What's wrong with this

[Floor]

@ MarkE

Thank you for not responding

A no responce, is better than your first irrelevant one,

And better than your second responce, which lacked either admission of and/or
appology for having not read or understood the materials I first presented.


asssuming
condescending
derisive
dismissive
evasive
0 acknowledgement

No class

The title of this topic / the question set I addresed to you, just bait.

And look who were the bait takers were.

When I'm asking questions on this forum, just understand I'm not addressing either of you.

If suddenly you realize that I'm running a con game, well then by all means call a cop.
Untill that day stay away.

[Floor]

................................

[dieter]

I am not one of the 25 who downloaded the pdf that was addressed specificly to MarkE ^^


You know, from a conventional point of an opinion ( not saying view), such devices are impossible. Yet there are simple yet puzzling features. The floater is heavier than air and lighter than water. A perfect condition for an Oscillation. Furthermore, work can be done by buoyancy and gravity as well, not just the circulation.


To discuss it with somebody who is bound in dogmata is fruitless. You can think about it for some time, but at some point you have to do practical experiments. After all it is not about discussing, but about inventing, hacking. Right?


One thing I think needs correction:


."it is possivle to submerge the cube without to significantly rise the height of the fluid"


The rise of height does not matter, the volume is always the same. Well, it does matter in that there is more pressure the deeper you go, but this may be not significant in a practical application.


Peace

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

Thank you for not responding

You're welcome, but it was an oversight.

A no responce, is better than your first irrelevant one,

Sadly you do not see that my first response was very relevant.  How are doing preparing those state diagrams that you promised?

And better than your second responce, which lacked either admission of and/or
appology for having not read or understood the materials I first presented.

Unfortunately, I think the lack of understanding is on your part.

asssuming
condescending
derisive
dismissive
evasive
0 acknowledgement

No class

The title of this topic / the question set I addresed to you, just bait.

So, let me get this straight, you say that you are baiting, but you are criticizing others' behavior?

And look who were the bait takers were.

When I'm asking questions on this forum, just understand I'm not addressing either of you.

Is that true even when you explicitly address me?  Exactly how does that work?

If suddenly you realize that I'm running a con game, well then by all means call a cop.
Untill that day stay away.

Your buoyancy machine ideas are just wrong.

[MarkE]

I am not one of the 25 who downloaded the pdf that was addressed specificly to MarkE ^^


You know, from a conventional point of an opinion ( not saying view), such devices are impossible. Yet there are simple yet puzzling features. The floater is heavier than air and lighter than water. A perfect condition for an Oscillation. Furthermore, work can be done by buoyancy and gravity as well, not just the circulation.


To discuss it with somebody who is bound in dogmata is fruitless. You can think about it for some time, but at some point you have to do practical experiments. After all it is not about discussing, but about inventing, hacking. Right?


One thing I think needs correction:


."it is possivle to submerge the cube without to significantly rise the height of the fluid"


The rise of height does not matter, the volume is always the same. Well, it does matter in that there is more pressure the deeper you go, but this may be not significant in a practical application.


Peace

Dieter a set of ideas are not dogma when they are shown to be correct every time they are reliably tested.  If one is going to find an exception to a well established principle it almost has to be through experiment.