Selfrunning Waterpump-generator device runs 60 Watts lamp...

[khabe]

Even when Generator has 95% efficient  - this one surely does not ,
Even when mentioned Torpedo pump has some kind of wonderful virtue - gives to water more energy than spent - it surely does not,
Belt transmission efficiency:
http://www.cptbelts.com/pdf/misc/energy_loss_and_belt_efficiency.pdf   even when actual drive is high-tech one - sorry my old eyes ...
What is efficincy of this High-Tech computer designed, laser gut  Waterwheel  ?
http://www.hp-gramatke.net/history/english/page0600.htm#w_wheels
Is it  30%

khabe

[spinner]

OK,

lets do some calculations:

(this is referenced by the datasheet of the pump)
1.) 9720GP/h -> 37000 l/h  @ 1600W/h -> 5,76 MJ
Potential Energie achieved by lifting water E=m.g.h = 108kJ
(-> not so much - this can be "collected" on comming down)

2.) Output hose diameter 1 inch = 2,54cm-> cross section 5cm square.
Water length in hose/beam 2m/1 liter.
This means with 37000l/h or 9720 GPH a speed of water beam of 70km/h or
20m/s.
The kinetic energy of the water beam is (m*v^2)/2 = (20*20m/s^2)*3600/2=
14.4MJ

3.) That means we invest 5.76MJ electrical power and get 108kJ of potential energy +
14.4MJ of kinetic energy. -> COP 2.52.
The Lamp takes 216 kJ -> resulting efficiency needed for generator+turbine
-> 40%.

CONCLUSION: (very vague but interesting - est. pump parameters may differ)
Even a turbine/generator setup with 40% efficiency would run forever.

amazing. nice pump.

PS.: Feel free to calculate it yourself - and don?t stick to the parts with coils
inside ;-))). I?ve seen no calculation so far.

Hi, Fritz!
I have to disagree with your calcs. Simply, centrifugal water pumps are not OU. They're not "heat pumps", where "surplus" energy (HEAT) is being pumped from an environment.

If you calculated that CoP is 2.5, then from where is this energy comming from?

Pumps like the one we're talking about are quite inneficient devices. Khabe said it's (overall) efficiency is probably below 30%, and I certainly agree with this number.

If the water stream output velocity really is 20 m/s, then the water flow rate is severely reduced. Accordingly, energy calcs results are quite lower, too. Well underunity.

Pump manufacturers are "cheating" big with providing ideal/theoretical values for capacities. But flow rate is easily measurable - there are good and not expensive flow meters on the market, still the easiest way is filling a known volume container in known time....

I have a "state of the art" centrifugal pump (all stainless steel and 2" output to pipe, single phase 600W). It's nominal capacity is declared at 14000 l/h, but It never went above 11000l/h (and that was at the beggining of emptying the pool - height difference less than a foot.). When the pool is allmost empty (-2m), it's pumping capacity is reduced below 5000l/h. So a  140m3 of water is pumped out after cca. 26 hours... Ah, yes, output pipe ID 2"/5cm, lenght 4m. If I would put a 1" "nozzle" at the exit, it would probably take a week to empty the pool.

The pump is definitelly not the source of OU in this setup. So - turbine or generator?
As turbine - "paddle" wheel (the spoons on a pulley every now and then) is (sorry to say) - rather primitive - highly inneficient. No OU here either.

If this setup is really self sustaining, than the generator must be at least 10xOU.

Either that, or "inventor" lies.

What is more probable?

Cheers!

[fritz]

Ok,

the 9720GPH thru a 1 inch hose is fictional -
this flow is rated for 2 x 3inch tubing at 1ft.
On the "test" he shoots up in the air which should
result in a different flow.
But the flow generated by this pump is amazing -
and this setup has some chance to run on his own
if its possible to transmit the high flow in a suitable
manner.

I made other calculations with more height on pumping -
But the clue from this setup is the high flow wich leds to
a high kinetic energy of the water stream.

Another funny aspect is that the 60 Watt bulb - our
output "energy" represents only 1% of the complete energy
transfer.
You have electrical and kinetic energy around -some MJ circulating
while the 60 Watts are only 200kJ.

rgds.

[khabe]

When experiment - then it need to be nice, not stupid!
Waterwheel need to be changed for at least this kind of turbine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVr8SnEJ18E and see Related Videos!
Efficiency of an automotive (alternator) generator is 54% (up to 80% very seldom) .
Generator must to be changed to high efficient PM brushless one - the good one has 95%, and  gen must to be not large one!
Losses of  high efficient but large 10KW gen are adequate - then 5% of losses are not small at all, see the efficient curve of generators - the best area is narrow,
Even when used this kind of turbine and direct drive high efficient generator ...unfortunately ... but OK  - funny anyway ;-)
Then people at least can understand that serious men are trying something,
Up till now it looks like product of madhouse handicraft therapy,
Regards,
khabe

[k4zep]

OK All,

We all agree that the math proves it can't work.  The pump is all wrong, the generator is all wrong, the water wheel is all wrong, nothing makes sense................................

A pair of brothers dared to to challenge academia who said with certainty that MAN COULD NOT FLY......

They started the engine, the weights fell, A CAMERA WAS THERE to record the event (obviously trick photography) and the strange kite slid down the rails and rose into the air.............and man flew..................

Who is actually trying to build this strange setup?  I live in a Condo on the 6th floor, simply can not build one here.....If I had my old shop to work in, I'd be squirting water all over the place out in the driveway!  It's sort of like the lottery, the odds are awful but if you don't play you can't win.......So come on you young whippersnappers and armchair engineers, shake a leg and build this thing............t

Ben