Hey; I have tried to put together a system which, I think, will run itself, is cheap and easy to assemble. I would like some usful feed back. It is based on three combined systems. The first is an elongated conveyor bucket assembly which is fed water at the top from a rope pump assembly and is all connected to a step up array of gears which will increase the rotation allowing enough rpm's and torque to power the rope pump and the generator at the end. I know there are people who have similar ideas but this one is a bit different and combines ideas from many others. I am only looking to help get to a free energy supply for all. If any wants to use this idea feel free. I don't know enough of mathmatics to figure the needed weight of the water in the buckets to generate the force needed to run the gears and the generator. I thought at say five gallons per bucket and having say ten buckets filled with water would give me around 400 lbs of downward force. Seems like that would drive all the gears and generator. But help in that area would be appreciated. I have enclosed a file showing the assembly for anyone wanting to see the full assembly. I just drew up a fair rendition as I have little knowledge in drawing. It is shown without the framing needed to better see the process. I think bigger buckets and or more buckets to get to the needed driving force should not be a problem. All the assembly needs is enough driving force to turn the rope pump and say a 5 to 8kw generator and you have enough power to run your home. Also scan 7 is a first draft and a more detailed view of the rope pump assembly.
I would like to say I am grateful to all the people who have helped me by puting their ideas out there for others to see and use. Like the rope pump comes from an idea By Paul Crites over on u-tube. Who made this great rope pump to water his back yard aquaponic garden. The step up gear assembly has been used several ways and times in history and, the conveyor has a long history, also. All these ideas have many inventors showing many different approaches. It is up to all of us to use these and new ideas to enhance our situation for the betterment of all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kbj9Bd-JDY&feature=youtu.be This is Pauls U-tube video showing how well the rope pump works and how little energy is needed to run it. So it fits well with my generator assembly.
these are the elements of concern:
the amount of water that falls into the buckets, at a certain height, over an amount of time.
say it takes 4 seconds to fill a bucket.
Then, every 4 seconds you will have (X) amount of energy available from your bucket generator system.
and (X) = height (in meters) of bucket when filled x weight (in kilograms) of a filled bucket x 9.8 m/s/s
Your answer will be in Joules, which you can then convert Joules to watts, and multiply by 900 to get the value in KW/hrs of electricity.
This is the most energy you can possibly attain using the most efficient generator man hasn't invented yet.
The other element is the amount of water being pumped by the rope-pump, to a certain height, over an amount of time.
these numbers should look a lot like the first element.
and using the most efficient water pumps mankind hasn't invented yet, it will require exactly the same amount of energy
as you will attain from the generator, using said amount of water.
the other mechanisms, gearing, and whatnot, will just further reduce efficiency and reduce the energy output of the system.
there is not any value excess to generate electricity for your house.
Yes . I agree if I only had one bucket to work with. But, I have multiple buckets which can be filled prior to filling the last one going around which gives me a larger force that can be maintained by the pump. You have a point in that loss is a factor. So, I could from time to time add extra water manually to supplement the pump. But at say ten or more filled buckets of force used to fill only one bucket there, you would think , must be some extra power to use on the generator. Even with transfer losses. Thank you for the reply. At least now I have some math with which to use. Will work on it.
Quote from: Brutus on September 29, 2015, 10:05:07 AM
Yes . I agree if I only had one bucket to work with. But, I have multiple buckets which can be filled prior to filling the last one going around which gives me a larger force that can be maintained by the pump. You have a point in that loss is a factor. So, I could from time to time add extra water manually to supplement the pump. But at say ten or more filled buckets of force used to fill only one bucket there, you would think , must be some extra power to use on the generator. Even with transfer losses. Thank you for the reply. At least now I have some math with which to use. Will work on it.
you can simply multiply the math by the number of buckets. Adding water manually, the "energy" you expend is equal to the mass of the water times the height of the bucket times gravity. this is your initial input energy for each bucket.
assuming the pump can keep up with the water flow in the time it takes all of your manually filled buckets to reach the bottom, then the system could sustain itself for some number of cycles until the manually inserted energy is dissipated.
any amount of energy you extract for other purposes (generator, machinery), will have to be supplemented manually.
you could do away with the water all together, and turn a hand-crank on your generator.
I am not disputing your analysis. I will have to work on that a while. It looks like sound science. By the way I thank you for the extra math assist. But just for simplification your saying that if I start with say 1.000 lbs of force and if it takes 100 lbs. of that force to run a water rope to maintain the filling of the top bucket in time for the next buckets approach and, say fifty lbs. to run the gears and whatever else is needed to run the generator that I will never have enough energy to keep the assembly running. And no amount of starting weight would matter. I can follow how you're saying, if the assembly is maintaining a consistant flow of water that always keeps the same amount of water in the buckets the assembly must run down because your math says I have losses. Ok , as it must, then I still say supplement with something like solar or wind to charge a battery to run, as an example, a secondary centifugal type pump for the extra water. Or maybe a weighted geared pulley system with a tall pole like a flag pole to run an extra rope pump. Several methods are available. This would still simi- self maintain the process. I still think it is a sound idea. Just needs a little tweaking. This was the reason I put the idea out here, to get others to discuss and give their thoughts and ideas to it. To maybe find answers or simply to accept something as not workable. Also, on an additional side note. I would add an evaporative cooler type water supplier with cut off float to maintain the water level in tank. Another thought. Would, if you do like some of the others here at Overunity are attempting to do, by extending the weight,( or in my case buckets), out farther on the down (weighted) side, give you extra force by being farther out from center? Maybe that would help.
So, as I understand you, I need to put in enough extra water(energy) to, at minimum, maintain or negate the losses of the system. I appreciate your feed back and if you have any suggestions as to how to make this work please do. My wife says she's not cranking any handles.
lol, I don't blame her
here's the short answer: two buckets, one tied to each end of a rope. strung over a pulley.
fill one up with more water and it will fall, raising the other.
fill them both equally, and they will balance like a scale.
this is because gravity imparts the same amount of force over the same distance on two equal masses.
now - consider that the water being pumped to the top is the same amount of water that is falling down with the buckets.
The force of gravity must be overcome by the pump. regardless of what type of pump is used, this is the energy required to lift that much water.
Energy is equal to the mass times the force of gravity times the height (E=mgh)
the water, once lifted, holds that same amount of potential energy (E=mgh). The same energy that can be regained by allowing it to fall.
By allowing an object (in this case a bucket of water) to fall through the gravitational field, you are converting the potential energy
- into kinetic energy, but it is still the same energy. (E=mgh)
If you then use this kinetic energy to turn the pump rope, it will lift the same amount of water back to the top.
With zero losses in the system, the water falling will lift the same amount of water back up to the top.
The cumulative losses from every part of the system will deduct from this available kinetic energy. Most of this will be frictional heat loss.
but it will be visible from the very first test model you assemble. The amount of water pumped back up to the top will be slightly less then it was the first cycle
and even less the 3rd or 4th cycles.
I recommend building a test rig. the math scales up perfectly from the tiny to the very large, with little variances below the 10 meter height.
if you elongate one side of the bucket chain, or use some odd-shaped elliptical track, or otherwise alter the distance from the weight to the axis of rotation
with the intent to increase leverage or torque.........
You are overlooking one very important factor - by changing the track the buckets ride on, you are also changing the distance traveled, and the time it takes to do so.
OK, I get that the assembly as shown will not run itself due to the losses inherent in the system. My argument still is that if I have enough water weight in the buckets "initially" to run the entire assembly, including the generator," before" water is added to sustain its motion, then, it seems to me, I just need to continue the addition, into the assembly, of enough water to keep the same weight being used as at the first. Which should, as I see it, continue the operation as began. I now know, thanks to your impute, that this additional maintaining weight MUST be from an outside source. So my thought is this. If I have a 5kw generator being driven by the initial weight of the assembly then why could I not use the already available generated power and tap it to run an additional pump system? Surely there are pumps that can run a sufficient enough supply of needed extra water to keep the system sustainable. Like you said, I need to build it to see the results you are talking about. It just seems feasible. I saw on U-tube the Wilkinson assembly of a 45 lb. weight on a pulley driving a step up assembly of bicycle sprockets he could use to run at the speed needed to operate a generator. I know 45lbs. only ran the step up sprockets but the idea there that the losses to run the sprockets were not that drastic. Only the weight needed to run the generator would be a large factor. My beginning need , when I started this posting, was to find out how much weight it would take to turn a 5 or 8kw generator through a step up array of gears. This was what I would necessarily need to know to even begin to build the assembly. That is with out trial and error. To equate the needed weight to the horse power needed to turn the generator at running speed. Say 750 or 1500 rpm or whatever was needed for that particular model. This not being a simple equation due to the several small to large and large to small gears in the step up assembly. To reiterate, the assembly, with the addition of a secondary pump system, in my opinion , should work as depicted. As long as it maintains the initial water force which drives it. I thank you for your interest and analysis. You have obvious greater knowledge than I and I respect that. There is also much truth in your comments. This will give others who read these posts a more complete and better understanding of the rational, science and mathematics involved. Which was one of my main purposes. Now they can make up their own minds and make a more reasoned judgment call. But, I have picked the apple and want to see how it tastes. Worms or not.
I found what one could use as an idea for the second pump. This is already patented but the idea is similar. Just add a second set of buckets aligned with the original ones to double the weight or adjust flow to need. Also a couple of ideas for other pumps. There are many to choose from.
