Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: nix85 on March 18, 2020, 12:30:59 AM
-
This is a simple, primitive but beautiful principle of unquestionable free energy, i been thinking along these lines with balloons and today i remembered the old video i seen about this guy's theory how pyramids were built.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk
Of course, they were not built this way, blocks were floated by extremely high voltage (around 45MV) but i love the principle and strangely, guy apparently doesn't even realize principle is overunity.
It utilizes gravity in two ways, firstly, air pressure allows water in a closed cylinder to rise to any level above the actual water level as long as it is closed. Second way is buoyancy, that objects less dense than water will always float to the top. That is all there is to it.
In video he demonstrates the principle with small weights, that rock might be 1 or 2 kg at most but same principle could be scaled up to lift tons or thousands of tons to any height as long as it's made buoyant.
So this is how i imagined it for fun, let's say we got a cylinder tower 100 meters high full of water inside, which is immersed in a pool of water much like in the video. There is an opening for inserting blocks to float.
Blocks are weighting 1 ton but are made to weight about -1kg by air tank or whatever attached, so it is easy to manipulate with them.
1 cubic meter of water is 1 ton and lead is 11 times denser than water. So it would be a block of lead 44.8 cm x 44.8 cm x 44.8 cm attached to 1 meter cube airtank, very small.
Once they float up to the top, valve 1 is closed, valve 2 opened and block is moved to the larger pool on the right.
What just happened is that 1 ton block gained tremendous potential energy and all the input energy we invested was to close one valve and open another, relatively small electric motor does it.
By controlled descent of the bloks that huge potential energy could then be tapped.
And why use 1 ton blocks when 100 ton blocks could be achieved in relatively small volume.
Like i said, it is primitive, not a system that should actually be built, but interesting to know and admire.
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1y4_gr4LtE
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1y4_gr4LtE
Flawed design, dropping ball could not enter the bottom tank without spilling the equivalent volume of water from it.
-
Now this is getting interesting.
That design is no different in water replacement then the pressure of the bubble wrap that needs to be pushed underwater to enter the pipe.
Let's try a different approach.
Can you please explain how and why your example is undoubtedly free energy ?
-
Now this is getting interesting.
That design is no different in water replacement then the pressure of the bubble wrap that needs to be pushed underwater to enter the pipe.
Let's try a different approach.
Can you please explain how and why your example is undoubtedly free energy ?
Difference is that bubble wrap is pushed into open container and water level is allowed to rise.
You ask why is this undoubtedly free energy and i am left speechless.
Did you read my first post, do you see what happens.
Any weight can be lifted to any height with no input energy whatsoever except to open and close two valves.
Let's say we float 10 tons to 100 meters, we only used energy to open and close two valves (not counting putting blocks into the water tank), let's say we used 3kw geared motor for few minutes, input energy is few dozen watt-hours.
At the same time we gained potential energy of 9806650 joules aka 2724 watthours, that is, ~130 times more than the input energy.
I hope it's clear to you now.
-
Definitely needs discussion and "whatif ?" ideas..
even tiny experiments ...kitchen table/bath tub stuff !
magic doors have been the downfall of many systems [underestimating energy to cycle against pressure or other issues
Vid again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk)
thx Chet
-
All i seen is words.
Words are not free energy and neither is buoyancy.
-
All i seen is words.
Words are not free energy and neither is buoyancy.
Buoyancy is free energy in this context.
Gravity is lifting weight up, with no input energy. ANY WEIGHT, to ANY HEIGHT.
-
"underestimating energy to cycle against pressure or other issues"
When block is made to weight about 0 there is no need for pressure, you can push that 10 ton block below the surface with your pinky literally. Other "losses" are orders of magnitude below energy gain.
-
That cylinder could be 1km high as well and that small stone 100 tons. It would float to the top with same grace and ease.
-
You are probably wondering where does energy come from, think of certain etheric pressure coming from the centers of galaxies and the suns. It is primal form of energy, non-polarized and only small part of it converts to light heat and warmth, only small part of it we feel as gravity and it's polar opposite.
-
Well you c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqfZjaLutFA
And read the comment section
-
Moreover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=984kY2uNLkI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=984kY2uNLkI)
-
Stupid video to say the least, of course bowl weights the same. What's the point.
-
Moreover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=984kY2uNLkI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=984kY2uNLkI)
Oh you're a flat earther, now it's all celear.
-
Why do you mention flat earth are you trying to divert the focus ?
It's self explanatory and has got nothing to do with flat earth.
Did you really watch it or just click it away in ignorance ?
Have you looked closely at this part https://youtu.be/984kY2uNLkI?t=92 (https://youtu.be/984kY2uNLkI?t=90)
-
Why do you mention flat earth are you trying to divert the focus ?
It's self explanatory and has got nothing to do with flat earth.
Did you really watch it or just click it away in ignorance ?
Have you looked closely at this part https://youtu.be/984kY2uNLkI?t=92 (https://youtu.be/984kY2uNLkI?t=90)
In Ignorace of flat earth you mean. Enlighten me, flatter.
You are linking to Eric Dubay's flat earth channel and i am "diverting focus", are you kidding?
Balloons are floating, what's your point besides promoting flat earth videos.
-
I never mentioned anything about a flat earth.
It seems obvious that you are not fit to continue with this discussion in a constructive manner.
Sad.
-
I never mentioned anything about a flat earth.
It seems obvious that you are not fit to continue with this discussion in a constructive manner.
Sad.
You linked to TWO flat earth channels, sad.
Even more sad that you linked to a timestamp of balloons going up in the air with comment "self explanatory".
Explain your point in intelligent and clear manner (if you are capable of) or try luck at some flat earth forum instead.
-
You are the one making the HEAVY (pun intended) claims here but you are unable to articulate any of it.
Then you try to lure me into the o'l explain your point, but it is YOU who has to do this since YOU are the one making the HEAVY (pun intended) claims here.
I'm just here to show you that you are WRONG so you should be able to convince me and everybody else otherwise.
But i already know that you are not going to and this conversation is over.
-
You are the one making the HEAVY (pun intended) claims here but you are unable to articulate any of it.
Then you try to lure me into the o'l explain your point, but it is YOU who has to do this since YOU are the one making the HEAVY (pun intended) claims here.
I'm just here to show you that you are WRONG so you should be able to convince me and everybody else otherwise.
But i already know that you are not going to and this conversation is over.
I articulated my point perfectly clearly, don't blame me that your are incapable of understanding simple natural principles.
-
I ain't seen nothing yet.
Other then a specific (false) claim that is.
And i had estimated you much higher then these last few queries you made.
It's a pity.
-
I ain't seen nothing yet.
Other then a specific (false) claim that is.
And i had estimated you much higher then these last few queries you made.
It's a pity.
You seen nothing cause you are incapable of seeing. It's sad.
-
Not worth my time.
Nix85 is an asshole and nothing more then an asshole just your regular know it all asshole useless thinks he knows it all and he is better then you asshole.
