# Ultimate energy source



## watchingfromafar

*Ultimate energy source*

I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.

I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.

Please see post #2 for the basic concept.


----------



## watchingfromafar

asdfasdfsdfds


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Won't work because.....tanstaafl.


----------



## watchingfromafar

The image I am using is too hard to see. I am trying to reduce the image size. Once done I will repost the image.


----------



## fncceo

Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Won't work because.....tanstaafl.



Maybe, maybe not put I do know .tanstaafl is not the problem


----------



## watchingfromafar

fncceo said:


> Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.



I need to know if the image is readable-?
The lines are too thin. Tomorrow I will go back to my office and thicken the lines. I will also reduce the image size 50%
Having said this, do you understand the overall concept-?


----------



## percysunshine

Burning penguin poop? That is the great idea?


----------



## WheelieAddict

watchingfromafar said:


> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.


You figure out something yet? Like our own personal mini sun we can all afford? I'm high on the waiting list for that product, I'l get to be one of the first!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?


----------



## Ringel05

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?


Trained dolphins......


----------



## fncceo

watchingfromafar said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to know if the image is readable-?
Click to expand...


Readable enough to know what you're talking about is what was once referred to as 'perpetual motion', the idea that a machine, once set in motion, could keep moving indefinitely.

Unfortunately, Newtonian Physics prohibits perpetual motion.  External forces, friction, gravity, thermodynamics, all conspire to stall your machine in pretty quick order.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?



When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
-


----------



## fncceo

Ringel05 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> Trained dolphins......
Click to expand...


Forget it ... dolphins have an insane union.






You don't mess with them.


----------



## watchingfromafar

fncceo said:


> Readable enough to know what you're talking about is what was once referred to as 'perpetual motion',



There is nothing perpetual here. 
Still I say think you for replying.
-


----------



## WheelieAddict

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?


Free Alien labor. I hear they do it to be nice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't work because.....tanstaafl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not put I do know .tanstaafl is not the problem
Click to expand...


Tanstaafl isn't the problem, your lack of understanding is the problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?



He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power when the air returns to the surface.
Because no friction and free lunches are cool!!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
Click to expand...


How is it filled with air?

Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> How is it filled with air?
> 
> Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.



An air pump on a barge at the top filles the buckets.
The machine is 600 feet tall with 11 buckets rising


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power



The power is the rising force. 
I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
Any suggestions-?
-


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it filled with air?
> 
> Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An air pump on a barge at the top filles the buckets.
> The machine is 600 feet tall with 11 buckets rising
Click to expand...


So what drives the air pump?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...


No matter what, it will be less than the energy created by device because of energy losses due to friction and heat.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it filled with air?
> 
> Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An air pump on a barge at the top filles the buckets.
> The machine is 600 feet tall with 11 buckets rising
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what drives the air pump?
Click to expand...

Our own personal mini suns will power our personal air/water/sewage pumps of course.


----------



## WheelieAddict

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...

Reminds me how gravity has been tried as a free energy source in the past, or claimed to be. It actually is with hydroelectric installations like Niagra Falls but such a small scale while helpful is basically insignificant looking at total energy demand.


----------



## fncceo

Still waiting for ...


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...


600 ft = 182.88 meters
Psi at depth = about 1 atmosphere (14.6 psi) per 10 meters
182,88/10= 18.288 atmospheres
18.288 x 14.6 = 267.0048

It would take 267.0048 psi just to fill the hose with air. Not enough information on size or weight of bucket, or weight per foot of cable  to calculate additional pressure needed  or volume required to fill buckets at required rate, but we're talking about a pretty big compressor which would take more energy to run than you could ever get from your idea.


----------



## Erinwltr

watchingfromafar said:


> asdfasdfsdfds


Are you using the tide for this thing?  Or a flux capacitor?


----------



## Osiris-ODS

Someone just needs to figure out how to build and install a Dyson sphere around the sun and we'll be good to go on energy for the next 100,000 years or so.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> asdfasdfsdfds


I can see the image when I click on it.  It opens in its own window.  However, I fail to see what is suppose to power this contraption.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...

If you assume a perfect machine (perpetual motion) 100% efficient with no losses to friction, etc.  The energy needed to pump the air would be equal to the energy generated by your device.  Sorry, it's not going to work.  That;s why no one is already using that concept to generate energy.


----------



## JoeMoma

In other words, the energy it takes to push the air down is equal to the kinetic energy of the air coming back up.


----------



## Third Party

WheelieAddict said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.
> 
> 
> 
> You figure out something yet? Like our own personal mini sun we can all afford? I'm high on the waiting list for that product, I'l get to be one of the first!
Click to expand...

We already invented it-its called nuclear power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...


*The power is the rising force. *

Which is less than the force needed to compress the air and send it down.

*Any suggestions-?*

Find a way to get air down without using any power.


----------



## watchingfromafar




----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The power is the rising force. *
> Which is less than the force needed to compress the air and send it down.
> *Any suggestions-?*
> Find a way to get air down without using any power.


You are missing the multiplier effect.  The power it took to pump the air into one bucket is multiplied by (11) buckets rising together.
-


----------



## Dick Foster

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
Click to expand...


Pulling your head out of your ass would be the necessary first step.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The power is the rising force. *
> Which is less than the force needed to compress the air and send it down.
> *Any suggestions-?*
> Find a way to get air down without using any power.
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the multiplier effect.  The power it took to pump the air into one bucket is multiplied by (11) buckets rising together.
> -
Click to expand...

Air has to be pumped into each bucket, thus there is no multiplier effect.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Dick Foster said:


> Pulling your head out of your ass would be the necessary first step.



When you are talking about yourself it's best not to repeat your own thoughts on a public forum; unless of course this is a therapeutic means of self-healing.
If that's the case, please carry on and I hope you overcome this condition.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Air has to be pumped into each bucket, thus there is no multiplier effect.



The multiplier effect is the 11 buckets pulling "together" which increases the torque


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Find a way to get air down without using any power.


I hadn’t thought about this until your post but there is a lot of “gas” at Hydrothermal vents spewing out a lot of “gas” that is compressed at those depths.






-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The power is the rising force. *
> Which is less than the force needed to compress the air and send it down.
> *Any suggestions-?*
> Find a way to get air down without using any power.
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the multiplier effect.  The power it took to pump the air into one bucket is multiplied by (11) buckets rising together.
> -
Click to expand...


You're only filling 1/11 buckets?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a way to get air down without using any power.
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn’t thought about this until your post but there is a lot of “gas” at Hydrothermal vents spewing out a lot of “gas” that if compressed at those depths.
> 
> 
> View attachment 272578
> -
Click to expand...


*I hadn’t thought about this until your post*

That list grows ever longer.

*there is a lot of “gas” at Hydrothermal vents *

Great. How deep does your "generator" need to extend to take advantage?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air has to be pumped into each bucket, thus there is no multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The multiplier effect is the 11 buckets pulling "together" which increases the torque
Click to expand...



The multiplier effect is the water resistance of 11 buckets slowing "together" which decreases the torque


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air has to be pumped into each bucket, thus there is no multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The multiplier effect is the 11 buckets pulling "together" which increases the torque
Click to expand...

And the air has to be pumped into each of the 11 buckets.  You are not getting anything for free.


----------



## Crepitus

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?


Like all perpetual motion machines it relies on the FM principal.


----------



## Wry Catcher

percysunshine said:


> Burning penguin poop? That is the great idea?



Not enough poop, best to go to a press conference at the White House and collect the bullshit left at the podium.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're only filling 1/11 buckets?



I don't understand what you are saying-?
still, thanks for your thoughts
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Crepitus said:


> Like all perpetual motion machines it relies on the FM principal.



please explain -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're only filling 1/11 buckets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying-?
> still, thanks for your thoughts
> -
Click to expand...


*You are missing the multiplier effect. The power it took to pump the air into one bucket is multiplied by (11) buckets rising together.*

You're only filling 1/11 buckets?

*I don't understand what you are saying-?*

Or physics.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or physics.


Listen, I am honestly trying to come up with a new way to generate electricity and if this idea can’t fly, please point out why-?

I guess I’m talking to the wrong folks; my mistake, not yours

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, I am honestly trying to come up with a new way to generate electricity and if this idea can’t fly to please point out why-?
> 
> I guess I’m talking to the wrong folks; my mistake, not yours
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*Listen, I am honestly trying to come up with a new way to generate electricity and if this idea can’t fly to please point out why*

It's been explained why it won't fly. By me and by others.

It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.


----------



## watchingfromafar




----------



## Crepitus

watchingfromafar said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all perpetual motion machines it relies on the FM principal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please explain -
Click to expand...

Lol, really?

It's Fucking Magic mang.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.


You may be right and then again maybe not.

I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.

Game over

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right and then again maybe not.
> 
> I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.
> 
> Game over
> 
> -
Click to expand...

So you only going to fill one of the 11 buckets with air.  How will the 10 buckets without air contribute to power your machine?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right and then again maybe not.
> 
> I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.
> 
> Game over
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together*

If 11 buckets are "pulling" you have to fill 11 buckets, not one.

*and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.*

This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right and then again maybe not.
> 
> I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.
> 
> Game over
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together*
> 
> If 11 buckets are "pulling" you have to fill 11 buckets, not one.
> 
> *and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.*
> 
> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.
Click to expand...

The first I saw of it was hours ago.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeMoma said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right and then again maybe not.
> 
> I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.
> 
> Game over
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together*
> 
> If 11 buckets are "pulling" you have to fill 11 buckets, not one.
> 
> *and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.*
> 
> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first I saw of it was hours ago.
Click to expand...


He's posted this multiple times.


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take more energy to pump the air down than will be generated by your device.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right and then again maybe not.
> 
> I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.
> 
> Game over
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I will have to calculate the energy needed to fill one bucket and compare this to the energy you get out of all 11 buckets pulling together*
> 
> If 11 buckets are "pulling" you have to fill 11 buckets, not one.
> 
> *and I don’t have the knowledge to do this so I concede.*
> 
> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first I saw of it was hours ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's posted this multiple times.
Click to expand...

Okie doke!  I don't usually hang out in the energy forum.  I saw this thread in the list of new threads this morning.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.


It is obvious that this is not the forum where people have gone beyond 2+2=4
just a joke
It's been fun & entertaining but not educational
no animosity intended or implied
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that this is not the forum where people have gone beyond 2+2=4
> just a joke
> It's been fun & entertaining but not educational
> no animosity intended or implied
> -
Click to expand...


If you think your device goes beyond 2+2=4, you need to recheck your math.

Pointing out your confusion is just basic physics.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been obvious since the first time you posted this.....months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that this is not the forum where people have gone beyond 2+2=4
> just a joke
> It's been fun & entertaining but not educational
> no animosity intended or implied
> -
Click to expand...

You are obviously missing that you have to consider the energy required to pump air into all eleven buckets, not just one, for your machine to work.  There is no multiplier effect.

If there were a multiplier effect, you could get nearly infinite energy by simply adding more buckets.


----------



## JoeMoma

This might help!

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia

It is not possible for a machine to be it's own energy source.  And that is exactly what you are proposing because if your device could work, then it could be used to power it's self (and more) indefinitely.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> If there were a multiplier effect, you could get nearly infinite energy by simply adding more buckets.


If you have one (1) bucket full of air and this bucket has a lifting force of 20lbs and this bucket is attached to nine (9) other buckets with the same lifting force; then you have a combined lifting force of 200 lbs.

This is as simple as it gets.

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were a multiplier effect, you could get nearly infinite energy by simply adding more buckets.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have one (1) bucket full of air and this bucket has a lifting force of 20lbs and this bucket is attached to nine (9) other buckets with the same lifting force; then you have a combined lifting force of 200 lbs.
> 
> This is as simple as it gets.
> 
> -
Click to expand...

How many buckets get filled with air, 1 or 10?  (1 or 11 in the earlier examples).


You don't get 10 buckets lifting lifting with a combined force of 200 lbs at the energy cost of filling only one bucket with air.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> You don't get 10 buckets lifting lifting with a combined force of 200 lbs at the energy cost of filling only one bucket with air.


You are not talking into account “time” and the power of torque.

I would like to find someone who could “prove” this concept cannot work; just saying so falls a bit short.

Of course, it takes energy to fill one bucket with air but once you have filled all 11 buckets you have the combined pulling force of all eleven buckets at the same “time”.

I will try to calculate the energy needed to fill a bucket with air at a depth of 600 feet and the energy return from the combined torque force generated from the 11 buckets. If the numbers are a wash I will drip this gizmo.


-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get 10 buckets lifting lifting with a combined force of 200 lbs at the energy cost of filling only one bucket with air.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not talking into account “time” and the power of torque.
> 
> I would like to find someone who could “prove” this concept cannot work; just saying so falls a bit short.
> 
> Of course, it takes energy to fill one bucket with air but once you have filled all 11 buckets you have the combined pulling force of all eleven buckets at the same “time”.
> 
> I will try to calculate the energy needed to fill a bucket with air at a depth of 600 feet and the energy return from the combined torque force generated from the 11 buckets. If the numbers are a wash I will drip this gizmo.
> 
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*Of course, it takes energy to fill one bucket with air but once you have filled all 11 buckets you have the combined pulling force of all eleven buckets at the same “time”.*

How much energy is lost to the force of friction?


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get 10 buckets lifting lifting with a combined force of 200 lbs at the energy cost of filling only one bucket with air.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not talking into account “time” and the power of torque.
> 
> I would like to find someone who could “prove” this concept cannot work; just saying so falls a bit short.
> 
> Of course, it takes energy to fill one bucket with air but once you have filled all 11 buckets you have the combined pulling force of all eleven buckets at the same “time”.
> 
> -
Click to expand...

Torque acts as a force multiplier, not an energy multiplier.

I suggest you sit down with an engineer face to face to have it explained.  Apparently a message board is not sufficient


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Torque acts as a force multiplier, not an energy multiplier.



Again you are missing the point. 
If you have a gear that is 48" in diameter that is meshed into a gear that is 6" in diameter and the two are meshed tooth to tooth and the larger gear is turning at 10 revolutions a minute, how fast is the smaller gear turning-?
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Torque acts as a force multiplier, not an energy multiplier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are missing the point.
> If you have a gear that is 48" in diameter that is meshed into a gear that is 6" in diameter and the two are meshed tooth to tooth and the larger gear is turning at 10 revolutions a minute, how fast is the smaller gear turning-?
> -
Click to expand...

I would say 80 revolutions per minute........which doesn't matter a hill of beans.  What matters is a law of physics called the law of conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

"In physics and chemistry, the *law of conservation of energy* states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be _conserved_ over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."

Let's say you have an electric pump to pump air to power your machine.  Your machine is used to turn a generator to generate electricity.   According to the law pf conservation of energy, for each watt of energy used by the air pump, the most energy you can generate on the other end would be 1 watt.  And that is only if everything involved is 100% energy efficient.  No machine is 100% efficient, there will always be inefficiencies due to friction.

So you can do a million different torque calculations if you like, but the energy output by a machine will never be greater than the energy input to the machine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Torque acts as a force multiplier, not an energy multiplier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are missing the point.
> If you have a gear that is 48" in diameter that is meshed into a gear that is 6" in diameter and the two are meshed tooth to tooth and the larger gear is turning at 10 revolutions a minute, how fast is the smaller gear turning-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say 80 revolutions per minute........which doesn't matter a hill of beans.  What matters is a law of physics called the law of conservation of energy.
> 
> Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
> 
> "In physics and chemistry, the *law of conservation of energy* states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be _conserved_ over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
> 
> Let's say you have an electric pump to pump air to power your machine.  Your machine is used to turn a generator to generate electricity.   According to the law pf conservation of energy, for each watt of energy used by the air pump, the most energy you can generate on the other end would be 1 watt.  And that is only if everything involved is 100% energy efficient.  No machine is 100% efficient, there will always be inefficiencies due to friction.
> 
> So you can do a million different torque calculations if you like, but the energy output by a machine will never be greater than the energy input to the machine.
Click to expand...


But...…..science and math isn't helpful for his free energy idea...…...


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Torque acts as a force multiplier, not an energy multiplier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are missing the point.
> If you have a gear that is 48" in diameter that is meshed into a gear that is 6" in diameter and the two are meshed tooth to tooth and the larger gear is turning at 10 revolutions a minute, how fast is the smaller gear turning-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say 80 revolutions per minute........which doesn't matter a hill of beans.  What matters is a law of physics called the law of conservation of energy.
> 
> Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
> 
> "In physics and chemistry, the *law of conservation of energy* states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be _conserved_ over time.[1] This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
> 
> Let's say you have an electric pump to pump air to power your machine.  Your machine is used to turn a generator to generate electricity.   According to the law pf conservation of energy, for each watt of energy used by the air pump, the most energy you can generate on the other end would be 1 watt.  And that is only if everything involved is 100% energy efficient.  No machine is 100% efficient, there will always be inefficiencies due to friction.
> 
> So you can do a million different torque calculations if you like, but the energy output by a machine will never be greater than the energy input to the machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But...…..science and math isn't helpful for his free energy idea...…...
Click to expand...

Well maybe someone will stumble on this thread and learn some basic physics.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much energy is lost to the force of friction?


The buckets are coated with a Teflon type substance to minimize friction and to prevent organisms from attaching themselves to the buckets.
thanks for your contribution; at least you introduced a possible obstacle to overcome.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much energy is lost to the force of friction?
> 
> 
> 
> The buckets are coated with a Teflon type substance to minimize friction and to prevent organisms from attaching themselves to the buckets.
> thanks for your contribution; at least you introduced a possible obstacle to overcome.
> -
Click to expand...


Anything to get you closer to a 50% loss.


----------



## JoeMoma




----------



## JoeMoma




----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But...…..science and math isn't helpful for his free energy idea...…...


This is not "free" energy. 
To begin this calculation I must first calculate how much energy is required to pump the air down to 600 feet and the volume of air needed to fill each bucket.
 At 600 feet the pressure is 280.995 psi. 
To calculate the process I need to use a common energy equivalent and I have decided to use horsepower.
I also need a three dimensional model to work with.
To do this I need to use our auto-cad program at my office. 
So at this moment I am off to my office to make the needed calculations.
I will log on to this site when I get there.
See you then.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

Well, I guess it is good to have a hobby to keep you busy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...…..science and math isn't helpful for his free energy idea...…...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not "free" energy.
> To begin this calculation I must first calculate how much energy is required to pump the air down to 600 feet and the volume of air needed to fill each bucket.
> At 600 feet the pressure is 280.995 psi.
> To calculate the process I need to use a common energy equivalent and I have decided to use horsepower.
> I also need a three dimensional model to work with.
> To do this I need to use our auto-cad program at my office.
> So at this moment I am off to my office to make the needed calculations.
> I will log on to this site when I get there.
> See you then.
> -
Click to expand...


*This is not "free" energy. *

Getting out less than you put in is definitely not free energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Getting out less than you put in is definitely not free energy.


In my diagram there are actually 12 buckets on the right side rising, not 11

*Toddsterpatriot,* if you had a bucket sealed on all sides that contained 250,000 cubic feet of air--
How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?
How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of  600 feet, how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface-?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting out less than you put in is definitely not free energy.
> 
> 
> 
> In my diagram there are actually 12 buckets on the right side rising, not 11
> 
> *Toddsterpatriot,* if you had a bucket sealed on all sides that contained 250,000 cubic feet of air--
> How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?
> How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of  600 feet, how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface-?
Click to expand...


*How much force would you need to apply to push this bucket under water-?
*
A lot.

*How much force would this bucket have if you had it sitting on the ocean bottom at a depth of  600 feet,*

Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".

*how much force would the bucket apply in an effort to rise to the surface*

How to Calculate Buoyancy


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".


What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?

This bucket has a volume of 250,000 cubic feet of air and it wants to rise; what is that rising force?
Ok, I admit I am trying to get someone else to do the math for me while doing the math is the interesting part.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

I believe a one cubic foot of air has a rising force of 64 lbs.

Each bucket contains 250,000 cubic feet of air.

250,000 x 64=16,000,000 lbs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain what you mean when a "bucket has force".
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?
> 
> This bucket has a volume of 250,000 cubic feet of air and it wants to rise; what is that rising force?
> Ok, I admit I am trying to get someone else to do the math for me while doing the math is the interesting part.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*What I mean is; how much lifting force does this bucket have when full of air while under water-?*

Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
Subtract even more when it powers your "device".


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
> Subtract even more when it powers your "device".


Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.



No bucket was pushed to the ocean floor.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Ok, I give up. I’m going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers and if he/she says no way then I’m off to other things.

Still, thanks for your efforts in trying to teach me the obvious.

BTW: I think Trump was elected because he lied and lied while the votor's believed each and every one of his lies. 
Those days are over, we now know who and what he truly is.
-

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
> Subtract even more when it powers your "device".
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
> -
Click to expand...


*Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture.*

I see the big picture. 

*I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?*

Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bucket was pushed to the ocean floor.
Click to expand...


Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.



Friction is not the killing factor here; but nice try.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?



Yes, the air was pushed down a tube to the bottom. As I said before I am going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers.
Freakly I didn't think you were going to continue with this discussion after what I said about Trump.

wish you and yours a great day and beyond
bye
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 12 times the friction that you'd experience with one bucket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friction is not the killing factor here; but nice try.
Click to expand...


Friction is most definitely going to greatly reduce the output of your device.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than it took to push it to the ocean floor.
> Subtract even more when it powers your "device".
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply but it is clear you are no seeing the big picture. I agree it took (x) amount of energy to fill each bucket but you are not taking into account that all twelve (12) buckets are trying to rise to the surface “at the same time”; doesn’t this create a multiplying effect?
> -
Click to expand...

No it does not.  To fill a bucket, you have to pump 250,000 cubit feet of air a distance of 600 ft under water.  Work, which is another way to describe energy is force times distance.  Each bucket of air will eventually travel the same distance up out of the water.  So when your machine is running, each time a bucket travels 600 ft to release its air, another bucket is filled by air that is pumped 600 ft down under water.  Think of it this way, the 250,000 cubit ft volume of air you send (pump) down goes down 12 times faster than than the 250,000 cubit ft volume buckets move up.

Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient)  Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.

People have been trying for centuries, but no one has developed a system in which the output energy is greater than or equal to the input energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow push air down to the ocean floor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the air was pushed down a tube to the bottom. As I said before I am going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers.
> Freakly I didn't think you were going to continue with this discussion after what I said about Trump.
> 
> wish you and yours a great day and beyond
> bye
> -
Click to expand...


Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient) Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.


I accept your data and results. Having said that,

Let’s talk in more simpler terms.

You have energy (x) applying a force= energy (A)

You have energy (x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x) applying a force = energy (B)

Which one is applying more energy at any given moment in time, (A) or (B)?


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Ok, I give up. I’m going to hire a mechanical engineer to run the numbers and if he/she says no way then I’m off to other things.
> 
> Still, thanks for your efforts in trying to teach me the obvious.
> 
> BTW: I think Trump was elected because he lied and lied while the votor's believed each and every one of his lies.
> Those days are over, we now know who and what he truly is.
> -
> 
> -


A mechanical engineer will tell you in two seconds that it will not work, but I'm sure if you are willing to pay enough he will work out some numbers to show you.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".



I'll do more than that. He/she will draw a diagram showing the numbers adding up one side and subtracting the other. According to you the bottom line number will be a negative one.
Either way I will post the conclusion
until then
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line, the energy (work) it takes to move 250,000 cubit feet of air 600 ft under water is equal to the kinetic energy released by 250,000 cubit feet of air moving 600 ft to the surface of the water (assuming all is 100% energy efficient) Nothing is 100% energy efficient, so you end up expending more energy than you generate.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your data and results. Having said that,
> 
> Let’s talk in more simpler terms.
> 
> You have energy (x) applying a force= energy (A)
> 
> You have energy (x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x)+(x) applying a force = energy (B)
> 
> Which one is applying more energy at any given moment in time, (A) or (B)?
Click to expand...

Work (another way of describing energy)  = force x distance

It takes the same amount of work/energy to lift a 1 lb object 10 feet as it takes to lift a 10 lb object one foot.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> It takes the same amount of work/energy to lift a 1 lb object 10 feet as it takes to lift a 10 lb object one foot.


You are mixing apples and oranges calling them both fruit but they have nothing in common.

If you only have the power to lift 1 lb, 10 feet it matters not if you try to lift 10 lb because you can only lift 1 lb; period

Now if you have a gadget that can lift 1 lb 10 feet and you then have 10 gadgets lifting together then my guess is they can life 10 lbs
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do more than that. He/she will draw a diagram showing the numbers adding up one side and subtracting the other. According to you the bottom line number will be a negative one.
> Either way I will post the conclusion
> until then
> -
Click to expand...


* According to you the bottom line number will be a negative one.*

Without a doubt.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know how long he laughs when you explain your "idea".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do more than that. He/she will draw a diagram showing the numbers adding up one side and subtracting the other. According to you the bottom line number will be a negative one.
> Either way I will post the conclusion
> until then
> -[/QUOTE
Click to expand...


How much money are you willing to spend?

The engineer will have to fill in some information you have not provided.  For example, what is the energy efficiency of you pump.  I will doubt that you will not find one that is more than 95% energy efficient, which means you will have at least a 5 % energy loss just by pumping the air under water.

Anyway, you get what you pay for, and if you hire a competent engineer, it could cost a nice roll of cash


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes the same amount of work/energy to lift a 1 lb object 10 feet as it takes to lift a 10 lb object one foot.
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing apples and oranges calling them both fruit but they have nothing in common.
> 
> If you only have the power to lift 1 lb, 10 feet it matters not if you try to lift 10 lb because you can only lift 1 lb; period
> 
> Now if you have a gadget that can lift 1 lb 10 feet and you then have 10 gadgets lifting together then my guess is they can life 10 lbs
> -
Click to expand...

No, actually you are the one mixing apples an oranges.  You don't understand the mathematical relationship between force and energy.   Of course that's why you need to find that engineer.


----------



## watchingfromafar

What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

*Oil field production decline*
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

*A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

_When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
*Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions
> 
> *Oil field production decline*
> Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
> Oil depletion - Wikipedia
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*



I predict we'll still be using fossil fuels decades after you give up on your ocean generator.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I predict we'll still be using fossil fuels decades after you give up on your ocean generator.



I hope your "prediction" comes true but as you and I know, predictions are no better than assumptions which reminds me of "ass-out-of-you-and-me"
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

There is one factor no one here has considered.

Filling the first 12 buckets is a zero sum game but once the 12 buckets are full and pushing to reach the surface; every new bucket filled not only adds to the sum total but it’s energy contribution is coupled with the 12 before it.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> There is one factor no one here has considered.
> 
> Filling the first 12 buckets is a zero sum game but once the 12 buckets are full and pushing to reach the surface; every new bucket filled not only adds to the sum total but it’s energy contribution is coupled with the 12 before it.
> -


Find that engineer!  And then get back to us as you promised.  

And yes, that has been considered, but that does not work like you think.  Already tried to explain why.


----------



## JoeMoma




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> There is one factor no one here has considered.
> 
> Filling the first 12 buckets is a zero sum game but once the 12 buckets are full and pushing to reach the surface; every new bucket filled not only adds to the sum total but it’s energy contribution is coupled with the 12 before it.
> -



Yes, you've just multiplied the energy loss due to friction.


----------



## danielpalos

...fusion (an energy with a future).


----------



## watchingfromafar

danielpalos said:


> ...fusion (an energy with a future).



I agree fusion has its possibilities but just remember it's not one or the other. Either or both or even other ideas combined could bring us to where we want to be,.
_*Fusion power* is a proposed form of power generationthat would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions. In a fusion process, two lighter atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, while releasing energy. Devices designed to harness this energy are known as *fusion reactors*.

 Research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s, *but to date, no design has produced more fusion power output than the electrical power input*, defeating the purpose.[1] A second issue that affects common reactions, is managing neutrons that are released during the reaction, which over time degrade many common materials used within the reaction chamber.

Fusion researchers have investigated various confinement concepts. The early emphasis was on three main systems: z-pinch, stellarator and magnetic mirror. The current leading designs are the tokamak and inertial confinement (ICF) by laser. *Both designs are under research at very large scales*, most notably the ITER tokamak in France, and the National Ignition Facilitylaser in the United States. Researchers are also studying other designs that may offer cheaper approaches. Among these alternatives there is increasing interest in magnetized target fusionand inertial electrostatic confinement, and new variations of the stellarator._
Fusion power - Wikipedia
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Anyway, you get what you pay for, and if you hire a competent engineer, it could cost a nice roll of cash



There are two phases to this.
(1) the energy to run the system
(2) the energy produced by the system
At the moment I am offering $1,000 to spend two hours running the basic numbers.
Currently I have three (3) mechanical engineers who are willing to run the numbers.
I gave them 30 days to do their thing. None of the Engineers know I have two others doing the same thing.
When they deliver their report I'll post them here.
Until then, I wish the best to you and yours for all time to come.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

So phase 1 is the energy (watts) to run the air pump, and phase 2 is the output energy (watts) of an electric generator turned by your device.

Phase 1 will be a number greater than phase 2.


$3,000 is a nice chunk of change to verify.


----------



## JoeMoma

BULLDOG said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600 ft = 182.88 meters
> Psi at depth = about 1 atmosphere (14.6 psi) per 10 meters
> 182,88/10= 18.288 atmospheres
> 18.288 x 14.6 = 267.0048
> 
> It would take 267.0048 psi just to fill the hose with air. Not enough information on size or weight of bucket, or weight per foot of cable  to calculate additional pressure needed  or volume required to fill buckets at required rate, but we're talking about a pretty big compressor which would take more energy to run than you could ever get from your idea.
Click to expand...

Also, gases compress with pressure.  Air is a gas.  Assuming constant temperature, Boyle's law shows P1V1 = P2V2 (The numbers should be subscripts)  The air pressure at the surface of the water is 1 atmosphere.  Using Bulldog's calculation, the air 600 feet under water is at a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)  Point is, the volume of the air in the bucket at 600 ft under water will expand by a factor of 19 as it travels the 600 ft journey to the water's surface.  So if the bucket is completely filled at 600 ft below sea level, most of the air will spill out of the bucket long before the bucket reaches the surface of the water.

Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?


----------



## BULLDOG

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600 ft = 182.88 meters
> Psi at depth = about 1 atmosphere (14.6 psi) per 10 meters
> 182,88/10= 18.288 atmospheres
> 18.288 x 14.6 = 267.0048
> 
> It would take 267.0048 psi just to fill the hose with air. Not enough information on size or weight of bucket, or weight per foot of cable  to calculate additional pressure needed  or volume required to fill buckets at required rate, but we're talking about a pretty big compressor which would take more energy to run than you could ever get from your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, gases compress with pressure.  Air is a gas.  Assuming constant temperature, Boyle's law shows P1V1 = P2V2 (The numbers should be subscripts)  The air pressure at the surface of the water is 1 atmosphere.  Using Bulldog's calculation, the air 600 feet under water is at a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)  Point is, the volume of the air in the bucket at 600 ft under water will expand by a factor of 19 as it travels the 600 ft journey to the water's surface.  So if the bucket is completely filled at 600 ft below sea level, most of the air will spill out of the bucket long before the bucket reaches the surface of the water.
> 
> Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?
Click to expand...


That would make the project closer to feasible because you wouldn't have to pump a full bucket of air to be considered a full bucket, but still, the energy required to pump even the reduced amount of air would be much more than you could ever expect to recover.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 600 ft = 182.88 meters
> Psi at depth = about 1 atmosphere (14.6 psi) per 10 meters
> 182,88/10= 18.288 atmospheres
> 18.288 x 14.6 = 267.0048
> 
> It would take 267.0048 psi just to fill the hose with air. Not enough information on size or weight of bucket, or weight per foot of cable  to calculate additional pressure needed  or volume required to fill buckets at required rate, but we're talking about a pretty big compressor which would take more energy to run than you could ever get from your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, gases compress with pressure.  Air is a gas.  Assuming constant temperature, Boyle's law shows P1V1 = P2V2 (The numbers should be subscripts)  The air pressure at the surface of the water is 1 atmosphere.  Using Bulldog's calculation, the air 600 feet under water is at a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)  Point is, the volume of the air in the bucket at 600 ft under water will expand by a factor of 19 as it travels the 600 ft journey to the water's surface.  So if the bucket is completely filled at 600 ft below sea level, most of the air will spill out of the bucket long before the bucket reaches the surface of the water.
> 
> Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would make the project closer to feasible because you wouldn't have to pump a full bucket of air to be considered a full bucket, but still, the energy required to pump even the reduced amount of air would be much more than you could ever expect to recover.
Click to expand...


