Overunity.com Archives

Generating electricity from water and air or the remain Gases that go out from factories or from huge power generatours ( instead of water fall on turbines and move it in water dams - air or gases is instead of water ) air go up in water. It will work by turning the wheels producing electricity with use of the new technology of turbines and generators.

it need power to brimg the water DOWN against the pressure (weight) of the water-tank.

If you have this power as air pressure, you can better drive einairturbine on an axe from elecitiy generator....
GP
This "themazic"  was discussed many time in OU

Pese thank you so much for your leave me the comment. i dont know when or where this idea was discussed and realy i dont know what is OU if you have E-mail for them i can contact them or if they have a web site i can visit it and read those discusions. i need more information to know if this idea can work or not . i have this idea since March 2007 and i have post it in this web site which can you see the date of puplishing in it http://www.business-idea.com/ShowPosting.asp?ID=2290 .
Lets talk about the power needed to bring the water down . i dont need any power to bring the water down in the tanks becouse the tank movement as you can see it cary air and air bush it up and the preasure of the air move the wheels which cary the tanks so the tanks after it reless the air it go down filled with water normaly becouse its empty insaid . so i dont need any power to bring the water insaid the tank becouse its natural . from that movement . the wheel give movement to air pump which bush the air in pips to fill the tanks again with air and also it give generators to generate electricty. pls leave comment again so i can correct my self or streanth some ideas about it. Thanks again and best wishes

I see that buoyancy drives are generating a lot of interest lately.
Unfortunately that is all they will generate.

Please see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm) and the other pages concerning buoyancy drives on the same site.

Why is Simanek's analysis wrong? First you must say why he is wrong, before you can claim that your (identical) device will work.

Buoyancy is just gravity, under water. The complexities of buoyancy hide what should be quite evident: these are just gravity wheels, and don't work for much the same reasons that gravity wheels don't work.

I'm not trying to be a rabid debunker, it's just that I hate to see creative and intelligent people wasting their time and effort on ideas that are 1) old 2) have been tried many times before and 3) cannot work from first principles.

Imagine what your creative effort could have produced, if only you had not gone down this dead-end path.

Quote from: Farid on November 14, 2008, 02:32:41 PM
Pese thank you so much for your leave me the comment. i dont know when or where this idea was discussed and realy i dont know what is OU if you have E-mail for them i can contact them or if they have a web site i can visit it and read those discusions. i need more information to know if this idea can work or not . i have this idea since March 2007 and i have post it in this web site which can you see the date of puplishing in it http://www.business-idea.com/ShowPosting.asp?ID=2290 .
Lets talk about the power needed to bring the water down . i dont need any power to bring the water down in the tanks becouse the tank movement as you can see it cary air and air bush it up and the preasure of the air move the wheels which cary the tanks so the tanks after it reless the air it go down filled with water normaly becouse its empty insaid . so i dont need any power to bring the water insaid the tank becouse its natural . from that movement . the wheel give movement to air pump which bush the air in pips to fill the tanks again with air and also it give generators to generate electricty. pls leave comment again so i can correct my self or streanth some ideas about it. Thanks again and best wishes

On Internet you find most of the needed information
(aslo some unwanted - an nothing over surpressed knowledges as fee energy)

So if you need some good information over your work:
Go on to ov this Overunity.com Side.
you find an SEACH-Field
you put in the right. Detail in
make your X on Overunity (not at Google)

I done this for you.
Please klick here and you find all of this Technology

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.overunity.com&q=Buoyancy+&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.overunity.com&client=pub-2734280293205008&forid=1&channel=6216229028&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0000&sig=9MMmaVuXZs6964HO&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

.
In this area i am not so involved as you , so this links, can you better help , as an discussing with me
G.Pese

Possibly ... at last ... The "Quinessenz" will be.
You need same (even mor) power to bring the air under water (so deeper - so more power)
so this are can give power back with bubbling to the top of the water, and move some spun or other parts

