Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 167
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Infinite supply of clean water- Atmospheric gravity water generator

  1. #1 Infinite supply of clean water- Atmospheric gravity water generator 
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I know This machine, once build and proven to work, can gain enormous support.
    Would it not be a good idea to prove it will work before building it?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I know This machine, once build and proven to work, can gain enormous support.
    Would it not be a good idea to prove it will work before building it?
    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.
    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)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    What?

    If the prototype possesses an excess of energy
    Wait... an excess of energy?

    A new green energy source is hard to believe to some.
    A new anything is hard to believe - nless supporting evidence/ data is supplied.

    In a talk ,Its not something that I can prove until you have knowledge of how gravity can be used to generate energy.
    Um, some confusion here: YOU are the one that is required to provide that knowledge. It's your claim.
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I started a campaign on a crowd-funding site to gain enough support and money to build a prototype.
    Why are you unable to produce a prototype on your own?
    What is the main expense of building the prototype?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    What?

    If the prototype possesses an excess of energy
    Wait... an excess of energy?

    A new green energy source is hard to believe to some.
    A new anything is hard to believe - nless supporting evidence/ data is supplied.

    In a talk ,Its not something that I can prove until you have knowledge of how gravity can be used to generate energy.
    Um, some confusion here: YOU are the one that is required to provide that knowledge. It's your claim.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I started a campaign on a crowd-funding site to gain enough support and money to build a prototype.
    Why are you unable to produce a prototype on your own?
    What is the main expense of building the prototype?
    Primarily because of money. I recently got my Diploma and I am looking for a job to help me get the resources I need and
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    A scam rip-off. Just like all the other overunity devices which just need someone's money it be built.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    Oh good.
    Hard testimonials as to your credibility...

    If the machine can generate more energy than its original intention
    If anything develops more anything than is intended then either it's faulty or you're a lousy designer.

    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.
    And... still nothing whatsoever to support your claims.
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    A scam rip-off. Just like all the other overunity devices which just need someone's money it be built.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    This is why I tried to simplify the explanation process
    Simplified to the point of non-existence.
    Didn't help.

    I want you to look up "gravity light" on youtube and become familiar with other inventions that use gravity in some way.
    Oh right.
    It's the "hand-waving" method.
    I should have guessed.

    If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
    In English, please.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    Oh good.
    Hard testimonials as to your credibility...

    If the machine can generate more energy than its original intention
    If anything develops more anything than is intended then either its faulty or you're a lousy designer.

    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.
    And... still nothing whatsoever to support your claims.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    And... skipped or ignored points/ questions again.
    Do you see a pattern here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    A scam rip-off. Just like all the other overunity devices which just need someone's money it be built.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    What more can I do to help your doubt?
    Explain the process.

    I have not presented you with any credibility besides presenting the premise and my sincerity on it?
    Read some of the threads in Pseudoscience or Trash.
    Premises and sincerity (and little else) are the staple of crank claims.

    What will other people demand besides wanting to see it working?
    wanting to see a prototype.
    They'd want to know the working principles.
    A prototype can be faked (and has been in numerous cases).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    If you still doubt such a simple process lacking the complexity of a "overunity" device then your opinion can't be helped.
    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.


    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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?
    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?

    If you don't doubt that question then you should understand somewhat of what I am trying to make.
    Whut?
    English please...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    miss post xx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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?
    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?

    If you don't doubt that question then you should understand somewhat of what I am trying to make.
    Whut?
    English please...
    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.

    It gathers the water through low energy usage fans and water capture coils
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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?
    Without adding energy to your system, yes.
    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.
    What lifts the empty holder back up? Where does the energy to do that come from?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    A scam rip-off. Just like all the other overunity devices which just need someone's money it be built.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    I am explaining it now. I can also remake the video if it is a inhibiting factor in me gaining support?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    It gathers the water through low energy usage fans and water capture coils
    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"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    It gathers the water through low energy usage fans and water capture coils
    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"?
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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?
    Without adding energy to your system, yes.
    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.
    What lifts the empty holder back up? Where does the energy to do that come from?

    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..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    There needs to be another subforum for things like this. The Trash doesn't even begin to do it justice...
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    Wtf did you even pass your physics class? A machine that condense water from the atmosphere, is that what you meant? Condensation trap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Atmospheric water generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    More advanced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    The extraction of atmospheric water may not be completely free of cost, because significant input of energy is required to drive some AWG processes, sometimes called "trading oil for water".
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    What is energy loss when gravity is the supplier of that energy?
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    What is energy loss when gravity is the supplier of that energy?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    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".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Enough. You can't argue with ignorance. It's too ignorant.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I already answered your question.
    Oh yeah, sorry.
    You said, and I quote, " ".
    No calculations...

