It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Working Brownian Pump...

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Not at all. I am not putting energy in. The Universe is.


That ISN'T perpetual motion! That's taking energy, using it, and taking more energy, and using it. We have that already, it's called anything. The universe, you, my best friends grandmother, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from as long as it's getting put there.




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
That ISN'T perpetual motion!


In a strict scientific sense you are correct. I am a scientist by training and a redneck Indian farmer by birth. My terminology tends to be 'colorful'. So let's substitute the following in place of 'perpetual motion machine':


Category: Motor
Class: Free Energy
Type: Dual Stage Capillary/Brownian Inertial Ratchet


What is the practical use of such a device?

To move water. To generate power. Without pollution, fuel, or operating costs beyond maintenence, repair, and replacement at end of service.

In other words, there is no energy crisis.

There is, however, an engineering crisis.

And that, my young friend- you can fix.




[edit on 23-5-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
How long can the cotton/material be used for this purpose? Also, it may take more energy to build the generator and make the cloth etc than what u get out of it for the time it will work.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Excellent Idea!

I plan to give a shot at building one, so would it be possible to supply basic step-by-step instructions (mostly in regards to materials)?

Since the chief mechanism seems to be the cotton, has xylem ever been artificially mimicked using a metal or other sturdy material?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
In a strict scientific sense you are correct.


It's a hobby.



To move water. To generate power. Without pollution, fuel, or operating costs beyond maintenence, repair, and replacement at end of service.

In other words, there is no energy crisis.


If you want to do this on a large scale, to get anything even noticable out of it, you can't rely on ambient energy; you'll have to do work to put it in.

It's not perpetual, it's not free, it's just... good? That's very different from what you said to begin with.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
How long can the cotton/material be used for this purpose? Also, it may take more energy to build the generator and make the cloth etc than what u get out of it for the time it will work.


UFO, I have no data on the lifetime of cotton fibers in sterile, shaded, wet environments. My experiment has been ongoing for one month. And I have not tried linen or other natural or artificial fibers- or glass wool.

Excellent question! As for breakeven point, I do not have enough data yet to make an analysis. If the process were taken nanotech- using some type of genetically-engineered 'trees'- and assuming a mistake did not turn us into grey goo- I think it would definitely yield a return in water-lift and pumping applications.


Originally posted by Zaknafein
I plan to give a shot at building one, so would it be possible to supply basic step-by-step instructions (mostly in regards to materials)?

Since the chief mechanism seems to be the cotton, has xylem ever been artificially mimicked using a metal or other sturdy material?


Zak, you could experiment with making capillaries first, using 1/8" borosilicate laboratory tubing for flame-drawing. You can also buy capillaries ready-made here- by the way, I don't work for or have investments in any of these sources. Excellent primer on cutting with a triangular file and bending with a Bunsen burner here. Then, experiment with armatures to hold the capillary. I think wire (nichrome?) might work nicely for this. See what kind of lift you get using tapwater with food color in it. I have not experimented with bent capillaries. Nor other wicks. I encourage your experiments with 'artificial zylem'. Materials and configurations can be compared by relative pumping time vs. quantity of water pumped- this can be measured by 'intercepting' the water pumped into a small graduate without letting it return to the recirculation reservoir.

One might also be able to use plastic tubing. I am old fashioned, and used my familiarity with glass to advantage.

A good source of lab glassware is here.

Once you have the capillary lifting, the wick siphoning, and the armature supporting the contraption in the watch glass of water (I have not tried other fluids), then you can think about sealing it up hermetically under the Bell Jar. I made my jar from some 1" tubing I had laying around, to get it tall enough. I think these might make a cute demo like 'radiometers' for scientific gifts.

Gravity is an essential element in this design; but remember, inertial acceleration is equivalent to gravitational force. So you could use this in the absence of gravity if you accelerate or decelerate- and if you kept it oriented so 'down' was always down... and filled it with liquid helium...

Safety note: these devices are as harmless as bottled water once constructed. But lab glass can cut, blind, and burn. If you decide to learn laboratory glassblowing, get instruction from an expert: a chemistry teacher or professor. Always wear safety glasses when fabricating. When handling and storing completed glassware projects, take care to avoid falling glass.

And if using nanoengineering- well, you know. Be careful.

Finally, I am curious. Nature usually does things first. I wonder if there IS a tree- maybe in the rainforest- that 'drips' capillary-lifted water...



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
If you want to do this on a large scale, to get anything even noticable out of it, you can't rely on ambient energy; you'll have to do work to put it in.


Incorrect. Visit a forest.


It's not perpetual, it's not free, it's just... good? That's very different from what you said to begin with.


Given permanent wicking, a properly constructed device will function as long as humanity exists, and beyond. Please list failure modes not including:

1) The death of the Sun;
2) Breakage;
3) Failure of humans to migrate when the sun dies;
4) Failure of migrating humans to take the device with them.
5) Not keeping the device in ambient conditions above the freezing point of the working fluid.

That is a good working definition of 'perpetual'. At least in South Texas.

The device uses 'free energy' in that the energy exists freely in space and is collected and utilized automatically without paying anyone or anything to provide it. Of course there is labor involved in constructing the machine- or it would not exist.

