Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[mscoffman]

Sorry,  But a complex machine is going to need to be purchased according to a specification sheet.

[Farmhand]

Cognitive Dissonance rules, didn't you know MarkE ? Recently at EF first Level then myself posted questionable posts sarcastically showing things similar to what the fake claimants post, and the result was that we were both asked to reveal our OU secrets and told not to be selfish. Even after others clarified that the postings were sarcastic people asked for the details. This also happened a long time ago after several months trying to build the Romero fake claimed OU pulse motor one of the replicators showed a small pulse motor apparently running with no power source and all but two of us believed it. I was even abused for questioning the poster. As it turned out the poster was waiting to see how many people would be taken in and who would post to question it, the device had a hidden battery of course as was plain to see, even though the battery could not be seen, common sense told me it was a hidden battery or large value capacitor. When the poster actually came clean and told of what he did and showed the battery still some people did not believe it and claimed that the guy was lying about the hidden battery so the MIB didn't come after him.

I mean wow what a reality check for me, most posters are off their rocker. And suffering form a serious case of Cognitive Dissonance, probably all chronic cases.

Maybe it's time to create a second you tube account and shame some more people with some fakes for a social experiment. The experiment should be run for a few months at least so that the true effect of peoples failure to have any scepticism is seen by as many as possible and the people that get taken in so easily can be identified for all to see their reality problems.

Maybe a collaboration of a few folks could really put the spotlight on the main offenders for promoting rubbish and fake claims and reposting silly video's claiming OU is real.

Something cannot be created from nothing, it's that simple. But it easy to make things look as though there is anomalous energy to the folks suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.

I won't get my hopes up though as the very people who make themselves look like fools for promoting obvious fakes and measurement errors just keep doing it and do not seem to care they are seen to be outside of reality. For many it is understandable they might get taken in once or twice but the ramifications of so many being so easily taken in so many times and for so long is that the forums are 80 % utilized by these folks that will believe almost anything if it indicates the OU they desire.

I want a unicorn so I cut one horn off a big goat, from a distance side on it looks like what is in the fairy tale books, and it is a uni horned beast, but it is just a goat with one horn cut off. My claiming it is a unicorn does not make it one, unless that is what I call all one horned goats. Just a bunch of words and a one horned goat does not make a unicorn. Just like a bunch of words and a dodgy video does not make OU or over C.O.P. = 1.

The nice talk doesn't work so look out for the fooler video's from a new channel.  Be warned do not be taken in and made to look silly. 

[shinz62]

An alternate power calculation to consider:


Using an air pump that can produce 108 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) that I can buy here:
for my hot tub that has a 1.5 hp motor and can pump the 108 CFM to a depth of 85 inches {edit... oops, it's actually 105 CFM to a depth of 95 inches, so the calculations below are a little off} of water we can calculate how much power we used for input to be 1.5 * 745.7 = 1118 watts.


Then we can calculate a theoretical horse power output from our device.


Allowing for a mere 85 inches of depth we have ~7 feet, if we have one container per foot to float and
assume that we can fill one per second then we have 108/60 or 1.8 CFS (Cubic Feet per Second) of volume available per container (about 51 liters, or 13.5 gallons each).


Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.


After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.


If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.


This would generate (according to this calculator) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


Folks... this seems quite plausible to me... are there any glaring errors in my assumptions or my math?

[MarkE]

An alternate power calculation to consider:


Using an air pump that can produce 108 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) that I can buy here:
for my hot tub that has a 1.5 hp motor and can pump the 108 CFM to a depth of 85 inches {edit... actually it is 95 inches, nearly 8 feet, so the calculations below are even more conservative} of water we can calculate how much power we used for input to be 1.5 * 745.7 = 1118 watts.


Then we can calculate a theoretical horse power output from our device.


