Ultimate energy source

[watchingfromafar]

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]

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
-

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]

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
-

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]

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]

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.

-

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]

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]

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.


-

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]

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”.

-

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]

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]

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-?
-

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]

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-?
-

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.

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

 

[JoeMoma]

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-?
-

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.

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

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

 

[watchingfromafar]

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]

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.
-

Anything to get you closer to a 50% loss.

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[watchingfromafar]

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]

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.
-

This is not "free" energy.

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