Limitless clean energy that can make petrolium fuels obsolete
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=959&v=-9NqqDL6bkk
Applied Sciences Trompe
US Department of the Interior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I85esMMoRa4
Trompe Hammer Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv1lQA-tnwo
"Trompe Hammer" Part 2, Testing. Water powered air compressor and water pump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLoQIAWmQbM
The Future of "HYDROELECTRIC"!?, 60 psi. from 8 foot of head!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX4WtOHFZE
Well it's free energy if you don't have to pay for the water. OK if you have a waterfall, or alternatively a stream or river you can tap into. See picture taken from Mother Earth web site.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.01.28, 09:24:14
Well it's free energy if you don't have to pay for the water. OK if you have a waterfall, or alternatively a stream or river you can tap into. See picture taken from Mother Earth web site.
Smudge
Yes indeed I do see the problem, but the process is interesting, i am wondering if this can be adapted to wind power.
If a wind turbine was to keep water circulating in a loop, the momentum of the flowing water would only require the added energy to maintain flow within the pipes due to losses and drag of the pipe wall surface, if one were then to use this water flow and inject air from the wind turbine and use a Trompe design to capture the air bubbles then we have a fairly efficient way to capturing and storing energy, i would imagine that it does take more energy to pump oxygenated water to a lower level than oxygen void water.
The problem with a conventional wind turbine is that it can only ever be 64% maximum efficiency due to the exit speed of the air across the blade, this needs velocity to maintain motion of the turbine, if instead a flat surface were used and the wind pressure were to act on this flat surface and the force acting on this flat surface was used to push water in a periodic push/ pull cycle then it should be possible to achieve an efficiency greater that 64%.
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.01.28, 09:24:14
Well it's free energy if you don't have to pay for the water. OK if you have a waterfall, or alternatively a stream or river you can tap into. See picture taken from Mother Earth web site.
Smudge
Yes, it is similar to the rampump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
This all goes back to the pyramids I think, where the Nile was used as the source of energy. There is somewhere a drawing of how this was done then, it was big.
Also Victorian fountains worked this way, and also Versaille I believe.
Regards
Mike 8)
I thought I started a thread on this somewhere :-\
You can't YET beat the LoT "ATM", but you can get very close converting low energy into high energy "over time".
Yes I am sure a very good energy storage system could be made out of this, in the past I thought of spinning up a heavy flywheel with an air turbine 8)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Peterae on 2018.01.28, 09:44:38
I would imagine that it does take more energy to pump oxygenated water to a lower level than oxygen void water.
In which case if air is entrained into the falling water in a conventional hydro-electric system it could increase the hydro-electric efficiency
and give you compressed air to drive an additional air-turbine.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.01.28, 15:31:33
In which case if air is entrained into the falling water in a conventional hydro-electric system it could increase the hydro-electric efficiency and give you compressed air to drive an additional air-turbine.
Smudge
I see where you are going Smudge, but you would have to remove the maximum amount of air before the water turbine or you would have cavitation problems on the turbine blades, but certainly doable I think O0
Maybe generate power for producing hydrogen in another plant nearby ;) Free hydrogen anyone O0
Regards
Mike 8)
love this contraption I'm going to look for a few refinements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv1lQA-tnwo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv1lQA-tnwo) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX4WtOHFZ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX4WtOHFZ)
My thinking is this could be used with a single bore hole made in the middle of a fast flowing stream there's certainly plenty of those where I live in the English Lake district.
surly to contrive to fit this into one hole made by a bore hole machine in the centre of a stream is the way forward? It will take a little more thought but here's a foundation of sorts.
(https://losttechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EstherDavis-TrompeDiagram-ReversePipe-262x300.png)
That compressed air tank would have to be much smaller and moved to the left so the compressed air pipe could exit the same hole and then be assisted by a much larger tank on the surface. A local bore hole company inform that their average bore hole depth is between 50M and 60M and the dia can be betwixt one and two meters . I start to ponder if a viable high power system can be constructed and then lowered down a bore hole , It would be all but invisable -- that would be a game changer. for your interest the picture was taken from this website
https://losttechnology.org/science-of-the-trompe/ (https://losttechnology.org/science-of-the-trompe/) also for inspection this high power Trompe machine http://www.cobaltmininglegacy.ca/power.php (http://www.cobaltmininglegacy.ca/power.php) and the engineer http://charleshtaylor.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://charleshtaylor.blogspot.co.uk/)
Kind regards Duncan
Hi Duncan
Interesting links thanks ;)
I'm now thinking of a closed loop system, where oil is pumped using a high voltage asymmetric capacitor (TT Brown) air or helium is introduced at the top and is collected at the bottom in a chamber, heavier liquids and lighter gasses would require less head height to attain a high pressure, the high pressure gas could be used to drive a Tesla turbine for max efficiency of the system.
There could be a wind powered van de graph generator to power the asymmetric capacitor.
oh wow peter your leap frogging ahead of me :-[ It'll take a while to absorbe some of that.The head of water is perhaps not quite as insurmountable or important as it seems. We all seem to think in terms of water wheels and turbines where the head x volume of water is critical here the water is only a carrier of the real energy supply it seems to me at the moment is air, and pressure difference.
The water volume may be quite small as its simply returned to almost where it started - (minus its precious cargo of air of course). rate of flow or turbulence if you like is a different thing.
It strikes me that the power of this system is a product of velocity of the water,its air content and head.
not knowing anything of water bubbles I went in search of information and came up with more than I bargained for. still if anyone wants some light reading fill your boots, - In fact you can have all my share of this first link. its given me a head ache!
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9433/coe02_1.pdf (http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9433/coe02_1.pdf)
here's a construction project outlined
http://outlands.tripod.com/farm/rampump.htm (http://outlands.tripod.com/farm/rampump.htm)
ah an explanation that doesn't hurt my head quite as much.
http://www.appropedia.org/Pulser_pump#Principle_of_Operation (http://www.appropedia.org/Pulser_pump#Principle_of_Operation)
A little more of recent history
http://charleshtaylor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/hydraulic-air-compressor-brief-history.html (http://charleshtaylor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/hydraulic-air-compressor-brief-history.html)
I'm glad to report that Chaz Taylor elected to write a short pamphlet on the system he made his own. at the end of the pamphlet is a handy set of tables (of the time of course) for calculating the horse power required against all the parameters , cubic foot of water flow -- head of water ect apparently good for any system .( I wouldn't know about that) but in the absence of anything else very much it becomes very valuable rules and laws to work to - I like
https://archive.org/stream/IllustratedDescriptionOfTheTaylorHydraulicAirCompressorAndTransmission/49590#page/n0/mode/2up (https://archive.org/stream/IllustratedDescriptionOfTheTaylorHydraulicAirCompressorAndTransmission/49590#page/n0/mode/2up)
Might I suggest (to save time) you download using the PDF option save it of course and then head to page 19. Its my guess that if the engineering worked 120 years ago. it probably still does and the figures and tables are just as relevant now as they were then kindest regards Duncan
so to try what I have in mind , using a single bore hole a fast flowing stream and a few imaginary figures and plug them in to see if this might (just might) be viable . Its a long time since I used gallons and foot Lbs so if I stuff it up -- sorry
Let me assume before I ever start this that I consider 4000 pounds sterling (that is the cost of a sixty meter bore hole here abouts) a good investment for a constant 3Kw electrical supply, and then plug the figures into Mr Taylors table and see what pops out the other end .
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/chaz.jpg)
ye olden days is Horse power steady up there neddy, 3000/746 = I think we can agree on 4 HP (its close enough)
by rule of thumb it seems the inefficiency is taken as 33.33 % in all cases so ho hum I now require
4 +1.33 = 5.33 HP (HP of water required) multiplied by the foot-pounds /sec in one HP= 5.33 HP x 550=2931.5 (The foot pounds of work per second required).
divided by the head of water in feet (my 60 meter bore hole) = 196 feet so 2931/196= 15Lbs of water per second required under the given head divide by the weight of one cubic foot of water
15/62.4 = 0.24 cubic feet of water required each second. plugging that into a gallons/sec converter shows 1.5 gallons of flow each second . If thats right and I reserve judgment cause I'm none to sure it is - it doesn't seem at all difficult to achieve .
kind regards Duncan
So now lets assume I have a stream that I can make unobtrusive use of . and further more (and this is a leap of faith) that I have 4000 bangers to toss about . how do I determine the flow of my stream ?
The 90 deg notched weir seems as good as anything . we've mucked about with horse power and foot pounds mixed up with fractions and decimals along with SI units and things from long long ago why not another into the pot pourri ?
so your going to dam your stream with some marine plywood, sheet roofing (whatever) with a triangle cut in the middle, how far the water rises up the dam is proportional to the flow.
here's a web site all about it
http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Calculators/Water-Measurements/90-Degree-Triangular-Notch-Weirs.php (http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Calculators/Water-Measurements/90-Degree-Triangular-Notch-Weirs.php)
Isn't life grand ? you don't even have to get a pencil out any more , just plug the numbers in, you'll get the flow. and the flow I require I remind you is at least 0.24 cubic feet /sec so I need to be around about 5 inches up that notch and then I could well be on my way to a 3kw Trompe driven generator give or take error -- couldn't I ? :-\" five inches doesn't seem very much - the actress said to the Bishop" :)
Hello Duncan, its been a while. :)
Despite my age and a former keen interest in industrial archeology I've never heard of the " Trompe " before.
The " Vee notch " is something I know about as we had many built into the inputs to the various storage reservoirs that my first employer, the local Water company owned.
The sad part is that these days putting any form of restriction into a watercourse is strictly forbidden but on the other hand you can remove 20 metric tonnes per day without license!
Your " scheme " sounds great on paper but I feel there would be many impediments in practice. No river runs clean you'd have to have some method of removing organics/silt from the bottom of your 60 metre borehole.
The device however could be made to fit into the lined tube easily and perhaps be made so that it can be winched out periodically for maintenance?
I loved the video that Peter linked to on the top of this thread, what a great sense of humour and, as he said almost anything can run from compressed air!
Cheers Graham.
thanks for the info Duncan.
This could also be applied to tidal flooding.
It is nice to see enthusiastic discussion on these old technologies! O0
Compressed air energy storage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
"Advanced fiber-reinforced bottles are comparable to the rechargeable lead-acid battery in terms of energy density."
Did I mention the hhop gen 2 hybrid is a fluid compression pump ? I normally focus on the liquid aspect, with the energy storage coming from either increasing a liquids gravitational potential energy, or storing it in an accumulator system. (Raised weight accumulator is good for this due to constant pressure output for entire length of stroke)
There is no reason you cannot compress air into a storage bottle using Pascal's principle and a hydraulic jack system in reverse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_press
Solar powered air compression ;)
Quote from: Peterae on 2018.01.29, 20:31:18
the high pressure gas could be used to drive a Tesla turbine for max efficiency of the system.
I was playing about with Tesla turbines ten years ago or so and one thing I considered was adding golf ball dimples to the disc surfaces.. I planned on doing this by using a spring loaded hammer punch to displace the stainless metal and create a dimple. I never got around to it, got distracted by hhop which sucked up the next decade! (my god has it been so long!!) Anyway, the idea never left my subconscious and with the recent advent of 3D printing it could be quite simple to design, print and test various disc designs.
Base drag does not apply in a Tesla turbine as two surface boundary layers of gas are partially overlapping in a spiral to the center exhaust, typically about 0.030" (30 thou) disc spacing gap. Identically printed discs could be set in phase or out of phase and efficiency easily measured by no load (and loaded) RPM at a set air pressure input. Skin friction improvements may well be significant..
To overcome the problem of decreasing efficiency with a lower pressure of gas it would be helpful to have 3 air storage bottles in parallel manifold. This would mean for example that if you were running the turbine at 200 psi and your storage bottles were at 4500 psi each you would achieve a longer run time at 200 psi than just one bottle alone. This is a known technique..
Might be fun to experiment with as I do not know of anyone who has published results in this area of research ?
Why don't plane designers put golf ball dimples on aircrafts to increase the efficiency?https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-plane-designers-put-golf-ball-dimples-on-aircrafts-to-increase-the-efficiency?share=1
The answer is because there are different types of drag. The two types relavent here are base drag and skin friction drag. Base drag is the drag created when airflow separates from a body creating a low pressure area behind the body. Skin friction drag is the drag generated by airflow rubbing against the body. Golf balls take advantage of scallops or dimples to create small vortices that energize the flow, which keep it attached to the body longer. This energized flow creates more skin friction drag, but reduces base drag. In the case of a round body, like a golf ball, the base drag is so much bigger than the skin friction drag, that even though the dimples increased the friction drag, they reduced the base drag so much that the net effect is a reduction in total drag.
Airplanes used much more streamlined shapes, so they already have really low base drag. If airplanes use dimples to energize flow, they will increase skin friction drag, but won't gain much in terms of their already low base drag. So the net effect will be an increase in total drag.
Look into Fluid Dynamic Drag by Hoerner (
https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/p...). It's THE book as far as drag is concerned. The comparison of bodies of equivalent drag (streamlined versus round) is phenomenal.
How do dimples in golf balls affect their flight?https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba/
Tom Veilleux, a senior scientist, and Vince Simonds, director of aerodynamic research at the Top-Flite Golf Company, explain.
