Ultimate energy source

[JoeMoma]

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.

There is nothing magic about going down 18 ATM's that has anything to do with filling one bucket with air to sustain 10 buckets pulling together. The concept that you keep arguing is supplying X amount of energy to fill one bucket with air to get 10X out because you have 10 buckets pulling together. A small scale prototype should produce this same effect, X will simply be a smaller number. But 10X is bigger than X regardless of whether your device goes down 0.1 ATM, 18 ATM, or 180 ATM.

And if you think 18 ATM is the depth to make your device work, why? Why wouldn't 10 ATM work? Why not 20 ATM? How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Do you still think that alternative energy sources suck?

Not at all. I watch a TV program called “sustainable energy”. The TV series goes around the world showing all the newest sustainable energy alternatives being used today. One country now mandates all electric buses. The worlds efforts to sustainable energy sources is impressive.

Having said that, I am no longer concerned; the world is unfolding as it should

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?

The deeper you go the smaller the air bubble. Below 18 ATM the return on the energy expended becomes negligible.

JoeMoma, I believe the only reason you post here is because you like the idea but just refuse to admit it.
-

 

[JoeMoma]

How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?

The deeper you go the smaller the air bubble. Below 18 ATM the return on the energy expended becomes negligible.

JoeMoma, I believe the only reason you post here is because you like the idea but just refuse to admit it.
-

So a depth that achieves 18ATMs is a maximum depth, not a minimum depth, yet you gave the 18 ATM figure as a reason you couldn't use a much smaller scale prototype to try to prove your concept.

If your concept is correct, you should be able to prove it with a small "science-fair" size model. I and many other people know that your concept is wrong, but no amount of explanation has caused you to see the light. Thus I present a challenge to you -- build a small scale model and make it power itself. Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.

I read and post here for the entertainment value.

 

[watchingfromafar]

build a small scale model and make it power itself. Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.

I have never suggested that it would power itself.

If you stop adding air to the lowest bucket the system will stop running

If the water freezes over the system will stop running

If the cable attached to each bucket breaks it will stop running

I am sure there are other factors that would stop the machine from running

This is not a perpetual motion machine

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,

But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
-

 

[JoeMoma]

build a small scale model and make it power itself. Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.

I have never suggested that it would power itself.

If you stop adding air to the lowest bucket the system will stop running

If the water freezes over the system will stop running

If the cable attached to each bucket breaks it will stop running

I am sure there are other factors that would stop the machine from running

This is not a perpetual motion machine

-

The whole point of your device is that it is suppose to generate (output) more energy than is input to operate it. If this is true, then the output energy can be fed back into the device so that it powers itself with energy to spare.. After all, the title of your thread is "Ultimate energy source".

Are you saying that your device does not output more energy than is input to it?

I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,

But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
-

You have not been able to comprehend the proof why. If you understand the law of conservation of energy, then it is a no-brainer why your concept is wrong.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Are you saying that your device does not output more energy than is input to it? I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,

But as of yet, you and your others haven't been able to prove why
-

You have not been able to comprehend the proof why. If you understand the law of conservation of energy, then it is a no-brainer why your concept is wrong.

I admit the device appears to produce more energy than was used to run the system. And I also admit that the laws of conservation of energy is unrefutable.

con·ser·va·tion of en·er·gy
noun
a principle stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be altered from one form to another.

You must also remember energy can be altered from one form to another. In this case the system combines multiple energy modules creating more energy than any one module in the system. This creates a higher torque return.

Last but not least, I agree with you, I missed something in the design that would prevent the energy return the system seems to imply. I just have not found that flaw; as of yet.
NOTE: if you click on the image you may lose your place in this forum.
You can right click and copy the image.
-

 

[JoeMoma]

Another thing, which I told you long ago in this thread, is that you are conflating energy with force. They are not the same thing. You device could perhaps be considered a force multiplier, but it does not create or multiply energy. There are many devices (machines) that are force multipliers. Please take 12 minutes and watch this video.

 

[JoeMoma]

Another force multiplier

 

[Grumblenuts]

I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,

But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
-

For starters..
"Seawater weighs 64 lb. per square feet"
In air (at sea level and 1 atm pressure). Immersed in seawater, a bucketful of seawater weighs nothing relative to its surroundings. The bucket itself may weigh something, but not the contents in this case.

Let's take a moment and look at an object in water and Archimedes Principle. If you place a 1 cubic foot object that weighs 63 lbs into fresh water, the object is displacing 62.4 lbs of water, but weighs 63 lbs. This object will be negatively buoyant - it will sink. It is however being buoyed up with a force of 62.4 lbs, so if we weighed it in the water it would only weigh .6 lbs.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So if you immerse a loop of containers full of water in water you have a bunch of nothing. Pump high pressure air into those at the bottom to displace the water and, unless anchored somehow, the whole assembly simply floats to the surface.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?

Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
-

Work is energy. Energy is work. Not the capacity or potential to do work. The energy required to lift an object to a given height is the same as that released on impact after falling the same amount. Ignoring air friction and elasticity, the work (energy) is the total expended at any point while lifting an object -or- the total expended upon impact in the form of heat after free falling from the same point.

So your 10 lb ball does not create energy. Lifting it 10-stories expends exactly the same energy as gets expended when it hits the ground. Having it sit on top expends nothing. Dropping it expends nothing. Always remember, as Douglas Adams said, “It's not the fall that kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end.”