Yuck yuck yuck
-
Turbo Quote we desperately need a solution to solve our ongoing energy crisis end quote
Many are on the same page.... OP [original poster/thread starter]should be aware you are not time waster by nature and sincere contributor with great perspective and input ...
when well received .
and there are others who will experiment here besides myself.
thx Chet PS How hard /expensive to add animation to site ?? seems it use to be here at times ?? we should have all the tools for the job here !! *** Edit: I see its animating now. Edit to comment below..definitely paying attention [seems I am stuck in bold text too :'(
-
Well Chet this world is full of assholes like Nix85
I bet he has a tiny wiener and thats why he has such a big ego.
It's just for compensation dude.
He claims free energy but is of course, unable to deliver.
Just your regular douche the bag.
We have to be careful here because he might take it out on his wife.
Or even his kids and this is highly undesirable but he is the type so i decided to end the discussion immediately.
-
Well that's quite the statement are you a visionary now also ?
What else can you say about me ?
Anyway i took the liberty to simplify your design (or at least the one you proposed) and removed the valves and turned it into a closed system and i also optimized the extra cycle namely the throwing down of the pyramid block part of the cycle that was added by you in cyclic manner targeting eventually discharging the stored gravity energy (if that even is a thing) over the shaft of a generator to illustrate to you what i see and i also have my own idea's about what your not seeing but i wasn't going to ventilate it just yet because of the nature and tone of your replies hopefully you have calmed down and shoved your ego up your ass so that we can now try to discuss this modified Gravity-Buoyancy technology because we desperately need a solution to solve our ongoing energy crisis so i had to enter the discussion when you claimed
Edit: the image in question should be an animated gif but its not really moving at all which is to be expected when you post something on Hartman's board nothing ever works here the site can't play a shitty gif but make sure to donate with cryptocurreny he likes that he doesn't care about the site he just want's to collect money it's always been like that well i added the GB Cycle in thumbnails.
Sad attempt at sarcasm followed by adhominems show perfectly the "tone of your replies", so hopefully YOU "have calmed down and shoved your ego up your ass".
All i said is that you are BLIND which you are, i see all your suggestions altho you are incapable of presenting them in clear way.
Your rotating tube gif clearly shows you did not understand the principle at all. Weight at the top of the tube is the same on the bottom, actually bit lighter. You could have figured out that yourself. So rotating tube is a bad idea.
Tube with two valves as i depcited it is the simplest and best design.
"we desperately need a solution to solve our ongoing energy crisis"
There is no energy crisis, there is only intellectual-spiritual crisis of mankind. Like i said this is primitive principle and should not be built except maybe for fun. There are thousands of working OU principles, there are devices in every country being sold right now. It would be idiotic to say the least to build a system based on the principle and then go against lenz brute force.
Some day you will understand.
-
Okay fair enough can't say i didn't try.
Let's just end this discussion
-
Okay fair enough can't say i didn't try.
Let's just end this discussion
More sarcasm doesn't help you. I hope you at least realized now how stupid the rotating tube idea is.
-
Can't believe that video has been around since 2012! Good catch, I might have seen that video but it didn't register in my mind at the time.
Need to start experimenting.
-
Can't believe that video has been around since 2012! Good catch, I might have seen that video but it didn't register in my mind at the time.
Need to start experimenting.
Yea, it's old but gold. I saw it long ago but did not fully realize it was an overunity system at the time. I already tried the basic principle with jar and water tank and of course it works as expected.
-
Yea, it's old but gold. I saw it long ago but did not fully realize it was an overunity system at the time. I already tried the basic principle with jar and water tank and of course it works as expected.
It almost was as if it was not meant for me/us to NOT understand it at that time.
-
It almost was as if it was not meant for me/us to NOT understand it at that time.
I guess so. Hoewever, i repeat once again, altho it is a beautiful principle which can offer at least 100x energy gain, it should not be used simply cause there are far better systems. But for fun, study and maybe even practical use as weight lifter or elevator, sure.
I can imagine one application could be to use it instead of cable cars. That would be quite cool.
One downside is, if a valve broke, it would create a flood with that amount of water released, but that could hardly ever happen.
-
nix85
There is no energy crisis, there is only intellectual-spiritual crisis of mankind. Like i said this is primitive principle and should not be built except maybe for fun. There are thousands of working OU principles, there are devices in every country being sold right now. It would be idiotic to say the least to build a system based on the principle and then go against lenz brute force.
Well said.
It's like were living in this new age where most people blame everyone else for there own ignorance as if they were a victim.
The fact is we are swimming in a sea of energy where perpetual motion is the norm because nobody can give even one example of something not in perpetual motion. I mean I could rest my case on that single point alone because the answer is so obvious and in our face it speaks for itself. I have hundreds of points but lo and behold it only takes one, lol.
Personally, that is my go to question and I could walk into any room full of hundreds of critics and simply ask for one example of something not in perpetual motion and they have nothing to say to me. So if any of you have an issue with stupid people just ask my question... give me one example of anything not in perpetual motion. Problem solved.
-
I was trying to think why this system would not work or at least come to a stop. Wouldn't the water eventually leak out every time an object inters the feeding tube?
But it seems like even if that was the case the output would be great enough to pump water back into the system?
-
Anyone know what those water separates are called for the tube? Where to buy?
-
More sarcasm doesn't help you. I hope you at least realized now how stupid the rotating tube idea is.
Yes indeed i agree i had not fully understood the exact mechanism.
So now i made a new design based off the principle.
-
Yes indeed i agree i had not fully understood the exact mechanism.
So now i made a new design based off the principle.
Yes, you could do it like that too.
-
Hi Nix85,
You have a very good point with this buoyancy system. Do you remember Rosch https://rosch.ag/uk_kpp.php# ? Their system seemed not to work. But one could imagine a system like their towers. I attach a sketch. It could be automated somehow. Or like the Rosch towers, simply have the units on a moving belt, both up and down, that drives a generator.
-
I found some old ideas I had about how to get it to work. One was having a mercury tower and a water tower.
-
I had also thought about that but its kinda hard to extract any energy like that.
That is why i used the 2 stroke engine principle so that it can drive a crank shaft which in turn can be loaded.
-
Better to use Air ans Water. Mercury is not such a good idea. ;)
-
if these things are connected to each other then it wont work because the energy gets evenly distributed across all balls.
-
Hi Nix85,
You have a very good point with this buoyancy system. Do you remember Rosch https://rosch.ag/uk_kpp.php# ? Their system seemed not to work. But one could imagine a system like their towers. I attach a sketch. It could be automated somehow. Or like the Rosch towers, simply have the units on a moving belt, both up and down, that drives a generator.
Yes, same thing.
-
in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5qd7bEiqA&t=897s between about 12 and 20 minutes you see the operation of their system - it's all in water! They need compressors to have the units air filled while rising and water filled while sinking. In my version you just use the trapped bubble of air on one sealed side of the towers to have an air return.
-
I believe that magicians were the ones that built the pyramids of Egypt., because their magicians were in support of the people's doing. Magic could put a pen through a glass bottle, then people are shown. How was it done? It is magic. So magic could actually carry weights you know.
-
Government funded Troll that quickly wants to bury the valuable info on the previous page.