Allowing for a mere 85 inches of depth we have ~7 feet, if we have one container per foot to float and
assume that we can fill one per second then we have 108/60 or 1.8 CFS (Cubic Feet per Second) of volume available per container (about 51 liters, or 13.5 gallons each).


Knowing that the buoyancy lift is equivalent to the weight of the water displaced by volume.


After a 7 second start up we were able to fill 7 containers to 1.8CF each and this would generate a lifting force equal to the weight of water of the volume of 7*1.8CF = 12.6 CF = 356.79 liter = 356.79 kg = 784.94 pounds of lifting force per second continuously thereafter.


If our gearing coming off the output of the chain is set up to spin at the rate of one container per second it would go one revolution per second or 60 rpm and produce a torque of 784.94 foot pounds continuous output if it has a circumference of 1 foot.


This would generate (according to this calculator) 8.97 hp....... from our 1.5 hp input!


Assuming a mere 85% efficiency for the generator we get:


                8.97 * 745.7 *.85 - 1.5 * 745.7 = 4567 watts net output continuous!


Folks... this seems quite plausible to me... are there any glaring errors in my assumptions or my math?

Because the force is assumed constant:

P = mgh/t

m = rho * volume = rho * 108 ft³, or 1E3kg/m³*108ft³*0.0283m³/ft³ = 3,058kg
g = 9.8n/kg
h = 85" * 0.0254m/" = 2.159m
t = 60s

P = 3,058*9.8*2.159/60 = 1,078W

At 95" it would be:  1,205W. 

Given that the air pump is likely well under 50% efficient, you might want to verify that you actually get that kind of volume at the specified depth.  But either way your 4.5kW calculations are way off.

[shinz62]

Because the force is assumed constant:

P = mgh/t

m = rho * volume = rho * 108 ft³, or 1E3kg/m³*108ft³*0.0283m³/ft³ = 3,058kg
g = 9.8n/kg
h = 85" * 0.0254m/" = 2.159m
t = 60s

P = 3,058*9.8*2.159/60 = 1,078W

At 95" it would be:  1,205W. 

Given that the air pump is likely well under 50% efficient, you might want to verify that you actually get that kind of volume at the specified depth.  But either way your 4.5kW calculations are way off.

That is the standard gravity formula for hydro power. I considered using it but I always get numbers like yours.


I asked if there was an error in my assumptions or calculations but you didn't point out any error with mine you just offered something else.


But I will tell you what I think is wrong with yours...


Your calculation assumes that gravity is accelerating the air upwards as if it were the weight of falling water and producing the same amount of power as that volume of water would, but that is not exactly what is happening in buoyancy.


It may be true that its lift is the same by volume, however the bubble does not lift upwards because of the gravitational weight of the air bubble, rather it lifts upwards because of the weight of the water around bubble and its difference in density. So it is the weight of the water around the bubble that gravity is accelerating, not the bubble. And that ends up changing as it rises. So this 9.8 gravitational constant attributed to the volume of the bubble is erroneous, flat wrong. This is in part because the volume of the air expands as it rises and decompresses. Boyle's law. Your calculation doesn't accommodate that.


The volume of the air might be 13.5 gallons (in my example) at the bottom but what is it near the top?


The pressure near the bottom of 85" is 17.8435psi but near the top it is about 14.9psi
so Boyle's law says that the air expands to over 16 gallons and that is a big difference.


But beyond that I believe that I have calculated the lift correctly as long as you can assume there are always  at least 7 containers full at a time there should always be the lifting force I mentioned, nearly 800 lbs of force rising 1 foot per second...is a lot of horse power, even more when you consider Boyle's law.


I believe that is why they're only filling their containers 1/2 way up... so that the air doesn't expand beyond the container size as they rise.  Because in their 14ft of water it is nearly 21 psi at the bottom and 14.9 at the top so Boyle's law says that would be about a 37% expansion in air volume so 1/2 full at the bottom becomes almost 70% full at the top.


Thanks for your consideration.