Quoting Ash:
Quote(Hidro)
Hidro FREE renewable energy
Guys just a heads up, we were there and evaluated it ourselves , i went on camera for them, we had children with us in front of an over unity machine, a dream i have long sort after, this thing works and ill have full details ASAP, maybe do an interview with Sterling about the report. Wanted to first share some private photos here
.
.
.
But the worlds only open source free energy university also went there;) , surprise these people are one of us and hate the NWO and are AWARE, 200 grand for 50Kw is the smallest they do, they have cost to cover, and i think that's not bad for now.
15 amps at 24 Volt went in, i was BLINDED by 1Kw of lights out. This thing could build up 20Kw with the fly wheel. I saw a cable that has a 600 kilo tolerance broken like a twig, this thing is POWERFUL.
Will have more details ASAP my friends.
Ash
http://panacea-bocaf.org/hidrofreeenergysystem.htm (http://panacea-bocaf.org/hidrofreeenergysystem.htm)
http://www.jameskwok.com/tech/hidro.html (http://www.jameskwok.com/tech/hidro.html)
So is this too good to be true, or is there something terribly wrong with this picture? I looked into this several months ago and I saw what appeared to be a glaring omission that reduced the whole thing to a collapsing house of cards.
I'm curious to see if anyone else has an opinion.
MileHigh
First glance it looks the real deal although if they don`t release detailed enough info on how it`s built there is a 99.99999% chance we the great unwashed will never see this technology. Looks a bit difficult for the average joe to build as well and allmost all goverments around the world will not be in a hurry to use it becouse it can`t be turned into a bomb.
I could really do with one of these in my back garden.
MH
Well I have been very Busy lately,So I won';t even "Look" at it yet [Distractions]
IMO Knowing your mind set, it must be a problem with how to measure power In,
Or Power out Accurately?
I don't "Bet" but if I did thats where I'd put my Money!
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.02, 04:03:08
So is this too good to be true, or is there something terribly wrong with this picture? I looked into this several months ago and I saw what appeared to be a glaring omission that reduced the whole thing to a collapsing house of cards.
I'm curious to see if anyone else has an opinion.
If that glare comes from the statements about adding compressed air to a buoy to make it float and then releasing the air to make it sink, then we should hold off on negative judgment. Yes, adding air to a container increases the weight of that container. This would make it sink, not rise.
If that buoy (container) housed an air bladder, their statements about adding compressed air make sense.
WaveWatcher:
You are in the ballpark relative to what I am thinking.
The issue is fairly straightforward: The system is being powered by a tank of compressed air. The taller the column of water for traveling buoys, the higher the pressure you need in your air tank to be able to evacuate the water from the buoy so that it can rise to the surface.
Where does the pressurized air come from?
If this system is supposed to be a source of free energy, then that implies that the mechanical power that you can extract from the rising/sinking buoys (or the electrical power derived from a generator setup) can compress enough air to a high enough pressure to keep evacuating the buoys at the base of the water column and at the same time there should be bonus extra power available which you could export to the outside world.
Here is the problem: I looked into this a few months ago and I didn't see any mention of how you maintain a source of compressed air to keep the system powered.
Anybody that is interested in this system and the upcoming "detailed Panacea Hidro report" should keep this issue front and center in their minds.
Will there be any mention about where the power comes from to maintain a tank of high-pressure air at the bottom of the column of water? If you don't see any mention of this in the literature then you are smelling a rat.
MileHigh
If it takes more power to run it than it creates how many of these systems do you think they are going to sell? They have put a lot of work into the construction of the device so for now I'm going to assume it works since I looked at the concept and it seemed valid (but what do I know?). They say it works on the same principle as a submarine that can ascend and descend: "Pressure-gradient exists naturally in a water column at 1bar (100kN/m2) per one-meter depth. Nature will always seek to equalise pressure-differences in water and the changes in water-pressure states from static to dynamic-pressure created in Hidro water-tower produces pressure-force that is harnessed as kinetic energy to operate buoyant-floats to drive a linear motor translator, thereby converting the harnessed energy into potential energy in the linear electric generator where the electrical-load is directly generated producing electricity. Many phenomena's regarding the flow of liquids and system mechanics are applied in the Hidro water-tower, including the basic buoyancy [10kN/m3] and water displacement, these phenomena's are utilized in a submarine (capsule) enabling it to rise and descend. The Patented "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber (RETPEC) and its "operations" in HidroLinear-System is key to the technology commercial utilisation. "
The way I pictured it is not that they need compressed air but just a way to empty water out of the capsules at the bottom so they would only have air in them (not compressed as that would not be any advantage as far as I can see). It seems to me it's a system that is just using gravity (weight of the capsules) plus bouyancy (upward force when empty under water) to generate power. I would think the small amount of energy needed to change the water in and out of the capsules would be a lot less than that generated by the rather strong forces of bouyancy and gravity.
A few months ago I spent an hour or two looking online at this "Hidro" system and like I said, I saw no mention of how the main air tank remains pressurized to power the system.
Just for fun, let's look at some of the points that make this whole system impossible.
1. The first point is based on pure gut feel: You say to yourself, "It doesn't make sense. It takes air pressure times displacement to evacuate the water from the buoy at the bottom of the column of water. Pressure x displacement = work, and there is no way that you can extract that much work + 25% bonus to cover the overhead to make the system self-sustaining. The taller the column of water, the more work you can extract from the rising/sinking buoys, but at the same time, the more air pressure you need to evacuate the buoys." By pure gut feel you can sense that it simply won't work.
2. You can't extract energy from a gravity field, even if you try to turn things on their head by using buoys in a column of water.
3. When the buoy is at the bottom of the column of water, you have to fill it with pressurized air. When the buoy reaches the top of the column, that pressurized air is released. That represents a nugget of lost energy.
4. Buoys moving through water have to overcome the viscosity/friction of the water. This represents more energy lost as heat.
5. When you compress air you heat it up. That heat dissipates into the environment. This represents more lost energy.
6. There is some considerable overhead to make the system work. You need to power some sort of electro-mechanical system that connects and disconnects the air feeds to the buoys. There are gears and pulleys that have friction, etc.
7. The efficiency of the electrical generator is not 100%.
8. Assuming that you are using an electrical motor to power an air pump to keep the main air tank pressurized, the motor-pump efficiency is not 100%.
There you go, the whole thing is a complete croc of nonsense. The guy that is promoting this system, "engineer" James Kwok is deluded and/or "crazy." Poor Ashtweth gobbles up free energy concepts like jellybeans and has almost no technical background and no qualifying skills.
MileHigh
E2matrix:
QuoteThe way I pictured it is not that they need compressed air but just a way to empty water out of the capsules at the bottom so they would only have air in them (not compressed as that would not be any advantage as far as I can see). It seems to me it's a system that is just using gravity (weight of the capsules) plus bouyancy (upward force when empty under water) to generate power. I would think the small amount of energy needed to change the water in and out of the capsules would be a lot less than that generated by the rather strong forces of bouyancy and gravity.
Do you do any cycling? Have you used a manual air pump to pump up the tire of your 14-speed 'racer' style bike? Using English units, you typically have to pump up the tire to 70 psi. Have you experienced what it is like to do the final two pounds and get the tire from 68 psi to 70 psi? It is a hell of a lot of work. It takes WORK to pump up a tire when it is already at a high pressure.
When the buoy is at the bottom of the column of water and needs to be evacuated with air, the buoy is like the tire where the pressure is a constant 70 psi.
It tales a lot of energy to evacuate the buoys of water when they are at the bottom of the column of water. It's possible that the whole scam is perpetuated on the fact that the average person doesn't realize this.
Quoting Ash again:
QuoteHi Altrez yes they have independent (not just ours and Queensland university) tests with calibrated meters showing 300W in and 1KW out, we saw this also and took a closer look. This was a 20Kw power station, it has a lot of power. you could use 4 of them to run an Aquaponics set up 24/7 and be self sufficiency in ORGANIC food and carbon negative.
300 watts in to do what? I bet you Ash doesn't even know the answer to that question.
I bet you if someone reads all of the literature and follows all of the links, there will be no information at all about how the system drains off power from the rising/sinking buoys to keep the main air tank compressed at high pressure to keep the whole system running. The main air tank that keeps the whole system running is barely mentioned, and I did not see anything about recharging it to maintain its pressure when I read the literature a few months ago.
The whole thing is ridiculous and I challenge the OU and EF lurkers to raise this issue with Ash and James Kwok.
MileHigh
Yes, buoyancy and energy for the compressed air - those questions and more.
The things that make me hold back on analysis are related to buoyancy and the air storage/conversion.
Buoyancy is a clear and easy understanding with very well worn rules. Still, I have serious doubts about the precision of those rules.
Compressed air....
This is wide open for me due to experiences with what may be called 'air-batteries'. I have worked with several systems from a few kVA to 250,000 kVA. All using a scroll expander to drive an alternator have the same issue. They always tend to supply more energy out than in, or so it seems, even when you throw all the finest details into the math.
The manufacturers have never claimed anything more than extremely high efficiency. I understand some UK firm recently gained a patent but I know the company 'ActivePower' has been building them for a long time.
My experience with these units is related to troubleshooting anomalies on the load-side. Any personal investigations relating to the above would have been refused.
The only known and obvious symptom is when the stored air is applied to drive the alternator, heat energy is very clearly sucked out of the ambient space. This effect is far more than the usual icing of an A.C. gas line.
As far as I know... If this system is as claimed, the inventor may not realize some of the 'extra' may be due to other parts of the system or a combination of forces, if there is any 'extra'.
I did look into the invention in 2008. I found nothing devious about it or the inventor and shelved it in hopes it was real and could be proven.
MH,
You're always asking about charts and time lines. If I remember correctly this guy posted some very good data for review. Hopefully, you've looked at that.
For now, I don't have a reason or enough info to consider a detailed analysis or post negative comments about this.
WaveWatcher:
QuoteThis is wide open for me due to experiences with what may be called 'air-batteries'. I have worked with several systems from a few kVA to 250,000 kVA. All using a scroll expander to drive an alternator have the same issue. They always tend to supply more energy out than in, or so it seems, even when you throw all the finest details into the math.
I briefly looked this stuff up. Okay, so you have an air capacitor that discharges through a scroll expander. The amount of energy in the air capacitor is akin to an electrical capacitor, = (1/2 x the size of the air tank x the air pressure squared). It's impossible for an air capacitor to supply more energy out than in. When the gas is expanding it draws in thermal energy from the environment. So if you 'overlook' that glaring fact perhaps you can get "more out than you put in."
It harks back to one of my old themes where electrical inductors and capacitors are no different from mechanical springs and masses. An air tank is just an other form of a capacitor and it works with essentially the same differential equations and has the same characteristics. If a compressed air tank fails you get a massive flow of air and a sudden drop in pressure, which is identical to shorting a capacitor out or having a moving mass crash into a concrete wall.
I don't have the drive to search out the data on James Kwok's system but I will read the Panacea report. If anybody thinks it's real and can find some data to back up the claim by all means post some links here.
A very simplistic analysis is as follows: The energy you can extract from the buoyancy is proportional to the height of the column of water. By the same token the pressure at the base of the column of water is proportional to the height of the column of water. Therefore you can say that the buoyancy energy as it floats up and the energy required to evacuate the water from the buoy are both proportional to the height of the column of water. However, for a fixed volume buoy, you are obliged to put higher and higher pressure air into the buoy to evacuate the water from it for a higher and higher column of water. That extra air pressure is released from the buoy when it reaches the surface of the column of water. That released "extra" air pressure represents lost energy. Therefore it's fair to say that the higher the column of water, the less efficient the system becomes. Not forgetting to mention that the system is always under unity.
I shouldn't prejudge but based on past experience I won't be surprised if the Panacea report barely touches on the issue of were the supply of compressed air comes from to keep the device running.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteThe first point is based on pure gut feel: You say to yourself, "It doesn't make sense. It takes air pressure times displacement to evacuate the water from the buoy at the bottom of the column of water. Pressure x displacement = work, and there is no way that you can extract that much work + 25% bonus to cover the overhead to make the system self-sustaining. The taller the column of water, the more work you can extract from the rising/sinking buoys, but at the same time, the more air pressure you need to evacuate the buoys." By pure gut feel you can sense that it simply won't work.
I like these devices because they are always a bit of a Rube Goldberg affair which as an engineer I find attractive because of the neat dynamics involved. As well I have found appearances and the standard logic we apply in many cases can mislead us into thinking something is pretty straightforward but seldom is. Here is one example of a device I invented 20 years ago which I really have no interests in but proves an important point about perspective.
Houston we have a problem, at one time I was very interested in a sport called Hookah diving which is where fresh air is pumped under pressure to a diving mask through an attached air hose which leads to a pump at the surface. Now it should be common sense that if the diver is at a depth of 100 feet then the water pressure is 59 psi thus the minimum pressure needed for the supply of fresh air must be greater than 59 psi. It should be obvious that this system is not unlike an air pipe extending 100 feet under the water with a check valve on the end and we have 59 psi water pressure on one side of the valve thus we must need greater than 59 psi air pressure to produce an air flow through the check valve to our diver so we must perform an equivalent amount of work to compress atmospheric air.
That is common sense tells us that there is absolutely no way to get fresh air to the diver at 100 feet under water unless we perform an amount of work equivalent to compressing every cubic foot of fresh air to lets say 70 psi, but in this case common sense has failed us. You see the problem is not pressure that is an illusion the problem is the oxygen required in the fresh air by the diver. My solution to this impossible problem was simple, I use two small lines from a clear plexiglass diving helmet which extend to the surface, one line is fresh air at 70 psi the other exhaled air from the diver at 70 psi. I utilize the exhaled air at 70 psi and use this pressure to accelerate the mass of a piston to velocity X against atmospheric pressure and the piston mass now has momentum. I utilize this same momentum of the piston mass at velocity X and use it to compress fresh air in another air space cyclically, so you see the energy of the outgoing air pressure equals the energy of the incoming air pressure minus system losses through the conservation of momentum in isolated systems. In reality the real work required to provide fresh air to my diver is not the compressing of air from atmospheric pressure to 70 psi it is the system losses due to friction because the work performed by the air leaving the system is almost equal to the work performed on the air entering the system.
As well this process may sound familiar to you and it should, if we take two identical reservoir's of electrical energy in the form of capacitors and close the circuit the capacitors will simply balance their potentials. If however we add an inductance which has the property of electrical inertia and acts like a mass having momentum then we can discharge one capacitor to charge the inductance not unlike setting a mass in motion then discharge this inductive energy to charge the other capacitor. In this case energy is conserved minus losses just as my Hookah diving air delivery system conserves energy as pressure minus the system losses, so you see the notion that we must always perform work equivalent to compressing atmospheric air to 70 psi and then lose all this energy is false, the pressure energy is conserved while a fresh air flow is produced. In theory and practice I found that fresh air could be delivered to a diver under water with 80% less energy than is normally required by simply understanding the problem from the proper perspective.
I am not implying that this Hidro system does anything as I have no proof of what he is doing however I just wanted to point out the fact that our gut feelings and common sense can be very misleading if not completely wrong in many cases as I have shown in my example. I should note that this seemingly impossible task of delivering fresh air to a depth under water is little more than a low flow constant pressure system, one volume of air at pressure is efficiently exchanged with another, nothing more nothing less.
Regards
AC
Just the very mention of both 'Ashtweth' and 'Sterling' in the first post is enough to lose my interest.
To my mind anything brought to light, promoted or endorsed by two of the most feeble-minded and ridiculously gullible people on the circuit is always a bad sign. :)
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.04.02, 23:26:07
Just the very mention of both 'Ashtweth' and 'Sterling' in the first post is enough to lose my interest.
To my mind anything brought to light, promoted or endorsed by two of the most feeble-minded and ridiculously gullible people on the circuit is always a bad sign. :)
I must agree with you ;D
However, I can't declare an auto accident victim at fault just because of the ambulance chasers(lawyers) showing up ;)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.02, 20:58:24
I briefly looked this stuff up. Okay, so you have an air capacitor that discharges through a scroll expander. The amount of energy in the air capacitor is akin to an electrical capacitor, = (1/2 x the size of the air tank x the air pressure squared).
It's impossible for an air capacitor to supply more energy out than in. When the gas is expanding it draws in thermal energy from the environment. So if you 'overlook' that glaring fact perhaps you can get "more out than you put in."
The amount of energy stored in an air capacitor
is akin to that stored in a capacitor. Charging and discharging are also virtually the same. What isn't similar are the points where current flow sees a sudden change in restriction.
What part of an electric capacitor would become hot where current restriction increases?
I would say the first location noticed would be a part where resistance increases.
What part of an electric capacitor would become cold when current sees a sudden decrease in resistance?
None. A capacitor and an air storage unit are not completely the same. (Cold current explanation? :D)
Quote
It harks back to one of my old themes where electrical inductors and capacitors are no different from mechanical springs and masses. An air tank is just an other form of a capacitor and it works with essentially the same differential equations and has the same characteristics. If a compressed air tank fails you get a massive flow of air and a sudden drop in pressure, which is identical to shorting a capacitor out or having a moving mass crash into a concrete wall.
I've heard an inductor has a voltage drop across it while carrying current. When you apply pressure to one end of a spring with the other end fixed is there a pressure drop across the spring?
Yes, they are essentially the same but not completely. These analogies only fit at the basic level.
Where I'm burnt is where the physics police hammer ideas with poorly thought out reasons for the impossibilities. Reasons for it not working are easy to announce.... and boring. What ideas could be used to make it work? These are what I need to know.
Never mind. I know the answer..... 'None. It'll never work because it is impossible'.
The first useless negativity I saw, for this topic(not on this forum), was the one about air being heavier than vacuum and adding weight to the buoy. Yea, so what? Who cares? Air doesn't matter. Displacement of the water matters. An easy answer would be to add an air bladder to the buoy. I'm sure the inventor figured that out the first day of the idea.
The next (also not originally seen on this forum) is the thing about having to use high pressure to pump down to the depth of the buoy while at the bottom of the stroke. Why would that method be used? Why not just blow the air into the bottom of the tank so the bubbles fill the buoy from below? No massive pressure needed that way.
Another one the inventor surely figured on the first day. Nothing new about that idea. Remember the mysterious diving and surfacing submarine toy in the Cracker-Jacks box?
Quote
I shouldn't prejudge but based on past experience I won't be surprised if the Panacea report barely touches on the issue of were the supply of compressed air comes from to keep the device running.
Agreed. The chances of answers to pointed questions are slim. Very much so from Panacea.
This project has more believable information than most. When the detail questions are asked, I really hope the inventor provides some answers. Maybe after the patents run out ?
OK i may be missing something here, so fire away.
Imagine this , a tall container of water, in which a buoy has sunk to the bottom because it's heavy and filled with water, there are 2 pipes to this buoy, one goes to the top of the water container and open to fresh air, it has a valve, one pipe goes to the bottom of the column of water through the vessel to the open air under the tall water vessel, it also has a tap.
Now the buoy has water in it, so first thing we want to do is remove it, so surely this is as simple as opening the air valve at the top and opening the valve at the bottom, gravity will drain the water from the buoy and fill it with air from the top valve, close both valves and you have a buoy full of air in a tall water column, in my book this should float to the top.
What did i get wrong, i don't see how the water will not drain on it's own, so no need for compressed air, offcourse we all know this is not possible so what did i get wrong.
OK i worked it out, the energy in the drained water has been lost to the vessel, so eventually the vessel would empty on the refill cycle
I'm amazed by the expense that went into this device to bring it to its current state of development, which is nothing more then a perpetual motion idea from the 1800's.
