Air Buoyancy Machine
Build yourself a 1000 ft. high tower. Make a continuous column of tanks on both sides of the tower. The tanks on one side of the tower are lighter than the air they displace and will rise.
The Tanks.
The tanks are cylinders with a diameter of about 10 ft. the tanks on the up side would be filled with a gas lighter than air. Each tank would have a compressor/turbine, a generator/electric motor and a separate tank to store the compressed gas. The weight of the tanks on the up side is exactly the same as the tanks on the down side, the only difference is the weight of the gas in the tank.
Method of Operation
Allow the tanks that are lighter than air to float up doing work, when the tanks get to the top use the compressor to pump the lighter than air gas into the separate storage tank. The tank than fills up with air and will sink. The compressed lighter than air gas will give back some of the energy it took to compress it at the bottom.
At the bottom release the compressed lighter than air gas using it to power a generator. Use the electricity produced to compress the lighter than air gas at the top.
Note: There needs to be a piston in the tank to keep the lighter than air gas separate from the air.
At my website http://bsandler.com there is a gravity powered machine similar to this except it operates under water. At my website click on the tab at the top of the page marked GRAVITY MACHINE # 2
Ah, Brian. Here we go again.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm)
Just consider two tanks for now, one on the rising side, one on the sinking side. Let the rising one rise, doing work. An equal volume of water sinks. This is where the work comes from. On the other side, a tank sinks. IT MUST DISPLACE AN EQUAL VOLUME OF WATER BACK UP. This takes exactly as much work as you got from the rising tank. However you do it! Whatever mechanism!! You must raise that water back up!! The taller the outer tank, the farther you must raise that water back up!!!!!
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%257Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fthemes%2Fstart1.gif&hash=3f0ea16186582a238b41131fcc73553573e3b118)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%257Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fthemes%2Farmand-r.gif&hash=90c8b1c489594184477f10fffb1d1d13384a0a5d)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhup.edu%2F%257Edsimanek%2Fmuseum%2Fserious%2Flever-w.gif&hash=5bf96bde1869dfe03315184152b9a6babd28d8b5)
(I like your hurricane eyewall vehicle idea, though...)
Here is my design.
Alien, your design also suffers from the flaw that I try to illustrate in the video below. When the ball enters the column through the trap, it must displace an equal volume of water UP. This takes work. How much? The same amount you get from letting the ball float to the top.
And then your system has many sources of loss. The pump, the gearing, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFO7OvcvUl0
When the ball enters the trap there is no water inside the trap. it has already been removed. When the door opens, the water comes in and the opposite door has closed. The actuator moves the ball over and the ball floats up. The force on the ball is the larger area, not the trap. The water displaced back out of the trap requires less force than the force generated by the ball moving the generator. Maybe you should look closer.
When you put the ball into the tank, it displaces an equal volume of water. Where does that water go? Ignoring the leakage into the trap, the water that the ball displaces makes the top level of the water rise. You have raised a volume of water from the bottom of the tank all the way to the top, just by pushing that ball in at the bottom. That takes work--an amount equal to the work obtained by letting the ball float to the top.
Now figure in the leakage into the trap. This must be pumped out, by the pump--all the way to the top of the tank. That takes work, and there isn't any balancing work coming in, so it is a total loss.
Maybe you should look closer.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of junk inventions out there. Just because there are junk inventions out there that does not mean my invention is juke.
Brain, you are clearly a creative guy. Your hurricane eyewall surfer is really cool. But your buoyancy engine has a very simple and clear flaw, as I have tried to show you in the video. If you read and try to understand the various analyses of buoyancy drives on the Simanek site I linked, you will probably be able to see that your idea isn't new, and it is functionally identical to those other drawings that you call "Junk inventions."
But even if you don't care to go over Simanek's analyses, you should really think about, and try to address, the point I make in the video above. How do you lift that water back up, without using up all the work you get from the floats?
Post your trash inventions somewhere else.
Post your trash inventions somewhere else.
Post your trash inventions somewhere else.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 01, 2008, 09:31:03 PM
When you put the ball into the tank, it displaces an equal volume of water. Where does that water go? Ignoring the leakage into the trap, the water that the ball displaces makes the top level of the water rise. You have raised a volume of water from the bottom of the tank all the way to the top, just by pushing that ball in at the bottom. That takes work--an amount equal to the work obtained by letting the ball float to the top.
