Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[shinz62]

Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.

Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.

[minnie]

  What you have to do is raise more than 3,700 lbs.per foot, per second.
              John.

[MarkE]

Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.

That is true, but it doesn't help.  What you have is energy stored in compressing the air that is released as the bubble rises to lower surrounding pressure.  That complicates the math quite a bit, but when it is all said and done the very best that you can do is get back the energy consumed compressing air to displace the water.  If the air were an incompressible liquid instead of a compressible gas, then we would have the simpler form of the math:  absent losses we would lift rho_water*volume*gh water at the bottom, and as the bubble rose we would have available:  (rho_water - rho_{displacing fluid})*volume*gh energy available, provided we take infinite time in the move.  As the gas is compressible, we displace less water at the start.  We've stored energy that would have gone into lifting the water in the gas bubble. 

[MarkE]

Right... that is the result of Boyle's law, but it is somewhat more dramatic than that....


Water pressure at 14 ft is 20.92 psi
Water pressure at 0 is 14.7 psi
Therefore a 50 liter volume of air at 14 foot becomes  71.16 liter at the top, a 42% expansion.


However, MarkE is correct, I introduced error with the gearing. I blew my calculation when I assumed my gear needed a circumference of 1 foot, in reality it needs a radius of 1 foot to calculate the torque  (ft lb -> torque), that makes the circumference of the gear much larger (2 * pi * R = 6.28 feet) to produce the torque I mentioned and therefore my calculation when done correctly will produce about the same result as MarkE's hydro formula.


And as you mentioned, if we can assume a linear application of Boyle's law we get an average of 21% more volume to use in the calculation which only nets out 21% more power output.


Not enough to explain their claims. I think they're lying.


Thanks.

Rosch/Gaia have had to employ the services of carpenters multiple times to allow their noses to fit through even the widest shipping doors.

[Red_Sunset]

I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

.........................................................................
...................................................................

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,

A very good observation, this technique has been used in many instances to achieve set objectives.

The same technique was used on a larger scale by the USA Bush government on Sadam/Iraq

"  Proof to us that you do not have any weapons on mass destruction !".
The endless impossibilities to proof led to the second Gulf War

The same is taking place with Iran,  lets hope they will be able to solve that proofability.

The other reason is to fish for a solution to a problem in an invention without divulging the invention itself in details.

Red