Hi,

I have been thinking alot on how to make a gravity wheels and buoyancy wheels.

Both concepts are mostly the same deal, but the problem with "conventional" gravity- and buoyancy wheels is that they spend the same energy to move a weight to one or another part of the wheel to make it unbalanced, as what comes out of it - in fact they rotate as much clockwise as counterclockwise. Adding friction, these devices will stop.

I have already in the half baked section written about another view on gravity wheels. Well, there is not much response there lately, and I do not think the latest idea in that thread works even if I calculated positive average torque. I have no tools to make it, so it will still remain in the computer as an idea with possible flaws in the calculations.

I try to think outside the box -> The keyword is "vacuum"!

The Vacuum Controlled Buoyancy Wheel no. 1    (I just had to name it )

Anyway:
I have an idea, a buoyancy wheel that works in air, and probably much better in water. Here is the list of my thaughts:

1. Have you tried to close the aperture of a medical squirt after the piston has beed pushed all the way in, and then pulled the piston out while keeping the aperture closed? You will then create vacuum inside the squirt. The funny thing is that vacuum is nothing, therefor it will not take more effort to pull this piston further from 1cm out to 10cm out. The force needed is the same regardless of where the piston is located inside the squirt.
The pull force is about 1 kg at 1 cm² piston area.

2. If you have two squirts, fixing the squirts when pointing 100% away from eachother at some distance apart and glue the "head" (the part you usually use to push the piston in with) of each piston together, making the two squirt apertures 180^o apart.

3. Say you have 5ml of vacuum in each squirt, each squirt has also 5ml left before the pistons pops out.

4. If you now try to move these two pistons (which is now linked together with glue) in each direction to increase space in one squirt and reducing space in the other squirt, you use no longer force to increase or decrease the vacuum volume inside them. As vacuum is nothing, the vacuum space inside each squirt is virtually an infinite space regardless of the physical volume inside. And that fact is the clue to the whole thing here - a virtual infinit space, totally nonaffected by changing in volume.

5. Vacuum weights about minus 1,4 kg pr. m³ at sea level.

6. Let us scale these squirts up big time, so we have two BIG cylinders, measuring 80cm in diameter (5000cm²), and 2 meters long. The volume inside each cylinder is 1m³.

7. A piston is placed inside each cylinder, and the air inside is pumped out. It now requires 5 tons of pull to keep a volume of vacuum for each piston. Lucky for us, both 5 tons of pull is 180^o apart - and lets pray that the mechanism between the pistons can stand a total of 10 tons of pull to keep the pistons fixed with constant distance.

8. The alignment of the cylinders and the pistons is vertical. If we use just a tiny little force to slide the pistons upwards (depending on piston weight ofcourse), the cylinder at the very bottom will at last contain 1m³ of vacuum. See point 5. to figure out the buoyancy of that volume. The cylinder on the top now contains air. If there was a shaft in the middle of those cylinders, the whole thing would start to rotate if we gave it a tiny push. When it has rotated one half round, we again use a tiny force to push the pistons up again, and the wheel can continue.

9. The cylinders are 12 meters apart. 1,4 kg buoyancy will then provide a torque of 97Nm in average from bottom to top. Most of the energy used to push the pistons up, is taken from the kinetic energy in its weight on the way down in the rotation. In fact, the weight of the pistons and the remaning mechanism is of no consequence - regardless of rotating speed as well - those forces will in sum be zero in one revolution.

10. Friction is a practical thing we can deal with. It can to a sertain level be controlled and minimized - if essential, and must at least be designed to be less than the energy produced by the vacuum controlled buoyancy wheel.

Anyone who follow this idea? I believe in this idea, and cant find any flaw whatsoever which will prevent this wheel to produce energy. You can talk about forces needed to displace air, or water for that matter, but these actions is cancelled out as one part is displacing air/water while another part is consuming the same amount at the very same time. Hence it does not require more energy than defeating friction to move the pistons. As said: Friction can be minimized - if it is essential.