Pese Thank you again for share me the talk about the idea . i have seen the link that you type this link belong to AB Hammer and i have notice that he also make a copyright to him for this idea with Two designs with date of 10-11-2008. if you visit that link http://www.business-idea.com/ShowPosting.asp?ID=2290 you can read the date of buplishing which shows 11 May 2007 and thats the day that i buplish this idea through that link and one of his designs is a tipecal copy of my desgin eccept its drawen by hand.
Dear friends i am reading all the articals and i am learning . this idea maybe it will never work but i think if some one have the money to make it we will know for real if it can work or no. Its not easy to belive that pepole can have energy free but maybe they can.
Thanks again and best wishes

From the Simanek link:
"This figure shows what happens as one piston goes over the top and the other one crosses over at the bottom. We assume that this wheel was turning counterclockwise. The next thing that will happen is that the top weight will cause its piston to decrease its volume, while the bottom one will cause its piston to increase its volume. In so doing, the bottom one forces water out its open end, and the top one takes water into its open end. This process causes a volume of water to move from the bottom to the top (schematically shown by the curved arrow). This requires work, as is always the case when mass is moved to a higher position against the force due to gravity. And guess, what? The work required to do this is exactly equal to the work done by the Buoyant forces (in the idealized case, with no dissipative processes to lose energy), just as we found in the detailed analysis."
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%7Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fthemes%2Fpiston2c.gif&hash=8287dfa1e585f065c54a99540172a4af6b877cab)

Now, all you buoyancy motor experimenters: Just what is wrong with Simanek's analysis, and why doesn't it apply to your design???

"you can read the date of buplishing which shows 11 May 2007 and thats the day that i buplish this idea through that link and one of his designs is a tipecal copy of my desgin eccept its drawen by hand."

Sounds like you are claiming priority for your design.
The following is from Martin Gardner's Scientific American column from 1972:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%7Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fthemes%2Fgardnerm.gif&hash=b6a010b46431c288fdfe18b5f30d88792c4cac24)
And then there's this patent:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%7Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fthemes%2Fddiamond.gif&hash=f6376e0e199bf3ddea781cdd043923a3fb91fd09)
And "sponge wheels" using essentially the same idea are know from drawings at least 200 years old.
Note if the wheel won't turn on its own using the methods in these drawings, there certainly won't be any power available to run an air compressor or a generator in your modified design.

TinselKoala Thanks share me the talk

Dear i dont see any conection here between the idea itself and pistons becouse this idea dont use pistons insaid there mechanical structure . can you exeplain to me more your thought pls.

Thanks

TinselKoala

I didnt see the last two pictures that you add becouse of the net connection . i have seen them and i am not here to fight about who own what . i have seen in the secound picture that the creater use balls insaid and offcourse it will be all balanced becouse of grafity and that will never work . the theered picture its the same of main and i didnt see that one before but its defrent from the idea that i post here. why? becouse he connected the jaz tanks with each other and that also make balance  so it will never make any energy or movement. the problem is how to bush air from up to down and i think that problem can be delt with useing new turbain technologies . forgive me all becouse of my bad english languge . its not my mother tung .

thanks TinselKoalaand pls comment again and again

Greetings Farid

(I also posted this on my string)

  Nice drawing,  that type I would call a bubble catcher. It is a bit different from mine for mine don't catch bubbles at all. Their are allot of buoyancy devices with similar looks that go back hundreds of years. Mine is the first to use the anti buoyancy approach with bubbles. The none bubble side has full buoyancy for the lift.

Have you built yours to give it a try? I build all mine that have a real possibility. So until I build it, I will not know if I can overcome what is needed to work. Just like with your drawing, you will not know until it is built weather it works or not.

By the way welcome to the forum, I enjoy talking to inventive minds. It brings life to the forum.

