How is this one? A free energy system.
On the bottom of the ocean split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis.
Have a cable that wraps a round a pulley on the ocean floor and also one on the surface. Have bags or containers attached to the cable. Fill the containers with the hydrogen or oxygen.
As the filled containers float to the surface they will pull the cable up with them. One of the ends of the pulley system is connected to a generator to produce electrical power.
At the surface the hydrogen and oxygen are removed from the containers and fed into a fuel cell to recover most of the electricity consumed in the electrolysis process. The electricity from the fuel cells is then shipped back down to the ocean floor to produce more hydrogen and oxygen. Only a small amount of electricity need be added to over come the inefficiencies of the fuel cell.
The depth of the water will determine the amount of excess power generated.
indeed but not everyone have a ocean in their backyard ;)
That's true, I live in the mountains.
It could be done in a long pipe also. If you have a good imagination then there could be all sorts of variations on this beautifully simple idea.
Indeed, the idea is simple and beautiful but unfortunately it?s not working. It takes more electrical energy for electrolysis at high pressure (i.e the bottom of the ocean) that at atmospheric pressure.
Tinu
Now if it was a vaccum isntead of pressure... that would work....
Quote
"Can Electrolysis of water occurr while the water is under extreme pressure":
Yes, it can. All that is required is a little bit more voltage to drive the
electrolysis, and cell and electrode materials that can handle the
pressure!
It is actually rather surprising how little extra voltage is needed. It is
described by the Nernst equation (any electrochemistry or physical
chemistry textbook). It works out that only about 0.1 volt more is needed
to electrolyse water in a 200 atmosphere environment than in a 1 atmosphere
environment.
And the quote above continues as follows:
?However, at those extreme pressures, the fluids water, hydrogen,
and oxygen would all be supercritical, so they would remain dissolved
together in a single supercritical phase. I suspect that under those
conditions the hydrogen and oxygen would react to re-form water as they
diffused back together. I doubt that the experiment would be feasible for a
number of practical reasons."
Tinu
I believe that the density would change and it still may work.
Good eye though. I think I like this forum.
Even if it wouldn't work at the bottom of an ocean for some reason it could work at lesser depth.
from the ELSA thread. Posted by member wizkycho.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2346.0.html
Thank you ResinRat2 and FreeEnergy. Very good pointers. Now I'm not sure if I should continue with this thread or contribute to the other.
Anyway, since this idea is only a couple of days old to me I am still finding loads of good info.
"The critical pressure of a substance is the pressure required to liquefy a gas at its critical temperature."
Some critical pressures:
- Hydrogen: 12.97atm
- Oxygen: 49.77atm
- Water: 217.7atm
I calculate that hydrogen will reach it's critical pressure under about 415ft. of water.
That said, I still don't think that that matters too much because the specific gravity of liquid hydrogen (@ 1atm) is .0710. That is much lighter than water.
I made a mistake in my calculation of 415ft. I forgot to take into consideration the temperature.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn225%2Fabebarker%2FHydrogenPhasediag.jpg&hash=f3913f2dd7b45272f816dd1bccc87b883b8bd546)
With the temperature taken into account I calculate it would take about 3 miles of water to make the hydrogen change phase.
That make this whole idea a little more appealing.
test time?
Quote from: angryScientist on June 18, 2007, 11:00:16 PM
I made a mistake in my calculation of 415ft. I forgot to take into consideration the temperature.
With the temperature taken into account I calculate it would take about 3 miles of water to make the hydrogen change phase.
That make this whole idea a little more appealing.
Not to nay-say but as long as you're taking water temp in to account, you should
know that the higher the temperature of the water the weaker the hydrogen bond.
So you're using a lot more energy to crack/heat the cold water and the heat well
of an ocean is too big for me to describe with numbers... So you'll lose most of
"Gibbs free energy" in your high pressure low temp electrolysis, and give up an
unimaginable ammount of energy as waste heat. The question would be how much
bouency would be required to overcome the resistance of all those emptys on
their way down along with the questions of electrode erosion in a ion rich solution.
