8Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI just join today and I was hoping to get some feed back from this science/tech community
July 14th, 2013, 06:31 PM
I just join today and I was hoping to get some feed back from this science/tech community
Last edited by Dspencer; September 17th, 2014 at 08:55 AM.
Would it not be a good idea to prove it will work before building it?Originally Posted by Dspencer
On the premise of doubt some people may have when someone says they have found a way to generate a seemingly limitless supply of clean water.Would it not be a good idea to prove it will work before building it?
If the prototype possesses an excess of energy, think of where else it can be put into application. A new green energy source is hard to believe to some.
In a talk ,Its not something that I can prove until you have knowledge of how gravity can be used to generate energy. (Inventions like gravity light and impact generators)
What?
Wait... an excess of energy?If the prototype possesses an excess of energy
A new anything is hard to believe - nless supporting evidence/ data is supplied.A new green energy source is hard to believe to some.
Um, some confusion here: YOU are the one that is required to provide that knowledge. It's your claim.In a talk ,Its not something that I can prove until you have knowledge of how gravity can be used to generate energy.
And, FYI, I wasn't particularly talking about you proving anything here: it's general in engineering that one builds things that are expected to work (because they're based on proven techniques), it's NOT usual to build something to see if it works.
Why are you unable to produce a prototype on your own?
What is the main expense of building the prototype?
What?
Wait... an excess of energy?If the prototype possesses an excess of energy
A new anything is hard to believe - nless supporting evidence/ data is supplied.A new green energy source is hard to believe to some.
Um, some confusion here: YOU are the one that is required to provide that knowledge. It's your claim.In a talk ,Its not something that I can prove until you have knowledge of how gravity can be used to generate energy.
And, FYI, I wasn't particularly talking about you proving anything here: it's general in engineering that one builds things that are expected to work (because they're based on proven techniques), it's NOT usual to build something to see if it works.
I have been told by someone that there are no new ways to harness energy and to not waste my time with it. Once I introduced the person
to other inventions that used gravity and to my AGWG designs, He decided that he may be wrong. So I Believe a lot of people will have doubt when you bring up topics about this.
If the machine can generate more energy than its original intention,A more than desirable result, It can help in building large scale ones after I am done with the prototype to try and combat a lack of clean water many people in the world are faced with, I need to prove that they can also work in places where pulling the water out of the atmosphere may be difficult due to a lack of moisture in the air and extremely high altitudes. Its really about proving it will work "here and there", and with funding I can see it done.
Primarily because of money. I recently got my Diploma and I am looking for a job to help me get the resources I need andWhy are you unable to produce a prototype on your own?
What is the main expense of building the prototype?
I have the tenacity to prostrate myself to do so. I have been unsuccessful thus far and I decided to take this route.
The research and development cost will be too much for me alone.
I don't know the exact amount I will need but once I get this done I will try and get sponsor funding to
help with the cost of building the large scale one.
A scam rip-off. Just like all the other overunity devices which just need someone's money it be built.
Oh good.
Hard testimonials as to your credibility...
If anything develops more anything than is intended then either it's faulty or you're a lousy designer.If the machine can generate more energy than its original intention
And... still nothing whatsoever to support your claims.It can help in building large scale ones after I am done with the prototype to try and combat a lack of clean water many people in the world are faced with, I need to prove that they can also work in places where pulling the water out of the atmosphere may be difficult due to a lack of moisture in the air and extremely high altitudes. Its really about proving it will work "here and there", and with funding I can see it done.
No answers to my questions or direct replies to my post.
You recently got your diploma?
In what?
Because you certainly don't come across as an engineer.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 14th, 2013 at 08:17 PM.
I know it has a "Sounds too good to be true" effect. This is why I tried to simplify the explanation process and also why a prototype is necessary in the first
place.
I want you to look up "gravity light" on youtube and become familiar with other inventions that use gravity in some way.
Look up how we use water to harness energy in this world.
If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
Simplified to the point of non-existence.
Didn't help.
Oh right.I want you to look up "gravity light" on youtube and become familiar with other inventions that use gravity in some way.
It's the "hand-waving" method.
I should have guessed.
In English, please.If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
Oh good.
Hard testimonials as to your credibility...
