Anyone like to help me make this into reality? I usually work with magnets (for those that are familiar with my work, they are way too expensive) but this needs some attention and or constructive criticism. The entire model has been loaded up on SketchUp called the Constant Shifting Center of mass Motor 1. We all know that gravity is a downward force, the normal force however counteracts that and is upward. The mass on the right side is in free fall, while the mass on the other side is divided, by divided I mean a portion of its weight is on the arm, a portion of its weight is down the opposite direction and another portion is supported by the frame track and is only being rolled up-hill, that portion is not on the rotor and is subtracted from the equation. It's center of mass is to the bottom right and in attempting to reach equilibrium, it is placed right back into an unbalanced state so there is a constant torque in one direction. Friction, Yes, constant state of imbalance, Yes. And...yes there is a connecting base not pictured, that secures the white track to the grey folding arm.
http://www.100kgarages.com/job.php?fabberId=&jobId=588 (http://www.100kgarages.com/job.php?fabberId=&jobId=588)
Constant Shifting Center of Mass Prototype Mike 1
OverBoard
good to see you here, your link goes to a garage Site .
is there a sign in or additional navigation required ?
Thx
Chet
It is on the project board, I think you need to be registered to view it, here is the Gogle SketchUp model link for those familiar with the program, it is all I have to share with my "primitive" tools and abilities.
https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=u8e45237a-4c33-4043-a5ee-85bca7aa74e8 (https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=u8e45237a-4c33-4043-a5ee-85bca7aa74e8)
I don't know how the shaft got misaligned, it was correct when I uploaded it (I fixed it and uploaded the correct model) only moving parts are bearings on the shaft and arms like rollers and the arms have hinges. The longer the arms are made the greater the leverage. Thanks Chet, good to be back again, though I never really left.
It certainly would be nice if someone..anyone if not the Physics Prof himself would spend just a few minutes to look at this, just for a moment and draw in all of the force arrows on each arm in relation to the rotor and bearings. Too late, public domain now.
hello overboard
I use a free program called PicPick to take screen shots and it is has many features. Why not just post a picture so everyone knows what your talking about?. I have built many of these type of machines and it helps to talk to people who have been down this road. If you post a pic I will do my best to help.
AC
I figured out how to upload the pics, I attached 11 15 14 different views. What do ya think looks good at least. Hope to get an "A" for effort.
:P
You need second force. Better try with magnets and kind of ratchet device O0
O0 Sorry forest. I disagree, the normal force, gravity, and torque is enough, or could you please explain to me how you came to that conclusion? There is already more than one force involved, at least 3 already, right? If the length of the arms or the weight is increased, then the difference of weight producing the rotational torque on the the rotor increases proportionally just like increasing the arm length of a lever in relation to its fulcrum. Please view the three additional pics I uploaded 12, 13 and 14. Still, it can only be proven when built right? I am looking for someone to help by the way. Can you build it? You seem to think it just will not work, how much would you charge me to build it for me? It does not matter if those end weights are 1 ounce, 1 pound or 1 ton, its center of balance is always to the right side, forced by design. Look at it again, in order for a water wheel to work, the water must dump out of the bottom bucket, in order for this to work its is not lifted it is only supported by the normal force.
Constantly shifting center of mass theory 1.jpg will not move at all...It is balanced and its center of mass rests at the center of the rotor. Please look at it again, any of the mass that is supported by the normal force of the track on the left, means the right side does in fact weigh more with respect to the rotor bearings.
Like I said, Public domain now. This is not the same old sht Allcanadian.
@overboard
QuoteLike I said, Public domain now. This is not the same old sht Allcanadian.
Sorry I didn't post back but I never did see your pictures here. In any case the first issue we encounter with these kinds of devices is that as the mass moves outward from the center of rotation it's velocity thus it's momentum increases in proportion to the distance from center. This is the old figure skater thing... arms out slow down arms in speed up and momentum is conserved. As well if you place the mass on a lever the fulcrum of the lever attached to the disk produces the same effect at the center of rotation.
The thing to remember is all the elements moving about the point of rotation may appear to act independently but all must be attached thus all are bound to that system. I have been all through this, done all the experiments for real... no simulators... and threw everything I had at it and came up short. I have went through hundreds of designs many I literally knew must work but when I built them unfortunately none did.
So my only advice would be to say if you have actually built it and it works then your the man however if you are depending on a simulation then you might want to ready yourself for a bit of disappointment. However in either case we usually learn some valuable lessons and I consider it time well spent.
I have little interest in this kind of device anymore however I have learned a few tricks I could share. First any mass attached to the disk or center of rotation which moves away or towards the center undergoes a change in momentum which translates back to the center. Did you get that?, I'm guessing no... mass attached to center ...change in momentum. However there is no rule saying it must always be attached to the disk thus the center and if it ever became detached from the disk for any period then it has left the inertial/momentum system. I believe this is what Johann Bessler was doing and if the rules say it cannot work then obviously we need to change the rules.
My rules... any mass which moves to the exact center of rotation is no longer in the inertial system. Any mass which becomes detached from the center of rotation is considered to be no longer in the inertial system for the duration it has become detached from the system. Case in point... Johann Bessler... a mass falls from the wheel then falls hitting a spring at the neutral center of rotation and bounces to another point on the wheel. Thus for a period of time the mass must be considered as completely outside the closed system for the duration of the time it is in the air during the bounce. You see we have introduced a new variable which is time outside the context of the system.
The lesson here is that we are only limited by our creativity in solving a problem not by some numbers man who couldn't think there way out of a paper bag. Me I improve everything I come into contact with, it's easy and comes naturally unfortunately some people have gone through their whole lives and never really improved anything. What we know doesn't mean jack shit unless we can improve on what others have done otherwise we are no better than them and we have done nothing. Progress matters.
Sorry for the rant :D
AC
@overboard
For some very strange reason when I refreshed my page your pictures showed up. I think your going to be disappointed my friend for reasons I explained in my last post. Granted I could be wrong but from what I can see the arm and mass are directly attached to the center of rotation moving inward outward. I think your wrong but this is good and the right is in the fact you made the effort to contemplate how this could be done. It is not the destination but the journey where we actually learn something new... new matters because if it isn't new or different then it isn't progress.
Now consider a wheel and a mass, I mean it seems apparent there are only so many things we could do to change the way things must play out. It is heavier on one side then rotates then stops after rocking back and forth a few times. That is all the layman can see, they are bound to their own little world of mediocrity and blatant simplicity. However that is not who Johann Bessler was and if you read his biography and the literature you will find he was a creative problem solver. That is he was an artist of his craft while most cannot even draw a simple circle let alone a masterpiece. Yes I am an engineer but what I do is my art, I live and breath this shit and operate on a level most cannot even imagine.
So don't buy the BS most peddle, do your own thing, find your own way and you will make progress. They cannot help you.
Create something new something different, make this your art and never look back.
AC
You rock Allcanadian, thank you for your honest yet constructive input. Although I have already read all about Johann Bessler, I know that I am certainly not him at all, and even if I was correct all along with my new design, I would never take that design knowledge to my grave. It is public domain now. Wrong or right. Please down-load the model and advise others to do so as well, just in case! Who knows? This design came to me in a dream and I saw it operating there, every last detail, I then frantically plotted out the 3D image the best that I could. At least it works in my dreams, one side is in free-fall, the other side supported partially by the normal force, overbalanced by design, just like an ever changing see-saw, the heavy kid always does the work, I learned that as a child.
Gravity is a force...just like the blowing wind, it will only take time to determine how to make a fan blade that is sensitive to it. That is what you recognized and understood very well. Time to stop letting Valeriy advertise for himself here. For Free.
Hey overboard
I'm pleased you liked my rant, lol, concerning your dreams many people say they mean nothing however in fact they do in real science ie.. psychology. It is known that our mind discards 95% of what our senses perceive and distorts the remaining 5% thus were all a little crazy and biased it's just that were in denial. Dreams are a way for our subconscious mind to reconcile our conscious thoughts which cannot be reconciled ie.. that nagging problem which makes no sense but we intuitively know is somehow important. Most people don't know this nor understand it but this state can be induced while awake when we clear our mind completely of all distractions and focus on the problem with an open mind. I would even go so far as to call it daydreaming, Ah now it makes sense doesn't it?.
You see we are taught to think a certain way by society and superficial people have simplistic thoughts about simple things which relate to others opinions of them. Intelligent people don't care what other people think they just want facts and answers to their questions. So this is a very good sign that your subconscious mind is trying to solve complex problems, very good indeed. My only advice here would be not to try too hard but just let it happen, keep it in the back of your mind however don't let it consume your thoughts. It is a strange thing that in many cases we already know the answers however our conscious mind will not allow us to accept them. Thus in many ways our answers are simply an acceptance of things we already know intuitively ie... our subconscious mind, that part which perceives the other 95% of reality that we have ignored. Which puts a new spin on that old phrase... We are much smarter than we think, lol.
Maybe we should solve this overbalanced wheel problem right here in your thread, I mean it's a few hundred years overdue... why not?. Lets see where this takes us, you and I. Ask me a question and I will do my best to answer it.
AC
O. K. , so we all know that the holy grail is born from the historic water wheel. It is the original gravity wheel long before Bessler could ever take it with him to his grave, for that I feel he is no hero at all. It does not matter if it is an an over or undershot wheel, it all reveals a source of "head" filling buckets which release the water at the bottom making one side heavier than the other. The catch is making one side heavier than another, which is easier to do than you think with the normal force. If you believe in this, than please look at my new design again one more time, because it is always unbalanced and it can never reach a balance point regardless if you believe it or not. Public domain info. It's about time.
Regardless if you believe it or not. Public domain info now. :D Do not let anyone make you give up your dreams. I saw your designs, and I knew you had the same hope as I do. Only, they trampled it under their feet. Valirey could not build this if he believed in it nor wanted to. Because he only copies other peoples ideas and is a true fraud asking for people to come visit his store. Please Valirey, do you have an original idea of your own? No he does not.
I am not a newbie, you have no idea how long I have been here.
I was looking at the pictures again and picture 12, Increased Arm Length or Weight Leverage Torque 12.jpg was one design I had also considered a few years ago. It seemed to me moving the lever/mass in/out from the center perpendicular to the rotation might remove most of the inertial effects. However it still acts not unlike a centrifugal clutch in that the change in momentum of the mass still translates back to the point of attachment of the mass.
On the right we have what we could call the falling mass and on the left we have equal masses being dragged up an inclined plane. So really it is not much different than the proverbial mass on a chain device where one half is dragged up an inclined plane while the other half is falling.
Later my thoughts moved towards the concept of having the mass disappear from the system all together versus trying to produce differential forces. In fact at one point I thought I had solved the problem and it seemed quite easy on the surface. Bessler and many others called it the "universal motion" whereby energy in one element may be transformed into another form thus appears to disappear in relation to the other elements. Here we are not concerned so much with mass nor inertia relating to velocity but the conditions surrounding the nature of the mass. Such as the construct of weight and that a free falling mass has no weight no more than a mass in space has weight, that property relating to a condition has ceased to exist.
Interesting stuff
AC
And so we start thinking about the construct of weight... Ah weight. You see when we build an overbalanced wheel the heavy side falls just as the lighter side rises which tells us the heavy side must lose weight just as the lighter side must gain weight. At which point if we are thinking clearly we might ask is this really what we want to be doing because it would seem to be a losing proposition from both sides of the scale?. To me it would seem to be all backwards because if we hope to gain something then always losing as much as we gain would seem to be a losing proposition wouldn't it?. As if to say yes I am walking two meters/sec forward on an escalator moving two meters/sec backwards however I do not seem to be going anywhere and we are not going anywhere...literally.
