In this idea the air pressure is the main energy source and "double piston" is the module for
collect this energy (see the pictures. Values used in pictures are only example values).
Steps and who is paying?
1. In first phase the double piston is in "start position". The upper piston is filled with
water lifted by air pressure.
2. Double piston will be released. This mean that upper piston will fall down. Because both
pistons weights and lifted water are all upon each other I think there is not balance problems.
The upper piston will be under lower piston after turn - at least I think so. (I think this
could be quite easy to test with program some of you are using if there are doubts.
I don't have this program and I don't know how to use it. In test the water can be replaced
with some other weight and place all the weights in places and see how it will turn. If
it wont turn with these values I think it is possible to find correct values...)
3. After turn double piston will be locked again. From lower piston water block that allows
water fall down to pool will be opened. From upper piston this same block will be closed
and block that holds the tube to pool will be opened. This means that the 100 kg weight will
create negative pressure and lift the water to upper piston.
And this means (I think) that we can continually lift water up using air pressure.
Limits:
The height can't be more than boiling point of water in negative pressure.
In theory if we ignore the limit the maximum height must be under 9,81 meter. (When using air
pressure to lift water to this height the water will boil.)
With this model you can use energy in next two ways: From turning double piston and from falling water.
The falling water can be collected e.g. in some kind of funnel which contains water generator at bottom
before water falls from funnel to pool. The water to funnel can be collected with several double pistons
to keep generator going continually.
I know that with this it is not easy to power house and this is not what I'm looking after. In my mind
I think this can be used as primary energy source when producing hydrogen using electrolysis. As far as
I understand this might suite for this purpose. In other words could create enough electricity for electrolysis.
BR,
Gravitator
Gravitator
I see what you are doing, but the buoyancy effect might give you trouble. But if you take it out of the tank you would have a fluid shifter. Here is a design I did awhile back to maybe help you along.
Maybe my drawing gives little bit wrong impression of what I'm trying to say.
The double piston turns upsidedown. It wont move any other way. And the connection tube to pool is a flexible tube - something like garden hose.
Hope this picture clarifies little bit what I mean.
Quote from: Gravitator on January 27, 2009, 02:19:41 PM
Maybe my drawing gives little bit wrong impression of what I'm trying to say.
The double piston turns upsidedown. It wont move any other way. And the connection tube to pool is a flexible tube - something like garden hose.
Hope this picture clarifies little bit what I mean.
Gravitator
Go to this web sight and look under the MT.
http://www.orffyre.com/mt.html
Go to MT67, It is the somewhat the same design but not in a pool of fluid. Others there are the MT125. 126, 127, 128, and the MT129. I hope these will help you out if you try a build.
Good luck
Alan
@ Gravitator
thanks for your eplanation.
But sorry, I have no idea how this can work.
Alana
Here is a little bit more detailed explanation of the machine I have in my mind.
And I admit that the first picture I post is not very descriptive... Hope this opens the idea little bit better.
Gravitator
you're such a clever guy! :o
i wonder though, is the pool really needed. wouldn't it work the same (or better) if both a & b were just connected together? you still have atmosphere in the middle and fewer parts and smaller footprint and no water loss and.....
when will you build?
tom
Gravitator,
I just did a little test of your setup with some very gooooood ;D results.
I took a 1-1/2†bore pneumatic cylinder and hung it 5-ft. above a bucket of water, using a ¼†air hose I put one end of it into the water and the other end I attached to the top of the cylinder. With the cylinder fully retracted I hooked a 5lbs weight to the piston rod of the cylinder and it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely.
Thank you, Gravitator
Wayne
Hi, Gravitator!
At the moment, i'd like to ask you the same question as tbird...
Is the pool really needed for your concept? Why not just linking the upper and bottom side of the flipping/rolling cylinder ???
Hmm...
Cheers!
You are right, it would be easier to connect upper piston directly to lower piston.
What I had in my mind when I draw this was the potential energy of of water. In my
mind double pistons were used to collect water with several double pistons e.g. into some kind of
funnel with small water turbine and the water would fall to pool through small water turbine. When using
several double pistons collecting water you can avoid technical limits like max. piston size
compare to potential energy needed to run e.g. small generator. With one double piston
there is also always the waiting time present. With several double pistons and collecting water
you can create ongoing movement. I don't know how difficult it is to synchronize several double
pistons work together without falling water ?
So in short I guess it is possible to connect pistons directly and I admit, much easier but
I think this might limit little bit the co operation with several double pistons.
I guess both ways are possible. It depends on for what you are using the machine :)
Gravitator
When are you going to start your build? Or are you looking for possible help? The number one thing in this game is that until it is built it is only scratches on a sheet of paper. The largest concerns with this design is the expected slow speed if it would work and the possibility of fall back. Meaning if the fluid starts filling up at the top it may fall back and stop. Another way to say it is, fluid takes time to pass and if it doesn't pass fast enough it will stall and stop. You need to try a small test build to try to see what can be done. Don't start a large project due to the expenses of a large project.
PM sent
Hello for all
First and very easy test:
Will 100 kg of weight lift more than 100 kg of water (for instance 1000 kg)? It´s possible? If yes, it´s already overunity itself. Unnecessary to build the entire and complicated original project to demonstrate overnity and to revolutionize the world.
Quote from: Joao on January 29, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Hello for all
First and very easy test:
Will 100 kg of weight lift more than 100 kg of water (for instance 1000 kg)? It´s possible? If yes, it´s already overunity itself. Unnecessary to build the entire and complicated original project to demonstrate overnity and to revolutionize the world.
