Stirlingengineforum.com

.

Tommy wrote:Running very fast, too many lost bubbles.

I don't see how anyone can get anything conclusive or comprehensive out of that video.

.

At 5.49 bar (or about 80 psi) the machine in the previous video only produced 55 watts (according to a summary, in english at the very end of the video).

I assume the big metal box-like think in the background was the compressor.

Obviously, there is no way that big compressor is running on the 55 watts output from the buoyancy engine, so I assume that was only a "test" to get an idea of the potential output but nowhere near "self running". The compressor must have been plugged into the wall.

Though, obviously the compressor was overkill and the little generator was not putting enough load on the buoyancy engine and probably incapable of putting out more than 55 watts.

Maybe there is a followup video.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:20 am ...
I don't see you building one, testing one, visiting one, or investing in one. Why? Most likely because you think it's more likely to be a scam than not. Me too.

I've only just heard about KPP when Matt posted something, just a few days ago. Flooid, just a few days before that. Don't be an idiot.

Oh well, I guess you can't help that. Sorry.

No, I don't think it is a scam at this point.

Too many people involved, dozens of business partners, apparently several working installations, all very transparent and ongoing for 10+ years.

They are facing enormous obstacles in the form of lunatic ass holes (like you) who don't believe it is possible working overtime to drive away any potential customers, backers, investors or other potential revenue streams to get the enterprise rolling.

If it were a scam, I don't see how these people manage to avoid lawsuits and prosecution and negative reviews from dissatisfied customers or investors.

All there are, as far as I can see so far is totally bogus smear campaigns with obviously manufactured "evidence" that has no credibility.

Also, I have personally been the victim of the same kind of unjust smears and character assassination from you and others on a daily basis for years now, so I know full well the kind of low life, unscrupulous, unethical scum they are up against.

.

And you still have nothing functional except some basic Stirling Engines.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 1:46 pm .

And you still have nothing functional except some basic Stirling Engines.

.

This IS a Stirling engine forum TROLL.

Your problem is your stuck in 1820 with your Carnot water wheel theories about how a Stirling engine operates and just can't accept that those theories are outdated and obsolete.

I'm not doing anything but researching, investigating and experimenting to find out how a "basic" Stirling engine ACTUALLY operates because the old theories are inadequate and are incompetent to explain observable modern Stirling engine behavior and clear experimental results.

You just can't fathom how your little bubble of 1820's understanding could be incomplete or inaccurate in any way.

Your a lunatic and a fanatic.

.

Tommy wrote:This IS a Stirling engine forum TROLL.

Grow up. Your problem is that you haven't even built or got operational a Stirling Engine even as well built or efficient as the original Stirling brothers engine of 1827. Or even earlier their 1818 2 hp engine.

One day you will, perhaps, learn great respect for those that came before you, even if they were sometimes in error.

Until then you are a mere beginner, and an arrogant, erroneous fool.

.

.

https://www.quora.com/Which-perpetual-m ... -to-debunk

Which “perpetual” motion machine fooled many people at the time of its invention?

Most “perpetual” motion machines fool a lot of people, because the average person does not understand physics, and because most people could not state outrageous lies without feeling guilty. So they can’t imagine anyone else being willing and able to lie outrageously and consistently.

......

.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:03 pm
No, I don't think it is a scam at this point.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Marcello Truzzi

made popular via Carl Sagan mod "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"


Consider the basic scheme from Stanford review and let's ignore 2 buckets at top and 2 buckets at bottom, so we have 10 buckets on each side. Note that each bucket is 100 L and we're assuming ideal everything...

10x 100 L buckets in 10m up side
…50 L 2 bar air at bottom displaces 50 Kg water
…but 100 L 1 bar air at top displaces 100 Kg water

Therefore, the AVERAGE bucket displacement on up side is 75Kg and 10x equals 750 Kg total weight variation between up side and down side (or over 1600 lbs)



Stanford review lists 3 Kw up force (buoyancy) vs 11.5 Kw claimed output, so let’s just say that the claimed output is 4x old world science before reduced slightly by generator/etc inefficiencies.

Obviously, this Stanford ME can’t sum buoyancy…regardless of actual bucket weight, if up side is 1/4 total output then down side must be 3/4 total output. Any fuzzy issue of bucket weight vs bucket displacement (bucket vs water density) cross cancels when everything is under water. This is not like the boat riddle.

Here's some ways to test this scam

(1) disconnect generator and this sucker would probably topple over in a heartbeat even at old world output

(2) have acrylic section around entire top (minimal pressure there) and watch for violent air exhaust as seen in most Rusky models (plenty of youtube videos but you’ll need to drop in by luck unless you know Russian)

(3) scan that compressor tank which could hide massive battery more than ancillary engine

(4) try to run this joke for a week with Fool guarding it (should be #1)

If this was 2 tubes like flooid then heating up side appears genius, but a little math will prove that both isothermal and isobaric heating during rise are heavily constrained. BTW it appears KPP scheme has 24m 'stroke' not 30m stroke, so it generates far less lift than Stanford review. The thing that gets me is that simple math exposes the down side 'sinking' force must be 3x the up side 'floating' force, and this would require a lot of 'micro-bubbles' (lol). Adding solar input and Proell effect is bogus buzz like adding Stirling engine and relativity or whatever to this voodoo.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:03 pm Too many people involved, dozens of business partners, apparently several working installations, all very transparent and ongoing for 10+ years.

