Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[d3x0r]

I think your mixture is a bit off. You need more alcohol and less caffeine, or maybe vicey-versey.

  Probably.   Been too many months without clove cigarettes and THC.
I don't drink... and caffine is about once a week but none of that counts.

Look. The whole contraption is based on one side being heavier than the other side, right? So just get rid of the water altogether, it just creates drag you don't need. Drop a series of heavy balls into the buckets on the descending side and have them roll out on the bottom. Use an Archimedes Screw to elevate the balls back up to the top so they can be dropped back into the descending buckets. Power the Archimedes Screw with a simple pulley-belt linkage off the top sprocket of the bucket-chain. Have the bottom sprocket drive your generator. There will be so much mechanical advantage from the Screw-Pulley system that you'll have to install a brake mechanism to keep it from speeding up to self-destruction.

Right?

Might as well be the same, but use water to fill the empty buckets like a water wheel, then the issue is to lift the water back up to the top... But.  This isn't the weight of water water that's moving it's air being pressurized... (which also results in water moving... but only inches instead of the full height of the apparatus.)


Chains are expensive... though I did find some cheap parts at a bicycle shop, and maybe could raid a motorcycle junkyard for drivechain; or auto yard for timing chains.  Bike sprockets don't have narrow mounts.. they're all wide in the center... But could use 4 u-bolts 2 on each end to attach the tubes to the chain... but then the u-bolts will interfere with the teeth on the gears...


Okay; maybe I should consider this a little differently and approach it as making a vaccuum in the top of the chamber to reduce the pressure of the bottom below atmosphere and use the natural air pressure to pull it in... (power from the vacuum! )   only need to be -20% air pressure for my 5 foot model.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html  (only need to go up 2000 feet from sea level to be at 80% pressure... not that that helps... just sayin that's not a lot of work to produce)  (back to the scribble-board)

[MarkE]

Quote : A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero.

Like i said-crap. As the gravitational field is NOT constant,then net work can be done-->there for meaning that the gravitational field is not conservative. This is one great example of the crap that is peddled through the teaching of physics. So i say once again-->if the gravitational force is not constant,and work can be done from this non consistant force,then how can it be a conservative force?.

It is not i that is doing one's self no favors Mark,as my post is not nonsense. I CAN !without doubt! show you energy being produced using !your! conservative force(both gravitational and bouyant).You say that the gravitational force cant do work-->rubbish. You say that a bouyancy device cant do work-->more rubbish. Neither of these forces(when combined) is conservative,as they are not constant forces.

You are completely lost.

[MarkE]

Hey Mark.. or anyone familiar with the physics/math problem being touted as proof that Buoyancy Tower can't work.
I have some questions.

I was in the shower trying to fathom how this might work
when a little song came into my head.
it went something like this.

hmm ~ 9 TANKS A PULLING WHILE 1 TANK IS FILLING ~ hmm

So here's my thought...

If there is a limit to the energy it takes to fill 1 tank,
   then there is a limit to the number of air filled tanks
          that together would possess the potential energy required to fill 1 tank.
              (given a movement of about a foot that releases a small portion of the total potential)

Since the apparatus must be started by mains power my questions are this.

1.Does the Problem start with the potential energy of the pulling floats and their movement when it compares to the energy to fill a  single float?
    (this is the logical place to start since this is where the Unexplained Energy Source starts)

2. Why couldn't X number of floats above the empty one ... possess the potential energy released through a small movement to to fill 1 float with air?

Thanks so much to anyone who can answer these questions !

Best Regards,
                      The Observer

N*0 = 0.

[MarkE]

I can't make any claims to the Rosch device, it may very well be all a scam.
But if we want to just make blanket assumptions and apply them to all buoyancy devices claiming them to "not work", maybe someone didn't have enough balloons as a kid.

Consider this: a weighted diver under 100 feet of sea water requires a sustained 40 newtons of force to pull him to the surface.
                     
This is provided, using Buoyancy, with only a short burst of 1.6 Newtons of force, inflating his life vest from a CO2 cartridge.

In your balloon example, the balloons get inflated pushing up the local atmosphere as they get inflated, and you can reclaim most of that energy leaving you in deficit.  Similarly, work was done compressing the CO2 cartridge.  Some of that work is reclaimed when the diver opens the cartridge to surface.

[MarkE]

I think what he means mark, is that if you lift an object through the gravitational field during a time of day when the gravitational force is lower,
Then hold it there until the force fluctuates to a higher value, you have a gain in potential energy with no cost.

That should not be defined as solely "conservative". Because it could be used in a non-conservative manner.
    albeit not economical

This difference in force, is the basis for all gravity powered devices. Whether they utilize buoyancy, magnetism, or fluctuations in the gravitational field.

What we should be looking at, is " change in force". And how much energy is involved to initiate this change.

He is once again confused.