3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[TinselKoala]

In the patent weight is moving the piston outward/inward, not the air.Air volume between two chambers doesn't change,
it just flows between them just to maintain a free movement of the pistons.Semanek's machine is not described
completely, it misses important function of the weights.
Regards

Please explain in detail just how the French patent is different from the device described in the Simanek link.

In the diagram from Simanek's site:
The weight of the piston is moving the piston outward/inward.
Air volume between the two connected chambers doesn't change, it just flows between them.

In the diagram from the French patent application:
It is clear that the levered weight does nothing other than pull the piston down or push it up, depending on which side of the apparatus is considered.
It is also clear that the distance from the center of the apparatus to the weights is the same on either side of the apparatus, so the weights themselves do not act in the manner that the  usual "gravity wheel"  weights are supposed to act. So the weights could be dispensed with entirely and just the pistons themselves could be heavier to achieve the same pull or push that comes from the levered weights, as shown in Simanek's drawing.

So please explain, in detail, how the devices differ and just where you believe that Simanek's analysis goes wrong.

[telecom]

Please explain in detail just how the French patent is different from the device described in the Simanek link.

In the diagram from Simanek's site:
The weight of the piston is moving the piston outward/inward.
Air volume between the two connected chambers doesn't change, it just flows between them.

In the diagram from the French patent application:
It is clear that the levered weight does nothing other than pull the piston down or push it up, depending on which side of the apparatus is considered.
It is also clear that the distance from the center of the apparatus to the weights is the same on either side of the apparatus, so the weights themselves do not act in the manner that the  usual "gravity wheel"  weights are supposed to act. So the weights could be dispensed with entirely and just the pistons themselves could be heavier to achieve the same pull or push that comes from the levered weights, as shown in Simanek's drawing.

So please explain, in detail, how the devices differ and just where you believe that Simanek's analysis goes wrong.

He says:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.

Now we have to count how many pairs are loosing energy, and how many are  gaining energy.
If each branch of the belt is longer than the transition part, we should get a net gain...from the pairs which are gaining energy.
Or I may be wrong because this subject is quite complex.
Regards

[dvy1214]

The whole unit in Semaneks is supposedly submerged ya?

In that case the whole thing barely make sense due to the fact that the air pressure will desire to move to the highest point. No matter how many belts and pulleys there are it would be fighting itself the whole time unless the weights of the pistons changes corresponding to their location on the track. Which, would be tasky and have its own issues in efficiency. Otherwise each piston moving over the top would want to keep it's air until equilibrium with those moving up the left leg fighting the forward progress.

Have had more to drink at this point so please correct as needed.

- David

[MarkE]

He says:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.

Now we have to count how many pairs are loosing energy, and how many are  gaining energy.
If each branch of the belt is longer than the transition part, we should get a net gain...from the pairs which are gaining energy.
Or I may be wrong because this subject is quite complex.
Regards

The whole thing is quite simple:  Buoyancy is the result of gravity acting on a fluid mass into which another mass or masses have been inserted.  Gravity is conservative.

[dvy1214]

Please explain in detail just how the French patent is different from the device described in the Simanek link.

In the diagram from Simanek's site:
The weight of the piston is moving the piston outward/inward.
Air volume between the two connected chambers doesn't change, it just flows between them.

In the diagram from the French patent application:
It is clear that the levered weight does nothing other than pull the piston down or push it up, depending on which side of the apparatus is considered.
It is also clear that the distance from the center of the apparatus to the weights is the same on either side of the apparatus, so the weights themselves do not act in the manner that the  usual "gravity wheel"  weights are supposed to act. So the weights could be dispensed with entirely and just the pistons themselves could be heavier to achieve the same pull or push that comes from the levered weights, as shown in Simanek's drawing.

So please explain, in detail, how the devices differ and just where you believe that Simanek's analysis goes wrong.

@TinselKoala you get my PM?