Ultimate energy source

[Grumblenuts]

Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case. We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method. So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one.

Tidal generators leverage environmental energy from the Moon's gravity. They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels. Prime movers requiring no "fuel." But being inherently intermittent makes them most useful periodically and all require some maintenance. The tidal stuff has proven particularly difficult to maintain due to constant movement of sediment by the ton daily. A very tough thing to design around.

 

[JoeMoma]

They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.

Those are not perpetual motion machines.

 

[Grumblenuts]

They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.

Those are not perpetual motion machines.

Wow, really? Perhaps why I put "perpetual motion" in quotes.. even added "of a sort" on this occasion. Here, look:

Apparent perpetual motion machines[edit]
As "perpetual motion" can exist only in isolated systems, and true isolated systems do not exist, there are not any real "perpetual motion" devices.

Notice how even though they are impossible by definition.. guess what? So are (admittedly!) "true isolated systems." Ergo..? So is the energy conservation "Law" itself.. following the exact same reasoning process.

However, there are concepts and technical drafts that propose "perpetual motion", but on closer analysis it is revealed that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients, or simply cannot sustain indefinite operation. In general, extracting work from these devices is impossible.

And guess what "some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients" indicates? An open system! Reality. So, in non-reality,.. systems that are impossible don't work "in general." Thanks modern physics speak!

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Well the kicker there is "Little to no maintenance".

Everything in this world breaks down, and falls apart. Everything does. Nothing just lasts forever.

I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Room for improvement -- forever the biggest room in the world!

They make most of those windmills too big on purpose and the design sucks anyway compared to mine.

 

[JoeMoma]

They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.

Those are not perpetual motion machines.

Wow, really? Perhaps why I put "perpetual motion" in quotes.. even added "of a sort" on this occasion. Here, look:

Apparent perpetual motion machines[edit]
As "perpetual motion" can exist only in isolated systems, and true isolated systems do not exist, there are not any real "perpetual motion" devices.

Notice how even though they are impossible by definition.. guess what? So are (admittedly!) "true isolated systems." Ergo..? So is the energy conservation "Law" itself.. following the exact same reasoning process.

However, there are concepts and technical drafts that propose "perpetual motion", but on closer analysis it is revealed that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients, or simply cannot sustain indefinite operation. In general, extracting work from these devices is impossible.

And guess what "some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients" indicates? An open system! Reality. So, in non-reality,.. systems that are impossible don't work "in general." Thanks modern physics speak!

I saw what you did with the quotes; however, the OP of this thread is very confused about principles of physics. I don't want to add to that confusion by making up a definition of Perpetual Motion Machine that simply isn't so. Also, his device is not designed to harness energy supplied by nature.

Anyway, It is time for me to leave this nonsensical thread again. TaTa For Now.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.

That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.

{* - designed in obsolescence}

 

[Andylusion]

I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.

That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.

{* - designed in obsolesce}

So, not only do I not see any articles that support what you just said, but honestly the exact opposite.

Germany's windmills are wildly unpopular

In renewable energy, competition from fossil fuels isn't the only problem: Local politics may be an even higher hurdle.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

And as far as the BS about corporations designing them to fail....

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

From The Telegraph Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study. By Robert M…

wattsupwiththat.com

Then what you are saying is that every single wind turbine company on the entire freakin planet, intentionally designed their products in a way that would cause their companies to go bankrupt?

That's ridiculous. The problem isn't that the subsidies run out. The problem is, nothing lasts forever. Nothing does. To design a generator that lasts 50 years, would be so expensive, that all the subsidies in the world, wouldn't cover the cost of them.

This isn't some tin foil hat conspiracy theory... this is a fact of material existence.

 

[ding]

I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.

That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.

{* - designed in obsolesce}

So, not only do I not see any articles that support what you just said, but honestly the exact opposite.

Germany's windmills are wildly unpopular

In renewable energy, competition from fossil fuels isn't the only problem: Local politics may be an even higher hurdle.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

And as far as the BS about corporations designing them to fail....

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

From The Telegraph Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study. By Robert M…

wattsupwiththat.com

Then what you are saying is that every single wind turbine company on the entire freakin planet, intentionally designed their products in a way that would cause their companies to go bankrupt?

That's ridiculous. The problem isn't that the subsidies run out. The problem is, nothing lasts forever. Nothing does. To design a generator that lasts 50 years, would be so expensive, that all the subsidies in the world, wouldn't cover the cost of them.

This isn't some tin foil hat conspiracy theory... this is a fact of material existence.

Yeah, it's a real shit show. My son worked in that industry for awhile. They don't spend enough time or money on maintenance.

There is a natural tendency for optimism when it comes to analyzing the economic feasibility of projects BEFORE they are capitalized. It is only after the project has been completed and online that the optimism in the economic assumptions eventually come to light.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Can this machine produce useful work?

Principles to run the machine

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed but expandable, 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
A cubic foot of air under water has a lifting force of 64 pounds per square foot of water displaced]
by the air. at 2 ATM's the lifting force of that bubble is 64 pounds

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 3 feet per second.
at any one moment in time

as I see it;
how about you--? -

 

[watchingfromafar]

Also, his device is not designed to harness energy supplied by nature.

