Author Topic: well engineered motion into electricity device (Read 21233 times)

gravityblock · « **Reply #45 on:** April 27, 2016, 01:39:26 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 27, 2016, 12:36:51 PM

"There is no company and there is no proven technology." - That means there is no functioning company with a full-time staff talking orders and doing installations.

"For all practical intents and purposes, the company exists on paper only." - That means there is no functioning company with a full-time staff talking orders and doing installations.

Hence I thought there was a possibility that English was not your first language.

The technology has been proven by nature (bio-technology) and is also based on the same principals as the bladeless vortex wind turbine. "No company" doesn't imply it's a "non-functioning company" as you're trying to infer. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in what you were trying to convey.

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #46 on:** April 27, 2016, 01:55:59 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 27, 2016, 01:21:14 PM

False assertion and misdirection!

Argument by assertion only! Please state what your claiming to be a false assertion and misdirection! Also, please provide a rebuttal to the false assertion and misdirection claims.

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #47 on:** April 27, 2016, 02:13:52 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 27, 2016, 10:40:20 AM

I don't think it is viable at all, having moving parts under water to generate electricity is subject to too many problems.

Tell that to MeyGen and Andritz Hydro Hammerspace!

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #48 on:** April 27, 2016, 02:40:00 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2016, 10:27:53 AM

Imagine a building on the seashore. You have solar panels on the roof and a WITT wave power installation on the shore. Which system gives you more bang for your buck? Obviously this is an over simplified example but my nose is leading me towards the solar panel installation on the roof. For example, the solar panel installation, just the installation costs, might be 1/100th the cost of the wave power installation if not more than that. No moving parts vs. these big gyrating floats and huge gears and clutches and power couplings to generators, and on and on. That sounds like very low maintenance vs. high maintenance and relatively low cost to relatively high cost to me (No matter what they are claiming about the low maintenance.)

Once again, big gyrating floats aren't necessary with MeyGen and Andritz Hydro Hammerspace and can produce power 24/7 unlike solar. You'll get less bang for your buck with solar power.

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2016, 06:17:51 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 27, 2016, 12:32:47 PM

Your description is not clear so I can't comment. Common sense tells you that a trout has to expend energy to swim against the current.

Zombie Fish: Science makes a dead trout swim upstream (with video)!

The water swims the fish. “Fish don’t’ swim, they’re swum and birds don’t fly, they’re flown”, Viktor Schauberger.

Like I said, common sense doesn't always rule, so you'll need to put your thinking cap on, assuming of course you have one.

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2016, 07:07:24 PM »

Dead trout towed behind a cylinder can passively generate thrust and move upstream on a slack line when they happen to synchronize with the vortices (see snapshot below). No muscle activity is required to maintain station, or even to move upstream (see snapshot below)! Here's the supporting video!

Gravock

gravityblock · « **Reply #51 on:** April 27, 2016, 07:28:24 PM »

Lateral and ventral view of dead trout in flowing water (video).

Youtube user, wuweifish3 comment: "Yes, the fish is being "swum" by the vortices, not by muscle activity! The tether is slack when the fish is moving upstream, indicating passive thrust generation due to the intrinsic compliance of the musculoskeletal system" (snapshot below).

Gravock

MileHigh · « **Reply #52 on:** April 29, 2016, 02:07:19 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 27, 2016, 01:11:51 PM

Another false assertion by you! There is no direct analogy between pitching a battery technology that never goes into production and pitching an underwater electricity generating technology that never goes into production as you falsely assert (see below).

.
.
.

The device is essentially a scaled up version of the HS300, with some changes made to accommodate the facilities at the EMEC tidal test site. The turbine is heavily instrumented and will serve as a platform for future research and development activities.

References: MeyGen and Andritz Hydro Hammerfest

Gravock

Drawing a parallel between two systems that never go into production is perfectly valid - the commonality is that they never go into production.

Then you try to pull off a bait-and-switch by not talking about the company Vortex Hydro Power which has no working systems and switching over to two different European companies that extract power from moving water using 100% conventional turbine blade technology that is by design much simpler and perfectly suited to driving a coaxial generator.

MileHigh · « **Reply #53 on:** April 29, 2016, 02:50:28 AM »

For the trout, there is nothing to get excited about.

