Ghost asked me to start a thread on this.
The basic idea would be if the tube on the right is connected to the one on the left, the atmospheric pressure would pump the water up the left side. This is because there would be a vacuum at the top.
A barrier would maintain the vacuum by not letting air in.
Johnny
edited to correct spelling
"A barrier would maintain the vacuum by not letting air in."
But the barrier lets water in.
What keeps the _water_ from filling up the vacuum? If the vacuum is strong enough to suck up the water in the first place it will just fill up with water and disappear.
When the vacuum is full of water, then you just have a loop of hose, with a hole in it at the top, and we know what happens then.
If you close the hole, though, then you have a standard siphon hose, that works in the normal way.
Here's a question for you: Will a standard siphon work in a vacuum?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 09, 2012, 11:48:33 AM
"A barrier would maintain the vacuum by not letting air in."
But the barrier lets water in.
What keeps the _water_ from filling up the vacuum? If the vacuum is strong enough to suck up the water in the first place it will just fill up with water and disappear.
When the vacuum is full of water, then you just have a loop of hose, with a hole in it at the top, and we know what happens then.
If you close the hole, though, then you have a standard siphon hose, that works in the normal way.
Here's a question for you: Will a standard siphon work in a vacuum?
TK,
There might be a slight trick to it. microcontroller mentioned to me about flow control. This would be necessary to get the 2 sides to work together.
I modified the drawing to show how drainage might allow it to work. If water is draining out of the top reservoir, then the vacuum would have trouble acting on it. What this would allow for is the water in the open static head to still be pumped by air.
Then all that might be left is to find out what vacuum works best and what level of water is needed in the top reservoir.
One of the things this considers is how pressure effects a static head. If a fluid is pumped into a vacuum, it would require less work than what being pumped into a pressurized space, even the atmosphere which is 14 psi.
A vacuum of 15hg's (7 psi of air pressure) would require about 1/2 the force to pump water into it as a static head with 14 psi (atmospheric pressure) acting on it. It would be an attempt to play on this difference.
Johnny
edited to correct hg's of vacuum
@All,
what might be missed in something like this is it might help industry to use less energy if they use water tanks to develop or assist in developing line pressure.
if a water district could use 15% less energy to fill water towers which provide water to your homes, would that matter ?
Guess if someone worked with engineering, it would make for a better discussion. Won't bother you guys any more. Sorry.
If you watch the Video below, you will see Continuously Flowing Water WITHOUT a VACUUM AND Vacuum Pump.
It could be Scaled Up so the falling water could drive a Water Wheel that turns a Generator.
FREE ELECTRICITY forever. Why monkey around with a vacuum???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL)
.
You should probably read the description for that video. In it you will find this link: http://www.veproject1.blogspot.ca/
It is very enlightening.
polln8r
.
It's not that hard Microcontroller.
Just open your eyes while you watch the video.
FatBird,
this is my hobby. i can post a wokble design and explain it. there is a catch, patent rights go the Salvation Army.
Would,ve liked to have had a family. even Christians discriminate against me bebause of my hearing loss. Why I,ve had the time to figure this out.
Jim
Quote from: johnny874 on June 09, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
Ghost asked me to start a thread on this.
The basic idea would be if the tube on the right is connected to the one on the left, the atmospheric pressure would pump the water up the left side. This is because there would be a vacuum at the top.
A barrier would maintain the vacuum by not letting air in.
Johnny
edited to correct spelling
Thanks for opening a thread on this.
Now if this really works how would I go about building this?
What kind of materials should I use?
What measurements should I use?
A blue print/schematics with all the proper measurements/pressure would be great.
Seems to be a lot easier than building a Bessler wheel.
Quote from: FatBird on June 10, 2012, 08:20:38 PM
It's not that hard Microcontroller.
Just open your eyes while you watch the video.
What you think it works? Have you tried building it?
Quote from: microcontroller on June 10, 2012, 07:11:40 PM
The fact that there are people who believe that thing works without a pump and power supply is shocking to me.
Shocking.
My favorite one is the one with the magnet, the steel ball, and the wheel. I showed it to some high-level scientists during a lull at a conference a month or so ago, and they started trying to explain why it worked, too.
Quote from: Ghost on June 10, 2012, 11:36:24 PM
Thanks for opening a thread on this.
Now if this really works how would I go about building this?
What kind of materials should I use?
What measurements should I use?
A blue print/schematics with all the proper measurements/pressure would be great.
Seems to be a lot easier than building a Bessler wheel.
Ghost,
If something like this works, they would both be interesting. Some of this would apply to
Bessler. One example would be the water supply, it would be pumped up hill. If it flows downhill, then it's draining.
With something like this, plastic food storage containers could be modified. Plus they're cheap :D
decided to edit my comments to simplify them.
With the drawing, the static heads are shown with 2 to 1 ratios. With engineering, I am going on the basis of 15hg's of vacuum has 1/2 the force of atmospheric air pressure.
This would mean that regardless of the amount of water, a static head of equal surface area would have a 2:1 relationship. This would mean that the atmosphere could pump water up to twice it's height (close to it anyway).
With the static head on the left, all the water in the reservoir would not matter, only what is above the tube it's supplying with water.
And with a static head in an upper reservoir, if the water is allowed to drain out on the atmospheric side, it should try to increase the vacuum slightly. As a reslut of this, the supply side should pump water to compensate.
A vacuum gauge would verify vacuum to lift but isn't necessary. Marking lines where the static head should be should give a good indication.
To test something like this, the supply side could have water supplied to it. To maintain it's static head, a hole on the side of the reservoir would not let the water level increase.
This would help to show that water could be moved this way. After that, it would be up to someone how much effort they would want to put into it.
Jim
In case this hasn't been said..."the same vacuum you are depending on to lift the water will keep it from descending ."
not your concern Chris.
if you knew anything. you would have noticd that the drain is on the side open to the atmosphere.
So, yes it can work.
Jim
Quote from: christo4_99 on June 11, 2012, 01:42:27 PM
In case this hasn't been said..."the same vacuum you are depending on to lift the water will keep it from descending ."
Christopher Wells, since you are not Jesus Christ, why not quit using his log on ?
I would prefer to discuss this with people who are interested in it, not someone who wishes to make people believe they are God, or are you ?
But to attach yourself to this reminds me of what you posted to me, I would answer to you and you would decide in what manner my work is to be percieved. That's not for you to decide. You and Christian friends helped me to lose my job when I was going to church with my father because you have a belief but need someone else to pay for it.
Kind of why I don't go to church anymore.
And why would I give away a patent that might be worth millions if it works ? Really have no friends because of people like you. Don't need a palace for one.
Then again, my cancer might have been from when I got hit by a van. Serious trauma and cancer have been linked. My Christian family kept me from fixing my car and the Christians I worked with said, give you a ride to the auto part store ? Sorry.
Yet when I want to do somethng, you guys come running. Isn't it funny the way that works ? It kind of makes you Christians look like vultures looking for opportunity. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around, you know, the meek shall inherit the Earth, love thy neighbor as thyself. Haven't really seen it.
So please Chris Wells, leave me ALONE.
@All,
Was hoping someone who finds this interesting would be allowed to ask some questions. This is supposed to be a research forum where things are discussed.
What might be missed with this design is that because there is a greater volume of water in the upper reservoir, it would have a greater effect on the vacuum than the supply side.
If the drain were on the vacuum side of the upper reservoir, it would let air in. By placing it on the side open to the atmosphere, it will be allowed to drain. Because this will lower the static head in the upper reservoir, it should increase the vacuum and cause water to flow into it from the supply side in an attempt to equalize the forces (the 2 static heads) acting on the vacuum.
Of course, with new ideas, gaurantees can not be made except nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Some of these principles I started thnking about while working on Bessler as a way to possibly allow his wheel(s) to do more work. Also, when I was in the US Navy, I went to school for and worked in an engineroom where we had a condenser uder the low pressure turbine. It condensed steam into condensate and we maintained it at a vacuum of 27hg"s (1.5psi).
Of course, I went to school for machining after the Navy and worked as a CNC Machinist but problems with my ears required me to change jobs. Life goes on.
Have other schooling as well. One reason why I am looking forward to getting back to working on Bessler's wheel. I'll be able to use some of the schooling and work experience I've had. Hopefully it won't be to long until I can get back at it.
Jim
Quote from: johnny874 on June 11, 2012, 03:58:52 PM
@All,
Was hoping someone who finds this interesting would be allowed to ask some questions. This is supposed to be a research forum where things are discussed.
What might be missed with this design is that because there is a greater volume of water in the upper reservoir, it would have a greater effect on the vacuum than the supply side.
