Air Lift Turbine Generator

[Tom Booth]

.

For the record, I need to join Mooker to be band from it.

Not necessarily. Since your working out of a shill mill, likely you've already been banned from the new Stirlingenginebuilders site, as reflected in your protest;

viewtopic.php?p=27150#p27150

I'm still waiting for the world to move forward. How is your buoyancy power plant coming along?

The technology in general appears to be moving forward.

https://youtu.be/3IdNow8vZdg

That is a very beautiful, idyllic installation, set up for up-close examination by interested parties, as has also been true of the several other installations that have been made available to various expert researchers, investigators and skeptics alike.

In all these years no one actually making such a detailed examination has found any "hidden power source", and all have come away convinced of the authenticity of the technology, "it works" and have documented as much.

I've also reviewed the various slanderous accusations from armchair skeptics such as yourself, claiming such things as hidden cables through concrete walls based on second hand photos. These have all turned out to be completely baseless.

Hopefully they will succeed in spite of the numerous vile attacks and roadblocks from the likes of turd balls such as yourself.

IMO you and your kind are pure evil and pure scum and I'd say the same regarding anyone choosing to associate themselves with you.

[Fool]

.

Not necessarily. Since your working out of a shill mill, likely you've already been banned from the new Stirlingenginebuilders site, as reflected in your protest;

Not true. A complete lie on your side. You fail to understand the difference between a simple suggestion, and a protest. I don't care what you do on your site. To protest one needs to care, I don't. I've been accepted to every site I've applied. Your problem is internal. You've been banned for being mean, more than once. How many times is it now 5, 8, 10, more? I'm still here.

Not in a shill mill either. Whatever that is. I can only guess, or look it up. Who's paying you to be here?

Your problem with failure to see the scams put forth in this thread is because you get all your supporting evidence from the scammers and their website. If they really did work, a nobel prize would be in order. They don't, so no interest by qualified scientists.

All of the simple analysis refutes their claim. Nothing adds up. Lying websites is the only explanation that adds up.

If it really worked they would be here defending their claims. They aren't. Staying silent in this case here is very telling. Telling that they have no viable claim. A scam.

I'm still waiting for Tommy's buoyancy demo. Your syphon demo proved the syphon scams to be scams. I'm waiting for you to follow through in your own way on this one. Still waiting.

.

[Tom Booth]

....

If it really worked they would be here defending their claims. ...

That is a ridiculous assumption.

If it works, they would be far too busy for such nonsense. They have no need to prove anything to idiots like you.

Do you think the president of General Motors would come here to defend the auto industry if you thought cars didn't exist?

No, they have been busy installing power plants all over the world, they don't need to prove anything to you.

[Fool]

.

So now you are equating scammers with the president of GM. What a loser.

Try again.

All over the world??? Tyland, Russia??? Is that what you equate to "all the World". I can't even verify those claims.

Grow up. You are getting worse.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

So now you are equating scammers with the president of GM. What a loser.

Try again.

All over the world??? Tyland, Russia??? Is that what you equate to "all the World". I can't even verify those claims.

Grow up. You are getting worse.

.

Well, at this point I think it comes down to who you choose to believe based on intuition and personal experience.

In my experience in dealing with people, the Roche AG company people seem like no nonsense down to earth business / industrial engineer type construction / manufacturing workers who appear quite personable and jovial and for the most part, completely transparent as far as allowing inspection of their device and the various known, existent installations. People involved have said installations have been going in since 2014.

Even critics have tracked or compiled lists of the various "alleged" installations around the world, and I don't see anyone complaining the product/company did not deliver what was advertised.

On top of all that, from my own research and experiments with Stirling engines I think there is valid theoretical basis for entertaining the possibility of such a device working as a type of thermal engine. Thermodynamics is IMO, incomplete or wrong and does not explain the results of my own experiments.

So, overall, weighing everything in the balance, my choice is to give these people the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I would rather be an idealistic dreamer with a vision for a.better world who turned out to be wrong, than a cynical prick who turned out to be right.

I don't think you are right. I think you are a cynical prick and the kind of piece of shit who habitually destroys the aspirations of good, well meaning people out of some deep viciousness.