-
"in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5qd7bEiqA&t=897s between about 12 and 20 minutes you see the operation of their system - it's all in water! They need compressors to have the units air filled while rising and water filled while sinking. In my version you just use the trapped bubble of air on one sealed side of the towers to have an air return."
Their system is not good. And your system is same as mine first drawing. In both one needs to lift the weight at the top and transfer it to other side to be dropped. Once again, this is interesting OU principle but is too primitive.
-
...
Their system is not good. And your system is same as mine first drawing. In both one needs to lift the weight at the top and transfer it to other side to be dropped. Once again, this is interesting OU principle but is too primitive.
Granted. Now all that needs to be done is to automate it. If even 100Kg weights could b used. and a tower of 2.0387m height, then energy gained per weight and ascent is E = mgh = 100x9.81x 2.0387= 2000J. If your automation process could shift it over within 1s,
then if there is a steady stream of weights, that could give up to 2kW. You's have to go to a wider or taller system to get more. Wider as if you want 1000Kg you may need a wider weight with lighter material padded round. Or if you expand vertically you need more leg room upwards.
-
Granted. Now all that needs to be done is to automate it. If even 100Kg weights could b used. and a tower of 2.0387m height, then energy gained per weight and ascent is E = mgh = 100x9.81x 2.0387= 2000J. If your automation process could shift it over within 1s,
then if there is a steady stream of weights, that could give up to 2kW. You's have to go to a wider or taller system to get more. Wider as if you want 1000Kg you may need a wider weight with lighter material padded round. Or if you expand vertically you need more leg room upwards.
I did similar calculation, it is very very low power output, even with weights like 10 tons. For the 10th time, this is NOT a good OU principle for energy generation.
I said it in other threads, i'll say it again, focus on lenz neutralization, air cores and right angles.
-
Thanks for sharing.
Yes as you say Nix there is an obvious overunity effect with this simple concept.
Have you heard of the heron pump apparently not overunity but if you could apply this concept with the heron pump it could or can work.
Anyways with the overunity effect going on doing work you have to tap it externally so if it was automated use the stored power from the over cop 1 effect to repeat the cycle and i bet you would have left over excess power.
Dan
-
Thanks for sharing.
Yes as you say Nix there is an obvious overunity effect with this simple concept.
Have you heard of the heron pump apparently not overunity but if you could apply this concept with the heron pump it could or can work.
Anyways with the overunity effect going on doing work you have to tap it externally so if it was automated use the stored power from the over cop 1 effect to repeat the cycle and i bet you would have left over excess power.
Dan
I youtubed it, i see it's self perpetuated fountain that doesn't work. It immediatelly reminded me of book Etidorphpa where being from inner Earth explains how water can rise above it's level, apparently conquering gravity.
Here it is https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/eti/eti35.htm
"I tell you that mother earth, in the phenomena known as artesian wells, uses sand and clay, pools of mineral waters of different gravities, and running streams. The waters beneath the earth are under pressure, induced by such natural causes as I have presented you in miniature, the chief difference being that the supplies of both salt and fresh water are inexhaustible, and by natural combinations similar to what you have seen; the streams within the earth, if a pipe be thrust into them, may rise continuously, eternally, from a reservoir higher than the head. In addition, there are pressures of gases, and solutions of many salts, other than chloride of soda, that tend to favor the phenomenon."
-
Take a look at this!
https://youtu.be/gxnHJoyrQpM
-
Nice find
-
Nice video indeed. The only problem is the transition water to air. Note that he doesn't show that part as it's probably manual. It could be automated, however. But still, though this does give power it's funny that nobody wants to develop it. I suppose those really interested in OU have their circuits or other systems that do it better and more compact. I for instance have a good plan for an all magnet system. Also one based on inertial forces. And from 10 years ago a motor using Lorentz fore in a special way.
-
I think a simple leverage mechanism can lift the float/weight somehow from the top of the tube. Having gates at the top and button of the tube keeps the water from draining.
-
See attached image.
-
3 gates is better.
-
What would be the advantage
-
Less pressure, I think it makes it easier to work with the gates.
-
Naah, just more complications of already overcomplicated system.
-
Naah, just more complications of already overcomplicated system.
Where is the overunity?
The gain that you could get by transforming the potential energy of the object when it's lifted to the top, is the same of the energy that you have to spend for refill with the same quantity of water the top of the "tower", before to open the valves and make the system start again.
The object, lifting up in the column of water, make an identical amount of water to go down on the bottom. The water that is going down has a specific weight that is the same, no, a little more of the object's weight (otherwise the object wouldn't lift). When you close the valves to recover the object in the upper side (and then maybe make it fall to move a generator transforming the Ep in real energy ecc ecc), instead of the object remains an equal amount of air. How do you refill that, without consuming the same quantity of energy?
I hope I am wrong, I really would like to see an overunity sample. So please answer me.
Interesting principle, indeed.
Bye
-
Example: Take two metal bars , extend both from ground up to above the Earth atmosphere , then connect them via wire to the load and run load by the generated current due to temperature difference.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqUV_s0-VAQ&t=323s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqUV_s0-VAQ&t=323s)
-
@Nix85
The video you posted on page 1.
@
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk
I have tried my hand at several "work from gravity" designs.
I thought I had it at one point. It took someone coming along
with an outside perspective to reveal that it was just a case of
tunnel vision on my part.
I have been pondering the present design all day, and I haven't as yet
seen a reason why this is not a free energy from gravity, method.
I am going to diagram this with real values for the volumes, weights and heights,
while also looking for some error or flaw in the principles.
Of course, as we are all already aware, there is probably something we are not
seeing as of yet, and this will turn out as non O.U..
Nice find, interesting. Fantastic find, if it pans out well.
best wishes
floor
-
User andrea peged it right. But I just couldn't see it till I drew it out
best wishes
floor
-
The amount of fluid loss from the upper tank is very little.
A heavy float should be able to produce enough energy as a falling weight to pump water back up.
-
THEY MIGHT BE POOR BUT NOT STUPID. THERE MUST BE SOME TRUTH
IN THESE MACHINES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgAPB5nReU
-
Seychelles
A good salesman can sell plenty, most FE scam guys
Are good salesmen ....unfinished unshipped machines ?
Two guys working around dozens unfinished?
Camera guy should have started movie at machine running
Equipment that the two workers are using!( yes I know could easily be faked too)
FE scammers ( some very longtime guys)
Some names I don’t want to write here come to mind ....
Makes the blood boil too....
However there are some guys that will say this design you
Post
“Can” be done ... but don’t say how or show working units
So not open source??
This one however should have many more workers IMO
Your link again https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgAPB5nReU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgAPB5nReU)
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
I believe the buoyancy concept being mentioned here has been tried ?
Not sure where link is
Forum could use much more organization ...
And of course you never know what new twist could make things cycle
( utilizing magnet or heat or other influences to tip scale
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20031011234306/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/forsale/plans/elsa/ELSA.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20031011234306/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/forsale/plans/elsa/ELSA.htm)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserballastbahn (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserballastbahn)
I used it,more than 15 years before ! ;)
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FElevador_do_Bom_Jesus (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FElevador_do_Bom_Jesus)
Often here to see and "think about" :
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserturm
-
The amount of fluid loss from the upper tank is very little.