If anything develops more anything than is intended then either its faulty or you're a lousy designer.If the machine can generate more energy than its original intention
And... still nothing whatsoever to support your claims.It can help in building large scale ones after I am done with the prototype to try and combat a lack of clean water many people in the world are faced with, I need to prove that they can also work in places where pulling the water out of the atmosphere may be difficult due to a lack of moisture in the air and extremely high altitudes. Its really about proving it will work "here and there", and with funding I can see it done.
No answers to my questions or direct replies to my post.
You recently got your diploma?
In what?
Because you certainly don't come across as an engineer.
High school diploma. I am 18. I only have some mechanical experience working with my family on cars and
I have the support of a mechanical engineering professor at PA tech.
I need more support
Last edited by Dspencer; September 17th, 2014 at 09:02 AM.
And... skipped or ignored points/ questions again.
Do you see a pattern here?
I see your point and what you are suggesting.
What more can I do to help your doubt?
I have not presented you with any credibility besides presenting the premise and my sincerity on it?
what other feedback can you give me?
What will other people demand besides wanting to see it working?
wanting to see a prototype.
It's not an opinion, kid. It's the laws of physics, and if you'd had any education in physics, you'd know it too.If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
You need to explain to us exactly how you think this idea of yours is supposed to work. Sorry for saying this, but your video is exceptionally vague and uninspiring.I know it has a "Sounds too good to be true" effect. This is why I tried to simplify the explanation process and also why a prototype is necessary in the first
place.
I want you to look up "gravity light" on youtube and become familiar with other inventions that use gravity in some way.
Look up how we use water to harness energy in this world.
If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
We have a lot of knowledgeable people here that can give you positive feedback and suggestions. Know though that we are no strangers to people coming here claiming to have invented all manner of nonsense and devices that violate the laws of physics, so we are understandably suspicious.
So please take the time of explaining exactly what you are talking about, otherwise you will not get any help around here.
Explain the process.
Read some of the threads in Pseudoscience or Trash.I have not presented you with any credibility besides presenting the premise and my sincerity on it?
Premises and sincerity (and little else) are the staple of crank claims.
They'd want to know the working principles.What will other people demand besides wanting to see it working?
wanting to see a prototype.
A prototype can be faked (and has been in numerous cases).
So you doubt it would be possible to slowly drop a large mass of water from a certain height
and use the constant pull of gravity to generate enough energy to gather the exact amount of water
out of the atmosphere that you just dropped and repeat the process over and over?
If you don't doubt that question then you should understand
somewhat of what I am trying to make.
So, a weight drops, generating enough energy to "create" water.
Which then drops, generating more energy.
Which then... what?
Do you have an infinite number of water-holding receptacles?
Or, at some point, does a container have to be lifted?
How does it "gather" the water?
Whut?If you don't doubt that question then you should understand somewhat of what I am trying to make.
English please...
miss post xx
The weight is the water in a container---So, a weight drops, generating enough energy to "create" water.
Which then drops, generating more energy.
Which then... what?
Do you have an infinite number of water-holding receptacles?
Or, at some point, does a container have to be lifted?
How does it "gather" the water?
Whut?If you don't doubt that question then you should understand somewhat of what I am trying to make.
English please...
when the water reaches the ground it is released into a filter to purify it and
the empty holder is lifted back up.
It gathers the water through low energy usage fans and water capture coils
Without adding energy to your system, yes.So you doubt it would be possible to slowly drop a large mass of water from a certain height
and use the constant pull of gravity to generate enough energy to gather the exact amount of water
out of the atmosphere that you just dropped and repeat the process over and over?
What lifts the empty holder back up? Where does the energy to do that come from?The weight is the water in a container---
when the water reaches the ground it is released into a filter to purify it and
the empty holder is lifted back up.
I am explaining it now. I can also remake the video if it is a inhibiting factor in me gaining support?You need to explain to us exactly how you think this idea of yours is supposed to work. Sorry for saying this, but your video is exceptionally vague and uninspiring.I know it has a "Sounds too good to be true" effect. This is why I tried to simplify the explanation process and also why a prototype is necessary in the first
place.
I want you to look up "gravity light" on youtube and become familiar with other inventions that use gravity in some way.
Look up how we use water to harness energy in this world.
If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
We have a lot of knowledgeable people here that can give you positive feedback and suggestions. Know though that we are no strangers to people coming here claiming to have invented all manner of nonsense and devices that violate the laws of physics, so we are understandably suspicious.
