Simple and powerful principle

[Willy]

It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed.

But i have already found a solution, a workaround, a variation of the same principle.

Consider a similar design, but no valves, just a very high water tube, say 1000km
to make it dramatic. All that matters is difference of pressure on water outside
vs inside the tube.

Let's say float weighs 10kg (it's made of steel) but in the water it is made
buoyant so it's weight in water is -10kg.

So we need a force of 10kg to push it underwater and into the tube.

Entrance into the tube is just under the surface so job is quick and easy.

Easy-peasy indeed!

Don't you understand that float will rise for 1000km up all the way to the top doing work
and once it reaches the top valve is opened, float fills with water and sinks AGAIN doing
work all the way down.

So we had a -10kg weight doing work for 1000km going up and 10kg weight doing
work for 1000km going down - at a cost of momentarily pushing it underwater and
opening a small valve on it once it reaches the top.

Don't you understand how IMMENSE the energy gain is here.

Nix

I like your next concept (above).

But it requires the same amount of energy to insert a float against pressure at the bottom
of a tube of water, as it takes to push that float down against buoyance (to the bottom of the tube, from the top surface, through the water).


"It is true that for a float to enter the top tank it must minimally displace an amount
of water equal to it's weight from the top tank. I admit that is a flaw in this idea i missed."

Water is displaced down ward that is equal to the floats own volume but also greater than the floats own weight.  But I knew what you meant.

I missed that to at first.  But still it was a really cool design.

Thanks for finding it and presenting it here.

[perpetual]

I like your next concept (above).

But it requires the same amount of energy to insert a float against pressure at the bottom
of a tube of water, as it takes to push that float down against buoyance (to the bottom of the tube, from the top surface, through the water).

You just witnessed a miracle, history in the making, and in a way, you were a part of it.
And you still deny it, ccc. And with what kind of silliness. What you wrote is totally ridiculous.

Do you have a slightest idea the amount of work a negative 10kg weight free falling up and
then 10kg weight free falling down does even from far far lesser height, let alone the imagined 1000km.

And how incomparably tiny is the energy needed to momentarily push that float into the tube.
Entrance into the tube is underwater as much as float is thick, say 20cm. Input is nothing.

It is ridiculous to even compare the tiny, momentary input with the long long and heavy work
it does falling up and falling down, gain is in thousands and thousands of times, in a tube so long
it would surely be in MILLIONS of times.

[Willy]

Firstly (I am sure that you are aware) the energy of its falling is exactly equal
to the energy spent to lift it.

The energy is equal to the force      times     the distance moved.

The taller the tube the greater the pressure at its bottom.

Less force to sink it from the top, but a greater distance of travel or a greater
force to insert it but a shorter distance.  But the energy inputs are equal.

This is one of the things that makes it a tough proposition (buoyance based energy experiments).

[perpetual]

Firstly, of course energy it generates by falling is exactly equal to the energy it generates
by lifting, but nothing is spent, it lifts itself by buoyancy and then non-buoyancy is induced
by simply opening a small valve and it now falls with same weight in reverse, generating
energy in both directions.

Energy aka work is force * distance moved  OR Mass * Gravity * Height.

Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube.

You cannot compare this to the ocean where you got all the surrounding water thousands
of miles away all of it contributing to the pressure and no air pressure on the bottom.
This is totally different.

Pressure at the bottom of the tube is 1 atmosphere, cause huge air pressure by far overcomes
the weight of the water in the tube.

This is the very reason it is possible to keep a column of water in the air with a small pool
of water at the base. It's all about gravity and air pressure.

If it were not so water would be at different pressure at the bottom of the tube vs in the tank
around it at the same level which is nonsensical.

It would mean if you dip your hand in the tank you would feel nothing, but if you moved it into
the opening of the tube pressure would suddenly rise immensely. This is nonsensical and
nature does not work like that. Pressure is the same at the bottom of the tube and the tank
it is sitting in.

So your whole suggestion is totally wrong.

It is easy to insert the float. Once it is pressed just below the surface in the tank it is
EFFORTLESS to push it into the tube.

And from there it lifts by itself.

Of course float should be pointed on top and bottom to reduce the water resistance.

Input is zero for all practical purposes. Gain is immense.

[Willy]

Pressure at the bottom does not rise with height of the tube.

You cannot compare this to the ocean where you got all the surrounding water thousands
of miles away all of it contributing to the pressure and no air pressure on the bottom.
This is totally different."

The pressure at the bottom of a tank of water is not dependent upon the diameter of the tank.

A 10 meter tall, 3 centimeters in diameter pipe filled with water, has the same pressure at its bottom as does a 10 meter tall, 3,000 centimeters in diameter tank filled with water.