Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[MarkE]

From the IBT link:

But... from the NASA blog forum:

Excitable editor they all said.

[ramset]

You have not said What??
GIGO and NASA in the same breathe /sentence ?
specifically implying that NASA does Garbage testing/research... Your a legend in your own mind MarkiE



I have better things to do than search for your GIGO NASA  comment on this forum.
but calling me a Liar for repeating it is pretty cowardly ..and I can absolutely guarantee you
something you would NEVER say if we were sitting across the table from each other.

But it does speak volumes about your character .

**
Although I must add ,perhaps it was another Mark E that made that "GIGO NASA" post ??
at times you do seem to suffer from some form of "I never said that" alter ego...
maybe Sterling is onto something....?

are there Other  Mark E's in the clubhouse making nasty posts about organizations
at the skill level of NASA ..so as to uphold their belief system... ??

[d3x0r]

There is no need to fret about whether what they have is real or not:  Buoyancy is not an energy source.  That is an immediate and full-stop on their claims that they have a buoyancy driven generator.

then gravity is also not an energy source; but yet gravity can be used to release stored potential energy(which also wouldn't exist without gravity).  CLocks for many centuries+ have used gravity to move weights to supply power.
Sure the weights have to be reset, and I guess you'd argue that it's the mass of the weight having potential energy which is the energy source; but without gravity that source wouldn't exist.


Bouyancy is directly related to gravity.  Without gravity there is no bouyancy.
So if gravity can be used to make something do work, so can bouyancy.


Whatever, this is like arguing that batteries aren't an energy source.  (it's the chemical reaction within them is the energy source)

[TinselKoala]

I don't think anyone with a brain is arguing that buoyancy, aka gravity, cannot be used in the performance of work. The clock driven by weights on cords is one simple example. However the _source_ of the energy that drives the clock, which is released slowly by the descending weights and the clock's mechanism, is not gravity, it is whatever raised the weights up in the first place. The Bank is not the Source of your money! And if you take money out of the bank faster than you are putting it in, pretty soon you run out completely.

And it is perfectly true that if you bubble some air into a "paternoster" chain of floats as are in the AuKW device, you can have usable work coming out of the output shaft. Nobody, I hope, is disputing that.

What is clearly _impossible_ is for complete cycles (using gravity aka buoyancy)  to be performed without outside input of energy, once the stored energy is used up. This is the problem. Something has to reset the weights of the clock back to the elevated position or the clock will stop running, and that energy is coming from the breakfast of the clock-keeper, and the energy in that breakfast ultimately came from the sun (and perhaps a little bit from a nuclear fission power plant).
Ditto the PaterNoster float system: efficiency calculations (and many years of experimental failures) prove that there is not enough work available at the shaft, or other output mechanism, to compress  and pump the air that is needed to keep the thing running. Outside energy must be provided, and _after losses_ some portion of this outside energy is available to perform work at the output shaft. No energy comes from gravity/buoyancy that you didn't put there in the first place, using a _real_ energy source. 

Anyone trying to run computations on these systems (using gravity in the regions where it is indeed constant and conservative, that is, on Earth and most other places) has to take into account the initial state of the system, the energy stored in the initial state, where that energy came from, and what happens or needs to happen to get the system to return to the _exact initial state_ so the cycle can proceed again. Full cycles, accounting for stored energy, are what really matter in a device that is claimed to _produce_ work or energy from gravity/buoyancy.

[TinselKoala]

Remember that many of John Keeley's devices were powered by compressed air, piped into the devices by hidden plumbing or even thin tubing masquerading as single wires. The AuKW device might simply have another hidden air pump somewhere, putting more air into it, through hidden plumbing, perhaps coming in through the wall brackets or some other route. Electrical measurements would not reveal this source of extra power input; it would take a careful teardown and inspection of the apparatus (and the environment) to rule out something like this.
But it would take a lot of air to enable a 4.8 kW output, and float system would have to be moving pretty fast. Certainly faster than what is shown in the video of the operating top part of the assembly, using reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of the floats attached to the chains inside that particular tube.

How is the power from the actual chain of floats transferred to the sprocket that is connected to the pulleys that actually drive the generator?