08, 2009, 11:39:03 PM
This won't work either and pretty much for the same reason.

Have a look at my paper on hydrostatics and syphons the physics is all in there.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6836.0;attach=31031

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: itanimuLLi on April 08, 2009, 11:42:31 PM
Here is the animation link it was to big for the thread.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item258
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 09, 2009, 12:21:27 AM
Yes you can get this thing to work in animation. In the real world you cannot.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Onevoice on April 09, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Hi Hans,

Excellent paper on siphons. Good read, low enough on technical details for a tinker like me to understand without coming off as rude to the reader. I do have a couple of points I'd like to mention though. In the 'Other misconceptions', Figure 2 section, I think you meant to say 'most PM designs' rather than 'must PM designs'. For a paper like this, a quick grammar check can help pick off the correctly spelled wrong words.

The second issue is one of omission. You glossed over how a siphon is started. Typically, this is done by creating a vacuum in the line that is greater than the forces pulling the water down to its natural level. I don't know if the hydrostatic differential plays a big part in this or if its just overcoming gravity, but I think its important for the following reasons.

First, Every aquarist occasionally needs to cleanup an overly dirty tank. anaerobic bacterial action can create large amounts of methane that becomes trapped under the gravel. When siphoning up the muck, these methane (gas) bubbles are caught in the line. So long as the bubbles aren't so long that they violate the integrity of the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the siphon, the process will pass them along without a problem. I've wondered whether the atmospheric pressure of the bubbles is lower than or equal to the outside air. My Assumption is that it is lower. The bubbles are in a state of partial vacuum because they are being 'pulled' along by the stable water column below them in the system.

Also, While the Egyptians, and I, both used our mouths to initiate the vacuum required to start our siphons, there are several commercially available 'starters' for people that are unwilling to take a short suck on their fish tank. Various squeeze bottles and such are designed to aid in pumping enough water through the line to start the siphon process. Quite often, these pumps result in a trapped bubble within the siphon that in no way causes the siphon process to become unstable.

I think these are important to the designs we're discussing here because they illustrate what happens at intermediate stages of the pump designs. A piston, Knitel's MP, is essentially the same as the bubbles in the line but with a weight displacement heavier than water rather than lighter and it is possible for a downward piston to siphon even with some air trapped at the top of the chamber so long as it is a hydrostatically sealed environment on the downward stroke.

I've attached an image with two siphons which will also function perfectly. They illustrate the principles that I'm talking about.

PS. I'd really like to read your paper on Buoyancy.
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: hansvonlieven on April 11, 2009, 12:23:54 AM
A vacuum is not required to start a syphon. Admittedly it is one way of doing it, but all that needs to be done is to insure the siphon tube contains no air. Simply filling the siphon tube with liquid, closing off both ends, immersing one end in the tank and holding the other end below the level of liquid in the tank, then opening up the tube will start it.

As to my paper on density, I wrote this in German for another forum and have yet to translate it. When this thread here suddenly stopped I did not do it because there seemed to be no interest.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Nabo00o on June 10, 2009, 12:58:58 AM
Great paper on hydraulics and hydrostatics hansoliven!

Siphoning has interested me quite a bit recently, and of course I have tried out the things that dont work.
However I think i know how to make it work, by using gravity....
Wanna know more?

Nab
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Nabo00o on June 10, 2009, 03:53:39 PM
K, you haven't responded so I might just as well tell you.

In my opinion siphoning works purely by the force of gravity, combined with the suction moving liquid creates.

In many ways it can be thought on as a hydraulic counterpart to two weights connected by a string, hanging on a pulley (there is a name for this but I can't remember it now). If one is heavier than the other it will pull the other one up, however it is not so easy to do this with liquid, because any solid it rests on (as you described in your paper) will absorb its gravity induced weight.

However if you used something resembling a capillary structure, or less complex, several pipes connected together at one side, leading up and then into the the one suction pipe, you would have more weight hanging in the air on one side than on the other, and thus more weight.

The problem you show us in the first of the last three examples is that air will enter and ruin the process, however, this doesn't mean that the weight of water at that moment before chaos interrupts wouldn't have sucked with a much larger force.


If it can work, the key seems to be that you must have a larger volume of water at one side than on the other, combined with two things: That 1; there is no solid surface which the water can rest on (like a huge tank with a small hole in it), and 2; that the bottom water surface cannot collapse and so allow air to enter.

All of these problems can be solved by using one pipe as the intake, and connecting it to several other output pipes, which be only adding one more would double the mass, and also double the height it is limited to.

At least until tested we shouldn't just disproof this as a simple impossibility.....
If it could work, it would at least be damn simple to make.

Naboo
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Nabo00o on July 19, 2009, 02:31:04 PM
Hi all. I just wanted to say that Knitel's Infinity-Pump most certainly works!
The only stage of concern is when it floats back up. If you allow a large enough air pocket to be stored in order to make up for the force of the weight then it should be able to repeat every time.
I can't think of anything that could justifiably remove the correct title of this machine!
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: FreeEnergy on October 29, 2009, 12:42:06 PM
EVERYONE,

what if you have a vertical SMOT that lifts a weight underwater? then the water is drained and the weight falls do to gravity while refilling the water tank.

objects underwater are lighter than outside the water no?
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: Russell Lee on December 15, 2009, 06:40:14 PM
 There may be some problems with this design functioning.  First, when the valve opens to allow the water to fill the area below the weight to cause it to rise, there is no mention of where the air that is bleeding out is going.  Assuming it is rising to the top of the cylinder would have the float not reach the top of the cylinder, but the top of the water level below the newly formed air pocket.
  Secondly, where is the extra air coming from that appears in the simulation on page 2 when the float is at the top of it's rise?  The air under the weight increases in volume, how?
  Thirdly, as the air is forming at the top, the water in the pipe will be draining down to the holding tank.
  It seems that after working (if it even does) only several times, the air above the weight will be greater in vacuum flex that the ability of the vacuum produced by the weight to draw any water up the pipe.
  There was a design on the net over the last 10 years called the Heavy Float Pump Generator (Designs for the World Project gave it to the world), but it is no longer on the net.  That design avoided the problems this one has.  Not sure if it can be found on the net any more or not-haven't looked for it.
-Russ
Okay, I edited the GIF animation and made the animation slower
and included Igor´s name with it.

Here it is:
Title: Re: Knitel's InfinityPump
Post by: czimborbryan on January 18, 2010, 03:51:44 AM
From what I can tell, all that you are trying to do with this pump is nearly the same thing that already happens with water running through a dam to generate electricity.  It fills up during the night and water flows out during the day making electricity.

The design needs a way for the weight to lose boyancy and then regain it (ie - air).  I do not see how this can also pump water and air at the same time.