*That would make the project closer to feasible because you wouldn't have to pump a full bucket of air to be considered a full bucket, *

You would, but at that depth it would be compressed to a smaller volume.

* but still, the energy required to pump even the reduced amount of air would be much more than you could ever expect to recover.*

Correct.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?


I have passed along your post just to make sure this factor is taken into account. Since I created this gizmo I am going to include this in my original model.
*JoeMoma*; thanks
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?


One possible remedy to this problem is to design the buckets to expand equalizing the pressure inside and out which would make the lifting force increase as the buckets rise.

Any comments-? -


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if any of the 3 engineers will consider Boyles law when they come up with their numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> One possible remedy to this problem is to design the buckets to expand equalizing the pressure inside and out which would make the lifting force increase as the buckets rise.
> 
> Any comments-? -
Click to expand...

They would have to expand a lot.  balloons?


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> They would have to expand a lot. balloons?


How about something like this---





without the key board and the rest. It's just a chamber that can expand?
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would have to expand a lot. balloons?
> 
> 
> 
> How about something like this---
> View attachment 274986
> 
> without the key board and the rest. It's just a chamber that can expand?
> -
Click to expand...

okay, go for it.  It really doesn't mater.  For you device to work the law of conservation of energy would have to be invalidated.  I hope that the engineers you have consulted have already told you so.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> okay, go for it. It really doesn't mater. For you device to work the law of conservation of energy would have to be invalidated. I hope that the engineers you have consulted have already told you so.



No, you were right, the expanding baloon idea of yours is the way to go. I'll pass this on to those mechanical engineers tomorrow.
Believe me; *JoeMoma*, if this thing ever gets past the drawing board your contributions will be gratefully rewarded.

later -


----------



## watchingfromafar

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.



YES or NO?
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 275927
> 
> 
> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> YES or NO?
> -



Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
They'll also experience more friction.


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 275927
> 
> 
> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> YES or NO?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
> They'll also experience more friction.
Click to expand...

And USE more energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
> They'll also experience more friction.



This is at least a start. The combined 12 buckets pulling together in an upward motion is greater than one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 12 buckets of your energy wasting machine will produce more force than 6 buckets or 3 buckets.
> They'll also experience more friction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is at least a start. The combined 12 buckets pulling together in an upward motion is greater than one.
Click to expand...


Who ever denied that?

Make it 100 buckets, it still loses energy.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 275927
> 
> 
> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> YES or NO?
> -


Your machine has 26 buckets all together, so lets number the buckets clockwise, 1 to 26.  Lets assume buckets 1 through 12 have already been filled with air.  The buckets move 50 feet (600ft/12) so that bucket number 13 is in position to be filled with air.  Using your own assumed force, 12 buckets x 100 pounds x 50 feet = 60,000 ft pounds.  As the air is released at the top from bucket no. 1, bucket number 13 is filled with air.  So the amount of air for one bucket has to be pumped 600 ft under water.  1 bucket filled x 100 pounds x 600 ft  = 60,000 ft pounds.  These numbers assume 100% energy efficiency and disregards the compression of air's volume.  Same thing happens as bucket no. 2 releases it's air and bucket no.  14 is filled with air.

Even at 100% energy efficient, 60,000-60,000 = 0 energy created by your machine.  Then just considering the viscosity of water, you machine will not come close to being 100% energy efficient.


----------



## danielpalos

watchingfromafar said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree fusion has its possibilities but just remember it's not one or the other. Either or both or even other ideas combined could bring us to where we want to be,.
> _*Fusion power* is a proposed form of power generationthat would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions. In a fusion process, two lighter atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, while releasing energy. Devices designed to harness this energy are known as *fusion reactors*.
> 
> Research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s, *but to date, no design has produced more fusion power output than the electrical power input*, defeating the purpose.[1] A second issue that affects common reactions, is managing neutrons that are released during the reaction, which over time degrade many common materials used within the reaction chamber.
> 
> Fusion researchers have investigated various confinement concepts. The early emphasis was on three main systems: z-pinch, stellarator and magnetic mirror. The current leading designs are the tokamak and inertial confinement (ICF) by laser. *Both designs are under research at very large scales*, most notably the ITER tokamak in France, and the National Ignition Facilitylaser in the United States. Researchers are also studying other designs that may offer cheaper approaches. Among these alternatives there is increasing interest in magnetized target fusionand inertial electrostatic confinement, and new variations of the stellarator._
> Fusion power - Wikipedia
> -
Click to expand...

a (space) Corps of Engineers could start pioneering ringworlds, once we get fusion underway.


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES or NO?
> -



The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> View attachment 276846
> YES or NO?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
> -
Click to expand...


Entropy....friction....no.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Entropy....friction....no.


I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.

The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running and nothing you’ve said disproves this but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.

Please try to be more specific and convince me in real technical terms.

Thanks in advance.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entropy....friction....no.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.
> 
> The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running and nothing you’ve said disproves this but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.
> 
> Please try to be more specific and convince me in real technical terms.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*I don’t know what it is that stops you from addressing the mechanics of this machine.*

The mechanics don't allow for 100% efficiency. 

*The moment to moment output of this machine is greater than the energy needed to keep it running*

You're wrong. 

*but still I am sure you are right. It’s just that you have failed to prove this.*

If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.
> 
> In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.
> 
> 1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;
> Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force as long as you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.
> 
> 
> View attachment 276846
> YES or NO?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes & no one has as of yet; proven me wrong.
> -
Click to expand...

Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you?  I am confident that if they are credentialed professionals that they  wasted no time in telling you that your "device" cannot mechanically create energy, it can only transfer the energy input to it.  Creating energy would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.  I doubt that they would waste much valuable time on coming up with "your numbers" if they are gainfully employed doing serious engineering work.

I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source.  You would not recognize proof if you saw it. 

Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend.  it will not.

And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device indefinitely.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.


Toddsterpatriot, I’m going back to my office and do a bit more research on this. I’m going to redesign my model and include the equations needed to prove or disprove this once and for all.

*en·tro·py*
/ˈentrəpē/
_PHYSICS a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work,_
_https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&se_es_tkn=krzdnqtu_
_
In general terms, this *buoyancy force* can be calculated with the *equation* Fb = Vs × D × g, where Fb is the *buoyancy force* that is acting on the object, Vs is the submerged volume of the object, D is the density of the fluid the object is submerged in, and g is the *force* of gravity

·        In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — *9.81 Newtons/kilogram*.

*Multiply volume × density × gravity.* When you have values for the volume of your object (in meters3), the density of your fluid (in kilograms/meter3), and the force of gravity (or the downward force of your system in Newtons/Kilograms), finding the buoyancy force is easy. Simply multiply these 3 quantities to find the force of buoyancy in newtons.

·        Let's solve our example problem by plugging our values into the equation Fb = Vs× D × g. Fb = 0.262 meters3 × 1,000 kilograms/meter3 × 9.81 newtons/kilogram = *2,570 Newtons*. The other units cancel each other out and leave you with Newtons._

The machine will be in saltwater, so I need to start with it’s density, then the temperature of the water, the energy need to get the air to the bottom. and then finally the energy output—

Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.

Later

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you need me to prove entropy and friction....sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, I’m going back to my office and do a bit more research on this. I’m going to redesign my model and include the equations needed to prove or disprove this once and for all.
> 
> *en·tro·py*
> /ˈentrəpē/
> _PHYSICS a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work,_
> _https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&se_es_tkn=krzdnqtu_
> _
> In general terms, this *buoyancy force* can be calculated with the *equation* Fb = Vs × D × g, where Fb is the *buoyancy force* that is acting on the object, Vs is the submerged volume of the object, D is the density of the fluid the object is submerged in, and g is the *force* of gravity
> 
> ·        In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — *9.81 Newtons/kilogram*.
> 
> *Multiply volume × density × gravity.* When you have values for the volume of your object (in meters3), the density of your fluid (in kilograms/meter3), and the force of gravity (or the downward force of your system in Newtons/Kilograms), finding the buoyancy force is easy. Simply multiply these 3 quantities to find the force of buoyancy in newtons.
> 
> ·        Let's solve our example problem by plugging our values into the equation Fb = Vs× D × g. Fb = 0.262 meters3 × 1,000 kilograms/meter3 × 9.81 newtons/kilogram = *2,570 Newtons*. The other units cancel each other out and leave you with Newtons._
> 
> The machine will be in saltwater, so I need to start with it’s density, then the temperature of the water, the energy need to get the air to the bottom. and then finally the energy output—
> 
> Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.
> 
> Later
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*In our example, if we're dealing with an ordinary, stationary system, we can assume that the only downward force acting on the fluid and object is the standard force of gravity — 9.81 Newtons/kilogram.*

And once you power it up, you'll also have friction with the seawater, in both directions.

*Toddsterpatriot,, it’s the fun of doing all this that makes it worth while even if I am wrong in the end.*

I think you'll be surprised at how hugely wrong you are.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is a simplified version that includes all the needed data----


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is a simplified version with actual numbers and data--


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think you'll be surprised at how hugely wrong you are.


please prove it- -


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you?



No, they gave back the money because I continued to change the preamitors. They all decided to wait until I had a final verson to work with; but they did not say it was an impossible idea.



JoeMoma said:


> I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source..


Sure you can prove me wrong, the model is simplified so a simplified rebuttal should suffice

_*JoeMoma*_, You would not recognize proof if you saw it.



JoeMoma said:


> Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend. it will not.



_*JoeMoma*_, this is NOT a (perpetual motion machines)



JoeMoma said:


> And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device


Which does not make it a perpetual motion machine no more than a car is a perpetual motion machine.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

7,938,558 foot pounds per second =10,763,239 watts

The watt is a unit of power. In the International System of Units it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second, and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis, power is described by. Wikipedia

*SI base units: *kg⋅m2⋅s−3
*CGS units: *1×107 erg s−1
*Unit system: *SI derived unit
*Unit of: *Power
watts - Google Search
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they gave back the money because I continued to change the preamitors. They all decided to wait until I had a final verson to work with; but they did not say it was an impossible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can prove me wrong, the model is simplified so a simplified rebuttal should suffice
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, You would not recognize proof if you saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend. it will not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, this is NOT a (perpetual motion machines)
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which does not make it a perpetual motion machine no more than a car is a perpetual motion machine.
> -
Click to expand...

*perpetual-motion machine*

Definition of perpetual-motion machine | Dictionary.com
A machine that could run forever. A perpetual-motion machine would have to produce at least as much energy as was needed for its operation. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a machine is impossible, and to date none has ever been successfully demonstrated.

Yes, your device would be a perpetual motion machine (If it worked as you intend) because in order to be an "Energy source" it would have to produce more energy than needed for it's operation.  A car does not do that which is why one much keep putting gas in it for it to continue to operate.  

If you wish to continue to disbelieve well known laws of physics which prove that your device will not work, be my guest.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> *perpetual-motion machine*
> Definition of perpetual-motion machine | Dictionary.com
> A machine that could run forever.
> .



You are mistaken, I never claimed that this was a "perpetual motion machine";-you did-

It is not a perpetual machine;,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.no more than a car is.
so long as there is gas in the tank
& the tires don't go flat
& the drive train works smoothly


-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> *perpetual-motion machine*
> Definition of perpetual-motion machine | Dictionary.com
> A machine that could run forever.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken, I never claimed that this was a "perpetual motion machine";-you did-
> 
> It is not a perpetual machine;,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.no more than a car is.
> so long as there is gas in the tank
> & the tires don't go flat
> & the drive train works smoothly
> 
> 
> -
Click to expand...

That simply proves that you don't know what  a perpetual motion machine is.  

At any rate, have fun with your device......It has the potential to keep you busy for a very, very long time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll be surprised at how hugely wrong you are.
> 
> 
> 
> please prove it- -
Click to expand...


I didn't see the energy required to pump the air to the bottom in your diagram.
Or the amount of power generated.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I didn't see the energy required to pump the air to the bottom in your diagram.
> Or the amount of power generated.



TANK DESCRIPTION         *Cost per Fill  *
SCUBA Cylinders (Up to 3500 psi) - Pacific Wilderness Dive Club Members & Commercial Dive Accounts   $5.00                $30.00 ($2.50 per Fill)
SCUBA Cylinders (Up to 3500 psi) - General Public             $5.00     $40.00 ($3.33 per Fill)
SCBA Cylinders (Up to 3000 psi) -               $5.00     $40.00 ($3.33 per Fill)
cost+of+filling+a+scuba+tank - Google Search

It takes 4.95 hours to complete one cycle or 2 seconds per foot of rise.
As I see it. -

BTW: the costs per cycle is filling 11 tanks for a refill
$5X11= $55 to fund one cycle
again, as I see it. -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Below is a more detailed version of the contraption.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Please note:* to enlarge or shrink the image just hold down the [SHIFT] key while rolling your mouse roller up or down.

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see the energy required to pump the air to the bottom in your diagram.
> Or the amount of power generated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TANK DESCRIPTION         *Cost per Fill  *
> SCUBA Cylinders (Up to 3500 psi) - Pacific Wilderness Dive Club Members & Commercial Dive Accounts   $5.00                $30.00 ($2.50 per Fill)
> SCUBA Cylinders (Up to 3500 psi) - General Public             $5.00     $40.00 ($3.33 per Fill)
> SCBA Cylinders (Up to 3000 psi) -               $5.00     $40.00 ($3.33 per Fill)
> cost+of+filling+a+scuba+tank - Google Search
> 
> It takes 4.95 hours to complete one cycle or 2 seconds per foot of rise.
> As I see it. -
> 
> BTW: the costs per cycle is filling 11 tanks for a refill
> $5X11= $55 to fund one cycle
> again, as I see it. -
Click to expand...


----------



## watchingfromafar

The energy required to run the process is the energy needed to fill the bottom balloon.

The output energy is the combined lifting force of all eleven (11) balloons pulling upwards.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)

Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Principles to run the machine
> 
> There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> 
> Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
> [yes] [no]
> -



*an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y)*

How much of the lifting force is lost to friction with the water?


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principles to run the machine
> 
> There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> 
> Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
> [yes] [no]
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y)*
> 
> How much of the lifting force is lost to friction with the water?
Click to expand...

A lot.

Drag coefficient - Wikipedia


----------



## BuckToothMoron

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
Click to expand...


Where does the energy come from to pump air under water to fill the buckets?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it filled with air?
> 
> Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An air pump on a barge at the top filles the buckets.
> The machine is 600 feet tall with 11 buckets rising
Click to expand...


The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets.....where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?


----------



## watchingfromafar

BuckToothMoron said:


> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...


And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times



BuckToothMoron said:


> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?


You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
Click to expand...


*And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times*

Of course, when you fill 11 buckets.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much of the lifting force is lost to friction with the water?


Even if I said it was 50%, the contraption would still produce more energy than was required to keep the system running. -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, when you fill 11 buckets.


Please keep in mind that all eleven (11) buckets are all producing more energy than is required to run the system, “at any one moment in “time”; click, clock

Or; maybe the problem is my watch has stopped -


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> Principles to run the machine
> 
> There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> 
> Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
> [yes] [no]
> -



CORRECTION: 9/15/2019 @ 11:28 AM (cst)
a cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs.
which has a lifting force of 64lp's
I think-?


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the lifting force is lost to friction with the water?
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I said it was 50%, the contraption would still produce more energy than was required to keep the system running. -
Click to expand...

No, because force and energy are not the same thing.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, when you fill 11 buckets.
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind that all eleven (11) buckets are all producing more energy than is required to run the system, “at any one moment in “time”; click, clock
> 
> Or; maybe the problem is my watch has stopped -
Click to expand...

You are describing a perpetual motion machine again.  Make up your mind.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the lifting force is lost to friction with the water?
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I said it was 50%, the contraption would still produce more energy than was required to keep the system running. -
Click to expand...


You're lying.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> No, because force and energy are not the same thing.


force is energy in motion
as I see it
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're lying.


According to the machine’s values, the contraption produces over seven million-foot pounds of lifting force
The system requires two (2) million-foot pounds to keep running.

If I reduce the output  of the system by 50% (7/2)=5; the power is still larger than 2.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the machine’s values, the contraption produces over seven million-foot pounds of lifting force
> The system requires two (2) million-foot pounds to keep running.
> 
> If I reduce the output  of the system by 50% (7/2)=5; the power is still larger than 2.
> -
Click to expand...


And the power it takes to pump the air down is triple or more than the 5 you feel is the output.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Boyle's Law*
Boyle's Law states that the pressure (_P_) of a gas is inversely proportional to the volume (_V_). This law is valid as long as the temperature and the amount of gas are constant. Any units will work here:

PV=k(constant)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box;overflow-wrap: normal; max-width:none;max-height: none;min-width: 0px;min-height: 0px;float:none; word-spacing:normal" id="MathJax-Element-1-Frame">PV=k(constant)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> *Boyle's Law*
> Boyle's Law states that the pressure (_P_) of a gas is inversely proportional to the volume (_V_). This law is valid as long as the temperature and the amount of gas are constant. Any units will work here:
> 
> PV=k(constant)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box;overflow-wrap: normal; max-width:none;max-height: none;min-width: 0px;min-height: 0px;float:none; word-spacing:normal" id="MathJax-Element-1-Frame">PV=k(constant)



*Boyle's Law states that the pressure (P) of a gas is inversely proportional to the volume (V). This law is valid as long as the temperature and the amount of gas are constant.*

That's what makes it so difficult to pump the air to the bottom of your energy losing contraption.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because force and energy are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> force is energy in motion
> as I see it
> -
Click to expand...

Actually you can have force without motion.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
Click to expand...

The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.  

I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.

Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.

By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
Click to expand...


Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?

First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.

Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.


----------



## JoeMoma

BuckToothMoron said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?
> 
> First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.
> 
> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.
Click to expand...

The only reference I made about energy being created was that it cannot be created.  My reference was about force which is not energy.  The OP seems to confuse "mechanical advantage" with creating energy.  Mechanical advantage does not create energy.  

Now point out the 2 places in which I said energy is created or retract your statement about me looking scientifically illiterate.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

JoeMoma said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?
> 
> First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.
> 
> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference I made about energy being created was that it cannot be created.  My reference was about force which is not energy.  The OP seems to confuse "mechanical advantage" with creating energy.  Mechanical advantage does not create energy.
> 
> Now point out the 2 places in which I said energy is created or retract your statement about me looking scientifically illiterate.
Click to expand...


You used the statement “No energy is created...” twice. It goes without saying no energy is created, because energy can’t be created. 

e way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.[/QUOTE]

No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.


----------



## JoeMoma

BuckToothMoron said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The air pump requires energy to fill the buckets...
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..where did you get the weed you smoked before coming up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?
> 
> First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.
> 
> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference I made about energy being created was that it cannot be created.  My reference was about force which is not energy.  The OP seems to confuse "mechanical advantage" with creating energy.  Mechanical advantage does not create energy.
> 
> Now point out the 2 places in which I said energy is created or retract your statement about me looking scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the statement “No energy is created...” twice. It goes without saying no energy is created, because energy can’t be created.
> 
> e way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
Click to expand...


No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.[/QUOTE]

So I said the opposite of what you accused me of saying.  Perhaps I should accuse you of being illiterate.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

JoeMoma said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And whatever energy is required to fill one (1) bucket is multiplied eleven (11) times
> 
> You aren't really trying to get me to reveal my source, are you-?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?
> 
> First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.
> 
> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference I made about energy being created was that it cannot be created.  My reference was about force which is not energy.  The OP seems to confuse "mechanical advantage" with creating energy.  Mechanical advantage does not create energy.
> 
> Now point out the 2 places in which I said energy is created or retract your statement about me looking scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the statement “No energy is created...” twice. It goes without saying no energy is created, because energy can’t be created.
> 
> e way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
Click to expand...


So I said the opposite of what you accused me of saying.  Perhaps I should accuse you of being illiterate.[/QUOTE]

Listen! The fact that you would say “no energy is created” exhibits a lack of understanding about energy, because as I have already pointed out, all people who understand energy know that it can’t be created.


----------



## JoeMoma

BuckToothMoron said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The energy required to fill one bucket is not multiplied.  You are still confusing force and energy.  Machines can be used to "multiply" a small force over a relatively long distance to be transformed to a larger force over a shorter distance.
> 
> I am not physically strong enough to lift my truck on my own; however, I can use jacks and cinder blocks to lift my truck over my head.  To lift my truck over my head, I may have to crank the end of my jack handle thousands of feet in order to lift my truck 6 feet.  No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Likewise, you have to pump the mass of air for one bucket 600 feet under water for the 11 buckets to move 54 feet up. Zero energy is created by this process.
> 
> By the way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s deconstruct your post Joey, shall we?
> 
> First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. You referenced energy being created twice in your post and it makes you look scientifically illiterate. You jacking up your car is simply using a lever for mechanical advantage and has no apparent relevance to the acid induced diagram from the OP.
> 
> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference I made about energy being created was that it cannot be created.  My reference was about force which is not energy.  The OP seems to confuse "mechanical advantage" with creating energy.  Mechanical advantage does not create energy.
> 
> Now point out the 2 places in which I said energy is created or retract your statement about me looking scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the statement “No energy is created...” twice. It goes without saying no energy is created, because energy can’t be created.
> 
> e way, pumping air into balloons is a great way of lifting old sunken ships, but no energy is created in the process.
> 
> No energy is created in this task, but the jack is able to transform (multiply) the small force I can produce with my arm across a stroke over a foot to a large force over a fraction of a inch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I said the opposite of what you accused me of saying.  Perhaps I should accuse you of being illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen! The fact that you would say “no energy is created” exhibits a lack of understanding about energy, because as I have already pointed out, all people who understand energy know that it can’t be created.
Click to expand...


So was energy created, yes or no?  Well, if energy can't be created, then the answer is obviously No --No energy is created .........which is exactly what I said.

Also, did you consider that the person I was talking to thinks energy can be created, and i was trying to convince him otherwise?

You seem to have failed logic 101 class.  Guess that is why you are a BuckToothMoron.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's what makes it so difficult to pump the air to the bottom of your energy losing contraption.



If you take a scuba divers tank and drop it to a depth of 600 feet and then open the valve- What happens-?
Does it just fart or--
release 300 cubic feet of air under the pressure it is in-?


----------



## watchingfromafar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Further, once the single bucket with air reaches the surface the system will stop. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy, at least not on this planet.



The cycle stops when you stop filling the lower balloon with air. Actually the lifting process continues until the last balloon reaches near surface. 
Minus the drag from seaweed and a lonely octopus trying to mate with one of the balls of air

as I see it -


----------



## watchingfromafar

If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?

Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what makes it so difficult to pump the air to the bottom of your energy losing contraption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a scuba divers tank and drop it to a depth of 600 feet and then open the valve- What happens-?
> Does it just fart or--
> release 300 cubic feet of air under the pressure it is in-?
Click to expand...


How much energy is lost when you drag the empties back to the surface?


----------



## the other mike

We have perpetual energy all around us --gravity, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and in fact the earth is orbiting the sun in perpetual motion at 19 miles per second, or 67,000 miles per hour...


----------



## BuckToothMoron

watchingfromafar said:


> If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?
> 
> Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
> -



Stop with the “creating energy” already. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. A 10# ball ten feet high has potential energy. When it is falling it represents kinetic energy. The impact on the concrete is momentum which is mass x velocity.


----------



## JoeMoma

BuckToothMoron said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?
> 
> Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the “creating energy” already. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. A 10# ball ten feet high has potential energy. When it is falling it represents kinetic energy. The impact on the concrete is momentum which is mass x velocity.
Click to expand...

You are a lot better with physics that you are with logic BTM.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Angelo said:


> We have perpetual energy all around us --gravity, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and in fact the earth is orbiting the sun in perpetual motion at 19 miles per second, or 67,000 miles per hour...



Wrong-a-reno Ang. None of those are perpetual energy. The sun is a giant ball of gas and it is burning away. Some billions of years from now it will be gone. From the sun we derive much of the energy which causes tides and winds. Gravity is a force, not energy. All the other things have life spans as well. Your general understanding of basic physics needs help. Here ya go, do yourself a favor and take this free online physics course.
FearOfPhysics.com: A free online physics course


----------



## BuckToothMoron

JoeMoma said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?
> 
> Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the “creating energy” already. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. A 10# ball ten feet high has potential energy. When it is falling it represents kinetic energy. The impact on the concrete is momentum which is mass x velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a lot better with physics that you are with logic BTM.
Click to expand...


I’m better than you at both.


----------



## JoeMoma

BuckToothMoron said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?
> 
> Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the “creating energy” already. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. A 10# ball ten feet high has potential energy. When it is falling it represents kinetic energy. The impact on the concrete is momentum which is mass x velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a lot better with physics that you are with logic BTM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m better than you at both.
Click to expand...



No energy was created by this post.


----------



## the other mike

BuckToothMoron said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have perpetual energy all around us --gravity, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and in fact the earth is orbiting the sun in perpetual motion at 19 miles per second, or 67,000 miles per hour...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-a-reno Ang. None of those are perpetual energy. The sun is a giant ball of gas and it is burning away. Some billions of years from now it will be gone. From the sun we derive much of the energy which causes tides and winds. Gravity is a force, not energy. All the other things have life spans as well. Your general understanding of basic physics needs help. Here ya go, do yourself a favor and take this free online physics course.
> FearOfPhysics.com: A free online physics course
Click to expand...

For our intents and purposes those are all perpetual energy.
Not by definition, exactly, but with the exception of solar (day and night ) and wind (varies with weather), all of the ones I mentioned are continuously-flowing, constantly-moving energy sources and I'm guessing that's pretty close to the definition of 'perpetual'.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much energy is lost when you drag the empties back to the surface?


The “empties” contain air and as the air rises it expands pushing water out; For every cubic foot of water pushed out and replaced with air this creates an upward force of 64 lbs

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much energy is lost when you drag the empties back to the surface?
> 
> 
> 
> The “empties” contain air and as the air rises it expands pushing water out; For every cubic foot of water pushed out and replaced with air this creates an upward force of 64 lbs
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*The “empties” contain air and as the air rises it expands pushing water out; *

Your empty scuba tanks are rising.....how?


----------



## the other mike

I gotta try this balloon experiment .
*Intro to Boyle's Law*
*Pressure Volume Relationships*
We are used to living at 1 ATM of pressure, so we rarely even take notice of it. We normally don't feel the pressure on us because the human body is primarily made up of liquid, and liquids are basically non compressible. At times, however, we do notice changes of pressure, primarily in our ears. You may have noticed your ears "popping" when flying, driving in the mountains, or even going up and down in elevators. This is because our ears have an air space in them, and air, like all other gases, is compressible.

A gas will compress proportionately to the amount of pressure exerted on it. For example, *if you have a 1 cubic foot balloon and double the pressure on it, it will be compressed to 1/2 cubic foot. Increase the pressure by 4, and the volume will drop to 1/4 the size etc. *This theory was discovered by Sir Robert Boyle, a 17th century scientist. The theory known as Boyle's Law states:_ If the temperature remains constant, the volume of a given mass of gas is inversely proportional to the absolute pressure._

Let's follow an example...

Suppose you had a balloon measuring one cubic foot at the surface of the water. This balloon is under 1 ATM (14.7 psi) of pressure. If we push the balloon underwater, and take it to a depth of 33 feet, it is now under 2 ATM of pressure (29.4 lbs) - 1 ATM of pressure from the air, 1 ATM of pressure from the water. Boyle's Law then tells us that since we have twice the absolute pressure, the volume of the balloon will be decreased to one half. It follows then, that taking the balloon to 66 feet, the pressure would compress the balloon to one third its original size, 99 feet would make it 1/4 etc.

If we bring the balloon in the previous example back up to the surface, it would increase in size due to the lessening pressure until it reached the surface and returned to its one cubic foot size. This is because the air in the balloon is compressed from the pressure when submerged, but returns to its normal size and pressure when it returns to the surface.

We will achieve the same result with an open container, such as an inverted bottle, as we do with a balloon. By inverting a bottle at the surface and descending with it, the pressure from the surrounding water will compress the air and the bottle will start to fill with water. Even with no air escaping, the container will be half full of water at a depth of 33 feet due to the pressure compressing the air to half its original volume.

Along with the volume of air in the balloon or container, the surrounding pressure will affect the density of the air as well. Density, simply stated, is how close the air molecules are packed together. The air in the balloon or container at the surface is at its standard density, but when we descend to the 33-foot level where its volume is reduced to one half, the density has doubled. At 66 feet, the density has tripled. This is because the pressure has pushed the air molecules closer together.

Let's continue with this line of thinking and try an additional experiment. If we take our balloon and our open container down to 99 feet, we know that the density of air is four times what is was on the surface and the volume of air has been reduced to 1/4. Now at this depth, suppose we used a scuba tank and added air to the balloon until it returned to its original size. We will also blow air into the inverted container until it is completely full of air.

We know the air at this depth is 4 times denser than at the surface. This means when we ascend with our balloon and container, the lessening pressure will make the air expand. This will have two different effects. The balloon will increase in size. It will attempt to grow to a size of 4 cubic feet by the time it hits the surface. If this is beyond the capability of the balloon, it will pop. The inverted container, however, will simply "bleed off" the expanding air that will harmlessly float away as bubbles.

The main purpose of the proceeding material was to give you the theory behind the most important rule in scuba diving... "Never hold your breath!" Your lungs can act very much like a pair of balloons in your chest. As a breath hold diver (skin diver), if you fill your lungs with air at the surface, hold your breath, and dive to a depth of 33 feet, the surrounding pressure will compress your lungs to half of their original size. Upon ascending, they will return to normal size. If however, you descend to 33 feet and breath compressed air from a scuba tank, an ascent to the surface could cause you lungs to over expand and you could seriously injure yourself.

This is easy to avoid, however, by simply not holding your breath which will let your lungs act like the open container in the preceding example, and you will simply "bleed off" the expanding air and maintain a normal lung capacity.


----------



## the other mike

A little history lesson.





Unbeknownst to both Nikola Tesla and Edgar Cayce at the time, Thomas Townsend Brown was directly acting under orders from the Nazi military-industrial complex that had coordinated the multi-generational espionage activity and counter-intelligence cover-up of Tesla's finest inventions. The timing of corporate subterfuge and manipulations that surrounded the world's greatest inventor are only now becoming evident, having been obscured by the horrors of war and corporate commandeering of world industry.
*http://www.human-resonance.org/gravity_motor.html*


----------



## the other mike




----------



## watchingfromafar

Angelo said:


> A little history lesson.


*Angelo*, thank you for your well-informed post. After reading your post I have discovered the flaw in my reasoning. The volume of air does expand as it rises to the surface, but the number of air molecules does not change. The only thing that does change is the distance between the air molecules. My diagram states that 36 cubic feet of air is injected in the lower balloon. The balloon at the surface ends up with 26,244 CF, not 1,047,198,000 cubic feet of air. There is a flaw in my thinking.

Following is the process-

At 18 ATM, 594 feet down, the balloon is injected with air that is compressed to 36 cubic feet.
At 15 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 108 CF
At 12 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 324 CF
At 9 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 972 CF
At 6 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 2,916 CF
At 3 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 8,748 CF
At 1 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 26,244 CF

Having stated the above, the combined lifting force is---

*39,058 CF X 64 lbs. = 2,499,712-foot lbs. of lifting force.*

*Angelo*, I am now trying to convert the energy created to horsepower to watts?

Can you help me on this-?

*1* Horsepower = *33000* Foot-pounds per minute

*Angelo*, can you help me on this-?

The buckets are rising at two (2) feet per second.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Again here is my diagram for your comments


----------



## irosie91

did any of you guys pass high school baby chemistry and baby physics?


----------



## watchingfromafar

irosie91 said:


> did any of you guys pass high school baby chemistry and baby physics?



If you have something constructive to say; please do so -


----------



## the other mike

What about setting it up the way they would tidal energy turbines or even to assist each other .
This would be a good question for my little brother who's an aerospace engineer or somebody like Neil Degrasse Tyson. A  lot of it's over my head, but I'm happy to contribute whatever I can.