To those who are looking at this as a possible project. I want to add a few comments. I have thought about how to minimize the guess work of how many and how big the buckets would be have to be to achieve the "initial" weight to drive the assembly (how many gallons per bucket times number of buckets = needed total starting weight). I suggest building the step-up assembly and installing the generator first and then hooking up a temporary drive cable pulley system to it. Such as the U-tube( Wilkinson generator) model. This temporary pulley system will be used so that you can add, in graduations, more and more weight to the pulley to find out how much weight will be needed to run the complete assembly. This way you can start the build of the bucket conveyor with a more acurate number. As an example, if you use a five gallon bucket at 8.34 lbs. per gallon then each bucket will have 41.7 lbs. of water weight. As there are many generators to choose from, it has to be that you need to start this way in order to find the proper weight to run that particular generator at the speed needed with the step up assembly and the adjustible volume rope pump combination. The weight you need is going to be at best (Approximate). If you look at the large Rosch generator you can see a basic construction idea already built for the conveyor, the step-up gears and a generator. His design pumps air into the buckets from the bottom. Mine pumps water into the buckets at the top using a rope pump and, thanks to smOKy2's imput, I have added a necessary supplemental water pump run by the generator. On looking back at previous post I don't think you need to add a second bucket assembly just leave room in initial buckets for more water coming in from the secondary pump to maintain weight. I have looked at many different conveyor designs and would suggest you also look closely at them. I see a lot of weight in the buckets and just chains links with small hook up attachments like on light weight applications may not be appropriate. I am thinking an elongated chain system would work better as it has a greater holding ability. Just depends on how larger you plan on going with your unit. Maybe just a conveyor belt with buckets attached might be good also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23qGQlcDLtI (Wilkinson idea). http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thrust_Kinetic_Generator_by_Rosch_Innovations_AG ( assembly possibility)
I am seeking funding to build this device so If your interested in helping further this idea to completion I would be very grateful for any help given in this regard. I have started a Go Fund Me Campaign to help accomplish this at this location. Thank you for your help. https://www.gofundme.com/dashboard-gravity-powered-water-generator-share-getpanel-pan
Hi Brutus,
You are essentially lifting the amount of water that is required to fill a bucket. The bucket with water and the water pumped up into it, is the same water.
This idea is like expecting a bucket of water move up and down without involving external energy, and in addition expect that you need less energy to lift that amout of water than the gained potential energy on the top. It will not work. The force of gravity is the same on the way up as the way down.
Vidar
More or less twenty years before I reed about this " gravity powered water (wheel) generator"
https://www.google.com/patents/DE4304132A1?cl=en&hl=de (https://www.google.com/patents/DE4304132A1?cl=en&hl=de)
then I did the investment calculation, more/less : 2000 Euros/KW "engine" costs( no profit) by later mass production ,
( only the electric low rpm generator each KW 1000 Euros ).
Does it works ? I heared from his sister (he died several years before my talk with her)that 1 prototype has been constructed and explored in the western Germany for a mine exploration.
Question : a. believe/trust/testing ? b.price/cost per KW ?
For an artist his work is free from calculation,for the power industry the main point is : costs/costs/costs
Is a perpetuum revolving machine that worth ?
The ROSCH AKW is not cheaper,in the 10 KW range (without mobility advance)
Vidar; I address your concerns in reply # 7. smOKy2 also said the same thing as you and suggested I build it to prove it. This is what I would like to to but it takes funding which I lack. This is why I have started a Go Fund Me campaign. I still believe if you take the electricity generated by the initial starting weight to the generator you can supplement enough extra water flow to sustain the motion indefinitely and still have extra power to use for whatever. I realize the losses from the system would eventually make the system come to a halt, but if you utilize the power generated to sustain it through an additional water pump, it should be perpetual and have extra power.
LancaIV; The difference between the Rosch unit and mine is the way the weight is used to generate power. Rosch uses air to lift containers in a water medium to turn its generator. This is a very wasteful idea. They need a completely separate machine using great amounts of power to generate air to run the conveyor. Mine uses only an initial starting weight and an additional supplemental power supply which is gained from the generator of the unit itself to add more water through the addition of a secondary pump to turn the water bucket conveyor which should keep it moving. Using gravity to drive the conveyor is much more efficient. I only need to add an additional amount of water flow to the initial starting weight to over ride the inherent losses.
webby1:
Thanks for the impute. It would be better to build a smaller version to test before building a larger one. It seems the only way to convince everyone, or myself, of its ability to perform as I see it. I just can't come to grips with the idea that if you have an initial starting weight which will operate all the functions of the unit to its peak performance, ( That is the balance of driving power in a perfect no loss scenario), why using the already generated power from the systems generator can not be utilized to maintain itself. That is what I need to test. I need get the generator to put out more power than is needed to continue the operation, (water flow), of the unit. So I am thinking a wheel with enough water weight to initially operate the assembly and generator and then add a secondary electric pump powered by the units generator to add necessary extra water weight to counter losses. Sounds easier than a Rosch size unit.
webby1; I also have spent time looking at many water delivery systems. I don't know if you have looked at my scan #10 (scroll to second picture) on reply #7. It shows a Wirtz modified inclined coil Pump. It uses two coils into one delivery pipe. I thought might be a possibility for my build. I was undecided as to which might be better the rope pump which looks very effective or as does the Wirzt Pump. I have also looked at rewiring possibilities on the Fisher/Paykel washing machine motors to alleviate the cogging effects if I were to use one of those for a small generator. It would reduce or eliminate the drag you get. Have you had any experience in these areas? I have looked at your last reply and will give it consideration. You and smOKy2 have the same outlook on my idea. Something to think about.
Well, here is the thing:
You say you will use a generator that can store energy to lift the water in addition to the already falling bucket of water.
If you use a generator, you must take into account that the kinetic energy in the falling bucket is not longer based on the gravitional acceleration of 9,81m/s/s. Because the generator will break the bucket down to less than this acceleration.
You can't both have 9,81m/s/s acceleration of the bucket AND produce energy from the generator at the same time. If you, in worst case scenario, short circuit the generator, it will be very hard to turn the shaft. This is because the magnetic field from the rotating magnets will produce an opposite and equal magnetic force in the windings of the stator. This opposite force will always be there from the tiniest load to heavy load. A tiny load isn't useful, A heavy load isn't useful, a suitable load isn't useful. The sum will not be greater than the generated power and the kinetic energy of the falling bucket.
The break effect will slow down the falling bucket, and can therefor not longer be able to deliver enough energy to lift the same amount of water up. You take energy from the falling bucket, and convert it to electricity. You cannot produce electric energy for free.
Many people fall into this misconception about generating energy from falling objects. You are about to do the same.
That does not mean you can't try. Learning by doing is the best way of learning. Build a small version. If it turns out to be over unity, it does not matter the size of the project. Forget about foundings. You can do this experiment with kitchen equipment and a small electric toy motor.
Have you ever considered that, if over unity existed, there must be some place in the universe this is happening by chance? Maybe everywhere? Have you any thought about how this will end up after 14 billion years of evolution? The entire universe with the present known extent might be a trementous black hole due to the exponentially increased energy and mass from its birth till now.
Good luck.
Br. Vidar
Quote from: Brutus on July 04, 2017, 01:40:04 PM
Vidar; I address your concerns in reply # 7. smOKy2 also said the same thing as you and suggested I build it to prove it. This is what I would like to to but it takes funding which I lack. This is why I have started a Go Fund Me campaign. I still believe if you take the electricity generated by the initial starting weight to the generator you can supplement enough extra water flow to sustain the motion indefinitely and still have extra power to use for whatever. I realize the losses from the system would eventually make the system come to a halt, but if you utilize the power generated to sustain it through an additional water pump, it should be perpetual and have extra power.
Yesterday I reed about the potential energy from 1000 Lt./1 cbm of water
falling from 100 meters height : 0,27 KWh
How much is to spent energetically( inclusive mechanical-technical losts)to bring this quantity to this high level ?
Low-Q:
I Did not say I was going to store the energy (as in Batteries) but I could. I would use the power directly for an extra (supplemental) water supply. Force is what is driving the assembly (gravitational, or what ever you want to call it). I keep saying I am starting with a set weight (in the water bucket conveyor system) already supplied within the unit at start up which will completely drive the assembly and the generator to its full output ability. That means it is rolling along at the speed designed to run everything including the generator at the speed necessary to get the desired output power from the generator. Now the only problem left is to supply enough extra water weight to "maintain" this same output.
There are many companies out there now which have eradicated the cogging effect so as to allow the system to work very efficiently. I can buy right now any number of out puts (5,000, !0,000, 30,000 Watt generators with little to zero cogging effect. This is accomplished with split rotors and 18 phase wiring. Not to sell any products but here is a company for you to look at for reference. http://www.ftcinnovations.com/StarPower/ Also one with smaller generators is http://www.rockyhydro.com/Generators.php. I have seen other companies selling no cogging generators also. So if I have no drag on the unit other than the inherent assembly processes like water pulley, generator and step up gears which have already been set in motion, I see no hindrance to being able to generate enough power to supply the additional flow of water to maintain the assembly and have extra power left over. I can't imagine having a 5.000 watt generator worth of power and not being able to pump as much water as I could possibly need at my disposal. You can even rewire Fisher and Paykel washing machine motors to a little or no cogging effect generator with 7 phase rewiring. Great for wind mills or water wheel adaptations. I know of one person who has designed multiple inline generators into a long pipe from a water tower. It is a fascinating idea. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20152-tanked-water-free-electricity-complete-home-generation.html?s=1860c79cfb6e8bb4ae27d56342965599. So there is evidence in working models of gravity being utilized appropriately to gain power. It is called assisted gravitational force. There are additional schematics made by senior member thx1138 which enhance and give greater understanding to the idea at the same posting. Worth a look.