A heavy float should be able to produce enough energy as a falling weight to pump water back up.
The design presented by nix85
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk
is I think a very cool design. If one has a large reservoir at height,
(for example, a mountain lake) one could use the system indefinitely,
as long as nature refreshes the lake with rain at least as rapidly as
the device uses it. In that case it would be a "free energy device",
in the same respect, as is a dam and power generation station upon a river.
The device would be a free energy device, because the sun and wind are free.
other wise
One will expend exactly (at best) the same amount of energy in lifting water to
fill the upper tank (pumping water) as one would expend in lifting the float by
some other method.
Before friction losses and so, the system is exactly unity. After friction losses
and so on, the device is less than unity.
There is no net gain in energy.
The heavier the float used is, the more VOLUME it needs to have in order that it
will be less heavy, than an equal volume of water.
If the float is not less heavy than an equal volume of water, then it will not float.
The float, in falling from the upper tank, would only ever be able to lift exactly the float's
own weight in water (at best), and then only if the system has not losses as friction
and so on.
floor
-
The tram presented by LankIV is also, I think very cool. Elegance in simplicity.
By its not O.U.. LankaIV knows this very well / is not claiming it to be O.U..
Ask him your self.
best wishes
floor
-
CHET MY THEORY IS THAT THE FLYWHEEL GAINS ENERGY FORM THE FORCE OF
GRAVITY. THE FLYWHEEL ACCELERATION NEEDS TO BE FASTER THAN THE GRAVITY
ACCELERATION, WHICH IS 9,81 M/S SQUARE. PLUS THE FLYWHEEL HAS TO BE POWERED FROM
IT OUTER RIM, TO GET THE EFFECT OF LEVERAGE.
-
THE GENERATOR IS CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE FLYWHEEL SHAFT.
-
THE FLYWHEEL IS GOING THROUGH THIS ZERO GRAVITY WHEN IT PAST THAT 9.81M/S SQUARE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch/HQbAwE83phk
-
The tram presented by LankIV is also, I think very cool. Elegance in simplicity.
By its not O.U.. LankaIV knows this very well / is not claiming it to be O.U..
Ask him your self.
best wishes
floor
https://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm (https://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm)
compared Mandelstam/Papalexi parametric generator !
Both underunity per cycle,overunity in additive cycles sum !
point of view science and measurement : https://techxplore.com/news/2020-08-black-silicon-uv-responses-efficiency.html (https://techxplore.com/news/2020-08-black-silicon-uv-responses-efficiency.html)
Sincere
OCWL
p.s.:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19940818&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=DE&NR=4304132A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19940818&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
In Fig. 6 a paddle wheel is shown, I built this paddle wheel, it is driven by four pumps with a combined power of 900 watts in a circulation process. These four pumps put eight liters per second, in this case water, into the paddle blades. This means on the fall side of the paddle wheel for eight blades of the wheel a weight of over 70 kg and that at the outermost edge of the wheel. The paddle wheel has a diameter of 1.80 m, which results in a radius of 0.90 m, an enormous leverage effect. It goes without saying that a 10 kW generator can stall with such force. If I hadn't stood by it myself, it would be incredible for me with today's technology. FIGS. 2 and 3 are portable power generators and intended for installation in vehicles for locomotion.
1994-08-18
written 10 000 W generator output / 900 W pump motors input ratio : sufficient error reserve !
down to 450 W pump permanent magnet motors input ,2021 standart
f.e.: claimed double efficiency https://www.linkedin.com/company/thor-power-corporation
from the paper water wheel to :
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=3621312&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en (http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=3621312&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en)
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3621312A1/sv (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3621312A1/sv)
compact water wheel turbine:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19801211&CC=DE&NR=2922736A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19801211&CC=DE&NR=2922736A1&KC=A1#)
citing documents !
-
So....
I don't think at all, that we should "give up" on looking at or for over untiy or free energy or
alternative energy designs and so on.
I say let's keep on keepen on !
best wishes to all
floor
ps
nice posts / links LankaIV
-
Where is the overunity?
The gain that you could get by transforming the potential energy of the object when it's lifted to the top, is the same of the energy that you have to spend for refill with the same quantity of water the top of the "tower", before to open the valves and make the system start again.
The object, lifting up in the column of water, make an identical amount of water to go down on the bottom. The water that is going down has a specific weight that is the same, no, a little more of the object's weight (otherwise the object wouldn't lift). When you close the valves to recover the object in the upper side (and then maybe make it fall to move a generator transforming the Ep in real energy ecc ecc), instead of the object remains an equal amount of air. How do you refill that, without consuming the same quantity of energy?
I hope I am wrong, I really would like to see an overunity sample. So please answer me.
Interesting principle, indeed.
Bye
Wrong, you don't have to refill, only open and close 2 valves. Any weight to any height.
-
Right.Open two valves and a little push then the problem might be to fall back this weight to the bottom.
-
Why would that be a problem, once on top you just got to lift it over the pool wall. Small electric motor can do that and could be automated.
-
interesting similar principle with compressed air
as u can see air is injected at the bottom
and immediately cylinders are rotated trapping the air
making em buoyant, at the top air is released
https://youtu.be/7-5qd7bEiqA?t=752
ofc, again, i don't suggest anyone follow this
primitive principle with so many better ones out there
-
https://gravity-power.com/?fbclid=IwAR05xvkZUHASbRMXX-jlXJ71Uctnldw_xGGyR924vpSbNsF1YHREwdulpm0
-
Interesting video, don't know if it's real, claimed principle is as water falls on the left side air suction pulls water up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC8NEiwrLTg
-
asymmetrical is key to achieving cop over 1 but efficiency never over 100%
-
Here is what appears to be principle used in the video above, it is not fake neither is it free energy.
I linked at key moment, you can see he filled the bottle, screwed the cap and THEN he poured the water into the container. I think water in the container is exerting pressure on the air in the bottle as it tries to rise up the tube, so air in the bottle is at slightly higher pressure than surrounding. As he opens the vent on the bottom water spills out and i guess now pressure in the bottle drops creating suction and water is sucked from the container, but you can see more water is running out than returning and water level is dropping so not perpetual.
https://youtu.be/WGIOuKrxGrA?t=358
-
Video someone posted here but it disappeared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxnHJoyrQpM
-
Travis is back, he has already proven it's self-running in 2010.
he is looking for funds to build even bigger one
https://www.youtube.com/@waynetravis6951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_MLjkt8ti4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y
pressure = force / area (means small amount of water in narrow high tube can explode a barrel below)
Nix
-
Travis is back, he has already proven it's self-running in 2010.
he is looking for funds to build even bigger one
https://www.youtube.com/@waynetravis6951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_MLjkt8ti4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y
pressure = force / area (means small amount of water in narrow high tube can explode a barrel below)
Nix
Visually it appears as less energy used but this is not more m=out than in. YES he is using less air but the DEPTH of water displaced requres greater pressure, he is merely playing with an analogue version of volts vs amps.