----------



## the other mike

watchingfromafar said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did any of you guys pass high school baby chemistry and baby physics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have something constructive to say; please do so -
Click to expand...

Seriously. He/she sounds like a spoiled rich kid who never worked a day, and knows everything.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Angelo said:


> Seriously. He/she sounds like a spoiled rich kid who never worked a day, and knows everything.



Ok, now you have hurt my feelings.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Just for laughs, here is an  idea that died from old age~~~~


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they gave back the money because I continued to change the preamitors. They all decided to wait until I had a final verson to work with; but they did not say it was an impossible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can prove me wrong, the model is simplified so a simplified rebuttal should suffice
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, You would not recognize proof if you saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend. it will not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, this is NOT a (perpetual motion machines)
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which does not make it a perpetual motion machine no more than a car is a perpetual motion machine.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *perpetual-motion machine*
> 
> Definition of perpetual-motion machine | Dictionary.com
> A machine that could run forever. A perpetual-motion machine would have to produce at least as much energy as was needed for its operation. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a machine is impossible, and to date none has ever been successfully demonstrated.
> 
> Yes, your device would be a perpetual motion machine (If it worked as you intend) because in order to be an "Energy source" it would have to produce more energy than needed for it's operation.  A car does not do that which is why one much keep putting gas in it for it to continue to operate.
> 
> If you wish to continue to disbelieve well known laws of physics which prove that your device will not work, be my guest.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, we could use deep ocean current flows for energy.  It should be less environmentally sensitive, hopefully; or, we could install enough to actually "control" weather patterns above.


----------



## irosie91

danielpalos said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are your three engineers still working on some numbers for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they gave back the money because I continued to change the preamitors. They all decided to wait until I had a final verson to work with; but they did not say it was an impossible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't thank anyone "here" will be able to PROVE TO YOU that your device will not work as you intend, as an energy source..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can prove me wrong, the model is simplified so a simplified rebuttal should suffice
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, You would not recognize proof if you saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously will not believe anyone on this forum that your device will not work, or believe the thousands of years of history in which many have tried and all have failed to create similar mechanical devices (perpetual motion machines) try making a scale model that works as you intend. it will not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_, this is NOT a (perpetual motion machines)
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, your device is considered a perpetual motion machine because if it worked as you intend, to create energy, then once set in motion the output energy of your device could be looped back to the air pump and run your device
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which does not make it a perpetual motion machine no more than a car is a perpetual motion machine.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *perpetual-motion machine*
> 
> Definition of perpetual-motion machine | Dictionary.com
> A machine that could run forever. A perpetual-motion machine would have to produce at least as much energy as was needed for its operation. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a machine is impossible, and to date none has ever been successfully demonstrated.
> 
> Yes, your device would be a perpetual motion machine (If it worked as you intend) because in order to be an "Energy source" it would have to produce more energy than needed for it's operation.  A car does not do that which is why one much keep putting gas in it for it to continue to operate.
> 
> If you wish to continue to disbelieve well known laws of physics which prove that your device will not work, be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypothetically, we could use deep ocean current flows for energy.  It should be less environmentally sensitive, hopefully; or, we could install enough to actually "control" weather patterns above.
Click to expand...


*from your mouth to the EARS OF POSEIDAN*


----------



## watchingfromafar

irosie91 said:


> from your mouth to the EARS OF POSEIDAN



Come on, what's up-?
If you saw a flaw in the design please come forward and say it. 
pinch of King Neptune's Poseidon Powder is cocaine & I don't touch the stuff; how about you-?
-


----------



## irosie91

watchingfromafar said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> from your mouth to the EARS OF POSEIDAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, what's up-?
> If you saw a flaw in the design please come forward and say it.
> pinch of King Neptune's Poseidon Powder is cocaine & I don't touch the stuff; how about you-?
> -
Click to expand...


I am game----got any?


----------



## danielpalos

sorry, i got no money, honey.


----------



## watchingfromafar

danielpalos said:


> sorry, i got no money, honey.



get a job
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is another look at the system. The bubbles are more like hot air balloons but instead of heat, air is added. As the air bubble rises, it expands creating more lifting force. When all six (6) bubbles have air in them they combine this lifting force.
prove it won't work
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Here is another look at the system. The bubbles are more like hot air balloons but instead of heat, air is added. As the air bubble rises, it expands creating more lifting force. When all six (6) bubbles have air in them they combine this lifting force.
> prove it won't work
> -


Build the thing and prove it does work!  The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another look at the system. The bubbles are more like hot air balloons but instead of heat, air is added. As the air bubble rises, it expands creating more lifting force. When all six (6) bubbles have air in them they combine this lifting force.
> prove it won't work
> -
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work!  The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...


Imagine the losses to friction with sea water.
Enormous!


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another look at the system. The bubbles are more like hot air balloons but instead of heat, air is added. As the air bubble rises, it expands creating more lifting force. When all six (6) bubbles have air in them they combine this lifting force.
> prove it won't work
> -
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work!  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine the losses to friction with sea water.
> Enormous!
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on watchingfromafar.  No explanation as to why his contraption cannot produce more energy than is input will ever be good enough for him.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.


I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.

A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..

For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
Click to expand...

Just about everyone who has replied to this thread have told you that your device will not work.  Prove us wrong!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


_An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._

PV=nRT

Cough....check your math....Cough


----------



## eagle1462010

You need energy to create the air and pump it into the buckets............that will exceed the output of the power of the bucket thing................

All you need to create current is MFC................Motion......Magnetic field.................and a current carrying conductor..........

In the Navy it was called Mary's Fuzzy **** ..........so we'd never forget it...........not kidding here.........lol

Ocean current is already used to drive props or propellers to provide the Motion.......geared down to drive a generator to produce electricity..........which is simple but not completely reliable energy..................


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
Click to expand...

Also, doubling the radius would result in increasing the volume by a factor of 8 (2^3).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeMoma said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, doubling the radius would result in increasing the volume by a factor of 8 (2^3).
Click to expand...


Doubling the pressure halves the volume, halving the pressure doubles the volume.
No need for a radius or radius^3.


----------



## eagle1462010

Where is the magical shaft going to be on the generator actually producing electricity............You got something that can go round and round...........it has to drive a shaft to produce power...................That would have to be out of the water and attached to the upper pulley to produce the motion required to create electricity............


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, doubling the radius would result in increasing the volume by a factor of 8 (2^3).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubling the pressure halves the volume, halving the pressure doubles the volume.
> No need for a radius or radius^3.
Click to expand...

Agreed.  Just saying that doubling the radius (of a sphere) equates to increasing the volume of the sphere by a factor of 8.  So his math is wrong several ways.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeMoma said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the thing and prove it does work! The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, doubling the radius would result in increasing the volume by a factor of 8 (2^3).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubling the pressure halves the volume, halving the pressure doubles the volume.
> No need for a radius or radius^3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Just saying that doubling the radius (of a sphere) equates to increasing the volume of the sphere by a factor of 8.  So his math is wrong several ways.
Click to expand...


Well, if we start listing all the ways he's wrong, we'll be here all night.


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would build the thing to prove it works but to do that it would have to be built full scale, in the ocean as advertised.  You can’t make a scaled model, it wouldn’t work.
> 
> A three-dimensional computer model would work if it was programed to operate with the same parameters as the real thing including depth and sea pressure; ATM’s and it would have to operate in real time..
> 
> For every ATM in depth (33') an air bubble is compressed to half its size.
> This also works in the reverse. An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's.
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _An air bubble with a radius of 10 FT at 15 ATM's will expand to twice its size (r=20) at 14 ATM's._
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, doubling the radius would result in increasing the volume by a factor of 8 (2^3).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubling the pressure halves the volume, halving the pressure doubles the volume.
> No need for a radius or radius^3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Just saying that doubling the radius (of a sphere) equates to increasing the volume of the sphere by a factor of 8.  So his math is wrong several ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we start listing all the ways he's wrong, we'll be here all night.
Click to expand...

Yep!  I'm just here for the entertainment anyway.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cough....check your math....Cough


*Boyle's law*, most often referred to as the *Boyle–Mariotte law*, or *Mariotte's law* (especially in France), is an experimental gas law that describes how the pressure of a gas tends to increase as the volume of the container decreases. A modern statement of Boyle's law is

The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.[1][2]

Mathematically, Boyle's law can be stated as

{\displaystyle P\propto {\frac {1}{V}}}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Pressure is inversely proportional to the volume.
or

{\displaystyle PV=k}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Pressure multiplied by volume equals some constant {\displaystyle k}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
where _P_ is the pressure of the gas, _V_ is the volume of the gas, and _k_ is a constant.
Boyle's law - Wikipedia


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, if we start listing all the ways he's wrong, we'll be here all night.


"We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong. The only wrong you have managed to prove is your "wrong" assumptions
-


----------



## eagle1462010

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> 
> 
> *Boyle's law*, most often referred to as the *Boyle–Mariotte law*, or *Mariotte's law* (especially in France), is an experimental gas law that describes how the pressure of a gas tends to increase as the volume of the container decreases. A modern statement of Boyle's law is
> 
> The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.[1][2]
> 
> Mathematically, Boyle's law can be stated as
> 
> {\displaystyle P\propto {\frac {1}{V}}}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure is inversely proportional to the volume.
> or
> 
> {\displaystyle PV=k}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure multiplied by volume equals some constant {\displaystyle k}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> where _P_ is the pressure of the gas, _V_ is the volume of the gas, and _k_ is a constant.
> Boyle's law - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

The pump would have to match the pressure at the lower depths of the ocean.............causing more energy to be used to get it here.................

Look...............make a floating current generator that extends down into the water............that can be anchored to the ocean floor.......................

Say it will save the planet and sell it in places like California.............the greenees will run to it and buy it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cough....check your math....Cough
> 
> 
> 
> *Boyle's law*, most often referred to as the *Boyle–Mariotte law*, or *Mariotte's law* (especially in France), is an experimental gas law that describes how the pressure of a gas tends to increase as the volume of the container decreases. A modern statement of Boyle's law is
> 
> The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.[1][2]
> 
> Mathematically, Boyle's law can be stated as
> 
> {\displaystyle P\propto {\frac {1}{V}}}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure is inversely proportional to the volume.
> or
> 
> {\displaystyle PV=k}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure multiplied by volume equals some constant {\displaystyle k}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> where _P_ is the pressure of the gas, _V_ is the volume of the gas, and _k_ is a constant.
> Boyle's law - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Yes, your error was serious. Glad you see that now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we start listing all the ways he's wrong, we'll be here all night.
> 
> 
> 
> "We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong. The only wrong you have managed to prove is your "wrong" assumptions
> -
Click to expand...


*"We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.*

What proof do you require for "friction"?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.


*Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure
Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure
What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure*

The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure.  And the reverse holds true too.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What proof do you require for "friction"?


“Friction”-?

I believe you mean the resistance of the water to move out of the way of a rising air bubble. An air bubble rises two (2) feet per second in seawater. Whatever resistance there is, is overcome because the air bubble does rise.

Thanks for participating in this and I hope you and others here continue to debate this until it is either proven not to work or that it does indeed work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure
> Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
> Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure
> What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure*
> 
> The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure.  And the reverse holds true too.
> -
Click to expand...


*The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure. And the reverse holds true too.*

PV=nRT too complex for you?

Test your claim going from 3 atm to 4 atm...…..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you require for "friction"?
> 
> 
> 
> “Friction”-?
> 
> I believe you mean the resistance of the water to move out of the way of a rising air bubble. An air bubble rises two (2) feet per second in seawater. Whatever resistance there is, is overcome because the air bubble does rise.
> 
> Thanks for participating in this and I hope you and others here continue to debate this until it is either proven not to work or that it does indeed work.
Click to expand...


Yes, your buckets are subject to friction with the water.
In both directions.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is another way of looking at this.

[step one] An air bubble (balloon) is compressed to 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM) and this balloon (1) has a volume of 10 cubic feet after being compressed.

You raise balloon (1) 33 feet (1 ATM) to (17 ATM) and this balloon will expand to 20 feet cubic feet.

[step two] An air bubble (balloon) is compressed to 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM) and this bubble (2) has a volume of 10 cubic feet after being compressed and this balloon is attached to balloon (1)

You raise balloon (2) 33 feet (1 ATM) to (17 ATM) and this balloon will expand to 20 feet cubic feet while balloon (1) rises 33 feet as well and expands to 40 cubic feet.

One (1) cubic foot of displaced sea water has a lifting force of 64 pounds

...............Balloon one has displaced 40 cubic feet giving it a lifting force of 2,560 pounds.
Balloon two (2) has displaced 10 cubic feet of water giving it a lifting force of 640 pounds.
                                                                   Now the combined lifting force is 3,200 pounds

Do you agree or disagree with the above?
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, your buckets are subject to friction with the water.
> In both directions.


I agree there is a resistance to the rising balloons but I do not believe this would stop the process.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Here is another way of looking at this.
> 
> [step one] An air bubble (balloon) is compressed to 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM) and this balloon (1) has a volume of 10 cubic feet after being compressed.
> 
> You raise balloon (1) 33 feet (1 ATM) to (17 ATM) and this balloon will expand to 20 feet cubic feet.
> 
> [step two] An air bubble (balloon) is compressed to 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM) and this bubble (2) has a volume of 10 cubic feet after being compressed and this balloon is attached to balloon (1)
> 
> You raise balloon (2) 33 feet (1 ATM) to (17 ATM) and this balloon will expand to 20 feet cubic feet while balloon (1) rises 33 feet as well and expands to 40 cubic feet.
> 
> One (1) cubic foot of displaced sea water has a lifting force of 64 pounds
> 
> ...............Balloon one has displaced 40 cubic feet giving it a lifting force of 2,560 pounds.
> Balloon two (2) has displaced 10 cubic feet of water giving it a lifting force of 640 pounds.
> Now the combined lifting force is 3,200 pounds
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with the above?
> -



*[step one] An air bubble (balloon) is compressed to 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM) and this balloon (1) has a volume of 10 cubic feet after being compressed.

You raise balloon (1) 33 feet (1 ATM) to (17 ATM) and this balloon will expand to 20 feet cubic feet.*

You don't have to post another error to show you don't understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your buckets are subject to friction with the water.
> In both directions.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there is a resistance to the rising balloons but I do not believe this would stop the process.
Click to expand...


No, the massive loss of energy to friction would not stop your "generator".


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Test your claim going from 3 atm to 4 atm...…..


The relationship is the same; 33 feet of water weighs the same regardless of the overall depth of this particular 33 feet.or so I believe
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure
> Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
> Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure
> What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure*
> 
> The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure.  And the reverse holds true too.
> -
Click to expand...


*Not a math person? *

It's obvious you are not a math person.

* To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.*

Excellent! Now go from 2 atm to 3 atm. 3 atm to 4 atm.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, the massive loss of energy to friction would not stop your "generator".



I would not call it "massive" but I do agree; it needs to be taken into account.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! Now go from 2 atm to 3 atm. 3 atm to 4 atm.


1 ATM 100 cubic feet
2 ATM 50 cubic feet
3 ATM 25 cubic feet
4 ATM 12.5 cubic feet

Next.,.,
At some point the water molecules will no longer compress


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Now go from 2 atm to 3 atm. 3 atm to 4 atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 ATM 100 cubic feet
> 2 ATM 50 cubic feet
> 3 ATM 25 cubic feet
> 4 ATM 12.5 cubic feet
> 
> Next.,.,
> At some point the water molecules will no longer compress
Click to expand...


*1 ATM 100 cubic feet
2 ATM 50 cubic feet
3 ATM 25 cubic feet
4 ATM 12.5 cubic feet*


_make a fraction of 1 over the pressure._

^
From your source...….

Try again?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> From your source...….
> Try again?


Please Oh Wise One, you make the fractions for me, I do need your enlightenment.

No animosity intended or implied
-


----------



## sparky

~S~


----------



## watchingfromafar

sparky said:


> ~S~


I really like your sense of humor~~~~~~

Thanks -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your source...….
> Try again?
> 
> 
> 
> Please Oh Wise One, you make the fractions for me, I do need your enlightenment.
> 
> No animosity intended or implied
> -
Click to expand...


*you make the fractions for me*

1 atm to 2 atm, pressure doubles, volume cut in half.
That's the extent of your correct calculations.

At 3 atm, the volume is 1/3rd the original, not 1/4th.
At 4 atm, the volume is 1/4th, not 1/8th.

* I do need your enlightenment.*

Or a calculator.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> At 3 atm, the volume is 1/3rd the original, not 1/4th.
> At 4 atm, the volume is 1/4th, not 1/8th.
> 
> * I do need your enlightenment.*
> 
> Or a calculator.


1 atm has a pressure of 33 lbs = 100 cubic feet
2 atm has a pressure of 66 lbs = 50 cubic feet
3 atm has a pressure of 99 lbs = 25 cubic feet
4 atm has a pressure of 132 lbs = 12.5 cubic feet
As I see it.
Now please use my example above while changing the values to fit your view
Thanks,
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure*

*Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure*
What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure
*
Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure*
Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.*

*Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure*
What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At 3 atm, the volume is 1/3rd the original, not 1/4th.
> At 4 atm, the volume is 1/4th, not 1/8th.
> 
> * I do need your enlightenment.*
> 
> Or a calculator.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 atm has a pressure of 33 lbs = 100 cubic feet
> 2 atm has a pressure of 66 lbs = 50 cubic feet
> 3 atm has a pressure of 99 lbs = 25 cubic feet
> 4 atm has a pressure of 132 lbs = 12.5 cubic feet
> As I see it.
> Now please use my example above while changing the values to fit your view
> Thanks,
> -
Click to expand...


*1 atm has a pressure of 33 lbs = 100 cubic feet
2 atm has a pressure of 66 lbs = 50 cubic feet
3 atm has a pressure of 99 lbs = 25 cubic feet
4 atm has a pressure of 132 lbs = 12.5 cubic feet
As I see it.*

Yes, I saw your error the first time. You don't have to keep repeating it.

1 atm has a pressure of 14.7 lbs = 100 cubic feet
2 atm has a pressure of 29.4 lbs = 50 cubic feet
3 atm has a pressure of 44.1 lbs = 33 cubic feet
4 atm has a pressure of 58.8 lbs = 25 cubic feet


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or a calculator.


Starting volume 100 cubic feet at 1 ATM

1 ATM = 100
2 ATM = 1/2 = (100/2) =  50
3 ATM = 1/3=  (100/3) = 33.33
Etc.

I am beginning to understand what you have been trying to tell me.

I will re-evaluate my gizmos and plug in the changes

Whether I prove myself totally wrong or not I will repost this revised version to see if the ending output is larger than the input.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> *Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure*
> 
> *Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
> Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure*
> What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure
> *
> Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure*
> Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.*
> 
> *Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure*
> What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure



_If the pressure is 2 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.*_

If the pressure is 3 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is 1/3 of its original size at the surface.*


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I saw your error the first time. You don't have to keep repeating it.


This revelation does not change the original principal. When you look at this in the reverse, bottom up;

3 ATM = 1/3=  (100/3) = 33.33
2 ATM = 1/2 = (100/2) =  50
ATM = 100
Combining the lifting force is still positive
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the pressure is 3 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is 1/3 of its original size at the surface.*


Yes I now agree and you must also agree that the volume at the bottom will expand as it rises and this expansion will increase the lifting force.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw your error the first time. You don't have to keep repeating it.
> 
> 
> 
> This revelation does not change the original principal. When you look at this in the reverse, bottom up;
> 
> 3 ATM = 1/3=  (100/3) = 33.33
> 2 ATM = 1/2 = (100/2) =  50
> ATM = 100
> Combining the lifting force is still positive
> -
Click to expand...


*Combining the lifting force is still positive*

Never claimed the lifting force was negative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the pressure is 3 ATA, then *the volume of the compressed air is 1/3 of its original size at the surface.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I now agree and you must also agree that the volume at the bottom will expand as it rises and this expansion will increase the lifting force.
> -
Click to expand...


*the volume at the bottom will expand as it rises *

Never denied the air expands as it rises.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or a calculator.
> 
> 
> 
> Starting volume 100 cubic feet at 1 ATM
> 
> 1 ATM = 100
> 2 ATM = 1/2 = (100/2) =  50
> 3 ATM = 1/3=  (100/3) = 33.33
> Etc.
> 
> I am beginning to understand what you have been trying to tell me.
> 
> I will re-evaluate my gizmos and plug in the changes
> 
> Whether I prove myself totally wrong or not I will repost this revised version to see if the ending output is larger than the input.
> -
Click to expand...

You never come close to calculating either output energy or input energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

_*JoeMoma,*_
I'm back in my office and attempting to re-due the drawing. I want to start this by using the air in two (2) two scuba tanks. A standard tank holds 80 cubic feet of air at 3,000 p.s.i.

The pressure at the bottom of my device is 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM)

If I release the air in both scuba tanks into the lower balloon, what would the volume of this balloon be at this depth, 264.5 p.s.i; 594 feet down?

I am asking you this while I await my sons arrival to my office. I hope he can help me on this.

In the end I want to know the volume of the balloons at--

18 ATM
15 ATM
12 ATM
9 ATM
6 ATM
3 ATM
1 ATM
-


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
Click to expand...


Compressing air to get it down to where the buckets need to be filled will take more energy than you get out of it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> Compressing air to get it down to where the buckets need to be filled will take more energy than you get out of it.


I understand where you are coming from but you also need to take into account that five (5) buckets with air in them will be pulling together. And to maintain the process all you need to do is fill the lower bucket to keep the process running.

right/wrong?
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compressing air to get it down to where the buckets need to be filled will take more energy than you get out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but you also need to take into account that five (5) buckets with air in them will be pulling together. And to maintain the process all you need to do is fill the lower bucket to keep the process running.
> 
> right/wrong?
> -
Click to expand...

Wrong!  People keep telling you but you refuse to believe.  Law of conservation of energy -- look it up.  Oh.. wait.. I will even do it for you.  The law of conservation of energy: A simple introduction


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> _*JoeMoma,*_
> I'm back in my office and attempting to re-due the drawing. I want to start this by using the air in two (2) two scuba tanks. A standard tank holds 80 cubic feet of air at 3,000 p.s.i.
> 
> The pressure at the bottom of my device is 264.6 p.s.i. (18 ATM)
> 
> If I release the air in both scuba tanks into the lower balloon, what would the volume of this balloon be at this depth, 264.5 p.s.i; 594 feet down?
> 
> I am asking you this while I await my sons arrival to my office. I hope he can help me on this.
> 
> In the end I want to know the volume of the balloons at--
> 
> 18 ATM
> 15 ATM
> 12 ATM
> 9 ATM
> 6 ATM
> 3 ATM
> 1 ATM
> -


Scuba tanks!  Aren't you suppose to be pumping the air down via a pipe.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Rigbt5*,
I now know that I have made some drastic errors in my original drawing. I am in the process of correcting these errors; once done I will introduce the new drawing here. I hope you come back and add your thoughts.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Scuba tanks! Aren't you suppose to be pumping the air down via a pipe.


_*JoeMoma*_,
The method of getting the air to the bottom is not the real issue here but the costs of energy needed is. I decided that I could use scuba tanks as my starting point. It costs $5 to fill a scuba tank in the USA. In reference to costs, I thought I would start here.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

I know the laws and I have not broken them; next


JoeMoma said:


> Wrong! People keep telling you but you refuse to believe. Law of conservation of energy -- look it up. Oh.. wait.. I will even do it for you


I know the laws and I have not broken them; next
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

_*JoeMoma*_,

Is this process linear?

Btw- Thanks for your contribution here. Since you have changed my look at this I am going to include your handle as one of the designers; If you don't mind. -


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compressing air to get it down to where the buckets need to be filled will take more energy than you get out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but you also need to take into account that five (5) buckets with air in them will be pulling together. And to maintain the process all you need to do is fill the lower bucket to keep the process running.
> 
> right/wrong?
> -
Click to expand...


You will have to keep filling all the buckets, so all the compression of air to fill them will add up to more than you get out of it.
That is because of frictional losses.
The fact there are 5 buckets pulling together does not help because you still had to fill all five buckets.

About the only way to get energy out off the ocean, is either something that bobs up and down with waves but then uses a one way ratchet to turn a shaft one direction, or a thermal cline tube to take advantage of the heat difference from between the top of the ocean and down deep.

Have not read this, but know it has been done.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter2/Ency_Oceans/OTEC.pdf


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scuba tanks! Aren't you suppose to be pumping the air down via a pipe.
> 
> 
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_,
> The method of getting the air to the bottom is not the real issue here but the costs of energy needed is. I decided that I could use scuba tanks as my starting point. It costs $5 to fill a scuba tank in the USA. In reference to costs, I thought I would start here.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Scuba tanks are a bad idea.
They get hot when you fill, then cool off, losing even more energy.
Better to run a pipe right to an air pump on the surface, so there is not as much heat loss over time.

Filling scuba tanks can cost more due to inspections, testing, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

Here is a real power generator using heat difference from different levels in ocean.


----------



## Rigby5

This uses wave action.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> You will have to keep filling all the buckets, so all the compression of air to fill them will add up to more than you get out of it.


You have to fill all of the buckets (balloons) once, when they are all full all you need to do is fill one (1) at any moment in time to keep it running.

[yes] or [no]

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> This uses wave action.


That is a great idea. We will need all the renewable machines combined to overcome our dependence on fossil fuels.

As I see it -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Below is an old idea I had----
wrong drawing, I deleted it


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> I know the laws and I have not broken them; next
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! People keep telling you but you refuse to believe. Law of conservation of energy -- look it up. Oh.. wait.. I will even do it for you
> 
> 
> 
> I know the laws and I have not broken them; next
> -
Click to expand...




watchingfromafar said:


> Whether I prove myself totally wrong or not I will repost this revised version to see if the ending output is larger than the input.



It would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy for the ending output (of energy) to be larger than the input of energy.  I

Seems to me that you don't now the laws.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Seems to me that you don't now the laws.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> _*JoeMoma*_,
> 
> Is this process linear?
> 
> Btw- Thanks for your contribution here. Since you have changed my look at this I am going to include your handle as one of the designers; If you don't mind. -


Doesn't matter to me.  But don't include Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck because Disney will sue.

Is the process linear?   Not sure what you mean.  I would say your process is a cycle, thus it's not linear.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that you don't now the laws.
Click to expand...

That's not the "device" this thread is about.  That device is tapping into an energy source.  It does not output more energy that is input to it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> That's not the "device" this thread is about. That device is tapping into an energy source. It does not output more energy that is input to it.


I know that. I was just showing you an old idea I had.
I have included your name on the drawing as a contributor. 
Hope you don't mind -


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Is the process linear? Not sure what you mean


Is the contraction of the air balloons linear as in using a constant to determine volume, etc. -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is the new version with the author's names


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compressing air to get it down to where the buckets need to be filled will take more energy than you get out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but you also need to take into account that five (5) buckets with air in them will be pulling together. And to maintain the process all you need to do is fill the lower bucket to keep the process running.
> 
> right/wrong?
> -
Click to expand...


*but you also need to take into account that five (5) buckets with air in them will be pulling together.*

(5) times less than perfect efficiency still loses useful energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scuba tanks! Aren't you suppose to be pumping the air down via a pipe.
> 
> 
> 
> _*JoeMoma*_,
> The method of getting the air to the bottom is not the real issue here but the costs of energy needed is. I decided that I could use scuba tanks as my starting point. It costs $5 to fill a scuba tank in the USA. In reference to costs, I thought I would start here.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*It costs $5 to fill a scuba tank in the USA. In reference to costs, I thought I would start here.*

How do you bring the tanks back to the surface?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do you bring the tanks back to the surface?



There is an exchanger at the top that exchanges the empty tanks with full ones

Listen, I agree that my contraption does not work but I need to prove it to myself and you folks are helping me out a lot.

Still I am not there yet, I still believe that--
It takes (X) amount of energy to fill one balloon. Once the system is running it still takes only the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running.
The five above balloons pulling in unison puts out five times more energy that it takes to keep the system running.
My son has arrived and he is on your side while I am here alone believing five (5) combined energy sources \pulling together puts out more energy that it takes to fill one.
I'm stubborn and lock-headed and at 70 my brain has gone numb.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> (5) times less than perfect efficiency still loses useful energy.


I do not deny that energy is consumed while the process runs. I do not deny that water resistance to the rising balloons consumes energy, etc.

What I have not conceded to is the following:

for example-

It takes (X) amount of energy to put air in one balloon

(X)+(X) +(X)+(X)+(X) = more energy output at any moment in time than (X)

Together with on other fact. As the balloons rise they will expand creating more lifting force
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> (5) times less than perfect efficiency still loses useful energy.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not deny that energy is consumed while the process runs. I do not deny that water resistance to the rising balloons consumes energy, etc.
> 
> What I have not conceded to is the following:
> 
> for example-
> 
> It takes (X) amount of energy to put air in one balloon
> 
> (X)+(X) +(X)+(X)+(X) = more energy output at any moment in time than (X)
> 
> Together with on other fact. As the balloons rise they will expand creating more lifting force
> -
Click to expand...


*It takes (X) amount of energy to put air in one balloon*

Yup.

*(X)+(X) +(X)+(X)+(X) = more energy output at any moment in time than (X)*

No. Your output is Z% of (X). With Z < 100.


*Together with on other fact. As the balloons rise they will expand creating more lifting force*​
You're right, the air takes more force to push down to that bucket, the deeper it gets.

​


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> (5) times less than perfect efficiency still loses useful energy.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not deny that energy is consumed while the process runs. I do not deny that water resistance to the rising balloons consumes energy, etc.
> 
> What I have not conceded to is the following:
> 
> for example-
> 
> It takes (X) amount of energy to put air in one balloon
> 
> (X)+(X) +(X)+(X)+(X) = more energy output at any moment in time than (X)
> 
> Together with on other fact. As the balloons rise they will expand creating more lifting force
> -
Click to expand...

You don't get the energy it takes to fill the first 4 balloons for free.  Also, the more balloons you have in the system, the quicker you have to fill each balloon at the bottom.

Each time one balloon releases its air at the top, you have to fill one balloon at the bottom.  You are not getting 5 for one, You are getting one for one.  By the time each balloon has made it's journey to the top, 5 balloons behind it have to be filled.

Also, you are still confusing force with energy.... they are not the same.

Perhaps you should think about how much energy you must put into the system and how much energy is output from the system in one complete cycle.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to keep filling all the buckets, so all the compression of air to fill them will add up to more than you get out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to fill all of the buckets (balloons) once, when they are all full all you need to do is fill one (1) at any moment in time to keep it running.
> 
> [yes] or [no]
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Yes, you only have to refill one at a time.
But as buckets keep reaching the top and flipping, you will have to keep filling a new once that flips over at the bottom.
So you keep having to put energy into it, slightly greater than the energy you get out.


----------



## JoeMoma

Rigby5 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to keep filling all the buckets, so all the compression of air to fill them will add up to more than you get out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to fill all of the buckets (balloons) once, when they are all full all you need to do is fill one (1) at any moment in time to keep it running.
> 
> [yes] or [no]
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you only have to refill one at a time.
> But as buckets keep reaching the top and flipping, you will have to keep filling a new once that flips over at the bottom.
> So you keep having to put energy into it, slightly greater than the energy you get out.
Click to expand...




Rigby5 said:


> slightly greater



Considering the complexity of this device and the viscosity of water, my vote is for "much greater".


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Below is an old idea I had----
> wrong drawing, I deleted it



Goethermal like that is very big in Iceland because they have so much volcanic actions so close to the surface, such as steaming gysers and hot pools of water right on the surface.
I do not know exactly what their mechanisms look like, but it would probably be worth studying what they already did, do find things to improve upon.


----------



## Rigby5

But don't ignore the ocean heat different engine to run a generator.
All you need is enough difference between warm and cold, like off the coast of Brazil, and you can run what essentially is a Sterling heat engine.


----------



## watchingfromafar

I understand that there are a lot of new innovative machines out there designed to create energy. Hopefully there are a few that create more energy than is needed to run the system.

I have seen the same argument here as the one my son presented to me and still, I refuse to concede.

Energy input verses output.