As a side bar I also came up with another concept utilizing ASSISTED magnetic power to generate multiple magnetic generators from one power source. If your interested. http://overunity.com/16058/assisted-magnetic-generator/new/#new. With the advancement of the no cogging generators this idea has greater working possibilities.
Lanca IV: Ask Some one like Low-Q or Other brainy people. I missed that class.
0.272 kWh is correct. Since gravity is conservative, 0.272 kWh is needed to return the water to 100m.
Brutus, I think you are overlooking something here. You may be thinking that you only have to raise enough water to the top to fill the top bucket or container. But at the same time you have to have going up some more water to fill the next bucket and the next bucket. So you have to have just as much water being lifted as is going down or you will soon run out of water. In a perfect system with no losses you still will need just as much power to raise the water back up as you got from it on the way down. I was a volunteer firefighter for 26 years and I know it takes a lot of power to raise water against gravity.
Potential energy of 1000kg at 100 meter hight is exactly 982000 Joule.
Hence, the kinetic energy at the moment that mass has dropped 100 meters is 982000 Joule.
So, you need 982000 Joule to lift 1000kg 100 meter up.
Loss / friction is an unknown variable which cannot be included.
So the answer should be:
More than 982000 Joule to lift it
Less than 982000 Joules in the fall.
Too bad one cannot get more Joules on the way down than the way up.
Vidar.
Quote from: lancaIV on July 05, 2017, 01:49:45 PM
Yesterday I reed about the potential energy from 1000 Lt./1 cbm of water
falling from 100 meters height : 0,27 KWh
How much is to spent energetically( inclusive mechanical-technical losts)to bring this quantity to this high level ?
Citfta: I am not losing water or power from the lower buckets. They are constant weight. They are rotating on a conveyor which is being fed continuously from the rope pulley system to the top of the conveyor.. The conveyor is what runs everything, through the water weight in the buckets. The water is sent back to the top after emptying buckets with the turning of the conveyor by the rope pump assembly. This, as has been pointed out, will manifest in a certain loss due to the power consumption of the assembly in motion. The power I am gaining through the generator, which you will remember is generating now at peak output, (I believe) is enough to supply an added water pump to supplement the conveyor bucket weight to keep the same processes working, negating the losses. The thing every one does not seem to understand is I have a system which will run itself at the initial start up through weight in the water buckets from the conveyor. I t will have enough weight to operate the water pulley system to draw water up to the top of the conveyor. It will have enough weight to power the step up gears to gain the rpm's necessary to turn a generator to optimal speed. All this is built in to the initial assembly with enough water weight to cause all of these processes to work simultaneously. (Initially). Now I have to deal only with the losses as a secondary function to keep the system moving. I have already explained I need not worry about cogging as we now have generators that do not have any or at least very little cogging (or Drag) from which I can choose. This is the point here. I just need to allow enough extra water to be added to the conveyor bucket assembly to offset the inherent losses from the initial assembly functions. If I can't do that little thing from a 5,000 watt generator supply I should just quite now. It seems I am the only one that gets this concept. Please look at the U-Tube video I think around the second posting which shows my water rope assembly by the guy who built and uses it at home in his back yard. It is so cool to watch. It's his idea. And the Rosch video (which most claim is fake), But it shows my process in action, only I use water weight and he uses inefficient air power. But the gear and generator assembly is close to what I had envisioned.
Even if I had to crank the system manually to get it started, that would be nothing big. Once rolling it would be self sufficient.
Maybe I should just abandon the whole rope pump assembly and concentrate on just a pump motor supplied by the power of the generator. Just crank handle it started initially. Then I could adjust it to fill as needed. Something to think about.
Thank You for your service Sir.
Brutus,
What is the difference in lifting the required amout of water via buckets or other methods?
You must lift the same amount of water as the water you fill in the buckets.
This will result in a perfectly balanced system, like a seesaw with the same weight and location on each side of the seesaw. No matter how you position the seesaw it will remain stationary.
Vidar
Low-Q: The idea is to find the most conservative approach you can to deliver the necessary extra energy which is being lost due to the units consumption of working energy. If you can find a more conservative way of delivery to maintain the process, then great. I have only listed a few as I have found them. I'm sure you could come up with many more. It is only a concept at this point. This is just my vision of how it could work. Like I said in the last post, I could just eliminate the water wheel pump and install a regular water pump with the required amount of flow to fill as needed and install an adjustable output method to control it all. All powered by the units generator. The conveyor is the initial power source. It must maintain a required amount of weight to allow the unit to function. The required driving force (weight) is the only non-negotiable part of this.
I have even thought of using an impeller, like is used in water craft only bigger. It starts big at the bottom and funnels into smaller and smaller channels till it gets to center pipe and then up to the top for release into buckets. Looks similar to an enclosed washing machine agitator but is more elongated in its impute channels and is spun by the power of the buckets. It has breakers on the sides of the water tank to prevent water from spinning in the tank. Like I said there are as many ideas as there are people. If you can make a better widget please do. I'd love to hear about it.
I could even put a weight on it to manually drive the extra pump. But, I don't want to have to resort to anything manual. I want a self sustaining unit.
Your see saw idea is not taking into consideration the losses. The unit is not stationary. Motion requires energy. Someone has to push in order to move the see saw. So energy is used. You have to feed the people in order to have them push the see saw into motion. Thus added energy to accomplish and maintain the motion.
Brurus, I suggest you learn what is meant by 'conservative system'.
The path you take in such a system is irrelevant, as is the method of moving the mass.
Quote from: memoryman on July 06, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
Brurus, I suggest you learn what is meant by 'conservative system'.
The path you take in such a system is irrelevant, as is the method of moving the mass.
I do not think so !
Brutus("you,too ?" Julius Gaius Caesar) is not interested in a kinetical engine,
he wants to convert force (potential,gravitational)power to electrical power.
How get the electron gas (= Plasma,electricity) stimulated to reach a total system OU break-even !?
C.O.P.>1 but the generator ever <1 : ergo thermo/kineto-dynamic cycle
the syphon-principle is hereby included,if water/liquid is the intermittent medium.
BTW,Brutus,
what do you think about the Karpenko/Marukhine ram pump generator ?
Working efficiency data ? Analysis object !
They only worked out the analytical results from an other russian academical scientist. Theorem to practizising
I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Energy from gravity is commom. It's called hydro plants. Norway is full of them. But the water is lifted by the heat from the sun.
"How get the electron gas (= Plasma,electricity) stimulated to reach a total system OU break-even !?? "
What are you actually telling us? That sentence was a puzzle.
This one as well:"C.O.P.>1 but the generator ever <1 : ergo thermo/kineto-dynamic cycle".
Impossible to grasp the idea.
Please explain, and be clear.
Vidar
Quote from: lancaIV on July 06, 2017, 03:39:57 PM
I do not think so !
Brutus("you,too ?" Julius Gaius Caesar) is not interested in a kinetical engine,
he wants to convert force (potential,gravitational)power to electrical power.
How get the electron gas (= Plasma,electricity) stimulated to reach a total system OU break-even !?
C.O.P.>1 but the generator ever <1 : ergo thermo/kineto-dynamic cycle
the syphon-principle is hereby included,if water/liquid is the intermittent medium.
BTW,Brutus,
what do you think about the Karpenko/Marukhine ram pump generator ?
Working efficiency data ? Analysis object !
They only worked out the analytical results from an other russian academical scientist. Theorem to practizising
The word conservative means no change. A conservative system wants to keep it the way it always has.
I have no idea that can help you out. The only thing I can say, is that you cannot get that extra energy from anywhere.
Vidar
Quote from: Brutus on July 06, 2017, 01:16:09 PM
Low-Q: The idea is to find the most conservative approach you can to deliver the necessary extra energy which is being lost due to the units consumption of working energy. If you can find a more conservative way of delivery to maintain the process, then great. I have only listed a few as I have found them. I'm sure you could come up with many more. It is only a concept at this point. This is just my vision of how it could work. Like I said in the last post, I could just eliminate the water wheel pump and install a regular water pump with the required amount of flow to fill as needed and install an adjustable output method to control it all. All powered by the units generator. The conveyor is the initial power source. It must maintain a required amount of weight to allow the unit to function. The required driving force (weight) is the only non-negotiable part of this.
I have even thought of using an impeller, like is used in water craft only bigger. It starts big at the bottom and funnels into smaller and smaller channels till it gets to center pipe and then up to the top for release into buckets. Looks similar to an enclosed washing machine agitator but is more elongated in its impute channels and is spun by the power of the buckets. It has breakers on the sides of the water tank to prevent water from spinning in the tank. Like I said there are as many ideas as there are people. If you can make a better widget please do. I'd love to hear about it.
I could even put a weight on it to manually drive the extra pump. But, I don't want to have to resort to anything manual. I want a self sustaining unit.
Your see saw idea is not taking into consideration the losses. The unit is not stationary. Motion requires energy. Someone has to push in order to move the see saw. So energy is used. You have to feed the people in order to have them push the see saw into motion. Thus added energy to accomplish and maintain the motion.
Yes,there are many water falls and dams worldwide,natural and artificial.
The biggest falls under water,with falling heights up to several thousands meters and huge water mass : beside Groenland/Gibraltar.