Thus, the advantage of biotech. Weeds grow for free.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Incorrect. Visit a forest.


Trees do work.

Your definitions are awry, and it's making it hard for me to argue with you. SO!

By the scientific definitions of free and perpetual: NO.

By the social (engineering?) definitions of free and perpetual: YES.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Trees do work.


Of course they do- the purpose of a machine is to do work. That is the point of constructing a free energy machine- to do work: without the need for 'fuel' as we know it.


By the social (engineering?) definitions of free and perpetual: YES.


YES.

Now we are on the same wavelength, Amory!



Question: if a capillary has lift=a, can a second capillary be 'staged' to receive its output such that total lift for two capillaries would be a large fraction of a+a?


One limit on total height would be the standard temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere: too high, and water freezes.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Of course they do- the purpose of a machine is to do work. That is the point of constructing a free energy machine- to do work: without the need for 'fuel' as we know it.


Doing work means putting in energy=not free, but, semantics as we've agreed upon.



Now we are on the same wavelength, Amory!


Depends who weighs more.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Chakotay.

Are you still researching this?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Farnet
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Chakotay.

Are you still researching this?


Yes, my desk unit is still pumping water 24 hours a day.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
While I'm no physicist I can see the idea working. As you've said the challenge would be to be able to make it on a large enough scale, which would be no easy feat.

Also getting there before being stopped by big energy companies.

I guarantee you weren't the first to have this idea.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
This is not true:


Now capillary action can draw water located tens of feet below the surface up to the top of a 400 foot redwood tree using molecular energy alone.


It's more like tens of centimetres. This is from wikipedia on the subject of Transpirational water pressure:


Transpirational pull: the most important cause of xylem sap flow is the evaporation of water from the surfaces of mesophyll cells to the atmosphere. This transpiration causes millions of minute menisci to form in the mesophyll cell wall. The resulting surface tension causes a negative pressure or tension in the xylem that pulls the water from the roots and soil.


And more:


Height of a meniscus The height h of a liquid column is given by:[3] where is the liquid-air surface tension (force/unit length), θ is the contact angle, ρ is the density of liquid (mass/volume), g is local gravitational field strength (force/unit mass), and r is radius of tube (length). For a water-filled glass tube in air at standard laboratory conditions, γ = 0.0728 N/m at 20 °C, θ = 20° (0.35 rad), ρ is 1000 kg/m3, and g = 9.8 m/s2. For these values, the height of the water column is Thus for a 2 m (6.6 ft) diameter tube, the water would rise an unnoticeable 0.007 mm (0.00028 in). However, for a 2 cm (0.79 in) diameter tube, the water would rise 0.7 mm (0.028 in), and for a 0.2 mm (0.0079 in) diameter tube, the water would rise 70 mm (2.8 in)

Capillary action

(I can't be bothered tidying up the quotes)
edit on 9-2-2011 by myster0 because: link



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   


myster0, thank you for your clarification and amplification of my simplistic term "capillary action".


Yet the fact remains: these living systems raise water from the water table below ground to the top of redwood trees located 379.1 feet above the ground SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS


One way to do that with my device is to gang them in tiered "stairs".

Remember, the capillary height gain is inversely proportional to tube diameter; in cotton media, the effective capilary tube diameter is on the order of 4-8 µm, for a rise of about 4 inches per stage. Number of stages possible are limited only by availalble materials. In addition, the formula for height of meniscus should be substituted by the formula for Liquid transport in porous media, which are conservative for evaporation.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein's first paper, submitted in 1900 to Annalen der Physik was on capillarity. It was titled Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen, which was translated as Conclusions from the capillarity phenomena, found in volume 4, page 513 (published in 1901). Simple processes have enourmous potential power.


I believe that a good deal of the energy comes from Van der Waals forces acting on the asymetrical water molecules at the capillary interface.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Chakotay because: CLASSIFIED



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by myster0
 


I found an excellent article on how the Sequoia trees do this, and on the physical limits on the size of plants:

Transport of Water and Minerals In Plants

Your analysis of the mechanism of action is correct. Evaporation plays a part (transpiration).
More clues HERE.



edit on 9-2-2011 by Chakotay because: CLASSIFIED



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I think you may have failed to understand how capillary action works.
You will never get the water out of the top of the tube, no mater how narrow it is.
Water (H20) forms a concave meniscus, that is to say the water level will always stay below the "rim".

Please explain concisely how this device of yours works, use bullet-points if you have to.

Also, it's Transirational Pull that moves water up a tree, not capillary action (which only accounts for the first foot of the water column).

Transpirational pull is caused by the vacuum formed in the leave's pores, as water evaporates.

The limit on tree high is due to the vacuum formed in the water column (due to the immense weight of the water below) creating pockets of water vapour (it boils).
edit on 9-2-2011 by myster0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by myster0
 


I only use columns much less than a foot long. I am only using capillary and wicking effects, unlike the trees.