If the drain were on the vacuum side of the upper reservoir, it would let air in. By placing it on the side open to the atmosphere, it will be allowed to drain. Because this will lower the static head in the upper reservoir, it should increase the vacuum and cause water to flow into it from the supply side in an attempt to equalize the forces (the 2 static heads) acting on the vacuum.
Of course, with new ideas, gaurantees can not be made except nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Some of these principles I started thnking about while working on Bessler as a way to possibly allow his wheel(s) to do more work. Also, when I was in the US Navy, I went to school for and worked in an engineroom where we had a condenser uder the low pressure turbine. It condensed steam into condensate and we maintained it at a vacuum of 27hg"s (1.5psi).
Of course, I went to school for machining after the Navy and worked as a CNC Machinist but problems with my ears required me to change jobs. Life goes on.
Have other schooling as well. One reason why I am looking forward to getting back to working on Bessler's wheel. I'll be able to use some of the schooling and work experience I've had. Hopefully it won't be to long until I can get back at it.
Jim
Hi Jim
This idea seem to be the missing link of djerassem patent
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ebP_AQAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=djerassem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVfWT7LFKOn10gGBwuScAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA (http://www.google.com/patents?id=ebP_AQAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=djerassem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVfWT7LFKOn10gGBwuScAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA)
i have a simple question . 2 recipient with the same volume one full of water one with a partial vacuum connected to each other by a one way valve allowing the water to go to the empty recipient side .
question 1 at witch level the water will stop and why ?
question 2 if you connect the second recipient to a third vacuum chamber will it help emptying the first tank ?
the response to these questions might give some tips to some engineers out here to build a working device using pressure differential because if it does the third tank can be switch to the other side back and forth without loosing it initial partial vacuum state therefore keeping the unbalanced pressures for a long time .
that's my hypothesis
Quote from: sidneo on June 11, 2012, 05:00:49 PM
Hi Jim
This idea seem to be the missing link of djerassem patent
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ebP_AQAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=djerassem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVfWT7LFKOn10gGBwuScAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA (http://www.google.com/patents?id=ebP_AQAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=djerassem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVfWT7LFKOn10gGBwuScAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA)
i have a simple question . 2 recipient with the same volume one full of water one with a partial vacuum connected to each other by a one way valve allowing the water to go to the empty recipient side .
question 1 at witch level the water will stop and why ?
question 2 if you connect the second recipient to a third vacuum chamber will it help emptying the first tank ?
the response to these questions might give some tips to some engineers out here to build a working device using pressure differential because if it does the third tank can be switch to the other side back and forth without loosing it initial partial vacuum state therefore keeping the unbalanced pressures for a long time .
that's my hypothesis
Hi Sidneo,
It's not even close to that. It looks like he was thinking of a gas charged shock when he thought of that. Same principle but a different application.
With what i have described, it is something I tried to get Wayne travis to understand. It does take hydraulic theory into consideration.
With the diagram I posted, if the drain were covered with a flat sheet of plastic, then it could be moved to uncover the drain until the system either works or it doesn't.
While using more chambers might make it seem more attractive, I am not sure it would help.
It would just be a more elaborate system but still is limited to helping people to understand hydraulic theory and how pressure differential systems need to be considered. A teaching tool if you will.
The greater value might be that the everyday person finds it more interesting than we do. If so, that's okay. it would give them a peek at our world ;) And to me, I think that would be something I would enjoy. After all, we are freaks aren't we ? They think we are. So I gu8ess for a good cause, why not ? A little redemption for free thinkers if you will.
Jim
edited to delete repeating statement
@All,
For something like this, there would be an engineered solution.
When the vacuum draws water into the top chamber, the water could fill something
which would use leverage to pump water out. It would be a bit of work. Something like a water
wheel could operate the pump. Like I said, it would be a bit of work, an involved project kind
of like Bessler's wheel.
What I might do this weekend is make a short tube out of a sheet of plastic and pump water with
it between two flat boards. Only one board would need to move but both could.
No fixed rules, not yet any way.
I thought I would mention that some Christians would probably think I should be thanking God. If so,
then would I need to thank God for the problems that have been brought into my life ? As I've mentioned
before, hope to have a family one day and this (what I want) didn't allow me to be stupid with how I responded to my
critics (people who discriminated agianst me).
And with the continuous flowing water, while I'm laid up (hope to get things over with next week), then I'll
give some thought to how a water wheel and a mechanical pump could work together. This would be the difficult
part and a decent solution could make for something that would leave everybody scratching their heads.
Am going to try and take a break from this until I'm in better health (will post a video of the water pump :D ). Would be able to enjoy it much more.
Jim
By having water in the top reservoir drain into a bucket, as the bucket descends it also pumps the
reservoir back up again. And when it nears the bottom of it's travel, it empties into the lower reservoir.
I think you'll get the basic idea.
Quote from: johnny874 on June 22, 2012, 10:21:50 AM
By having water in the top reservoir drain into a bucket, as the bucket descends it also pumps the
reservoir back up again. And when it nears the bottom of it's travel, it empties into the lower reservoir.
I think you'll get the basic idea.
Looks great and I really get the idea now!
It's like using the weight of itself (water) to pump itself through means of leverage.
If I had the money and tools and/or skills I would try to build this.
Maybe someone can simulate this in a physics simulating program.
Thanks for sharing.
peace.
your welcome ghost, I think with something like this, while it might be educational, people would buy one because it would be unique.
@All,
There is a neat little trick to this. Since the water in the top reservoir supplies the working force, it's the volume everything else will need to work with.
an example of this is when the pump pumps one time, the volume of water it moves into the static head is the same as in the reservoir. They would be considered 2 different parts of this idea.
And if the water bucket dropped 8 inches to operate the pump, at a 4:1 ratio, the pump would need a depth of 2 inches. It might work slowly but still something I would think people would be fascinated by, after all, it would keep doing it's thing without power :o
Jim
Hi Jhony,
The subject of this forum is "Continuously flowing water theory".Insted of writing on the above subject you are writing about christians unnecessarly.If one or two christians done something bad doesn't means that all christians are bad.In the world most of charity money was paid by christians.To have a hatred on one or two people you are blaming a big community of the world.
I saw all your posts you are writing about christians.Can you please stop this in future.
Do your work or research and write about that. :(
Nixon
nixx,
people arent big on charity.
Unlike Wayne, I dont need the patent rights.
edit. Do any of you working with Wayne have any rights to any contribution you may make ?
nix,
my sister was never the good christian,
she did a christian newspaper until she died from chrons disease,
still, rhe did what she could.
that ir something M. doesn,t understand, some people need to work. It is a part of them.
this idea will never work because perpetual motion is impossible.
Quote from: johnny874 on June 23, 2012, 09:37:04 PM
this idea will never work because perpetual motion is impossible.
your idea?
what are you talking about?
selling my tools.
it is like AB Hammer said, perpetual motion will not be allowed so it doesn,t matter.
Ghost, the water bucket can be lifted by using a counter weight like they use with elevators.
If a bellows is used, then water filling it from a short static head would help to float it open.
Unlike other people, I got into alternative enrgy/perpetual motion because of the discrimination I have to tolerate because of my hearing loss. It gets quite bad. I actually lost one job because I was being harassed by Christians for trying to meet a woman. Apparently they didn't like the idea of me having a family while I went to church with my 75 year old dad who happened to be an immigrant. This is my way of working around other peoples ignorance.
With this idea, a bellows might allow for the simplest design that could work. The riser pipe would need an elbow that is the end of the bellows. This would help to make it easier to pump the water up into the riser pipe and top reservoir.
This would mean only 3 parts would be needed for this, the bellows, the riser pipe/top reservoir and the water bucket.
With the bellows, if a one was check valve is used, then water can flow in but not out. Most things needed for something like this would be found in the plumbing aisle of a person's local home improvement store and your local store that has food storage containers (plastic).
Any way, for someone who is interested in understanding basic hydraulic behavior and maybe have a working pmm, this would be about as simple and inexpensive as they would find.
To go OU, a side drain pipe out of the top reservoir so it can't over fill would show it could do work as well.
Jim
edit
p.s., there would always be water int he bellow as the point where it connects to the riser pipe would always be open.
it's volume can be adjusted to account for this.
If you watch the video below, it proves water can continuously fall
WITHOUT bellows & pumps. Why make it harder than necessary???
It could be Scaled Up so the falling water turns a Water Wheel that
spins a Generator. Properly configured it gives FREE ELECTRICITY forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL)
.
That video is a trick, try the experiment yourself, an easy one to do.
If it's a fake, why is it PATENTED?
Where is your proof it's a fake?