Also.....seriously...he is displacing the air and looking at volume only with his LUNGS. Hardly a scientific CONTROLLED experiment. If he measures the pressure it takes between comparing the two jars he will find the energy used to pump the air regardless of volume is the same.
Then finally....his big ungainly contraption and its low output with countless moving parts and methods of generating the electricty from all that slow lumbering movement are just tallying up to loss after loss in conversion. Yes....a 4 tonne ugly unit to not even power my cellphone.
-
Visually it appears as less energy used but this is not more m=out than in. YES he is using less air but the DEPTH of water displaced requres greater pressure, he is merely playing with an analogue version of volts vs amps.
Also.....seriously...he is displacing the air and looking at volume only with his LUNGS. Hardly a scientific CONTROLLED experiment. If he measures the pressure it takes between comparing the two jars he will find the energy used to pump the air regardless of volume is the same.
Then finally....his big ungainly contraption and its low output with countless moving parts and methods of generating the electricty from all that slow lumbering movement are just tallying up to loss after loss in conversion. Yes....a 4 tonne ugly unit to not even power my cellphone.
While it is obvious this is one of the simplest, most primitive overunity principles, overunity it is nonetheless and he has looped it back in 2010., believe it or not.
As for your 'argument' that the narrower one requires more pressure is a common skeptical 'argument', if you listen to linked video part 5 above he says that splitter is adjusted so that air volume coming out is the same on either side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW0LKPM0Tvk
His contraption is indeed big and ungainly, and as i said one of more primitive ones, but still overunity it is.
Nix
-
Re the Wayne Travis device.
1. There are two air tubes.
2. The tubes vent into the aquarium at the same depth (bottom of the aquarium)
they will therefore oppose the same water pressure.
3. If the tubes split off from the same air pump, have the same length and
diameter as each other, they each will therefore the inject the same volume of
air into the tank within any given period of time.
4. If the tubes split off from the same air pump, have the same length and
diameter as each other, they each will therefore the inject the same volume of
air into each of the vessels in any given length of time.
5. The one vessel rises to the surface before the other. Therefore if given a longer
run time and a heavier weight, it could have instead of rising sooner, lifted a heavier
weight to the surface, than the other vessel lifted ? ? ?
6. This would be more weight lifted to the same height but for the same energy input.
-
Re the Wayne Travis device.
continued
In the video @ Travis Effect Demo 5 - Work Race with Travis Effect VS Standard - YouTube
Neither vessel is being filled with air as efficiently as would be the case,
when the hoses are instead connected to a barbed fitting on the tops of each vessel.
As it is in the video, all of the air is pumped out at the maximum of pressure.
Air is being pumped to greater depth (against greater water pressure) than is needed
in order to put the same volumes at depth, of air into the vessel.
The air at more shallow depths of the containers (the upper interior areas of the containers)
could have been placed there using less energy, although, more and more energy is expended
per unit of volume of air, as the vessels fill with air and the water in the vessels is being
pushed out the bottoms of the vessels. This is because the air is being pushed to greater
and greater depth.
Independent controlling of the rates of air flow does not change the energy needed to
push a given volume of air to a given depth in the water.
-
"2. The tubes vent into the aquarium at the same depth (bottom of the aquarium)
they will therefore oppose the same water pressure."
Good point, this alone seals it. Few bubbles on the right side and weight is buoyant
100 bubbles on the left side to make the same weight buoyant.
Nix
-
Re the Wayne Travis device.
1. Over all, the verbal descriptions given in the videos are lacking in detail.
2. The device is being configured differently in some of the videos than it was
configured in other videos, without full description be given of those changes.
3. If the air output tube is connected directly to a tube passing through the concrete
filler, this raises the height at which the air in that container is exiting the tube.
This would cause that vessel to fill with air more rapidly than the other vessel.
My vote is that its a bogus device.
-
Wrong.
Nix
-
Build one and test it for your self then show us.
-
No, you build one and test it for yourself then show us that it's not.
Nix
-
There are over unity devices and methods that work.
However, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
-
perpetual
Water is difficult to compress and for the most part, is considered as practically
in-compressible. At the very bottom of the oceans the pressure may compress it
by a little more than 1 %.
Air is much easier to compress than water.
A party balloon will measurably shrink in volume when submerged to ten feet
depth in water.
That balloon is less buoyant at ten feet of depth than it is when near the surface of
the water. This is because buoyancy (the tendency of an object to float in a fluid) is
caused by the difference in density of that object and the fluid it is immersed within.
Density is the relationship of an objects volume to its weight. More specifically, density is
"The mass per unit of volume of a substance under specified conditions of pressure and
temperature".
If an object of a given volume weighs more than an equal volume of a fluid it is immersed
in, that object sinks, If an object of a given volume weighs less than an equal volume of a
fluid it is immersed in, that object floats, Steel floats in liquid mercury. Mercury has a
higher density than steel.
A balloon's volume shrinks when it is submerged below water, Its weight remains unchanged.
This means that its density has changed. It is more dense when submerged, and it is therefore
less buoyant.
to be continued.
-
Willy Firstly, you can call me Nix as it is my actual nickname as clearly written
I know well there are (many) overunity devices and methods that work
and i spoke about many of them in my threads below, as for burden of proof
no one wants to prove you anything, realize that, instead be grateful inventors
share their worthy efforts with the world.
https://overunity.com/18619/another-lenzless-idea/
https://overunity.com/18391/two-kinds-of-induction-henry/msg541681
https://overunity.com/18272/kunel-device/
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/
https://overunity.com/19090/just-another-don-smith-thread/
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/
https://overunity.com/18848/plausons-converter/
https://overunity.com/18592/few-general-formulas
https://overunity.com/19384/mechanical-resonant-oscillation-as-basic-overunity-method/
Now, you 'expound' on few absolute physics basics i believe every first grader knows
and you turn these absolutely basic things into long paragraphs as if you are talking quantum physics
Realize, i am am in depth student of physics for many years on a level that is far above the level
you represent.
Some of it is summarized in my formulas https://justpaste.it/c5avk
And about some of it i speak on my blog https://vril12.wordpress.com/
With that said, i know perfectly well water is almost incompressible and that air is much easier to compress than water and that balloon is less buoyant at ten feet cause it shrinks and becomes denser than it is when near the surface of the water just like in vacuum it expands, and that buoyancy is caused by the difference in density of that object and the fluid (does not have to be fluid) it is immersed within. And that density is the relationship of an objects volume to its weight aka "The mass per unit of volume of a substance under specified conditions of pressure and temperature". And that denser matter sinks in a medium of less dense matter lol, you repeat yourself, and that steel floats in liquid mercury and that mercury has a higher density than steel. And that balloon's volume shrinks when it is submerged below water and its weight remains unchanged but it's more dense due to higher pressure.... ALL these are absolute basics and it is funny you write it all as if all this is not perfectly understood by any first-grader, and you even add to be continued as if more "relevations" to come lol.
