Selfrunning Waterpump-generator device runs 60 Watts lamp...

[spinner]

Totally Bullshit, sorry,
More paddles == better - 4 feet == better,  2 brains == better, 2 broken legs == better

Well, you have a right to your own opinion. 
I think your " this is bullshit" comment is directed towards my evaluation of the setup paddle wheel efficiency and not to my fair questions directed to the inventor?

This is no normal turbine. I set up a formula for the ideal amount of paddles. (see attachement)

Yes, this is not a normal turbine, it is a very inefficient one. Inventor is aware of this fact.
Btw, your formula is far from reality (it uses a geometrical approach without any usefull connections with real turbines).

The number of "paddles" in a "real turbine" is determined by the long series of calculations considering tens of parameters like head/water jet velocity/pressure/air flow, expected power/torque/operating rpm,  complete geometry (of inlets, nozzle(s), paddles,..), turbine dimensions -diameter, subtype of turbine, etc, etc... One of the main factors is (>100years known fact) that the distance between paddles is usually less than a 'diameter' of a single paddle. (The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)
And a diameter of the paddle "cup" is at least 2,5x bigger than a diameter of a jet stream... More than a century of turbine development and millions of engineer hours went into what we know about turbines today... That's why I said "no need to invent a hot water again"...

I hope you'd agree that a right choice for an application "described" in this thread is a Pelton type turbine, which is an impulse driven machine, meaning the water stream kinetic energy is transferred to a turbine torque by "chopping" an incoming water jet in as small as possible "quanta" carrying motional energy. Newtonian physic, force parallelograms,  fluid dynamics and more than a century of a "real life" experience..

Feel free to layout your exact derived efficiency calculation.
I have no clue where you buy your truth - maybe should buy somewhere else.

Lol, i get "my truth" out of already existing knowledge. I'd suggest you try it, too. It won't hurt, I promise.
After understanding the turbines, you may remove your "bullshit" post about "less&bigger paddles is better". Sorry, no offence!

And, about efficiency "calcs" - I said it's my own evaluation, based on following:

Take "A state of the art Pelton turbine". (It has >90% kinetics exchange (overall) efficiency).

Of all variables, change just the geometry (use a flat paddles instead of Pelton "cups"). In practice, this reduces the efficiency by some 50%... (check out the "Pelton-cups" physics, an U-turn kinetics, a "conservation of mass" principle with the water stream velocity vectors...)

Now, remove 80 % of the paddles (that would be close to a paddle wheel discussed here), or a case calculated by Fritz...
This step severely downgrades the efficiency for additional ~60,..70%...

So, 0,9*0,5*0,3= 0,13 %...

Of course, there's a bunch of equations for calculating Pelton efficiency, too, but they all need a "real case" with as much as known data possible...
Which is not what we have at the moment, right?

I'll say again - the "poor paddle wheel" is certainly not a "cause of OU", claimed by the inventor. I'm sure of that. So, what's the truth?


Btw Fritz, I might talk "bullshit".... Only Time will tell...
Cheers!

[spinner]

....This is my 2 cents although no one asked me. (They rarely do these days)

First, welcome James.  I applaud and appreciate your efforts as well as the fact you are sharing them with us.  I have read through the posts and I know the inefficiency of the paddle wheel has been discussed.  My original thought when I first saw your first video was why you didn't use an enclosed impeller system to capture all of the water energy that you have "paid" for?  Something like a small version of a jet ski drive or a small turbocharger connected with an input pipe.

Pirate, I don't think an "enclosed impeller system" would be beneficial. After all, a Pelton is quite different than water jet pump. With Pelton, a trapped/(dead) water would cause additional losses.

Every drop of water that does not contact a paddle is wasted energy that has already been paid for with power.

EXACTLY! This is a summary related to a question discussing a necessary number of "paddles" (water wheels, turbines,..).

I have no idea why this works as you now have it.  It shouldn't.  I can clearly see that you went to a lot of trouble to build this device, much more trouble than anyone would just to post a fake youtube video, so I have ruled that out.  As others have also mentioned, I wonder if the caps (are they super capacitors?) are acting like batteries?  If so, the device would not self run very long.  Possibly there is something else going on that has been overlooked by us?  By this I mean something inherent in the diameters of your pulleys, the load on the generator, and the volume of the pump possibly hitting a resonance "sweet spot"?  I will continue to follow your efforts and hope that you continue to share your results with us.  Best of luck to you.  This is fascinating.
....
Bill

Ok, there may be something strange happening.... Let's see what future will reveal. And I hope inventor will tell at least some things about...

My thoughts are ... Ah, never mind.
Cheers!