Or do you just expect us to take your word for it? LOL
Quote from: FatBird on June 24, 2012, 09:15:49 PM
If you watch the video below, it proves water can continuously fall
WITHOUT bellows & pumps. Why make it harder than necessary???
It could be Scaled Up so the falling water turns a Water Wheel that
spins a Generator. Properly configured it gives FREE ELECTRICITY forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL)
.
FatBird,
I think what everyone is missing is why it doesn't work. It seems like it should, but it doesn't.
The "Travis Effect" is based on this. If you pump the water (static head) in the funnel into the
tube on the right, that static head will be taller and it will be. With hydraulics, it would require
extra work because of the compression taking place. With the "Travis Effect", air is placed
between the piston and the fluid being pumped.
If you look at how I modified the picture, it shows the static head in the funnel, the only water that
matters. The rest of the water can not perform any work. This is because the force of the extra water
is parallel to gravity or perpendicular to the static head, it's force is not applied diagonally. This is
what most people probably don't understand. The easiest way to consider a static head is the narrowest
gap in the static head, this is what all calculations should be based on.
With the basic design I posted, it shows how the potential in a static head could be taken advantage of.
And it would be by understanding how a basic concept works that a more advanced design could be
achieved.
Jim
Quote from: johnny874 on June 24, 2012, 02:43:10 AM
selling my tools.
it is like AB Hammer said, perpetual motion will not be allowed so it doesn,t matter.
Don't give up Jim, please. You've spent too much time on PM. It's not the best way to finish it like that I think.
Sad to hear about your experiences with some christians, but there are christians and christians, or sometimes... christians and so called christians.
Regards
Hi all,
I don't mean to discourage anyone here from experimenting but I would like to point out that in the green water video, when the liquid is first poured in, there's a slight 'pause' at the bottom of the collection vessel where the water seems to stop for a brief moment then begins to flow through again. Water would not behave this way. There must be some hidden plumbing within the lower arm of the stand that feeds the water through a pump of some sort.
Cheers,
polln8r
Quote from: FatBird on June 25, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
If it's a fake, why is it PATENTED?
Where is your proof it's a fake?
Or do you just expect us to take your word for it? LOL
Re: this video, no don`t take my word for it, go read the website link underneath the video.
(http://www.veproject1.blogspot.ca/)
There he tells you "This video is of motorized versions that were built to illustrate how these machines were supposed to work in the minds of Inventors."
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 25, 2012, 11:34:21 AM
Don't give up Jim, please. You've spent too much time on PM. It's not the best way to finish it like that I think.
Sad to hear about your experiences with some christians, but there are christians and christians, or sometimes... christians and so called christians.
Regards
Raphael,
I am in a tight situation right now and need to get it worked out.
With static heads, something for everyone to think about, if a tube
is at an angle of 45 degrees, why is it's static head limited to the height
of a static head that is straight up and down. It has to do with how
gravity effects liquids as I mentioned in the previous post. Excess volume
is not able to perform any work.
@ FatBird, the purpose of the videos is so that people like yourself would
ask questions. Most people accept that it doesn't work yet by understanding
static heads, then something simple could be built.
And with even a simple pm machine, something would also be learned about
mechanics, flow rates, compression, etc., etc. In other words if someone
tried the basic pump / system then they would learn something about mechanical
engineering. And sometimes the best experience is hands on experience where
even a seemingly simple build is attempted. It could be why most won't build, it
seems simple but in reality, getting any mechanical system to work does take
some effort.
@All, if anyone takes a tube and holds one side straight up and lets the other side
move to an angle, you will see the 2 static heads will always have the same height.
@Ghost, someone one day might try the basic idea I posted and they might actually
find it interesting when they see it work. But I think as far as Bessler goes, if someone
keeps this going, it will end up at Bessler's wheel and then he would have had his
school if even for a few months.
Good Luck Guys and Take Care
Jim
edited to correct spelling of FatBird's name :D
@All,
If anyone could, would you make a video and post it of this please.
By moving the tube on the left, it will change the height of the static head.
And what everyone would see is that less water can have as much force as
a larger volume and that changing the height of the static head takes work proportional
to it's lift.
With vacuum, that would be an advanced concept and something that can wait. But for
understanding how or why something works, the basic pump idea would be best.
The top reservoir is "preloaded". And since water can flow, it can move itself to the drain,
the lowest point. This allows it to perform work and is the start of the self flowing water
being able to happen.
I'm fairly certain that if one person tries this that someone else will. Once you get the idea,
you might think "how simple" and who knows ...
Jim
proportional to it's lift.
I don't know why but something tells me to add/mix this idea: http://www.overunity.com/12396/school-boy-experiment-with-water
with your idea johnny874.
* * * See attached pdf file.
Quote from: Ghost on June 26, 2012, 01:44:46 AM
I don't know why but something tells me to add/mix this idea: http://www.overunity.com/12396/school-boy-experiment-with-water (http://www.overunity.com/12396/school-boy-experiment-with-water)
with your idea johnny874.
* * * See attached pdf file.
Ghost,
I had sent a link to someone showing how coffee makers pump water with no moving parts.
When the water is heated, the air it releases pumps the water. a neat trick but of limited use.
With the experiment Vineet did, he is pumping air similar to what wayne is doing :o
if things start working out for me, then next week I might be able to start building an
actual test model. What I can do in the mean time is post some drawings of how I plan
on going about building it. This way if someone else wants to try it, they can.
I would be starting with the pump itself and the top reservoir. It could be when people
sees how that works then they'll see how it might work.
And to make it easier on anyone else who would try, I would be showing how I build everything starting with the bellows. And as far as math goes, I'm going to try to use as little as possible.
Jim
@All,
Here is possibly the simplest design I could come up with.
The top reservoir would need to be 2 sections. This is to allow one section
to be pumped up while the lower section is empty. When the A section is filled,
it can lift a float which opens a flapper type valve. This will let the water drain
to the B section where it will float the water bucket back to it's start position.
In the digram for the lower resrvoir / pump assembly, the water bucket is top
right, when it is lifted, it will open another flapper type valve in the B section.
This will let that water drain into the water bucket. As this happens, the
bucket will become heavier and start pumping water up the riser tube once again
filling the top reservoir A section.
When the water bucket is finished pumping, it's flapper valve will open letting it
drain into the bottom reservoir.
Basically, it seems 4 flapper valves and one float could control all movement
of the water in this design.
I think if you take a little time and consider it, it could work for as basic of a design
as it is.
Not sure though, but I might not be able to do anythng for a while. But then, this is
an open source design. One thing to remember, that the water the bellows pumps is
equal to the volume in the riser tube, and what is in the water bucket. If you follow
the flow, you'll understand this.
And with the loop seal that goes from the bottom reservoir to the bellows, it should
always have water in it to keep air out of the system.
Jim
edited to add; a one way check valve or ball in the riser tube would be needed so it, like
the loop seal will always have water in it. This would be to prevent back flow when the
bellows is being primed (opened) as the water bucket is moved back to it's start position.
If you notice, in the bottom of the bellows, there is a flat line which is, yep, a flapper
valve. I think ya'all get it. ;) :D 8)
@All,
Cleaned it up some to make it easier to understand.
A flapper valve could be placed on top of the riser tube
to prevent back flow into the pump. A round pump
might work better than a bellows because it would be
more compact. This would allow for more leverage by
the water bucket which would be a plus. Like Tim Allen
always said, more power is always a good thing, grunt,, grunt ;D
A bellows makes for a good visual to understand pumping
something. Not everyone has experience working with various
types of pumps. A pump might be made out of pvc tubing, a flat
piece of plastic and something like felt as a seal. It would leak a
little, but that would help to keep the seal from wearing out
because of friction. Also, the leakage would also help to keep
the felt lubricated so it could work better, less friction while
sealing the pump. The pump would probably be what makes or breaks
this kind of idea, it does need to be efficient.
And when a flapper valve needs to be lifted so water can flow, a line
to something above it will allow it to open. One trick to flapper valves
is to look at the one inside of your commode, seriously, take a look at
it and see how it works. It closes after the tank is emptied because of
it's shape. Something worth noting.
By the way, super glue would probably work for holding things together.
Jim
p.s. with section A, it can be shallow but would need to be deep enough so
a float could open the valve to section B when the pump has completed it's
cycle, all the way down, emptied, etc., etc.
edited to correct spelling :o ??? :-\
deleted as it is a double post, sorry :D
Idea
yes..i know, the tube at the bottom should be placed as high of the lower reservoir.. ::)
Quote from: excessAlex on June 29, 2012, 06:42:31 AM
Idea
yes..i know, the tube at the bottom should be placed as high of the lower reservoir.. ::)
excessAlex,
I was going to say I like it. One thing you would need to add is a reservoir under the water bucket. When the water bucket empties into it, it would float the water bucket back up reseting the pump. I think this part of the design will always need
to be a 2 stage set up. This would let one reservoir reset the pump while the other (lower) reservoir primes (fills) the pump.
