Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[oscar]

DE:
Ein üblicher raketenantrieb basiert auf dem prinzip der ausströmenden (ausgestoßenen) masse.
Die formel für die dabei entstehende  schubkraft ist:
schubkraft = ausströmende treibstoffmasse pro zeiteinheit mal ausströmgeschwindigkeit,
siehe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feststoffrakete

Wenn nun die "auftriebskörper" auf der steigenden seite über ihre halter (siehe bild
http://gaia-energy.org//wp-content/gallery/funktionsmuster-rosch-auftriebskraftwerk/Funktionsmuster-ROSCH-Auftriebskraftwerk-6.jpg)
mit luft befüllt werden, und dadurch das während der absinkphase eingeströmte wasser ausgepresst wird, dann arbeitet das AuKw mit "Raketenantrieb" (zusätzlich zum "auftrieb").


EN:
Rocket engines create thrust (force) according to the formula
thrust = exhaust gas mass times effective exhaust velocity
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

If the air is presed into the containers via their mounting brackets (see http://gaia-energy.org//wp-content/gallery/funktionsmuster-rosch-auftriebskraftwerk/Funktionsmuster-ROSCH-Auftriebskraftwerk-6.jpg)
, the water that is in the containers will be expelled.
With properly designed and directed exhaust nozzels that equals a rocket engine.

[Red_Sunset]

I do what I can to avoid personalizing issues.  Things are what they are.  I see no reason or benefit to pretend that we can not get down to cases when we have sufficient information to do so.  ............................
...
.............................................  If they are grounded enough to understand that the extraordinary is unlikely then they won't be heart broken to find out that any particular idea fails for some reason or another.  They do not need to be protected from such truth, and it is a disservice to them to engage in deceit.That may be so, but in no way justifies deceiving people by pretending that something that is unworkable is actually viable.Showing that an idea doesn't work is not a personal issue.  Where did insults ever come into this?

MarkE, LibreEnergia,

I know this is a difficult and an emotional topic one for many, especially if a lot of thinking and experimenting has gone into a project, then when presented on this forum looking for a solution that possibly could save the project, it becomes a sensitive matter that can break hearts (what do think is the reason why Stefan Marinov killed himself ?)

Believe me, in principle , I do not disagree with your viewpoints.
The main point I was trying to make is to have consideration to the reason why someone communicates on this forum, he is usually looking for help, not for preaching.  He knows the thermodynamics bible and he is not looking for a outright dismissal based on its ten commandments when he is actually looking for idea collaboration.

If we follow LibreEnergia position, not many idea's would be posted on this forum.  Any simple idea can  always mature into a fantastic idea, or contribute to a light bulb inspiration on a unrelated project. Like OSCAR input above.

MarkE,  your reply in "Partnered coils" as to why the Heins Thane does not work is not very explanatory.  Sure everybody knows that energy is conserved, the mutual induction interaction....ect. 
Heins core idea was to break this interaction and thereby break the feedback (the Lenz).  You do not come close to explaining how his choosen mechanism fails with attention to a practical focus.  Because once we understand that we can take the idea possibly to the next level rather than killing it before it had a chance to live.

Same with a phi toroid device,  everybody think that containing the flux within the core is sufficient to overcome the Lenz, it isn't, The question and answer to this issue is not " because of the law of thermodynamics,  No..no..
The question is how does the loading torque manifest itself on a macro level, how it function. This must be understood before an attempt can be made to resolve it to move to the next level. If it could be resolved

I am sure you get the idea, this is the only intent of my message

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE, LibreEnergia,

I know this is a difficult and an emotional topic one for many, especially if a lot of thinking and experimenting has gone into a project, then when presented on this forum looking for a solution that possibly could save the project, it becomes a sensitive matter that can break hearts (what do think is the reason why Stefan Marinov killed himself ?)

Believe me, in principle , I do not disagree with your viewpoints.
The main point I was trying to make is to have consideration to the reason why someone communicates on this forum, he is usually looking for help, not for preaching.

