Idea on how to trick the conservative gravity - a very possible solution.

[Low-Q]

Hi,

I have been thinking alot on how to make a gravity wheels and buoyancy wheels.

Both concepts are mostly the same deal, but the problem with "conventional" gravity- and buoyancy wheels is that they spend the same energy to move a weight to one or another part of the wheel to make it unbalanced, as what comes out of it - in fact they rotate as much clockwise as counterclockwise. Adding friction, these devices will stop.

I have already in the half baked section written about another view on gravity wheels. Well, there is not much response there lately, and I do not think the latest idea in that thread works even if I calculated positive average torque. I have no tools to make it, so it will still remain in the computer as an idea with possible flaws in the calculations.

I try to think outside the box -> The keyword is "vacuum"!

The Vacuum Controlled Buoyancy Wheel no. 1 (I just had to name it )

Anyway:
I have an idea, a buoyancy wheel that works in air, and probably much better in water. Here is the list of my thaughts:

1. Have you tried to close the aperture of a medical squirt after the piston has beed pushed all the way in, and then pulled the piston out while keeping the aperture closed? You will then create vacuum inside the squirt. The funny thing is that vacuum is nothing, therefor it will not take more effort to pull this piston further from 1cm out to 10cm out. The force needed is the same regardless of where the piston is located inside the squirt.
The pull force is about 1 kg at 1 cm² piston area.

2. If you have two squirts, fixing the squirts when pointing 100% away from eachother at some distance apart and glue the "head" (the part you usually use to push the piston in with) of each piston together, making the two squirt apertures 180^o apart.

3. Say you have 5ml of vacuum in each squirt, each squirt has also 5ml left before the pistons pops out.

4. If you now try to move these two pistons (which is now linked together with glue) in each direction to increase space in one squirt and reducing space in the other squirt, you use no longer force to increase or decrease the vacuum volume inside them. As vacuum is nothing, the vacuum space inside each squirt is virtually an infinite space regardless of the physical volume inside. And that fact is the clue to the whole thing here - a virtual infinit space, totally nonaffected by changing in volume.

5. Vacuum weights about minus 1,4 kg pr. m³ at sea level.

6. Let us scale these squirts up big time, so we have two BIG cylinders, measuring 80cm in diameter (5000cm²), and 2 meters long. The volume inside each cylinder is 1m³.

7. A piston is placed inside each cylinder, and the air inside is pumped out. It now requires 5 tons of pull to keep a volume of vacuum for each piston. Lucky for us, both 5 tons of pull is 180^o apart - and lets pray that the mechanism between the pistons can stand a total of 10 tons of pull to keep the pistons fixed with constant distance.

8. The alignment of the cylinders and the pistons is vertical. If we use just a tiny little force to slide the pistons upwards (depending on piston weight ofcourse), the cylinder at the very bottom will at last contain 1m³ of vacuum. See point 5. to figure out the buoyancy of that volume. The cylinder on the top now contains air. If there was a shaft in the middle of those cylinders, the whole thing would start to rotate if we gave it a tiny push. When it has rotated one half round, we again use a tiny force to push the pistons up again, and the wheel can continue.

9. The cylinders are 12 meters apart. 1,4 kg buoyancy will then provide a torque of 97Nm in average from bottom to top. Most of the energy used to push the pistons up, is taken from the kinetic energy in its weight on the way down in the rotation. In fact, the weight of the pistons and the remaning mechanism is of no consequence - regardless of rotating speed as well - those forces will in sum be zero in one revolution.

10. Friction is a practical thing we can deal with. It can to a sertain level be controlled and minimized - if essential, and must at least be designed to be less than the energy produced by the vacuum controlled buoyancy wheel.

Anyone who follow this idea? I believe in this idea, and cant find any flaw whatsoever which will prevent this wheel to produce energy. You can talk about forces needed to displace air, or water for that matter, but these actions is cancelled out as one part is displacing air/water while another part is consuming the same amount at the very same time. Hence it does not require more energy than defeating friction to move the pistons. As said: Friction can be minimized - if it is essential.

What will happen if we put this wheel under water? Will we get as much as 34600Nm as average torque in one revolution [(1000kg displaced water x 5m radius) / square root 2))x9,81]? It will be slow due to inertia, but it is possible make a streamlined shape outside the cylinders.

Br.

Vidar

[Low-Q]

Here is a picture of the squirt idea.

The pistons can be moved from side to side without using more energy than the friction - friction can be controlled, and reduced to a minimum by using an approperiate method. This can then get heavier on one side without using energy - as consumption of air or water at the back of one squirt is the same a the other squirt displace air or water.

Imaging if we scale this up, and fix the squirts to a rotating disc, and let the pistons inside be fixed ofset the axis of the disc so the pistons can move from side to side during rotation, in order to allways make more emty space, thus more buoyancy, at the left or right side of the wheel.

Vidar

[broli]

Interesting idea. Your logic seems to comply with mine. So far I can't see something wrong.

[AB Hammer]

@Vidar

Here is a design I posted awhile back that uses fluid and vacuum principles.

[broli]

AB the difference is that he's not using mass transfer. I'm still tinkering with Vidar's idea trying to either find convince myself it's possible or not.