There are dozens of patents and ideas like this from that era. Here's an interesting link. I like the capillary action between the two disks, I almost believed this worked at one time.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
EM
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.04.03, 06:11:20
OK i worked it out, the energy in the drained water has been lost to the vessel, so eventually the vessel would empty on the refill cycle
We can put that another way: The water that drains out through the pipe at the bottom of the column has to be lifted all the way back to the top. You have to expend Mgh energy to do this. You are back at square-one.
MileHigh
WaveWatcher:
QuoteI've heard an inductor has a voltage drop across it while carrying current. When you apply pressure to one end of a spring with the other end fixed is there a pressure drop across the spring?
In the case of an ideal inductor there is only a voltage drop across it if there is AC current going through it. For DC current the voltage across it is zero. With respect to your question about a spring in this case the spring acts in an ideal fashion. The variable is velocity, and there is no "velocity drop" across the ends of a spring spring when the pressure applied to it is constant.
QuoteWhere I'm burnt is where the physics police hammer ideas with poorly thought out reasons for the impossibilities. Reasons for it not working are easy to announce.... and boring. What ideas could be used to make it work? These are what I need to know.
I believe that I've read you state this many times before. It has tinges of hiding your head in the sand. You've got to let people say what they want to say. This is a fun one because Ashtweth is going to try to promote this like it is real. The profile has been raised and before people start throwing heaps of praise on "Panacea University" I think that it's a good exercise to look at the merits or lack thereof for this case. You saw that I extended an open invitation to anybody to argue the merits of this system and put up some links. Plus there is always the possibility that we are preventing somebody from giving a small fortune to James Kwok because they were led astray by Ashtweth. We could also be preventing someone from spending their own money on trying to build one themselves, which would also cost a small fortune in materials and time.
QuoteWhy not just blow the air into the bottom of the tank so the bubbles fill the buoy from below? No massive pressure needed that way.
You are wrong, massive pressure is needed. No matter how you look at it you have to overcome the water pressure.
QuoteRemember the mysterious diving and surfacing submarine toy in the Cracker-Jacks box?
Baking soda -> chemical energy :)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.03, 11:41:57
In the case of an ideal inductor there is only a voltage drop across it if there is AC current going through it. For DC current the voltage across it is zero. With respect to your question about a spring in this case the spring acts in an ideal fashion. The variable is velocity, and there is no "velocity drop" across the ends of a spring spring when the pressure applied to it is constant.
So, a voltage drop only exists when there is a changing electric field. If unchanging then the voltage drop is zero. I'll buy that. I agree 'velocity drop' doesn't work. The variable indicating a possible 'drop' would be acceleration, not velocity.
Quote
I believe that I've read you state this many times before. It has tinges of hiding your head in the sand. You've got to let people say what they want to say.
Back-at-ya ;)
Quote
This is a fun one because Ashtweth is going to try to promote this like it is real. The profile has been raised and before people start throwing heaps of praise on "Panacea University" I think that it's a good exercise to look at the merits or lack thereof for this case. You saw that I extended an open invitation to anybody to argue the merits of this system and put up some links. Plus there is always the possibility that we are preventing somebody from giving a small fortune to James Kwok because they were led astray by Ashtweth. We could also be preventing someone from spending their own money on trying to build one themselves, which would also cost a small fortune in materials and time.
Granted O0
Quote
You are wrong, massive pressure is needed. No matter how you look at it you have to overcome the water pressure.
I am wrong. All it took was a cup of coffee and I regretted that statement. The pot calling the kettle black? I didn't put much thought into that one.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.04.03, 05:02:05
Where I'm burnt is where the physics police hammer ideas with poorly thought out reasons for the impossibilities. Reasons for it not working are easy to announce.... and boring. What ideas could be used to make it work? These are what I need to know.
My feelings EXACTLY!
There are a lot of self righteous people, not on just this forum, but everywhere, that should take a step back and ask themselves the hard question, "Am I part of the problem, or can I be part of the solution?"
It's easy to say something can't or won't work for reasons that we have been taught, or don't comprehend because of what we haven't been taught. It's the lazy person's answer.
Your imagination and creativity is a terrible thing to waste.
If the world had more problem solvers like allcanadian, it would be a better place.
No need to ramble further...
Itzon
WaveWatcher:
QuoteSo, a voltage drop only exists when there is a changing electric field. If unchanging then the voltage drop is zero. I'll buy that. I agree 'velocity drop' doesn't work. The variable indicating a possible 'drop' would be acceleration, not velocity.
There is flexibility to choose different analogous variables for your modeling and as long as you are consistent then everything will work. In my case I usually use velocity == voltage and force == current. For a mass == capacitor you have 1/2mv^2 == 1/2cv^2. For a spring == inductor you have 1/2kf^2 == 1/2Li^2, where k is the spring constant and f is the force going through the spring.
Acceleration is d(velocity)/dt. That would translate into dv/dt. For a capacitor it's easy. i = C dv/dt. So if you have a mass in your hand and you accelerate it you feel force between the mass and your hand. In other words i = C dv/dt == f = M dv/dt == f = Ma.
It's a bit more complicated for a spring. If you apply velocity to the end of a spring, the force going through the spring changes, it turns out to be the integral of the velocity with respect to time. (i.e. for an inductor i = 1/L integral v dt) That makes sense, you compress a spring between your arms at a certain velocity and you know the force going through the spring is increasing.
If you integrate the velocity with respect to time you get displacement. So that makes sense because you know that if you compress a spring with a certain displacement you are storing energy. Therefore the integral of the velocity across a spring with respect to time becomes a measurable amount of energy. So that's the analysis going "down" from velocity to displacement.
Velocity translates into changing force going through the spring. You do one step of integration with respect to time and you get displacement translating into energy stored in the spring.
To go from velocity to acceleration you have to go one step "up" and do a differentiation with respect to time.
Therefore accelerating the end of a spring gives you the rate of change of force with respect to time through the spring, df/dt.
A Newton is a kgm/s^2. I am really rusty on my calculus but I think a d(Newton)/dt is = -2kgm/s^3. (??) :)
I don't think d(Newtons)/dt is a particularly useful unit but there you go.
MileHigh
itzon,
Just remember that 'self-righteous' is usually only a perspective or view of someone. It can also be right or left. Trying to stay in the middle is difficult for anyone.
You can only go by your experiences. Where people foul-up is when they believe completely in what others say without self-experience or sufficient vetting. Many here have plenty of experience in the facts of these matters. We may appear as self-righteous sometimes. Most of the time it is due to previous experience.
I can see both sides. Quite often I'm still on one side or the other. The hard part is seeing clearly through the usual smog accompanying these claims.
Itzon:
QuoteThere are a lot of self righteous people, not on just this forum, but everywhere, that should take a step back and ask themselves the hard question, "Am I part of the problem, or can I be part of the solution?"
I suppose you can say that there are two parallel approaches to arriving at the solution. One approach is to propose new ideas for what you think will work. Another approach is to propose things that won't work so you don't waste your time searching down blind alleys.
Now anybody that suggests a new idea has to be prepared to debate it. If your idea is debated and found out to not work then you can still consider that progress. In other words, that process is still part of the solution.
How much time, money, and energy do you think was wasted trying to replicate the Mylow scam? I'm convinced that James Kwok's Hidro project is a scam.
Can you propose why you think the "Hidro" project will work? I'm all ears!
MileHigh
.
Groundloop:
I am going to assume that you got that diagram from a James Kwok website.
So here is the proof that the system doesn't work for all to see.
For starters, you clearly see that the pump has to pump water from the bottom to the top of the column of water. There is the inescapable high pressure that you have to overcome. I talked about pumping high pressure air into the buoy to evacuate the water. This is the same as the pump having to pump the water back to the top of the column. It requires the same amount of energy.
Here is the "Big Lie" in the diagram, "Now the question, the tank has traveled two times generating energy, for each time we need to lift the volume of lost water up into the reservoir. Is the energy created larger than the energy needed to pump the water back up again?"
The answer is NO, and we will now prove it.
Let's call the mass of the water evacuated from the buoy M_water. Note that this is also the mass of the water that the pump has to pump back to the top of the column.
Let's call the height of the column of water H_column.
Therefore the amount of energy that has to be expended to pump the water back to the top is E_pump = (M_water * g * H_column)
Now let's look at the buoy. The buoy is denser than water and sinks. We will say that the effective mass of the boy is the mass of the buoy less the mass of the water it displaces; M_effective_buoy.
The energy gained when the buoy sinks is E_sink_buoy = (M_effective_buoy * g * H_column)
What about when the buoy rises?
In this case the buoyancy of buoy is the mass of the evacuated water from the buoy less the effective mass of the buoy = (M_water - M_effective_buoy).
The energy gained when the buoy rises is E_rise_buoy = ((M_water - M_effective_buoy) * g * H_column)
So the total energy you can get from the sinking and rising buoy is E_total = E_sink_buoy + E_rise_buoy.
That is equal to E_total = E_sink_buoy + E_rise_buoy = (M_effective_buoy * g * H_column) + ((M_water - M_effective_buoy) * g * H_column)
Well how about that, the two M_effective_buoy terms cancel each other out.
You are left with E_total = (M_water * g * H_column)
From above remember that the amount of energy that has to be expended to pump the water back to the top is E_pump = (M_water * g * H_column)
So, E_total = E_pump for a net zero gain in energy.
Now we all know that there are inefficiencies every step of the way to run this machine such that it is a non-self-sustaining under unity device.
You have just seen a BIG LIE exposed to you and proved to you on paper.
It blows my mind that this kind of nonsense happens in the realm of free energy. This is also grade 8 high school physics.
MileHigh
Quote from: itzon on 2011.04.03, 15:22:26
My feelings EXACTLY!
There are a lot of self righteous people, not on just this forum, but everywhere, that should take a step back and ask themselves the hard question, "Am I part of the problem, or can I be part of the solution?"
It's easy to say something can't or won't work for reasons that we have been taught, or don't comprehend because of what we haven't been taught. It's the lazy person's answer.
Your imagination and creativity is a terrible thing to waste.
If the world had more problem solvers like allcanadian, it would be a better place.
No need to ramble further...
Itzon
Yes you are rambling.
There are basically two types of people that create the problems:
The first is the person that claims great things: usually new technology, new science or some great scientific breakthrough, initiated from ill-considered ideas or experiments, inadequate education, misinterpretation of results, irrational thinking or plain old quackery.
The second person is the one that suffers from MSS and simply enhances the problem by mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon and irrationally supporting the first person like their life depends on it. All without question and without so much as an iota of understanding. (MSS = Mindless Sheep Syndrome). Just look at the support the now infamous Fast Freddy had before he did a bunk. And I bet there are plenty of people with MSS still donating monies via his paypal account!
It's not about being righteous or self-righteous, it's simply about getting to the facts and uncovering the truth... which inevitably involves the appliance of science.
It's about good practice, good science, knowledge and commonsense. Education - or rather lack of - is often the biggest problem, not creativity - or lack of. Many arguments are fueled simply by irrational passion and/or blissful ignorance rather than anything by way of science. We see this time and time again. Without sufficient education and/or experience to understand processes and hence make rational judgements many things may seem fantastic and contrary to the known laws of science, when in fact they are neither.
We also often see those people lacking in knowledge and commonsense playing the 'prove it won't work' card. For some reason intelligent, educated people are often expected to prove a negative. Which of course is plain old crazy.
You are new here aren't you. AC doesn't solve problems he's a pacifier. ;)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.03, 18:01:09
Groundloop:
I am going to assume that you got that diagram from a James Kwok website.
So here is the proof that the system doesn't work for all to see.
For starters, you clearly see that the pump has to pump water from the bottom to the top of the column of water. There is the inescapable high pressure that you have to overcome. I talked about pumping high pressure air into the buoy to evacuate the water. This is the same as the pump having to pump the water back to the top of the column. It requires the same amount of energy.
Here is the "Big Lie" in the diagram, "Now the question, the tank has traveled two times generating energy, for each time we need to lift the volume of lost water up into the reservoir. Is the energy created larger than the energy needed to pump the water back up again?"
The answer is NO, and we will now prove it.
Let's call the mass of the water evacuated from the buoy M_water. Note that this is also the mass of the water that the pump has to pump back to the top of the column.
Let's call the height of the column of water H_column.
Therefore the amount of energy that has to be expended to pump the water back to the top is E_pump = (M_water * g * H_column)
Now let's look at the buoy. The buoy is denser than water and sinks. We will say that the effective mass of the boy is the mass of the buoy less the mass of the water it displaces; M_effective_buoy.
The energy gained when the buoy sinks is E_sink_buoy = (M_effective_buoy * g * H_column)
What about when the buoy rises?
In this case the buoyancy of buoy is the mass of the evacuated water from the buoy less the effective mass of the buoy = (M_water - M_effective_buoy).
The energy gained when the buoy rises is E_rise_buoy = ((M_water - M_effective_buoy) * g * H_column)
So the total energy you can get from the sinking and rising buoy is E_total = E_sink_buoy + E_rise_buoy.
That is equal to E_total = E_sink_buoy + E_rise_buoy = (M_effective_buoy * g * H_column) + ((M_water - M_effective_buoy) * g * H_column)
Well how about that, the two M_effective_buoy terms cancel each other out.
You are left with E_total = (M_water * g * H_column)
From above remember that the amount of energy that has to be expended to pump the water back to the top is E_pump = (M_water * g * H_column)
So, E_total = E_pump for a net zero gain in energy.
Now we all know that there are inefficiencies every step of the way to run this machine such that it is a non-self-sustaining under unity device.
You have just seen a BIG LIE exposed to you and proved to you on paper.
It blows my mind that this kind of nonsense happens in the realm of free energy. This is also grade 8 high school physics.
MileHigh
I did this drawing myself and did not get it from any web site.
I never attended any high school, so that is why I ask questions. :-)
Thanks for the explanation.
GL.
Groundloop:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please don't take any offense from my comments. It was still a good exercise because I proved that you can't extract any excess energy from a rising and falling buoy in a tank of water.
MileHigh
HHMMmmmmmm
200 thousand dollars,So its that easy to make money??
You guys are worried about someone that has 200K to throw away??
I wouldn't lose to much sleep over that!
If this thing doesn't "DO WHAT IT DO"?
POOOF....................
But I hope it DOOO!!
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.03, 18:56:14
Groundloop:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please don't take any offense from my comments. It was still a good exercise because I proved that you can't extract any excess energy from a rising and falling buoy in a tank of water.
MileHigh
No offense taken, I ask questions and learn something new every day. :-)
GL.
MileHigh,
What will happen if we mount the system onto a pivot at the center of gravity and
swing the tube horizontal before we pump the water back? Then we have
reduced the energy needed to pump water back by 50%.
GL.
Groundloop,
It's impossible to 'trick' gravity. You don't reduce the energy required to lift the water up by 50%. Just think your example through step by step and you should find the flaw in your statement.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.04, 01:04:56
Groundloop,
It's impossible to 'trick' gravity. You don't reduce the energy required to lift the water up by 50%. Just think your example through step by step and you should find the flaw in your statement.
MileHigh
If we pivot the system around the center of gravity then we need to use very little energy to do so.
It is like a flywheel, you do not need much energy to keep it going after you have started it.
So by slowly rotating the system and pump the water back each time the system is horizontal
then we have reduced the energy needed to pump the water by 1/2 the height. It will be a engineering
nightmare to build such a thing but I can't see and flaws in this and no laws are broken.
The water is drained from the buoy into a container on the ground when the tube
is vertical. We do not need to input any work filling the buoy at top and we do not need to do any
work to empty the buoy when at the bottom. After emptying the buoy THEN we tilt the tube
horizontal and pump the water from the ground container and into the tube. We only need to
pump 1/2 the distance now. So the energy needed is 1/2 to pump water back compared
to pumping all the way up to the top of the tube. Am I wrong?
You tell me what flaw there is with such a system?
GL.
When you add water to the tube you change the center of gravity of the tube.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.04, 01:57:35
When you add water to the tube you change the center of gravity of the tube.
MileHigh
You only pump the water back when the tube is horizontal and that can't change
the center of gravity of the tube much. And if it does then the distance to lift that
offset is equal to the distance that offset must fall (we rotate), so the net is zero.
GL.
Supposing the tube is 11 meters tall and before you have to add the new water, the current water level is 10 meters high. So you set the pivot point at the 5 meter point and rotate the tube 90 degrees. We assume that it takes almost no energy to rotate the tube.
Now you add water to the tube so that it is full, i.e.; there is now 11 meters worth of water in the tube.
So now if want to rotate the tube by 90 degrees you have to lift the new water that you just added up 5 meters. You are back at square one.
You can't change the pivot point to the 5.5 meter mark either. If you do this then you end up lowering the whole tube by 0.5 meters. So you are forced to lift up the whole tube filled with water by 0.5 meters to get back to where you started.
There is no shortcut.
MileHigh
Some more info for the hell of it:
Mr. Kwok's brochure on a potential one megawatt power-plant.
http://www.hidroonline.com/pdf/1MW-Module.pdf (http://www.hidroonline.com/pdf/1MW-Module.pdf)
The relevant text:
QuoteThe Hidro+â„¢ World Patent Pending includes the unique "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer [RTPE]" system that allows
air inflation at the bottom of the tower to be "assisted" where higher pressures (pressure gradients resulting from varying
heights) within the tower are introduced in the RTPE chambers, equalizing the high pressure that is to be overcome in the
air transfer cylinder). Parasitic energy on this instance, as well as on instrumentations and controls, is thereby greatly
reduced.
The Energy Input (Ei) is: P = F x Va (Nm/s) being displacement of the piston at the air transfer speed in Watt (W) of
electrical power, which represents approximately 10-21% of Power Generated as parasitic load which includes mechanical
losses.
The stuff that's highlighted is the meaningless junk. It's carefully worded to sound legitimate to unsuspecting people that are not technical.
I haven't explored all of the material online, but my guess is that Mr. Kwok does not show where the input power goes or what it actually does. By the same token I am operating on the assumption that there is no hard data to back up the claim that the output power is between five and 10 times greater than the input power. Even if there is alleged data, it's just a document and the proof would have to be shown in a real-world demonstration with independent auditors observing the system and making measurements.
The other question is why should a system like this even need input power? It's supposed to be a power source itself, producing power for the grid. Why should it need grid power if the rising and falling buoys are producing grid power? If there was ever a candidate for an alleged over unity system that was supposed to be self-sustaining, this should be one of them.
MileHigh
From the Google search "James Kwok fraud:"
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/3686 (http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/3686)
Quote
April 12, 2005:
ASIC commences criminal proceedings in the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney against Mr James Kwok (also known as Mr James Kardi and Mr Herman Kardi) - ASIC alleges Mr Kwok acted dishonestly whilst a director of Envirostar Energy Limited (Envirostar) by not disclosing his interest in two parcels of land that Envirostar leased - the leases commenced in mid-2000 - Mr Kwok tendered his resignation from the Envirostar board in August 2002 and it was at this time that his interests in the land parcels were discovered
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/05-93+ASIC+commences+proceedings+against+former+director+of+Queensland+power+company?OpenDocument&Click= (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/05-93+ASIC+commences+proceedings+against+former+director+of+Queensland+power+company?OpenDocument&Click=)
Quote05-93 ASIC commences proceedings against former director of Queensland power company
Thursday 14 April 2005
On Tuesday 12 April 2005, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) commenced criminal proceedings in the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney against Mr James Kwok, also known as Mr James Kardi and Mr Herman Kardi.
ASIC alleges Mr Kwok acted dishonestly whilst a director of Envirostar Energy Limited (Envirostar) by not disclosing his interest in two parcels of land that Envirostar leased. The leases commenced in mid-2000.
Mr Kwok tendered his resignation from the Envirostar board in August 2002 and it was at this time that his interests in the land parcels were discovered.
