Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Finally I think I got it !  (Read 30184 times)

Joao

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2009, 09:13:38 PM »
A 100 kg of anything is still a 100 kg; why the distinction between weight and water?  ???.

Hans von Lieven


Because to lift 1000 kg of water utilizing for instance 100 kg of  stones by negative presure  will resolve the water pumping problem in the world. The input (100 kg) will be 1/100 of the output (1000 kg). Or no?

broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2009, 12:07:10 AM »
I think some are suggesting something like the attached drawing. To be honest my head is going to explode with all the hydrostatic pressure crap so I'm going to lay off it for a bit.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 02:25:10 AM by broli »

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2009, 02:22:44 AM »
Because to lift 1000 kg of water utilizing for instance 100 kg of  stones by negative presure  will resolve the water pumping problem in the world. The input (100 kg) will be 1/100 of the output (1000 kg). Or no?

100 times 100 equals 10,000 not 1000

Hans von Lieven

rlortie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • 'Arrache'
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2009, 09:22:24 AM »
Related interesting link!

http://www.svpvril.com/Water.html

Some here seem to have a problem understanding displacement by weight verses displacement by volume. Is it on the bottom or on the top?

Ralph

truth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2009, 05:48:17 PM »
Gravitator,
 I just did a little test of your setup with some very gooooood ;D results.
I took a 1-1/2” bore pneumatic cylinder and hung it 5-ft. above a bucket of water, using a ¼” air hose I put one end of it into the water and the other end I attached to the top of the cylinder. With the cylinder fully retracted I hooked a 5lbs weight to the piston rod of the cylinder and it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely.

Thank you, Gravitator
Wayne


There is something important missing from this "test" and that is the stroke of the one and one half inch pneumatic cylinder. Without knowing the stroke distance the volume cannot be calculated, and that is a BIG problem.

100 KG weight lifting 1000 KG water is a ratio of 1:10. Let us just go for simple overunity at 1:1 and think about 5 lbs of potential energy lifting 5 lbs of water to the same height as the initial 5 lbs potential.

 1 Cubic inch per 0.036127 pound  =  The weight of water
5 lbs / 0.036127 = 138.4 cubic inches of water
The radius of a 1-1/2 inch bore cylinder is 0.75 inches
0.75 times pi 3.142 = 2.35650square inches
138.4 cubic inches / 2.3565 = cylinder height of 58.73144 inches

So in order to fill that cylinder with just 5 lbs of water it must be VERY near 5 feet long.

Now for the unfortunate reality of this little 'test".
The vacuum pressure IS proportionate to the radius of that cylinder and the amount of weight, so that a larger diameter cylinder requires more weight to produce the same PSI vacuum.

Good try anyway.    ;)






Gravitator

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • Gravitator - energy from gravitation
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2009, 07:42:23 PM »
Hi all,


I had quite a brainstorm (and headache) trying to figure this out. I also thought a lot
how much time (I think a lot) will it take to lift water using airpressure. And much much more...

During this brainstorm I got the following idea how to do the weight lifting without water.
Basic idea is still the same: lift weight up and then turn the whole thing upsidedown and lift up again.

BR,
Gravitator

tbird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2009, 07:50:40 PM »
hi truth,

nice bunch of figures.

do you think PhiScience really didn't check the contents of the cylinder to make sure he had filled it?  or that maybe he just told us a story without doing the test at all?

i think not.  if his test is valid, that would mean you have a flaw in your last post.  what could it be?

i don't see anywhere PhiScience states he pulled up 5lbs of water, just "it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely." 

do you remember what makes syphoning work?  and not work?  doesn't one side have to weight more than the other to have movement to its side?  if so, if the hose used is the same size everywhere, to make water syphon one side (after being draped over a higher point) would have to be longer to make the content weight more, right?  since the end would now be lower than the source end, couldn't you make water flow?

what if we replaced the lower 5lbs of water in the syphon tube, which let's say is 5' long, with a 6", 5lb weight that seals inside the tube, but could still move inside the tube freely?  let's say the top (where the hose makes the turn from up to down) was 5' off the ground and the source side hose is put in the source water so the end is deep enough to always have positive supply.  just so we know, source water level is 6" off the ground.  if we prime the hose so there is no air inside (just as when the syphon effect works), would the water transfer from source to the side of the weight?

i think the bottom line is your relationship of the 5lb weight and the weight of the water (in the tube) is wrong.  the fact that a 5lb weight is used is not relevant.  as long as the weight is heavier than the weight of the water in the tube, we'll have transfer.

won't we?

tom

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2009, 08:29:54 PM »
@grav,
 
[edit]

if you have 100kg, opening the piston, enough to draw up water and offset the balance of the double piston...

once it flips to the bottom, do you not then have to LIFT that 100kg, to close the piston, allowing for the re-fill to take place??

that "G Module" thing seems more pheasable.  as long as the total spooled wire weighs more than the weight that turns the spool.

have to figure out the turn-ratio, and torque needed, tension of the cable, ect.

also will have to be counter-weighted on one side, or "locked" slightly off the verticle so it will have a direction to turn, requiring no starting energy to flip it.

spinner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2009, 08:34:55 PM »
Hi, Gravitator!
You are very productive with your ideas!
However,  the latest g-thingy is just a mix of a lever(pulley) mechanics - dropping/raising weights (winding the heavy wire to the top drum)...
For a flipping action, the weight of the wound up heavy wire on the top should overcome the dropped weight + the bottom wire "leftovers"....
In order to do that, the weight must be heavier from the wound up wire at least for the transmission factor of pulleys(wire drum diameter/falling weight pulley diameter)...
It "works" until it ... "keels".