Engineers and scientists in the golf industry study the impact between a golf club and a golf ball to determine the ball's so-called launch conditions. The impact typically lasts only 1/2000 of a second, but it establishes the ball's velocity, launch angle and spin rate. After this brief impact the ball's trajectory is controlled entirely by gravity and aerodynamics--no matter how much the golfer hopes or curses. As a result, aerodynamic optimization--achieved through dimple pattern design--is a critical part of overall golf ball development.
A smooth golf ball hit by a professional golfer would travel only about half as far as a golf ball with dimples does. Most golf balls have between 300 and 500 dimples, which have an average depth of about 0.010 inch. The lift and drag forces on a golf ball are very sensitive to dimple depth: a depth change of 0.001 inch can produce a radical change to the ball's trajectory and the overall distance it can fly. Dimples have traditionally been spherical in shape, but it is possible to optimize the aerodynamic performance of other shapes. The HX golf ball by Callaway, for example, uses hexagons. (see image)
Air exerts a force on any object moving through it.. (the opposite is also true)
Blessings Grumage Its nice to hear from you. Lol I wasn't intending leaving the notched thing in place just a temporary thing to get an idea of flow I thought.
As for obstructing her majesty's waterways the farmers hereabouts seem to take a liberal view to such petty rules and regulations particularly in flood time.
In fact they'll divert the stuff anywhere they can with anything they can .. but of course I take your point there could well be problems with "The authorities' -twas ever so.
according to Charles Taylor this thing isn't prone to silting if I remember rightly thats because the water is sucked in from very near the surface.
I kinda view it in my imagination like a pint of lager and trying to push as much froth (air) down the pipe as possible whilst using little water from near the surface.
anyway despite Charles's sales pitch your quite right Grumage its going to need some provision to inspect, clean and service. cause sure as eggs is eggs its going to get some crap down there at some stage.
although absolutely nothing to do with trompe's Grumage I came across a clip some time ago and immediately thought of you wrestling with that Wesley thing a while back, so I take the liberty of inserting here for your interest with apologies to everyone else for drifting wildly off course briefly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKGoXD8P5A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKGoXD8P5A)
There's a lot of if's and possibilities starting to peculate from this very old Trompe technology and that's a good thing. another that comes to mind (if the bore hole approach is taken) is the possibility of being able to repeat the operation again and again just a little further down stream. after all you have lost none,or at least very little of the head of water from the bulk of the stream. Its an odd concept but in theory why not?
evolvingape - as usual a worthy contribution with much to consider I'll start trying to digest some of it. I have recently read you elsewhere contributing to things political,
I'm afraid thats the real block to this or any other potential free energy devices. There's no shortage of devices and as soon as Bill Mollison stated in the video Peter linked to -" The technology was suppressed , and agents removed all the books from all the library's in the early 1930s " Then any researcher worth a tin o'beans knows its going to be a COP+1 device of some sort. Its that single sentence that set me digging and delving.
We are living in fragile times possibly of imminent empire change when most don't know there's an empire anyway, never mind an empire enforced with oil and energy. Yes its refreshing and very interesting to consider yet another device that can alter the world out of all recognition, and to its advantage a device which cannot be patented . a device with scraps of information and design detail still available if we search hard enough and take care of it.
Grumage is probably quite right some petty bi law or another will probably prevent any chance of this being tried seriously in the UK (although never say die of course)still many others read our forum around the world and who knows one or two of them might have a stream at the bottom of the garden .. and great oaks from little acorns grow. I watched this video the other day evolvingape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh2_3WFEqYA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh2_3WFEqYA)
It doesn't inspire but does tell a small part of the story. Many of the members here have developed COP+1 devices. some I have even managed to duplicate at least to the point where I can see they worked.
A lot of members are simply blasé at a new/old introductions -- bored even, - yawn -- seen that before. feed me another grape !
This is a water based system they have been shown to work many times by different researchers at different times here's a short list of a few of those researchers.
Chuck Henderson
Daniel Hoffman
Dennis Lee
Drunvalo Melchizedek
Eletrik
Frank Robert
George Wiseman
Hector Pierre Vaes
Henry M. Paine
Herman P. Anderson
Ilya Velbov
Isaac de Rivas
James A. Robey
Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir
Jean-Louis Naudin
Jerry W. Decker
Jim Cornell
"Joe" (Joe cell)
John Ernst Worrell Keely
Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac
Juan Carlos Aguero
Ken Rasmussen
Kim, Sang Nam
LateNite Leroy
Leroy Pea
Lou (Louis) LaPointe
Luther Wattles
Michael A. Peavey
Nakamatsu Yoshiro
Nikola Tesla
Ozzie Freedom
Paracelsus
Patrick J. Kelly
Paul Pantone
Paul Zigouras
Dr. Robert Zweig
Rodger Billings
Ron Barker
Rudolf A. Erren
Rudolph W. Gunnerman
Sam Leslie Leach
Stanley Meyer
Steven Horvarth
Walter E. Wyles
William A. Rhodes
William Nicholson
Its perhaps wishful thinking evolvingape but maybe one of us might just see a way to make this contraption simple, compact and powerful in such a way that it gets out of the box and can't be stopped. Of course I'm enthusiastic - after all Its a distinct possibility and its certainly starting some wheels turning for me.
Peterae - I'm genuinely enjoying researching this and happy to post anything I find to promote it. and of course tidal too , however the buisness of moving air entrapped in water is what is engaging me at the moment .
Kindest regards everyone Duncan
As I understand things....
The maximum air pressure that can be achieved under " normal " atmospheric conditions is based upon the height the water is above the collector, yes?
There has to be a differential between input and output otherwise no water will flow.
I built many " hydraulic ram pumps " to move water from our little brook that ambles its way through the garden, disproved the myth that they don't run submerged. Eventually had to stop when my neighbors discovered the source of the noise that kept them awake every night for months!! >:-)
I think that using the pulsating nature of the hydraulic ram might improve the pressure gain at the collector.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Grumage yes I'll try and expand on that (or a least what I'm imagining) The difference in height and hence pressure is here caused by the depth of a bore hole . a bore hole that is comparatively small when compared to the volume of water traveling down the stream . very much like the example I've worked up above in fact.- a sixty meter artificial drop.
What you say is quite correct in usual situations but this is far from usual it is Dependant on water to carry air and not reliant on the weight of that water to 'do work' , consider the 'compact trompe' I show It must return water up the same bore hole to the same height it started -- what other option is there after all ?
The figures I have used come from the actual engineering pamphlet written by Charles Taylor and I have intentionally stressed the bore hole aspect to amplify and show this glaring and interesting anomaly.
I've amplified it again by saying (in theory bore hole after bore hole could be installed) of course I'm asking the question (wouldn't you ?) and right now I don't see why not. This is not hydraulic's nothing much to do with hydraulics its very much pneumatics water is only the carrier. as Peter has pointed out that might be improved on too using a different fluid.
It isn't a mass times distance operation in fact rather perversely the reverse (if water becomes lighter w.r.t how much air its carrying.)
It seems to me how much air can you get down that hole is the only important criteria. Perhaps this remarkable engineer is wrong or maybe I'm working through his examples incorrectly by all means put your own figures into his tables I'm happy to be contradicted or corrected but don't confuse this with a mechanical action for the moment . This thing shouldn't make a noise and I'm pretty sure would leave your neighbors snoring peacefully
Hi Duncan.
I picture a " U " tube... Without a difference in height between input and output nothing will flow, equilibrium.
Cheers Graham.
I picture a U tube with a uni directional compressed air pump in the middle of it. ,like you Grumage the Trompe is a concept I've never heard of before and water as transport for air is also novel to me . I beleive you may be very wrong thinking in terms of a U tube filled with water. why do I think your wrong ? because thats not what it is, is it?
Its just what your imagining . study the compact Trompe -- you see the feed pipe coming down carrying lots of air ? at the bottom it doesn't see a head of water pressure as a U tube would only the air pressure of the tank. It releases the air into the tank and at that depth its going to be an awful lot of pressure. The huge fall is there but air pressure forces most of the water back to source.
again Grumage I urge you to stop thinking in terms of hydraulics you are looking at a novel concept and clutching at straws to try and make it fit into known dogma . who knows perhaps your right and I'm wrong, I'm certainly seeing something different to you here. imho this has not been supressed without good reason. I might also respectfully suggest you work through a few'pretend' examples using the engineers own tables which I show - you'll soon get the gist or who knows, find where I havent - kind regards Duncan
I agree with your explanation Duncan of how it works.
I think the point here is that it is probably not very efficient but if you have a running water source and by expending a once off amount of energy to dig out the required underground structure then you have a compressed air supply forever without any additional running costs, unlike you would have if the air supply was from a compressor being driven by a diesel engine, supressed info, well I can tell you which device the petroleum companies would prefer you to use.
Hi Peterae I have spent quite a lot of time reading though this aged stuff and I find this hard to believe myself but Charles Taylor claims an amazing better than 80% efficiency for this thing.- (I don't know where thats measured from).
regardless if you have a big drop and a little bit of water it seems to me like it will do one hell of a job . and importantly not once but perhaps over and over again,
all said and done if the engineers figures are to be trusted and a HP in 1890 is exactly the same as a HP in 2018.and so is a foot and a cubic foot - if thats all true here is COP >1 on a huge scale for the cost of a hole. well thats my guess and hope anyway.
I guess we'll have to think of some way to test this thing
This struck me as cogent and worth emphasizing - thanks, Duncan:
"We are living in fragile times possibly of imminent empire change when most don't know there's an empire anyway, never mind an empire enforced with oil and energy..." by BigOil, BigBanks, and BigPharma!
And I'm enjoying the discussion about Trompe.
Bravo prof ! It could be argued that 'big oil' embraced everything else . Just to emphasise the major points and how they fit together so others might see just how fragile . I suggest these few documenteries starting with 'big oil' take careful note that it starts with mediical quackery and ends with medical quackery. The control of what is, and may be taught at univercities and so by extension schools across the developed world is explained as is the rapid removal of 'sensative information' from libaries and books - just as described in the opening video posted by Peterae.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-oil-conquered-world/ (https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-oil-conquered-world/)
As you see big oil quickly controls big Pharma (and still does) and the banks and big oil embrace each other, in a unholy alliance.
It remains to build the empire which I report as very fragile. Its very fragile because its built on straw. The worlds money standard 'the gold standard' was destroyed and replaced with a bottomless pit with no standards at all . Its described by that pillar of honesty and virtue Tricky Dicky as very technical - let me ask you. if I borrow your bike and then refuse to give it back,sell it for sweeties and welsh on any possible deal do you think thats very technical ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o)
The next move however is the one thats created such danger for energy researchers . An empire built and controled with energy well described by one who was there doing it, John Perkins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDPoZJNT1eM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDPoZJNT1eM)
well the table seems to have tilted yet again , The powers that be are well ahead of the curve.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rockefeller-family-is-exiting-the-oil-business/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rockefeller-family-is-exiting-the-oil-business/)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-21/petrodollar-under-attack-heres-what-you-need-know (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-21/petrodollar-under-attack-heres-what-you-need-know)
you get the picture ? it seems they can't hold the energy joke together for much longer,the puppet masters know it and have moved out to a stronger fortress.hence I say "fragile empire" so called 'free energy' - Its always been there,I suspect the cost will be very far from free as we get to use and engineer it. Kindest regards Duncan
Peterae - I see a relationship here that may take a little while to explain. I'm going to have to describe what I see in my own lumbering way because I can see no way of explaining the relationship simply.
This one might well get me or loved ones hurt - I just hope not!
I have all night courtesy of a twisted sciatic nerve and much to say so I'll try and play the piper and hope people kind enough to read and consider what I write , can follow.
What you present here as 'The Trompe' I also see as a Kissing cousin of a machine developed by battle of Britain Spitfire pilot Peter Davey and which was introduced to the forums some decade or so ago.
Now I'm not really biased regarding any particular inventor, and it is the inventor I tend to study rather than the particular contraption. However in the case of Peter Davey I make an exception as you read this and understand what this man has done and how and why he did it I'm sure you'll agree he's a class act - a diamond from the last generation . let me remind of the short clip that did the rounds - then I'll do my very best to take this to pieces for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlQ6z_qqoU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlQ6z_qqoU)
I'm sure you remember it, It was a frustrating enigma across many forums for months. Its actually (believe it or not) the inverse of this trompe machine. I need to tell some of Peters story to relate how they connect so I crave some patience for something that at first doesn't seem to relate at all.
Peter was a volunteer pilot from New Zealand unlike British nationals who were conscripted the 'colonials' were formed into 'volunteer' squadrons. The losses experienced by Peters city of Glasgow 602 squadron which was seconded to the defense of London and the south east were high,very high.
It should be remembered that Britain was fighting entirely alone against the axis powers through this period. despite very heavy losses 602 squadron kept up a kill rate second to none
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/spitfires.jpg)
Peters 602 squadron
with a war time death rate of circa 50 % each year young pilot officer Peter Davey rose rapidly through the ranks here is fg off Peter Davey in 1943.
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/group_shot_1943.jpg)
Peter was a skilled and cunning adversary. those that didn't develop essential skills very quickly didn't survive the early stages of this air war.
Now let me give you a question to ponder , do you think one of the few, a volunteer one of the few at that, who flew through that bloody maelstrom. a pilot with a full service pension along with his state pension would concern himself with lies and trickery at the end of his life ? your a poor judge of an RAF officer if you do!
