Ultimate energy source

[eagle1462010]

"We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.

Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure
Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure
What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure

The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure. And the reverse holds true too.
-

Which requires more energy to pump the air down there............You gain nothing.

 

[watchingfromafar]

My revised version; I will be back to discuss

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My revised version; I will be back to discuss

Sea water in square feet?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Sea water in square feet?

This is a means to calculate water volume. Ok, I get it, I should have said cubic feet

 

[JoeMoma]

Sea water in square feet?

This is a means to calculate water volume. Ok, I get it, I should have said cubic feet

1. At sea level, the ambient air pressure is 1 atmosphere. So at 33 feet deep, the balloon will be at 2 Atmosphere's pressure. At 66 feet deep it will be 3 Atmosphere's pressure and so on.
2. Your force numbers are not really foot lbs, they are simply lbs. If a 5 lb object is lifted up 20 feet, then 100 foot-lbs of work was done. Work (energy) is force x distance.You don't simply calculate the weight of the displaced water (in lbs) and then call it Ft-lbs.
3. There is a buoyant force approximately equal to the displaced water pushing the balloons up, but you need to subtract off the drag force (friction) of the balloons moving through the water. If you have ever tried to walk chest deep in water in a swimming pool, then you have experienced the drag force of water; it can be very strong. The calculations of the drag force on the balloons are probably more than anyone on this forum would want to tackle.
4. I'm not sure why I keep responding to this thread since everyone has already told you that you device cannot create energy. Perhaps It's because I do find some of the math/physics that you are looking at entertaining and it give me a chance to shake off some of the cob webs of what I learned in college 30 years ago.

 

[watchingfromafar]

everyone has already told you that you device cannot create energy. Perhaps It's because I do find some of the math/physics that you are looking at entertaining and it give me a chance to shake off some of the cob webs of what I learned in college 30 years ago.

I'm not talking to every one, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.
[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.
[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.
[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)
[4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]
[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny
[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]

This you cannot deny

​

 

[JoeMoma]

Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.

Your under water calculations for pressure are off by one ATM because you don't add the one ATM ambient pressure of air at sea level. However, this is a moot point considering the rest of the flaws.

[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.

I do deny that the lifting force is called energy. This is a major flaw in your understanding of why your device cannot create energy.

[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.

I agree.

[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)

Calling "force", "energy" is a major flaw in your analysis.

4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]
[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny
[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It takes X amount of energy to compress a given volume of air at sea level and move it 594 feet under water. While that mass of compressed air remains 594 feet under water, it has what we call potential energy because the potential energy can be released as the air moves back to the water's surface. That energy from that under water air will not be completely released until it has once again reached the water's surface and has fully expanded. So for each X amount of energy you put into the system, you only get X out. The fact that you have 5 balloons traveling up to the water's surface does not multiply the energy because you put X amount of energy into each balloon and you get X amount of energy out as it goes all the way to the top of the water.

By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system. Force at a given moment isn't energy.




Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.

 

[watchingfromafar]

By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system. Force at a given moment isn't energy.
Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.

The only friction here is coming from you.
You are using semantics to dodge the basic principle of the machine. You state that energy is not force and that five rising balloons does not add more lifting force than one balloon. I will repeat the obvious and then you prone that five rising balloons is the same as one rising balloon.

I'm not talking to everyone, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.

[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.

[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.

[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)

[4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]

[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny

[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]

You need to do a little bit better than just stating it will not work.It works, the real question is whether the machine produces more energy than is needed to run it.

The basic principle is simple enough. The machine is using the pressure of water and the rising force of air underwater.
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system. Force at a given moment isn't energy.
Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.

The only friction here is coming from you.
You are using semantics to dodge the basic principle of the machine. You state that energy is not force and that five rising balloons does not add more lifting force than one balloon. I will repeat the obvious and then you prone that five rising balloons is the same as one rising balloon.

I'm not talking to everyone, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.

[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.

[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.

[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)

[4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]

[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny

[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]

You need to do a little bit better than just stating it will not work.It works, the real question is whether the machine produces more energy than is needed to run it.

