Recirculating fluid turbine invention

[quantumtangles]

@ Fletcher

Can we agree the power output of the machine (please double check my figures if you have time).

If we can agree notional output, going on to establish input will resolve the matter.

How much power will the air compressor and siphon water pump consume?

I have already calculated power output (+/- margin of error). It is somewhere between 173kW and 225kW.

Fine. But how much power will be consumed by the air compressor?

This question can be answered mathematically. So far I have failed properly to address it.

I would much appreciate your views or calculations concerning the consumption of the air compressor.

Put simply, if air compressor consumption exceeds 173kW, the machine cannot work.

If air compressor consumption is less than 173kW, the machine may work.

Accordingly, this is the critical question.

[fletcher]

Here is a website that may help you find what you are looking for.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

This is the Hyper_Physics website - it loads on Mechanics > go to far right side to Fluids > Pressure [read/scroll down the page].

Read about Fluid Potential Energy & how to calculate it, Fluid Kinetic Energy, & Bernoulli Equations.

You can enter inputs into a calculator & find resultants etc.

There is a Work/Energy Equivalence principle so a fluid [which air is] will have an energy density - the equivalence principle means that no less energy can be spent than got from the fluid [or gas] using these equations.

If I have time I will look thru a few old text books I have to see if I can find an example you can relate to & use for your scenario.

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

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=68977

Physics Forum discussion that relates to your question.

[quantumtangles]

@ Fletcher

You are a star in the fluid dynamics firmament. Many thanks once again for your kind help

[quantumtangles]

This invention of mine does not work and cannot possibly ever work, but I would like to explain why I was wrong, after acknowledging that Fletcher's observations were, after all, perfectly correct.



First of all, using the simpler example of magnets, it has been tempting for millennia to imagine that, because magnets exert a force, that this necessarily means magnets 'contain' energy. Not so.


There is a critically important distinction between a 'force' and 'energy'. Only energy is capable of performing work.


A force is capable of performing work if energy is added to it. Magnetic PM inventions cannot work for this reason. Some sort of mechanical external energy is always needed to start them off and keep them moving.


Although (mercifully) I already knew magnetic force cannot perform work (unless energy is added...normally from someone's arm as they marvel about 'how it almost works...so I better keep trying' etc), I fell into error here in a very similar way (when it came to water and gravity).


The central fact, and it seems so obvious to me now, is that gravity, like magnetism, is a force. But like magnetism, it does not contain energy. Energy must always be added (from some external source) in order to enable either magnetism or gravity (both of which are energy free zones unless energy is externally added) to perform work.


I am truly sorry not simply for being wrong concerning the potential usefulness of a useless invention. I am mostly sorry because I perpetuated a pervasive misunderstanding commonly applied both to gravity and magnetism; a misunderstanding that may have led other people to waste time and resources trying to build a machine that in reality always required external energy to operate.


I published the idea on an open-source basis without hope or expectation of profit. I did not seek 'investors' or offer to sell 'plans'. I wanted to share what I hoped was a good idea. But I now realise I was labouring under a misapprehension. I thought my machine could help the poor and vulnerable have considerably cheaper electricity. Not so. I confused a force (gravity) with something completely different. I confused a force with 'energy', and I should have known better.


Sincere and contrite apologies.