People are odd however nature is not, it is what it is if you choose to see it for what it is, it is simple in it's nature even though we are not. What most do no see is that we generally lose twice for every step forward because they read textbooks instead of observing nature, comprehending how it works and coping it. It is a vicious circle we have created for ourselves.... running backwards.
AC
"yes, I am walking two meters/sec forward on an escalator moving two meters/sec backwards...however, I do not seem to be going anywhere and we are not going anywhere...literally"...the escalator is still moving isn't it?...The kinetic motion or energy is then transferred to the escalator, regardless if you move or not, correct?
In this instance you still have motion, But not from a driven escalator motor with a different power source. I would love to see the design you spoke of, similar to my picture "Increased Arm Length or Weight Leverage Torque 12.jpg" which was one design that you had also considered a few years ago. Why did you give up on it? Did you believe it was balanced or did they convince you that it was balanced? Did you build it? My design is obviously unbalanced? It is not the proverbial mass on a chain device where one half is dragged up an inclined plane while the other half is falling, there is an obvious shift of the center of mass? Why would you give up on it? Imbalance and balance are two different things? An imbalance will produce motion, up until the point which it is balanced...unless it cannot reach that balance.
"Maybe we should solve this overbalanced wheel problem right here in your thread, I mean it's a few hundred years overdue... why not?. Lets see where this takes us, you and I. Ask me a question and I will do my best to answer it."...Isn't all of the mass on the right side in free-fall in reference to the rotor? How much force is required to roll an object uphill? Less than what is required to lift it , right?
The http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Lever/LeverIntro.html applies there if properly wheel is made in theory but in practice it is much more tricky to make that with gravitational pull unless you somehow make one side of the wheel have more force to move than another.
Personally I would try this on different place - with 3000RPM 100W motor connected to 100 RPM 3kW wind generator over reductor with flywheel(as capacitor to smooth out friction) and seeing how much power I could take out of generator when it is up to speed... ;)
Cheers!
;) One side of the wheel always has more force on it always by design as it is, do not need a capacitor to smooth out friction because the right side always weighs more than the left. No lifting is ever done, because the normal force counter acts gravity so it is only rolling it uphill with less force or otherwise constantly unbalanced. Isn't that the Pythagorean theorem? Nice post T-1000! Cheers! ;) Are you up to speed? Can you not see...the right side weighs more then the left, it's center of balance is constantly shifting, No? Would anyone at all even acknowledge if a workable model or design was presented here?
I have already proven that magnetic fields can produce the upward force, and gravity can produce the downward force my videos have proven this fact. That with the magnetic propulsion fields, the upward force is along a particular angle and it only takes time to achieve a certain height and smooth disconnect, once that height is obtained it will release automatically and reconnect again at another magnetic propulsion field which means that we can continue the loop. More proof...that we can produce energy from forces.... so, why not produce energy from the force of gravity, it is a usable force.
Why don't you use your knowledge and combine magnetic field with gravity ? The problem with magnetic or gravity motor is two fold :
first it is unpractical, second - everybody seems to know better and try to build his own design instead of looking for proven design in the past (when people were honest and didn't hidden information).
Please read carefully what I stated , such perpetually working device in small scale is needed for people to wake up, but finally it's very impractical. For any serious power it needs a large device , very very costly.
@Forest
Therein lies the problem and if I can build a 1Kw conventional wind turbine for $500 and it runs half the time then it still beats a $5000 gravity device generating 1KW all the time. As it is most of the claimed OU devices can barely compete with solar which is dropping all the time... that is if the OU device works as claimed. So as I said I have little interest in gravity machines other than the enjoyment from considering the problem and even if any person demonstrated a working device right in front of me I would still question it's practicality.
If it ain't practical and competitive then it means nothing in my opinion, so yes let's see a device working with some numbers then we will talk.
AC
Why don't you use your knowledge and combine magnetic field with gravity ? The problem with magnetic or gravity motor is two fold :
first it is unpractical (no it is not, no free energy is impractical it happens everyday in real physics), second - everybody seems to know better (you think you know better) and try to build his own design instead of looking for (a) proven design in the past (when people were honest and didn't hidden (hide) information, like Bessler did?).
Please read carefully what I stated , such perpetually working device in small scale is needed for people to wake up, but finally it's very impractical (no it is not). For any serious power it needs a large device , very very costly (whatever)
It is not impractical, we have been taught to not understand how to make it work, thus believe that it is impractical.
@Forest
Therein lies the problem and if I can build a 1KW conventional wind turbine for $500 and it runs half the time then it still beats a $5000 gravity device generating 1KW all the time. As it is most of the claimed OU devices can barely compete with solar which is dropping all the time... that is if the OU device works as claimed. So as I said I have little interest in gravity machines other than the enjoyment from considering the problem and even if any person demonstrated a working device right in front of me I would still question it's practicality (are you insane? Right in front of you? )
If it ain't practical and competitive then it means nothing in my opinion, so yes let's see a device working with some numbers then we will talk.
Why are they charging $5000.00 for a gravity device then...unless they know it will produce more energy for less, therefore it is worth more than the $500.00 dollar 1 KW solar generator, it is the same "Fallacy" as any needed fuel, oil or even natural gas and nuclear energy, they can hold that utility over your head and charge you for it forever, even if it was free to them except for their initial investment? Shut up and open your eyes. I, yes Overboard have already created a device that combines magnetism and gravity, really? OMG this is so stupid. Right in front of you? Really? You are so ignorant. I would expect that answer from you.
Silence! There is no reason to be harsh. >:(
Both my comments and Allcanadian were resonable. Moreover I posted some time ago working ou device patent from the past combining mechanical force and magnetism but nobody ever declared to build it and show it working. People are more and more interested in money they can get then the truth they can learn :(
Btw your constant shifting mass center is example of what I posted some time ago and what EXACTLY that patent I posted is showing : the added degree of freedom in movement.
Imho the patent was working this way : the shaft was on bearings but on shaft were mounted a metalic (maybe copper) tube on it's own baearings (or just sliding on resin) . To the tube there was attached mechanical lever with two magnets on opposite sides pushing (or attracting - don't remember) each other. On the shaft was connected ratched device and the mechanical lever with some parts able to change angle acted on ratched wheel due to magnets interaction. It was in cotinous imbalance beacause the shaft where rotating in one direction while the tube with all mechanical parts in opposite direction.
Case closed. ???
Whatever, so I have posted your design Forest? Then why did you give up on it? No Copper nor magnetic fields needed, it's center of mass is constantly changing and it is always unbalanced. I do not care if I ever get credit for this design, that is the difference. I do not CARE! I cannot wait until the day that we realize that we can make forces our "Bi-otch" with no need for any sort of fuel for energy. I am so sorry, so sorry, that I hurt your ego. :D SILENCE...Whatever...! I never spoke harsh of Allcanadian, just of your unbelievable BS. The case is so not closed at all! Run Forest run... "People are more and more interested in money they can get then the truth they can learn"... then why oppose my design if it is truly workable, if not, then lets work your designs. I am no more harsh than the world is to me, but you know this already.
Ok,Overboard do whatever you like...I advise only to watch what was already done and build on it.
Whatever you'all are liars, YOU HAVE NOT POSTED WHAT YOU HAVE BUILT, and you have no intent of furthering anything of what has already been built...because you refuse to show your designs. You are liars, there is nothing to build on lies! Whatever, wash up and blow away, you are not helping the free energy movement at all, whatsoever.
Quote from: forest on 2015.04.21, 08:31:41
Ok,Overboard do whatever you like...I advise only to watch what was already done and build on it.
Show it then...What have you already done? Nothing at all. It is obvious to me forest, you are only here to propagate propaganda, because you have not posted any thoughts of your own. Really, leave this up to me to prove? Fine!
:D But, I am a newbie...you have no idea how long I have been here. I'm a newbie...not.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.04.21, 23:28:26
:D But, I am a newbie...you have no idea how long I have been here.
Of course, you have been "how long" nobody knows and still you haven't show us your working ou device ? What a joke!
The joke is that you claim to be qualified to critique my design through experience, when you will not share your own design that you say is somehow just like this design? What a joke! Constructive criticism does not qualify you alone. Have you built this? What a joke, no you have not. You just immediately said that it will not work when, it is nothing like anything that has ever been built or you have ever built. What a joke! As far as I am concerned, you are not here to help us, but only to confuse and confound because you have not provided a working OU device as well! But, you already know that. Mine is waiting to show the money, What a joke! Show it then, otherwise you really are just a liar.
"Btw your constant shifting mass center is example of what I posted some time ago and what EXACTLY that patent I posted is showing : the added degree of freedom in movement.
Imho the patent was working this way : the shaft was on bearings but on shaft were mounted a metalic (maybe copper) tube on it's own baearings (or just sliding on resin) . To the tube there was attached mechanical lever with two magnets on opposite sides pushing (or attracting - don't remember) each other. On the shaft was connected ratched device and the mechanical lever with some parts able to change angle acted on ratched wheel due to magnets interaction. It was in cotinous imbalance beacause the shaft where rotating in one direction while the tube with all mechanical parts in opposite direction."
Case closed. Huh?
Have you built this? What a joke! The ranks have been infiltrated by the enemy. They have no vested interest in the revelation of free energy. Case closed. Unless you - don't remember)?
Gravity is a force...just like the blowing wind...Yes it is, the wind blows in one direction, gravity flows in one direction...to the source of gravity, it will only take time to determine how to make a fan blade that is sensitive to it. Did I say enemy? I meant traitor. We do not need fuel anymore. Where is your OU device BTW?
O.K. Any more BS for anyone else to post here? No, O.K. good. now please show what you have already built before you speak, otherwise you have no forest to stand on. O0 Sorry forest. I disagree, the normal force, gravity, and torque is enough, or could you please explain to me how you came to that conclusion? Using the scientific method... only... Once again, I ask you in a civilized manner. Isn't it funny? No matter how many posts that I post the counter is now stuck at 24 posts (25, 26 27 now). Gravity is a force...like the blowing wind... wind blowing in one direction turns a rotor, gravity flows in one direction...to its source, it will only be a matter of time when we fashion a rotor or "fan blade" that is sensitive to it.
https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/user.html?id=1303903412291566695804698 ;D
Watch what happens when you increase the length of the rotor arms...nothing...its center of mass or center of gravity is constantly to the bottom left right, it is constantly unbalanced. The weight of seven (7) arms is more than enough, to lift five (5) arms.
Just ask Cassini if it is burning fuel or if it is using the slingshot effect of gravity of the moon, of Venus, of Jupiter? It actually increased velocity, sounds like moving a mass a distance to me, with gravity? Isn't the Cassini spacecraft getting more out, than what was put in? Ask Bill Nye the science guy, even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity to sling-shot out to Jupiter. Gravity, being used to accomplish work. Doesn't that usually require burning a fuel? So just admit it, we can obtain energy from the force of gravity already. It meas that yes, we can produce energy from forces.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.05.03, 23:45:50
Please let me know when you figure it out...New world order my ass.
Whatever...
I can tell by the tone of the comments that this isn't going to do any good... but here goes anyway.
Overboard, you are wrong about the way that gravitational slingshot navigation works. There is an exchange of momentum between the tiny tiny spacecraft and the huge planet: The spacecraft accelerates substantially and the planet slows infinitesimally. Momentum is conserved, as always.
Gravity is most certainly NOT a "flow" in the way that wind is a flow of air. There is nothing "flowing" in any gravitational interaction, except the particles that are under the influence of gravitational acceleration. Gravity is a conservative field of force. You can use it to store energy and you can recover that stored energy from it, minus losses. Neither is magnetism a "flow", in spite of the unfortunate use of the term "Flux" to describe certain aspects of magnetism. Again, magnetic fields are conservative fields and you can store energy in them, and recover this stored energy, minus losses. That's all. Combining magnetism and gravity gains nothing, except compounding losses.