What will happen if we put this wheel under water? Will we get as much as 34600Nm as average torque in one revolution [(1000kg displaced water x 5m radius) / square root 2))x9,81]? It will be slow due to inertia, but it is possible make a streamlined shape outside the cylinders.

Br.

Vidar

Interesting idea. Your logic seems to comply with mine. So far I can't see something wrong.

AB the difference is that he's not using mass transfer. I'm still tinkering with Vidar's idea trying to either find convince myself it's possible or not.

1. Have you tried to close the aperture of a medical squirt after the piston has beed pushed all the way in, and then pulled the piston out while keeping the aperture closed? You will then create vacuum inside the squirt. The funny thing is that vacuum is nothing, therefor it will not take more effort to pull this piston further from 1cm out to 10cm out. The force needed is the same regardless of where the piston is located inside the squirt.
The pull force is about 1 kg at 1 cm² piston area.

2. If you have two squirts, fixing the squirts when pointing 100% away from eachother at some distance apart and glue the "head" (the part you usually use to push the piston in with) of each piston together, making the two squirt apertures 180^o apart.

3. Say you have 5ml of vacuum in each squirt, each squirt has also 5ml left before the pistons pops out.

4. If you now try to move these two pistons (which is now linked together with glue) in each direction to increase space in one squirt and reducing space in the other squirt, you use no longer force to increase or decrease the vacuum volume inside them. As vacuum is nothing, the vacuum space inside each squirt is virtually an infinite space regardless of the physical volume inside. And that fact is the clue to the whole thing here - a virtual infinit space, totally nonaffected by changing in volume.

5. Vacuum weights about minus 1,4 kg pr. m³ at sea level.

6. Let us scale these squirts up big time, so we have two BIG cylinders, measuring 80cm in diameter (5000cm²), and 2 meters long. The volume inside each cylinder is 1m³.

7. A piston is placed inside each cylinder, and the air inside is pumped out. It now requires 5 tons of pull to keep a volume of vacuum for each piston. Lucky for us, both 5 tons of pull is 180^o apart - and lets pray that the mechanism between the pistons can stand a total of 10 tons of pull to keep the pistons fixed with constant distance.

8. The alignment of the cylinders and the pistons is vertical. If we use just a tiny little force to slide the pistons upwards (depending on piston weight ofcourse), the cylinder at the very bottom will at last contain 1m³ of vacuum. See point 5. to figure out the buoyancy of that volume. The cylinder on the top now contains air. If there was a shaft in the middle of those cylinders, the whole thing would start to rotate if we gave it a tiny push. When it has rotated one half round, we again use a tiny force to push the pistons up again, and the wheel can continue.

9. The cylinders are 12 meters apart. 1,4 kg buoyancy will then provide a torque of 97Nm in average from bottom to top. Most of the energy used to push the pistons up, is taken from the kinetic energy in its weight on the way down in the rotation. In fact, the weight of the pistons and the remaning mechanism is of no consequence - regardless of rotating speed as well - those forces will in sum be zero in one revolution.

10. Friction is a practical thing we can deal with. It can to a sertain level be controlled and minimized - if essential, and must at least be designed to be less than the energy produced by the vacuum controlled buoyancy wheel.

Anyone who follow this idea? I believe in this idea, and cant find any flaw whatsoever which will prevent this wheel to produce energy. You can talk about forces needed to displace air, or water for that matter, but these actions is cancelled out as one part is displacing air/water while another part is consuming the same amount at the very same time. Hence it does not require more energy than defeating friction to move the pistons. As said: Friction can be minimized - if it is essential.

What will happen if we put this wheel under water? Will we get as much as 34600Nm as average torque in one revolution [(1000kg displaced water x 5m radius) / square root 2))x9,81]? It will be slow due to inertia, but it is possible make a streamlined shape outside the cylinders.

Br.

Vidar

1: Actually, the vacuum you will be able to pull in this manner will still contain a lot of air. And if your proposition were true, then commercial vacuum pumps wouldn't need to run for hours just to get those last few microns of air out of a chamber...but they do. SO it does in fact take more work to pull that plunger further out--because you are pulling a greater vacuum.