Rather depends on just how far you lift it, doesn't it?
Otherwise, we'll all be stumbling down another Archer Quinn rabbit hole chasing an overunity lever with a Sword of God, won't we.
This idea reminds me of briansomething's, with its pistons and flipping containers.
Quote from: Joao on January 29, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Hello for all
First and very easy test:
Will 100 kg of weight lift more than 100 kg of water (for instance 1000 kg)? It´s possible? If yes, it´s already overunity itself. Unnecessary to build the entire and complicated original project to demonstrate overnity and to revolutionize the world.
A 100 kg of anything is still a 100 kg; why the distinction between weight and water? ???.
Hans von Lieven
Hi,
@Joao
Yes it will. The question that I'm thinking is how to do this again and again.
The main idea is to use two pistons and turn them upsidedown every time the piston is filled.
@hansvonlieven
Hope these pictures answer to your question. If not I'm more than pleased to give you more information.
@AB Hammer
Help would be nice :) I'm really busy earning my living so I don't have so much time to spend with
this I'd like to spend...
Here is my "project plan" that I would (and will but this WILL TAKE TIME without help) do (calculate/test) to figure
out if this is something usefull and worth to build as whole. Any help on any part would be nice.
1. Piston shape ? Before building I think we should know the dimensions of piston etc. (See picture Piston shape?).
With these calculations we ensure that double piston will turn upsidedown.
2. After step 1 we know piston's dimensions and weight, Now we can calculate/test "water in" tubes diameter and
see how much time will it take to fill the piston and how much water was moved. Tubes diameter
depends of course how high the water was lifted.
3. After step 2 we know how much water we can lift with one double piston in x time and to what height.
After this it is possible to start thinking the filling of funnel (or using the double piston
as it own with tubes connected directly from upper piston to lower piston) and what is possible
to do with funnel. How many pistons are needed to keep water level as same while water is falling
from bottom of funnel. What kind of flow/amount of water is needed for what kind of "small water turbine"
etc.
BR,
Gravitator
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 29, 2009, 09:19:21 PM
A 100 kg of anything is still a 100 kg; why the distinction between weight and water? ???.
Hans von Lieven
Because to lift 1000 kg of water utilizing for instance 100 kg of stones by negative presure will resolve the water pumping problem in the world. The input (100 kg) will be 1/100 of the output (1000 kg). Or no?
I think some are suggesting something like the attached drawing. To be honest my head is going to explode with all the hydrostatic pressure crap so I'm going to lay off it for a bit.
Quote from: Joao on January 30, 2009, 03:13:38 PM
Because to lift 1000 kg of water utilizing for instance 100 kg of stones by negative presure will resolve the water pumping problem in the world. The input (100 kg) will be 1/100 of the output (1000 kg). Or no?
100 times 100 equals 10,000 not 1000
Hans von Lieven
Related interesting link!
http://www.svpvril.com/Water.html
Some here seem to have a problem understanding displacement by weight verses displacement by volume. Is it on the bottom or on the top?
Ralph
Quote from: PhiScience on January 28, 2009, 02:29:58 PM
Gravitator,
I just did a little test of your setup with some very gooooood ;D results.
I took a 1-1/2†bore pneumatic cylinder and hung it 5-ft. above a bucket of water, using a ¼†air hose I put one end of it into the water and the other end I attached to the top of the cylinder. With the cylinder fully retracted I hooked a 5lbs weight to the piston rod of the cylinder and it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely.
Thank you, Gravitator
Wayne
There is something important missing from this "test" and that is the stroke of the one and one half inch pneumatic cylinder. Without knowing the stroke distance the volume cannot be calculated, and that is a BIG problem.
100 KG weight lifting 1000 KG water is a ratio of 1:10. Let us just go for simple overunity at 1:1 and think about 5 lbs of potential energy lifting 5 lbs of water to the same height as the initial 5 lbs potential.
1 Cubic inch per 0.036127 pound = The weight of water
5 lbs / 0.036127 = 138.4 cubic inches of water
The radius of a 1-1/2 inch bore cylinder is 0.75 inches
0.75 times pi 3.142 = 2.35650square inches
138.4 cubic inches / 2.3565 = cylinder height of 58.73144 inches
So in order to fill that cylinder with just 5 lbs of water it must be VERY near 5 feet long.
Now for the unfortunate reality of this little 'test".
The vacuum pressure IS proportionate to the radius of that cylinder and the amount of weight, so that a larger diameter cylinder requires more weight to produce the same PSI vacuum.
Good try anyway. ;)
Hi all,
I had quite a brainstorm (and headache) trying to figure this out. I also thought a lot
how much time (I think a lot) will it take to lift water using airpressure. And much much more...
During this brainstorm I got the following idea how to do the weight lifting without water.
Basic idea is still the same: lift weight up and then turn the whole thing upsidedown and lift up again.
