Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[d3x0r]

d3x0r
You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain your concept to the guru's. These guy's are the !physics hold all the answers! guy's,and have no room for indifferent. You are closer to the right answer than they are,as they have missed one big effect that tips the scales in favour of it working. The buckets do not have to have all the water diplaced when at the bottom of the tube,and only a small portion of air need be pumped into each bucket. As the bucket rises,more water is diplaced from the bucket,and the bucket becomes more bouyant. At the same time,the water level in the tube rises,and your bucket now has a longer duration of lift than it did at the start. The closer to the surface the bucket get's,the less the pressure is,and more water is displaced from the bucket-->and ofcourse,the higher the water level climbs. So while they go on calculations that see a fixed head of water,and thus a fixed distance the buckets can travel,is infact wrong,as both these valuse change for each bucket cycle.

ya; I know... and they don't actually know details, or spend a few minutes to go learn the details they have a very general knowledge of; I keep forgetting. 

(actually the water rises also as the bubble expands... it forms a hump where divers are for instance... the expansion is real and does work...)

that and to go back to TK's 'get rid of the water' idea... AIR is all around and available partially presurized, so the additional work there is very minor compared to moving the same amount of water from the bottom to the top of an apparatus. 

I looked up 'bellows bouyancy device' and found some clever wheel sort of images... was wonder if there was like a DaVinci invention along that line... surely someone had tried?  but even a foot pump(a bellows) used for inflating air matresses is high CFM and low pressure, but enough pressure to overcome a few feet of water .

[allcanadian]

@MarkE

You assert a distinction that you fail to establish.

I believe TK started that little fiasco and I finished it.

Unless you wish to rely on magical thinking, the minimum work
to force the air into the buckets is identically the increase in mgh of the
water that the air displaces.  That places the whole affair at zero sum gain
in the best case.  This is all very black letter.  If you are
going to make the ridiculous request that someone propose to you a means of
imparting free energy to air, why not cut to the chase and just ask for a free
source of electricity to run your appliances?

I wouldn't call it magical thinking more so creative problem solving where we actually think about how the problem could be solved rather than the tedious same/same argument. You know I have to ask why you are compelled to reduce and compare everything to the simplest worst case scenario?. Me I'm always looking for the best case scenario where an action may be transformed in some way and become separate or distinct relative to it's reaction. Don't get me wrong the basics are important however thinking that is all there is or ever could be is obviously a losing proposition as far as progress is concerned. 

To be clear I am not asking that someone propose a means of imparting free energy to the air I am asking if they have any idea of how one could get the air into the tank and performing work more efficiently. Obviously your lost so I will start, Compressed air get's hot and hot air entering a cool tank contracts displacing less water... are you with me Mark?. Now if we moved all or most of the heat losses and heat of compression to the water it would get hot and the air would cool. Cool air bubbles entering a tank of hot water will expand displacing more water so we have less losses and the air bubbles in themselves are acting more like a heat engine. That is the bubbles are expanding and performing work however they do carry this heat out of the system but the fact remains we have not just rejected this heat energy to atmosphere like unthinking primates.

Now if we went a little further we might consider how a heat pump or venturi system might effect this proposition in moving heat, can it increase the efficiency and if it could where might the balance point be?. Could we concentrate this heat to lower the density of the water where the air enters the system and to what effect?. You see that wasn't so hard was it?, we have just thought about the problem and made a simple improvement which has raised the effieciency. On the other hand you haven't actually said anything as usual nor have you improved anything. Okay Mark I made a simple improvement now it's your turn.

AC

[LibreEnergia]

d3x0r
You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain your concept to the guru's. These guy's are the !physics hold all the answers! guy's,and have no room for indifferent. You are closer to the right answer than they are,as they have missed one big effect that tips the scales in favour of it working. The buckets do not have to have all the water diplaced when at the bottom of the tube,and only a small portion of air need be pumped into each bucket. As the bucket rises,more water is diplaced from the bucket,and the bucket becomes more bouyant. At the same time,the water level in the tube rises,and your bucket now has a longer duration of lift than it did at the start. The closer to the surface the bucket get's,the less the pressure is,and more water is displaced from the bucket-->and ofcourse,the higher the water level climbs. So while they go on calculations that see a fixed head of water,and thus a fixed distance the buckets can travel,is infact wrong,as both these valuse change for each bucket cycle.

Who is going on about a fixed head of water? BUT, If you  DO move water about to create or vary a head then that requires energy, correct?  Energy you then conveniently ignore when coming to a conclusion that over-unity is possible in this device.

Further, the statement "has a longer duration of lift" is IRRELEVANT when determining an energy balance for a single cycle. The net change in potential of any masses within the system is independent of how long those changes occurred over. (Except in ways that can only hurt efficiency such as rapid viscous flows causing losses to heat)

[tinman]

I think the above quote helps explain why you are "out there" on this one.  Who said anything about the flywheel or Earth slowing down like some kind of flywheel or pulse motor spin down?  If you do the boat thing just one day, then the Earth slows down by a fixed amount.  You have taken a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy and turned it into electrical energy with your system.  It's not a spin-down, it's a single step down in rotational speed.  It's closely related to how the tides take a bite out of the Earth's rotational energy every day and pass it to the moon, resulting in a step down in rotational speed.

All that you have to do is read about the Earth-moon system.  The Earth is putting torque on the orbiting moon and throwing it into a higher orbit.  With the tidal ship system you just kind of hitch a ride on the tidal system and "steal" a bit of that energy for your generator.  It's where leap seconds come from - the Earth is always slowing down.

However the Earth slowing down, it's not a spin down in the conventional sense like a flywheel.  It's more like the Earth-moon system is trading energy, the Earth's rotational energy is being transferred into the moon's orbital energy.  Ironically enough, your ship system is in a way comparable to friction slowing down a flywheel.  Because you are "stealing energy from the moon" and turning it into heat.  Just like bearing friction on the flywheel becomes heat.

It has nothing to do with the mass of the Earth changing, and nothing to do with gravity in the conventional up-down sense.

It may all sound confusing, but it should all start to make sense if you read about the Earth-moon system.   You system does not get energy from gravity.  It's just one of those cases where you have to dig a bit deeper to see what's really going on.  What you sometimes see, like a ship going up and down in the tides through a gravity field, is not necessarily what your first crack at understanding it really is.

MH
I took this all into account many post ago-maybe you missed it?. I said to MarkE-maybe in 4 to 5 billion year's,come back and make your point. Do you think we will still be here in 4 to 5 billion years from now?. Well if we stick to what we think we know is correct,then yes,man will still be stuck on this planet-->if there is any planet left. But for the here and now,regardless of what may or may not be happening as far as earths rotational speed go's,gravity and bouyancy can do useful work,and the impact that that work will have is next to nothing. There is also the fact(that if you believe that the ship is offsetting the ballance) that a counter force can soon be implaced to counteract that effect-every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

[MileHigh]

You are wrong on this one Brad, but I am not going to push it further.   Something to think about or look up if you are curious, is how many Joules of energy are there available due to the angular momentum of the rotating Earth?  Then suppose you give yourself the "right" to harvest just 10% of that rotational energy.  How much energy is there in that 10% chunk?  How many Bay of Fundy ship tidal power up and down "rides" does that give you?   That might be an interesting number.