Just for your interest here's my grandfather in uniform who was flying heavy bombers at the time. he also was also very lucky to survive that war. It also explains perhaps why I'm a little biased towards the RAF
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/Norman.jpeg)
I find it frustrating when clever skilled people of the caliber of Peter explain exactly how they developed a machine and lots of supposedly clever folks don't listen, don't study, don't pay attention and then go and do something else very different anyway , from what I saw in that era across the forums people might as well have knitted a sock puppet and expected it to boil water ;D In fact think a certain "Serbian professor" did and then sold every one else the story. ;D ;D
Peter tells us he first developed his idea flying his spitfire, Peter tells us he discovered he could with careful adjustment find a speed where the cabin warmed up - a distinct advantage up there,its bloody cold .
Imagine now if you will a canopy thats a tad leaky and a fuselage with a few patched bullet holes, or if its easier a house with back and front door open, there is a vicious through draft.
If you happen to be thousands of feet up in the air plodding along at two or three hundred MPH its a cold unpleasant through draft.
You can't shut the front or back door in this case but what you can do is alter the wind speed. Just as Peter explained with regard to his saxophone there is a pressure difference between the mouth piece and the horn. Understand that the same thing applies to his device and his spitfire - he tells you so !
Inside his spitfire he discovered he could carefully adjust the speed until he had created a standing wave of air. A standing wave in which he 'a solid lump' was in a nice warm wind free trough. The same applies to the trompe but of course reversed - maximum turbulance is wanted at the bottom of that hole! maximum air released
Peter then was considering air at either end and a solid in the center (himself) With the Trompe we consider a solid at either end (water) and air in the middle , hence I suggest to you one is the inverse of the other.
Both rely on this balance call it resonance if you wish however its absolutely nothing to do with 50Hz 60Hz or indeed any Hz at all Peter told you sound - a longtitudinal wave in this context .
I invite you to watch this clip I shot at the time, It is crude, and the camera none to clever . In fact its just a web cam turned at this dangerous abortion. It is simply two spoons very close together thrown into a jam jar of tap water and plugged into 240 volt mains . There is the refinement of an ammeter with a 10 amp FSD its not an action video It was never meant for broadcast but something very important is happening here which I totally missed. I guess so obsessed with overunity (which this certainly isn't) I wasn't paying attention.
Please watch the ammeter very carefully although I'm ashamed to say what I missed is so painfully obvious its hard to miss -- As this is connected to the grid, the mains voltage is very stable that being the case power input is directly proportional to current at all times .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teAksvLyaJ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teAksvLyaJ0)
Look at the variation !! particularly when boiling furiously the current and so power consumption drops away to almost nothing . This very importantly is a non ohmic circuit it fact its not really a circuit at all is it? Its a variable capacitor. oddly the significance of that didn't strike home.
Even at this early point surly you can see if you have a pot of furiously boiling water whilst using no power you could in theory wrap a pipe around it and feed say a radiator by indirect heating. For those who whine and bitch about COP>1 systems you couldn't get closer to one without it biting you on the arse! However -
Peter went a few steps further, the water was always boiling in Peters contraption regardless of its actual temperature.
just as the air is always cold in the trompe - again its the inverse you see ! tending to hot - not to cold
I hope you also noticed that where the spoons I threw into the jam jar were closest together (Just before the bowls) boiling was localized and instant its also very important to Peter Daveys plan as you'll see.
Peters Device was exactly as he described it to you, but no one paid the slightest attention . It was just the same as his spitfire and his saxophone.
a hole at either end and a controlled vacuum in the middle - exactly the inverse of 'The trompe'
please allow me to show you. here is Peters device. I've blown it up a little for you
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/welding.jpg)
Peter tried many times to get this patented I think we know on this forum that was never going to happen . Those who have had dealings with the patent system will know secrecy is all important. Peter already has a few patents to his name, he knew the procedure . appearing on national television with such a device was an act of desperation by a gallant and sick old man who's hope was to leave a legacy for his family. His son (also called Peter) is retired himself now anyway.
I'm almost loath to reveal the cunning that kept this man alive above London whilst dancing with Messerschmitt's the same cunning that has hidden his device from so many 'clever' people for so long, Anyway lets start.
The ball is made of stainless steel the two hemispheres are welded together so as to be 'air tight' Peter has painted the ball in an effort to disguise what he has done. (use iron or steel and it'll quickly blow up because of free ions transmitted to the water)
look long and hard at the bottom of Peters ball, do you see the slight rust mark on the cheap paint?
That is a hole, a very measured and precise hole into the ball . It is the canopy of the spitfire or the mouthpiece of the saxophone - Its where the water enters in a throttled controlled way. Its a specific size! It has a flow rate
Just as the trompe has a flow rate.
Do you see the little hat on top ? hidden under that hat are a few more little holes . holes to let the boiling water or steam out . the horn of his saxophone or his patched fuselage if you like.
I'm none to good at drawing and I'm ashamed to say when I was helping PJ kelly with a few odds and sods he tried very hard to teach me paint - it was a miserable failure . anyway heres what I think your going to find inside the secret ball quickly scribbled for your enjoyment - Those plates are very close a matter of a mm or two. Young Peter records he once tried to re-heat some coffie with the contraption . I think you can imagine the result !
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/ball.jpg)
here's a random video off the net showing tap water and spacing of 3mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iiWGel3q50 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iiWGel3q50)
try to absorb my scribble and we'll go through whats happening, then folks can pretend they cracked Peters secret ball
all by themselves whilst I get shot at. :'(
Watch again if you would please Peters short clip and take special note of the hesitation as he first introduces the ball to the water, here it is for you again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTV85J2QHj0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTV85J2QHj0)
Its not old age its very intentional ! a little water enters the ball through the hole in the bottom - It boils instantly, just as you saw with the spoons I showed you !
Steam fills the ball that is what Peter is studying , It takes but a second and he sees a puff of steam rise from under the hat
in goes the ball. That ball into cold water creates a vacuum. - naturally the inverse of the trompe again which creates pressure!
here's an example of whats happening filmed for primary school children that being so I'm quietly confident that one or two of the finest minds on our forum might also be able comprehend what is happening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0TQxYemrgg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0TQxYemrgg)
as this device just like the trompe depends on pressure (but of course the inverse) - that is negative pressure do you happen to recall what happens to the boiling point of water at low atmospheric pressure ? no? any one tried having a cup of tea up everest ? here's what happens --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyqFkFsH28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyqFkFsH28)
taken to a further extream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5mkf066p-U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5mkf066p-U)
remember the spoons ? what do you think the effect of low pressure would have in that situation ? again let me show you with only a small battery applied to plates in water inside a jar thats been evacuated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msr0TOHuAS8&index=7&list=UU-6Xkt8OXH0ThIeetHov04A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msr0TOHuAS8&index=7&list=UU-6Xkt8OXH0ThIeetHov04A)
Do you remember I showed you water boiling furiously betwixt two spoons whilst drawing a feeble ammount of power?
The commentators didn't lie , neither did Peter the water is boiling instantly just as the clip shows.
Heres a graph vacuum to water boiling point point which might help you see the curve peter tried to follow
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-evacuation-pressure-temperature-d_1686.html (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-evacuation-pressure-temperature-d_1686.html)
so none ohmic and this certainly isn't a straight line graph is it ? time for maxima and minima and a bit of double differentiation I guess -- anyone remember how to do all that stuff ? :-[
Peter's contraption of course sailed alongside that curve although I dare say as a fighter pilot Peter Davey didn't sail much at all! however history records he and his spitfire were heavily involved in air sea rescue towards the end of the war. very good eyesight it seems.
now you have all the pieces - keep the water boiling and you use no power or at least very little.
This Witts thing might also appeal to you it seems like the same patter to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoiY3FvxKo)
The opposite action of a trompe I think you'll agree? Kindest regards Duncan
Gentlemen.
I wasn't disputing the fact that the Trompe system didn't work just the fact that if input and output pipes aren't at a height difference nothing's going to happen.
I went back to the pictures that both Smudge and Duncan had posted, look closely, there IS a difference in height. It WILL work!
With Duncan's proposed 60 metres deep hole a pressure of 85 PSI should be achievable if my understanding is correct. The volume proportional to the amount of air that can be carried down.
I was thinking about setting up a quick demonstration, but let's be honest here most of us older folks know how a
" water level " works, don't we? ;)
As for efficiencies? Well what the hey, a " hydraulic ram " wastes most of the water that passes through it but if the supply is plentiful, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Cheers Graham.
Great stuff grum ! there is a height difference shown but I think you'll find none essentual - ah but we'll see. ;) I dont mind being wrong , the guy who never made a fuck up never made anything. I'm delighted your going to try and put something together I dont have much in the way of pipes l quite apart from the fact I've twisted the sciatic nerve all I can do is hobble about :-\ which Is also why I've written that long post -- beds out of the question
Kindest regards Duncan
Very interesting Duncan, Thanks for the write up. ;)
random thoughts and perhaps possibilities on water entrainment. (or why does my back hurt so bloody much in the middle of the night)
fluid mechanics or pneumatics for that matter are not area's I have studied much.
That might be a good thing if I strike the right path but there's a distinct possibility you might be about to read a page or two of do'dos -- some members have observed I'm very good at that too!
Now I really don't want to piss Grumage off , hells bells he's going to build something whilst I can't even walk! Still there could well be useful mileage in pursuing our differences, After all if what I'm seeing is wrong I might learn something or if what your seeing is out of kilter Grum we might fine tune a better machine.
I think we can all agree this is a compressor -- Its not a hydraulic jack or a water Ram or a Ram jet anymore than its a Herdwick Ram ! 'compressor' 'compressor'
It is a technology last used a hundred years ago which if you all and I really do mean all reading me here were critically and brutally honest know absolutely nothing about. I can write that with certainty because its been suppressed and buried. What folks do and me too is look at the concept look at the pretty pictures and then try very hard to make it conform to something we do know. hence all the talk of FFFFFFing Rams and hydraulics . Humor me for a while and let the Rams go and crop the grass somewhere far away. -- Very far away , Whilst we start to think in a different way.
writ large in front of you in great big letters dripping in Blood should be --
THIS IS SUPRESSED TECHNOLOGY
how do you know that ? A professor who was there at the time all be it as a youngster has told you so.
I can't compete with the 'jet set' I don't have the money,but I reckon I can compete with the 'Ram set' Fluid Pneumatics is a subject about which I know the square root of fuck all at the moment .
Here lies a big difference every one else knows the square root of fuck all too but at least I've admitted it to myself.
I am not prepared to confuse it with water levels Rams or pumps all for the convenience of convincing myself that I know about this ancient technology.
So I might take a wrong path thats far better odds than ' I have certainly taken the wrong path' which anything to do with hydraulic theory and rams almost certainly is. So I start
What do I know about 'entrainment' ? that's the term Charles Taylor used to describe the bubbles of air 'trapped' in the water rushing down the first pipe. since the whole object of the compressor is to get as much air down that hole and into the holding tank as possible it seems a good starting point. unsurprisingly I find hydraulics engineers don't like air entrainment in their systems and take serious steps to avoid it .. This is nothing to do with hydraulics and so apply negative logic to hydraulic solutions . we require as much entrainment as possible
http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/hydraulic-fluids/air-entrainment-how-it-happens-how-avoid-it (http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/hydraulic-fluids/air-entrainment-how-it-happens-how-avoid-it)
Not knowing this subject the terminology is not familiar , entrainment in water , entrapment in water, cavitation all seem interchangeable to me at the moment . What is pretty certain in my mind is that in this Technology there is COP>1 Thats why the filth suppress things . or didn't you suspect that ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pSJ1GcXCK8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pSJ1GcXCK8)
So here we see 'water hammer' 'air locks' entrainment' 'entrapment' 'cavitation' whatever you want to call it demonstrating COP>1 measured by schools ,fire departments an invited engineer et-al
years ago. much more energy out than goes in. would anyone care to explain the maths and physics of that to me ? Or can we accept that it is tied in some way to pockets (of something) trapped or created in the water.?
Thats what I intend to do for the moment in the absence of any greater wisdom. There are great advantages here especially for Grumage for instance who's intending a build .
we can easily separate the knowledge we do know from that which has been hidden .
As an example an underground tank of compressed air -- there's books and books computer programs and all the information you could ever want easily available . so apart from physical construction I suggest we waste no time on it. It hasn't been suppressed !
Like wise anything to do with Rams, hydraulics,water levels and all that tosh. Which doesn't mean 'I know it all' or that it isn't interesting simply that like compressed air the library's full of books and tables anything you might want to know is available It hasn't been suppressed! If any of this standard stuff needs to be engineered anyone of thousands of people could do it ergo It really isn't of interest to us I suggest we keep away from it until and if its required.
with the caveat that we focus on bastardizing hydraulic principles for reasons I'll explain in a moment or two.
In short everything we do know or can find out PDQ exit stage left . IMHO we are far more interested in what has been suppressed and why than what is common knowledge - I wonder do you follow that logic ?
Let me turn the contrast up and get to priorities .
1/There is evidence already shown (Jim Griggs) that air in water leads to a COP>1 situation how, why, we don't know or need to know (just yet) but for the moment I'm happy to believe it does .
