Ultimate energy source

[watchingfromafar]

The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
to fill one container?

(Z) is not even in the equation. If you need it to be added, go for it -
On second thought, my question remains the same -

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
to fill one container?

(Z) is not even in the equation. If you need it to be added, go for it -

(Z)…...the death of your perpetual motion fantasy.

 

[watchingfromafar]

The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed to fill one container?

There is no (Z) in my equation
The (force) energy needed to fill one container is (F)

The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8% or 58.88 pounds of lifting force than the absolute value of 64 pounds of lifting force which is the weight of one cubic foot of water.

Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,

Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.
it is a huge increase in torque

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Each cannister weighs 170K pounds? this sounds incredibly massive...

I need you in this debate,
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

To do what?

Get involved, state your opinions
I respect your thoughts
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.

Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Burning penguin poop? That is the great idea?

Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

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

Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Trained dolphins......

Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-

 

[JoeMoma]

If you know the concept and basid on that; why do you
reject it--
Why -?

Your concept is based on misconception. Several people on this thread have attempted to explain the error of your thinking. You state that you have been banned from an engineering forum because your concept is so preposterous. You stated that you were going to hire some engineers to look over your design, but apparently they have bailed on you. We reject you concept because it is wrong and unworkable.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you know the concept and basid on that; why do you
reject it--
Why -?

Your concept is based on misconception. Several people on this thread have attempted to explain the error of your thinking. You state that you have been banned from an engineering forum because your concept is so preposterous. You stated that you were going to hire some engineers to look over your design, but apparently they have bailed on you. We reject you concept because it is wrong and unworkable.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!

 

[watchingfromafar]

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!

My Momma gave me a lunch every day when going to school.
She never charged me a dime
-

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!

My Momma gave me a lunch every day when going to school.
She never charged me a dime
-

Somebody paid for it. That is why perpetual motion machines as sources of energy are impossible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed to fill one container?

There is no (Z) in my equation
The (force) energy needed to fill one container is (F)

The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8% or 58.88 pounds of lifting force than the absolute value of 64 pounds of lifting force which is the weight of one cubic foot of water.

Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,

Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.
it is a huge increase in torque

-

Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,

Finally, you understand entropy.

The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8%

I'd be absolutely stunned if you got back anything close to 92% of what you put in.
Probably closer to 22%.

Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.

8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.

 

[watchingfromafar]

8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.

92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.

92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain

You lose 8% (more like 80%) on each bucket.....how do you generate power?

Volume!!!!!

Thanks.

 

[JoeMoma]

8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.

92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain

And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket. Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks. You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".

 

[watchingfromafar]

And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.

Actually you do.

Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.

This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.

You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".

Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
-

 

[JoeMoma]

And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.

Actually you do.

Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.

This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.

You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".

Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
-

I challenge you to build a prototype to show the naysayers (myself included) that you are right. No, you don't have to have water 600 ft deep to make your prototype. A large aquarium should do just fine. In 2 to 3 ft deep water you should be able to build a device in which you fill one "bucket" to sustain your 10 buckets lifting together. You can use an aquarium air pump to fill your buckets. You could perhaps use dixie cups as your buckets.

To prove your concept that your device actually creates energy here is what it needs to do. It needs to use an electric air pump to fill the bottom bucket each time. Your device, powered by the buckets moving in the water are to turn a generator to generate electricity. The electricity that your device generates is feed back to the air pump to keep your device running with no other power source after startup. Once you device cycles for a few seconds, it should be able to run for hours from only the electricity generated by itself.

You will have solved the world's energy problems if you can do this.....and the world's carbon problems said to cause global warming. You could possibly become the world's first trillionaire. You will be the first person to make a machine that outputs more energy than is input to it. You will be as famous as Albert Einstein. If you do this, you should win the Nobel Prize for science.

 

[watchingfromafar]

And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.

Actually you do.

Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.

This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.

You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".

Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
-

You can use an aquarium air pump to fill your buckets. You could perhaps use dixie cups as your buckets.

Wrong, you need atmospheric pressure, called ATM's. My device goes down to 18 ATM's., try that in a fish tank.