And it turns!

[Christophe]

A word of advice: don't get into Mikhail's game ...

Hey Mikhail, where is your petroperpetuleum proto?

[stef5555]

A word of advice: don't get into Mikhail's game ...

Hey Mikhail, where is your petroperpetuleum proto?

Me personally it's been a long time since I zapped it but it doesn't prevent it is very strong he managed to convince at least several tens of millions of people that it does not work

mikhail in a while you will have conquered the whole planet that it does not work, strongly that we can communicate with other planets ........... so that you stop getting drunk

ps without being too vulgar, that someone build it his thing and make him eat until he has indigestion

[Hydraxon]

Note that if he offered € 100 to anyone who denies his mantage, I'm sure we would easily find a university physics teacher who would take the trouble to find the mistake.

In fact, no Mikhail, you did not take into account this matter of pressure: the springs will not return as much energy because depending on the depth, the potential energy for the same position is no longer the same, the balance position of the evolving springs.

[Remundo]

I add that in incompressible water, by calling z the depth compared to the free surface (Patm)

P = Patm + ro gz

with ro = 1000 kg / m3 and g = 9,81 m / s² and Patm = 100 Pa

So that we take about 1 bar every 10 m

The pressure increases and at the bottom of the water, the energy to increase the volume of the floats is indeed greater than at the surface ...

[marcel]

In fact, no Mikhail, you did not take into account this matter of pressure: the springs will not return as much energy because depending on the depth, the potential energy for the same position is no longer the same, the balance position of the evolving springs.

No Hydraxon, Mikhail's calculations are correct. And that's what puzzles a lot of people. Him too, no doubt. He took into consideration everything that needed to be taken. What shits about his demonstration is that he does calculations at a standstill to show that the machine is moving. So this is a false problem.

When stationary, a spring is compressed because the mass weighing on it pushes it down and on the other side of the spring there is a reaction force which resists. Once he shows that the spring compresses when stationary, he explains to you that the machine is able to move. But no, since it is at a standstill. It is simply a syllogism.

So you will tell me, what happens if the machine moves? Well push on a spring mounted on the back of a skateboard. Does it compress? No, only the friction (resistance) allows a slight compression of the spring and the whole board moves forward. To be able to compress the spring, you have to block the board against a wall or other ... and therefore it does not advance!
So there is not even a need for a physics or calculations teacher, it is enough to see that the statement of the problem is badly done. You can only compress a spring if you exert a force on either side of it. Action - reaction of the support.
Leaky support = no compression

Open your eyes to your calculating machines, you will not find anything wrong with the calculations. No calculator has ever solved a problem, only logic allows it.

Ps for Christophe: don't be worried about me, I'm vaccinated !!

[Hydraxon]

We could add an actuator which would be responsible for causing movement in the phases when the system must receive energy, and operate as a dynamo when it must.

But do not tell me that the calculations are correct when he makes rough approximations like considering that the wall of the mobile is at constant depth while the mobile expands.

[Mikhail]

So you will tell me, what happens if the machine moves? Well push on a spring mounted on the back of a skateboard. Does it compress? No, only the friction (resistance) allows a slight compression of the spring and the whole board moves forward. To be able to compress the spring, you have to block the board against a wall or other ... and therefore it does not advance!

Say Marcel, why a boat, when it sinks, is crushed by the pressure of the water from the bottom, yet it is not blocked "against a wall or other ... and therefore it does not move forward !"
You don't try to understand how it works, you desperately try to demonstrate that it won't work, but you barely manage to demonstrate your limits of reasoning.

[Hydraxon]

Here, I just found a good one. At the bottom of the page, he considers gravity and Archimedes' force for his float which weighs 10kg ... While the mass is 110kg, the 10 resulting from the fact that he assumes that he can treat as a mass of 10kg a mass of 110kg to which an Archimedean thrust of 100kg * g is applied.

[marcel]

Ah! Ah Ah! I don't care whether it works or not, it's not my machine!
Come on hey guys, it was a little playtime ... i have other stuff to do, kind of machines out there that actually provide power.
Mikhail, at no time do you explain that it is the pressure at the bottom which compresses the spring, you say that it is the mass which presses on it and in addition you choose the float the highest ... to simplify the calculations. what I am explaining has nothing to do with pressure but with the inertia of a system. The spring is supposed to work in a moving system, we can't pretend there is no movement, it's stupid as a cabbage.

for Hydraxon, yes there are some approximations ... But no time to deal with it.

So good night
Always so funny the discussions with master perpetrator.

[gegyx]