It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Buoyancy Free Energy Generator

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:18 AM

I was wondering if this would work. My friend drew it but I am unsure if it would work.

So, let me know what you guys think. Thanks in advance.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:23 AM
Total bunk..
Everyone who knows ANYTHING about physics knows that the only way to get infinite energy is to put a bunch of magnets in front of a gear crank-held out by a long pole. The magnets will pull said crank in a circle which yields infinite power.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Total bunk..
Everyone who knows ANYTHING about physics knows that the only way to get infinite energy is to put a bunch of magnets in front of a gear crank-held out by a long pole. The magnets will pull said crank in a circle which yields infinite power.

Lies, you do not have a squigly armed man holding the cash to prove it !

I don't believe it would not work. Simply because I know there is a good reason for it, that someone else knows.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:33 AM
here is a pic of my concept in motion: Notice how it is so powerful that it pulls a car. C0bzz posted it in chat. Very timely.
edit on 18-11-2010 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:36 AM
Honestly, never going to work. the friction caused by the "water seal" would stop the air cells from beigh drawn up into the water tank item.

Alas, 'tis not so easy, this free energy thing... ~_~

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:45 AM

Dear Havoc40k

If you extend the tower to100 feet, make the balls into cylinders and the trap may be 10 feet so you have multiple cylinders to prevent water escaping I can't see a problem with overcoming the friction.

I know the Physics laws say it should not work but for the life of me I can not see why it would not work.

edit on 18-11-2010 by MAC269 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:45 AM

Good point, I'm sure there's a way to get around the flaps yeah?

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:56 AM
The balls would need to be filled with something lighter than air for it to raise in the water with enough speed to turn a generator crank. And the machine would need to be massive. And it still would only generate small ammounts of electricity. Cool idea tho.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Havoc40k
Honestly, never going to work. the friction caused by the "water seal" would stop the air cells from beigh drawn up into the water tank item.

Alas, 'tis not so easy, this free energy thing... ~_~

I hope you realize material is now designed completely water repellent with the thickness of an atom.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:04 AM
Why don't you try it OP? I don't have that much free time atm,but you should try conducting an experiment based on that, if you do.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:19 AM
Sorry guy, the weight of the ball-chain will be greater than the upward force. The thing wouldn't even spin.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:24 AM

Those are variables that can be adjusted though. Though this is something to take into consideration, Just curious as to what may be really wrong with it.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM

The weight of the items is a none issue, simply because you have an equal and opposite weight on the outside helped by are old friend gravity.

Sorry no banana for you.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:47 AM
This has already been done before:
www.hp-gramatke.net...

The inventor is ignoring the force onto the seal at the bottom(weight of the water above) which is going to be greater than the the sum of the buoyant forces onto the floats.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:02 AM

Don't forget the weight of the water on top of each ball. The weight of the water on each ball will increase the weight of the ball-chain on the right side of the pulley. Also, you can't forget about the weight of the ball-chain that exists above the water and below the water, which is being pulled down by gravity.

No banana for YOU.

edit on 18-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM

Don't forget the weight of the water on top of each ball.
I think MAC269 is right. It's not the force of water on "each" ball that's the problem, because on most of the balls inside the water, the net force is upward. The problem is with one ball in particular, the one at the bottom trying to come up through the seal.

The downward force of the water on that one particular ball is too great for the thing to work, that's what Moebius said and I think that's right. So even if you could develop a good seal, you still have problems in getting that bottom ball up through the seal.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:59 AM

www.hp-gramatke.net...

A closer look reveals that the force f1 acting on the bottom of the upper float is less than the force f2 acting on the lower float. The resulting force for this part of the chain points downwards, which for sure was not the inventor's intention. We can repeat this consideration for all pairs of floats. As the distances between the floats sum up to more than the height of a single float, the summed forces exceed the buoyancy force generated by the topmost float. Thus the machine won't work.

When trying to pull an object out of water you experience resistance because of the weight of the water on top of the object. The weight of the water "increases the weight" of entire ball-chain on the right side of the pulley, and the upward force will not be strong enough to lift it.

The problem with the weight of the water on the seal is yet another issue.

edit on 18-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:46 AM

When trying to pull an object out of water you experience resistance because of the weight of the water on top of the object. The weight of the water "increases the weight" of entire ball-chain on the right side of the pulley, and the upward force will not be strong enough to lift it.

The problem with the weight of the water on the seal is yet another issue.
Nope, it's not another issue. It's the logical conclusion if you follow that analysis for each float in the series, the force keeps getting greater the lower you go, until you get to the bottom float when the force is greatest of all, and worst of all, there's no force at all pushing the bottom float up like there is all the other floats.

That analysis, while not technically incorrect, is misleading, because it doesn't look at all the forces on a single float. If it did, it will show that the net force is upward for every single float, except the very bottom float at the seal.

The chain is a non-issue because it's equal weights on both sides, so you can disregard it.

As for "resistance", you may be referring to the viscosity of the fluid, but this only means that bubbles take longer to rise in a jar of honey than in a glass of water, so while there is "resistance" due to viscosity, it only slows down the upward motion of bubbles or floats, it doesn't stop them.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:24 AM

www.hp-gramatke.net...

A closer look reveals that the force f1 acting on the bottom of the upper float is less than the force f2 acting on the lower float.
I drew a sketch to show why that analysis is flawed.

In the left panel, there is no float below float 2 (in the water). Therefore the analysis you showed falls apart when the device is in this condition and the floats will rise. So the device will work briefly.

Where it stops is in the condition I illustrated in the right panel. Float 3 breaks the seal, and there's a downward force, but no upward force on that float. This is where the device will stop.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:34 AM
Nice drawing Arbitrageur. Perpetuum mobile can be really fun to puzzle out.

top topics

3