Jim
actually the animation above lacks some check valves and shutoff valves. The mechanism that I have shown schematically does not move in a native, but must be adjusted by opening and closing the valves so as to allow time for the containers to exchange the liquid, and passing air to the piston when it is in the rising phase and in the filling phase.
Bearing in mind that the two intermediate containers - when empty - have the same weight, and the lever that moves them is 1:1 my only question is: Can the weight of the water in the upper-intermediate vessel to overcome the force of gravity and friction of the pipes to allow liquid to back up the container at the top? .. I thought of working with containers from 30 liters up, maybe 100 liters ..
I hope you understand everything that I wrote, english is not my natural language
( P.S. That animation has its flaws, because I'm not quite able to make animations, some solutions that I have represented are done so because I could not do better with the drawing software .. Actually you can improve it a lot )
Quote from: excessAlex on June 29, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
actually the animation above lacks some check valves and shutoff valves. The mechanism that I have shown schematically does not move in a native, but must be adjusted by opening and closing the valves so as to allow time for the containers to exchange the liquid, and passing air to the piston when it is in the rising phase and in the filling phase.
Bearing in mind that the two intermediate containers - when empty - have the same weight, and the lever that moves them is 1:1 my only question is: Can the weight of the water in the upper-intermediate vessel to overcome the force of gravity and friction of the pipes to allow liquid to back up the container at the top? .. I thought of working with containers from 30 liters up, maybe 100 liters ..
I hope you understand everything that I wrote, english is not my natural language
( P.S. That animation has its flaws, because I'm not quite able to make animations, some solutions that I have represented are done so because I could not do better with the drawing software .. Actually you can improve it a lot )
excessAlex,
I wish I had watched the wmv. earlier. About the only thing that would need to be changed is the way the hydraulic piston works. I attached a drawing that shows how you can use leverage to increase the force for pumping and allow for easier resetting/priming of the pump.
Also, your English is quite good. What is your native language if you don't mind my asking ?
Jim
edited to add; I think I like the way you thought of better than what I came up with :D
by the way, something working with a liter or 2 would be enough to impress most anyone ;)
I think using leverage is probably the best way to pump water up.
I don’t see this in excessAlex’s design.
I could be wrong though.
Quote from: FatBird on June 09, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
If you watch the Video below, you will see Continuously Flowing Water WITHOUT a VACUUM AND Vacuum Pump.
It could be Scaled Up so the falling water could drive a Water Wheel that turns a Generator.
FREE ELECTRICITY forever. Why monkey around with a vacuum???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL)
You guys do realize this is just a nice parlor trick,
involving electrostatic liquid attraction as a pump,
right ?
Look at the conveniently placed two upright stands,
that spacious base, and think it through this time...
It wouldn't matter if the left side was the size of an ocean,
and the right side just a small garden hose in comparison,
they would (only) equalize levels, that's all...
EDIT:
Heheh, after looking at that for a full three seconds more,
I spotted an easier way, tap the liquid at the left stand's bottom support,
use a pump underneath, and a venturi in that right stand's support.
You did you all notice how no liquid even came out that tube
at the bottom of the flask right away like it would normally,
the flask is 1/3 full before anything starts to flow into it ?
That's because the suction of the pump is taking it instead.
That rules out electrostatic pump,
and rules in standard liquid pump,
with a venturi in the right support.
Bet there is several other ways to do this too,
but this isn't worth more than thirty seconds worth of thought...
EDIT 2:
I have now read the rest of these two pages,
(I have my posts-per-page set to maximum...),
enough people saw the vid's inconsistencies. :)
I'm was sad to see mechanical advantage added at first,
I'm trying to warm up to this combination though.
An initial pressure differential to utilize,
combined with controlled cyclic valving added
is where I was hoping this would go instead.
I also didn't see any consideration to a time interval.
For flow to double, the pressure differential must quadruple,
for both the pressure head heights to acheive double the flow.
Like 'Micro said, some form of flow control is needed,
then the resulting equalization unbalanced again,
rinse and repeat...
At least there is a constant to work against:
Each 2.31 feet of head height differential = 1 Pound (per) Square Inch (PSI) increase.
If only there were a way (bouyancy?) to juxtaposition the relational height
of each of the two chambers, and hence their current water head heights
in relation to each other with less work input somehow ?
After all, a perfect vacuum will hold a 34 foot high head of water,
that must be useful in application to developing a working concept...
The vacuum doesn't have to be "Produced" either,
a submersed unit, allowed to vacate of any air first,
need only now be raised to begin the vacuum process.
Then, inevitably, the suspended gasses in the liquid water
would release and provide the small gap to start the process.
I Like the logic problem presented though,
going to mull this over for a few days now.
Thanks Johnny, be well.
(Others, please don't quote this entire lengthy post, trim it please, TY)
I was wondering when someone would spot the "thick" base that (youtube) demo is on... :)
There is another thing that makes me wonder about standards,
why are basically all incompressible liquids measured in PSI ?
We use PSI as a square of the pressure with compressable air as example,
it isn't just per-square-inch, it is a square of the pressure per square inch,
a quadrupling of occupation for every doubling of the pressure.
For those not getting that, think of a printer's DPI (Dots Per Inch)
10x10 = 100-DPI
20x20 = 400-DPI
lousy example, but good enough to visualize compressables like air,
increasing from 10 units of pressure to 20 units, quadruples air stored.
But as water is basically nearly incompressible,
why isn't it just measured as "Pounds" of pressure,
like inches of mercury or hg for a vacuum as example ?
I bring this up because in order to double the vacuum available,
quadruple the amount of gasseous substance must be removed.
Also, for some reason, double/triple/quadruple steam engines come to mind,
probably from the 2:1 ratio your working against in your ideas Johnny.
Perhaps the opposite could be employed to harvest the most effective force,
each chamber being 2:1 larger to reacted to half the pressure with equal force ?
(Note 2:1 ratio from chamber to chamber in pic, then reverse that thought for vacuum)
NOTE:
I just attached an animated graphic interchange file (Ani-GIF),
and the forum resize script seemed to have de-animated it :(
(to a single-framed picture instead...)
Download to see animation instead:
http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/500/
(Clicking the pic link gets the same single frame pic sadly...)
Quote from: johnny874 on June 29, 2012, 03:22:29 PM
What is your native language if you don't mind my asking ?..
....something working with a liter or 2 would be enough to impress most anyone
I am Italian ;D Nice to meet you
I tried to use some little reservoirs ( e.g. 1,5 liter ), and the result are not so good, because the pipe for the rising fluid must be very little and the friction will be very strong. I I need a tiny tube that must be, however, very, VERY smooth on the inside. For this I thought to enlarge the size (and weight) of the whole device so I could indirectly "shrink" the imperfections of the pipe internal .. At least that I thought in my ignorance ::)
.. For the lever:
I had thought of a lever, but then this lever interferes with the lifting of the low-intermediate vessel. There is a margin in order to use a little leverage, but not much.
I thought for example to add weight to the container upper-intermediate, for example: if the containers were to hold 100 kg of liquid, the weight to be added may be up to 80 kg, because the container medium-low, when the liquid is transferred to its inside then it would weigh 100 kg against 80 kg of weight added to the container upper-intermediate .. This could be turned into a lever, rather than add weight so you could change the arm that regulates the movement of intermediate containers ..
Alex
Quote from: excessAlex on June 30, 2012, 09:42:21 AM
I am Italian ;D Nice to meet you
I tried to use some little reservoirs ( e.g. 1,5 liter ), and the result are not so good, because the pipe for the rising fluid must be very little and the friction will be very strong. I I need a tiny tube that must be, however, very, VERY smooth on the inside. For this I thought to enlarge the size (and weight) of the whole device so I could indirectly "shrink" the imperfections of the pipe internal .. At least that I thought in my ignorance ::)
.. For the lever:
I had thought of a lever, but then this lever interferes with the lifting of the low-intermediate vessel. There is a margin in order to use a little leverage, but not much.
I thought for example to add weight to the container upper-intermediate, for example: if the containers were to hold 100 kg of liquid, the weight to be added may be up to 80 kg, because the container medium-low, when the liquid is transferred to its inside then it would weigh 100 kg against 80 kg of weight added to the container upper-intermediate .. This could be turned into a lever, rather than add weight so you could change the arm that regulates the movement of intermediate containers ..
Alex
Hi Alex,
With leverage, it increases the force acting on the pump, very helpful.