1. When the trout wants to expend minimal energy, it will relax all of its muscles. Hence it will be indistinguishable from a dead trout. As they explain, the trout can rest in moving water by positioning itself next to a natural water vortice.

2. A trout can swim upstream by exploiting the natural vortices in the moving water as much as possible. It's like a condor staying aloft without expending any energy by exploiting the upward convection currents in the air.

3. A trout can expend energy and create a small vortice next to it's body, and then swim such that the two factors combine and it can move very quickly.

Without any naturally occurring vorticies in the water to exploit, common sense tells you that a trout has to expend energy to swim against the current.

MileHigh · « **Reply #54 on:** April 29, 2016, 03:02:37 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 27, 2016, 06:17:51 PM

Zombie Fish: Science makes a dead trout swim upstream (with video)!

The water swims the fish. “Fish don’t’ swim, they’re swum and birds don’t fly, they’re flown”, Viktor Schauberger.

Like I said, common sense doesn't always rule, so you'll need to put your thinking cap on, assuming of course you have one.

Gravock

No, common sense rules almost all of the time, and here your failure is to not mention any special conditions.

Me: Common sense tells you that a trout has to expend energy to swim against the current.

You: Common sense doesn't always rule, so you'll need to put your thinking cap on, assuming of course you have one.

And there is your fail right there. You are a really lousy debater with all of the bait-and-switch nonsense or making loaded statements like above.

Here is how the discussion should have gone:

Me: Common sense tells you that a trout has to expend energy to swim against the current.

You: With a set of special conditions where there are natural vortices in the water, the trout can exploit these vorticies and swim against the current while expending a bare minimum of energy, or if it is very lucky it can swim against the current expending no energy at all.

I would like to assume that you actually have a thinking cap, and in any future debates you will be honest and express yourself properly and avoid the technique used by the pulp pseudoscience press where they write fake headlines for legitimate articles.

MileHigh · « **Reply #55 on:** April 29, 2016, 03:13:26 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 27, 2016, 01:39:26 PM

The technology has been proven by nature (bio-technology) and is also based on the same principals as the bladeless vortex wind turbine. "No company" doesn't imply it's a "non-functioning company" as you're trying to infer. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in what you were trying to convey.

Gravock

Saying "no company" does indeed imply a non-functioning company when you are clearly discussing a company that has some kind of a presence, even if they are doing nothing. It's just casual everyday business slang that is in common use.

MileHigh · « **Reply #56 on:** April 29, 2016, 03:21:51 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 27, 2016, 06:55:05 AM

Another red herring!

No, it is you who needs to put your thinking cap on! If a dead trout can move upstream without expending any energy by creating vortices...

Not by "creating vortices" but rather by exploiting the existing vortices that are there in the turbulent stream. As you can see, you led yourself down a garden path and next time put your thinking cap on.

MileHigh · « **Reply #57 on:** April 29, 2016, 07:59:32 AM »

Quote from: gravityblock on April 27, 2016, 02:40:00 PM

Once again, big gyrating floats aren't necessary with MeyGen and Andritz Hydro Hammerspace and can produce power 24/7 unlike solar. You'll get less bang for your buck with solar power.

Gravock

When you examine the hypothetical case of a low-rise commercial office building next to the ocean with a large roof surface area, and you compare solar power and some sort of hypothetical system to extract power from the nearby ocean, the first thing that comes to mind for me is the cost of the installation and the associated return on investment.

I am just going to take a guess that with the rapid decrease in the cost of solar panels and the fact that there is now a huge industry with an established ecosystem, the ROI is probably between 10 and 20 years for a typical office building installation like I am describing. In contrast, if you went with some sort of underwater sea power installation for a single building, the ROI would probably be between 100 and 200 years.

So you get more bang for your buck with solar power.

Just from glancing at the two European underwater turbine companies you linked to, I am going to assume it is only economically feasible for large-scale installations where there are regular underwater flows that can be readily harnessed. I did not check if either company has a true working commercial installation at this time.

lancaIV · « **Reply #58 on:** April 29, 2016, 12:46:10 PM »

http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0511S30-33.pdf
an undersea hydraulic ram pump,aproved by their own prototype experiment

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: well engineered motion into electricity device (Read 21233 times)

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

gravityblock

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

MileHigh

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device

lancaIV

Re: well engineered motion into electricity device