Science students need a problem too solve.

[Grumblenuts]

Finally I am learning again.
From the above I see
fluid pressure = (fluid density) X (acceleration due to gravity) X (fluid depth)

Can I equate 118,428 pounds = fluid pressure?
-

"Hint: Does not apply here!" (statics)

 

[Grumblenuts]

one going down.
one going up.
Right opposite each other but going in opposite directions cancel their weight making this a mute problem.

Your system involves moving masses which may easily make the static weights relatively moot {not "mute"} in RL application. I'm no mechanical engineer. Finger it out or pay one.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumblenuts, tell me a little more about dynamics, etc
thanks in advance
-

Listen to JoeMama. If you can gain anything with his(her?) much simpler setup then worry about yours.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Your system involves moving masses which may easily make the static weights relatively moot {not "mute"}

Thanks for the grammar lession

I'm no mechanical engineer. Finger it out or pay one.

It is "figure" not "finger"

Still the SeaEngine design is an interesting topic. Maybe not for you but hopefully for others
-

 

[Sunsettommy]

Is this that same shit about pumping air down to buckets? It won't work and it's a dumb idea.

And yet no one has proven that it will not work, no even you -

Bwahahahahahah!!!

All YOU have to do is PROVE that it works.........

still waiting for that..... when are YOU going to prove it?

Waiting...........

 

[Sunsettommy]

Many people, including myself have shown you that it won't work. The energy required to pump air to depth is more than could ever be gained by the ascending buckets, or balloons, or whatever enclosure you might use. The fact that there can only be a net loss of energy in such a system has been proven to a mathematical certainty.

No one here seems to be able to grasp the total system.

It takes (X) amount of energy to pump air down to the lowest bucket.

When that bucket is injected with air it will rise and the next bucket is injected with air

This process repeats itself until there are ten (10) buckets all pushing to get to the surface. And then the next bucket reaches the bottom and it too is injected with air continuously repeating the above. The energy output is the ten (10) buckets pulling together to reach the surface.

The energy required to keep the system running is to fill the lowest bucket with air.

BULLDOG; tell me where I went off the track into the swamp ?

-

Not is YOU who hasn't shown that it works.... the onus is on You to show that it works.

I don't have to prove that you are wrong BECAUSE you are the one who brought it up, therefore it is YOU who has to prove it works.

 

[Crepitus]

Many people, including myself have shown you that it won't work. The energy required to pump air to depth is more than could ever be gained by the ascending buckets, or balloons, or whatever enclosure you might use. The fact that there can only be a net loss of energy in such a system has been proven to a mathematical certainty.

No one here seems to be able to grasp the total system.

It takes (X) amount of energy to pump air down to the lowest bucket.

When that bucket is injected with air it will rise and the next bucket is injected with air

This process repeats itself until there are ten (10) buckets all pushing to get to the surface. And then the next bucket reaches the bottom and it too is injected with air continuously repeating the above. The energy output is the ten (10) buckets pulling together to reach the surface.

The energy required to keep the system running is to fill the lowest bucket with air.

BULLDOG; tell me where I went off the track into the swamp ?

-

No.

A. The rising buckets lose energy pushing through the water. It is not a frictionless environment.

B. The energy required to keep the system running isn't the energy to fill the next bucket, but the energy to fill the next ten.

C. Since each bucket loses energy to friction on its way up there isn't enough energy in the system to keep going without external input.

So D. Get over it.

 

[Rigby5]

Is this that same shit about pumping air down to buckets? It won't work and it's a dumb idea.

And yet no one has proven that it will not work, no even you -

Yes we have.
The energy to force the air down increases with depth, so you gain nothing by releasing that air and letting it lift buckets up.

But why have you not switched to something that will work, like the heat engine from the differential in temperature from the bottom of the ocean to the top?

Here are some links on thermo electric generators:

Thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Turning heat into electricity

A new MIT study finds topological materials could boost the efficiency of thermoelectric devices, which convert a temperature difference into electricity.

news.mit.edu

There was one famous one where a guy built on in Brazil, something like 100 years ago, and produced ice for Rio.
But I did not quickly find it.

But the idea is you can also use water heat differential to power a sterling heat engine.

 

[Rigby5]

OTEC Energy - Ocean Energy Council

What is ocean thermocline (or OTEC) energy? Thermocline energy is based on the temperature differences between surface water, which is heated by the sun, and deep water, which stays very cold. Thermal energy conversion plants use the surface water to make steam and then pass the steam through a...

www.oceanenergycouncil.com

Watch the video.

