Roll on the 20th June

[Newtonian God]

-

[ramset]

Sorry Newt mom says no more    gotta go do some homework      she really doesn't like me hanging around with you guys [NEWT she thinks your weird]  anyway  later  Chet

[exxcomm0n]

@ Exx,

          i used the term "dude", because 1) i forgot who actually said that, and 2) i didnt feel like going back through the past 6 pages looking for it....

K...understood and appreciated.

Bottom line is this: For a siphon to work with = or less energy on the output side, the output MUST be lower than the input.
Yes- i've found myself emptying one gas tank and filling another several times in my life, AND the output end of the hose is always lower in that case too!!!

I keep reading your replies about the siphon and thinking you must think it runs continuously.

It don't.

Look bud (and I mean that as a token of respect. some of my favorite things are "buds" ),
when you siphon gas and clamp that thumb (or finger, people do things in different ways) over the end of the hose your using, does the gas stay where you sucked it to, or does it fall back into the tank?
The answer is obvious as you'd never try siphoning again if it ran back into the tank because you'd never get anything out.

Why do you put the output end lower than the end in the tank when you're at that point of starting your siphon?
So the WEIGHT of the liquid in the part of the hose that has the output can start pulling liquid  from the part of the hose in the tank to get it out of the tank.

The tank system is not "free" energy. In fact, it costs a damn lot to get it up there.

But AFTER that is done and the WEIGHT of the liquid in the tanks equals more than the WEIGHT of the water in the sip/draw tube AND you have trapped negative atmosphere, you have siphon.

This ain't "free" energy, it's recycled.

IF you can get a siphon to work continually with the OUTPUT higher than the INPUT -  YOU ALREADY HAVE OVERUNITY - stop there. no need for extra contraptions.

I like Rube Goldberg a lot.

Here's where we have the misunderstanding.
I NEVER said the output was greater than the input.

You sir, are forgetting about TIME.
Forgetting about the past in some ways, and the present in others.

In the past, a LOT of energy was spent to fill both of those tanks to the top.
They're capacity is larger than the entire pool 5M below.
They are weirdly shaped for it, but still a water tower.

The whole theory behind a water tower is a continuous small input over a span of time is able to create an energy "sink" of fantastic potential.

The well pump can't service everyone with sufficient output during normal, or even just peak hours.
Well, it COULD, but the amount to purchase and run the thing would be huge. You might blow off the faucet ends in households during non-peak hours too.

So you buy a smaller pump which uses much less energy and use it to pump water up 24/7 to a high place over the span of a week with enough capacity and no output during that time, then you can probably open every hydrant in town for 24 hours and still be able to serve the public very capably all day. (We're talking normal use here, not everyone filling a swimming pool at the same time.)
You regulate the main output valve to keep pressure steady (usually automated to a point these days).

I should give you town size, amount of hydrants, etc. to make it a proper story problem but I ain't got the time and I figure life experience and being aware of your surroundings should give you an idea of water tower to populace size ratio.

Let's just assume in this example that the amount "used" in 1/7th of the time can be replaced by no use and constant smaller input over 6/7th of the time.

A water tower is a special kind of time machine.
It banks (saves, conserves etc.) work done over time.

(Here's the "present" part)

So you're saying that if I build a water tower, fill it and a pool 5M below it that has a siphon tube running to the upper tank, and I draw off less than 1% of it's capacity (that means the tank twins are holding @ least 120L to start) over the 1/5th of the span of a lever cycle I will always run at a deficit, and consequentially "run dry"?
I'm grabbing this number (1/5) outta my ass, but if I place the start of the lever actuation of the spout at 1M, and take the amount of distance the lever is going up and actuating the lever on the spout and the time it takes to fill and gravity to pull it out the ability to actuate the lever, that sounds right if the lift is 5M.

1M up, and 1M down out of a 10M travel cycle (again approximate for time measure).

If I start the spout actuation lever at an even higher height, the time percentage is less but the spout has to be bigger.

This is a thing to be tuned, and a lot of Newtonian math will have to be used so that time wasted trying different sizes of things can be avoided.

Math mostly concerning speed, distance, volume, and time.


The tanks in my examples were filled by "back flushing/filling the 2 tanks through the spout end.
They were each filled to the top by the method of closing a valve on the sip tube directly under the higher tank and opening a bleeder valve on it's top so air could escape.

Then the hose, while still attached, is turned off.

The bleeder valve at the top is closed to make the tank structure air tight.

The valve at the top of the sip tube is opened and the weight of all that water up high starts traveling down the sip tube to fill the bottom because of pressure created by it's great weight at 5M.

This creates vacuum.

You wait for the sip tube to stop outputting to find the maximum amount of vacuum (or talk with your structural engineer as I've seen a few brewery tanks where someone was not well trained enough to know that you do not fill a large tank that was holding hot water immediately with cold water. They look like empty soda cans after you crush them with your hand.

