The breakthrough in Free Energy - a system that cannot be debunked

[Tarsier_79]

Yeah - it would have been rude of me to name the discovery after myself - good thing that I did not. Thanks for noticing my non presumptive and non assuming position.

Like I said: you didn't actually discover anything. The Spiteri pump (also not OU) predates your "discovery", uses the same underlying principle, and is much more efficient. There are also drawings Bessler did 300 years ago using the same principle, again not OU. When I first stumbled across it it 04, I phoned my wife at work and told her I discovered PM. I then calculated input and output and realised my mistake before she arrived home.

I attached a spread sheet earlier - your doing your buoyancy calcs wrong - as in the Travis Effect - is the effect of reducing volume required to do lift. We use that advantage during work out and then standard buoyancy on the way down.

No sh#t. That is exactly how I calculated the lift and the standard buoyancy drop. You are just upset I calculated them in a way a primary school kid could understand when you spent all that time over-engineering a solution to try to complicates it as much as possible.

No matter how you arrange it, you will never get over-unity out of your design. At best you might approach unity in a cartoon drawing. I feel sorry for anyone who is fooled by your design and invests any money with you. You should be charged with fraud.

[Tarsier_79]

Here I have attached an updated drawing showing the dimensions used, for anyone wishing to do the calcs themselves.

I realised I didn't account for the positive buoyancy for the mostly empty container on the left. It still won't be the game changer. This design will never be OU. Any leverage tricks you try to use won't fool gravity.

[mrwayne]

Like I said: you didn't actually discover anything. The Spiteri pump (also not OU) predates your "discovery", uses the same underlying principle, and is much more efficient. There are also drawings Bessler did 300 years ago using the same principle, again not OU. When I first stumbled across it it 04, I phoned my wife at work and told her I discovered PM. I then calculated input and output and realised my mistake before she arrived home.


No sh#t. That is exactly how I calculated the lift and the standard buoyancy drop. You are just upset I calculated them in a way a primary school kid could understand when you spent all that time over-engineering a solution to try to complicates it as much as possible.

No matter how you arrange it, you will never get over-unity out of your design. At best you might approach unity in a cartoon drawing. I feel sorry for anyone who is fooled by your design and invests any money with you. You should be charged with fraud.

Sorry for your hardships, and your opinions are noted - but your understanding is lacking. Try harder..Thanks

[mrwayne]

Here I have attached an updated drawing showing the dimensions used, for anyone wishing to do the calcs themselves.

I realised I didn't account for the positive buoyancy for the mostly empty container on the left. It still won't be the game changer. This design will never be OU. Any leverage tricks you try to use won't fool gravity.

p.s. the inner containers are filled with water.... The inner container switches from neutral to Weight depending on the air surrounding or not surrounding it - Now - if you can, calculate that weight shift into he operation and then update the team - it is already in the spread sheet I gave you -  Thanks! Wayne

[memoryman]

Here is the definition of 'work' in physics:
"work, in physics, measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force at least part of which is applied in the direction of the displacement.
Work is NOT conserved; energy IS."
Total the energy in the system at the start (make sure the system is closed), all the energy going in your system, the energy out the system and the remaining energy in the system. Explain any 'surplus'.