A new energy source; maybe/maybe not?

[Milton Platt]

Whatever the energy is needed to pump the air down is (X) while I am getting out the expanding, lifting force of (X}+(X)+(X)+(X) out-? **at any moment in time**

Where am I going wrong-
ok, ok, ok, I'm wrong; just don't know why ?
-

You are not accounting for the energy needed to make your machine work in the first place (compressing air) nor for friction.

 

[Milton Platt]

View attachment 32343

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;

Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force if you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.

YES or NO?

simply take this to a physicist or mechanical engineer and you will have your answer....if you actually choose to listen.

 

[exchemist]

simply take this to a physicist or mechanical engineer and you will have your answer....if you actually choose to listen.

Or an ex-chemist, even......

I analysed this in post 18, quantitatively, pointing out the energy needed to compress each litre of air and showing the work done by returning each bucket to the surface through buoyancy is about a third of that.

If he has now used balloons instead of buckets (which was something I suggested, in fact, to avoid compressed air spilling out due to expansion as the buckets rise) the best he can do is break even, if we ignore friction and pumping losses, which in practice will be significant.

This guy just keeps repeating himself and demanding new analyses, when it was all explained in post 18. The energy per litre to compress the air was given there and there is no getting away from it. But notice how he avoids calculating the energy output of his machine, let alone comparing that to the energy input from compressing the air. If he were to do that, the absurdity would be obvious - and he doesn't want that, as it would immediately bring his little house of cards crashing down. It's all a bit pathetic, really.

Fairly typical free energy crank: they're all like this.

 

[james dixon]

In summary, for every litre of compressed air you expend 5,100J to compress it and you only get back 1800J, 35% of the energy input. So, as a supposed source of "free energy", this device is spectacularly crap.

As most of us knew anyway, but still it's good to do the analysis.

For some reason you are ignoring the fact that the litre of air at the bottom will double in size for each ATM (33 feet) it rises

In your example at the bottom the bucket is displacing one liter of air or 5 cubic feet

For example~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

18 ATM volume is 5 cubic feet = 320 pounds of lifting force

17 ATM volume is 10 cubic feet = 640 pounds of lifting force

16 ATM volume is 20 cubic feet = 1280 pounds of lifting force

15 ATM volume is 40 cubic feet = 2560 pounds of lifting force

14 ATM volume is 80 cubic feet = 5120 pounds of lifting force

13 ATM volume is 160 cubic feet = 10240 pounds of lifting force

12 ATM volume is 320 cubic feet = 20480 pounds of lifting force

11 ATM volume is 640 cubic feet = 40960 pounds of lifting force

10 ATM volume is 1280 cubic feet = 81920 pounds of lifting force

9 ATM volume is 2560 cubic feet = 163840 pounds of lifting force

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL LIFTING FORCE AT ANY ONE MOMENT IN TIME IS =
327,360 CONTINUOUS POUNDS OF LIFTING FORCE.
-

 

[exchemist]

For some reason you are ignoring the fact that the litre of air at the bottom will double in size for each ATM (33 feet) it rises

In your example at the bottom the bucket is displacing one liter of air or 5 cubic feet

For example~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

18 ATM volume is 5 cubic feet = 320 pounds of lifting force

17 ATM volume is 10 cubic feet = 640 pounds of lifting force

16 ATM volume is 20 cubic feet = 1280 pounds of lifting force

15 ATM volume is 40 cubic feet = 2560 pounds of lifting force

14 ATM volume is 80 cubic feet = 5120 pounds of lifting force

13 ATM volume is 160 cubic feet = 10240 pounds of lifting force

12 ATM volume is 320 cubic feet = 20480 pounds of lifting force

11 ATM volume is 640 cubic feet = 40960 pounds of lifting force

10 ATM volume is 1280 cubic feet = 81920 pounds of lifting force

9 ATM volume is 2560 cubic feet = 163840 pounds of lifting force

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL LIFTING FORCE AT ANY ONE MOMENT IN TIME IS =
327,360 CONTINUOUS POUNDS OF LIFTING FORCE.
-

You have failed to read my posts properly. I dealt with that explicitly in post 11. In the bucket scenario excess air spills out as the bucket rises, so the buoyancy force is due only to the air in the bucket, which is of constant volume. That is how I get the figure of 35%.

I actually said in post 11 that if you used balloons, to exploit the full buoyancy as the air expands, you would get far closer to 100% of the energy back.

But not all of course, since you would lose heat from the air when you compress it which would be wasted, plus all the losses due to friction etc.

(It has taken you the best part of six months to even read this post 18 of mine, made back in August and you have still managed not to understand it properly. So it is fair to say my expectations of your scientific reasoning ability are not huge. )

 

[james dixon]

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]

 

[exchemist]

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]

Why ten? Why not 30? Or two?

 

[james dixon]

Why ten? Why not 30? Or two?

Why not one hundred (100) spaced across the California coast & 100 spaced along the Florida coast-?
-

 

[exchemist]

Why not one hundred (100) spaced across the California coast & 100 spaced along the Florida coast-?
-

Have a nice day.

 

[columbus]

Why not one hundred (100) spaced across the California coast & 100 spaced along the Florida coast-?
-

How about you get one small model to work in swimming pool deep water?

Get your design to generate enough energy to be self sustaining in 15 feet of water. Just make it smaller. Convert from feet to millimeters and you could prove your breakthrough in a large bathtub.

Just do it, instead of talking about it.
Tom