A proper analysis of overbalanced wheels, taking into account _moment arms_ and torques, shows that they aren't really overbalanced after all and so cannot work as the designer believed or intended that they work. And proper comparison testing of "inert" mechanisms (containing no magnets, but inert weights instead; or weight levers blocked so they cannot move) always shows that the "inert" mechanism has fewer losses and so will continue to turn longer with a given starting impulse than the fully "operational" mechanism will. But you can count the number of gravity/magnet wheel builders who perform proper analysis and comparison testing on the fingers of one hand.
If you feel otherwise, Overboard, you should get to building. Build and test your idea properly and report your results here. Insulting others will get you nothing--- it's conservative, you will only reap what you sow, and if it's disrespect... that's what you'll get back.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/centgrav.htm
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMIsABzDkw0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
While I admire your work TK I feel I have to reply to your latest post concerning gravity and magnetism. You say nothing is flowing and that is certainly one viewpoint. But there is another possibility that does involve something flowing. Taking EM fields for example, if there is a sudden change in a static field, that change propagates outward from the source at light velocity. In your view the only thing moving is that change, like a surface wave on water the water does not move along the surface. But equally it could be a change in an otherwise uniform stream of particles, like puffs of smoke. And we do know that if you get down to very small time increments then magnetic or electric effects are particulate, they come in chunks. So an equally valid viewpoint is that in static electric or magnetic fields there is a constant flow of particles flowing outward from the source charges responsible for the field, and that these particles carry "information" in say their spin vector, like the spin vector angle wrt the velocity direction. A spin vector pointing parallel or anti-parallel to the velocity can represent a positive or negative longitudinal wave, and such particles arriving at a constant density could be what we know as a static field. Spin vectors that are not parallel or anti-parallel will have some degree of "transversivity" and these could be responsible for transverse waves.
Of course if charges such as electrons constantly emit a stream of particles, then to remain stable they must constantly absorb particles, so "empty" space must contain an enormous density of such particles. Then it is possible to give space properties based upon that continuum, properties such as light velocity (the particle velocity), permeability, permittivity and impedance. It is unfortunate that the name "virtual particle" has been given when in reality these can be real particles having zero rest mass but carrying spin, like neutrinos.
And gravity is just another outcome of that space continuum, warped space (or warped space-time) can be envisioned as something physical and not abstract. If we could produce a colored image of the space particle density (or other characteristic) around a massive body and realize that mass moving through that cloud receives forces from those particles then some of the mysticism of Einstein's GR is removed.
Smudge
Who did I insult? Or, are you talking about all of the the people insulting me now? What do you call a physicist (Donald E. Simanek) that will not adapt to new knowledge? You call them wrong. And it's time for him to retire. Prove my current magnetic theories wrong then TK. Prove then that what does work somehow does not TK.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.05.17, 15:43:38
While I admire your work TK I feel I have to reply to your latest post concerning gravity and magnetism. You say nothing is flowing and that is certainly one viewpoint. But there is another possibility that does involve something flowing. Taking EM fields for example, if there is a sudden change in a static field, that change propagates outward from the source at light velocity. In your view the only thing moving is that change, like a surface wave on water the water does not move along the surface. But equally it could be a change in an otherwise uniform stream of particles, like puffs of smoke. And we do know that if you get down to very small time increments then magnetic or electric effects are particulate, they come in chunks. So an equally valid viewpoint is that in static electric or magnetic fields there is a constant flow of particles flowing outward from the source charges responsible for the field, and that these particles carry "information" in say their spin vector, like the spin vector angle wrt the velocity direction. A spin vector pointing parallel or anti-parallel to the velocity can represent a positive or negative longitudinal wave, and such particles arriving at a constant density could be what we know as a static field. Spin vectors that are not parallel or anti-parallel will have some degree of "transversivity" and these could be responsible for transverse waves.
Of course if charges such as electrons constantly emit a stream of particles, then to remain stable they must constantly absorb particles, so "empty" space must contain an enormous density of such particles. Then it is possible to give space properties based upon that continuum, properties such as light velocity (the particle velocity), permeability, permittivity and impedance. It is unfortunate that the name "virtual particle" has been given when in reality these can be real particles having zero rest mass but carrying spin, like neutrinos.
And gravity is just another outcome of that space continuum, warped space (or warped space-time) can be envisioned as something physical and not abstract. If we could produce a colored image of the space particle density (or other characteristic) around a massive body and realize that mass moving through that cloud receives forces from those particles then some of the mysticism of Einstein's GR is removed.
Smudge
TK, prove it otherwise, the burden of proof is on me and it is on you to prove otherwise.
You go smudge, let em have it, the alternative opinion. "I can tell by the tone of the comments that this isn't going to do any good... but here goes anyway." Like you know better somehow than the rest of us. Oh, you are so much better then anyone else here on OU. TK you are so enlightned that...you have all of the answers, wow, I wish we were all as smart as you, you propagandist.
Donald E. Simanek, Then look at my design...Oh is it too much to comprehend? Three dimensions? Oh that is soo difficult. 3 dimensions, Donald E. Simanek can only handle 2 dimensions? retire.
WHATEVER.... :D
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.05.17, 22:52:20
Who did I insult? Or, are you talking about all of the the people insulting me now? What do you call a physicist (Donald E. Simanek) that will not adapt to new knowledge? You call them wrong. And it's time for him to retire. Prove my current magnetic theories wrong then TK. Prove then that what does work somehow does not TK.
Who did you insult? On this page alone:
QuoteI do not CARE! I cannot wait until the day that we realize that we can make forces our "Bi-otch" with no need for any sort of fuel for energy. I am so sorry, so sorry, that I hurt your ego. Cheesy SILENCE...Whatever...! I never spoke harsh of Allcanadian, just of your unbelievable BS. The case is so not closed at all! Run Forest run...
QuoteWhatever you'all are liars, YOU HAVE NOT POSTED WHAT YOU HAVE BUILT, and you have no intent of furthering anything of what has already been built...because you refuse to show your designs. You are liars, there is nothing to build on lies! Whatever, wash up and blow away, you are not helping the free energy movement at all, whatsoever.
QuoteIt is obvious to me forest, you are only here to propagate propaganda, because you have not posted any thoughts of your own.
QuoteShow it then, otherwise you really are just a liar.... Have you built this? What a joke! The ranks have been infiltrated by the enemy.
QuoteO.K. Any more BS for anyone else to post here?
QuoteTK you are so enlightned that...you have all of the answers, wow, I wish we were all as smart as you, you propagandist.
QuoteTK you do not know SH*T
QuoteDonald E. Simanek, Then look at my design...Oh is it too much to comprehend? Three dimensions? Oh that is soo difficult. 3 dimensions, Donald E. Simanek can only handle 2 dimensions? retire.
I suggest that you take a look at the pdf document referenced in this post:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0
You are making claims, without support. The burden of proof is ON YOU. I have given you references with rigorous analyses of why your _proposed_ design cannot work...you have not refuted any of those analyses. I have shown you my own work showing how to test such claims... you have provided nothing in return EXCEPT MORE INSULTS.
The proper way for you to proceed is to REFUTE ME with demonstrations of your own, showing that your claims are true. But of course you cannot... because they aren't. Therefore you follow the Usual Script to the letter: you rant and moan and proceed with your pottymouth insults that would be silly coming from an eighth-grader, but are just pathetic coming from someone who is supposed to be all grown up:
QuoteTK you do not know SH*T
Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG. Prove that I don't know SH*T. You cannot. I've already demonstrated that I know more than you do about: gravitational slingshots, gravity wheel analysis, experimental methodology, and the Creed of this Forum. Now let's see you demonstrate something other than your ability to insult everybody in sight.
@ overboard,
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.04.21, 23:28:26
:D But, I am a newbie...you have no idea how long I have been here. I'm a newbie...not.
31st,october,2013
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.17, 04:02:56
Overboard, you are wrong about the way that gravitational slingshot navigation works. There is an exchange of momentum between the tiny tiny spacecraft and the huge planet: The spacecraft accelerates substantially and the planet slows infinitesimally. Momentum is conserved, as always.
TK
I would have to disagre with this. The planet would not slow in rotational speed-even a very small amount. The planet would only be pulled slightly toward the space craft,slightly shifting it's orbital path-->but it would not slow down in rotational speed.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.18, 12:57:56
TK
I would have to disagre with this. The planet would not slow in rotational speed-even a very small amount. The planet would only be pulled slightly toward the space craft,slightly shifting it's orbital path-->but it would not slow down in rotational speed.
I would have to disagree with you Tinman, I believe TK is correct however the answer could be expanded on for clarity as there are actually two significant systems at play in his statement.
The first system is the relationship between the Earth and the spacecraft ?
http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/
The second system is the relationship between the Earth and the Sun and the spacecraft:
http://www.universetoday.com/113488/how-do-gravitational-slingshots-work/
The relevant paragraphs are in italics below:
So how do gravitational assists work? You probably know this involves flying your spacecraft dangerously close to a massive planet. But how does this help speed you up? Sure, as the spacecraft flies towards the planet, it speeds up. But then, as it flies away, it slows down again. Sort of like a skateboarder in a half pipe.
This process nets out to zero, with no overall increase in velocity as your spacecraft falls into and out of the gravity well. So how do they do it? Here's the trick. Each planet has an orbital speed travelling around the Sun.
As the spacecraft approaches the planet, its gravity pulls the much lighter spacecraft so that it catches up with the planet in orbit. It's the orbital momentum from the planet which gives the spacecraft a tremendous speed boost. The closer it can fly, the more momentum it receives, and the faster it flies away from the encounter.
To kick the velocity even higher, the spacecraft can fire its rockets during the closest approach, and the high speed encounter will multiply the effect of the rockets. This speed boost comes with a cost. It's still a transfer of momentum. The planet loses a tiny bit of orbital velocity.
If you did enough gravitational slingshots, such as several zillion zillion slingshots, you'd eventually cause the planet to crash into the Sun. You can use gravitational slingshots to decelerate by doing the whole thing backwards. You approach the planet in the opposite direction that it's orbiting the Sun. The transfer of momentum will slow down the spacecraft a significant amount, and speed up the planet an infinitesimal amount.Any sane scientist error checks his own work constantly, accepting he will make mistakes occasionally. I might not be able to grasp the null hypothesis but frequent error checks ensure i have a high probability of observing those errors and correcting them. A knowledge foundation must be constantly cross referenced for accuracy, which includes validating claims with actual experiential test data, or it is useless.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.05.18, 16:34:16
I would have to disagree with you Tinman, I believe TK is correct however the answer could be expanded on for clarity as there are actually two significant systems at play in his statement.
The first system is the relationship between the Earth and the spacecraft ?
http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/
The second system is the relationship between the Earth and the Sun and the spacecraft:
http://www.universetoday.com/113488/how-do-gravitational-slingshots-work/
The relevant paragraphs are in italics below:
So how do gravitational assists work? You probably know this involves flying your spacecraft dangerously close to a massive planet. But how does this help speed you up? Sure, as the spacecraft flies towards the planet, it speeds up. But then, as it flies away, it slows down again. Sort of like a skateboarder in a half pipe.
This process nets out to zero, with no overall increase in velocity as your spacecraft falls into and out of the gravity well. So how do they do it? Here's the trick. Each planet has an orbital speed travelling around the Sun.
As the spacecraft approaches the planet, its gravity pulls the much lighter spacecraft so that it catches up with the planet in orbit. It's the orbital momentum from the planet which gives the spacecraft a tremendous speed boost. The closer it can fly, the more momentum it receives, and the faster it flies away from the encounter.
