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