Buoyancy generator

I've been involved in the "Free Energy" community for over 10 years now. Lots of devices come and go, initially looking very promising, and then fading away for one reason or another. I am convinced working devices exist, yet suppression by the PTB is very effective.
However, there is one fascinating device that has popped up recently, which has been tested by a neutral 3rd party and found to be over unity. It is a generator which is run on floats, which cycle up through a tank and are filled with compressed air. "Scientists" insist it can't possibly work, but evidently it does.
Read about it here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...Innovations_AG

http://peswiki.com/images/f/fc/Rosch...labeled_rd.jpg

The first question you need to ask is: where does the energy come from? Or, like almost every one else in the FE field, did they just by pure chance build a machine that is capable of harnessing some mysterious energy somewhere that they don't even understand? I looked through a few pages of material but didn't find an adequate answer to this question. Just a lot of the usual waffle.

The idea, that this person tries to float http://pesn.com/2015/06/13/9602628_B...is-underrated/ is ridiculous. So where possibly could the energy be coming from? I have my own idea, but I'll keep it to myself for now :). Hint: it is the compressed air which is critical for my argument.

I remember a long time ago I designed a 'free energy' machine that consisted of a tube of mercury and a steel ball. The steel ball was to be inserted into the base of the mercury column, whereapon it floated to the top, before falling back down outside the column. It would just go round and round, and you could tap the energy of the ball as it fell. Of course, if you do the maths you will find that the energy needed to insert the steel ball into the mercury is the same as what you get from the acceleration of the steel ball.

If it is ridiculous or not, if the math works or not, I really do not care, if it works then it works, that is all we need !!

Johnny :)

I don't completely understand it either, but like Johnny said, who cares if it works. The "laws" of physics are anything but written in stone. I have found a few flaws myself during my experimentations. Anyway, here is a more scientific explanation I found concerning the device:
http://pesn.com/2015/05/13/9602617_s...oyancy-system/

A method of extraction (restitution) of the energy supply stored in liquid or gaseous mediums and transformation of the energy obtained into mechanical work

In 1607 Cornelius van Drebbel, a Dutch scientist, demonstrated a “continuously operating” clock to the English King James I. The clock was set in motion by a similar “continuously operating” motor, or, to put it simply, a “perpetuum mobile”. Van Drebbel had already patented the clock in 1598.

However, unlike other numerous devices bearing the same name, the motor invented by Cornelius van Drebbel really was a “continuously operating“ one in some sense.

What was the secret of this clock (or, rather, of the motor that was setting it in motion)?

Van Drebbel’s continuously operating clock worked due to the drive, which used, like any other real motor, the single possible source of work - the non-equilibrium (potential difference) of the environment.

Van Drebbel made use of a special type of non-equilibrium, though it was also related to pressure and temperature differences. It may act in an ideally balanced environment, the temperature and pressure of which are everywhere equal. What is the secret of this effect and where does work come from?

The secret lies in the fact that potential differences do exist, manifesting themselves not spatially but temporally (Editor: In Goran´s (Goran is our chief-engineer), given in1996 at the conference “New Ideas in the Natural Sciences”, he proposed a similar principle for obtaining energy from a single—wire power trans-mission line. Instead of a common potential difference U=X1—X2,
He proposed a chronal potential difference U=X(t1)-X(t2). This means that a potential difference may be obtained at a single point if a change in potential values is created). The principle can be illustrated by the example of the atmosphere. Let us assume that no considerable pressure and temperature differences are observed in the area where a motor is situated. But the pressure and temperature (common in all points) still continue to change (both day and night). These differences may be used for obtaining work (in full accordance with the laws of thermodynamics).

In a description of the invention titled “A method of extraction (restitution) of the energy supply stored in liquid or gaseous mediums and transforming the energy obtained into mechanical work" (Patent claimed in Germany we are in the process) a version of a pseudo-continuously operating working solar engine was proposed by him. In order to increase the power and the number of cycles, the properties of two mutually unbalanced mediums — gas and water — are most fully used.

Archimedes’ principle is considered as a corollary of the law of conservation of energy, in which the buoyancy force is tied in with the energy consumed to create water and air. The amount of this energy determined such physical properties as density, thermal capacity and thermal conductivity.

The correlation of energy used for creating densities is partially reflected in the non-equilibrium coefficient, equaling 820. If we found a way to fully use this non-equilibrium, we would obtain an 820-fold gain in energy. Non-equilibrium states are observed starting from the moment of feeding air under a column of water. They accumulate when the air rises because the air volume increases, taking away heat from the water. Air is fed under the water column at a temperature less than the temperature of the water, since if during the process of reaching atmospheric pressure the air pressure equals 4 Atm (0.4 MPa) and the temperature is +20°C (293 K). the air will cool down to 75°C (198 K), i.e. by 95°C. Heat extraction will take place in conditions close to adiabatic. This means that heat losses will be minimal due to the fact that water is a good heat accumulator but a bad heat conductor.