Lots of factors to take in to account...
~Dingus Mungus
depending on the material of the "buckets" a neutral bouyant material wieght at mid span would proly be the most eff. given the fact that you have to lift the wieght back up. At least the down traveling side would be an overal neutral effect on the system. Also kids remeber the temp differential at the bottom of the sea, its not coldest at the bottom, but at a layer that floats above the bottom, another one of waters interesting characteristics, it the conveyor system crossed the Boundary Layer it might just get the eff. to be feaseable. Better yet just put the electroyisizer near a heat vent on the ocean floor, best of both worlds heat to aid the reaction and cold high density in close prox to get high bouyancy. Like they say in realestate "location, location, location"
Quote from: d3adp00l on June 23, 2007, 03:15:00 AM
Better yet just put the electroyisizer near a heat vent on the ocean floor, best of both worlds heat to aid the reaction and cold high density in close prox to get high bouyancy. Like they say in realestate "location, location, location"
Now this is an interesting aproach...
The vents added heat would also provide lift to the biased side of the conveyer.
I've researched something similar before. The tricky part is either manipulating or
collecting the mineral outputs. Usually the minerals cool during there thermal powered
trip twards the surface, but when it cools and begins to fall it deposits as a "tube"
arround the vents opening. Some of these vents grow to be several hundred feet tall
before they topple over and deposit their minerals on the seas floor. So the question
would be: At what depth would collecting the minerals become efficient when compared
to common mining? Also would a insulated artificial tube suffice for stablizing the vent?
Great thought exercise, but a long ways off I'm afraid.
~Dingus Mungus
Also keep in mind that as the gaseous hho travels up its volume and hence boyancy will increase dramatically. So a little gas produced below the temp gradient will produce a rediculous amount of lift after the gradient line. I am sure everyone here can do the math to see how much volume of water would be displaced, an accordian type of bucket would allow for expansion. Rubber would have to many problems to be practical. I can see it now, new job available: underwater powerplant tech open water unlimited class diving cert required, with exotic gas breathing endorsement. Shift limited due to gas exposure salary 250,000 yr with vacation. Submersible license preferred.
I have just about convinced myself that this simple idea could work.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn225%2Fabebarker%2Fhydrogenatdepth.gif&hash=e684628137f59a0b86e73aa1b537f59c47c018d7)
@ angry You seem to have the numbers in your head, so if you don't mind lets run a simulation. Lets say that that it takes 1000watts per litre per minute to produce our HHO at depth. The production is at 1025 feet down. Lets put 200 lifting bags, 100 on the up side and 100 on the down. Make the bag assembly and chain linkage neutrally bouyant (plastic of some kind). Now mass and momentum will come into play but not bouyancy. At any given time how much lift will be produced, which can be used to figure torque. I am not sure how to figure the lift speed of the system, but with that and torque, mechanical hp which can be turned into electrical watts, to see if enough juice could be kicked out to make any usable power. The only downside is when saltwater is used for hho it also creates chlorine gas, however if the gas was funneled to a burner it could be reduced again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_at_high_velocity
Don't forget yer drag fellas... I think thats what going to kill this concept.
I think harvesting minerals and hydrogen is a great idea, not moving parts.
~Dingus Mungus
Drag is always a coeffient of velocity, if you use the torque with gearing, the drag can reduced in a square function with lower speed. Any here ever try to hold a cherry ball underwater. There is alot of force to be used. My vote, its stands a chance.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it has no chance of moving. I'm just saying a large portion of energy produced from the bouency will be eaten by moving the empty buckets to the ocean floor. Thats a lot of resistance and not efficient!
What about a drop in to place turbine??? :o
If designed to be aerodynamicly inclined to center over a pressure flow and reach its "thrust adjusted neutral bouency", you could drop them in to place over a vent and as the vent grew in to a tube, the turbine could follow it. The more load you put on the turbine, the more energy converted in to vertical thrust. So you would have to find a ballance with a dynamic water ballast. If designed to be ultra light and corosion resistant I would imagine adding an electrolysis unit with pressure vessel for hydrogen harvest would be feasible. The problem still remains though, unless its overunity, its more efficient to just keep the electricity and transmit it via AC. Wow... AC powerlines running over the ocean sounds like such a bad idea in retrospect.