If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time; I am getting out “more” energy than I am putting in.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> I understand that there are a lot of new innovative machines out there designed to create energy. Hopefully there are a few that create more energy than is needed to run the system.
> 
> I have seen the same argument here as the one my son presented to me and still, I refuse to concede.
> 
> Energy input verses output.
> 
> If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time; I am getting out “more” energy than I am putting in.
> 
> -


*If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time;*

You're not. 

You put in 5(X) and get out less (much less) than 5(X).


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time;*
> 
> You're not.
> 
> You put in 5(X) and get out less (much less) than 5(X).



But, but, but it only takes one (1)X to keep it running at any one moment in time
look at it another way, I am consuming 100 watts while  my output is putting out 500 watts
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time;*
> 
> You're not.
> 
> You put in 5(X) and get out less (much less) than 5(X).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but it only takes one (1)X to keep it running at any one moment in time
> look at it another way, I am consuming 100 watts while  my output is putting out 500 watts
> -
Click to expand...


*But, but, but it only takes one (1)X to keep it running at any one moment in time*

Yup. And your output is always less (a lot less) than your input.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> I understand that there are a lot of new innovative machines out there designed to create energy. Hopefully there are a few that create more energy than is needed to run the system.
> 
> I have seen the same argument here as the one my son presented to me and still, I refuse to concede.
> 
> Energy input verses output.
> 
> If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time; I am getting out “more” energy than I am putting in.
> 
> -


No, there are not any innovative machines designed to CREATE energy that actually work.  There are innovative machines that tap into energy sources already there.  Machines do not create energy, they consume energy.

Refuse to concede all you want, you will never be able to build a machine that produces more energy than it consumes.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> I understand that there are a lot of new innovative machines out there designed to create energy. Hopefully there are a few that create more energy than is needed to run the system.
> 
> I have seen the same argument here as the one my son presented to me and still, I refuse to concede.
> 
> Energy input verses output.
> 
> If I am using (X) amount of energy to keep the system running while at the same time I am getting out (X)+(X) +(X) +(X) +(X) amount of energy at any one moment in time; I am getting out “more” energy than I am putting in.
> 
> -


You are very confused because you have 5 balloons going up at a time while you are filling one balloon.  That does not matter.  What matters is that the rate at which you move (pump) air down to the bottom of your device is at least equal to the rate the air travels back up to the surface, otherwise you device will run short of air.  

Also, you will not get any energy out of your device until you harness it to some type of load such as a generator.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> You are very confused because you have 5 balloons going up at a time while you are filling one balloon. That does not matter. What matters is that the rate at which you move (pump) air down to the bottom of your device is at least equal to the rate the air travels back up to the surface


There is one factor that I believe you are missing or ignoring.
As these balloons rise they wil expand and this expansion will displace more water giving it more lifting force.



JoeMoma said:


> Also, you will not get any energy out of your device until you harness it to some type of load such as a generator.


I agree but I can only deal with the theory, not the technocial inner works.
I have no idea of what these balloons will be made of; nor the type of cable..,.. etc.
If the  mythology of the system is valid then others with far more experience will pick up the flag and bring it to the finished line.

It won’t be me
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very confused because you have 5 balloons going up at a time while you are filling one balloon. That does not matter. What matters is that the rate at which you move (pump) air down to the bottom of your device is at least equal to the rate the air travels back up to the surface
> 
> 
> 
> There is one factor that I believe you are missing or ignoring.
> As these balloons rise they wil expand and this expansion will displace more water giving it more lifting force.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you will not get any energy out of your device until you harness it to some type of load such as a generator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree but I can only deal with the theory, not the technocial inner works.
> I have no idea of what these balloons will be made of; nor the type of cable..,.. etc.
> If the  mythology of the system is valid then others with far more experience will pick up the flag and bring it to the finished line.
> 
> It won’t be me
> -
Click to expand...

Kinetic energy = (1/2)MV^2   and Force = MA.    You keep going down the wrong rabbit trail with this "force at the moment" stuff.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*JoeMona*,
I’m at home (without a backyard) and I have decided to take 15-20 bills to put me to sleep.

See you on the other side, it’s been fun

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Air Bubble

 Air is a gas

 gases compress with pressure

 Assuming *constant temperature*, Boyle's -  a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)

One square food of water at 1 ATM weighs 64 lbs.


One square foot of water will compress to 1/2 square foot at 2 ATM

EXAMPLE—

Surface volume (X) = 300 CF

Upper force (Y) = 64 lbs.

Volume at 2 atm (X)/2 = 150 CF = 150 X 64 = 9,600 pounds of upward force
Volume at 3 atm (X)/3 = 100 CF = 100 X 64 = 6,400 pounds of upward force
Volume at 6 atm (X)/6 = 50 CF = 50 X 64 = +  Y X CF = 3,200 lbs.
Volume at 9 atm (X)/9 = 33.33 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 2,133 lbs.
Volume at 12 atm (X)/12 = 25 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,600 lbs.
Volume at 15 atm (X)/15 = 20 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,280 lbs.
Volume at 18 atm (X)/18 = 16.66 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,066 lbs.
Total upward force = 25,259 lbs.

An air bubble rises at 2 feet a second

2 X 60 = 120 feet per minute
120 X 60 = 7,200 feet per hour
5,280 feet in a mile

7,200/5,280 = 1.36 miles an hour
TOTAL force 25,259 lbs. traveling at 1.36 miles an hour
globule

Now all I have to do is convert the above to electric energy
-


----------



## fncceo

watchingfromafar said:


> Now all I have to do is convert the above to electric energy
> -



I convert this to electricity every month...


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Foot-Pound : *The foot-pound (symbol: ft•lb) is a measurement unit of energy which is equivalent to 1.3558179483314 joules. It is defined as the amount of energy expended in applying a force of one pound-force through a displacement of one foot. In one second

A Joule = The foot-pound (also and originally known as foot-pound force) is a traditional English unit of work. It is equal to the work done by one pound of force acting through a distance of one foot. For example, when James Watt determined that a horse could lift 550 lbs. at a rate of one foot per second, he declared it one horsepower. The SI or international equivalent of the foot-pound is the Joule (J).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Air Bubble
> 
> Air is a gas
> 
> gases compress with pressure
> 
> Assuming *constant temperature*, Boyle's -  a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)
> 
> One square food of water at 1 ATM weighs 64 lbs.
> 
> 
> One square foot of water will compress to 1/2 square foot at 2 ATM
> 
> EXAMPLE—
> 
> Surface volume (X) = 300 CF
> 
> Upper force (Y) = 64 lbs.
> 
> Volume at 2 atm (X)/2 = 150 CF = 150 X 64 = 9,600 pounds of upward force
> Volume at 3 atm (X)/3 = 100 CF = 100 X 64 = 6,400 pounds of upward force
> Volume at 6 atm (X)/6 = 50 CF = 50 X 64 = +  Y X CF = 3,200 lbs.
> Volume at 9 atm (X)/9 = 33.33 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 2,133 lbs.
> Volume at 12 atm (X)/12 = 25 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,600 lbs.
> Volume at 15 atm (X)/15 = 20 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,280 lbs.
> Volume at 18 atm (X)/18 = 16.66 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,066 lbs.
> Total upward force = 25,259 lbs.
> 
> An air bubble rises at 2 feet a second
> 
> 2 X 60 = 120 feet per minute
> 120 X 60 = 7,200 feet per hour
> 5,280 feet in a mile
> 
> 7,200/5,280 = 1.36 miles an hour
> TOTAL force 25,259 lbs. traveling at 1.36 miles an hour
> globule
> 
> Now all I have to do is convert the above to electric energy
> -



Take the amount of energy it took to move the air to the bottom bucket and divide by 2. Or 3.


----------



## fncceo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air Bubble
> 
> Air is a gas
> 
> gases compress with pressure
> 
> Assuming *constant temperature*, Boyle's -  a pressure of 19 atmospheres (1 atmosphere at sea level + 18 atmospheres for being 600ft under water)
> 
> One square food of water at 1 ATM weighs 64 lbs.
> 
> 
> One square foot of water will compress to 1/2 square foot at 2 ATM
> 
> EXAMPLE—
> 
> Surface volume (X) = 300 CF
> 
> Upper force (Y) = 64 lbs.
> 
> Volume at 2 atm (X)/2 = 150 CF = 150 X 64 = 9,600 pounds of upward force
> Volume at 3 atm (X)/3 = 100 CF = 100 X 64 = 6,400 pounds of upward force
> Volume at 6 atm (X)/6 = 50 CF = 50 X 64 = +  Y X CF = 3,200 lbs.
> Volume at 9 atm (X)/9 = 33.33 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 2,133 lbs.
> Volume at 12 atm (X)/12 = 25 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,600 lbs.
> Volume at 15 atm (X)/15 = 20 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,280 lbs.
> Volume at 18 atm (X)/18 = 16.66 CF; upward force = Y X CF = 1,066 lbs.
> Total upward force = 25,259 lbs.
> 
> An air bubble rises at 2 feet a second
> 
> 2 X 60 = 120 feet per minute
> 120 X 60 = 7,200 feet per hour
> 5,280 feet in a mile
> 
> 7,200/5,280 = 1.36 miles an hour
> TOTAL force 25,259 lbs. traveling at 1.36 miles an hour
> globule
> 
> Now all I have to do is convert the above to electric energy
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take the amount of energy it took to move the air to the bottom bucket and divide by 2. Or 3.
Click to expand...


You're wasting your time ... 






It's been explained to him ... he's not listening.

I'm curious why he hasn't run down to the Patent Office with his plan.


----------



## eagle1462010

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We"-? You have not proven any of this wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Boyle's Law: Air Volume = 1/ Pressure
> Not a math person? This means that the deeper you go, the more air compresses. To find out how much, make a fraction of 1 over the pressure. If the pressure is 2 ATA, then the volume of the compressed air is ½ of its original size at the surface.
> Every 33 feet of salt water = 1 ATA of pressure
> What Scuba Divers Need to Know About Depth and Pressure*
> 
> The above proves that an air bubble is compressed to half its size with an increase of one atmosphere in pressure.  And the reverse holds true too.
> -
Click to expand...

Which requires more energy to pump the air down there............You gain nothing.


----------



## watchingfromafar

My revised version; I will be back to discuss


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> My revised version; I will be back to discuss



Sea water in square feet?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sea water in square feet?


This is a means to calculate water volume. Ok, I get it, I should have said cubic feet


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sea water in square feet?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a means to calculate water volume. Ok, I get it, I should have said cubic feet
Click to expand...

1.  At sea level, the ambient air pressure is 1 atmosphere.  So at 33 feet deep, the balloon will be at 2 Atmosphere's pressure.  At 66 feet deep it will be 3 Atmosphere's pressure and so on.
2.  Your force numbers are not really foot lbs, they are simply lbs.  If a 5 lb object is lifted up 20 feet, then 100  foot-lbs of work was done.  Work (energy) is force x distance.You don't simply calculate the weight of the displaced water (in lbs) and then call it Ft-lbs.
3.  There is a buoyant force approximately equal to the displaced water pushing the balloons up, but you need to subtract off the drag force (friction) of the balloons moving through the water.  If you have ever tried to walk chest deep in water in a swimming pool, then you have experienced the drag force of water; it can be very strong.  The calculations of the drag force on the balloons are probably more than anyone on this forum would want to tackle.
4.  I'm not sure why I keep responding to this thread since* everyone has already told you that you device cannot create energy*.  Perhaps It's because I do find some of the math/physics that you are looking at entertaining and it give me a chance to shake off some of the cob webs of what I learned in college 30 years ago.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> *everyone has already told you that you device cannot create energy*. Perhaps It's because I do find some of the math/physics that you are looking at entertaining and it give me a chance to shake off some of the cob webs of what I learned in college 30 years ago.



I'm not talking to every one, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.
[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.
[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.
[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)
[4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]
[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny
[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]
*This you cannot deny


 *​


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.



Your under water calculations for pressure are off by one ATM because you don't add the one ATM ambient pressure of air at sea level.  However, this is a moot point considering the rest of the flaws.



watchingfromafar said:


> [1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.



I do deny that the lifting force is called energy.  This is a major flaw in your understanding of why your device cannot create energy. 



watchingfromafar said:


> [2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.



I agree.



watchingfromafar said:


> [3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)



Calling "force", "energy" is a major flaw in your analysis.



watchingfromafar said:


> 4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]
> [5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny
> [6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]



Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It takes X amount of energy to compress a given volume of air at sea level and move it 594 feet under water.  While that mass of compressed air remains 594 feet under water, it has what we call potential energy because the potential energy can be released as the air moves back to the water's surface.  That energy from that under water air will not be completely released until it has once again reached the water's surface and has fully expanded.  So for each X amount of energy you put into the system, you only get X out.  The fact that you have 5 balloons traveling up to the water's surface does not multiply the energy because you put X amount of energy into each balloon and you get X amount of energy out as it goes all the way to the top of the water.

By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system.  Force at a given moment isn't energy.




Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system. Force at a given moment isn't energy.
> Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.



The only friction here is coming from you.
 You are using semantics to dodge the basic principle of the machine. You state that energy is not force and that five rising balloons does not add more lifting force than one balloon. I will repeat the obvious and then you prone that five rising balloons is the same as one rising balloon.

I'm not talking to everyone, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.

[1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.

[2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.

[3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)

[4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]

[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny

[6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]

You need to do a little bit better than just stating it will not work.It works, the real question is whether the machine produces more energy than is needed to run it. 

The basic principle is simple enough. The machine is using the pressure of water and the rising force of air underwater.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> By calling force at a given moment, energy, you are over counting the amount of energy in the system. Force at a given moment isn't energy.
> Also note that a great deal of the X amount of energy for each balloon will be used up by the friction of the balloons moving through the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only friction here is coming from you.
> You are using semantics to dodge the basic principle of the machine. You state that energy is not force and that five rising balloons does not add more lifting force than one balloon. I will repeat the obvious and then you prone that five rising balloons is the same as one rising balloon.
> 
> I'm not talking to everyone, I'm talking to you. Everything you said about ATM's is the same in my diagram. This you cannot deny.
> 
> [1] The lifting force of an air bubble (balloon) is equal to the water being displaced.; call this energy [X] This you cannot deny.
> 
> [2] In water, an air bubble expands as it rises. This you cannot deny.
> 
> [3] The lifting force of multiple balloons in a vertical row, all attached to each other has a lifting force equal to the combined lifting force of all the balloons; call this energy (F)
> 
> [4] Energy [X]+[X]+[X]+[X]+[X] = [F]
> 
> [5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny
> 
> [6] To maintain this process all you have to add, at any one moment in time is [X] energy to get an output of [F]
> 
> You need to do a little bit better than just stating it will not work.It works, the real question is whether the machine produces more energy than is needed to run it.
> 
> The basic principle is simple enough. The machine is using the pressure of water and the rising force of air underwater.
> -
Click to expand...


*[5] [F] five (5) times greater than [X] at any one moment in time. This you cannot deny*

Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy by pumping air down to the bottom of your machine, the amount you get out is much less than the amount you put in.

Whether you multiply [X] by 5 or 500 or 5,000,000...….


----------



## Thunk

Harnessing the power of air rising under water.  

That force is powerful enough to raise sunken ships, subs, and planes!


----------



## Thunk

Toddsterpatriot said:


> by pumping air down to the bottom of your machine, the amount you get out is much less than the amount you put in.



Let's say this machine was attached to the outside of a huge ship.

That ship displaces water. You are only pumping air from the bottom of the inside of the hull thru a 1 foot long pipe & into the bottom of the machine outside the hull.

Any chance then?


----------



## JoeMoma

Watchingfromafar, I've been wrong all along (as many other's posting to this thread).  You have solved the worlds energy problems with your device.  You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.

It's amazing that no one has ever been able to develop a device that can multiply energy before you, but you have done it.  It's time to rewrite the laws of physics!


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy


 
*Toddsterpatrio*, you don’t get it and most likely never will

It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.

One balloon near the top pushing out 100 cubic feet of water and has a rising force of 6,400 pounds

Five balloons connected to each other has a lifting force of 14,453 pounds

14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon, I am still getting out a net 8,053 pounds of useful energy. And to end this circus; the cost I listed above is exaggerated, more like 3,000 pounds of energy used to maintain the system.

Now if you *Toddsterpatriot*, really want to dismiss this; please use some valid numbers.
*Toddsterpatriot*, I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.



*JoeMoma*, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and *TODDSTERPATRIOT*, all rights and ownership to the *SeaPower3* design.

-


----------



## Thunk

watchingfromafar said:


> It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.



And the force of air rising under water is a *POWERFUL* force! 

I had the idea of harnessing this force many years ago...it's in a notebook in a box in my basement. 

But mine was a completely submerged water wheel attached to the side of a large ship. 

Each "bucket" on the water-wheel was filled with water from the surface to the bottom, where it would be filled with air & push to the surface. 

The water wheel would be turning a generator & air compressor inside the hull of the ship.  

I wish people could help work out the bugs rather than just bash the idea!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me......doesn't matter how many times you lose useful energy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Toddsterpatrio*, you don’t get it and most likely never will
> 
> It’s force that turns a generator. The more force the faster you can turn the generator producing more power in the process.
> 
> One balloon near the top pushing out 100 cubic feet of water and has a rising force of 6,400 pounds
> 
> Five balloons connected to each other has a lifting force of 14,453 pounds
> 
> 14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon, I am still getting out a net 8,053 pounds of useful energy. And to end this circus; the cost I listed above is exaggerated, more like 3,000 pounds of energy used to maintain the system.
> 
> Now if you *Toddsterpatriot*, really want to dismiss this; please use some valid numbers.
> *Toddsterpatriot*, I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.
> -
Click to expand...


*14,453 pounds is greater than 6,400. Even if this costs me 6,400 pounds of energy to fill each balloon,*

Then it would take 32,000 to get out 14,453.

*I have a great deal of respect for you, so don’t take this with any animosity intended or implied.*​*-*​
I don't believe there is any animosity involved in your confusion.​


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> *JoeMoma*, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and *TODDSTERPATRIOT*, all rights and ownership to the *SeaPower3* design.



It's now 10/23/2019 and I have 24 hours to extend this gift and I hereby extend this gift of all rights to *Thunk* as well.
-


----------



## Thunk

watchingfromafar said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and *TODDSTERPATRIOT*, all rights and ownership to the *SeaPower3* design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's now 10/23/2019 and I have 24 hours to extend this gift and I hereby extend this gift of all rights to *Thunk* as well.
> -
Click to expand...


That's very kind of you...but I think mine is dated 1994 or 1995 in my notebook  

And like you...I couldn't get anybody to listen.


----------



## Thunk

Another idea I couldn't get anybody to listen to...

The product has a demand and no supply. 

An EMP proof scooter. 

Runs on gasoline, old tech (patents expired)...only needs to go 15-20 MPH. with saddlebags so you can carry something. 

You know how many preppers would be interested in a SHTF mode of transportation? 

And there would be plenty of cars broken down to siphon gas from!


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to stop posting about it on this board because someone is bound to steal it from you and get it patented before you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*, I hereby now on this date10/22/2019; give you and *TODDSTERPATRIOT*, all rights and ownership to the *SeaPower3* design.
> 
> -
Click to expand...

No, but thanks!


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.


This was the first post, OP; posted on August 3, 2019

The most recent post was by JoeMoma;

Post #320

October 25, 2019

_I hope this is not the end -_


----------



## watchingfromafar

I need a human calculator
Any volunteers-?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Ok, I'm here to defend this concept; anyone here care to comment--?
-


----------



## luchitociencia

watchingfromafar said:


> Ok, I'm here to defend this concept; anyone here care to comment--?
> -


 You know that machines to be used under salted water must be protected and sealed because salt water causes lots of damage.

Your machine will cause motion and will be in direct contact with sea water. What kind of material are you thinking will be the best for the mobile parts? For example the buckets. Have you considered that ocean waters are not free of other materials and have you considered filters and similar? 

(I have jumped from the first postings to this last page, if you have given that information just let me know, I will look for it inside this thread)


----------



## Thunk

luchitociencia said:


> Your machine will cause motion and will be in direct contact with sea water. What kind of material are you thinking will be the best for the mobile parts?



Same as the prop and rudder of a ship.


----------



## luchitociencia

Thunk said:


> Same as the prop and rudder of a ship.



And what about filters? My understanding is obtaining the source of power continually and directly from sea water.

On the other hand, lets fill up a bucket and let it fall 10 feet from the air. Doing the same with a bucket inside a pool of water 10 foot deep, there is a huge difference in both "falling" because is the water viscosity against air. Water temperature is also another issue to take in consideration because is not standard not only by the different seasons but also by motion of water currents, the zone where the ship is moving, etc..

For this kind of new methods to obtain energy from simple elements and by mechanical means, best is to actually make a scale model and check how it works. Doing so the possible several modifications or adjustments must be made to improve its work. 

In paper you can even make a star to shrink and become a black hole, but in reality nature is not precised enough to fulfill such claims made with abstract mathematics, for this reason in physical reality black holes do not exist. 

In paper such machine promises a lot, but a scale model is called to be made and see how it works, if it does as expected.


----------



## Thunk

luchitociencia said:


> And what about filters? My understanding is obtaining the source of power continually and directly from sea water.



You are not trying to help and work out bugs in the system...you're trying to throw in any obstacle you can think of to cause problems. 

"If God had meant for man to fly He would have given us wings"...they told the wright brothers. 

Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!


----------



## luchitociencia

Thunk said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about filters? My understanding is obtaining the source of power continually and directly from sea water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to help and work out bugs in the system...you're trying to throw in any obstacle you can think of to cause problems.
> 
> "If God had meant for man to fly He would have given us wings"...they told the wright brothers.
> 
> Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!
Click to expand...


I have made a few experiments. Before making them, the prediction in paper was practically the only "possible" result. However, results weren't even closer to what was expected.

For example, one experiment was comparing two watches, one at room temperature and the other one inside the freezer compartment of a refrigerator.

Both watches the same brand, model and working exactly in parallel for the two previous weeks.

The watch inside the refrigerator showed 6 seconds of time data difference with respect to the clock at room temperature. But this is what called our attention, the watch inside the refrigerator was 6 seconds ahead and not behind the time data of the clock at room temperature. And the 6 seconds ahead where the regular ratio. It wasn't even disparate but regular 6 seconds ahead per day.

You'll never know how the machine from this topic will work until you start testing it, best is to do it at small scale first, so the investment will be minimum if it is found out that won't work at all. Otherwise, after a satisfactory initial tests with the paperwork and video to look for investors able to risk some money and manufacture a model in a greater shop.


----------



## Thunk

luchitociencia said:


> The watch inside the refrigerator showed 6 seconds of time data difference with respect to the clock at room temperature.



Obviously it was frozen in time


----------



## luchitociencia

Thunk said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The watch inside the refrigerator showed 6 seconds of time data difference with respect to the clock at room temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it was frozen in time
Click to expand...

That was a good joke, but reacting to it I still don't know if to laugh, to cry... to scream...

Cheers.


----------



## Thunk

luchitociencia said:


> That was a good joke, but reacting to it I still don't know if to laugh, to cry... to scream...
> 
> Cheers.



I know what you mean. 

I've dreamed up many "inventions"...and when I actually build one...it has little resemblance to the original idea on paper. 

It's just the way of things. 

But when you keep at it...working out the bugs...it usually evolves into something better than the original idea!


----------



## Thunk

luchitociencia said:


> You'll never know how the machine from this topic will work until you start testing it, best is to do it at small scale first, so the investment will be minimum if it is found out that won't work at all.



Agree 1000000000%


----------



## watchingfromafar

luchitociencia said:


> What kind of material are you thinking will be the best for the mobile parts? For example the buckets.


PTFE 101: The Basic Facts about Teflon®

Although it's been around for nearly seven decades, Teflon® coating services remains highly popular for a variety of applications. Teflon® production surpassed 240,000 tons by the year 2017. Back in the late 40s, only about 900 tons of the substance were produced.

PTFE coating is a fluorocarbon solid, making it resistant to corrosive chemicals and extreme temperatures for both hot and cold, UV ray resistant, and low friction. It also provides good insulation from electricity and doesn't absorb water. Its legacy in industrial applications spans over 80 years. Continue reading for how PTFE is made, its history, and how it is used today.
https://www.orioncoat.com/resources/ptfe-101/

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Thunk said:


> Agree 1000000000%



The problem with that idea is creating an environment where you can simulate an ocean depth of 700 feet or 18 ATM's. 
-


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> asdfasdfsdfds


Where does the air come from?


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it filled with air?
> 
> Your diagram shows sea water and water line at two different levels, plus I cannot tell anything about the height of the apparatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An air pump on a barge at the top filles the buckets.
> The machine is 600 feet tall with 11 buckets rising
Click to expand...

The power required to push the air down is greater than the power obtained by the buckets rising.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> The power required to push the air down is greater than the power obtained by the buckets rising.



You are having a problem seeing the forest for the trees or visa-versa.

The power to push the air down to fill one balloon or whatever is being returned with the power of ten (10) balloons rising.

What am I missing here-?

Or is it you who has failed to see the light-?

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power required to push the air down is greater than the power obtained by the buckets rising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are having a problem seeing the forest for the trees or visa-versa.
> 
> The power to push the air down to fill one balloon or whatever is being returned with the power of ten (10) balloons rising.
> 
> What am I missing here-?
> 
> Or is it you who has failed to see the light-?
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*The power to push the air down to fill one balloon or whatever is being returned with the power of ten (10) balloons rising.*

You're not filling one balloon.


----------



## watchingfromafar

The ones here who can count with more than one finger, stand up and be counted


----------



## watchingfromafar

*BRIPAT9643* SAID up yours hehe


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 295468
> The ones here who can count with more than one finger, stand up and be counted



That leaves you out......now what?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're not filling one balloon.


Correct, the system continues to fill one balloon after another. It's the output at any one moment in time that matters. Once the first ten (10) balloons are filled the returning pulling force is the combination of the ten (10) pulling up creating a continuous uplifting force of 14,413 lbs.. rising at over 2 feet per second.

convert that to electrical output and what energy value is it-?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That leaves you out......now what?


I didn’t realize the you were speaking for *BRIPAT9643*

Now it seems there are two clowns in town & neither can count; go figure
-


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power required to push the air down is greater than the power obtained by the buckets rising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are having a problem seeing the forest for the trees or visa-versa.
> 
> The power to push the air down to fill one balloon or whatever is being returned with the power of ten (10) balloons rising.
> 
> What am I missing here-?
> 
> Or is it you who has failed to see the light-?
> 
> -
Click to expand...

Please show where you calculated how much power is obtained/produced by each operation.

The laws of thermodynamics mean this contraption is impossible.  How is the power required to push the air down less than the power produced by the rising bucket?


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves you out......now what?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t realize the you were speaking for *BRIPAT9643*
> 
> Now it seems there are two clowns in town & neither can count; go figure
> -
Click to expand...

Oh my, we are so sensitive, aren't we?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not filling one balloon.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, the system continues to fill one balloon after another. It's the output at any one moment in time that matters. Once the first ten (10) balloons are filled the returning pulling force is the combination of the ten (10) pulling up creating a continuous uplifting force of 14,413 lbs.. rising at over 2 feet per second.
> 
> convert that to electrical output and what energy value is it-?
Click to expand...


*Once the first ten (10) balloons are filled*

You've filled ten balloons, not one. Glad I could help you see what you were missing.

*convert that to electrical output and what energy value is it-?*

Probably half, or less, of the input.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Probably half, or less, of the input.



I have posted the drawing of the actual machine
You, nore anyone else here has even tried to disprove the numbers produced.
All I can
Say is I am glade you and the other doubt-ers here keep on posting because this keeps the idea alive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably half, or less, of the input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the drawing of the actual machine
> You, nore anyone else here has even tried to disprove the numbers produced.
> All I can
> Say is I am glade you and the other doubt-ers here keep on posting because this keeps the idea alive.
> 
> View attachment 295495
Click to expand...


We should definitely keep your idea of loss of useful energy to friction......alive.


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably half, or less, of the input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the drawing of the actual machine
> You, nore anyone else here has even tried to disprove the numbers produced.
> All I can
> Say is I am glade you and the other doubt-ers here keep on posting because this keeps the idea alive.
> 
> View attachment 295495
Click to expand...

Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_


I was hoping you could tell me -


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
Click to expand...

I could once.  I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.


----------



## watchingfromafar

A lot of people here and elsewhere have been telling me that this gadget is unworkable; they have been correct. My calculations were gust wrong. I have gone back and crunched the numbers once again.

Attached is my latest version.

This version only goes to a depth of 198 feet and it generates a pulling force of 1,016,183 pounds of upward pull, puling at an accelerating speed of over 4 feet per second.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Can this machine create more energy than consumed?

If yes why & if not why not?

An energy design that may lead us to tomorrow

SeasEngine design-potential

Following is the process-

At 18 ATM, 594 feet down, the balloon is injected with air that is compressed to 36 cubic feet. 

At 15 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 108 CF

            Giving it a rising force of (108x64) = 6,912 pounds of lifting force

At 12 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 324 CF

            Giving it a rising force of (324x64) = 20,736 pounds of lifting force

At 9 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 972 CF

            Giving it a rising force of (972x64) = 20,736 pounds of lifting force

At 6 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 2,916 CF

            Giving it a rising force of (2,916x64) = 186,624 pounds of lifting force

At 3 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 8,748 CF

            Giving it a rising force of (8,748x64) = 559,872 pounds of lifting force

Having stated the above, the combined lifting force is---

*774,144-foot lbs. of lifting force.*

*speed of the rising bubbles-?*

Principles to run the machine

 [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container; [yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)

Which is a greater lifting force than (Y); [yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the containers referenced above minus the energy needed to keep it running.

; [yes] [no]


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> Can this machine create more energy than consumed?
> 
> If yes why & if not why not?
> 
> An energy design that may lead us to tomorrow
> 
> SeasEngine design-potential
> 
> Following is the process-
> 
> At 18 ATM, 594 feet down, the balloon is injected with air that is compressed to 36 cubic feet.
> 
> At 15 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 108 CF
> 
> Giving it a rising force of (108x64) = 6,912 pounds of lifting force
> 
> At 12 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 324 CF
> 
> Giving it a rising force of (324x64) = 20,736 pounds of lifting force
> 
> At 9 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 972 CF
> 
> Giving it a rising force of (972x64) = 20,736 pounds of lifting force
> 
> At 6 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 2,916 CF
> 
> Giving it a rising force of (2,916x64) = 186,624 pounds of lifting force
> 
> At 3 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 8,748 CF
> 
> Giving it a rising force of (8,748x64) = 559,872 pounds of lifting force
> 
> Having stated the above, the combined lifting force is---
> 
> *774,144-foot lbs. of lifting force.*
> 
> *speed of the rising bubbles-?*
> 
> Principles to run the machine
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container; [yes] [no]
> 
> [2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> 
> Which is a greater lifting force than (Y); [yes] [no]
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the containers referenced above minus the energy needed to keep it running.
> 
> ; [yes] [no]



Multiple containers stacked are exactly the same as 1 tall container. I fail to see how that changes your design.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

No.
Friction and entropy.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar, you have been told many many times that you cannot mechanically create energy because that would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.  Yet you want that concept proven to you using physics formulas and math that you do not understand.  Trying to correct your misconceptions and miscalculations is a futile endeavor.

Here is a link to a series of video lessons about the physics of work and energy at Khan Academy:  Introduction to work and energy (video) | Khan Academy

It would be great for you to take the time to watch and study through these videos to learn the basics underlying work and energy.  Until you educate yourself, I have nothing more to say to you about your "Ultimate Energy Source."


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Won't work because.....tanstaafl.



"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to know if the image is readable-?
> The lines are too thin. Tomorrow I will go back to my office and thicken the lines. I will also reduce the image size 50%
> Having said this, do you understand the overall concept-?
Click to expand...


Its perfectly readable, but won't work.
The energy needed to get the air down to the buckets, so that it can cause lift, is greater than the energy you get back by letting the air rise again.
Skip multiple buckets in your analysis, as that just confuses you.
Just consider one submarine trying to blow its ballast tanks.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
Click to expand...


The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.


----------



## JoeMoma

Rigby5 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
> That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
> So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
> The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.
Click to expand...

