Auftriebskraftwerk

http://web.archive.org/web/20150425131315/http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/#.VTuS-rfgoew

Link to the archived forum.

Someone posting under the name "came" described this machine as a "Stirling Engine" and went on to explain its operating principle on that basis; that it is essentially a Striling engine or HEAT engine primarily. Boyancy of the cold dense air injected into the canisters being a secondary effect of heat absorption.

Without absorbing heat the cold dense air injected into the canisters would have little volume and not much bouyancy.

The username is actually "dodes".

"came" was how the username appeared in translation.

As the compressor, after the device is started, runs continuously, compression is largely adiabatic until the compressed air passes through the rubber hose and reaches the metal pipe passing down into the tank.

The tank of water then is described as a "counter current heat exchanger". The tank water taking in heat from the hot compressed air on its way down and transfering that heat back over to the cold expanding air on its way back to the top.

@TomBooth

This thread consists of 56.150 posts, and you can be absolutely shure that every single aspect of "the bubbler" has been discussed. You might search for "adiabatisch" and/or "isotherm".
However, taking into account the differences between isothermal and adiabatic calculations will yield results that are far beyond the decimal point (and preceded by a zero).
What do you think about how many Kelvin "heat exchange" are we talking when the energy gain of the bubble machine is supposed to be 1:6?

@TomBooth

The most significant thermal effect happens in the compressor and the result is a loss of energy. This lost energy can under no circumstances be "recycled" or "reused".
The "Auftriebskraftwerk" is a scam, nothing else.

Poipoi schrieb:This thread consists of 56.150 posts, and you can be absolutely shure that every single aspect of "the bubbler" has been discussed...

I'm gradually making my way through the thread, from the begining. Reading everything could take months/years perhaps. I've come across some mention of temperature variables, expansion of the gas doing thermodynamic "work" etc. but in my reading so far, such comments have been ignored and the conversation about how to expose the "fraud" goes on.

Here for example, from the page I just finished reading not long ago today:

ShortVisit schrieb am 16.09.2014:..if you also consider that the injected air cools (adiabatic expansion, the compressed air does work as it rises by lifting the water above the cylinders)...

Admitedly, an apparent "hit and run" post, but the response? Nothing.

Similarly on the old overunity thread, though the thermal or "Stirling" engine explaination was presented in several posts in considerable detail, the response was virtually non-existant. Never given any serious consideration. No effort at making any mathematical calculations based on well established gas laws. Not even any real effort at a refutation of the "thermal-engine" hypothesis at all.

To me, the "heat engine" explaination is at least plausable. We have known working examples of apparent "perpetual motion" based on combined thermal heat-pump/cooling system/heat engine apparatus, (the "drinking bird" novelty perpetual heat engine).

Such a device at least gives the appearance of working sometimes under certain environmental circumstances.

This bouyancy engine is not a "closed system" if you consider the fact that atmospheric air is being drawn in and manipulated in various ways and then expelled, so it seems questionable if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is applicable.

Supposed, instead of injecting simply very cold dense air that has had a lot of heat removed we were to take the process further and inject liquid nitrogen into the canisters? Or liquid air? Or perhaps cubes of dry ice/solidified CO2?

Injecting a liquid or solid into a tank full of liquid. The liquid or solid having a boiling point well below ambient.

But simply compressing and cooling then releasing to expand ordinary atmospheric air, we are already half way there.

What happens when a "cold" gas is injected through an expansion valve into the evaporator of a heat pump or refrigerator? The gas rapidly expands and absorbs heat from the immediate suroundings.

There are exact parallels between a heat pump/ heat engine combonation and this bouyancy device.

If this were true, those who "know" are likely under an NDA, for others, it does not fit the narative that the whole thing is just a hoax.

califix schrieb:The most significant thermal effect happens in the compressor and the result is a loss of energy. This lost energy can under no circumstances be "recycled" or "reused".

Really?

And why not?

The compressor takes ambient temperature atmospheric air, and by compressing that air generates or releases heat/energy which is released into the "heat reservoir" of the surrounding ambient environment for temporary "storage".

Upon releasing the compressed gas, the gas (potentially if not allowwd to absorb heat) falls to an extreemly low temperature and the same quantity of heat lost by the compression process is reabsorbed by the gas now free to expand and return to its original condition.

On top of that, at least some heat gets transfered to the water tank as previously mentioned.

The tank of water would naturally grow colder and colder duw to this constant injection of compressed air. If heat were not taken into the tank from the surrounging air or ground if underground. As the temperature of the expanding air would drop to near cryogenic cold temperatures if not allowwd to absorb heat while expanding, the tank of water would freeze solid before long.

Will My Air Compressor Make ICE?!? Let's Find Out!

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

@TomBooth
In addition to the future, the holiday season is just around the corner. You could combine pleasure with usefulness. I think your talent is being misjudged here. So why waste time?

https://save-the-planet.asia

Or are you perhaps already writing directly from there?

lim schrieb:TomBooth
...
https://save-the-planet.asia

...are you perhaps already writing directly from there?