Again, math is probably going to save the day here.

Then fill the pool to the appropriate level, close the water tight valve on the spout, and enjoy output 1/5th of the time for a long time.

There will be losses. Water splashes, evaporates, and is just a devil to keep contained at times especially where there is pressure involved.

But with proper planning they will be minimal.

Bud, this was somewhere in the instructions.
Not as elaborate, but the idea was in there.

I believe you are worth saying it again to (and it's always good to "check your work"), but I don't know how many times that that will be my attitude.

Please read the provided materials and take specific places in it to ask me about.

K?

Very simple:   Tank 1 (at height A)  --> siphon  --> Tank 2 (at height A + x)

Do this and the entire world will be free from energy problems forever.
I've tried my best to explain this to you, so at this point i would be content sitting back and watching you attempt to make one work. That may be more of a learning experience then any 16-page novel i could write about the subject...

Perhaps I should save us both some time and explain a few things:

1.) I'm a BIG sci-fi fan.
To the point I know old "hard" sci-fi (based on hard sciences like Heinlen, Bova, or Niven's Ringworld (the astrophysics part), novel sci-fi (just like a regular novel, but with space ships like Heinlen, Vance, and Prachertt <sp?> ), and science fantasy (no real science anywhere, and sometimes the story doesn't make sense either).

I know what HAS been done, I want to think about what will be and use my entertainment time for reading (which has dwindled GREATLY since I got into "energy p.o.r.n.") to that end.

It excites me and makes me think about new things.


2.) I am a BIG believer in efficiency.
If everything were 50% more efficient we probably wouldn't even be here because there would be no need.

It's my dad's fault (depression era child and engineer).

The precious few moments he spent with his children (workaholic), it was always a lesson whether language (which I am poor evidence of), mechanics (of all types. I had as a "playground" his shop that had everything from a 5 ton crane that could be moved over any spot in the 2/3 work area of the building, to a 12 foot sheet metal brake, to an ancient lathe  belt driven by the types of belt that still used staples of metal to hold it together and opposing ratio wheels, oxy-acetelyne torch, MIG, TIG, bearing press, etc.),

and EFFICIENCY.

Why an old machine that's died after 30 years of service should be rebuilt instead of thrown away and replaced by something that might last 10 years even if the cost is the same amount.
Doing it once for 30 years is better than doing it 3X over 30 years.

Why the placement of heating makes more sense if it's radiating from under your feet rather than air blowing in your face (The heated portion of his shop [which he designed and engineered himself, and built a good part of] had radiant heat and he would lay on the floor in his office after lunch on days of -40 C temps and nap comfortably) and designed and built a heating system to do just that.
I have never enjoyed such a warm atmosphere in winter since where everything was "warm".

How just about everything should be saved and how it can be used an hour, day, week, or decade later for some application that it's just perfect for.
But you have to be organized about it.

How to use my mind to be aware of those opportunities.
This is tougher that it sounds.

These were priceless lessons from a teacher I dare not ignore. I wish I could have had more.

The reason for my design is I couldn't understand why I was robbing my dropped weight potential for lever lift.

It ain't necessary.

That, and I'm greedy. I want all the falling weight to myself.

Well look, I've probably spent too much time blathering about something that will never work, but it was majorly cathartic.

Now for another bong and I'm set for the evening.

"Can I get an Amen from ya people?"



P.S. This ain't time wasted. Any time I can give testament to and use the great gifts my father gave me is anything but a waste.

P.P.S. BTW....the dude was Archer.

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
Showing you that site in my last post shows I'm not a oil man and as for Newton all I know is any action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Archer claims he broke this law and the wright brother did it to, I can't see where the wright brother broke it.
The action of there plane was to go up the reaction is to come down, did there plane come down?
Take Care All
Graham

[purepower]

I am bitter.

Just checked my page on AQ's site. He takes one little email I sent him before he blocked me and spins it (poorly).

He then goes on to attack me personally, saying I'm a janitor who pulls all my formulas from websites.

I am an engineering intern with guaranteed full employment as a design engineer upon graduation. That's right, this guy has been having his @ss handed to him by a 20 yr old mechanical engineering student who hasn't even graduated yet! Oh, and all my formulas are pulled from memory. No sites for reference, only things I have had to look up are a few constants here and there, and I use my textbooks for that.

I finally figured out why his lever is so damn big... Its to compensate for what's so damn little between his legs!

Seriously, if this guy actually had a pair he wouldn't be putting on a purepower slam page without fair representation.

Archer, grab what little you've got down there to make sure it hasn't shriveled up and died from years of non-use and add a link to my response a couple pages back.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg104718.html#msg104718

If you chose not to, you deserve all the shame and embarrassment you have coming on the 20th. And trust me, I won't play nice like I have been for so long.

-PurePower