BR,
Gravitator
hi truth,
nice bunch of figures.
do you think PhiScience really didn't check the contents of the cylinder to make sure he had filled it? or that maybe he just told us a story without doing the test at all?
i think not. if his test is valid, that would mean you have a flaw in your last post. what could it be?
i don't see anywhere PhiScience states he pulled up 5lbs of water, just "it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely."
do you remember what makes syphoning work? and not work? doesn't one side have to weight more than the other to have movement to its side? if so, if the hose used is the same size everywhere, to make water syphon one side (after being draped over a higher point) would have to be longer to make the content weight more, right? since the end would now be lower than the source end, couldn't you make water flow?
what if we replaced the lower 5lbs of water in the syphon tube, which let's say is 5' long, with a 6", 5lb weight that seals inside the tube, but could still move inside the tube freely? let's say the top (where the hose makes the turn from up to down) was 5' off the ground and the source side hose is put in the source water so the end is deep enough to always have positive supply. just so we know, source water level is 6" off the ground. if we prime the hose so there is no air inside (just as when the syphon effect works), would the water transfer from source to the side of the weight?
i think the bottom line is your relationship of the 5lb weight and the weight of the water (in the tube) is wrong. the fact that a 5lb weight is used is not relevant. as long as the weight is heavier than the weight of the water in the tube, we'll have transfer.
won't we?
tom
@grav,
[edit]
if you have 100kg, opening the piston, enough to draw up water and offset the balance of the double piston...
once it flips to the bottom, do you not then have to LIFT that 100kg, to close the piston, allowing for the re-fill to take place??
that "G Module" thing seems more pheasable. as long as the total spooled wire weighs more than the weight that turns the spool.
have to figure out the turn-ratio, and torque needed, tension of the cable, ect.
also will have to be counter-weighted on one side, or "locked" slightly off the verticle so it will have a direction to turn, requiring no starting energy to flip it.
Hi, Gravitator!
You are very productive with your ideas!
However, the latest g-thingy is just a mix of a lever(pulley) mechanics - dropping/raising weights (winding the heavy wire to the top drum)...
For a flipping action, the weight of the wound up heavy wire on the top should overcome the dropped weight + the bottom wire "leftovers"....
In order to do that, the weight must be heavier from the wound up wire at least for the transmission factor of pulleys(wire drum diameter/falling weight pulley diameter)...
It "works" until it ... "keels".
Just IMHO... The concept is simple, so if you want to be sure, just build it.
Cheers!
For just one thing, how do you expect your little weight, on a small spool, to fall, turning a big spool enough to lift a bunch of cable to another spool?
Look at the distances and lever arms (spool radii) involved. It's impossible, as you have drawn it. If the cable weighs less than the falling weight, there's no benefit from moving it. If it weighs more than the falling weight, moving it all to the other spool is impossible because of the lever arms involved.
And that's just one thing wrong.
Quote from: tbird on February 01, 2009, 01:50:40 PM
hi truth,
nice bunch of figures.
do you think PhiScience really didn't check the contents of the cylinder to make sure he had filled it? or that maybe he just told us a story without doing the test at all?
i think not. if his test is valid, that would mean you have a flaw in your last post. what could it be?
i don't see anywhere PhiScience states he pulled up 5lbs of water, just "it had no problem drawing the water up and filling the cylinder completely."
do you remember what makes syphoning work? and not work? doesn't one side have to weight more than the other to have movement to its side? if so, if the hose used is the same size everywhere, to make water syphon one side (after being draped over a higher point) would have to be longer to make the content weight more, right? since the end would now be lower than the source end, couldn't you make water flow?
what if we replaced the lower 5lbs of water in the syphon tube, which let's say is 5' long, with a 6", 5lb weight that seals inside the tube, but could still move inside the tube freely? let's say the top (where the hose makes the turn from up to down) was 5' off the ground and the source side hose is put in the source water so the end is deep enough to always have positive supply. just so we know, source water level is 6" off the ground. if we prime the hose so there is no air inside (just as when the syphon effect works), would the water transfer from source to the side of the weight?
i think the bottom line is your relationship of the 5lb weight and the weight of the water (in the tube) is wrong. the fact that a 5lb weight is used is not relevant. as long as the weight is heavier than the weight of the water in the tube, we'll have transfer.
won't we?
tom
Dear tom,
Are you attacking me?
I pointed out a problem with the volume verses the potential.
It is impossible to siphon water to a higher level, because it will only move downhill as an end result.
Keeping it fun and interesting, and that is the TRUTH.
Hay Gravitator
I see you are looking in another direction. I found some photos that had an old design that looks like it might give even more ideas.
@ everyone
Tbird has corrected a mistake that I made, and I thank him for keeping me real.
" 1 Cubic inch per 0.036127 pound = The weight of water
5 lbs / 0.036127 = 138.4 cubic inches of water
The radius of a 1-1/2 inch bore cylinder is 0.75 inches
0.75 times pi 3.142 = 2.35650square inches
138.4 cubic inches / 2.3565 = cylinder height of 58.73144 inches"
Was what I originally posted.
It should have been radius squared times pi.
0.75 X 0.75 = 0.56250
0.56250 x 3.142 = 1.76738
So
138.4 cubic inches / 1.76738 = cylinder height of 78.30823 inches
Which is much worse.
Thanks for the correction Tbird :-[
i can be wrong but i think the piston has too much leverage that over comes the weight of the water so it will not turn. the piston is too far out from the center causing leverage that out weights the water. dont seem like it will work. like they always say build it and we shall see if it really works.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on February 03, 2009, 01:56:38 PM
i can be wrong but i think the piston has too much leverage that over comes the weight of the water so it will not turn. the piston is too far out from the center causing leverage that out weights the water. dont seem like it will work. like they always say build it and we shall see if it really works.
free energy,
i had the same concern, so i looked up levers and studied a bit. i came to this conclusion.
if you have a 20 foot lever with the fulcrum in the middle at 10 feet, and a ten pound weight on each end, this should balance (i used these numbers for easy calc). now if you move one weight in 1 foot, it would be out of balance. 1 foot = 10% of arm distance. this means it looks like 9 pounds to the weight still out on the end. to get it back in balance, all we have to do is add 1 pound (10%) to the weight that was moved in. if this 1 pound is closer to the end, that end would now be heavier and over balanced to that side.
i think this small amount would show up in any assy, but shouldn't be hard to over come.
truth,
while i'm here,
QuoteThe vacuum pressure IS proportionate to the radius of that cylinder and the amount of weight, so that a larger diameter cylinder requires more weight to produce the same PSI vacuum.
this seems to be true, but do we really need the psi to be the same? wouldn't any difference be enough? i understand that more pressure equals more flow equals quicker transfer, but wouldn't any flow make the machine work, all-be-it slow?