Now figure in the leakage into the trap. This must be pumped out, by the pump--all the way to the top of the tank. That takes work, and there isn't any balancing work coming in, so it is a total loss.
Maybe you should look closer.
If I dropped someone down a sealed 1000 foot shaft into the ocean then locked down the bottom ten foot of that shaft and opened the bottom of it, would that person not feel a force greater than what it took for me to drop them in? Think about it... and no there is no overflow into the sealed section of my device.
I commend your efforts Brian, and I wish you the best of luck in further theory.
Any invention that does not work is junk.
Quote from: Alien509 on December 01, 2008, 09:40:35 PM
If I dropped someone down a sealed 1000 foot shaft into the ocean then locked down the bottom ten foot of that shaft and opened the bottom of it, would that person not feel a force greater than what it took for me to drop them in? Think about it... and no there is no overflow into the sealed section of my device.
I commend your efforts Brian, and I wish you the best of luck in further theory.
What does this have to do with anything? How much work did you do to get all the water out of your "sealed 1000 foot shaft into the ocean" in the first place?
And who mentioned overflow? Do you see any overflow in my video? Do you see any overflow mentioned in my posts?
When you put the ball in the tank, it displaces an equal volume of water.
This water either leaks out into the trap, or it raises the level in the main container.
If it leaks out into the trap, it must be raised back up by the pump, which takes work.
If it raises the level in the container, this takes work immediately (it's hard to push the ball into the tank.)
The work to raise this water is exactly the work you get from letting the ball float up through the tank.
And you have many losses in your mechanism.
What is so hard to understand about the above set of statements? If you want to argue that your device will work, you have to address these points. Does the ball displace water, and where does that water go?
I hope that someone reading my posts has the resources to build and test my inventions.
If they do, they will simply be wasting their time.
Do your cylinders displace water? When the cylinder sinks, what happens to the water it displaces?
Let me ask you this. Do you think the crushing force of water is the same at all depths of water. Why is it that a person wouldn't be crushed at 1 foot vs 1,000 foot?
The tower for the air buoyancy machine goes 1000 ft above the ground. There is no water involved.
Gravity Machine # 2 is submersed in 10 ft of water.
TinselKoala,
I read your posts, it appears you are looking at someone else’s machine.
GRAVITY MACHINE # 2 is completely submersed in water, no water gets lifted.
There is not any water in the tanks. None of the tanks are balls, all the tanks are cylinders.
Please look at my video again. When a sealed cylinder is moved downward in water, an equal volume of water MUST BE LIFTED.
Why is this so hard to understand? You can see it clearly in my video.
Quote from: Alien509 on December 01, 2008, 10:11:32 PM
Let me ask you this. Do you think the crushing force of water is the same at all depths of water. Why is it that a person wouldn't be crushed at 1 foot vs 1,000 foot?
Let me ask you this: how are you going to push that ball into the tank, against all that crushing force? Where does the energy come from to do this?
Quote from: brian334 on December 02, 2008, 07:41:51 AM
The tower for the air buoyancy machine goes 1000 ft above the ground. There is no water involved.
Gravity Machine # 2 is submersed in 10 ft of water.
The materials don't matter. The principle is the same. And it won't work.
What is wrong with the detailed analysis of buoyancy devices on Simanek's site?
What is wrong with my demonstration in the video?
Please look at my video again. When a sealed cylinder is moved downward in water, an equal volume of water MUST BE LIFTED.
TinselKoala,
How much do my freefalling cylinders weight? Are you saying that something that is heaver than the liquid it displaces won’t sink?
No. Just as in my demonstration, I am saying that a "falling" cylinder must displace an equal volume of water--upward. There's no way around this. Look carefully at my video. Perhaps there will be an "Eureka! moment.
Buoyancy is a result of water, heavier than an object, falling under and thus lifting the object. The energy comes from the falling of the water. Thus, it is potential energy of a mass lifted in a gravitational field. There's nothing special, or even different, about buoyancy that could make it work in a gravity engine. You are still just lifting water and letting it fall back.
How much does water in water weight? The answer is nothing.
You lost me.
Obviously.
Try this:
Fill a basin with water. To the very top. Or draw a line at the top level of the water.
Now insert a hollow ball or pillbox like I did.
Push it right down into the water.
