A machine to convert gravity to mechanical energy # 2

[brian334]

Can we stick to the original topic?

[allcanadian]

@TinselKoala
I remember when I thought I understood things pretty well, but learning is a never ending process, it only stops if you decide to stop learning by closing your mind to new thoughts. I will put this in terms you may understand better----no valves. In one of Nicola Teslas interviews he proposed a simple thought experiment, put a pressure tank at the bottom of a lake and this tank will have a hole in it. The water under pressure surrounding the tank could rush in through the hole and perform work in the process. Tesla proposed that the same amount of work would be required to remove the water in the tank as the work gained when the water rushed in ------however this equality of work only applies if the water remains in its original state. Tesla stated that if the water could be transformed into something else then the the work in versus work out would not be equal. I understood that Teslas thought experiment should be taken literally and have proven by calculation many years ago that he is correct.
Below is a tank submerged under water, the pressurized water operates a turbine or rotary motor which drives a generator. The generator powers an electrolizer which splits water into Hydrogen/oxygen gas, this gas is lighter than air thus it easily travels up the hollow tube to be utilized in any number of combustion devices. It should be understood that the deeper the tank is in the water the greater the pressure difference between the conditions in the tank and external to it---across the turbine, but this pressure difference does not apply to the the hydroxy gas open to atmospheric pressure which is in fact boyant to some extent which I did not use in my initial calculations. It should be obvious that the pressure difference is the energy gain and this gain grows with depth or pressure provided by gravity--it is powered by gravity and the hydroxy gas is free. I will state again that this does not violate the conservation of energy but it should be understood that if a media is transformed many rules we take for granted no longer apply. I have proven Teslas thought experiment by calculation for myself and have no need to debate this issue, if you need proof you can easily do the calculations and prove it for yourself, I used an average 60% efficiency for all mechanical components which is reasonable I think. It should also be understood that if this device is "possible" many other variations of this principle are possible. The mechanical aspects of this process can be applied in electrical terms, that is pressure to electrical potential, transformation of electrical current into an inductive discharge current utilizing an inductor. When you understand this you should realize that all of the devices depicted in this thread are to some extent pointless as a small circuit utilizing the proper components utilized in the correct manner can accomplish the same thing--- an energy gain.

@brian334
Sorry, this is my last off topic post
Regards
AC

[brian334]

Can we stick to the original topic?

[mondrasek]

Brian,

Your entire premise for successful operation relies on being able to achieve great forces from momentum due to the falling weight accelerating to a high velocity.  You are using equations for a weight dropping in a vacuum to show what velocities you believe can be attained.  Several facts have been discussed that show this is simply not the case.  If you do not believe these facts, you should show some evidence/experiment that proves them wrong.  If not, you need to show how your system could work without the extra force due to momentum since there have also been many reasons already given why it cannot work if momentum is not considered.

I submit that the problem with your idea lies in your *assumption* that the falling tanks can accelerate to a velocity large enough to have enough momentum for the internal weight to overcome the external water pressure opposing expansion of your tank.  What leads you to believe it can?

M.

[brian334]

Hypothetically speaking, what if the falling tank only weighted 1 gram more than the liquid it displaces.  The tank would fall very slow. Forget the momentum of the 64 lb weight.
When the tank got to the bottom the 64 lb weight would still be at the top of the tank.
As the 64 lb. Weight falls from the top of the tank to the bottom how much work could it do. Enough to increase the displacement of the tank by more than 1 gram?