Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[d3x0r]

Approached the math from another direction... P=F/A (pressure = force over area)
was able to match computed&experimental weights used on pumps of various sizes to get required pressure at required depths.
Then at the ends comparing ratio of pump stoke vs float travel and pump-head required weight vs float displacement weight.

Since gearing to get required pump stroke will reduce the weight applied to the pump from the float... (L2*W2)=(L1*W1)...or (L2/L1) = (W1/W2) [L is length, W is weight]...  or (L2/L1)/(W2/W1) = 1 (or should)... turns out it's greater than 1 (1.03-1.06) , requiring more loss to get travel distance required than the floats travel... and therefore the displacement of the float is less than what's needed to keep the desired compression.

*sigh*

[MarkE]

Just an observation, followed by advice
Have you ever questioned why you receive this attitude in this forum ?  These extreme reactions and insults ?
It is not that what you say is incorrect, oh no,   it has way more to do with how you say it !!

I agree that many OU enthusiasts are quickly jumping to optimistic but incorrect conclusions.  What starts the conflict is that you (the 3 musketeers, TK, MH, MarkE......) jump even faster to the opposite side with final conclusions that are 5 steps ahead. 
Because they are 5 steps ahead, they are very negative and discouraging, notwithstanding that your conclusion might be correct.  This behaviour is destructive rather than supportive, constructive or guiding/sharing. 
Naturally this type of response will create emotions of a negative kind.

Think about this for a moment

In the last preceding 3 mails (by MarkE, EnergyLibre, TK) is there any inquiry of interest on how thngr thinks his idea can possibly be realized with the attributes shown in his picture, that depict a pretty regular sterling engine?

I do realize that "thngr" doesn't present anything of substance yet and that you guys have been through the mill of many OU projects that showed promise in their time but led to nothing except to confirm that the late 1800 scientist were right.

Notwithstanding the hope of finding a possible anomaly towards energy of a currently unknown source is still in you. The reason you float around on this website, where you can enjoy some satisfaction of the power of you knowledge and experience.
This knowledge made you skeptical and arrogant when put OU-post to OU-post.  You are technically correct in most of your statements but you are not helpfull or aiding the exchange of idea's.   I agree that many idea's, maybe look to one as gold is trash to experienced eyes, especially when you have seen it before and have been there. 
Although showing some genuine interest, engaging into discussion of interest goes a long way to possibly making / uplifting a weak idea to a brilliant idea.

You can not 'tango' on your own, you need two

My 2 pennies worth,  Red_Sunset

Are you objecting to getting to the crux of an idea quickly?  Why shouldn't the critical aspects of an idea be examined at the start?

[Red_Sunset]

Are you objecting to getting to the crux of an idea quickly?  Why shouldn't the critical aspects of an idea be examined at the start?

MarkE,

No, I am not objecting to a swift clear view into the crux of what matters.  I acknowledge that your input and advice dispensed is of a high and precise level, although most ofter too generic to be useful to the level of the presenter.  I see it more as a matter of diplomacy, not being perceived to be constructive or helpful.  A  stance then seen as being disruptive.
The techniques you have adopted does not appear to be working very well,  so it might be worthwhile to try a change of strokes in order to achieve a better and more productive interaction.

A new project starts with an idea then evolves into a process through the use of logic,  the idea and associated logic should be the focus of forum interests ( having achieved OU is an unlikely consideration, if this would be the case, the idea would be most likely no longer be on this forum) 
The idea and logic presented most likely needs guidance towards the logical over-unity objective.  An outright judgment with finality, is the most unlikely reason for the presenter to come on this forum.  Help / assistance is the most likely reason . 
Therefore an idea needs to be explored by the team, even to be willed for possible workability in a unmodified or modified form BEFORE a verdict is given that the no aspect analyzed can possible further a promise towards OU.
The benefit exists that an unworkable idea presented can unlock a additional complimentary idea that makes a desired result a reality

I believe that this approach would be more productive and come across better than the daggers drawn on first encounter.
I think we should be prepared to walk away from a response that was rejected but is confirmed correct by peers and refrain of going into an escalating merry go round of insults.  Convincing an opposing believer is useless and serves no purpose.