Calculation of an energy-extracting pneumohydraulic turbine

A compressor is used as a source of compressed air. Dynamic and positive displacement-type com-pressors are the most suitable for this case. Since a dynamic compressor consumes more energy thana piston-type one, we choose the latter:

Source of compressed air — VP2-10/9 piston-type compressor.
Compressor output — 0,167 m3/sec
Output pressure, MPa — 0.9 (9 Atm).
Compressors shaft capacity— 56.5 kW
Water cooling

The efficiency of a pneumohydraulic turbine will be evaluated by comparing the power supplied and the power obtained, i.e. the amount of work per second.

A compressor’s output is evaluated by the volumeof air fed into it at atmospheric pressure. This means that a productivity of 0.167 m3/sec is the air volume before entering the compressor and after it rises in the turbine. While feeding air under the bottom level of the turbine, 0.167 m3/sec of water will be displaced through the upper level. The same amount of water will be fed again under the turbine‘s bottom level, thus creating an air-and-water mixture and causing it to move inside the turbine. The value of 0.167 ma/sec corresponds to the water consumption taken into consideration during the calculation of the capacity of a pneumohydraulic turbine. The capacity is calculated using the formula used for calculating the capacity of a hydraulic turbine:

N=9.81 x Q x H x n. where 9.81 m/sec2 — the gravitational acceleration;
Q — the water consumption in m3/s;
H ~ the head in (m);
h—Efliciency factor (which reaches rather high values and amounts to 0.94-0.95 or 94-95% under most favorable conditions).

As an air-and-water mixture isused as the working medium, there is a necessity to justify the use of this formula for calculating the capacity of a hydraulicturbine. We believe that the most effective results can be obtained in the operation mode of the turbine when a mixture of a 0.5 t/m3 density is used (comprising 50% water and 50% air).

In this mode, the air pressure is a little higher than the absolute pressure inside the turbine case.

Air is fed from the pressure tube of the compressor in the form of separate bubbles, which come out from it in equal intervals. The total volume of bubbles equals the volume of water between them in the turbine case. A bubble takes the shape of a spherical segment and works as a piston in a limited space, displacing water in an upward direction only, since its backflow is impossible due to the higher pressure, while its side-flow is impossible due to the incompressibility of water.

If a constant volume of air of 0.167 ma/sec is fed,0.167 ma/sec of water will be displaced. This means that 2 >< 0,167 ma/sec of the air-and-water mixture will be displaced through the upper level of the turbine, the stream velocity inside the turbine being high.

Thus, we get:

N = 9.81 x 2 x Q x 0.5 x H x 3 = 9.81-Q-H-n

Let us consider an installation with a head of water column equaling 2 m and calculate the compressor engine capacity needed to feed air under this water column, taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure, proceeding from the technical specifications of the compressor:

N=(2m x 56.5kW)/(90m x 1Om)=1.13kW

A rising stream of an air—and-water mixture will be observed on all levels of the installation. No more than 5 working wheels may be installed along the stream due to the buoyant force the intensity of which does not depend on the depth of immersion of a body. The proposed turbine is more energy-efficient than the famous “Airlift” pump, since the flow of water takes place beneath the level of water in the turbine, i.e. in conditions close to zero gravity and without a considerable water level rise inside the turbine, on which the main amount of pump energy is spent. Let us assume that the turbine’s energy efficiency equals 0.9. In this case the capacity will be:

N = 9.810.167 m3/sec x 2 m x 5 x 0,9 = 14.7 kW

Thus, we obtained output energy 13 times exceeding the input energy:

14.7 kW / 1.13 kW =13

An increase in power by means of using additional Working wheels has been observed on working prototypes. The operability of the turbine has been indirectly proven by experiments carried out at Saint-Petersburg State Technical University (SpbSU).

Thus, Professor V.V. Elistratov, a Doctor of Engineering Sciences, a member of the Commission for Unconventional Power Sources in the government of the Russian Federation and head of the Department of Renewable Energy Sources and Hydroenergetics of SpbSTU wrote: “However, proceeding from the hydraulics of hydraulic units and our numerous experiments of feeding air into the working wheel of the turbine in order to reduce cavitation erosion, an increase of cavitation values was observed accompanied by a considerable decrease of energy values". In this case, the experiments show that the air that is fed into the device creates a counter stream, which, acting on the working wheel from below, makes it rotate in the opposite direction. Such is the design of the wheel. In such a way, a small volume of air acts in a limited space equaling the volume of the hydroturbine case. The proposed installation may extract heat from the water and transform it into mechanical energy. Taking into consideration the temperature difference between the water and the air when the water temperature equals 80°C (the thermal source, water, heated up in a solar collector or in a system of turbine cooling or compressor cooling, em), and the air temperature is 20°C, the coefficient of the air volume increase, according to the

Gay-Lussac Law, will total:
1+ (s0°c - 20°C)/273 = 1.2
The capacity will amount to:

N =14.7 kW x 1.2 = 17.6 kW
Our expectations about a gain in energy were
borne out:
17.6 kW/ 5 = 3.5 kW
3.5 kW / 1.13 kW = a 3,1-fold energy gain per wheel



During the calculation of the power needed to feed air under the water column, we took the atmospheric pressure into consideration (1 Atmosphere = 10 m of the water column). This means that the rising air overcomes the absolute pressure inside the turbine case. The pressure, composed of the water column pressure in the turbine and the atmospheric pressure, equals the pressure of a 12—meter water column. The absolute pressure inside the turbine case is neutralized by the buoyancy force of the air, but since it is still present outside the case, it influences the feeding of air into the turbine. This influence can be compared to the influence of the negative pressure created in the turbine case by the total volume of water inside it on the water stream
(this effect is not present in other hydroturbines).

