Ultimate energy source

[Rigby5]

Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?

I was hoping you could tell me -

The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.

You are maybe the 25th person to tell him this, but he is like in the Twilight Zone.

When I was a child I also had a similar misconception.
I was trying to calculate buoyancy in a submarine, and had a problem understanding how the weight to volume ratio did not change when you close the ballast tank doors on a sub.
But I was very young, and forgot that when you close those doors, you then have to include the ocean water in the ballast tanks, as added to the total weight of the sub.
I think here he is forgetting that the expansion of air as it rises does not increase lift, but shows it is at constant equilibrium as the water pressure decreases.
These types of conceptualizations can be challenging.
But he should also know the generalities, such that perpetual motion is not possible.
That is unless he comes up with something outside of Newtonian physics, like dark matter, relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.
And those would likely be very small or very large and far away.

 

[Rigby5]

Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?

I was hoping you could tell me -

I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.

Good to see we can agree on something.
Just not economics.

 

[JoeMoma]

Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?

I was hoping you could tell me -

The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.

You are maybe the 25th person to tell him this, but he is like in the Twilight Zone.

When I was a child I also had a similar misconception.
I was trying to calculate buoyancy in a submarine, and had a problem understanding how the weight to volume ratio did not change when you close the ballast tank doors on a sub.
But I was very young, and forgot that when you close those doors, you then have to include the ocean water in the ballast tanks, as added to the total weight of the sub.
I think here he is forgetting that the expansion of air as it rises does not increase lift, but shows it is at constant equilibrium as the water pressure decreases.
These types of conceptualizations can be challenging.
But he should also know the generalities, such that perpetual motion is not possible.
That is unless he comes up with something outside of Newtonian physics, like dark matter, relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.
And those would likely be very small or very large and far away.

He is missing a lot of things, but pointing them out to him so far has been futile.

 

[watchingfromafar]

I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.

Your "I could once" was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.

Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
just asking
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Multiple containers stacked are exactly the same as 1 tall container. I fail to see how that changes your design.

That one tall container you speak of has one additional asset; it has motion with a great deal of force. This force can be measured over time.

“ki·net·ic en·er·gy

/kəˈnedik ˈenərjē/
noun PHYSICS
energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.”

My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

No.
Friction and entropy.

Friction; as in
the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles. I am not capable of making those calculations.

Entropy;
thermodynamics entropy. The kinetic energy of the molecules in the system increases when we provide heat to the system,

Heat has very little to do with this process. The seawater is in the 60-degree range.
-

 

[Chuz Life]

What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?

Brilliant!

I think it's an invention to harness the energy from rising sea levels, caused by man made catastrophic glacier melts.

I wish I thought of it first!

 

[JoeMoma]

I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.

Your "I could once" was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.

Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
just asking
-

What ever happened to those three engineers you were going to hire?

 

[BULLDOG]

Multiple containers stacked are exactly the same as 1 tall container. I fail to see how that changes your design.

That one tall container you speak of has one additional asset; it has motion with a great deal of force. This force can be measured over time.

“ki·net·ic en·er·gy

/kəˈnedik ˈenərjē/
noun PHYSICS
energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.”

My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
-

I'm pretty sure everybody understands your premise. Your premise just doesn't hold up, no matter how much you seem to want it to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.
Friction and entropy.

Friction; as in
the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles. I am not capable of making those calculations.

Entropy;
thermodynamics entropy. The kinetic energy of the molecules in the system increases when we provide heat to the system,

Heat has very little to do with this process. The seawater is in the 60-degree range.
-

the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles.

Nope, the drag on the buckets rising through the water.

Heat has very little to do with this process.

Why am I even bothering?
Pumping the air down to the bottom of your "magic power wasting device" heats up the pump.
That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing, energy wasting bubble machine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?

Brilliant!

I think it's an invention to harness the energy from rising sea levels, caused by man made catastrophic glacier melts.

I wish I thought of it first!

You would be wrong. It is a mythical perpetual motion machine that ignores physics.

 

[bripat9643]

I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.

Your "I could once" was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.

Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
just asking
-

Anyone with any training in science knows that perpetual motion machines are impossible. They violate the laws of thermodynamics. You don't need to do any serious math to arrive at the answer.

 

[JoeMoma]

My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
-

This premise is incorrect. I'm not sure why I'm explaining this again, but let's give it another try.

Suppose you have a balloon of air at sea level. It takes X amount of energy to move that balloon of air 600 feet underwater. We could tie that balloon of air at 600 feet and that balloon would represent potential energy until it is released because it has 600 feet to rise due to the buoyant force of the water. When the balloon is released and travels up to 500 feet under water (up 100 feet) then 1/6 of the original potential energy has been used. At 400 ft under water, 2/6 of the potential energy has been used, and at 300 ft under water, 3/6 of the potential energy has been used, and so on until at sea level 6/6 of the potential energy has been used.

