What's wrong with this

[MarkE]

@MarkE

You're not trying to put words into my mouth again are you ? 

Since in nearly two weeks you have failed to provide the state diagram that you promised, or provide any other counter to facts that I have presented that shoot the scheme outlined in the pdf attached to the OP, I think it is reasonable to infer that you have conceded.  I asked you to confirm whether or not that is the case.

Yes the device is viable, for it's intended purposes. and in the context of the subject of the discussion.

The device is inoperable as a source of energy.  External energy must be added so that in Slide 2, the float 2 can be pressed into the tank.  There is a direct correlation of denser water taking up volume at the top of the fluid tank 2 for the volume of the lower density float 2 being pressed into the bottom of tank 2.  That's real work that has to be done to get the float 2 in and float 1 out, magic valves or not.  The total energy consumed  in that process is always greater than the energy that can be reclaimed from the float once it is forced out in a subsequent operation.  Slide 3 fails to note that the GPE gained by float 2 rising is more than lost by the water that falls to take up the space at the bottom of tank 2 previously occupied by float 2.

What your imply with your use of the word viable, is not the subject of the argument.

The device presented in the OP does not work as the pdf attached to the OP claims.

You have been informed at least two times as to the subject of this topic.

The fact that you have previously, responded to that information. is evidence that you know what the
subject is.

I've read and responded to the OP.

Please do not now, contend the subject is other than you know it to be, or that you have not understood.
Eespecially with me, the topics originator.

I trust that since you wrote it, you know the contents of the OP as well.

There is a problem here, with your honesty.

I think therfore it is you who should concede on this basis.
and withdraw form the topic.

Your assertion does not address the claims of your OP.  It does not address the factual disproof I have offered against the claim of the OP.

[Floor]

@ MarkE

From where I'm standing,  your persistence in remaining off topic appears to be an intentional. 

If you will agree to NOT do that, on my topics, or other peoples topics.  I'll let it slide,  and we can continue these talks.

Other wise leave this topic now, and stay off of any of my topics in the future. 

I hope that you will give it some time before you respond.

                      best wishes
                                floor

[Floor]

OOPS that's

intentional disruption.

[orbut 3000]

What is wrong with answering the question "What's wrong with this" by explaining what's wrong with it?

[MarkE]

The OP is:

    Sr. Member
    ****
    Posts: 254
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

What's wrong with this
« on: December 14, 2014, 06:05:50 PM »

    Quote

If Ou can be done any where, then it can be done any where ?

Please find the attached file OUfloater 3.pdf

Cheers
       floor
* OUfloater 3.pdf (348.04 kB - downloaded 116 times.)