The guy in this video enthusiastically displaying this idyllic little paradise on earth appears to be an honest person, hopeful that others .might take an interest in the potential world changing power of this incredible "free energy" technology.

He doesn't look like any huckster or scam artist to me.

I think only some people with a real belief and a real hope and vision could put something so beautiful into operation in this "fallen" world.

https://youtu.be/3IdNow8vZdg

Furthermore, I know something about manufacturing custom parts for such machinery and equipment.

Just tooling up a plant or factory to manufacture one part could cost more than you or I could make in a lifetime.

From what I see, these machines are well along in the production stage, not some 3D printed prototype or toy. That bad to have cost millions.

A company that can do that does not mess around spending that kind of money on something that doesn't work. They do their own due diligence.

So, with all that, I'm willing to spend a little time building a small model to see if my theory of how it might work holds water.

And BTW, I do not consider that other siphoning experiment "proof" or conclusive of anything. It actually almost worked even though my milk jug collapsed from the vacuum generated. It might work with a stronger container that can stand up to such a strong vacuum/pressure I simply haven't had the time to run another experiment with a proper rigid container.

[Fool]

.

I stive not to believe. I rely on science. Science is about reliability. What is science? It is pure and applied mathematics. Scientific results are not altered by dogma or belief. Dogma.sometimes alters belief.

I respect your building of engines, regardless of outcome. Makers are cool.

Your siphon experiment failed. Almost working by any scientific venture is failure. However it didn't fail because the jug collapsed, that was just an unwanted side effect. It failed because a siphon only works if the output is lower than the input. Water won't run up hill regardless of how many volumes and tubes are placed in between. I learned this at home when I was highschool aged, and experimenting with capillary tubes. Capillary tubes don't help either It is too bad you didn't switch to a mason jar, or glass gallon jug, or even a five gallon bucket. It doesn't matter if your siphon tube is all one size or gets larger and smaller. A half filled jug in the middle is just a larger tube with air bubbles.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

I stive not to believe. I rely on science. Science is about reliability. What is science? It is pure and applied mathematics. Scientific results are not altered by dogma or belief. Dogma.sometimes alters belief.

I respect your building of engines, regardless of outcome. Makers are cool.

Your siphon experiment failed. Almost working by any scientific venture is failure. However it didn't fail because the jug collapsed, that was just an unwanted side effect. It failed because a siphon only works if the output is lower than the input. Water won't run up hill regardless of how many volumes and tubes are placed in between. I learned this at home when I was highschool aged, and experimenting with capillary tubes. Capillary tubes don't help either It is too bad you didn't switch to a mason jar, or glass gallon jug, or even a five gallon bucket. It doesn't matter if your siphon tube is all one size or gets larger and smaller. A half filled jug in the middle is just a larger tube with air bubbles.

.

Well, you've voiced your opinions, but that is all that is. Opinions.

You very much BELIEVE your own opinions expressed above. Calling your opinions and beliefs "science", does not make it science or make it true.

Science is objective, impartial and does not make assumptions based on past theory or past experiments or past anything.

Science is about .making observations in the present. Conditions change. What works today may not work tomorrow, why? Barometric pressure, temperature, who knows.

Science is about watching and observing and figuring out what happens and why, usually because nobody knows.

You assume you already know everything and that your beliefs and opinions constitute solid science.

You're idea of science is nothing more than prejudice and judgmentalism.

People demonstrating the siphon pump make various claims about it. One of those claims is that a rigid container that does not collapse from the vacuum is necessary.

You think that everyone who does not agree with you is ipso facto a liar. That is not how science is conducted.

If you want to observe a phenomenon you need to do so by replicating the conditions under which the phenomenon has been reported and reproduce the same conditions under which the phenomenon was observed.

In the case of my siphon pump replication experiment, I failed to do that. I did not use a rigid container as many people had specified. It was not a true replication and therefore objectively invalid. My container was obviously not strong enough to withstand the vacuum, but I did see the water level, indeed, rise up in the siphon tube well above the water level in the jug by several inches. It appeared the water could have started running back into the jug if the return opening was not so high up in the lid of the jug.

That remains to be seen.