Gravitator
Did you get the design I sent you?
Gravitator I have waited on a reply long enough.
Greetings All
I am publishing this Design under copyright. Feel free to use the information to build any device you wish. When it comes to commercial exploitation I reserve whatever rights are given to my by law.
Greetings All
I not going to say this will work. But from the direction of this string I see this as a possibility if at all. It rocks back and forth giving time to fill by natural vacuum the upper bellows bladder and the holding pool is to insure that it stays in position until the upper bellows bladder if full enough to rock back and repeat and pouring out the water tray that goes over the water wheel/turbine to produce some energy. The trays do not hold all the water from the bellows bladders and will be pouring out to the water wheel/turbine. This makes the trays a timing device to keep the action going. I hope you like it, from the designs I am working with this one was low on my agenda.
How are you going to restore the vacuum in the bladder once it empties itself Alan?
Hans
Greetings Hans
The weights connected together on a sliding rail. This way as the weight slides down once forcing out the water on the low end up to the holding pan as it rocks the weight itself starts forcing the upper bellows bladder to open causing it to suck up the water into it, not unlike sucking a drink up a straw. My estimate if it can work, would be very slow operations. But LOL it might be an improvement over the drinking bird, for it would really drink.
Hi all !
this is mod. of Gravitator's idea
green enbodyment is ponton-bridgelike heavy body, with characteristic that overall is lower density material than water
so it floats. call it moveable part MP
1. air presassure created by gravity on MP makes water climb and fills container.
2. valve on MP opens (in and out valves on container are now closed)
3. since MP has lower density than water it is pushed upwards by boyancy.
totaly clean, can be used to generate electricity, hydropower plants (but without devastating ekosystem)...
mechanically not so complex to produce - (maybe to us - low/no money-time-labspace-equipment guys)
If someone who is genearting energy/money crysis and polution, would really give a fuck, building this is easy as cake.
Of course we would give them and did even better solutions.
Wiz
Hi,
Nice and easy to follow system.
Its an interesting evolution since your first post on this :)
I'll wait for some Archimedes to do some math and perhaps it will soon to be build.
Thanks,
sushimoto
PS: Your Topic "Finally I think I got it !" is a perfect signature for this OU-forum. ::)
V1 should be at the bottom of the riser tube.
.. so there is less height to pump? Nope, it needs the weight from the topmost position the piston.
Dimensioning for math?
Edit:
Since this is an simple system with a few parameters only, and assuming that the liquid is water,
it can be calculated easily. Here are the basics: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm
Maybe, somebody can withdraw some conservation laws, but friction and viscosity is the devil here.
The pressure apliied to the sealing-ring is enormous.
No, so the water in the tube does not have a tendency to fall back into the tank.
wizkycho
Yet another interesting pump idea. But what is going to operate the valves? I don't see natural reaction being able to do it as easily. It looks to me by your drawings that you will need a shift system for the valves and they will be under pressure remember this.
Also the water from tube at V2 should not fall through the atmosphere before it lands in the bottom tank because it will create air bubbles. Ideally that tube should also go to the bottom tank and both V1 and V2 should be located in the bottom tank, underwater so there is no possibility of air infiltration.
On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give this idea an 8. You will still have to work out the friction from the seal on the 100kg weight. 100kg is too heavy anyways. Also working the valve operation could be by string connected to the 100kg weight and pulleys. But it is a good idea.
Quote from: wattsup on February 13, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
Also the water from tube at V2 should not fall through the atmosphere before it lands in the bottom tank because it will create air bubbles. Ideally that tube should also go to the bottom tank and both V1 and V2 should be located in the bottom tank, underwater so there is no possibility of air infiltration.
On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give this idea an 8. You will still have to work out the friction from the seal on the 100kg weight. 100kg is too heavy anyways. Also working the valve operation could be by string connected to the 100kg weight and pulleys. But it is a good idea.
Greeting wattsup
I don't know why I didn't see that. Very good observation. I guess being sick has dulled down my scenes or I am just getting old. LOL A top air release device is going to have to be added but that will be tricky for the need of the vacuum to lift the water. I like my design better. LOL ;)
Quote from: wattsup on February 13, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
Also the water from tube at V2 should not fall through the atmosphere before it lands in the bottom tank because it will create air bubbles. Ideally that tube should also go to the bottom tank and both V1 and V2 should be located in the bottom tank, underwater so there is no possibility of air infiltration.
On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give this idea an 8. You will still have to work out the friction from the seal on the 100kg weight. 100kg is too heavy anyways. Also working the valve operation could be by string connected to the 100kg weight and pulleys. But it is a good idea.
Hm not sure about the air bubbles.
In relation to the 100kg weight,
the bassin in the drawing must be 100inches (2.5m) in diameter (?).
