Open Systems

[MarkE]

As clearly stated in the video,the video was to show effect,not efficiency of the system.

I am trying to avoid spending a bunch of time on tests that will be difficult to perform properly just to get an intermediate result.  As I explained, if you really want to know what is going on with this set-up beyond the obvious A-B comparison that it imparts more power to the fan, then you've got to measure several variables for each of the three ports which would be a PITA.

Try and falsify?. How would one do that when it can be seen as clear as day?. That would be like me trying to show that a 12 volt battery really dosnt have 12 volts across it's terminals.

All good experiments are designe to falsify a hypothesis.  That's how the scientific method works:  Come up with a hypothesis.  Design experiments that can disprove the hypothesis.  Conduct those experiments.  And if none of the experiments falsify the hypothesis then the hypothesis is accepted as true.  It is really, really important to understand this process and follow it.

This is why i suggested the mass acceleration test. Would you not agree that to accelerate a mass to a higher speed over a set distance requires more energy ?.
I can remove the nozzel from the venturi,and point that at the fan blade so as it's in the very same position it was when housed in the venturi,and see what the outcome is-->but of course,i have already done this,and can tell you the results are exactly as they are when the nozzel is housed in the venturi.

At a minimum you want to measure the energy into the tube and energy out of the tube to enough accuracy that you can distinguish between the results with and without the local air feed.  The values are kind of small making this a PITA on a budget.

If you would like to put forth a test setup Mark,i would be more than happy to try it out.

[tinman]

The problem here is you are not measuring the 'fuel consumption'. Consider the air hose is supplied by a compressed tank that and the air exits out various shaped nozzles. Obviously the time take to empty the tank would be dependent on the size and design of the nozzle. The amount of 'fuel' would be constant but the total energy generated by would be dependent on runtime and the efficiency of the conversion performed by fan.

Measuring instantaneous power is not sufficient to claim an ENERGY increase.

Also, once you have exhausted the tank you then need to recompress the tank. Did you create enough stored potential to do that.? I can tell you for certain that you never can, no matter how efficient your nozzle is or whether it contains a venturi or not.

None of this of course precludes you from finding and environmentally supplied source of heat and a corresponding environmental sink at a lower temperature and devising a heat engine that operates between those two reservoirs.
                             

The thing is LE,we could make what ever shape or size nozzel we like,but as soon as the gas leaves that nozzel it will draw in ambiant gas(air) with it. The venturi device isnt what makes the venturi effect,the venturi device was based around an effect that already exist. The reason for the venturi device is to localise that effect into a small tube so as it can be put to use. In order to see what only the compressed gas can do as far as work go's ,then it must be isolated from the enviroment when leaving the nozzel,so as it cant draw in the ambiant gas that surrounds it.

[tinman]

I am trying to avoid spending a bunch of time on tests that will be difficult to perform properly just to get an intermediate result.  As I explained, if you really want to know what is going on with this set-up beyond the obvious A-B comparison that it imparts more power to the fan, then you've got to measure several variables for each of the three ports which would be a PITA.All good experiments are designe to falsify a hypothesis.  That's how the scientific method works:  Come up with a hypothesis.  Design experiments that can disprove the hypothesis.  Conduct those experiments.  And if none of the experiments falsify the hypothesis then the hypothesis is accepted as true.  It is really, really important to understand this process and follow it.At a minimum you want to measure the energy into the tube and energy out of the tube to enough accuracy that you can distinguish between the results with and without the local air feed.  The values are kind of small making this a PITA on a budget.

So we have X amount of kinetic energy from the nozzel,and we have that pesky law-->the conservation of energy. But the fan blades rely on a given amount of force applied to them in order to be able to do usful work. Now,there is no conservation of force law,and that is where we may have a win situation. So it takes X amount of applied force to lift say a 1kg ball 1 meter vertically into the air-which is 9.8 joules of energy. But if we roll that ball up a 45* incline to a hight of 1 meter,we now have to apply less force to raise that ball 1 meter,and the energy required to do so remains the same. With the fan,the blades are that incline,BUT that incline is now moving in the opposite direction to the applied force.

[LibreEnergia]

The thing is LE,we could make what ever shape or size nozzel we like,but as soon as the gas leaves that nozzel it will draw in ambiant gas(air) with it. The venturi device isnt what makes the venturi effect,the venturi device was based around an effect that already exist. The reason for the venturi device is to localise that effect into a small tube so as it can be put to use. In order to see what only the compressed gas can do as far as work go's ,then it must be isolated from the enviroment when leaving the nozzel,so as it cant draw in the ambiant gas that surrounds it.

Ok, for interest sake lets assume you are correct and there there is an increase of energy occurring across the device. Surely  then we should be able to chain these devices together and record an energy increase at each one?

If that occurs then why not chain them in circle ? Then just a small amount of input energy would be quickly transformed into a roaring vortex as one device amplified the output of the previous one.

I think you know intuitively that would not occur.  If you believe it could then it is probably the simplest way to test your hypothesis. No complex measurements and calculations of temperature and pressure required. No every increasing vortex = no energy increase. Self accelerating vortex = energy increase.

If you can show the latter I'd happily admit 200 years of thermodynamics are wrong.

[MarkE]

So we have X amount of kinetic energy from the nozzel,and we have that pesky law-->the conservation of energy. But the fan blades rely on a given amount of force applied to them in order to be able to do usful work. Now,there is no conservation of force law,and that is where we may have a win situation. So it takes X amount of applied force to lift say a 1kg ball 1 meter vertically into the air-which is 9.8 joules of energy. But if we roll that ball up a 45* incline to a hight of 1 meter,we now have to apply less force to raise that ball 1 meter,and the energy required to do so remains the same. With the fan,the blades are that incline,BUT that incline is now moving in the opposite direction to the applied force.

Tinman there are many machines that take advantage of force manipulations:  fan jets, the Dyson "Air Multiplier", etc.  None of those machines generate surplus energy.  They limit the losses for the tasks they do.