Gravity is a natural function of nature; as I see it
-

 

[Grumblenuts]

Theoretically speaking.. How constant is your "Y"? Using balloons, if that's actually possible, will your "lifting force" not increase dramatically as one rises and expands displacing far more water? Here are some interesting related facts beginning with compressing the air required to fill your alleged balloons in the first place:

Cooling is a crucial step in the compressed air process. The ideal gas law tells us when the pressure on any constant volume of gas increases, the temperature also increases. ... The intercooler removes heat from the air between compressor stages while the aftercooler is used for cooling air discharged from a compressor.

So let's say you use a steel pipe to get this air (however cool) down to your desired depth to fill the bottom most balloon. Now..

The temperature of ocean water also varies with depth. In the ocean, solar energy is reflected in the upper surface or rapidly absorbed with depth, meaning that the deeper into the ocean you descend, the less sunlight there is. This results in less warming of the water. Therefore, the deep ocean (below about 200 meters depth) is cold, with an average temperature of only 4°C (39°F). Cold water is also more dense, and as a result heavier, than warm water. Colder water sinks below the warm water at the surface, which contributes to the coldness of the deep ocean.

Hmm, 4°C, interesting.. More dense water means more buoyancy or less?

When liquid water is cooled, it contracts like one would expect until a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius is reached. After that, it expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and then when it freezes it expands by approximately 9%.

The volume of displaced fluid is equivalent to the volume of an object fully immersed in a fluid or to that fraction of the volume below the surface of an object partially submerged in a liquid. The weight of the displaced portion of the fluid is equivalent to the magnitude of the buoyant force.

Alternatively, air itself can be treated as a fluid in terms of buoyancy, so as someone suggested way back, why not just set up a prototype above ground?..

If you can remember the simple acronym 4H MEDIC ANNA, you can remember the gases that are lighter than air. These lighter than air gases are Hydrogen, Helium, Hydrogen Cyanide, Hydrogen Fluoride, Methane, Ethylene, Diborane, Illuminating Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Acetylene, Neon, Nitrogen and Ammonia.

Methane sounds lovely. Simply collect your farts for a while and you're golden. Have something pop a cork out at the top and you're all set..

 

[watchingfromafar]

Methane sounds lovely. Simply collect your farts for a while and you're golden. Have something pop a cork out at the top and you're all set..

You may be on to something. If we can artificially replicate the production of the “fart” we may be able to commercially produce this gas as an energy source.

Chemical Composition of Farts
The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the bacteria inhabiting the colon, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
• Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.
What Is a Fart Made Of?

Flatus (intestinal gas) is mostly produced as a byproduct of bacterial fermentation in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, especially the colon.

Over 99% of the volume of flatus is composed of non-smelly gases. These include oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane.

Archaea (singular archaeon) constitute a domain of single-celled organisms. These microorganisms lack cell nuclei and are therefore prokaryotes. Archaea were initially classified as bacteria, receiving the name archaebacteria (in the Archaebacteria kingdom), but this classification is obsolete.

Archaeal cells have unique properties separating them from the other two domains, Bacteria and Eukaryota. Archaea are further divided into multiple recognized phyla. Classification is difficult because most have not been isolated in the laboratory and have been detected only by analysis of their nucleic acids in samples from their environment.
Archaea - Wikipedia

And here as well-
10 fascinating facts about farting

I believe this energy source is worth looking into/ how about you-?
-

 

[Grumblenuts]

In this rare instance, I recommend having a cow.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Chemical Composition of Farts
The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the bacteria inhabiting the colon, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
• Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.

There are hundreds of thousands of sewer treatment plants. This sewage could be used to produce the gases listed above.
Right now EXXON is spending milions$$ to improve the yeast production of alcohol.
They should but a little research into fart gas production as well.
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

Chemical Composition of Farts
The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the bacteria inhabiting the colon, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
• Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.

There are hundreds of thousands of sewer treatment plants. This sewage could be used to produce the gases listed above.
Right now EXXON is spending milions$$ to improve the yeast production of alcohol.
They should but a little research into fart gas production as well.
-

I believe I will start this topic elsewhere

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look up trash to energy plant technology. They do pretty well at converting all manner of volatile, flammable gases into heat and electricity while processing waste. Unfortunately, they also tend to release lots of pollution and be less efficient than proposed.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case.

correct, and thanks for getting involved

We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method.

Again, you are correct and again I thank you for getting involved in this discussion

So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one.

I’m not sure what you mean by environment. I am using the upward pulling force of entrapped air.

The concept is simple enough. There is a vertical row of containers filled with air that are tied together combining the lifting force into force (X). At the same time, to maintain this rising force you need to add a new container (Y) with air at the bottom at the same time the top container reaches the surface and turns around on its journey back to the bottom.

The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?

Not really. Common sense will tell you that since you're already acknowledging a need for a new bucket each time one is consumed, then the whole thing clearly runs off that one bucket at a time. Individual buckets comprising a "vertical row" also had to be "charged" or recharged individually at earlier points in time corresponding to their speed and positions.

The real question then becomes whether you can get net energy out of the rise of one bucket less far than the air had to travel down to charge it? Not bloody likely. I know the OP was talking more recently about lowering tanks of compressed air, but I presume that amounts to cheating akin to using smoke and mirrors.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’m not sure what you mean by environment.

I mean from the surroundings. The ocean may have different temperatures and pressures locally which could be leveraged. Air bubbling from a vent in the ocean floor could certainly make a huge difference in this case.