Drop a bottle of liquid gas (V=1M3 ) into a deep pool of 10 meters, burned the gas out, The buoyancy of the empty bottle will do work: W=G(water)H=10000N*10M=100000J.
The shortcoming: The operation is not working continually.
(It's the rudiment of perpetual motion machine)
What about the energy needed to compress the gas inside the bottle in the first place. Where do you account for this?
Hans von Lieven
If the bottle has not been dropped into the water, the energy used to compress the gas inside the bottle can't be unconsumed.
No offense intended but that argument would be like saying that since you can't return the batteries you purchased to the store, you don't have to allow for the energy inside them in your equation. Or, that since the batteries were already made anyway, their energy does not count. I mean this in a constructive way and I am not trashing your idea. Thinking is good.
Bill
Thank you, My proposal is to find a way to kill the gravity of the objects by doing no work. For example:
burn up a pile of wood into ashes.
Quote from: Zhang Yalin on April 06, 2009, 03:58:38 AM
Thank you, My proposal is to find a way to kill the gravity of the objects by doing no work. For example:
burn up a pile of wood into ashes.
Zhang Yalin,
You are a complete moron, go home !Hans von Lieven
I feel very sorry to make you so angry. Maybe my English is too poor.
If we drop the bottle in the lake which 100 meters in depth, or we use mercury instead of water, It will produce more energy.
Zhan - you seem to be very young or confused. What you are suggesting does not make any sense. Burning something releases chemical energy, but it is not renewable and has no place here.
You seem to think that bouyancy is a way to cheat gravity and get free energy. Once you understand how bouyancy works, you will see it is the same power of gravity working, and there is no way to get free lift.
The only reason a bouyant object rises to the surface is because the fluid around the bouyant object is able to 'fall' down around the bouyant object and 'squeeze' it upwards. The force comes from gravity - and it is the same downwards vector. For the float to rise, the fluid has to fall. And for the float to sink, the fluid has to be displaced. This takes as much energy to push the float downwards as you could get back when it is squeezed upwards.
If you think you can cheat the float into sinking with no energy input by changing it's volume - you would be correct. However - if you then try to inflate the float, to increase it's volume and therefore reduce it's density - you will have to displace the fluid. In other words, you will have to raise the center of gravity of the fluid as you displace it upwards in the process of expanding the float. This takes as much energy as you will gain when it float back up - so ultimately this is a lossy sub-unity process. You will have much less friction loss if you abandon fluid and use heavy masses in air.
There is no free lunch by using bouyancy. Never has, never will be. Despite the many patents for free energy systems based on the idea that bouyant masses rise. Yes they rise, but that is just as useful as saying heavy masses fall. Yes they do - but either way, you have to use force to sink the float, or use force to raise the weight. It's just the same gravity force, just the density of the medium is different.
Having said that - I believe it is possible to extract power from gravity. It's a similar situation to sailing into the wind. For thousands of years people uses square sails on boats, and could only sail with the wind. Eventually they found out how to use triangular sails, and tacking methods that allowed a boat to use the energy of the wind to sail into the wind. Seems impossible, but it's not. But there is a trick to doing this.
What you said I've known it as well as you, but what I said you seemed misunderstood.
Zhang, If we don't understand, please explain in as much detail as possible. Several sentences or paragraphs. Thanks.
If an alcohol lamp( the wick is 11 meters long and the wick is covered by a plastic pipe) be dropped in a water pool 10 meters in depth, then burn the alcohol out, the empty shell will do work W0=GH, G=the weight of water of the same volume of alcohol, H=10 meters( it can be increased to 100 meters or more).
The chemical energy by burning alcohol can be used as well. We need pay no extra energy to gain W0.
Zhang,
Are you saying the lamp is sealed?
So that it burns in a sealed vessel?
Phil
No, the wick of it stretch to the surface of water.
So you are saying that the alcohol and wick are burnt and exhaust products are vented to the atmosphere, is that correct?
The alcohol (through wick)are burnt and the wick are not burnt.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 06, 2009, 03:32:33 AM
No offense intended but that argument would be like saying that since you can't return the batteries you purchased to the store, you don't have to allow for the energy inside them in your equation. Or, that since the batteries were already made anyway, their energy does not count. I mean this in a constructive way and I am not trashing your idea. Thinking is good.
Bill
Sounds like our old friend Lawrence Tseung's type of reasoning? Perhaps they are related?
cheers
chrisC
No, I know nothing of Lawrence Tseung's theory.