So please take the time of explaining exactly what you are talking about, otherwise you will not get any help around here.
And, of course, you've done lengthy calculations on, for example, the power generated by the weight moving, and the power requirements for the fans and the cooling/ compression/ capture process?
And these calculations showed that there's "an excess of energy"?
And, of course, you've done lengthy calculations on, for example, the power generated by the weight moving, and the power requirements for the fans and the cooling/ compression/ capture process?
And these calculations showed that there's "an excess of energy"?
The power generated by the the water weight descending would need to be greater than that expended on the capture/purify process.
I had made it possible to use several weights to provide counter balance to lift the empty holder back up,
but that acts as a counter-balance when your trying to gather energy from the descent of the water, it would make it require more water.
I simply made it so that when one holder is empty it is being slowly pulled up by energy gathered from the descending process of
the other holders.
I was asked (What if you only generate X percent of the water originally needed to make the water descend?). My answer was that I
would need to simply build it higher in those areas that lack the abundance of moisture in the air that we have here.
If Its built too high then there would be an excess of energy from the Original capture/drop/repeat process.
After gathering this energy it
could somehow be an asset in those areas with fluctuating temperatures that could make the machine take longer in gathering water..
There is always a loss of energy in any process. The energy from the descending holders will never be enough to raise the empty holder back up to it's original level.I simply made it so that when one holder is empty it is being slowly pulled up by energy gathered from the descending process of
the other holders.
It just doesn't happen. There is ALWAYS energy loss. If you'd continued with your education and taken some basic physics courses, you'd know this.
There needs to be another subforum for things like this. The Trash doesn't even begin to do it justice...
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:11 PM.
I don't understand.
Your telling me I will have a problem with raising an empty container vs lowering a full one?
Is that suppose to be the inhibiting factor of a limitless supply of clean water.
I think your reply is one a sophist would make.
What is energy loss when gravity is the supplier of that energy?
Atmospheric water generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More advanced.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
Exactly. I spent months trying to get over this hump.The extreme purification process is what eats up most of the energy and that creates
a massive need, Even if it can run on one 300 watt solar panel.
That is where gravity, height, and more energy efficient way to capture and purify the water come in.
Um, you have a limited drop length.
Therefore the energy supplied, though "free", is strictly limited.
You only have X amount to work with at any given time.
Um, you have a limited drop length.
Therefore the energy supplied, though "free", is strictly limited.
You only have X amount to work with at any given time.
I am sure I wont have a problem making it reach its destination.
Unless I miraculously Make the point connecting each holders to each other too
short out of a sleepless error.
Have I explained the process enough for you to picture
it on your own and understand that this is no "overunity- scam rip-off".
This is legit and it can happen.
All of the questions being asked now are questions other people will ask too and it
seems some progress is being made the more I explain.
I will need to remake the video for sure... I see how it fails to explain any of this.
Kid, you don't know anything about the most basic physics. Have you ever heard of the word 'friction'?
This thread should go straight to the trash, and you should either go back to school or work in your old man's garage.
I bet you to the trigger on the trash suggestion! This thread has really PRECIPITATED into utter nonsense.
This really is the season for nuts and fruits. Checking out some of the other forums make this forum the voice of reason. Thank goodness for decent moderators.
I take it that this is a very long-winded way of answering both of my questions:
And, of course, you've done lengthy calculations on, for example, the power generated by the weight moving, and the power requirements for the fans and the cooling/ compression/ capture process?
And these calculations showed that there's "an excess of energy"?
with the word "no".
I already answered your question.I take it that this is a very long-winded way of answering both of my questions:
And, of course, you've done lengthy calculations on, for example, the power generated by the weight moving, and the power requirements for the fans and the cooling/ compression/ capture process?
And these calculations showed that there's "an excess of energy"?
with the word "no".
The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
There is a set mass required so if your thinking of this on a scale of being inside of a kitchen then That is not something
I can imagine happening either.
Last edited by Dspencer; July 14th, 2013 at 11:41 PM.
No kid, it's not. You'll never get enough power out of the descending whatever to raise it back to the same level. Like a pendulum, it will just slow down and stop unless you add energy to it.The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
No, You do not understand and you have been misinterpreting everything.
Your not lowering the object of the same mass and raising it back up.
Your using water and when the object reaches the filter lowered at the ground, the water is released
into it. The thing being raised back up is nothing more than an empty holder.