2/ There is evidence already shown by Peterae in his posted video that a machine who's basic working principle is to trap air in water is heavily suppressed
In this case whats suppressed and where along with our priorities and main ambition doesn't seem hard at all but perhaps thats just me. so let me simplify
To get as much air down this hole and into a chamber as possible trapped in water , using as little water and energy as possible.
here at last we start get to the crux of the matter, the bit no one wants to write about, the bit no one wants to expand on, Why ? because we know nothing about it and are frightened to look silly.
How do I know everyone (like me) knows nothing about it ? Its knowledge thats been suppressed - silly Billies Its been suppressed ! Which particular bit then vexed the filth and caused the knowledge to be erased along with the machines ? I ask the question because thats where we should be focusing all efforts and re-engineering far better than ever it was done hundreds of years ago.
Its pretty easy really, simply ask yourself honestly which part of this simple operation you know little or nothing about , The answers will all be the same --- getting air into and out of water. having said that I reckon compared to Jim Griggs and all those rotors we have a pretty easy ride.
getting the air out at first glance doesn't seem to difficult, turbulence seems to be one answer.
bastardizing hydraulic principles
whatever the hydraulic engineering dogma says about preventing entrained air we can do the opposite
.with gusto
air entrained in water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdUT-Zx-v8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdUT-Zx-v8)
I'm going to scratch around this peculiar subject of entrainment now and try and find what pissed off and frightened the bad guys. I'm looking forward to it - Kindest regards Duncan
Hi all
Now I have got some things nearly out of the way, I can give some input to what looks like a nice system of storing energy at very high (efficiency). Note the brackets, efficiency to what? if the stream is for free the compressed air is for free (to make). I think the 80%+ is in relation to water turning a water wheel which runs a compressor from the same water source but not taking into consideration the compressor losses such as heat and friction etc.
Whatever of the above, the system is without a doubt, very attractive, and with modern day mechanics can be improved a huge amount.
The pressure limit is the height or "depth" of water above the inicial store, or with using along with ram pump tech: the pressure I'm sure could be doubled but at the expense of a moving valve.
More to come, lunch beccons.
Regards
Mike 8)
haha you beat me to it Mike!
I only just got back from work and i have a splitting headache so ill explain it all later if i can be bothered. I want to go and play toys with my children.
Its not a good idea Duncan to insult all the members here who can easily explain this simple system. Please stop projecting your ignorance onto us!
Now, it's my turn on the slide :)
Not " suppressed " just forgotten?
Picture taken from my late fathers Harmswoth encyclopaedia.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2018.02.02, 15:25:50
Not " suppressed " just forgotten?
Picture taken from my late fathers Harmswoth encyclopaedia.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham
Yes these things are conveniently forgotten or made to be not interesting, not so easy these days with internet, but still done.
We just need to resurrect it into an energy producer, even if it is only 1kw/hr.
If you have a stream which is always running, then you have a constant build up of pressure which you can transfer into an external tank. The primary tank which is buried does not have to be that big, it is just the cylinder for the water to press against the air collected there.
The bottom end design will be of great importance to extract the air before the water rises and exits.
The top end design will be needed to gain the maximum air into the water.
Regards
Mike 8)
No Grum 'suppressed' please do watch the introduction video. The prof says quite clearly this subject was intentionally removed from library's - and I'd guess he'd know he's of an age to have probably been there. That doesn't mean every scap of knowledge ceases to exist including its name or that there is no reference to be found . for instance you'll find lots of info regarding Tesla's work. but the detail and science is missing. Or wose still altered. Thats how I read the situation anyway.
My dear Duncan.
I did watch the half hour video, I found it both informative and entertaining.
I also remember him talking about its use in mines. This technology was, as I see it in vogue before electricity became common. What better way to drive pneumatic drilling machines than with compressed air that cost nothing to produce?
Today is a different story, if I had a mountain stream 300 feet above me I wouldn't be entraining air with water I'd just drive a turbine direct coupled to an alternator.
I also watched the other videos where the application of the " ram effect " enhanced the air pressure, as Mike has pointed out the pressure is a direct result of the supply " head " under normal conditions.
Cheers Graham.
Dear Grum if you watched the video and suppression is your interest why have you changed subject ? watch specifically 23Min to 25 Min and note the professor confirmed the Library and knowledge base was intentionally destroyed. That is called suppression and should end the subject. However just for your information This was very typical of the huge Cartels who joined forces very early in the 20th century.
They removed and censured or altered patents, books and knowledge. bases they infiltrated centers of learning and set or altered the curriculum to suit their own evil agenda.
It was done in a very snide way under the guise of philanthropy. It still cost many millions to suppress free energy and gain control of the education systems but it was done. It is still very effective today
The main agent for this destruction in the UK particularly Higher education and the control of educational information and the school curriculum was Andrew Carnegie and the Carnegie foundation which in turn was under the direction of and hand in glove with the Rockefeller foundation.
anything which you might know as 'over unity' was an absolute priority which is why people who study the likes of Tesla are prepared to pay huge amounts for the few bits of print that were not swept up in the many purges which went on year after year and still go on to this day.
If your really interested and have the time I suggest this documentary which will tell the tale pretty much, and amplify the reasons people have been dumbed right down who did it,and why. It is about energy as well of course. It is an award winning documentary and I urge you to watch the whole thing however if its only control of books and education you don't comprehend or believe pick it up at about 42 min
'a world in their image'
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-oil-conquered-world/ (https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-oil-conquered-world/)
My Interest is COP>1 machines which I suppose explains in a round about way why I'm a member of an over unity forum.
The removal of all books and useful material was typical for machines that were COP>1 That I assume is why the professor draws attention to the fact that the information was intentionally removed,and suppressed like so much other work of the time.
It certainly doesn't mean or guarantee that this machine is a COP>1 device . However Its one of the markers , and a very important marker at that !
The more I read about 'entrainment' and find its a sympathetic resonance heterodyne function (which IMHO is another huge marker) The possibilities of this being a COP>1 device increase many fold. as each trompe machine returns all the water to virtually the same height it originates from I struggle to see how it can fail to be COP>1 just at the moment . The Prof notes the same thing Trompe,trompe ,Trompe or did you elect to miss that too? although the devils in the detail of 'virtually' I guess ;)
of course I'm very interested! and as no part of it can ever be patented Its got to worth a punt !- its what the forums supposed to be about isn't it? and my research so far lights all the right lamps. squabbling over suppression is now finished as far as I'm concerned, If thats OK with you? I've got a lot to try and absorb which I don't really understand. Kindest regards Duncan
The Trompe - An Almost Forgotten Air Compression System
http://tcpermaculture.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-trompe-almost-forgotten-air.html
Fluid dynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics
In physics and engineering, fluid dynamics is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that describes the flow of fluids (liquids and gases). It has several subdisciplines, including aerodynamics (the study of air and other gases in motion) and hydrodynamics (the study of liquids in motion). Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and modelling fission weapon detonation.
Fluid dynamics offers a systematic structure—which underlies these practical disciplines—that embraces empirical and semi-empirical laws derived from flow measurement and used to solve practical problems. The solution to a fluid dynamics problem typically involves the calculation of various properties of the fluid, such as flow velocity, pressure, density, and temperature, as functions of space and time.
Before the twentieth century, hydrodynamics was synonymous with fluid dynamics. This is still reflected in names of some fluid dynamics topics, like magnetohydrodynamics and hydrodynamic stability, both of which can also be applied to gases.[1]
Mass flow rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_flow_rate
In physics and engineering, mass flow rate is the mass of a substance which passes per unit of time. Its unit is kilogram per second in SI units, and slug per second or pound per second in US customary units. The common symbol is m ˙ {\displaystyle {\dot {m}}} {\dot {m}} (ṁ, pronounced "m-dot"), although sometimes μ (Greek lowercase mu) is used.
Sometimes, mass flow rate is termed mass flux or mass current, see for example Fluid Mechanics, Schaum's et al.[1] In this article, the (more intuitive) definition is used.
Mass flow rate is defined by the limit:[2][3]
i.e. the flow of mass m through a surface per unit time t.
The overdot on the m is Newton's notation for a time derivative. Since mass is a scalar quantity, the mass flow rate (the time derivative of mass) is also a scalar quantity. The change in mass is the amount that flows after crossing the boundary for some time duration, not the initial amount of mass at the boundary minus the final amount at the boundary, since the change in mass flowing through the area would be zero for steady flow.
Mass Flow Rate
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mflow.html
The conservation of mass is a fundamental concept of physics. Within some problem domain, the amount of mass remains constant --mass is neither created nor destroyed. The mass of any object is simply the volume that the object occupies times the density of the object. For a fluid (a liquid or a gas) the density, volume, and shape of the object can all change within the domain with time. And mass can move through the domain. On the figure, we show a flow of gas through a constricted tube. There is no accumulation or destruction of mass through the tube; the same amount of mass leaves the tube as enters the tube. At any plane perpendicular to the center line of the tube, the same amount of mass passes through. We call the amount of mass passing through a plane the mass flow rate. The conservation of mass (continuity) tells us that the mass flow rate through a tube is a constant. We can determine the value of the mass flow rate from the flow conditions.
If the fluid initially passes through an area A at velocity V, we can define a volume of mass to be swept out in some amount of time t. The volume v is:
v = A * V * t
A units check gives area x length/time x time = area x length = volume. The mass m contained in this volume is simply density r times the volume.
m = r * A * V * t
To determine the mass flow rate mdot, we divide the mass by the time. The resulting definition of mass flow rate is shown on the slide in red.
mdot = r * A * V
How do engineers use this knowledge of the mass flow rate? From Newton's Second Law of Motion, the aerodynamic forces on an aircraft (lift and drag) are directly related to the change in momentum of a gas with time. The momentum is defined to be the mass times the velocity, so we would expect the aerodynamic forces to depend on the mass flow rate past an object. The thrust produced by a propulsion system also depends on the change of momentum of a working gas. The thrust depends directly on the mass flow rate through the propulsion system. For flow in a tube, the mass flow rate is a constant. For a constant density flow, if we can determine (or set) the velocity at some known area, the equation tells us the value of velocity for any other area. If we desire a certain velocity, we know the area we have to provide to obtain that velocity. This information is used in the design of wind tunnels.
Considering the mass flow rate equation, it would appear that for a given area, we could make the mass flow rate as large as we want by setting the velocity very high. However, in real fluids, compressibility effects limit the speed at which a flow can be forced through a given area. If there is a slight constriction in the tube, as shown in the nozzle graphics, the Mach number of the flow through the constriction cannot be greater than one. This is commonly referred to as flow choking and the details of the physics are given on a page considering compressible mass flow rates.
In the last post I put up some information for you to study. I included the NASA page on mass flow rate for aircraft because it has some useful information that is applicable and we are dealing with both a hydraulic and pneumatic system here. (Liquid and gas)
The first thing to understand is that without a pressure gradient the system will be stationary. In the case of the Trompe you must have a lower level on the water outlet than the water inlet. You can demonstrate this to yourself by filling a tube with water and attaching a flexible hose to the bottom. When you lift the water up to, or above the water level in the tube the flow stops.. when you lower it again the flow resumes and will peak at a certain mass flow rate set by the bore size of the tube. To increase flow rate beyond this, up to another limit, you must increase the pressure pushing on the water. The tube is currently at 1 atmosphere (atm) which is just under 15 psi at sea level.
Mass flow of a liquid will exert a force on an object, in our case we are discussing an air bubble. In a static system it is easy to understand that an air bubble at the bottom of a volume of water will ascend because it is a volume of space that is less dense than the liquid medium it is submerged in. In the case of the Trompe the mass flow of the water in a downwards direction has enough force to descend the entrained air bubble because the buoyancy force acting on the bubble is equal to the volume of liquid water displaced by the bubble. Put simply, the force on the bubble pushing it down is greater than the buoyancy force trying to raise it up, the net result is that counter intuitively the bubble descends. As the bubble descends it experiences an increase of external pressure from the weight of the water column above it, and because the air bubble is a gas it is compressible, and so the water bubbles volume will decrease. This decrease in volume results in a smaller bouyancy force acting on the bubble, because it is displacing less liquid, and will offset any force losses caused by reduction in mass flow due to friction and turbulence. The net result is that a highly buoyant air bubble can be drawn down to a high pressure liquid depth. You can control the size of the air bubble by the size of the hole the air is allowed to pass through, you could also use radial porting in the tube to do the same thing.
The maximum pressure that the air can be compressed to is set by the height of the outlet water pipe. This is because the weight of water in the outlet column provides the back pressure to the system. When you consider that all the air in the outlet pipe has been removed and the volume is purely heavy dense water it can have an equal weight to a taller (but same diameter) inlet tube because of the volume of air that is trapped in the inlet pipe. The weight of the fluid in both pipes can be equal even though they contain different volumes of fluid (air + water in the inlet, water only in the outlet).
The long horizontal pipe is necessary because the mass flow has been turned through 90 degrees and the air bubbles are now being pushed with the same force on their side, and not down from above. This allows the bubbles natural buoyancy to take over and the bubbles will ascend into the air channel. The mass flow force is no longer in opposition to the buoyancy force, but at 90 degrees. The bubbles entrained at the lowest point of the horizontal tube will obviously take the longest to ascend to the air chamber.
The interesting thing about the Trompe system is that it can be daisy chained. The water outlet is only a relatively small height below the water inlet, and so a second Trompe can be run off the first with a resultant reduction in maximum air pressure possible due to the reduced starting head, compared to the first Trompe. A 1 meter change would equal roughly a 1.5 psi loss in air pressure on system 2.
