Knitel's InfinityPump

[spinner]

@Wyzkycho
You're very unfair. Hans just wanted to open your "overenthusiastic" eyes.. If there would be something of a real value, I'm sure Hans would be one of the first to applaud and/or help you...
You're behaving like a spoiled child...
I think Hans will not spend another minute on "your concepts"...

@Hans von COE that just can't go further by any means you again for second time make it personal so:

0. You just said that there is no such powerfull pump to pump a ballon !

That is obviously just your opinion... Look again at Hans posts, he never said something like that. Mean.

1. There are systems that work in COE mode, but there are others that works in overCOE mode. it is prooven by now.

Oh, really? Which systems don't work in a "CoE mode"? Lol... And, where is the proof??? I'm sure you'll provide the facts pronto....

2. It is obvious You are not talking about Knitel's InfinityPump but trying to simplify or removing (on purpose or ignorance) parts of system that might make it work. It is irational way approach any system.

You can continue to talk about your "OU pump" in superlatives, but  as long as you have it on paper (or in your mind) only, or as long as you don't prove it's workings with some real experiments, it's all just a wishfull thinking...

3. Not one post I saw from you (not just here) has any constructivity or idea.

That is just a mean remark. Hans helped with his knowledge countless times... It's just your fault that you've missed that...
I'm surprised that he's willing to teach you after all of the nasty remarks you've made so far...

4. objects heavier then air can fly

Lol, really? All by itself? Or maybe they need special conditions, and an input of "external energy"? So, after inventing the !magnetic transistor!, KIP floater, an AG is next on target?

5. find your imagination you could use it.

I'd say the imagination is the most obvious thing which most of the people here have in common....

6. What about bringing Mlkovichs pendulum (that is by itself OU device) as pump in input pipe and get ridd of start pressure. OU pendulum would be driven with bouanycy

Milković's pendulum is not an OU device. OK?
If it is, it would be a piece of cake to make it a "self-sustaining" PM.... A PERPETUAL MOTION DEVICE.

7. I'm establishing new rule, What ever childish rudeness You say in future bumps to you back with paradoxall multiplication. You could really use a lesson.

I think you're the one who needs a lesson. (Nothing personal.) Childish rudeness, "I know it all" complex, etc...

You're so "green" that the grass looks gray when you speak... (lol)
...

8. You are broken robot ? cause functionall one would still have logic.
9. Do not attenuate or turn off music when you come to the party !
10. You wouldn't be able to replicate even simplest working device ! because it would be overcreative to You.
11. Are You working on Your bouancy chapter ?
12. can you even change light bulb or is it too creative for you ?
...Wiz

These are all IDIOTIC remarks,... I think (and believe) you can do better than that? So, "WyzzKid", just prove it...
Cheers!

P.S.
have fun !

[tbird]

hi all,

since wiz's first language is not english, maybe i can put it in a way easier to understand.

for all those who have been following this thread, we understand the function (in first design) of the weight/floater is to both suck (pump) the water into the cylinder (on down stroke) and float back up to repeat the cycle.  since the weight/floater would require more water volume than is in the cylinder to float, the unit would not work.

wiz's thought (if i follow correctly) is to reduce the weight of the weight/floater so it does have enough volume in the cylinder to float the weight/floater and still have a decent stroke.  if we do this, it will no longer be able to suck (pump) the water up.  his answer to this is to use the weight/floaters motion going up (not sure about going down) to generate electric power to drive a small pump in the input tube.  since the timing is wrong for it to pump water into itself, he offers a second unit to provide this work and the first unit then could provide that work for the 2nd unit.

since he is the electronics guy, i'll leave the electric pump part for him to explain.  my thought is there is not enough work being done by the weight/floater going up to be changed to another form that would power the small pump in the input tube long enough to transfer the amount of water needed in the cylinder.

have i left anything important out?

tom

[hansvonlieven]

@ Koen1,

You say in an earlier posting:

If you like you can look at it like this: back in 1900, all aerodynamics textbooks
said heavier than air flight was impossible. All professors on universities taught this,
and even proved it with experiments.

This is not correct. This urban myth originated from a famous statement by Lord Kelvin  who said :'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.'  The only reason this statement became famous is because at the time Kelvin was president of the Royal Society, 1895.

There were most likely political motives behind the statement as he was pushing for lighter than air aircraft.

This was never part of physics books and was not generally taught. The first heavier than air flying machine in modern times was a model aeroplane that flew, built in 1804 by George Cayley who discovered the fundamental laws governing heavier than air flying machines. for a history of early flight see : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/tribute_history.html#index01

At the time of Kelvin's statement there were few that believed him. It was never part of mainstream science.