But there are several doubts about mobility and portability . ;)
To get a water powered engine http://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm (http://www.overunity.com/watermotor/index.htm) is not the problem,
to get a complete energy transforming device,
which gives a "total system OU-performance" under generator/consumer no-load/half-/full-load and poor bemf is more complex,
including the load inrush current phase.
"How get the electron gas (= Plasma,electricity) stimulated to reach a total system OU break-even !?? "
L.A.S.E.R.,M.A.S.E.R.
What happens on the surface from photo-/phono-voltaic cells and on/in the npn pnp-layer ? chain reaction : electron gas flow
What happens on/in a coil/foil (un-/treated(coated) ?
Webby1, Low Q, Lanca IV: Thank you all for engaging in very compelling dialog. I appreciate all your learned impute. I could not even begin to challenge your obvious intellectual prowess. I have just been stating from a plain ordinary idea, the thought processes of my idea. I value all your discussion on the merits and the scientific and also mathematical problems and in analyzing this assembly. Culminating, in a consensus of all of you as to the non-workability of this idea.
Sorry but I don't think you have addressed the points I have been making as to why this process works. You keep saying how I can't create a power source which can self maintain. Tell that to the guy with the tank generator I mentioned earlier. He is using gravity to fall through a pipe with 30 plus in line generators which gives him 4,000 watts of power and only needs one pump to send it back to restart. According to thx1138's rendition at the same post.
I guess the only way to really see is to build it. I promise when I do I will come back and give you the verdict good or bad.
I have given as many explanations as I can to let you understand the process and I don't think you got it. The unit is functioning fully (completely self running at the point of start up) to all degrees and the generated power just has to cover necessary losses. No math as yet has convinced me otherwise. So 5.5K to run 5k sounds good but the energy is not to the point of doing that. I already have the power running, it just supplements it. More later.
To All" I will try to explain this as simply as I can and as I have envisioned it.
Forget the water buckets for now. I am starting with a set of weights, separated by a little bit from each other. I am using those weights to force a step up gear system to run a generator at optimal speed so as to maximize the output power. I am getting say 5,000 watts from this driving weight to electrical power ratio. As long as the weight stays the same I will be running the generator the same speed and the power output will remain the same. Now when the first weight gets to the bottom it must be sent back to the top and reapplied to the system to continue the same operative functions, and the power to do that is built into the system through the weights already on the rotating line. It has all the weight it needs on one side to make every thing run and enough weight to also bring the bottomed out weight back up to the top on the other side with a fast motion so no loss in rotation from weighted side has occurred. Perfectly balanced and choreographed motion.
Now In my perfectly balanced system I would not need any power to send the weight back up to the top because it would already be in the initial weight plan allowing for that motion to occur. Thus, at that point it would be self rotation (or self sustaining). But, since I have losses, which all of you have pointed out, being caused by the "work", (such as drag from the gears, chains, bearings, gravity, etc.) the system must be supplemented to compensate for those losses to keep the system operating or the weights will not be able to keep up with the losses and the operation will slowly come to a stop.
Now enters the generator which is steadily putting out 5,000 watts of power with nothing to do. Just wasting away. I propose to utilize that power to compensate the losses of the system By having it add as much more weight to the system as it should need to keep it moving at its designated speed. (say for imaginative purposes, filling a bag of sand or whatever at the moment of need and adding it to the weighted side).
So I have adjusted my first balanced system plan to allow for your imputed must do's. ( Though to be honest, my simple brain cannot figure out why if the system is running itself throughout the whole process from the use of the weights why I would need to compensate anything. It is already functioning through the full cycle). Repetitively from the weights. I see that if I used the generator power I might get a drag effect from that as it try's to slow down from the draw. That's one you might know of.
Like I said in earlier post there are generators no with little or no cogging effect. But if that was already built into the weights at start up then that would not be a factor.
So I just don't get why you say it can't work.
Say I was pulling a lunch wagon. If he never fed me I would eventually have to stop. But if the man kept feeding me I could keep pulling the wagon. And If I could not pull the wagon due to not having enough muscle I would just add more muscle. Same principle.
P.S. I used the word conservative as in "preservative", Not to use any more than is necessary to do a function. And also to find the most efficient methods and materials available to create as little drag on the system as possible.
Webby1:
Back to the water buckets.
Your idea of just one pump is very practical and (conservative). I could have enough starting weight driving the system to allow for more water going back up than necessary and just bleed off the unnecessary amount and there by sustain the system without stealing from the generators power.
Water is easy to work with. So I chose water to power the system through a bucket conveyor. It is easier than moving solid materials. I can put any amount of water into a bucket system and have as much torque as I need for driving any "work" I need to. I used a Rope pump assemble to draw water to the top to resupply the bucket system, also being powered by the bucket system. So if I need more water to maintain the system at any point I feel I could just add more water weight in the buckets to power the extra need at the start. Like I said it all starts with more than enough water driving force to supply the motion of the assembly. The buckets also are driving the step up gears which in turn are driving the generator. So all the power from the buckets are driving the entire system completely. AND a little extra water coming to the top from the initial power drive to enable fine tuning the systems needs.
So if you say it won't work then we stand at a point of disagreement, only a build will cure.
put some real numbers on your device.
what energy you get from a descending weight,
what it will take to reset that weight.
I gave up on this 4 years ago.. and so it's back .. I hope it will work as to "your" formulation...
Why the GAIA ROSCH buoyancy power plant
(kinetic power plant) will never work
http://gaia.ws1.eu/mmr_en.php (http://gaia.ws1.eu/mmr_en.php)
http://gaia.ws1.eu/index_en.php (http://gaia.ws1.eu/index_en.php)
http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/3585/ (http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/3585/)
Acca..
p.s. It's the numbers ...that are real..
However if you use a permanent magnet rotor generator China type.. Strange effects happen ... Who knows ?? [/font]
@Brutus
Calculate the energy output of a perfectly balanced system.
Yes, you said it yourself. You got a perfectly balanced system.
The story about the assumingly working gravityplant is not true.
Just face it. It will not work.
Vidar
Cogging is just a result of uneven distribution of forces. Cogging or not does not change the final outcome.
Vidar
To All : I do appreciate your impute and I have tried to apply it. So instead of starting a new posting idea I have decided to let you see it and tell me if it is just as bad as the last one.
I utilize the same water generator idea but with a twist. I drew it up to be as simple to follow as I can. I am sure between your accumulated knowledge base this is probably a no brainer. (No pun intended.) So here goes;
The process is using water buckets filled at the top of gear one and drives the conveyor which will resemble Scan #10 on reply # 7. This will accommodate the turns required in the conveyors path. The buckets already full of water as they enter the tank will cause minimal slowing.
The buckets then travel past gear two on toward gear three which will then turn upward where it will be filled with air, displacing the water. That will cause the buckets to gain a pull power of their own.
The buckets then travel up to and over gear four which will release the air into air pocket at the top of the tank. And so travel back down after filling up again with water.
On the side of the tank I have fitted an air pipe from the air pocket at the top of the tank and installed the other end into the bottom of the tank which I am hoping will fill the buckets with air at junction of gear three from the pressure.
My question to all of you is, will this maintain a constant and stable air supply? The air stays in the tank and not released anywhere as far as I can tell. Maybe a minute amount one way or another from the buckets coming and going?
I have put a direct tube from the tank just under the water line to flow out to fill the buckets. The water inside the buckets as they travel to gear three are full of water so that it releases into the tank to replenish the tank again. Maybe a better placement to assure this? Farther up maybe? The conveyor gear placement is negotiable like for shorter distances to points traveled or taller overall for more travel time.
The air pressure at the top of the tank should keep the water at a constant height, Yes?
I forgot to mention at the start there are two parts to the tank if it is not obvious. The base goes all the way from wall to wall. Then you have a second section which is basically inserted into the main tank like an upside down glass into a bucket. The center wall goes under the main water height to allow the tall tank to hold the water. You all know of this fact. I just need your feed back as to the functionality of this idea.
It seems I would be gaining more power from this idea than just the buckets coming down would offer.
Sorry again but it can't work. The water pressure at the bottom of the tank will force the water back up the tube instead of letting the air flow out to fill the buckets. Also air will flow into the tube that is supposed to be filling the buckets and this will then let the water in the higher side flow over to the other side and out onto the floor.
Get a container of water and a plastic disposable cup. Fill the cup completely full of water and then with the open end down raise it until most of the cup is above the water level. Now poke a small hole in the cup down from the top a little. Watch what happens. Did water flow out of the hole? Did air go into the hole and water ran out the open end of the cup?
I admire you wanting to do something and you have some original ideas but you really need to get an education in basic physics. I am sure there are some online classes you could take to help you.
Respectfully,
Carroll
citfta: Your right. I knew most of your points. And great analysis. I just thought that with enough air pressure at the top it would maintain my idea. I can see that the pressure is much larger at the bottom than the top so it can't work this way. I remember now that water will always seek a perfect level. That would just fill the pipe to the exact level as in the tank. I will have to use an outside source for an air supply. I would also have to install a pressure gauge/ outlet/inlet device to maintain the same pressure so the water does not lower to the bucket fill pipe. I knew that would be catastrophic. I am testing a plastic bottle with straws to see about the water flow pipe. Will get back with you. I am waiting for the glue to dry. I know it will suck air in and lower the water level back into the lower tank if it is allowed to reach the air pocket. I may have to put in a small pump to push the water through and not use an open hole application. It is cheaper energy if I use the water up high than to use the water down below and bring it up to fill the buckets as in my other design.
I am just debating if I am drawing the water out at the top of the tall tank, if more water will come in to replace it and remain at the same level if the air in the tank remains the same. I think so. That's the balancing act I am looking for.