If you have a high head of water to start with, like a waterfall plunging off a cliff then you could very easily set up an air compression facility with a large capacity by daisy chaining.. but I wouldn't want to dig this underground considering the depth required for a decent output air pressure, and the requirement for maintenance.. not to mention a decently long horizontal chamber to allow the air time to separate.
A Trompe system is always going to be COP<1 (less than 1) because you are not using the water energy at all, it is just an energy carrier in this scenario (transports the air). The air compressor is the only energy output utilised and that will be COP<1 due to losses. It cannot be overunity, because that is impossible, and it's a common myth that survives because people fail to define things correctly. My membership at OUR is probably the greatest irony of my life considering I do not believe it is achievable!
;D
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.msg55117#msg55117
Mythbuster 2004 Ping Pong Salvage
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mythbusters+raise+boat
51% efficiency for ping pong balls, monocoque solid spheres filled with gas air internally..
Thank you for the links evolvingape very nice to be reading you again luckily I had already read some of them But still there's more here!
I was aware that a difference in level is required but its variable and relative as far as I can make out, in other words Its engineer able a variable. I hope we can test its boundaries and use to advantage .
Let me first go into this COP>1 thing it seems to get people quite bent out of shape for some reason I don't understandand as for not believing such a thing exists that seems to be lunacy to me.
Of course as always I can be very wrong but as I read things a water wheel for instance despite being very inefficient has a COP approaching infinity.
If you are telling me however nothing is over unity then I am forced very reluctantly to agree with you. Regarding this machine Its why I've used the term 'virtually' the same height , and almost the same height in the post previous to that.
what external (paid for) energy are you providing a trompe machine ? None ! ergo its already a COP>1 machine regardless.
over unity o'la la well thats a boundary we can all test together if we can get synchronized or rather entrained together here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWzhQbgBew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWzhQbgBew)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5OBHiyJWrA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5OBHiyJWrA)
The air bubbles and their relationship to water velocity I had already gathered in a general sort of way this 30 seconds of video helped
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdUT-Zx-v8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdUT-Zx-v8)
you have amplified it for me. The fact that water is only the carrier of the real energy source I wrote over and over again but still folks are thinking in terms of fluid.
for the moment I am trying to focus on the intake and its sympathetic frequencies .
I understand that Charles Taylor used a funnel shape from the top to bottom of his feeder pipe to achieve the effect . (Peter Davey used a ball for the converse effect)
Thus as I have understood it (in rough terms you understand) the water velocity increases in relationship to depth (drop) which in turn is proportionate to the desire of the air bubble(s) to rise.
All this is going to be very inconvenient to a home experimenter . every man and his dog (including me) is going to want to use straight pipes and will do so regardless . which rather defeats the object
This is really a heterodyne isn't it ? of water and air much like our planet and the same as Davey's thing.
Get the proportions (frequencies) of air and water correct at all points in time relative to space available and you could ( in the perfect and imaginary world) transport all the air down that hole for no expenditure of energy of any sort .
I know someone not a million miles away who fractured water with frequencies just like that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same relationship doesn't shake out here somewhere down the line either.
Charles Claimed 86 % efficiency for his trompe . I wonder if we can we better that in the modern era ?
Kindest regards Duncan
A windmill does not have any user energy input into it, does it ? And it is not COP>1, is it ? COP>1 is a term that mainly deals with thermal effects, isn't it? When multiple different systems are integrated into one output the efficiency of each individual system is multiplied together, isn't it? This drops the overall COP even lower, doesn't it? A number less than one (0.7) multiplied by a number less than one (0.7) = 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49, doesn't it?
Coefficient of performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance
The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP or CoP) of a heat pump, refrigerator or air conditioning system is a ratio of useful heating or cooling provided to work required.[1][2] Higher COPs equate to lower operating costs. The COP usually exceeds 1, especially in heat pumps, because, instead of just converting work to heat (which, if 100% efficient, would be a COP_hp of 1), it pumps additional heat from a heat source to where the heat is required. For complete systems, COP calculations should include energy consumption of all power consuming auxiliaries. COP is highly dependent on operating conditions, especially absolute temperature and relative temperature between sink and system, and is often graphed or averaged against expected conditions.[3]
Betz's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law
Betz's law indicates the maximum power that can be extracted from the wind, independent of the design of a wind turbine in open flow. It was published in 1919, by the German physicist Albert Betz.[1] The law is derived from the principles of conservation of mass and momentum of the air stream flowing through an idealized "actuator disk" that extracts energy from the wind stream. According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is known as Betz's coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75% to 80% of the Betz limit.[2][3]
The Betz limit is based on an open disk actuator. If a diffuser is used to collect additional wind flow and direct it through the turbine, more energy can be extracted, but the limit still applies to the cross-section of the entire structure.
Concepts
Betz's law applies to all Newtonian fluids, including wind. If all of the energy coming from wind movement through a turbine were extracted as useful energy, the wind speed afterwards would drop to zero. If the wind stopped moving at the exit of the turbine, then no more fresh wind could get in; it would be blocked. In order to keep the wind moving through the turbine, there has to be some wind movement, however small, on the other side with some wind speed greater than zero. Betz's law shows that as air flows through a certain area, and as wind speed slows from losing energy to extraction from a turbine, the airflow must distribute to a wider area. As a result, geometry limits any turbine efficiency to a maximum of 59.3%.
in fact the drawing you post has the respective heights in feet at the ragged falls trompe site 251 and 298 feet respectively . since the volume of water in must equal the volume out (most of the time) and there is nothing else to consider as being efficient or other wise (any other input is free or ambient if you like) its effectively like the water wheel with COP of infinity -- lets put those heights into the basic efficiency formula and see if it tallies with Charles Taylors very old book which I quote and link to .
efficiency = output/input x 100% = 251/298 x100 = 85 % I guess he's allowed a tiny bit for the blow off but there's his figure many years later
There is a clip by Tom Bearden somewhere and the water wheel example is cited exactly as I portray. again he could be wrong just as I might and likewise Charles Taylor all those years ago but I doubt it. Kindest regards Duncan
A COP=0.85 is not COP>1 is it?
COP=Infinity is a nonsense term that simply means energy is coming from an external source that can be utilised at a constant rate, we call that the environment.
When a user inputs energy to a system it must couple with the environment in some way in order to achieve a COP>1 by definition. This can be done thermally, example the heat pump!
You are confusing environmental energy input with the efficiency that the machine or process you are using can do work with that energy.
The issues have been conflated to cause confusion deliberately and is mainly done by the open source energy research community regarding COP=Infinity. The reason they do this is because their "overunity" machines are no such thing and their machines don't work as advertised.. and their theory is a load of cr@p! This does not fit their business model and makes it hard to extract $ from fools.. hence the nonsense term: COP=Infinity
Quote from: Duncan on 2018.02.03, 09:49:11
efficiency = output/input x 100% = 251/298 x100 = 85 % I guess he's allowed a tiny bit for the blow off but there's his figure many years later
251/298x100=84.2%
298/351x100=84.9%
and that is only the gravitational potential energy ratio of the outlet pipe to the inlet pipe, it does not account for energy flow losses!
Thanks Rob. O0
The Trompe, an ancient device built to harvest environmental energy.
Thanks to Peter another almost forgotten technology has been highlighted and added to my own cerebral " database "!
O0
Just quoting the Bearden fellow, and the conventions he presented in his lectures regarding free energy research .
I hadn't heard of the term COP at all before that. the ambiance, the environment, The surroundings take your pick .' a rose is a rose by any other name' as far as I'm concerned.
It strikes me the machine, any machine whatever it is, has to engage with the environment.
I don't know which machines worked and which didn't from that stable, I certainly did see some things that were unexplainable, (at least to me) whilst experimenting and trying to replicate some of the material presented . I don't like to think old Tom was telling lies and teaching crap purely for profit he didn't strike me as that sort of guy at all. Although I confess there is something of a 'free energy circus' about this hobby we share.
As for the efficiency quoted I simply rounded up -- Its only ball park anyway as I explained who knows how often the blow operates or how much energy it expends, It certainly looks impressive! might even be an ice cannon ball or two shooting out of there for all I know.
(http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/wp-content/uploads/victoriamine/taylor04.jpg)
with out being there to measure and time its obviously to some extent 'conjecture' - Ball park figures I know and explained ,but close enough I surmise. how else or where else do you think Charles Taylor could possibly get these matching efficency figures from ? There's no other input other than the 'enviroment' wheres he going to measure that ? The clouds 1200 ft up is a good a place to start as any . It strikes me as an 'open system' just as Tom describes, or isn't it ?
So if it makes things a little more palatable, although I personally think this is a machine with a COP of infinity as Tom describes then let us for the sake of argument call it a 'free energy device' - ergo it runs with no other input other than it takes freely from the environment. nothing to pay the utilities, no electric bill.
perhaps it is lies I have been taught . I'll reserve judgment meanwhile - free energy will do. My kindest regards Duncan
PS loved the ping pong ball thing
For your consideration the Victoria mine - Charles Taylor compressor
http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/2011/07/the-taylor-compressor/ (http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/2011/07/the-taylor-compressor/)
The Taylor Compressor
http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/2011/07/the-taylor-compressor/
The Victoria Mine's geographical isolation caused a great deal of original thinking when it came to how the mine would be powered. With no rail lines and only a narrow bridge and rugged road connecting the mine to the rest of the world, the usual ways of powering a mine could not work – namely the use of coal. In the beginning the early mine utilized wood, a costly and limited resource that was quickly used up. When Captain Hooper looked to re-open the mine several decades later, he knew that a much more efficient and convenient power source had to be found. Luckily for Mr. Hooper, the Victoria possessed a incredible asset just under a mile down the hill in the form of the West Branch of the Ontonagon River and its precipitous 72 foot drop over Glenn Falls. Hooper understood the importance of this resource, and built a dam (known as Hooper's Dam) just upstream from those falls in 1902. But the dam's purpose would not be for the usual applications, as the structure would not be used to create mechanical nor electrical power. Instead it would be used to create air power, through the use of a novel and ingenious device known as a hydraulic compressor.
While most compressors utilize mechanical energy supplied by either an electric motor or steam engine to compress air, a hydraulic compressor relies solely on the energy inherent in falling water. It is a machine that uses no moving parts, does not require any fuel to operate, and is completely self perpetuating as long as there's an adequate supply of water. Best yet, the hydraulic compressor at Victoria was able to supply enough compressed air to run the entire operation, including the hoists, rock crushers, drills, and even the mine's short line railroad. It was an incredible machine, one pioneered by a Canadian by the name of Charles Taylor. Before Victoria, Taylor had built an identical contraption at Ragged Chute Ontario, to provide power to neighboring mines there as well. Hooper had discovered Taylor's amazing compressor and decided it would be the perfect solution to Victoria's power issues. The Victoria's Taylor Compressor was completed in 1906 at a cost of over $440,000. It would power the Victoria mine for another 15 years, up until the mine's closure in 1921.
Here's a very rough (and not to scale by any means) drawing of what Victoria's hydraulic compressor looked like. The majority of the compressor was located far underground, and was essentially a large cavern opened up to the outside world through both a vertical inlet shaft and an angled outlet shaft. Water was delivered to the inlet shaft by means of a narrow channel (A) fed with water from the nearby dam. At the end of that channel was a shallow fore bay, in which the compressor's compliment of intake shafts were located. These shafts were each five feet in diameter and lined with concrete. Water from the fore bay would then cascade down these shafts (B) over 300 feet to an underground chamber – carrying with it a large amount of trapped air bubbles in the process.
The underground chamber – known as the air chamber – was a man-made cavern 281 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 20 feet high. Once the water reached the chamber (C) it could exit by means of a narrow outlet tunnel (E) at the chamber's opposite end. There the water would make its way back to the surface (G) through a gradually inclined up flow shaft (F). As the water flowed through the cavern any air that had been trapped within it would escape, and rise up into the air chamber (D).
While any water entering the cavern could escape through the outlet tunnel (E), that air within the chamber (D) would be trapped by a rock wall at the chamber's far end. Thanks to a steel bell at the base of the inlet shafts that air couldn't head back up the way it had come either. It was trapped in the chamber. As more and more water flowed into the cavern, more and more trapped air bubbles would be released into that air chamber. Though the volume of air within the chamber would increase, the space in which it resided would not. This caused the air within the chamber to naturally compress, until it reached about 117 pounds per square inch.Once the air in the chamber reached the targeted PSI, it was released through a foot wide pipe which brought the air up to the surface and fed it to the neighboring mine and mill to power the facility's machines.
https://www.facebook.com/oldvictoria/photos/a.346498532059306.74482.128182803890881/628286280547195/?type=3&theater
342 - 72 = 270
270 / 342 = 0.789
Again we are looking at about a 15 to 20 % drop in head height from inlet to outlet as designed.. big hint for small scale systems requiring a lower volume of compressed air output ;)
http://www.mydatabook.org/fluid-mechanics/pumps/head-to-pressure-converter/
270 feet head = 117.18 psi
O0
so the usual quarreling and goading, to be expected I suppose . quote a professor regarding suppression in a video and be forced to go back over it and nail it down hard because another reader refuses to pay attention.
Likewise COP is the convention I've been taught is it wrong ?
are these top flight guy's with degree's daring to teach basics wrong?