If the construction of the turbine meets out requirements, we can consider the head as:
H=H of water column + 10 n1
Then the power will total
N=9.81 x 0.167In3/sec x 12 m x 5 x 1.2 x 0.9=106. 14 kW

We obtained output energy 93 times greater than the input energy.

Let us calculate a more powerful energy installation able to power a small urban village, military unit, a vessel etc. A 2VM10 — 63/9 piston-type compressor with the following technical specifications will be used as the source of compressed air:

- Compressor output — 1.04 m3/sec
- Output pressure, MPa — 0.9 (9 Atm)
Compressor shaft power — 332 kW
Water cooling

A calculation will be carried out for an installation with a head of water column equaling 5 m and with 10 working wheels installed inside at a distance of 500 mm from each other. The capacity of the compressor motor needed to feed air under a 5-meter water column, taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure, is:
5 m x (332 kW / 100 m) =16.6 kW

The installation capacity will total:
N=9.81 1.04 m3/sec x 15 m x 10 x 1.2 x 0.9=1652 kW

We obtained output energy exceeding the input energy by a factor of 99.

Thus, the obtaining of any amount of energy is possible, accompanied by an improvement in the gaseous water composition by means of an environmentally friendly method. This method implies the use of an inexhaustible energy source, when a natural non-equilibrium of water and air is used in any climatic zone. There is no need anymore to build expensive dams and sluices, which leads to flooding of valuable agricultural lands.

Calculation of an energy extracting pneumohydraulic engine

- Source of compressed air — VP2 — 10/9 piston—type compressor.
Compressor output — 0.167 m3/sec
Output pressure, MPa ~ 0.9 (9 Atm).
Compressor shaft capacity — 56.5 kW
Water cooling

The efficiency of a pneumohydraulic engine will be evaluated by comparing the power supplied and the power obtained, i.e. the amount of work per second.

The compressor output is the volume of air on the compressor’s input, ie. the volume of air at atmospheric pressure. Then the value of 0.167 m3/sec is the volume of air on the compressor input and on the exit from the upper float of the pneumohydraulic engine (Fig. 3).

Floats are released from the air and then filled with water at a level that is situated below the level of water in the engine case. At an airpressure of 9 Atm it maybe fed under a water column with a head of 90 rn If the air bubbles rise at a speed of 0,4 m/s it will take 225 sec for a bubble to reach the surface. Moving air will be present at all levels of the water column. This figure of
0.4 m/ s ms obtained during experimental evaluations. If the water column and compressor output remain stable, an increase or decrease in speed at which the bubbles rise, results only in a change in the horizontal dimensions of the floats (their length and width), since it is the air volume that increases or decreases. This, in turn. only increases or decreases the force, not influencing the capacity of the pneumohydraulic engine.

The possibility to change the horizontal dimensions of the floats allows making floats of a needed volume preserving the water column.

The volume of air on the output of the compressor’s pressure tube at a depth of 90 m will total (taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure):

0.167 (m3/sec) / 10 Atm = 0.0167 ma/sec

since the pressure of a 10-meter water column will equal 1 Atm and due to the fact that an increase in the volume of air by the value of the initial volume takes place every 10 meters the air rises. If the air volume remained permanent, at the moment of reaching the surface its volume would be:

0.0167 (ma/sec) x 225 sec = 3.757 ms

Taking into consideration the volume of air at the moment it reaches the surface, its total volume will amount to:

3.757 ma x 10 Atm = 37.57 ms

Taking into consideration the coefficient of thermal expansion, its volume will total:

37.57 m3 x 1.2 = 45.084 m3

The buoyancy force of a 1 m3 of air equals 1000 kgf The amount of work performed by this volume of air as it rises will amount to:

45084 kgf x 0.4 m/sec =18 033 kgf x m/sec
or 18033 kg x fm/sec

Since 1 kg -fin = 9.81 W, the result of recalculation is the following:

18033 kg x fm/sec x 9.81 =176903.73 W or 176.9kW

By adding no less than 30% of the energy that is returned, obtained due to the reactive force that is created during the filling of a float with air, to the energy that is received, we get:
176.9 kW +18 kW = 194 kW

We obtained the output energy exceeding the input energy by a factor of 3.4.

The mechanical energy efficiency of a pneuniohydraulic engine will be rather high since during operation the engine is well lubricated by water, while the floats are mutually balanced. The energy efficiency of the compressor is taken into account during consideration of the compressors engine capacity. The pneumohydraulic engine is equipped with a brake that makes it stop during operation.