Enough. You can't argue with ignorance. It's too ignorant.
Oh yeah, sorry.
You said, and I quote, " ".
No calculations...
You keep saying "I imagine" and "I am sure".The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
There is a set mass required so if your thinking of this on a scale of being inside of a kitchen then That is not something
I can imagine happening either.
That's not engineering.
Oh yeah, sorry.
You said, and I quote, " ".
No calculations...
You keep saying "I imagine" and "I am sure".The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
There is a set mass required so if your thinking of this on a scale of being inside of a kitchen then That is not something
I can imagine happening either.
That's not engineering.
Do you understand what I am trying to build though?
Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
If I can build the prototype and move on from there. I can open a door for millions of people facing the coming water crisis.
I did not provide you with the calculations for they are estimates changed with size. I only provided you with the formula I will be building the machine on.
I Do not know the watt-hour of 31.5 gallons of water descending on this gravity gear system, I know I will need to to a do a lot
of research on effective ways to conserve the energy spend on gathering more water and purifying it in order to lower the height of the prototype because it will raise the cost if I don't.
I already understand that this is plausible. My only worry is It just might prove to be too costly to for some who lack clean water.
I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
Yeah. A mess.
Except that, lacking any calculations, you have no idea what is involved.Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
You're replacing knowledge with trial and error, and have no clue as how long it will take.
Except that you don't know if it will ever work.If I can build the prototype and move on from there. I can open a door for millions of people facing the coming water crisis.
Lacking any mathematical basis you have no idea whether or not it's feasible.I did not provide you with the calculations for they are estimates changed with size.
Not the way to go about it. And demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what engineering really is.I Do not know the watt-hour of 31.5 gallons of water descending on this gravity gear system, I know I will need to to a do a lot of research on effective ways to conserve the energy spend on gathering more water and purifying it in order to lower the height of the prototype because it will raise the cost if I don't.
No you don't.I already understand that this is plausible.
You merely think (believe) it's plausible.
In other words you're going to spend other peoples' money on something that has no factual basis.My only worry is It just might prove to be too costly to for some who lack clean water.
If you haven't got credibility how do expect to get backers?I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
Just be thankful - VERY thankful - that you're not one of my engineering apprentices. I'd be kicking your arse and throwing you out by now.
I do know it will work. What I don't know is how many weeks it will take to build a gravity gear suitable for the mass ofYeah. A mess.
Except that, lacking any calculations, you have no idea what is involved.Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
You're replacing knowledge with trial and error, and have no clue as how long it will take.
Except that you don't know if it will ever work.If I can build the prototype and move on from there. I can open a door for millions of people facing the coming water crisis.
Lacking any mathematical basis you have no idea whether or not it's feasible.I did not provide you with the calculations for they are estimates changed with size.
Not the way to go about it. And demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what engineering really is.I Do not know the watt-hour of 31.5 gallons of water descending on this gravity gear system, I know I will need to to a do a lot of research on effective ways to conserve the energy spend on gathering more water and purifying it in order to lower the height of the prototype because it will raise the cost if I don't.
No you don't.I already understand that this is plausible.
You merely think (believe) it's plausible.
In other words you're going to spend other peoples' money on something that has no factual basis.My only worry is It just might prove to be too costly to for some who lack clean water.
If you haven't got credibility how do expect to get backers?I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
Just be thankful - VERY thankful - that you're not one of my engineering apprentices. I'd be kicking your arse and throwing you out by now.
water I will be working with. I also need to establish that the gear can power the other parts of the machine.
1gathering and purifying the water.
2The sufficient amount of falling mass of water required to run the system that gathers and purifies the water.
3The height required to give the falling mass enough time to gather the right amount of energy to repeat the process
If gaining research and development money from crowdfunding is Not the way to go about it then how do you go about it when it has
no such basis of its own?
I am here for your feedback and support.
You learn basic physics and engineering so you know what you're talking about.If gaining research and development money from crowdfunding is Not the way to go about it then how do you go about it when it has
no such basis of its own?
You have neither.
Can you explain all of the flaws with the information I posted on this design.
I am trying to help you understand it but you can't. And after you notice the flaws
just keep them to yourself and ask yourself if you can fix them. If you can then it is not an absolute inhibitor.
