Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[oscar]

DE:
Als nachtrag zu meinem posting vom 6. Mai 2015 http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 , in dem ich versuchte, das
prinzip des AuKW-antriebs darzustellen, nachfolgend ein zitat aus dem
Wikipedia-artikel "Wasserrakete":
"Eine Einweg-PET-Flasche entwickelt ohne aufgeschraubte, verengende Düse bei 6 bar 213 Newton
Schub und je nach Nutzlast somit eine Startbeschleunigung vom über
15fachen der Erdbeschleunigung, die nach wenigen Metern sogar noch steigt."

EN:
With reference to my posting of May 06, 2015 about the basic concept of the Rosch "buoyancy device"
http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365
here is a brief translated quote from the German Wikipedia article on the topic "Water Rocket":

"A disposable PET bottle powered by 6 bar compressed air - without
an additional mounted nozzle - develops 213 Newton of thrust (depending
on payload) resulting in  acceleration equal to 15 times the gravitational acceleration g."

[memoryman]

You still get less energy out than input.

[MarkE]

DE:
Als nachtrag zu meinem posting vom 6. Mai 2015 http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365 , in dem ich versuchte, das
prinzip des AuKW-antriebs darzustellen, nachfolgend ein zitat aus dem
Wikipedia-artikel "Wasserrakete":
"Eine Einweg-PET-Flasche entwickelt ohne aufgeschraubte, verengende Düse bei 6 bar 213 Newton
Schub und je nach Nutzlast somit eine Startbeschleunigung vom über
15fachen der Erdbeschleunigung, die nach wenigen Metern sogar noch steigt."

EN:
With reference to my posting of May 06, 2015 about the basic concept of the Rosch "buoyancy device"
http://overunity.com/15732/rosch-taking-orders-on-ou-bouyancy-device/msg449365/#msg449365
here is a brief translated quote from the German Wikipedia article on the topic "Water Rocket":

"A disposable PET bottle powered by 6 bar compressed air - without
an additional mounted nozzle - develops 213 Newton of thrust (depending
on payload) resulting in  acceleration equal to 15 times the gravitational acceleration g."

Oscar:
Toy air/water rockets do not generate excess energy.  The user pumps up the air and then releases the rocket, wherein the compressed air ejects the water generating thrust and expending the energy used to compress the air.  The pressure in the rocket is several bar while back pressure resisting the ejected water is 1 bar.

In the Rosch device, the air compressor is a low pressure affair.  It develops enough pressure to get air into the buckets against ~1.5 bar.  You can see where the bubbles release that the differential pressure is small.  The bubbles float up from the up rising side resulting in a small amount of downward thrust that works against the operation of the machine.

[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.  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

Outside a Douglas Adams book there is no "next level"  or multiplication of nonsense that eventually makes that nonsense sensible.    Anyone is free to entertain whatever wild ideas they like.  However there is zero point at all wasting time pretending that ideas that don't hold up are viable.  There is a trivial triage for wild ideas:

1) Is the idea in an area considered unsettled?
a) Yes - proceed to design experiments to falsify the idea.

b) No -
2) Is reliable evidence available that contradicts the accepted view?
a) Yes - proceed to design experiments to reconcile the contradiction.
b) No - full stop, it's baloney.

[minnie]

You need to take your experiment to the end.  Generate enough work to return to your starting state with even just a scintilla left over.  Then you will have something remarkable.  What your apparatus does is move energy.  Some of that energy moved is from the local atmosphere.  Such is the operation of a heat pump.  If you are intent on staying warm or trying to cool off, heat pumps can be very useful devices.  If you are intent on performing kinetic work, they don't help.  It seems that the only way that you will learn is to take your experiments to their logical conclusion where you compare useful work done.

  To me this statement from Mark says a lot!
          John.