So to continue the train of thought from before I was interrupted with all the usual, in fact almost demanded, and certainly expected bollix that I'm invariably goaded into detailing to wit - whats COP, where's the suppression , name an example of COP >1, name that some one who claims COP >1 on this forum . et -al
having dealt with each in turn, (even if I was very quickly contacted and had to remove posts) Perhaps I'll be allowed to continue my progress ?? into a subject I know little about with the probably forlorn hope that some here trained in the art might try and assist the train of thought instead of disrupting. misdirecting irritating and goading.
Perhaps the basics as taught by Tom Bearden are lies and crap as evolvingape writes Its what I was taught and it makes sense to me. if anyone thinks its crap too then we'll work around it .
Sure you can go and build a little model and probably enjoy doing it . It might be 86 % efficient as Taylor claims his examples to be. (for reasons we've already squabbled over) . If you want to take that as head of water be my guest. How ever I'll continue to use the terminology of all the researchers I know, so if your at variance (like Bob) simply take it into account.
This is already a free energy machine in this definition 'as is' the presentation by Charles Taylor I agree with him and despite being a hundred or so years apart the numbers still say efficiency is circa 86 % that is pretty obviously related the input and output and so height difference as I have already been at pains to pointed out.
This machine has been suppressed if for no other reason than that we should be giving it a great deal of attention.
That attention IMHO should be directed at moving the efficiency up into the high 90s percentile . I'm more than happy to accept over 100 % isn't possible , and over unity doesn't exist,and no body knows what COP is and so on and so forth and uncle tom cobbley an all -and all that bloody tosh - so to be clear -- to make this already very efficient machine which runs freely from the ambient surroundings very much more efficient is the ambition. Can we at least agree on that?
Its just my thinking but transport of air down that hole needs our considered attention. Peterae suggested different fluids or gases I'm hoping water and air can be vastly improved . from not knowing this was possible at all, Its quickly turning into a complex subject all by itself including the two phase mixing hetrodyne as I suspected and mentioned earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhVxqDg_fk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhVxqDg_fk)
At first glance the Taylor slug would be the desired system for injecting maximum air for water and hence effort/efficiency down a shaft .
If thats used it makes sense I guess to use a cone as Charles Taylor did in an attempt to hold the ratio of air and water volume constant using velocity to hold the status quo as the pressure changes. does that sound right to anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTFylkr018U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTFylkr018U)
I'm guessing our paramount need is maximum air minimum water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfUt8yqNpWw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfUt8yqNpWw)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Flow-regimes-in-vertical-pipes-used-in-TRACE-code_282611544 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Flow-regimes-in-vertical-pipes-used-in-TRACE-code_282611544)
there seems a lot to it unless anyone knows a handy short cut -- I go back to a couple of thesis's on the subject I'm trying to understand. I have a bit of a problenm in that I see water moving as a vortex and these guys portray in straight lines. ah well its my fate to be always out of step I guess
kind regards Duncan
Evolvingape wrote
QuoteCOP=Infinity is a nonsense term that simply means energy is coming from an external source that can be utilised at a constant rate, we call that the environment.
Since we have such systems why do you say it is nonsense? My colleague in the USA built an automatic test set that removed the drudgery of performing a large number of test runs, such as covering a wide frequency range. It calculated COP for each run. On some of the runs the COP became significantly greater than unity and even went negative. So what is a negative COP? It is when the system not only delivers output power but also returns a negative input power, i.e. it also feeds energy back to the source. Is that nonsense? As a matter of interest the poor sampling rate gave results that looked odd, that is until they were plotted as CONP, coefficient of non-performance which is simply the reciprocal of COP. Then it became a smooth curve passing through zero at the point of infinite COP. So IMO infinite COP is no more nonsense than say the tangent-of-an-angle function which also passes through infinity to become negative.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2018.02.04, 17:03:09
Since we have such systems why do you say it is nonsense?
I saw your respectful message when I logged in last night to let my friends know I was about to take some R&R leave. Your question deserves a full and complete answer, please see links for equations that are not embedded:
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Coefficient of performance (K) is a number that describes the effectiveness of refrigerators or air conditioners, by comparing the heat that is dispelled from it to the work that had to be done to do so. It is similar to the thermal efficiency of heat engines, as they both relate what benefits you are getting to what you had to pay.[2] The coefficient of performance is given by the equation:
where:[2]
is the heat dispelled from the refrigerator
is the work input to the system
is the coefficient of performance
A better refrigerator will require less work to remove a given amount of heat, thus having a larger coefficient of performance. From the equation, it is clear that if no work was input to the system (Win=0) the coefficient would equal infinity. This would constitute a perfect refrigerator, which is forbidden by the Second law of thermodynamics. Hence, .[2]
Maximum Coefficient of PerformanceJust like there is a thermal Carnot efficiency, there is also a Carnot coefficient of performance, which describes the maximum K value for a refrigerator. This is given by the equation:
where:[2]
is the temperature of the environment to which the heat is dispelled to
is the temperature of the space to cool off
is the maximum coefficient of performance
Second law of thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes the limitations of heat transfer. Most importantly, it sets out the specific idea that heat cannot be converted entirely to mechanical energy. This important idea can be stated in numerous ways, but there are 3 that will be discussed in detail. These are:
Waste Heat Statement,
Refrigeration Statement
Disorder Statement
Waste Heat Statement
The Waste Heat statement, formally known as the "Kelvin-Planck statement" is as follows:[2]
"It is impossible to extract an amount of heat, represented as QH, from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work."
This is a statement of the thermal efficiency in heat transfer, given by the equation in Figure 2.
This statement is important to understand in terms of practicality of heat engines. Waste heat is necessary for all engines, and the amount of work that is done by the input of heat gives the thermal efficiency of a system. Using an analysis of heat and work on an ideal engine, the maximum amount of work that can be achieved by a thermodynamic exchange between two specific temperatures is given by the Carnot efficiency. Although the Carnot efficiency can never be reached in reality, it is useful to compare to when looking at thermal efficiency of an engine.
For a more detailed study of this version of the second law please see the hyperphysics page on the second law: heat engines.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
Refrigeration Statement
Also known as the "Clausius statement", this is fundamental to how a refrigeration system works:
"Heat will always flow spontaneously from hotter substances to colder ones".
This is known as the Clausius statement, and explains why an ice cube will melt when placed in a bowl of hot water but ice will not form from water outside on a hot day. Everyday experience certainly supports this statement, but it is a deep physical concept limiting what's possible with energy.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that it is impossible for heat to spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body, but it can move in that way if some form of work is done.[3] This is how the refrigeration process works, and an example can be seen in Figure 1. Refrigerators work by transferring heat from the cold regions inside of the device to hot regions outside of it, thereby making the cold regions even cooler. This is how refrigerators work to keep food inside of them cool, and why they can be felt blowing hot air out of their vents.[3]
The right part of the image in Figure 2 and 3 describe the impossible scenarios that the second law forbids, so a perfect refrigerator is analogous to a system's heat transfer operating at 100% efficiency.
In Figure 3, the refrigerator takes some heat from the cold reservoir, , does some work on it, , and rejects some heat to the hot reservoir. Therefore the net effect of the refrigerator is to make the cold reservoir colder by removing heat from it and moving that heat to the hot reservoir. Due to this, a refrigerator is essentially a heat engine that runs in reverse. By analyzing how well a refrigerator can cool the cold reservoir, refrigerators carry with them a coefficient of performance.
This statement is nicely captured in the humorous song 'The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics' by Flanders and Swann. For a more rigorous (but not as funny) write up of the refrigeration statement of the second law please see the hyperphysics Second Law:refrigerator page.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
Disorder Statement
Another statement, perhaps the most crucial in terms of understanding why the Clausius and Kelvin-Planck statements are true is about entropy (which can be thought of as disorder):[4]
"The entropy of a closed system can never decrease."
It is important to emphasize that this statement refers to a "closed system", meaning that there are no external influences on the system. This is due to the fact that an open system can have its entropy decreased, as this ability to decrease the entropy is how refrigerators work! Or for that matter, the Earth is an open system because the of solar energy to the Earth contributes to the Earth's energy flows.
Entropy is essentially a measure of "disorder", so the higher the entropy, the more disorder the system has. This can be seen when shaking bricks in a can: the bricks are more likely to form a loose pile than to turn into a house. See the hyperphysics page on entropy for a more detailed discussion.
Associated with entropy is the idea of "energy quality". Heat is a low-quality energy, whereas mechanical energy is a high-quality energy. Seen in Figure 4, the energy quality decreases as entropy increases. Therefore in general, since entropy naturally increases, energy quality will deteriorate. The association between an increase in entropy and a decrease in energy quality explains why all of the energy in fuels cannot be converted into mechanical energy. It is possible to burn fuel, therefore directly converting all its energy to low-quality heat, but this low-quality heat cannot then be turned fully into high-quality mechanical energy or electricity.[4]
For a more detailed description of the entropy statement of the second law of thermodynamics please see the hyperphysics page on the second law: entropy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.02.05, 21:22:12
From the equation, it is clear that if no work was input to the system (Win=0) the coefficient would equal infinity. This would constitute a perfect refrigerator, which is forbidden by the Second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/022503.htm
Now observe Collins's profound assumption that a coefficient of performance (which is the useful energy output or work output divided by the energy that is input by the operator only) that is greater than 1.0 is impossible and would constitute a dirty old "perpetual motion machine" of the false premise kind he still advocates illogically. There went windmills, solar cells, heat pumps, water wheels, sail boats, gliders, etc. All are impossible by Collins' assumption.
Well, a windmill, a waterwheel, and a common solar cell all exist and have COP = infinity! The operator himself inputs zero energy input to each one of them, but all the energy required for the work output (and the losses due to inefficiencies) is indeed freely input by the environment. The EFFICIENCY of a system is defined as the useful energy or useful work output divided by ALL the energy that is input, whether by the environment, operator, or both. The efficiency of a common solar cell may be—e.g.—only 17%, which means it wastes some 83% of all the energy the environment freely inputs to it. However, the operator inputs nothing at all, so the COP = (the finite energy output of the system, i.e., 17% of the environment's energy input), expressed in joules per second, for example, divided by (the zero input of the operator), which yields a COP = infinity.
A common home heat pump usually will have an EFFICIENCY of 50% or less, but will have a nominal COP = 4.0 under nominal conditions; the extra energy is just extracted from the atmosphere. That is certainly not a "perpetual working machine with no energy input", but it also certainly has a working COP>1.0, which is why it is so widely used. It's CHEAPER if you get some of the necessary energy input from the environment, and—as in the case of the windmill—it's even cheaper if you get ALL of the necessary energy input freely from the environment.
A very high efficiency windmill, e.g., may have an efficiency of 55%, about tops. So it wastes 45% of the input wind energy, but does convert the other 55% into useful output energy or work. However, its COP = infinity, because again the operator inputs nothing at all, but gets out free work continuously from the unwasted energy that the environment inputs.
So yes, one can have a "free energy lunch" if the environment freely provides the energy, as it does for the windmill, solar cell, waterwheel, sailboat, charge, etc.
Please bear in mind that I did not introduce Tom Bearden to this conversation..
The issue is that there are two frames of reference here..
There is the harvesting of the environmental energy at a COP<1 which Tom elegantly explains, and constitutes free energy available to do work for the user's benefit. There is also the issue of a thermodynamically closed system which in order to do work of benefit to the user, must exceed COP>1 and is commonly called overunity. Machines of this type do not exist as they would violate the 2LoT.
The fundamental issue is that of conflation of two very similar situations.. Someone who possesses a machine that they do not have to input energy into to operate and reaps the benefits of work done indeed does have a COP=infinity machine from one frame of reference, but from the other it operates at a COP<1..
The confusion of the terms and the applicable frames of reference is why I say that the term COP=infinity is a nonsense, often touted to sell 'overunity' machines that are no such thing..
A raised weight accumulator that is lifted via pneumatic air compression from the air chamber below, the chamber below the weight is a compressed air storage reservoir.
Once the weight has been raised it is locked in place with solid mechanical stops. This allows the air to be released in a controlled flow through a turbine doing work and converting to electricity.
The accumulator lower chamber is now at atmospheric pressure and as it is at a height just below the water intake level it can be filled by evacuating the remaining air to atmosphere.
The raised weight stops can now be released creating hydraulic pressure to drive a hydraulic motor / generator and generating electricity.
The gpe of the raised weight has been spent, and the process resets to starting conditions to be repeated.
Multiple accumulators can be linked in parallel for an extended, more efficient, run time through the pressure regulator..
The air pressure in the underground chamber can be used as normal once the energy storage in the gravitational field has been accomplished.
Any questions ? 8)
I will answer them after my week off.. O0
Re - COP there is nothing to disagree with - never was . you have pointed out the conflict yourself and were obviously always aware of it.
As far as I am concerned in this context, (and probably any other apart from perhaps creation itself) there is no such thing as over unity I'm also non to keen on the term 'free lunch' that in itself was a phrase and terminology introduced by a Rockefeller educational think tank as part of the psychological conditioning of us all along "with you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink" "you can't buck city hall" and a lot of other bollix along with all the rest of the crap these horrible shits came out with,. as explained by Stan Meyer shortly before his public execution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZM22750v5M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZM22750v5M)
Stan had taken out patents in many other countries which made the usual gagging process useless. outright murder of the researcher has gone out of fashion now. I assume because the publicity in the computer age does more harm than good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow)
land of the free all right - if its your mortal coil you wish to be free of!