Understand, the mere fact, and you said it yourself but you don't get it, that air is pumped below the cups at same depth, SAME PRESSURE, and the fact it takes only few bubbles to make the right weight buoyant and it takes many more bubbles to make the left weight buoyant alone proves right one with a spacer is far more efficient. This by itself does not necessarily mean it is overunity, but Travis has proved it is so, by looping it, now, that you don't believe him is your problem only. You will learn that you are wrong.
Nix
-
Nix
No need to be so caustic in the tone of your comments.
If the basics, empirical experimentation and replication are beneath you,
then perhaps you would prefer that I not post in this topic.
Just say the word and I will start a parallel topic instead of posting here.
-
Not caustic one bit, just stating facts. You did expound on basic physics principles of density and
buoyancy as if you are making some big revelation.
Then you caustically put basics and empirical experimentation/replication in one basket, two different things.
Of course these basics are beneath me, there is nothing in what you wrote a firstgrader does not know. And i don't mind you posting here, i just don't like you making claims it's not overunity
when you did not even test it.
As for empirical experimentation/replication of this principle, i said i did not and will not replicate
this one, maybe i will for fun some day surely not to prove anything to you.
Point is, as stated before, that this method of generating buoyancy is clearly proven as highly
efficient. As for overunity, i believe Travis he did loop it in 2010. as he says. It is rediculous to
think he would go to such length and invest so much money and time if it was not overunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbJWBtoFMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbIJnEOw8Y
pressure = force / area (means small amount of water in narrow high tube can explode a barrel below)
I will say again, Travis' system, altho overunity, is absurdly bulky, overcomplicated, pretty much horrible. But still, i have no doubt it is overunity.
Nix
-
There is a related topic here
https://overunity.com/18243/cadmans-hydrostatic-displacement-engine/90/
-
I know, but it's been dead for years.
Nix
-
BTW, since you claim Travis effect is not overunity which it is, how do you feel about the principle discussed in this thread, the fact that any weight can be lifted to any height for free at a cost of opening two valves. If you don't understand read back from page 1.
Weight falls doing work and then rises by itself to same height or any height, as high as desired, it can rise to 1000 km if water pole is that high. Once it's up there, or thousands of weights are up there, two valves need to be opened and closed. Then weights just need to be pushed over the edge and they will fall down 1000 km doing work all the way down and as they hit the ground they will rise all by themselves to 1000 km again and cycle repeats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxnHJoyrQpM
There is hardly a more obvious, more undeniable PROOF of overunity.
Nix
-
I have read this entire topic and in fact I also studied the first design presented.
Didn't you under stand that each time one of the floats moves into the top tank,
it is because an amount of water which is equal to the weight of the float has been
transferred to the bottom tank.
The energy expended in filling the top tank with water, is all that can be gotten out of
that method or device.
One could accomplish the same thing by filling a bucket while it is at the top tank height
and then lowering that bucket by a line through a pulley so that the float attached to the
other end of the line is raised by the bucket of water falling.
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg554971/#msg554971
-
It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.
But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.
Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.
Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.
So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.
Easy-peasy indeed!
Don't you understand that float will rise for 1000km up all the way to the top doing work
and once it reaches the top valve is opened, float fills with water and sinks AGAIN doing
work all the way down.
So we had a -10kg weight doing work for 1000km going up and 10kg weight doing
work for 1000km going down - at a cost of momentarily pushing it underwater and
opening a small valve on it once it reaches the top.
Don't you understand how IMMENSE the energy gain is here.
I pronounce this the first officially, replicably PROVEN overunity principle on this forum.
Nix
-
It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.
But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.
Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.
Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.
So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.
Easy-peasy indeed!
Don't you understand that float will rise for 1000km up all the way to the top doing work
and once it reaches the top valve is opened, float fills with water and sinks AGAIN doing
work all the way down.
So we had a -10kg weight doing work for 1000km going up and 10kg weight doing
work for 1000km going down - at a cost of momentarily pushing it underwater and
opening a small valve on it once it reaches the top.
Don't you understand how IMMENSE the energy gain is here.
Nix
I like your next concept (above).
But it requires the same amount of energy to insert a float against pressure at the bottom
of a tube of water, as it takes to push that float down against buoyance (to the bottom of the tube, from the top surface, through the water).
"It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed."
Water is displaced down ward that is equal to the floats own volume but also greater than the floats own weight. But I knew what you meant.
I missed that to at first. But still it was a really cool design.
Thanks for finding it and presenting it here.
-
I like your next concept (above).
But it requires the same amount of energy to insert a float against pressure at the bottom
of a tube of water, as it takes to push that float down against buoyance (to the bottom of the tube, from the top surface, through the water).
You just witnessed a miracle, history in the making, and in a way, you were a part of it.
And you still deny it, ccc. And with what kind of silliness. What you wrote is totally ridiculous.
Do you have a slightest idea the amount of work a negative 10kg weight free falling up and
then 10kg weight free falling down does even from far far lesser height, let alone the imagined 1000km.
And how incomparably tiny is the energy needed to momentarily push that float into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is underwater as much as float is thick, say 20cm. Input is nothing.
It is ridiculous to even compare the tiny, momentary input with the long long and heavy work
it does falling up and falling down, gain is in thousands and thousands of times, in a tube so long
it would surely be in MILLIONS of times.
-
Firstly (I am sure that you are aware) the energy of its falling is exactly equal
to the energy spent to lift it.
The energy is equal to the force times the distance moved.
The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom.
Less force to sink it from the top, but a greater distance of travel or a greater
force to insert it but a shorter distance. But the energy inputs are equal.
This is one of the things that makes it a tough proposition (buoyance based energy experiments).
-
Firstly, of course energy it generates by falling is exactly equal to the energy it generates
by lifting, but nothing is spent, it lifts itself by buoyancy and then non-buoyancy is induced
by simply opening a small valve and it now falls with same weight in reverse, generating
energy in both directions.
Energy aka work is force * distance moved OR Mass * Gravity * Height.
Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube.
You cannot compare this to the ocean where you got all the surrounding water thousands
of miles away all of it contributing to the pressure and no air pressure on the bottom.
This is totally different.
Pressure at the bottom of the tube is 1 atmosphere, cause huge air pressure by far overcomes
the weight of the water in the tube.
This is the very reason it is possible to keep a column of water in the air with a small pool
of water at the base. It's all about gravity and air pressure.
If it were not so water would be at different pressure at the bottom of the tube vs in the tank
around it at the same level which is nonsensical.
It would mean if you dip your hand in the tank you would feel nothing, but if you moved it into
the opening of the tube pressure would suddenly rise immensely. This is nonsensical and
nature does not work like that. Pressure is the same at the bottom of the tube and the tank
it is sitting in.
So your whole suggestion is totally wrong.
It is easy to insert the float. Once it is pressed just below the surface in the tank it is
EFFORTLESS to push it into the tube.
And from there it lifts by itself.
Of course float should be pointed on top and bottom to reduce the water resistance.
Input is zero for all practical purposes. Gain is immense.
-
Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube.
You cannot compare this to the ocean where you got all the surrounding water thousands
of miles away all of it contributing to the pressure and no air pressure on the bottom.
This is totally different."