At the top of the capillary column, I use a cotton paper wicking material in the tube, up over the rim and part way down the side of the tube. The wicking action pulls the column over the rim and the virtual 'tube' formed by the surface tension sets up a gravity siphon. Due to the wicking effect, the siphon is 'ratcheted' and drops begin to form and run down the outside of the capillary.

You can see this wicking effect by doing a very simple experiment. Make a dry martini. Put the glass in a shallow bowl. Place a kleenex in the martini glass so it bottoms and hang it over the rim so it hangs to the level of the stem. Watch as your martini siphons into the bowl. Remove kleenex, refill your glass from the bowl and enjoy.


edit on 9-2-2011 by Chakotay because: CLASSIFIED



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Loved the idea, took the first daunting step into this mystery by experimenting with the Martini Glass demonstrator. Ah yes, I thought, a toast to the demise of the free energy skeptics.

Well, not so much.

I started with the rice and beans, in this case a simple half pint Mason jar, filled to the 150ml mark. I cut a paper towel into a strip, sank it in the jar, dangled it over the edge. Ah, Maxwell's demonic advocate was right, my jar runneth over the sides with steady drops of water!

That is, until the water in the jar was level with the end of the wick. Cup thusly sipped by the wick, it spills nevermore.

I waited patiently for another drop to form on that wick. But this experiment was a stubborn little one and would not heed the gentle pleading of a dismayed inventor.

So I lowered the wick until it was below the level of the water. And after I short time I watched with glee as it began to drip, drip, drip.

Being the forethought possessing creature you are, you see what's going to happen next? Yes, the drip drip drip ended as the wick became level with the water in the jar. And nothing but human intervention could coax it to drip more. Nothing but *adding energy*.

Having became a stalwart and courageous adventurer from having walked thusly far on this path, I tried another experiment. I was going to reinvent Chakotay's wheel...er...ratchet. With much less ingenuity, I might add.

I cannibalized an old soda can, cutting off the top and bottom and with a death knell to sugary water, slicing it in twain from top to bottom. In other words, I had an aluminum strip, a little taller than the Mason jar. This strip was placed gingerly into the Mason jar, curling in on itself to form an outer wall and an inner wall, both with the same level of water. A strip of paper towel, same in make as the last one, was in the water in the outer wall and hung just over the inner wall. If my hypothesis was right, water would travel up the wick and drip back into the jar. Until the earth melted or froze.

I waited with apprehension as the wick drank the water. I waited...and waited...and waited. Nothing happened. No everlasting dripping, no single momentous drop, not even a precipitously dangling drop. The wick remained slightly moist.

No longer daunted by the mystery of this creature, I took my last step into her fell depths. I cut out another strip of paper towel. Placed it in the outer wall, and draped it over the side of the Mason jar below the level of the water. Drippage thusly commenced. Cut the strip below the level of the water. Drippage thusly nullified.

I close the book here, leave unscathed and without disturbing the spectral defenders of the crypt of capillary free energy. I can only conclude that there is no free lunch here, and that every bite (or drop of water) was accounted for within the system. If anyone else manages to make the Martini bleed out without changing the level of the wick, I'll be happy to see the video of it, and will have to conclude that my own experiences were the result of nature's caprice or the ghost of Newton hanging around my apartment.

EDIT: Forgot to add, if you can make the Martini glass cooperate in dripping without hanging the wick to the bottom. The way I see it, the arrows of capillary action's quiver should strike with equal force regardless of how far the wick hangs over the edge of the glass. If one way works and not the other, what is the deficit of force here? Less garrulous ramblings in the molecular world, because the wick does not hang as low? Perhaps the longer wick taps more orgone force? Or more surface area for cosmic rays? I don't know?
edit on 15-9-2011 by DHT420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Chakotay,

Congratulations on figuring out how to get the water to come out of the top! I had this same idea of "free" energy from capillary attraction about six years ago but couldn't get the capillary "pump" to spill over.
I would just like to confirm a few things:
1) What is the distance from the surface of your water reservoir (water level in the watch glass) to the bottom of your wick (where the drops form and fall)?
2) You actually observe continuous and non-stop dripping from the end of your wick to the surface of your reservoir and the didtance is at least a few centimeters?
Thanks!


BTW, I can't recall who's post it was but it mentioned other liquids (including Mercury, I believe). Mercury performs Capillary Repulsion rather than Capillary Attraction like water does (both fall under the category Capillary Action). Thus, Mercury, and other liquids, I'm sure, go Down capillary tubes and not Up like water and most other liquids I know of. Although, a repulsing liquid pushing down from a tube/s would create "free" pressure that would boost the level of water going up the lifting tube/s...
I also agree with your idea of using a "step ladder system", so to speak, of getting water high enough to do enough useful work. Circa 1993 the Germans made turbines that could generate electricity from a mere 1 meter head. So, say, each "stage" (as of now) can only bring water up a few centimeters, a 1m head is really only 100cm/~3-5cm = X stages away...

I don't know if you're still working on this idea, or even interested, but if you want to collaborate to try and get some "free" (It's truly free after amortization) energy out to the world, I just started a job as an alternative energy researcher at a local University and this will be one of our future projects. Perhaps there's some other way we could communicate? Cheers! And keep that brain of yours pumping!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join