3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[telecom]

You mean the "inventor" THINKS it should work, but of course it does not.

Come on people, these buoyancy drives are nothing new, they have been completely and rigorously analyzed for years, and yet every once in a while somebody thinks he's invented a new one, when he really hasn't. No working model of any such drive has ever been produced.

Here it is again. You will note that the devices shown and analyzed in this link are functionally _identical_ to what is described in that patent application link.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm

Or rather... non-functionally identical, since they do not function, and of course neither does the one in the patent app. link.



If you want to do some experiments that show otherwise, please go ahead, but be sure to report your _negative results_ honestly as well as any positive results you get. The reason you don't hear of all the failures is because people don't want to report them... hence the perpetuation of the belief that someday one of the same-old-same-old ideas will suddenly start working. But they won't.

Hi,
I really enjoy reading your informative responses, but this case is different from what have been described.
He is using the weights to create or limit the buoyuncy, quite different from the described examples,
which are short of this application of the weights, or at least, not pointed out in the design.
They write:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.
This is the critical mistake they are making by pointing out at the pairs of the cylinders during the transition,
at the same time not mentioning that there can be many more cylinders at the vertical stage of the machine,
producing the work ( for free).
BTW, this is not a patent application, but the actual patent.
Regards.

[TinselKoala]

Hi,
I really enjoy reading your informative responses, but this case is different from what have been described.
He is using the weights to create or limit the buoyuncy, quite different from the described examples,
which are short of this application of the weights, or at least, not pointed out in the design.
They write:
Now reconsider the full version with piston chambers on a belt over two pulleys. Each pair of pistons gains energy moving on the straight portions of the belt, but loses the same amount of energy going around the pulleys to the other side of the apparatus.
This is the critical mistake they are making by pointing out at the pairs of the cylinders during the transition,
at the same time not mentioning that there can be many more cylinders at the vertical stage of the machine,
producing the work ( for free).
BTW, this is not a patent application, but the actual patent.
Regards.

Note that the pdf in your link says, in great big letters on the first page, DEMANDE DE BREVET, in all caps.
Please put "Demande de brevet" into your Google French translator and tell me what you get back.

If you think it will "produce work for free" then why, since the document was published in 2003, are we not seeing working buoyancy drives based on this _really simple_ plan all over the place by now?

And you are wrong that it is not fully covered by the designs and analyses in the Simanek museum. There is nothing new in your "patent" and furthermore it will not work. Go ahead and build it yourself and see. Be sure to report your costs and the test results you get, even, or especially, if they are negative. If they are positive, that is, if you can make it work,  then we will all benefit from your investment and hard work. When will you be starting?

[telecom]

Note that the pdf in your link says, in great big letters on the first page, DEMANDE DE BREVET, in all caps.
Please put "Demande de brevet" into your Google French translator and tell me what you get back.

If you think it will "produce work for free" then why, since the document was published in 2003, are we not seeing working buoyancy drives based on this _really simple_ plan all over the place by now?

And you are wrong that it is not fully covered by the designs and analyses in the Simanek museum. There is nothing new in your "patent" and furthermore it will not work. Go ahead and build it yourself and see. Be sure to report your costs and the test results you get, even, or especially, if they are negative. If they are positive, that is, if you can make it work,  then we will all benefit from your investment and hard work. When will you be starting?

Dear TK,
first of all, the patent was actually granted:
http://www.patfr.com/200304/FR2830575.html
secondly, I really don't know why the inventor haven't continued his quest and tried building his machine,
but my best guess is that its because of the lack of funds...
lastly, rather then saying that I was wrong, lets take an intelligent look at this design, w/o relying
on the opinion of others, and try to figure it out. I already found at least one serious flow in Semanek's
explanation.
Best regards.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=423HiKP5JGk

explanation video for archurian rocket for pressure, still unbeaten in any mechanics or math by 300 physics professor it was sent to. One tried and after more than 30 emails back and forward and me beating him at every turn and answering every question, he crumbled back to the great netwoinian answer of well it can't work "coz physics says so",(pity none of that physics had the mechanic failure or math proof to go with it, oohh it's like the bible, how can there be different families descended from adam and eve if god wiped them all out in Noahs flood? oohh i get it, his name was Noah Newton)

[TinselKoala]

The FACT that you do not actually DEMONSTRATE anything in that waste of time video, except your silly imitation of an adult (we know the child's voice is your real voice) sure means a lot more than any words you might emit. And it is clear that you are simply lying about the "300 professors" just as you lied baldly back in the old days about your "Sword of God" magnet-gravity wheel. How is that going, by the way? Did you apologise to all the people you duped back then, return the money and magnets they sent you? Of course you did not.