Just IMHO... The concept is simple, so if you want to be sure, just build it.
Cheers!

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2009, 09:02:44 PM »
For just one thing, how do you expect your little weight, on a small spool, to fall, turning a big spool enough to lift a bunch of cable to another spool?
Look at the distances and lever arms (spool radii) involved. It's impossible, as you have drawn it. If the cable weighs less than the falling weight, there's no benefit from moving it. If it weighs more than the falling weight, moving it all to the other spool is impossible because of the lever arms involved.

And that's just one thing wrong.

truth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2009, 11:20:22 PM »
hi truth,

nice bunch of figures.

do you think PhiScience really didn't check the contents of the cylinder to make sure he had filled it?  or that maybe he just told us a story without doing the test at all?

i think not.  if his test is valid, that would mean you have a flaw in your last post.  what could it be?

i don't see anywhere PhiScience states he pulled up 5lbs of water, just "it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely." 

do you remember what makes syphoning work?  and not work?  doesn't one side have to weight more than the other to have movement to its side?  if so, if the hose used is the same size everywhere, to make water syphon one side (after being draped over a higher point) would have to be longer to make the content weight more, right?  since the end would now be lower than the source end, couldn't you make water flow?

what if we replaced the lower 5lbs of water in the syphon tube, which let's say is 5' long, with a 6", 5lb weight that seals inside the tube, but could still move inside the tube freely?  let's say the top (where the hose makes the turn from up to down) was 5' off the ground and the source side hose is put in the source water so the end is deep enough to always have positive supply.  just so we know, source water level is 6" off the ground.  if we prime the hose so there is no air inside (just as when the syphon effect works), would the water transfer from source to the side of the weight?

i think the bottom line is your relationship of the 5lb weight and the weight of the water (in the tube) is wrong.  the fact that a 5lb weight is used is not relevant.  as long as the weight is heavier than the weight of the water in the tube, we'll have transfer.

won't we?

tom



Dear tom,

Are you attacking me?

I pointed out a problem with the volume verses the potential.

It is impossible to siphon water to a higher level, because it will only move downhill as an end result.

Keeping it fun and interesting, and that is the TRUTH.


AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2009, 01:28:36 AM »
Hay Gravitator

I see you are looking in another direction. I found some photos that had an old design that looks like it might give even more ideas.

truth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2009, 07:08:49 PM »
@ everyone

Tbird has corrected a mistake that I made, and I thank him for keeping me real.

" 1 Cubic inch per 0.036127 pound  =  The weight of water
5 lbs / 0.036127 = 138.4 cubic inches of water
The radius of a 1-1/2 inch bore cylinder is 0.75 inches
0.75 times pi 3.142 = 2.35650square inches
138.4 cubic inches / 2.3565 = cylinder height of 58.73144 inches"

Was what I originally posted.
It should have been radius squared times pi.
0.75 X 0.75 = 0.56250
0.56250 x 3.142 = 1.76738
So
138.4 cubic inches / 1.76738  = cylinder height of 78.30823 inches

Which is much worse.

Thanks for the correction Tbird    :-[

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2009, 07:56:38 PM »
i can be wrong but i think the piston has too much leverage that over comes the weight of the water so it will not turn. the piston is too far out from the center causing leverage that out weights the water. dont seem like it will work. like they always say build it and we shall see if it really works.

tbird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
Re: Finally I think I got it !
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2009, 10:10:08 PM »
i can be wrong but i think the piston has too much leverage that over comes the weight of the water so it will not turn. the piston is too far out from the center causing leverage that out weights the water. dont seem like it will work. like they always say build it and we shall see if it really works.

free energy,

i had the same concern, so i looked up levers and studied a bit.  i came to this conclusion.

if you have a 20 foot lever with the fulcrum in the middle at 10 feet, and a ten pound weight on each end, this should balance (i used these numbers for easy calc). now if you move one weight in 1 foot, it would be out of balance. 1 foot = 10% of arm distance.  this means it looks like 9 pounds to the weight still out on the end.  to get it back in balance, all we have to do is add 1 pound (10%) to the weight that was moved in.  if this 1 pound is closer to the end, that end would now be heavier and over balanced to that side.

i think this small amount would show up in any assy, but shouldn't be hard to over come.

truth,

while i'm here,

Quote
The vacuum pressure IS proportionate to the radius of that cylinder and the amount of weight, so that a larger diameter cylinder requires more weight to produce the same PSI vacuum.

this seems to be true, but do we really need the psi to be the same?  wouldn't any difference be enough?  i understand that more pressure equals more flow equals quicker transfer, but wouldn't any flow make the machine work, all-be-it slow?