I am taking some of the questions raised on this thread and I am going to clarify the answers to
others who I interact with about this. They must have the same doubts as you.
The problem is that you have not provided enough logical information as to why
the machine is impossible to build. Mention absolute inhibitors if you can and not abstract doubts.
You will see none exist besides the ones I am already aware of and have posted.
I have a PHD mechanical engineer and a electrical engineer backing
my designs. It took a while to run through the information with them too but if it doesn't
click inside of your head then I am not explaining it right or you simply have not dropped the bias of
this being some sort of "overunity scam rip-off" which you had throughout your first post
You do need to calculate how much energy will be generated by the falling water, how much energy is needed to drive the condensor, and how much water the condensor will produce.
It appears impossible for the condensor to produce as much water as was used to generate the power, but it should be easy for you to prove it works.
By the way, the rising/falling container mentioned earlier would seem to be a red-herring, why not just let the water fall through a turbine, or similar (as in hydroelectric generation)? This way there is nothing to raise up again. (As long as the water can be used at a lower altitude than where it is generated.)
Vaguely. But it doesn't seem credible.
Before building a prototype, you could draw some diagrams explaining how it works and, importantly, do the calculations to show the energy generated/used at each stage. This would help people understand how t works and make it credible.Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
How do you know that if you haven't done the relevant calculations?I already understand that this is plausible.
Welcome to the real world!I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.One of the first things you learn to do as an engineer is work out all the detail and think of all the possible objections before presenting the idea to people. That way you are prepared to answer their questions, and will appear credible.
I'm sorry, but no one is going to fund this when it is so vague. You need to provide details of how it works, how effectiveness it is and, if possible, costs.
You have posted almost no information on the design, other than vague descriptions that members have had to drag from you.
And whose fault do you think that is? Here is a clue - it's not ours.
It's not up to us to fix them. It's up to you.
No! You have provided wholly inadequate information as to how the machine would be built. You have provided no calucations to show that in principle it should work. It is not our job, or the job of potential investors, to show it is impossible, it is your job to show it is possible.
Then they should be able to do the calculations we have asked for, even if you cannot.
Thank you for this. I was uneasy about the whole thing and this! is the reason why.By the way, the rising/falling container mentioned earlier would seem to be a red-herring, why not just let the water fall through a turbine, or similar (as in hydroelectric generation)? This way there is nothing to raise up again. (As long as the water can be used at a lower altitude than where it is generated.)
You do need to calculate how much energy will be generated by the falling water, how much energy is needed to drive the condensor, and how much water the condensor will produce.
It appears impossible for the condensor to produce as much water as was used to generate the power, but it should be easy for you to prove it works.
By the way, the rising/falling container mentioned earlier would seem to be a red-herring, why not just let the water fall through a turbine, or similar (as in hydroelectric generation)? This way there is nothing to raise up again. (As long as the water can be used at a lower altitude than where it is generated.)
The power generated by the falling water needs to have enough energy to do just that and
it needs to have enough energy to purify the water and raise the containers. I have considered using more than 3
at one time to speed up the process but I do not know how much energy the water capture will use exactly.
I need a condenser that is effective and uses less than 100 watts also
The water capture process is too slow for hydroelectric generation.
I know the calculations might be off and the only reason it hasn't factored in was because I hadVaguely. But it doesn't seem credible.
Before building a prototype, you could draw some diagrams explaining how it works and, importantly, do the calculations to show the energy generated/used at each stage. This would help people understand how t works and make it credible.Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
How do you know that if you haven't done the relevant calculations?I already understand that this is plausible.
Welcome to the real world!I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
I'm sorry, but no one is going to fund this when it is so vague. You need to provide details of how it works, how effectiveness it is and, if possible, costs.
the mentality that "if the initial height only generates
half the amount of water because of the use of the filter and capture process
then I will build it twice as high so it does.
If it only generates 1/4 then I will build it 4 times as high..
If it only generated 1/8..." etc ...until I got the results
Thanks for the answer and I will try to add diagrams. I wont be able to form an exact calculation
of the costs because I lack the resources to venture into it.
The repeating generator process is the most important feature. I can try to build just that.
To prove that water can be generated over and over again and I wont include the filter.
It should prove the rest is able to be built.
Judging by all of this. Do you suggest I should remove my campaign until I have diagrams or I am able to build and show a small part of the water gen process inYou have posted almost no information on the design, other than vague descriptions that members have had to drag from you.