Now lets look at a series (6) of balloons loaded together like in your "invention". Let's say that the balloons are staggered at depths 100 ft apart. So Balloon #1 is 100ft deep, #2 is 200 ft deep, #3 is 300 feet deep, #4 is 400 ft deep, #5 is at 500 ft deep, and #6 gets moved down to 600 ft deep. Each time the chain of balloons move 100 ft up, the top balloon is released at sea level (all energy used from that balloon) and a new balloon is placed at the 600ft level (fully energized with x amount of energy). Each 100 ft the linked series of balloons move up in the water column, each balloon uses 1/6 of it's original potential energy. 6 x 1/6 = 1 (x amount of energy). Each time the energy for one balloon is added to the system by moving the air for 1 balloon down 600 ft (x amount of energy). It take the same amount of energy to move one balloon of air down 600 ft down in the water as is released by 6 balloons to moving up 100 feet in the water.

Now having said all of the above, most of the energy used by releasing the balloons to travel up the water column is expended on moving the water around (drag/friction) and will not be output as useful energy.

 

[Rigby5]

My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
-

This premise is incorrect. I'm not sure why I'm explaining this again, but let's give it another try.

Suppose you have a balloon of air at sea level. It takes X amount of energy to move that balloon of air 600 feet underwater. We could tie that balloon of air at 600 feet and that balloon would represent potential energy until it is released because it has 600 feet to rise due to the buoyant force of the water. When the balloon is released and travels up to 500 feet under water (up 100 feet) then 1/6 of the original potential energy has been used. At 400 ft under water, 2/6 of the potential energy has been used, and at 300 ft under water, 3/6 of the potential energy has been used, and so on until at sea level 6/6 of the potential energy has been used.

Now lets look at a series (6) of balloons loaded together like in your "invention". Let's say that the balloons are staggered at depths 100 ft apart. So Balloon #1 is 100ft deep, #2 is 200 ft deep, #3 is 300 feet deep, #4 is 400 ft deep, #5 is at 500 ft deep, and #6 gets moved down to 600 ft deep. Each time the chain of balloons move 100 ft up, the top balloon is released at sea level (all energy used from that balloon) and a new balloon is placed at the 600ft level (fully energized with x amount of energy). Each 100 ft the linked series of balloons move up in the water column, each balloon uses 1/6 of it's original potential energy. 6 x 1/6 = 1 (x amount of energy). Each time the energy for one balloon is added to the system by moving the air for 1 balloon down 600 ft (x amount of energy). It take the same amount of energy to move one balloon of air down 600 ft down in the water as is released by 6 balloons to moving up 100 feet in the water.

Now having said all of the above, most of the energy used by releasing the balloons to travel up the water column is expended on moving the water around (drag/friction) and will not be output as useful energy.

Good explanation.
While the original proposal makes it hard to run the numbers due to the fact he describes a compressor to pump the air down to a whole series of buckets, your analogy makes it very simple and clear.
It all boils down to taking one balloon pulling it down to some depth underwater, and then letting it go.
Clearly nothing could possibly be gained.
The forces have to be identical.
If you put a downward drag on the balloon that is equal to the force needed to get it down there in the first place, it won't move at all when released.
So you can never get back any more than it took to get the balloon do that depth.
Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.

 

[watchingfromafar]

That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing,

So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.

Still I appreciate your contributions.
Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money. Sadly, people stuck with the buck always come up short.

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.

but, but, but it does~~~~
Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?

Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.

The balloons are in a revolving loop.

Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.

It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.

As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift

In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.

Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)

Now this is the kicker, at any one moment in time you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

If you put a downward drag on the balloon that is equal to the force needed to get it down there in the first place, it won't move at all when released.

The balloons are not being dragged to the bottom and any balloon filled with air will rise when released; to say they wouldn't defies the laws of physics.
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing,

So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.

Still I appreciate your contributions.
Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money. Sadly, people stuck with the buck always come up short.

-

So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.

You bet.

I've never claimed my posts could generate more useful power than they consume.

Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money.

The money your device would lose has nothing to do with magic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.

but, but, but it does~~~~
Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?

Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.

The balloons are in a revolving loop.

Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.

It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.

As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift

In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.

Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)

Now this is the kicker, at any one moment in time you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
-

Now this is the kicker, at any one moment in time you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards

Five balloons which each took more energy to fill than they will generate as they rise.

 

[JoeMoma]

Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.

but, but, but it does~~~~
Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?

Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.

The balloons are in a revolving loop.

Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.

It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.

As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift

In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.

Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)

Now this is the kicker, at any one moment in time you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
-

As I explained earlier, the energy to fill one balloon does not take place "at any one moment in time", and the energy expended by that balloon isn't used up in just "one moment in time".

In other words, the amount of energy it takes to fill on balloon is not a force at a one moment. The energy it takes to fill a balloon with air is not equal to X, its lifting force at one moment.

To make an analogy, the energy from a full tank of gasoline is not equal to the force your car's engine produces at any one moment. That tank of fuel is providing energy for a trip that can be hundreds of miles in duration. Likewise, filling a balloon with air 600 ft under water provides it with energy for the duration of the balloon's entire trip up 600 ft to the water's surface, not just a force at one moment.