To kick the velocity even higher, the spacecraft can fire its rockets during the closest approach, and the high speed encounter will multiply the effect of the rockets. This speed boost comes with a cost. It's still a transfer of momentum. The planet loses a tiny bit of orbital velocity.
If you did enough gravitational slingshots, such as several zillion zillion slingshots, you'd eventually cause the planet to crash into the Sun. You can use gravitational slingshots to decelerate by doing the whole thing backwards. You approach the planet in the opposite direction that it's orbiting the Sun. The transfer of momentum will slow down the spacecraft a significant amount, and speed up the planet an infinitesimal amount.
Any sane scientist error checks his own work constantly, accepting he will make mistakes occasionally. I might not be able to grasp the null hypothesis but frequent error checks ensure i have a high probability of observing those errors and correcting them. A knowledge foundation must be constantly cross referenced for accuracy, which includes validating claims with actual experiential test data, or it is useless.
EA
I did say rotational speed would not be changed,and did say that the orbital path would be changed.To understand what really happen's,first you must understand that there is no orbit around the sun from any planet,so an orbital change cannot happen in such a sense.
The two systems must be identified, TK's initial statement which you quoted did not clarify the difference, your reply to that statement included reference to both systems.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.18, 21:36:31
EA
I did say rotational speed would not be changed
This statement is correct for the first system as the (Earth + spaceship)
nets out to zero, incorrect for the second system (Sun + Earth + spaceship) as
the planet loses a tiny bit of orbital velocity and therefore rotational speed (of the Earth around the Sun) causing the orbit of the Earth to decay slightly. A transfer of Momentum has occurred.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.18, 21:36:31
and did say that the orbital path would be changed.
Yes, the loss of orbital velocity of The Earth (energy the Earth has given to the spacecraft) results in a decayed orbit from the loss of rotational speed of the Earth around the Sun.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.18, 21:36:31
To understand what really happen's,first you must understand that there is no orbit around the sun from any planet,so an orbital change cannot happen in such a sense.
Sounds good! what is your hypothesis ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.05.19, 16:53:53
The two systems must be identified, TK's initial statement which you quoted did not clarify the difference, your reply to that statement included reference to both systems.
This statement is correct for the first system as the (Earth + spaceship) nets out to zero, incorrect for the second system (Sun + Earth + spaceship) as the planet loses a tiny bit of orbital velocity and therefore rotational speed (of the Earth around the Sun) causing the orbit of the Earth to decay slightly. A transfer of Momentum has occurred.
Yes, the loss of orbital velocity of The Earth (energy the Earth has given to the spacecraft) results in a decayed orbit from the loss of rotational speed of the Earth around the Sun.
Sounds good! what is your hypothesis ?
The earth(or any other planet in our solar system for that matter)dose not orbit the sun,and thus no orbital velocity can be lost-->because it dosnt exist in the first place. You simply cannot orbit an object that is moving through space. The sun follows a helical path in relation to the galactic plane,and the planets follow a helical path behind the sun-so there is no orbit that can be decreased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.21, 03:14:35
The earth(or any other planet in our solar system for that matter)dose not orbit the sun,and thus no orbital velocity can be lost-->because it dosnt exist in the first place. You simply cannot orbit an object that is moving through space. The sun follows a helical path in relation to the galactic plane,and the planets follow a helical path behind the sun-so there is no orbit that can be decreased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Oh come on Tinman. Certainly you can choose a frame of reference where it looks like there is a helical path being traced out in space... but that does NOT mean that there are no orbits! There are literally thousands of artificial satellites that are _in orbit_ around the Earth, around the Sun, and even around planets and tiny asteroids. Every one of those things is where it is because it was _put there_ by scientists who understand orbital dynamics in the conventional sense. Even astronomers hundreds of years ago understood orbits and were able to calculate accurate positions of things like the moon and planets far in advance. A couple of planets were even _discovered_ because irregularities in the measured and calculated orbital positions of other planets predicted that they had to be there, and when astronomers looked, sure enough there they were.
Do you think it's some kind of magic that keeps the satellites of Jupiter moving in totally predictable courses around that planet, even though Jupiter itself is moving around the sun? Sure it is.... the magic of Gravity, as expressed in the solid science of Orbital Mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
I like the EU theory that proposes it is an electrical force that causes these orbits >:-)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.18, 04:19:23
You are making claims, without support. The burden of proof is ON YOU. I have given you references with rigorous analyses of why your _proposed_ design cannot work...you have not refuted any of those analyses. I have shown you my own work showing how to test such claims... you have provided nothing in return EXCEPT MORE INSULTS.
The proper way for you to proceed is to REFUTE ME with demonstrations of your own, showing that your claims are true. But of course you cannot... because they aren't. Therefore you follow the Usual Script to the letter: you rant and moan and proceed with your pottymouth insults that would be silly coming from an eighth-grader, but are just pathetic coming from someone who is supposed to be all grown up:
I have noticed a huge drop in claimants attempting to refute known facts in support of their conjectures. They just ignore the facts, fail to research their own positions or back up their own claims and statements. It appears they have collectively decided (maybe on a subconscious level) to push forward with their delusions regardless. Error checking your own work is hard work, very time consuming to constantly cross reference and fact check so they just don't bother. If they were to attempt to refute themselves they might not like the answer.. so that is not an option for them.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.05.21, 07:12:11
I like the EU theory that proposes it is an electrical force that causes these orbits >:-)
The relationship between electromagnetism and gravity has yet to be defined.
A few links that readers might be interested in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
"I have noticed a huge drop in claimants attempting to refute known facts in support of their conjectures. They just ignore the facts, fail to research their own positions or back up their own claims and statements. It appears they have collectively decided (maybe on a subconscious level) to push forward with their delusions regardless. Error checking your own work is hard work, very time consuming to constantly cross reference and fact check so they just don't bother. If they were to attempt to refute themselves they might not like the answer.. so that is not an option for them." Whatever, I have money, will ou help me build it? Or are you just a propagandist? Just like Valirey, OMG... he does not build anything new?... He only copies what everyone else Has buillt. Valirey you suck, you are still entertaining, but you suck.
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum, mindless disbelieving behavior will be tolerated ...Won't it?
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.05.26, 22:53:44
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum, mindless disbelieving behavior will be tolerated ...Won't it?
Your on shaky ground my friend, think long and hard before you go down this road with me.
Then lets go...My friend..
It is very kind of you to offer to pay me to help you build your design, however I must decline. I do not believe it will work as described and therefore my heart would not be in it. I cannot pocket your cash under those conditions as to my mind I would be ripping you off.
However, I am interested in gravity devices in general and the only method of harnessing gravitational energy that I currently believe has a chance of working involves density change within a specific gravity fluid system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
In modern scientific usage, weight and mass are fundamentally different quantities: mass is an "extrinsic" (extensive) property of matter, whereas weight is a force that results from the action of gravity on matter: it measures how strongly the force of gravity pulls on that matter. However, in most practical everyday situations the word "weight" is used when, strictly, "mass" is meant.[4][17] For example, most people would say that an object "weighs one kilogram", even though the kilogram is a unit of mass.
The scientific distinction between mass and weight is unimportant for many practical purposes because the strength of gravity is almost the same everywhere on the surface of the Earth. In a uniform gravitational field, the gravitational force exerted on an object (its weight) is directly proportional to its mass.
Weight is a force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by force of gravitation. Neglecting friction such as air resistance, all small bodies accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate relative to the center of mass.[1] This equality is true regardless of the masses or compositions of the bodies.
At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.78 and 9.83 m/s2 depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174 ft/s2). Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance.
Force = Mass x Gravitational Acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
In science, buoyancy (pronunciation: /ˈbɔɪ.ənᵗsi/[1][2] or /ˈbuːjənᵗsi/)[1][2] (also known as upthrust) is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. In a column of fluid, pressure increases with depth as a result of the weight of the overlying fluid. Thus a column of fluid, or an object submerged in the fluid, experiences greater pressure at the bottom of the column than at the top. This difference in pressure results in a net force that tends to accelerate an object upwards. The magnitude of that force is proportional to the difference in the pressure between the top and the bottom of the column, and (as explained by Archimedes' principle) is also equivalent to the weight of the fluid that would otherwise occupy the column, i.e. the displaced fluid.
For this reason, an object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame). In a situation of fluid statics, the net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body.[3]
The center of buoyancy of an object is the centroid of the displaced volume of fluid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density (mass of the same unit volume) of a reference substance. Apparent specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of a volume of the substance to the weight of an equal volume of the reference substance.
In summary, a lightweight vessel immersed in water and filled with water would sink. Using electricity to phase change water into hho will change the density of the system within the vessel. A change in density results in a change in gravitational acceleration on the vessel and the vessel would rise within the specific gravity field due to buoyancy. This is not the full system description, you would have to understand hhop gen 2+ to build it.
If your vessel is _sealed_ then the quantity of matter (mass) inside it won't change when you electrolyze the water into the H2 and O2 gas mixture. If the vessel is also rigid so that the volume doesn't change due to the increased pressure inside it, then the density of the whole vessel+contents doesn't change either. Hence no change in buoyancy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 05:37:32
If your vessel is _sealed_ then the quantity of matter (mass) inside it won't change when you electrolyze the water into the H2 and O2 gas mixture. If the vessel is also rigid so that the volume doesn't change due to the increased pressure inside it, then the density of the whole vessel+contents doesn't change either. Hence no change in buoyancy.
I agree TK, thankyou for your refutation. Now it is my turn to refute you, which is how science discussion amongst peers should proceed. :)
At a depth of 100 metres the pressure external to the vessel attempting to crush it is 160 psi (just like a rigid submarine). Therefore the pressure that must be overcome in order to pump the water out of the vessel is 160 psi. Is hho stable enough and capable of pumping water at a pressure of 160 psi ? I think it is..
With all the unused electrolyte water pumped out of the vessel you will have an internal pneumatic pressure of 160 psi and an external hydraulic pressure of 160 psi. The contents inside of the vessel have now changed, it has gained relative buoyancy and will proceed to move upward within the fluid it is immersed in. When it reaches the surface it will stop rising as the vessel is heavier than air, at this point a valve can be opened and the vessel will bleed itself pumping the gas out of the vessel. The hho (fuel) has been produced but not combusted and can now become an input to a second system. The cycle will then repeat..
here is my input O0.
below is a rough sketch of a steel sphere in the two separate states-1 buoyant,and one non buoyant.
A steel sphere of heavy wall thickness that requires a volume of 6LTR's of water to become non buoyant,has it's gas area pulled down to a vacuum(or as high a negative pressure as we can get). In this state it is only just non buoyant(it will sink).At this point,the water inside provides only a downward force upon the sphere,and no upward force is applied to the sphere due to the vacuum. Now when on the ocean floor,1 LTR of the water is phase changed into a buoyant gas-that being HHO. This now pressurized gas provides an even force on all internal points of the sphere wall,and the non buoyant water volume has now been reduced. So now the sphere becomes buoyant and makes it way to the surface. Once at the surface,the HHO gas inside is ignited,and once again becomes water--and the cycle repeats. O0
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.05.28, 08:55:25
I agree TK, thankyou for your refutation. Now it is my turn to refute you, which is how science discussion amongst peers should proceed. :)
At a depth of 100 metres the pressure external to the vessel attempting to crush it is 160 psi (just like a rigid submarine). Therefore the pressure that must be overcome in order to pump the water out of the vessel is 160 psi. Is hho stable enough and capable of pumping water at a pressure of 160 psi ? I think it is..
With all the unused electrolyte water pumped out of the vessel you will have an internal pneumatic pressure of 160 psi and an external hydraulic pressure of 160 psi. The contents inside of the vessel have now changed, it has gained relative buoyancy and will proceed to move upward within the fluid it is immersed in. When it reaches the surface it will stop rising as the vessel is heavier than air, at this point a valve can be opened and the vessel will bleed itself pumping the gas out of the vessel. The hho (fuel) has been produced but not combusted and can now become an input to a second system. The cycle will then repeat..