And whose fault do you think that is? Here is a clue - it's not ours.
It's not up to us to fix them. It's up to you.
No! You have provided wholly inadequate information as to how the machine would be built. You have provided no calucations to show that in principle it should work. It is not our job, or the job of potential investors, to show it is impossible, it is your job to show it is possible.
Then they should be able to do the calculations we have asked for, even if you cannot.
a video? Even that will take resources I lack.
Forget the video approach. You need to prepare a concise, yet comprehensive explanation of what you are proposing. This should be accompanied by diagrams and calculations demonstrating its feasibility, in principle. Your engineer friends should be able to help you with this. I see no reason to 'remove the campaign' at present, since it will largely go ignored and there is an ouside chance someone may see more in it than any of us have and offer you help.
Dspencer, you clearly have imagination and a desire to do useful things. Even if this idea doesn't pan put (for whatever reason) don't give up. Keep trying. I'm sure with more experience and more work you will be able to do something useful.
Thanks. I will never give up on this.
I will divulge in it clearly and do as you have advised to make it more concise.
I will also try to form a good team who are also willing to venture into this with me.
There is a lot more work to be done.
Can you provide us with a drawing so we can have an idea what you mean?
I get a basic idea of what you mean about the falling bucket of water generating energy as it falls, emptying at the bottom and then being lifted back up. You got that bit from the gravity light you mentioned earlier? As the water fills the bucket, the increasing weight could pull it down, spinning a gear and tensioning a spring as it falls. Then once it is emptied, the tensioned spring can lift up the empty bucket again. Then you need a water generator gizmo at the top and a purification (reverse osmosis maybe) at the bottom.
The problems are what kind of energy input is needed to run the water extraction part and the purification part. Solar panels might work, but that would increase the cost significantly. Also, the energy you can extract from a falling bucket of water will be quite limited.
You'll need some kind of release switch to only let the bucked descend after it has filled to the brim, or you'll lose out on a lot of energy.
Have a look here: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
How does your design improve on that system that already seams to work?
I do not have a scanner but I can make a picture on paint program.
Yes,I did not think it was possible until I saw gravity light and a release switch is absolutely required.
you have the idea. I want to do this not with small bucket of water but several gallons at a time.
I scrapped the idea for solar panels completely. There is a need to prove the initial gathering and releasing step.
I might need to build the part of the prototype that only focuses on water extraction and not purification to save on cost.(As in the picture)
Sorry the link didn't work but If your mentioning the billboard that turns air into water then that too
also takes energy from outside sources like a regular Atmospheric Water Generator. There is one that is powered by wind but
it doesn't generate enough water for its cost.
Here is a some of it. I tried to clear it up.
There is also the factor of the amount of energy you can
extract that is dependent on the humidity .
So In building this, the water holder would need to fall for a longer time
and that is what I am also considering when not only trying to make the machine ,
but also making sure it has exceeded energy expectations in a proficient environment.
A not as expensive version I would use would be made somewhat like this in order to get this idea off the ground.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
Another question: wouldn't water condensed from the atmosphere like this be drinkable straight away? Assuming the equipment is kept reasonably clean, etc.
Sound pretty much like the dig a hole, center a bowl, stretch a trashbag over the hole with a rock centered over the bowl water-gathering-survive tool known by those with a bit of woods-smart. Condensation forms under the bag and drips into the bowl. Works pretty well after a night over slightly moist ground.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
You mean ... TANSTAAFL?
that is basically what the prototype will be. You got it.
I forgot about that phrase.You mean ... TANSTAAFL?
you would thing that "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
It is true, though the one paying for the lunch is earths pull.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
But the water is already at the top of the hill, in the air.... (I still think it won't work, but it isn't trivially wrong in the way a perpetual motion machine is.)
That is why I plan to use a single holder and counterweights for the less expensive prototype than
the one that generated a lot of doubt. If the process is seen in action then the uncertainty about the
position of holders will not be sucha big factor since the core process has already been proven to work.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
It cost energy to condense the water though. This whole machine sound just like a perpetual machine to me. 1.initial input energy to condense water. 2.water descend generating energy. 3. Energy generated condense water and cycle repeat.
For the prototype this is the step to take on it.
For the real machine, the energy generated will also need to purify the water.