You think the dozen or so YouTubers making such videos and claiming it does work are all fraudsters and liars like everything that you see that does not fit into your rather limited and boring world view. Such a fake "science" will never make any progress.

I simply reserve judgement and try make certain to do a proper experiment before drawing any conclusions or calling what may be innocent people liars. That is not how objective, impartial experiments are carried out.

You have no idea why it may work under some conditions and not others. Maybe the pond water was cold and the siphon tank warm from sitting in the sun causing a slight pressure difference you did not account for, or maybe the opposite.

I have no stake in the outcome, I'm just curious. Maybe there is something to it, or maybe people just have a pump in the pond. Regardless, to me such an investigation is interesting and fun and who am I to call anyone liar or a fraud just because they say they saw something I didn't see or produced an effect I've never produced myself.

Maybe you think I look silly for doing any such experiment you have pre-judged to be impossible.

I think it is silly not to do the experiment and possibly miss out on something amazing.

To do a half assed so-called experiment just to prove yourself right in your skepticism and preconceived beliefs, doubts and opinions is not a fair test of anything and is no actual science at all

[Fool]

.

Looking silly doing scientific experiments is what science is about. You will get ridiculed for it. Get used to it. At least if doing a silly experiment the scientific way, it will be, comprehensive , well, investigated, instrumented, and documented.

If not the person takes the ridicule personally. A bad move for real scientists. Let others draw their own conclusions. Driving home a conclusion is philosophy, religion, or dogma. Often the latter.

Listening to you tell me, an educated scientist, how science works is about as laughable as listening to monkeys type. Tic..... Tic.....tic.tic.tic......tic tic. All noise no sustenance. The more you talk the worse you sound.

This thread has been turned into another one of your free energy fantasies. Good luck with that.

When you finally learn some of what I know, you will understand the difference between scepticism and scientific scepticism. It is the first clue to being a scientist. Wild guessing doesn't count. Science enables us the shortcut of not needing to test everything. It drives us to question or challenge all dogma.

.

[Tom Booth]

Listening to you tell me, an educated scientist, how science works is about as laughable as listening to monkeys type. Tic..... Tic.....tic.tic.tic......tic tic. ...

Being indoctrinated in "established science" or an instructor of the same and maintaining the status quo is not the practice of the scientific method, which more often than not is mold breaking and challenging to the status quo.

Unfortunately establishment "known science" education is often the antithesis of true science.

Science education is only the history of past "best guesses" models or theories about what is really going on under the hood.

For you "science" is written in stone.

Real science is continual revolution.

[Fool]

.

Tic... Tic... Tic.. all noise. No sustenance. You are accusing a scientist of learning nowhere but in the classroom. Every scientist worth his education knows that learning is done outside the classroom. Education just starts the learning process. You have not even started. You don't even know how to learn. Hint it is not wild guessing and looking with uneducated eyes. The biggest fallacy over at Mooker is the blindness of the experimenters. You can observe their troubles everytime they say, 'I don't know why?'. I wish I could help, but they are underneath 4 to 30 years of education and lab work, that would be necessary for any help.

Science is never etched in stone. Dogma is etched in stone, as in you keep clinging to your own stones, narcissistically. Good luck with that feel good diversion.

You keep sending vitriol. I keep explaining how you are wrong using scone and logic against your fallacy.

.

[Tom Booth]

Fool, you are a bothersome troll.

My wife and I are currently negotiating a potential KPP demonstration plant on our "People's Research Center" property here in NY

Some clips:

Dear Tom

Thanks for getting back. The 1 MW minimum plant size is a commercial strategy, not a technological constraint. With the various fixed costs inherent in any project, the per installed kW cost is significantly higher for smaller plants, and we’re not convinced about the commercial potential at the lower end. The 100 kW facility in Thailand was always designed as a prototype, and using it solely to meet the load of Rosch’s own technology park got around permitting and other regulatory issues. Indeed, Rosch is not keen to produce 100 kW generators at all, though limited inventory remains.

However, none of the above prevents discussion on the matter, and your point about the value of a demonstration plant is well-taken...

... there are no standard terms and conditions for a 100 kW facility, but I’ll discuss it with the CEO and see what he thinks. In principle, we are obviously delighted to work with early adopters to make projects feasible.

