What's wrong with this

[tinman]

@tinman

I hear ya, I once did similar experiments. While completely shit faced I once bent over very carefully and jerked furiously upwards hard and fast on my heavy bootstraps. The next thing I know I'm waking up on the floor... why my head must have hit the roof with such force it damn near broke my neck and knocked me out cold. The ratio was 10 shots of Rye whiskey to my 7.5 inch bootstraps if I remember correctly which is kind of questionable but somehow amazing.
There may be something to this 10:7.5 ratio, I may need to try this on the roof of a moving car or bus to confirm my suspicions but I'm still trying to figure out how not to spill my drinks in the process...that would be wrong.


AC

Always knew you were an ass clown AC,sounds like you have already had to much to drink.
One thing is for sure-you wont be getting your hands on this one and running like you did at OUR.

[tinman]

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.

Sorry Mark-the discussion is now closed.There are now undesirable eyes watching,and i aint done with this idiot yet. He is a walk in take all kind of guy. He's done it before,and he'll do it again. He dribble's endless crap about how much he know's,and the best we have seen from him was some crappy electromagnet device my grand daughter could have built.

By the way,just so as i dont leave your questions unanswered-no,there is no intake of ballast water-the vessle is gas/water tight. Propellors driving onboard generator's on the way up and then on the way back dow-yes. The secret is in being able to get back most of the energy used to reintroduce the gas. With todays technology,it is possable to get back 75% of the used energy from the gas to liquid phase.This means that the generators only have to produce 25% of the power used to make the device work-self run. I have serched the internet for 6 month's now,and although you say we have 2000 years of experiance with buoyancy,i dont see any actual attempts at building such a device(other than a few youtube no hopers frauds) that was designed to self run. Maybe you could point to some that say that this is not possable,or a real organisation that has tried?. Mother nature provides many different ways of giving us free energy,and this device would be seen as that-run by mother nature,not an OU device.

Remember,the deeper you dive in the ocean,the colder it get's.Most gases we know require less pressure to return back to liquid the colder they are,and expand with a lot more pressure the warmer they get. Now all you need to do is turn it all ass about.

This project has now been moved to where the undesirable remains blind.

[MarkE]

Sorry Mark-the discussion is now closed.There are now undesirable eyes watching,and i aint done with this idiot yet. He is a walk in take all kind of guy. He's done it before,and he'll do it again. He dribble's endless crap about how much he know's,and the best we have seen from him was some crappy electromagnet device my grand daughter could have built.

By the way,just so as i dont leave your questions unanswered-no,there is no intake of ballast water-the vessle is gas/water tight. Propellors driving onboard generator's on the way up and then on the way back dow-yes. The secret is in being able to get back most of the energy used to reintroduce the gas. With todays technology,it is possable to get back 75% of the used energy from the gas to liquid phase.This means that the generators only have to produce 25% of the power used to make the device work-self run. I have serched the internet for 6 month's now,and although you say we have 2000 years of experiance with buoyancy,i dont see any actual attempts at building such a device(other than a few youtube no hopers frauds) that was designed to self run. Maybe you could point to some that say that this is not possable,or a real organisation that has tried?. Mother nature provides many different ways of giving us free energy,and this device would be seen as that-run by mother nature,not an OU device.

Remember,the deeper you dive in the ocean,the colder it get's.Most gases we know require less pressure to return back to liquid the colder they are,and expand with a lot more pressure the warmer they get. Now all you need to do is turn it all ass about.

This project has now been moved to where the undesirable remains blind.

Tinman the conversation has been interesting.  In order to change the buoyant state of a submersible the density has to change.  So, something gives:  mass and/or the fluid volume that the submersible displaces.  If we change the density but not not total mass of material inside a sealed and constant volume container, that container's buoyancy does not change.  That is why I speculated that maybe you were hoping to develop enough pressure in whatever contains the phase change material to change that container's volume, expelling sea water ballast.

From the: "It can't produce free energy." camp,  what you have cycling a submersible up and down are the UP and DOWN states.  We can pretty much ignore everything in between.  In the up state the system including the surrounding fluid is at its potential energy minimum, even though the submersible is at its potential energy maximum.  When the submersible is at the bottom of the travel, the system energy is at its maximum.  Before your submersible can rise you need to change its density.  You can either eject mass, or increase the submersible's volume, or a bit of both.  To do either you must expend work.  Since rising removes energy from the system, expending additional work at the bottom only aggravates the energy loss going from the down to up state.  On the way from the top to the bottom you have to be able to get all the energy that the system lost just to break even.  Sinking the submersible requires increasing its density.  That lowers the center of gravity of the system at the top without changing mass, so system energy is again lost.  The bottom line:  A submersible only moves up or down by expending energy from the system that includes the submersible.  The submersible moves up or down because the end position represents a lower energy state than the starting position.

[minnie]

  Oh dear Tinman, looks as if you've come a gutser!!

[allcanadian]

@tinman

Always knew you were an ass clown AC,sounds like you have already had to much to drink.One thing is for sure-you wont be getting your hands on this one and running like you did at OUR.

To be honest I had way to much to drink and I apologize for my interruption. I can only hope you see some humor in the fact the other 99% of the people out there may honestly believe you are trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps hence the analogy. I know what your trying to do, I have been all over the same problems and failed. I can only hope you may succeed where I have failed and I mean that sincerely.


Personally I know of two instances which show promise in this area, one is out-gassing (google CO2 geiser) which relates directly to Victor Schaubergers work. The other is a thought experiment made by Tesla where water is transformed into H2 and O2 which I proved by calculation but is impractical in my opinion.


I wish you all the best and can only hope you may see the humor in what were trying to do, I will leave you to it then.


AC