The basic principle is simple enough. The machine is using the pressure of water and the rising force of air underwater.
-

[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny

Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy by pumping air down to the bottom of your machine, the amount you get out is much less than the amount you put in.

Whether you multiply [X] by 5 or 500 or 5,000,000...….

 

[Thunk]

Harnessing the power of air rising under water.

That force is powerful enough to raise sunken ships, subs, and planes!

 

[Thunk]

by pumping air down to the bottom of your machine, the amount you get out is much less than the amount you put in.

Let's say this machine was attached to the outside of a huge ship.

That ship displaces water. You are only pumping air from the bottom of the inside of the hull thru a 1 foot long pipe & into the bottom of the machine outside the hull.

Any chance then?

 

[JoeMoma]

Watchingfromafar, I've been wrong all along (as many other's posting to this thread). You have solved the worlds energy problems with your device. You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.

It's amazing that no one has ever been able to develop a device that can multiply energy before you, but you have done it. It's time to rewrite the laws of physics!

 

[watchingfromafar]

Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy

Toddsterpatrio, you don’t get it and most likely never will

It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.

One balloon near the top pushing out 100 cubic feet of water and has a rising force of 6,400 pounds

Five balloons connected to each other has a lifting force of 14,453 pounds

14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon, I am still getting out a net 8,053 pounds of useful energy. And to end this circus; the cost I listed above is exaggerated, more like 3,000 pounds of energy used to maintain the system.

Now if you Toddsterpatriot, really want to dismiss this; please use some valid numbers.
Toddsterpatriot, I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.

JoeMoma, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and TODDSTERPATRIOT, all rights and ownership to the SeaPower3 design.

-

 

[Thunk]

It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.

And the force of air rising under water is a POWERFUL force!

I had the idea of harnessing this force many years ago...it's in a notebook in a box in my basement.

But mine was a completely submerged water wheel attached to the side of a large ship.

Each "bucket" on the water-wheel was filled with water from the surface to the bottom, where it would be filled with air & push to the surface.

The water wheel would be turning a generator & air compressor inside the hull of the ship.

I wish people could help work out the bugs rather than just bash the idea!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy

Toddsterpatrio, you don’t get it and most likely never will

It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.

One balloon near the top pushing out 100 cubic feet of water and has a rising force of 6,400 pounds

Five balloons connected to each other has a lifting force of 14,453 pounds

14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon, I am still getting out a net 8,053 pounds of useful energy. And to end this circus; the cost I listed above is exaggerated, more like 3,000 pounds of energy used to maintain the system.

Now if you Toddsterpatriot, really want to dismiss this; please use some valid numbers.
Toddsterpatriot, I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.
-

14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon,

Then it would take 32,000 to get out 14,453.

I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.​

-​

I don't believe there is any animosity involved in your confusion.​

 

[watchingfromafar]

JoeMoma, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and TODDSTERPATRIOT, all rights and ownership to the SeaPower3 design.

It's now 10/23/2019 and I have 24 hours to extend this gift and I hereby extend this gift of all rights to Thunk as well.
-

 

[Thunk]

JoeMoma, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and TODDSTERPATRIOT, all rights and ownership to the SeaPower3 design.

It's now 10/23/2019 and I have 24 hours to extend this gift and I hereby extend this gift of all rights to Thunk as well.
-

That's very kind of you...but I think mine is dated 1994 or 1995 in my notebook

And like you...I couldn't get anybody to listen.

 

[Thunk]

Another idea I couldn't get anybody to listen to...

The product has a demand and no supply.

An EMP proof scooter.

Runs on gasoline, old tech (patents expired)...only needs to go 15-20 MPH. with saddlebags so you can carry something.

You know how many preppers would be interested in a SHTF mode of transportation?

And there would be plenty of cars broken down to siphon gas from!

 

[JoeMoma]

You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.

JoeMoma, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and TODDSTERPATRIOT, all rights and ownership to the SeaPower3 design.

-

No, but thanks!