Did any overflow? Or did it go above your line?
So, you raised some water up by pushing the pillbottle down. This water WENT UP HIGHER than the original surface of the water.
It weighs what water weighs.
The difference between the weight of this water, DISPLACED UPWARD, and the weight of the pillbottle, is what we call "buoyancy." It is an effect of gravity. It is caused by the weight of the water displaced being heavier than the object displacing it.
Put some weights in the bottle so it is now heavier than water. Do the test again. Does the water rise up above your line? Yes, it still does. So by dropping the weighted bottle in the water, you are again RAISING an equal volume of water right up to the top of your basin, above the original level of the water before you dropped the bottle in.
O.K.
You try this, completely sink a tank and watch the water rise to your line. Than sink the same object a 100 more feet - how much will the water rise above your line?
Push the tank just under the water. It raises the water level above the line, because you have displaced the water upward.
Now push the tank one tank-dimension further under the water. Does the water rise any more above the line? No. But does water rise? Yes. The volume of water equal to the volume of the tank, must rise one tank-dimension up, to replace the space previously occupied by the tank.
Now push the tank one more tank-dimension under the water. Does the water rise any more above the line? No. But does water rise? Yes. The volume of water equal to the volume of the tank, must rise one tank-dimension up, to replace the space previously occupied by the tank.
Now push the tank yet one more tank-dimension under the water. Does the water rise any more above the line? No. But does water rise? Yes. The volume of water equal to the volume of the tank, must rise one tank-dimension up, to replace the space previously occupied by the tank.
Now keep going, until you get as deep as you want. Every time you move the tank downward, an equal volume of water must move upward. Water moving in water is neutrally buoyant, true, but you are not moving this water with water. You are moving it by displacing it with an object of different buoyancy. Hence work must be input.
I am not pushing the tanks down, the tanks are heavier than the liquid they displaces. The tanks sink all by themselves.
Ah, but they weigh LESS in the water than they do out of it. This difference is the Buoyancy. And it is due to the water displaced upward. The tank and its weights may be heavier than the water displaced--they have to be in order to sink. But the tank and its weights weigh less, by the weight of the water displaced, in the water than they do out of it.
How did you change the tank from being positively buoyant on the rising side, to negatively buoyant on the descending side? This cannot be done without doing work. You can't displace the water for free.
The lighter tanks rise, right? How do you think they do this? They do it because heavier water runs under them, displacing them upward. We see this as being a property of the light tank, but really it is a property of the water, which falls, to force the tank upward.
This process is reversed by the heavy sinking tanks on the way down.
Any work "done" by the rising tanks, is actually being done by the water falling into the space under the light tanks as they rise. And this work must be given back as the heavy tanks fall, raising water as they do so.
How did you change the tank from being positively buoyant on the rising side, to negatively buoyant on the descending side? This cannot be done without doing work. You can't displace the water for free.
Maybe you should go to my website http://bsandler.com and find out.
People that criticize things they don’t understand
Are people with big egos and little brains.
Quote from: brian334 on December 02, 2008, 04:13:36 PM
People that criticize things they don’t understand
Are people with big egos and little brains.
What about people who criticize things they do understand?
I looked at your website, particularly the hurricane machine, which you patented. Offtopic, but that is the worst patent I have ever seen, from a protection standpoint. Do you realize that when you put things like specific dimensions in your patent, all someone has to do to evade the patent is make the same device with different dimensions? Good luck selling that patent for $2,000,000. Even if the device works as advertised (ever test it?), the patent is utterly worthless because it does not protect the invention.
Utilitarian,
Will you give us a list of your patents?
Another know-it-all with a big ego and little brain
Quote from: brian334 on December 02, 2008, 04:13:36 PM
People that criticize things they don’t understand
Are people with big egos and little brains.
OK, my friend. I have tried to help you by illustrating and explaining your error, but you want to turn it into a flame war.
Fine. Go build your device. When you've got something working to show, then come back and brag about it.
Otherwise, we'll just have to rest on the thousands of similar buoyancy drive designs that we see working all around us.
No, wait--there aren't any.
THERE AREN'T ANY.
But you are smarter than all those people, and smarter than Simanek and his grad students, because you have come up with a design that you know works. Fine.
Build it and show it.
Don't bother refuting the points that people like me are making. Don't bother trying to understand what buoyancy really is. Don't bother trying to understand what is meant by a "Conservative field of force."