2,3: OK

4: See #1. Your idealization is incorrect because your vacuum isn't perfect. You will in fact be doing work as you move the pistons back and forth, against friction and against the residual air (you will be heating the residual air, some of this heat will escape, the process is lossy).

5: Totally wrong. Vacuum weighs nothing, not negative. Buoyancy is different, but here you say "weighs" and that's just wrong.

6, 7, 8: OK

9: the key is that you realize: "In fact, the weight of the pistons and the remaning mechanism is of no consequence - regardless of rotating speed as well - those forces will in sum be zero in one revolution."

10: That's right. Refer to #9 above, and you will see that if you reduce friction to ZERO, the forces will sum to zero. The only way you can get continuous rotation is to reduce friction to BELOW zero. Which is the same as providing an external source of driving power.

Your conclusion:
"You can talk about forces needed to displace air, or water for that matter, but these actions is cancelled out as one part is displacing air/water while another part is consuming the same amount at the very same time. Hence it does not require more energy than defeating friction to move the pistons. As said: Friction can be minimized - if it is essential."

That's totally right. You just need to reduce friction to less than zero, and then you've got it. Of course putting the apparatus under water, while increasing buoyancy (and increasing the force required -- you have to lift all that water now, not just the pistons) also increases the friction, greatly, from viscous drag. So by going into the water you have an increased torque developed, an increased torque required (these exactly balance) and greatly increased frictional drag.

Everyone. I have thinked a bit more.

Btw. vacuum has no weight, but in air the weight is negative. Weight is relative. Even if the vacuum isn't perfect, it will still work. I have tried those squirts. It takes 1,5 kilo pull from the first millimeter to the last 10cm. So it is sufficient linearity of that vacuum.

Here is a "small" part of what idea I came up with. it is similar to what I already have with a few differences. I started in MS Word to take som e notes, so here it is "copy and paste":

Perpetial motion without defying the laws of physics.

The power of vacuum in an environment not meant for it.
Vacuum is a state in physics which is known as an empty space, with no mass, with no gravity. Here on earth this state is not natural as there is an atmosphere which surrounds us with a certain pressure – named atmospheric pressure. Due to this fact, if vacuum could exist in that environment, it would disappear in an instant. It is however possible to create vacuum in sealed boxes by pumping out the air inside it.

My concept:
This is a buoyancy wheel, but do not stop reading here. It is a common and accepted knowledge that buoyancy wheels doesn’t work. That is because they are constructed to work in liquid. That simply doesn’t work. Liquid will have different pressure at bottom and the surface of a tank filled with liquid, but liquid cannot be compressed to a denser liquid, therefore density remains the same in both places regardless of pressure. That means that the extra pressure at the bottom will make an air bubble smaller there and therefore contain less volume for buoyancy.

Using gas instead of water:
The alternative is to put a buoyancy wheel inside a box of heavy gas. Buoyancy of air in a heavier gas is not as much as air in water. A heavy gas such as Sulfur Hexafluoride, is 6 times heavier than air and is the heaviest gas compound known to man. An air bubble will at the bottom of a deep tank filled with Sulfur Hexafluoride bee compressed a bit due to the weight of the heavy gas (Like what’s happening in water), so the volume of air will decrease. The good thing is that the gas at the bottom is denser, so even if the air bubble is smaller, the denser gas will compensate for it so buoyancy of that air bubble will be maintained in any position in the gas tank.

Vacuum instead of air:
Altering a volume of air in a sealed box is difficult. The process of increasing and decreasing such volume is not linear, and requires different force to double or halve the volume. It requires 4 times more force to halve than it takes to double it. That said you use twice as long distance to double the volume as it take to halve the volume, which means it takes 2 times more energy to halve.
If the box is “filled” with vacuum, it is used the same force to decrease or increase the volume. In addition the force is always pointing in the same direction when halve or double the volume, as opposed to an air filled box.
With vacuum it is also easier to counterforce as it is a nearly linear function regardless of volume. Vacuum is virtually an infinite space, therefore.


