Ultimate energy source

[watchingfromafar]

They would have to expand a lot. balloons?

How about something like this---

without the key board and the rest. It's just a chamber that can expand?
-

 

[JoeMoma]

They would have to expand a lot. balloons?

How about something like this---
View attachment 274986

without the key board and the rest. It's just a chamber that can expand?
-

okay, go for it. It really doesn't mater. For you device to work the law of conservation of energy would have to be invalidated. I hope that the engineers you have consulted have already told you so.

 

[watchingfromafar]

okay, go for it. It really doesn't mater. For you device to work the law of conservation of energy would have to be invalidated. I hope that the engineers you have consulted have already told you so.

No, you were right, the expanding baloon idea of yours is the way to go. I'll pass this on to those mechanical engineers tomorrow.
Believe me; JoeMoma, if this thing ever gets past the drawing board your contributions will be gratefully rewarded.

later -

 

[watchingfromafar]

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.



YES or NO?
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 275927


I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.



YES or NO?
-

Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
They'll also experience more friction.

 

[JoeMoma]

View attachment 275927


I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.



YES or NO?
-

Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
They'll also experience more friction.

And USE more energy.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
They'll also experience more friction.

This is at least a start. The combined 12 buckets pulling together in an upward motion is greater than one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
They'll also experience more friction.

This is at least a start. The combined 12 buckets pulling together in an upward motion is greater than one.

Who ever denied that?

Make it 100 buckets, it still loses energy.

 

[JoeMoma]

View attachment 275927


I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.



YES or NO?
-

Your machine has 26 buckets all together, so lets number the buckets clockwise, 1 to 26. Lets assume buckets 1 through 12 have already been filled with air. The buckets move 50 feet (600ft/12) so that bucket number 13 is in position to be filled with air. Using your own assumed force, 12 buckets x 100 pounds x 50 feet = 60,000 ft pounds. As the air is released at the top from bucket no. 1, bucket number 13 is filled with air. So the amount of air for one bucket has to be pumped 600 ft under water. 1 bucket filled x 100 pounds x 600 ft = 60,000 ft pounds. These numbers assume 100% energy efficiency and disregards the compression of air's volume. Same thing happens as bucket no. 2 releases it's air and bucket no. 14 is filled with air.

Even at 100% energy efficient, 60,000-60,000 = 0 energy created by your machine. Then just considering the viscosity of water, you machine will not come close to being 100% energy efficient.

 

[danielpalos]

...fusion (an energy with a future).

I agree fusion has its possibilities but just remember it's not one or the other. Either or both or even other ideas combined could bring us to where we want to be,.
Fusion power is a proposed form of power generationthat would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions. In a fusion process, two lighter atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, while releasing energy. Devices designed to harness this energy are known as fusion reactors.

Research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s, but to date, no design has produced more fusion power output than the electrical power input, defeating the purpose.[1] A second issue that affects common reactions, is managing neutrons that are released during the reaction, which over time degrade many common materials used within the reaction chamber.

Fusion researchers have investigated various confinement concepts. The early emphasis was on three main systems: z-pinch, stellarator and magnetic mirror. The current leading designs are the tokamak and inertial confinement (ICF) by laser. Both designs are under research at very large scales, most notably the ITER tokamak in France, and the National Ignition Facilitylaser in the United States. Researchers are also studying other designs that may offer cheaper approaches. Among these alternatives there is increasing interest in magnetized target fusionand inertial electrostatic confinement, and new variations of the stellarator.
Fusion power - Wikipedia
-

a (space) Corps of Engineers could start pioneering ringworlds, once we get fusion underway.

 

[watchingfromafar]

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.

YES or NO?
-

The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.


View attachment 276846
YES or NO?
-

The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
-

Entropy....friction....no.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Entropy....friction....no.

I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.

The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running and nothing you’ve said disproves this but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.

Please try to be more specific and convince me in real technical terms.

Thanks in advance.

-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Entropy....friction....no.

I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.

The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running and nothing you’ve said disproves this but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.

Please try to be more specific and convince me in real technical terms.

Thanks in advance.

-

I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.

The mechanics don't allow for 100% efficiency.

The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running

You're wrong.

but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.

If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.


View attachment 276846
YES or NO?
-

The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
-

Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you? I am confident that if they are credentialed professionals that they wasted no time in telling you that your "device" cannot mechanically create energy, it can only transfer the energy input to it. Creating energy would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I doubt that they would waste much valuable time on coming up with "your numbers" if they are gainfully employed doing serious engineering work.

I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source. You would not recognize proof if you saw it.

Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend. it will not.

And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device indefinitely.

 

[watchingfromafar]

If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.

Toddsterpatriot, I’m going back to my office and do a bit more research on this. I’m going to redesign my model and include the equations needed to prove or disprove this once and for all.

en·tro·py
/ˈentrəpē/
PHYSICS a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work,
https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&se_es_tkn=krzdnqtu

In general terms, this buoyancy force can be calculated with the equation Fb = Vs × D × g, where Fb is the buoyancy force that is acting on the object, Vs is the submerged volume of the object, D is the density of the fluid the object is submerged in, and g is the force of gravity

· In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — 9.81 Newtons/kilogram.

Multiply volume × density × gravity. When you have values for the volume of your object (in meters3), the density of your fluid (in kilograms/meter3), and the force of gravity (or the downward force of your system in Newtons/Kilograms), finding the buoyancy force is easy. Simply multiply these 3 quantities to find the force of buoyancy in newtons.

· Let's solve our example problem by plugging our values into the equation Fb = Vs× D × g. Fb = 0.262 meters3 × 1,000 kilograms/meter3 × 9.81 newtons/kilogram = 2,570 Newtons. The other units cancel each other out and leave you with Newtons.

The machine will be in saltwater, so I need to start with it’s density, then the temperature of the water, the energy need to get the air to the bottom. and then finally the energy output—

Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.

Later

-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.

Toddsterpatriot, I’m going back to my office and do a bit more research on this. I’m going to redesign my model and include the equations needed to prove or disprove this once and for all.

en·tro·py
/ˈentrəpē/
PHYSICS a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work,
https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&se_es_tkn=krzdnqtu

In general terms, this buoyancy force can be calculated with the equation Fb = Vs × D × g, where Fb is the buoyancy force that is acting on the object, Vs is the submerged volume of the object, D is the density of the fluid the object is submerged in, and g is the force of gravity

· In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — 9.81 Newtons/kilogram.

Multiply volume × density × gravity. When you have values for the volume of your object (in meters3), the density of your fluid (in kilograms/meter3), and the force of gravity (or the downward force of your system in Newtons/Kilograms), finding the buoyancy force is easy. Simply multiply these 3 quantities to find the force of buoyancy in newtons.

· Let's solve our example problem by plugging our values into the equation Fb = Vs× D × g. Fb = 0.262 meters3 × 1,000 kilograms/meter3 × 9.81 newtons/kilogram = 2,570 Newtons. The other units cancel each other out and leave you with Newtons.

The machine will be in saltwater, so I need to start with it’s density, then the temperature of the water, the energy need to get the air to the bottom. and then finally the energy output—

Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.

Later

-

In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — 9.81 Newtons/kilogram.

And once you power it up, you'll also have friction with the seawater, in both directions.

Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.

I think you'll be surprised at how hugely wrong you are.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Here is a simplified version that includes all the needed data----

 

[watchingfromafar]

Here is a simplified version with actual numbers and data--

 

[watchingfromafar]

I think you'll be surprised at how hugely wrong you are.

please prove it- -