You are maybe the 25th person to tell him this, but he is like in the Twilight Zone.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeMoma said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
> That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
> So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
> The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are maybe the 25th person to tell him this, but he is like in the Twilight Zone.
Click to expand...


When I was a child I also had a similar misconception.
I was trying to calculate buoyancy in a submarine, and had a problem understanding how the weight to volume ratio did not change when you close the ballast tank doors on a sub.
But I was very young, and forgot that when you close those doors, you then have to include the ocean water in the ballast tanks, as added to the total weight of the sub.
I think here he is forgetting that the expansion of air as it rises does not increase lift, but shows it is at constant equilibrium as the water pressure decreases.
These types of conceptualizations can be challenging.
But he should also know the generalities, such that perpetual motion is not possible.
That is unless he comes up with something outside of Newtonian physics, like dark matter, relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.
And those would likely be very small or very large and far away.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could once.  I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.
Click to expand...


Good to see we can agree on something.
Just not economics.


----------



## JoeMoma

Rigby5 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Where's the number for the energy required to fill the buckets with air?_
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could tell me -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The energy need to fill the buckets with air is slightly larger than the energy you get out of the rising buckets.
> That is because there is frictional loss with the air pump.
> So then absolutely nothing is gained by this mechanism at all.
> The air expands as the buckets rise, but since the water pressure is lower, there is also less lift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are maybe the 25th person to tell him this, but he is like in the Twilight Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was a child I also had a similar misconception.
> I was trying to calculate buoyancy in a submarine, and had a problem understanding how the weight to volume ratio did not change when you close the ballast tank doors on a sub.
> But I was very young, and forgot that when you close those doors, you then have to include the ocean water in the ballast tanks, as added to the total weight of the sub.
> I think here he is forgetting that the expansion of air as it rises does not increase lift, but shows it is at constant equilibrium as the water pressure decreases.
> These types of conceptualizations can be challenging.
> But he should also know the generalities, such that perpetual motion is not possible.
> That is unless he comes up with something outside of Newtonian physics, like dark matter, relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.
> And those would likely be very small or very large and far away.
Click to expand...

He is missing a lot of things, but pointing them out to him so far has been futile.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> _I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work_.


Your _"I could once"_ was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.

Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
just asking
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

BULLDOG said:


> Multiple containers stacked are exactly the same as 1 tall container. I fail to see how that changes your design.


That one tall container you speak of has one additional asset; it has motion with a great deal of force. This force can be measured over time.

_“ki·net·ic en·er·gy_

_/kəˈnedik ˈenərjē/
noun PHYSICS
energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.”_

My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No.
> Friction and entropy.


*Friction*; as in
the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles. I am not capable of making those calculations.

* Entropy*;
_thermodynamics entropy. The kinetic energy of the molecules in the system increases when we provide heat to the system,_

Heat has very little to do with this process. The seawater is in the 60-degree range.
-


----------



## Chuz Life

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?



Brilliant!

I think it's an invention to harness the energy from rising sea levels, caused by man made catastrophic glacier melts. 

I wish I thought of it first!


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work_.
> 
> 
> 
> Your _"I could once"_ was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.
> 
> Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
> just asking
> -
Click to expand...

What ever happened to those three engineers you were going to hire?


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple containers stacked are exactly the same as 1 tall container. I fail to see how that changes your design.
> 
> 
> 
> That one tall container you speak of has one additional asset; it has motion with a great deal of force. This force can be measured over time.
> 
> _“ki·net·ic en·er·gy_
> 
> _/kəˈnedik ˈenərjē/
> noun PHYSICS
> energy which a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.”_
> 
> My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
> -
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure everybody understands your premise. Your premise just doesn't hold up, no matter how much you seem to want it to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Friction and entropy.
> 
> 
> 
> *Friction*; as in
> the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles. I am not capable of making those calculations.
> 
> * Entropy*;
> _thermodynamics entropy. The kinetic energy of the molecules in the system increases when we provide heat to the system,_
> 
> Heat has very little to do with this process. The seawater is in the 60-degree range.
> -
Click to expand...


*the drag the surrounding water has on the expanding bubbles apposed to the buoyant force of the upward pushing bubbles.*

Nope, the drag on the buckets rising through the water.

*Heat has very little to do with this process.*

Why am I even bothering?
Pumping the air down to the bottom of your "magic power wasting device" heats up the pump.
That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing, energy wasting bubble machine.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Chuz Life said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I think it's an invention to harness the energy from rising sea levels, caused by man made catastrophic glacier melts.
> 
> I wish I thought of it first!
Click to expand...


You would be wrong. It is a mythical perpetual motion machine that ignores physics.


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work_.
> 
> 
> 
> Your _"I could once"_ was a great lead in. Now it's time to move from then to the now. I was honestly hoping someone with a mechanical engineering degree or just an apt for physical science could run the numbers with a bit of curiosity attached.
> 
> Does this have to be put into some form of an equation to determine its potential>
> just asking
> -
Click to expand...

Anyone with any training in science knows that perpetual motion machines are impossible.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics.  You don't need to do any serious math to arrive at the answer.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
> -



This premise is incorrect.  I'm not sure why I'm explaining this again, but let's give it another try.

Suppose you have a balloon of air at sea level.  It takes X amount of energy to move that balloon of air 600 feet underwater.  We could tie that balloon of air at 600 feet and that balloon would represent potential energy until it is released because it has 600 feet to rise due to the buoyant force of the water.  When the balloon is released and travels up to 500 feet under water (up 100 feet) then 1/6 of the original potential energy has been used.  At 400 ft under water, 2/6 of the potential energy has been used, and at 300 ft under water, 3/6 of the potential energy has been used, and so on until at sea level 6/6 of the potential energy has been used.

Now lets look at a series (6) of balloons loaded together like in your "invention".   Let's say that the balloons are staggered at depths 100 ft apart.  So Balloon #1 is 100ft deep, #2 is 200 ft deep, #3 is 300 feet deep, #4 is 400 ft deep, #5 is at 500 ft deep, and #6 gets moved down to 600 ft deep.  Each time the chain of balloons move 100 ft up, the top balloon is released at sea level (all energy used from that balloon) and a new balloon is placed at the 600ft level (fully energized with x amount of energy).  Each 100 ft the linked series of balloons move up in the water column, each balloon uses 1/6 of it's original potential energy.  6 x 1/6 = 1 (x amount of energy).   Each time the energy for one balloon is added to the system by moving the air for 1 balloon down 600 ft (x amount of energy).  It take the same amount of energy to move one balloon of air down 600 ft down in the water as is released by 6 balloons to moving up 100 feet in the water.

Now having said all of the above, most of the energy used by releasing the balloons to travel up the water column is expended on moving the water around (drag/friction) and will not be output as useful energy.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> My premise is the energy to sustain the process is less than the energy output at any one moment in time
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This premise is incorrect.  I'm not sure why I'm explaining this again, but let's give it another try.
> 
> Suppose you have a balloon of air at sea level.  It takes X amount of energy to move that balloon of air 600 feet underwater.  We could tie that balloon of air at 600 feet and that balloon would represent potential energy until it is released because it has 600 feet to rise due to the buoyant force of the water.  When the balloon is released and travels up to 500 feet under water (up 100 feet) then 1/6 of the original potential energy has been used.  At 400 ft under water, 2/6 of the potential energy has been used, and at 300 ft under water, 3/6 of the potential energy has been used, and so on until at sea level 6/6 of the potential energy has been used.
> 
> Now lets look at a series (6) of balloons loaded together like in your "invention".   Let's say that the balloons are staggered at depths 100 ft apart.  So Balloon #1 is 100ft deep, #2 is 200 ft deep, #3 is 300 feet deep, #4 is 400 ft deep, #5 is at 500 ft deep, and #6 gets moved down to 600 ft deep.  Each time the chain of balloons move 100 ft up, the top balloon is released at sea level (all energy used from that balloon) and a new balloon is placed at the 600ft level (fully energized with x amount of energy).  Each 100 ft the linked series of balloons move up in the water column, each balloon uses 1/6 of it's original potential energy.  6 x 1/6 = 1 (x amount of energy).   Each time the energy for one balloon is added to the system by moving the air for 1 balloon down 600 ft (x amount of energy).  It take the same amount of energy to move one balloon of air down 600 ft down in the water as is released by 6 balloons to moving up 100 feet in the water.
> 
> Now having said all of the above, most of the energy used by releasing the balloons to travel up the water column is expended on moving the water around (drag/friction) and will not be output as useful energy.
Click to expand...



Good explanation.
While the original proposal makes it hard to run the numbers due to the fact he describes a compressor to pump the air down to a whole series of buckets, your analogy makes it very simple and clear.
It all boils down to taking one balloon pulling it down to some depth underwater, and then letting it go.
Clearly nothing could possibly be gained.
The forces have to be identical.
If you put a downward drag on the balloon that is equal to the force needed to get it down there in the first place, it won't move at all when released.
So you can never get back any more than it took to get the balloon do that depth.
Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing,


So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.

Still I appreciate your contributions.
Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money. Sadly, people stuck with the buck always come up short.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.


but, but, but it does~~~~
Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?

Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.

The balloons are in a revolving loop.

Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.

It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.

As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift

In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.

Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)

Now this is the kicker, *at any one moment in time* you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> If you put a downward drag on the balloon that is equal to the force needed to get it down there in the first place, it won't move at all when released.



The balloons are not being dragged to the bottom and any balloon filled with air will rise when released; to say they wouldn't defies the laws of physics.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That waste heat is another part of the energy loss you'll suffer when you turn on your magic money losing,
> 
> 
> 
> So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.
> 
> Still I appreciate your contributions.
> Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money. Sadly, people stuck with the buck always come up short.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*So true, just as the wasted heat is generated every time you post here.*

You bet.

I've never claimed my posts could generate more useful power than they consume.

*Besides, this has nothing to do with magic money. *

The money your device would lose has nothing to do with magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> but, but, but it does~~~~
> Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?
> 
> Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.
> 
> The balloons are in a revolving loop.
> 
> Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.
> 
> It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.
> 
> As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift
> 
> In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.
> 
> Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)
> 
> Now this is the kicker, *at any one moment in time* you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
> -
Click to expand...


_Now this is the kicker, *at any one moment in time* you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards_

Five balloons which each took more energy to fill than they will generate as they rise.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having the air inside balloon skins changes nothing, and having multiple buckets changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> but, but, but it does~~~~
> Once again, the point is missed; maybe this is due to the simplicity of the design; must I make it more complex, more moving parts or what?
> 
> Think simple, think without prejudice, see the simple, for the simplicity of it.
> 
> The balloons are in a revolving loop.
> 
> Each time a balloon reaches the bottom it is injected with air using (X) amount of energy to fill the balloon.
> 
> It takes (X) amount of energy to fill the lowest balloon.
> 
> As that balloon rises it expands displacing more seawater created more upward lift
> 
> In this loop; another balloon at the bottom is injected with the same amount of air until all 5 balloons have been injected and are rising to the surface. As the top balloon reaches the surface and flip over releasing the air within as it returns to the bottom to repeat this revolving process.
> 
> Now we have five rising balloons tied to each other lifting together using their combined lifting force. This force is equal to (X)+(X)+(X)+(X)+(X) = 5(X's)
> 
> Now this is the kicker, *at any one moment in time* you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
> -
Click to expand...

As I explained earlier, the energy to fill one balloon does not take place "at any one moment in time", and the energy expended by that balloon isn't used up in just "one moment in time". 

In other words, the amount of energy it takes to fill on balloon is not a force at a one moment.  The energy it takes to fill a balloon with air is not equal to X, its lifting force at one moment.

To make an analogy, the energy from a full tank of gasoline is not equal to the force your car's engine produces at any one moment.  That tank of fuel is providing energy for a trip that can be hundreds of miles in duration.  Likewise, filling a balloon with air 600 ft under water provides it with energy for the duration of the  balloon's entire trip up 600 ft to the water's surface, not just a force at one moment.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Tell me why there are several definitions of electricity.

There is the “amp”, “volt”, “current” and “watts”. These terms are describing different aspects of electricity which all are just a way to measure the effects of the electron. The electron in turn moves through space because of the pull and push of magnetism.

Does this have anything to do with my machine; well; no, not directly.

Now back to the problem at hand, to be repeated for the umtenth time; how simple can simpalton be-?

What’s at hand here is the power of “force” at any one moment in time.

If you are getting more energy output than is required to keep the system running then you are traveling down a downhill road coasting all the way; for the moment, this is a perpetual motion machine.

-


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> Tell me why there are several definitions of electricity.
> 
> There is the “amp”, “volt”, “current” and “watts”. These terms are describing different aspects of electricity which all are just a way to measure the effects of the electron. The electron in turn moves through space because of the pull and push of magnetism.
> 
> Does this have anything to do with my machine; well; no, not directly.
> 
> Now back to the problem at hand, to be repeated for the umtenth time; how simple can simpalton be-?
> 
> What’s at hand here is the power of “force” at any one moment in time.
> 
> If you are getting more energy output than is required to keep the system running then you are traveling down a downhill road coasting all the way; for the moment, this is a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> -



Doesn't quite work like that. The buckets in your machine work in a cycle. It depends on the constant up and down movement to produce work. Some parts of the cycle do produce more output than others, but the complete cycle is a net user of energy instead of a net producer of energy.


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> Tell me why there are several definitions of electricity.
> 
> There is the “amp”, “volt”, “current” and “watts”. These terms are describing different aspects of electricity which all are just a way to measure the effects of the electron. The electron in turn moves through space because of the pull and push of magnetism.
> 
> Does this have anything to do with my machine; well; no, not directly.
> 
> Now back to the problem at hand, to be repeated for the umtenth time; how simple can simpalton be-?
> 
> What’s at hand here is the power of “force” at any one moment in time.
> 
> If you are getting more energy output than is required to keep the system running then you are traveling down a downhill road coasting all the way; for the moment, this is a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> -



If your machine were a true net energy producer, you would be too busy cashing those million dollar checks to have any time to play on an internet discussion board.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Tell me why there are several definitions of electricity.
> 
> There is the “amp”, “volt”, “current” and “watts”. These terms are describing different aspects of electricity which all are just a way to measure the effects of the electron. The electron in turn moves through space because of the pull and push of magnetism.
> 
> Does this have anything to do with my machine; well; no, not directly.
> 
> Now back to the problem at hand, to be repeated for the umtenth time; how simple can simpalton be-?
> 
> What’s at hand here is the power of “force” at any one moment in time.
> 
> If you are getting more energy output than is required to keep the system running then you are traveling down a downhill road coasting all the way; for the moment, this is a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> -


What you think you know isn't true.


----------



## watchingfromafar

BULLDOG said:


> The buckets in your machine work in a cycle. It depends on the constant up and down movement to produce work.


You are so right, as right as the falling rain on a moon lit night.

The power of the cycle is the point of this debate.

 Thanks for your comment; you are right on point. To produce work, you need movement and here we have it.

In the attached drawing there are five (5) balloons or inverted umbrella’s rising on the right side being pushed up by the trapped air under them.

while another five (5) are sinking on the left side with no air in them. The drawing is not showing them.

The “constant” upwards force if the combined lifting force of the combined five balloons.



BULLDOG said:


> Some parts of the cycle do produce more output than others,



So true while at the same time the five (5) rising balloons work together as one lifting force.
Imagine you tie a rope to a tree branch. The rope weighs three (3) pound. The rope is hanging down almost touching the ground.
You then attach a five (5) pound weight just above the bottom.
You then attach a ten (10) pound weight just above the five pound weight.
You then attach a six (6) pound weight just above the ten pound weight.
You then attach an eight (8) pound weight just above the six pound weight.
You then attach a four (4) pound weight just above the eight pound weight.

_*BULLDOG*_, how pulling force is being applied to the tree limb-- ?
Is it the average of the combined weights or the sum of them-?



BULLDOG said:


> but the complete cycle is a net user of energy instead of a net producer of energy.


It takes energy to produce energy. This is just a conversion process.

You convert the upward force of rising, expanding air bubbles into mechanical energy. The question is, am I getting out more energy than I am putting in to maintain the cycle?
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 307066
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> The buckets in your machine work in a cycle. It depends on the constant up and down movement to produce work.
> 
> 
> 
> You are so right, as right as the falling rain on a moon lit night.
> 
> The power of the cycle is the point of this debate.
> 
> Thanks for your comment; you are right on point. To produce work, you need movement and here we have it.
> 
> In the attached drawing there are five (5) balloons or inverted umbrella’s rising on the right side being pushed up by the trapped air under them.
> 
> while another five (5) are sinking on the left side with no air in them. The drawing is not showing them.
> 
> The “constant” upwards force if the combined lifting force of the combined five balloons.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some parts of the cycle do produce more output than others,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true while at the same time the five (5) rising balloons work together as one lifting force.
> Imagine you tie a rope to a tree branch. The rope weighs three (3) pound. The rope is hanging down almost touching the ground.
> You then attach a five (5) pound weight just above the bottom.
> You then attach a ten (10) pound weight just above the five pound weight.
> You then attach a six (6) pound weight just above the ten pound weight.
> You then attach an eight (8) pound weight just above the six pound weight.
> You then attach a four (4) pound weight just above the eight pound weight.
> 
> _*BULLDOG*_, how much pulling force is being applied to the tree limb-- ?
> Is it the average of the combined weights or the sum of them-?
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the complete cycle is a net user of energy instead of a net producer of energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes energy to produce energy. This is just a conversion process.
> 
> You convert the upward force of rising, expanding air bubbles into mechanical energy. The question is, am I getting out more energy than I am putting in to maintain the cycle at any one moment is time?
> -
> 
> 
> View attachment 307066
Click to expand...


*The question is, am I getting out more energy than I am putting in to maintain the cycle at any one moment is time?*

The question is, am I getting out more total energy than I put in.....to maintain the cycle.
And the answer is.....not even close.


----------



## JoeMoma

Have you ever tried to walk waist deep in a swimming pool.  It is much more difficult than walking on dry flat ground, isn't it.  It is much more difficult walking waist deep in water because of the drag/friction of the water.  Most of the energy input to watchingfromafar's device will be eaten up simply pushing around water.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> The buckets in your machine work in a cycle. It depends on the constant up and down movement to produce work.
> 
> 
> 
> You are so right, as right as the falling rain on a moon lit night.
> 
> The power of the cycle is the point of this debate.
> 
> Thanks for your comment; you are right on point. To produce work, you need movement and here we have it.
> 
> In the attached drawing there are five (5) balloons or inverted umbrella’s rising on the right side being pushed up by the trapped air under them.
> 
> while another five (5) are sinking on the left side with no air in them. The drawing is not showing them.
> 
> The “constant” upwards force if the combined lifting force of the combined five balloons.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some parts of the cycle do produce more output than others,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true while at the same time the five (5) rising balloons work together as one lifting force.
> Imagine you tie a rope to a tree branch. The rope weighs three (3) pound. The rope is hanging down almost touching the ground.
> You then attach a five (5) pound weight just above the bottom.
> You then attach a ten (10) pound weight just above the five pound weight.
> You then attach a six (6) pound weight just above the ten pound weight.
> You then attach an eight (8) pound weight just above the six pound weight.
> You then attach a four (4) pound weight just above the eight pound weight.
> 
> _*BULLDOG*_, how pulling force is being applied to the tree limb-- ?
> Is it the average of the combined weights or the sum of them-?
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the complete cycle is a net user of energy instead of a net producer of energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes energy to produce energy. This is just a conversion process.
> 
> You convert the upward force of rising, expanding air bubbles into mechanical energy. The question is, am I getting out more energy than I am putting in to maintain the cycle?
> -
> 
> 
> View attachment 307066
Click to expand...

Bulldog made a great point that you have to consider the entire cycle.  Suppose the time to cycle one balloon around your device is one minute.  If you have a total of ten balloons in the cycle, then 10 balloons per minute have to be filled to complete one cycle.  If you have 20 balloons in a cycle, then 20 balloons per minute  have to be filled to complete on cycle.  In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy.  You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And the answer is.....not even close.


*
Toddsterpatriot*, I am heading towards a fork in the road; do I turn right or lift or better yet, pull over to the side of the road and take a short nap instead >

Let me try this from one more angle point.

You used the term “total energy” and that is the key, total energy output at any one moment in time.

If I am adding (X) amount of energy to a system, then the most I can get out of this is (X) minus (- i.e. friction and the pull of gravity). Now call the final energy output for each rising bubble (Y); i.e. (X) minus the forces of resistance. Now I have five (5) (Y’s) rising together, pulling together.

 The question of the day is—is the combined energy pull of the five expanding bubbles producing more mechanical energy than is needed to maintain the system-?

To get the answer requires more computations of a moving system than I am capable of computing.

That’s why I am here, I am hoping to find folks who are in the know and who are willing to sharpen their pencils’ in a unified effort to answer the question.

In an ideal world I would create a forum topic that outlines the basic topic with subforums tackling the individual components.

That’s just not going to happen here. -


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is.....not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Toddsterpatriot*, I am heading towards a fork in the road; do I turn right or lift or better yet, pull over to the side of the road and take a short nap instead >
> 
> Let me try this from one more angle point.
> 
> You used the term “total energy” and that is the key, total energy output at any one moment in time.
> 
> If I am adding (X) amount of energy to a system, then the most I can get out of this is (X) minus (- i.e. friction and the pull of gravity). Now call the final energy output for each rising bubble (Y); i.e. (X) minus the forces of resistance. Now I have five (5) (Y’s) rising together, pulling together.
> 
> The question of the day is—is the combined energy pull of the five expanding bubbles producing more mechanical energy than is needed to maintain the system-?
> 
> To get the answer requires more computations of a moving system than I am capable of computing.
> 
> That’s why I am here, I am hoping to find folks who are in the know and who are willing to sharpen their pencils’ in a unified effort to answer the question.
> 
> In an ideal world I would create a forum topic that outlines the basic topic with subforums tackling the individual components.
> 
> That’s just not going to happen here. -
Click to expand...

To get 5 rising together, you still have to fill all five.  You have to consider the entire cycle, not just a snapshot.  The more balloons you have working in a cycle, the more balloons you have to fill per cycle.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> . In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy. You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute


*JoeMoma, *for the life of me I cannot understand why I do not see this as you do.,.,.,.,. and still I don’t.

I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system. It’s really that simple. Instead of five (5) balloons rising within a space of 594 vertical feet we could double this to 1,188 vertical feet. And still, the needed energy to sustain the system is the energy to fill one balloon.


What am I missing here, am I brain dead or what -


----------



## Chuz Life

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I think it's an invention to harness the energy from rising sea levels, caused by man made catastrophic glacier melts.
> 
> I wish I thought of it first!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be wrong. It is a mythical perpetual motion machine that ignores physics.
Click to expand...


Ummm. 

Sarcasm is not your thing? Is it.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> . In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy. You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma, *for the life of me I cannot understand why I do not see this as you do.,.,.,.,. and still I don’t.
> 
> I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system. It’s really that simple. Instead of five (5) balloons rising within a space of 594 vertical feet we could double this to 1,188 vertical feet. And still, the needed energy to sustain the system is the energy to fill one balloon.
> 
> 
> What am I missing here, am I brain dead or what -
Click to expand...

How many balloons have to be filled to sustain the cycle for the entire cycle.  Yes, you may be filling one balloon at a time, but the more balloons you have in a cycle, the more you fill in a cycle.  If you have five balloons pulling at one tine, you still had to fill all five balloons, not just one.  You have to fill all the balloons that are pulling with air whether you fill them one at a time or all at the same time, you are using the same amount of air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is.....not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Toddsterpatriot*, I am heading towards a fork in the road; do I turn right or lift or better yet, pull over to the side of the road and take a short nap instead >
> 
> Let me try this from one more angle point.
> 
> You used the term “total energy” and that is the key, total energy output at any one moment in time.
> 
> If I am adding (X) amount of energy to a system, then the most I can get out of this is (X) minus (- i.e. friction and the pull of gravity). Now call the final energy output for each rising bubble (Y); i.e. (X) minus the forces of resistance. Now I have five (5) (Y’s) rising together, pulling together.
> 
> The question of the day is—is the combined energy pull of the five expanding bubbles producing more mechanical energy than is needed to maintain the system-?
> 
> To get the answer requires more computations of a moving system than I am capable of computing.
> 
> That’s why I am here, I am hoping to find folks who are in the know and who are willing to sharpen their pencils’ in a unified effort to answer the question.
> 
> In an ideal world I would create a forum topic that outlines the basic topic with subforums tackling the individual components.
> 
> That’s just not going to happen here. -
Click to expand...


*You used the term “total energy” *

Yes, because it's cheating to say "look at the energy from 5 rising buckets" compared to the energy needed to fill one bucket.

* The question of the day is—is the combined energy pull of the five expanding bubbles producing more mechanical energy than is needed to maintain the system-?*

Allow me to repeat myself.........not even close.

​*To get the answer requires more computations of a moving system than I am capable of computing.*​
No, it really doesn't require any computations.
​​*That’s why I am here, I am hoping to find folks who are in the know*​
Everyone who said it won't work is in the know.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> . In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy. You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma, *for the life of me I cannot understand why I do not see this as you do.,.,.,.,. and still I don’t.
> 
> I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system. It’s really that simple. Instead of five (5) balloons rising within a space of 594 vertical feet we could double this to 1,188 vertical feet. And still, the needed energy to sustain the system is the energy to fill one balloon.
> 
> 
> What am I missing here, am I brain dead or what -
Click to expand...


*I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system.*

And we see your ignorance.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> You have to fill all the balloons that are pulling with air whether you fill them one at a time or all at the same time, you are using the same amount of air.


Joe, this has been a nice exchange of views and still I am brain dead, stuck in a rut and common sense is not going to set me free.

In my attachment you will see four horses pulling a wagon. Why didn’t the farmer just use one horse instead?


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to fill all the balloons that are pulling with air whether you fill them one at a time or all at the same time, you are using the same amount of air.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, this has been a nice exchange of views and still I am brain dead, stuck in a rut and common since is not going to set me free.
> 
> In my attachment you will see four horses pulling a wagon. Why didn’t the farmer just use one horse instead?
> 
> 
> View attachment 307084
Click to expand...

Did the farmer have to feed all four horses, or just one?  Suppose the horses need to eat once every four hours.  The farmer feeds 1 horse at 12 noon, the 2nd horse at 1pm, the 3rd horse at 2 pm, and the 4th horse a three pm, then repeats the cycle.  Will feeding the 4 horses in a cycle ( 1 horse per hour)  cause then to eat less than if he feeds all 4 horses at once at 12 noon and feeds them all again in every 4 hours?


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to fill all the balloons that are pulling with air whether you fill them one at a time or all at the same time, you are using the same amount of air.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, this has been a nice exchange of views and still I am brain dead, stuck in a rut and common sense is not going to set me free.
> 
> In my attachment you will see four horses pulling a wagon. Why didn’t the farmer just use one horse instead?
> 
> 
> View attachment 307084
Click to expand...

The farmer has to feed all 4 horses if he uses 4 horses.  If he uses 1 horse, then he only needs to feed 1 horse.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Did the farmer have to feed all four horses, or just one?


Joe, this has been a nice exchange of views and still I am brain dead, stuck in a rut and common since is not going to set me free.

Your example was a good one with one small flaw. The process is a linear one but due to the timeline multiple balloons are pulling on the same cable increasing the pulling force on the cable which is greater than the force needed to sustain the system.

I’m going to take my meds, a short nap then later I will return. Maybe by then I will have seen the light, ending this merry-go-round.

Later -


----------



## BULLDOG

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is.....not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Toddsterpatriot*, I am heading towards a fork in the road; do I turn right or lift or better yet, pull over to the side of the road and take a short nap instead >
> 
> Let me try this from one more angle point.
> 
> You used the term “total energy” and that is the key, total energy output at any one moment in time.
> 
> If I am adding (X) amount of energy to a system, then the most I can get out of this is (X) minus (- i.e. friction and the pull of gravity). Now call the final energy output for each rising bubble (Y); i.e. (X) minus the forces of resistance. Now I have five (5) (Y’s) rising together, pulling together.
> 
> The question of the day is—is the combined energy pull of the five expanding bubbles producing more mechanical energy than is needed to maintain the system-?
> 
> To get the answer requires more computations of a moving system than I am capable of computing.
> 
> That’s why I am here, I am hoping to find folks who are in the know and who are willing to sharpen their pencils’ in a unified effort to answer the question.
> 
> In an ideal world I would create a forum topic that outlines the basic topic with subforums tackling the individual components.
> 
> That’s just not going to happen here. -
Click to expand...


No. It;s not the energy from one point in time. If the entire cycle could be completed in that one point in time, you might have a point. It can't. to get that one point in time that you are pointing to, you also have to have all the other points in time that make up the complete cycle. You can't pretend the lower output periods don't exist. They do, and they reduce the net output per cycle.. .


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the farmer have to feed all four horses, or just one?
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, this has been a nice exchange of views and still I am brain dead, stuck in a rut and common since is not going to set me free.
> 
> Your example was a good one with one small flaw. The process is a linear one but due to the timeline multiple balloons are pulling on the same cable increasing the pulling force on the cable which is greater than the force needed to sustain the system.
> 
> I’m going to take my meds, a short nap then later I will return. Maybe by then I will have seen the light, ending this merry-go-round.
> 
> Later -
Click to expand...

You have to pay for filling all the balloons just as you have to pay for feeding all the horses.  Using your logic, you could analyze your system at a moment when you are not even filling a balloon and think you have the energy of five balloons pulling for free.  It doesn't work that way.  When you have balloons number 1,2,3,4,and 5 pulling together, you must have filled all 5 with air.  Suppose each balloon can pull 10 pounds up to the surface.  5 balloons can pull one 50 lb object up to the surface, or each individual balloon can pull one ten pound object to the surface.  The total weight pulled to the surface is 50 lbs either way.

That being said, the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2 *mass*velocity squared.  The drag of the water will greatly slow the movement of the mass being moved by the buoyant forces.  Since the velocity variable is squared in the energy calculation, any reduction of velocity will result in a great reduction of kinetic energy with your device.  In other words, the energy absorbed by the drag of the water will be very high.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Everyone who said it won't work is in the know.


 Finally now I know; for thousands of years most of us believed the earth was flat. Who would have known it wasn’t?

*Toddsterpatriot *it’s possible that your great, great, great, great grandfather was the first to know the earth was round.

No disrespect intended or implied

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who said it won't work is in the know.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally now I know; for thousands of years most of us believed the earth was flat. Who would have known it wasn’t?
> 
> *Toddsterpatriot *it’s possible that your great, great, great, great grandfather was the first to know the earth was round.
> 
> No disrespect intended or implied
> 
> -
Click to expand...

In this thread you have been like the flat Earther that no one can convince that the Earth is round.  In this age in which people have built machines hundreds of times more advanced than your contraption, don't you think some would have built a machine that would multiply the input energy for a greater output if it were mechanically possible.  Thousands of people have thought that they had designed such a device just to find it will not work as intended once built.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> In this thread you have been like the flat Earther



Thanks, I take that as a compliment
wish the same to you as well
the best to you and yours
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread you have been like the flat Earther
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I take that as a compliment
> wish the same to you as well
> the best to you and yours
> -
Click to expand...

The thought has crossed my mind that you you have been trolling us by pretending to not understand the explanations as to why your device cannot generate more energy than is input to it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> _The thought has crossed my mind that you you have been trolling us_


For the first time I finally understand what the term “trolling” means. Trolling seems to mean repeating, as in the same notion as rain drops only here its different; raindrops are random. I agree that I have been stuck on a specific topic to nausea and most it seems believe I should stop talking to myself.  For those here who feel offended; please forgive me, I mean no harm.

If needed, I’ll donate just to talk to myself. At least I get to read back my thoughts in peace.

-



JoeMoma said:


> _by pretending to not understand the explanations as to why your device cannot generate more energy than is input to it._


Believe me, I am not pretending anything. “Pretending” is not a thought I had; the thought came from you, not me

At least the mods here have not banned me for gibberish.
On another talk board my fantasy got this response--
*You have been banned for the following reason:*
_No impossible machines - you still do not understand basic physics of conservation of energy.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never_
Engineers Edge - Reference Data for Engineers | GD&T ASME Training | GD&T Training | DFM DFA Training | Engineering Supplies Store | Engineering Tools for productivity

All I can say is thank you mods for letting me talk no myself here.