The pressure at the bottom of a tank of water is not dependent upon the diameter of the tank.
A 10 meter tall, 3 centimeters in diameter pipe filled with water, has the same pressure at its bottom as does a 10 meter tall, 3,000 centimeters in diameter tank filled with water.
-
I know perfectly well pressure at the bottom of a tank of water is not dependent upon the diameter of the tank. I wrote that wrong in a hurry.
I know perfectly well width does not matter, only height.
I always give example of a lake on the mountain when talking about potential, it may be infinitely wide or just a puddle and it would have same potential cause height is all that matters, but not the same available current.
That aside, this is different from a regular tank. Very different.
Have you considered my example with a hand etc.
Here, i'll help you, do you think boy when putting stuff under the tube is fighting any pressure
higher than he experiences in the rest of the tank at that level.
https://youtu.be/rxFXsoqbfrk?t=57
Do you understand now that your claim is unrealistic.
Will you now admit you were wrong that pressure at the bottom of the tube is great and that energy to insert the float and open the small valve on the top is equal to energy float generates by falling up to the top and back down.
PS See how that pen goes up swiftly, that is pretty much how a 10kg or 100kg or 1000kg torpedo float would go, slightly slower due to bigger resistance, but not much slower. All for free.
Nix
-
Seems kitty ate his tongue.
I consider this satisfactorily proven to all reason and scientific inquiry.
Nix
-
In order to get a float into the bottom of a tank of water (or a tube of water)
It takes the same amount of energy to insert the float at depth, as it takes to push it
down from the surface to that same depth.
Generally, less force to sink it from the top, but a greater distance of travel
or
a greater force to insert it but a shorter distance of travel.
Simplifying and ignoring friction and some other factors, these two energy inputs are equal.
1. lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. push float to the bottom (energy input)
3. float rises to the surface (energy output)
4. Float falls exterior to the tank (energy output)
numbers 1 and 4 cancel to zero
numbers 2 and 3 cancel to zero
or
1. insert float directly into the bottom of tank (energy input)
2. float rises to the surface (energy output)
3. Float falls exterior to the tank (energy output)
numbers 1 and 2 cancel to zero
and
number 3 is free ?
or else
it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to push
it to the bottom of the tank from the surface.
if
it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to push
it to the bottom of the tank from the surface
then
the float would be ejected with more energy due to pressure at the bottom of the tank
than is the energy required to sink the float to the bottom from the surface.
1. Lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. push float to the bottom (energy input)
3. float is ejected by pressure from the bottom of the tank (energy output)
what if the float is made of lead ?
1. Lift float to top of tank (energy input)
2. float sinks on its own, to the bottom of the tank (energy output)
3. float is ejected by pressure from the bottom of the tank (energy output)
in which case, the float can definitely be ejected at the bottom of the tank
with more energy than was required to sink it to the bottom of the tank.
also then
it requires more energy to insert the float at the bottom of the tank than it takes to
sink it to the bottom.
what if the float has the same density as water ?
what if the float has 1/2 the density of water ?
-
I gave you the example with the hand in the tank.
I helped you with video example, i asked you do you think boy experiences greater pressure straight below the tube compared to rest of the tank on the same level.
I asked you do you still claim pressure is great at the bottom of the tube.
You have not addressed/answered any of this, you are again expounding from the wrong premise and thus you tangle yourself in horrible confusions upon confusions and based on them you come to wrong "conclusion" that input is equal to output.
You are now really wasting my time with nonsense.
Understand, this is not a regular tank, this is a tank with closed top and open bottom which does not spill out due to the fact air presses on the water it is immersed in from all sides equally with immense force while from the top of the tube there is no pressure at all since there is no air.
Surrounding air pressure also eliminates the pressure at the bottom that would be present in regular tank. And this is the key. So here, unlike the regular tank, float can be inserted at the bottom FOR FREE, that is, input is so minimal it is nothing.
Nothing is equal here. Input is absolutely minimal, zero for all practical purposes. ALL work done by float free falling up and then free falling down is completely free work.
Input is thousands of times smaller than output.
I will ask you again, do you still claim pressure at the bottom of the tube is greater than in rest of the tank which is 1 atmosphere.
Nix
-
Very cool
I was writing and posting as you were also. I did not see your post until
I had already posted my last post. It happens that way some times.
Your design is very cool indeed.
Problems to over come.
1. Removing the float from the top of the tank will be against a vacuum or
negative pressure relative to the pressure outside of the tube, but this can be
overcome by closing a gate valve across the bottom of the tube after the float enters.
Then allowing the same volume of water as is the volume of the float, into the tube
(at the top of the tube) to enter the tube as the float is extracted from the tube.
2. What ever the height of the tube, the energy expended in lifting a volume of water
equal to the float's volume, to that height, must be subtracted from the gain of the float's rising
in order to keep the tube full during successive cycles of operation.
3. If the tube is tall enough the vacuum against the top of the tube, (caused by the weight of
the water hanging in the tube) will cause the water to boil (even at room temperature).
Still and all, very creative thinking on your part. Nice !
-
I know it happens sometimes, but it does not hold water (pun intended)
My post was posted at 01:26AM and your at 02:40AM, 1h and 14 minutes later.
That aside, "very cool" is a nice compliment but does not cut it, i admitted openly i was wrong about the first principle, i want you to admit the same for both main claims you made.
1) that pressure is great at the bottom of the tube
2) that input is equal to output
There are no problems to overcome, especially not what you wrote.
1) No. There is no removing float from the top, what are you talking about. Float is sunken at the top by remote control by opening a small valve and it comes back down to the bottom. A momentary radio signal is enough to activate a small motor for 1 second. Energy input is nothing.
2) No. You still don't get it, no energy is expended to lift the float, IT LIFTS ITSELF. Of course it will displace it's volume of water from the tube but as i have proven since pressure at the bottom is one atmosphere it is effortless to insert the float, thus energy to displace this water is nothing. And the moment we pull it out the tube and tank, that water will return to the tube. Besides, float does not have to be taken out, once it falls back down to the bottom, it's air chamber is simply pumped with air, since ambient pressure is 1 atmosphere, work is nothing.
3) No. Pressure of the water is 1 atmosphere everywhere in the tube, bottom to the top, there is no vacuum, no boiling.
You only see problems that do not exist.
Again, pressure at the bottom of the tube is 1 atmosphere as it is at the top of the tube. With a diving gear one could enter the tube and dive up as far as he likes with no ill effects.
It is effortless to insert the float and effortless to sink it at the top.
It is doing free work free falling up to the top and free falling back down.
Now, i want to hear your admission on both points - for pressure at the bottom and input/output energy. Is it so hard to admit, i did it, you can too.
Nix
-
This is forbidden science, it took me 5min of googling to find an experiment like this, almost all show that upside down glass with paper trick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWeyM4X788o
If we imagine the bottle below is like Burj Khalifa 828 meters aka 2716.54 feet tall it is hopefully clear to everyone by now, pressure at the bottom is just the same as if it were 1cm tall. It's one atmosphere.