Dear AB Hammer

Thanks for share the talk about the idea. i have look at the first picture in your strig and finnaly i figer it out . your tanks are closed and full of air so its defrent from the idea that i posted here or in my other link Business-idea . i hope that we can work togather in makeing our hunger for reality become a fact . to know if we realy can make it or not

I thank you again and i apologize for any inconvenient i coused

Best wishes
Farid

(I also posted this on my string)

Quote from: Farid on November 14, 2008, 03:37:28 PM
Pese Thank you again for share me the talk about the idea . i have seen the link that you type this link belong to AB Hammer and i have notice that he also make a copyright to him for this idea with  Dear friends i am reading all the articals and i am learning . this idea maybe it will never work but i think if some one have the money to make it we will know for real if it can work or no. Its not easy to belive that people can have energy free but maybe they can.
Thanks again and best wishes

Fine. I have think also specially on Mr Hammer .That have done some "inputs" here. I think in 2006 or 07 was an long tred with hundreds  Inputs over  month discussed here in Overunity. I think sombody will remember to discussed here and give you here the link also. That will you give NEW IDEAS , and knowledges wat is better "not to do" (ore some changes in construction)

Pese

Farid, if you have some external source of high-pressure air, then your bucket chain wheel will turn, of course, and you can make it turn a generator or another air compressor. But, because of the water's viscous losses, it would be much more efficient to use the high-pressure air to drive a turbine directly.
You have to consider, that what ever method you use, pistons, bellows, pumps, balloons, etcetera, you are moving that same volume of water around, as you also move your bucket chain. This costs work--just as much as you get from the buoyancy change in the first place. There isn't any left over to move external mechanisms, and since there are always frictional losses, the mechanism comes to a stop.
Unless, of course, you supply it with an external source of energy, like compressed air from a different compressor.

 If you can get a air pocket to produce more air pressure from it's flow from the bottom to the top then the air pressure used to create the air pocket when it is at the bottom then it can be done but to do so, you have to break the laws of physics which has not been proven done so yet but it doesn't mean it cant be done. The problem I come across is that the pressure equals out so that when you build up pressure, it stops the air pocket from flowing upward because the pressures equal out.
The problem with trying to run a generator off the movement is the same and it to equals out and it cant be done because the generator would have to create more resistance then the resistance required to create the air pocket under pressure. If you could build a generator and or air pump that was 100% efficient, you could only create a steady perpetual motion that would eventually stop when a load is added. If you can get it to work and have available work left over, the generator and or the pump would have to be over 100% efficient and the whole air water design would not be necessary because you would only need the pump or generator and there would be a lot easier ways to use them then using air pockets in water.

You have to have enough free movement to create more then the energy used to create the movement. The only thing I have thought of that could possibly work is a upgraded Bedini design which I have posted in another thread. Magnets are what makes that possible.   
Another way would be to tap in to the earths natural energy currents but that is going to take a lot of thinking and experimenting to figure out. Tesla was said have figured it out but his recorded work has been tampered with and a lot of his notes have been lost. It was said that in his last years that he never recorded anything and kept it all to himself which is what we need to know about the most.

Sorry to bust any bubbles here but that is the way it is unless you can prove otherwise but keep what have said in mind before wasteing to much time like I and many others have.

OK I have 2 ideas about this.

1) Instead of upturned buckets to catch the waste hot air, maybe something like a parachute that would expand to catch the air going up then at the top  would collapse and be "brought " back down the loop by pulling from the point to make sure the chute stays closed, then something at the bottom to allow it to open up again.

This way the drag on the down swing would be much less than the pointed bucket.

Also,
2) If a bucket is used, a device or design that allows the bucket to close just before going up and then open for the downward trip should work too.

Jeanna

@all;

There is an easy way to see that this type of machine will not function
because there is no energy gain.

Draw an imaginary boundary around the containers going down, Draw a second
one around the containers going up, Draw a third around the containers at the
bottom of loop. Label them "A","B", and "C". In "A" the buoyant energy is negative
and the containers are dropping. In "B" the containers are *emitting* buoyant energy
and going up. And due to conservation of energy principle in "C" the containers are receiving
all of the potential energy they are going to be emitting in "B".

So the laws are;

a) an object is buoyed up with the weight of the fluid it displaces
...but...
b) an object that changes it's displacement at depth has to lift the weight of
whole column of fluid above it, which is quite heavy.