After all, you are the smartest kid on the block.
So go build your device, and PROVE ME WRONG.
But until you can, I don't think you should be talking about it.
Sounds like your big ego got bruised
What points about my machine did you make? All you did was post junk inventions.
Do you really think I don’t understand buoyancy? You must really have a fat head.
Big ego little brain.
@brian334:
All Tinselkoala was trying to do was to explain a basic principle to you that you must have missed somewhere if you think your device will work like you say it will. Look up a guy called Archimedes. All of what Tinselkoala was trying so hard to explain to you has been well known since his time. (287 bc)
Bill
Quote from: brian334 on December 02, 2008, 05:21:57 PM
Another know-it-all with a big ego and little brain
Considering you are the one who is trying to sell that worthless piece of paper for 2 mil, I think you are the one with the big ego and little brain.
Utilitarian, Koala, or Pirate,
I assure all of you that I completely understand buoyancy.
If a object in a liquid weights more than the liquid it displaces it will sink.
If a object in a liquid weights less than the liquid it displaces it will not sink.
End of lesson # 1
Brian,
Your heavier side devices will fall. This could be used to generate energy. Your lighter side devices will rise. This too could be used to generate energy. BUT, reconfiguring your devices from heavier to lighter consumes all that energy and more. If we eliminate all real world losses we could say that reconfiguring your devices from heavier to lighter consumes exactly all the energy that is generated by the falling and rising.
M.
M,
At the bottom how much energy does it take to stop a falling tank?
Answer is none.
At the top how much energy does it take for water pressure to push the piston in?
Answer is none.
Quote from: brian334 on December 03, 2008, 10:59:43 AM
M,
At the bottom how much energy does it take to stop a falling tank?
Answer is none.
I agree.
But does stopping the falling tank reconfigure it from heavier to lighter?
Answer is no.
The energy needed to reconfigure the tank as it is stopped is supposed to come from the inertia of your internal weight. That issue was discussed ad nauseum in your previous thread on this subject.
M.
Quote from: brian334 on December 03, 2008, 10:59:43 AM
M,
At the bottom how much energy does it take to stop a falling tank?
Answer is none.
At the top how much energy does it take for water pressure to push the piston in?
Answer is none.
@brian334
Most of these buoyancy devices would work at 100% efficiency with an energy gain of 1.
because they substitute hydraulics for mechanical levers. The problem is that there is
friction between moving parts and parts moving in fluid and this will cause the momentum
of the device to be dissipated. OK...now show me where energy gain >1. is supposed to
come from in a device that simplifies to a mechanical lever? Some device use bubbles
for shields and stuff and might conceivably work, but show me in a lever device where
the the long term unbalanced gain is?
:S:MarkSCoffman
M.
Thank you for your post, your post is the first rational comment I have gotten since I started this topic.
Phase change is critical to any invention like this working, so lets go over each phase.
Phase 1. The tanks with the 65 Lb. weight in them are heavier than the liquid they displace and will sink. The tanks fall in a continuous column greatly reducing the drag with the water. The tanks accelerate as they fall due to the force of gravity. The 65 lb. weight builds momentum as it falls.
Phase 2. In phase 2 the tanks expand becoming lighter than the liquid they displace and will float up doing work. How does this happen?
At the bottom the free falling tanks with the 65 lb weight in them are abruptly stopped, the 65lb weight keeps going. The momentum of the 65 lb weight is the force that expands the tank. To see a drawing of the tank please visit my website http://bsandler.com
Click on the tab at the top of the page marked GRAVITY MACHINE # 2
Phase 3. The tanks are lighter than the liquid they displace and will float up doing work.
Phase 4. In phase 4 the tanks shrink and become heavier than the liquid they displace ready for the next cycle. How does this happen?
The external water pressure pushes the extended piston back into the tank.
No energy is used by the machine to push the piston back in.
@brian334
I have looked at your plans on your website and have one question.
Were do you get the gas from?
Because hydraulic and pneumatic systems cannot operate in a closed system, the gas can only do work once than it will go neutral. You must continually add more gas and exhaust backpressure to keep it going.