Do you think, that air could travel about 100inches under water,
before it gets sucked in on the other sides bottom of the bassin?
Everything will be relative. If you have a 2.5m dia. tank, then the top tank with the weight will be big also, and the filling of the top tank will require alot of water movement that will be relative also. Air bubbles are made in all sizes, some big but also some very small that can stay suspended and enter the riser tube. Also, if this is outdoors and you want the device to be wind proof, I would still put that tube underwater.
Quote from: wizkycho on February 13, 2009, 09:47:19 AM
Hi all !
this is mod. of Gravitator's idea
green enbodyment is ponton-bridgelike heavy body, with characteristic that overall is lower density material than water
so it floats. call it moveable part MP
1. air presassure created by gravity on MP makes water climb and fills container.
2. valve on MP opens (in and out valves on container are now closed)
3. since MP has lower density than water it is pushed upwards by boyancy.
totaly clean, can be used to generate electricity, hydropower plants (but without devastating ekosystem)...
mechanically not so complex to produce - (maybe to us - low/no money-time-labspace-equipment guys)
If someone who is genearting energy/money crysis and polution, would really give a fuck, building this is easy as cake.
Of course we would give them and did even better solutions.
Wiz
In order to create the syphon effect the weight MUST be heavier than water, so it cannot rise.
For every cm of riser tube the weight must create a pressure of 1 gram, so if your riser tube is 1 m high the negative pressure at the top must be greater than 100g/cm2 Since water has a specific gravity of 1 that means that the weight has to be heavier than water and therefore will not float.
The same applies to Alan's device.
Both devices cannot be compared to the drinking bird since the drinking bird is a heat engine that relies on vapour pressure.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: wattsup on February 13, 2009, 01:34:26 PM
Everything will be relative. If you have a 2.5m dia. tank, then the top tank with the weight will be big also, and the filling of the top tank will require alot of water movement that will be relative also. Air bubbles are made in all sizes, some big but also some very small that can stay suspended and enter the riser tube. Also, if this is outdoors and you want the device to be wind proof, I would still put that tube underwater.
Agree. There is no need for open falling water.
So lets lengthen the outlet tube at V2 inside the tank...
where's Gravitator or wiz to further evolute his drawing and idea?
@Hans.
its just a little brain jogging in theories and for recreation. Not tooo serious ;)
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 13, 2009, 01:41:27 PM
In order to create the syphon effect the weight MUST be heavier than water, so it cannot rise.
....
Hans von Lieven
This sentence describes the main problem perfectly. That's why such setups cannot work.
Quote from: wizkycho on February 13, 2009, 09:47:19 AM
Hi all !
this is mod. of Gravitator's idea
green enbodyment is ponton-bridgelike heavy body, with characteristic that overall is lower density material than water
so it floats. call it moveable part MP
1. air presassure created by gravity on MP makes water climb and fills container.
2. valve on MP opens (in and out valves on container are now closed)
3. since MP has lower density than water it is pushed upwards by boyancy.
totaly clean, can be used to generate electricity, hydropower plants (but without devastating ekosystem)...
mechanically not so complex to produce - (maybe to us - low/no money-time-labspace-equipment guys)
If someone who is genearting energy/money crysis and polution, would really give a fuck, building this is easy as cake.
Of course we would give them and did even better solutions.
Wiz
hi,
with the upper tank full and v1 closed and v2 opens, no water will drain. you have to have a vent to air. but of course for the suction to fill the upper tank, it will have to be closed.
tom
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 13, 2009, 01:41:27 PM
In order to create the syphon effect the weight MUST be heavier than water, so it cannot rise.
For every cm of riser tube the weight must create a pressure of 1 gram, so if your riser tube is 1 m high the negative pressure at the top must be greater than 100g/cm2 Since water has a specific gravity of 1 that means that the weight has to be heavier than water and therefore will not float.
The same applies to Alan's device.
Both devices cannot be compared to the drinking bird since the drinking bird is a heat engine that relies on vapour pressure.
Hans von Lieven
hi hans,
even though the weight is heavier than the water being syphoned (in the tube), couldn't it displace more than it weights with a hollow extention? it might shorten the stroke, but couldn't it then float?
tom
It is not a question of weight within the tube but of pressure.
In order to lift a water column 1 meter you need 100 g/cm2. That means if the surface area of your cylinder is 100 cm2 the weight needs to be 10 kg just to establish equilibrium, more if you want to lift.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: AB Hammer on February 12, 2009, 08:04:24 PM
Gravitator I have waited on a reply long enough.
Greetings All
I am publishing this Design under copyright. Feel free to use the information to build any device you wish. When it comes to commercial exploitation I reserve whatever rights are given to my by law.
hi alan,
i think this design has the same problem Gravitator's does. the amount of space the fully expanded bellows has is not enough to hold enough weight (water) to over come the leverage loss of the weight on the side the water is being sent to and the gain of the weight (leverage) going to the colasped bellows side.
there might be one thing that saves it. the leverage of the water in the bellows is greater in your design, so it might work. in my reply #29, the weight is at the end and 10% from the end. in yours, the weight crosses the fulcrum. this is kinda bad in itself because you are not only giving up leverage, but also real weight. if we divided the weight into 2 equal parts and had a space betwen (stroke distance) so no more than half the weight was on 1 side of the fulcrum, maybe it would stand a better chance.
if you have already done the math, let us know how much weight you have available to make it titter.
tom
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 13, 2009, 04:37:53 PM
It is not a question of weight within the tube but of pressure.