-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> If needed, I’ll donate just to talk to myself. At least I get to read back my thoughts in peace.



You don't need a message board to "talk to" yourself.  You can simply keep a journal.  

You were seeking feedback about your idea from others, but lack enough knowledge of physics to understand the feedback, so you simply reject it.  I am not surprised that you, or at least a thread on your "impossible machine" would be banned from an engineering forum.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> You were seeking feedback about your idea from others, but lack enough knowledge of physics to understand the feedback, so you simply reject it..



I'm not rejecting anything; I'm just trying to understand the numbers.
So I’ve decided to start from the beginning and from there retrace my footsteps that got me here.

To get there I need to validate a few physical principles that you agree to be valid.

*JoeMoma*, first let’s both agree on a few facts

Pressure is the measurable force being applied between two (2) physical barriers. One technical term is pounds per square inch as in P.S.I.

JueMoma, do you agree with the above.

You may be right, so I’ve decided to start from the beginning and from there follow my footsteps that ot me to where I am today.

To get there I need to validate a few physical principles that all here believe to be valid.

are true and valid.

JoeMoma, let’s both agree on a few facts first.

Pressure is the measurable force being applied between two (2) physical barriers.

_“the pressure exerted by the weight of the atmosphere, which at sea level has a mean value of Atmospheric pressure, also known as barometric pressure, is the pressure within the atmosphere of Earth. The standard atmosphere is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa, which is equivalent to 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi. Wikipedia 101,325 pascals (roughly 14.6959 pounds per square inch).”_

JueMoma, do you agree with the above.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JueMoma, if you were to entrap a cubic foot of air which is naturally under a pressure of “zero” and noted as 1 ATM.

If you drag that bag underwater to a depth of 33 feet, the pressure on the bag would will be 2 ATM’s.

At 2 ATMs the bag will be compressed to half its volume.

At 3 ATMs the bag will be compressed to half its volume.

Do we agree-? -


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Pressure is the measurable force being applied between two (2) physical barriers.


Not exactly.
Pressure is force/area.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JueMoma, if you were to entrap a cubic foot of air which is naturally under a pressure of “zero” and noted as 1 ATM.
> 
> If you drag that bag underwater to a depth of 33 feet, the pressure on the bag would will be 2 ATM’s.
> 
> At 2 ATMs the bag will be compressed to half its volume.
> 
> At 3 ATMs the bag will be compressed to half its volume.
> 
> Do we agree-? -


The volume of the air is inversely proportional to the pressure.  Each time the pressure doubles, the volume of the air is reduced by half.

Given 1 cubic foot of air at 1 ATM

At 2 ATM the volume of the air is 1/2 cubit foot. (half of 1 cubit foot)

At 4 ATM the volume of the air is 1/4 cubic foot (half of 1/2 cubit foot)

At 8 ATM the volume of the air is 1/8 cubic foot. ( half of 1/4 cubit foot)

At 16 ATM the volume of air is 1/16 cubic foot ( half of 1/8 cubit foot)

and so on.....for a while........but at some point the compressed air will transition from gas to a liquid and the volume will no longer be reduced by this pattern.

Note:  This is all assuming that the temperature of the air is somehow held constant.

I recommend again that you go through the physics lessons at khan academy.  You will get much better lessons there than I can give you.

Physics | Science | Khan Academy


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Not exactly.
> Pressure is force/area.


I agree, I believe “force” and “area” together with the speed of the interaction plays a part.

or so it seems -


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> The volume of the air is inversely proportional to the pressure. Each time the pressure doubles, the volume of the air is reduced by half.
> 
> Given 1 cubic foot of air at 1 ATM
> 
> At 2 ATM the volume of the air is 1/2 cubit foot. (half of 1 cubit foot)
> 
> At 4 ATM the volume of the air is 1/4 cubic foot (half of 1/2 cubit foot)
> 
> At 8 ATM the volume of the air is 1/8 cubic foot. ( half of 1/4 cubit foot)
> 
> At 16 ATM the volume of air is 1/16 cubic foot ( half of 1/8 cubit foot)
> 
> and so on.....for a while........but at some point the compressed air will transition from gas to a liquid and the volume will no longer be reduced by this pattern.
> 
> Note: This is all assuming that the temperature of the air is somehow held constant.
> 
> I recommend again that you go through the physics lessons at khan academy. You will get much better lessons there than I can give you.



Thank you very much. I am redesigning the latest model to follow those principles.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly.
> Pressure is force/area.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, I believe “force” and “area” together with the speed of the interaction plays a part.
> 
> or so it seems -
Click to expand...

pressure is force/area, nothing more and nothing less.  You would understand physics better if you stop making up your own definitions.

By the way,  I am no expert myself.  But I do have an elementary understanding  of physics as I have a degree in industrial engineering.


----------



## watchingfromafar

I agree, I believe “force” and “area” together with the speed of the interaction plays a part.

_The volume of the air is inversely proportional to the pressure. Each time the pressure doubles, the volume of the air is reduced by half.
Given 1 cubic foot of air at 1 ATM = (X)

At 2 ATM the volume of the air is 1/2 cubit foot. (half of 1 cubit foot) = 1/2(X)

At 4 ATM the volume of the air is 1/4 cubic foot (half of 1/2 cubit foot) = 1/4(X)

At 8 ATM the volume of the air is 1/8 cubic foot. ( half of 1/4 cubit foot) = 1/8th (X)

At 16 ATM the volume of air is 1/16 cubic foot ( half of 1/8 cubit foot) = 1/16th (X)
_
Now flip that over and apply a force equal to 64 pounds; or one cubic foot of air; and look at it from the bottom up--

Starting at the bottom with air compressed to 150 cubic feet of air.at 18 ATM's

Then let it go~~~~
and the next; let it go~~~~~

-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The volume of the air is inversely proportional to the pressure. Each time the pressure doubles, the volume of the air is reduced by half.
> 
> Given 1 cubic foot of air at 1 ATM
> 
> At 2 ATM the volume of the air is 1/2 cubit foot. (half of 1 cubit foot)
> 
> At 4 ATM the volume of the air is 1/4 cubic foot (half of 1/2 cubit foot)
> 
> At 8 ATM the volume of the air is 1/8 cubic foot. ( half of 1/4 cubit foot)
> 
> At 16 ATM the volume of air is 1/16 cubic foot ( half of 1/8 cubit foot)
> 
> and so on.....for a while........but at some point the compressed air will transition from gas to a liquid and the volume will no longer be reduced by this pattern.
> nd
> Note: This is all assuming that the temperature of the air is somehow held constant.
> 
> I recommend again that you go through the physics lessons at khan academy. You will get much better lessons there than I can give you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much. I am redesigning the latest model to follow those principles.
Click to expand...

If you are going to redesign you model anyway, try getting it out from under water.  In other words, try pumping water up 600 feet and fill buckets rather than pumping air down 600 ft under water to fill balloons.  The math will be much easier because you will not have to be concerned with the compression of the air.  And your machine will be more energy efficient because the drag/friction of the seawater will be gone.  However, your machine will never output more energy than is input because that is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> If you are going to redesign you model anyway, try getting it out from under water.


The total design is relying on the increasing pressure as you traveled further under water or in the reverse, the increasing lifting force of air as at .rises.



JoeMoma said:


> In other words, try pumping water up 600 feet and fill buckets rather than pumping air down 600 ft under water to fill balloons.  The math will be much easier.



Give me some numbers--
just asking -


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> However, your machine will never output more energy than is input because that is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.



I disagree, not in the definition but in the application.
This is not a PMM; this is simply a machine using the lifting force of enclosed gas underwater.
it's that simple
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your machine will never output more energy than is input because that is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, not in the definition but in the application.
> This is not a PMM; this is simply a machine using the lifting force of enclosed gas underwater.
> it's that simple
> -
Click to expand...

And you have every right to be wrong.  I'm done here.  You are free to talk to yourself until the cows come home.  And the cows aren't coming.


----------



## San Souci

The only good energy is Fossil Fuel and Nuclear. All others fail to measure up.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> And you have every right to be wrong. I'm done here.


JoeMoma,

You are correct. I went back to my office and rechecked my numbers and low and behold they didn’t add up. At a depth below 200-300 feet the return on the investment nears zero.

I got so frustrated that I just turned my computer off and went home. Having said this, I will look at the potential in that 200-300-foot range.

BTW, I am just trying to find a renewable energy source that can replace oil and still I’m trying.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

San Souci said:


> The only good energy is Fossil Fuel and Nuclear. All others fail to measure up.



*Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves*

Rank Country Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA

1 Venezuela 300,878
2 Saudi Arabia 266,455
3 Canada 169,709
4 Iran 158,400
5 Iraq 142,503
6 Kuwait 101,500
7 United Arab Emirates 97,800
8 Russia 80,000
9 Libya 48,363
10 United States 39,230
11 Nigeria 37,062
12 Kazakhstan 30,000
13 China 25,620
14 Qatar 25,244
15 Brazil 12,999
16 Algeria 12,200
17 Angola 8,273
18 Ecuador 8,273
19 Mexico 7,640
20 Azerbaijan 7,000
-----------------------------------------------------
*Total 1,477,649 million barrels*
The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country

This is a *list of countries by oil consumption.*[1][2]The total worldwide oil consumption was *93 million barrels per day* (bbl/day) on average in 2015 according to the International Energy Agency(IEA).[3]
List of countries by oil consumption - Wikipedia

*Total reserves 1,477,649 divided by annual world consumption = 43.53 years left*

In 43 years it will be all gone at the current rate of consumption.

Nuclear is and will be one of our greatest power source.                                            -
I hope we take that stuff out of all our atomic bombs and use the fuel for peaceful uses; but even that is finite just like oil. Renewables is our final solution. China knows this and they are decades ahead of us on that score.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have every right to be wrong. I'm done here.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma,
> 
> You are correct. I went back to my office and rechecked my numbers and low and behold they didn’t add up. At a depth below 200-300 feet the return on the investment nears zero.
> 
> I got so frustrated that I just turned my computer off and went home. Having said this, I will look at the potential in that 200-300-foot range.
> 
> BTW, I am just trying to find a renewable energy source that can replace oil and still I’m trying.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*At a depth below 200-300 feet the return on the investment nears zero.*

Why the sudden improvement at that depth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only good energy is Fossil Fuel and Nuclear. All others fail to measure up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves*
> 
> Rank Country Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 
> 1 Venezuela 300,878
> 2 Saudi Arabia 266,455
> 3 Canada 169,709
> 4 Iran 158,400
> 5 Iraq 142,503
> 6 Kuwait 101,500
> 7 United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8 Russia 80,000
> 9 Libya 48,363
> 10 United States 39,230
> 11 Nigeria 37,062
> 12 Kazakhstan 30,000
> 13 China 25,620
> 14 Qatar 25,244
> 15 Brazil 12,999
> 16 Algeria 12,200
> 17 Angola 8,273
> 18 Ecuador 8,273
> 19 Mexico 7,640
> 20 Azerbaijan 7,000
> -----------------------------------------------------
> *Total 1,477,649 million barrels*
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> This is a *list of countries by oil consumption.*[1][2]The total worldwide oil consumption was *93 million barrels per day* (bbl/day) on average in 2015 according to the International Energy Agency(IEA).[3]
> List of countries by oil consumption - Wikipedia
> 
> *Total reserves 1,477,649 divided by annual world consumption = 43.53 years left*
> 
> In 43 years it will be all gone at the current rate of consumption.
> 
> Nuclear is and will be one of our greatest power source.                                            -
> I hope we take that stuff out of all our atomic bombs and use the fuel for peaceful uses; but even that is finite just like oil. Renewables is our final solution. China knows this and they are decades ahead of us on that score.
> -
> View attachment 310916
Click to expand...


*I hope we take that stuff out of all our atomic bombs and use the fuel for peaceful uses; but even that is finite just like oil.*

How much uranium (and thorium) is available?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *At a depth below 200-300 feet the return on the investment nears zero.*


*
You are just guessing or put it another way, you have no clue.
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why the sudden improvement at that depth?


The volume of air is halved at 33 feet of depth. Down another 33 feet and the volume is halved again & on and on. Still I need to run the numbers.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much uranium (and thorium) is available?


According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide total inventory of nuclear weapons as of 2019 stood at 13,865, of which 3,750 were deployed with operational forces.[13] In early 2019, more than 90% of the world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by Russia and the United States.[14][15]
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At a depth below 200-300 feet the return on the investment nears zero.*
> 
> 
> 
> *You are just guessing or put it another way, you have no clue.
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the sudden improvement at that depth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The volume of air is halved at 33 feet of depth. Down another 33 feet and the volume is halved again & on and on. Still I need to run the numbers.
> -
Click to expand...


*You are just guessing*

You didn't mean it got more efficient?

*The volume of air is halved at 33 feet of depth. Down another 33 feet and the volume is halved again & on and on. *

Yes, as the volume decreases, your energy loss increases.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much uranium (and thorium) is available?
> 
> 
> 
> According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide total inventory of nuclear weapons as of 2019 stood at 13,865, of which 3,750 were deployed with operational forces.[13] In early 2019, more than 90% of the world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by Russia and the United States.[14][15]
> -
Click to expand...


No. In the crust, ignore the weapons.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> The volume of the air is inversely proportional to the pressure.


Joe, my new search for an ultimate energy source is the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The energy there will sustain us for as long as we live on this planet.

There are probably gases being released that could be used in my failed bubble idea as well as a great heat source.
Hydrothermal Vent Boiling Points
Vent Boiling Points - Dive & Discover

*Geothermal energy potential*
There is one place we haven’t taped yet that could power our electrical need for all time to come. Below are the facts and now all we must do is find a way to tap this limitless source of energy. I hope some here find the time to explore this and add new ideas on it’s potential to power our never ending need for more and more energy.

_The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents. Seawater in hydrothermal vents may reach temperatures of over *700° Fahrenheit*._
What is a hydrothermal vent?

_The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between *0-3 degrees Celsius* (*32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit*)! It's really, really cold down there! There is a neat program that is measuring the temperature and salinity of ocean surface waters around the world_
Temperature of Ocean Water - Windows to the Universe

_A *hydrothermal vent* 2,500 meters deep experiences 250 atmospheres, or 3,672.5 pounds per square inch._
Vent Boiling Points - Dive & Discover

There is seawater at temperatures over 700° Fahrenheit right next to seawater at 32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure of 3,672 pounds per square inch.

Clearly there is potential energy here to be tapped as well as mineral deposits that are rich in iron, copper, zinc, and other metals.

*Joe*, what are we waiting for, let’s tap this energy source which will power our energy needs for all time to come?



-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, as the volume decreases, your energy loss increases.


Flip that over and this is what you get-

As the volume increases the energy gain increases; just not enough depth and time to make it useful.

That was my mistake & I admit it.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as the volume decreases, your energy loss increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Flip that over and this is what you get-
> 
> As the volume increases the energy gain increases; just not enough depth and time to make it useful.
> 
> That was my mistake & I admit it.
> -
Click to expand...


*Flip that over and this is what you get-*

How does "flipping over" entropy help your claim?

* just not enough depth and time to make it useful.*

Pumping air gets less inefficient the deeper the water? LOL!
That's funny.


----------



## Yarddog

fncceo said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to know if the image is readable-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Readable enough to know what you're talking about is what was once referred to as 'perpetual motion', the idea that a machine, once set in motion, could keep moving indefinitely.
> 
> Unfortunately, Newtonian Physics prohibits perpetual motion.  External forces, friction, gravity, thermodynamics, all conspire to stall your machine in pretty quick order.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> As well as sea water corrosion, Barnacles, debris etc
Click to expand...


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pumping air gets less inefficient the deeper the water? LOL!
> That's funny.


When you go out into your back yard to cut down the last remaining tree just to warm your family for the last time, you will remember this day
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pumping air gets less inefficient the deeper the water? LOL!
> That's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> When you go out into your back yard to cut down the last remaining tree just to warm your family for the last time, you will remember this day
> -
Click to expand...


I'll remember your scientific illiteracy long after the last Truffula tree is turned into the last Thneed.


----------



## watchingfromafar

TODDSTERPATRIOT, I have copied your avatar and had it printed on a plastic sheet and then a plumber friend of mine has glued it to the inside bowl of my toilet. So now whenever I take a piss, I am reminded of you; my sweet, plump, dumpling

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

I have re-run the numbers-- here's what I found in this go around
If you need to enlarge the image
press [CTR] while rolling you mouse roller up or down


----------



## watchingfromafar

All I am asking the two of you is "were you able to open the image-*?"

Just asking 
-*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> All I am asking the two of you is "were you able to open the image-*?"
> 
> Just asking
> -*



What do your fake numbers have to do with anything?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What do your fake numbers have to do with anything?


A “normal” response to my previous post would be to answer the question.

But no, always a trumper; spinning off to no one knows where.

Great!!! Let’s talk numbers.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do your fake numbers have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> A “normal” response to my previous post would be to answer the question.
> 
> But no, always a trumper; spinning off to no one knows where.
> 
> Great!!! Let’s talk numbers.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Post the energy needed to pump the air down to the bottom of your energy wasting device.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Post the energy needed to pump the air down to the bottom of your energy wasting device.



Ok, here goes---
The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet every 2.75 minutes.

The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.

 can it be done & if so; at what cost-???

I don’t have a clue

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the energy needed to pump the air down to the bottom of your energy wasting device.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here goes---
> The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet.
> 
> The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.
> 
> The next refill will come in 2.75 minutes.
> 
> can it be done & if so; at what cost-???
> 
> I don’t have a clue
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet.*

And the answer is????????

*can it be done & if so; at what cost-???*

You can waste all the energy you'd like compressing air and pumping it underwater.

*I don’t have a clue*

Obviously.


----------



## ReinyDays

watchingfromafar said:


> TODDSTERPATRIOT, I have copied your avatar and had it printed on a plastic sheet and then a plumber friend of mine has glued it to the inside bowl of my toilet. So now whenever I take a piss, I am reminded of you; my sweet, plump, dumpling
> 
> -



I just print it out and staple it to my dart board ... 

=====

Late to dinner, any chance I can get the _Reader's Digest_ version of this tale ... what, exactly, are we trying to do? ... please, let's keep the laws of thermodynamics firmly in mind ...


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously.



Obviously, you; *Toddsterpatriot*, don't either.
.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.I believe it's time to bring in some outside help--?
I would ask a friend but I don't have any
Do you--?

no animosity intended or implied
This is just between one friend to another
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you; *Toddsterpatriot*, don't either.
> .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.I believe it's time to bring in some outside help--?
> I would ask a friend but I don't have any
> Do you--?
> 
> no animosity intended or implied
> This is just between one friend to another
> -
Click to expand...


All my friends agree that your device wastes energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All my friends agree that your device wastes energy.


It depends on your definition of waste

btw: I am delighted to know you do indeed have friends
I envy you

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All my friends agree that your device wastes energy.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on your definition of waste
> 
> btw: I am delighted to know you do indeed have friends
> I envy you
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*It depends on your definition of waste*

Not really.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not really.


My Bad, as we pass in the night

03/10/2020 CST
9:10 PM US central standard time
, I find myself agreeing with you
Does this mean we may become friends in the future; or not-?
You being the Bos-
you tel me;
please -

March 10th 2020
9:08 CST
03/10/2020ad

Toddsterpatrio; what time is it where you are-?
just curious
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> My Bad, as we pass in the night
> 
> 03/10/2020 CST
> 9:10 PM US central standard time
> , I find myself agreeing with you
> Does this mean we may become friends in the future; or not-?
> You being the Bos-
> you tel me;
> please -
> 
> March 10th 2020
> 9:08 CST
> 03/10/2020ad
> 
> Toddsterpatrio what time is it where you are-?
> just curious
> -
Click to expand...


I'm in Chicago.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm in Chicago.


You are answering my previous post to you--

My question was-
_"Toddsterpatrio *what time* is it where you are-?
just curious"
_
Toddsterpatriot responded by saying;_ "I'm in Chicago"
_
Good for you. stay safe and wash your hands at least three (3) times a day.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering my previous post to you--
> 
> My question was-
> _"Toddsterpatrio *what time* is it where you are-?
> just curious"
> _
> Toddsterpatriot responded by saying;_ "I'm in Chicago"
> _
> Good for you. stay safe and wash your hands at least once a day.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


I'm in Chicago.


----------



## watchingfromafar

If you want to know what others are saying about this very same question:
Please become a member and log on---
Energy Web Sites

https://www.eeweb.com/forum

What follows is an off-the-wall idea

Physics Stack Exchange

The Engineering Exchange

Just a suggestion___
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> If you want to know what others are saying about this very same question:
> Please become a member and log on---
> Energy Web Sites
> 
> https://www.eeweb.com/forum
> 
> What follows is an off-the-wall idea
> 
> Physics Stack Exchange
> 
> The Engineering Exchange
> 
> Just a suggestion___
> -



Are they saying it's a waste of time, energy and money?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are they saying it's a waste of time, energy and money?



Help me here,,,
are you talking to me -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they saying it's a waste of time, energy and money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Help me here,,,
> are you talking to me -
Click to expand...


You're the one who mentioned...."what others are saying about this very same question".


----------



## ReinyDays

watchingfromafar said:


> Help me here,,,
> are you talking to me -



Are you going to answer my question? ... what is it that we're trying to do? ...


----------



## watchingfromafar

Back to theator~~~

There has always been an underpinning moral value written in every play; live interaction or---

TV shows like NCIS or MSNBC.,..,.& others.,.FOX

Just ask your children “what’s the difference between fiction and nonfiction and your child will turn to you and say: "what da f are you talking about?

just a suggestion
no animosity intended or implied
If you feel offended, please forgive me

wasted space````
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Dick Foster said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's pumping air to the bottom and generating power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power is the rising force.
> I need to calculate the energy needed to pump the air to fill the buckets and the electric energy I get from the turning cable.
> Any suggestions-?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pulling your head out of your ass would be the necessary first step.
Click to expand...


Time moves on, hope you are doing well
Just an early Christmas card to a fellow friend
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're only filling 1/11 buckets?



And at the same time; while filling (1) one bucket every 2.5 minutes the eleven buckets  continue to pull that cable upwards with 118,428 pounds of force, moving upwards at 2 (two) feet per second.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

ReinyDays said:


> Are you going to answer my question? ..


Forgive me,please repeat it.
Thanks in Advance -


ReinyDays said:


> . what is it that we're trying to do? ...


Find an energy source that can transition mankind's need for electric power; until an infinite supply can be found. LOL.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're only filling 1/11 buckets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at the same time; while filling (1) one bucket every 2.5 minutes the eleven buckets  continue to pull that cable upwards with 118,428 pounds of force, moving upwards at 2 (two) feet per second.
> -
Click to expand...


I agree, with every bucket you fill, you're losing more energy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're the one who mentioned...."what others are saying about this very same question".



I was talking to myself on the net
My doctor tells me it's therapeutic
Sems he's right
sorry -

i do believe they have an "ignore" option. I've never used it but I do believe the AP exists.


----------



## Yarddog

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the energy needed to pump the air down to the bottom of your energy wasting device.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here goes---
> The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet every 2.75 minutes.
> 
> The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.
> 
> can it be done & if so; at what cost-???
> 
> I don’t have a clue
> 
> -
Click to expand...



Sorry, but its a real bad idea. at best, it would be something that would require a lot of maintenance. Do you know how corrosive the ocean is? and as soon as kelp and seaweed wrap around your buckets its going to jam. Too many moving parts there, is asking for complications and then whatever energy you produce probably wont be worth the air compressor you are running, and then you have to transmit the power down a line installed where? in the ocean bed?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Yarddog said:


> Sorry, but its a real bad idea. at best, it would be something that would require a lot of maintenance. Do you know how corrosive the ocean is? and as soon as kelp and seaweed wrap around your buckets its going to jam. Too many moving parts there, is asking for complications and then whatever energy you produce probably wont be worth the air compressor you are running, and then you have to transmit the power down a line installed where? in the ocean bed?



You have made some great comments that I will consider.

The buckets will be made of a non-corrosive metal, lightweight aluminum or plastic

A thin screen wire mesh around the buckets should keep out unwanted things

As far as the energy output, that was answered a few posts earlier.

The electric power produced could be cabled to shore which should be a few thousand feet away.
The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet every 2.75 minutes.

The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, with every bucket you fill, you're losing more energy.


I appreciate your response, but no one has of yet computed the $$$$ to fill a bucket with compressed air. Until then I’m sticking with my design.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but its a real bad idea. at best, it would be something that would require a lot of maintenance. Do you know how corrosive the ocean is? and as soon as kelp and seaweed wrap around your buckets its going to jam. Too many moving parts there, is asking for complications and then whatever energy you produce probably wont be worth the air compressor you are running, and then you have to transmit the power down a line installed where? in the ocean bed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have made some great comments that I will consider.
> 
> The buckets will be made of a non-corrosive metal, lightweight aluminum or plastic
> 
> A thin screen wire mesh around the buckets should keep out unwanted things
> 
> As far as the energy output, that was answered a few posts earlier.
> 
> The electric power produced could be cabled to shore which should be a few thousand feet away.
> The energy required to compress 40,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666.66 cubic feet every 2.75 minutes.
> 
> The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.
> -
Click to expand...


*The electric power produced could be cabled to shore which should be a few thousand feet away.*

So you'll have a cable bringing in the power for the pump and a much smaller cable
delivering the smaller amount you'll be generating? 

*The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.*

So you'll be losing 50%? More?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you'll be losing 50%? More?



Where oh where did you get the idea that I would be loosing 50%--?

And even if it lost 50% it still has 50% to work with.

The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.

If you want to pick apart the machine, pick away,

The cable is used to bring the power to shore, but you already knew that.
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'll be losing 50%? More?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where oh where did you get the idea that I would be loosing 50%--?
> 
> And even if it lost 50% it still has 50% to work with.
> 
> The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.
> 
> If you want to pick apart the machine, pick away,
> 
> The cable is used to bring the power to shore, but you already knew that.
> -
Click to expand...


*Where oh where did you get the idea that I would be loosing 50%--?*

Did you ever post how much energy you'll be using to pump the air to the bottom of your device?

We're waiting.
​*And even if it lost 50% it still has 50% to work with.*​
Yup. Half of your input.​
*The return is a continuous pulling force 118,428 pounds at a speed of 2 feet per second.*

Ok. And?

*The cable is used to bring the power to shore, but you already knew that.*

Right. 10 MW in......5 MW out.


----------



## the other mike

watchingfromafar said:


> I was talking to myself on the net
> .


I thought only Sandra Bullock did that.


----------



## JoeMoma




----------



## watchingfromafar

trial balloon


----------



## watchingfromafar

I think I got it right this time; then maybe not -


----------



## watchingfromafar

wrong~~

no wait; it works, you can actually see the diagram
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don’t have a clue



Please visit post 473
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

ReinyDays said:


> I just print it out and staple it to my dart board ...



Please visit post #474
thanks in advance -


----------



## ReinyDays

watchingfromafar said:


> Please visit post #474
> thanks in advance -



Still unclear ... just numbers and letters scattered about ... what are your trying to do here? ... start with the curved arrow in the upper left, how big of an electric motor do you have attached to this pulley? ...


----------



## watchingfromafar

ReinyDays said:


> Still unclear ... just numbers and letters scattered about ... what are your trying to do here? ....


I have researched the discovery, production and the ultimate depletion of fossil fuels for the last few decades. Oil/natural gas are both finite. I'm already in my 70's and still I will live long enough to see the end of oil in my lifetime. I'm just trying to minimize the pain of transition.


ReinyDays said:


> start with the curved arrow in the upper left,


It's a depiction of a pulley.


ReinyDays said:


> how big of an electric motor do you have attached to this pulley? ...


Thanks to the invention of gears, the rate of spin can be changed. It's like one great transmission. One motor or a series of them could be utilized. 
as I see it
-


----------



## ReinyDays

watchingfromafar said:


> I have researched the discovery, production and the ultimate depletion of fossil fuels for the last few decades. Oil/natural gas are both finite. I'm already in my 70's and still I will live long enough to see the end of oil in my lifetime. I'm just trying to minimize the pain of transition.



I waited in a few gas lines myself in the 70's ... 



watchingfromafar said:


> Thanks to the invention of gears, the rate of spin can be changed. It's like one great transmission. One motor or a series of them could be utilized.
> as I see it
> -



Watts are watts ... and you're burning fossil fuels to make them watts ... what is this cable doing other than making carbon pollution? ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still unclear ... just numbers and letters scattered about ... what are your trying to do here? ....
> 
> 
> 
> I have researched the discovery, production and the ultimate depletion of fossil fuels for the last few decades. Oil/natural gas are both finite. I'm already in my 70's and still I will live long enough to see the end of oil in my lifetime. I'm just trying to minimize the pain of transition.
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> start with the curved arrow in the upper left,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a depiction of a pulley.
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> how big of an electric motor do you have attached to this pulley? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to the invention of gears, the rate of spin can be changed. It's like one great transmission. One motor or a series of them could be utilized.
> as I see it
> -
Click to expand...


* I'm already in my 70's and still I will live long enough to see the end of oil in my lifetime. *

Because you'll be the first 200 year old human?


----------



## watchingfromafar

The *oldest person* ever whose age has been independently verified is Jeanne Calment (1875–1997) of France, who lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days. The *oldest* verified man ever is Jiroemon Kimura (1897–2013) of Japan, who lived to the age of 116 years, 54 days.
List of the verified oldest people - Wikipedia
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

ReinyDays said:


> Watts are watts ... and you're burning fossil fuels to make them watts ... what is this cable doing other than making carbon pollution? ...



*Watt*

*Watts to amps calculator*
Watts to amps (A) conversion calculator

(DC)
DC watts to amps calculation
The current _I_ in amps (A) is equal to the power _P_ in watts (W), divided by the voltage _V_ in volts (V):

_I_(A) = _P_(W) /_ V_(V)
AC single phase watts to amps calculation

The phase current _I_ in amps (A) is equal to the power _P_ in watts (W), divided by the power factor _PF_ times the RMS voltage _V_ in volts (V):

_I_(A) = _P_(W) / (_PF_ × _V_(V))
The power factor of resistive impedance load is equal to 1.

AC three phase watts to amps calculation
*Calculation with line to line voltage*

The phase current _I_ in amps (A) is equal to the power _P_ in watts (W), divided by square root of 3 times the power factor _PF_ times the line to line RMS voltage _V_L-L in volts (V):
_I_(A) = _P_(W) / (_√_3 × _PF_ × _V_L-L(V) )
The power factor of resistive impedance load is equal to 1.

*Calculation with line to neutral voltage*
The phase current _I_ in amps (A) is equal to the power _P_ in watts (W), divided by 3 times the power factor _PF_ times the line to neutral RMS voltage _V_L-N in volts (V):

_I_(A) = _P_(W) / (3 × _PF_ × _V_L-N(V) )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

noun Electricity.
the time rate of flow of electric charge, in the direction that a positive moving charge would take and having magnitude equal to the quantity of charge per unit time: measured in amperes.

Definition of electric current | Dictionary.com


----------



## Yarddog

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
Click to expand...



Seems to me these buckets need to rise rather quickly in order to turn the pully system to create an electrical charge, but have you taken into consideration in your equations that you are not simply filling inverted buckets with air in a matter of seconds but also displacing water?, i assume at a great depth. Are you sure you can do that in just a couple seconds in order to keep up the speed? Seems as if that would take tremendous air pumping which is going to use a lot of power. You may also have ocean cross currents at play and the longer your line of buckets are the more flexible it may become, which could cause more complications


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. 10 MW in......5 MW out.



Are you saying it takes 10MW .,.,.5MW out-?

I don't know about you but my car gets 35 miles to the gallon; which costs me $2.10 and few WATTs were produced. 
from what I could see -


----------



## Yarddog

JoeMoma said:


> In other words, the energy it takes to push the air down is equal to the kinetic energy of the air coming back up.






They used to make these contraptions back in the day, and they somehow got those buckets to spin with 
no compressor at all.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Yarddog said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the energy it takes to push the air down is equal to the kinetic energy of the air coming back up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to make these contraptions back in the day, and they somehow got those buckets to spin with
> no compressor at all.
Click to expand...