How about a small air pump sucking out the top air in tank and forcing it down into the side air pipe. for filling the buckets. Then the water would not fill the pipe. And the air would return to the top in the buckets and so keeping my initial pressure and level still in the tank. Using a ball stop I could keep the flow going one way. And, would all this cost me to much in used energy to justify the build?
Some things to ponder.
I am thinking I would be saving a lot with a pump to fill the buckets if it were stationed at the top so I would not have to pull so much so far. As, in thx1138's tank pump idea. Basically, just cut it from the top few inches. And with the air flow giving more power I think this idea just bumped up My last generator idea. (Course all of you may feel differently). Thank you for the help anyway.
citfta: I just did a remodel according to your specification of the problem areas. I know you all think it won't work any way but I did address your issues. Scan 22 is the fix. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK-jL3SzxQ
Each turn dumps into a bucket at the top and would need back flow valves to keep the water from flowing backwards. In a screw pump you are not lifting the weight of the water you are expending the energy to turn the screw.
Water always seeks its own level. lets look at 1 wrap or turn of the screw. Think of a clear bike inner tube that is 1/2 full of water. The water from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock is held in place by the exact amount of water from 9 o'clock to 6 o'clock. As the tube is rotated the water always stays in the bottom 1/2 of the tube at low speeds.
As the tube is rotated clockwise the weight of the water from 6-9 o'clock pushes the weight of the water from 3-6 o'clock always staying level through each turn of the screw.
Lets go big or go home. Say each turn of the screw is 9 ft in diameter and 1 foot wide and it is 1/2 full of water. About how much does the water way?
bw100007;
Yes I think I addressed that issue of back flow with a ball valve. I just didn't put it in the drawing. It is just a basic sketch. I figured I would get more thoughts and decided to wait for further impute before doing a final draft. I think I will go with a back ward curved, radial type impeller blade centrifugal pump. And as you say, a one way valve, or else the water will just flow (equalize) down and out the open end of the tank.
I don't see how an Archimedes screw can be sealed good enough. Well maybe, if I had it totally submerged and it only forced water through the pipe with a one way valve to stop the air sucking back in. Possible. But that is doing the same thing as the centrifugal pump but longer application.
I will use the power of the water buckets to drive the water pump. I can set up a system similar to bicycle step up gearing to get proper rpm on the pump and so by doing that, get the needed flow rate of water to refill the buckets.
I already addressed the leveling effect of water already. I also did not put a one way valve on the air pump side in the sketch as yet either.
It is going to be difficult for me to draw up another total system sketch like my original starting design as I don't have,(as you can see), good skills in mechanical drafting. But if no one has any further impute into my design and or possible flaws, I will attempt to do one more complete revised sketch. But, it will only be different in that I have tried to enhance the bucket line to maybe get more thrust with the addition of the extra tank. Giving it an added air flow power enhancement. AND, saving a lot of power by pumping the water from the top of the tank instead of the bottom, thus, saving a lot of wasteful energy with the water pump.
And I am dropping the rope pump assembly all together. With the addition of the second tank It is not needed.
Still looking at the under water drag of the buckets. By possibly using collapsible buckets. (Maybe leather bags). To alleviate more of the under water drag. I am trying to streamline it in every way I can.
The math is unknown in this system as yet. There are to many things like water drag on the buckets. How much actual lift you get from the air in the rising buckets. the loss due to gears and shafts, the force needed to turn whatever generator you will be using, etc. So I can only build the basic model and see through experimentation how big and how many buckets it will require to run the system.
If I were as smart as the majority of people on this site are, I could probably get pretty close.
If you were as smart as the majority of people on this site are, you would know that this cannot work.
Hi Brutus,
I didn't comment on your latest design because it is clear you refuse to believe that it will take just as much energy to get the water back to the top as you can get out of it falling. And with the normal friction losses you will lose energy. It doesn't really make any difference HOW you raise the water to the top it is still a losing situation. You just can't beat gravity at it's own game. But until you prove it to yourself I think the rest of us are wasting our time trying to convince you. So I am done here. Good luck. I would love to see you prove all of us wrong but really don't think it will happen.
Carroll
Webby1 --- 9 ft diameter disc 1 ft thick half full of water will weight aprox. 1987.3 lbs, 12.7 lbs short of a ton of weight.
This is the same number I came up with.
I think most of you have been very polite and extremely generous in your evaluations. I appreciate that a lot. I know disagreements can be trying. Especially when you think your right. Even if I am proven wrong, I think you all have helped me to get to a better model. I believe if you get all the can'ts off the table you are left with the cans. I don't believe you have addressed all my points.
FIRST, I am using air pressure at the top of the second tank to draw and to mostly maintain the water level in the second tank at its constant level. (I believe). So basically I am not losing or using any power in that process. The water naturally draws itself back up the second tank. So as the water pump pulls water out into the buckets from the top of the second tank air pressure inside the top of the tank is pulling the water back in to maintain its pressure point. I know water finds its equal level if you have two sides. But this is a forced level. Using the air pressure to maintain the water level.
SECOND, I have moved the water pump up to the top of the second tank to alleviate most of the losses from pumping the water up to the buckets. And to accomplish the FIRST. I just need to push water out of the tank in a mostly horizontal line. So little power is needed there. That is accomplished by using the power derived from the gravitational force of water and air forcing the fall and rise of buckets to drive the whole assembly. I just hook up a second driver to the main drive to turn the water pump. ( As my rope pump was designed to do). And all of these things are incorporated into the whole assembly power system. So from the START I have enough DRIVING POWER to make the whole assembly function self sufficiently. At least initially.
This is the point that every one does not seem to grasp. I think that if I have enough starting weight, (water and Air), to drive the whole assembly with a little extra water flow that can bleed off, (spill over), or use if necessary, I could maintain the needed force to keep it moving. (Self Sufficient). I think an air pump driven by the water buckets is also a good idea. So all of it is combined and driven by the water and air buckets.
THIRD, I haven't seen anyone address the fact that in this process I am also using the water and air assembly to drive the 5,000 watt generator, all the gears, everything. Whether or not it is cog free or not does not matter in this set up. Understand. The buckets drive the whole assembly. That is the way it is designed. So I have 5,000 watts of energy at my disposal to use any way I need to. I can utilize some of this electrical power to generate the air needed in the second tank to fill the air side buckets. Or any other fine tuning necessities. Or if it works like I think it should I would just get free energy from the generator. Also, you can build this to any proportion you wish, smaller or bigger, depending upon your needs.
NOW, The only thing I have need of is for some one to tell me that what I have laid out is false and why.
Will the water maintain its level in the second tank as I think it will or does something else cause the water not to draw back up if I maintain the air pressure? Or same amount of air? If you go into a cave air pocket you can lower the water by adding air and you can increase the water by letting air escape, right? Same principle.
Would an air pressure regulator be good to use in this scenario? Or would the air as I have stated maintain itself?
I think I have addressed your concerns. A water wheel turns because one side is heavier. This gives power to generate and utilize in what ever form you wish to use it. If it is put into my scenario and the water is brought back up to a level as I do and re-used, then why cant you make extra energy from natures natural forces? Nature is actually helping to over come some of its own laws in this assembly. Well, not change any laws but using its laws to my advantage.
As I said. Initially, at the start, the whole assembly is running from the buckets with a little extra water over flow to add to the assembly if necessary for adjusting the losses inherent in the system. Or a 5,000 watt generator to tap into if needed to use in what ever extras are needed.
None of this I have stated means anything if one fact is not a fact. And I will concede it won't work as described. And that is, will the water pull itself back up into the second tank by using and maintaining the air pressure at the top?
Webby1 you have already scooped and screwed. Screw a ton of water on a fulcrum[/size] 3 ft from center and lift it 10 inches just by rotating the cylinder and not lifting the weight how much power can you generate? you need A number of screws to get the best answer.
measure the power at the fulcrum and not the drop to get the 3ft of leverage along with the ton of weight dropping.
I am not sure how you see the air pressure raising the water level. if you have a u shaped system with tanks a and b at the top and you withdraw air from tank b and add it to tank a the level in b will rise and tank a will fall. If you use that rise in tank B for your buckets how do you get more water to replenish tank a?
lets try to simplify it. If you have a teeter totter with a bucket at each side and 1 side is pre filled. When that is allowed to drop it will create X amount of energy. if you lift the water back to the top that will take = to or more energy than is gained from it dropping due to losses.
The advantage of the screw drive to move the water uses the fact that water always wants to seek its own level. Lets say we modify the screw drive i added in the video above a little so that is more in the shape of a spring. 1 full wrap at the left, a helical wrap to shift the water from left to right and a full circle wrap on the right. Think of the wraps on the right and left as your buckets or reservoirs. as the screw is rotated the water exists the left bucket and enters the transfer helical wrap that moves the water from left to right and another turn moves it into the right bucket. If you mount the whole pump on the teeter totter ( lever and fulcrum) Then the water moving from left to right could move the lever. The energy input is not in lifting the water but in rotating the screw the water will seek its own level all the way through the screw and into the other end. This does change with the greater the angle of the screw and the higher the lift. The other advantage is the fact that the farther you move the water out on the lever there is a gain due to leverage. 1 bucket does the work of 3 at 3 ft when taken at the fulcrum and not the dropped end of the teeter totter. Reverse the direction of the screw and the water moves back to the left and the full cycle is completed. No water is ever added or removed once it is pre-filled.
Hey guys, I've got a question if someone can help me out.