So this machine has no gain and friction will slow it to a stop.

---

On the machine with the hoses,

a) the operation in the bottom reservoir occurs at pressure p while at the top it occurs at pressure
p' p'>>p so the hose will see a vacuum because of the pressure difference and the vacuum will
keep the weight inside the container.

b) If one were somehow to link containers side-by-side, one would see that ones needs to
supply two things. Energy from the top and hydraulic fluid from the top.

---

There are three things you can do to make the analysis easier.

a)  Use a mechanism that is entirely submerged below the top level of the fluid.
Like yours is.

b) Use two different density fluids which are incompressible
rather than gases which are compressible. For example, liquid metal mercury and vegetable oil.

c) make the container and piston "square" to form a rectangular footprint
for calculating the volume of fluid in the column above the container.

:S:MarkSCoffman

@farid
i had eactly the same idea months ago,unfortunately it takes eactly the same amount of energy to pump air as u get back from the machine.Many others also had it on ou .I made a model and calculations.Air pump has to push up the water volume equivalent to air volume.Pressure rises with depth.

Ok;

Just because the gravity column contains no gain. Is that a reason to give up?
No...not in my opinion. Several different sub-systems involved with the original diagram
shown could have overunity gain themselves, even if the column doesn't. It simply means
that the simplified diagrams machines with the hoses cannot self run.

a) If the "air nozzle" injects "cold air" into containers and we put an "energy meter"
right at the nozzle, we would see that some of the buoyant energy is coming
from the air is via absorbing heat from the liquid column, and not all of the energy is
necessarily coming through the nozzle. Note; the diagram then is somewhat incorrect, if
this is the case and the air bubble in the container should be shown as expanding (but
not overflowing) as the containers rise, as well as there should be heat-sink fins on the
liquid column to showing heat is able to flow in from outside the column rather than being
insulated.

b) To produce a self running system with (a) above, though, you are going to need an
air compressor that can re-absorb the heat of compressing the air itself. A special form
of air compressor is required.

Or

c) One can use something called a "shock air injection valve" rather than an "air nozzle",
these can reputedly put air into a compressed environment with less energy than a nozzle can,
- creating gain.

d) One can also produce Dynamotor gain. This is where one uses a open core rotor electric
motor (like a stepper motor) with a permanent PM magnet stator field. If one drives this in
pulse "fly-back mode" one seems to be able to get overunity gain electrically.

The combination of gain of a+b and d for example may be able to overcome frictional losses
in the column and make a self running system or beyond. But, these features are not shown
in the original diagram.

:S:MSCoffman

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 14, 2008, 10:17:59 PM
Farid, if you have some external source of high-pressure air, then your bucket chain wheel will turn, of course, and you can make it turn a generator or another air compressor. But, because of the water's viscous losses, it would be much more efficient to use the high-pressure air to drive a turbine directly.
You have to consider, that what ever method you use, pistons, bellows, pumps, balloons, etcetera, you are moving that same volume of water around, as you also move your bucket chain. This costs work--just as much as you get from the buoyancy change in the first place. There isn't any left over to move external mechanisms, and since there are always frictional losses, the mechanism comes to a stop.
Unless, of course, you supply it with an external source of energy, like compressed air from a different compressor.

Dear Tinsel Koala, Thank you again for your thoughts and help.
I have read carefully your comment and i want to exeplain Two things.
1- The Number of buckets which hold the air is not limited so you can add 30 or 40 or 50 or 1000 Bucket on the row so if the water resestancy yoou can have 10 buckets and movement of the machen parts you can have 10 Buckets and for generators of electricity and air pumps movement you can add another 20 and another 20 for the plus electricity which will be used in houses or schools or what ever
2- to make the resestancy of water less we can add a heater to the water to make the water hot all the time and offcourse if the water is on high tempruter his resestance will be much less than if its in normal tempruture
Thank you and i will exeplan more on my comeing repalies to the comments

Dear friends i am sorry i couldnt answer any comments from many days becouse of network problems i have.
Thanks and best regards
Farid