"was energy created or not-?"
In nature, energy is never conserved. Energy is constantly being "created" and "destroyed" (same thing).

 

[Grumblenuts]

..Slogging through this thread.. currently at p18 / 28..
Current thoughts -

• Good attitude and great job sticking to your guns. Knee-jerk, pointless nay saying is always par for the course in such discussions, as you clearly well know from experience.
• Teflon is terrible. Read up on the latest findings regarding its environmental costs.
• Go back to the original plan. That was far simpler and more elegant. This balloon business is just nuts, top, bottom, and likely in between. To fill a balloon would require stopping the machine, then starting it again. You could release the compressed air at the top simultaneously, but it would be difficult to evacuate them completely given they'd have to remain sealed all the way up, implying spring pressure being applied upon release.
• The triangular bucket idea was so much better. You could just have the compressed air flowing out constantly at the bottom, bubbling up one side, possibly filling less than full buckets above the current target, all the way up. You could shroud the path somewhat to better guide the bubbles. If the concept works, it works. Otherwise, forget it. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.
• Must anchor the bottom as previously noted, else the whole business will simply find its way to the surface, not to mention very possibly capsizing your barge. Therefore, it would to be fixed in place, not anything you could just stick on the side of a big boat.
• To reiterate, energy is an act, not a thing. A verb, not a noun. Don't listen to the drum beaters. Newton rolls over in his grave every time they post their brain dead, so-called "laws" of this and that, and ceaseless "conservation of energy" dogma. What you seek is a COP near 1 or better. Coefficient of performance, not perpetual motion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, a few more notes before I finishing catching up:

• An "ultimate energy source" this is decidedly not. Putting that in the title does imply attempted "perpetual motion" which is just silly and invites ridicule.
• That said it just may prove a useful addition to the many great schemes already being employed or in the works.
• I've seen no good reason for not building a scale model to test this idea. That obviously must be done before anyone can take the notion very seriously, not to mention applying for a patent.
• Try to keep in mind that COPs of 3 or better (refrigeration for instance) are only possible because "free energy" from the surroundings is leveraged in addition to conventional inputs. Nothing practical energy-wise fails to go with the environmental flow. Wind, for example, easily supplies most of the energy required to raise and keep a child's kite in the air. If you could park your contraption over some venting steam or whatever, that would definitely make it go at low cost. However, it would still need to prove a better way than competing possibilities.

 

[Quasar44]

Ultimate energy source

I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.

I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.

Please see post #2 for the basic concept.

Hydrogen Fusion reactors in only 50 yrs will power the earth just like the sun

 

[Grumblenuts]

I remember them saying that 50 years ago as well

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.
-

Great moments in circular reasoning. You can't simply presume the conclusion you wish for and present that as though scientific argument. Gotta show your work, pops. Do the math, including all potential gains and losses. Then begin crowing if the math confirms your expectations. No one's going to do it for you for free.

 

[Grumblenuts]

. In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy. You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute

JoeMoma, for the life of me I cannot understand why I do not see this as you do.,.,.,.,. and still I don’t.

I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system. It’s really that simple. Instead of five (5) balloons rising within a space of 594 vertical feet we could double this to 1,188 vertical feet. And still, the needed energy to sustain the system is the energy to fill one balloon.


What am I missing here, am I brain dead or what -

JoeMoma is arguing dynamics while you're sticking to statics. Both are valid, but the thing you keep ignoring most is the input required to pump the volume of air you want down to the depth you want in the time you require. That is nothing to sneeze at or simply presume equal to X. Figure it out.

 

[Andylusion]

In any case, I believe that alternative energy sources are the best potential energy sources!
Moreover, the niche of alternative energy sources is developing more and more every day. Every day there are new methods of generating energy using the power of nature.
For example, the well-known solar panels were made portable. Yep, portable solar panels
Indeed, it is very convenient because you can take this panel with you anywhere and it will satisfy your energy needs!
Do you still think that alternative energy sources suck?

For the most part, yes.

There are certain specific situations where alternative energy is fine.

I read where a guy had a million acres of land, and he would move his cattle around on the land, but there was no electricity. But he had a shack out by a stream. So he put some solar panels on the roof, and had a water turbine in the stream, and voila! Power almost year round.

That said, other than a tiny fridge, and a laptop, and a few expensive LED lights.... you couldn't do much.

And if you used everything, you would go dead on power.

At the same time, I know another guy that bought a full roof Solar panel system for his house, dropped thousands on thousand on thousands, and after it was all said and done, he spent $10,000, found he was only saving a few hundred bucks a year.

Then, and I this is crazy.... the system burnt out the inverter, which caused him another thousand to replace, and not even a year later, he suspects a squirrel or some other rodent, chewed on a panel, shorted out the entire system, and they said he'd have to replace every single panel.

He sold it as salvage, and never looked back.

Alternative energy has a very limited use in my book. At the very best, it is a additional source of power, not really an "alternative".

And honestly, the day the US government runs out of money to fund green energy, the entire market will disappear like a ghost. No one would buy a single solar panel anywhere, if it wasn't for the government money involved. You take away those energy credits, and green energy grants, and the tax incentives....

The market would cease to exist in a single day.