Reading a part of the argument here, I was wondering about the lifting energy of something compared to the impact energy of it falling. A simple way to find the impact energy is height x weight.
So a gallon of water at roughly 8 lbs. dropped from 10 ft. should have an impact of 80 lbs.
Going from that I found a formula that stated it takes 10J to lift 1 kg 1 m.
So a fat guy at 100 kg climbing a 3 meter ladder in 5 seconds used 600w of energy.
10j x 100kg x 3m / 5 s = 600w (notice that total energy is 3000 joules).
I then found a splat calculator here https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html that shows the fat guy falling from 3 meters will have an impact of 2940 joules. Obviously lower than the energy needed to climb the ladder, but whatever. My problem is converting that energy into watts. Certainly, the total impact time is less than one second. So if impact time is .5 secs total watts at impact would be 6kw. Does that sound right?
Physically, I know if I put rubber, or a spring, on the ground under the fat guy, I'm increasing the impact time and lowering the impact energy. So do I really get more watts out than in?
This is really crude but shows the left wrap the transfer wrap and the right wrap. Sorry about the file size i am a newbie. Any way i can correct this?
webby1;
in a closed system the air pressure change will be the same change value as the change in the water levels.
Check out scan 0023.pdf and let me know if you think the way I drew it will work. This is my question. Will the water once released from the top of tank B through the outlet and then falling into tank A which is connected with the same water source, ( It is all one tank actually but with a riser on the right side), Go back into tank B from the air pulling it as it tries to maintain its air pressure.
My point being, If the water is caused to pull itself back into tank B through air pressure stabilization within tank B, then I can alleviate the need to pump water against gravity through mechanical/electrical means to bring it back to the water pump again.
Or maybe some other medium besides air which, until now, I had not considered might be used to keep a pressure point applied to do the same thing? Like an oil? No Gap, so the drawing power would be constant with no variance. Or, better yet, no water or air gap at all just filled to the top with water.
Quote from: webby1 on August 01, 2017, 06:44:19 PM
This can work, but to rotate the tube will require a torque to be applied and this is where the manometric pump part comes into play.
IF you prime the left wrap almost full and when looking from the right side turn the cylinder clockwise 1 turn the fluid will move into the transfer helix. keep rotating it clockwise an additional 1 turn and the fluid will move into the right wrap/bucket. The cylinder is rotated by a secondary source. If it is 9 ft in dia then moving a ton of weight 6 ft from left to right with the fulcrum centered would give a ton of weight at 3 ft of leverage. We should not have to lift it very high.
How would the manometric pump rotate the cylinder?
webby1; Sorry , I forgot to put in the picture a water pump and one way valve at the output site in tank B. I was just trying to simplify the process to its basics. I know the water would drain out if it had just a hole there. You can see from my prior draft I had a pump installed. I was actually trying to ask, could I save the energy of pumping the water from the top verses pumping from the bottom up? I am thinking the water will naturally draw back up to the top to refill the lost amount. ( Maintaining its vacuum, Or pressure). If that is true then I can save all the lost energy in bringing the water back up to the output site with a pump which is causing me to lose the edge I need to make this system work . That would mean the water buckets would be gaining energy from the conveyor process. Forget the air gap. I don't think that is necessary. Just a totally filled sealed water tank.
Any way, I am going to get a plastic storage container, a 5 gallon water container and install a small water pump near the top as the picture depicts and see how well it works.
I can also test the flow rate possibly by first running a test bucket of water from another container to see how fast it fills up verses the enclosed system flow to see if there is a measurable difference.
I am wondering if an Archimedes screw installed horizontally would be better to use in the assembly. If submerged it might actually work easier than a centrifugal pump. Just a thought.
webby1:
Thank you. That was the analysis I was expecting and dreading. I will concede to it.
Still doesn't change my mind about the functionality of the idea though.
I am wondering if I completely separate the two tanks and make tank A, (With my original assembly), just as I had first drawn it. Then added tank B as an enclosed system with the air buckets as a secondary driver power source. All being driven by the buckets, and with the power from the generator to help feed extra water to buckets to compensate for the losses, I think it will still work.
So, The water pump, the air pump and the generator are all linked together, all driven by the bucket conveyors using gears and pulleys or chains.
Have to think about the air buckets some more. No one thinks the Rosch air designs works so I may just chuck the secondary tank idea.
webby1;
So say you had two tanks and one end of your pump was in the bottom tank and the other end was in the tall tank and you drew the water into the tall tank with a sealed suction device? (Displacement Pump). Neither tank in your set up had a sealed/enclosed environment such as mine. You transferred water from the shallow pool into the deep water at the deep water junction. And you used the water to flow from the top of the tank into your "bucket". I can see how that would be very good in getting around the problem of lift. Would there be no or little resistance pressure to overcome when you expelled the water from the rod? Oh that's right a displacement pump is known for its resistance to pressures.
So would not a displacement pump work in my sealed tank scenario? It would circumvent a large portion of the pressure problem, Right? Whether I drew it out at the top or like you drew it in from the bottom it seems like the same thing.
You are drawing the water in to the tall tank in as similar a way as I would need to draw it out to the buckets. The cause and affect are the same. I could use your same idea here and forget the enclosed tank . Just let it run out from the top to the buckets.
Can you say your idea is more efficient than an Archimedes screw pump? Like using a large tubing wrapped around a smaller shaft driven by the water buckets and so fill a reservoir at the top to then fill the buckets. Or is the lift still losing to much energy?
One of the members stated in a prior post that the screw only needed the power to turn it, not the power to lift the water if I remember right. And isn't it also a displacement pump?
I was looking at some of the Displacement pumps on line, how they work and such. I will need to study them further. Thanks for your personal impute and working knowledge.
I see running the flow back up is a negative gain in any way you put it together manually. (without an anti gravity device). But I still haven't been shown how if I have the generator running from the initial water bucket force/ flow so the generator is at its peak output, then why I could not use the generated kw to supplement the extra needed water flow losses with an additional electric (displacement) pump. And so keep the assembly running. I know you said it takes 5.5 kw to run 5kw generator but I am not running a generator to run a generator I am using the water buckets to run the generator to peak output then using the generated power to supplement the inherent losses of water to the buckets to maintain its continuous operation. That is in addition to the already established pumping system, (which ever way I decide to go), which is also powered by the water buckets.
But on to another idea.
If I were to have the tall tank enclosed, filled with water to say approximately 4/5ths or less full, and pressurized with air so that the pressurized air would be forcing itself through an attached outside top and bottom of tank connected pipe with enough pressure to keep the water from traveling back up the outside pipe, maybe using a one way valve at the bottom, and the air continuing back into the tank at the bottom, would the air at the top portion keep recirculating through the pipe to the bottom and back up again, as inside the buckets for lifting purposes? (I show this drawn on the last model where the pipe goes from the top to outside the tank and returns into the bottom of the tank to fill the buckets allowing them to rise using the air). Or would it just reach a stable/neutral point and stop?
I know if had no top on the tank it would only work if I used an air pump and one way valve in the pipe.
I understand the air is expanding in the buckets from the loss of pressure as it enters the water from where it started from. I can also see how it expands more and more as it gets closer to the top due to less water pressure. What I don't follow is when it reaches the top and encounters the original air pressure which moved it through the pipe at the start, why it doesn't go back to its original pressure after it is released from the water back into the air pocket and so keep the air motion going. In the enclosed environment I thought all things were constant. The water is the same amount and the air is the same amount. So does the water absorb the air like in carbonation? What stops the air from re-attaining its original pressure? If it is coming out of the water what stops it from going back through again? I hear your saying there are expenditures/losses due to the water travel. But I am just not getting that part.
Ok, so if you say it will eventually stop flowing I have come to trust your knowledge. Also all the others who have contributed in this forum. And we're done with this.. So how about I go in another direction. I appreciate you letting me bounce these ideas off on you.
If you had three enclosed tanks set up as in the scan below, and I attached an air pump on the pipe inside Tank A going to Tank B and forced an air supply through to "move/drive/force/rotate", the buckets up on the conveyor inside tank B. (bucket assembly not shown in the scan of course). Then the air goes into tank C using the same air and moves the buckets up and then returns to tank A and rotates Tank A's conveyor all with the with the same air. It looks like I could get a lot of drive power utilizing the same air. I could just as easily add as many tank drives as I wanted using just one air supply. This is the Rosch air drive system on steroids. His system only used one bucket assembly. Mine uses multiple assemblies using the same air flow. If needed I could draw in more air if I have any losses. But the pressure for the air flowing from tank to tank would be maintained by the pump operation.
As an addition to this separate idea, I think you could incorporate My first bucket idea. I think the added enclosed system gains could give me the extra power I need to pull/draw the water to the buckets to achieve a functional system. I know it is getting pretty elaborate. But it's not the price of the rocket, it's the moment of touching the moon.
I would think I would be able to gain enough extra energy/hp, if I put several of these assemblies together to run the air and generator.
Let's look at this one stage at a time. Starting with the air pressure going to tank C the air pressure has to be high enough to overcome the pressure of the water at the bottom of tank C. Now the air pressure going into tank B has to be high enough to overcome the pressure of the water at the bottom of tank B AND the pressure of the water at the bottom of tank C. The original supply of pressurized air has to be high enough to over come the pressure of the water at the bottom of tank A AND the pressure of the water at the bottom of the other two tanks. You will need some pretty high pressure air to overcome all that. And that high pressure air will take some considerable power to be produced. I hope this helps your understanding about air and water pressures.