Not to mention that the "tanks" have to be made of a very, very light material if he hope to lift them with helium. Helium has 1/5 the lifting power of hydrogen, which would be a better gas for this. Have you ever seen the size of a helium balloon designed to take up a science package into the upper atmosphere? The package may only weigh several hundred pounds but the balloon has to be the size of a building to lift it.
Bill
The lighter than air gas is compressed into a small tank at the top, and released at the bottom. When the gas is released at the bottom it powers a generator giving back some of the energy it took to compress it.
Quote from: brian334 on December 03, 2008, 11:49:32 AM
M.
Thank you for your post, your post is the first rational comment I have gotten since I started this topic.
Thank you but I believe TKs comments were not only rational but completely correct, at least up to the point where you ticked him off.
Quote from: brian334 on December 03, 2008, 11:49:32 AM
Phase change is critical to any invention like this working, so lets go over each phase.
Phase 1. The tanks with the 65 Lb. weight in them are heavier than the liquid they displace and will sink. The tanks fall in a continuous column greatly reducing the drag with the water. The tanks accelerate as they fall due to the force of gravity. The 65 lb. weight builds momentum as it falls.
The tanks absolutely cannot fall in a continuous column and also accelerate due to gravity. This is a key point that you keep ignoring. Please prove me wrong on this or accept it. You should not bother to move on to any other point until you can do one or the other. Here is my explanation:
Let's say the speed of your top falling tank (just as has rounded the top of the cycle and is perfectly vertical and about to begin falling) is 1 mph. Let's also say that it accelerates so quickly that by the time it has fallen it's own length its speed is now 2 mph. The next tank that has just rounded the top is only moving at 1 mph. So the tanks are not moving at the same speed, right? Yet they are accelerating at the same rate so they are moving apart. There will be a bigger and bigger gap between the falling tanks the further down they go.
The only way for for your tanks to fall in a continuous column is for them NOT to accelerate due to gravity, or for the entire system to accelerate at the same rate. Both of these possibilities are not supported by your system.
Your phase 1 is critically flawed as it cannot operate as you describe.
M.
M.
The initial velocity of the falling tanks is not 0, the tanks are added to the top as quickly as the entire column is falling. When the tanks are in the column they are attached to each other preventing them from separating.
The expanded tanks on the up side will rise faster than the tanks fall on the down side, the rising tanks might even help push the falling tanks down add more power to the system.
Also even if the tanks did not fall in a continuous column the machine would still work just not as good.
Quote from: brian334 on December 03, 2008, 02:30:48 PM
M.
The initial velocity of the falling tanks is not 0, the tanks are added to the top as quickly as the entire column is falling. When the tanks are in the column they are attached to each other preventing them from separating.
The expanded tanks on the up side will rise faster than the tanks fall on the down side, the rising tanks might even help push the falling tanks down add more power to the system.
Also even if the tanks did not fall in a continuous column the machine would still work just not as good.
Brian,
I understand the initial velocity of the falling tanks would not be 0. I explained that as soon as one tank begins to accelerate down due to gravity it will move away from the tank directly following it, creating a gap that will increase as the tanks fall. And this is contrary to your claim that they fall in a continuous column and can therefore accelerate with near zero water drag. It should make it clear that the tanks are surrounded on all sides by water. As they are only slightly heavier than the water they displace, they would drift downward quite gently, providing virtually no momentum to the internal weight that you expect to expand the tank when it is stopped at the bottom.
And what about that? It is stopped at the bottom, right? Velocity of 0, right? It must accelerate in order to move upwards, right? So your rising column does start from a velocity of 0 and cannot be continuous either. There will never be a continuous column of tanks on the way up, down, or on the wheel at the top. And without a continuous column you can have no acceleration to the velocities that you must be imagining. Without high velocities you have lost the momentum you believe will expand the tanks.
I am surprised to hear you say the machine would still work just as good without the continuous column. In your first thread on this topic we calculated together how little your internal weight could expand your tank due to the water pressure at the 10 ft. depth unless momentum from high velocities was assisting. You had calculated that a piston of ~14 sq. in. was all that could be expanded, right? I had challenged you to show a drawing of a tank with only that size expandable members on each side and the weight in the middle. Have you done this? I don't think you can.
So, no continuous columns mean no momentum.
No momentum means your tank design as shown on your web site cannot expand when stopped at the bottom.
A different tank design that only extends a 14 sq. in. piston on each side has not been shown to be possible.
M.
sorry wrong post.
Mark