Quote from: nightlife on November 14, 2008, 11:35:04 PM
If you can get a air pocket to produce more air pressure from it's flow from the bottom to the top then the air pressure used to create the air pocket when it is at the bottom then it can be done but to do so, you have to break the laws of physics which has not been proven done so yet but it doesn't mean it cant be done. The problem I come across is that the pressure equals out so that when you build up pressure, it stops the air pocket from flowing upward because the pressures equal out.
The problem with trying to run a generator off the movement is the same and it to equals out and it cant be done because the generator would have to create more resistance then the resistance required to create the air pocket under pressure. If you could build a generator and or air pump that was 100% efficient, you could only create a steady perpetual motion that would eventually stop when a load is added. If you can get it to work and have available work left over, the generator and or the pump would have to be over 100% efficient and the whole air water design would not be necessary because you would only need the pump or generator and there would be a lot easier ways to use them then using air pockets in water.

You have to have enough free movement to create more then the energy used to create the movement. The only thing I have thought of that could possibly work is a upgraded Bedini design which I have posted in another thread. Magnets are what makes that possible.  
Another way would be to tap in to the earths natural energy currents but that is going to take a lot of thinking and experimenting to figure out. Tesla was said have figured it out but his recorded work has been tampered with and a lot of his notes have been lost. It was said that in his last years that he never recorded anything and kept it all to himself which is what we need to know about the most.

Sorry to bust any bubbles here but that is the way it is unless you can prove otherwise but keep what have said in mind before wasteing to much time like I and many others have.

Dear nightlife Thank you so much for your contributing and thoughts and allow me to share you so points.
1- Thats true that to generate electricity from a generatore you need a great deal of horse power but lets look to the other side . Water vs Air . air under water is imposable. Air will make any thing to go up to air . and thats why they left the drowning ships by using air . as much big the Bucket size will be is more horse power you will take from it and its not 1 Bucket . its many buckets filled with Air and straggling strongly to go up . using new generators technology and new air injections technology will make the waste of power more less . thats what i think about that issue
2- as i comment before if you need 20% from the effort for machen movement so you can add 10 buckets to balance the needed and the power supplied . if you need 20% for the generators of electricity and air pumps you can add 20 Buckets for that reason and go on.

Thank you and best regards
Farid

Quote from: jeanna on November 15, 2008, 01:27:45 PM
OK I have 2 ideas about this.

1) Instead of upturned buckets to catch the waste hot air, maybe something like a parachute that would expand to catch the air going up then at the top  would collapse and be "brought " back down the loop by pulling from the point to make sure the chute stays closed, then something at the bottom to allow it to open up again.

This way the drag on the down swing would be much less than the pointed bucket.

Also,
2) If a bucket is used, a device or design that allows the bucket to close just before going up and then open for the downward trip should work too.

Jeanna

Dear Jeanna, Thank you for sharing with us the talk and thoughts about the idea.
i have think in what you have mentioned in my first days in that idea. the problem that it i cant use pallons because i have to attach every balloon with air pipe and thats allot of waste in power which needed . and if i make this thought on buckets it will need allot of mechanical parts which will be more load on the machine and that will need more power to move it put i will think it over.
i found that the easiest way is depending on water dynamic shape so the bucket must carry allot of air in his way up and when it go down he should have a dynamic head to go smoothly in water with less possible Resistance from water
i found that in the sharped shape of the pyramid bucket
Thank you again dear and please comment again and share us more thought
Best regards
Farid

Dear mscoffman, Thank you for study this idea with a carefull way and share your knowledge with us.
i agree in many points with you but also i disagree with some.

1- there is energy gained
In "A" the buoyant energy is negative thats true but don't forget the dynamic shape of the buckets and that shape will make the buoyant negative energy much much less than using flat shape.

