The laws of whatwhat?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A new energy source; maybe/maybe not?
- Thread starter james dixon
- Start date
How much energy is required to pump the air down to the bottom and into the bucket?
exchemist
Veteran Member
(The answer is in post 18.
)
Compressing air for energy is actually an old workable technology.
The OP's version would fail, but a source of falling water with
entrained air allows harvesting compressed air at the bottom of
the flow. As I recall, one Ford plant did this...in the UP perhaps.
Compressing & then expanding air is a thermodynamically
inefficient process. But it has applications.
Another is in the early oil fields of PA. Wells were drilled &
operated with steam power. But steam boilers required continual
attention, lest every one near them die a horrible death. And there
was energy loss as the steam was piped from the boiler to the
various engines in surrounding wells.
When internal combustion engines became popular, they were used
to compress air, which was piped to the various steam engines at
the wells. Some engines were designed for this, with integral compressors.
Does this inspire you to attend engine shows now?
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
A trompe: Trompe - Wikipedia
No, unless its s super car engine show
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
That's what I was doing wrong!!!! Thanks for the tip!
At least you are willing to see something new.,.,./\.,.
now it's your turn to disprove it.
If you can -
-
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Only one way to find out.
Do some real science.
Make the damn contraption already! Or at least a scaled model of it.
exchemist
Veteran Member
On the contrary. It has already been disproved, quantitatively, in post 18 of this thread.At least you are willing to see something new.,.,./\.,.
now it's your turn to disprove it.
If you can
You only get back ~35% of the energy you need to run the air compressor.
Back to crank drawing board for you, pal.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No need. See post 18.
True enough. But the *ultimate* test is always to see what happens in the real world.
He should build a scale model and see what happens.
exchemist
Veteran Member
That is certainly the approach of the US Patent Office. Any application for a perpetual motion machine has to be accompanied by a working model in order to be accepted. In the UK the mere fact it is a perpetual motion machine is enough for the examiner to reject the application - or at least that was how it used to be - I may be out of date now.
If there were no losses (friction causing heat which is lost energy),At least you are willing to see something new.,.,./\.,.
now it's your turn to disprove it.
If you can
your system would consume as much energy as it generates.
But the losses mean that generated energy is less than the amount
input. So if it were running, it would quickly run down.
(Note that compressing air is very inefficient because of heat
generated is conducted away into the water, becoming unusable.)
Using a force analysis, your portion of the conveyer heading downward
would balance the portion heading up. It wouldn't move on its own.
It is not a perpetual motion machine. You need to come up with something real; not a one liner.
The real problem here is trying to prove something doesn't work when it does work.
-Did you read post #18 in this thread?It is not a perpetual motion machine. You need to come up with something real; not a one liner.
The real problem here is trying to prove something doesn't work when it does work.
It is hardly a one liner.
Tom
exchemist
Veteran Member
As Columbus says, read post 18. I wrote it. And it demolishes your silly idea, complete with actual numbers that anyone can check for themselves.It is not a perpetual motion machine. You need to come up with something real; not a one liner.
The real problem here is trying to prove something doesn't work when it does work.
So if you want to persist in maintaining you can get free energy out of this device, it is you that needs to point out to us all where you think the reasoning in post 18 is wrong.
Your attention has been drawn to this post 18 repeatedly, and yet you carry on as if it had not been written. What's the matter? Is the maths too hard for you? It's only arithmetic, plus applying some basic principles of physics.
Last edited:
Here it is in it's most simplified form---------------
It doesn't have to be pumped down to the bottom, you could use scuba tanks. When the bubble comes to the surface a discharged scuba tank is exchanged for a charged one. Still I am aware that every bubble needs to be recharged with air.
I don't believe you are taking into account the "combined" lifting force which is greater than the energy needed to fill one bubble.
-
7,938,558 foot pounds per second =10,763,239 watts
The watt is a unit of power. In the International System of Units it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second, and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis, power is described by. Wikipedia
SI base units: kg⋅m2⋅s−3
CGS units: 1×107 erg s−1
Unit system: SI derived unit
Unit of: Power
Named after: James Watt
The watt is a unit of power. In the International System of Units it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second, and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis, power is described by. Wikipedia
SI base units: kg⋅m2⋅s−3
CGS units: 1×107 erg s−1
Unit system: SI derived unit
Unit of: Power
Named after: James Watt