As you know from my public statements on related issues, I’m a keen supporter of decentralized electricity production, so I’ll be happy to devote a bit of time to this...

...Having a toe in the US might be helpful to us in terms of raising capital, and our units would in principle be very compatible with what you describe,...

...I’ll be happy to discuss any ideas you may have for a project."

_____________

Assuming that this technology is real and actually works, contrary to so much of the skepticism, we would like to make this land available for a demonstration installation that could be open to the public for viewing and inspection as a way to help promote the technology here in the U.S.

... it is the sort of thing this land was originally obtained for years ago, alternative energy type research and demonstrations, wind, solar, etc but nothing much going on there currently other than growing some garlic and vegetables for our farmers market in the village.
...
The village of Fort Plain is something of an off the beaten path "historic village" tourist attraction. Our building is located at a fairly busy intersection. A demonstration there would have more public exposure and is also adjacent the interstate highway.

The installation in Thailand there is certainly idyllic.

As I said, financially we are really in no position at this time to outright purchase a large power plant but if another small demonstration of the technology was of any interest or benefit about all we might be able to do is make the space or land/properties we have available and maybe assist in exhibiting the facilities to visitors and tourists and/or potential investors/buyers.

Thanks,

Tom.
__________________________


Dear Tom

Apologies for being slow to get back to you – and thanks again for your interest in the KPP.

First, I’d like to clarify where I stand with respect to this technology. I’m a shareholder in Ki-Tech, which is the distributor (the only one at this stage) of the KPP and longstanding strategic partner of Rosch. I therefore know Rosch (company, people, technology) pretty well, but am not directly connected to them.

Rosch conducts some projects on its own account, but the commercial development of the KPP is in practice largely – indeed almost exclusively – in the hands of Ki-Tech. We have several projects at the feasibility or pre-feasibility stage, and a queue of interested prospects, but full commercial viability is still a challenge. The reason is simple: people are suspicious of a radically new technology, and everyone wants to be the second customer, not the first.

Why the suspicion?

Because there’s no full public information on how a KPP works, and in particular no patent.
...

The technology, while clever and innovative, would not be too hard to copy, and patents provide only limited legal protection in the real world.

Obtaining a patent for anything resembling a “perpetual motion” machine – as the KPP is often accused of being – requires provision at the application stage of a full working prototype, which means making everything open prior to patent protection.

Rosch has attracted some pretty vicious criticism in the past, especially in Austria and Germany, and is understandably sensitive.
...
Best regards

If they would like to install a demonstration plant here, we have several acres at a few different locations not being used.

That they might bring a 100 kw unit over from Germany or wherever and stick it in the ground here seems unlikely but who knows?

[Fool]

.

I wish it, and you well, and that successful.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

I wish it, and you well, and that successful.

.

Fuck you you stupid prick

[Fool]

.

Good luck with that.

.

[Hairyloon]

This looks quite a lot like some ideas that were floated in heat not too long ago using towers to generate pressure differentials, VincentG I think?

If I'm interpreting this right, it looks basically like an air-lift pump in one column of fluid causes the liquid in the left columb to be lighter, due to being full of air bubbles.

The weight of the all-fluid columb is greater than the fluid-gas bubble (air-lift pump) side causing a circulation at the bottom between the two columns or "towers" that can drive a turbine.

The gas from the air lift side is simply recirculated back down to the bottom of the tower.

Apparently the air-lift side fluid is also solar or waste heat heated which causes the bubbles to expand as they travel upward allowing a net energy output.

https://flooidpower.com/the-flooid-towe ... le-energy/

You may all have solved this by now, but I'm not wading through the bickering to find out.
So, is it real or is it perpetual motion?
We can see thermal energy going in, but the mechanism by which it is converted is not clear.
We can also see work going in, in the form of compressed air...

As you have already observed, for a heat engine to work, there has to be cooling within the cycle: taking hot air from the top and injecting cold air in the bottom is not part of the cycle, so the explanation as given is simple nonsense.

I can imagine that the bubbles expand from the reduction in pressure as they rise, which has a cooling effect, and thus thermal energy is converted into kinetic energy, but I am not instinctively convinced.
Does someone want to do the sums? The relevant equations are eluding me for the moment...