Gravity works.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Yarddog said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me these buckets need to rise rather quickly in order to turn the pully system to create an electrical charge, but have you taken into consideration in your equations that you are not simply filling inverted buckets with air in a matter of seconds but also displacing water?, i assume at a great depth. Are you sure you can do that in just a couple seconds in order to keep up the speed? Seems as if that would take tremendous air pumping which is going to use a lot of power. You may also have ocean cross currents at play and the longer your line of buckets are the more flexible it may become, which could cause more complications
Click to expand...


He is going to lose a huge amount of power to the friction of the buckets against the water.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. 10 MW in......5 MW out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying it takes 10MW .,.,.5MW out-?
> 
> I don't know about you but my car gets 35 miles to the gallon; which costs me $2.10 and few WATTs were produced.
> from what I could see -
Click to expand...


*Are you saying it takes 10MW .,.,.5MW out-?*

I'd be shocked if you got as much as 50% back. Shocked!!

*I don't know about you but my car gets 35 miles to the gallon*

Maybe you should use your car to run your bucket generator?


----------



## ReinyDays

1 horsepower = 750 watts ...

100 horse engine is 75 kW ... at full throttle ...
20% throttle is around 15 kW ... for your 35 mpg ...

Make sense? ...


----------



## JoeMoma

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. 10 MW in......5 MW out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying it takes 10MW .,.,.5MW out-?
> 
> I don't know about you but my car gets 35 miles to the gallon; which costs me $2.10 and few WATTs were produced.
> from what I could see -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Are you saying it takes 10MW .,.,.5MW out-?*
> 
> I'd be shocked if you got as much as 50% back. Shocked!!
> 
> *I don't know about you but my car gets 35 miles to the gallon*
> 
> Maybe you should use your car to run your bucket generator?
Click to expand...

He could use 20 cars to turn a big wheel that turns a dynamo.  Just think, after filling the first 19 cars with gas, he would only have to fill one more car each time to sustain 20 cars turning the dynamo.  So using watchingfromafar math, the input energy will be multiplied by 20.


----------



## Yarddog

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me these buckets need to rise rather quickly in order to turn the pully system to create an electrical charge, but have you taken into consideration in your equations that you are not simply filling inverted buckets with air in a matter of seconds but also displacing water?, i assume at a great depth. Are you sure you can do that in just a couple seconds in order to keep up the speed? Seems as if that would take tremendous air pumping which is going to use a lot of power. You may also have ocean cross currents at play and the longer your line of buckets are the more flexible it may become, which could cause more complications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is going to lose a huge amount of power to the friction of the buckets against the water.
Click to expand...



I would think so. Energy loss there, and if the buckets are supposed to be rising at 2 feet per second, ( i think it was) then it only leaves a fraction of a second to fill the lower bucket with air and displacing all that water. Sounds to me that the air pump would be using a tremendous amount of power to operate.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is my latest version (colors removed)


----------



## watchingfromafar

Yarddog said:


> then it only leaves a fraction of a second to fill the lower bucket with air and displacing all that water.



the buckets are 33 feet apart. 33'/2 sec. = 16.5 seconds between refills
The above conditions can be changed and the 2 second rising speed will be slowed down by the resistance of the generators to generate the power



Yarddog said:


> Sounds to me that the air pump would be using a tremendous amount of power to operate.


that is what I am trying to calculate
How much energy is consumed to compress 20,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666 cubic feet-?
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

OhYa


----------



## watchingfromafar

ReinyDays said:


> 1 horsepower = 750 watts ...


horse·pow·er
/ˈhôrsˌpou(ə)r/
noun
a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts).

Now, how can I apply this to the seapower machine-?
-


----------



## Yarddog

watchingfromafar said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it only leaves a fraction of a second to fill the lower bucket with air and displacing all that water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the buckets are 33 feet apart. 33'/2 sec. = 16.5 seconds between refills
> The above conditions can be changed and the 2 second rising speed will be slowed down by the resistance of the generators to generate the power
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me that the air pump would be using a tremendous amount of power to operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what I am trying to calculate
> How much energy is consumed to compress 20,000 cubic feet of air down to 2,666 cubic feet-?
> -
Click to expand...



How are the buckets being refilled with air? it cant be a fixed in position hose at the bottom if the buckets are in constant motion. that would only allow you a second or two to refill as the bucket passes by the air source. Unless the nozzle is also moving along with the bucket, or the bucket is passing through some air chamber. I'm confused with that part.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Yarddog said:


> Unless the nozzle is also moving along with the bucket, or the bucket is passing through some air chamber. I'm confused with that part.


You could replace one empty tank with a charged one when the bucket crests the top on its way to the bottom.
& the air is released when the tank reaches the bottom

Does this help ?
-


----------



## Yarddog

watchingfromafar said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the nozzle is also moving along with the bucket, or the bucket is passing through some air chamber. I'm confused with that part.
> 
> 
> 
> You could replace one empty tank with a charged one when the bucket crests the top on its way to the bottom.
> & the air is released when the tank reaches the bottom
> 
> Does this help ?
> -
Click to expand...



Wait, so your saying send a bucket of air down???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Yarddog said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the nozzle is also moving along with the bucket, or the bucket is passing through some air chamber. I'm confused with that part.
> 
> 
> 
> You could replace one empty tank with a charged one when the bucket crests the top on its way to the bottom.
> & the air is released when the tank reaches the bottom
> 
> Does this help ?
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so your saying send a bucket of air down???
Click to expand...


I think he now wants to drop a canister of compressed air to run his energy wasting device.
Those things can't be cheap. 
He'd probably do better just burning $1s to generate electricity.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think he now wants to drop a canister of compressed air to run his energy wasting device.



 Each canister has a volume of 2,666 cubic feet. The canister has a casing that weighs 170,624 pounds. The weight and the buoyancy of the canister is equal giving it a natural buoyancy.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Those things can't be cheap.



Each canister is used over and over. You only build 14 canisters and just continue to reuse them over and over. 
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he now wants to drop a canister of compressed air to run his energy wasting device.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each canister has a volume of 2,666 cubic feet. The canister has a casing that weighs 170,624 pounds. The weight and the buoyancy of the canister is equal giving it a natural buoyancy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those things can't be cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each canister is used over and over. You only build 14 canisters and just continue to reuse them over and over.
> -
Click to expand...


*The weight and the buoyancy of the canister is equal giving it a natural buoyancy.*

So now, instead of wasting energy by pumping air to the bottom, you're wasting energy by dragging a canister to the bottom?

Excellent!!

What will your losses to friction be with that scheme? Don't forget, besides your friction losses for the buckets, rising and sinking, you'll also have friction losses, again, when you pull the empties back to the surface.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So now, instead of wasting energy by pumping air to the bottom, you're wasting energy by dragging a canister to the bottom?
> Excellent!!


I finally realize you are just saying all these things just to keep up the conversation; which I sincerely appreciate, I would rather you target the machines potential or non-potential; in real terms. Having said that, its been a great conversation that I will miss.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What will your losses to friction be with that scheme?


0.002154%


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't forget, besides your friction losses for the buckets, rising and sinking, you'll also have friction losses, again, when you pull the empties back to the surface.


Ok

Toddsterpatriot, I wish you and yours a great day and beyond
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now, instead of wasting energy by pumping air to the bottom, you're wasting energy by dragging a canister to the bottom?
> Excellent!!
> 
> 
> 
> I finally realize you are just saying all these things just to keep up the conversation; which I sincerely appreciate, I would rather you target the machines potential or non-potential; in real terms. Having said that, its been a great conversation that I will miss.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will your losses to friction be with that scheme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0.002154%
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget, besides your friction losses for the buckets, rising and sinking, you'll also have friction losses, again, when you pull the empties back to the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok
> 
> Toddsterpatriot, I wish you and yours a great day and beyond
> -
Click to expand...


*I would rather you target the machines potential or non-potential; in real terms.*

This machine has the potential to lose a lot of energy and money. Really.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> This machine has the potential to lose a lot of energy and money. Really.



As does every development of every new machine but let me assure you, no one is going to build one until the numbers add up with a positive return and I know you knew that.

I'm now off to chase the  Coronavirus topic. 
Where are you headed-?
just asking
-


----------



## Yarddog

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he now wants to drop a canister of compressed air to run his energy wasting device.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each canister has a volume of 2,666 cubic feet. The canister has a casing that weighs 170,624 pounds. The weight and the buoyancy of the canister is equal giving it a natural buoyancy.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those things can't be cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each canister is used over and over. You only build 14 canisters and just continue to reuse them over and over.
> -
Click to expand...




Each cannister weighs 170K pounds? this sounds incredibly massive... its going to take a lot of energy and material to build them. As well, the cable you need to haul all that weight X 14 is going to be amazingly expensive as well... Im assuming it will be rubber coated to keep out corrosion... or it will have to be made out of something like Inconel which is better than stainless steel in ocean environment.
  I hope you are going to try this with a smaller scale model to see if it works before you try to spend millions. Thats what one of these things will cost. I dont know if your going to produce millions of energy dollars out of this thing.


Not to mention, this will be sort of an engineering feat i think. 14 of those giant iron buckets is a lot of weight and it will all need to be anchored to the sea bed, I suppose with a massive tower? That is going to be another huge expense. Is it going to be a single tower or a tripod?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Yarddog said:


> Not to mention, this will be sort of an engineering feat i think. 14 of those giant iron buckets is a lot of weight and it will all need to be anchored to the sea bed


The “iron buckets” are buoyancy natural. The weight of the water being displaced is greater than the weight of the rust-free containers.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

here is a new design


----------



## watchingfromafar

Here is a new format that my load (?)
The reason some of my drawing cannot load is because the drawing was at true scale; i,e, when a distance of 33 feet is shown, the actual distance in the drawing is 33 feet. 
For this reason the file would crash when loading. I hope this corrects the problem. 
If you need to enlarge the drawing or shrink it, you can hold down the [CTRL] key while rolling your mouse up or down


----------



## watchingfromafar

If you know the concept and basid on that; why do you
reject it--
Why -?


----------



## watchingfromafar

I haven't been able to load my last version so I'm only here to see if it loads. 
No comments needed or implied


----------



## Fed Starving

watchingfromafar said:


> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.



The ultimate energy source would be syphoned from another dimension, in this manner you couldn't deplete the energies in our dimension.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> I could once. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. That's how I know you're perpetual motion machine won't work.


Only you do not remember; .,.....,,,,,,....,,,.,.,,,.,but you once did ---

I know the feeling -


----------



## watchingfromafar

I hope that this new version is more understandable


----------



## watchingfromafar




----------



## watchingfromafar

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]


----------



## watchingfromafar

Correction----------------------


> ="*JoeMoma*, post: 24249513, member: 52298"]We could use 20 cars to turn a big wheel that turns a dynamo. Just think, after filling the first 19 cars with gas, he would only have to fill one more car each time to sustain 20 cars turning the dynamo. So using watchingfromafar math, the input energy will be multiplied by 20



*JoeMoma*, ,....................,you see the light
_[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]
[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]
[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;_

All I ask is that you learn "math"  & THEN; use it oK -


----------



## watchingfromafar

*JoeMoma* 
I need your help -


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> *JoeMoma*
> I need your help -


To do what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Principles to run the machine
> 
> There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
> [yes] [no]
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
> [yes] [no]



*[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]*

Yes, 10(Y) is greater than Y

*[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]*

Sustain?

The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
to fill one container?


----------



## JoeMoma

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*
> I need your help -
> 
> 
> 
> To do what?
Click to expand...

Have you been kidnapped by someone that wants you to teach them physics?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
> to fill one container?


(Z) is not even in the equation. If you need it to be added, go for it -


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
> to fill one container?
> 
> 
> 
> (Z) is not even in the equation. If you need it to be added, go for it -
> On second thought, my question remains the same -
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed
> to fill one container?
> 
> 
> 
> (Z) is not even in the equation. If you need it to be added, go for it -
Click to expand...


(Z)…...the death of your perpetual motion fantasy.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed to fill one container?



There is no (Z) in my equation
The (force) energy needed to fill one container is (F)

The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8% or 58.88 pounds of lifting force than the absolute value of 64 pounds of lifting force which is the weight of one cubic foot of water.

Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,

Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.
it is a huge increase in torque

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Yarddog said:


> Each cannister weighs 170K pounds? this sounds incredibly massive...


I need you in this debate, 
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> To do what?



Get involved, state your opinions
I respect your thoughts
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

fncceo said:


> Finally ... someone figured out perpetual motion.


Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

percysunshine said:


> Burning penguin poop? That is the great idea?


Please come back, your opinions are welcome 
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?



Please come back, your opinions are welcome
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Ringel05 said:


> Trained dolphins......



Please come back, your opinions are welcome 
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> If you know the concept and basid on that; why do you
> reject it--
> Why -?


Your concept is based on misconception. Several people on this thread have attempted to explain the error of your thinking.  You  state that you have been banned from an engineering forum because your concept is so preposterous.  You stated that you were going to hire some engineers to look over your design, but apparently they have bailed on you.  We reject you concept because it is wrong and unworkable.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you know the concept and basid on that; why do you
> reject it--
> Why -?
> 
> 
> 
> Your concept is based on misconception. Several people on this thread have attempted to explain the error of your thinking.  You  state that you have been banned from an engineering forum because your concept is so preposterous.  You stated that you were going to hire some engineers to look over your design, but apparently they have bailed on you.  We reject you concept because it is wrong and unworkable.
Click to expand...

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!


----------



## watchingfromafar

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!



My Momma gave me a lunch every day when going to school.
She never charged me a dime
-


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAFAAL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Momma gave me a lunch every day when going to school.
> She never charged me a dime
> -
Click to expand...

Somebody paid for it.  That is why perpetual motion machines as sources of energy are impossible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proper question is what percentage, less than 100, is (Y) compared to (Z), the force needed to fill one container?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no (Z) in my equation
> The (force) energy needed to fill one container is (F)
> 
> The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8% or 58.88 pounds of lifting force than the absolute value of 64 pounds of lifting force which is the weight of one cubic foot of water.
> 
> Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,
> 
> Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.
> it is a huge increase in torque
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*Comparing the energy in and out of one bucket is a lose. The percentage of gain from one is negative,*

Finally, you understand entropy.

*The energy return you get from filling one container = (F) - 8%*

I'd be absolutely stunned if you got back anything close to 92% of what you put in.
Probably closer to 22%.

*Until you realize that we have ten (10) buckets in tandem producing the output energy.*

8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.


92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain
Click to expand...


You lose 8% (more like 80%) on each bucket.....how do you generate power?

Volume!!!!!

Thanks.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8% loss per bucket times ten buckets......still a loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 92% return times ten (10) = positive return, not a loss but a gain
Click to expand...

And you keep repeating your mistake.  You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.  Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.  You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.


Actually you do. 



JoeMoma said:


> Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.


This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.



JoeMoma said:


> You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".


Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend. 
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you do.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend.
> You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
> -
Click to expand...

I challenge you to build a prototype to show the naysayers (myself included) that you are right.  No, you don't have to have water 600 ft deep to make your prototype.  A large aquarium should do just fine.  In 2 to 3 ft deep water you should be able to build a device in which you fill one "bucket" to sustain your 10 buckets lifting together.  You can use an aquarium air pump to fill your buckets.  You could perhaps use dixie cups as your buckets.

To prove your concept that your device actually creates energy here is what it needs to do.  It needs to use an electric air pump to fill the bottom bucket each time.  Your device, powered by the buckets moving in the water are to turn a generator to generate electricity.  The electricity that your device generates is feed back to the air pump to keep your device running with no other power source after startup.  Once you device cycles for a few seconds, it should be able to run for hours from only the electricity generated by itself.

You will have solved the world's energy problems if you can do this.....and the world's carbon problems said to cause global warming. You could possibly become the world's first trillionaire.  You will be the first person to make a machine that outputs more energy than is input to it.  You will be as famous as Albert Einstein.  If you do this, you should win the Nobel Prize for science.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> And you keep repeating your mistake. You do not have ten "buckets" pulling together at the price of filling just one bucket.


Actually you do.



JoeMoma said:


> Air had to be supplied to all 10 bucks.


This is true for the first cycle. Once the ten buckets have air in them they are all pulling together.



JoeMoma said:


> You have to analyze the energy input and output over a complete cycle, not for "a moment in time".


Once a complete cycle has come full circle 10 buckets are pulling "together" while all you need to keep the cycle running is to fill one bucket. The problem with this is it's too simple for you to comprehend.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
-


JoeMoma said:


> You can use an aquarium air pump to fill your buckets.  You could perhaps use dixie cups as your buckets.



Wrong, you need atmospheric pressure, called ATM's. My device goes down to 18 ATM's., try that in a fish tank.


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> You can use an aquarium air pump to fill your buckets. You could perhaps use dixie cups as your buckets.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you need atmospheric pressure, called ATM's. My device goes down to 18 ATM's., try that in a fish tank.
Click to expand...

There is nothing magic about going down 18 ATM's that has anything to do with filling one bucket with air to sustain 10 buckets pulling together.  The concept that you keep arguing is supplying X amount of energy to fill one bucket with air to get 10X out because you have 10 buckets pulling together.  A small scale prototype should produce this same effect, X will simply be a smaller number.  But 10X is bigger than X regardless of whether your device goes down 0.1 ATM, 18 ATM, or 180 ATM.

And if you think 18 ATM is the depth to make your device work, why?  Why wouldn't 10 ATM work?  Why not 20 ATM?   How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?


----------



## watchingfromafar

thomosbaysore said:


> Do you still think that alternative energy sources suck?


Not at all. I watch a TV program called “sustainable energy”. The TV series goes around the world showing all the newest sustainable energy alternatives being used today. One country now mandates all electric buses. The worlds efforts to sustainable energy sources is impressive.

Having said that, I am no longer concerned; the world is unfolding as it should

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?


The deeper you go the smaller the air bubble. Below 18 ATM the return on the energy expended becomes negligible. 

JoeMoma, I believe the only reason you post here is because you like the idea but just refuse to admit it.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you come up with 18 ATM being the required depth?
> 
> 
> 
> The deeper you go the smaller the air bubble. Below 18 ATM the return on the energy expended becomes negligible.
> 
> JoeMoma, I believe the only reason you post here is because you like the idea but just refuse to admit it.
> -
Click to expand...

So a depth that achieves 18ATMs is a maximum depth, not a minimum depth, yet you gave the 18 ATM figure as a reason you couldn't use a much smaller scale prototype to try to prove your concept. 

If your concept is correct, you should be able to prove it with a small "science-fair" size model.  I and many other people know that your concept is wrong, but no amount of explanation has caused you to see the light.  Thus I present a challenge to you -- build a small scale model and make it power itself.  Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.

I read and post here for the entertainment value.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> build a small scale model and make it power itself. Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.


I have never suggested that it would power itself.

If you stop adding air to the lowest bucket the system will stop running

If the water freezes over the system will stop running

If the cable attached to each bucket breaks it will stop running

I am sure there are other factors that would stop the machine from running

This is not a perpetual motion machine

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,


But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
-


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> build a small scale model and make it power itself. Note that with a very small model you will not have the issues with the volume of the air being compressed significantly.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that it would power itself.
> 
> If you stop adding air to the lowest bucket the system will stop running
> 
> If the water freezes over the system will stop running
> 
> If the cable attached to each bucket breaks it will stop running
> 
> I am sure there are other factors that would stop the machine from running
> 
> This is not a perpetual motion machine
> 
> -
Click to expand...

The whole point of your device is that it is suppose to generate (output) more energy than is input to operate it.  If this is true, then the output energy can be fed back into the device so that it powers itself with energy to spare..  After all, the title of your thread is "Ultimate energy source".  

Are you saying that your device does not output more energy than is input to it?



watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,
> 
> 
> 
> But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
> -
Click to expand...

You have not been able to comprehend the proof why.  If you understand the law of conservation of energy, then it is a no-brainer why your concept is wrong.


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Are you saying that your device does not output more energy than is input to it? I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,


But as of yet, you and your others haven't been able to prove why
-


JoeMoma said:


> You have not been able to comprehend the proof why.  If you understand the law of conservation of energy, then it is a no-brainer why your concept is wrong.


I admit the device appears to produce more energy than was used to run the system. And I also admit that the laws of conservation of energy is unrefutable.

*con·ser·va·tion of en·er·gy*
_noun
a principle stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be altered from one form to another._

You must also remember energy can be altered from one form to another. In this case the system combines multiple energy modules creating more energy than any one module in the system. This creates a higher torque return.

Last but not least, I agree with you, I missed something in the design that would prevent the energy return the system seems to imply. I just have not found that flaw; as of yet.
NOTE: if you click on the image you may lose your place in this forum.
You can right click and copy the image.
-


----------



## JoeMoma

Another thing, which I told you long ago in this thread, is that you are conflating energy with force. They are not the same thing.  You device could perhaps be considered a force multiplier, but it does not create or multiply energy.  There are many devices (machines) that are force multipliers.  Please take 12 minutes and watch this video.


----------



## JoeMoma

Another force multiplier


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I and many other people know that your concept is wrong,
> 
> 
> 
> But as of yet, you haven't been able to prove why
> -
Click to expand...

For starters..
"Seawater weighs 64 lb. per square feet" 
In air (at sea level and 1 atm pressure). Immersed in seawater, a bucketful of seawater weighs nothing relative to its surroundings. The bucket itself may weigh something, but not the contents in this case.


> Let's take a moment and look at an object in water and Archimedes Principle. If you place a 1 cubic foot object that weighs 63 lbs into fresh water, the object is displacing 62.4 lbs of water, but weighs 63 lbs. This object will be negatively buoyant - it will sink. It is however being buoyed up with a force of 62.4 lbs, so if we weighed it in the water it would only weigh .6 lbs.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So if you immerse a loop of containers full of water in water you have a bunch of nothing. Pump high pressure air into those at the bottom to displace the water and, unless anchored somehow, the whole assembly simply floats to the surface.


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> If you drop a 10 lb. iron ball from the roof of a 10-story building and it hits a concrete sidewalk, was the impact more or less than 10 lb’s-?
> 
> Since the impact created more of an impact than a 10 lb. ball dropped from a height of 5 feet; was energy created or not-?
> -


Work is energy. Energy is work. Not the capacity or potential to do work. The energy required to lift an object to a given height is the same as that released on impact after falling the same amount. Ignoring air friction and elasticity, the work (energy) is the total _expended_ at any point while lifting an object -or- the total _expended_ upon impact in the form of heat after free falling from the same point. 

So your 10 lb ball does not create energy. Lifting it 10-stories _expends_ exactly the same energy as gets _expended_ when it hits the ground. Having it sit on top _expends_ nothing. Dropping it _expends_ nothing. Always remember, as Douglas Adams said, “It's not the fall that kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end.”

"was energy created or not-?"
In nature, energy is never conserved. Energy is constantly being "created" and "destroyed" (same thing).


----------



## Grumblenuts

..Slogging through this thread.. currently at p18 / 28..
Current thoughts -

Good attitude and great job sticking to your guns. Knee-jerk, pointless nay saying is always par for the course in such discussions,  as you clearly well know from experience.
Teflon is terrible. Read up on the latest findings regarding its environmental costs.
Go back to the original plan. That was far simpler and more elegant. This balloon business is just nuts, top, bottom, and likely in between. To fill a balloon would require stopping the machine, then starting it again. You could release the compressed air at the top simultaneously, but it would be difficult to evacuate them completely given they'd have to remain sealed all the way up, implying spring pressure being applied upon release.
The triangular bucket idea was so much better. You could just have the compressed air flowing out constantly at the bottom, bubbling up one side, possibly filling less than full buckets above the current target, all the way up. You could shroud the path somewhat to better guide the bubbles. If the concept works, it works. Otherwise, forget it. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Must anchor the bottom as previously noted, else the whole business will simply find its way to the surface, not to mention very possibly capsizing your barge. Therefore, it would to be fixed in place, not anything you could just stick on the side of a big boat.
To reiterate, energy is an act, not a thing. A verb, not a noun. Don't listen to the drum beaters. Newton rolls over in his grave every time they post their brain dead, so-called "laws" of this and that, and ceaseless "conservation of energy" dogma. What you seek is a COP near 1 or better. Coefficient of performance, not perpetual motion.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Okay, a few more notes before I finishing catching up:

An "ultimate energy source" this is decidedly not. Putting that in the title does imply attempted "perpetual motion" which is just silly and invites ridicule.
That said it just may prove a useful addition to the many great schemes already being employed or in the works.
I've seen no good reason for not building a scale model to test this idea. That obviously must be done before anyone can take the notion very seriously, not to mention applying for a patent.
Try to keep in mind that COPs of 3 or better (refrigeration for instance) are only possible because "free energy" from the surroundings is leveraged in addition to conventional inputs. Nothing practical energy-wise fails to go with the environmental flow. Wind, for example, easily supplies most of the energy required to raise and keep a child's kite in the air. If you could park your contraption over some venting steam or whatever, that would definitely make it go at low cost. However, it would still need to prove a better way than competing possibilities.


----------



## Quasar44

watchingfromafar said:


> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.



Hydrogen Fusion reactors in only 50 yrs will power the earth just like the sun


----------



## Grumblenuts

I remember them saying that 50 years ago as well


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> Now this is the kicker, *at any one moment in time* you have the lifting force of five (5) balloons pulling upwards while the energy needed to sustain the process is the energy needed to fill one (1) balloon.
> -


Great moments in circular reasoning. You can't simply presume the conclusion you wish for and present that as though scientific argument. Gotta show your work, pops. Do the math, including all  potential gains and losses. Then begin crowing if the math confirms your expectations. No one's going to do it for you for free.


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> . In other words, the more balloons used in a cycle, the higher the rate you device uses energy. You do not get free energy by adding more balloons pulling in your device because you are increasing the number of balloons you have to fill per minute
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma, *for the life of me I cannot understand why I do not see this as you do.,.,.,.,. and still I don’t.
> 
> I see the output energy rate larger than the energy needed to sustain the system. It’s really that simple. Instead of five (5) balloons rising within a space of 594 vertical feet we could double this to 1,188 vertical feet. And still, the needed energy to sustain the system is the energy to fill one balloon.
> 
> 
> What am I missing here, am I brain dead or what -
Click to expand...

JoeMoma is arguing dynamics while you're sticking to statics. Both are valid, but the thing you keep ignoring most is the input required _to pump the volume of air you want_ down to the depth _you want_ in the time _you require_. That is nothing to sneeze at or simply presume equal to X. Figure it out.


----------



## Andylusion

thomosbaysore said:


> In any case, I believe that alternative energy sources are the best potential energy sources!
> Moreover, the niche of alternative energy sources is developing more and more every day. Every day there are new methods of generating energy using the power of nature.
> For example, the well-known solar panels were made portable. Yep, portable solar panels
> Indeed, it is very convenient because you can take this panel with you anywhere and it will satisfy your energy needs!
> Do you still think that alternative energy sources suck?



For the most part, yes.

There are certain specific situations where alternative energy is fine.

I read where a guy had a million acres of land, and he would move his cattle around on the land, but there was no electricity.   But he had a shack out by a stream.   So he put some solar panels on the roof, and had a water turbine in the stream, and voila!  Power almost year round.

That said, other than a tiny fridge, and a laptop, and a few expensive LED lights.... you couldn't do much.

And if you used everything, you would go dead on power.

At the same time, I know another guy that bought a full roof Solar panel system for his house, dropped thousands on thousand on thousands, and after it was all said and done, he spent $10,000, found he was only saving a few hundred bucks a year.

Then, and I this is crazy.... the system burnt out the inverter, which caused him another thousand to replace, and not even a year later, he suspects a squirrel or some other rodent, chewed on a panel, shorted out the entire system, and they said he'd have to replace every single panel.

He sold it as salvage, and never looked back.

Alternative energy has a very limited use in my book.   At the very best, it is a additional source of power, not really an "alternative". 

And honestly, the day the US government runs out of money to fund green energy, the entire market will disappear like a ghost.    No one would buy a single solar panel anywhere, if it wasn't for the government money involved.  You take away those energy credits, and green energy grants, and the tax incentives....

The market would cease to exist in a single day.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Okay, I've read the whole damned thing now. Nothing more to add for now..


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> I have re-run the numbers-- here's what I found in this go around
> If you need to enlarge the image
> press [CTR] while rolling you mouse roller up or down



The attached image did not open, so here it is in another format--


----------



## Grumblenuts

So I notice your variation in balloon radius has been much reduced. This I presume due to added compression at greater depths. Still, filling a balloon under such circumstances just seems ridiculous and the more reason to revert back to your original (non balloon) plan.


----------



## JoeMoma

Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?



You keep asking this and I continue to answer it-
The purpose is to convert the lifting force of multiple trapped air balloons into mechanical energy which is then converted into electrical energy.
Principles to run the machine

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
*** while at the same time it only takes the energy to fill one balloon at a time to keep the combined lifting force of all the balloons running
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

I encourage someone here or elsewhere to patent this idea and put it to work powering the next generation into the next

How about you—*JoeMoma-?*


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watchingfromafar, once again, what is the purpose of your device?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep asking this and I continue to answer it-
> The purpose is to convert the lifting force of multiple trapped air balloons into mechanical energy which is then converted into electrical energy.
> Principles to run the machine
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> [2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> *** while at the same time it only takes the energy to fill one balloon at a time to keep the combined lifting force of all the balloons running
> -
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the purpose of your device is to mechanically output more energy (which is not the same as force) than is input to it.  Am I correct? 

Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> I encourage someone here or elsewhere to patent this idea and put it to work powering the next generation into the next
> 
> How about you—*JoeMoma-?*











						The Patent Law of Perpetual Motion - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
					

if (typeof window.atnt !== 'undefined') { window.atnt(); }if (typeof window.atnt !== 'undefined') { window.atnt(); }The reality is that science fact and science fiction are dictated based on currently accepted understandings, whether they be true or not. As impossible as something sounds, what...




					www.ipwatchdog.com


----------



## Grumblenuts

Great read there, JoeMoma. Thanks. I'd bet Newman was offered no actual choice about grounding his device. That goes way back as well. So he let them proceed just to see how well it would do rather than just pack up and leave. But why so uptight about grounding? What if significantly more energy is freely available from the environment when all or part of the apparatus is simply allowed to float or accumulate charge like an antenna? That's largely how they shut Tesla down. That's why they still insist upon grounding everything. _Unsafe! Can't meter it? No good! Can't profit!_

That said, it most likely doesn't really matter. As the article says, people bent on building perpetual motion machines are never in short supply and patents are not a necessity. If one were actually demonstrated to work we'd all soon be building a copy or waiting to buy one. And I agree completely. The only thing more pathetic than a perpetual motion inventor is one trying to get others to do most of the essential planning, proving, building, and testing for them. Technically however, it's only perpetual motion if the plan is to drive the input solely from the output. Otherwise, say if nature ends up providing free energy in the form of steam vents for this thing, it'll just be a machine with a high C.O.P. like a heat pump.


----------



## JoeMoma

Grumblenuts said:


> Technically however, it's only perpetual motion if the plan is to drive the input solely from the output. Otherwise, say if nature ends up providing free energy in the form of steam vents for this thing, it'll just be a machine with a high C.O.P. like a heat pump


His concept device is not using any "free energy" from nature.  If the energy were being supplied by steam vents, water currents, or some other process of nature, then it might be a workable idea.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I agree. I should add that solar panels and windmills requiring little to no maintenance obviously get all their input free from nature. Nothing necessarily gets fed back to an input. The output is essentially free. Perhaps even better than perpetual motion.


----------



## Marion Morrison

watchingfromafar said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the motive force to get the assembly of buckets to turn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a bucket reaches the bottom is is filled with air.  There are eleven (11) buckets filled with air pushing the buckets upward.
> -
Click to expand...

What about tides? Seawater waterline is constantly static.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> I admit the device appears to produce more energy than was used to run the system.



It doesn't appear to do that at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Here's a very cool home grown trash/irrigation water pump:


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)


*JoeMoma*, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.

Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.

*fulcrum*
/ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
_the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported._

*pivot*
/ˈpɪvət/
_the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.


_

*JoeMoma*, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.

The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.

Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Something worth watching-----

*Sustainable Energy*
(Season 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Sustainable-Energy - Equal Productions
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.
> 
> Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.
> 
> *fulcrum*
> /ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
> _the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported._
> 
> *pivot*
> /ˈpɪvət/
> _the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
> View attachment 362486_
> 
> *JoeMoma*, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.
> 
> The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.
> 
> Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
> -
Click to expand...