When did evaluating evidence become "preaching"?

He knows the thermodynamics bible and he is not looking for a outright dismissal based on its ten commandments when he is actually looking for idea collaboration.

There are two basic phases someone can be in:  They are not offering a claim, or they are offering a claim. If they are not offering a claim, and that has happened numerous times here, they could be looking for help on how to design an experiment or help understanding a concept.  Such assistance has been freely offered by myself and others.   If someone offers a claim then their evidence for that claim should be evaluated.  It isn't dogma that has found every claim offered to date wanting.  It is nature itself.

If we follow LibreEnergia position, not many idea's would be posted on this forum.  Any simple idea can  always mature into a fantastic idea, or contribute to a light bulb inspiration on a unrelated project. Like OSCAR input above.

LE's position is built on rock solid science.  99% if not more of the proposed free energy ideas that I have seen here all have close if not direct spots in the Museum of Unworkable Devices. 

If an "overunity" mechanism is to be discovered one of two things will be true:  An exception will be found to one or both of the First and Second Laws of Energy, or a new previously undiscovered fuel source will be discovered.  Looking at the same old kinematics and electrodynamics that have been carefully studied for hundreds of years offer nil probability of discovering either.  That ground has been gleaned, and gleaned and gleaned again.  If someone wants to have some sort of fighting chance at discovering the extraordinary, they need to look in new places.

MarkE,  your reply in "Partnered coils" as to why the Heins Thane does not work is not very explanatory.  Sure everybody knows that energy is conserved, the mutual induction interaction....ect. 
Heins core idea was to break this interaction and thereby break the feedback (the Lenz).  You do not come close to explaining how his choosen mechanism fails with attention to a practical focus.  Because once we understand that we can take the idea possibly to the next level rather than killing it before it had a chance to live.

First:  It's Faraday that describes induction.  Lenz simply sets the sign of induced voltage consistent with the First Law of Energy/Matter.  Thane Heins has done nothing that even begins to suggest that Faraday induction does not occur, or that the sign is not as dictated by Lenz.  There is no small irony that the large leakage inductance that Thane Heins is trying to use to "overcome Lenz" is a direct manifestation of Faraday induction.  Where there is not even a starting point, there is no "next level".  Dead on arrival is dead, nails holding it to its perch or not.

Same with a phi toroid device,  everybody think that containing the flux within the core is sufficient to overcome the Lenz, it isn't, The question and answer to this issue is not " because of the law of thermodynamics,  No..no..

Any actual advance will come with reliable evidence.  It is the lack of reliable evidence that kills these various claims.  Please stop blaiming the messenger.

The question is how does the loading torque manifest itself on a macro level, how it function. This must be understood before an attempt can be made to resolve it to move to the next level. If it could be resolved

I am sure you get the idea, this is the only intent of my message

Red_Sunset

I keep seeing upset with the messenger because the message is something other than what someone might want to hear.

[Red_Sunset]

.....................................................
............................................
.I keep seeing upset with the messenger because the message is something other than what someone might want to hear.

MarkE,
There is a saying:  The glass is half full <-vs-> The glass is half empty.
Question: What is more important,  the "IDEA" or the "EXECUTION"
In the world of MS, Apple, Facebook. as example,why and how did "google" take away the crown from "yahoo".  What was more important at that time, "the idea or the execution".  I bet their initial focus was more on "idea" than on "execution" ?? (although we do recognize both are important)

If the business proposal of those companies would have been tabled here on OU.com.  How do you think it would have been received here ?.  The possibility of building a company of a few billion in a few year ?
?? Impossible, the law of common sense forbids it.??

Creativity rather than execution is what matters most in the bigger picture
It is purely a different angle of approach. 

It would be foolish to shoot the messenger, constructive and building criticism is more desirable
Red_Sunset

[profitis]

Time to leave the germans and fly to ireland peeps.steorn is puttin its new everlasting battery on display to public this friday.. http://www.freeenergytruth.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/steorn-orbo-power-cube-demo-from-friday.html?=1