Envirostar's principal activity was building power plants to convert waste material into energy.
It is alleged Mr Kwok's son and wife were the owners of the land and that Mr Kwok failed to disclose this interest to Envirostar's shareholders or to Envirostar's Board of Directors, either prior to or during the terms of each lease.
Mr Kwok has been charged with dishonestly using his position as a director under the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to the leases over each parcel of land.
Directors are prohibited from dishonestly using their positions to either directly or indirectly gain an advantage for themselves or for another person.
The matter is next before the court on 31 May 2005.
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2007/07/17-2354-2207.html (http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2007/07/17-2354-2207.html)
Quote9 February 2007 - James Kwok: sentenced to 24 months imprisonment after being found guilty of dishonestly using his position as a director under the Corporations Act. The Queensland man will serve 14 months by way of periodic detention following an investigation by the ASIC.
Hi all,
I found this and wanted to share ...
09076727.pdf WO 2009/076727 Hydromatic Energy Generation System (PCT/AU 2008/001888)
08037004.pdf WO 2008/037004 A1 A Energy Storage Device And Method Of Use (PCT/AU 2007/001417)
Green_Energy_Power.pdf Hydro+ Technology
;)
A little bit more fun searching:
http://www.southernhighlandnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/trust-me-i-have-the-power/1853534.aspx (http://www.southernhighlandnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/trust-me-i-have-the-power/1853534.aspx)
QuoteNow, Mr Kwok is behind Pacific Energy International's application to install a 13-metre renewable energy generation tower on Sally's Corner Road, Exeter.
When asked by the News if the Shire could trust him, Mr Kwok said "the proof's in the pudding".
"My technology 'Hidro' was the only technology selected from Australia by the United Nations to exhibit in Copenhagen," Mr Kwok said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/16/2928525.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/16/2928525.htm)
QuoteCouncil seeks proof saltwater energy tower will work...
But Wingecarribee Mayor Duncan Gair says the council is sceptical that the proposal will work and is seeking advice from universities.
"Until we get more scientific proof that this will work for the benefit of the community then council wouldn't be supporting the project," he said.
http://www.wsc.nsw.gov.au/files/14234/File/Aug30WeeklyCircular.pdf (http://www.wsc.nsw.gov.au/files/14234/File/Aug30WeeklyCircular.pdf)
QuoteWingecarribee Shire Council – Weekly Circular
Page 11 of 11
COUNCIL WEEKLY CIRCULAR
ITEM NO: 5
SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Generation Tower: Lot 13 DP 1085141 'Loudana'
No. 130 Sally's Corner Road, EXETER.
CONTACT NAME: Michael Carpenter: Town Planner Development & Building Services
DATE: 26 August 2010
FILE NUMBER LUA10/0272
Current Status of Development Application:
No response has been received from the applicant to Council's deferral letter issued 16 June
2010 with a request for additional information.
Recommendation:
In consideration of the absence of a response from the applicant and the time that has elapsed
(two months) staff requested of the General Manager that the application be finalised by way
of Refusal under Delegated Authority. The General Manager has agreed to this course of
action with the proviso that the Councillor's be informed. Should the applicant respond within
a 12 month period after determination of the application, opportunity for review of Council's
determination exists under S82A of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979.
QuoteIt is alleged Mr Kwok's son and wife were the owners of the land and that Mr Kwok failed to disclose this interest to Envirostar's shareholders or to Envirostar's Board of Directors, either prior to or during the terms of each lease.
Mr Kwok has been charged with dishonestly using his position as a director under the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to the leases over each parcel of land.
Directors are prohibited from dishonestly using their positions to either directly or indirectly gain an advantage for themselves or for another person.
The matter is next before the court on 31 May 2005.
LOL, what a farce, here in the land of oil and gas this is common practice and if a law like this was enforced half the country would be in jail. Sounds like he was railroaded or plain old racism, I would think a little of both because weak minded people tend to resent smart people who succeed at things they cannot understand.
QuoteThe Hidro+â„¢ World Patent Pending includes the unique "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer [RTPE]" system that allows
air inflation at the bottom of the tower to be "assisted" where higher pressures (pressure gradients resulting from varying
heights) within the tower are introduced in the RTPE chambers, equalizing the high pressure that is to be overcome in the
air transfer cylinder). Parasitic energy on this instance, as well as on instrumentations and controls, is thereby greatly
reduced.
The Energy Input (Ei) is: P = F x Va (Nm/s) being displacement of the piston at the air transfer speed in Watt (W) of
electrical power, which represents approximately 10-21% of Power Generated as parasitic load which includes mechanical
losses.
To the layman this may sound confusing but what is implied is clear---- The air entering the chamber is "assisted" in overcoming the water pressure acting against it through a means of equalizing the pressures. Obviously this is the only way such a system could work and if we read the patent he states exactly how this is done.
Regards
AC
Seems like all it needs is a real good infinite-COP heater like Rosemary Ainslie's clever circuit to boil some water and create high-pressure steam at the bottom there! Plus, we all know heat makes things rise extra good! Seems like a match made in Heaven, doesn't it, AC? Plus, it would add a lot of appeal for engineers such as yourself who are highly attracted by an enhanced Rube Goldberg factor! A win-win situation if I ever saw one!
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.04.04, 15:20:15
Seems like all it needs is a real good infinite-COP heater like Rosemary Ainslie's clever circuit to boil some water and create high-pressure steam at the bottom there! Plus, we all know heat makes things rise extra good! Seems like a match made in Heaven, doesn't it, AC? Plus, it would add a lot of appeal for engineers such as yourself who are highly attracted by an enhanced Rube Goldberg factor! A win-win situation if I ever saw one!
Humbugger
Was this post really necessary or do you just get off on this shit?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.04.04, 16:24:34
Was this post really necessary or do you just get off on this shit?
Just a very positive and creative contribution. AC said he really likes things that have a high Rube Goldberg factor in an earlier post and that got me to thinkin' that, since he's also a great believer in the "promise" of the Ainslie circuit, and this other great promising invention here seems to need a way to create a nice phat positive pressure for free to blast the water out of the thingy when it hits bottom...well...my EUREKA brain just clicked, and my creativity meter went off scale and I came up with a great idea. At least I thought so.
Why are you calling my great inspiration and positive contribution "shit"? Are you always this negative? Bashing people's ideas? Are you working for big oil? A man in black? It seems you are trying to suppress another huge synergistic breakthrough in free energy systems! Why do you feel you have to make such horrible negative comments? Shame on you!
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.04.04, 16:46:18
Just a very positive and creative contribution. AC said he really likes things that have a high Rube Goldberg factor in an earlier post and that got me to thinkin' that, since he's also a great believer in the "promise" of the Ainslie circuit, and this other great promising invention here seems to need a way to create a nice phat positive pressure for free to blast the water out of the thingy when it hits bottom...well...my EUREKA brain just clicked, and my creativity meter went off scale and I came up with a great idea. At least I thought so.
Why are you calling my great inspiration and positive contribution "shit"? Are you always this negative? Bashing people's ideas? Are you working for big oil? A man in black? It seems you are trying to suppress another huge synergistic breakthrough in free energy systems! Why do you feel you have to make such horrible negative comments? Shame on you!
Humbugger
Hummie,
I have no problem with your technical skills and knowledge but you seem to be the kind of person that has to put other people down to make yourself feel good, maybe you need to take a look at this.
Regards
Room
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.04, 02:32:07
Supposing the tube is 11 meters tall and before you have to add the new water, the current water level is 10 meters high. So you set the pivot point at the 5 meter point and rotate the tube 90 degrees. We assume that it takes almost no energy to rotate the tube.
Now you add water to the tube so that it is full, i.e.; there is now 11 meters worth of water in the tube.
So now if want to rotate the tube by 90 degrees you have to lift the new water that you just added up 5 meters. You are back at square one.
You can't change the pivot point to the 5.5 meter mark either. If you do this then you end up lowering the whole tube by 0.5 meters. So you are forced to lift up the whole tube filled with water by 0.5 meters to get back to where you started.
There is no shortcut.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
You are correct. We need to lift the water from 270 degrees to 360 and that takes
the same work as pumping the water the same distance. So no cigar for my system.
If only we could have used some quantum tunneling or something like it. :-)
GL.
I sure can't see how this thing could passably create any net extra energy let alone brake even but there is more going on in physics that I have no clue about then what I know . Someone is going threw some extreme paces to make this all look legit, so ether they really believe in this or are trying to scam the bejesus out of some one $200,000 per unit? Charlie Hustle you bet.
If some one has 200 grand to throw around they hopefully have the sense to do a little do diligence and research this contraption and demand evidence that it really works. Some one could really change The world with cheap power generation like this if it works but if some one is so willing to part with that kind of money and they don't know what there getting into then there being greedy and I can't feel bad for them. It would be nice if it did work but like I said it makes no sense to me.
Pete
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.04.04, 16:50:47
Hummie,
I have no problem with your technical skills and knowledge but you seem to be the kind of person that has to put other people down to make yourself feel good, maybe you need to take a look at this.
Regards
Room
No...it really doesn't make me feel good. I don't need that kind of stuff, honestly. It's just a gut reaction I get when I see a crowd of supposedly intelligent "researchers" rallying to find any possible way to agree with and support the false claims of crooks and charlatans and outright kooks who endlessly present thinly-veiled variations on ancient foolish themes that any freshman engineering student can see through and prove with simple basic physics as being obviously unworkable. It's frustrating to watch and I just can't help but poke fun at it sometimes. That's all.
Solving puzzles is what makes me feel good, especially when the solutions bring forth workable machines that are better, simpler, more reliable, more efficient and less costly than what went before. That and catching a nice feisty fish with light tackle, gutting or filleting the brute with a sharp knife, cooking him up over some twigs and branches and sucking him down, bite by delicious bite...all for free.
Humbugger
I see 99.9% of the stuff presented as potential or achieved "free energy devices" as absolutely no different from this:
Say I presented with credentials as a NASA engineer and an experienced glove-maker. I claim I have invented a pair of gloves that, if you put them on and tug gently upward on your own ass, you will lift sweetly into the sky. Now I cloud the explanation of how it works with 4000 lines of garbled equations, ten videos showing lengthy mathematical proofs but never any actual flying and statements from 12 professors in Bulgaria saying they see solid merit in the invention. I have nine granted patents and am building a huge factory to begin full production next year. Just need a couple of hundred thou and 12 more months to iron out the final production details. And both Ashtweth and Sterling are totally jazzed on the concept, writing huge articles and asking for contributions. Lindemann and Bearden are writing books on how it works for the layman and claiming they've known about this for years and used to work with a guy that invented the gloves 20 years ago but who was snuffed by MIB.
Are you in?
Quote from: vonwolf on 2011.04.04, 17:56:01
If some one has 200 grand to throw around they hopefully have the sense to do a little do diligence and research this contraption and demand evidence that it really works.
Well Pete, notice that the Wingecarribee Shire Council in Australia asked James Kwok for some scientific proof or for some legitimate scientific endorsement that it really works and James Kwok didn't reply.
That's very telling. I can only surmise that his motivation to build the tower would be to exploit it for marketing purposes. If you are building something some investors might say to themselves that it must be real, and therefore would be more willing to part with their money. Having the tower would make James Kwok look more like a legit company as compared to now where all that he has is a web site and a post office box.
And of course, if you had the tower you could then claim that you're "doing R&D" to "work the bugs out" and string along some potential investors for years. Note that Ashtweth was overwhelmed and starry-eyed when he saw the current and presumably smaller tower lighting up an alleged 1000 watts worth of lighting.
The model for this scam is everywhere. The EMB machine, the Perendev motor, the Tiny motor, and so on. Have something built and tangible, even if it doesn't work and will never work, and then hold out your hand and beg for dollars to get thrown at you.
MileHigh
Milehigh
That's what I was saying about someone spending $200,000 on this device. Just having a cool looking tower that some how magically works should not be enough to convince a wise buyer. They would hopefully demand detailed proof of how it works, much more than that weak video that Kwok made.
I didn't read the things that Ashtweth was beaming about I've seen it way to often to give it more than a passing glance and I do agree that the much more devious way to make money off unqualified OU devices is the "we're almost there we just need R&D money" . A well run scam can probably get a lot of "donations" before being exposed but I'm not saying anything that every one here already knows.
Pete
Vonwolf:
Even these humongous "buy ins" (I don't know exactly what Kwok's terms are) are ridiculous notions that you don't ever see in the real business world. Same thing with the grandiose claims.
Another one to watch is that Italian cold fusion guy that is supposedly building a one-megawatt pilot plant for the end of this year. Is anybody breaking ground? Is there a purchasing group out there getting quotes on steam turbine generators? I am not following it but I seriously doubt it. Is there a team of 100+ architects and engineers working on this project as we speak? The claim of a one-megawatt pilot plant coming online at the end of this year probably only exists on paper.
The extremes of ridiculousness for this year probably go to Ismael Avisio. Sterling Allen quoted him as stating that he envisions one million self-charging EV retrofit stations by 2011 end.
Now how in God's name can you possibly develop the infrastructure, set up the administration, and train the installers to create one million self-charging EV retrofit stations by the end of this year? That's a lot of customers in the queue! This is coming from a guy putting around in a battery-powered tubular-framed dune buggy. It's so ridiculous it's like it's from a Weird All Yankovic music video.
I can't want to see what Our Man Ash has to say in his report.
MileHigh
@Humbugger
QuoteSeems like all it needs is a real good infinite-COP heater like Rosemary Ainslie's clever circuit to boil some water and create high-pressure steam at the bottom there! Plus, we all know heat makes things rise extra good! Seems like a match made in Heaven, doesn't it, AC? Plus, it would add a lot of appeal for engineers such as yourself who are highly attracted by an enhanced Rube Goldberg factor! A win-win situation if I ever saw one!
I'm sure you got quite a giggle out of writing that post however it is as pointless as all your posts seem to be. You know at one point I though you and milehigh were two of a kind but I was mistaken, at least milehigh makes an effort to justify his opinions in regards to the topic at hand and right or wrong I have a great deal of respect for that but you have no point, in fact your not saying anything. It is basically incoherent nonsense which does not help anyone in any way, so if you feel compelled to post something please stay on topic keep it relevant.
@All
For the record I never said this nor the Ainslie technology is proven to work as claimed and would agree that only a fool would invest a dime in anything without concrete proof that it works as claimed. However in the same light I think only a fool would simply dismiss everything that they did not understand or agree with. I think that at the very least we should be informed and do some research on things before we pass judgement on what is fact and what is not, who knows we might actually learn something.
In any case I read through the patent last night and in fact the Hidro device does make an effort to equalize the air to the air chamber with the pressure at the bottom of the water tank, so the standard calculations for simply filling and emptying the air chamber are not accurate. The patent shows the air chamber being inflated partially by a piston pump and partially by recirculated air pressure from a secondary balance chamber. As well one side of the piston pump is open to pressure at the bottom of the tank which will help in filling the chamber but the patent makes no mention of how he would intend to move the piston back against the pressure in the tank. There is a spring present but it would first impede the motion of the piston then help it return so the spring force sums to zero which should be no surprise. As I said prior this is a good lesson in applied mechanics and I do find it interesting however there are some aspects of this process which need clarification. One interesting aspect of the patent not mentioned is the fact that at no time does any water enter the air chamber, water pressure near the surface deflates the air chamber at the top of the cycle and recirculated air pressure plus the force provided by the piston inflates the air chamber at the bottom of the cycle --- no water in the air chamber. The fact that most had assumed water was present in the air chamber would lead me to believe that one, nobody has read the patent and two, most all of the opinions stated are based on incorrect assumptions.
I am not saying this works or not yet as I have no proof but it is interesting I will say that.
Thanks for the patent FuzzyTomCat, I could not seem to track it down earlier this week.
Regards
AC
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.04.04, 20:18:09
...
Say I presented with credentials as a NASA engineer and an experienced glove-maker. I claim I have invented a pair of gloves that, if you put them on and tug gently upward on your own ass, you will lift sweetly into the sky. Now I cloud the explanation of how it works with 4000 lines of garbled equations, ten videos showing lengthy mathematical proofs but never any actual flying and statements from 12 professors in Bulgaria saying they see solid merit in the invention. I have nine granted patents and am building a huge factory to begin full production next year. Just need a couple of hundred thou and 12 more months to iron out the final production details. And both Ashtweth and Sterling are totally jazzed on the concept, writing huge articles and asking for contributions. Lindemann and Bearden are writing books on how it works for the layman and claiming they've known about this for years and used to work with a guy that invented the gloves 20 years ago but who was snuffed by MIB.
Are you in?
;D
... and on ou.com most of contributors say "Tesla invented it before" but oil companies suppressed its discovery, Rosemary protests for unfair competition, and Stephan banned every one who suspected a typo error in one the 4000 lines of garbled equations. Welcome to the realm of the true daily free energy.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.05, 07:17:30
@Humbugger
I'm sure you got quite a giggle out of writing that post however it is as pointless as all your posts seem to be. You know at one point I though you and milehigh were two of a kind but I was mistaken, at least milehigh makes an effort to justify his opinions in regards to the topic at hand and right or wrong I have a great deal of respect for that but you have no point, in fact your not saying anything. It is basically incoherent nonsense which does not help anyone in any way, so if you feel compelled to post something please stay on topic keep it relevant.
...I think only a fool would simply dismiss everything that they did not understand or agree with. I think that at the very least we should be informed and do some research on things before we pass judgement on what is fact and what is not, who knows we might actually learn something.
I'm sorry that you find every single one of my posts completely vapid, pointless and of no value. As I have clearly explained, there are times when I "poke fun". Milehigh is indeed a model I might do well to emulate...but that's not my style. I'm an asshole, you see. And kind of lazy about doing a lot of research so I can better share opinions with some value-added on subjects I don't understand unless the underlying ideas pique my interest and curiosity.
In fact, I usually stay out and just read unless I'm quite sure I understand and I see others who appear to me to not understand. >:-) If it's okay with you (and even if it isn't) I reserve the right to dismiss anything I'm sure I understand if it's, in my understanding, BOGUS. In this way, I avoid "learning" what I am sure is nonsense, and expediently. Some might call that closed-mindedness, I call it discernment. The ability to recognize unworkable approaches quickly (be they your own ponderings or proposals of others) is enormously important in creative design engineering, and that's been my work for all my life.
We all have different levels of perception and understanding on different subjects. Some may see through disguises more quickly than others. Some recognize familiar themes and patterns where others myopicly see each "new" proposed "free energy device" as completely unique and different from all the thousands of historical proven failures that preceeded it. I'm sure you must agree that "the square wheel" has been invented too many times already.
I'll make some attempt, for your sake, to STFU if I have nothing to teach or no well-reasoned speculations to share, but I make no promise to always succeed. ;)
Humbugger
@Milehigh
QuoteThe extremes of ridiculousness for this year probably go to Ismael Avisio. Sterling Allen quoted him as stating that he envisions one million self-charging EV retrofit stations by 2011 end.
Now how in God's name can you possibly develop the infrastructure, set up the administration, and train the installers to create one million self-charging EV retrofit stations by the end of this year? That's a lot of customers in the queue! This is coming from a guy putting around in a battery-powered tubular-framed dune buggy. It's so ridiculous it's like it's from a Weird All Yankovic music video.
I think ridiculousness is relative, the Facebook software is little more than a glorified text program which helps friends keep in touch but it's value changed from under 1 million dollars to over 82.9 billion within the span of a year or so. If anyone anywhere could produce cheap clean renewable energy in practical amounts from a self-sustaining machine it would make facebook look like a joke. If it is proven to work then money, infrastructure and administration would be the least of their worries because the technology would represent a fundamental change from what amounts to a society based on "energy scavengers" ie a caveman mentality to a modern clean self-sustaining energy source available everywhere. I think everyone knows full well what is at stake, the person(s) who delivers a practical/proven working technology to the masses will make Bill Gates look like a pauper within a year.
