3rd working machine you gandmother could make _2nd Law crushed

[dvy1214]

Not it hasn't. Please provide at least one explanation.
Regards.

Ok as you wish. This is a respectful application of logic for your benefit. Quinns general theory is that buoyancy gives you access to excess forces on an object which seems true until you factor in the definition of buoyancy. Buoyancy: an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. So, how does this happen? Relative Density per unit of area! IS MERCURY A FREE ENRGY DEVICE WHEN IT FLOATS A ROCK WITHOUT A GAS CASING? no.

No matter what you do you have to equivocate the density of the object you want to move with buoyancy, which means that in most cases you would have had to create the circumstances or in the case of moving some thing in the ocean you have to do the work to vary the volume of some aspect of the object after modifying the object to allow this aspect to be varied. This might seem like a small about of energy but I assure you it is not in all cases whether creating the circumstances to equivocate the mass of the object you want to move(moving multiples of that mass) or modifying the object and exerting the force to modify its relative volumetric densities.

Any thoughts?

- David

[telecom]

Ok as you wish. This is a respectful application of logic for your benefit. Quinns general theory is that buoyancy gives you access to excess forces on an object which seems true until you factor in the definition of buoyancy. Buoyancy: an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. So, how does this happen? Relative Density per unit of area! IS MERCURY A FREE ENRGY DEVICE WHEN IT FLOATS A ROCK WITHOUT A GAS CASING? no.

No matter what you do you have to equivocate the density of the object you want to move with buoyancy, which means that in most cases you would have had to create the circumstances or in the case of moving some thing in the ocean you have to do the work to vary the volume of some aspect of the object after modifying the object to allow this aspect to be varied. This might seem like a small about of energy but I assure you it is not in all cases whether creating the circumstances to equivocate the mass of the object you want to move(moving multiples of that mass) or modifying the object and exerting the force to modify its relative volumetric densities.

Any thoughts?

- David

Hi David,
if you look at the patent, the energy for changing the density is supplied by the weight.
In other words, he is using gravity to create buyouncy, and both are free.
Regards.

[MarkE]

Hi David,
if you look at the patent, the energy for changing the density is supplied by the weight.
In other words, he is using gravity to create buyouncy, and both are free.
Regards.

No as explained before what is declared free is anything but free.  Buoyancy is the fluid equivalent of a counterweight.  In order to get one thing to go up a greater mass (can be very slightly greater as long as you have lots of time) must go down.  Manipulating the volume of a submerged object involves real work exchanged with the surrounding fluid.  Make the object larger and surrounding fluid is displaced, lifting that fluid. 

[dvy1214]

Hi David,
if you look at the patent, the energy for changing the density is supplied by the weight.
In other words, he is using gravity to create buyouncy, and both are free.
Regards.

Exerted force by the system is dependent directly on the compression of the air. There is an american patent for this US patent 3,934,964(1974). As well as a British patent British patent No. 1330(1857). The idea arose in 1685. In the 1700s Bernoulli spoke out against them, cannot find his conclusion. Mine is that without the further exertion of enough energy to substantially alter the volumetric contents of the interior of a container you will not receive the needed differential to produce movement. I want to believe that a weight on a short throw piston plus 9.8 m/s^2 is enough energy to change the internal contents volumetrically to the point at which it will dramatically exert a buoyant force but I can't do to how little of the internal space is actually being modified compared to the whole size of the container.

So far the only two systems that I have seen recently are from Rosch Technology and James Kwok's. Rosch claims that their system makes 12KW and eats 4.4Kw in compressor energy, not a damn patent around tho. Kwok says his makes 30% more energy than it consumes. He did not renew his initial international patent and his world patent application hasn't been granted in 8 years now.

[telecom]

No as explained before what is declared free is anything but free.  Buoyancy is the fluid equivalent of a counterweight.  In order to get one thing to go up a greater mass (can be very slightly greater as long as you have lots of time) must go down.  Manipulating the volume of a submerged object involves real work exchanged with the surrounding fluid.  Make the object larger and surrounding fluid is displaced, lifting that fluid.

I have nothing against this explanation except that the work is done by the gravity - by the weight, which is always pushing down. He utilizes this in his patent to increase the dispacement on one branch and decrease it on another branch.
Gravity of the weight is doing the real work. Or I may be too stupid to understand the reasoning...
Regards