one of the machines with the math

[the eskimo quinn]

maths is always exact, what ever lift you need will in the opposing fall always, but only create the same amount of power from the fall, liquid or solid.

the square box represents a pump using only the bare minum power to raise the water that heaight to fill the bucket. This is shown in the red line, fall is shown in green.

The reality is that the main argument against my machines is that you cannot get more fall than lift or more power out than in.

The argument with the syphon has always been that you have to fill the bucket and you do, however a siphon will firstly raise the water higher than the pump did, and with the use of equalimbrium to sperate the containers for better control, or seperation of mechanic as i use in all the machines, you can see the water will fall twice from the same fill power.

If the red is all the power required to pump to the bucket, and the green is the power out, then there is more than enough power to run the pump with spare. You have overunity or perpetual motion.

Like i have said before, i can build this in so many ways all with different physics, that you can see by this alone, math based on the conservation of enrgy is false. and the world of science nothing more than a joke.

[AB Hammer]

the eskimo quinn

After seeing pictures on OU. It still make me think you are building a giant drinking bird, But with a twist.

[ovyyus]

So now it's magic syphon's - lol

Where's all the images of Quinn's ALREADY WORKING PM device instead of these sketches of silly ideas? Don't tell me he lied about having an already working device!!!

Arthur, I recon the above sketch shows Quinn's thinking quite clearly - he thinks that all it takes is a majority vote to change the way the physical world behaves :D

[the eskimo quinn]

and that is the point, you simply cant accept that the drawing cant lie, orifus the oil man, i had grade five kids understand this.


@Ab hammer
As to the drinking bird comment, it has no seperation of mecahincs thus it has no free fall. and there are multiple moving parts. the drawing was a basic sketch on a privtae site and was never meant as a working scetch nor to be posted in public forums without consent due to copyright laws.

it was in response to a question for a particular function, not the complete machine.

you will have to wait like the others or you could go and teach your kids play with some water

[AB Hammer]

the eskimo quinn

I am not worried about your contraption you are building. I was looking into the humor of it and if you put a few decorations on it, it would look like the drinking bird. I myself am working on the real secret of Bessler's. You just have to learn how to make weights nearly lift themselves. Which I have done.

[arthur]

quinn,

the force of the water pouring out of the siphon will be exactly the same as if there was no siphon and water just poured down.

sorry but that is a bit of an illusion,
there is actually no gain.

[the eskimo quinn]

of course its the same, it is always the same, but free falling water, falling the same height as the pump is equal power, falling twice is double.

the pump has no more power than the free fall

the illusion is that you think there is greater pressure from the pump than the fall, there is not,

Lift is always equal to fall, even orifus has slammed that at me a hundred times and its true.

it is seperation of mechanics that creates gain

[ovyyus]

Why would you have grade 5 kids learn incorrect ideas? You seem happy offering up all these kids and neighbors, grandparents, taxi drivers, etc in support of your rubbish logic - but no real physicists to back you up. Why is that? What it does prove is that most normal people with a grade 5 understanding of physics will just politely nod until you go away :D

Like everything else, you're making all this up as you go along. First it's magnets, then it's levers, now it's magic syphon's. Duh!

TELL THE TRUTH. But that's clearly too much to ask.

[arthur]

falling the same height as the pump is equal power, falling twice is double.

the water doesn't free-fall from the peak of the siphon.

the force of water pouring from the siphon is the same as it's net fall.

to figure the net fall you have to subtract the rise (your yellow line).

sorry.
please try again.

[Fletcher]

Quinn .. a syphon can work both in air & in a vacuum - that means that the old stand by description of water molecules 'holding hands' i.e. hydrogen bonding] pulling water like a chain is probably the closest analogy - as long as the outlet is below the height of the inlet [i.e. primary water tank level] - this means then that the extra weight of water on the outlet side [water level must be lower than the inlet level] helps pull the water thru the syphon pipe until the water levels are equal - sometimes people use the argument of air pressure pushing the water thru the pipe but since the outlet water level is lower than the inlet water level then patently the air pressure at the outlet water level is greater than the higher inlet water level, so this would make this argument improbable.

What a syphon does need though is a water level gradient where one tanks level is higher than the other & the water flows from higher potential to lower - once they are at the same water level [water finds its level, 5th grade] then the syphon effect stops - so you run out of stored potential energy.

I'm guessing you are trying to use the kinetic energy of moving water running thru the syphon [like a hydro-electric dam turbine] in much the same way you were talking about the large weight dropping on your lever arrangement having more kinetic energy than the small counterpoised weight ? - I think you are mistaken but am happy to be shown the error of my Newtonian ways on the 20th, in which case I will celebrate right along with the others the discovery of OU free energy, with the appropriate apologies to you, should that happen.