No, I'm in no way affiliated with any of the various people or organizations, other than I had some communication with John Crowley of Ki-Tech. (On X and via email)

But I have been studying, building and experimenting with Stirling engines since about 2006

This Stirling engine forum is basically defunct as the owner/moderator paseed away but this was, I think, my earliest post to that forum:

https://stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=77&sid=2e9685e0026a6a371f5fc52e2f133567

Still readable. But the active forum is mostly overrun with spam.

You could say that my interest in KPP is simply a continuation of my exploration into the workings of the various types of Stirling engine that exist, or have existed.

I"m no Tesla fan or believer in "overunity" or "perpetual motion" but I think it is interesting that in 1900 Tesla wrote an article that included his thoughts about heat engines. He commented on Carnot and Kelvin"s exposition of the primitive version of the second law of thermodynamics as it was at that time.
Tesla postulated that as far as heat engines were concerned, the prohibition against a "self acting engine" or "perpetual motion machine" had a loophole.

If you could create COLD by some means, such as refrigeration or a heat pump, you could operate a heat engine on the temperature difference between the "cold hole" and the inexhaustable. Ambient/indirect solar heat/energy in the air.

He surmised that because the engine took in heat and converted that heat into other forms of energy, rather than the heat "filling up the cold hole", the heat would leave the engine by a different path as mechanical "work". Such an upside down heat engine or COLD running thermal engine could take in ambient heat and use some of the energy converted to run a heat pump that would maintain the temperature difference that allowed the heat engine to continue operating.

Tesla's article:

https://archive.org/details/tesla_202108/page/n31/mode/1up

I've been experimenting with this concept/theory for quite a few years now, with some results that seem to be in accordance with Tesla's thesis.

I've been posting video records of these experiments on YouTube and also on various physics forums.

Unfortunately I've been unceremoniously banned from the majority of the online physics forums.

Here is one thread I started for which I was permanently banned:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/should-ice-take-longer-to-melt-when-used-to-run-a-heat-engine.991714/

I like the promise from GAIA to make information about this technology (KPP) "open source" and to publish it all for "everyone on the internet", unfortunately that doesn't seem to have happened.

kPP (Crowley) via email, more or less suggested I might be able to obtain a small boyancy engine to be installed on my land in NY, USA, but that this would necessitate my signing an NDA.

I told him I would not put a gag order on my own freedom of speach just so I could find out what I already know.

BTW, he denies my thermal explaination, attributing the power output to the special generator.

There is an ongoing (sort of) thread on the Stirling engine forum about this business, but there isn't much activity of late, with no moderation, spam, and no actual https connection, few dare frequent the place anymore.

Nevertheless:

https://stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=6377&sid=2e9685e0026a6a371f5fc52e2f133567

What this looks like to me is you have air being used as a refrigerant.

Instead of a continuous pipe or coil of tubing for an evaporator however, the refrigerant is expanded through a valve into discrete canisters.

The continual compression, cooling, and release of air maintains the COLD in the tank into which the surounding ambient heat can transfer.

As heat transfers into the expanding cold air it increases in boyancy so as to be able to do "work" that runs the generator which runs the compressor which acts to compress air to temporarily remove heat so that when the air expands the COLD condition is maintained so that ambient heat/energy continues to flow into the system.

EVERYTHING about the system, once up and running, is driven by "bouyancy" that is maintained due to the influx of the surrounding ambient heat.

The process is largely isothermal. That is, without apparent deviation in temperature.

Think of it as running your refrigerator with the door open. The canisters are filled with air that WOULD get cold, like an ice box, but the water it is released into constitutes such a huge thermal mass, no appreciable cold is generated and the tall tank has so much surface area for heat absorption any slight thermal deviations could easily go unnoticed, so the secret is safe.

TomBooth schrieb:Unfortunately I've been unceremoniously banned from the majority of the online physics forums.

Already pretty much clear to me, why.

Poipoi schrieb:What do you think about how many Kelvin "heat exchange" are we talking when the energy gain of the bubble machine is supposed to be 1:6?

I'm not all that concerned about the specific details.

The question is, in my view, can this type of engine even operate, even if powering ONLY itself, AT ALL?

That alone is supposed to be "impossible" and a violation of physical "LAW". Right?

In the end, it may have no practical value other than a curiosity, like the "drinking bird" novelty item. Personally I'm just curious.

I do wonder, however, what prompts people like yourself (apparently), to put so much effort into shutting down conversation on the topic.

So far in my search, I see no evidence that this line of inquiry has been adequately, or even inadequately addressed, on this forum, or any other that I'm aware of for that matter. I think if you really wanted to be helpful and were actually speaking the truth, you would provide a link to some such in depth discussion that has taken place here.

So far I see little more than scheming up various ways of exposing the "fraud".

Hardly an objective "Scientific" unbiased inquiry.

I don't assume that the contraption actually works, or that it doesn't.

That a Stirling heat engine could run on the COLD produced from previously compressed expanding air is, however, a given.

Or rather, the engine would actually be running on the surrounding ambient heat, but that is only a technical point of fact.

Here is a brief experiment/demonstration:

Stirling Engine running on "COLD" from expanding "air".