With what you have shown and what some might miss is that by increasing the diameter of the
pump, it's height can be less. If adhesion or cohesion is a problem, then some light oil can be
added to the water to coat the inside of the tubes.
With the riser pipe, it might help to calculate the volume the pump holds and then this would
help to determine what size riser pipe might work best. PVC is pretty smooth on the inside
and is used agreat deal in plumbing.
To caclulate volume of a static head or riser tube, the formula is PiR^2H or 3.142*radius^2*height.
^2 represents squared or multiplied by itself and * is times. Just so everyone knows :D
By the way Alex, the fulcrum for leveraging the pump could be suspended from the bottom of the
top reservoir. Also, if volumes are known, then the total heaight of your design could be lower than what
you might think. If so, then the diameter of the riser pipe might be able to have a larger radius.
Jim
Quote from: FatBird on June 09, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
If you watch the Video below, you will see Continuously Flowing Water WITHOUT a VACUUM AND Vacuum Pump.
It could be Scaled Up so the falling water could drive a Water Wheel that turns a Generator.
FREE ELECTRICITY forever. Why monkey around with a vacuum???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=channel&list=UL)
.
I think this ones a fake, why?
1. As he fills the flask the water did not flow instantly to the bottom hose, it took about 3seconds...
2. Why is that there are bubbles comming out of the hose like something is pumping up the water?
3. The wooden base is suspicious, it should have been built on a transparent platform...
Has anyone tried to replicate this if it is posible?
Quote from: crazycut06 on June 30, 2012, 10:45:53 AM
I think this ones a fake, why?
1. As he fills the flask the water did not flow instantly to the bottom hose, it took about 3seconds...
2. Why is that there are bubbles comming out of the hose like something is pumping up the water?
3. The wooden base is suspicious, it should have been built on a transparent platform...
Has anyone tried to replicate this if it is posible?
hi crazycut06,
the video does say hypothetical. I think they made the vidoe to try and get people to think about how
those idea's might work.
@Alex,
here are some numbers for you. I am listing two sizes for the pump and one for the riser pipe.
sqrt or square root equals radius. ;)
pump 1 pump 2
1,500 / 7.5 = 20 1,500 / 5 = 300
20 / 3.142 = 63.65 300 / 3.142 = 96.48
63.65 sqrt = 7.98 96.48 sqrt = 9.77
riser pipe
750 / 15 = 50
50 / 3.142 = 16.03
16.03 sqrt = 4.00
As you can see, by increasing the diameter of the pump from 7.98 cm's to 9.77 cm's, it's height
only needs to be 5 cm's (2 in.) instead of 7.5 cm's (3 in.).
And the riser pipe ? A diameter of 8 cm's (3.2 in.) I think would be sufficient to easily allow water to be
pumped. And at 15 cm's (6 in.)
By having a shorter pump, it allows for more leverage to be used. With a taller riser pipe, say 25 cm's tall,
then 750 / 25 = 30
30 / 3.142 = 9.65
9.65 sqrt = 3.09
If you notice, I am calculating the riser pipe to have 1/2 the volume of the pump.
And with a height of 25 cm's ( 10 in.), it would have a diameter of 3.09 cm's (1.25 in.).
I think those are some workable numbers.
With the pump having a stroke of 5 cm's (2 in.), and the riser pipe being 25 cm's (10 in.)
allows for a working room of 20 cm's (8 in.) which should be enough space with your
configuration.
Jim
edited to correct spelling
edited to add; sqrt or square root equals radius
@All,
This is one way a pump could be made. It would have a low profile
but have high volume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2SZIITKnCI&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2SZIITKnCI&feature=youtu.be)
edited to add; Alex, with your design, it might be controlling the movement of the
2 water tanks that are the pump and reset that might take some thought.
It might be possible for them to be draining or being filled while moving.
The pump could be filled while moving downward and the reset could be draining as it is lifted. You should find out about flapper valves. they are simple yet might work well with this type of application.
Quote from: CompuTutor on June 30, 2012, 08:27:09 AM
There is another thing that makes me wonder about standards,
why are basically all incompressible liquids measured in PSI ?
We use PSI as a square of the pressure with compressable air as example,
it isn't just per-square-inch, it is a square of the pressure per square inch,
a quadrupling of occupation for every doubling of the pressure.
For those not getting that, think of a printer's DPI (Dots Per Inch)
10x10 = 100-DPI
20x20 = 400-DPI
lousy example, but good enough to visualize compressables like air,
increasing from 10 units of pressure to 20 units, quadruples air stored.
But as water is basically nearly incompressible,
why isn't it just measured as "Pounds" of pressure,
like inches of mercury or hg for a vacuum as example ?
I bring this up because in order to double the vacuum available,
quadruple the amount of gasseous substance must be removed.
Also, for some reason, double/triple/quadruple steam engines come to mind,
probably from the 2:1 ratio your working against in your ideas Johnny.
Perhaps the opposite could be employed to harvest the most effective force,
each chamber being 2:1 larger to reacted to half the pressure with equal force ?
(Note 2:1 ratio from chamber to chamber in pic, then reverse that thought for vacuum)
NOTE:
I just attached an animated graphic interchange file (Ani-GIF),
and the forum resize script seemed to have de-animated it :(
(to a single-framed picture instead...)
Download to see animation instead:
http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/500/ (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/500/)
(Clicking the pic link gets the same single frame pic sadly...)
CompuTutor,
Think you could do an animated gif of this type of wheel. Continuous rotation might allow for most efficient use of energy conversion. If so, I know I would appreciate it as well as everyone in here.
It is as you mentioned about doubling or quadrupling force, with leverage, it becomes possible. This is one reason why with the "logic problem" as you rightly called it that a pumps volume is not necessarily entirely based on height. With a shorter stroke, the difference in the height of the static head and the lever acting on the pump becomes greater.
With your engine, the 3 cylinders would need to be at different elevations so as the water flows downward, it's mass being acted on by gravity is the greater force.
One way to do it might be to have the pistons tilt at the bottom of their stroke emptying that cylinder and filling the next one. And with the last cylinder operating the pump refills the inital stage. This would allow it to be a closed loop system where leverage allows for the force of one piston to be amplified to operate the water pump.
Jim
edited to add;
>> But as water is basically nearly incompressible,
why isn't it just measured as "Pounds" of pressure,
like inches of mercury or hg for a vacuum as example ?
<<
As you mentioned, in math, values are often squared. it seems to be a universal thing.
With pressure, the surface area may not be increasing in size. If it did exponentially, then
it would be as the DPI you mentioned. But with a static head, every 33 feet the pressure per square inch doubles.
edited to add; compuTutor, you brought up a good point I almost missed. If a basic pump were square, then it's volume would quadruple if it's dimension went from 2 x 2 to 4 x 4.
This would mean that 4 times the water could be pumped per stroke without increasing the length of the stroke. I think sometimes on these idea's, it is best to start with something basic so everyone can follow. Then when it is more familiar, the advancing the concept little by little would make it easier to understand what principles are being used and how or why.
Johnny874
@All,
I modified accessAlex's concept going with the theme of this thread.
I am providing numbers to show how self pumping / flowing water can work. Where Alex had a pipe, think half pipe (snow boarding term, sorry bout that) .
I think everyone should get it and if all else fails, maybe it would make for an interesting aquarium for marketability.
Johnny874
edited to add; H= height, SAE is 18, metric is 45.75, hope using both values doesn't confuse everyone to much but you know, my dad was metric and I'm SAE.
@All,
I cleaned it up quite abit and hopefully made everything easier to understand.
With the basic concept, the pump has a stroke of 1 inch or 2.5cm's. It has a depth
of 1.5 inches or 3.75 cm's. This would hopefully help the flow into the static head.
The static head has been calculated to have about the same volume of water that the
pump discharges each time it pumps.
With a static head height of 18 inches or about 45 cm's, there would be a space of about 12 inches or 45 cm's for the water buckets and the pump. This should be plenty of room
to work with. And with a 3:1 ratio, the water bucket that operaates the pump would be
generating 3 times the force of the water it would be moving. This would allow for some loss due to friction/resistence.
As far as something like this goes, a working prototype could be worth a couple of million Euro's or U.S. dollars. After all, it would be the only working pm invention someone could buy and people most likely would.
And since I am not building at present and accessAlex is a part of this, maybe someone wouldn't mind taking an interest in this as they would also benefit financially from it.
If so, let us know.
Johnny874
Hi all, cool green water, are somebody see in the vid. is two different liquids . one liquid is clear and second is green, clear liquid is filled just littlebit and before the green liqiud. Can somebody see it too in sowmotion you can see first comes out clear water from pipe and then starsts flowing green.