This isn't really a "refutation" of my point, since now you are removing mass from the vessel. Therefore its density does change. The same thing will happen if you just use compressed air to push some of the water out of the system changing its mass, and/or to change its volume by pushing a piston or swelling up some flexible enclosure. The Cartesian Diver is an example. But I thought you were referring to a sealed and rigid system, though.
The apparatus that TinMan demonstrated a few weeks ago is rigid and sealed so that no mass escapes, I thought, so its weight change during the experiment is still a mystery to me. However I have seen similar experiments that actually changed "weight" due to swelling/shrinking of the sealed vessel and the corresponding changes in its buoyancy _in air_. These weight changes due to changing buoyancy in air are much smaller than what TinMan measured though.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 09:22:03
here is my input O0.
below is a rough sketch of a steel sphere in the two separate states-1 buoyant,and one non buoyant.
A steel sphere of heavy wall thickness that requires a volume of 6LTR's of water to become non buoyant,has it's gas area pulled down to a vacuum(or as high a negative pressure as we can get). In this state it is only just non buoyant(it will sink).At this point,the water inside provides only a downward force upon the sphere,and no upward force is applied to the sphere due to the vacuum. Now when on the ocean floor,1 LTR of the water is phase changed into a buoyant gas-that being HHO. This now pressurized gas provides an even force on all internal points of the sphere wall,and the non buoyant water volume has now been reduced. So now the sphere becomes buoyant and makes it way to the surface. Once at the surface,the HHO gas inside is ignited,and once again becomes water--and the cycle repeats. O0
I really don't see how this could be happening, since the sphere is rigid (does not change volume) and the amount of matter inside the sphere is constant (does not change mass). Therefore the density of the sphere doesn't change... therefore its buoyancy does not change.
I remember your weight-change demonstration from your discussion of this with MarkE, but I don't have enough details of the demo apparatus to be able to analyze what happened there.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 13:01:02
QuoteThe apparatus that TinMan demonstrated a few weeks ago is rigid and sealed so that no mass escapes, I thought, so its weight change during the experiment is still a mystery to me. However I have seen similar experiments that actually changed "weight" due to swelling/shrinking of the sealed vessel and the corresponding changes in its buoyancy _in air_. These weight changes due to changing buoyancy in air are much smaller than what TinMan measured though.
Well some say my scale's were reading wrong,but it just made sense to me. We are transforming a (heavier than air)liquid into a (lighter than air)gas,so why wouldnt it get lighter?. I mean if we take a sphere(say 2 meters in diameter),and it is rigid enough that we can pull a decent vacuum in the sphere,and we then fill that with 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen-->the sphere would weigh less than if it was full of just oxygen-right?. We then ignite the HHO inside that sphere,and the HHO then turns to water,and we once again have a vacuum in that sphere-right?. Now in sted of having a gas in there that is lighter than air,we have no gas,but we have a small amount of water. So would not the sphere now weigh more than it did at the start when it had only HHO gas in it?-and we have not changed the amount of mass in the sphere.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 13:17:03
Well some say my scale's were reading wrong,but it just made sense to me. We are transforming a (heavier than air)liquid into a (lighter than air)gas,so why wouldnt it get lighter?. I mean if we take a sphere(say 2 meters in diameter),and it is rigid enough that we can pull a decent vacuum in the sphere,and we then fill that with 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen-->the sphere would weigh less than if it was full of just oxygen-right?. We then ignite the HHO inside that sphere,and the HHO then turns to water,and we once again have a vacuum in that sphere-right?. Now in sted of having a gas in there that is lighter than air,we have no gas,but we have a small amount of water. So would not the sphere now weigh more than it did at the start when it had only HHO gas in it?-and we have not changed the amount of mass in the sphere.
See, that's the part that I don't get. If you haven't changed the _mass_, and the sphere is rigid so that the _volume_ doesn't change, then the weight can't be changing either, since the weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on the mass of the sphere+contents. There doesn't seem to be anywhere where the weight could change, since all the factors that determine weight have not changed. Neither the gravity, nor the mass, nor the volume are changing during the process of making the gas or burning it back to water.
The air outside the sphere doesn't know what's going on inside, whether there is gas, or water+vacuum "filling" the sphere. The gravity doesn't know either. As long as the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen don't change, the gravity pulls down on the masses of the atoms just the same whether they are in gas or liquid form, so the sphere as a whole weighs the same.
18 grams of water (one mole) when electrolyzed yields a large volume of oxygen and hydrogen gas at standard pressure and temperature ... but that great volume of gas still weighs 18 grams.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 13:39:34
See, that's the part that I don't get. If you haven't changed the _mass_, and the sphere is rigid so that the _volume_ doesn't change, then the weight can't be changing either, since the weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on the mass of the sphere+contents. There doesn't seem to be anywhere where the weight could change, since all the factors that determine weight have not changed. Neither the gravity, nor the mass, nor the volume are changing during the process of making the gas or burning it back to water.
The air outside the sphere doesn't know what's going on inside, whether there is gas, or water+vacuum "filling" the sphere. The gravity doesn't know either. As long as the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen don't change, the gravity pulls down on the masses of the atoms just the same whether they are in gas or liquid form, so the sphere as a whole weighs the same.
18 grams of water (one mole) when electrolyzed yields a large volume of oxygen and hydrogen gas at standard pressure and temperature ... but that great volume of gas still weighs 18 grams.
Mmm-well i don't know enough about how gravity waves act upon separated and combined molecules. I do know that gravity waves travel faster than the speed of light,or the gravitational force travels faster than the speed of light-->what ever gravity is,is is faster than light. So maybe it acts upon the separated molecules differently than it dose on the combine molecules?.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 09:22:03
here is my input O0.
below is a rough sketch of a steel sphere in the two separate states-1 buoyant,and one non buoyant.
A steel sphere of heavy wall thickness that requires a volume of 6LTR's of water to become non buoyant,has it's gas area pulled down to a vacuum(or as high a negative pressure as we can get). In this state it is only just non buoyant(it will sink).At this point,the water inside provides only a downward force upon the sphere,and no upward force is applied to the sphere due to the vacuum. Now when on the ocean floor,1 LTR of the water is phase changed into a buoyant gas-that being HHO. This now pressurized gas provides an even force on all internal points of the sphere wall,and the non buoyant water volume has now been reduced. So now the sphere becomes buoyant and makes it way to the surface. Once at the surface,the HHO gas inside is ignited,and once again becomes water--and the cycle repeats. O0
Good post Tinman!
The vacuum is not necessary, you have seen the private demonstration I did ;) and that hhop system was fully bled.. ie fully hydraulic with virtually no pneumatic compressible space available hence the relatively quick hydraulic pressure rise witnessed on the gauge. Within a gravitational field all gravitational forces are downwards :D (there is no upward force!) those forces differ due to gravitational acceleration which is dependent on density. In truth a lightweight gas has a downward force it only appears to be an upward force due to the specific gravity fluid field and the effects of bouyancy. Solid on the bottom, liquid on top of that, gas highest in the order.. ignore plasma for now it is not relevant to this discussion.
The arrows on your diagram are wrong, the sphere is rigid and able to absorb the internal and external pressure forces without deflection. There should be arrows on the inside pointing out, and arrows on the outside pointing in.
Igniting the hho is doing no effective work in your system apart from phase change from liquid to gas creating a relative vacuum, and heat transferred to the environment. In my proposed system the hho gas is purged and exits the system and becomes an input to a second system completely unrelated to the system it was created in. This allows for work to be extracted from the gas ignition phase change effectively. I am not burning any hho in my system at all, just using the properties of the gas creation to manipulate the specific gravity field and extract work from that alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
"Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
"In science, buoyancy (pronunciation: /ˈbɔɪ.ənᵗsi/[1][2] or /ˈbuːjənᵗsi/)[1][2] (also known as upthrust) is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. In a column of fluid, pressure increases with depth as a result of the weight of the overlying fluid. Thus a column of fluid, or an object submerged in the fluid, experiences greater pressure at the bottom of the column than at the top. This difference in pressure results in a net force that tends to accelerate an object upwards. The magnitude of that force is proportional to the difference in the pressure between the top and the bottom of the column, and (as explained by Archimedes' principle) is also equivalent to the weight of the fluid that would otherwise occupy the column, i.e. the displaced fluid.
For this reason, an object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame). In a situation of fluid statics, the net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body."
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 13:01:02
This isn't really a "refutation" of my point, since now you are removing mass from the vessel. Therefore its density does change. The same thing will happen if you just use compressed air to push some of the water out of the system changing its mass, and/or to change its volume by pushing a piston or swelling up some flexible enclosure. The Cartesian Diver is an example. But I thought you were referring to a sealed and rigid system, though.
Correct, you refuted accurately the system that I gave you information for, however I did add a caveat that I had not given you all the details. This is an example of how people can deliberately withold critical information making an accurate refutation impossible as the goal posts move whenever they need them too.. C.C
You can do the same thing with air yes, but an air compressor is quite a complex machine and has many moving parts and suffers from premature failure due to overheating amongst other things. An air compressor is very inefficient and has no chance of competing with a hhop system within this frame of reference.. the specific gravity fluid field.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 13:17:03
Well some say my scale's were reading wrong,but it just made sense to me. We are transforming a (heavier than air)liquid into a (lighter than air)gas,so why wouldnt it get lighter?. I mean if we take a sphere(say 2 meters in diameter),and it is rigid enough that we can pull a decent vacuum in the sphere,and we then fill that with 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen-->the sphere would weigh less than if it was full of just oxygen-right?. We then ignite the HHO inside that sphere,and the HHO then turns to water,and we once again have a vacuum in that sphere-right?. Now in sted of having a gas in there that is lighter than air,we have no gas,but we have a small amount of water. So would not the sphere now weigh more than it did at the start when it had only HHO gas in it?-and we have not changed the amount of mass in the sphere.
In the same frame of reference the conversion of liquid to gas creates a marginal change in weight on the system (the sealed hho vessel) due to a small specific gravitational acceleration differential between hho and air.
In a different frame of reference, 100 meters below sea level the complete conversion of water to gas (or gas pressure displacement of water in the vessel ;)) creates a large change in relative weight due to the effects of buoyancy. Gravitational acceleration pulls the liquid water down harder around the outside of the vessel and therefore displaces the (vessel) gas upwards with significant force.. the entire ocean is forcing the vessel upwards.. fast..
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-gravities-gases-d_334.html
Air = 1
Hydrogen = 0.0696
Nitrogen 0.97
Oxygen = 1.1044
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind
"Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale. On the surface of the Earth, wind consists of the bulk movement of air. In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the sun through space, while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet's atmosphere into space. Winds are commonly classified by their spatial scale, their speed, the types of forces that cause them, the regions in which they occur, and their effect. The strongest observed winds on a planet in our solar system occur on Neptune and Saturn. Winds have various aspects, an important one being its velocity; another the density of the gas involved; another is the energy content or wind energy of a wind."Wind stirs air.. no wind in a hho vessel. Therefore the gas mixture will separate into specific gravities and not mix them up.