And if float is pushed into it, it will float to the top and once up there it is allowed to fill up and it will fall to the bottom, doing work going up and down.
-
I did not see this post by you
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576443/#msg576443
untill after this post by me
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576447/#msg576447
This post by you
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576446/#msg576446
I did see befre I posted this
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576447/#
-
So will you admit you were wrong finally.
Nix
-
A Quote from perpetual
"1) No. There is no removing float from the top, what are you talking about. Float is sunken at the top by remote control by opening a small valve and it comes back down to the bottom. A momentary radio signal is enough to activate a small motor for 1 second. Energy input is nothing."
The end of that quote
So then air exits the float and water eneter the float. There is now a volume of air at the top of the tube equivalent to the volume of water inside the float.
Assuming that this gives the float a negative buoyancy rather than a neutral or positive buoyancy, the float then sinks.
There is now a volume of air at the top of the tube which is equivalent to the volume of water inside the float.
-
A Quote from perpetual
2) No. You still don't get it, no energy is expended to lift the float, IT LIFTS ITSELF.
The end of that quote
The float does not lift itself. Gravity lifts it by buoyancy.
The energy expenditure I am referring to is the energy of the water flowing from above
the float to beneith the float as the float rises.
-
A Quote from perpetual
3) No. Pressure of the water is 1 atmosphere everywhere in the tube, bottom to the top, there is no vacuum, no boiling.
The end of that quote
Put a hole in the top of the tube once the tube has been pulled above the water (while the bottom of the tube remains barely under water) then put your finger over the hole or plug a vacuum gauge into the hole.
Try this with a drinking straw.
-
Now you are just spamming instead of admitting you are wrong.
Sure, air from the float is released into the tube. So what. Since pressure in the tube is uniform one atmosphere it is effortless to once in a while pump that air out.
Then this nonsense that float does not lift itself but gravity does. LOL You are really desperate. I have perfectly clearly stated that float lifts due to buoyancy, due to gravity. You have started grabbing onto semantics altho everything is perfectly clear. You are desperately trying to find some flaw stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong.
I know you were referring to energy of the water flowing from above the float to beneath the float as the float rises but you made a false conclusion due to the same false premise that this is a regular tank i already explained to you but in vain. Like i wrote above, pressure in the tube is one atmosphere, it is effortless to periodically suck that air out just like it is effortless to insert the float into the tube. So your "argument" is wrong.
As for the vacuum, no. I know how a drinking straw works and that trick with putting a finger on top of it. But it is not kept up due to vacuum, it is keep due to the fact atmospheric pressure is pressing on the water from below while nothing is pushing from above except weight of the water but atmospheric pressure is much greater, i already explained this.
If hole was opened in the top of the tube water in the tube would feel atmospheric pressure from above and below and it would fall due to gravity and as it falls it would create partial vacuum which atmosphere would immediately fill. But since there is no hole in the top of the tube this cannot happen, there is no vacuum, no boiling of water no matter how high the tube, even 1000km.
Need i remind you you claimed pressure at the bottom of the tube is great due to weight of the water above.
It is not, as clearly proven.
You claimed energy input is equal to energy out.
It is not, as clearly proven.
Stop spamming and admit you are wrong.
-
As you wish. I'm outa here.
-
oops
-
As you wish, more spamming based on nonunderstanding, and he runs away refusing to admit he is wrong, like a 5yo.
The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom
But the energy inputs are equal.
Oops
Nix
-
At the point in time (above) of which you are referring to. You may have had the tube idea in mind,
but you definitely had not presented nor described "that" tube / design variation, into our discussion.
The first reference by you, NIX to me, Will,y of a tube. is here @
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/dlattach/attach/190511/
Previous to that point I at one point, used the word tube instead of the word tank but
you Nix, had not.
Other wise Nix, you had not as yet discussed this other / new tube. The word "tube" was only ever in use in reference to the tank.
As I said, you had not introduced nor described nor explained your modified design, as having a new tube (one which was not previously in the design).
Until
You present a photo as
during your reply as
« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »
You just witnessed a miracle, history in the making, and in a way, you were a part of it.
And you still deny it, ccc. And with what kind of silliness. What you wrote is totally ridiculous.
Do you have a slightest idea the amount of work a negative 10kg weight free falling up and
then 10kg weight free falling down does even from far far lesser height, let alone the imagined 1000km.
And how incomparably tiny is the energy needed to momentarily push that float into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is underwater as much as float is thick, say 20cm. Input is nothing.
It is ridiculous to even compare the tiny, momentary input with the long long and heavy work
it does falling up and falling down, gain is in thousands and thousands of times, in a tube so long
it would surely be in MILLIONS of times.
and again here @
« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2023, 11:32:02 PM »
Quote
It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.
But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.
Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.
Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.
So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.
Easy-peasy indeed!
The end of that quote
These statements by you, were made before your photo of "the" tube and before any other
references to a tube, by you, other than in the context of and reference to the outer most tank.
I myself made a similar error, when I made several statements without having first
qualified them in a context as being applicable, only when the float is assigned a 100 % buoyancy. However you never corrected me in that error.
-
Lol, what. You are making a fool out of yourself.
I have been using the term tube since page two....
Tube with two valves as i depcited it is the simplest and best design.
Also, i presented the new tube idea here.
https://overunity.com/18434/simple-and-powerful-principle/msg576431/#msg576431
And tube was never a reference to the outer tank, lol, what bs are you writing. Tube always meant the tube, clearly and obviously.
You are a liar on multiple accounts. There are no errors on my side. You are trying to distract with bs from the errors you made you still refuse to admit.
The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom
But the energy inputs are equal.
You claimed pressure at the bottom of the tube rises with height of the tube.
And that energy input/output is the same.
I already corrected you on these and others like the claim that water would boil in the tube.
Key errors you made are the first two.
Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube, it is one atmosphere regardless of the height.
And energy due to float falling up to the top and then sinking down is not the same but orders of magnitude larger than input energy.
These are the key errors you made, admit them.
Nix
-
I have been thinking about this principle again and revisiting my old idea of making the tube rise above the cylinder, possible solution to air released at the top. When we consider A Vacuum Suspended Fish Tank like this
https://youtu.be/6RnorkCkEqI?t=63
Obviously, if he opened the tube, water in the cylinder would immediately drop because partial vacuum is broken and atmospheric pressure is equalized from above and below.
But if that tube extended all the way up into space into vacuum then water would not fall down despite the fact tube is open for there would be no way to equalize the pressure.
Now, question is what is the minimum height of the tube at which water inside the cylinder would not drop.
If that height is, say just few meters above the top of the cylinder, then once the float floats up to the top (doing useful work) is opened on one side so water can enter and other side is connected and opened to the tube, if air pressure in the tube is less than pressure at the top of the tank, then air at 1 atmosphere trapped inside the float should discharge into the area of lower pressure and at the same time water should easily fill the float. When float fills up, vents are closed and float now has weight of 10kg (compared to -10kg it had on the way up) and does useful work once again as it falls to the bottom.
And once on the bottom everything is at 1 atmosphere again and so it's easy to pump in the air again or simply take the float out and spill the water from it and repeat the process.