Quote from: Zhang Yalin on April 18, 2009, 02:48:16 AM
No, I know nothing of Lawrence Tseung's theory.
No offense, Zhang. Just that you both seemed to have the same mindset. Lawrence's problem is not to take into account of the potential energy used to position a pendulum at some starting point (above the lowest equilibrium position) before letting go. His physics is flawed.
You also conveniently did not include the previous work done .....
You won't get too many people on this forum listening to your deluded arguments either.
cheers
chrisC
The work used is smaller than the energy gained.
Hi Zhang,
I drew this diagram.
let us imagine that the water evaporates and no water gets in from the rain, then eventually the vessel becomes buoyant and does some work and then refills etc.
The point is that work is done evaporating the water.
Similarly work must be done in evaporating alcohol regardless of whether it is burnt at the top.
The action of a wick is not capable of rising a liquid so high unless that liquid is volatile.
In essence you are right, there is a mechanism to do work from the thermal energy of the water.
Your idea is a bit like the Ether bird toy that has alcohol (ethanol) inside. It tips over when the alcohol is displace by vapour pressure and the beak (covered in felt as a evaporative cooling device) tips into water and thus cools the alcohol vapour to condense back to liquid to thus restart the cycle.
Phil
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 18, 2009, 10:32:51 AM
Hi Zhang,
I drew this diagram.
let us imagine that the water evaporates and no water gets in from the rain, then eventually the vessel becomes buoyant and does some work and then refills etc.
The point is that work is done evaporating the water.
Similarly work must be done in evaporating alcohol regardless of whether it is burnt at the top.
The action of a wick is not capable of rising a liquid so high unless that liquid is volatile.
In essence you are right, there is a mechanism to do work from the thermal energy of the water.
Your idea is a bit like the Ether bird toy that has alcohol (ethanol) inside. It tips over when the alcohol is displace by vapour pressure and the beak (covered in felt as a evaporative cooling device) tips into water and thus cools the alcohol vapour to condense back to liquid to thus restart the cycle.
Phil
Actually, the bird has methylene chloride inside. You can see my video here where I use this bird to pulse my supercap led Joule thief circuit.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhNw6SuTfA
Bill
Yes, You're right. But what I really wanted to say is that the potential energy is unlimited whatever you can use it or not. If you have patience to read my theory, refer to the following article please.
The definition of potential energy is not correct and the conservation law of mechanical energy is faultiness for the following reasons.
Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy, the resistance removed. Otherwise, the kinetic energy can't be changed into potential energy at all. Mechanical energy is just produced by the movement of objects according to the definition of it.
Force is the cause to change the movement of the objects by the first law of Newton. Therefore force is the real source of mechanical energy.
The force (outside force) is limited. However, gravity is a special force which is unlimited.
As a result, mechanical energy can be divided into two types; one is called kinetic energy (limited) the other potential energy (unlimited).
Potential energy of objects is unlimited because it got from gravity, and it is general knowledge that gravity is eternal.
Gravitational potential energy of objects is created by gravity. If there is no gravity, the potential energy will disappear.
At present, the potential energy is generally agreed that it comes from the movement of objects being taken from low to high.
But people have ignored that the kinetic energy has already been consumed during the period of movement.
The movement of objects takes place depending on the force acted on.
Without force acting on the objects maintain static.
Even with equal forces from opposite directions act on each other, they can't move as well. Gravity is just in this condition.
The potential energy is always equal to the weight of objects no matter the objects is low or high.
Potential energy will be zero only when the gravity disappears. In the absence of resistance, the potential energy will be released to do work.
The formula of potential energy: U = mgh, U represents work more suitable than energy.
In a word, force is energy itself or a form of expression of energy just like the electric energy, the heat energy and so on.
According to the following formulas: W=F·S, F=ma=1/S(E2-E1), Work or energy is made up of force while the quantity of force is measured by work or energy.
The force consumed has turned into work; unconsumed, energy.
Hi Zhang,
Your theory is, I think, wrong.
Firstly your claim is that potential energy is unlimited.
Clearly the mass of the Universe is not infinite therefore strictly speaking potential energy from gravity, as you put it, is also limited. However I agree it is incredibly massive.
You say force is energy, at least that is the impression you give.
Force is not energy as you point out yourself by W=f.s
Force is variable in the case of a lever and yet the energy product on one end is the same as the other, ie big force x small distance = little force x big distance.
