Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[tinman]

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

LOL AC
And now the highlighted parts have come full circle,and thus begins the explination on how my bouyancy device works. The answer is yes,a given quantity of energy in the form of a compressed gas can indeed be increased without the requirement of an additional energy input. we hit 110% with just the venturi setup,and this is all posted on the (open systems)thread for all to try-the results will speak for them self. The second set of results was refused to be calculated unless i disclose the system as a whole,even though we still used no additional energy to create the result's. The calculations were carried out by a third party,and the results show an increase in energy of close to 33%-->that is 133% efficieny.

This is so funny watching this all unfold

[MarkE]

@MarkEI believe TK started that little fiasco and I finished it. 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?.

LOL, I started with the best case:  The device doesn't consume any net energy.  All real cases are worse.  Please pay better attention.

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. 

Evidence, you should look into that concept.

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.

LOL, to be "more efficient" than the work evolved is to ask for free energy.

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.

The thermal losses only take you downhill from the starting point of no net energy being available from buoyancy.

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

Zero less any positive value is less than zero.  You start with zero net energy available and suffer losses.  If you get rid of all of the losses you are back to nothing.

[MarkE]

LOL AC
And now the highlighted parts have come full circle,and thus begins the explination on how my bouyancy device works. The answer is yes,a given quantity of energy in the form of a compressed gas can indeed be increased without the requirement of an additional energy input. we hit 110% with just the venturi setup,and this is all posted on the (open systems)thread for all to try-the results will speak for them self. The second set of results was refused to be calculated unless i disclose the system as a whole,even though we still used no additional energy to create the result's. The calculations were carried out by a third party,and the results show an increase in energy of close to 33%-->that is 133% efficieny.

This is so funny watching this all unfold

It will be a lot funnier when you get to the end.

[tinman]

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.

NO-there you go with your faulse accusations. I have always stated that overunity is not possible,and many here know this. I do NOT believe in any overunity device,nor do i believe that overunity is possible. Overunity is a term that will be used when the creator of the device cannot relate to,or knows from where the extra energy is coming from. To them(and many others) ,overunity is a term used until the power source becomes known.

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)

Only relevant when only a primary system exist,and irrelevant when a primary system give rise to an easier path for a secondary system.

[LibreEnergia]

NO-there you go with your faulse accusations. I have always stated that overunity is not possible,and many here know this. I do NOT believe in any overunity device,nor do i believe that overunity is possible. Overunity is a term that will be used when the creator of the device cannot relate to,or knows from where the extra energy is coming from. To them(and many others) ,overunity is a term used until the power source becomes known.

Only relevant when only a primary system exist,and irrelevant when a primary system give rise to an easier path for a secondary system.

And yet you describe devices that IF they worked as you claimed then the only possible energy source would be a first or second law violation. That to my mind is overunity, but you can call it what ever you want.