Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[ramset]

Mark E
stop playing with the buttons...

only Stefan knows how to work that stuff...

We're Back...

[MarkE]

Where is your 500MPH Mark. Maybe a job at boeing as an engineer is the way to go for you. You can show the engineers there what they dont know.

You insist that we all go do some reserch,when it is clear that you do none of your own. Blind faith is your reserch,and you own misguided conceptions. NIST report is not only wrong about the plane's speed,but also just impossible. Im afraid you have fell in your own hole,and data/reserch that i have done,that is obtained from the people that designed and built the bloody planes clearly shows you are FOS. So now you have to go do some reserch your self,and find two things.
1-Another highrise building that has completely collapsed(as the WTC did) from fire weakening the steel structure to a point of failure.
2- A document from boeing that states that it is possible for a 767 to fly at 500MPH at sea level-which it is not,the engines simply cannot provide the thrust required to do so,and the plane also has built in safty parameters that dont allow these speeds at sea level even if they were possible.

What has happened here is,-you have asked that we all do our reserch,while all you do is quote NIST,NIST,NIST-which is full of so many holes it's not funny.

So,1&2 Mark,lets see how you go with your reserch

Oh,and a little something extra.

WTC engineers have confirmed that the WTC was designed to withstand the inpact of a 707,which was one of the largest passenger planes at the time-->fuel load was also accounted for. The 707 also had a higher cruising speed than that of the 767,and even though slightly smaller than the 767,it would have hit with a higher energy impact.

You claimed the planes could not have gone 500mph because they would supposedly fall apart at 220mph.  Your claim is completely refuted.  Have another drink of that delicious Kool-Aid tinman.  "AS SEEN ON TV!" A 767 crashed into each building at high speed.  "AS SEEN ON TV!" the impacts and fires caused catastrophic damage when the floor supports expanded and failed.  If you want to drink Jones' Looney Tunes nano thermite Kool-Aid, you go right ahead and do that.  Then you can argue with other nutters like Judy Wood about space beams "dustifying" the towers.

[MarkE]

TK'
This is a big load of crap-again.

Quote:  We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test.  I sat in the pilot's seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots  /h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale.

See a problem here ?.

The problem is that you have taken up with nutters.

[tinman]

The problem is that you have taken up with nutters.

You have your eyes wide shut Mark,there is no doubt about that.
Oh,and i got some bad news for you in regards to bouyancy/gravity devices not being able to do work. How about a 10Kw unit thats been running since 2010,and was the show piece at the united Nations  COP15 conference in Copenhagen . Bet you would love to know all about that one.

Oh,could you direct me to the building 7 part in the NIST report-->i cant seem to find it?
What planes can really do. But i doubt you will even give it the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k

[d3x0r]

The two salient points are:  Compression does heat the gas (air).  Given the opportunity that heat conducts out of the gas, losing energy to the surroundings.  That is the same change in energy that can later be absorbed back from the surroundings to displace additional fluid as the elastic bubble rises.  Soda water can be a refreshing treat.  It is not a source of free energy.

point 1 : good, then I get more pressure for the same volume; +1 goodness.  (edit: err alright I guess I have to increase pump character a little ... because I will end up with less volume of correct pressure at increased temp or the correct volume at slightly reduced pressure at increased temp... but the temp increase on nitrogen&oxygen ... which apparently is a constant that can be looked up is apparently neglegible in 90%+ of applications... because *spoiler* the temp is given in Kelvin, and is a small delta compared to either pressure of volume deltas.)
point 2 : after leaving the compressor I don't care if it sheds the heat to the environment, other than it will end up decompressing less.... it won't go below the initial ambient temperature... and slowly increasing heat in the water does make it less dense... but the overall molarity of the particles above will increase, slightly increasing the required pressure, but allowing more force from bouyancy.   (water expands above 4 degrees C... but the expansion is so slight it's got to be on the order of 0.00001x increase... )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage (generalities...)


------
Dug around a lot and read a lot of questions asking for 'how much tempuratue changes' mostly on physics forums... they almost always just go back to an adiabatic process and relate V1P1=V2P2 and disregard tempurature because ... what's gained in compression is returned during decompression without regard to heat transfer.... (if it needs heat after shedding some heat it will absorb it back from the system) ... so the bottom of the water vessel will be hotter than the top- other than the buckets end up mixnig it.


The other factor that affects tempurature increase in amount of volume change in time... only a very small pressure increase (relatively to tempurature which is in kelvin) is required in this system, and it's nowhere near 'fast' requirement... 1 foot/sec  (for a 5 inch diameter) is only 0.681818MPH... nowhere near the speed of sound (compressing with with the volume changing at the speed of sound induces excessive heat, since the air colliding with the compressing surface causes heat also).
------


I also realized not 100% is lost, as the air in the bucket rises, it is expanding and causing increased displacement... and assuming there is no increased displacement only 0.75% is lost to that for my calculations.


So, less than 1% of the energy to compress the air is recovered.
The output is still grossly more than this.