In "B" the containers are *emitting* buoyant energy and going up. but as i mentioned before . the power of air to go up in water is very very strong power and the dynamic shape of the bucket will increase much much more the used part of that power so you will have more power available than the power needed to the machine movement

a) an object is buoyed up with the weight of the fluid it displaces. (hat is what i use to generate the energy)

b) an object that changes it's displacement at depth has to lift the weight of whole column of fluid above it, which is quite heavy. thats correct but also i like to remained you that the bucket shape is not flat . its a dynamic shape like a pyramid . so the water resestant will be much less around the bucket movement up or down
2- to use fluids instead of water and air will stop the movement of the machen because the power that taken from air to go up in water is much much more than the power go out using two fluids and it will be much expenceve for pepole to maintain the use of that idea because if water finish because of the heat or the outsaid wind or the sun . all the user can do is just feel more water from his tape and water is less less expensive than any other fluid and i was thinking if you want to use that idea in generating huge amount of electricity for street lightning or city use then you will need a bigger bucket sizes and bigger generatours and off course a bigger water container and that will be hard so maybe a spot insaide the sea can be used for that . huge size machen under sea can work to give electricity for streets light in a small city. Using other kind of fluids will make the use of the idea very very limited

The buckets shape must be dynamic and i agree with you in that also

Thank you again and best regards
farid

You're still trying to pump air down against the water pressure,
then using that same air to produce the power to pump the
air down...
In an ideal situation without friction and other losses it might
be possible to move an equal amount of air down as moves
up, and come out with a net zero energy gain/loss.
But in a real situation you'll experience friction losses in every
mechanical part, plus compression of the air (pumping it)
should cause thermal losses too, and in the end the energy
that you need to pump an X amount of air down to 10 meters
will be significantly more than the energy that you can collect
from air bubbles/containers floating upward from 10m down.

Gravity/buoyancy wheels are terribly interesting, which would explain
why people have been thinking about various designs for milennia.
(The ancient Indians already had such designs, for example.)

I haven't seen any working designs yet, though. ;)

@ Farid

Quote
1- there is energy gained
In "A" the buoyant energy is negative thats true but don't forget the dynamic shape of the buckets and that shape will make the buoyant negative energy much much less than using flat shape.

.......

b) an object that changes it's displacement at depth has to lift the weight of whole column of fluid above it, which is quite heavy. thats correct but also i like to remained you that the bucket shape is not flat . its a dynamic shape like a pyramid . so the water resestant will be much less around the bucket movement up or down

r u aware of the fact that the water resistance seats on top of the negative bouyancy energy? with other words,ANY shape will just increase drag when moving it through the water.So perfect aerodynamic shape underwater won't subtract any energy from negative bouyancy,in fact it will just add up to the negative bouyancy.Of course aerodynamic shape will cause less drag than flat,but just less doesn't make it 0 or negative drag to compensate the negative bouyancy.

I recently saw a similar sytem proposed, where the air was contained in the buckets.
A weight acting as piston or similar feature on each buckets would on the way down be compressing the gas chamber, reducing total bucket volume. On the way up, the weight would be pulling on the air pocket, expanding it.
Adjusted properly, it's easy to thing that as long as the bucket's density is greater than water going down, and less when going up, you'd have perpetual motion.

Could a test with a single bucket already verify the function of the eventual device?
Say, a supple oversided gas-tight cover on a bucket, with a valve to administer extra water as needed. A weight attached to the center of the cover, so it will not remove itself, and use its weight to enhance bucket volume. Submerge, adjust cover size, water content and weight, and see if turning it upside down offers the desired effect.
We'd be looking for the most significant density differences, on either side of 1kg/l.

Using air bubble I'm afraid will not easily work for reasons offered: it needs to be compressed to get tot the required depth. Far-fetched idea such as under-pressurized steam machines come to mind to come up with bubbles of some kind. Not easy, small change of success.

An eventual prototype might need to be enclosed rather than in open water, to channel water flow and reduce viscosity losses.

why not have the water in a massive bucket and have holes in the bottom to fill expandable containers?

makes a bit more sense, why pump air down through water when you can suck it up from the bottom.

To make it work you need phase transition.
E.g. if you use liquid air or electrolize to create bubles ;-)

currently homless, trying to get back to the uk, will start build once there