Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[tinman]

, I started with the best case:  The device doesn't consume any net energy.  All real cases are worse.  Please pay better attention.Evidence, you should look into that concept The thermal losses only take you downhill from the starting point of no net energy being available from buoyancy.Zero less any positive value is less than zero.  You start with zero net energy available and suffer losses. 

LOL

LOL

I just love how you continue to laugh at peoples ideas and thought's MarkE. This is a common occurrence with you. You always laugh at those you consider to be below you.

.LOL, to be "more efficient" than the work evolved is to ask for free energy.

No,as i proved useing your calculations,the energy you call free actually came from the enviroment. And at the end of the cycle,it will be returned to where it came from-the conservation of energy

If you get rid of all of the losses you are back to nothing.

And yet i showed a net energy gain(useing your calculations),even with the losses. This is there along with a simple schematic for all to try,and see the results for them self.

[LibreEnergia]

I just love how you continue to laugh at peoples ideas and thought's MarkE. This is a common occurrence with you. You always laugh at those you consider to be below you.

No,as i proved useing your calculations,the energy you call free actually came from the enviroment. And at the end of the cycle,it will be returned to where it came from-the conservation of energy

And yet i showed a net energy gain(useing your calculations),even with the losses. This is there along with a simple schematic for all to try,and see the results for them self.

So why don't you make comment on the concept of chaining several of your venturi nozzles together? Should be a no brainer to produce an ever increasing output, no?

Or does the effect miraculously disappear when it knows the secret to eternal free energy is under threat of exposure. These things must remain hidden after all

[tinman]

You are wrong on this one Brad, but I am not going to push it further.   Something to think about or look up if you are curious, is how many Joules of energy are there available due to the angular momentum of the rotating Earth?  Then suppose you give yourself the "right" to harvest just 10% of that rotational energy.  How much energy is there in that 10% chunk?  How many Bay of Fundy ship tidal power up and down "rides" does that give you?   That might be an interesting number.

I know what your saying MH,and to a point-i agree. But then ask yourself this-how much energy (in this offset you speak of) would Mt everest be taking away from the earths rotation. Lets just knock 50 000 tons off the peak,and where done-right?--we have gained ballance?. No,we havnt. The midway point is the ballance with the ship. Do you see it as being raised 14 meters,or being raised 7 meters,and dropped 7 meters?. It's all the same thing-the mass remains the same,so the energy required remains the same. The earth is fluid ballanced,and that ballance is offset by the moons gravitational pull. We are loosing no energy,only transforming energy. It is also interesting to note that since man has been building huge steel ships that displace 100s of 1000s of tons,and put up on dry dock during high tide,that the earths rotation speed reduction has not increased above the 2 microseconds each day since over 200 000000 years ago-it has remained constant regardless of mans intervention. If we take a large ball,and tether a small ball to it some distance away from it,and then set it in a spinning motion in space-will it stop spinning?,no,it wont,and regardless of what you do on that large ball,it wont stop spinning unless you eject mass into space,and form some sort of rocket engine device or effect. So why do you think that the same would not apply here on earth?,why would anything we do on earth effect the spin of the earth when we are just that big ball with a smaller balled tethered to it spinning in space. Did the thought ever cross your mind that the slowing of the earths rotation may have something to do with the earths position in the galactic plane?. How do you know that once we pass through the galactic plane to the other side where the earth will now be seeing a counter rotation in relation to the rotation of the galaxy,that the earth wont once again start to speed up?. Only another 65 million years,and we will know the answer to that.

The fact that the earths decreasing rotational speed has remained constant for over 200 000000 years that we know of,clearly shows that mans intervention has had no effect-and we are talking microseconds here,so a very precise measurement.

[tinman]

So why don't you make comment on the concept of chaining several of your venturi nozzles together? Should be a no brainer to produce an ever increasing output, no?

Or does the effect miraculously disappear when it knows the secret to eternal free energy is under threat of exposure. These things must remain hidden after all

Sure-you send the cash to pay for the equipment and my time,and i will give you a looped system.
You seem to think this is some sort of miracle,when it is nothing more than useing the enviroments energy to power a device. The solar pannel dose this with ease,and to you it's just a common item that can be bought and used at will. So why dose this system that uses a different enviromental energy seem so far fetched to you? Your partner in crime even stated that the enviroment gases hold a huge amount of energy,and yet you seem bewildered as to how enviromental gases could be used to increase the energy within a system.

[LibreEnergia]

Sure-you send the cash to pay for the equipment and my time,and i will give you a looped system.
You seem to think this is some sort of miracle,when it is nothing more than useing the enviroments energy to power a device. The solar pannel dose this with ease,and to you it's just a common item that can be bought and used at will. So why dose this system that uses a different enviromental energy seem so far fetched to you? Your partner in crime even stated that the enviroment gases hold a huge amount of energy,and yet you seem bewildered as to how enviromental gases could be used to increase the energy within a system.

I'd have thought that you'd recognise that performing such a test would perhaps be the simplest way to test your hypothesis that this device provides for an energy increase. What you have done so far does NOT preclude the result that all you have done is create a more efficient nozzle.

I've got absolutely zero interest in providing cash for you to test a looped system though, as I already know what the result would be.

This device has nothing in common with the well established principle of turning light into electrical energy such as occurs in a solar panel. Solar panels are ~30% efficient at best. There is no chance of them becoming anywhere near 100 per cent efficient, let alone the 133% you seem to be claiming for a venturi nozzle.