In order to lift a water column 1 meter you need 100 g/cm2. That means if the surface area of your cylinder is 100 cm2 the weight needs to be 10 kg just to establish equilibrium, more if you want to lift.
Hans von Lieven
Hans
I am in agreement and that is the reason if it could work it would be very slow. The best part of it though is that there is plenty of time to run it. as it falls to one side the weight starts sliding. The hole size doesn't have to be that big so that it will fit above equilibrium equation. As the little water coming up the small intake it starts to fill the upper bellows. Now as it fills it, it also increases the weight of the weight going down to help pump the water out. I can see where it would possible work but it would have very little use outside of an oddity. IMHO
Quote from: AB Hammer on February 13, 2009, 12:03:39 PM
wizkycho
Yet another interesting pump idea. But what is going to operate the valves? I don't see natural reaction being able to do it as easily. It looks to me by your drawings that you will need a shift system for the valves and they will be under pressure remember this.
presssure of water is important only when valve needs to close or open, and when that is needed there is no preassure at valves so valves easily opens and closes. (pause GIF animation at top and bottom points of MP). Valves can be/are already constructed when closed withstands presassure without investing E in them. E is needed only WHILE opening or closing and only small ammount cause when that needs to happen there is no preassure negative nor positive.
...for operating valves there is need for only a fraction of mechanicall energy of MP and/or gravity energy of water. (I didn't draw it in animation cause it would interfere with clearity of main principle of work)
Wiz
@ wizkycho,
You should really do some reading on hydraulics and hydrostatics. It is evident that you don't understand even the most basic premises.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: wattsup on February 13, 2009, 11:37:52 AM
No, so the water in the tube does not have a tendency to fall back into the tank.
water would not fall down cause bottom of pipe is immersed in water. only if air enters pipe then water can drop. otherways water weight creates inner pipe preassure that holds
that water strongly.
...agree that sealing of MP when going down must be perfectly constructed, perfectly tight but on the other way not to cause friction (or very little). weight of MP must be heavy to overcome both friction and pump preassure in cilinder.
but when watter weight in cilinder equalizes with weight in pipe then watter weight in cilinder itself is doing more and more all of the pumping action from pipe. (for better efficiency maybe MP should not go all the way to top...). when MP is going up sealing on edges should be low or none so to lower friction as much as possible.
seals like this exists - created on basis of one way preassure valves
Wiz
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 16, 2009, 04:47:43 AM
@ wizkycho,
You should really do some reading on hydraulics and hydrostatics. It is evident that you don't understand even the most basic premises.
Hans von Lieven
...you should stick to the topic and the system and be egzact what part you think doesn't work...
The topic is not me or my knowledge (there is much more at stake) or just any hydraulics and hydrostatics setup, my proposal is egzact specific setup (and is animated) so it's easy to be egzact.
Please ponit with finger where is a bug so we/I can debug it. ...and don't play God with Gods.
Wiz
Hi all !
Made some experiments and must confirm that Gravitator idea works 100% with COP in infinity.
Ingeniosity of this idea is supperpassed only by its simplicity.
If, already proposed by tbird, outpumped water hose (pipe) is connected directly to inpumped water hose
then bottom water container is not needed and allso preassure at the filling up part are not so great so sealing is easier to construct.
I assume further - to build this setup properly, weight(s) should be made as light possible to still be able of doing pump action
but on the other side not to be so heavy when weight ends up at the end of pumped out cylinder making F*l
(force(from gravity on weight) times lenght of lever) counter problematic action.so cilinder can make rotation.
My design ForeverPump with introduced boyancy has lower efficiency and overall strenght but still COP in infinity since gravity is not depleted.
to build it properly MP has to be heavier then air and lighter then water. the best is 0.5Kg per kilogram (at start) of pumped water and the thing is working perfectly.
When the cilinder is filled to certain ammount (over weight of water in IN pipe) of water then weight of water in itself is doing pumping more and more
It is easier to fine tune ForeverPump then Gravitator's setup...
but without Gravitators work there would be no ForeverPump....I declare it free to replicate, use, sell and make any type of profit.
Wiz
Hi all !
...since significance of this discovery is tremendous (free water pumping, generating free eletricity...end to polution)
I give my baby new name Knitel's InifinityPump
Wiz
Quote from: wizkycho on February 16, 2009, 05:24:47 AM
...you should stick to the topic and the system and be egzact what part you think doesn't work...
The topic is not me or my knowledge (there is much more at stake) or just any hydraulics and hydrostatics setup, my proposal is egzact specific setup (and is animated) so it's easy to be egzact.
Please ponit with finger where is a bug so we/I can debug it. ...and don't play God with Gods.
Wiz
hi wiz,
i'm sorry to say, i think you owe hans an apology. i agree he is not very specific, but has given enough (if researched) to find the answer.
his comment was basically you can't float the piston. my come back was to increase the volume of the weight enough to displace more weight (water here) than the weight used to pump the water. this would be well and fine except that the amount of increase for the given area of the piston/disk would require all of the space given for the stroke, not just some.