[greendoor]

Mr Quinn - don't waste your time or creative energy in making personal attacks on people, or science in general. IF you have discovered what you say you have discovered, and IF you make this public on the 20th of June as you have promised, THEN the world will know you are a genius.

In the meantime, please understand that we simply can't follow your logic. It doesn't make any sense to us - and i'm just hoping that this is bad communication skills on your part. Trust me - it's not wilful ignorance - we want to see a working model, and we want to understand how to recreate this and bring free power to the people. But we have to be able to understand what you are describing, and it's not happening.

I sincerely hope that when you explain this to us on the 20th that it will make more sense, because you have a weakness in communication skills my friend. But please - don't waste your effort in this area. Get your device working - video it well, and draw clear simple diagrams to explain how it all works. You will be vindicated (or not) if you stick to what you are good at, and don't waste energy on pointless activity.

To show you that I believe free energy is possible - let me explain why I think it is possible that a syphon could generate free energy:

At the molecular level, all molecules are in motion - this is heat energy. A single molecule in isolation wants to accelerate up to the speed of light, but it doesn't get a chance to do that before banging into another molecule. So all this energy gets turned into random, chaotic cancellation of velocity, and the substance has a net velocity of zero. The angle of impact determines the new direction that the molecule must now proceed.

But - this is just statistics, and there is an extremely small possiblity that all these molecules could just randomly all go in the same direction, and since they aren't getting in each other's way, for a small period of time they could all accelerate and gain a lot of velocity. In actual fact, they haven't created energy - they have just organised what energy they already have, and allowed it the room to move.

In a fluid, this random movement is going on all the time. If we pressurise the fluid (e.g. steam engine, water pump, typical engineering solutions) we just add to the chaos, and more collisions occur - it gets harder to force the fluid in the direction we want - it requires exponentially increasing power input.

But if we do the opposite - try to pull a vacuum - we create more room for the molecules to move unhindered - they have the chance to accelerate for further in one direction. Net velocity gain, from our perspective.

This I believe is the secret to the explosive force in water pump cavitation (a big problem in fluid engineering). I believe it is the force that establishes tornados and water vortexes. If fluid is allowed to self-organise, velocity gain is achieved.

So maybe - maybe in a siphon it is possible to experience a net gain in velocity that provides some free energy.

Simple balancing of weights - whether fluid or solid - doesn't give free energy. But as Bessler said - the force comes from the swinging ... did he use fluids? Or did he somehow get solids to behave as self-organising fluids?

Stay focused, Mr Quinn ...

[ovyyus]

In the meantime, please understand that we simply can't follow your logic...

That's not the problem at all. A child can follow Quinn's logic. The problem is that his 5-year-old-child logic is demonstrably flawed. It should be a no-brainer.

I would argue that holding to a demonstrably flawed logic is everyone's right. But Quinn lies about having an already working PM machine in order to generate otherwise unwarranted attention. That's called fraud. IMO, lying is unacceptable and can only bring us discredit if tolerated. Perhaps that's just a quaint old-fashioned notion in todays world of hustle and hype?

[Michael]

At the molecular level, all molecules are in motion - this is heat energy. A single molecule in isolation wants to accelerate up to the speed of light,

Wait greendoor, that's wrong. Where did you get that from?

[Fletcher]

It's not a quaint old-fashioned notion Bill - once intentional deceit enters the frey then there is no chance of maintaining any future integrity unless you produce the goods, in which case no lie was told after-all, otherwise in my book it should not be tolerated either.

In this case I am reminded of lay people & some scientists fondness for the use of math & statistics - they use it like a drunk leans on a lamp post - to hold themselves up & not for illumination ;)

Right now Quinn has a few days left to prove his not-well communicated ideas, then his previous rhetoric about who are morons & complete asses just might come back to haunt him.

[greendoor]

At the molecular level, all molecules are in motion - this is heat energy. A single molecule in isolation wants to accelerate up to the speed of light,

Wait greendoor, that's wrong. Where did you get that from?

That's my understanding of Alfred Evert. Probably over simplified it - but he talks often about creating "areas of emptyness" in a fluid. The distribution of molecules in a fluid is random - which means there are always dense and rarified areas, for short periods of time. Collisions will be reduced in the rarified areas - and molecule velocity has more time to increase, before hitting the next molecule and changing direction again.

If we assist fluid to create rarified areas, we can reduce the chaos - negative entropy. Maxwell's demon of a sort.

He basically is riffing on Victor Schaubeger - and both these guys refer to cases where hydrodynamic systems exhibit anomalous energy increases.