Carroll
Since webby brought it up, here is an article about buoyancy control jackets that divers use when diving. You will probably want to skip down to the operation section instead of reading about all the different kinds of buoyancy devices. As you read about the operation you will understand this is not as simple as you might have thought. It does take some time and practice to get good at using a BC. Most new divers don't get really adept at it until after making several dives at a lot of different depths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy_compensator_(diving)
Carroll
Ok, I admit I am probably rubbing my own nose in it, but here is another thought for the air bucket tanks.
Unless there are air systems that work like webby1's home made differential pump using air instead of water I don't know if the enclosed tanks can justify all the pressure needed to be overcome. Only a build or a lot of math could figure that out. I looked on line and found nothing I could afford that would get me that kind of air supply. citfta showed how I would need to overcome the equivalent of at least three tank depths combined to reuse the air. as she said, That's a lot of pressure and expense.
So, my next thought is to just reverse the original system and use the rope pump to bring air down to the buckets for the lift. I can't see where there is much back pressure involved as the rope pump is dragging the air down through a pipe and allowing it to escape through the exhaust port at the bottom. The rope pump is driven by the buckets. Initial start up is by crank handle or motor or my original water generator buckets. Forget the enclosed system.
Is there any difference? You can add more buckets if you want for more lift. I no longer need a compressor.
I am not losing energy lifting weight as in the original design. But there are losses to compensate for.
Though personally, I still think my original idea is better. (Just can't throw my baby out with the bath water).
Webby1; I to get a timed out message. And no redo on the message.
Hi Brutus:
For what its worth, you still dared to walk down that path that they say cant be walked down. You dare to question and that is how answers are found. I just finished a design that I was so sure that would work. It didn't but I did get to see where my quest went wrong. It may never go but it did spawn a new avenue that may well have the answer.
Keep to your decided path as many will tell you, "you are just wasting time and money". Well hey it is yours and your decision. Then there is the thrill of the chase which you can not afix a value.
thay
Brutus,
I like your last idea. I can't think of any reason why it might not work. I would do away with the tube and flaps idea and just use the buckets and chain to drive an air compressor with the outlet at the bottom. It will take some real power to turn the compressor fast enough to pump enough air to keep the buckets moving. But the proper ratio of gears or pulleys might solve that problem. It would be interesting to see how close it could come to being self powering. Do you plan to build it?
Good Luck,
Carroll (I am a guy by the way)
Thanks for the encouragement.
First Carrol: Sorry, My bad. Yes I would like to build it. It's my passion. But I would like to go large enough to make it worth while in the end. But I want to make sure I get it as close to right as humanly possible. That is why I am so grateful to all of you for your interest and impute. I think with all of your help this project has evolved considerably. I now have much more knowledge to make a more feasible enlightened approach to the build as I could never have done alone. And yes,I should probably do a scaled down version first so I'm not sleeping in the dog house later. (Happy wife, Happy life). I will look into a straight compressor as you suggested. It would save a lot one way but create more in another. But it did make me pause and give more to think about. I am for any idea that makes the system better, more functional. I had intended to use the bunch of bicycles I acquired for this purpose and so have some wheels and multiply gearing capabilities at hand. I thought of making the U-Tube Wilkerson step up gearing plan mentioned on the 1st page, but I have found the shafts are going to be a problem getting them from one spot to another in the step up process. I don't have access to a machine shop any more as I did for twenty years. That's why I drew the step up gears using stronger shafts, gears and chains. It sounds like I am kind of late to this rodeo. All of you have traveled this freight train before.
webby1; I looked at your suggested sites and something popped into my head. It is kind of a different approach to a compressor of sorts. Don't know if it would even be functional except in my head. But scan 26 shows a really rough outline of the idea. Wish I could draw.
Sorry it's sideways; The idea is, if I use an impeller, like in a water boat, or some other type item that will agitate and push the mixture through, if I could use a pipe with air and a pipe with water coming together then going through the turbine/impeller, and causing a (cavitation/frothing) of the mixture and sending it out to a pipe to the buckets where the air would rise out of an opening, or a separator of sorts, filling the buckets with air and leaving the water to continue down and out farther on. This would be driven by the bucket conveyor. With a step up gear array.
Another way could be to set up partly on the surface to get the air and partly submerged to get the water and then forced down through the pipe servicer. Though that may be to much distance to keep the air and water combined. It's just an idea at this point to ask if it is doable. Placement is up for debate as to best application. At least your home work assignments are getting me to think.
Kind of goes with Carrol's ballast homework also.
Also, just as a side bar; I was looking at a Toyota Prius water pump 2004-2009 on u-tube and was impressed with the volume of water it pumped with just a 12 volt solar panel. I could use that as a secondary to add to the water buckets to keep the needed water coming. (covering the losses). It is still in keeping with my off grid theme. I might have to use two to get a decent flow to that height. Just from the water level it shot what looked like a 5/8 to1 in.diameter stream about 3 to 4 feet into the air using no pipe.
Hi Brutus,
Here is an online calculator that you can use to determine the water pressure at the bottom of your tank. You will then only need enough air pressure to overcome the water pressure to get air into your buckets. Hope this information is helpful.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/games/depth_press
Carroll
citfta: Thanks for the calculator. I am old school in that I don't know meters and such. So what do I put the bottom right list on? If I want to see what the answer would be if I was 9 feet deep? I got 1.3 with what was set there already. Or I will just study it more and learn how to use it properly. I just don't know what any of the initials, (letters),stand for.
I have been looking into my last idea and found I am way behind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGrfNn9nUdQ As usual, many have come before. I found just googling that there are several methods that do exactly the same thing I was trying to do.
One method was a tank liquid agitator/aerator called an Eductor. Simply a miniature, compact version of what I thought I had come up with. But it did show that my idea was possible.
Another was a Venturi Aerator. The problem with these two ideas is I would still need to generate a water flow to make them work. And each may not be as useful as just a compressor would be.
A third was what caught my interest the most as it fits better in my set up. It is along the same thought webby1 had I think. It is called a turbine vortex generation aerator. It simply uses a shaft to turn a special built turbine that spins the water to a point where it creates air bubbles. From the materials I have been reading I assume it is the boiling point of the water creating the Phenomena. The simple one I saw on the U-Tube video was only operated by a hand drill. It was made from some disks put together. Kind of reminded me of a Tesla pump with out the casing. I don't know how it was put together. (what was in between the disks). I could probably build one if I knew. Maybe impeller type blades. I would need to encase the general area around it though due to the turbulence/spin it creates, or capturing and guiding the air bubbles would be a problem.
So I now have several methods to choose from on the large build. Not sure yet of the best method to use. I am not above asking for any one's opinion. I know citfta says an air compressor. But with all the additional dialog may have changed his mind. Just looking for the best approach and function. I can use the buckets and a step up array to power it. I know many of you have been down this road already so your impute is worth it's weight in gold.
I had already bought the wire cable and plugs for the air pipe system. That with the bicycles, wheels and sprockets I acquired and are on hand, I might just try that way first on my small test model. Just need the pvc pipe and plug stops to complete the list. Just wondering if the drag from all the plugs going through the open side in the water would negate the gain. They are made from pine so they would have a little float to them. Wait a minute. A new thought. (Thinking out loud).
I think if I were to make the plugs out of some air filled membrane, like plastic plugs, or slightly elongated air sacks for even more lift, I could eliminate the problem of water drag all together. And, actually gain more lift and more energy for the system. Working two air lift systems, the plugs and the buckets. Sounding better all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpmEQctfqcI (Venturi effect)
And lastly. I think the collapseable buckets are more efficient. Using a plastic type membrane, (Webby1's idea), or clothe like a water bag type or just leather totes. Just so they would open when filling with air and collapse when dumped at the top. That would drastically reduce the drag from the bucket system while rotating to the fill point. And so provide more energy/thrust gain. I am thinking the plastic would be better. Totally less drag, friction and smaller presence. (Foot print).
Foot note: I am amazed and excited at the progress and alterations this idea has come to. It is on the verge of a working model. (In my opinion). With just a few more conceptual items, (mentioned above), to work out, I think, thanks to all of you, we have done it.
Set up the assembly with collapseable buckets and air filled plugs on the air drive system and waa laa. I have no doubt it would run its self. The taller you go, the bigger the buckets, the more thrust/hp would be available to run a generator for home power. My original desire to find an off grid system. ( Me Thinks).
Forgot to put in the vortex aeration U-tube site; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrYcbpREjQ
Hi Brutus,
To use the calculator I linked to just go to the two rectangular boxes with the down pointing arrows. In the top one click on the arrow and choose feet. In the bottom rectangle click on the arrow and choose psi which is way at the bottom of the list. Then when you enter the height of your water tower it will give you the pressure in pounds per square inch or psi. That is the pressure you will need to overcome with your air pressure in order to force air into the water.
I do like the idea of some sort of collapsible scoop or bucket to catch the air so it will have less drag coming back down through the water. Some sort of bucket type device might also work if it had a lid that was hinged and could swing easily. It would need to be sealed on the top side when closed. The rising air would push the lid up until it sealed and then raise the bucket. On the way down the water would push the lid open and create less drag. Kind of the reverse of the old time well buckets we used as a kid. They had a flap in the bottom of a long piece of round downspout. As you let it down in the well the water pushing up opened the flap. When you pulled it up the water above the flap held it closed and allowed you to raise a pipe full of water.