this brings us to his statement about hydraulics. this has to be applied because of the syphon effect. liquids being what they are, must follow certain rules (not always what we want or think they should be). i think where we get thrown off is in the beginning when we hear 100 lbs or 100 kg. THAT's a lot of weight!!! but really what we have to look at is how much is applied to each square unit (inch, cm, mm, ect.) i use U.S. measurements so i would say pounds per sq.in. (psi). so if we have 100 pounds spread over 100 sq.in. (that's 10 inches by 10 inches), this would equal 1 psi. now we have to figure how much does the water weight in the supply tube (column) and then how much is that per sq.in . let's say it is 1" x 1" (make it easy). from the reseach we find that 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs. so how many cubic inches can we stack up before we get to 1 lb (100lbs hanging from 10" x10" disk = 1 lb psi)? well 1 / .036127 = 27.68 inches. so now we know the "head pressure of a 1 inch square pipe 27.68 inches high, 1 lb psi. EDIT: that's as high as we can go with 100 lbs applied to a 10" x 10" disk sealed in a 10" x 10" cylinder.
this is starting to look like a problem. not much travel. in this we have to have the weight and volume to displace 100lbs and still have room to move water (stroke). let's see, how much volume (displacement) does 100lbs require to float? since we know 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs, we can say 100 lbs will require 2768 cubic inches. since we already have a given surface area for the disk, 100 square inches, all we need now is the height. so, 2768 / 100 sq.in. = 27.68 inches high. that sounds just the length of our supply tube, which will leave NO room for a stroke. NO STROKE, NO MACHINE!
there is always a possibility i made a mistake, but i don't think so. if you see one please respond with propper reference (as you have asked hans to do).
btw, Gravitator's machine doesn't work either as drawn, but for a different reason (which he knows about).
i'm not trying to be a wise guy, but right is right. thanks for your help hans.
tom
This gets confusing as one moment you are comparing mass displacement by volume and on the other displacement volume by weight.
There is an old question of logic; A barge full of rocks is in a navigation lock, both end gates are sealed. The barge is displacing water by weight. For some unknown reason the barge tips over and all the rocks fall to the bottom of the lock. The barge rights itself, it is empty and floating higher in the water. The water level has dropped as the rocks are setting on the bottom, they are now displaced by volume.
I do not condone this debate nor overlook the possibilities, so I have suggestion to make;
The piston is hollow and contains two valves not unlike the cylinder. It fills first adding weight and falls sucking water into the cylinder. After the cylinder cycles its dump action the piston also drains. Now the pistons displacement is buoyant and will float.
This is only a suggestion to work on! no claims by me is stated, one reason is you will have to contend with a vacuum problem draining the piston. Of course few seem to realize you already have this problem dumping the cylinder. :o
As a person trained in the field of mechanical engineering, I must agree with Hans analysis. Engineers are taught to think in straight lines. My training is to look for the in obvious.
Ralph
G'day all,
It has always been an enigma to me that in this subculture the people who design devices that rely on hydrostatic and hydraulic phenomena have no understanding of either.
Even the most casual study of these subjects would reveal why devices of this sort cannot work.
Normally the fundamentals of the subject are taught in the second or third year of high school depending on which country you come from. We are not talking rocket science here but fundamental physics. This area of physics is very well understood and has been rigorously tested by science for over 2000 years! (No, I am not joking, how else do you think the Romans, Greeks, not to mention the Babylonians have managed to get water to places where it does not naturally go.)
You cannot overturn the laws of nature with idiotic postulates.
Study the subject - then design your machines if you must.
Hans von Lieven
author=hansvonlieven link=topic=6660.msg157994#msg157994 date=1234831796]
G'day all,
QuotePeople who design devices that rely on hydrostatic and hydraulic phenomena have no understanding of either.
Maybe the first invented hydraulic device was made by a person with no understanding ???
QuoteEven the most casual study of these subjects would reveal why devices of this sort cannot work.
Forgive my ignorance, but some may not be as educated as Han's :-X
QuoteNormally the fundamentals of the subject are taught in the second or third year of high school depending on which country you come from.
again, not all people have been taught "fundamentals" of the subject >:(
QuoteWe are not talking rocket science here but fundamental physics.
This is a forum!!! .... Not a prestigious University of the type you might of attended :P
QuoteThis area of physics is very well understood and has been rigorously tested by science for over 2000 years!
Ok.....so where do you want to go with this ???
QuoteYou cannot overturn the laws of nature with idiotic postulates.
The most silliest ideas can be a source for furthering new ideas!
QuoteStudy the subject - then design your machines if you must.
How abrupt !
Hans von Lieven
sevich, your ignorance is showing.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: tbird on February 16, 2009, 02:29:39 PM
hi wiz,
i'm sorry to say, i think you owe hans an apology. i agree he is not very specific, but has given enough (if researched) to find the answer.
his comment was basically you can't float the piston. my come back was to increase the volume of the weight enough to displace more weight (water here) than the weight used to pump the water. this would be well and fine except that the amount of increase for the given area of the piston/disk would require all of the space given for the stroke, not just some.
this brings us to his statement about hydraulics. this has to be applied because of the syphon effect. liquids being what they are, must follow certain rules (not always what we want or think they should be). i think where we get thrown off is in the beginning when we hear 100 lbs or 100 kg. THAT's a lot of weight!!! but really what we have to look at is how much is applied to each square unit (inch, cm, mm, ect.) i use U.S. measurements so i would say pounds per sq.in. (psi). so if we have 100 pounds spread over 100 sq.in. (that's 10 inches by 10 inches), this would equal 1 psi. now we have to figure how much does the water weight in the supply tube (column) and then how much is that per sq.in . let's say it is 1" x 1" (make it easy). from the reseach we find that 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs. so how many cubic inches can we stack up before we get to 1 lb (100lbs hanging from 10" x10" disk = 1 lb psi)? well 1 / .036127 = 27.68 inches. so now we know the "head pressure of a 1 inch square pipe 27.68 inches high, 1 lb psi. EDIT: that's as high as we can go with 100 lbs applied to a 10" x 10" disk sealed in a 10" x 10" cylinder.
