Ultimate energy source

[watchingfromafar]

Getting out less than you put in is definitely not free energy.

In my diagram there are actually 12 buckets on the right side rising, not 11

Toddsterpatriot, if you had a bucket sealed on all sides that contained 250,000 cubic feet of air--
How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?
How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of 600 feet, how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface-?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Getting out less than you put in is definitely not free energy.

In my diagram there are actually 12 buckets on the right side rising, not 11

Toddsterpatriot, if you had a bucket sealed on all sides that contained 250,000 cubic feet of air--
How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?
How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of 600 feet, how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface-?

How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?

A lot.

How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of 600 feet,

Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".

how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface

How to Calculate Buoyancy

 

[watchingfromafar]

Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".

What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?

This bucket has a volume of 250,000 cubic feet of air and it wants to rise; what is that rising force?
Ok, I admit I am trying to get someone else to do the math for me while doing the math is the interesting part.

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

I believe a one cubic foot of air has a rising force of 64 lbs.

Each bucket contains 250,000 cubic feet of air.

250,000 x 64=16,000,000 lbs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".

What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?

This bucket has a volume of 250,000 cubic feet of air and it wants to rise; what is that rising force?
Ok, I admit I am trying to get someone else to do the math for me while doing the math is the interesting part.

-

What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
Subtract even more when it powers your "device".

 

[watchingfromafar]

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
Subtract even more when it powers your "device".

Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.

No bucket was pushed to the ocean floor.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Ok, I give up. I’m going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers and if he/she says no way then I’m off to other things.

Still, thanks for your efforts in trying to teach me the obvious.

BTW: I think Trump was elected because he lied and lied while the votor's believed each and every one of his lies.
Those days are over, we now know who and what he truly is.
-

-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
Subtract even more when it powers your "device".

Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
-

Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture.

I see the big picture.

I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?

Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.

No bucket was pushed to the ocean floor.

Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.

Friction is not the killing factor here; but nice try.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?

Yes, the air was pushed down a tube to the bottom. As I said before I am going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers.
Freakly I didn't think you were going to continue with this discussion after what I said about Trump.

wish you and yours a great day and beyond
bye
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.

Friction is not the killing factor here; but nice try.

Friction is most definitely going to greatly reduce the output of your device.

 

[JoeMoma]

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
Subtract even more when it powers your "device".

Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
-

No it does not. To fill a bucket, you have to pump 250,000 cubit feet of air a distance of 600 ft under water. Work, which is another way to describe energy is force times distance. Each bucket of air will eventually travel the same distance up out of the water. So when your machine is running, each time a bucket travels 600 ft to release its air, another bucket is filled by air that is pumped 600 ft down under water. Think of it this way, the 250,000 cubit ft volume of air you send (pump) down goes down 12 times faster than than the 250,000 cubit ft volume buckets move up.

Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient) Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.

People have been trying for centuries, but no one has developed a system in which the output energy is greater than or equal to the input energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?

Yes, the air was pushed down a tube to the bottom. As I said before I am going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers.
Freakly I didn't think you were going to continue with this discussion after what I said about Trump.

wish you and yours a great day and beyond
bye
-

Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".

 

[watchingfromafar]

Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient) Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.

I accept your data and results. Having said that,

Let’s talk in more simpler terms.

You have energy (x) applying a force= energy (A)

You have energy (x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x) applying a force = energy (B)

Which one is applying more energy at any given moment in time, (A) or (B)?

 

[JoeMoma]

Ok, I give up. I’m going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers and if he/she says no way then I’m off to other things.

Still, thanks for your efforts in trying to teach me the obvious.

BTW: I think Trump was elected because he lied and lied while the votor's believed each and every one of his lies.
Those days are over, we now know who and what he truly is.
-

-

A mechanical engineer will tell you in two seconds that it will not work, but I'm sure if you are willing to pay enough he will work out some numbers to show you.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".

I'll do more than that. He/she will draw a diagram showing the numbers adding up one side and subtracting the other. According to you the bottom line number will be a negative one.
Either way I will post the conclusion
until then
-

 

[JoeMoma]

Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient) Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.

I accept your data and results. Having said that,

Let’s talk in more simpler terms.

You have energy (x) applying a force= energy (A)

You have energy (x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x) applying a force = energy (B)

Which one is applying more energy at any given moment in time, (A) or (B)?

Work (another way of describing energy) = force x distance

It takes the same amount of work/energy to lift a 1 lb object 10 feet as it takes to lift a 10 lb object one foot.

 

[watchingfromafar]

It takes the same amount of work/energy to lift a 1 lb object 10 feet as it takes to lift a 10 lb object one foot.

You are mixing apples and oranges calling them both fruit but they have nothing in common.

If you only have the power to lift 1 lb, 10 feet it matters not if you try to lift 10 lb because you can only lift 1 lb; period

Now if you have a gadget that can lift 1 lb 10 feet and you then have 10 gadgets lifting together then my guess is they can life 10 lbs
-