3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[Floor]

QUOTE "In the idealized case that can never be realized, the work performed pushing the buoyant object into the bottom of the column can exactly be recovered as the displaced fluid falls back down and the buoyant volume rises.  In the real world, the energy cannot be fully recovered for several reasons. "  END QUOTE

Agreement.  The work performed in EITHER sinking or inserting the cube is equal to the work of the cube riseing
BEFORE LOSSES.......There will always be losses in either and or both of these actions.

These losses may or may not be equal to each other.

These losses are caused by friction / turbulence / inertia versus acceleration.

Let's call these losses "LOSS SET 1"

Lets calll the force of PUSHING the cube into the column (sinking the cube) BEFORE LOSSES  " EXPENDITURE 1"
Let's call the force in the riseing of the cube through the fluid within the column (floating up) BEFORE LOSSES "RETURN 1 "

Before the losses in "LOSSS SET 1",   "EXPENDITURE 1" and "RETURN 1" are equal.

The falling of the qube while exterior to the fluid column, will have air friction losses ?

Let's call these losses "LOSS SET 2"

Let's call the Force in the falling of the cube while exterior to the fluid column, 
BEFORE FRICTION LOSSES "RETURN 2 "

Lets calll the following  losses combined " LOSS SET 3"

Overcoming:
1 the inertia of the cube during lateral repositioning,
2 friction of the cube against the seal in the column wall,
3 friction and inertia of the door movements

EXPENDITURE 1 and RETUN 1 are equal before losses.

Do we still have a gain in energy after subtracting LOSS SETS
1, 2, and 3 from RETURN 2 ?

Consider this, the material from which the walls of the hollow cube are composed
is all so buoyant in the fluid.  The energy in it's buoyancy is RETUN and it's weigh
is not not subtracted from the energy of the cube's fall while exterior to the column.

[telecom]

I have some really bad news for you:  Buoyancy:  the weight of displaced fluid exerted upward on the displacing object doesn't provide free energy anymore than the weight of a sack of rocks does on one side of a teeter-totter or a pulley.

You probably didn't bother to read the actual document.
why not to read it first before breaking the " really bad news"?

[telecom]

Fine, you set me up by presenting the APPLICATION first.

That wasn't my intent, I didn't know the difference until you pointed it out.

And there are many non-functional patents in every country's patent database as I am sure you must know. Really? Someone who has invented a _working_ free energy device as simple as that can't develop it because of lack of funds? Come on, pull the other one why don't you. That is a garbage excuse. Are you telling me that you can't build a model of that device for a few tens or hundreds of dollars, to show that it works? That is a load of bull hockey. The reason it hasn't gone any farther is because it _does not work_ and every person who has tried to build a model of it knows that.

There can me miriads reasons why something isn't built - this is not the issue, but the issue is the merit of the invention.

If you think you have found a serious "flow" in Simanek's explanations you really should email him and let him and his graduate students and the rest of the engineering world know about it. Be sure to let us know the results of your correspondence with Simanek.
I have no idea who this guy is, he can write anything he wants on his web page.

Or, just go ahead and build the design that you think he has explained incorrectly and show it working.
Lets examine it first!

Take an intelligent look at this design?

This is why I ask you to look at it because I value your intelligent opinion.
Regards.

[MarkE]

You probably didn't bother to read the actual document.
why not to read it first before breaking the " really bad news"?

I read the document and the bad news still applies.

[dvy1214]

Being validated as we speak, no human can "Not" do this at home with a small glass jar in a bucket of water. It is over. and this is the third machine all different physics, number 4 is one its way with another physics application.

NO ONE ON EARTH CANNOT DO THIS AT HOME

as per usual will be no comments read or written by the author except the validation note from the engineers not that this needs it

Did you right this?

"funny because I watch a ton of trapped air, lift hot air balloons every day, so it does not fall at all, in fact it costs energy to get hot air down, no matter how many ton there is. There is always an exception if not many exceptions to the "rules"."

---- Did this air become hot all on its own?-----

"Ok so take your rock, place it in an air filled box and seal it, submerse it in 2 metres of water, and it will sit on the bottom, but with the right amount of air you can lift it up and down all day long."

---- Go see what your actually capable acceleration curve is once hydrodynamic drag is calculated. Plus you have severely underestimated the amount of work that must be done to create your circumstances. Oh and you seem to have forgotten here what you point out at the end,("you lift ten ton ten metres it falls you get the same output")that what you have pointed out is zero sum. Why wouldn't you just set up a pulley system arguably using less energy and wasting fewer precious resources? Remember water is not infinite and it actually takes a lot of energy to move it due to how fucking dense it is! In the ocean you would be forced to use a displacement system to change depth just like a submarine or a scuba diver which both require excess energy because you will loose energy every time you try to manipulate a fluid with human means. So once you have wrapped your head around that adda load against this oscillating system and see how much real usable work you can exert. Remember you mind is abstract reality is concrete.. ----

"So the blocks are all placed in boxes sealed like the rock for semi buoyancy, they are dumped into a canal where a cables pulls them forward into a loch,(think roller coaster car drive from underneath ) the loch is a cube. A gate closes, and the block moves forward into a cubic loch, Remember the entire cube loch is underwater, the gate closes. The next lock is a cube attached to a vertical rectangular cube, so it looks like a boot, the door between the two opens and the vertical water cannot fall because the lochs are sealed, the block is moved forward into the elevator loch, and the gate is closed, a car winch lifts the semi buoyant giant block up to the next loch, the gate opens and it moves across, the gate closes and it is raised again. Unlike an open boat loch where water needs to be pumped or flow downstream to fill the lochs and lift the boats, the sealed loch has no such issues as the water remains where it is always. And yet giant stone blocks with little weight are now climbing Mount Everest. Showing buoyancy does have an energy gain if you know what to do with it. So instead of megawatts of power, it is simply kilowatts. What your are really looking at is a single giant pipe filled with water that has an abject that water displacement took place in the first loch, the same as a submarine only displaces water when it is first submerged after that it is simply an object passing through water just like watching the old retro bubble lamps run, the water displacement never alters, and the top is simply open to a canal where it is removed and then taken away. The boxes simply slid back down at no energy cost. The pressure on each gate is no more than the water weight of two lochs at any one time."

---- Great idea, build the system that can withstand the water weight plus displacement pressure without bursting that takes less energy to build then moving the blocks conventionally. Theory and practice are two very different things i suggest you hit the bench and do some work son. Not to mention show me your methodology for encasing these rocks. You need to keep in mind many things can be abstracted without keeping in mind all pertinent variables, you have kicked your own ass and probably ruined your reputation with people who do not spend their time mentally masturbating. ----

"I can always get more energy out than in, in every possible use of physics"

---- With your methods of abstraction i am sure you can! ----

May god or someone have mercy on your soul because you are treacherous to those trying to learn something.

- David