When the engine stops, air is still present in the floats, which means that no energy will be consumed on the next start-up since the engine will be put in operation by the air left in the floats.

In our calculations, we proceeded from parameters of a serially produced compressor, able to feed air under a water column with a head of 90 m. This is a way to increase the effectiveness of hydroelectric stations by means of installing pneumohydraulic engines in pontoons at water—storage ponds. Increasing the effectiveness of hydroelectric stations by using tail ponds is considered in the description of the patents claim in Germany.

The design of the pneumohydraulic engine is remarkable for its low steel intensity, thus making it very light. Any river, pond, spring, thermal source or cooling tower may become a source of energy. A leveling of the water temperature at hydroelectric stations will become possible be means of blending lower, more warm water sheets and cold upper water sheets. The process will be accompanied by a simultaneous extraction of heat from the water. The most important point is that there will be no need to economize energy, since we do not amplify the natural energy imbalance by using a natural non-equilibrium. On the contrary, we restore it by getting rid of the consequences of thermal pollution. As for the solar energy, we do not spend more of it than we obtain.

We considered a method of obtaining energy in industrial conditions, but there is a great need for energy installations with a wattage of 3-4 kW. Let us try to estimate their sizes. Take an installation with a head of water column equaling 2 m. Using the same type of compressor (only for calculation) we may find out the capacity of the compressor engine needed to feed air under a 2-meter water column:

N=(2m x 56.5kW)/(90m+10m)= 1.131 Kw
The compressor output — 0.167 m3/sec
A 2-meter water column creates pressure equaling 0.2 Atm. Then the water volume at a depth of
2 m will amount to (taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure):
0.167 (m3/sec) / 1.2 Atm = 0.139 m3/sec
The time needed for a bubble to rise equals:
2 m / 0.4 (m/sec) = 5 sec

The volume of moving air that will be present in the floats of a pneumohydraulic engine in 5 sec-onds (taking into account the increase in volume as the air rises and the thermal expansion coefficient) will total:

0.139 (m3/sec) -5 sec x 1.2 Atm x 1.2 = 1 m3

The amount of work performed will amount to:

1000 kgf x 0.4 m/sec = 400 kg -fm/sec

The amount of work per second equals the power.
Since 1 kgf = 9.81 W, the capacity will be:

N = 9.81 W x 400 = 3924 W = 3.924 kW

By adding 30% of the power returned, we get:

3.924 kW + 0.34 kW = 4.263 kW
If the mechanical energl efficiency equals 0.9, we
get the following capacity:
N = 4.263 kW x 0.9 = 3.84 kW
We obtained output energy exceeding the input
energy by a factor of 3.4:

3.84 kW / 1.13 kW = 3,4





In order to once again make sure of the effectiveness of the proposed method of obtaining energy, let us compare its effectiveness with that of a storage plant, in which water is pumped to a high-level storage pond by means of a pump or a reversible hydroset and then used at a lower level in a turbine.

In this case, if the energy efficiency factor amounts to 100%. it means that we obtained an amount of energy that equals the amount of the energy consumed. Let us calculate the capacity of a pump engine needed to lift water to the level of 90 rn, the output of which is 0.167 ms/sec:

N=(9.81 x 0.167m3/c x 90 m)/0.75 = l96.5 kw Let us compare the power obtained by a pump engine to that obtained by a compressor engine with a capacity of 56.5 kW and air output of 0.167 m3/sec. The latter can displace the same amount of water, lifting it to a level of 90 m and feeding it to a turbine. An amount of power equaling 196,5 kW is obtained, which means that 3.5 less energy is spent.

Besides, the moving air that remains throughout the head of the water column will also perform work, which is confirmed by the aforecited calculation. The possibilities of implementation of the proposed method are reflected in the diagram shown below (Fig1)



It can be seen from this diagram that the buoyancy force manifests itself starting from the volume V0. The cross-hatched part of the picture is a water column H, to overcome which the energy generated by the compressor is spent. Vo is the volume of water at a depth of H; Vk is the volume of air, expanded due to the fall in pressure as air rises Vq is the active air volume. The diagram shows that the volume of active air in a pneumohydraulic engine equals V 4, while the volume Vk is essential for a pneumohydraulic turbine, since it operates on a displaced volume of water. This fact explains the difference in their effectiveness.

The inexhaustihility of the energy source, its absolute environmental friendliness, the ease of production and quick payback due to the ever-growing need for energy provide for effective marketing of the proposed construction, while the diversity of designs provide for a wide area of application

Cheers,

Ted

So, none of us really purports to exactly know how this machine works to produce free energy. That is a reassuring fact. The contraption’s key mechanism appears to be the replacement of water with compressed air within a submerged cylinder, which prompts it to float to the surface, exerting force on a wheel.