Why don't you give us a list of a few of the "professors" who could not figure out what was wrong with your system. You won't, I know, and I know why, too.

Here, once again, is the solid refutation of the system you described in the "Crushing Newton like a bug" pdf document, which I believe describes the same system you fail to demonstrate in that video. And, by the way, even the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians knew that the Earth was spherical, not flat, and anyone with half a brain and the eyes to observe natural phenomena like solar and lunar eclipses can figure that much out for themselves easily enough.

--------------------------
So you have Quinn's "boot" shaped system of water locks. The foot of the boot is where you insert your "just barely sunk" box with the heavy block in it. It is sealed off from the tall "leg" of the boot by a water and pressure tight door. The "foot" is, say, 1 meter deep and has a pressure and watertight lid somehow. You start with ten meters of water in the "leg" of the boot and one meter of water in the foot. You put your block in the foot part and the water level rises in that part, and the rise in water level indicates a volume increase, equal to the volume of the box you just put in. Now you put the watertight lid on the foot part so that there is no air in there. Remember that the water level is higher than it was before you put the block in there. Now you open the sealed door into the leg of the boot. Boom, the pressure in the foot is now the pressure resulting from the full 10 meter head in the leg of the boot. You slide your barely sinking box over into the bottom of the leg, and close the watertight and pressuretight door between the foot and the leg. But the pressure in the foot is still the same 10 meter head as before. You raise up your barely sinking box with little work, with your "12 volt" automobile winch. You raise it up to the top and remove it from the leg -- and the water level in the leg _drops_ indicating that you have now removed a volume (the box volume) from the leg. The water level in the leg is now lower, by the same volume that the water level in the foot rose up when you put the box in the foot. When you open the lid on the foot, you find that that pressure now reduces, perhaps some water splashes out or not, but the level of the water is still higher than it was for the first block, and the water level in the leg is lower, by the same amount. You now put another box in the foot. The water level rises _again_ by that same volume amount. You now seal off the roof of the foot with your pressuretight seal, and open the door into the leg of the boot. Boom, the pressure in the foot is now equal to the _somewhat less than_ 10 meters head in the leg. You slide your barely sunk box over into the leg and close the water and pressuretight door between foot and leg. You raise up the box with the winch and remove the box at the top... and the water level in the leg _drops again_ by the same volume as the volume of the box. And the water level in the foot is higher by that same volume amount. Lather rinse repeat. Do you see what is happening? You are LOWERING THE WATER LEVEL IN THE LEG by a volume amount equal to the volume of the box, every time. This volume transfers from the leg, all the way down to the foot. You are working with the _stored energy_ of the lifted water in the leg of the boot. By the time you've lifted a dozen, or however many, blocks, the water level in the leg is waaaay down and the water level in the foot is waaaay up, by the same amount. It is this falling water, a volume equal to the volume of the box, that is adding to the power of the winch in order to lift up your blocks. Without some way to replace the water in the leg of the boot, you will run out of stored energy in short order. So for this scheme to work you need a river flowing water into the top of the boot, replacing the water that falls into the foot with each block transfer. There was no river at the top of the pyramid, just one at the bottom (the Nile).

There is no free lunch, Newton is resting happily in his grave, not crushed like a bug, and Quinn is an idiot, still. I would not be calling him an idiot, except for the fact that he is so disrespectful and arrogant in his own statements in the PDF, in addition to being utterly and totally WRONG.
--------------------

And that is why you can only wave things around and make silly voices, rather than actually DEMONSTRATING anything.

We remember you Archer Quinn and we expect just the same nonsense from you now, as you delivered all those years ago. And you are showing us that our expectations will be fully met.