Oxygen is the heaviest and naturally wants to be at the bottom, Nitrogen next and Hydrogen wants to sit on top.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html
Hydrogen LFL = 4
Hydrogen UFL = 75
Therefore only a 4% concentration of Hydrogen present in the heavy Oxygen sitting at the bottom is necessary for combustion to occur. Fresh Hydrogen continues to be produced for a significant period even "after" a cell stops being provided with electricity to stimulate the phase change reaction.. In other words due to buoyancy within the specific gravity field fresh Hydrogen is constantly moving upwards and crossing the liquid / gas boundary where the heavy Oxygen is sitting on top of the water. You are not within the detonation limits but you are within the flammability limits so combustion can take place. O0
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 13:39:34
See, that's the part that I don't get. If you haven't changed the _mass_, and the sphere is rigid so that the _volume_ doesn't change, then the weight can't be changing either, since the weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on the mass of the sphere+contents. There doesn't seem to be anywhere where the weight could change, since all the factors that determine weight have not changed. Neither the gravity, nor the mass, nor the volume are changing during the process of making the gas or burning it back to water.
The air outside the sphere doesn't know what's going on inside, whether there is gas, or water+vacuum "filling" the sphere. The gravity doesn't know either. As long as the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen don't change, the gravity pulls down on the masses of the atoms just the same whether they are in gas or liquid form, so the sphere as a whole weighs the same.
18 grams of water (one mole) when electrolyzed yields a large volume of oxygen and hydrogen gas at standard pressure and temperature ... but that great volume of gas still weighs 18 grams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
"Gravity (or gravitation) is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for the formation of the universe (e.g. creating spheres of hydrogen, igniting them under pressure to form stars and grouping them in to galaxies). Gravity is a cause of time dilation (time lapses more slowly in strong gravitation). Without gravity, the universe would be without thermal energy and composed only of equally spaced particles. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
"In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by force of gravitation. Neglecting friction such as air resistance, all small bodies accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate relative to the center of mass.[1] This equality is true regardless of the masses or compositions of the bodies.
At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.78 and 9.83 m/s2 depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174 ft/s2). Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance."Gravity and gravitational acceleration are not the same due to the effects of buoyancy and air resistance (ignore air resistance for the purpose of this discussion although fluid resistance is still in play (liquid)). The specific gravity fluid field governs all matter (fluids, solids are a fluid ;)) as it seeks to order itself within a gravitational field and when it moves it is subject to gravitational acceleration which is dependent on density.
So when hhop reaches 100 meters depth and pumps (displaces) the water within the vessel out, it will begin to rise. As it rises towards the surface for every 10 meters upwards it travels external pressure reduces by approximately 15 psi reducing the rate of gas production required to maintain stable internal gas pressure. If you really want to have fun you can surround the exterior of the vessel with a hho bubble.. then you have a supercavitating hhop.. O0
http://www.gizmag.com/mitsubishi-air-lubrication-system/21196/
"Mitsubishi reduces friction on ship hulls by blowing bubbles"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation
"Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas inside a liquid large enough to encompass an object travelling through the liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
"The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал — squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).[1]"
You would expect the loss of hho outside the vessel providing the supercavitating bubble to impact efficiency negatively.. but I have another trick up my sleeve to make that concern irrelevant..
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.21, 05:40:32
Oh come on Tinman. Certainly you can choose a frame of reference where it looks like there is a helical path being traced out in space... but that does NOT mean that there are no orbits! There are literally thousands of artificial satellites that are _in orbit_ around the Earth, around the Sun, and even around planets and tiny asteroids. Every one of those things is where it is because it was _put there_ by scientists who understand orbital dynamics in the conventional sense. Even astronomers hundreds of years ago understood orbits and were able to calculate accurate positions of things like the moon and planets far in advance. A couple of planets were even _discovered_ because irregularities in the measured and calculated orbital positions of other planets predicted that they had to be there, and when astronomers looked, sure enough there they were.
Do you think it's some kind of magic that keeps the satellites of Jupiter moving in totally predictable courses around that planet, even though Jupiter itself is moving around the sun? Sure it is.... the magic of Gravity, as expressed in the solid science of Orbital Mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
Im not sure how all this got changed around,but i did say that slingshotting around a planet will NOT change it's rotational speed,and agree that it will change it's helicle path a small amount.So you just wait half a year(in the case of earth),and slingshot around it again,and put it back in it;s original path O0.
When dealing with objects in space,then space it self has to be your point of reference.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.29, 02:15:41
Im not sure how all this got changed around,but i did say that slingshotting around a planet will NOT change it's rotational speed,and agree that it will change it's helicle path a small amount.So you just wait half a year(in the case of earth),and slingshot around it again,and put it back in it;s original path O0.
When dealing with objects in space,then space it self has to be your point of reference.
I never said anything about changing rotational speed, the Cassini gained forward velocity around Venus, then on to the Cassini Grand Finale around Saturns moon hyperion, it is a gravity "sling shot" assist in which it's
forward velocity increased, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then. I will help fund it. I will pay what I can. It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel. All any must do is admit that energy was gained by the Cassini spacecraft, the same effect of burning a fuel.
http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2009/werner/4-gravity-assist/index.html
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease19980403/
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.05.28, 23:39:01
So when hhop reaches 100 meters depth and pumps (displaces) the water within the vessel out, it will begin to rise. As it rises towards the surface for every 10 meters upwards it travels external pressure reduces by approximately 15 psi reducing the rate of gas production required to maintain stable internal gas pressure. If you really want to have fun you can surround the exterior of the vessel with a hho bubble.. then you have a supercavitating hhop.. O0
http://www.gizmag.com/mitsubishi-air-lubrication-system/21196/
"Mitsubishi reduces friction on ship hulls by blowing bubbles"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation
"Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas inside a liquid large enough to encompass an object travelling through the liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
"The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал — squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).[1]"
You would expect the loss of hho outside the vessel providing the supercavitating bubble to impact efficiency negatively.. but I have another trick up my sleeve to make that concern irrelevant..
Why ?
I never said anything about changing rotational speed, the Cassini spacecraft gained forward velocity around Venus, then on to the Cassini Grand Finale around Saturns moon hyperion, it is a gravity "sling shot" assist in which it's forward velocity increased, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then. I will help fund it. I will pay what I can. It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel. All any must do is admit that energy was gained by the Cassini spacecraft, the same effect of burning a fuel.
http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2009/werner/4-gravity-assist/index.html
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease19980403/
Will you admit it already? That energy was gained from the force of a gravity slingshot? Otherwise it would require the burning of fuel. Duh.
Forgotten what you actually said already? Here it is for you to refresh your memory.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.05.01, 22:03:22
Just ask Cassini if it is burning fuel or if it is using the slingshot effect of gravity of the moon, of Venus, of Jupiter? It actually increased velocity, sounds like moving a mass a distance to me, with gravity? Isn't the Cassini spacecraft getting more out, than what was put in? Ask Bill Nye the science guy, even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity to sling-shot out to Jupiter. Gravity, being used to accomplish work. Doesn't that usually require burning a fuel? So just admit it, we can obtain energy from the force of gravity already. It meas that yes, we can produce energy from forces.
Note that you said : "...even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity .... We can obtain energy from the force of gravity already."
But as you now know, the energy _does not come from gravity_. The energy comes from the momentum of the large mass. The spacecraft is accelerated and the large planet mass is _decelerated_ proportionally. Momentum is conserved. No, it is not "getting more out than what was put in" at all; some of the input comes from the momentum of the planet, and that seems to be what you are missing or trying to deny.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.02, 01:04:58
Forgotten what you actually said already? Here it is for you to refresh your memory.
Note that you said : "...even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity .... We can obtain energy from the force of gravity already."
But as you now know, the energy _does not come from gravity_. The energy comes from the momentum of the large mass. The spacecraft is accelerated and the large planet mass is _decelerated_ proportionally. Momentum is conserved. No, it is not "getting more out than what was put in" at all; some of the input comes from the momentum of the planet, and that seems to be what you are missing or trying to deny.
Energy does not usually come from gravity but when it does, the spacecraft's forward velocity increases and it received it from a gravity slingshot. That of which...you are too blind to admit or understand, it came from the force of gravity because it would not be present unless the force of gravity existed (but you gave it that energy somehow?). Without the presence of the force, there is no need need to overcome that force. I have said this all along. Momentum is conserved because the force was present. I am not missing nor trying to deny anything.
I've reported you to the moderators, Overboard. You clearly do not know, or care, about proper scientific discourse, or the etiquette of this forum. If you think I'm wrong about something, provide some checkable outside reference, or a demonstration of your own, or even a well reasoned argument, that supports your viewpoint. But it appears that you cannot. So you fall back on your tried and true tactic of the pottymouth insult.
"proper scientific discourse" This is a forum to discuss OVER UNITY DEVICES and alternative energy and alternative Science. You will not admit to yourself that it was gained because of the force of gravity. If it was not present, there would be no conservation of momentum and no direction nor velocity change. That is a a well reasoned argument, that supports my viewpoint.
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0
overboard, looks like you edited your post before I could see what insults you were throwing around this time.
This is your second warning overboard, there won't be a third.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.06.03, 11:52:55
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0
They do, it's just way too small to be noticed. And you may be right that the resultant effect of all the satellites could cancel out. But you might enjoy reading about the history of astronomy, and the discovery of the tiny perturbations that happen to the Earth's motion as a result of the Moon and the other planets. Check out the Dover reprint of A. Pannekoek's book "A History of Astronomy", it's a really good read and the account of the amazing precision of measurements, fitting theory to observation, is very interesting indeed.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.06.03, 11:31:18
"proper scientific discourse" This is a forum to discuss OVER UNITY DEVICES and alternative energy and alternative Science. You will not admit to yourself that it was gained because of the force of gravity. If it was not present, there would be no conservation of momentum and no direction nor velocity change. That is a a well reasoned argument, that supports my viewpoint.
And if the kid's slingshot didn't have rubber bands, it wouldn't work either. But the rubber bands, or the gravity, are not the source of the energy. There is a transfer of momentum from the massive planet, to the tiny satellite, in a gravitational slingshot. The energy _does not come from gravity_.
QuoteA gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same). Because the planet orbits the sun, the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
QuoteAs the spacecraft approaches the planet, its gravity pulls the much lighter spacecraft so that it catches up with the planet in orbit. It's the orbital momentum from the planet which gives the spacecraft a tremendous speed boost. The closer it can fly, the more momentum it receives, and the faster it flies away from the encounter.
http://www.universetoday.com/113488/how-do-gravitational-slingshots-work/
QuoteA slingshot increases the kinetic energy of the object in question by decreasing the kinetic energy of the planet.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/05/q-how-does-a-gravitational-sling-shot-actually-speed-things-up/
It got your attention though didn't it? You are just looking for a reason to throw me off of here aren't you? Aren't you? There wont be a third..is right, will you please help me? I promise not to be a "potty mouth" and not upset "TinselKoala" if you you promise to actually help me.
No orbital energy was was lost was it? None was lost at all, yet, it's velocity increased. Didn't it? Fine...Whatever do not admit that the force of gravity was involved at all. Fine.
Exactly Tin Man..objects fly around planet earth every day, and have no impact on the orbital path? Just as objects can fly around other orbital paths and increase their velocity, but nobody will give credit to the fact that the force of gravity was present. No, not at all...it was the conservation of energy, it was the the conservation of momentum. Gravity had nothing to do with it even though it was present and would not happen unless it was present. Thanks Tin Man. I do not have much support here, just trying to prove a point, even if it does not conform to current accepted laws of science. I am just asking for someone to help me.
Does the IS slow the rotation or the orbit of the Earth? Nope
It does not take any of the Earth's orbital energy, at all. Please help me. I know that Forces an be used to produce FREE energy and that gravity is the most abundant source. We do not need fuels anymore.
I promise to not drunk text anymore,will you promise to help me?
Energy does comes from forces, gravity is a force...Why do I care, because it is possible.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.06.03, 11:52:55
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0
Awesome TinMan...
Good point Tinman!
Still trying to fight the good fight...
We can produce energy from forces...What a revelation...
I was never told when my first strike was against me, nor my second, nor third...When was my first strike?
Just look at it, it is UN balanced...It will always be UN- balanced...
