3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[TinselKoala]

Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html

Fine, you set me up by presenting the APPLICATION first. And there are many non-functional patents in every country's patent database as I am sure you must know.

secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...

Really? Someone who has invented a _working_ free energy device as simple as that can't develop it because of lack of funds? Come on, pull the other one why don't you. That is a garbage excuse. Are you telling me that you can't build a model of that device for a few tens or hundreds of dollars, to show that it works? That is a load of bull hockey. The reason it hasn't gone any farther is because it _does not work_ and every person who has tried to build a model of it knows that.

lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.

If you think you have found a serious "flow" in Simanek's explanations you really should email him and let him and his graduate students and the rest of the engineering world know about it. Be sure to let us know the results of your correspondence with Simanek. Or, just go ahead and build the design that you think he has explained incorrectly and show it working.

Take an intelligent look at this design? Are you now questioning my intelligence, or perhaps you know more information than you are telling us, like when you presented the _application_ instead of the granted patent?

[MarkE]

Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html
secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...
lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.

I have some really bad news for you:  Buoyancy:  the weight of displaced fluid exerted upward on the displacing object doesn't provide free energy anymore than the weight of a sack of rocks does on one side of a teeter-totter or a pulley.

[Floor]

Doing the calculations or building and measureing.

Either way it's still trying out ideas that are new to the explorer.

Making claims that can't be backed up is the only problem.

This is what I would Try/calculate/measure in a bouancy/O.U. experiment.

Cheers
     floor

[MarkE]

Doing the calculations or building and measureing.

Either way it's still trying out ideas that are new to the explorer.

Making claims that can't be backed up is the only problem.

This is what I would Try/calculate/measure in a bouancy/O.U. experiment.

Cheers
     floor

As has been shown time and time again whenever these types of machines have been proposed:

In the idealized case that can never be realized, the work performed pushing the buoyant object into the bottom of the column can exactly be recovered as the displaced fluid falls back down and the buoyant volume rises.  In the real world, the energy cannot be fully recovered for several reasons.  There is never any energy gain possible.

[MarkE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=423HiKP5JGk

explanation video for archurian rocket for pressure, still unbeaten in any mechanics or math by 300 physics professor it was sent to. One tried and after more than 30 emails back and forward and me beating him at every turn and answering every question, he crumbled back to the great netwoinian answer of well it can't work "coz physics says so",(pity none of that physics had the mechanic failure or math proof to go with it, oohh it's like the bible, how can there be different families descended from adam and eve if god wiped them all out in Noahs flood? oohh i get it, his name was Noah Newton)

It's a silly presentation that is full of fallacies.  An object is buoyant when its SG is less than the surrounding fluid.  Under the premise that you have filled up a uniform cross-section tower with water, you performed work filling that tower with m_fluidGh_tower/2.  That is a sunk energy cost.  Now, using any mechanism that you like and as perfect as you like you introduce a float of some smaller height and lower SG into the tower.  Water from the tower surrounds the float and it rises.  What you ignore is the absolute fact that water from the tower must flood the airlock you placed your float in, dropping the level of water in the tower, which will either have to be drained from the airlock or pushed back up into the tower during the next cycle.  If you go the drain route you lose energy that you expended filling the tower in the first place and the machine runs down.  If you push the water back up into the tower then "Jimmy" is right and you are wrong.  Your scheme does not work.