Hi All,
have a look at this machine,
that I just discovered the video on youtube.com:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gxnHJoyrQpM
What do you think ?
It seems the upfloating weight is trapped inside
the water tube at the top,
so how can it then be reconnected outside to the
chain to go down ?
Hi Harti_Berlin
Thanks for the link.
This device sounds very amazing.
Yes, I agree with you, how could the weight be reconnected again to the chain?
Perhaps this apparatus is only a "proof of concept"?
You drop a weight.
It produces some work (overcoming friction losses and lighting 2 bulbs, while going down).
But it is not the end of the story :you can lift up this weight again.
So you have gained free NRG...
When (if) you find a mean to reconnect this weight to the chain you get some perpetual motion. ;D
There is some comments in the picture.
Infortunately I c'ant read Chinese. ???
Very Best
perphaps there is actualy 2 weights on the chain, while one weight is halfway falling outside the tube the other weight is inside going up.
Hi FreeEnergy
I see what you mean.
The simple question could be : is this device demonstrating any "overunity" behavior?
Anyway, IMO, this machine is very tricky.
The falling weight just fit very well in the "ascending water tube" after diving into the "pool" . Does it not?
Sorry for my English!
Very Best.
umm .. so how do you break the vacuum in the tube to get the floaty out without having to genereate a vacuum again (expensive energy wise) .. nope thats why they are stuck there ...
There must be more to that unit. Why would anyone spend so much time and money on a prototype that big and release a video that shows nothing extraordinary.
My dear dean_mcgowan
Personally, in that very case, I had not the intend of breaking anything.
I was just wondering what it were about and asking some questions using words like 'perhaps' , 'if' and the conditional mood.
Of course my native language is not English and this could lead to misunderstanding.
The question remains: is this device showing a non-conventional behavior?
Anyway and BTW I remain yours faithfully
don't worry it is just a guess. :)
actualy when you see the weight go all the way up in the tube you will also see the water inside the tube go down and that is a bad sign. i dont know about this system, there might be a better way from keeping the water from going down in level when the weight reachs the top. if you can achive that than we have an overunity machine. water leakage is very important.
* edit *
maybe water leakage isn't that much of a deal, what if there is a one way gate that the weight passes through right before it reachs the top? there will be water leakage but only within the gate and the top exit.
ps. 3 weights would be ideal. while one weight is Entering, the other is Exiting, and the other is Halfway there...
i just dont know. ok ill just shut up now.
W ll, one could do it this way, that one closes a shutter plate below the float, that has gone to the top. So the vaccuum still remains below the float inside the tube and only a small amount of water has to be pumped up... The question then is, if pumping up the lost water needs less energy, than the outside fall can generate ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 03, 2006, 07:09:36 AM
W ll, one could do it this way, that one closes a shutter plate below the float, that has gone to the top. So the vaccuum still remains below the float inside the tube and only a small amount of water has to be pumped up... The question then is, if pumping up the lost water needs less energy, than the outside fall can generate ?
the outside fall should have more weight on it, at least thats what it seems like.
so should 3 weights be used? one Exiting, one Entering, one Halfway there?
I have looked long and hard at these various buoyancy/floatation over-unity ideas and none of them work out in the end.
I find it funny that they went to all the trouble of building this setup without drawing it out on paper first and looking at what forces are taking place.
This one fails because you have lost a volume of water at the top of the tube equal to the volume of the float m3 X 1kg. This water is now sitting in the tank at the bottom.
So say 5L float x 1Kg = 5Kg of water.
Height of tube is say about 5m, so thats 5Kg x 9.8m/s x 5m = ~ 250 Joules or 250 watts for 1 second.
It would be like allowing the bottom of the tube break the surface and allowing a large bubble to float up inside the tube.
So when they can figure out how to make water,5 Kg of it, flow uphill, 5m, then success.
Nice idea but I think I will stick with the MEG for now.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1565.100.html
Regards
Rob
may be if they make everything a lot higher the falling weight will produce enough energy to use a pump to bring the lost water back inside :o
ok come to think again one weight is all you need.
ok add this to what the movie did not show...you know the open tank where the weight falls into???now picture that tank closed with a one-way(air proof) door where the weight falls into then AFTER it passes through the one-way door it falls into the water then goes up the pipe. when the weight reaches the top water will not desend because of the one-way door and the air sealed tank. you would also have a one-way door exit(air proof) at the top of the pipe.
so the energy of the fall/rise should be enough to pick up the weight from the top of the pipe without loss of water level.
peace
Hi,
yes, this is a very good idea !
Only 2 shutting plates needed !
One at the top and one at the buttom of the water tube !
When the float is inside the tube, you shut the lower plate and
open the upper plate and voila the float rises to the top
and can exit easily and fall down again on the chain.
Then first the upper plate has to be closed again and then the lower
plate has to be opened again.
This will be a working gravity mobile !
my spin on the valve idea...
Because of the fast fall time in air and slow rise time in water you will need an excess of "float weights" in the tube ready for the chain. I would assume with good timing on the valves and enough "floating weights" in que the concept would be a self running device.
hehehehe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)
Hi Dingus,
many thanks for making this nice animation !
Yes, I think with this method it will really work !
Maybe we can communicate this to the Chinese inventor, so he can implement this ?
Would be nice, if he could join over here, if he can write and read english language.
Hi Dingus Mungus,
Nice idea except that you seem to be totally ignoring the displacement of water.
As the buoy exits the tube you show it floating upwards without leaving a lack of water in the chamber you have just sealed off.
Am I the only one that thinks idea can never ever work.
I don't want to sound negative, but you cannot get any excess energy out of buoyancy devices, period.
You must think of the buoy as a bubble of air, once it enters the bottom of the tube you displace a volume of water equal to the buoy volume and therefore you are stuck, you cannot escape this fact.
Regards
Rob
Hi Rob, hmm, I think you are right. That is a problem. The float displaces water out of the tube, when it goes in at the bottom and finally, when it exits at the top this much water then is missing inside the tube.... Hmm, can we find a way around it ?
i think it also all depends on the float's shape and how it dives into the water. because as it dives air bubles goes in with it. now if the shape and dive is right we can eliminatethe bubles from going into the tube.
the float would be something like 12 inches by 1 inch. i dont know.
also the drop of the float should be enough to pump water back up again.
@FreeEnergy
unfortunately not.
Think about it.
When the float enters the tube from the bottom,
it displaces the same amount if water inside the tube, it
itsself has as its volume.
So after it has gone out of the top,
there is exactly this volume less water inside the tube..
Then this volume of water has to be pumped again into the tube,
but that needs again as much energy as was won,
when the float did rise to the top.
As the water is also heavier than the float,
indeed we need more energy to pump the water up
to the top.
The only trick I can think of is, to get the water up there
in a different fashion or only from a higher level, so you need
not to transport it from the lower level to the highest level
or don?t use a hose to do it to overcome the hydrostatic pressure paradoxon...
Hmm, this is really a hard question to solve this puzzle...
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2006, 01:40:57 PM
Hi Rob, hmm, I think you are right. That is a problem. The float displaces water out of the tube, when it goes in at the bottom and finally, when it exits at the top this much water then is missing inside the tube.... Hmm, can we find a way around it ?
Actually no... the three valve animation does take displacement in to account because of the negative pressure require to maintain the water level. I will further explain with some diagrams tonight when I'm done here at work.
remember this? http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,570.0.html
:D
I think that if they use a lid in the bottom part that is going to open upwards only when they drop the weight in the water then the weight starts to go up is going to push the lid up(lid does'nt need to be heavy)and when it passes thru, lid goes back down closing the entrance.
at this time they can let go of the vaquum valve wich is going to release the water back down and the weight of the water is going to seal the bottom lid. as the weight goes up, the top lid opens upward because now there is no pressure inside and now they can use another way to pull the weight out and put it back in the chain. At this point in time they have lost the volume of water equal to the volume of the weight.but like i said before maybe if they make the system high enough they have plenty of power to pump the water back inside thru the same entrance in the bottom and at the same time the pressure from sucking water back inside is going to keep the top cover seal.
I do'nt know.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 07, 2006, 05:36:07 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2006, 01:40:57 PM
Hi Rob, hmm, I think you are right. That is a problem. The float displaces water out of the tube, when it goes in at the bottom and finally, when it exits at the top this much water then is missing inside the tube.... Hmm, can we find a way around it ?
Actually no... the three valve animation does take displacement in to account because of the negative pressure require to maintain the water level. I will further explain with some diagrams tonight when I'm done here at work.
Dingus you could be probably right.
It seems to require then every time to have at least 2 floats inside the tube at the
same time, right ?
And it also needs exactly your setup with the 3 shutting door plates,
right ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2006, 11:33:59 PM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 07, 2006, 05:36:07 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2006, 01:40:57 PM
Hi Rob, hmm, I think you are right. That is a problem. The float displaces water out of the tube, when it goes in at the bottom and finally, when it exits at the top this much water then is missing inside the tube.... Hmm, can we find a way around it ?
Actually no... the three valve animation does take displacement in to account because of the negative pressure require to maintain the water level. I will further explain with some diagrams tonight when I'm done here at work.
Dingus you could be probably right.
It seems to require then every time to have at least 2 floats inside the tube at the
same time, right ?
And it also needs exactly your setup with the 3 shutting door plates,
right ?
Correct but it also requires resiviors with there own seals and timing...
I'm working on it now but having trouble with the timing right now.
I may have to work on it more tomorow...
too tired to think clearly tonight.
I thought I had something but then I fully woke up... ???
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2006, 04:36:56 PM
@FreeEnergy
unfortunately not.
Think about it.
When the float enters the tube from the bottom,
it displaces the same amount if water inside the tube, it
itsself has as its volume.
So after it has gone out of the top,
there is exactly this volume less water inside the tube..
Then this volume of water has to be pumped again into the tube,
but that needs again as much energy as was won,
when the float did rise to the top.
As the water is also heavier than the float,
indeed we need more energy to pump the water up
to the top.
The only trick I can think of is, to get the water up there
in a different fashion or only from a higher level, so you need
not to transport it from the lower level to the highest level
or don?t use a hose to do it to overcome the hydrostatic pressure paradoxon...
Hmm, this is really a hard question to solve this puzzle...
this is why i said...
"ok add this to what the movie did not show...you know the open tank where the weight falls into???now picture that tank closed with a one-way(air proof) door where the weight falls into then
AFTER it passes through the one-way door it falls into the water then goes up the pipe. when the weight reaches the top water will not desend because of the one-way door and the air sealed tank. you would also have a one-way door exit(air proof) at the top of the pipe."
the weight is in a vacuum
before it hits the water then goes up the pipe.
My original idea i thought would work appears to be inopperable without moving being able to move the weight from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone with out the two zones reaching equalibrium. I am working on a new idea though and I feel it's a lot simpler then we are all thinking.
What if mechanicly they inserted an object with the same volume in to the water when the weight is removed and removed it from the water when a weight is dropped in to the water. :-\
That way the displaced water is always the same in both phases.
You should have heard the idea I woke up with last night... it was so bad it was embarassing. :D
I have been working it out on a piece of paper and it appears to be totally feasible.
If others would like to work on the math, I'll be uploading a new visual design with
propper valve and displacement timing tonight after work.
Basicly its a two valve system with a accuating displacement weight.
login to see attached picture. you just need one weight.
i forgot to add a ramp going from the exit door to the entrance door.
peace
@ FREE
That concept would work perfectly if we could develope a perfectly sealing one way gate that has no resistance.
@ Everyone else
I got it... on paper... I'll animate it tonight, but this could work.
Or if anyone has a fax machine and scanner here in the US, I can fax
my rough draft to someone so they can post it today.
But according to my math its a perfect solution for this snag...
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 08, 2006, 04:50:33 PM
@ FREE
That concept would work perfectly if we could develope a perfectly sealing one way gate that has no resistance.
that shouldn't be too hard. the force that holds the gate closed must be less then the weight of the float. then we got it :)
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 08, 2006, 05:09:10 PM
that shouldn't be too hard. the force that holds the gate closed must be less then the weight of the float. then we got it :)
Wouldn't this be easier???
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 09, 2006, 12:15:09 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 08, 2006, 05:09:10 PM
that shouldn't be too hard. the force that holds the gate closed must be less then the weight of the float. then we got it :)
Wouldn't this be easier???
very nice.
how about when the float falls, it falls onto the volume that goes inside the water (like your idea)and then it opens the lower gate for passage. when the float is inside travelling it releases that volume from water pressure :) because the volume that was pushed in by the falling weight floats too.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 09, 2006, 01:16:08 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 09, 2006, 12:15:09 AM
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 08, 2006, 05:09:10 PM
that shouldn't be too hard. the force that holds the gate closed must be less then the weight of the float. then we got it :)
Wouldn't this be easier???
very nice.
how about when the float falls, it falls onto the volume that goes inside the water (like your idea)and then it opens the lower gate for passage. when the float is inside travelling it releases that volume from water pressure :) because the volume that was pushed in by the falling weight floats too.
Its just a concept design... ;)
For now I'll be working on a better version of the current design. Does anyone know of a simple 3d animation program?
maybe http://sketchup.google.com
Thanks for the link I'll check it out...
In the meantime here is another piece of concept art:
Ok... I'm pretty sure the valve design I posted is
exacty what people where hoping to find when
this thread started. Where did everyone go? ???
need more details in last picture.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 09, 2006, 06:22:49 PM
need more details in last picture.
Just a piece of concept art really, it depicts the way I imagine the prototype operating, but currently my new area of concern is how to pick up and drop the float weights... I'm imagining magnetic cores in styrofoam.
This is the important picture not the concept art.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1651.0%3Battach%3D3992%3Bimage&hash=3d1b7a785e47fb7884512f6f7b875b7aa763a559)
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 09, 2006, 06:27:09 PM
This is the important picture not the concept art.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1651.0%3Battach%3D3992%3Bimage&hash=3d1b7a785e47fb7884512f6f7b875b7aa763a559)
yeah you pretty much nailed this one. i really like this.
Hi Dingus,
good work with the animation.
The question now is,
how much work-energy is needed to move this additional
weight ?
BTW, what animation program do you use to make the animated GIFs ?
Many thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 10, 2006, 07:19:05 AM
Hi Dingus,
good work with the animation.
The question now is,
how much work-energy is needed to move this additional
weight ?
BTW, what animation program do you use to make the animated GIFs ?
Many thanks.
My thoughts exactly... What I imagine as the most energy conserving method to achive this is to have two weights on a teeter totter of sorts, each performing the same work in two different water tanks. When one weight is submerged the other is not and vice versa. Basicly it would ballance the force required in both dirrections, but then the question of "how much force is needed" still remains. I have only been working on the mechanics of the valve assembly not the physics, but if someone would like to work with me on a theorized model I would be glad to help. The first thing I think we would want to know is how much energy is required to move one liter of water up 1 meter with a vacuum then wwe can look at how much energy is needed with a displacement weight, at that point the picture will be much more clear.
here is a suggestion, the weight can fall into the water far off in width, when it falls in the water the float will have a guide to the buttom tube's entrance.
Oh I forgot to tell Stefan that I do all my animated modeling work in adobe flash and most of my component design in EmachineshopPro, and all my magnetic simulations in FEMM. I hope this information helps! I have been completely distacted from this project though, and wont be coming back to it untill I've finnished with my interest in the 5 metal non redux electrolizer... ;D
Here is a nice simple way to do it...
It falls down hitting the trap door at the bottom, trap door foats back up as the heavy thing starts to float up the chube hitting a trap door at the top and repeating the process...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F25tesdc.jpg&hash=709c0286d5e8208e9457cf22c3b35a777802ae94)
also when the trap door opens at the top, the presure of the water at the bottom trap door will tightly seel it until the top trap door falls back down
no.
because the ball must displace some water and in your design theres no space to water be displaced, besides if you make that space at the entry point water would be displaced to the lower point and never would back to the upper one and that would make impossible to the floating ball float out of the system.
in few words, two bodies can occupy the same space 8)
Quote from: loop888 on July 31, 2008, 12:02:46 PM
no.
because the ball must displace some water and in your design theres no space to water be displaced, besides if you make that space at the entry point water would be displaced to the lower point and never would back to the upper one and that would make impossible to the floating ball float out of the system.
in few words, two bodies can occupy the same space 8)
What if I where to make the trap door opening here
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2F2m818x1.jpg&hash=c7fe34dd981d226702a2960cfb82818579b07ee0)
then displaced water (ball still displace water even with the open door) would get out of the system and the ball never would reach the other end.
Quote from: loop888 on July 31, 2008, 12:42:28 PM
then displaced water (ball still displace water even with the open door) would get out of the system and the ball never would reach the other end.
I clearly dont understand this...
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on November 07, 2006, 03:47:55 AM
my spin on the valve idea...
Yes, In China this design could be OverUnity, in North America and in Europe - no way :'(
Who or what will move those tight valves ???
In Chine it is very simple - one or two Chineses for each valve - it costs NOTHING - thats why called OverUnity ;D
khabe