The problem with this kind of fairly simple, mechanical, free energy theory is that, if such effects were real, they would manifest in nature and upset the balance that we observe as our reality. Over the course of millions of years there would be so much free energy generated, for example by simple ocean wave processes, that the oceans would heat up of their own accord, and maybe even boil off completely. It’s actually a rather terrifying thought. This is not to mention the likelihood that life forms would evolve certain hydraulic organs to replicate the same free energy, self-heating, effects. It would save mammals from having to eat carbohydrates, and snakes from having to lie in the sun.

I do agree that if we don’t know how any particular machine works, then, in a sense, it doesn’t matter. However, if the inventor who claims inventorship of the machine also does not know how it works, something isn’t quite right. This is always the first thing I look for from free energy claimants. I don’t completely understand how a microwave works. It’s perhaps not super important that I don’t know, since I enjoy the benefits of low energy cooking regardless. However, the person who invented the microwave knew what principles they needed to manipulate, and they knew where the energy was coming from that, in modern times, ultimately is transferred to your food.

I said in my earlier post that there is something about the compressed air that might be interesting. When the compressed air is released into the cylinder, it cools down spontaneously. Heat from the environment then warms it back up to room temperature. One could arguably try and work off this principle to make a machine that converts ambient heat into mechanical energy (but I won’t go any deeper down that rabit hole). Ted's last post describes ways of extracting the thermal energy of a fluid. The trouble is that the device in the OP purports to continuously provide 10s or 100s of KW of power. If ambient heat were the energy source, the water in the tank would turn to ice fairly quickly, and the surrounding air would never be able to dump heat into it fast enough to melt it or keep it liquid to begin.

All this reminded me of a very simple REAL energy machine, that is indeed free, that is based on bodies of compressed air moving in a fluid (literally, a bubbly stream). This apparatus is called a Trompe. It works by entraining air bubbles into the flowing river or stream. The flowing water with entrained air bubbles is diverted down a pipe. Towards the bottom, where pressures are high, the bubbles compress to smaller and smaller sizes due to the pressure. These bubbles are then collected in a reservoir. This reservoir then is simply tapped to provide the compressed air to wherever the energy is needed. The whole thing operates continuously so long as the stream continues to flow. A completely free source of compressed air, once used to power pneumatic industry and transport, now largely forgotten. It’s a brilliant system.

Most discoveries were made by observing an effect then working out an explanation for that effect afterwards. I don't think in this case the source of the energy is exactly known. It may be a combination of things all adding up to more output than input.The fact that it works is enough to attempt to understand the mechanisms involved.
If even one of these OU devices (and there are several) get into the mainstream, it's curtains for oil. That's why I have my doubts about it's eventual release. The PTB have been suppressing these devices since Tesla, why would they stop now?
Maybe with enough publicity this one has a shot. Hell, I could build one of these things in my garage. If enough guys replicate it there's no way to stop it.

Ted

Quote:

---

All this reminded me of a very simple REAL energy machine, that is indeed free, that is based on bodies of compressed air moving in a fluid (literally, a bubbly stream). This apparatus is called a Trompe. It works by entraining air bubbles into the flowing river or stream. The flowing water with entrained air bubbles is diverted down a pipe. Towards the bottom, where pressures are high, the bubbles compress to smaller and smaller sizes due to the pressure. These bubbles are then collected in a reservoir. This reservoir then is simply tapped to provide the compressed air to wherever the energy is needed. The whole thing operates continuously so long as the stream continues to flow. A completely free source of compressed air, once used to power pneumatic industry and transport, now largely forgotten. It’s a brilliant system.

---

That is a cool device, I've read about those! Some of the early inventions are the most clever. Those guys had very limited tools and materials yet got the job done through ingenuity. Some of the old patents are mind blowing.

Greetings fellow searchers...
I've never understood why I can't use the same principles used for a wristwatch that you wind every week...to create power on a larger scale...say...a bike hooked up to a large coil spring that you wind up by peddling and that runs your generator...can anyone tell me why this won't work ? I'm no physicist but it seems do-able to me...
Blessings.
end of line.

:idea:

Quote:

---

Posted by Lefty Dave

Greetings fellow searchers...
I've never understood why I can't use the same principles used for a wristwatch that you wind every week...to create power on a larger scale...say...a bike hooked up to a large coil spring that you wind up by peddling and that runs your generator...can anyone tell me why this won't work ? I'm no physicist but it seems do-able to me...
Blessings.
end of line.

---

There is no reason you couldn't do it, but I don't see any free lunch in the system. It takes energy to wind the spring, which would then run the generator. The mechanical losses alone guarantee a net loss. You may as well leave the spring out and just peddle straight to the generator. Springs, while being very useful, are net energy loss devices.
Keep thinking though :idea:

Cheers,

Ted

Science begins with observation. Given the observations stand, the ability to find an explanation for any observation is also the job of science. Not being able to come up with an explanation is a lack on the part of the scientist, not the observation itself. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and has no place in science, or at least antithetical to it.

