Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[Philip Hardcastle]

So many over complicated calculations................


The input compressed air at the bottom of the water column lifts said mass, the mgh of the raised water column (mass) comes from the energy supplied to compress the air.


Having raised a mass of water there are many ways it could be used to generate power, the usual is a turbine, but a rising bubble pod is another.

[MarkE]

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.

It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:

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

At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

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.

Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft³ per minute = 1.8ft³/s = 0.05097m³/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m³ * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E_{1 second} = 0.05097m³*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.

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.

Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.

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!

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.

Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere.

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.

You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  m_displacing and m_displaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with m_displaced.

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

If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at 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.

Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.

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.

See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.

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.

You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.

Thanks for your consideration.

[conradelektro]

I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

[markdansie]

I think most people know it, and it has been written many times by various posters:

The trick employed by Rosch and Gaia (and all people who claim to have mysterious machines) is to reverse logic.

They do not provide proof that their contraption is really functioning. And then critics try to proof that it does not work.

And it is of course not possible to proof that it does not work.

- Firstly, such a proof is not possible according to formal logic (one can not logically exclude an infinite number of possibilities).

- And secondly, one does not have sufficient information to proof anything (because the proponents of the mysterious machine intentionally withhold crucial information or even release false information).

I know, we always discuss possibilities to proof that it is a scam, because we can not do anything else (besides silence). And this keeps a thread going for a while.

Good arguments are put forward. But one can not "win" the discussion due to a lack of tangible information.

All threads or discussions about strange machines and contraptions I have seen in the last 20 years end in this stalemate. Wars of opinion flare up, stupid and intelligent statements poor in and then? A new strange machine is "invented" and it starts all over again.

May be the real game is to engage in endless and senseless discussions?

Greetings, Conrad

That is a brilliant observation and summary. I copied it and posted it on PESWIKI (may not make the cut)

[tinman]

It is the correct formula for this situation.  It is generous as it neglects the air mass and more importantly viscous friction and any losses in the mechanism.  IOW it is better than anyone could ever get.  What you posted is:


At this point you should have used the same formula that I did.

Force/time is a measure of impact.  It does not help here. 

You are indeed displacing 108ft³ per minute = 1.8ft³/s = 0.05097m³/s.  The pressure is that of 85" of water: 9.8n/kg * ~1000kg/m³ * 85"*0.0254m/" = 21,158 Pascals.  Energy = pressure times volume:  E_{1 second} = 0.05097m³*21,158 Pascals = 1,078Watts.Gearing does not change the energy or the power.  It only changes the torque and angular velocity.
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.Dude:  That is EXACTLY what happens with buoyancy:  The upward force on any mass in the atmosphere is the weight of displaced atmosphere.  That upward force acts against the downward force of the mass's dry weight.  The net energy change in the system is the net change in mass versus height.  The volume of displaced atmosphere, water in this case, falls down by the same height that the displacing air rises.  As I mentioned before, we are being slightly generous by neglecting the air, but that error is in the noise.  The reason that I keep referring to this foolishness as no better than a bag of wet hammers is because the energy change is just mgh.  The denser material happens to be the atmosphere. You get most things right and then run off the rails with an erroneous conclusion.  There are two masses:  m_displacing and m_displaced.  The former is that of the air, and the latter is that of the water the air displaces.  The net change in mgh is the difference in the two masses multiplied by g and h.  We treat the air as massless, ignoring the tiny error that introduces and are left with m_displaced.If you want to evaluate the effects of the air being compressible, you will find it does nothing in the ideal case and only hurts in any real case.  The air being compressible means that for a given amount of work performed compressing the air, a portion of that remains trapped in the air at the bottom and is released as the bubble expands during its ascent thereby lifting less water at the bottom than an incompressible fluid and eventually making up for that under the impossible conditions of an infinitely long in time ascent and a bubble that is infinitely wide as it breaks the water's surface at the top.Yes, but you prepay for that at the bottom as the bubble is much smaller than it would be were the air an incompressible fluid.See above.  You introduced error when you introduced energy gain by gearing that never exists.You are probably right in the sense that they don't want air burping out half way up.  But the machine is completely useless as there is no energy gain from buoyancy, so whatever they do, they do only for show.

Dont forget that the column of water also rises as the air bubble increases in size. So a 15 foot column of water when the bubble is compressed at the bottom,may be 16 feet when the bubble reaches the near top. So we have a starting and ending pressure at the bottom of the column of water,but the water head increases as the bubble expands as the bubble rises.