What's wrong with this

[MarkE]

@MarkE

quote "And yet, you fail to see the irony in your own posts.  It's a curious world." from MarkE

quote "It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here. I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong. However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.
Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.
If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest."  from floor

Correct me if I am  wrong here,  but I think that you felt as if your were being attacked at that point in the converstion.

Also that you thought that it was ironic that some one you perceived as attacking you, would at the same time be
adressing the issue of poor comunication practices.

I see now that this was the result of your failure to comperhend the basics of the topic.  Go ahead and review the first
few pages of the topic.

Apparently you either do not see the irony or relish in it.  It is indeed a curious world.

[Floor]

@ MarkE

Some other coment or context might have ofended me, or have been seen as a threat in some
way, reputation and so on.

[MarkE]

No,i didnt over look anything,in fact,the more heat that is removed from the transition from gas to liquid,the more energy we get back.The energy ratio from liquid to gas,and then from gas back to liquid is about 10:7.5. In other words we have a 25% loss at this time. But then come's my previous questions-what energy can be gained from a constant 500kg pull over 3.2km. Another way to see this is looking at the under water hydro turbine's,where as the flow of water past the propellors generate's electricity,but in this case,we are moving the propellors through the water to gain our water flow over those propellors-->3.2km up,and 3.2km down.

Tinman, so far what you have described as far as I can tell is that you intend to collapse a volume, thereby allowing seawater ballast in by releasing thermal energy from the ballast.  Volume decreases under the ideal gas law until a phase change that then results in a step-wise drop in volume.  Contact with the sea water continues to sink energy until some time later when you either choose to reverse the process or thermal equilibrium is established with the sea water heat sink.  Is this correct?

You intend the increased density to cause the submersible to sink 3.2km.  Is this correct?

You intend to reclaim energy that the submersible gives up in its descent using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

You then intend to raise the submersible by ejecting ballast that you have taken on.  Is this correct?

You intend to eject the ballast by adding thermal energy back to your fluid so that it returns to the gas phase and then develops sufficient pressure to reinflate the containers.  Is this correct?

You believe that you can collect energy on the way up using propeller driven generators and batteries.  Is this correct?

Once we get square on the particulars I will explain the various fallacies.

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

Some other coment or context might have ofended me, or have been seen as a threat in some
way, reputation and so on.

This is just getting stranger and stranger.  If you have some point I have no idea what it is.

[Floor]

@MarkE

First I'd like to look at what are some of  the consequences / results are.

1. topic soars

2. real value of topic is lost in the frey (probably)
a. People may disagree as to what this value is.
b. The value of the topic is in part defined by how many can learn from it.
c. People are at different levels in their pursuit of knowledge.
d. People disagree as to what is a valid discussion.

3. goon squads an apear, posts increase, topic soars more.