 

[watchingfromafar]

A. The rising buckets lose energy pushing through the water. It is not a frictionless environment.

I never said it was

B. The energy required to keep the system running isn't the energy to fill the next bucket, but the energy to fill the next ten.

Wrong, the energy input compared to the energy output defines the useful energy gained.

You must look at this over time.

The SeaEngine is just using the lifting force of several lifting forces together. It is not creating more energy; it is simply combining the force of multiple forces into one. The torque of the machine is greatly enhanced.

Principles to run the machine

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);


[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 33 feet per second at any one moment in time.

C. Since each bucket loses energy to friction on its way up there isn't enough energy in the system to keep going without external input.

So D. Get over it.

Wrong, the energy input compared to the energy output defines the useful energy gained.

You must look at this over time.

The SeaEngine is just using the lifting force of several lifting forces together. It is not creating more energy; it is simply combining the force of multiple forces into one. The torque of the machine is greatly enhanced.

Principles to run the machine

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y). Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 33 feet per second at any one moment in time.

Again, you fail to see the obvious. It seems the problem you are having is dealing with a very simple principle.

Take a deep breath and release it slowly.

Then go to your frig and take out your favorite beer and drink it, maybe two (2) or three.

In the example I provided the sustained force pulling on the cable is 118,428 pounds of lifting force. I calculated the rising speed of this cable to be three (3) feet per second. Now in retrospect I have determined the speed would be faster. In fact the rising speed is trying to accelerate because the balloons volume is expanding.

Next----- -

 

[watchingfromafar]

Watch the video.

I actually designed a machine to use the extreme pressure & temperature at the depth of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

The gases being vented are compressed to the point where the gases cannot boil out into gas bubbles.

The temperature of the seawater at these vents in hot enough to melt steel while just feet away the seawater in around 60 degrees F.

Another great benefit of this is the huge amount of minerals that are suspended in this super-hot seawater.

If you had a tube lowered to one of these vents and sucked up this seawater with the dissolved minerals; as the seawater rose and the pressure reduces the dissolved gases would boil out in bubbles of gas and the minerals would precipitate out.

Unfortunately, the gases at this depth are not bubbles but instead these gases are dissolved in the water. You would not gain any lifting force until the balloon reached +/- 15 ATM or 495’ depth +/-

-

 

[BULLDOG]

Several people have clearly explained why your design will not work. Obviously, you have discounted all of them. I suggest you build one, even if it is just a small scale proof of concept model. Prove to all the nay sayers that your theory is sound. A continuous stream of "it won't work ---- yes it will" proves nothing, and is a waste of time if you really think you have a valid idea.

 

[Rigby5]

Watch the video.

I actually designed a machine to use the extreme pressure & temperature at the depth of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

The gases being vented are compressed to the point where the gases cannot boil out into gas bubbles.

The temperature of the seawater at these vents in hot enough to melt steel while just feet away the seawater in around 60 degrees F.

Another great benefit of this is the huge amount of minerals that are suspended in this super-hot seawater.

If you had a tube lowered to one of these vents and sucked up this seawater with the dissolved minerals; as the seawater rose and the pressure reduces the dissolved gases would boil out in bubbles of gas and the minerals would precipitate out.

Unfortunately, the gases at this depth are not bubbles but instead these gases are dissolved in the water. You would not gain any lifting force until the balloon reached +/- 15 ATM or 495’ depth +/-

View attachment 488544
-

Why do you keep talking about lifting gases?
That does not at all work.
The cold to hot temperature thermocline does work.

As to why you lifting gases do not work, you hinted on it yourself, when you said the vent gases would not bubble due to the extreme pressures.
To get compressed air down that low under water would require massive energy, way more than you get back from the lifting buckets.
That should be obvious.
Don't know why you are still not getting it.
But here is a quote that might help you understand how hard it would be to get air down to the buckets.
{...
The outside water pressure increases with depth and so the stresses on the hull also increase with depth. Each 10 metres (33 feet) of depth puts another atmosphere (1 bar, 14.7 psi, 101 kPa) of pressure on the hull, so at 300 metres (1,000 feet), the hull is withstanding thirty atmospheres (30 bar, 441 psi, 3,000 kPa) of water pressure.
...}
Typical air compressors max out around 150 psi.
Not only would you need a very expensive high performance compressor, but your electric bill would be through the roof.
You would expend many more times the energy you could get back.
There would be lots of heat loss at the compressor, etc.