this is starting to look like a problem. not much travel. in this we have to have the weight and volume to displace 100lbs and still have room to move water (stroke). let's see, how much volume (displacement) does 100lbs require to float? since we know 1 cubic inch of water weights .036127 lbs, we can say 100 lbs will require 2768 cubic inches. since we already have a given surface area for the disk, 100 square inches, all we need now is the height. so, 2768 / 100 sq.in. = 27.68 inches high. that sounds just the length of our supply tube, which will leave NO room for a stroke. NO STROKE, NO MACHINE!
there is always a possibility i made a mistake, but i don't think so. if you see one please respond with propper reference (as you have asked hans to do).
btw, Gravitator's machine doesn't work either as drawn, but for a different reason (which he knows about).
i'm not trying to be a wise guy, but right is right. thanks for your help hans.
tom
You are again wrong by saying that
there is no such body that floats on water and drops in air - this is the only condition to be met for InfinityPump to work. such body exists.
every boat is such body. Oil tanker floats on water its weight is almost zero - but in air oil tanker weights thousend of tons and drops down. In my setup tanker is filled with stirfoam
and still has same properties. Oil Tanker IS Lighter than water (lower density) - boyancy (Force UP)...Oil tanker IS heavier then air - droping to center of gravity (Force DOWN)
.If buld properly those forces will prevail. It is simple as that and if Hans and Tom you just after all this can not see it then You are ignorant people that never saw a boat float.
Guys don't listen to Hans and Tom they are pompously blinded by rules of phisics they do not understand. They are confused with weight and mass and of course jelous of our super simple
IninityPump...they still can not comprehend. They even deny that boat can float on water but doesn't in air - they are lost in simplicity, or just having a bad day.
I allways tought that boyancy could be simple answer to counter gravity force...but it wasn't enough i just needed this Suction action form gravity proposed by Gravitron.
Thanks again Gravitron...Thanks to You now We have Overunity InfinityPump that really works everywhere where gravity exists.
Wiz - Overunity InfinityPump works
@ wizkycho,
Of course a body lighter than water can float. A body lighter than water however cannot syphon!
If you want to suck up water (incidentally, there is no such thing as suction, there is only differential in pressure) the weight that is sinking has to have a higher density than water, in other words it cannot float. A weight can float or sink, it cannot do both when you want it.
If you only studied hydrostatics and hydraulics as I suggested you would know what I am talking about. It strikes me as curious that you will not do so. It is only a mouse click away and I take it you do have a computer.
Hans von Lieven
"Thanks again Gravitron...Thanks to You now We have Overunity InfinityPump that really works everywhere where gravity exists.
Wiz - Overunity InfinityPump works"
How can you say this???
Nowhere do I see a pump that works. All I see is some drawings and simulations and flawed analyses that predict it "should" work, IF only frictionless cylinder seals, zero-work-function valves, and reworking the laws of physics were allowed.
Please, DO NOT claim that you have something that works, until YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
This "overunity pump" does not, will not, and cannot work.
PROVE ME WRONG by building one, if you can. Otherwise, stop claiming what isn't true.
If you think you have it, take a look at this;
http://freepowertofreepeople.blogspot.com/
Note that the bottom picture is a video, after the first two minutes it is activated and operation shown.
Ralph
"Operation?"
Just what "operation" is being shown in that video?
Certainly not the "operation" of the device described in the patent application, the claims, or the drawings. It is only a partial bit of the apparatus, if that.
And, it clearly doesn't run all by itself, indefinitely.
And, it's from over a year ago.
From the ppt presentation it is clear that the device in the link above is a "buoyancy motor #4" as described on Simanek's site:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy4
It is supposed to work by recycling a float from the bottom of a filled tube to the top by buoyancy, and back to the bottom by gravity, through the usual "magic valves" that don't leak, displace perfectly and work without friction or force.
Even though the posts on the blog are from today (or tomorrow) the materials included for download are dated December 2007.
Another case of: Not done homework, extravagant claims unsupported by evidence, a partial build, a patent application that will never be granted, and a solicitation of funds.
The Posting is February 17th On Free-Energy@yahoo.com
QuoteNew Development on perpetual motion
Posted by: "jackstraw6432" jackstraw6432@yahoo.com jackstraw6432
Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:27 pm (PST)
Hi
Discovered the following address and I think it might be worth to look
at ...
http://freepowertofreepeople.blogspot.com/
Gentlemen, A suggestion that may help with your pump construction. Valve 2 & 3 are simple float flapper valves. (Look in your toilet tank for a common cheap example) Rotate valve 2 by 90deg and relocate to the bottom of the tank to align with valve 3 and they can be activated automatically by a simple verticle rod affixed to poke open valve 3 when it falls and a string to pull open valve 2 when the float rises to the top. Valve 1 looks like a common foot valve to me, it will automatically open and close as the fluid is drawn into the tank, no external control necessary.
P.s. to all the naysayers, do not be too hasty dismissing the experimental researchers, it is entirely possible to convert potential energy through kinetic energy and into usable work with nothing more than gravity, harmonic resonance and 2 valves. Here is how I did it, explained in detail for anyone to build and use themselves...
http://www.instructables.com/id/Worlds_greenest_water_pump
Fluid systems can be made to behave in unexpected ways. Keep on experimenting.