If a Descent of X amount of feet of water can generate the process of recreating the water but it doesn't have enough energy to
purify all the water that was already contained in the previous drop, then that could make a problem and that is where
the essential height comes in. If gravity is the fuel in a engine and water is what make it go, then you add height to make more fuel.
I never tried to compare it exactly to a perpetual motion machines because they do not exist.
If you were to see this functioning then you would think that this would be the first in existence but
This just takes advantage of gravity. Like solar panels and the heat of the sun or wind turbines and kinetic energy from wind.
The light of the sun is not always there, The wind can fluctuate, But the pull of gravity is always there. Its always going to be there along
with the Quadrillions of gallons of water in the atmosphere.
1.From looking at a seesaw.
2.From looking at a man get pulled up by a barrel he thought weighed less than him.
3.gravity and counterweight
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
Fixed. The light of the sun*
That's exactly what your trying to build. A machine which get's more energy out than you put in.I never tried to compare it exactly to a perpetual motion machines because they do not exist.
AS EVERYONE here has said, learn some basic physics.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
Have I not provided enough information on why a prototype will be successful?
What of physics tells you that a machine never before build will not work?
So is the Hoover Dam a perpetual motion machine?
Gravity ,water and tunnel turbines.
Energy payback time exists.
The energy put into building it is not greater than the energy it generates every year.
The Hoover Dam is naturally replenished at its source. I promise you, the energy that goes into replacing that source is far greater than what we reap.
Also, MS Paint is not proof of concept. Where is the math on this thing?
But the difference between your idea and the Hoover dam is that your idea requires energy to extract the water, whereas the Hoover dam relies on 'free' rain water.
The problem I see (with your idea) is the amount of energy required to condense the water.
Do you have any values for how much energy is required to produce (e.g.) a litre of water?
That is why It uses gravity to replace that source.
I have no exact calculations. I only tried to explain the Algebraic expression in a formula that
I will be using to build it.
There will be an exact measurement because your consuming the same amount of energy to
repeat the same process and not trying to power a few houses when every household consumes different amounts
of energy
About 6 liters in a hour at 180-200 watt hour and that is even less without the purification system.But the difference between your idea and the Hoover dam is that your idea requires energy to extract the water, whereas the Hoover dam relies on 'free' rain water.
The problem I see (with your idea) is the amount of energy required to condense the water.
Do you have any values for how much energy is required to produce (e.g.) a litre of water?
this is On a regular mini AWG.
Why is, "It uses gravity" always the fallback for the perpetual energy cranks?
I am providing you with information on why this will work but you deny it based on a lack of belief that gravity can generate energy.
Or is it a flaw in my explanation?
The only thing you need to explain to me is why someone else hasn't come up with a working model of this yet? It's incredibly simple and doesn't require any advanced technology. Are all the other people in the world just THAT much dumber than you?
The water which turns the turbines is not lifted back up to the lake.So is the Hoover Dam a perpetual motion machine?
Gravity ,water and tunnel turbines.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
Your explaining to me that because of my lack of knowledge in physics,
slowly descending water will never be able to generate energy to
make the exact amount of water that is currently descending and
allow the process to repeat
when you don't even know how long the water will be descending for?
Do you understand how that makes no sense?
It also makes me reluctant to reveal more information
if its just going to be met with a sophist response.
The energy generated is in constant use on the machine.
I don't have exact calculations but I have proof that it will work with A simple greater
than or less than algebraic formula that I am trying to help you understand.
+For a working prototype
the energy generated from the weight of the falling water is X
The total energy needed to gather and replace the exact amount of water at the start is Y
the height of the machine is Z
X and Z must equal to or greater than Y.
That is basically all there is to it.
If the energy needed to create more water doesn't reach its
desired amount then the energy generated from the falling water is not enough
and the fall needs to be longer.
If X is HALF of Y then Z needs to be doubled.
If X is one-fourth of Y then z needs to be quadrupled.
What?
The time it takes to descend is utterly irrelevant!
No you don't.I don't have exact calculations but I have proof that it will work
Please stop displaying your ignorance like this.with A simple greater than or less than algebraic formula that I am trying to help you understand.
Correct: and UNTIL you have actual values then all you're doing is trial and error. With other peoples' money.+For a working prototype
the energy generated from the weight of the falling water is X
The total energy needed to gather and replace the exact amount of water at the start is Y
the height of the machine is Z
X and Z must equal to or greater than Y.