Take care,
Carroll
So far this topic has focused on how to get the water to the top. The drawings attached have been of a top and bottom wheel with the buckets both upward and downward in a vertical configuration. I would like to bring back my point of the advantage of leverage. Lets say we have a typical 10 ' water wheel that has 12 spokes like the face of a clock. We change the the rope and bucket so it follows a " D " shape with the straight back of the "D" running up through the center of the water wheel from 6 o'clock/ through the center of the hub to 12 o'clock. If we start with a bucket at the bottom and another at the top and rotate the D wheel clockwise 90 degrees till the bottom bucket reaches the hub and the top bucket is at 3 o'clock. Swap the rope for bungee cord so the longer circumference of the wheel can stretch from the shorter distance of the straight back.
Each bucket has 20 lbs of weight but at the hub that bucket is basically sitting on the fulcrum of a lever with no advantage or cost of leverage. It is the bucket that is sitting out on the 5' radius (lever) of the 10' diameter water wheel that is doing 5 times the work when the energy is extracted at the hub and not from the 20 lb bucket falling. Everyone has used a breaker bar correct? Would the added torque to the hub help in the lift?
Sorry I got off the topic of the lift but if we can also improve the performance of the drop it may be worth investigating.
Wanted to add that with all the buckets full - the buckets at 1-5 O'clock are all adding some amount of torque/ Leverage to the hub.
bw100007: I had the same thought as you at the start of this discussion. On page one smOKy2 addressed this issue in reply 2, 4, and 6. Instead of repeating it here just go there and read it. I also thought that stretching/elongating the buckets out like you suggest was a way to go. More buckets out farther the more torque. Not sure I fully grasped the reasoning but I think he was saying gravity was the same for the amount of water used. No matter how far you go out it still takes the same energy to get the water back up. Minus losses. Maybe the members can explain it to you better.
I saw a demonstration of a model on a u-tube video that when it came to the point of rotating each weight over to the downward side it basically slung an elongated arm with the weight attached out to throw a torque/thrust factor into the rotation and then receded back again at the bottom so one side was always farther out. This seemed to cause the perpetual motion/rotation of the assembly By giving the assembly an extra weight thrust on one side. That was why I thought your concept was the way to go.
I think, as I have modified the assembly at this point, To stretch the assembly out would only give me more buckets full of air and so more torque. But the same could be done just by adding more buckets to a straight up, vertical conveyor. I see no gain in the stretch except to maybe shorten the distance up. I could use a shorter tank and thus giving me less pressure to over come with the air pump. Actually, might not a bad idea. But smOKy2's words are coming back to haunt me. He said it would only travel farther and take more time and losses. But in this instance it may fairly work for the pressure easement. I think your still thinking of my original idea.
I believe the assembly, as constructed/imagined now, with the collapseable air tanks and the air filled plugs should be self generating/operating. Now I have to build it to prove it. But I am wondering if it would be over kill to use this assembly as an enhancer to my original system. That would give me that extra that every one says I need to make it work. But one thing at a time.
As a note; I am picturing a replacement of the bucket with a soft plastic bag that is hinged, or not, on the bottom and so as the water drains at the top of the water level, the bag flaps closed from the water dragging over it on the way down. and so it has very little foot print. When it gets down to the air impute nozzle it will open from the force of the air drawing it open. That way there is no need for the displacement of the water with air factor involved with the bucket/bag. The bag opening will have a little plastic piece mounted across the lip and bent/concave slightly so it will have a small opening to allow the air to gain entrance and fill more easily. It would have to be mounted top and bottom to the chain guide with appropriate hardware for stability.
The air assembly plugs could be as simple as coated stirafoam or a plastic donut. Will look into that further. Something that will give the most lift and come as close as possible to the diameter of the pipe for air pull without causing a dragging effect on the sides any more than necessary. Maybe a leather flap on the plug would suffice.
I have never seen a water wheel that has the buckets in a vertical configuration. This link may help you in determining your bucket size and possible power once you bring the water to the top or the head height and ft per second flow. You have to look at the power at the hub.
There are many sites that discuss this. Once you have X amount of water flowing at an X amount of speed from a x height you can calculate the power you can generate on the way down. There are also many hydro turbines on the market
http://www.backwoodshome.com/design-calculations-for-overshot-waterwheels/
O.K. I finished the schematic mock up of my second try at the water generator. It is drawn as to the way it will operate, not as to the materials. I discussed that in the last post. But it is basically the same as the original idea just reversed to incorporate the impute from all those who helped in this discussion. I am still trying to do the math which I was never a good student. I am using a 9 foot deep tank so I can use 14 buckets. I can only keep 6 filled at a time for lifting to seven feet. If I use a wide, short canvas bag/tote for a bucket I can get around 1 to 2 gallons of air in each. If I get the same lift weight as water weight I think I should get approximately 48 to 96 lbs of thrust. I am trying for a rotation speed of at least 3 rotations a minute. (Don't have a clue as to what it will actually do). And, I haven't got a clue at this point as to what size generator this set up will turn. I am using a three inch diameter pipe for the air pulley system. So I also need to figure out the needed flow rate of air to fill the buckets. This will be done with a chain driven gear ratio from the buckets to the air pulley system gear. So it will a consistant flow of air. As shown in the schematic. (Sprocket).
I am hoping the air plugs rising in the water medium can offset the air pulley system draw of energy so I can save some of the energy gained for the step up gears and generator needs. I did a drawing of the first concept and this last idea put together as a companion to each other but I think it is over kill for now. I need to see if this one works first.
I think I can use less step up gears than are in the drawing by about four or five gears.
bw100007: I like this elongated conveyor style over a round wheel because a round wheel dumps its water way to soon. My way retains the air for approx.
6/7ths of its cycling time. (On the Filled side).
As in the first schematic I don't show the framing holding everything in place. That would get to hard to see the concept art at this stag. As for the electrical, One just needs to google it. Most solar or electrical places can tell what you need to wire up the generator.
This is just an after thought. webby1 showed an air lift pump site on post 95 and got me to wondering if this idea would work. I had started this tall tank idea as a secondary power supply to enhance the main first idea of the gravity water buckets. So, the idea here is in that vain I was wondering if I could split the air flow going to the tall tank air bucket supply in tank B and a secondary air lift pump system in the main tank A. The pressure is built in already from the compression in Tank B. So forcing the air through the lower water pressure in tank a should give me the needed rise of water to supply the losses in tank A from its main gravity fed system. Note: This is an addition to the already operating system of tank A. It does put more work on the system in tank B. But if the whole purpose of tank B was to gain enough energy to make tank A operate then this should do it. And I believe with both tanks running I could get a lot more hp to run a generator. This is just a concept at this point.
The newer pump lift system portrayed on that same site could work as well but I would need to build a rotating two or three bucket container to hold air until it tips and allows the air bulk to rise in a pipe and push the water up like a geyser. More work than I would like to do. But it should work. At least that is how I think it should work.
This scan is not related to this topic. It is a water powered generator, but not the topic. I just wanted to share something I came up with today. No need to discuss it. I was just watching so many U-tube video's of people using a pelton wheel or a vortex turbine to generate power from a stream or such that I just thought why not put a bunch of them together and get some real power going.
It is a tub with water in it. I picture a washing machine tub. Or bigger. It has a motor mounted on the top with a vortex turbine or other type blade at the end of the shaft. It will simply spin the water which will in turn spins the side mounted Pelton wheels to run generators mounted on the Pelton wheels. I picture the motor in the bottom of the washing machine capable of spinning the water also. (ready made). A smart drive motor I hear can get up to 1watt per revolution. (They claim). So four smart drives could give you 4 kw at 1,000 rpm. And so on. The bigger you build, the more generators or alternators you add, the more power you claim. You need to modify the tank and Pelton wheel placements the faster you spin the water of course. The Pelton wheels need to be big enough to turn your generator and small enough to get as fast a spin as possible.
You can also mount the Pelton wheels so as to utilize a belt pulley drive mounted on the outside in case you go with an alternator so you can step up the rotation to a higher speed. Many possibilities.
Here are some numbers that some had wanted.
3" diameter water pipe times 6 foot long at .3673 gallons per foot = 2.204 gallons.
18 foot air pulley diameter divided by 3 = 6 foot of 2.204 gallons.
1 revolution of air pulley = 6.612 gallons.
14 air buckets = 14 gals.divided by 6.244 gal. = 2.242 air pulley revolutions for 1 air bucket conveyor revolution.
or, 4.284 air pulley revolutions for one 2 gal. air bucket conveyor revolution.
So say ratio of 2.5 to 1 revolutions for 1 gallon buckets and 5 to 1 revolutions for 2 gallon buckets to accommodate the spillage of air into buckets.
Now for my guess work. I tried to follow the guide of the Design calculation for water wheels. Don't know if it really fits this design but it is all I have.
Power is equal to the flow times head divided by 11.8. .
So 1 cfs times 7 foot head divided by 11.8= .5932. .5932 divided by 11.8 = .0502kw. .0502 times 6 buckets = .301kw.
.0502 divided by .746 = .06729 hp .06729 times 6 buckets = .4037 hp.
double this for 2 gallon buckets and so forth.
If I made a mistake please feel free to rectify it.
I modified the schematic for the last time to fix some discrepancies. Like a wheel on the top of the air pulley. The drag that would have occurred with the pvc pipe guide that WAS there is now eliminated by replacing it with a free turning wheel.
The air buckets are showing the deflation factor as it rotates around allowing for less drag. This gives a better visual of the actual process in motion. Also the air is shown coming out of the pipe and air bucket for extra visual effect showing the impute and exhaust points better.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19890414&CC=FR&NR=2621652A1&KC=A1#
I got with the help from the french INPI more than 15 years before his .Me.Athele,phone-number.