I've given you three sound references that show you that the energy you are talking about DOES come from the planet's orbital momentum. I could cite literally thousands more. And you cannot cite any credible references that support your position. Your denials in the face of all the evidence that can be thus provided show that you would not be a very nice person to work with. Why should anyone want to help you? It is perfectly obvious that you will only bite the hand that feeds you. There is no point in trying to "help" someone like you, who refuses to help himself, and who has the attitude that you express so clearly when you start making these multiple, accusatory and insulting posts. Sure, someone with a little mechanical skill could build a prototype incorporating your _ancient_ idea, Yet Again, and when it doesn't work like you want it to.... you'll just deny the competence of the builder and deny the validity of the results, since you "already know" that your idea will work. Then you'll start up with the insults and disrespect again.
Preserved for posterity:
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.06.07, 03:23:14
This is my second warning...Really...When was my first you liar...You are a lying son of a b
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.06.07, 03:33:27
I was never told when my first strike was against me, nor my second, nor third...When was my first strike?
Your first warning was here on May 19th:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2900.msg48870#msg48870
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.18, 12:02:08
@ overboard,
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum.
Fine, then please, turn the other check and help me, please! No, I will not bite, I am just sick and tired of being called a Charlatan and a liar myself, I know what I have seen with my own eyes and that the magnetic fields do accomplish work, that I did not provide.
for posterity, do you fell better now? Must I say I'm so sorry? please help me and hear me out without being brain washed by what you think you have been taught or learned "They do, it's just way too small to be noticed" but you will never admit that is was the presence of the force that caused it. I am not surprised. Brainwashed.
Topic Summary
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 19:25:42 Posted by: poynt99
Insert Quote
Quote from: Overboard on 2015-06-07, 04:23:14
This is my second warning...Really...When was my first you liar...You are a lying son of a b
Quote from: Overboard on 2015-06-07, 04:33:27
I was never told when my first strike was against me, nor my second, nor third...When was my first strike?
Your first warning was here on May 19th:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2900.msg48870#msg48870
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015-05-18, 13:02:08
@ overboard,
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum.
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 17:03:15 Posted by: TinselKoala
Insert Quote
I've given you three sound references that show you that the energy you are talking about DOES come from the planet's orbital momentum. I could cite literally thousands more. And you cannot cite any credible references that support your position. Your denials in the face of all the evidence that can be thus provided show that you would not be a very nice person to work with. Why should anyone want to help you? It is perfectly obvious that you will only bite the hand that feeds you. There is no point in trying to "help" someone like you, who refuses to help himself, and who has the attitude that you express so clearly when you start making these multiple, accusatory and insulting posts. Sure, someone with a little mechanical skill could build a prototype incorporating your _ancient_ idea, Yet Again, and when it doesn't work like you want it to.... you'll just deny the competence of the builder and deny the validity of the results, since you "already know" that your idea will work. Then you'll start up with the insults and disrespect again.
Preserved for posterity:
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:40:09 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Just look at it, it is UN balanced...It will always be UN- balanced...
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:33:27 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
I was never told when my first strike was against me, nor my second, nor third...When was my first strike?
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:29:46 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
We can produce energy from forces...What a revelation...
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:28:11 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
More propaganda, you are such a liar...Just try to hide the truth...
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:26:00 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
When was my first? you are such a liar. wow...I know now who is telling the truth, and it is certainly not you.
Posted on: 2015-06-07, 04:23:14 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
This is my second warning...Really...When was my first you liar...You are a lying son of a b
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:59:03 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Still trying to fight the good fight...
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:49:09 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Good point Tinman!
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:47:15 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Quote from: TinMan on 2015-06-03, 12:52:55
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. Afro
Awesome TinMan...
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:40:35 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Energy does comes from forces, gravity is a force...Why do I care, because it is possible.
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:36:02 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
I promise to not drunk text anymore,will you promise to help me?
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:33:33 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
It does not take any of the Earth's orbital energy, at all. Please help me. I know that Forces an be used to produce FREE energy and that gravity is the most abundant source. We do not need fuels anymore.
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:28:35 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Does the IS slow the rotation or the orbit of the Earth? Nope
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:23:17 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
Exactly Tin Man..objects fly around planet earth every day, and have no impact on the orbital path? Just as objects can fly around other orbital paths and increase their velocity, but nobody will give credit to the fact that the force of gravity was present. No, not at all...it was the conservation of energy, it was the the conservation of momentum. Gravity had nothing to do with it even though it was present and would not happen unless it was present. Thanks Tin Man. I do not have much support here, just trying to prove a point, even if it does not conform to current accepted laws of science. I am just asking for someone to help me.
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:15:59 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
No orbital energy was was lost was it? None was lost at all, yet, it's velocity increased. Didn't it? Fine...Whatever do not admit that the force of gravity was involved at all. Fine.
Posted on: 2015-06-04, 00:13:37 Posted by: Overboard
Insert Quote
It got your attention though didn't it? You are just looking for a reason to throw me off of here aren't you? Aren't you? There wont be a third..is right, will you please help me? I promise not to be a "potty mouth" and not upset "TinselKoala" if you you promise to actually help me.
Posted on: 2015-06-03, 23:58:57 Posted by: TinselKoala
Insert Quote
Quote from: Overboard on 2015-06-03, 12:31:18
"proper scientific discourse" This is a forum to discuss OVER UNITY DEVICES and alternative energy and alternative Science. You will not admit to yourself that it was gained because of the force of gravity. If it was not present, there would be no conservation of momentum and no direction nor velocity change. That is a a well reasoned argument, that supports my viewpoint.
And if the kid's slingshot didn't have rubber bands, it wouldn't work either. But the rubber bands, or the gravity, are not the source of the energy. There is a transfer of momentum from the massive planet, to the tiny satellite, in a gravitational slingshot. The energy _does not come from gravity_.
Quote
A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same). Because the planet orbits the sun, the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
Quote
As the spacecraft approaches the planet, its gravity pulls the much lighter spacecraft so that it catches up with the planet in orbit. It's the orbital momentum from the planet which gives the spacecraft a tremendous speed boost. The closer it can fly, the more momentum it receives, and the faster it flies away from the encounter.
http://www.universetoday.com/113488/how-do-gravitational-slingshots-work/
Quote
A slingshot increases the kinetic energy of the object in question by decreasing the kinetic energy of the planet.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/05/q-how-does-a-gravitational-sling-shot-actually-speed-things-up/
Posted on: 2015-06-03, 23:50:15 Posted by: TinselKoala
Insert Quote
Quote from: TinMan on 2015-06-03, 12:52:55
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. Afro
They do, it's just way too small to be noticed. And you may be right that the resultant effect of all the satellites could cancel out. But you might enjoy reading about the history of astronomy, and the discovery of the tiny perturbations that happen to the Earth's motion as a result of the Moon and the other planets. Check out the Dover reprint of A. Pannekoek's book "A History of Astronomy", it's a really good read and the account of the amazing precision of measurements, fitting theory to observation, is very interesting indeed.
Anybody have any info on the Methernitha Testatika device? Or proof that "free Energy" really is free? Anyone ever notice, Tk had it out for me from the beginning? It does not matter what I say. go ahead, please, I beg you, replicate my magnetic ramps, you can't can you? I will tell the entire world how to, I would even show TK, even enemies can be friends.
Please just look at it, it will always be unbalanced by design in relation to the rotor bearings.
Energy was conserved in the overall system, I get it, Cassini sped up, The planetary body slowed down a minuscule amount. All that I am saying is that gravity caused it, that is all I am asking you to admit. Energy may have been conserved in the system yet to Cassini it was a gain in the end, with the same effect of what burning a fuel would do.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.06.01, 02:35:31
Why ?
Every now and again someone will say something really smart.. that was your moment!
The scientific discussion that has progressed between TK, Tinman and myself was regarding my hhop gravity coupled generator system. TK's position (please correct me if i am wrong TK) is that:
Density is defined as Mass per unit Volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
The density, or more precisely,
the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used. Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume
TK argues that within a fixed volume a complete 100% phase change event of liquid to gas will result in a conservation of energy and mass and the expected pressure and temperature increases of the system will be observed. As Mass remains constant gravitational force remains constant.
I argue that as a phase change event has occurred a second system is in play, the specific gravity field. As density has decreased in the gas, gravitational acceleration has reduced and flipped negative within a hydraulic liquid environment producing an upward buoyant force until equilibrium is attained at the liquid gas fluid boundary (sea level).
Finally I argue that hhop renders the necessity of proof of my above conjecture irrelevant as hhop is a phase change displacement engine and is capable of simply pumping the liquid water out using stable static gas pressure, at a far higher efficiency than air buoyancy or complete phase change alone could achieve. We also produce a fuel for (Pin) to a second system..
8)
Preserved for posterity: Some times..somebody will understand this. Sorry, not TK. My bad...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.06.09, 20:17:56
Every now and again someone will say something really smart.. that was your moment!
The scientific discussion that has progressed between TK, Tinman and myself was regarding my hhop gravity coupled generator system. TK's position (please correct me if i am wrong TK) is that:
Density is defined as Mass per unit Volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used. Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume
TK argues that within a fixed volume a complete 100% phase change event of liquid to gas will result in a conservation of energy and mass and the expected pressure and temperature increases of the system will be observed. As Mass remains constant gravitational force remains constant.
That's a fair enough assessment. We are talking about a closed system of fixed volume, in the sense that no matter enters or leaves the fixed volume.
Quote
I argue that as a phase change event has occurred a second system is in play, the specific gravity field. As density has decreased in the gas, gravitational acceleration has reduced and flipped negative within a hydraulic liquid environment producing an upward buoyant force until equilibrium is attained at the liquid gas fluid boundary (sea level).
I think I understand your position, although I don't believe I have ever heard about a "specific gravity field". I do know about things like density gradient centrifugation, electrophoresis, and stuff like that there. I don't think what you are describing actually happens, though. It would seem that, by the mechanism you are describing, an open pot of heated water would be predicted to decrease in weight at the moment of boiling (different from the natural decrease as steam boils away). This might be an interesting experiment to try. I know that there have been some measurements, like TinMan's, of apparent weight change due to some process, presumably phase change, within a sealed container. I'd like to reproduce these myself to run down what is happening, but I don't have enough details to try it. Let me just say that if things _do_ happen as you describe, it would be a pretty important scientific discovery, so it should not be treated casually and should be researched further.
Quote
Finally I argue that hhop renders the necessity of proof of my above conjecture irrelevant as hhop is a phase change displacement engine and is capable of simply pumping the liquid water out using stable static gas pressure, at a far higher efficiency than air buoyancy or complete phase change alone could achieve. We also produce a fuel for (Pin) to a second system..
8)
And I would respond that your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Your hhop pump system works, as I understand it, not by phase change but by chemical electrolysis and combustion. From what you've described, it is kind of disingenuous to state that it pumps using stable static gas pressure, isn't it? I thought it pumped by ignition of the gas mixture, producing a pressure pulse. Regardless, I accept it works, but I question the applicability of that fact to the issues above. The conjecture about weight change due to internal buoyant effects caused by phase change and a specific gravity field still needs to be examined and, if possible, proven.