Maybe its same liquid but not painted in green , i think i gonna replicate this thing .. :)
Thing
thing,
tomorrow or the next day, Im going to scan anc upload a drawing I cid last night, its a a cross between what me and alex have poxted, a bellows could be used as the pump. a little simpler,
johnny
Quote from: Thing on July 08, 2012, 12:57:04 PM
Hi all, cool green water, are somebody see in the vid. is two different liquids . one liquid is clear and second is green, clear liquid is filled just littlebit and before the green liqiud. Can somebody see it too in sowmotion you can see first comes out clear water from pipe and then starsts flowing green.
Maybe its same liquid but not painted in green , i think i gonna replicate this thing .. :)
Thing
Thing,
think this is something you could do ? It's scaleable, 1 inch equals 1 inch or cm for that matter.
flapper valves might work for water flow control, simple but effective.
Johnny
Quote from: johnny874 on July 09, 2012, 10:47:27 AM
Thing,
think this is something you could do ? It's scaleable, 1 inch equals 1 inch or cm for that matter.
flapper valves might work for water flow control, simple but effective.
Johnny
Kator,
I have thought of a way to modify this. Although not sure if working openly is such a good idea.
What with some of the bored experts that are in this forum, they'd need attention without bringing anything to the discussion.
With this design, water flow is what matter's, kind of stating the obvious. but this is where attention is needed because valves would need to be used so the water would flow when it needs to.
After that, the reset mechanism would be the enxt issue. one idea I had a while ago was to use a counter weight to help assist in lifting the (resetting) the rest mechanism.
I did some math and found out that a 1 1/8th inch tube has close to 1 square inch of surface area, .994. Not sure if i could find a tube that size. 1 1/4" is 1.22 and 1" is .7855. With a 1 inch tube, 28 cubic inches of water would be pumped up to almost 36 inches in height.
With the design I am thinking of it, it would use levers, pulleys and counter weights. Sounds almost like an elevator. They use a counter weight that weighs the same as the elevator so only the weight of the people is being moved. And something like this would cancel out the weight of the reset mechanism unless it is being used to perform it's desired operation.
Not sure, but may post a picture of it after I have made some progress on it. With a working model, then I can get help in getting Bessler's wheel built. Sometimes it's better to do what you can than what you want and i think this is an example of that.
Johnny
@all,
with this, have been considering a pancake pump for simplicity sake. that anc using counter weights to reset the pump so the weight that works the pump can be used to prime the pump when the water has finished pumping.
Also, only really need one promect to be working on, one reason why I posted the perpetual fountain on youtube.
have started a build on it but it might take some playing with to find out if it' s a good idea or not.
I think the reason no one has tried it before is because static heads always have had a direct pathway to each other and never thouht much of what Heron demonstrated and that is if the static head can not interact directly, then the static head will perform work relative to it's extra potential.
and tk, having a couple idea's only helps to demonstrate that when other people caused me problems is that engineering was my outlet to give me something productive to do while trying to get my life going again, that and having to stay close to home because of my medical problems and if you check how much the water drops when it is being pumped out of herons fountain, its not much compared to the height of the tube. what youve missed is that a pump can do the same thing.
and in reality, have been getting tired of engineering because there is more to life than this, and if you can understand how this pump works, then you might understand how besslers worked.
@all,
if I demonstrated that a pump can pump water up with the pump piston only dropping a little wouldn't get tk off my back.
what he miszes on badly is this design would be modifying one section of a Bessler wheel or what I believe was the way Bessler built it anc yet tk like someone else who used to bother me can only discuss his opinion of what he thinks he knows.
like Heron's Fountain, this could be easily demonstrated but it might not show where it could be overunity unless it workz.
and if tk was a decent person he never would have bothered me in the first place. I do not tnink I should have to tolerate constant harassment to work on something in this forum and the only mpderator supports him becaue their friends and have spent little time pursuing gravity power conversion, they're just bored.
all,
I am going to wtite Stefan about tk stalking me.
The history is all there, Johnny. I have all the PMs you sent to me, unsolicited and unprovoked, with all your abuse and insults. If the moderators haven't changed history by removing posts, anyone can see that YOU are the abuser, that you started with the insults and all the rest of the whining and complaining. YOU are the stalker, Jimbo. You've followed ME from thread to thread with your bloviating insults and your whining. You've even cluttered up my inbox with spam. Complain all you like. Builders are respected here... whiners, not so much.
@All,
This is about Bessler's Mt 66, which of course is one of many Bessler drawings.
If you look at the bottom piston and the top piston, it seems that the bottom piston pumped something to the top through a tube.
the person harassing me says this is impossible. Bessler thought of it almost 300 years ago.
And with lever C using leverage to increase the force potential of it's weight, not a problem.
What I have done to try and demonstrate how this idea can be modified so the water being pumped up to the top can be used as the weight doing the pumping. There really is no reason it can't.
And if you consider that most people at besslerwheel dot com say that there is nothing in Bessler's drawings worth learning, it is because they haven't considered that Bessler really did know something.
edited to delete post because it was not about Bessler.
As far as Mt 66 goesm whether or not I build it should be up to myself.
I have seen no one interested in my building anything.
John, Johnny, Jim, Jimbo and James
@All,
With Mt 66, if the wheel is stopped every 180 degrees, it would have a chance of being perpetual. Why stopping it every 1/2 rotation is to allow the water to pump to tne other side. One thing to remember is that the tube in the middle would always have water in it. This is okay because it would counter balance itself.
tk,
u can have this forum. after all, I have Bessler's wheel :~)
I can deal with that in my own time.
u no tk, u remind me of my oldest brother. hed fly across the country to keep me from having a girlfriend. best thing is, he said al
the same things you did except he wanted me to be a preacher. its just a control issue with people who have, Id say low self esteem but I tbink its something more problematic. its like you said, Id have to b Jesus to learn from somebody elses work.
but I about only been harassec for working openly.
and anyone can go to photobucket dot com and search Bessler_supporter. I have pictures of some of the builds I have done and will upload one tomorrow of a variation of Mt 37 I have built.
the only way to understand Bessler's work and learn how to build a better wheel.
and yes, I have posted the link before but want to move forward.
but like I said tk, its ur forum and I wont post any new work in here.
alan,
if I can, no one will ever do business with you again,
and the Scotts will b blowin their bag pipes.
Quote from: johnny874 on September 03, 2012, 06:57:38 PM
alan,
if I can, no one will ever do business with you again,
and the Scotts will b blowin their bag pipes.
I have asked you again and again to stop with the flaming and you have ignored me. Just remember that you had been warned several times now...
Bill
@All,
This is a link to my photobucket album.
History will show if AB Hammer is not flaming me, then one of his friends is.
AB Hammer has never posted an idea in this forum and then built it. The credible
people don't build openly other wise everyone would know that they don't know much.
And you will see the first few pictures are of my tools in the storage unit I rented to
use as a shop. But my medical problems are real and I couldn't afford to rent the
work space and for that I am flamed by people who do not pursue any idea's of their
own in this forum. Talk about playing it safe.
http://s979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/ (http://s979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/)
Quote from: Pirate88179 on September 03, 2012, 07:52:34 PM
I have asked you again and again to stop with the flaming and you have ignored me. Just remember that you had been warned several times now...
Bill
Bill,
I have sent a message to Stefan asking him to have you and tinselkoala to leave me alone.
I sent him the link of the modified heron's fountain thread. the only person being flamed is me so stop with your threats to so you can OPENLY allow your friends to flame me.
I like this flame job you and tinselkoala did on me >>Posts: 5467(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/icons/profile_sm.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/profile/pirate88179.8844/)
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/im_off.gif) (http://www.overunity.com/pm/pirate88179.8844/sa/send/)
(http://www.overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif)Re: My Invention (http://www.overunity.com/12597/my-invention/msg331707/#msg331707)«
Reply #3 on: August 11, 2012, 06:50:19 PM »Quote (http://www.overunity.com/12597/my-invention/post/quote/331707/last_msg/334579/)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 03:36:13 PM (http://www.overunity.com/12597/my-invention/msg331670/#msg331670)
Well, you just blew any chance of patenting that scheme, if that was your intention, by publishing your claims and drawings publicly.
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm)
You will have to complete and file a NONprovisional patent application within one year from today or you cannot patent it at all. And that's not even considering whether the patent will be granted.
You will also have to demonstrate that your invention is New, Useful, and hasn't been demonstrated before by someone else. Good luck.
TK:
Exactly correct, from what I know. I love the folks that post stuff on OU and then get help from smart guys like you....and then...remove all videos and posts saying they are going for the patent now. A long time ago a very expensive patent attorney assured me it does not work that way.