[fritz]

Well, you have a right to your own opinion. 
I think your " this is bullshit" comment is directed towards my evaluation of the setup paddle wheel efficiency and not to my fair questions directed to the inventor?

yes.

Yes, this is not a normal turbine, it is a very inefficient one. Inventor is aware of this fact.
Btw, your formula is far from reality (it uses a geometrical approach without any usefull connections with real turbines).

If this would be a nominal setup - I would agree with you -
I just think that the "innefficient" setup plays some role in the
overall effect. This is the reason why I think that normal engineering
principles might be not sufficient to explain what happens.
Because lots of people here throw around with quite
non-orthodox theories what concerns electrical engineering -
I think even mechanical or hydrodynamic setups might show
non-conventional effects.

The number of "paddles" in a "real turbine" is determined by the long series of calculations considering tens of parameters like head/water jet velocity/pressure/air flow, expected power/torque/operating rpm,  complete geometry (of inlets, nozzle(s), paddles,..), turbine dimensions -diameter, subtype of turbine, etc, etc... One of the main factors is (>100years known fact) that the distance between paddles is usually less than a 'diameter' of a single paddle. (The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)
And a diameter of the paddle "cup" is at least 2,5x bigger than a diameter of a jet stream... More than a century of turbine development and millions of engineer hours went into what we know about turbines today... That's why I said "no need to invent a hot water again"...

and thats exact the point.

(The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)

I expect that the oscillating energy in this "inefficient" setup interacts with the
pump which adds extra energy due to high energy water bursts.
(the inertia of the wheel is quite low - and by using a belt in the transmission -
the wheel may experience oscillating torque)
If this plays a role in the effect - the design principles you  mention above have
nothing todo with the efficiency of the device - the opposite will be the case -
and it would work like an ordinary "inefficient" setup.

This is why I calulated the minimum geometrical amount of paddles for
maximum oscillation.

I hope you'd agree that a right choice for an application "described" in this thread is a Pelton type turbine, which is an impulse driven machine, meaning the water stream kinetic energy is transferred to a turbine torque by "chopping" an incoming water jet in as small as possible "quanta" carrying motional energy. Newtonian physic, force parallelograms,  fluid dynamics and more than a century of a "real life" experience..

yes, but I think we need other design principles here as suggested above.

Lol, i get "my truth" out of already existing knowledge. I'd suggest you try it, too. It won't hurt, I promise.
After understanding the turbines, you may remove your "bullshit" post about "less&bigger paddles is better". Sorry, no offence!

I?m very sorry about that "bullshit" - statement - but I somehow got
offended that everyone is claiming "inefficient" - but doesn?t lay out any
arguments.

And, about efficiency "calcs" - I said it's my own evaluation, based on following:
Take "A state of the art Pelton turbine". (It has >90% kinetics exchange (overall) efficiency).
Of all variables, change just the geometry (use a flat paddles instead of Pelton "cups"). In practice, this reduces the efficiency by some 50%... (check out the "Pelton-cups" physics, an U-turn kinetics, a "conservation of mass" principle with the water stream velocity vectors...)

no problem with that.

Now, remove 80 % of the paddles (that would be close to a paddle wheel discussed here), or a case calculated by Fritz...
This step severely downgrades the efficiency for additional ~60,..70%...

So, 0,9*0,5*0,3= 0,13 %...

Of course, there's a bunch of equations for calculating Pelton efficiency, too, but they all need a "real case" with as much as known data possible...
Which is not what we have at the moment, right?

I'll say again - the "poor paddle wheel" is certainly not a "cause of OU", claimed by the inventor. I'm sure of that. So, what's the truth?

I?m not that sure what concerns the role of the paddlewheel here.

Btw Fritz, I might talk "bullshit".... Only Time will tell...

Lets see - if this is another "magic generator" setup - what I don?t think because there
looks to be serious people involved - than the OU has to happen somewhere else.

If there is an oscillation water stream - the construction principles for
a pelton turbine are completly wrong here.

sorry for the "bullshit" - maybe I wanted to provoke a more detailed discussion.

rgds.

[fritz]

If you look at the first video - the water flow is not steady
at all - looks to be very turbulent.

Thats why Im "ON" this ideas.

[spinner]

Hi Fritz!
I know (and have noticed in the past) that you're one of the clever "tinkerers" around here, that's why I reacted on your "bullshit" post.... (I admit I was a little insulted, because you're one of those which opinion I respect...)

I understand your reasoning, still, I'm very skeptical about the truth behind this setup.
Maybe it's because I've seen too many similar claims (without a definite proof) in the past years?

OK, let's give the inventor a chance to produce or show us something, and let's all hope for the best!
See you!