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

Now, can the little engine harvest enough "ambient energy" to re-compress the air and put it back into the can to start the process over?

doubtful. But I wouldn't automatically write it off as "impossible" necessarily.

Poipoi schrieb:TomBooth schrieb:
Unfortunately I've been unceremoniously banned from the majority of the online physics forums.

Already pretty much clear to me, why.

Maybe because, as an independent researcher, I think for myself rather than automaticaly accepting some "scientific" dictum or pronouncement from on high, from someone positioning themselves as, or posing as an "authority" on some subject, where it turns out, with a little thought, the so-called natural "LAW" turns out to be nothing more than a personal prejudice, opinion or bias with no empirical basis that does not stand up to testing.

This is a prime example:

califix schrieb:The most significant thermal effect happens in the compressor and the result is a loss of energy. This lost energy can under no circumstances be "recycled" or "reused".

So again; why not?

That when a gas is compressed and cooled. much heat/energy is lost is a known fact, provable experimentally.

However, it is also a known fact, that can be proven experimentally that when the gas is released the heat returns to it "automatically" or naturally without further effort or expenditure of work on our part.

The heat, as is accomplished with a compressor in a heat pump, has not been "lost" irretrievably, it has simply been MOVED from where it was a hinderence to compression, during the compression process, to where it becomes a source of work or additional "free energy" during the expansion process, actively and positively contributing to the bouyancy of the canisters and participating in power generation.

The self proclaimed authoratative "scientific" types obviously do not appreciate it when their supposed "LAWS" of so-called "science" are logically dismantled and so easily refuted.

I expect REAL SCIENCE from people posing as real scientists trying to dictate to the world exactly what is or is not possible without any sound scientific basis.

Your pronouncement here, is quite obviously wrong, and has no sound scientific basis or foundation in fact.

Poipoi schrieb:...This lost energy can under no circumstances be "recycled" or "reused"..

Does it?

You don't seem to be ignorant or uneducated. Presenting yourself here as a science authority, you should know something about gas behavior and heat pumps and such. So why proclaim such a thing which is so obviously NOT TRUE?

The fact is, the heat DOES return to the gas, INSIDE the bouyancy canisters once it is released. That heat returns from the surounding ambient environment.

This is not only NOT impossible, that the heat is "recycled" is INEVITABLE!

Sorry if pointing that out is inconvenient or contrary to the narative, but I'm interested in actual facts, as I imagine most others looking into this topic should be as well.

TomBooth schrieb:Maybe because, as an independent researcher, I think for myself rather than automaticaly accepting some "scientific" dictum or pronouncement from on high, from someone positioning themselves as, or posing as an "authority" on some subject, where it turns out, with a little thought, the so-called natural "LAW" turns out to be nothing more than a personal prejudice, opinion or bias with no empirical basis that does not stand up to testing.

So far, the conservation of energy has an empirical basis. Billions of experiments, no violation so far. Show me one experiment that violates that.

Do you think that - under identical circumstances - an experiment performed today will yield the same result as performed one week ago or a year in the future? If no, how comes and/or do you have a practical example? You see where I'm going?

Regards
Omega Minus

OmegaMinus schrieb:Show me one experiment that violates that.

Hier! Ich! Ich!

Fan des Perpetuum mobile? 🤯

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

SpoilerIch Du weißt das mein Text nur ein Joke war und ich nicht an den Quatsch glaube. :)

OmegaMinus schrieb:So far, the conservation of energy has an empirical basis. Billions of experiments, no violation so far. Show me one experiment that violates that....

A "straw man" argument.

Do you believe that a HEAT PUMP violates the law of conservation of energy by MOVING more energy (in the form of joules of heat) than it consumes?

TomBooth schrieb:A "straw man" argument.

Do you believe that a HEAT PUMP violates the law of conservation of energy by MOVING more energy (in the form of joules of heat) than it consumes?

No, where did I say that!? Did I make any reference to a heat pump?

Regards
Omega Minus

TomBooth schrieb:Do you believe that a HEAT PUMP violates the law of conservation of energy by MOVING more energy (in the form of joules of heat) than it consumes?

A heat pump doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy. It uses electrical energy to extract heat from a medium, such as air or water. It "pumps" this heat from location A to location B. Your refrigerator is a good example of this. Heat is extracted from the interior of the refrigerator and released into the room, and this is done by adding electrical energy. Energy neither disappears nor is created out of thin air.

OmegaMinus schrieb:TomBooth schrieb:
A "straw man" argument.

Do you believe that a HEAT PUMP violates the law of conservation of energy by MOVING more energy (in the form of joules of heat) than it consumes?
No, where did I say that!? Did I make any reference to a heat pump?

I didn't make any reference to "conservation of energy".

I'm in no way attempting to refute the "LAW" of conservation of energy.

There are a lot of actual or sometimes pretended scientific "LAWS". I was speaking in general terms, but specifically, I was refering to this argument:

The most significant thermal effect happens in the compressor and the result is a loss of energy. This lost energy can under no circumstances be "recycled" or "reused".
The "Auftriebskraftwerk" is a scam, nothing else.

Use of the phrase "under no circumstances" suggests or implies some irrefutable scientific or natural LAW at work.