Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report

[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

[Farrah Day]

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.  

[Groundloop]

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.

[MileHigh]

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

[Chet K]

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

[Groundloop]

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.

[Groundloop]

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.

[MileHigh]

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

[Groundloop]

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.

[MileHigh]

When you add water to the tube you change the center of gravity of the tube.

MileHigh

[Groundloop]

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.

[MileHigh]

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]

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

The relevant text:

The Hidro+™ 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

[MileHigh]

From the Google search "James Kwok fraud:"

http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/3686

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=

05-93 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

9 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.

[FuzzyTomCat]

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

[MileHigh]

A little bit more fun searching:

http://www.southernhighlandnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/trust-me-i-have-the-power/1853534.aspx

Now, 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

Council 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

Wingecarribee 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.

[Allcanadian]

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.

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.

The Hidro+™ 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

[humbugger]

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

[Room3327]

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?

[humbugger]

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

[Room3327]

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

[Groundloop]

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.

[vonwolf]

  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

[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

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?

[MileHigh]

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