Ultimate energy source

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, I've read the whole damned thing now. Nothing more to add for now..

 

[watchingfromafar]

I have re-run the numbers-- here's what I found in this go around
If you need to enlarge the image
press [CTR] while rolling you mouse roller up or down

The attached image did not open, so here it is in another format--

 

[Grumblenuts]

So I notice your variation in balloon radius has been much reduced. This I presume due to added compression at greater depths. Still, filling a balloon under such circumstances just seems ridiculous and the more reason to revert back to your original (non balloon) plan.

 

[JoeMoma]

Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?

You keep asking this and I continue to answer it-
The purpose is to convert the lifting force of multiple trapped air balloons into mechanical energy which is then converted into electrical energy.
Principles to run the machine

[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] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
*** while at the same time it only takes the energy to fill one balloon at a time to keep the combined lifting force of all the balloons running
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

I encourage someone here or elsewhere to patent this idea and put it to work powering the next generation into the next

How about you—JoeMoma-?

 

[JoeMoma]

Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?

You keep asking this and I continue to answer it-
The purpose is to convert the lifting force of multiple trapped air balloons into mechanical energy which is then converted into electrical energy.
Principles to run the machine

[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] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
*** while at the same time it only takes the energy to fill one balloon at a time to keep the combined lifting force of all the balloons running
-

I was under the impression that the purpose of your device is to mechanically output more energy (which is not the same as force) than is input to it. Am I correct?

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)

 

[JoeMoma]

I encourage someone here or elsewhere to patent this idea and put it to work powering the next generation into the next

How about you—JoeMoma-?

One moment, please...

www.ipwatchdog.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Great read there, JoeMoma. Thanks. I'd bet Newman was offered no actual choice about grounding his device. That goes way back as well. So he let them proceed just to see how well it would do rather than just pack up and leave. But why so uptight about grounding? What if significantly more energy is freely available from the environment when all or part of the apparatus is simply allowed to float or accumulate charge like an antenna? That's largely how they shut Tesla down. That's why they still insist upon grounding everything. Unsafe! Can't meter it? No good! Can't profit!

That said, it most likely doesn't really matter. As the article says, people bent on building perpetual motion machines are never in short supply and patents are not a necessity. If one were actually demonstrated to work we'd all soon be building a copy or waiting to buy one. And I agree completely. The only thing more pathetic than a perpetual motion inventor is one trying to get others to do most of the essential planning, proving, building, and testing for them. Technically however, it's only perpetual motion if the plan is to drive the input solely from the output. Otherwise, say if nature ends up providing free energy in the form of steam vents for this thing, it'll just be a machine with a high C.O.P. like a heat pump.

 

[JoeMoma]

Technically however, it's only perpetual motion if the plan is to drive the input solely from the output. Otherwise, say if nature ends up providing free energy in the form of steam vents for this thing, it'll just be a machine with a high C.O.P. like a heat pump

His concept device is not using any "free energy" from nature. If the energy were being supplied by steam vents, water currents, or some other process of nature, then it might be a workable idea.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I agree. I should add that solar panels and windmills requiring little to no maintenance obviously get all their input free from nature. Nothing necessarily gets fed back to an input. The output is essentially free. Perhaps even better than perpetual motion.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air. There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
-

What about tides? Seawater waterline is constantly static.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I admit the device appears to produce more energy than was used to run the system.

It doesn't appear to do that at all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's a very cool home grown trash/irrigation water pump:

 

[watchingfromafar]

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)

JoeMoma, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.

Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.

fulcrum
/ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported.

pivot
/ˈpɪvət/
the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.

JoeMoma, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.

The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.

Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Something worth watching-----

Sustainable Energy
(Season 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Sustainable-Energy - Equal Productions
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)

JoeMoma, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.

Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.

fulcrum
/ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported.

pivot
/ˈpɪvət/
the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
View attachment 362486

JoeMoma, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.

The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.

Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
-

After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison

They've used ten balloons energy.

the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running.

If getting 10% back out is a victory, you win!!

 

[JoeMoma]

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)

JoeMoma, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.

Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.

fulcrum
/ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported.

pivot
/ˈpɪvət/
the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
View attachment 362486

JoeMoma, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.

The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.

Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
-

On the input side you are filling one balloon (force = X) and the air has to be moved 600 ft under water.
distance times force = 600X

On the output side you have 6 balloons moving up (force = 6X). The distance they move until the next balloon has to be filled up is 600ft/6 = 100 ft.
distance times force = 6X times 100 = 600X.

What you seem to be missing is that the air for filling one balloon is MOVED DOWN 600ft for the 6 balloons to to MOVE UP 100 FT.

Your device does "multiply" force. It does not multiply energy and would be extremely energy inefficient.. Force is not the same thing as energy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)

JoeMoma, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.

Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.

fulcrum
/ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported.

pivot
/ˈpɪvət/
the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
View attachment 362486

JoeMoma, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.

The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.

Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
-

Flaws it is then:

Don't distract yourself. You're proposing a linear, sequential apparatus based upon addition / subtraction, not lever multiplication.

The balloon notion is utterly ridiculous. No conceivable way to fill and empty them quickly enough through a presumably single, relatively small nozzle or tube fitting. No material that would withstand the natural abuse even if the damned things somehow managed not to interfere with the apparatus or one another to begin with. Go back to the original or at least consider some sort of piston / cylinder or fixed size tank / moving membrane design.

Admit that you're proposing a "perpetual motion" machine, i.e. one capable of generating more energy than it consumes to run.

Do ALL the math. Demonstrate exactly how it manages to do what you suggest with apparently zero environmental input needed.

 

[JoeMoma]

Admit that you're proposing a "perpetual motion" machine, i.e. one capable of generating more energy than it consumes to run.

This should be the end of this thread right here. Perpetual motion machines are not possible using any physics known to humans. And WatchingFromAfar isn't proposing any type of physics not already known to humans. Energy output will never be greater than energy input for that would violate the law of conservation of energy.