The construction of the vacuum buoyancy wheel:
This is made simple – very simple. I have two tubes made of aluminum. Both tubes have the same length, and the same diameter. They are both polished inside. There is one sealed end with a tire valve mounted backwards on both tubes. The other end is open. Into this open end, a piston is pressed in, and presses the air inside the tube out of the tire valve. The tire valve will close when we pull the piston back again. This creates vacuum inside the tube. It is important that the piston fits perfectly into the tube to prevent leakage.
So, I have two tubes. Each tube is fixed on a solid aluminum profile with the tire valves pointing 180 degrees apart. The pistons are then linked together, so one piston is using force from its vacuum to counterforce the vacuum in the other tube. The distance between the tubes and length of the piston links, makes the volume of vacuum to the half in each tube.
Now as the pistons are linked, there is no net force that acts on the system. Anyone is now, without much force, free to move the pistons in each direction in order to decrease vacuum volume in one tube, and increase it in the other tube.

Further, these tubes have an axis right in the middle between them, right through the aluminum profile they are fixed to, now called “main axis”. The pistons are fixed to an axis off centre the tubes axis. This will force the pistons to alter direction in proportion to the tubes, when one starts spinning the tubes around on its main axis. So the volume in each tube will go from almost nothing to maximum during one round, and practically without spending force to do it. Compare it with moving an object from side to side in thin air.

The axis of the pistons are fixed at the left side of the main axis – this offset horizontally, left or right, is important. So there will always be most volume in the tube at the right side of the wheel in this case.

Let’s see how it works in practice:
In air, the tube with most volume, at the right side, is lighter than the tube on the opposite side, with almost no vacuum volume. In fact all parts of the right side have always more vacuum volume than the left side. So vacuum is used to remove mass on the right side.

When the tubes are aligned vertically, there is a half and equal amount of volume in them. At horizontal alignment, there is full volume in the right tube, and almost no volume in the left.
Now this wheel is placed in a box of heavy gas. The parts of the wheel that is nearest the bottom will have slightly more pressure than the one on the top. Accordingly the lowest parts of the wheel will have greater buoyancy as the gas is denser at the bottom and the volume is locked by the link between the pistons and its axis. What I say is that there is no net force that will prevent this wheel to rotate at any position. There will always be a torque in one direction.

As you understand, the buoyancy of a small volume of vacuum in air isn’t much, as 1 liter of air weighs about 1,4 grams, the buoyancy of 1 liter vacuum is therefore 1,4 grams. So we need to scale up the wheel a great deal, increase diameter to increase torque, use a heavier gas to increase torque, and increase volume to increase torque. Say we make a 1m^3 tubes a few meters apart. Fill a tank with Sulfur Hexafluoride and put a multiple vacuum tube wheel in it.

After parametrization of the formulas I came to the conclusion. That the work W_rot due to the rotation of the structure and the work W_w due to the water displacement has a certain fixed relationship. I really think I did something wrong since this is just too simple to have missed for centuries  .

Anyways the relation in my case having the vacuum cylinder always volume being V= pi m^3. That is a diameter of 1m and height of 1m. I found out no matter how deep you go (thinking it'll increase the torque if I had the volume at some deeper level) there's always the same relation between the two work formulas.

Namely W_rot/W_w = r / (r - 0.25) ...r being the distance from the center to the center of the vacuum. As you can see W_r (the energy from the rotation) is bigger than the energy needed to displace the rod with pistons.

In broli's figure 1, a 2 meter by 2 meter cylinder of water falls one meter. This is all the energy there is in the system, and this is where the buoyancy comes from. In figure 2, that same cylinder of water must be raised back up. If you think that the rotating path makes a difference in the energy, then yes, you have made a mistake in your calculations or assumptions!!

I have to point out that I did make a mistake in my calculation. The 1.5x came out of the radius which was really 1m so the end result should have been 1x in other words no gain in output. I realized the mistake when I was in my bed trying to sleep  .