Hans von Lieven

[wizkycho]

hi all,

since wiz's first language is not english, maybe i can put it in a way easier to understand.

for all those who have been following this thread, we understand the function (in first design) of the weight/floater is to both suck (pump) the water into the cylinder (on down stroke) and float back up to repeat the cycle.  since the weight/floater would require more water volume than is in the cylinder to float, the unit would not work.

wiz's thought (if i follow correctly) is to reduce the weight of the weight/floater so it does have enough volume in the cylinder to float the weight/floater and still have a decent stroke.  if we do this, it will no longer be able to suck (pump) the water up.  his answer to this is to use the weight/floaters motion going up (not sure about going down) to generate electric power to drive a small pump in the input tube.  since the timing is wrong for it to pump water into itself, he offers a second unit to provide this work and the first unit then could provide that work for the 2nd unit.

since he is the electronics guy, i'll leave the electric pump part for him to explain.  my thought is there is not enough work being done by the weight/floater going up to be changed to another form that would power the small pump in the input tube long enough to transfer the amount of water needed in the cylinder.

have i left anything important out?

tom

now this answer means something, it is negative and points exactly at a part of device that might not work, and why.
And someone can answer to this, communicate.

So please everybody, Hans especialy, can we forget rudeness (or you want me to shout out of my balcony, sorry I offended You) from both sides
and keep ourselves from describing each other personality and focus on what might work what doesn't.
Knowing that the one who says it doesn't is allways in better position. and looks like a cool and very smart guy. When that one doesn't have any proposals he looks supersmart.
(but that leads knowhere)

but when insisting further on those two I think he is working against someone.
and doesn't even bother to analyze new picture new proposal. If one don't give enough effort in comprehending how can he
let himself comment it. those are politicant tactics and visible from the space.

So let's get rid of such approach. here anyway !

If I made that mistake it was due hard to see hidrostatic paradox that I didn't know of. Everyone state that it is not as it looks like (paradox).

Besides original KIP is working just fine by itself with proposed numbers (on paper). 50kg floater etc. at least to the point where it needs to be constructed as whole. there is not enough volume in cylinder to make floater of such characteristics, or is but then movement would be 1cm up-down. I haven't finished calculation.

You may even take any animation, or picture and put some arrow and say this is problem and shortly describe it.

So to continue and try to make it work I proposed wider cylinder and pump in input pipe that I believe now has to overcome 250g/cm2(not 500g/cm2) since there is 5kg weight of floater (it must mean something just a bit maybe), and flaoters bouyant part is driving that pump , since floater is now only 5kg and cylinder is 25 times wider biger surface floater can be made to have -10Kg or even -50Kg....I have not yet made calculus and (don't know where to start and it might render it unworkable), parhaps I'm waiting to show me some other paradox. or to propose some non radioactive heavier available material, I found Tungsteen....

allso there is water in first cylinder that is going down and makes underpressure in phase with floater going down...

I don't know -  I said - but it might work.(paradox pressure will appear but pump keeps pumping cylinder lowering that pressure and even negating it...)

Wiz

@Koen1

MIlkovich's pendulum is Free Energy device and by any means prooveable. Once set in motion mouse can lift 100Kg. not once (so it is not just E accumulator) - every time and with a very short lewer. and it's an open system to gravity so it does use gravity for it's work, but gravity is at least to say "renewable". nobody really tried to make it OU. not here.
And has to be as you wrote,and I agree,(like any other under COE machine) made to meet some conditions. These are conditions we are searching here.

Wiz

[hansvonlieven]

@ wizkycho,

You still do not seem to understand the difference between pressure and mass (weight). In order to "draw" water the piston needs to be heavier than water. In other words the downward pressure exerted must be larger than the downward pressure in the riser pipe.

A piston that can "draw" water cannot float, whatever you do with it. Certainly, you could make it hollow and fill it with water, drain the water when it reaches bottom and get it to float this way. Then you have the problem to fill it again with water when it reaches the top, which you cannot do because the air pressure inside becomes many times the pressure in the water column. air gets into the system and the water column in the riser tube collapses.

Whatever you do this idea cannot work. You don't need calculus to do the mathematics on this, simple arithmetic is sufficiently accurate to show why it cannot work.

You need to understand what I have written up so far it is all there already. I will write up on buoyancy when I get a chance just to show the whole system in a different way. It's not really necessary though if you understand what I have said so far.

Hans von Lieven