:D
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.10, 04:13:43
That's a fair enough assessment. We are talking about a closed system of fixed volume, in the sense that no matter enters or leaves the fixed volume. I think I understand your position, although I don't believe I have ever heard about a "specific gravity field". I do know about things like density gradient centrifugation, electrophoresis, and stuff like that there. I don't think what you are describing actually happens, though. It would seem that, by the mechanism you are describing, an open pot of heated water would be predicted to decrease in weight at the moment of boiling (different from the natural decrease as steam boils away). This might be an interesting experiment to try. I know that there have been some measurements, like TinMan's, of apparent weight change due to some process, presumably phase change, within a sealed container. I'd like to reproduce these myself to run down what is happening, but I don't have enough details to try it. Let me just say that if things _do_ happen as you describe, it would be a pretty important scientific discovery, so it should not be treated casually and should be researched further.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.10, 04:13:43
And I would respond that your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Your hhop pump system works, as I understand it, not by phase change but by chemical electrolysis and combustion. From what you've described, it is kind of disingenuous to state that it pumps using stable static gas pressure, isn't it? I thought it pumped by ignition of the gas mixture, producing a pressure pulse. Regardless, I accept it works, but I question the applicability of that fact to the issues above. The conjecture about weight change due to internal buoyant effects caused by phase change and a specific gravity field still needs to be examined and, if possible, proven.
:D
hhop gen1 pumps by ignition of the gas mixture, producing a pressure pulse, yes. You can add air for a bigger kick like Throckmorton has done but the fuel (hho) is tainted with water vapour and steam.
hhop gen2 extends the bleeding cycle, with a liquid displacement rate related to gas production rate, which is related to electrical energy input.
hhop gen3 applies the gravity hydraulic ram principle within the specific gravity field to descend a liquid hollow magnet chamber through many coils linearly, generating electricity which phase changes liquid to gas. Electrolysis chamber now performing hydraulic work displacing liquid below gas out of an exhaust valve due to the volumetric differential between gas and liquid. Gas is naturally ordered above liquid in the specific gravity field therefore a relative negative gravitational acceleration should be observed on the chamber system because of the phase change, producing a buoyancy force from the change in gravitational acceleration, returning the chamber to equilibrium.. sea level.
hhop gen3 was developed because it produces a fuel at system cycle reset that can be dried for its H and O, and minimise solar panel input by only adding energy when the chamber comes to rest to complete total liquid displacement and replace with gas. Ping pong balls to float a wreck principle, although I am using gravitational energy to produce electricity to produce gas to displace liquid, solar energy to complete displacement, and specific gravity field differential to reset system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MOJN07XRYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=804fDi0d-hU
8)
Perhaps I'm just quibbling over terminology. Producing hydrogen and oxygen gas electrolytically from water isn't a phase change as this term is normally understood (by me at least). You start with one liquid substance and produce two different gaseous substances. Producing water vapor (steam) from water is a phase change. You start with one liquid substance (the liquid phase of water) and you wind up with the _same_ substance but in the gas phase. Substances change phase merely by applying temperature and pressure changes; they remain the same substances. Electrolytic gas production is something different.
"Using gravitational energy"..... really? So if you put two of your units one on top of the other, one unit must have less "gravitational energy" available since the other unit is using its share of the total available. Right? Things weigh less when they are positioned above your apparatus?
Or is gravitational energy some special kind of energy that doesn't care how much you take out, it's always the same?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.10, 21:08:44
Perhaps I'm just quibbling over terminology. Producing hydrogen and oxygen gas electrolytically from water isn't a phase change as this term is normally understood (by me at least). You start with one liquid substance and produce two different gaseous substances. Producing water vapor (steam) from water is a phase change. You start with one liquid substance (the liquid phase of water) and you wind up with the _same_ substance but in the gas phase. Substances change phase merely by applying temperature and pressure changes; they remain the same substances. Electrolytic gas production is something different.
Terminology is extremely important, it is how we communicate and why we frequently reference the scientific record, quibble all you want O0
Producing hydrogen and oxygen gas electrolytically from water is a
classical phase change as this term is normally understood (by me at least). You start with one liquid substance and produce two different gaseous substances. Yes I agree with that TK, I changed the perspective in the first sentence to show mine also.
You start with one liquid substance (the liquid phase of water) and you wind up with the _same_ substance but in the gas phase. Substances change phase merely by applying temperature and pressure changes; they remain the same substances. Yes this point is crucial, water vapor of all sorts is a pseudo gas, in some states it abides by the gas laws and in others it does not. Atomic Hydrogen and Oxygen are pure gases, water gases in supercritical fluid states are complicated and can vary properties dependent on temperature and pressure and become more gas like or more liquid like.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/vapor-steam-d_609.html
Vapor is a gas -
there is no significant physical or chemical difference between a vapor and a gas.
a vapor is a substance in a gaseous state - at a condition where it is ordinarily liquid or solid
Our most common example of a vapor is steam - water vaporized during boiling or evaporation. The water vapor surrounding us in the atmosphere is invisible and is often called moist. Knowledge about moist in air is important in air-condition applications like HVAC systems and dryers. Moist air technology is called air psychrometrics.
Evaporation from fluids takes place when the liquid molecules at the liquid surface have enough momentum to overcome the intermolecular cohesive forces and escape to the atmosphere. When heat is added to the liquid the molecular momentum and the evaporation increases. A reduction of the pressure above a liquid will reduce the momentum needed for molecules to escape the liquid and increase the evaporation.
increasing the pressure above the liquid reduces the evaporation
This can be observed as lower boiling temperature for water at higher altitudes.
Common terms used in connection with vapor and steam:
Boiling
Boiling is formation of vapor bubbles within a fluid. Boiling is initiated when the absolute pressure in the fluid reaches the vapor pressure.
Saturated Vapor
Vapor at the temperature of the boiling point which corresponds to its pressure.
Wet Saturated Vapor
A wet saturated vapor carries liquid globules in suspension. A wet saturated vapor is a substance in the gaseous state which does not follow the general gas law.
Dry Saturated Vapor
A dry saturated vapor is free from liquid particles. All particles are vaporized - any decrease in the vapor temperature or increase in the vapor pressure, will condensate liquid particles in the vapor. A dry saturated vapor is a substance in the gaseous state which does not follow the general gas law.
Superheated Vapor
In superheated vapor the temperature is higher than the boiling point temperature corresponding to the pressure. The vapor can not exist in contact with the fluid, nor contain fluid particles. An increase in pressure or decrease in temperature will not - within limits - condensate out liquid particles in the vapor. Highly superheated vapors are gases that approximately follow the general gas law.
High Pressure Steam
Steam where the pressure greatly exceeds the atmosphere pressure.
Low Pressure Steam
Steam of which the pressure is less than, equal to, or not greatly above, that of the atmosphere.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
Gas is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and plasma). A pure gas may be made up of individual atoms (e.g. a noble gas like neon), elemental molecules made from one type of atom (e.g. oxygen), or compound molecules made from a variety of atoms (e.g. carbon dioxide). A gas mixture would contain a variety of pure gases much like the air. What distinguishes a gas from liquids and solids is the vast separation of the individual gas particles. This separation usually makes a colorless gas invisible to the human observer. The interaction of gas particles in the presence of electric and gravitational fields are considered negligible as indicated by the constant velocity vectors in the image. One type of commonly known gas is steam.
The gaseous state of matter is found between the liquid and plasma states,[1] the latter of which provides the upper temperature boundary for gases. Bounding the lower end of the temperature scale lie degenerative quantum gases[2] which are gaining increasing attention.[3] High-density atomic gases super cooled to incredibly low temperatures are classified by their statistical behavior as either a Bose gas or a Fermi gas. For a comprehensive listing of these exotic states of matter see list of states of matter.Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.10, 21:08:44
"Using gravitational energy"..... really? So if you put two of your units one on top of the other, one unit must have less "gravitational energy" available since the other unit is using its share of the total available. Right? Things weigh less when they are positioned above your apparatus? Or is gravitational energy some special kind of energy that doesn't care how much you take out, it's always the same?
Nope, I have never stated or claimed anything like that. A temporary weight loss of the second unit on top would be observed as the vessel ascended due to bouyancy forces giving a temporary lifting force. At the surface this lifting force would be virtually zero and the weight of the second on top unit would return. It never really went away but the lifting force from the environment hydraulically displacing the vessel upward temporarily overcame it and the gravitational acceleration of the vessel flipped negative and ascended temporarily.
Exploiting the natural property of a gas to fill the volume available to it, it is possible to pump water hydraulically to its environment with a resistance set by depth, and fill the chamber with pure gas H and O + water vapor of undetermined kind and amounts. This gas must be at a pressure equal to or greater than its hydraulic environment pressure in order to purge the chamber of liquid, doing work, and releasing gas bubble lubrication for the vessels ascent.
You can do this without a combustion cycle, bleeding the fuel at the surface and taking mass onboard to sink the vessel again. The hho can now be dried or whatever you decide to do with it, synthetic fuel process input maybe.
:P
A hhop at the sea surface will be hollow and filled with air, it will buoyant and float. Open a valve at the bottom and the liquid it is floating in will fill it from the bottom inlet valve and disperse the air above it out of an open exhaust valve. hhop will now sink (descend) as it has self bled to equilibrium and taken on substantial mass differential, liquid heavy water instead of light air.
When it reaches the end of it's travel it will be submerged a certain depth below sea level, this will exert an external environmental crushing force on the hhop housing. At a depth of 200 metres the pressure at depth is 306.274 psi (pounds per / square inch). Assuming no elastic or plastic deformation of the hhop housing a pressure > greater than 306 psi must be achieved internally within the hhop chamber in order to use static gas expansion pressure to pump the liquid water out of the chamber into the environmental hydraulic system, ocean.
Upon 100% replacement of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas + water vapor with the water in the chamber a mass transfer has occurred and the hhop vessel is substantially more buoyant than it's hydraulic environment, hence the lifting force applied to hhop body resulting in a rapid ascent. Gas bubble lubrication assists with reducing resistance drag.
At the surface hhop opens the valves and naturally bleeds to equilibrium, exhausting the gas and taking on mass :) H + O gas waste available as an input to system 2. The H and O being provided with electricity by an electrical linear generator powered by gravitational energy, extracted via temporary imbalance and reset of the specific gravity field.
The argument between us TK, relating to conservation of energy and mass, is complicated. You argue that moles of substance and therefore mass remain constant, despite phase change, therefore no net loss of weight force is observed. If there are more moles of gas that weigh less because they are less dense then the sum will equal less moles of more dense liquid.
I argue that complete phase change of liquid water to Hydrogen and Oxygen gas is impossible in a closed volume. The increase in gas pressure will result in an increase of temperature which will trigger the auto ignition point of a H + O mixture. This will result in a phase change that will revert H + O to water and heat will be released. Over time this repeated cycle of heat release will result in the liquid water going supercritical, before 100% conversion of H2O to HHO can possibly occur.
For these reasons of impossibility and complexity i devised subcritical hhop instead of supercritical systems.
???
Oh look, TK is quibbling with someone else. What in the world does quibble mean? Who uses that word? Ever?
Really, then help me to build my magnetic ramps where, yes..the longer you build them ..the higher they lift, meaning the loop can be easily closed. Shut up. You wish.
Will anyone wake up and stop allowing Valeriy from getting free advertising on this forum?
Please tone it down. Disrespectful, childish behavior won't be tolerated on this forum. Nor will stupid brain washed believe in anything be tolerated...Oh my bad, yes it will...lets listen to TK!
You just don't quit, do you.
Why should anyone help you, when your "ideas" are old and unoriginal, already discredited many times over, and you have this attitude problem? If you think you have something new and original that will easily allow you to "close the loop" as you claim .... then BUILD IT YOURSELF. Build _anything_ yourself. If you can't build anything yourself, then at least SHOW SOME RESPECT for those who CAN.
Quote from: Overboard on 2015.06.13, 11:27:44
This is my second warning...Really...When was my first you liar...You are a lying son of a bitch. For posterity.
The above was a post he decided to delete.
I've Just Deleted his account, He is not welcome here anymore
I will continue the scientific discussion in another thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.msg49552#msg49552
I was hoping Overboard would learn from a real life example, of how to have a scientific debate in a forum environment, about a viable device. hhop gen 3 is new tech, not old tech.