Science students need a problem too solve.

[watchingfromafar]

Science students need a problem too solve.

Science students need a problem too solve. - Mechanical engineering Ideas - Mechanical Engineering (mechanical-engg.com)

A machine that claims to produce useful energy while defying logic.
Students are to evaluate the physical properties showing why the design is flawed.
Pick out the flaw you see and write a summary of what is technically wrong in your own words.
As a student you can pick out where you sees flaws in the design/physical properties that prevents the machine from operating as advertised.

The forum body will grade the papers at end of exams

It is now, where I live Wednesday, March 31, 2021
@ 12:31 AM cst usa

The final submittals must be posted here no latter than July 4, 2025.
Discussions on submittals end on January 1, 2026

Students; attached is the machine, SeaEngine
-

 

[fncceo]

To solve

 

[BULLDOG]

Is this that same shit about pumping air down to buckets? It won't work and it's a dumb idea.

 

[Grumblenuts]

All it needs is a Lawrence Welk Magic Bubble Machine ..'na wun'erful wun'erful!

 

[JoeMoma]

The final submittals must be posted here no latter than July 4, 2025.
Discussions on submittals end on January 1, 2026

Wow, you plan on stringing the discussion on this out nearly 5 years. Numerous people have explained why your contraption will not work for the purpose you intend but you just don't get it.
I see you also posted this mess on a mechanical engineering site. Didn't you already get banned/blocked from an engineering site trying to discuss this device?

Also note, people looking at your "drawing" for the fist time are not going to have a clue as to what you are trying to do with it without a much more detailed explanation. And once they have that explanation they are going to point their fingers and laugh at you for trying to design a perpetual motion machine to generate energy.

 

[JoeMoma]

To solve

Toooooooooooo solve! It is going to take nearly 5 years.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Is this that same shit about pumping air down to buckets? It won't work and it's a dumb idea.

And yet no one has proven that it will not work, no even you -

 

[Crepitus]

Science students need a problem too solve.

They might wanna start with the difference between To, Too, and Two.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Then on to how negatives get proven..

 

[watchingfromafar]

Wow, you plan on stringing the discussion on this out nearly 5 years. Numerous people have explained why your contraption will not work for the purpose you intend but you just don't get it.

I'm sorry but numerous people have not provided "any" reasons it will not work, not even one. Joe, since you seem to know what was posted before that proved it would not work, so please cut and past any of them. I want to get off of the as bad as you want me to quit, so show some proof and then I will finally be set free of this.

I see you also posted this mess on a mechanical engineering site.

I am not sure what forum you arte referring to but I have discussed this in other forums. There is nothing to prevent you from just passing on by.

Also note, people looking at your "drawing" for the fist time are not going to have a clue as to what you are trying to do with it without a much more detailed explanation.

All anyone needs to do is just ask the question. No one has as of yet.

And once they have that explanation they are going to point their fingers and laugh at you for trying to design a perpetual motion machine to generate energy.

if you say so
-

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm sorry but numerous people have not provided "any" reasons it will not work, not even one. Joe, since you seem to know what was posted before that proved it would not work, so please cut and past any of them. I want to get off of the as bad as you want me to quit, so show some proof and then I will finally be set free of this.

You are so uneducated about basic physics that you don't recognize the proof when it's pointed out to you.

I see you also posted this mess on a mechanical engineering site.

I am not sure what forum you arte referring to but I have discussed this in other forums. There is nothing to prevent you from just passing on by.

It's the site linked in your OP. I will be passing on soon, but at the moment I am entertained like having a cat chase a laser light.

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[BULLDOG]

Is this that same shit about pumping air down to buckets? It won't work and it's a dumb idea.

And yet no one has proven that it will not work, no even you -

Many people, including myself have shown you that it won't work. The energy required to pump air to depth is more than could ever be gained by the ascending buckets, or balloons, or whatever enclosure you might use. The fact that there can only be a net loss of energy in such a system has been proven to a mathematical certainty. It seems that proving that to you, personally is impossible. That is a problem only you can solve.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Many people, including myself have shown you that it won't work. The energy required to pump air to depth is more than could ever be gained by the ascending buckets, or balloons, or whatever enclosure you might use. The fact that there can only be a net loss of energy in such a system has been proven to a mathematical certainty.

No one here seems to be able to grasp the total system.

It takes (X) amount of energy to pump air down to the lowest bucket.

When that bucket is injected with air it will rise and the next bucket is injected with air

This process repeats itself until there are ten (10) buckets all pushing to get to the surface. And then the next bucket reaches the bottom and it too is injected with air continuously repeating the above. The energy output is the ten (10) buckets pulling together to reach the surface.

The energy required to keep the system running is to fill the lowest bucket with air.

BULLDOG; tell me where I went off the track into the swamp ?

-

 

[BULLDOG]

Many people, including myself have shown you that it won't work. The energy required to pump air to depth is more than could ever be gained by the ascending buckets, or balloons, or whatever enclosure you might use. The fact that there can only be a net loss of energy in such a system has been proven to a mathematical certainty.

No one here seems to be able to grasp the total system.

It takes (X) amount of energy to pump air down to the lowest bucket.

When that bucket is injected with air it will rise and the next bucket is injected with air

This process repeats itself until there are ten (10) buckets all pushing to get to the surface. And then the next bucket reaches the bottom and it too is injected with air continuously repeating the above. The energy output is the ten (10) buckets pulling together to reach the surface.

The energy required to keep the system running is to fill the lowest bucket with air.

BULLDOG; tell me where I went off the track into the swamp ?

-

You went off track when you refused to accept the possibility that you are wrong. Possibly before then, but for sure by that time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It takes (X) amount of energy to pump air down to the lowest bucket.

When that bucket is injected with air it will rise

Like magic! Because (X)!

The energy required to keep the system running is to fill the lowest bucket with air.

Again, because (X).
But wait,.. now you say:

The energy output is the ten (10) buckets pulling together to reach the surface.

So you're saying (10X) is less than (X) and still asking what's wrong with this picture?

You know Gatling guns fire lots of bullets real fast, but still only one at a time.. You can't apply combinational logic to a series problem. Setup somewhat suggests a turbine. Not a turbine though. At all.

 

[watchingfromafar]

You went off track when you refused to accept the possibility that you are wrong. Possibly before then, but for sure by that time.

Honestly, I am willing to accept that I am wrong. In fact, I believe there is a 95% chance that I am wrong. But that 5% keeps me up a night and I really want a god nights sleet. All that needs to be done is for someone to point out what aspect or what design flaws there are that proves it will not work. As of yet; no one has done that.

I get a lot of, “it is a perpetual motion machine therefore it cannot work.” That response falls short of pointing what technical aspect that is wrong.

The design principles are simple enough. Just point out the flaw & if it is a sound described flaw I will end this merry-go-round and move on to something else.

OK?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Like magic! Because (X)!

Because trapped air under water rises with the force of the displaced trapped air.

 

[watchingfromafar]

So you're saying (10X) is less than (X) and still asking what's wrong with this picture?

You are reading this backwards by mistake or on purpose but either way you replied, and I thank you for it.

Ten (10) containers of air tied together has a greater lifting force than one (1) container.

-

 

[meaner gene]

This reminds me of the plan to raise the Titanic by filling it with ping pong balls. The physics of pumping air to a particular depth requires as much energy (assuming 100% efficiency) as can be recovered by the lift as it approaches the surface.