What help did I get from your smart friend ? he was reposting what I had posted. You guys don't really know anything just like alan and need to flame someone so people won't find out I actually do know something. After all, you, alan and tinselkoala will flame me because you can not discuss an idea that requires an understanding of engineering and there is no reason I shold have to tolerate such harassment.
If you are going to keep whining and complaining instead of working, you could at least learn how to quote posts properly.
Be sure to send Stefan copies of all the insulting, unsolicited PMs you sent to me, along with your complaint.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 10:30:57 AM
If you are going to keep whining and complaining instead of working, you could at least learn how to quote posts properly.
Be sure to send Stefan copies of all the insulting, unsolicited PMs you sent to me, along with your complaint.
tinselkoala,
you are the person who jumped into a thread I started playing mind games just as your flame job in the modified thread. it's something I'm tired of. If you could discuss engineering, then you wouldn't be attacking and flaming me constantly.
I think it's funny how you say I am whining because I will not build just ebcause you tell me i have to. it does show you are the one with a problem.
have you run out of things to discuss where you normally post because you don't care to try new idea's because you're afraid they might make you look bad ? I think so.
You are not a doctor by any means so I think it's ridiculous that you can disagree with the doctors who are treating me.
edited to add; tk, I think it's funny my in box has been emptied of the messages you sent me. reminds me so much of another person who said I had to build while they didn't.
edited to add; @All, as I have mentioned before, this will need to be independently verified. And if soemone in here tried it and had the same reults, then they might be flamed. Kind of why I would prefer it to happen on youtube, tk wouldn't have a moderator supporting his flame job.
Quote from: johnny874 on September 04, 2012, 11:39:37 AM
tinselkoala,
you are the person who jumped into a thread I started playing mind games just as your flame job in the modified thread. it's something I'm tired of. If you could discuss engineering, then you wouldn't be attacking and flaming me constantly.
I am expected to discuss "engineering" with someone who thinks that surface area is measured in cubic inches..... and who tries to justify that stupid error when it's pointed out? Someone who's never heard of Beer and Johnston, who thinks that engineering mechanics must have special wrenches or something, who doesn't know an arm from a moment? Someone who doesn't believe I can work to ten thou precision and accuracy? I've tried, Jimbo, but you are too ignorant and arrogant to discuss REAL engineering.
Quote
I think it's funny how you say I am whining because I will not build just ebcause you tell me i have to. it does show you are the one with a problem.
I think it's funny how you constantly lie and distort what other people say to you.
I say you are whining because you constantly blame your inabilities and shortcomings on other people, like the Army, your family, Bill, Alan, me, your doctors, and everyone else who keeps you from actually doing something. Got it straight now? I say you are whining NOT because you can't build anything, but because you blame that inability on other people. Got it yet?
YOU are constantly telling us about your problems, Jimbo. You have heard nothing from me about my problems, health, financial or otherwise... because they are irrelevant to what I'm doing. But we constantly hear about your problems and how they prevent you from showing us one of your five different overunity designs actually working.
Quote
have you run out of things to discuss where you normally post because you don't care to try new idea's because you're afraid they might make you look bad ? I think so.
No, I haven't, and in the time you've been insulting me I have been exploring wireless power transfer underwater, wireless electrolysis, wireless control of buoyancy by gas evolution, improvements on my Heron's Fountain, debunking several claimed OU devices on YouTube, and carrying out my astrophotography in my spare time. And of course the Ainslie saga always is there. Of course I don't have the flight of ideas that you experience, nor do I have the pressure of speech that comes along with them. And... unfortunately for you..... many of my new ideas actually work out. Yours.... not so much.
Quote
You are not a doctor by any means so I think it's ridiculous that you can disagree with the doctors who are treating me.
I really don't think you know what my professional qualifications are, but nevertheless.... show me one place where I have disagreed with the doctors who are treating you. I think your medication needs adjustment, I'll freely admit that much.
Quote
edited to add; tk, I think it's funny my in box has been emptied of the messages you sent me. reminds me so much of another person who said I had to build while they didn't.
That almost sounds like you are accusing me, or someone, of tampering with your inbox. Not only is that impossible for anyone except maybe Stefan, it makes you sound pretty paranoid and deluded. But we knew that about you already.
Quote
edited to add; @All, as I have mentioned before, this will need to be independently verified. And if soemone in here tried it and had the same reults, then they might be flamed. Kind of why I would prefer it to happen on youtube, tk wouldn't have a moderator supporting his flame job.
What's to verify? You've got nothing, and what you show is easy to reproduce and it's meaningless. And your spellchecker isn't working either.
Quote from: johnny874 on September 04, 2012, 11:39:37 AM
edited to add; tk, I think it's funny my in box has been emptied of the messages you sent me. reminds me so much of another person who said I had to build while they didn't.
edited to add; @All, as I have mentioned before, this will need to be independently verified. And if soemone in here tried it and had the same reults, then they might be flamed. Kind of why I would prefer it to happen on youtube, tk wouldn't have a moderator supporting his flame job.
I am NOT a MODERATOR here. I can't delete in boxes, pm's, posts, photos, videos, etc. I have told you this about 10 times now. Just ask Stefan, he will tell you. So quit accusing me of doing things that are impossible for me to do even if I did want to do them. These are very serious accusations you have made....they are on the record now...in public. I will now decide what my legal options are. You have libeled me, as well as others here, and I will no longer stand for it. Alan (who ever he is) and TK will have to decide their own courses of action while I decide mine.
Bill
pirate88719,
ab hammer is alan bauldree and as he so often said, it is Bessler's wheel and anybody can build it. He did forget to mention one small aspect, they need to do the work themselves or they can pay someone to build it for them.
and Ive sent a message to Stefan that I am tored of being trollec by that other guy,
@all,
what was it the troll said ? what I build is something anyone can build so they don't mean anything. Just like the continuous flowing water (actually pumping) would be something anyone with a saw and a drill could build but it would be worthless.
ok, the trolls point is what now ?
@All,
I do consider this my invention as only accessAlex has offered a suggestion. And if I decide to build it, etc., I'll try to find him.
The USPTO gives me one year. The reason I mention this is some people believe that if I were to quit posting in this forum, they could claim that it was abandoned. The USPTO makes no such allowances. And I am sure there are people in here who would not mind a free idea.
Quote from: johnny874 on June 22, 2012, 10:21:50 AM
By having water in the top reservoir drain into a bucket, as the bucket descends it also pumps the
reservoir back up again. And when it nears the bottom of it's travel, it empties into the lower reservoir.
I think you'll get the basic idea.
I think this is hilarious. With my build of Mt 125, the mechanics aren't much different. It does take time to learn.
And forums are not a good place to do that. Not with perpetual motion and medical hardship both involved. :-)
Quote from: hoppfield on October 26, 2015, 01:36:32 PM
I think this is hilarious. With my build of Mt 125, the mechanics aren't much different. It does take time to learn.
And forums are not a good place to do that. Not with perpetual motion and medical hardship both involved. :-)
What?
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 28, 2015, 09:04:16 PM
What?
Bill
You really don't get it, do you ? Water can flow continuously. The object of this thread. But smart people like you and tinselkoala missed it. It is a shame you learned nothing about hydraulics from building a Heron's Fountain.
And even then, it is nice to be able to see if a static head can be manipulated by hydraulic theory. Yet all tinselkoala was capable of was his heron/zed fountain. He debunked Wayne Travis yet the 2 of you claimed an invention on the same principle. You're smart. I bet you went to school, right ?
edited to correct conjugation
Here is Real solution to make water self flow upward. Its already done folks
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27710-antigravity-pump-lifts-water-upwards-with-no-power-source/
Quote from: Vladokv on October 29, 2015, 05:04:51 PM
Here is Real solution to make water self flow upward. Its already done folks
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27710-antigravity-pump-lifts-water-upwards-with-no-power-source/
That's pretty cool but it's ant-gravity. Did you see the water flowing upward and then be released from a higher point ? You might like this link, it's to water flowing up into the air. It uses static electricity and could actually be what those scientists have done without realizing it. Basically, their material might be creating a polarized (directional in one way only) field that attracts water.
Interesting thought, If 2 magnets pull something towards them (between them), it might move past the magnetic attraction because what's behind it would keep pushing it through, like another piece of metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY
Here's a possible smot device. If 2 magnets pull in a steel bearing equally, it could end up sitting between them. If so, the 2dn bsteel bearing could act like a cue ball when both magnets accelerate it into the one caught in a magnetic trap. And if it does, then up a little ramp and roll around to repeat.
Since this is an invention, if some builds it who is not one of my 3 "friends", a 50/50 split.
edited to add; one is the top view and one is the side view. just point he 2 bearings to the left.