As for 'bringing up' Tom Bearden - The guy isn't vomit , he was an acknowledged and respected researcher even if some might personally disagree with parts of his theory or practice, to wit COP approaching infinity.
I didn't 'bring Tom up' I referenced his teaching work. which is there for anyone to see on his DVD series in perpetuity.
There is still a deal of events going on in what you like to call 'the environment' the we do not fully understand, which really means don't understand at all ! There is no unified field theory and nobody really knows what electricity is.
gravity isn't understood and likewise the huge irrigation machine I described earlier. Neither is very much known regarding the huge Telluric currents circulating below us.
I should qualify 'not known' rather with not taught to any of us sheeple.
That all these things are there working can't be denied however access to the science and theory can and is denied. The closest we sheeple get to that knowledge is to be tricked into paying for all the research.
The concept of COP >1 is IMHO the first step in a way machinery might be tested to see if it is engaged and benefiting from any ambient source, I'm happy to work on the premise there is no such thing as 'over unity' after all even Tesla said
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel...We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static, or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheel work of nature.
he didn't say there isn't a wheel at all !
I like the raised weight concept. I did suggest a surface tank earlier simply because in a small domestic system which I envisaged a single bore hole is obviously usually going to be preferable. The weight refinement didn't cross my mind . evolving ape enjoy your holiday! kindest regards Duncan O0
Tesla described the best way of obtaining energy from ambient in hist Century Magazine 1900 article. it was wrongly understood as a heat pump engine. No, he just secretly wrote that magnetic field is a steady state flow of pure vacuum energy. Tom Bearden said it also, but his interpretation was incorrect - the dipole is only magnetic and that dipole is broken in every generators.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.02.05, 22:37:12
A raised weight accumulator that is lifted via pneumatic air compression from the air chamber below, the chamber below the weight is a compressed air storage reservoir.
Once the weight has been raised it is locked in place with solid mechanical stops. This allows the air to be released in a controlled flow through a turbine doing work and converting to electricity.
The accumulator lower chamber is now at atmospheric pressure and as it is at a height just below the water intake level it can be filled by evacuating the remaining air to atmosphere.
The raised weight stops can now be released creating hydraulic pressure to drive a hydraulic motor / generator and generating electricity.
The gpe of the raised weight has been spent, and the process resets to starting conditions to be repeated.
Multiple accumulators can be linked in parallel for an extended, more efficient, run time through the pressure regulator..
The air pressure in the underground chamber can be used as normal once the energy storage in the gravitational field has been accomplished.
Any questions ? 8)
I will answer them after my week off.. O0
Nice one Rob.... O0
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.02.05, 22:37:12
A raised weight accumulator that is lifted via pneumatic air compression from the air chamber below, the chamber below the weight is a compressed air storage reservoir.
Once the weight has been raised it is locked in place with solid mechanical stops. This allows the air to be released in a controlled flow through a turbine doing work and converting to electricity.
The accumulator lower chamber is now at atmospheric pressure and as it is at a height just below the water intake level it can be filled by evacuating the remaining air to atmosphere.
The raised weight stops can now be released creating hydraulic pressure to drive a hydraulic motor / generator and generating electricity.
The gpe of the raised weight has been spent, and the process resets to starting conditions to be repeated.
Multiple accumulators can be linked in parallel for an extended, more efficient, run time through the pressure regulator..
The air pressure in the underground chamber can be used as normal once the energy storage in the gravitational field has been accomplished.
Any questions ? 8)
I will answer them after my week off.. O0
Now that is clever O0
Regards
Mike 8)
yes indeed I agree Mike this is an ingenious idea but yes I do have a few questions and it will irk to wait weeks for an answer but perhaps some one else may see the answers and chip in I'm sure Bob won't mind, I suspect a problem (but perhaps not insurmountable) The whole operation of this compressor seems to rely on keeping a pressured air pocket in place .It seems great consideration would have to be given to putting that air pocket in place when the machine is first started. A worrying time I would think if you were actually at one of these sites especially if 'as drawn' there is no way to drain the thing. Once (and if) flooded the thing would become worthless or do I visualize that wrong?
A 300 foot shaft a nit wit on the end of a rope hauling buckets for ever and ever is what I see. Trying to develop an air pocket.
so whilst the thinking is applauded and exactly the original and constructive approach needed and I do hope I'm seeing this wrong isn't flooding the chamber et al a one shot suicide deal ?
I view this compressor as something akin to a stage in an RF circuit. there are matching inputs and outputs to consider and particularly maximum power transfer (in this case air) but still time/pulse/frequency ergo hetrodyne.
This is a freely operating machine and as I view it the task at hand is to contrive to make it more efficient . we are a little at variance Bob regarding COP but I'm sure understand each others perspective which is all that matters just at the moment. The task at hand (as I see it) is to try and design a small scale version of this machine that would supply a home (say a constant 3KW) from a very moderate stream. preferably by just sticking one bore hole down . The figures indicate it should be very viable even at 86% efficiency,
If by design we could improve that efficiency well the worlds our lobster, isn't it ? The depth of bore hole and diameter reduce dramatically. whilst what you draw is ingenious and 'space saving' and as I see it quite capable of running on air alone I don't see it as being any more efficient .
here this term efficiency becomes more fluid Bob (excuse the pun) given limitless flow free ground and labour Chaz Taylors only consideration was height of shafts hence his efficiency tallies w.r.t (it has to there's nothing else to consider.) To put this in some sort of context at least you'll probably follow Mike your obviously acutely aware of things 'water fracture' The bit of your system I continued working on using your frequency relationship becomes non-ohmic or perhaps the wording should be non-faradaic regardless of the term no longer a straight line graph but an acute curve. There is then something to use (or abuse if your the opposition) . Its a physical shape space relationship in Peter Davy's machine and I'm pretty sure It will be here too if we get to the heart of entrainment
small domestic plants is a different matter - size matters if the system is going to break the strangle hold for the individual or small holder Kindest regards Duncan
My thoughts and conclusions.
Whilst the Trompe is yet another of mans ingenious methods of utilising environment energy the systems installed at the Ragged Chute and Victoria mine were used because of A. Hydroelectric power was in its infancy and B. The mines were originally steam powered and the conversion to compressed air would have been child's play.
Let's consider Duncan's 50 metre bore hole suggestion.
We definitely need a hight differential so let's go with 47 M outlet. This will give us a pressure of 4.16 BAR or 66.86 PSI. For a 3 KW output we're going to need 6 HP of motive power from some sort of air driven motor.
Perhaps we could convert a steam engine or even a car engine but we need to know the volume of compressed air that will give us a continuous 6 HP at the alternator shaft.
More to come, school run.....
Cheers Graham.
love it Graham but do lets plug Charles Taylors figures in along the line . he's been there done it got the T shirt . ho hum - and wrote a little book. this is a little bit of it.
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/chaz.jpg)
otherwise I don't know anywhere to obtain figures regards entrainment no ones attempted to engeneer it for many a year. kind regards Duncan
To continue.
You'd have thought that with over 300 years of the " steam engine " that there would be an easy to use conversion table you could punch in a few numbers and voila, an answer. No such luck.
Can we use PLAN/33,000 ?
Where... P pressure in PSI L length of stroke A area of piston N speed in RPM.
We need to find out how much air we need to drive our engine. I have a feeling that it's going to be much more than a small system could generate.
Perhaps a member with a mathematical mind could do the sums based upon a working pressure of 66.86 PSI ?
We're looking for the CFM of air at 66.86 PSI to generate 6 HP at 3000 RPM.
Cheers Graham.
When considering COP=Infinity I always include the energy required to construct the machine, and the energy required to maintain it.
From this frame of reference it is impossible for Energy In to equal zero. No matter how long you let the machine run for, harvesting environmental energy, it can never mathematically reach zero but it will get ever closer to it without ever reaching it.
This is why I consider COP=Infinity to be a nonsense, and I don't believe we have COP=Infinity machines.. and we never have had them. That's all I am going to say about that.
Regarding my previous quick sketch let me add some detail.
The integration of hydro-pneumatic generators to a Trompe system is primitive hhop gen 3:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.msg50247#msg50247
To simplify:
The Trompe requires an approximate 20% drop in head height from the water source. It requires a long horizontal section to allow the air to separate from the water. I do not believe a compact Trompe can be made and shortening the horizontal section using just a bore hole will represent spongy water and very inefficient machine. This is a large scale MegaWatt generating power plant only which means you will have to cooperate to build one and share the output from it.
Using the figures we have 117 psi of compressed air is available at a high mass flow rate. Converting 117 psi to head height we get about 78 meters. 117 / 15 = 7.8
We can use 117 psi of air pressure to pump water 78 meters vertically.
Our bucket piston can therefore be about 70 meters conservatively accounting for losses.
Converting 70 meters to feet we get about 230 feet. This will fit nicely with the depth of the horizontal air chamber of the Trompe.
We now have a vertical borehole 70 meters deep with the top of it 70 meters above ground level (water inlet level), so a 140 meter tall structure with half of it buried below ground.
The bucket piston is 70 meters tall and lets give it a piston diameter of 2 meters (1 meter radius).
We now need to convert psi on a 2 meter diameter piston to force:
https://www.sensorsone.com/piston-cylinder-pressure-and-diameter-to-force-calculator/
258424.712 kgf
We can lift a bucket piston (hollow piston with 70 meter tall walls) as long as it does not weigh more than 258425 kg.
Once the piston face reaches ground level it hits the stops and is mechanically locked in position. We now have an air chamber below the piston face that is 2 meters in diameter and 70 meters long so we need to calculate the volume of the cylinder:
http://www.online-calculators.co.uk/volumetric/cylindervolume.php
220 cubic meters
We are now no longer using the 117 psi input because the air chamber below the piston is full so we repurpose it to pump water from ground level up to the top of the piston bucket and fill up the hollow piston.
https://www.theunitconverter.com/cubic-meter-to-liter-conversion/
Once this is full we have a 220 cubic meter air chamber at an air pressure of 117 psi with a piston above it holding 220 cubic meters of water which is 220000 liters which weighs 220000kg.
We now release the mechanical stops on the piston and the air chamber which is at 117 psi is compressed by the weight of the water in the hollow piston. (The piston weight itself is cancelled out by the 117 psi force on the piston in opposition to it)
The piston can then descend increasing the air pressure in the chamber and because the piston follows the volume of the air chamber is reduced maintaining pressure. This air is piped to a turbine and converted to electricity.
When the piston reaches the bottom of its travel a valve in the piston face is opened and water is allowed to flow into what once was the air chamber.
Air pressure is now fed back in under the piston and displaces the water at the piston face. This creates a negative bouyancy force on the piston and it is raised back up to ground level riding on the water that flows from inside the hollow piston to below it.
The stops are now once again engaged and the hollow piston above ground is pumped full of water using the 117 psi to do it, and displacing the air inside the hollow piston.
The stops can now be released and you have 220000 liters of water + the weight of the piston pressing down on a hydraulic chamber of 220000 liters of water at atmospheric pressure (+ 15 psi per 10 meters of water increase as you go down the water column)
This hydraulic system is then piped out and used to run a water wheel at high efficiency. The process now repeats and you run a hydraulic system in repeating cycles from now on. You could of course not bothered with the air chamber at all from the start and ran a purely hydraulic system but I thought it would help your understanding to include it.
8)
List of waterfalls by height
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_waterfalls_by_height
National parks are probably not going to let you play with their beautiful waterfalls..
You could alternatively look at waterfalls with high mass flow rates, or rivers with high mass flow rates and build your Trompe in a disused quarry that has already been dug out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_waterfalls_by_flow_rate
You could divert rivers with high mass flow rates to your quarry and consider that you are going to lose 20% in height from your inlet to outlet at the plant, and return the water back to the river at a point that matches this height loss.
O0
Pressure is Force per Unit Area
https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/pressure.htm
by Ron Kurtus (revised 18 March 2006)
Pressure is the force on an object that is spread over a surface area.
The equation for pressure is the force divided by the area where the force is applied. Although this measurement is straightforward when a solid is pushing on a solid, the case of a solid pushing on a liquid or gas requires that the fluid be confined in a container.
The force can also be created by the weight of an object.
Questions you may have include:
What is the pressure when a solid pushes on another solid?
What happens when a solid pushes on a confined fluid?
What happens when the force comes from gravity?
This lesson will answer those questions. Useful tool: Units Conversion
Pressure of solid on a solid
When you apply a force to a solid object, the pressure is defined as the force applied divided by the area of application. The equation for pressure is:
P = F/A
where
P is the pressure
F is the applied force
A is the surface area where the force is applied
F/A is F divided by A
For example, if you push on an object with your hand with a force of 20 pounds, and the area of your hand is 10 square inches, then the pressure you are exerting is 20 / 10 = 2 pounds per square inch.
Pressure equals Force divided by Area
You can see that for a given force, if the surface area is smaller, the pressure will be greater. If you use a larger area, you are spreading out the force, and the pressure (or force per unit area) becomes smaller.
Solid pressing on confined fluid
When a liquid or gas is confined in a container or cylinder, you can create a pressure by applying a force with a solid piston. The pressure created in the cylinder equals the force applied divided by the area of the piston: P = F/A.