*After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison *

They've used ten balloons energy. 

*the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running.*

If getting 10% back out is a victory, you win!!


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.
> 
> Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.
> 
> *fulcrum*
> /ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
> _the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported._
> 
> *pivot*
> /ˈpɪvət/
> _the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
> View attachment 362486_
> 
> *JoeMoma*, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.
> 
> The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.
> 
> Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
> -
Click to expand...

On the input side you are filling one balloon (force = X) and the air has to be moved 600 ft under water.
distance times force = 600X

On the output side you have 6 balloons moving up (force = 6X).  The distance they move until the next balloon has to be filled up is 600ft/6 = 100 ft.
distance times force = 6X times 100 = 600X.

What you seem to be missing is that the air for filling one balloon is MOVED DOWN 600ft for the 6 balloons to to MOVE UP 100 FT. 

Your device does "multiply" force.  It does not multiply energy and would be extremely energy inefficient..   Force is not the same thing as energy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, did you take the time to watch the videos about force multipliers that I posted? (#550 & #551)
> 
> 
> 
> *JoeMoma*, I watched your two videos and I thank you for providing them.
> 
> Basically, they both covered the same thing, power of force can be multiplied or reduced by increasing or reducing the distance the force is applied.
> 
> *fulcrum*
> /ˈfʊlkrəm,ˈfʌlkrəm/
> _the point against which a lever is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported._
> 
> *pivot*
> /ˈpɪvət/
> _the central point, pin, or shaft on which a mechanism turns or oscillates.
> View attachment 362486_
> 
> *JoeMoma*, none of the above describes the accumulating force of multiple balloons tied together creating a unified force greater than any one balloon can provide.
> 
> The key is the energy input/output. After all the ten balloons have air in them and they are pulling in unison the energy needed to sustain this unified force is the energy needed to fill one balloon to keep the system running. I can see this principle is similar to the fulcrum but not quite the same.
> 
> Let’s stick with the diagram I have provided and pick apart the mechanics of it. If you cannot find a flaw in the design then there isn’t any.
> -
Click to expand...

Flaws it is then:

Don't distract yourself. You're proposing a linear, sequential apparatus based upon addition / subtraction, not lever multiplication. 

The balloon notion is utterly ridiculous. No conceivable way to fill and empty them quickly enough through a presumably single, relatively small nozzle or tube fitting. No material that would withstand the natural abuse even if the damned things somehow managed not to interfere with the apparatus or one another to begin with. Go back to the original or at least consider some sort of piston / cylinder or fixed size tank / moving membrane design. 

Admit that you're proposing a "perpetual motion" machine, i.e. one capable of generating more energy than it consumes to run. 

Do ALL the math. Demonstrate exactly how it manages to do what you suggest with apparently zero environmental input needed.


----------



## JoeMoma

Grumblenuts said:


> Admit that you're proposing a "perpetual motion" machine, i.e. one capable of generating more energy than it consumes to run.


This should be the end of this thread right here.  Perpetual motion machines are not possible using any physics known to humans.  And WatchingFromAfar isn't proposing any type of physics not already known to humans.  Energy output will never be greater than energy input for that would violate the law of conservation of energy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case. We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method. So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one.

Tidal generators leverage environmental energy from the Moon's gravity. They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels. Prime movers requiring no "fuel."  But being inherently intermittent makes them most useful periodically and all require some maintenance. The tidal stuff has proven particularly difficult to maintain due to constant movement of sediment by the ton daily. A very tough thing to design around.


----------



## JoeMoma

Grumblenuts said:


> They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.


  Those are not perpetual motion machines.


----------



## Grumblenuts

JoeMoma said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not perpetual motion machines.
Click to expand...

Wow, really? Perhaps why I put "perpetual motion" in quotes.. even added "of a sort" on this occasion. Here, look:


> *Apparent* perpetual motion machines[edit]
> *As "perpetual motion" can exist only in isolated systems, and true isolated systems do not exist, there are not any real "perpetual motion" devices.*


Notice how even though they are impossible by definition.. guess what? So are (admittedly!) "true isolated systems." Ergo..? So is the energy conservation "Law" itself.. following the exact same reasoning process.


> * However,* there are concepts and technical drafts that propose "perpetual motion", but on closer analysis it is revealed that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients, or simply cannot sustain indefinite operation. In general, extracting work from these devices is impossible.


And guess what "some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients" indicates? An open system! Reality. So, in non-reality,.. systems that are impossible don't work "in general." Thanks modern physics speak!


----------



## Andylusion

Grumblenuts said:


> I agree. I should add that solar panels and windmills requiring little to no maintenance obviously get all their input free from nature. Nothing necessarily gets fed back to an input. The output is essentially free. Perhaps even better than perpetual motion.



Well the kicker there is "Little to no maintenance".

Everything in this world breaks down, and falls apart.  Everything does.  Nothing just lasts forever.

I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Room for improvement -- forever the biggest room in the world!

They make most of those windmills too big on purpose and the design sucks anyway compared to mine.


----------



## JoeMoma

Grumblenuts said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are "perpetual motion" machines of a sort, like windmills and solar panels.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not perpetual motion machines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, really? Perhaps why I put "perpetual motion" in quotes.. even added "of a sort" on this occasion. Here, look:
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparent* perpetual motion machines[edit]
> *As "perpetual motion" can exist only in isolated systems, and true isolated systems do not exist, there are not any real "perpetual motion" devices.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how even though they are impossible by definition.. guess what? So are (admittedly!) "true isolated systems." Ergo..? So is the energy conservation "Law" itself.. following the exact same reasoning process.
> 
> 
> 
> * However,* there are concepts and technical drafts that propose "perpetual motion", but on closer analysis it is revealed that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients, or simply cannot sustain indefinite operation. In general, extracting work from these devices is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And guess what "some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients" indicates? An open system! Reality. So, in non-reality,.. systems that are impossible don't work "in general." Thanks modern physics speak!
Click to expand...

I saw what you did with the quotes; however, the OP of this thread is very confused about principles of physics.  I don't want to add to that confusion by making up a definition of Perpetual Motion Machine that simply isn't so.  Also, his device is not designed to harness energy supplied by nature. 

Anyway, It is time for me to leave this nonsensical thread again.  TaTa For Now.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Andylusion said:


> I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.


That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.

{* - designed in obsolescence}


----------



## Andylusion

Grumblenuts said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.
> 
> {* - designed in obsolesce}
Click to expand...


So, not only do I not see any articles that support what you just said, but honestly the exact opposite.









						Germany's windmills are wildly unpopular
					

In renewable energy, competition from fossil fuels isn't the only problem: Local politics may be an even higher hurdle.




					www.japantimes.co.jp
				












						Germany May Lose 40% of Wind Jobs as New Projects Grind to Halt
					

Germany’s wind power industry could shed about 40% of its jobs because of sliding interest among investors to build turbines on land, threatening a key driver of the nation’s ambitious clean energy targets.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




And as far as the BS about corporations designing them to fail....








						Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
					

From The Telegraph Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.   By Robert M…




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




Then what you are saying is that every single wind turbine company on the entire freakin planet, intentionally designed their products in a way that would cause their companies to go bankrupt?

That's ridiculous.  The problem isn't that the subsidies run out.  The problem is, nothing lasts forever.  Nothing does.  To design a generator that lasts 50 years, would be so expensive, that all the subsidies in the world, wouldn't cover the cost of them.

This isn't some tin foil hat conspiracy theory... this is a fact of material existence.


----------



## ding

Andylusion said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading an article about Germany, where they are now saying half of all the wind mills in the country right now, are in need of replacement, and there's no money for it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true anyway. Fighting over national and EU subsidies, many German conservatives remain opposed to renewables just as they do here. Truth is wind power continues to expand impressively, just not as quickly as many had hoped since 2018. Germans are worried about losing their leading position to EU competitors. I worry that they've already placed way too much faith in their huge corporations not to just continue screwing them{*} for rich people's fun and profit. Why are those super engineered, gigantic windmills still only good for 20 years even on land? Because that's when the subsidies run out. Go figure.
> 
> {* - designed in obsolesce}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, not only do I not see any articles that support what you just said, but honestly the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany's windmills are wildly unpopular
> 
> 
> In renewable energy, competition from fossil fuels isn't the only problem: Local politics may be an even higher hurdle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany May Lose 40% of Wind Jobs as New Projects Grind to Halt
> 
> 
> Germany’s wind power industry could shed about 40% of its jobs because of sliding interest among investors to build turbines on land, threatening a key driver of the nation’s ambitious clean energy targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as the BS about corporations designing them to fail....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
> 
> 
> From The Telegraph Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.   By Robert M…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wattsupwiththat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what you are saying is that every single wind turbine company on the entire freakin planet, intentionally designed their products in a way that would cause their companies to go bankrupt?
> 
> That's ridiculous.  The problem isn't that the subsidies run out.  The problem is, nothing lasts forever.  Nothing does.  To design a generator that lasts 50 years, would be so expensive, that all the subsidies in the world, wouldn't cover the cost of them.
> 
> This isn't some tin foil hat conspiracy theory... this is a fact of material existence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a real shit show.  My son worked in that industry for awhile.  They don't spend enough time or money on maintenance.  

There is a natural tendency for optimism when it comes to analyzing the economic feasibility of projects BEFORE they are capitalized.  It is only after the project has been completed and online that the optimism in the economic assumptions eventually come to light.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Can this machine produce useful work?*

*Principles to run the machine*

These are a few basic principles

[1] an enclosed but expandable, container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y) =
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);​[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size
A cubic foot of air under water has a lifting force of 64 pounds per square foot of water displaced]
by the air. at 2 ATM's the lifting force of that bubble is 64 pounds

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at 3 feet per second.
at any one moment in time

as I see it;
how about you--? -


----------



## watchingfromafar

JoeMoma said:


> Also, his device is not designed to harness energy supplied by nature.


Gravity is a natural function of nature; as I see it 
-


----------



## Grumblenuts

Theoretically speaking.. How constant is your "Y"? Using balloons, if that's actually possible, will your "lifting force" not increase dramatically as one rises and expands displacing far more water? Here are some interesting related facts beginning with compressing the air required to fill your alleged balloons in the first place:


> Cooling is a crucial step in the compressed air process. The ideal gas law tells us when the pressure on any constant volume of gas increases, the temperature also increases. ... The intercooler removes heat from the air between compressor stages while the aftercooler is used for cooling air discharged from a compressor.


So let's say you use a steel pipe to get this air (however cool) down to your desired depth to fill the bottom most balloon. Now..


> The temperature of ocean water also varies with depth. In the ocean, solar energy is reflected in the upper surface or rapidly absorbed with depth, meaning that the deeper into the ocean you descend, the less sunlight there is. This results in less warming of the water. Therefore, the deep ocean (below about 200 meters depth) is cold, with an average temperature of only 4°C (39°F). Cold water is also more dense, and as a result heavier, than warm water. Colder water sinks below the warm water at the surface, which contributes to the coldness of the deep ocean.


Hmm, 4°C, interesting.. More dense water means more buoyancy or less?


> When liquid water is cooled, it contracts like one would expect until a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius is reached. After that, it expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and then when it freezes it expands by approximately 9%.





> The volume of displaced fluid is equivalent to the volume of an object fully immersed in a fluid or to that fraction of the volume below the surface of an object partially submerged in a liquid. The weight of the displaced portion of the fluid is equivalent to the magnitude of the buoyant force.


Alternatively, air itself can be treated as a fluid in terms of buoyancy, so as someone suggested way back, why not just set up a prototype above ground?..


> If you can remember the simple acronym 4H MEDIC ANNA, you can remember the gases that are lighter than air. These lighter than air gases are Hydrogen, Helium, Hydrogen Cyanide, Hydrogen Fluoride, Methane, Ethylene, Diborane, Illuminating Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Acetylene, Neon, Nitrogen and Ammonia.


Methane sounds lovely. Simply collect your farts for a while and you're golden. Have something pop a cork out at the top and you're all set..


----------



## watchingfromafar

Grumblenuts said:


> Methane sounds lovely. Simply collect your farts for a while and you're golden. Have something pop a cork out at the top and you're all set..


You may be on to something. If we can artificially replicate the production of the “fart” we may be able to commercially produce this gas as an energy source.

*Chemical Composition of Farts*
The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the* bacteria inhabiting the colon*, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
• Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.
What Is a Fart Made Of?

*Flatus (intestinal gas) is mostly produced as a byproduct of bacterial fermentation in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, especially the colon.*

Over 99% of the volume of flatus is composed of non-smelly gases. *These include oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane.*

Archaea (singular archaeon) constitute a *domain of single-celled organisms.* These microorganisms lack cell nuclei and are therefore prokaryotes. Archaea were initially classified as bacteria, receiving the name archaebacteria (in the Archaebacteria kingdom), but this classification is obsolete.

*Archaeal cells have unique properties separating them from the other two domains, Bacteria and Eukaryota.* Archaea are further divided into multiple recognized phyla. Classification is difficult because most have not been isolated in the laboratory and have been detected only by analysis of their nucleic acids in samples from their environment.
Archaea - Wikipedia

And here as well-
*10 fascinating facts about farting*

I believe this energy source is worth looking into/ how about you-?
-


----------



## Grumblenuts

In this rare instance, I recommend having a cow.


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> *Chemical Composition of Farts*
> The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the* bacteria inhabiting the colon*, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:
> 
> • Nitrogen: 20-90%
> • Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
> • Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
> • Oxygen: 0-10%
> • Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
> • Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.



There are hundreds of thousands of sewer treatment plants. This sewage could be used to produce the gases listed above. 
Right now EXXON is spending milions$$ to improve the yeast production of  *alcohol.
They should but a little research into fart gas production as well.
-*


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chemical Composition of Farts*
> The exact chemical composition of human flatulence varies from one person to another, based on his or her biochemistry, the* bacteria inhabiting the colon*, and the foods that were eaten. If the gas results from ingesting air, the chemical composition will approximate that of air. If the fart arises from digestion or bacterial production, the chemistry may be more exotic. Farts consist primarily of nitrogen, the principal gas in air, along with a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:
> 
> • Nitrogen: 20-90%
> • Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
> • Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
> • Oxygen: 0-10%
> • Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
> • Human flatus may contain hydrogen gas and/or methane, which are flammable. If sufficient amounts of these gases are present, it's possible to light the fart on fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands of sewer treatment plants. This sewage could be used to produce the gases listed above.
> Right now EXXON is spending milions$$ to improve the yeast production of  *alcohol.
> They should but a little research into fart gas production as well.
> -*
Click to expand...

I believe I will start this topic elsewhere


----------



## Grumblenuts

Look up trash to energy plant technology. They do pretty well at converting all manner of volatile, flammable gases into heat and electricity while processing waste. Unfortunately, they also tend to release lots of pollution and be less efficient than proposed.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Grumblenuts said:


> Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case.


correct, and thanks for getting involved


Grumblenuts said:


> _We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method_.


Again, you are correct and again I thank you for getting involved in this discussion


Grumblenuts said:


> _So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one_.


I’m not sure what you mean by environment. I am using the upward pulling force of entrapped air.

The concept is simple enough. There is a vertical row of containers filled with air that are tied together combining the lifting force into force (X). At the same time, to maintain this rising force you need to add a new container (Y) with air at the bottom at the same time the top container reaches the surface and turns around on its journey back to the bottom.

The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?


Not really. Common sense will tell you that since you're already acknowledging a need for a new bucket each time one is consumed, then t_he whole thing clearly runs off that one bucket at a time._ Individual buckets comprising a "vertical row" also had to be "charged" or recharged individually at earlier points in time corresponding to their speed and positions.

The real question then becomes whether you can get net energy out of the rise of one bucket less far than the air had to travel down to charge it? Not bloody likely. I know the OP was talking more recently about lowering tanks of compressed air, but I presume that amounts to cheating akin to using smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by environment.


I mean from the surroundings. The ocean may have different temperatures and pressures locally which could be leveraged. Air bubbling from a vent in the ocean floor could certainly make a huge difference in this case.


----------



## San Souci

watchingfromafar said:


> *Ultimate energy source*
> 
> I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.
> 
> I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.
> 
> Please see post #2 for the basic concept.


How about a perpetual motion machine?


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> correct, and thanks for getting involved
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are correct and again I thank you for getting involved in this discussion
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not sure what you mean by environment. I am using the upward pulling force of entrapped air.
> 
> The concept is simple enough. There is a vertical row of containers filled with air that are tied together combining the lifting force into force (X). At the same time, to maintain this rising force you need to add a new container (Y) with air at the bottom at the same time the top container reaches the surface and turns around on its journey back to the bottom.
> 
> The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?
Click to expand...


Zero sum energy.
To get air down to the container at the bottom so you can fill it with air and make it rise, requires pumping it down there, with exactly the same force it returns as it rises, minus the friction that is lost.
There is no gain from this at all.

If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.
The water pressure formula is given by, P = ρ g h = 1000 × 9.8 × depth in meters.  
To get air into the container you have to push the water out, and that is very difficult at any depth.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.


You compress air tanks at the surface and use these tanks to supply the are needed.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Principles to run the machine

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other *creates a combined lifting force* of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)

*Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);*

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at (unknown) speed. Yet to be calculated

The lifting force of an enclosed container, (bubble); is equal to the volume of water being displaced. To push one cubic foot of enclosed air under water takes a force of 64 pounds at one ATM.

This is the equation that determines the volume of air at different depths.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V = bubble size
V1 is the volume at 1 ATM. Assuming the volume at 1 ATM is 100 cubic feet; at 2 ATM’s the volume is compressed to half its size or 50 cubic feet.
At 18 ATM’s that 100 cubic feet is compressed down to (18/100) X 100 = 18 cubic feet
Formula used (ATM/V1) x V = bubble size
ATM = atmosphere pressure at sea level. The combined lifting force is the volume of each bubble in cubic feet times 64 pounds.
A cubic foot of seawater weighs 64 pounds

If you displace a cubic foot of seawater the force of the water surrounding the cubic force to rise equals 64 pounds

If a boat displaces 1,000 cubic feet of seawater, the boat can weigh as much as
64 X 1,000 = 64,000 pounds or 32 tons without sinking

I call the 64,000 pounds of force to be in a static state or .
If that 32 tons was set into motion, the speed of that motion times the weight measured in foot pounds = torque equation

Please, someone correct me


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.
> 
> 
> 
> You compress air tanks at the surface and use these tanks to supply the are needed.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter.
If you want air to come out instead of water going in, you have to compress the tanks to the same pressure you would need if you were just running a hose down to the buckets.
You gain nothing by compressing the tanks at the surface.  
If there is not enough air pressure, and the water pressure is greater, then no air will come out of the tanks.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Principles to run the machine
> 
> [1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
> 
> [2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other *creates a combined lifting force* of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
> 
> *Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);*
> 
> [3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
> 
> Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size
> 
> Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at (unknown) speed. Yet to be calculated
> 
> The lifting force of an enclosed container, (bubble); is equal to the volume of water being displaced. To push one cubic foot of enclosed air under water takes a force of 64 pounds at one ATM.
> 
> This is the equation that determines the volume of air at different depths.
> 
> Formula used (ATM/V1) X V = bubble size
> V1 is the volume at 1 ATM. Assuming the volume at 1 ATM is 100 cubic feet; at 2 ATM’s the volume is compressed to half its size or 50 cubic feet.
> At 18 ATM’s that 100 cubic feet is compressed down to (18/100) X 100 = 18 cubic feet
> Formula used (ATM/V1) x V = bubble size
> ATM = atmosphere pressure at sea level. The combined lifting force is the volume of each bubble in cubic feet times 64 pounds.
> A cubic foot of seawater weighs 64 pounds
> 
> If you displace a cubic foot of seawater the force of the water surrounding the cubic force to rise equals 64 pounds
> 
> If a boat displaces 1,000 cubic feet of seawater, the boat can weigh as much as
> 64 X 1,000 = 64,000 pounds or 32 tons without sinking
> 
> I call the 64,000 pounds of force to be in a static state or .
> If that 32 tons was set into motion, the speed of that motion times the weight measured in foot pounds = torque equation
> 
> Please, someone correct me



Totally wrong.

First of all, the lifting force of Y is not a constant.
At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.

Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations.  The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.

Nor does it help at all to do all the work of compressing the air into tanks above the surface.
Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.

There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth








						Ocean thermal energy conversion - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



{...

*Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion* (*OTEC*) uses the ocean thermal gradient between cooler deep and warmer shallow or surface seawaters to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity. OTEC can operate with a very high capacity factor and so can operate in base load mode.

The denser cold water masses, formed by ocean surface water interaction with cold atmosphere in quite specific areas of the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean, sink into the deep sea basins and spread in entire deep ocean by the thermohaline circulation. Upwelling of cold water from the deep ocean is replenished by the downwelling of cold surface sea water.

Among ocean energy sources, OTEC is one of the continuously available renewable energy resources that could contribute to base-load power supply.[1] The resource potential for OTEC is considered to be much larger than for other ocean energy forms.[2] Up to 88,000 TWh/yr of power could be generated from OTEC without affecting the ocean's thermal structure.[3]

Systems may be either closed-cycle or open-cycle. Closed-cycle OTEC uses working fluids that are typically thought of as refrigerants such as ammonia or R-134a. These fluids have low boiling points, and are therefore suitable for powering the system's generator to generate electricity. The most commonly used heat cycle for OTEC to date is the Rankine cycle, using a low-pressure turbine. Open-cycle engines use vapor from the seawater itself as the working fluid.

OTEC can also supply quantities of cold water as a by-product. This can be used for air conditioning and refrigeration and the nutrient-rich deep ocean water can feed biological technologies. Another by-product is fresh water distilled from the sea.[4]

OTEC theory was first developed in the 1880s and the first bench size demonstration model was constructed in 1926. Currently the world's only operating OTEC plant is in Japan, overseen by Saga University.
...}


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.



The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less



Rigby5 said:


> Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations.



The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it. Depth is not an issue at this point



Rigby5 said:


> The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.


I agree there will be a drag caused by friction.
The greatest drag will be consumed by the generators at the surface converting this upward force into electrical energy, which will slow down the process creating more time between recharging



Rigby5 said:


> Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.


There is an equal number of buckets going down as there are going up. Gravity cancels out the difference


Rigby5 said:


> There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
> And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth


That is an interesting point of view
At the bottom of the Mid Atlantic ridge lava is boiling up hot enough to melt rock while jist feet away the water is cold, about 67 degrees f
-


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it. Depth is not an issue at this point
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree there will be a drag caused by friction.
> The greatest drag will be consumed by the generators at the surface converting this upward force into electrical energy, which will slow down the process creating more time between recharging
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an equal number of buckets going down as there are going up. Gravity cancels out the difference
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
> And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting point of view
> At the bottom of the Mid Atlantic ridge lava is boiling up hot enough to melt rock while jist feet away the water is cold, about 67 degrees f
> -
Click to expand...


Yes I agree, "The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less".
But none of your equations factor in depth at all, so are fairly meaningless.
You call the lift Y, but there is no single value Y, as it is not a constant but a calculated value, based on depth.

You say "The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it", and "depth is not an issue at this point", and that is wrong because the energy needed to compress the tanks, and raise it backup again, is greater than the energy released by the air from the tanks.  I am not talking about the buckets, but the compressed air tanks.  You could avoid having to haul the tanks up for refilling all the time, by just leaving a hose down to where you want to fill the buckets, but then the compressor would have to work much harder, again using more energy than you get back.  Could you make another loop for a series of compressed air tanks that would then balance the weight out?  I suppose.  But at best you would make this almost neutral and it is no energy source.


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets. 

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.
> 
> Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.



Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.
> 
> Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.
Click to expand...

Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future.  Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.
> 
> Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future.  Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.
Click to expand...


Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?


----------



## watchingfromafar

There is one technical point we must accept and deal with.* Fossil fuels are finite*, the more we use it, the less we have for future generations. Based on the known oil/gas reserves and the rate we are consuming them *the world will consume what oil/gas there is in about 40 years.* Now I know that is a long time away and for me I ask, why should I care, I’ll be dead by then. But then there are my grandchildren to worry about, how can they survive without oil/gas to drive their economy?

what do we do-?


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> There is one technical point we must accept and deal with.* Fossil fuels are finite*, the more we use it, the less we have for future generations. Based on the known oil/gas reserves and the rate we are consuming them *the world will consume what oil/gas there is in about 40 years.* Now I know that is a long time away and for me I ask, why should I care, I’ll be dead by then. But then there are my grandchildren to worry about, how can they survive without oil/gas to drive their economy?
> 
> what do we do-?



Correct about gas and oil, but we do have about 400 more years worth of coal.
And while coal does release almost twice as much CO2 when burned, it is much cleaner in terms of fracking, releasing methane, processing into gasoline and other forms, etc.
So logically, until we perfect "Mr. Fusion", we need to rethink our use of coal.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.
> 
> Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future.  Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
> I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?
Click to expand...

For the general welfare not the general warfare!

Satellites for astronomy purposes are becoming small enough to enable fully automated modules with satellites that could dock with the space station and be potentially be launched by railgun technologies throughout our solar system.  Launching probes for a "solar system survey" and placing observatories in space for triangulation purposes.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space.  Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.
> 
> Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets.  Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future.  Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
> I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the general welfare not the general warfare!
> 
> Satellites for astronomy purposes are becoming small enough to enable fully automated modules with satellites that could dock with the space station and be potentially be launched by railgun technologies throughout our solar system.  Launching probes for a "solar system survey" and placing observatories in space for triangulation purposes.
Click to expand...


In space, the solar energy is vastly greater, so we could easily produce lots of electrical energy in space with solar arrays, thermal heat engines, etc.  
But the problem would be getting the energy back down to earth?
If we tried something like a focused directed energy beam like microwaves, could you imagine how dangerous that would be if used as a weapon, even accidentally?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> Correct about gas and oil


Its good that we start off agreeing on something. Its a good sign.



Rigby5 said:


> but we do have about 400 more years worth of coal.


few of us, if any want to go back to steam run trains & a steam driven car.., it will never fly, at lest as I remember it.



Rigby5 said:


> And while coal does release almost twice as much CO2 when burned,


CO2 is not the problem.
Humans exhale CO2
Plants exhale O2
When coal is burned it exhales carbon monoxide, not good for the soul 



Rigby5 said:


> it is much cleaner in terms of fracking, releasing methane, processing into gasoline and other forms, etc.,


*Coal gasification* is the process of producing syngas—a mixture consisting primarily of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), natural gas (CH4), and water vapour (H2O)—from coal and water, air and/or oxygen.
Coal gasification - Wikipedia

COAL exhales (CO) i.e. carbon monoxide; which is deadly to animals, i.e. humans



Rigby5 said:


> So logically, until we perfect "Mr. Fusion", we need to rethink our use of coal.


There are lots of possibilities
[1] nuclear energy stored up in all those atomic bombs
[2] hydrogen fuel cells
[3] hydro.,.,.,.etc.,.,


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> The image I am using is too hard to see. I am trying to reduce the image size. Once done I will repost the image.



I can see it easily, you don't understand WHY your idea is nonsense, go look up pumps to figure it out.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeed, burning fossil fuels is inefficient and produces lots of toxins. Cleaning up often requires more resources and energy than those extracted. Nuclear power likewise. Attempting to mitigate the risks has cost us more than the product was ever worth.. and we'll be paying a long, long time yet for the messes we've already made.. ones still being made..

Think about the fact that trees come vastly from thin air and sunshine. The small amount of ash from a pellet stove makes great lawn fertilizer. Simple stupid in this case means limiting the potential risk as much as possible by working within known, safe chemical reaction parameters. Sorry, simply not possible starting with Canadian tar sands nor hydraulic fracking goo. A definite limit exists beyond which surface carbon dioxide acts more as a pollutant than a life enabling necessity. We've reached it.

There's no longer any point in extracting more carbon (coal, crude oil, natural gas) from beneath the Earth's crust. We already recycle surface carbon like crazy. All burning of wood or pelletized fuels is just recycling surface carbon. Zero carbon added. We could always make things like propane and "natural gas" from recycled waste if we really wanted to, but making do with less while switching to relatively clean, electrically powered tech is much smarter. After all, the entire Universe runs on electricity.

Like it or not, wind generators and (rooftop!) solar panels combined with swiftly improving base power battery tech shall be and remain our primary power source for the foreseeable future. Best quit kvetching and get used to it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Grumblenuts said:


> We could always make things like propane and "natural gas" from recycled waste if we really wanted to, but making do with less while switching to relatively clean, electrically powered tech is much smarter. After all, the entire Universe runs on electricity.


There are some things we have no control over, and one is the amount of oil & gas that is in the ground. This quality is finite that and there are about 40 years left at the rate we are consuming it now. Whether we like it or not we must switch to renewables if we want our civilization to continue. China knows this and they are way ahead of us in renewable technologies. Many European countries see the writing on the wall and are working hard to make the transition.

Even our car manufacturing companies are gearing up for the transition.
Here are a few who are working hard to save the day.--



			renewable energy sources - Google Search
		

-


----------



## Grumblenuts

watchingfromafar said:


> Even our car manufacturing companies are gearing up for the transition.
> Here are a few who are working hard to save the day.--


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> *Yes I agree, "The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less".
> But none of your equations factor in depth at all, so are fairly meaningless.
> You call the lift Y, but there is no single value Y, as it is not a constant but a calculated value, based on depth.*


Yes, depth is the key -
At one (1) atmosphere surface pressure, a cubic foot of air displaces one (1) cubic foot of air.
At two (2) atmospheres' surface pressure, a cubic foot of air is compressed down to one-half (1/2) cubic foot.

The trend is not linear, it does not follow a straight line; there is a multiplying effect that creates more lift at any moment in time.
*This is the key 
as i see it -*


----------



## Grumblenuts

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, the lifting force of Y is not a constant.
> At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.


In order to rise, a fully submerged container of air must first be able to lift the entire water column above it. Considering a vertical air cylinder, the area of its circular top times the depth of water above times the water's density provides the weight or head pressure to be overcome. The air expanding "near the surface" is irrelevant since the volume of water above it is shrinking simultaneously and at the same time too. The head pressure or weight of the water column above the trapped air is what matters, not the air's volume. The air pressure within a common air tank will generally make little difference. Though its weight varies, its volume remains fixed.


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> Yes, depth is the key -
> At one (1) atmosphere surface pressure, a cubic foot of air displaces one (1) cubic foot of air.
> At two (2) atmospheres' surface pressure, a cubic foot of air is compressed down to one-half (1/2) cubic foot.
> 
> The trend is not linear, it does not follow a straight line; there is a multiplying effect that creates more lift at any moment in time.
> *This is the key
> as i see it -*


a


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> _Yes, depth is the key -
> At one (1) atmosphere surface pressure, a cubic foot of air displaces one (1) cubic foot of air.
> At two (2) atmospheres' surface pressure, a cubic foot of air is compressed down to one-half (1/2) cubic foot.
> 
> The trend is not linear, it does not follow a straight line; there is a multiplying effect that creates more lift at any moment in time.
> *This is the key *_
> *as i see it -*


Some things just need to be repeated.,.,,.,..,.,..
until heard -


----------



## Grumblenuts

_At one (1) atmospheres' surface pressure, a cubic foot of water displaces one (1) cubic foot of water.
At one (1) atmospheres' surface pressure and two (2) feet down, one (1) cubic foot of water still takes up one (1) cubic foot and weighs about the same as any of the ones (1s) above.

The trend is constant (the surface pressure does not change), it does follow a straight line (zero change over time); there is no multiplying effect that creates more lift at any moment in time.
*This is the key
as i see it -*_

Some things should need no repetition.,.,,.,..,.,..
They should go without saying -


----------



## JoeMoma

watchingfromafar said:


> Some things just need to be repeated.,.,,.,..,.,..
> until heard -


Make a small scale working model and prove all the nay sayers wrong.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> Make a small scale working model and prove all the nay sayers wrong.


He can't, because it won't work.  The laws of physics cannot be changed.


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He can't, because it won't work.  The laws of physics cannot be changed.


Yeah, I know.  I am one of the nay sayers.


----------



## katsteve2012

Deleted/banned


----------



## Grumblenuts

Something was there. Now it's gone.. _*spink!* _


----------