There are many observations "science" can't explain... I think they made up a word for this concept... It evades me at this moment ':-O

Quote:

---

Posted by Ted

Most discoveries were made by observing an effect then working out an explanation for that effect afterwards. I don't think in this case the source of the energy is exactly known. It may be a combination of things all adding up to more output than input.The fact that it works is enough to attempt to understand the mechanisms involved.
If even one of these OU devices (and there are several) get into the mainstream, it's curtains for oil. That's why I have my doubts about it's eventual release. The PTB have been suppressing these devices since Tesla, why would they stop now?
Maybe with enough publicity this one has a shot. Hell, I could build one of these things in my garage. If enough guys replicate it there's no way to stop it.
Ted

---

re: why they should stop now... because we are all going to die if they don't...
More proof that human beings are party to our own demise, but will we act?
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-...ign=scmp_today
http://cdn2.scmp.com/sites/default/f...?itok=tGorQR8o

Quote:

---

There are examples of species all over the world that are "essentially the walking dead", said Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich. "We are sawing off the limb that we are sitting on."

He was talking about the sixth mass extinction, the huge loss of species that is under way right now. It has been discussed in public before, of course, but what Ehrlich and other scientists have done is to document it statistically.

Animals and plants are always going extinct, usually to be replaced by rival species. But the normal turnover rate is quite slow, according to the fossil record. Ehrlich and his colleagues deliberately raised the bar, assuming that the normal rate is twice as high - and still got an alarming result.

In a study published this month in Science Advances, they report that vertebrates are going extinct at a rate 114 times faster than normal...

---

Quote:

---

There are many observations "science" can't explain... I think they made up a word for this concept... It evades me at this moment ':-O

---

Cognitive dissonance comes to mind...

Here's an update...

Rosch: "We Pulse the Air"

Stuart's observation that the air compressor doesn't cycle on and off leads to elaboration on how the Kinetic Power Plant (KPP) works, through a combination of several simultaneous effects, not just pumping air into floats.


For those who have not been following this saga, Rosch Innovations KPP (Kinetic Power Plant) is a buoyancy device involving floats that fill with air at the bottom of a water tank to cause them to rise, turning a generator in the process, such that the generator produces enough energy to self-loop while also producing excess energy for base load power production {e.g. utility company capability.)


by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Sunday morning, at breakfast near Spich, Germany, Stuart told me he had a thought come to him that had him puzzling regarding Rosch' KPP generator.

"Why doesn't the air compressor cycle on and off, like air compressors usually do?"


http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_R...GA0039_600.jpg

In the Rosh KPP, the air compressor is always on.

As we approached some of the guys at Rosch about this, I found it quite interesting that they had not thought of this question before, either. "That's a good question," seemed to be their expression -- not in a doubting way, but in a puzzlement way.

One of them conjectured that it was to prevent a feedback loop. Each time the air compressor cycles on, it would require a surge of electricity, which would signal to the system to substantially increase the power output. Keeping it running and just regulating how much it is producing would prevent the surge that comes from starting such a significant motor from a stop.

I do know that the air compressor, rated at 7.5 kW, is oversized for the 15 kW set-up. If I understand correctly, it's actually intended for and will end up with the 100 kW demo system.

Later that morning, when Detlef Dohmen, the CEO, arrived, as we were in a conference room together, he chuckled at the question and what we had surmised was the reason for it staying on.

Then, like a loving father, he said something that to me turned on a very big light bulb of awareness: "We pulse the air."

"That's not just a tank of air. We have some special things in there."

To appreciate the significance of this, be aware that in the last year of conference calls with the New Energy Systems Trust, nearly every week, Mike Waters would give us a tutorial on the role that pulsing plays in evoking overunity effects. I wish I could articulate what he said, but I can say that it made sense, and I could tell that Mike knew what he was talking about.

It wasn't just one type of modality of exotic free energy that this applied to, either. The principle applied in several modalities, and for the same reasons.

To put it very simply, it has to do with resonance. Picture soldiers walking across a bridge, and how they have to stop marching in step when they do so, because in times past, if they didn't, the resonance of their marching could bring down a bridge.

Think of Tesla's tapping on a beam in a high-rise, causing it to start to shake. Resonance.

You all know what I'm talking about. This isn't fairy tails, it is documented history with a lot of data to support it.

As I was driving to the airport with Mr. Dohmen this morning, I asked more about this, saying, "From what I can tell, the generator also has a significant role in the effect. It's not just a regular generator." He confirmed that this is the case.

"There are a lot of things going on at the same time," he said. "It's not just air being blown into a float."

That's probably why they guard the circuitry so closely. The programming is where their intellectual property and advances are found.

He did tell me the other day that this is why the system shut off when I tried to plug in my power cord with the ground only protruding on one side, not both, as is typical in German sockets. They have an algorithm in their software that shuts the system off if they detect something unusual in the load. There are clever people who can program loads to reverse engineer the circuitry. That is why Rosch programmed their circuit such that if it detects something unusual in the load, then it shuts off -- kind of like the shoplifting gate and beeper at the entrance / exit of some stores.