My problem is Zhang that you may have some deep point to make but you need to rewrite it to make it clear for mere mortals like me to resonate with.
Phil
Thank you. But my English is too poor to express my thoughts as well as Chinese.
Quote from: Zhang Yalin on April 19, 2009, 03:57:46 AM
Thank you. But my English is too poor to express my thoughts as well as Chinese.
Your English is probably good enough but your Physics is suspect, maybe even mixing a dose of Chinese philosophy with Physics! Oh well, maybe you'll turn out to be the next Einstein.
Maybe you should reach out to Lawrence Tseung and perhaps explain what's really in your mind. His English is quite good and his Chinese flawless, however he is deluded in his Physics and needs to take medication in order to stay sane!
cheers
chrisC
I hate Chinese(9999/10000) more than you. I won't talk to him.
Quote from: Zhang Yalin on April 19, 2009, 04:22:59 AM
I hate Chinese(9999/10000) more than you. I won't talk to him.
Wow! I didn't mean to upset you or put any division between you and your countrymen. My apology indeed.
IMO, people are the same in every race. it's their personalities that make them irksome at times. Sorry, got to go to bed. It's 1.30 am on Sunday!
cheers
chrisC
æ,¨å¥½å¼µï¼Œ
æ,¨æ˜¯å¦å˜—試éŽä½¿ç"¨è°·æŒç¿»è¯ï¼Ÿ
æ,¨å¯ä»¥ç¿»è¯æˆè‹±æ–‡çš,,æ¼¢å—ã€,
ä½ å¯ä»¥æ‰¾åˆ°é€™å€‹å·¥å...·åœ¨é€™è£¡ï¼š http://www.google.es/language_tools?hl=en
最好çš,,å•å€™ï¼Œ
阿爾å...‹é¦¬çˆ¾
@Pirate,
You are quite correct that it was not ethanol, it was about 40 years ago that I saw one.
The boiling point would obviously need to be lower than ethanol to be dramatic.
Thanks for your correction.
There was also a device called a love meter where there were 2 chambers in a sort of bone shape. Boy held one end and girl (whatever) held the other end and which way the colored liquid flowed loved the other more. It bubbled at body temp and as you say it was not ethanol.
Of course such devices as the Ether bird could be considered free energy, I wonder how much energy they could output? Imagine a flock of them!
Phil
Phillip:
They really are cool little devices, these birds. Mine is still running and doing its job with no additional energy input by me except to add a little water to the cup every few days. I don't know if you checked out my video I posted above but this thing does the job I need. Now, if one wanted to close the loop, it might be possible to set one of these birds up in a terrarium of sorts such that when the water evaporates, it is collected on the inside surface and somehow directed back into the cup upon condensation. Then, you would not have to add water. That is not why I am using it but this thought came to me while working with it. Thanks.
Bill
The soft have no use. It's result make me myself confused.
Bill and Phil,
The device you are talking about is simply a primitive heat engine. For a rotating version check out Minto Wheel
Hans von Lieven
In order to distinguish Work with Energy, it is necessary to establish a new mechanical unit (Ya). 1Y(Energy)=1N(Force) •T(1second)=1J(Work)/V(1m/s)
It’s obvious that Force, Work, Energy is the same physical quantity described by different time, speed and distance.
Zang:
We already have that, it is called horsepower.
Bill
It's not so easy.
Suppose we have a rigid container filled with water at the bottom of a tank.
the walls of the container cannot compress, and so inside the container
the pressure is not exerted from the volume of water.
If then two valves and hoses lead outside the tank
1 to drain the water
1 to let air in
(this happens simultaneously as one step)
We avoid the problem of having to fight the water pressure
In this format, the math becomes favorable to the bouyant force.
This may achieve the same goal, and avoid the feasibility issues of
"consuming the contents".
A latch can then release the container, to extract the bouyant energy.
mgh applies to the volume in the container (vdgh)
This is input at the upper height of the water
To sink the container
Bouyancy applies to the volume of the entire tank
(vdgh)
If the tank is large and container relatively small
There is (mathematically) a net energy
The outlet hose has to be slightly lower than the tank
So we lose some negligible h, the volume of the container
But we empty the container and fill it with air for free.
Thus creating v(tank)dgh= v(container)dgh
This is an inequality. (in most cases)
Therefore net E is not =0
unless of course I am missing some detail....