Easy Gravity wheel

[quantumtangles]

Thanks all. I hope this was on topic as the turbine is a wheel and gravity is involved.

The initial idea evolved with a series of posts under Recirculating Fluid Turbine Invention. Been driving me mad for months. Just want certainty.

[fletcher]

I'm about to go off & start reading his thread/topic Vidar.

Before having read & understood it [so I don't really know yet] I think he is suggesting that compressing air & using that to drive a piston which pushes a volume of water into the bottom of a tank possibly takes less energy in Joules [Work Done] than other mechanical means - it would have to be way less as we've all pointed out - I think he is also suggesting an advantage may be gained from a siphon effect of some sort ?

Perhaps there is some advantage [small though it might be if it exists] in using compressed air in terms of the Carnot Cycle & Adiabatic heating & Isothermal Cooling of the tank of compressed air - I'll expand these thoughts on the other thread perhaps - any advantage might be able to be engineered into the situation quantum is proposing - who knows if it has a place, will need to read his logic first.

[quantumtangles]

@ Vidar & Fletcher et al

I really appreciate your input. Most of all I really need your help.

[Low-Q]

I'm about to go off & start reading his thread/topic Vidar.

Before having read & understood it [so I don't really know yet] I think he is suggesting that compressing air & using that to drive a piston which pushes a volume of water into the bottom of a tank possibly takes less energy in Joules [Work Done] than other mechanical means - it would have to be way less as we've all pointed out - I think he is also suggesting an advantage may be gained from a siphon effect of some sort ?

Perhaps there is some advantage [small though it might be if it exists] in using compressed air in terms of the Carnot Cycle & Adiabatic heating & Isothermal Cooling of the tank of compressed air - I'll expand these thoughts on the other thread perhaps - any advantage might be able to be engineered into the situation quantum is proposing - who knows if it has a place, will need to read his logic first.

Ofcourse, input of energy will make this work, but that energy is going through a process with loss, so one can only hope for an energy output which is less than the energy you put in. A siphon will definitely not provide the extra energy. Try to emty the ocean with a siphon. That is impossible because the ocean is the bottom level on this planet (except a few areas which is held dry with water pumps).

The gravity wheel, or other types of gravity "powered" devices is a dead end, but gravity can be handy in combination with other factors such as waterfalls, as waterfalls is created by the sun, ocean, mountains and gravity.

Vidar

[quantumtangles]

@ Vidar

Your example of trying to empty the ocean with a siphon is somewhat different. Functional siphons require tubes (leading up to the siphon crest from the water source) that are shorter than the tubes leading down from the siphon crest to discharge the water.

Any attempt to place a siphon in the ocean would result in the 'long end' of the siphon being under water and therefore it could not possibly work.

By contrast (in the system under review) the long end of the siphon tube is below the level of the water intake without actually being 'under water'. Accordingly the siphon in question should work.

One of the key questions (re the proposed system as a whole) is whether it can work if 'unlimited' energy is available to circulate the water. I say this because initially I feared P1V1=P2V2 equalisation would prevent circulation regardless how much energy was expended.

If recirculation is possible with unlimited energy (which seems to be the position) the second key question is: how much energy is required.

Calculating power output is trivial to mathematicians and physicists. But calculating required power input is not so straightforward.

Certainly any idea of lifting water 30m is doomed.

Even though 'water lifting' is path dependent (methods of lifting may vary from the oestentatiously inefficient to the slightly more efficient) it certainly cannot work. Power expenditure will be in the order of 4.5 times power output.

But by pressurising tank B to more than the base of tank A, water should flow from B into the base of tank A.

But then the problem moves further round the circuit.

If tank B is under high pressure, how can the upper siphon work? How can low pressure water from A enter the high pressure environment of Tank B?

At first it seems tank B has to be both a high pressure area (to evacuate tailgate water after it has struck the turbine) and also a low pressure area (to allow the siphon to keep flowing).

The solution is to have two distinct pressure areas inside tank B.

The main body of tank B is always kept at higher pressure than the base of tank A. Fine. But there is also a second much smaller very high pressure area inside the exit nozzle of the siphon, that keeps it flowing because the air compressor drives siphon water out.

It all boils down to expenditure versus output (bearing in mind the turbine will have to fight against high air pressure (air of greater density) which will reduce RPM and therefore output.

I find the issues fascinating and much appreciate your views on the way to debunking or establishing the concept.

Kind regards and thanks,