A couple of days earlier, Frank had said that there are three primary components contributing to the unusual properties of the generator (working): the buoyancy tower, the generator, and the circuitry. Apparently he wasn't aware of the significance the compressor plays, or he forgot to mention it.

Rosch manufactures the generator and the air compressor (and the circuitry, of course, as well as the buoyancy tower).

Also, elaborating on buoyancy, another thing Mr. Dohmen said was to think of submarines. He put it something to the effect: "If buoyancy couldn't be overunity, then how would they get what goes down to come back up?" That was a puzzling statement to me, because there are plenty of power sources on a submarine. But he was referring to something that has to do with the function of air and buoyancy in enabling the sub to descend and ascend in the water. I'm not that familiar with that mechanism, so his analogy was a bit lost on me.

He said that one of the Engineers on their development team was involved with Russian submarine technology, and a variation of that is used in their air compressor.

You'll notice that there is an unencumbered, smaller air hose that bypasses the control section of the hoses. This is to allow the air from the mains to get into the float system when they are starting it up and don't have power to the air compressor yet.

The following is my conjecture. After the system is running, the air flow controls from the air compressor, ride on top of what is able to get through the bottom hose unencumbered. Alternatively, there is some kind of valve that blocks that bypass, but the build of the three-way doesn't seem unusual.

Another thing we learned that ties in somewhat to this discussion, is the primary reason why they stopped having the air compressor powered by mains power, and only powered by the generator from the floats.

They described a few situations in the past in which the system went into run-away mode. One time, one of their 100 kW systems self-destructed, because it got going so fast. In some prototypes, they used brakes on the mechanism to apply in such situations. One time, as the system was going so fast, the brakes disintegrated in a few seconds. By having the air compressor tied to the output of the generator, if something happens to the float system, and it stops, then the air compressor stops as well.

One of the philosophies of Rosch is to over-engineer their systems, to overbuild them so that they will be as "idiot-proof" as possible; so that as they go out into third world situations (their primary first target), the operators won't have to have special degrees just to run the plants. (Not to say people in the third world are "idiots." They just usually don't have as much education/training as is usually found in the first world.)

This is illustrated by the "15 kW" demo we saw. That tower, they say, could run an 80 kW generator. And the generator they are using for the demo could produce up to 22 kW, but they are running it quite a bit lower than that (by limiting the number of things they put on the load). Of course, the 7.5 kW air compressor is part of its "load," but is not pulling it's full the 7.5 capacity since it is much larger than it needs to be for this scenario, so it's only running at a much lower capacity.

Speaking of durability, there were many so-called engineering experts who said that the gearbox on the 5 kW system was inadequate to handle the torque that would be produced by a 5 kW input from a slow-moving chain to a fast-moving generator. Mr. Dohmen had me be sure to take a photo of that gearbox, explaining that the gearbox was engineered by one of the leading firms in Germany who do nothing but that kind of engineering. "It can handle 5000 Newton-meters of force," he said.

http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_R...GA0136_600.jpg

I can tell you from hanging out with these guys that they are not afraid to spend money when it needs to be spent on things that require proper engineering. They take great pride in their work. Mr. Dohmen dotes over the KPP like a father would a newborn child. He has obviously put a lot into this birthing, and he doesn't appreciate people jumping to "fraud" conclusions. Skepticism is one thing, to point out possible points of trickery, but to jump to the conclusion of "fraud" is libel when you don't have adequate evidence. Just keep that in mind when you go blabbing your mouth without adequate information. Overunity could be shut down because of libel.

http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_R...Pulse-the-Air/

If any of this 'free energy' malarkey was easy, it couldn't be suppressed. Any decent university or even school physics lab could reproduce it.

Students are keen to disprove what they've been taught, and there are thousands of gifted physics students all over the world (just think of China!) who'd love to prove that our gaps in the understanding of physics would make such a device possible.

If the technology was suppressed, how come Hope Girl and the Quantum Energy Generator group were allowed to publish the construction details of their machine (for free) on-line last year? It was widely discussed on PA. (I guess TPTB let that one through because it was just bollox and only served to discredit the FE crowd.)

Nick

It can, and has been suppressed for over 100 years now. Many devices have been built and proven, but nobody has, of yet, been able to take anything to market. The PTB don't care if you build a device and don't market it.
I'll put it another way: Do you think energy companies are going to just step aside from a multi trillion dollar a year business, or do you think that they will try and protect their investment? These people have enough money and influence to squish anybody, and make sure it stays quiet.
Another aspect to consider is this; Producing usable energy is the same as acquiring wealth. You're taking money right out of the big boy's pocket. It's a commodity which has been monopolized and jealously guarded for a long time. Governments don't want you to have it either, because they derive a huge amount of money from energy taxes. Nobody wants free energy in the marketplace except you and me, who have to pay through the nose to get it.
Universities are likewise encouraged to avoid these devices, lest their future be in jeopardy.

In the late 1980s I remember the media frenzy covering the cold fusion results from Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. For a few weeks it looked like they really were onto something. University labs all over the world were excitedly scrambling to reproduce the results - it looked as if the cat was out of the bag.