You are missing the basic problem here, which is that you require a certain amount of energy to fill the bucket and you are hoping that the descending bucket will provide that energy.
I am providing you with information on why this will work but you deny it based on a lack of belief that gravity can generate energy.
Or is it a flaw in my explanation?
As you already know, there are no such things as perpetual motion machines, but you don't realise that you are trying to build one. You are describing a closed system that is supposed to keep working perpetually. Even if some natural condensation adds to the water in the bucket, it can never be enough to make up for the energy lost while running the machine. Batteries aren't 100% efficient, nothing is.
You will undoubtedly need an external power source as well, like solar collectors or solar panels so you can extract energy from the sun. Without that your machine will not run. Using a bigger bucket just increases the amount of water you need to extract from the air. It is not a solution. Letting the bucket descend further is the same kind of thing.
The Hoover dam works because of the energy input from the sun. The gravity light's energy comes from the potential energy given to the system when you lift up the weight.
What water from air extraction method do you intend to use? It should be trivial to work out the potential energy a bucket of water possesses at a certain hight. Then compare that to the energy needed to fill that bucket. You should at least do that to get an idea before you try and take this any further.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
All it it takes is trail and error and process of elimination. Once I know the exact amount of X from a height by measuringNo you don't.
Please stop displaying your ignorance like this.with A simple greater than or less than algebraic formula that I am trying to help you understand.
Correct: and UNTIL you have actual values then all you're doing is trial and error. With other peoples' money.+For a working prototype
the energy generated from the weight of the falling water is X
The total energy needed to gather and replace the exact amount of water at the start is Y
the height of the machine is Z
X and Z must equal to or greater than Y.
the water then the next step would be to build it at the required height and then you have your functioning prototype. That is what it is.
I won't need to do that. with R and D funding and can get a wattmeter, build, and learn energy values so I can build it at a proper height without the
need for process of elimination
If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
Last edited by Dspencer; July 15th, 2013 at 08:00 PM.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
Oh, I'm sure you can build it.If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
I'm also sure it will not function as a machine to produce water or power unless you have an external power source.
Correct.
And you have no idea how long it will take.
Meanwhile you're spending other peoples' money with no guarantee it will work as required.
That's dishonest.
It may well possible: but will it be practicable?If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
I want to work with a nonprofit organization and I want to finish the final Atmospheric gravity water generator, I may be able to have them
mass produced and delivered to
people needing clean water or have to travel too far for a clean water supply.
I know that with a team of people it will be quicker that by myselfCorrect.
And you have no idea how long it will take.
Meanwhile you're spending other peoples' money with no guarantee it will work as required.
That's dishonest.
It may well possible: but will it be practicable?If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
and we will worked on until it is operational.
As long as there is water in the air then It will succeed.
You can't argue with an ignorant 18 year old.
del
Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:14 PM.
Thanks for all of the feedback. I see now that I have to do more to resolve doubt about questions asked to me
about the process. The questions are some that other people might have too.
I will need to make sure I can provide people all of the clarity required with better calculations.
I know the crowd funding campaign might not gain any support from the way it is now.
I think I might be able to avoid some of this
If I can do all of this under a loan.
then I am sure it would be easier to get funding on the basis
that a debt will be held over my head. I wouldn't need
to worry about too many opinions. As long as there is no proof
of income required for the loan.
That is a belief only.
Until you produce the calculations you can't say.
Oh boy...
Ok.
Let's do some napkin maths (it's been a while since I've done this sort of thing, so corrections welcome).
Potential energy of 6 litres of water:
Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height the object has travelled
E = 6 x 9.8 x height
And the energy used by the condenser:
0.180 kWh = 648 kJ = 648,000 J
So, the height required for the falling water to recoup the energy of the condenser:
648,000 = 6 x 9.8 x Height
Height = 648,000 / (6 x 9.8) = 11 km = 7 miles
If my calculations are correct (and that is a big 'IF') then that height seems impractical.
Which brings up another point... (I did rather suspect an impractical height, although not quite that impractical): in hot countries I wonder how much of the will water evaporate on the trip down?
Maybe my numbers are wrong.
It has been over 20 years since I've done any physics calculations.
Ah ha! It will be in a self-sealing container! - or something like that.
| « Calculating Reservoir pressure | replacement theory » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