    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.
    You keep saying "I imagine" and "I am sure".

    That's not engineering.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I already answered your question.
    Oh yeah, sorry.
    You said, and I quote, " ".
    No calculations...

    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.
    You keep saying "I imagine" and "I am sure".

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Do you understand what I am trying to build though?
    Yeah. A mess.

    Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
    Except that, lacking any calculations, you have no idea what is involved.
    You're replacing knowledge with trial and error, and have no clue as how long it will take.

    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.
    Except that you don't know if it will ever work.

    I did not provide you with the calculations for they are estimates changed with size.
    Lacking any mathematical basis you have no idea whether or not it's feasible.

    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.
    Not the way to go about it. And demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what engineering really is.

    I already understand that this is plausible.
    No you don't.
    You merely think (believe) it's plausible.

    My only worry is It just might prove to be too costly to for some who lack clean water.
    In other words you're going to spend other peoples' money on something that has no factual basis.

    I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
    If you haven't got credibility how do expect to get backers?

    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Do you understand what I am trying to build though?
    Yeah. A mess.

    Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
    Except that, lacking any calculations, you have no idea what is involved.
    You're replacing knowledge with trial and error, and have no clue as how long it will take.

    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.
    Except that you don't know if it will ever work.

    I did not provide you with the calculations for they are estimates changed with size.
    Lacking any mathematical basis you have no idea whether or not it's feasible.

    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.
    Not the way to go about it. And demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what engineering really is.

    I already understand that this is plausible.
    No you don't.
    You merely think (believe) it's plausible.

    My only worry is It just might prove to be too costly to for some who lack clean water.
    In other words you're going to spend other peoples' money on something that has no factual basis.

    I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
    If you haven't got credibility how do expect to get backers?

    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 of
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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 learn basic physics and engineering so you know what you're talking about.

    You have neither.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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 learn basic physics and engineering so you know what you're talking about.

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
    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.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Do you understand what I am trying to build though?
    Vaguely. But it doesn't seem credible.

    Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
    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.

    I already understand that this is plausible.
    How do you know that if you haven't done the relevant calculations?

    I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
    Welcome to the real world! 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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Can you explain all of the flaws with the information I posted on this design.
    You have posted almost no information on the design, other than vague descriptions that members have had to drag from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I am trying to help you understand it but you can't.
    And whose fault do you think that is? Here is a clue - it's not ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    And after you notice the flaws
    just keep them to yourself and ask yourself if you can fix them.
    It's not up to us to fix them. It's up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    The problem is that you have not provided enough logical information as to why
    the machine is impossible to build.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I have a PHD mechanical engineer and a electrical engineer backing my designs.
    Then they should be able to do the calculations we have asked for, even if you cannot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.)
    Thank you for this. I was uneasy about the whole thing and this! is the reason why.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    The water descending depending on the mass of the water is more than enough to power the process of gathering more water.
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Do you understand what I am trying to build though?
    Vaguely. But it doesn't seem credible.

    Making a prototype would skip all of this debating about people not being able to understand if it is nonsense or not.
    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.

    I already understand that this is plausible.
    How do you know that if you haven't done the relevant calculations?

    I didn't think I would spend this much time on credibility.
    Welcome to the real world! 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.
    I know the calculations might be off and the only reason it hasn't factored in was because I had
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Can you explain all of the flaws with the information I posted on this design.
    You have posted almost no information on the design, other than vague descriptions that members have had to drag from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I am trying to help you understand it but you can't.
    And whose fault do you think that is? Here is a clue - it's not ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    And after you notice the flaws
    just keep them to yourself and ask yourself if you can fix them.
    It's not up to us to fix them. It's up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    The problem is that you have not provided enough logical information as to why
    the machine is impossible to build.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I have a PHD mechanical engineer and a electrical engineer backing my designs.
    Then they should be able to do the calculations we have asked for, even if you cannot.
    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 in
    a video? Even that will take resources I lack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    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.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    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?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Can you provide us with a drawing so we can have an idea what you mean?
    I do not have a scanner but I can make a picture on paint program.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Another question: wouldn't water condensed from the atmosphere like this be drinkable straight away? Assuming the equipment is kept reasonably clean, etc.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I designed a machine capable of generating water out of the air and then using earths pull against the water to generate more water.
    Its run on the pull of gravity and it generates clean water.
    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    I don't understand the purpose of this machine, the input will always be higher than the output.
    You mean ... TANSTAAFL?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    So you put in energy to extract water from the atmosphere, and then the water cause a bucket to descend while generating energy, and you hope that the energy generated will extract the same amount of water to repeat the process. Is that your design? Or did i misunderstood it?
    that is basically what the prototype will be. You got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    I don't understand the purpose of this machine, the input will always be higher than the output.
    You mean ... TANSTAAFL?
    I forgot about that phrase.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    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.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    But gravity will be found to have an empty wallet and no credit card. Re-read post #26 again...
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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.)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Reply to post #70 where/how has it been proven to work? I'm not convinced it ever will TANSTAAFL... I suggest you re-study (if you've ever studied it before) some basic physics.
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    WTF the sun is not always there?????? Is the earth also flat...
    Fixed. The light of the sun*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I never tried to compare it exactly to a perpetual motion machines because they do not exist.
    That's exactly what your trying to build. A machine which get's more energy out than you put in.