Just another good idea for the pile,
~Dingus Mungus
Some good reading on vent locations and common characteristics. Click around a little.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02fire/background/vent_chem/media/chemistry.html
~Dingus Mungus
Actually they just dropped power cable on the ocean floor for reseach modules. power in the ocean can be done, just don't plug it in without an airlock:). And as far as resistance on the down stroke, make the buckets colapsable like those finger game people made in grade school. On the down stroke the box folds flat, on the up stroke a mechanical linkage can open it slightly to receive a small bubble and as the box most up the bubble expands fully opening the box. No lift would be relized until about 1/4 travel up, but from there on the lift would constantly increase.
Sounds much more feasible... Altho the problem remains that the more moving
parts the more maintnence required over the device lifetime, but I imagine that
if you worked out a way for the collapsing bucket to perform for years it could
generate some decent power, but keep in mind you'd still need to convert that electricty in to hydrogen and working out efficiencies for that is more difficult
than it sounds. I'm confused though... What are you going to do with all that
hydrogen 50 miles off any given coast? And what happens when your cathode
oxidizes over night? I can 75% assume that it would be more efficent to just keep
the energy you can convert from its heat and pressure.
OH! New idea for the pile... Heat differential engine! The vents average 650
degrees fahrenhiet at the mouth and while thats not very hot from an external
combustion stand point it is free and there is a lot of it! (high CFM)
Theres no doubt a massive ammount of energy is leaking out of every vent.
We need to find a way to soak up as much of it as possible to improve $/kWh.
Considering they're 50 miles out the transmission costs will already be higher,
and unfortunately while its a green concept unless it can surpass convential
power generation costs there is little chance of it catching on like wind or solar.
I think thats the best part of this concept... No one could surpress it! It's
alternative free energy, it's not the kind of free energy they could target.
Great thread so far guys,
~Dingus Mungus
Transmission of power for 50 miles actually isn't really that far when it comes to distribution systems, an added bonus is that the cable on the ocean floor can be cooled much more effectively with the ambient water. Plus if the oil guys can make money drilling for offshore oil then a rig converted for a maintanance base station. on board deep sea driving equipment sub docks and the likes. It doesn't seem too practical to pump oil up then pipe it to shore but some how it is. in the past i believe you would be right about it not working too well. But with the plastics and carbon fiber tech we now have I think this one may have come into maturity.
Still waiting to see if angry can show us some numbers I would think by a lack of a resent post he may be working on it.
Heck isn't the promblem with plastic is it doesn't corrode in the ocean and fish are dying from that?I saw a study on small plastic particles in the ocean, scary stuff.
You're kinda right about the palstics... It usually won't corrode, but it does errode.
My worry is about the errosion of its moving components, and the worst part of all
will be the anode... I promise even a SS electrolysis anode will oxidize in the ocean.
As for the "50 mile" thing... It has nothing to do with oil! My point was that we, as
in the consumers, buy energy products on a $/kWp or $/kWh basis. Unless you can
make power CHEAPER than a coal plant, than chances are no one will take the idea
seriously. So again my point was NOT that its an impossiblity, but that its more
expensive to run power 50 miles before it hits the first relay station. The only way to
recoup this loss in our $/kWh equation is to make it more efficient. So any and all
losses in power make this idea less and less feasible. I merely trying to help you find
a ballance between practical and unrealistic.
Speaking of which, you never addressed what you plan on doing with all the hydrogen.
~Dingus Mungus
I had a similar idea a while back, but instead of an underwater pipe running deep into the ocean, I was thinking of 3 pipes going vertically upward very high from ground level. At ground level we have an electrolysis unit, making hydrogen & oxygen. The two gases then goes up the 2 pipes. At the top of the pipes there's a fuel cell, recombines the gasses into water. Then water at the top will be stored in a tank and goes back down to ground level through the third pipe, turning a turbine on the way down.
The idea is that to make use of gravity, you will have to turn any substance to a lighter form (gas) when going up, and then turn to a heavier form (liquid / solid) when going down.
If we use water, I know it takes energy to convert it to gases (H2+O2), but you can recover back some of that energy when you recombine it back to water (using fuel cell) and also get some energy from gravity when the water is coming back down (using turbine).
Now the question is, will the energy from the fuel cell & turbine enough to run the electrolyser ? If it's not enough can we increase the pipe height to gain some more energy ? if not using water, any substance that can turn from 1 form to another without much energy ? what do you guys think ?
@ dingus, in all reality the hydrogen is a by product, I would say burn it in a furnace to power another generator (ice would proply be no good because all the stuff with the hydrogen, but a striling would proly do just fine) to power the maintanence shack. As for the materials, yes things will and always will breakdown, but with the ocean going industry that exists I am sure there are some materials that exist, no I haven't checked into that far. As far as costs go off the hip a generation station that needs no fuel delivered to it and has basic simple parts, should be able to keep up with current power generation plants that have to have a continuos stream of fuel, have complicated mechanical parts (turbines aren't that easy to build). Just the infra structure to keep fueling those beasts is a serious endeavour and costs considerable amounts, the precision manufacturing facilities to maintain and rebuild the turbines/boilers is a big deal too. I am just proposing that the simplicity of the system would more than makeup for its possibly higher maintainance.
@ Kentoot one possible issue would be that 1 litre of water turns into 1800 litres of hho, there wouldn't be much going down the third pipe unless you pump a lot of hho up the other two. But the idea seems sound, in that the energy of the system is increased by its natural lifting effect and therefore putting the water at a higher kinetic energy state by increasing its elevation. It any idea of this kind could work that would be the one, steam would cool down before it got to a high enough possistion to be useful.
Does anyone know if depth increases electrical demand from an hho cell?
if you produced 6 litres per bucket at 500 feet you would ave 1056 lbs of lift and it would expand to 100 litres of hho at the top. depending on gearing and the like a lot of energy would be there. But 500 feet X2 is alot of mass to move.
Well that is a lot of lift, but its also a whole lot of hydrogen... Maybe its time for a small scale prototype. You can get small chain and sprockets off the shelf, and use a 6" pvc vessel 10 feet tall. Use a small 12v electric motor to collect and measure the output. Using that collected wattage and the input wattage we can figure out roughly what you can recover, then we can make some sound assumptions on minimum power recovery from the hydrogen. Good luck on this project, it sounds like quite an interesting undertaking. I should restate though, I still think the real source of power in this whole equation is to harness the heat differential of a ocean vent directly. Every time you convert energy you lose some, and losses brings up the $/kWh.
Great research thus far!
~Dingus Mungus
Nod too many energy state conversions make things very inefficient very fast, however a 10' model wouldn't do much. The principle that would allow this to work is the amount of gas expansion due to the fact the volume doubles at certain depths, 33' is the first. I will have to find a more feasable proof of concept. To the board for some ideas, first would have to be hho production under pressure.
Should be simple to test... If you can get a vessel good for wide psi range.
Fill a vessel with a liter of water and put it under 100psi of pressure, run the
electrolyzer for 10 min, then depressurize and check remaining water volume.
Then put it under vacuum and repeat the process. You'll should quickly know
if pressure is benifitial to electrolysis or not. I assume yes via Gibbs of FE.
Good luck on your experiments,
~Dingus Mungus
This is a beautiful idea, I had a similar one I posted before realizing this was here, only I was using compressed air to make a "perpetual airbag engine". Basically just a long rope with airbags (like the type you salvage wreckage with) and a big compressor on the surface filling air tanks. The airbags inflate at the bottom, compress air all the way to the top, deflate for the return trip (carrying a fresh tank of air).
This idea is much more fun, the idea of using split water (hydrogen/oxygen) to produce the lift gas is genius. You don't have to worry about drag on the return buckets either, they physically dont have to be connected to the return rope. Consider if they are heavy enough to sink and turned loose (attached to a pair of guide cables but allowed to freely sink along them, not interfering with the lifting buckets cable at all). You could easily place a clamp on the attatchment point for the lift cable, that releases for the trip to the depths. Once at the bottom they can clamp back onto the "lift" portion of the cable (the looped cable powering a generator). Poof, constant stream of buckets producing nothing but pure lift on the cable for thousands upon thousands of feet.
The best part is when the hydrogen/oxygen gets to the surface you can burn it to recover most of the energy needed to create it in the first place, no need for a big hydrogen fuel cell (burned hydrogen doesn't pollute, it becomes water again). If you could build this at -any- scale you would be producing free limitless power. Gotta be something I'm missing about this idea.....
Thoughts?
Ncin
I think you pretty much nailed it, I like the addition of disconnecting the air trap system. If you did that you could put a thousand air traps in the circuit and have them stack up on a queing system down below and as the lift chain passed it picks up a air trap, or two, and begins its ascent, This would allow for air traps to be taken out of the system for servicing without affecting the production line. Another bonus is this system does not have to be of rigid construction, it could be made of linked sections with chain guides built into them allowing for movement of tide and current without breaking anything. Think of something like a mechanical version of giant kelp, a weight at the bottom and a balloon of sorts at the top, the link system in between and a chain fed through it all. I like this idea more every time I think about it. Only problem is it would be a huge cost (from our point of view) to get it up and running, anyone know someway to get a grant?:)
You would need to build a small scale prototype or proof of concept, then if it showed high efficiency people would fund your research, but untill you have something more than a concept I wouldn't hold my breath when it comes to grants. I'm still under the assumption that some simple resistance drag calculations on your bucket design you'll see a major portion of the lift will be consumed, so while it will move, it won't carry much load. Also burning hydrogen results in lower energy recovery. PEM FC is one of the most efficent mediums for hydrogen conversion to electricity we can get.
~Dingus Mungus
P.S. The heat differential of a vent would run dozens of heat differential motors.
Well if we want to talk about heat differencial engines why don't we strap a bunch of stirlings to volcanos? Well I guess if one wanted to test the idea, 35 feet should be enough with 2 times the expansion.
I posted this in the shuttle thread - I got diverted...
Seems like you've covered some of this already...
But I want a ridged design ( or flexible tubing anyway...)
You guys are crazy...
;)
Alright...
So you get a small volume (little balloon) at the bottom of the ocean (I'd go with 2 balloons - one for hydrogen, one for oxygen so that you can better utilize them when they reach the top of the line...)
I'd place the conveyors inside tubes to that any gasses released by the balloons would rise inside the tube for harnessing at the surface (in some kind of complex processing plant or... whatever)
The water in the tube is going to be moving in the direction of your balloons - set up some kind of spill over waterwheel for processing of this "wasted" energy.
As the balloons rise, they will expand further as pressure decreases.
You must allow for this so the balloons don't POP. Some kind of diaphragm would probably be best - get a bead of gas pushing the diaphragm upwards, inflating it somewhat... with an open bottom so the excess gas can flow out around the diaphragm inside the tube....
As Pressure decreases and the balloon expands, buoyancy will increase...
Assuming this is used as a means of lifting water (with buckets, or simple....ier... the water the diaphragms displace and move upwards with their motion...) and this water being used to turn a waterwheel......
Even if the lifting of the water is only 10 feet or so.... it'll be enough to run over a waterwheel and create more electricity/usable energy...
At the very least, it'll be a constant downward pressure on the down side of the top 10 feet or so of the mechanism....
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 16, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
Well if we want to talk about heat differencial engines why don't we strap a bunch of stirlings to volcanos? Well I guess if one wanted to test the idea, 35 feet should be enough with 2 times the expansion.
Air breathing volcanos suffer from a much weaker dfferential...
The oceans floor is 2-6 degrees from freezing most of the time,
and a hell of a lot closer to the magma chamber then on land.
But geothermal conversion via dry volcanic heat would drive a
huge steam turbine given the chance. The tough part for a
dry volcano is the heat pockets can move through the strata.
So after so much work is done, the thermal pocket goes cool,
and the magna would push where there was less resistance.
I won't say the bouyency device wouldn't work, but it requires
input to function... I'm just looking for similar ideas with no input.
Sorry if I am being distracting in any way. I just enjoy bouncing
concepts like these off other knowledgeable researchers in hopes
of stumbling on to something we've never even imagined seperately.
~Dingus Mungus
I agree that underwater vents have a tremendous amount of power, One thing that makes me hesitate, is the depth at which the station would have to be, and the difficulties that lay within that.
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 17, 2007, 11:41:47 PM
I agree that underwater vents have a tremendous amount of power, One thing that makes me hesitate, is the depth at which the station would have to be, and the difficulties that lay within that.
You got me there...
But any structure at that depth will suffer similar strains.
We really just need some numbers to crunch from a prototype.
Thirty five feet tall is just so damn big...
I think once you can see the energy generated by the bouyency in ratio to the engery cost of HHO production, we'll have a more sturdy footing in our discussion.
~Dingus Mungus
Here is what I have figured so far.
One liter of water weighs about 2.2 lbs. That means for ever liter of water displaced we are going to have a force of 2.2 lbs. pushing the hydrogen to the surface. We now have a force.
Work is the product of the force and the distance through which a body is moved by that force. It is expressed in joules, ergs, foot-pounds, BTU, and kilowatt-hour. One foot-pound of work or energy equals .0003766 Watt-hours of energy.
If we take 1 liter of hydrogen gas at 1 atm. and put it under 32ft. of water we have doubled the pressure. Our hydrogen is now under twice the pressure and it's volume will be half of what it was on the surface. Our original liter of hydrogen is now under 2 atm. of pressure is half the volume and will displace 1.1 lbs. of water.
If it travels upward for one foot it produces 1.1 ft.-lbs. of energy. Now it's volume is greater because it is under less pressure. The pressure is going to decrease by 3.125% per foot. So after one foot we are at 31 feet under water and 1.9375 atm. The volume is .516129 liters. For our next foot we can expect 1.35 lbs. of force. Etcetera, etcetera.
Calculating it this way I've figured that you can get about 48.25 foot-pounds of energy, which is about .01817 watt-hours. This is a much more accurate figure than the 36 ft-lbs. I calculated earlier. (I don't know calculus so I have to learn as I go.)
I've read that modern electrolyzers can produce 1 liter of hydrogen with 1 watt-hour of energy.
I don't think that one could achieve over unity this way as I think the pressure would have to double 35 times. (2^35 = 34 billion atm.)
With that said, you can still get more energy than you would other wise with strait electrolysis. Also you could use a heavier liquid. With mercury you would only need
28.25in. instead of 32ft. You could also bubble the H2 through a tube, like a percolater to lift your liquid.
Anyway... I'm tired. Good night all.
Hey angry, good to see you again. I love it when equations are somehow wrong, let me give you an example, a 12v 5a motor outputs 1 foot pound. Say you run it for 1 second, it would output 1ft*lbs/1sec of power= watts (according to online conversions) so 1ft*lbs/s = 60watts?!?!?! And yet ft*lbs = watthours (according to online conversions) so the same motor would yield 1 = .0166667watthours ((60w*1hour)/3600 seconds). WOW I made 60=1=.016667 I am a math genius. Something is wrong with those equations. how can ft*lbs/second=watt and ft*lbs=watthours . So I will have evaluate this further.
Quote from: angryScientist on July 20, 2007, 03:03:09 AM
Here is what I have figured so far.
One liter of water weighs about 2.2 lbs. That means for ever liter of water displaced we are going to have a force of 2.2 lbs. pushing the hydrogen to the surface. We now have a force.
Work is the product of the force and the distance through which a body is moved by that force. It is expressed in joules, ergs, foot-pounds, BTU, and kilowatt-hour. One foot-pound of work or energy equals .0003766 Watt-hours of energy.
If we take 1 liter of hydrogen gas at 1 atm. and put it under 32ft. of water we have doubled the pressure. Our hydrogen is now under twice the pressure and it's volume will be half of what it was on the surface. Our original liter of hydrogen is now under 2 atm. of pressure is half the volume and will displace 1.1 lbs. of water.
If it travels upward for one foot it produces 1.1 ft.-lbs. of energy. Now it's volume is greater because it is under less pressure. The pressure is going to decrease by 3.125% per foot. So after one foot we are at 31 feet under water and 1.9375 atm. The volume is .516129 liters. For our next foot we can expect 1.35 lbs. of force. Etcetera, etcetera.
Calculating it this way I've figured that you can get about 48.25 foot-pounds of energy, which is about .01817 watt-hours. This is a much more accurate figure than the 36 ft-lbs. I calculated earlier. (I don't know calculus so I have to learn as I go.)
I've read that modern electrolyzers can produce 1 liter of hydrogen with 1 watt-hour of energy.
I don't think that one could achieve over unity this way as I think the pressure would have to double 35 times. (2^35 = 34 billion atm.)
With that said, you can still get more energy than you would other wise with strait electrolysis. Also you could use a heavier liquid. With mercury you would only need
28.25in. instead of 32ft. You could also bubble the H2 through a tube, like a percolater to lift your liquid.
Anyway... I'm tired. Good night all.
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. :D :D :D
I have been wrong many times before and it has taught me one thing; There is no doubt that I can be wrong again.
My TI-85 says 1 ftlb/s = 1.35581794833 Watts and is POWER.
And 1 ft-lb = .000376616096759 W-hrs and is ENERGY
This may not make much sense to me, right now, but I believe ENERGY does not have a time component and POWER does. By the way, I don't understand how W-hrs does not have a time component. Although, Watts does have time built into it... (time + time = no time) ??? ??? ??? (I don't understand)
Anyway I need to get some energy because tomorrow I have to go fight a fire. Good luck all.
Sorry, one more.
My calc says 12V*5A = 60W = 44.2537289566 ftlb/sec
Foot pounds
Foot pounds per second
???
Or this one...
32ft. per second squared
How do you square time!?!?!?!?!?
squared time is actually easy. miles= distance miles/time= speed miles/time2=acceleration
but there is a massive problem with voltagesXAmps=ftXlbs/time
in order to have a functioning equation all units have to be balanced.
there is a difference between a primary equation (distance/time=speed)
and a conversion equation like we are dealing with miles=kilometers distance=distance
miles/second=kilometers/second I don't understand this like I said I will have to run the complete conversion step by step.
But at 1.65 lbs ave lift for 33 feet = 54.45 ftlbs in 33 seconds = 1.65 ftXlbs/seconds X 20 buckets = 33ftXlbs/seconds=44.7watts X 33 seconds = 1476watt seconds or 161084.75 watthours Using their equations
But at 1.65 lbs ave lift for 33 feet = 54.45 ftlbs in 33 seconds = 1.65 ftXlbs/seconds X 20 buckets = 33ftXlbs/seconds=44.7watts X 33 seconds = 1476watt seconds or 161084.75 watthours Using their equations
Where did you get 33 seconds from? Does hydrogen rise at 33ft/sec?
What about:
1.65lbs of lift x distance from shaft X 20 buckets = total constant torque
Then just add water resistance for total output to shaft.
I can simulate this concept in WM2D I think...
~Dingus Mungus
Air rises in water about 1 ft per second, thats also the fastest you want to ascend from a dive, else nitrogen bubbles (the bends) and other problems. if you extend the arm on the bucket it would only make a difference on a radius, the bucket would still go up in a single direction. wm2d would be cool, I don't know its abilities. The only way I can understand ftxlbs to watthours, is if they used a hp to torque during time equation. honestly I don't think it works out well so lefts try to approach it from a different angle.