As well we could look at these technologies from the perspective of upside/downside, on the downside many investors may be scammed out of their money and are hopefully a little wiser the next time. However realistically these "scams" are no worse than the scams the banks, stock market speculators, large corporations and various forms of government pull off which are considered legal such as 20%+ interest rates and hidden fees, manipulating markets to screw millions of investors out of their life savings, predatory practices to manipulate markets and inflate prices and illegal unjustified occupation of other countries, including sanctioned torture, to secure cheap resources. It kind of puts a whole new light on the word "scam" or scams which always have the same result and that is the fact that they do harm to people and cause suffering.
On the upside if the technology works then pollution is reduced, energy for lighting, heat, food and transportation drop dramatically and we probably won't see as many people starving or freezing to death because they cannot afford their gas bill. The upside is that most everyone on the planet will see an improvement in their quality of life over an extended period of time and things will get better rather than worse. As well if people feel compelled to speak out about scams maybe they should hit the casino and lottery websites because we know as a fact that the chances of winning are about the same as being struck squarely on the head by a meteorite from some other part of the galaxy. So you see I am not all that concerned and do not sit up at night worrying that a few people might get scammed because they want to get rich off the work of someone else when the upside is that billions of lives could be improved or even saved, it is a matter of perspective I guess.
Regards
AC
When all is said and done, James Kwok and Ismael Avisio are classic examples of fakes that are trying to solicit funds from gullible people for products that don't work and have no logical basis for working.
Beyond that there are unwitting enablers out there and Panacea "University" is among the worst of the lot.
Watch this space after Ash releases his report and video on the Hidro project.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.06, 03:00:41
When all is said and done, James Kwok and Ismael Avisio are classic examples of fakes that are trying to solicit funds from gullible people for products that don't work and have no logical basis for working.
Beyond that there are unwitting enablers out there and Panacea "University" is among the worst of the lot.
Watch this space after Ash releases his report and video on the Hidro project.
MileHigh
No doubt in time the truth will out. I'll bet that just like Fast Freddy, these guys will soon disappear into the aether until they are ready for their next scam.
If it is to be believed that you can fool most of the people most of the time (and there is certainly little evidence that this is not the case), then con men and scammers have long and prosperous careers ahead of them.
I wouldn't put too much faith in any report from Ashtweth, as he clearly was not near the front of the queue when brains were being given out!
Yes, everythings relative AC - my auntie Molly certainly is! ;)
Quoting Ash:
QuoteThanks for pointing that out, its people like that which remind me to use our time objectively, i just black list them from any thing we do. They are not worth any of yours or my time. Hope the Doc is doing okay?
No hiding your head in the sand!
QuoteThat MileHigh cant even read that Queensland university have already validated the technology,and are now helping Hidro improve it, thats our own local university as well as Panacea. I have also been privileged to the independent report, will have more on the radio show soon.
You are well known for jumping the gun there Ash, and propagandizing your causes. For starters, the only mention so far from the Queensland University of Technology is through the CleanTech news that you linked to. The writeup in the CleanTech news is clearly nothing more than a more or less verbatim copy of James Kwok's marketing talking points for his system.
In addition, here is a paragraph from the introduction to the CleanTech news by professor Simon Kaplan:
QuoteThe newsletter provides information on the latest research, new technologies and trends, government initiatives, grant schemes, upcoming events (including webinars) and leaders in the Cleantech arena. CleanTech News will include information from QUT, industry groups and government agencies, as well other Cleantech news outlets from around the world.
So Ash, all that we can see right now is that James Kwok got some free press about his system in the CleanTech news.
At this point in time there is not a single shred of evidence that "Queensland university have already validated the technology." So you are clealy jumping the gun again with no documented evidence of anything.
QuoteBut who cares, that crowd are button pushers, i go out in the real world. They are nothing to me. They never will be. They look silly posting things against me, as i dont need to care, they are wasting their own time, not mine. . I am in the middle of 3 open source panacea university courses , a documentary and many other things. Who needs to read what people with no idea behind their PC's have to say? Not me , hope you dont worry what they say either my friend.
"No idea" is applicable to you, not me. It's pretty obvious to me that you are being suckered by James Kwok because he will take any exposure that he can get because he is looking to land a big fish. You don't live in the real world, I do.
Looking forward to the report!
MileHigh
So in the CleanTech news there is a picture of the small test unit that they are playing with:
(http://edm.sauceconnect.com/download/files/33625/1327370/IMG_Hidro.jpg)
Quoting Ash:
Quote15 amps at 24 Volt went in, i was BLINDED by 1Kw of lights out. This thing could build up 20Kw with the fly wheel. I saw a cable that has a 600 kilo tolerance broken like a twig, this thing is POWERFUL.
Let's do some crunching:
"The mechanical horsepower, also known as imperial horsepower, of exactly 550 foot-pounds per second is approximately equivalent to 745.7 watts."
So (1000/745) * 550 = 738 foot-pounds per second to give you 1000 watts of mechanical power.
Now let's be generous and say that the efficiency of the mechanical to electrical conversion is 80%.
Therefore you need (1/0.8 ) * 738 = 922 foot-pounds per second of mechanical energy per second to get 1000 watts of electrical power.
Also let's assume the column of water is 18 feet high and the buoy moves up for six seconds and then moves down for six seconds.
You need a really big buoyancy force pushing the buoy up in the column of water. Water is 62.4 pounds per cubic foot.
The buoy would have to be (922/62.4) = 14.7 cubic feet in displacement if it was rising at the rate of one foot per second. Since we are assuming a 50% duty cycle, the buoy would have to be 29 cubic feet in displacement if it was rising at the rate of one foot per second.
With a height of 18 feet and a travel time of six seconds, in reality for this example the buoy wold be traveling at a rate of three feet per second.
So the buoy would have to be (29/3) = about 10 cubic feet in volume to sustain a 1000 watt electrical output.
Let me try to work that backwards now:
10 cubic feet x 62.4 pounds per cubic foot = 624 pounds.
624 pounds x 18 feet = 11232 foot-pounds.
11232 foot-pounds in 12 seconds = 936 foot-pounds per second.
That checks out with my initial estimate of 922 foot-pounds per second since there are rounding errors introduced.
When I look at the picture, you see what might be a "buoy" at the top of the red and white striped "barber pole." It looks like it could be about 10 cubic feet in volume so that appears to check out.
However, we can't forget that even though the size of the "buoy" appears to check out assuming an 18-foot buoy displacement and a six seconds traveling up and six seconds traveling down the column of water,
the whole thing is sill being powered by about 1250 watts of mechanical compressed air power and that doesn't just appear like magic out of nowhere.As a reminder, these are all just estimates that I am making here. There is
real value in doing this and it's a worthwhile exercise for just about any kind of claim that you might encounter.
MileHigh
Hi everyone,
Here is some more information I was able to find .....
http://hydrodynamicgeneration.com/
The Hidro+â„¢ Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) and Process Automation Controls (PAC) shows:
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
VA1 and VB3 Top-Docking Port for air-transfer to release/deflate Buoyant
LLA and LLB Bottom-Docking Port for air-transfer to fill/inflate Buoyant
LEG Linear Electric Generator
R Rotor being part of the LEG
SB Stator-Flux being part of the LEG
RTPE Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber
CA and CB Buoyant Floats in the Water Tower. Transverse along vertical-axis on guided tracks.
Regards,
Glen
;)
Glen,
The stuff you posted is just James Kwok junk. I can assure you that not a single person here or on the other forum where you posted will be able to make head or tail of it. From what I can can see James Kwok does not list a simple step-by-step description of the alleged over unity process. Instead he hides his deception by putting up diagrams and spreadsheets that nobody can understand. It's all intentional obfuscation.
So why don't we roll up our shirtsleeves and do our own simplified analysis?
Let's look at how much energy it takes to empty the buoy of 12 cubic inches of water vs. how much energy we can get from the buoyancy. We will use English units because in this case it's easier and more familiar.
Question 1: How much energy does it take to evacuate 12 cubic inches of water from the buoy when it's at the bottom of the 18-foot column of water?
Water creates 0.433 PSI of pressure per foot of head. So for 18 feet you have (0.433 x 18) = 7.794 PSI.
Therefore it takes (7.794 x 1) = 7.794 foot-pounds of work to evacuate 12 cubic inches or water from the buoy and replace it with compressed air.
Question 2: How much energy can we extract from the 12-cubic-inch buoy as it rises 18 feet in the column of water?
Water weighs 62.4 pounds per cubic foot. 12 cubic inches is 1/144th of a cubic foot. Therefore the buoyancy force that the evacuated buoy creates is (62.4/144) = 0.433 pounds.
Therefore the energy that you can extract from the rising buoy is (0.433 x 18) = 7.794 foot-pounds of energy.
Well how about that - the amount of energy that you can extract from a rising buoy is equal to the amount of work you had to do to evacuate the buoy at the bottom of the column of water in the first place.
It's not looking good for James Kwok.
MileHigh
I'll bet that some of you had fantasies that there was extra energy to be found in the long distance the buoy travels when going from the bottom to the top of the column of water. I just proved that's not the case.
Now let's look at this "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber" business. This is James Kwok's attempt to create some "secret sauce" mystique and find a sucker investor. It's all bullshit.
Some of you might be thinking that when the buoy gets to the top, you can reuse the compressed air in it by running an air line from the buoy currently on top to the buoy currently on the bottom in a two-buoy system. I think that's part of James' "secret sauce" pitch.
Perhaps the compressed air in the top buoy will be able to evacuate half of the water in the bottom buoy. So that recycled energy means that you only need half the normal energy to evacuate the buoy at the bottom and with this "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber" assist, you get over unity.
It sounds good, almost plausible. Unfortunately it's not true.
In fact, with a basic airline connection between the top and bottom buoys, the compressed air in the top buoy will not be able to remove a single drop of water from the bottom buoy. Not a single drop.
The "Reverse Thruster Pressure Equalizer Chamber" is total bullshit. If you don't believe me, then pick up where I left off and prove it with your own calculations.
This whole thing is a con job and a farce and poor Ashtweth is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. James Kwok talked his way onto the university campus and they will probably let him play his show and tell game for a few months before he has to pack it in and move on. Almost certainly there is a big commercial tank of pressurized air powering the whole thing.
MileHigh
"Question 1: How much energy does it take to evacuate 12 cubic inches of water from the buoy when it's at the bottom of the 18-foot column of water?"
Next to none. He isn't using compressed air to purge water from the buoy. He is using gravity.
How much energy is used to evacuate air from the buoy at the highest part of the stroke?
Next to none. Once the buoy reaches the top a valve is opened. Since the bottom of the buoy is already opened the water pressure floods the buoy.
By 'next to none' I mean he does use control devices so some energy is used.
The documents posted by FuzzyTomCat are missing some data. Other than that, they are standard for that and many other industries. If anyone is confused by them, don't worry about it. Not many need to see that level of detail from a PE.
As I tried to convey earlier.... There is enough to warrant a good look. Unfortunately, I see no magic revealed in the data except the magic of his imaginative design.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.04.08, 01:33:03
"Question 1: How much energy does it take to evacuate 12 cubic inches of water from the buoy when it's at the bottom of the 18-foot column of water?"
Next to none. He isn't using compressed air to purge water from the buoy. He is using gravity.
Incorrect. I thought that we were already through this. That water that is drained out of the buoy with gravity still has to be put back in the tank and the same amount of energy has to be expended to do this.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.08, 01:43:19
Incorrect. I thought that we were already through this. That water that is drained out of the buoy with gravity still has to be put back in the tank and the same amount of energy has to be expended to do this.
MileHigh
Your question I quoted did not include pumping water back into the tank.
Your response to my post is incorrect.
Calling me incorrect is incorrect.
You are incorrect. If you could understand the documents you would see this person is not the usual air head.
While I haven't found published detail to cover returning water to the tank, (clearly very important) the drawings do show the possibility the rising buoy is also used to lift the replacement water for each stroke.
Do yourself a favor. Don't beat on this one too much. This guy probably is a crook but he appears more inventive and intelligent than most I've seen on these crack-pot forums or the more acceptable science gatherings.
By now you have certainly shot your standard nervous second post.....
Guess not.
QuoteThis guy probably is a crook but he appears more inventive and intelligent than most I've seen on these crack-pot forums or the more acceptable science gatherings.
Intelligent crooks, eh... whatever next? :o Like Fast Freddy then... but with a brain! :)
@Milehigh
QuoteIncorrect. I thought that we were already through this. That water that is drained out of the buoy with gravity still has to be put back in the tank and the same amount of energy has to be expended to do this.
Incorrect, according to the patent there is no water in the buoy at any time, not one single drop.
The buoy is a flexible chamber which separates the external water from the internal working fluid which is air, the air inflates and deflates the buoy against the external water pressure. In this case all the complexity of this system can be reduced to one single problem, how to efficiently move a volume of fluid (air) into and out of a space which has an external pressure acting to oppose this motion. All other considerations are a mute point and little more than a distraction as well the problem here is one we find almost everywhere, people are overly preoccupied with issues which have nothing to do with the real problem.
@All
Now if we want to solve this problem, versus idle chit-chat which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, we could simply remove all the distractions so that we may see the real problem. In this case the water is no longer relevant to the problem as it never was in the first place and the water will be replaced by a heavy spring acting against the air chamber which has a force of opposition and inertia equal to that of water. I wonder how many here have considered the fact that the water external to the chamber has the property of inertia/momentum as well as a pressure gradient, I would guess very few. At this point I would hope the problem becomes clear, the water and the spring are nothing more than an isolated feedback loop and are simply a distraction from the real cause of how this system may work, note the term --"may"-- work.
We now have the issue of understanding how an isolated pneumatic system may compress a spring in the most efficient manner which requires less input energy than we would normally expect. This system has one constraint and that is our understanding and creativity in solving the problem at hand and I think all this fluff concerning water and buoy's has little if nothing to do with the real problem.
AC
WaveWatcher:
Quote"Question 1: How much energy does it take to evacuate 12 cubic inches of water from the buoy when it's at the bottom of the 18-foot column of water?"
Next to none. He isn't using compressed air to purge water from the buoy. He is using gravity.
Actually he is fighting gravity not using gravity. The water that drains from the buoy using gravity has to be pumped back into the column of water because if you don't do that the column empties. It amounts to the same thing.
QuoteYour question I quoted did not include pumping water back into the tank.
You misunderstood, it is implicit otherwise the tank drains which can't happen.
Indeed there is no magic. James Kwok's system would not pass at a grade 8 science fair.
MileHigh
AC:
Quotethe air inflates and deflates the buoy against the external water pressure.
Which would be identical to using air pressure to evacuate water from a solid buoy.
Quotecan be reduced to one single problem, how to efficiently move a volume of fluid (air) into and out of a space which has an external pressure acting to oppose this motion. All other considerations are a mute point
I agree and I am just using a simple example.
Using compressed air to push water out of a solid buoy, or having an inflatable balloon-style buoy, or using gravity to drain water from the buoy and then pumping it back into the water tank are all identical.
QuoteIn this case the water is no longer relevant to the problem as it never was in the first place and the water will be replaced by a heavy spring acting against the air chamber which has a force of opposition and inertia equal to that of water.
This will complicate the setup but not change the ultimate energy dynamics.
QuoteWe now have the issue of understanding how an isolated pneumatic system may compress a spring in the most efficient manner which requires less input energy than we would normally expect. This system has one constraint and that is our understanding and creativity in solving the problem at hand and I think all this fluff concerning water and buoy's has little if nothing to do with the real problem.
There is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a "most efficient manner." I have done the work in this thread to solve the problem. I have worked out the equations and Mother Nature is not giving James Kwok any secret sauce, it's just not happening. If anyone wants to take a crack at proving how it could work, be my guest.
This is a web site devoted to the pursuit of free energy. I am simply stating that this one is a con job being put on by someone that has previously been convicted and sent to jail. All of the readers should try to take something positive from that. Put James Kwok's proposition in the "no good" pile.
MileHigh
Here is another person doing essentially the same pitch at James Kwok:
http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/)
Another scammer, there are some on OU that have said the same thing.
@Milehigh
QuoteUsing compressed air to push water out of a solid buoy, or having an inflatable balloon-style buoy, or using gravity to drain water from the buoy and then pumping it back into the water tank are all identical.
This may be the difference in our understanding, I never really had much interest in proving that everything must be the same but was always much more interested in the differences between things, what makes them unique.
QuoteThere is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a "most efficient manner." I have done the work in this thread to solve the problem. I have worked out the equations and Mother Nature is not giving James Kwok any secret sauce, it's just not happening. If anyone wants to take a crack at proving how it could work, be my guest.
Maybe a little thought experiment is in order, I have a 1m spring and compress it to 1/2m and if I want to transfer the energy in this spring to another spring something which seems odd happens. If I attach another identical 1m spring to the compressed spring and allow both to balance their forces then each spring will end up compressed to 3/4 of it's length. It would seem we have lost something but this is not the case, we have simply balanced the stressed condition between the springs. However if we want to compress a spring efficiently then balancing the forces is not the way to do it, we need an intermediary device (One that acts as an agent between persons or things; a means) which will transfer all the energy. In this case I take my 1m spring compressed to 1/2m and allow it to accelerate a mass, decouple the mass, then allow it to compress the other 1m spring to 1/2 its length efficiently transferring all the energy in the process -- this is how to efficiently compress a spring.
Now some may recognize this same phenomena when we try to balance the electrical forces between two capacitors or other electrical sources and appear to lose something in the process however when we add an intermediary device such as an inductance between them this apparent loss fails to occur. As well many have been mislead by this phenomena in believing they have gained something when in fact it simply represents the most efficient way of transferring energy.
As well we should be clear that you have proven nothing other than the fact that the apparent work to evacuate the buoy is equal to the work it can perform in rising due to a change in buoyancy, this has nothing to do with "why" or "How" the buoy is evacuated and we should never confuse the cause of things with simple effects.
QuoteThis is a web site devoted to the pursuit of free energy. I am simply stating that this one is a con job being put on by someone that has previously been convicted and sent to jail. All of the readers should try to take something positive from that. Put James Kwok's proposition in the "no good" pile.
In my opinion you are just looking for excuses to judge people so that you may dismiss their claims and to my knowledge "science" is not based on the character of a person or how they talk or what they have done but solely on their understanding of natural phenomena.
I think this quote may apply----
QuoteMathematics must be the servant of Understanding and not its master. Equations, by their very nature,
cannot discover; they can only yield relationships derived from the initial statements and which were inherently in them when they were stated.
Truth is not hidden; it is available to all and is the same for all. Apparent differences must be due to inadequate understanding.--- Wilbert Smith
Regards
AC
It seems to me that the subject matter of this thread should be about whether this "Hidro" system works as claimed.
Focus on the technical aspects guys, and try to save the philosophical chatter for another more appropriate thread or forum.
btw AC, you've just judged MH yourself and diminished his input and opinion by doing so. That's the pot calling the kettle black. C.C
.99
I agree with Poynt. If you want to argue how the thing can work from a technical perspective go for it.
Let's not worry too much about the free energy angels dancing on the head of a pin.
The whole two-shorting-capacitors vs. cap-coil-diode-cap debate is a good one that deserves it's own thread. Since the coil acts like a flywheel you could even build one for show and tell. Just like the great big huge electrical demos on the MIT YouTube page.
If you are going to invest your money all the information is relevant and the person's character is very important.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.11, 21:13:54
...