Quote from: hoppfield on October 28, 2015, 10:07:51 PM
You really don't get it, do you ? Water can flow continuously. The object of this thread. But smart people like you and tinselkoala missed it. It is a shame you learned nothing about hydraulics from building a Heron's Fountain.
And even then, it is nice to be able to see if a static head can be manipulated by hydraulic theory. Yet all tinselkoala was capable of was his heron/zed fountain. He debunked Wayne Travis yet the 2 of you claimed an invention on the same principle. You're smart. I bet you went to school, right ?
edited to correct conjugation
I never claimed an "Invention". I built a simple replication. (Look up the definition if you do not know what that means) TK took it to another level. (No pun intended.)
I did go to school and paid attention and actually graduated. You should try it sometime. It might help with your postings.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 29, 2015, 10:26:58 PM
I never claimed an "Invention". I built a simple replication. (Look up the definition if you do not know what that means) TK took it to another level. (No pun intended.)
I did go to school and paid attention and actually graduated. You should try it sometime. It might help with your postings.
Bill
Bill,
Do you mean when he called it zed ? And that came from Wayne Travis trying to apply the principle behind a coffer dam ?
That's not another level. The coffer dam was used to help build the Brooklyn Bridge back in the 1880's. How is that taking
it to another level ?
I guess you're referring to what he called the Folgers's Instant effect ? The picture attached is a capture I just made after searching Folgers's Instant effect. I find it laughable that you're a moderator. I mean supporting someone with no name and who stalks other members.
I think the beginning of this thread shows him either stalking or bullying me. And to think he is your friend.
By the way, I did go to school, that's why I know mechanical engineering. Yet as you posted, if I build a Heron's Fountain under your guidance, then you might think I know something. Your post is still there. And you have no schooling or experience in stuff like this but because you are a moderator in Joule Thief which is a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, I have to accept you know something ? Sorry, I think you're an idiot just like your friends are.
Bill,
You just put Stefan in a bad position. You do know I went to school for Propulsion Engineering in the U.S. Navy.
As ab hammer has posted, that's not blacksmithing and as for tinselkoala, who is he ? He's anonymous. And if it is
the beginning of this thread where he did nothing but harass me, I have posts from both you and tinselkoala for not considering
my having been educated and having served in the Navy as something that the 3 of you consider credible educational or work experience.
Since I am a disabled veteran while ab hammer is not, I consider that serious. And that is also why I am building within what is allowed by physics.
You are simply unbelievable.
Bill, because your comments were ignorant, I have saved this thread again. I didn't bother you and tinselkoala in Joule Thief, can either of you show that I did ? If not, why have the 2 of you always harassed me ? I think it's because I am willing to work at something and perpetual motion is impossible. Easy way for you guys to look smart, right ? I guess you never will live down your mistake. :-D
Quote from: christo4_99 on June 11, 2012, 01:42:27 PM
In case this hasn't been said..."the same vacuum you are depending on to lift the water will keep it from descending ."
exactly.
The force of gravity on the static heads will balance out with the mgh of the water column and no flow will occur.
Quote from: johnny874 on June 22, 2012, 10:21:50 AM
By having water in the top reservoir drain into a bucket, as the bucket descends it also pumps the
reservoir back up again. And when it nears the bottom of it's travel, it empties into the lower reservoir.
I think you'll get the basic idea.
smoky, this one matters more if you go back to the original post. and since I am taking the time to build Mt 125,
it's relevant to what I am working on. Building tandem bellows is actually a lot of work.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 30, 2015, 12:13:56 AM
exactly.
The force of gravity on the static heads will balance out with the mgh of the water column and no flow will occur.
flow would occur. The water in the chamber with vacuum would drain out.
edited to add; what I was considering with this is the surface area of the water in the chamber with the vacuum in it.
trying to apply hydraulic theory with water surface area instead of a pressure head. But without something else
creating expansion, surface area doesn't matter.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 30, 2015, 12:13:56 AM
exactly.
The force of gravity on the static heads will balance out with the mgh of the water column and no flow will occur.
With this design, if the top reservoir were a pump, then when reservoir "A" is full, it would operate the pump at the top.
There would need to be a reservoir between the pump (top reservoir) and reservoir "A". This would allow the secondary reservoir (not shown)
to close the top pump (bellow?). In a way, it would be like building a better mouse trap but could work. It would be a stationary type
perpetual motion machine where different parts would move to perform work. If you want, I could do a drawing to show you what I am talking about. In some ways, it almost makes Bessler's Mt 125 seem simpler but some people might find it more interesting.
I changed the drawing quick like. If A empties into B, B can tilt down on it's right. This would close A. When this happens, a drain in B can open,
this would fill C. As C drops, it opens A (expands or operates a pump) and when C reaches it's lowest point, it can also have a drain open allowing it to empty into D.
The mistake I made with the original design was in using pressure to pump water and not using vacuum to draw water into A at the top.
p.s., sm0ky2, what my 3 antagonists miss is that there might be some money to be made, and some is better than none. and there is little sense
in inventing something and then letting a business have it for free. With Bessler, not patentable.
edit to change pic
Hoppfield is partially correct about this drawing. Water will flow. The water on the right side of the baffle will flow out the drain. Since the top is open to the atmosphere there is nothing to prevent the water from flowing out the drain. At the same time the vacuum on the left side of the baffle will also draw some of the water from the right side over to the left side. The vacuum will draw very little water from the tank on the left because the water on the right side of the baffle is closer and there is less friction loss of the water trying to move. When the water on the right side gets to the bottom of the baffle the vacuum will be lost and some of the water from the left side will then flow to the right side until a vacuum is created again on the left side that would balance the weight of the water in the left side that is above the baffle. This process will be repeated until the water on the left side reaches the bottom of the baffle. At that point the rest of the water will simply run out of the drain.
Is it okay if I give you guys something to think about ? I changed the design to take suction from a reservoir
that also serves as a base or stand. While atmospheric air pressure will decrease with elevation, we'll need to agree
on 14.7 psi / 1.031 kg/cm^2.
And with pressure heads, the force increases at 0.44 psi per foot in elevation which in metric terms is 0.031 kg/cm^2 per
30 cm in elevation.
Since water has a force of 0.44 psi or 0.031 kg/cm^2, could the surface area of the water create a slight vacuum sufficient to draw the water into the tank while maintaining a force greater than 14.7 psi/1.031 kg/cm ^2 ?
The drain pipe could loop to the inlet pipe to maintain a minimum pressure head on both the inlet and discharge sides.
I'll leave the one pic up even though it's the wrong one. Have been told 2 dropping weights can not move water from one "piston"
to another. You know, if 2 1 lb./ or 1/2 kg. weights drop, can they move water weighing 1/2 as much ? You know, move 1 lb. or 1/2 kg of water.
Just think of a piston moving in a cylinder with a weight attached to it. I'm serious, experts have said it can't work, something about a trade off because you'd have too much weight on one side. Kind of why I'm playing it safe and sticking with Bessler. I like proven technology :-D
Thing interesting about my example that water can be released from higher ground. Magnet idea for certain not working. There in my link is no doubt "might it" do it. They DID it succescfuly
Quote from: Vladokv on October 30, 2015, 03:51:27 PM
Thing interesting about my example that water can be released from higher ground. Magnet idea for certain not working. There in my link is no doubt "might it" do it. They DID it succescfuly
Vladokv,
They did. очень трудно. With me, prefer simple, something people can try.
hoppfield / Jame Lindgaard
I see you posted an idea similar to one I did back in 2007. But in mine I use a very light oil to fight against friction and corrosion but could be tried with water.
Quote from: AB Hammer on November 01, 2015, 09:15:16 AM
hoppfield / Jame Lindgaard
I see you posted an idea similar to one I did back in 2007. But in mine I use a very light oil to fight against friction and corrosion but could be tried with water.
And a man from Cairo, Egypt posted that before you did. This is funny Alan. When I saw his drawings, I thought of Bessler. His work helped me. Still, I have to wonder why you would rip off Bessler.
Quote from: hoppfield on November 03, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
And a man from Cairo, Egypt posted that before you did. This is funny Alan. When I saw his drawings, I thought of Bessler. His work helped me. Still, I have to wonder why you would rip off Bessler.
The fact is there have been many many similarities in thousands of designs and I did this design with no knowledge of the others. But what is different is my design adds vacuum on the other side of the weight with gravity pull on the weights and I haven't seen another like it. You knew of mine for many years and I am in no delusion that it can work. To many negative factors that kill the idea all together. So there has to be another way and I wished we did have the design of Bessler's fountain for there would have been more insight to what Bessler did. So we work in a direction of many possibilities but lack the proof from the source.
Alan