If that is not enough for you to get it, then think of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
That happened because seawater leaked into the the drill hole, and shot the drill up back at the platform like a cannon, blowing holes through all the decks and flying a thousand feet into the air.
That is the same pressure you have to over come when you pump air down to the buckets.
It would take huge amounts of energy.

Go back to the thermocline idea.
That actually works.

 

[Crepitus]

A. The rising buckets lose energy pushing through the water. It is not a frictionless environment.

I never said it was

B. The energy required to keep the system running isn't the energy to fill the next bucket, but the energy to fill the next ten.

Wrong, the energy input compared to the energy output defines the useful energy gained.

You must look at this over time.

The SeaEngine is just using the lifting force of several lifting forces together. It is not creating more energy; it is simply combining the force of multiple forces into one. The torque of the machine is greatly enhanced.

Principles to run the machine

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);


[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 33 feet per second at any one moment in time.

C. Since each bucket loses energy to friction on its way up there isn't enough energy in the system to keep going without external input.

So D. Get over it.

Wrong, the energy input compared to the energy output defines the useful energy gained.

You must look at this over time.

The SeaEngine is just using the lifting force of several lifting forces together. It is not creating more energy; it is simply combining the force of multiple forces into one. The torque of the machine is greatly enhanced.

Principles to run the machine

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y). Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 33 feet per second at any one moment in time.

Again, you fail to see the obvious. It seems the problem you are having is dealing with a very simple principle.

Take a deep breath and release it slowly.

Then go to your frig and take out your favorite beer and drink it, maybe two (2) or three.

In the example I provided the sustained force pulling on the cable is 118,428 pounds of lifting force. I calculated the rising speed of this cable to be three (3) feet per second. Now in retrospect I have determined the speed would be faster. In fact the rising speed is trying to accelerate because the balloons volume is expanding.

Next----- -

The energy produced is still less than the energy expended.

As I told you in another one of these idiot perpetual motion threads, the universe has decreed that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[watchingfromafar]

The energy produced is still less than the energy expended.

This depends on your definition of “energy”. Energy comes in many forms. Some are electrical and others are mechanical. The design uses one form of energy (A) that is converted to another form of energy, (B). If my intent is to make energy (B) then I have achieved my goal.

I still do not understand your reasoning used in your response. If you see a flaw in this concept then state it with specifics. Then again it is clear to me that you do not have a mechanical problem or an electrical problem with this concept so you resort to the bla, bla, bla response.

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[JoeMoma]

This depends on your definition of “energy”.

Energy is defined precisely by mathematical formulas, we don't to simply make up our own definition of energy.

 

[Leo123]

Watch the video.

I actually designed a machine to use the extreme pressure & temperature at the depth of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

The gases being vented are compressed to the point where the gases cannot boil out into gas bubbles.

The temperature of the seawater at these vents in hot enough to melt steel while just feet away the seawater in around 60 degrees F.

Another great benefit of this is the huge amount of minerals that are suspended in this super-hot seawater.

If you had a tube lowered to one of these vents and sucked up this seawater with the dissolved minerals; as the seawater rose and the pressure reduces the dissolved gases would boil out in bubbles of gas and the minerals would precipitate out.

Unfortunately, the gases at this depth are not bubbles but instead these gases are dissolved in the water. You would not gain any lifting force until the balloon reached +/- 15 ATM or 495’ depth +/-

View attachment 488544
-

Environmentalists don't want you fooling with Mother Earth. As long as they wield the immense bureaucratic power they have today, your ideas will go nowhere.

 

[Rigby5]

The energy produced is still less than the energy expended.

This depends on your definition of “energy”. Energy comes in many forms. Some are electrical and others are mechanical. The design uses one form of energy (A) that is converted to another form of energy, (B). If my intent is to make energy (B) then I have achieved my goal.

I still do not understand your reasoning used in your response. If you see a flaw in this concept then state it with specifics. Then again it is clear to me that you do not have a mechanical problem or an electrical problem with this concept so you resort to the bla, bla, bla response.

No, energy is the same no matter if electrical, inertia, chemical, potential, kinetic, etc.
It is the application of force over distance.
{...
In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object. Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed.
...}
And your air bucket theory has been shown over and over to lose energy by having to pump the air down to the buckets.
You seem unaware that is hard to do, so you negate that expenditure or energy.
But that force needed to pump the air down to the buckets is way more than the bucket will lift up.

 

[Crepitus]

This depends on your definition of “energy”.

No, it doesn't.