However if we want to compress a spring efficiently then balancing the forces is not the way to do it, we need an intermediary device (One that acts as an agent between persons or things; a means) which will transfer all the energy. In this case I take my 1m spring compressed to 1/2m and allow it to accelerate a mass, decouple the mass, then allow it to compress the other 1m spring to 1/2 its length efficiently transferring all the energy in the process -- this is how to efficiently compress a spring.
...
It doesn't make any difference.
If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first spring expanded to 1 m.
From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of their length.
Correction following reply #77 on 2011-04-13, 22:15:30, thanks to Allcanadian
This above is wrong. See http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=785.msg12963#msg12963. There is more stored energy in the first case than in the second.
@exnihiloest
QuoteIt doesn't make any difference.
If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first spring expanded to 1 m.
From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of their length.
I would agree to some extent, however if it doesn't make any difference then exactly how would you move the two springs already balanced at the 3/4 length mark so that one of them is compressed to 1/2 it's length as in my second example involving a mass so that all the energy is transferred?. I was referring to efficiency and only transferring some of the energy doesn't seem all that efficient to me, hence my examples.
Here is an easier analogy, I have a bannana in my hand for you but I only give you one half therefore my efficiency at transfering bannanas is only 50% because I still have one half of it.
Regards
AC
@allcanadian
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.13, 06:21:59
...
however if it doesn't make any difference then exactly how would you move the two springs already balanced at the 3/4 length mark so that one of them is compressed to 1/2 it's length as in my second example involving a mass so that all the energy is transferred?
...
Consider the situation that you previously described:
"
I have a 1m spring and compress it to 1/2m and if I want to transfer the energy in this spring to another spring something which seems odd happens. If I attach another identical 1m spring to the compressed spring and allow both to balance their forces then each spring will end up compressed to 3/4 of it's length. It would seem we have lost something but this is not the case, we have simply balanced the stressed condition between the springs."
This is the case, we have really lost something: we have balanced the stressed condition
but energy has been released. If the released energy is not used, then it is wasted in the spring itself after some oscillations (mainly as heat, a consequence of frictional forces due to the atoms/crystals rearrangement in the material lattice).
One must remember that the force is not constant when the spring length changes, therefore work to move the spring depends not only on the change of length, but also on the absolute length. Energy is not proportional to the spring length.
The energy in two springs compressed to 3/4 of their length is less than in a spring compressed to 1/2 and another not compressed.
So it is not a simple question of efficiency. It would be a pity to not recover this energy. But if we decide to recover it, many different means of similar efficiency can be used.
The math:
Force on springs is: F=k*(L0-L) where L is the spring length and L0 the length when not compressed.
Using a relative length, we write L0=1 and x=L0/L, thus F = k * (1-x).dx
Therefore the elementary work to change the length is: dW = F*dx = k*(1-x).dx.
For x=1, F=0 (the spring has its nominal length).
For the work to change the length from L0 to L, we have to integrate:
W = Int(k*(1-x)*dx) = k*(Int(dx) - Int(x.dx)) = k * ([x ] - [1/2*x
2])
From L0=1 to L=1/2 we get:
W1= k * ((1-1/2) - (1/2*(1-1/2)
2) = k * (1/2 - 1/8) = k * 7/8
(which is the total energy because when a spring length is 1/2, the other one is 1 thus it has no energy).
From L0=1 to L=3/4 we get:
W2= k * ((1-3/4) - (1/2*(1-3/4)
2) = k * (1/4 - 1/32)
As we have two identical springs, for the total stored energy we must double:
W = k * 7/16
It follows that for going from the situation with a spring of length 1 and the other 1/2, to the situation where both length are 3/4, energy W is released:
W = W1-W2 = k * 7/8 - k*7/16 = - k * 7/16.
(hope there is no typo or miscalculation)
@exnihiloest
Now let me get this straight in my head, first Milehigh states --"There is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a most efficient
manner", then you told me "It doesn't make any difference. If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first
spring expanded to 1 m. From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of
their length." and now your telling me that "This is the case, we have really lost something" --- if I wasn't confused before I certainly
am now.
QuoteThe math:
Force on springs is: F=k*(L0-L) where L is the spring length and L0 the length when not compressed.
Using a relative length, we write L0=1 and x=L0/L, thus F = k * (1-x).dx
Therefore the elementary work to change the length is: dW = F*dx = k*(1-x).dx.
For x=1, F=0 (the spring has its nominal length).
For the work to change the length from L0 to L, we have to integrate:
W = Int(k*(1-x)*dx) = k*(Int(dx) - Int(x.dx)) = k * ([x ] - [1/2*x2])
From L0=1 to L=1/2 we get:
W1= k * ((1-1/2) - (1/2*(1-1/2)2) = k * (1/2 - 1/8) = k * 7/8
(which is the total energy because when a spring length is 1/2, the other one is 1 thus it has no energy).
From L0=1 to L=3/4 we get:
W2= k * ((1-3/4) - (1/2*(1-3/4)2) = k * (1/4 - 1/32)
As we have two identical springs, for the total stored energy we must double:
W = k * 7/16
It follows that for going from the situation with a spring of length 1 and the other 1/2, to the situation where both length are 3/4, energy W is released:
W = W1-W2 = k * 7/8 - k*7/16 = - k * 7/16.
That is quite impressive however there may be an easier explanation, in our first example the resultant condition of our second spring
is a mirror image of the initial condition of our first spring because we used an intermediary mass to efficiently transfer most all the energy or the initial condition.
In the second example the initial condition of two separate 1m springs has been replaced with one single spring 2m in length which is compressed
to 3/4 of it's total length. In this case the initial stressed condition of one spring which represents energy is now spread out over twice
the volume because the two springs are now considered as one. As well we could say nothing is lost and energy is conserved because the same energy is still present however in the last example the same energy is spread out over twice the volume.
You see the real problem is the fact that we tend to see the world in the two dimensions of length and area but the conception of volume is a problem for us. This problem is further aggravated by the conception of volume as it relates to density and even more so by changes in density within any given part of a volume as a gradient. Consider the fact that if we heat one single turn of our spring then the applied force of the spring as a whole is reduced, this tells us that the stress is not solely a function of the length of the spring but the volume and density. Every single cubic mm of the spring imparts a small force which culminates at the boundary conditions at the ends of the spring.
Once we understand these simple concepts then we can deal with the issue that maybe the Hidro device is not based solely on a buoy full of air bobbing up and down due to simple buoyancy. In fact the pressure balancing device utilizes a cylinder, a "spring", a piston having mass, an opening to ambient pressure at the bottom of the tank, a balance chamber, air lines to route pressure to separate spaces and valves which determine the time when air under pressure is routed to a separate space. Perhaps the fact that we can magically seem to misplace 1/2 of the energy in some of our systems is the same reason the Hidro device claims to find energy in it's systems, of course this is just speculation.
Regards
AC
AC:
QuoteNow let me get this straight in my head, first Milehigh states --"There is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a most efficient manner"
This is just a simple misunderstanding. I am thinking in simple absolute terms here. What I mean is suppose that you compress a spring 10 cm and it takes 10 Joules of energy to do this. What I am saying is that whatever mechanism is used to compress the spring would have to output 10 Joules of energy to do this plus some overhead energy. In other words you can't compress a spring so that it is storing 10 Joules of energy but your mechanism only requires 8 Joules of energy to do this.
The issue relating to looking at two ways to charge a capacitor and using an inductor in between giving you better voltages on each capacitor is different. There you are talking about your charging mechanism being more efficient when you use an inductor. So that's indeed more efficient, and you are losing less energy when you use the inductor trick. However, you still had to expend 10 Joules plus some overhead to put 10 Joules into the capacitor.
Relating that back to the Hidro project, the absolute terms are what it's all about. If you have to do 10 Joules of work to evacuate water from the buoy, then your system for doing that has to expend at least 10 Joules plus some overhead.
The only way the Hidro machine can allegedly produce over unity is if it breaks through the absolute barrier associated with the work that has to be done to evacuate the buoy. That absolute barrier has to be broken. Everything else is just window dressing.
The Hidro system is just a gravity motor/wheel disguised as a machine based on buoyancy. I know that there are still threads around on this 17th century idea and you can see them all over YouTube.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.13, 21:15:30
@exnihiloest
...you told me "It doesn't make any difference. If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first spring expanded to 1 m. From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of their length." and now your telling me that "This is the case, we have really lost something" --- if I wasn't confused before I certainly am now.
...
Hi allcanadian,
You are right. My first post was a big mistake that I should have corrected in my second post with the math. I apologize for the oversight. Thanks for having emphasized the inconsistency.
When I thought that 2 spings in series, one not compressed and the other ompressed at 1/2, tend to balance each at 3/4 length, I realized that they obey to the least action principle thus the second situation is less energetic than the first one. So I did the math and in fact it was obvious (the force is not constant, it is length dependant) but I missed it the first time.
The math says the truth ! (in spite I don't like it) :) .
@exnihiloest
QuoteWhen I thought that 2 spings in series, one not compressed and the other ompressed at 1/2, tend to balance each at 3/4 length, I realized that they obey to the least action principle thus the second situation is less energetic than the first one. So I did the math and in fact it was obvious (the force is not constant, it is length dependant) but I missed it the first time.
This simple experiment with the springs can be misleading because it is a kind of optical illusion where our mind tells us one thing but the facts tell us something different. Of course this works both ways and the facts may tell us one thing but our minds can create solutions to change the facts. Consider the fact that if there were no birds or flying insects etc... then we would have little or no comprehension of flight, what would possess any person to even think anything could fly by any means when they have been given absolutely no reason to believe it is possible -- but it is.
As well I was reading a little on the history of the Principal of Least Action which was interesting because we could essentially take all of these volumes of literature and calculations and replace them with a single word --- Balance. It is also interesting that once again we have been mislead by illusions whereby what we observe has been tainted by beliefs and opinion. If the Principal of Least Action is true then all we know should be nothing more than a fine gas dispersed evenly throughout the universe -- but it isn't. This is because balance works both ways cyclically, that is things that seek a greater area to find balance(Expansion/Entropy) at some point seek a lesser area to find balance(Contraction/Syntropy). When you find the other half of the equations which relate to the Principal of Greatest Action then things should make much more sense because if there is one thing we do know it is that everything in nature must balance therefore it must have an opposite.
Regards
AC
On the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article (http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/tecno_2.htm) is food for thought.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.04.17, 01:29:49
On the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article (http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/tecno_2.htm) is food for thought.
I read the article and there is nothing there.
QuoteHydropower engineering, up to this day, is almost esclusively concerned with two variables, one being the altitude differential between head water and turbine and the other the quantity of water that can be brought to flow through the turbines.
A third important variable, the velocity of flow of water, is generally not thought to be important. It is taken into consideration only as the velocity resulting from the release of water pressure connected to and dependent on altitude differential but not as an important factor in its own right. In fact, current design of hydropower facilities normally excludes utilization of the dynamic energy potential inherent in the free flow of water. A dam destroys this natural energy potential by bringing the water from its dynamic state of flow to a static state, a complete absence of motion.
This is all just junk pseudoscience. They are hinting at the implication that if you speed up the flow of water you can extract more energy from it and/or extract energy more efficiently. No matter what you do, you still run up against the wall where you can't extract more energy from the water that was available in the first place.
In many cases you see people confusing a more efficient use of power or energy as over unity when all it really means is that you are closer to 100% efficiency. A case in point is the famous shorting capacitor example. If you loose 50% of your energy when you short two capacitors together and you loose only 10% of your energy when you use an inductor and a diode, that's not over unity Some people in their enthusiasm mistakenly interpret it as over unity. The same could apply in this example were faster flowing water transfers more of it's energy to a turbine.
Then the article goes on to talk about putting water through a nozzle so that it spirals into a vortex. The implication somehow being that water spiraling in a vortex will get you either more power or a more efficient energy transfer. Even if this is true, you still can only approach 100% efficiency. In the free energy world, that means you strike out.
MileHigh
@Dumped
QuoteOn the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article is food for thought.
Yes I had read that article many years ago and concluded that Hasslberger is so vague in his descriptions that either he doesn't know or he ain't telling why and how this technology works.
The first part is obvious, normally we divert a river which has a huge mass M and a Velocity V or MV(Momentum) into a static lake at which point the turbine inlet velocity basically becomes zero. Of course it is insane that the huge amount of Kinetic energy that the source flow has is completely wasted which is why Victor Schauber stated that the Velocity of the source of water(the river) must be conserved right up to and including the turbine inlet.
At this point we can do a little math :D
KE(Kinetic Energy)=1/2MV^2 which is not only incorrect but misleading.
KE=MV^2/2 as you cannot divide the Mass that is absurd, the /2 relates solely to V and V initial+V final/2 represents average velocity.
MV is momentum, MV x MV (MV^2)represents a change in momentum assuming M is constant
KE=MV^2 x V/2 or change in momentum times average velocity and the V^2 in MV^2 represents V x V or a change in velocity which is in fact an acceleration, which is why the momentum has changed as it is "assumed" M is constant.
Now what does EK=MV^2/2 mean in relation to Victor Schauberger vortex technology? It means that if Mass is assumed to be constant but has the appearance of change then if energy is conserved then V must change as well.
The vortex spins water at high velocity axially around a center and this center is decreasing in volume, if the water is at high speed then the pressure is reduced as an increase in velocity is proportional to a decrease in pressure. The velocity rises, the pressure drops, the reduced pressure produces expansion and cooling effects however we have a problem. The cooling effects produced by a drop in pressure indirectly cause the water to contract or become more dense not less decreasing the pressure further. Here we see a cycle, increasing Velocity, decreasing Pressure, increasing volume, decreasing temperature, increasing density, decreasing volume, decreasing pressure, increasing velocity.
The decrease in density produces a cyclic decrease in volume which in a set volume must produce a decrease in pressure and increase in velocity. The vortex is a heat pump which converts ambient heat into a velocity increase along the axial center of rotation because the water is contracting when it should be expanding. The change in volume is not a scalar function but a vector function because the contraction is in the direction of flow which is why the velocity must increase into the vortex.
This is why I basically ignore math and equations most of the time, I have no interest in them other than to understand what they really mean or moreso what assumptions have been made in the process. In this case M the MASS has appeared to change due to the circumstances involved in which case KE=MV^2/2 has limitations.
Here is a basic analogy, I have a long stick made of water and everytime I push on one end it moves forward and in the process it gets physically shorter in length in a direction away from my push, what happens? Relatively speaking the water stick is now twice the distance from me as it should be because the mass has contracted away from me.
Regards
AC
Just for fun I'll take a stab at the vortex nozzle modeling.
A long pipe terminating in a partially open valve releasing water has a fairly simple model.
The long pipe is like a length of wire. The pressure and the flow are like the voltage and current. As water flows through a long pipe the water pressure drops slowly because of the energy lost in the water turbulence and due to friction with the inside surface of the hose. That resistance causes a pressure drop per unit length just like an electrical resistor causes a voltage drop per unit length.
The long pipe is more accurately a "lossy" wire with considerably more resistance than an equivalent electrical wire. Also, the flowing water has a lot of momentum and stores a fair amount of energy. That translates into inductance. So the pipe is like an inductor made with moderately resistive wire. That's pretty much what an electrical wire is because it possesses inductance and resistance.
The partially open valve is like a resistor. Heat is being generated but you can't perceive it because the flowing water is taking it all away.
Note that all of the pressure in the pipe will drop to zero as it passes through the partially open valve. The equivalent is all of the voltage dropping across a resistor connected to ground.
When you look at the vortex valve it's a bit more complicated.
Let's just look at the fact that the water exits out of a smaller nozzle, so it's at a higher velocity. Lets also assume that it goes into a smaller diameter pipe. Let's also assume that there is a constant flow rate of water.
Note the water flow rate in the smaller pipe remains the same, so the current remains the same. Interestingly enough, the pressure does not increase. It can't because the vortex valve represents a restriction and the water pressure has to drop across the restriction.
So you end up with something very interesting. When you switch over to the new smaller diameter pipe, you have the same flow rate and the pressure is still dropping a certain amount per unit length, but the water is moving faster through the smaller pipe. So the way to model that is that the hydraulic inductance per unit length for the narrower pipe is higher.
So the circuit for the simplified example where you assume that you have a normal pipe, the vortex valve, which then connects to a smaller diameter pipe is as follows:
A voltage source connected to a resistive inductor #1 (the normal pipe), which connects to a resistor (the vortex valve), which then connects to resistive inductor #2 (the small pipe). Then where the water spills out of the end of the small pipe you have another regular resistor to ground. Resistive inductor #2 has properties of more resistance and more inductance per unit length as compared to #1.
Anyway, all food for thought. The key point is that typically valves act like resistors. They literally burn off energy. Of course the water itself is still moving and contains energy after it passes through a valve. If the valve empties that moving water onto the street that energy also gets dissipated off and the water pressure returns to "ground."
AC:
That posting was really something. I wouldn't know where to begin. Two things for your consideration. The first is that KE = 1/2MV^2. You can look up the simple derivation for that. The second is that water can normally be considered as an incompressible fluid. So there are no cooling effects because of pressure drops or volume changes.
MileHigh
Interesting final comments.
QuoteA voltage source connected to a resistive inductor #1 (the normal pipe), which connects to a resistor (the vortex valve), which then connects to resistive inductor #2 (the small pipe). Then where the water spills out of the end of the small pipe you have another regular resistor to ground. Resistive inductor #2 has properties of more resistance and more inductance per unit length as compared to #1.
Notice that I said "voltage source." That means that you view the water supply as a constant pressure source.
But, supposing the water source went through a water pump that used pistons like a car engine. Supposing that the engine has a governor on it that keeps the RPM constant. Then you would have a pump that maintains a constant flow rate as opposed to a constant pressure. That would be equivalent to a current source.
When you run a fixed flow rate through the water hose and vortex valve and smaller water hose everything on the surface will seem the same. You will see the pressure drop linearly across the length of the hoses.
But if you change the flow rate, modulate it up and down, now the pressure readings in the pipe setup will start to fluctuate wildly. The momentum of the flowing water in both the normal and the small pipes will want to resist the changes in the water flow rate. Changing momentum (mv) with respect to time is force. (f=ma == mdv/dt == dmv/dt) So you get high pressures (forces) rapidly changing in time inside the pipe.
That phenomenon is somewhat similar to the wild voltage swings in Rosemary's power connections because of the wire inductance.
MileHigh
Hot off the presses, the story of an Australian con artist:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-menace-of-magnetism-20110416-1diuk.html (http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-menace-of-magnetism-20110416-1diuk.html)
The scam website:
http://www.cycclone.com/ (http://www.cycclone.com/)
QuotePlease be patient with our site.
Due to unprecedented demand, we are experiencing an extreme amount of traffic
LOL
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.17, 23:18:44
...
At this point we can do a little math :D
KE(Kinetic Energy)=1/2MV^2 which is not only incorrect but misleading.
KE=MV^2/2 as you cannot divide the Mass that is absurd, the /2 relates solely to V and V/2 represents average velocity.
MV is momentum, MV x MV (MV^2)represents a change in momentum assuming M is constant
KE=MV^2 x V/2 or change in momentum times average velocity and the V^2 in MV^2 represents V x V or a change in velocity which is in fact an acceleration, which is why the momentum has changed as it is "assumed" M is constant.
In KE=MV^2/2, 1/2 is just a factor. It doesn't divide any thing else than MV^2 which has the dimension of an energy.
Where 1/2 comes from? If a mass M inside a closed system is accelerated until speed V relative to the center of masses, then the other part of masses of the system is accelerated towards the opposite direction (action/reaction, momentum conservation), carrying the other half part of the total energy. This applies even though the "other part of masses" is the earth. In general it is not viewed because the change of earth speed is unnoticeable due to the ratio of masses, M being negligible relative to the earth mass, and we keep our referential attached to the earth instead of the center of masses earth+M.
