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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
you would actualy need to have the air balls filled up in the water. use of a chemical reaction or action of bacteria to create a gas that is captured and used to fill the balls




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
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:

I may not have mentioned my assumptions because I thought they were too obvious, but I guess they weren't too obvious.

What I am assuming is the device is symmetrical, that is the weight of the floats and the chain on the left side, equal the weight of the chain and floats on the right side, such that if the water containing part of the apparatus is removed, the chain and floats will not move due to any kind of gravitational imbalance. So for any floats above or below the water on the right side, there are floats above and below the water on the left side, and the forces are equal from those which means we can narrow our analysis to the effect of what happens to the submerged part of the chain and floats on the right side, versus the unsubmerged part of the chain and floats on the left side.

At least we agree that the thing won't generate power, but please explain why you think the floats and chain on the left and right side wont balance each other out, outside of the water. That's my assumption and the only reason I can think of why it wouldn't be true is if you designed the device to have an odd number of floats, like 3 floats for example, then whichever side has 2 floats on it will have more gravity on the floats. But the original illustration showed a large number of floats where it looked like there was no reason to assume an odd number of floats.

Therefore, the only forces I analyze are those which create an imbalance in that balance.


edit on 25-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I don't think it would work, the laws of gravity just wouldn't allow it.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Riddle me this: What if you would get rid of the chain and balls, and substitute it with a foam "belt" of circular cross section similar as the balls cross section? Therefore the seal wold just be a simple o-ring type, and the pulley wheels would be big enough not to squishe the belt much. It dosen't need to run a generator to prove it works, the simple continious motion of the system itself is enough to make a point.
Even the friction in the water would be minimum, because there are no front faces.

I KNOW it cant work, I just cant see why?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by maykey
 
Great question. Make the belt exactly the same diameter as the balls and it gets pretty simple.You basically have a cylinder immersed in the liquid, with the bottom sticking out the O-ring underneath. Draw arrows pointing at the cylinder from all directions. The arrows are all essentially in the radial orientation and cancel each other out so no lateral movement. regarding up movement, there's nowhere to draw any force arrows on the "bottom" of it pushing up, since there is no "bottom" in the water, the cylinder goes right through the O-ring.

So basically, there's nowhere for the water pressure to push it up, so it won't go up.


edit on 8-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I see your point, i tought of that. So if i take a pot and put a cilinder in it, make sure that the cilinder botom and the floor of the pot are so tightly together ,so hypoteticly no water comes between it when I pour the water in, then the cillinder wouldnt float away, because there are only forces acting on the sides of the cilinder ?


Or if fully immersed, it would even push downwards, because there are force lines on the top of the cillinder?
edit on 8-12-2010 by maykey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by maykey
I see your point, i tought of that. So if i take a pot and put a cilinder in it, make sure that the cilinder botom and the floor of the pot are so tightly together ,so hypoteticly no water comes between it when I pour the water in, then the cillinder wouldnt float away, because there are only forces acting on the sides of the cilinder ?


Or if fully immersed, it would even push downwards, because there are force lines on the top of the cillinder?
edit on 8-12-2010 by maykey because: (no reason given)
Actually you'd probably have to drill a hole in the bottom of the pot and out an O-ring seal because you'd never get a good enough seal otherwise.

And yes it can push a floater down but it depends on a number of factors, the buoyancy of the floater, the depth of the water, etc.

You've heard of people getting stuck to the drain at the bottom of a swimming pool? Well in that case sometimes the pump is running so maybe a ping pong ball at the bottom of a bathtub drain would be a better example. If the bathtub water isn't too deep the ping pong ball will float because there's not enough downward pressure to overcome the buoyancy, but if the water is deep enough, and the drain is open it can hold down the pingpong ball, or float toy, but maybe not a volleyball, right? So it depends on how the forces balance out, buoyancy versus water depth/pressure.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join