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE,

No, I am not objecting to a swift clear view into the crux of what matters.  I acknowledge that your input and advice dispensed is of a high and precise level, although most ofter too generic to be useful to the level of the presenter.  I see it more as a matter of diplomacy, not being perceived to be constructive or helpful.  A  stance then seen as being disruptive.
The techniques you have adopted does not appear to be working very well,  so it might be worthwhile to try a change of strokes in order to achieve a better and more productive interaction.

I do what I can to avoid personalizing issues.  Things are what they are.  I see no reason or benefit to pretend that we can not get down to cases when we have sufficient information to do so.  Occassionally someone will assert something that is not clear enough to evaluate and that's when I or other skeptics ask clarifying questions.  There are any number of times that someone has asked for help in an experiment design where I have been happy to help despite the probabilities of finding anything unusual being extremely low.  If someone wants to learn by doing then I am happy to help.  When someone believes that they have evidence that supports a conclusion then it's time to evaluate the evidence they have and see what it means.

I don't know what standard you use to establish whether what I do works well or not.  I want people to learn.  Some are up for that, and some of those I have been able to assist.  Some other people have very fixed ideas and then there are others knowingly promote nonsense.  Few of either of those would ever admit to being swayed by anyone.  I do not expect to exert much influence on what people in either group say.

A new project starts with an idea then evolves into a process through the use of logic,  the idea and associated logic should be the focus of forum interests ( having achieved OU is an unlikely consideration, if this would be the case, the idea would be most likely no longer be on this forum) 
The idea and logic presented most likely needs guidance towards the logical over-unity objective.  An outright judgment with finality, is the most unlikely reason for the presenter to come on this forum.  Help / assistance is the most likely reason . 

If you are suggesting that we suspend evaluation of data because some folks want to live a fantasy, then I simply disagree.    What time period would you suggest that we knowingly mislead people by pretending that there is insufficient data to reach a reliable conclusion before telling them what the evidence actually tells us?

Therefore an idea needs to be explored by the team, even to be willed for possible workability in a unmodified or modified form BEFORE a verdict is given that the no aspect analyzed can possible further a promise towards OU.

Again I disagree.  Evidence should be evaluated as it becomes available.  I consider it very disrespectful to people to assume that their egos are so weak or their minds so addled that they cannot handle honest evaluation of evidence.  If someone does not understand that extraordinary results are unlikely things, then they are living a fantasy.  If they are grounded enough to understand that the extraordinary is unlikely then they won't be heart broken to find out that any particular idea fails for some reason or another.  They do not need to be protected from such truth, and it is a disservice to them to engage in deceit.

The benefit exists that an unworkable idea presented can unlock a additional complimentary idea that makes a desired result a reality

That may be so, but in no way justifies deceiving people by pretending that something that is unworkable is actually viable.

I believe that this approach would be more productive and come across better than the daggers drawn on first encounter.
I think we should be prepared to walk away from a response that was rejected but is confirmed correct by peers and refrain of going into an escalating merry go round of insults.  Convincing an opposing believer is useless and serves no purpose.

Showing that an idea doesn't work is not a personal issue.  Where did insults ever come into this?

Red_Sunset

[LibreEnergia]

I've yet to see an idea surface on this forum that was worthy of more than a cursory examination before dismissing it.

The laws of physics are just that, and are not broken by wishful thinking, imprecise measurement or even honest misunderstanding of the consequences of the first and second laws.

There is no point at all in proposing a device where the working principle proposed simply has ZERO chance of fracturing the realities that those laws represent. This immediately disqualifies any device that attempts to utilize gravity,  buoyancy, levers, gears, magnetism ,  or any thermodynamic process. 

We know how those quantities act at normal scales and time dimensions, even if we can't say for sure what some of them actually ARE.

But, you are simply wasting your time in persisting with 'over-unity' energy production in a device that does not have a working principle that breaks the bounds of Newtonian physics.

If you can describe the operations of your machine in Newtonian terms then there is simply no chance that it will break those laws.

If you can't describe your machine in terms of  Newtonian mechanics  then you are either

a. On to something big, or
b. Incapable of understanding how such physics accurately describes your device.

Everyone so far has fallen into category b.