Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity

[lightend]

hey Tim.

really? I will have a search for the paper online.
I had a think about it last night in bed and decided it would probably be better to have horizontal grooves to help speed up the spin of water and have the groves going up at a 45 degree angle so while the water is on its way up and out some of its energy can be used to counter some of the drag of the water getting up to speed.

If it worked it would definitely be an easy one for people to reproduce. at the very least I expect it to be a more efficient way of move water up than a conventional water pump. Unfortunately I am on the move at the moment and cant start playing around with the concept until I get back to the uk in early may 2014. if you had the time and a 'liberated' traffic cone, you could give it a go. also coating the out side of the cone with oil would help it pass in water with less resistance. the only place resistance would be wanted would be in the inside.
regards
mark

[tim123]

I had a look for that paper, but couldn't find it...

Summary from memory:
- They tried various angles of cone
- at various depths of insertion into the water
- at various speeds

Results:
- Angles between 25 and 40 degrees best (I think)
- Best results with just the tip of cone in the water
- Existing models of efficiency not accurate - the system seemed to move much more water than predicted.

It's not a simple experiment to perform - finding / making the cones - mounting them with an appropriate motor & bearings - measuring the water moved etc...

A traffic cone would be too sharp an angle. Some household funnels might be perfectly conical, and the right angle... Attaching the cone securely to a motor in a way that doesn't interfere with the water flow is a bit tricky.

As a thought experiment - replace the water with ball bearings... Work must be done by the cone to accelerate them up the sides... There is a back-force on the cone as it does that...

How much work does it take? Probably as much as the fluid gains in kinetic + potential energy... Or maybe less. I don't know.

[lightend]

hey tim,
long time no speak.

Im now in ireland and ready to start inventing again, so if you want to put our heads together and see if we can make one of these machines that would be great (I have made a few things in the past, but this one i will need help with,  its a bit more precise than im used to).

[CANGAS]

Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

QUOTE...."At least you didn't say "centrifugal".

Yeah, I came late to this party. Bla, bla, bla,. But..Lets establish something right now (actually kind of time-shifted into this threads past). Do you disagree with the word "centrifugal force"?

I remind you that the idol of many wannabee Physicists, Sir Albert Einstein, used the word "centrifugal force" in a manner completely acceptable to Himself in many of his writings.


PS I personally do not agree with very much of Sir Alberts view of Physics but I want to know what you think about the validity of centrifugal FORCE..



CANGAS 15

[tim123]

hey tim...

Hi Lightend,
  I found that paper on spinning cone pumps - attached...

Regards, Tim