Air Buoyancy Machine

[Pirate88179]

Not to mention that the "tanks" have to be made of a very, very light material if he hope to lift them with helium.  Helium has 1/5 the lifting power of hydrogen, which would be a better gas for this.  Have you ever seen the size of a helium balloon designed to take up a science package into the upper atmosphere?  The package may only weigh several hundred pounds but the balloon has to be the size of a building to lift it.

Bill

[brian334]

The lighter than air gas is  compressed into a small tank at the top, and released at the bottom. When the gas is released at the bottom it powers a generator giving back some of the energy it took to compress it.

[mondrasek]

M.
Thank you for your post, your post is the first rational comment I have gotten since I started this topic.

Thank you but I believe TKs comments were not only rational but completely correct, at least up to the point where you ticked him off.

Phase change is critical to any invention like this working, so lets go over each phase.

Phase 1. The tanks with the 65 Lb. weight in them are heavier than the liquid they displace and will sink. The tanks fall in a continuous column greatly reducing the drag with the water. The tanks accelerate as they fall due to the force of gravity. The 65 lb. weight builds momentum as it falls.

The tanks absolutely cannot fall in a continuous column and also accelerate due to gravity.  This is a key point that you keep ignoring.  Please prove me wrong on this or accept it.  You should not bother to move on to any other point until you can do one or the other.  Here is my explanation:

Let's say the speed of your top falling tank (just as has rounded the top of the cycle and is perfectly vertical and about to begin falling) is 1 mph.  Let's also say that it accelerates so quickly that by the time it has fallen it's own length its speed is now 2 mph.  The next tank that has just rounded the top is only moving at 1 mph.  So the tanks are not moving at the same speed, right?  Yet they are accelerating at the same rate so they are moving apart.  There will be a bigger and bigger gap between the falling tanks the further down they go.

The only way for for your tanks to fall in a continuous column is for them NOT to accelerate due to gravity, or for the entire system to accelerate at the same rate.  Both of these possibilities are not supported by your system. 

Your phase 1 is critically flawed as it cannot operate as you describe.

M.

[brian334]

M.
The initial velocity of the falling tanks is not 0, the tanks are added to the top as quickly as the entire column is falling. When the tanks are in the column they are attached to each other preventing them from separating.
The expanded tanks on the up side will rise faster than the tanks fall on the down side, the rising tanks might even help push the falling tanks down add more power to the system.
Also even if the tanks did not fall in a continuous column the machine would still work just not as good.

[mondrasek]

M.
The initial velocity of the falling tanks is not 0, the tanks are added to the top as quickly as the entire column is falling. When the tanks are in the column they are attached to each other preventing them from separating.
The expanded tanks on the up side will rise faster than the tanks fall on the down side, the rising tanks might even help push the falling tanks down add more power to the system.
Also even if the tanks did not fall in a continuous column the machine would still work just not as good.

Brian,

I understand the initial velocity of the falling tanks would not be 0.  I explained that as soon as one tank begins to accelerate down due to gravity it will move away from the tank directly following it, creating a gap that will increase as the tanks fall.  And this is contrary to your claim that they fall in a continuous column and can therefore accelerate with near zero water drag.  It should make it clear that the tanks are surrounded on all sides by water.  As they are only slightly heavier than the water they displace, they would drift downward quite gently, providing virtually no momentum to the internal weight that you expect to expand the tank when it is stopped at the bottom.

And what about that?  It is stopped at the bottom, right?  Velocity of 0, right?  It must accelerate in order to move upwards, right?  So your rising column does start from a velocity of 0 and cannot be continuous either.  There will never be a continuous column of tanks on the way up, down, or on the wheel at the top.  And without a continuous column you can have no acceleration to the velocities that you must be imagining.  Without high velocities you have lost the momentum you believe will expand the tanks.

I am surprised to hear you say the machine would still work just as good without the continuous column.  In your first thread on this topic we calculated together how little your internal weight could expand your tank due to the water pressure at the 10 ft. depth unless momentum from high velocities was assisting.  You had calculated that a piston of ~14 sq. in. was all that could be expanded, right?  I had challenged you to show a drawing of a tank with only that size expandable members on each side and the weight in the middle.  Have you done this?  I don't think you can.

So, no continuous columns mean no momentum.

No momentum means your tank design as shown on your web site cannot expand when stopped at the bottom.

A different tank design that only extends a 14 sq. in. piston on each side has not been shown to be possible.

M.