In a confined fluid—neglecting the effect of gravity on the fluid—the pressure is the same throughout the container, pressing equally on all the walls. In the case of a bicycle pump, the pressure created inside the pump will be transmitted through the hose into the bicycle tire. But the air is still all confined.
Pressure is in all directions in a fluid
Increasing the force will increase the pressure inside the cylinder.
Caused by gravity
Since the weight of an object is a force caused by gravity, we can substitute weight in the pressure equation. Thus the pressure (P) caused by the weight (W) of an object is that weight divided by the area (A) where the weight is applied.
P = W/A
If you place a solid object on the floor, the pressure on the floor over the area of contact is the weight of the object divided by the area on the floor.
Pressure equals Weight divided by Area
Example with shoes
A good example of how a force on small area can result in a very high pressure is seen in women's shoes with high spiked heels. These types of shoes can cause damage to some floors due to the very high pressure on the floor at the heel.
An average shoe distributes the weight of the person over 20 square inches. Thus, a 100-pound person applies 100/20 = 5 pounds per square inch on the floor.
Since a spike-heel is only 0.25 square inches, the 100-pound person would be applying 100/0.25 = 400 pounds per square inch on the floor at the heel! In some cases, that is sufficient to damage the floor.
Fluid weight
If you put a liquid in a container, the weight of that liquid would be pressing on the bottom of the container similar to that of the weight of a solid object. The pressure on the bottom of the container would be the same as if the weight was from a solid:
P = W/A.
The only difference is that pressure in a fluid goes in all directions. So the pressure on the sides at the bottom would be the same.
Gases and liquids exhibit pressure due to their weight at every point in the fluid.
Summary
Pressure is the force on an object that is spread over a surface area. The equation for pressure is P = F/A. Pressure can be measured for a solid is pushing on a solid, but the case of a solid pushing on a liquid or gas requires that the fluid be confined in a container. The force can also be created by the weight of an object.
We have discussed how the air pressure generated by environmental energy in a Trompe can create 117 psi = 2 meters / 260000 Kg
If the piston is assumed to be 220 metric tons it can be lifted by the air pressure and then held in place using mechanical stops.
The air pressure can now be repurposed to pump water up 70 meters and fill the hollow piston with 220 tons of water.
This changes the P = F / A relationship and we now have 200 psi = 440000 kgf / 2 meters
Instead of venting this air pressure through a turbine to generate electricity use it to pump the water into the next cylinder..
https://www.sensorsone.com/piston-cylinder-force-and-diameter-to-pressure-calculator/
If the hollow piston is extended vertically but the weight of the piston remains the same then you can lift it the same distance in the same way using the 117 psi starting pressure, you can now fill it even more with for example 440 tons of water (total 660000 kgf).. which will give you a pressure of 300 psi.. and a very large volume of compressed air..
A hydroelectric generator is preferable to a pneumatic generator because the specific gravity of liquid is so much larger, it is more dense and has much more mass, at the same pressure.
I would use the air pressure to step up the system pressure by pumping water to add weight, and the hydraulic pressure output to run a large water wheel and generate electricity..
O0
We know that approximately 10 meters of water in a column has a pressure differential of about 15 psi, so for every 15 psi of pressure applied we can raise water about 10 meters.
Using the air pressure from the Trompe example, which is about 117 psi at the surface we can raise water about 78 meters.. but why is the air pressure at the surface ground level the same as the air pressure in the compressed air chamber 78 meters below us, when the water pressure is not the same ?
The answer is that the air pressure has reduced due to losses but the losses are so small that we don't really notice it. The air is a fluid just like water and is subject to the same laws:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html
Static Fluid Pressure
"The pressure exerted by a static fluid depends only upon the depth of the fluid, the density of the fluid, and the acceleration of gravity."
The acceleration due to gravity is the same for both fluids, the depth of the fluid columns are the same, the density of the fluids are vastly different.
https://www.britannica.com/science/atmospheric-pressure
"Near Earth's surface the pressure decreases with height at a rate of about 3.5 millibars for every 30 metres (100 feet)."
We need to keep our units and ratios the same so 10 meters = 3.5 millibars / 3 = 1.166 millibars per 10 meters
Convert millibars to psi:
https://www.convertunits.com/from/millibar/to/psi
1.166 millibars = 0.0168 psi
0.0168 psi x 7.8 = 0.131 psi per 78 meter
We can see from this that we do not lose much air pressure from the weight of the column bringing the air up to the surface to pump water..
As discussed 1 cubic meter of water weighs 1000kg and 1 cubic meter of air weighs 1.225kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air
A nice discussion on the subject:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-surprising-that-a-cubic-meter-of-water-weighs-1-ton
hhop gen 4 incorporates the type of piston design that is suitable for a Trompe hydro-pneumatic system, the air pressure force slightly greater than the solid weight force of the piston in order to lift it, and the air is then compressed further by loading water weight into the piston.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.msg54674#msg54674
http://www.mit.edu/people/spirn/Public/Ulises-11-308/Quarrying.pdf
Case Study: Brownstone Park
"The limestone quarry was originally abandoned in the 1930's after flooding from the Connecticut River ended all operations. The quarry site was neglected and filled with water, forming what is known as a quarry lake."
Portland Brownstone Quarries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Brownstone_Quarries
Just one of many examples of a quarry that could have been a power plant using controlled flooding and draining from a nearby river.. O0
Bingham Canyon
http://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-deepest-open-pit-mines-world/
"Bingham Canyon mine located south-west of Salt Lake City, Utah, US, is the deepest open pit mine in the world. The Bingham Canyon pit is more than 1.2km deep and approximately four kilometres wide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/games/depth_press
1200 meters deep = 1764 psi of air pressure
O0
The market has spoken – clean energy just became the cheapest source of electricity
http://www.orrazz.com/2018/02/the-market-has-spoken-clean-energy-just.html
I just came across this article so I'll leave it here for you to muse on Trompe potential.. ;D
Hydraulic machinery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_machinery
Hydraulic machines are machinery and tools that use liquid fluid power to do simple work. Heavy equipment is a common example.
In this type of machine, hydraulic fluid is transmitted throughout the machine to various hydraulic motors and hydraulic cylinders and becomes pressurised according to the resistance present. The fluid is controlled directly or automatically by control valves and distributed through hoses and tubes.
The popularity of hydraulic machinery is due to the very large amount of power that can be transferred through small tubes and flexible hoses, and the high power density and wide array of actuators that can make use of this power.
Hydraulic machinery is operated by the use of hydraulics, where a liquid is the powering medium.
Force and torque multiplication
A fundamental feature of hydraulic systems is the ability to apply force or torque multiplication in an easy way, independent of the distance between the input and output, without the need for mechanical gears or levers, either by altering the effective areas in two connected cylinders or the effective displacement (cc/rev) between a pump and motor. In normal cases, hydraulic ratios are combined with a mechanical force or torque ratio for optimum machine designs such as boom movements and trackdrives for an excavator.
Examples
Two hydraulic cylinders interconnected
Cylinder C1 is one inch in radius, and cylinder C2 is ten inches in radius. If the force exerted on C1 is 10 lbf, the force exerted by C2 is 1000 lbf because C2 is a hundred times larger in area (S = πr²) as C1. The downside to this is that you have to move C1 a hundred inches to move C2 one inch. The most common use for this is the classical hydraulic jack where a pumping cylinder with a small diameter is connected to the lifting cylinder with a large diameter.
When we examine the Ragged Chute Plant drawing post #57 we notice two interesting things:
The output tube from the air compression chamber is 24 inches in diameter..
The output goes to the valve houses..
This means that there is a very significant CFM (cubic feet per minute) at a significant gas pressure > 100 psi.
The valve houses distribute that energy where it is needed to do work by opening and closing valves.
A hydraulic jack arrangement on a large scale could very easily multiply force over a time period.. so we need a pump, a big pump!
Water is a great liquid but for the working fluid we would want hydraulic oil, able to withstand great pressure without property change. The Trompe could easily fill an oil tank for gravity feed into our pumping cylinder.
The air as discussed could easily lift the weight of the solid piston if sized correctly.
The water becomes the key point.. it can be easily pumped and is reasonably dense, we are interested in mass transfer around the system.
So.. the force of the piston assembly is slightly less than the force of the air pressure from the Trompe when filled with air, it can be raised and locked in position storing gravitational potential energy.
The piston is locked out with mechanical stops and the air pressure that raised it that is greater than ambient is vented to atmosphere through a breather valve, allowing the hydraulic oil to fill from the gravity tank and displacing all the air in the chamber to atmosphere.
Now the mechanical stops can be released and the weight of the piston will be held by hydraulic lock of the oil, the force acting on the output valve of the pump.
You can now pump water into the tank and apply a weight force to the hydraulic oil energising it. When the tank is full and at maximum weight the valve can be opened and the hydraulic pressure can do work on the raised weight accumulator as the piston descends under gravitational influence.
The accumulator can have a solid weight, I prefer Lead at a specific gravity of 11.35 (water has a specific gravity reference = 1).. Mercury, Gold, Depleted Uranium and Osmium would be better but can be ruled out on safety or cost grounds! ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity
Once the piston has travelled its full bore stroke the water in the tank is pumped into the next raised, but filled with air tank, and the process repeats.. this water can be recycled in a closed loop around the system at atmospheric pressure, as can the hydraulic oil..
Using Lead for the accumulator weight will massively shorten your accumulator piston and allow more working hydraulic oil run time in the same height increasing efficiency..
It's quite simple really, all known technology.. just forgotten O0
Thanks for a great precis evolvingape and in many ways a terrific system. with a lot of advantages over even the usual turbine systems we tend to use.
you stress the size of intake and out-take and for that reason I'm guessing this simply won't work on a small scale ?
By that I mean a much smaller diameter pipe whilst perhaps depending perhaps on a bigger drop. I know little of 'entrainment' so I guess the question is can the -'whats essentially a formula' portrayed in this chart presented by Chaz Taylor be expected to accurately perform at reduced scale. In simpler terms may it be regarded like ohms law (for instance) put the figures get an accurate answer, or is it simply a rough indication for high flow rate situations.?
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/c/c1/chaz.jpg)
This with an 8ft drop with an inch pipe (for example)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX4WtOHFZE&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX4WtOHFZE&feature=youtu.be)
The trompe seems to be doing a remarkable job of cleaning polluted mine water in this clip. I thought that brown sludge was bad - shows how much I know about oxidization in water !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I85esMMoRa4&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I85esMMoRa4&feature=youtu.be)
as I am writing this and searching for content, I came across a website the indications of which I haven't fully digested yet however it seems to be navigating what I was considering (deep hole,small bore) I include for your inspection. The content I have found seems to supply the figures and mathematics that have been so sadly lacking in all the information on the Tromp and similar I have managed to find so far. (I don't like the look of that hole he's going down BTW)
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/detailed.htm (http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/detailed.htm)
kind regards Duncan
A little checking informs Brian White is the man who wrote those numbers - here again for your interest is a video of him working on the tromp in more recent times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOn7Zu3CCxo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOn7Zu3CCxo) regards Duncan
"precis" good word!
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/precis
I pointed out the diameter of the air pipe from the ragged chute plant drawing because it gives you some idea of the mass flow rate at the working pressure (117 psi).. it's massive! What useful work you can do depends on maintaining pressure with the volume of air you have available.. you can have low pressure, high mass flow rate.. or high pressure, low mass flow rate.. low pressure and low mass flow rate is not very useful.. this is why I am not interested in small scale applications.
It makes a lot of sense to buy a solar panel system over a small scale Trompe / Ram application.
I watched Mr Teslonian's video and part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLoQIAWmQbM
I like this guy so I am going to help him out..
You need to properly analyse the system.. 'all aspects of it'
The air pressure tube can be considered a body in space..
When a combination of the Trompe + Ram is in operation he can achieve a significant pressure above ambient atmospheric pressure.
60 psi of air pressure can pump water 40 meters vertically.
With the body filled with air it's specific density is not dissimilar from the air it is immersed in.. therefore the weight of the body (the plastic tubing enclosure) is the dominant weight force..
therefore, the bottom joint that the body is resting upon is under compression from the weight of the body, this is a net positive weight.
If you immerse that same body (plastic tube pressure enclosure) in a tube of water the specific density of the body changes significantly as the water is pumped out and the air fills the internal space..
This body now experiences an external force that is equal to the weight of displaced water, buoyancy and a net negative weight, which causes the body to ascend to the gas / liquid boundary plane.
The fitting that was under compression when the body was immersed in air is now under tension immersed in water.. if it could detach the body would gain gravitational energy by ascending through the liquid.
If you understand this and combine these two different aspects you will now understand that you can raise water using the gas pressure, and lift the body using buoyancy, from one input.
The buoyancy is a force that has been introduced to the system by immersing the body in a greatly denser medium.
We are now firmly in hhop gen 3 territory..
The main difference being that the Trompe / Ram system is run from environmental energy at a very low efficiency, the hhop gen 3 with a DC input is run from environmental energy via a solar panel at very high efficiency but uses hho rather than air pressure.
I wonder if a reverse Trompe would work using wind as the carrier.
If a vertical wind shaft was in place where the wind enters at the bottom by suction from the top of the shaft (higher elevation) and water mist was blown in at the bottom, at the top was a large vessel to collect the water droplets, an acumalation of water at the top should form.
Which can be released once full to generate power.