No doubt this gave the heads of some energy companies a few sleepless nights, but the point is the work was not 'suppressed'; quite the opposite as there were attempts to reproduce the results all over the world. Research continues, but unfortunately it seems the whole thing was a red herring.

Then there's the continuing research into hot fusion that may eventually give huge amounts of electricity, although not quite the same as what we consider 'free energy'. Again, thiis not being suppressed.

Many free-energy inventors say they just can't get anyone to take them seriously in order to develop their prototype. Well all they have to do is use one to light an African village for Oxfam or some other charity. OK, it's using the developing world as a publicity stunt, but hey, they will have done two things: proved the technology is real so other villages/communities will want one, and also generated media interest.

I know someone who suggested this very thing to the QEG group late last year after they kept reporting 'resonance' of their devices in various videos. They didn't even bother to acknowledge the suggestion...

It's possible, I guess, that deep within the bowels of a government or military lab somewhere in the world such a technology exists, but to get it to work requires huge amounts of sophisticated technology. And as you say, releasing it on the world would be very disruptive in the short to medium term.

I also think the you-can't-meter-free-energy mantra is another red herring. If it's generated centrally (probably the most efficient way of distribution for the foreseeable future) you'd still have a meter, or pay a set amount each year regardless of how much you use - just like we used to pay for domestic water use in the UK.

In the UK now, if you live in a very isolated community there is nothing to stop you from buying a combination of solar and wind-powered equipment and generating your own electricity. As far as I know no government minister is going to demand any type of payment. But if everyone started doing it then it would be taxed, just like simply owing a car! It would surely be the same if we all had a free-energy device in a cupboard under the stairs - we'd have to pay some sort of tax on it.

It's inevitable that our present ever-expanding use of fossil fuels cannot go on indefinitely, so if the energy companies are sensible, they will be looking into developing alternative sources. That will include all forms of 'free energy' because they'll know that if they don't, someone else will!

Nick

Well this seems to be maybe the only place I can post "Generators" I came across this last year and have been keeping an eye on it, So if there is anyone that has seen this and I think they are selling them by now, I would really like to discuss this and get more info on what is happening. I am going to post a youtube vid first to see who may be already into this. Here it is,

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vEqSuTOKUEg

I originally found this forum while searching for a forum discussing the topic of this buoyancy generator.

I have been intrigued by Stirling heat engines for several decades, studying how they work and doing experiments. My YouTube channel is largely devoted to posting videos of my experiments with small model Stirling engines over the years.

Some time back, someone on the Stirling engine forum brought my attention to this rather controversial Buoyancy generator which has been described as a kind of Stirling heat engines by its manufacturers and distributors or by its inventors.

The CEO of the company that has been manufacturing and promoting these generators recently passed away.

There has been an ongoing debate about this machine that has continued for over a decade on a German forum. https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123 there were other forums prior to this also that no longer are active but can be accessed through the Wayback internet archive.

On the German forum, I was interested in discussing this machine in light of its claimed mode of operation as a "Stirling" heat engine or thermal engine, as originally stated, rather than a "buoyancy" engine.

The German forum, however, was/is apparently controlled and operated by individuals who ONLY have one goal and purpose: to debunk the machine and the company and it's distributors as a "scam".

I think that the fact that the controversy has continued for so long rather remarkable in itself.

Some of the companies promotional videos:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Qt92a6sgg

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3IdNow8vZdg

As seems usual for this kind of thing, it appears to violate the known laws of physics and some simply dismiss it as a physical impossibility and an " obvious scam, plain and simple"

There are a number of forums and websites dedicated only to "exposing the scam".

Anyway, I joined the German forum to discuss the feasibility of such a device from a thermodynamics standpoint as a kind of combined heat pump and heat engine, as I have already run into such anomalies in connection with "ordinary" off-the-shelf model Stirling engines that seem to operate in ways that defy "established science".

This "anomalous" apparent "overunity" or apparent "perpetual motion" behavior of certain thermally powered engines has been an area of research for me for about 15 years.

Here is one such heat engine that without doubt operates as a kind of "apparent" perpetual motion machine:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rOrltkTpFm8

Purportedly, the buoyancy generator works on the same basic principle as the drinking bird toy. But if this were assumed to actually be true, what principle is that exactly?

This was actually explained and elaborated upon by Nikola Tesla and others. Similar inventions have appeared over and over again but are almost invariably dismissed as "impossible" and the inventors themselves scorned as crackpots or scam artists.

This is interesting.
there are a lot of moving parts in water which would need a lot of maintainance.

I guess simplified this is reverse water wheel, where buoyancy does the lifting rather than water doing the pushing.
Maybe air pushing up through water has more force than the weight of water..

Spent a bit of time reading that thread at https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123 that you linked.
I speak german but crikey, what a rabbit hole..

I guess what you are wondering about is wether the heat in the compressed air is adding anything.
Are you familiar with the thunder storm generator?

There seem to be things at work in some systems that are outside of the current paradigm.
Stanley Myers water car was another one, Griggs hydrosonic pump...