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.

 

Buoyancy Free Energy Generator

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 






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)


Totally agree. Good analysis.

Even ignoring this flaw, the friction on the generator crank, and the two cranks on the contraption itself, would always be too much for the thing to work. Unless of course you used a completely frictionless bearing.

Anyhow, it could never work. I do however think there is possibly something in the neodymium theory of free energy.




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 

Presumably you realise this is taken from Troll Physics, a spin-off from 4chan? It's a joke.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


nice, there are some fundamental flaws, as someone else mentioned such as the water seal causing too much 'catch'.. however all great but simple ideas like this started out with small glitches like that

i think this idea could be worked on slightly, but it has promise. and that's it, don't beleive the people who sarcastically try to say it won't work in one sentence.

free energy? hardly, this idea, if possible, works on the principals of bouyancy and is in harmony with science and known laws of physics

ideas like this could change the world, who knows, i really hope you push this idea into it's creation, and hopefully use



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
nice, there are some fundamental flaws, as someone else mentioned such as the water seal causing too much 'catch'.. however all great but simple ideas like this started out with small glitches like that
While designing a seal might be an engineering problem, that's not why it won't work, it's not because of the "catch" of the seal. It's because of the force applied to the float as it enters the water which will stop the device from working even if the seal is frictionless and perfect.


i think this idea could be worked on slightly, but it has promise. and that's it, don't beleive the people who sarcastically try to say it won't work in one sentence.
No, it doesn't have any promise at all as my diagram illustrates, and no amount of tweaking will fix it.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to tell my what part of my diagram you think doesn't explain it adequately.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok well I'm not going to argue something you totally don't understand so go ahead and keep denying what I am saying. I agree that the bottom float is an issue, but you are totally ignoring the issue I am talking about.

I know several reason why this device wont work, and you are only focusing on one. So lets end it there. It just wont work.
edit on 18-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
you are totally ignoring the issue I am talking about.
I don't know how you can say that after I took the time to make a diagram to specifically illustrate what is wrong with your logic and your diagram.

I definitely didn't ignore it and specifically addressed your claim. It seems like you're the one who's ignoring my explanation.

There is no float under float #2 in the water in my illustration, so there's no greater force pushing down on the float below it, as your diagram suggests. So the floats will rise as long as there's no new float trying to come up through the seal. You tried to suggest the floats won't rise and won't admit you were wrong about that.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It seems like the same concept as building a giant perpetual montion machine like people put on their desks..I have always wondered why a huge version of that wouldn't produce energy...



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


How about a big pipe going up to the top of a mountain then doing a loop and coming back down again and being joined back up to the pipe? Because its colder at the top of the mountain... if the pipe was filled with water,it would start a thermo syphon. The motion of the water could then be harnessed for power like a water fall.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


only one way to find out

build it and go from there, we can draw pictures and make theories all day, but model or real thing would be the best way to actually prove it's possibility

and i don't mean that to disregard any logical point on your part, only to emphasize a real tested and scientific conclusion
edit on 11/18/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


It would work but might be out of my price bracket.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Have we worked it out yet?

I really need to save $$$ on my internet bill, it would be good if they could run it from a bubble machine. Maybe a nano-bubble machine so I could fit hundreds inside my compruter, and not have to plug it in.




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't know how you can say that after I took the time to make a diagram to specifically illustrate what is wrong with your logic and your diagram.

I definitely didn't ignore it and specifically addressed your claim. It seems like you're the one who's ignoring my explanation.


You didn't ignore me, but you are ignoring the forces I am talking about. You are claiming both I and the person who wrote that article are wrong. The truth is, you are wrong and you are overlooking (ignoring) other forces.

This invention is called a "Float Belt", I have done research on similar devices.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There is no float under float #2 in the water in my illustration, so there's no greater force pushing down on the float below it, as your diagram suggests.


You are forgetting about gravity acting on the top most and bottom most floats that are not in the water.

Here is the errors in your illustration:




Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the floats will rise as long as there's no new float trying to come up through the seal.


No the floats will not rise. They are weighed down by gravity. The upward buoyant force is not greater than the weight of the chain on the right side of the pulley.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You tried to suggest the floats won't rise and won't admit you were wrong about that.


...because I am not wrong. There is two main reasons why the device wont work. I am explaining one secret (hard to understand / predict) problem, and you are explaining the obvious one (which I have also acknowledged).

Please do read this again:

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.


Here the writer talks about reducing or removing the problem I am talking about (which is near impossible).



For the benefit of the inventor, we reduce the space between the floats and assume that the difference f2-f1 is very close to zero. All these forces sum up to a force little more than zero, pointing down. Let's neglect this force. Will the machine work under these conditions?


Here is the problem you are talking about with the seal (which I have acknowledged).



Up to now, we have not considered the lowest and the topmost immersed float.
The lowest float is not supported by buoyancy from the bottom. Thus this float is pushed downwards by pressure and gravity. We assumed that the sum of forces between the gaps of the floats should be neglected. But we cannot neglect the difference of forces between the top of the bottom float and the bottom of the topmost float. Again the principle of the machine fails.


The above explains the your diagram on the right side. The lowest float is not supported by buoyancy from the bottom, and it is pushed down by the pressure/weight of the water AND gravity. The machine fails AGAIN, because there is TWO problems, which I neatly was able to explain in one sentence in my first post. The weight of the chain is greater than the buoyant forces.

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



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Obvious troll is obvious
Look out! Its an Anonymous influx
They're easy to spot because of their memes



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   


noone said the air holders have to be square. minimize weight of water on top?
just spit balling



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by danredd
 


It still wouldn't work. No matter how you shape it there will be fluid resistance (friction from water). The more floats you have under water, the more friction there will be.

Plus you still have to worry about the other issue. Think about this... imagine you have a ball with air in it. Now imagine you are swimming in a pool, and you are trying to push the ball from the surface, down to the bottom. It requires a lot of force, and the ball wants to shoot upwards. Well, at the bottom of the device where the water seal is, it is basically the same thing, just upside down. You are trying to push a ball under water. It requires more force than is available from buoyancy.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by beholdblight
Obvious troll is obvious
Look out! Its an Anonymous influx
They're easy to spot because of their memes


And some still use the oldest memes in the book!

old meme is old


I'm bloody shocked really that the thread too a semi serious path for a bit..

haha, all fun I suppose..



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
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.




Turn the balls into upside down troughs and put the entire thing underwater. When the troughs are on their way down, they'll be upside down and hence holding no air. Put a bubble machine at the bottom that fills the troughs with air on their way up. That eliminates the need for rubber flaps that would slow it down.

Now, to reduce resistance on the way down, it might be a good idea to actually make the troughs out of pointed cones

The machine itself could power the bubble machine or simply place the contraption on top of one of those volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, which pumps hot water into the troughs and they rise.
edit on 21-11-2010 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


There's an idea with a chance of working to some extent, the geothermal turbine. It wouldn't be very effective but it would turn as fast as the fluid drag allowed it to which wouldn't be very fast at all and the energy source being converted is quite obvious. As for the self-powered version, my advice is don't waste your time but, if you really need physical proof of that, please make yourself a prototype or 2 and document the results for us all.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012

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.


This seems like a cool concept but how do you stop the water from leaking each time an air ball goes upwards through the lips?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
The balls entering into the enclosed water tank would increase the volume of the tank which would require force to raise the water hieght to a new level. this raising of the water hieght and the energy required to do so would be equal to the energy gained. Since the energy gained is achieved by the heaveir water filling the viod left by the air ball the net sum is neutral. After you factor in friction and such it is a negative energy sum



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join