Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report

Author Topic: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report (Read 62547 times)

Topic Options

vonwolf

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #50 on: 2011-04-05, 02:36:52 »

Newbie

Posts: 18

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

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #51 on: 2011-04-05, 03:39:11 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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

Allcanadian

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #52 on: 2011-04-05, 08:17:30 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3054

@Humbugger

Quote

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!

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

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

exnihiloest

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #53 on: 2011-04-05, 08:53:30 »

Newbie

Posts: 1504

Quote from: humbugger on 2011-04-04, 21:18:09

...
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?

... 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.

humbugger

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #54 on: 2011-04-05, 09:24:57 »

Newbie

Posts: 370

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-05, 08:17:30

@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

Allcanadian

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #55 on: 2011-04-05, 16:29:18 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3054

@Milehigh

Quote

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 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

« Last Edit: 2011-04-05, 18:53:29 by allcanadian »

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #56 on: 2011-04-06, 04:00:41 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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

Farrah Day

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #57 on: 2011-04-06, 08:42:36 »

Newbie

Posts: 651

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-04-06, 04:00:41

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!

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #58 on: 2011-04-07, 01:46:22 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

Quoting Ash:

Quote

Thanks 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!

Quote

That 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:

Quote

The 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.

Quote

But 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

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #59 on: 2011-04-07, 02:51:30 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

So in the CleanTech news there is a picture of the small test unit that they are playing with:

Quoting Ash:

Quote

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.

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

FuzzyTomCat

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #60 on: 2011-04-07, 06:09:56 »

Newbie

Posts: 101

Hi everyone,

Here is some more information I was able to find .....

http://hydrodynamicgeneration.com/

The Hidro+™ 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

Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report

Hidro-P&ID-complete.jpg (190.42 kB, 1600x1123 - viewed 937 times.)

Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report

hidro_engineerings_demo.png (257.24 kB, 1403x992 - viewed 878 times.)

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #61 on: 2011-04-08, 01:10:27 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #62 on: 2011-04-08, 01:30:26 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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

BEP

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #63 on: 2011-04-08, 02:33:03 »

Newbie

Posts: 2205

"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.

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #64 on: 2011-04-08, 02:43:19 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011-04-08, 02:33:03

"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

BEP

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #65 on: 2011-04-08, 03:13:31 »

Newbie

Posts: 2205

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-04-08, 02:43:19

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.

Farrah Day	Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #66 on: 2011-04-08, 15:58:29 »
Newbie Posts: 651	Quote 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. Intelligent crooks, eh... whatever next? Like Fast Freddy then... but with a brain!

Allcanadian

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #67 on: 2011-04-08, 20:10:24 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3054

@Milehigh

Quote

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.

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

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #68 on: 2011-04-09, 00:51:45 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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.

Quote

Your 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

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #69 on: 2011-04-09, 01:13:06 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

AC:

Quote

the 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.

Quote

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

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.

Quote

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.

This will complicate the setup but not change the ultimate energy dynamics.

Quote

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.

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

MileHigh	Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #70 on: 2011-04-10, 21:38:10 »
Newbie Posts: 1888	Here is another person doing essentially the same pitch at James Kwok: http://hydroenergyrevolution.com/ Another scammer, there are some on OU that have said the same thing.

Allcanadian

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #71 on: 2011-04-11, 22:13:54 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3054

@Milehigh

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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----

Quote

Mathematics 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

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

poynt99

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #72 on: 2011-04-11, 23:31:54 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 3538
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

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.

.99

---------------------------

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

MileHigh

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #73 on: 2011-04-12, 01:09:58 »

Newbie

Posts: 1888

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

exnihiloest

Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #74 on: 2011-04-12, 09:12:13 »

Newbie

Posts: 1504

Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-11, 22:13:54

...
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.

« Last Edit: 2011-04-14, 12:58:46 by exnihiloest »