Apply some simple logic...if any of these scams actually worked then we'd all know it and they wouldn't drag on for years. The funniest part is that there's copycats 'afloat' vs singular bozo.

Kinda reminds me of 'google eyes' from Theranos (Elizabeth Holmes) and her crazy scam...

matt brown wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 4:39 pm ....

Apply some simple logic...if any of these scams actually worked then we'd all know it and they wouldn't drag on for years....

On the contrary.

IMO, if it was a scam, it would be headlines all over the world almost immediately. All parties involved would be ushered straight to prison.

However, if genuine, powerful, entrenched established corporate and government factions could effectively suppress it with vague, baseless smear campaigns, financial blockades, media blackout, harassment and intimidation, etc. etc. as IS clearly being done..

That these people no doubt, from what I see, invested $$$$Millions$$$$ in R&D, educational campaigns and demonstration units and facilities, such as these:

https://youtu.be/3IdNow8vZdg

Scams do not construct permanent installations as demonstrations, for any and all to observe and inspect, that could not have cost less than millions to construct, state their names and video record themselves displaying the scam, then go back to their office.

They don't have brick and mortar offices, warehouses, etc.

They are fly-by-nights, here today, gone tomorrow.

You and Fool, IMO are obviously part of the ongoing suppression trying to convince everyone this technology is a "scam".

99.99% of people who learn about such things will automatically think it is a scam without any help or influence from you and Fool or other operatives.

Anyone with enough money to invest would also have the money to sue them into oblivion and have them criminally prosecuted.

But all I see is completely bogus smear campaigns alleging obviously non-existent power cables through non-existent holes in the obviously sound cinder block.

The only reason these people still exist at all is it is no longer fashionable to murder inventors outright.

.

Tommy wrote:99.99% of people who learn about such things will automatically think it is a scam without any help or influence from you and Fool or other operatives.

That still leaves 820,000 misdirected believers in the world, 1 for every 10,000. Or 0.82 million people I'm guessing you pulled that number out of the stinky hole you have.

The biggest problem with your immature lame erroneous conspiracy theory is that men like Matt and myself don't care whether it is a scam or not. You people that give it any credit at all are welcome to spend your money any way you choose, or jump on any bandwagon you desire. You all get what you deserve.

Being able to recognize a scam or not is one of the benefits of science. Science is much more reliable than law and evidence.

Scientist look at comprehensive data called scientific facts. Something many self claimed and diploma certified people don't get, the difference between scientific data, historical data, and evidence. Hint, evidence is cherry picked data. Historical facts can't be repeated. Scientific fact and logical proof can be, and from many different viewpoints.

Your viewpoint is just one. The biggest misleading person in one's own life is themselves.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 8:17 pm .

Tommy wrote:99.99% of people who learn about such things will automatically think it is a scam without any help or influence from you and Fool or other operatives.

That still leaves 820,000 misdirected believers in the world, 1 for every 10,000. Or 0.82 million people I'm guessing you pulled that number out of the stinky hole you have.

The biggest problem with your immature lame erroneous conspiracy theory is that men like Matt and myself don't care whether it is a scam or not. You people that give it any credit at all are welcome to spend your money any way you choose, or jump on any bandwagon you desire. You all get what you deserve.

Being able to recognize a scam or not is one of the benefits of science. Science is much more reliable than law and evidence.

Scientist look at comprehensive data called scientific facts. Something many self claimed and diploma certified people don't get, the difference between scientific data, historical data, and evidence. Hint, evidence is cherry picked data. Historical facts can't be repeated. Scientific fact and logical proof can be, and from many different viewpoints.

Your viewpoint is just one. The biggest misleading person in one's own life is themselves.

.

Apparently the systems are available on a lease basis.

I don't think leasing would be a viable business model for a scam.
They also have Power purchase agreements. So you fon't pay for the system/tower just the power they sell.

I'm a little confused as to how such an arrangement could possibly work using a system that doesn't produce any actual power.

I guess, if someone tried to arrange such a "pay-as-you-go" energy lease they would try to do some bait and switch, but how long could they possibly keep that up?

Anyway, out of morbid curiosity I tried locating the demo plant on Google Earth.

Turned out to not be too difficult:

https://youtu.be/44UF_qCPrs4

.

Matt, well said.

Matt Brown wrote:Here's some ways to test this scam

Have you looked into the amount of torque needed to produce the claimed power? Hint: Big or small, they all must turn slowly, or around 7 rpm. LOL. Even at 500 Watts it will be excessive.

Any faster and viscous drag will kill the process. You know V^2. LOL.

.

.

You'd think if it is a heat engine, the compressed air could be used directly to move the turbine.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aibQIDY3rMo

Heat the turbine wheel up in the sun, or such. A 'super efficient compressor and heat pump', would benefit any engine. Get rid of the water tower.

.

.

Tom, do you really believe that these two tower schemes are in some way similar to the drinking bird?

Explain how the drinking bird requires two temperatures, is evacuated, mass over centers. Has nothing to do with bouyancy? The drinking bird ultimately depends on solar heat, and shade to operate.

These two were making claims that no input was necessary. Both claim buoyancy processes.

The bird is a heat engine. These two claim not to be.

.