Back to the river. The flow of a river is expressed as a moving water volume/s (in m
3/s), which is equivalent of tons/s. If the water of a river flows in a much wider riverbed, the flow is conserved, the same number of tons/s is flowing. I agree that the speed changes but the momentum of the whole river doesn't change: there is a new distribution of masses. If we had 1 ton/s through a cross section of 1 m
2, and the total section of the riverbed is now multiplied by 10, then we have still 1 ton/s but crossing 10 m
2, meaning that the water speed is divided by 10 according to v2=m1*v1/m2, because the mass of water by length of cross section is now multiplied by 10.
It is the same as a current in a conductor. If we put in series another conductor of 10 times the section of the other, then the same current flows but the density of current is divided by 10. The "density of current" in a river could be expressed in tons/s/m
2 (mass of water crossing a 1 m
2 section every second).
In any case, we see that momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. I dont see why vortexes would change anything. They could reduce the cross-section and increase the speed, which doesn't give extra-energy.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.04.18, 08:01:17
...
In any case, we see that momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. I dont see why vortexes would change anything. They could reduce the cross-section and increase the speed, which doesn't give extra-energy.
Perhaps not any extra energy - this would have to be
verified by actual fabrication and experimentation.
This project (http://www.zotloeterer.com/our_company/water_vortex_engineering/water_vortex_power_plant.php),
however, is an example of how small the concept is
capable of being implemented with very little water
head.
Those who have shallow water flow could efficiently take
advantage of such a situation with creativity and
ingenuity. It is under serious study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_power).
Lawrence:
Quote2. If he uses energy from air (formula in reply 18), he can control the speed of ascent of the submarine container. He does not need to rely on the buoyancy alone. He can jet out some of the water + Air in the submarine container. That will give a very high upward force. He is effectively firing a torpedo! That force is much higher than what step 1 can possibly provide.
3. Most people (even scientists) may mistakenly think that the energy supplied to compress the air is the total Input Energy. They are mistaken. Air is not a fuel but an Energy Carrier. The total Input Energy should be the sum of the Epump + Eair. Epump is the energy supplied. Ein is the Energy carried into the submarine container by air.
Please show me your equations to back up your claim that it works. There are no real formulas or equations in your reply #18 above.
MileHigh
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.04.18, 22:11:30
Perhaps not any extra energy - this would have to be
verified by actual fabrication and experimentation.
...
In matter of proof, I always agree for experimenting.
Now conventional laws of physics have been already verified and reverified, so we have to do it again only if we have serious reasons to think there is a grain of sand in the machine. Otherwise our entire life would not be enough.
Each point taken apart (gravity/buoyancy/fluid dynamics/gas theory...), is well known. It can't be different when put together, it is a mathematical impossibility, and a physical impossibility if a new elementary physical phenomenon was not involved in the system, letting us expect for something different. What could it be? What is the point in hidro that should trigger our interest?
@exnihiloest
QuoteEach point taken apart (gravity/buoyancy/fluid dynamics/gas theory...), is well known. It can't be different when put together, it is a mathematical impossibility, and a physical impossibility if a new elementary physical phenomenon was not involved in the system, letting us expect for something different. What could it be? What is the point in hidro that should trigger our interest?
Of course if we put something together different we can get different results which is why there are thousands upon thousands of "new" patents issued every year, you see a patent must be new technology not something which is not different. I think what you are implying is that you cannot seem to do anything different therefore you have assumed nobody else can, here is a simple example of the impossible.
I have a 100 foot vertical pipe full of water in the ground, a piston and some valves and I want to pump this water out of the ground, now it should be obvious that my piston pump must be at the bottom of the 100 foot pipe and that I can only pump the water "up". You see if I tried to suck this water up the pipe then the low pressure at the top due to the weight of the water column would make this impossible, this is just common sense and obvious. Therefore we could state that it is a mathematical and physical impossibility that we could ever under any circumstances have a pump at the top of the pipe. Of course this is an assumption and it is in fact completely wrong and misguided because this very thing was done in 1930 and the technology is simple and obvious.
Popular Science--1930
QuoteFollowing the example of the United States Patent Office, 18 countries have issued patents to an Argentinian inventor upon an amazing pump that seems to violate natural laws. By creating waves in a pipeful of water, it makes the liquid run uphill.
When the inventor, Toribio Bellocq, applied for a US patent on a pump to be mounted on top of a well and to draw water up from almost unlimited depths, officials pointed out that his device apparently would have to defy the law of gravitation. Every high school student knows that by no effort can a pump suck water higher than approximately 33 feet. This is the limit at which the weight of an imprisoned column of water balances the atmospheric pressure outside. To force water higher from its source, authorities have always agreed that it must be pushed from below. Therefore Bellocq's "wave pump" seemed in a class with perpetual motion machines, which are not patentable because they are impossible.
----http://www.rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm
Note that the "experts" of the day made the same ridiculous and completely absurd claim that this technology must amount to a perpetual motion machine, which gives me reason to believe ignorance may be hereditary. You see this is what silly people do, they assume if they cannot understand something then it must be impossible and be a perpetual motion machine which is of course completely insane. Now let's try to rationalize this silliness, Let's say I have a device in front of me but I do not understand how it could possibly work therefore if I do not understand it ------ It is impossible and a perpetual motion machine------, now how in the hell could anyone make such a leap of faith considering they have no facts?. This is exactly the same kind of silliness which occurs when someone see's a simple light in the sky then proclaims --- It must be little green aliens from another planet who want take over our planet and eat us, ;D, no it is a light in the sky and we do not know what it is --- nothing more nothing less. Personally I think the moment anyone assumes "Perpetual motion" they lose all credibility because first it implies a complete lack of understanding and second they have taken a leap of faith not based on facts because they have none.
Now the Bellocq wave pump works because water IS compressible, sound waves in water are due to the fluid being compressed and rarefied which is what sound is. Bellocq produces waves of compression which act like a piston when they act on a boundary condition and the differences in pressure in the waves is the reason the water is pumped upward. Now again one has to wonder how could all the experts be completely ignorant to this simple fact considering they are supposedly "experts" and why did they jump to the ridiculous conclusion that this must be a perpetual motion machine?.
As well before someone jumps in and tries to explain the fact that this pump technology is based on conventional science, YES I understand this perfectly well but that is not the point. The point is why has most everyone assumed that any very efficient device or free energy device is not based on known science and known effects which may not be known by everyone which may not include us? Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that it must be OU or a perpetual motion machine when it does something we do not fully understand? You see when a supposed expert does this then they may as well drag Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny into this as well because it is not science it is pure fantasy.
Maybe we should start with a new premise here that is not flawed on every level and completely insane, what if from now on whenever we find something we do not understand we say to ourselves---" I do not fully understand what is happening that is all " instead of leaping into the realm of OU, perpetual motion machines and the Easter Bunny.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.19, 16:08:31
@exnihiloest Of course if we put something together different we can get different results which is why there are thousands upon thousands of "new" patents issued every year, you see a patent must be new technology not something which is not different.
...
These patents work according to the physics laws.
With your 100 foot vertical pipe, you suggest that a new technology can defy our "common sense" linked to partial knowledge.
It is true but it defies the "common sense", not the math. If you do the math with a pump at the bottom or top, you see obviously if the pump can work or not. Instead, Hidro is incompatible with math of known science at a fundamental level, it is not a simple question of new technology, if it works it is also new science: extra energy in a closed system is claimed.
If my assertion is false, than back to my question: what is there special in hidro that should let us study it and not consider a scam like cycclone and others?
@exnihiloest
QuoteThese patents work according to the physics laws.
With your 100 foot vertical pipe, you suggest that a new technology can defy our "common sense" linked to partial knowledge.
It is true but it defies the "common sense", not the math. If you do the math with a pump at the bottom or top, you see obviously if the pump can work or not. Instead, Hidro is incompatible with math of known science at a fundamental level, it is not a simple question of new technology, if it works it is also new science: extra energy in a closed system is claimed.
I like the Bellocq wave pump because it defies common sense and also defied the math at the time because nobody had correctly applied the math in the right context prior to Bellocq. Imagine one day all the math tells us something cannot be done, it is impossible, then the very next day we are taught the correct way to apply the same math in a new way and now not only is it possible but easy. Here we would see the technology was never incompatible with math of known science in any way --- in was incompatible with the beliefs of the "people" applying the math. So I would agree with what your saying but the problem was never the math, the problem is how people apply the math, mathematics is not some magical thing which just automatically gives us all the answers it can only prove what we already know, mathematics cannot discover anything only people can.
QuoteIf my assertion is false, than back to my question: what is there special in hidro that should let us study it and not consider a scam like cycclone and others?
I believe your assertion may be correct, that is if someone asked me for an answer right now I would state "I do not know and given the circumstances I believe it should not work as claimed", that is my answer given the facts I have but that is not to say my facts cannot change. Is it a scam?, I do not know and have been given no reason to believe it is a scam or not, it should be obvious that if I simply called everything that I do not understand a scam I would be crazy because this would mean all reality must be dictated by my personal opinion,lol, that is crazy.
In regards to new technology here is an analogy, I give 20 people a package containing a clear plastic sphere with a shallow slot around the circumference and tell them this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. At which point some try to bounce it and it shatters, some try to spin it and all kinds of odd things and most everyone agrees it's a scam as it is obvious it does nothing. Then someone enters the room and say's what in the hell are you people doing there is a string in the package --- this is a yoyo, what in the hell are you people thinking?. You see if you don't have ALL the facts and understand them and can put them in the right context then science, math and logic mean absolutely nothing as everything is open to interpretation which is seldom the true reality of the situation.
This analogy is relevant because I have seen it time and time again and have seen some of the smartest people I know completely baffled by the simplest of things which I thought were obvious, in the same context I have been completely baffled by things as well which always turned out to be obvious only after the fact. It is not the fact that science and math are wrong it is the fact that we are not perfect, we cannot know everything, as such science and math are completely dependent on how we apply it and our perspective.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.20, 15:45:29
...Is it a scam?, I do not know and have been given no reason to believe it is a scam or not, it should be obvious that if I simply called everything that I do not understand a scam I would be crazy because this would mean all reality must be dictated by my personal opinion,lol, that is crazy.
More than a century after Tesla, researchers of "free energy" have not yet a working machine.
Nevertheless in this period, thousands of people claimed "new technologies" or "new sciences" in spite of no evidence and no facts.
We must retain the lessons from the past:
- 100% of the so-called free energy inventions led to not one practical application, not even to a simple duplicable fact proving a new phenomenon
- 100% of the so-called free energy inventions were:
- pure scam (Mylow, Cycclone, Johnson motor, MPI, EBM...)
- conventional effect, misinterpreted (Avramenko single wire transmission, T.T. Brown Electrogravity, Steorn, Milkovic's double pendulum, DePalma N-machine...)
- false or empty theories, without facts (MEG, Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology, magnetic transistor...)
Therefore when a new free energy device is presented, we have almost 100% risks it is not working. So if we evaluate a new "technology" such Hidro, we must use drastic methods otherwise we will be perpetual losers as in the past.
Do we want to repeat again and again the errors of the past? If the answer is no, then we have to adopt a different attitude, this one of skeptics. We must reckon that general science can convince skeptics (a skeptic can admit that an electron is a real particle in despite the fact he never saw one) and general science works. Why science of free energy could not convince skeptics? If it works, it will.
In a skeptic attitude, we have not to suppose a priori that a free energy device works. It is supposed to not work until proof of the contrary. The proof is given by third party duplications. Of course when there are not yet duplications, the attitude of skeptics can be to lead them themselves. But if the inventors want spread their inventions, considering the vast amount of not working devices in the past, they have to present reasonable elements of evidence, either physical or theoretical, in order to trigger the need of testing their device. I don't see such elements in Hidro, so I have asked if some one saw them.
In the video I saw one element about the principle: two reservoirs filled with air, are interconnected by a tube, one is floating at the top of a water recipient and the other is at the bottom, attached to a weight. When the operator pushes the upper reservoir down, the pressure reduces its volume, more air is given to the other reservoir so that Archimede's force becomes sufficient to raise it up with its weight. What would be astonishing? This works perfectly according to physics laws.
EX
And then of course there is the silly idea that we don't know everything !
Action reaction,
take a magnet in your hand ,swipe it across an inductor
you just caused a few meter per second action to have a 299792458 meters per second reaction [you must be very strong].
Well perhaps you think to yourself "Silly Boy"?
And then there's this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
And maybe once again you think
"So what silly boy"
Perhaps you think you know everything there is to know.................
Silly Boy..
Chet
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.04.21, 09:50:14
In a skeptic attitude, we have not to suppose a priori that a free energy device works. It is supposed to not work until proof of the contrary.
One go to a candy stand and wants to buy a lollipop. Both parties encounter a problem. The buyer wants to have the candy first then give the money. The seller wants to have the money first then give the candy. Which is the right way?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=post;quote=13096;topic=785.75;num_replies=97;sesc=9240190be35a1fff2788231f87369f9e
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.18, 22:15:58
Lawrence:
Please show me your equations to back up your claim that it works. There are no real formulas or equations in your reply #18 above.
MileHigh
In reply 18 in the thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7798-seminar-workshop-united-nations.html#post138071
Quote
1. He uses energy from air. The formulas used are:
Ein = Pin x Vin (1)
Eout = Pout x Vout (2)
Ein = Energy of Air brought into the system
Pin = Pressure of Air at Input
Vin = Volume of Air at Input
Eout = Energy of Air flowing out at Output
Pout = Pressure of Air at Output
Vout = Volume of Air at Output
2. Ein can be much greater than Eout. That explains where the energy comes from. Energy from Still Air is brought-in from the environment. So long as there is air flowing in and out of the system, the system must be an OPEN system. Energy will be flowing in and out with the flowing air. Thus we cannot blindly apply the Law of Conservation of Energy.
3. The supplied energy is from the compressed air at the bottom of the tower. Work is done to expel some of the water from the submarine type container. So long as the compressed air pressure is slightly above the pressure of the water column at that level, the water will be displaced. We can call this as Esupplied.
4. Most people made the mistake of assuming that Esupplied = Ein. They did not see the fact that air actually flows into the system and flows out from the system. Air itself is not a fuel but an energy carrier. Ein can be considered as the bring-in energy. It can be much greater than Eout. The difference can be used to do work (in addition to Esupplied).
5. Pin can be the minimum pressure of air at that water level. In the submarine type structure, that pressure can be much, much higher. The principle is similar to the water rocket or torpedo. When a valve is opened, the compressed air will force the water out, generating a large thrust. The submarine container goes up both from the floatation and the thrust.
Please work out the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2) in Point 1. You may be making the same mistake as most people in Point 4.
Ein can be much greater than Eout. The genius of James Kwok and team is the use this energy. I know an Inventor in Hong Kong and another one in China. Both worked along similar lines but they did not have the engineering capabilities to build working systems.
Please study reply 18 and reply 20 in that thread carefully. Edit: Please read reply 26 and the scientific report by Dr. Kagan et al.
Lawrence:
QuotePlease work out the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2) in Point 1.
I am asking
you for equations where you show step-by-step how a Hidro system works.
In addition:
Quote3. The supplied energy is from the compressed air at the bottom of the tower.
Where does the compressed air come from?
QuoteSo long as the compressed air pressure is slightly above the pressure of the water column at that level, the water will be displaced.
I think that you are implying that if the air pressure is just slightly above the water pressure the buoy can be evacuated with no real work done. This is wrong. It will take a lot of real work to evacuate the buoy.
QuoteAir itself is not a fuel but an energy carrier.
The ambient air pressure around the Hidro cannot in any way do work to keep the alleged process going in the Hidro. The ambient air itself and associated air pressure around the Hidro are as dead as a doornail.
QuoteThe principle is similar to the water rocket or torpedo. When a valve is opened, the compressed air will force the water out, generating a large thrust. The submarine container goes up both from the floatation and the thrust.
I didn't see anything in the James Kwok Hidro literature that indicates that this takes place. Even if it did take place, it wouldn't matter because you had to do work to compress the air in the first place. An air-powered torpedo is certainly not a source of free energy.
MileHigh
Suppose the invention use buoyancy by letting water fill up the cylinder at the surface and pump air into the piston side when it reached the bottom.
Let us simplify the case to which no work can be extract from the cylinder on the way upward (surfacing). Meaning it has barely enough buoyancy to surface.
The energy extract from the device going down thereby proportional to the water height H.
The energy needed to pump the water out is also the amount H. Such case cannot extract useful work.
Let us consider the two scenairos.
The top drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. As it surface, the cylinder expands which provide a greater surfacing force. Energy can be extracted from buoyancy. Air pressure is lost in the process.
The bottom drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. Since now we have a stopper, it is a constant volume through out. This time we cannot extract energy from buoyancy, but at the surface, we can extract the air pressure to recover energy.
The bottom line is, we can either utilize or recover input energy.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=785.100 Reply 100
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.04.22, 01:18:38
Suppose the invention use buoyancy by letting water fill up the cylinder at the surface and pump air into the piston side when it reached the bottom.
Let us simplify the case to which no work can be extract from the cylinder on the way upward (surfacing). Meaning it has barely enough buoyancy to surface.
The energy extract from the device going down thereby proportional to the water height H.
The energy needed to pump the water out is also the amount H. Such case cannot extract useful work.
Let us consider the two scenarios.
The top drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. As it surface, the cylinder expands which provide a greater surfacing force. Energy can be extracted from buoyancy. Air pressure is lost in the process.
The bottom drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. Since now we have a stopper, it is a constant volume through out. This time we cannot extract energy from buoyancy, but at the surface, we can extract the air pressure to recover energy.
The bottom line is, we can either utilize or recover input energy.
Dear GIbbsHelmholtz,
Very clever. You can do better with a third scenario. There are two stoppers. The first one is retractable so that the air can expand and push the water. The second one will stop the piston completely and trap the air inside.
The air trapped will still have higher pressure than atmospheric and can be used to help to compress and force the water out from the bottom submarine container.
You get the best of both worlds. The compressed air is NOT wasted! Water is ejected out just like the normal water rocket. However, you need to provide the full force (and thus energy) to displace the water the first time. In the second time, you will be assisted by the trapped, partially compressed air.
Mr. James Kwok will love your posts – if he has not implemented that concept already. I personally find the Engineering Aspects too overwhelming. Multiple LCR resonance circuits remain my favorite. O0
God sends his Angels to help. Humans have limited intelligence. Amen.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.21, 12:19:35
EX
And then of course there is the silly idea that we don't know everything !
Action reaction,
take a magnet in your hand ,swipe it across an inductor
you just caused a few meter per second action to have a 299792458 meters per second reaction [you must be very strong].
Well perhaps you think to yourself "Silly Boy"?
And then there's this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
And maybe once again you think
"So what silly boy"
Perhaps you think you know everything there is to know.................
Silly Boy..
Chet
What a miracle!
Attach a mass at each end of a spring, and move one. The reaction of the other will not be felt instantaneously by the first one.
Waooo! Action without reaction! I'm a great inventor! Hey guys, take it, I don't want patent it, it is my gift to humanity! :D ;D
Ask you the question "how is the energy distributed" and you will get the solution of your pseudo miracle of lack of reaction from the coil onto the magnet. Energy conservation still applies.
So
You see a "BUG" causing a 9000 C sonoluminescence event ,and you get "Springy" with that ?
I ask another question
You say how can O.U. be real ? ,if it was I the great "EX" would surely Know!! after all its been 100 years or more !!
WOW mr.Ex, I guess the fact that the Silkworm was kept a secret for 5000 years is "Lost" on the likes of your Logic?
You stand on a very big rock with a VERY soft foundation sir!
Chet
Instead of skipping about, seeing a miracle in each particular natural phenomenon rather than the common principles that they obey, why wouldn't you learn physics?
ramset,
I must say that I seriously doubt any one of us is completely correct in any of the ideas we put forward.
With that in mind.... you should not be so hard on folks that see an electron as a little ball orbiting another little ball or group of balls. At a minimum we shouldn't accuse such idiocy as containing no faith.
What else could make such an idea possible other than faith? They have faith all our recent findings are correct and unchangeable. They see themselves as objective when they radiate one-sided beliefs.
How can you be objective when the first statement you make is ' it isn't possible because......'?
It has all just become very tiring for me to listen to the same crap over and over again. From the 'objective ones' AND from the so-called 'new discoveries'.
I'll be happy when I can go back to concentrating on the GWave work. This stuff may have more free energy in it than anything else on this forum.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.04.22, 01:18:38
...
The top drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. As it surface, the cylinder expands which provide a greater surfacing force. Energy can be extracted from buoyancy. Air pressure is lost in the process.
The bottom drawing shows air pumping into the cylinder. The energy used is H. Since now we have a stopper, it is a constant volume through out. This time we cannot extract energy from buoyancy, but at the surface, we can extract the air pressure to recover energy.
The bottom line is, we can either utilize or recover input energy.
I agree 100%.
There is no extra energy this way.
Hey EX
Your right I do believe in miracles,The more I learn about our universe the more I believe in miracles, The biggest one being the rock we stand on.............
As far as the bug that smashes Photons around at will,,,I don't think thats a miracle bud
I think its opportunity knocking...
Chet
On Pesn, titled : Ash answers some questions about his recent visit to Hidro (http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/#Follow-up_QnA).
Q. For how long of a period of time did you see the device self sustaining?
A. The device can only be run for an hour with a 1Kw load
A bit worrying for a perpetual motion machine.
Q. were you allowed to look into the large tanks...
A. It's a sealed unit you cant look inside
Well, as a French humorist said, "when journalists know so little on a subject, they have the right to remain silent."
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.22, 17:49:28
Hey EX
Your right I do believe in miracles,The more I learn about our universe the more I believe in miracles, The biggest one being the rock we stand on.............
...
Are you talking about the "miracle" of life on our "rock"? If so, there is no miracle in an observation that the world where we live is compatible with the existence of observers able to make the observation.
I don't see how it would be possible without this condition. :)
EX
Cute,Next time you come to a big hill in your Car or stand on an overlook, or anyplace that you can see perhaps a measly 5 miles,
Look UP towards the heavens...........,because the distance in front of you is pretty much all that seperates you from the rest of the universe above your head.
Perhaps your Observations don't allow you to appreciate just how amazing that is ...........
Try it some time, get that small distance in front of you in your head .........
And then Look up............
Gives me Goosebumps !![extra special on a clear night [the goose bumps ,get goosebumps]]
Chet
Wonders of the Universe.... Not.
From the follow-up questions for Ash:
QuoteQ. For how long of a period of time did you see the device self sustaining?
A. The device can only be run for an hour with a 1Kw load on it, the flywheel will burn the generator out otherwise, they did not have a 20Kw load there. I witnessed for a good 25 minutes at least
There you go! After years of research James Kwok, allegedly an engineer, cannot figure out how to spec in an appropriate generator that is capable of driving a suitable load.
So many of these alleged free energy machines have to be turned off after a short period of time otherwise they will "burn out."
Note that sometimes they even have mysterious flywheels that are allegedly a source of power all by themselves. John Searl should be speaking to James Kwok.
More tragicomic drama brought to you from Down Under.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.23, 12:34:48
EX
Cute,Next time you come to a big hill in your Car or stand on an overlook, or anyplace that you can see perhaps a measly 5 miles,
Look UP towards the heavens...........,because the distance in front of you is pretty much all that seperates you from the rest of the universe above your head.
Perhaps your Observations don't allow you to appreciate just how amazing that is ...........
Try it some time, get that small distance in front of you in your head .........
And then Look up............
Gives me Goosebumps !![extra special on a clear night [the goose bumps ,get goosebumps]]
Chet
Your personal sense of wonder has no place in a scientific discussion.
Eatenbarbeque
OH........... , A "scientific Discussion" ? See I thought you'd need some Facts about how the device actually
"Do what it Do" to have a "Scientific Discussion" ?
I was just Talkin with my Buddy EX!! [he's a cool guy]
He makes me "think"!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.23, 20:04:22
Eatenbarbeque
OH........... , A "scientific Discussion" ? See I thought you'd need some Facts about how the device actually
"Do what it Do" to have a "Scientific Discussion" ?
I was just Talkin with my Buddy EX!! [he's a cool guy]
He makes me "think"!
Chet
We have enough information to deduce how this device purports to work, and discussion thus far has been helpful in basically debunking it.
Although it sounds that according to you, none of this is necessary. It could work by miracle, fueled by the sense of wonder you feel in your heart when you look up and see the stars put there by Jeebus.
EatenBarbeQue
Good News
This one will have a lot more info for "Scientific Discussions".
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.msg282752#msg282752
its A present for another friend, MH
A big one!!
The "Effect" being investigated above has been "Independantly varified' and has had some Peer review,albeit under NDA's !
Whether it's a measurement error /missunderstanding of Transformer Theory,or "the real Mc'Coy" remains to be seen.
Chet
PS
Never underestimate the power of Faith....................
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.23, 21:46:08
EatenBarbeQue
A big one!!
The "Effect" being investigated above has been "Independantly varified' and has had some Peer review,albeit under NDA's !
Whether it's a measurement error /missunderstanding of Transformer Theory,or "the real Mc'Coy" remains to be seen.
Chet
PS
Never underestimate the power of Faith....................
I see your response is to mangle my forum handle and trail off with some lame comment about faith. Faith is the willingness to suspend reason and believe in something without evidence. So you go, knock yourself out with faith.
Why don't you stick to the Jesus forums, and let the science guys talk about science?
Eaten
Well I suppose Faith is all "perspective" ?
Judging from your strong scientific Faith I will respect your "space".
Nothing I have written implies Religion in anyway,they are just Observations.
One observation I have made about this thread .............
Nobody really knows How it works ,but quite a few consider it "DEBUNKED"!!
You call this Scientific discussion?
I call it Silly...............
Not saying you don't have a right to be silly,
Quote:
Faith is the willingness to suspend reason and believe in something without evidence.
---------------
It just seems Like a "scientific discussion"
should have more Actual Facts on the device instead of Faith based maybe's or could be's..............
Chet
PS
Sorry about the Missprint on your Handle
Won't happen again [sometimes I forget to put on my Glass's]
Chet:
You are wrong. I worked out some basic equations that state that this variation on a gravity motor will not work. I extended an open invitation to anyone to come here and explain how and why it should work.
Look, a new posting on EF:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn.html#post138302 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn.html#post138302)
QuoteI read everything on their website and watched all their videos so I contacted them by email. I have a possible alternative energy project going. I would have liked them to make a presentation to my board of directors. The project would be 1 to 2 Megawatts, just like the artists concept on their website. Their first response: Read our website... Everything you need to know is on our website. Their second response (after I gave them more details..) We don't have anyone under contract that can service your location and the minimum size that we would consider is 10 Megawatts.
Therefore, my friends, don't expect anything from James Kwok but a stone wall.
As to my initial analysis, this whole thing is based on compressing air and supplying it to one of two containers that travel up and down in a tank of water. My questions are NOT answered by the formulas in their PDF. I think they are purposefully hiding the important details. Still, the whole thing can be proven with a little experimentation. And, it should not cost all that much.
Two containers able to hold air mounted on the two ends of a seesaw arrangement. Valves to release air when container is "shallow" Valves to add compressed air when container is "deep".
Energy required to operate is AC to your shop air compressor. You'll have to put some gears on the shaft of the seesaw to convert the reciprocating motion into linear or rotational motions so you can do some measurable work.
My project is still good. If you can do this and are near Atlanta, GA, send me a private message.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this person is legit. Seemingly a serious person that was hoodwinked into believing that the system actually works. Then a tepid response from Kwok. Perhaps Kwok is still trying to get "research and development" funds. This way he can draw a salary from the funding for perhaps two years and not actually have to produce anything so he remains safe. However, when somebody actually wants to build something then he runs away because he knows that he can't actually produce something that works.
MileHigh
Sorry about the "silly" comment MH
I don't think any of your Hard work is silly!
Nor the time you spend "Wasted"!
And The Odds are with you [as always].
I suppose I'm not really defending Kwok ,because at this point that would take a lot of Faith!
seeing as The "How its done" part is not being disclosed!
But one thing I do know is without the facts ,I will pass no Judgement on Kwok!
But thats Just Me............
Chet
PS
AS things Progress on The Gabriel COP 8 device I would appreciate a look see!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.msg282752#msg282752
I think something you and poynt said to EM might apply there?
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.24, 01:17:25
And The Odds are with you [as always].
Not in this case.
Quote
I suppose I'm not really defending Kwok ,because at this point that would take a lot of Faith!
seeing as The "How its done" part is not being disclosed!
Enough has been disclosed to make a few wonder. The rest must not be capable of understanding what has been available.
Quote
But one thing I do know is without the facts ,I will pass no Judgement on Kwok!
But thats Just Me............
Chet
Not just you. My respect for you is growing.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.24, 00:50:52
Eaten
Well I suppose Faith is all "perspective" ?
Judging from your strong scientific Faith I will respect your "space".
Why is it that spiritual people equate their faith-driven beliefs with what scientists believe? Science actually requires no faith. If scientists exhibit faith-like behavior, in that they trust the work done previously, this is not belief without reason. Everything relied on has passed scientific trials, so there is ample reason to trust it. And most scientists are ready to withdraw their belief in any area given enough evidence to the contrary. Such attitude is very rare in the religious/spiritual realm, where people are proud to say, "my faith cannot be shaken under any circumstances."
Anyway, as far as the Hidro system, this is a device that purports to violate the known laws of physics. We know enough generally about how it works. Milehigh has worked out the math for the energy required to push water from the bottom to the top, and it is equal to energy gained by the operation of the mechanism. What else is involved? Sure, there is a minute chance that something miraculous is hidden somewhere, but at this point, the burden is on the proponent of the system to show how it could possibly function.
And by the way, I do not expect my faith in anything to be respected. If I am putting trust into a conclusion that is unsupportable, I expect to be challenged on it. No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly. That is just nonsense.
eatenbyagrue,
It should be agreed that no faith is required or applicable in these matters.
I see nothing wrong with MH's math, only the application of it. If the system works as MH has show is his understanding then certainly it is as he describes. I have very serious doubts his functional description is correct.
"purports to violate the known laws of physics"?
Have you read the documentation?
Nothing personal but do you understand the functional diagrams? I will say I found the functional diagram and some of the documentation to disagree.
I have the impression Kwok's documents are over-generalized. Perhaps to make it easier for those potential investors?
eatenbyagrue,
I don't know what else to call what you do?
The opinion or Knowledge that you know everything there is to know ?
In this case as it applies to Kwok ,and a device with undisclosed mechanisms and components!
Calling him a liar, a scammer, a Fraud ???
To me this is a leap of faith not a scientific evaluation!
I'm sorry It just isn't in my frame of reference.
And as far as this,
Quote:
No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly. That is just nonsense.
------------
Where I come from thats just called good Manners!
Chet
PS
WW
Thanks
I may not have the exact modeling for James Kwok's setup. For example, the buoys may contain bladders that expand as the buoys rise increasing the buoyancy. That doesn't matter, the equations will show that there is no energy gain just the same. It's fair to say that any variation on the theme will still show a net-zero gain.
We are left wondering if James Kwok hsas something hidden behind a curtain. I say there is nothing behind the curtain. Chet hopes that there is something. Others have differing opinions.
I would also state that there is no credible data all all that it works. It exposes a great flaw in the free energy community that comes up over and over again, the flaw being that very few demand solid data. In Sterling's report he stated that Ash brushed off any requests for specifics about the over unity data. This was about five days ago. There is not a single posting asking Ash about this critical issue
All that I can say is that the clock is on my side!
MH
I never said "It works"!
Now maybe if "You" said "it works" ........... then I might take that leap of Faith?
O0
Chet
ramset,
"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly. That is just nonsense."
Surely that statement was only made in the context of scientific discussions.
After all, that idea in a wider context is the excuse used for genocide and terrorism. I doubt anyone on this forum should have their statements generalized outside of the subject at hand.
Don't forget that the 'scientific' types can be quite anti-social and lack some very basic manners. Glossing over the perceived failings of a fellow in a 'good manners' mode is not a skill learned by most calling themselves a scientist. They call it the way they see it, even if they are looking in the wrong direction.
Faith isn't very scientific but forgiveness should be.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.25, 01:42:13
eatenbyagrue,
I don't know what else to call what you do?
The opinion or Knowledge that you know everything there is to know ?
In this case as it applies to Kwok ,and a device with undisclosed mechanisms and components!
Calling him a liar, a scammer, a Fraud ???
Well, if I was calling him a liar and a scammer, I would not be the only one. He was apparently convicted in Australia of two fraud charges:
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/2938/ENVIROSTAR%20ENERGY%20LIMITED (http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/2938/ENVIROSTAR%20ENERGY%20LIMITED)
But you have a point, I cannot call him a fraud beyond all doubt, but with evidence presented so far, it sure looks that way. Let's just say that anyone who buys one of his units is a fool.
WW
Thanks,Your right !
Eatenbyagrue I took your statement out of the "format" for which it was intended![I hope}
I appoligize!
Chet
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.04.25, 02:29:26
ramset,
"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly. That is just nonsense."
Surely that statement was only made in the context of scientific discussions.
After all, that idea in a wider context is the excuse used for genocide and terrorism. I doubt anyone on this forum should have their statements generalized outside of the subject at hand.
...
"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly" is a statement that can be made in any context, not only scientific discussions.
Respect is due to people, not to their beliefs. "Genocide and terrorism" is generated because of beliefs of people that make them act against others (such belief in the superiority of Aryan race or faith in intolerant so-called God's commandments) and not because of fighting beliefs.
EX
Perhaps You play to much with the statement?[very easy with this one]
Respect ..........taking action!!
There is a lot of conjecture between the two!
Chet
There are many beliefs of others I will not adhere to.
However, having no respect for the beliefs of others is a first step toward huge problems.
Would anyone in their right mind walk into a building considered holy by someone else and spit on the floor?
As radical or ridiculous as some beliefs may seem to me I refuse to (knowingly) show disrespect. On the religious side, due to the many faiths I have found myself immersed in, I have made extraordinary attempts to understand and show respect. I can't say I've ran across any head-hunters but if I find myself among them (and they aren't after my head!) I will show them the same respect.
I don't even slam my door on the young men in white long-sleeve shirts who knock on my door on occasion.
For many religious beliefs, that belief is one facet making up that individual. You show disrespect for the belief - you are showing disrespect for the individual. I suggest folks sharing your stance avoid international travel, EX. I've been to several places where looking into the eyes of a woman would get you killed on the spot.
If someone insists that electrons are little balls it is a little bit different but I try to curb my disrespect and blame it on the idiocy that was taught. Where I cannot tolerate such stupidity is when they constantly try to force feed the garbage and then show hypocrisy and the fact they really don't know what they are talking about . When that happens I try to remember to take a deep breath and walk away.
It all boils down to my earlier statement about many scientifically minded folks not having the sense to be a little more tolerant and just shut up.
Ok. I'm taking deep breaths and walking away now.
I need a Thread for this [Gravity}
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10659.msg283020#new
This Is gonna be very interesting!!
Chet
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.04.25, 20:21:15
There are many beliefs of others I will not adhere to.
However, having no respect for the beliefs of others is a first step toward huge problems.
Would anyone in their right mind walk into a building considered holy by someone else and spit on the floor?
I am referring to respect as far as conversation, not physical actions such as desecration. Also, to put yourself in physical danger is folly, so if you are where it is fatal to look a woman in the eyes, don't do it. But if that woman was visiting my country, I would look her in the eyes, and if she does not like that, maybe she should not venture outside her home.
Your viewpoint gives me the impression that it has been drilled into you that questioning someone's irrational beliefs, simply because the beliefs are "spiritual" or religious in nature, is taboo. I think if you analyze this proposition, you have to concede it is nonsense. If I came up to you and said that I believe the world is flat because that is the way I was raised, and it is very important to me to preserve this belief, you probably would not say anything, being the respectful guy you are, but you would dismiss me as a big fool, and if I repeated my claims in civilized society, I would me scoffed by less polite people than you, and my theory on the shape of the world be marginalized.
Yet if someone comes to you and says they believe that a cracker actually turns into the flesh of a man who died 2000 years ago, just because some latin words are spoken, you would respect this, and think this is all fine and good? And what if they tell you that you must participate in this ritual and many like it, or after you die, you would be tortured eternally in hellfire? Would you let this person teach this nonsense to your children, or would you demand some evidence before your kids are brainwashed in this crap?
This is what I mean by not respecting. If someone spews outlandish nonsense, you dismiss it unless that person has some good evidence to back it up. Why would you waste your time trying to "understand" it, unless you are some kind of anthropologist.
I understand that when traveling - when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Certain behavior is expected of a guest/tourist, and I am not proposing looking for trouble. I am arguing for a complete freedom of intellectual debate, with no topics to be taboo, just because they are "faith-based".
Interestingly enough, the belief in free energy has parallels with religious faith.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.25, 22:44:20
This is what I mean by not respecting. If someone spews outlandish nonsense, you dismiss it unless that person has some good evidence to back it up. Why would you waste your time trying to "understand" it, unless you are some kind of anthropologist.
I will agree with this.
Quote
I understand that when traveling - when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Certain behavior is expected of a guest/tourist, and I am not proposing looking for trouble. I am arguing for a complete freedom of intellectual debate, with no topics to be taboo, just because they are "faith-based".
If a claim or statement appears faith-based then I would ask what is the basis for the faith.
I have no faith in the Hidro. The only thing I may claim as faith is my belief that we don't know it all regardless of how many times something has been proven or how well the math works. Math is not a religion for me. It is simply a tool.
Dear MH,
You asked for equations. I do not need to produce them. They were produced years ago based on the soda bottle rocket. Please read from reply 30 onwards in the following thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn-2.html
The Hidro works under the principle of compressed air+water propulsion. It is better because the normal rocket firing upwards in air will be subjected to the downward force of gravity. The Hidro will be subjected to an upward force due to buoyance!
The Hidro is literally rocket science. It is an OPEN system with air and thermal energy flowing in and out. Study the equations carefully before you accuse James Kwok as hoax again. :)
Divine Revelations cannot be wrong. Amen.
@Milehigh
QuoteInterestingly enough, the belief in free energy has parallels with religious faith.
I would also add that, the belief in mainstream science has parallels with religious faith. I believe this because there are many people who call science the "laws" of science but the actual scientists tend call them "theories". So here we have a lesser educated group believing the "Laws" are eternal, unyielding and beyond reproach but the people we know are the most educated call this same science "Theories" which yield to better theories, are subject to change and are questioned outright on many occasions.
I have always found this odd that on average the least educated tend to believe all is known and nothing can change but the best and the brightest, the most educated, have the opinion that change is inevitable. Personally I have a great deal of "faith" that the younger generation, the best and the brightest, will invoke change on a scale we cannot imagine and they will break our sacred rules and laws as history has proven time and time again. If there is one thing we should have learned from history it is that change is inevitable, it has been proven over time and it will happen regardless of what we believe --- we can live in the past or embrace the future the choice is ours.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.26, 16:43:23
I have always found this odd that on average the least educated tend to believe all is known and nothing can change but the best and the brightest, the most educated, have the opinion that change is inevitable.
Please name some leading physicists who believe that the 3 laws of thermodynamics are merely theories subject to change.
@eatenbyagrue
QuotePlease name some leading physicists who believe that the 3 laws of thermodynamics are merely theories subject to change.
Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein and James Maxwell to name a few who stated catagorically that we have "theories" which are not written in stone. However we have to read their original works and not the more popular watered down versions such as textbooks which are interpreted by other people, reading second hand information seldom gives us the true intent and insight of the original authors. I do not read textbooks or magazines I read the scientific journals, patents, original documents and lectures given by persons who's work I find interesting. As well I would imagine most all of these people would tell you this has very little to do will the archaic notion of thermodynamics because fundamentally we are dealing with fields and charged states, that is electrodynamics.
Many supposed rules have also been broken concerning nanotechnology and engineered materials where solids becomes liquid with essentially no measurable change in temperature, high temperature superconductors, rendering solid objects invisible to regions of the EM spectrum, power generation with nantenna technology and non-magnetic materials which can instantly become extremely magnetic through the application of electrostatic forces.
AC
You say it well AllCanadian.
The discord which exists within "Science" and all other
religions is ample testimony of the ease with which the
human mind can be manipulated and programmed.
Any institution is vulnerable to being taken over by
rogue elements who promote a nefarious, corrupting
agenda.
No matter how extreme the program of indoctrination,
there will always be found those who are willing to
unthinkingly follow and become devout minions.
Very thankfully, although they seem to be small in number,
there are enough within the scientific community who
love truth more than themselves and are willing to
courageously contradict erroneous propaganda which
has crept into scientific literature. As you have discovered,
when one looks into the right places there will be found abundant
truth.
We do not yet know all that is to be known.
Lawrence:
QuoteYou asked for equations. I do not need to produce them. They were produced years ago based on the soda bottle rocket. Please read from reply 30 onwards in the following thread:
Actually you do need to produce equations. Pointing to a discussion about water rockets is not going to answer the question.
I think that you believe in the Hidro tower on blind faith. It will never be deployed in a real-world application because it doesn't work. This is all like an exercise in performance art. Did you see the movie, "Catch Me if You Can?"
MileHigh
Dumped:
I think the vast vast majority of science and scientific research is rock solid and the themes you make inference to don't happen. The vast majority of what goes on is real and the people are real. I have worked in the high tech industry over the years, and generally that world is a very benign place. Nobody worries about the issues that you talk about.
The glass is way more than half-full.
MileHigh
@Dumped
QuoteThe discord which exists within "Science" and all other
religions is ample testimony of the ease with which the
human mind can be manipulated and programmed.
I would agree, I think critics like to twist the facts to suit their own personal opinions and discredit others to justify their own beliefs. I know they like to include me in with the hardcore OU crowd but I have made it pretty clear I do not believe in OU, I believe all sytems are fundamentally open, that internal or external energy may enter systems for reasons we do not fully understand and that external energy may be converted or change form for reasons we do not fully understand and harnessed but this is not OU in any sense of the word.
QuoteVery thankfully, although they seem to be small in number,
there are enough within the scientific community who
love truth more than themselves and are willing to
courageously contradict erroneous propaganda which
has crept into scientific literature.
I have seen quite a few really innovative solutions and concepts lately and believe the rate at which this is happening is increasing. For example one scientist developed an nano-material in which water droplets on the vertical surface travelled three inches upward against the force of gravity and this occurred with no energy input because of the surface geometry and the forces involved. Another scientist developed a saltwater battery where the battery was filled with fresh water, charged, drained and refilled with salt water then discharged and produced four times more energy due to the sodium and chlorine ion interactions -- the battery produced four times more energy by changing the fresh/saltwater electrolyte.
It is not that the laws of science are broken but rather people are doing things related to nano-technology that we never would have expected because things at the nano-scale do not always do what we expect and appear to directly contradict what we think is possible. For example water droplets cannot travel upward against the force of gravity without an input of energy but they do in engineered materials, the energy must have come from somewhere else which they have yet to explain.
Essentially I have been seeing a crazy amount of proven, credible, peer reviewed technology which most all of the critics here would normally call absolutely impossible so obviously someone is wrong :D.
It's a crazy world but in a good way
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.27, 00:02:57
For example water droplets cannot travel upward against the force of gravity without an input of energy but they do in engineered materials, the energy must have come from somewhere else which they have yet to explain.
I think you are confusing some concepts. A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now. Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space. Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen. The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.
It is like dropping a ball and asking where the energy came from for the ball to travel from your hand to the ground. No energy is required, as the ball is simply acting under the force of gravity.
Also, with regard to your previous response, I asked specifically about the 3 laws of thermodynamics, which, if hold true, preclude most if not all of the possible overunity/free energy research out there. I am not aware of a single reputable physicist who maintains the big 3 laws are merely theories and are subject to change. It's true that funny things happen at nano levels, but we have found no evidence of violation of the big 3.
.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.27, 00:24:26
...A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now. Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space. Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen. The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.
...
Energy comes from the internal energy at the liquid/solid interface: there is more molecular attraction between the molecules of the liquid and these of the capillary tube than between the molecules of the liquid. It is like a potential energy. The molecules move to decrease their potential energy in the same manner a weight falls on earth.
Now it is also well known that the force that makes the molecules to climb through the tube in the same force that prevent the molecules to escape the tube to go back to the recipient. As for a falling weight or for permanent magnets that attract each other, energy is gained during half the cycle, and the same energy has to be provided to return the system to the start position. This applies whatever the type of potential energy: the work to move from point A to B depends only on the potential difference. It is exactly the same for moving from point B to A, but in this case the sign is reversed, we don't gain energy on a complete cycle.
How difficult is it to do a demonstration of:
1. A soda bottle rocket to fly upwards in air?
2. A sode bottle rocket to fly upwards at the bottom of a 15 meter water tower?
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.27, 14:55:55
How difficult is it to do a demonstration of:
1. A soda bottle rocket to fly upwards in air?
2. A sode bottle rocket to fly upwards at the bottom of a 15 meter water tower?
Not hard, but please provide equations for energy required to carbonate the soda beforehand.
@eatenbyagrue
QuoteI think you are confusing some concepts. A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now. Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space. Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen. The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.
It is like dropping a ball and asking where the energy came from for the ball to travel from your hand to the ground. No energy is required, as the ball is simply acting under the force of gravity.
I would agree there is some confusion here, I was not referring to capillary action nor a narrow space utilizing capillary action what I was talking about was a flat vertical nano-surface on which water droplets climb upward against the force of gravity. As well the water droplet has mass and experiences a force and travels a distance (Work= Force x Distance), this work occurs over time which relates to how much energy is required to lift the water droplet. As well I find it completely mind boggling that in one instance you tell me Free Energy devices cannot work because it violates the conservation of energy and here you seem to be implying that ---- no energy is required to lift a mass of water upward against the force of gravity. Now let's say our flat vertical nano-wall is one meter high and transports one liter of water per hour to a height of one meter, are you sure no energy is required to do this? you see I have a problem with this due to the conservation of energy and believe energy must come from somewhere to lift this water to a height of one meter.
QuoteAlso, with regard to your previous response, I asked specifically about the 3 laws of thermodynamics, which, if hold true, preclude most if not all of the possible overunity/free energy research out there. I am not aware of a single reputable physicist who maintains the big 3 laws are merely theories and are subject to change. It's true that funny things happen at nano levels, but we have found no evidence of violation of the big 3.
Lets look at a quote that explains the 3 laws of thermodynamics in there most basic form:
QuoteC.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can't get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable).
Well you managed to violate the first law of thermodynamics when you stated no energy is required to lift a droplet of water because matter and energy are conserved. You also violated the second law of thermodynamics because we cannot even break even, however our nano-wall lifted water to a height of X which can then fall performing work as it returns to it's initial energy state at rest at the bottom of the wall. The third law does not apply because we are not talking about lowering the temperature to absolute zero, that is absurd, we are speaking of simply lifting a droplet of water up a vertical surface utilizing electrostatic forces not cooling it to absolute zero.
Now the question remains, are you absolutely sure that your statement still holds true? ----"Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen".
To be honest it makes no sense whatsoever to me because we know as a fact that the water has been lifted a height therefore it's potential energy has changed and if the energy state has changed then energy must have come from somewhere because energy must be conserved.
Regards
AC
@All
Let's go a little further and try to understand what Mr.Snow is trying to say in this statement in regards to thermodynamics -----
QuoteC.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can't get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable).
Supposedly we cannot win, nor break even nor get out of the game but what is the game? Well in thermodynamcs he is referring to an isolated system or a closed insulated box. He is stating if we have a perfectly closed box then we cannot gain energy which is not there, we cannot break even because our box will always lose energy to the environment and we cannot change the state of what is in the box because that takes energy. Mr.Snow is stating if we do not allow the conditions in the box to change then the energy in the box cannot change, wow, maybe he should be nominated for a Nobel because his keen sense of insight and intellect are simply mind boggling. He is saying if we do not open the box (an isolated system) then the conditions thus energy cannot change however he is obviously not the sharpest crayon in the box because he is simply stating what should be obvious and taken it completely out of context-- he is a moron.
Now let's say I have Mr.Snows magical "isolated" box is in front of me and it is 12:00 noon and 30 degrees celcius then I open his magical box, the internal temperature is now 30 degrees and I close the box. Next I wait unltil 12:00 midnight when the temperature is 10 degrees celcius and I open his magical box and allow the difference in temperature (20 degrees) to perform work through some mechanism then close the box again. Now I could do this every day and night for a very long time and in every case I will gain energy, I will more than just break even and I have no need to cool anything to near absolute zero which is absurd. So how in the hell can I do what Mr.Snow says is impossible? well I managed to do the impossible because I simply opened his damn box and allowed what was inside to interact with the environment which was changing. You see Mr.Snow and his nonsensical statements can only apply to a completely isolated system(a magical closed box) which is designed so that it cannot interact with it's external environment therefore it is obvious that it cannot gain energy. However it should be just as obvious that if we open the box when the environment is changing then energy can and does enter the system. So here it is easy to see why this nonsensical arguement that FE devices are impossible because of the three laws of thermodynamics is completely absurd. His arguement relies solely on the fact that the inside of the closed box cannot interact with the environment therefore it cannot possible gain energy, he does not allow any interaction with the environment to prove his point that there can be none-- again he is a moron who has simply stated the obvious and nothing more.
All we have to do is open this magical isolated box at the correct time in a changing environment and we can show an energy gain and this does not violate the conservation of energy it substantiates it because energy is conserved.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.04.27, 17:09:53
Well you managed to violate the first law of thermodynamics when you stated no energy is required to lift a droplet of water because matter and energy are conserved. You also violated the second law of thermodynamics because we cannot even break even, however our nano-wall lifted water to a height of X which can then fall performing work as it returns to it's initial energy state at rest at the bottom of the wall.
You have me at a disadvantage with the nano material, as I cannot reference how it might work. A reference would be appreciated. I am concerned that whatever is causing water droplets to rise will also keep them from falling. So you would not be able to get free energy out of the cycle. But again, I would have to read about this before speaking intelligently.
As far as the analogous capillary action, the phenomenon that causes water to rise in a narrow space also holds it in place, so while it costs no energy to raise the water, it does cost energy to extract it from the narrow space, and nature is in balance. Perpetual motion machines based on capillary action have been attempted, but with no luck.
I would add that I think Ex is right, and if you want to calculate it, there is the potential energy of water that increases as it rises, and this is proportional to the chemical or electrostatic energy between the water molecules and the capillary. As one grows, the other decreases, and all is as it should be.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.27, 15:29:10
Not hard, but please provide equations for energy required to carbonate the soda beforehand.
Please read reply 126. We use empty 2 litre soda bottles. The carbonated water went into your stomach already.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.28, 01:55:56
Please read reply 126. We use empty 2 litre soda bottles. The carbonated water went into your stomach already.
OK, that makes it easier, but I am still not sure what your experiment proves.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.28, 14:10:06
The United Nations Person responsible for introducing High Technology to the Free Trade Zone, Mr. Yang, met the Hong Kong "Bring-in" energy researchers yesterday. The result was very encouraging.
The Hidro will be seriously investigated. If the result is positive, vast resources will be poured in.
I am glad that my "rocket science" explanation helped. Raising money to purchase a Hidro Unit from a non-profit organization may be difficult. Now, there may be dozens of orders from the Free Trade Zone Countries. There may be many more interested in licensing the technology. China will have a good outlet for its vast foreign currency reserve.
James Kwok and team will be happy with the financial returns. The World will see clean, energy-from-air devices. The Multiple LCR resonance technology will be closely followed. It will be a win-win for the hardworking researchers and the General Public.
God will guide the progress. There is nothing to worry. Amen.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.28, 13:23:11
Quote from: ltseung888 on Today at 02:55:56
Please read reply 126. We use empty 2 litre soda bottles. The carbonated water went into your stomach already.
OK, that makes it easier, but I am still not sure what your experiment proves.
The Hidro is not powered by buoyancy. It is powered by "soda bottle rockets" 15 meters under water!
Sorry that the formulae proposed by MH and team could not apply. They are not rocket scientists and can be excused for lack of knowledge in that area.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.28, 14:22:09
The Hidro is not powered by buoyancy. It is powered by "soda bottle rockets" 15 meters under water!
Sorry that the formulae proposed by MH and team could not apply. They are not rocket scientists and can be excused for lack of knowledge in that area.
So the air is pressurized inside the containers? Is that what creates the rocket effect?
Also, there is no free energy from rocketry.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.28, 14:51:38
So the air is pressurized inside the containers? Is that what creates the rocket effect?
Also, there is no free energy from rocketry.
Looks like you are not a rocket scientists also. Please study the paper by Dr. Kagan et al. If that is too difficult, do a google search on water rocket theory.
There is no free energy. However, there is air compressed into the rocket and air leaving the rocket. There is temperature drop - shown as condensation on the inside and outside of the soda bottle.
The soda bottle rocket is an OPEN system. Please study
energy from still air.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.28, 16:06:04
Looks like you are not a rocket scientists also. Please study the paper by Dr. Kagan et al. If that is too difficult, do a google search on water rocket theory.
There is no free energy. However, there is air compressed into the rocket and air leaving the rocket. There is temperature drop - shown as condensation on the inside and outside of the soda bottle. The soda bottle rocket is an OPEN system. Please study energy from still air.
I am not going to study energy from still air, since that is something that you just made up.
When the first production Hidro is sold and is producing energy, I will study how it works, not until then.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.27, 23:24:20
...
As far as the analogous capillary action, the phenomenon that causes water to rise in a narrow space also holds it in place, so while it costs no energy to raise the water, it does cost energy to extract it from the narrow space, and nature is in balance. Perpetual motion machines based on capillary action have been attempted, but with no luck.
...
Right. And it must be emphasized that it is the same phenomenon of capillary action that both raises the water and prevents the water from escaping the tube for a full cycle. So it is not a surprise here that "nature is in balance".
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.04.28, 16:24:41
...
When the first production Hidro is sold and is producing energy, I will study how it works, not until then.
I think also it is the best method O0. I'll do the same.
Lawrence:
QuoteSorry that the formulae proposed by MH and team could not apply. They are not rocket scientists and can be excused for lack of knowledge in that area.
I think that I'll wait for a working device too.
Meanwhile, in the day to day drama and trials and tribulations in the quest for free energy....
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn-2.html#post138584 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn-2.html#post138584)
QuoteHi Roland and Lawrence/ALL
Yes as explained the replication details are not present, plus you need custom mechanical parts, Hidro are not stupid they are a business they dont give out replication details.So we are starting a non profit drive to acquire it and help educate about sustainable technologies,. this is practical especially since i have been there to tell you guys that you wont be able to replicate it . not my choice , however i see opportunity for Hidro to stop gas fracking, this is an important issue for us.
Ash
So what's the truth here?
In my opinion Kwok has played his cards right with respect to Ash (frankly not hard to do), and Ash is falling for it. So Ash is "in play" for James Kwok. James hopes that will eventually turn into a nice big fat certified check addressed to his company.
Don't give a single cent to Ash via Panacea or PayPal or whatever.
MileHigh
Talk about reviving a ghost! There has been some recent "action" on the Hidro front and I sent a YouTube email to Ash's partner Andrew:
>>>
Hi Andrew,
I am going to assume that the "50 kilowatts output" is simply what was told to Ash by James Kwok and that was never tested or proved.
Think about that, seriously. Where does the 50 kilowatt number come from? How do you actually prove that?
I look at that tower and I can't possibly conceive that it can output 50 kilowatts. Where is the load? Where is the generator that is supposed to be connected to the tower to drive the load? Perhaps James Kwok says that he doesn't have the mechanical gearbox and the generator to generate the electrical output but you are just going to have to take it for granted that the spinning shaft at the Hidro tower output can output 50 kilowatts if he had the gearbox and the generator and the load to connect up to it. Hence he needs more "research funds" to "sponsor" his ongoing activities.
Well, don't believe James and it's time to start thinking about this in more detail.
What is 50 kilowatts? That's a hell of a lot of power. Supposing a bake element in a kitchen stove is 1.5 kilowatts. That means you would have to set up about 33 bake elements outside in a cordoned off area so that you could safely dissipate 50 kilowatts and verify the output!
You know and I know and Ash knows that has never been done!
That tower probably produces less than a kilowatt of power, and that power comes from a tank of compressed air and nowhere else.
When you look at that tower there is a compressed air tank that is pumping air into the moveable buoys at the bottom of the tower so they can float up to the top. In the process of floating to the top they are connected to some sort of belt system that ultimately turns a shaft and I will assume that there is no mechanical load on that shaft when the system is demoed! James Kwok points to that turning shaft and claims it can drive a gearbox and a generator and a load (which he doesn't have) to output 50 kilowatts of electrical power and he is simply lying.
So, yes, one or two compressed air tanks can make the buoys go up and down in the Hidro tower for an hour or more and create the illusion of a free energy device that produces 50 kilowatts.
The illusion is broken the moment you use your critical thinking skills and start to think about how much power 50 kilowatts really is and how you have never actually seen James Kwok show anything even remotely resembling a 50 kilowatt load connected to the Hidro tower.
I am being serious here, this whole thing is a con job. Demand to see some proof of the 50 kilowatt generating capacity from James Kwok. Go see the tower and have a stethoscope hidden in your briefcase. When the tower is running take out the stethoscope and put it up against all of the accessible components in the tower and listen for valves opening and closing and listen for the hissing sound of flowing compressed air. Try to localize the source of the hissing and bust James Kwok!
Now that would be sweet if you turned the tables on James and exposed him for the con artist that he really is.
I will repeat myself; no matter what James Kwok tells you or shows you under NDA, do your due diligence and demand proof from James that the demo unit can output 50 kilowatts. Go to the site armed with your stethoscope and find that source of compressed air and bust him.
That will be a sobering moment, and good moment, for the two of you.
MileHigh
If he's using compressed air to generate 50kw you would probably kill yourself tripping over the compressor and storage tank :o
Depending on how much additional air is required for a cycle of operation, small high pressure air tanks are available ...
http://www.deep-six.com/textbook%20photos/tank%20data.jpg
for a example ... 120 CuFt of air @ 3500PSI in a tank 7 1/4" dia x 28 5/8" long is a size that could be possibly hidden and used in short runs of operation for demo purposes
Fuzzy
:)
P.S. The "old school" mechanics method of using a stethoscope to hear sounds inside of objects you cant see in, is a really good idea and very effective. ;)