    AS EVERYONE here has said, learn some basic physics.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Reply to post#73 so far from proof it's laughable learn some basic physics, you'll convince no one here with hand waving BS.
    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?



    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I never tried to compare it exactly to a perpetual motion machines because they do not exist.
    That's exactly what your trying to build. A machine which get's more energy out than you put in.

    AS EVERYONE here has said, learn some basic physics.
    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.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    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?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    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?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    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?
    About 6 liters in a hour at 180-200 watt hour and that is even less without the purification system.

    this is On a regular mini AWG.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Why is, "It uses gravity" always the fallback for the perpetual energy cranks?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Why is, "It uses gravity" always the fallback for the perpetual energy cranks?
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    This is utter bollocks. Trash please.


    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    So is the Hoover Dam a perpetual motion machine?
    Gravity ,water and tunnel turbines.
    The water which turns the turbines is not lifted back up to the lake.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    when you don't even know how long the water will be descending for?
    What?
    The time it takes to descend is utterly irrelevant!

    I don't have exact calculations but I have proof that it will work
    No you don't.

    with A simple greater than or less than algebraic formula that I am trying to help you understand.
    Please stop displaying your ignorance like this.

    +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.
    Correct: and UNTIL you have actual values then all you're doing is trial and error. With other peoples' money.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Why is, "It uses gravity" always the fallback for the perpetual energy cranks?
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    This is utter bollocks. Trash please.


    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?
    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.

    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    I don't have exact calculations but I have proof that it will work
    No you don't.

    with A simple greater than or less than algebraic formula that I am trying to help you understand.
    Please stop displaying your ignorance like this.

    +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.
    Correct: and UNTIL you have actual values then all you're doing is trial and error. With other peoples' money.
    All it it takes is trail and error and process of elimination. Once I know the exact amount of X from a height by measuring
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
    Oh, I'm sure you can build it.

    I'm also sure it will not function as a machine to produce water or power unless you have an external power source.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    All it it takes is trail and error and process of elimination.
    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.

    If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
    It may well possible: but will it be practicable?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by fernogx View Post
    So basically your building a water condenser that have fancy buckets dangling around. Good luck marketing that
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    All it it takes is trail and error and process of elimination.
    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.

    If you're able to understand this far then you must admit that the machine is possible to build
    It may well possible: but will it be practicable?
    I know that with a team of people it will be quicker that by myself
    and we will worked on until it is operational.

    As long as there is water in the air then It will succeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    You can't argue with an ignorant 18 year old.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    38
    del
    Last edited by fernogx; August 5th, 2018 at 07:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman Dspencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    57
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    As long as there is water in the air then It will succeed.
    That is a belief only.
    Until you produce the calculations you can't say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    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.
    Oh boy...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dspencer View Post
    About 6 liters in a hour at 180-200 watt hour and that is even less without the purification system.

    this is On a regular mini AWG.
    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.
    KALSTER and Dywyddyr like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    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?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    (I did rather suspect an impractical height, although not quite that impractical)
    Maybe my numbers are wrong.
    It has been over 20 years since I've done any physics calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    ...in hot countries I wonder how much of the will water evaporate on the trip down?
    Ah ha! It will be in a self-sealing container! - or something like that.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2011, 06:50 PM
  2. Why does water stay level to gravity all the time?
    By tikai in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2010, 09:33 PM
  3. Helping People To Protect the Environment and Clean Water
    By scott_lister in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 25th, 2010, 07:40 AM
  4. Yielding frest water from ocean salt water.
    By mmatt9876 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 12th, 2009, 08:41 AM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •