Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: Your ideas on energy-efficient communication between vessels

  1. #1 Your ideas on energy-efficient communication between vessels 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    In the sketch below i propose a challenge to find solutions, brainstorm and evaluate upon.

    One purpose is to see how much better we can do than 500 Liters from A to B.
    Another purpose later on, is to check if the best solution could also be verifiably energy-efficient,in for instance a concept to feed a turbine.

    (No intention on my part here to blabla on perpetuum mobile stuff, or to defy science,
    just a friendly piece of infotainment that may or may not become relevant as we elaborate it.)

    Feel free also to correct any mistakes or incompleteness in the setup.

    List of added info and remarks due to questions asked below :
    -The containers must stay in place
    -The legs must stay in place




    Last edited by Noa Drake; September 12th, 2013 at 06:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Waving.


    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Siphons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Join container A and B with a pipe fitted to the sides (at the bottom).
    Fit the top 55% of container B with an absorbant material.
    That should transfer more than 50% of the liquid to container B.

    Or does that count as "making compartments in container B"?
    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  
     

  6. #5  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Remove the legs from container B and connect a tube from the bottom of container A to container B.

    Or does removing the legs count as "using energy"?
    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  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Remove the legs from container B and connect a tube from the bottom of container A to container B.

    Or does removing the legs count as "using energy"?
    Removing the legs is not allowed, the containers must stay in place.


    The legs are merely intended to let the area under the containers be used.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Join container A and B with a pipe fitted to the sides (at the bottom).
    Fit the top 55% of container B with an absorbant material.
    That should transfer more than 50% of the liquid to container B.

    Or does that count as "making compartments in container B"?
    Nothing is to be inserted on the inside of container B , other than the water of A using no extra energy.


    But absorbtion is in interesting idea to keep in mind i think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I,ll post my suggested solution om monday, under the form of a small sketch with info, to be assessed.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; September 12th, 2013 at 06:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Ok, how about this then:

    Connect a tube between container A and Container B.
    Get a plastic rectangular cylinder which is 100m tall and fits tightly into Container A - but has a very narrow hole throught its centre.
    Put the rectangular cylinder into container A.
    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  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    segment A as much as possible, with a seperate valve fed from the bottom of each segment feeding a manifold and then to a single pipe into bottom of B with a check valve stopping flowback from B.

    Drain each segment of A one at a time, then shut off the valve for that drained segment
    when done
    there will be more fluid in b than in a
    Last edited by sculptor; September 13th, 2013 at 10:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Join container A to Container B with a tube.
    As the water drains out of Container A, add pebbles to Container A.
    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  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    segment A as much as possible, with a seperate valve fed from the bottom of each segment feeding a manifold and then to a single pipe into bottom of B with a check valvestopping flowback from B.

    Drain each segment of A one at a time, then shut off the valve for that drained segment
    when done
    there will be more fluid in b than in a
    Yes Sculptor, that is my line of thought also. You can get upto 80-90% of the water to container B with a construction along a similar idea,
    yet not bringing the water to the bottom of B.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    segment A as much as possible, with a seperate valve fed from the bottom of each segment feeding a manifold and then to a single pipe into bottom of B with a check valvestopping flowback from B.

    Drain each segment of A one at a time, then shut off the valve for that drained segment
    when done
    there will be more fluid in b than in a
    Yes Sculptor, that is my line of thought also. You can get upto 80-90% of the water to container B with a construction along a similar idea,
    yet not bringing the water to the bottom of B.
    Really?
    As soon as you have more water in B than the compartment in A why would it flow from A to B?
    The pressure of water in B would prevent any flow from A to B, no?
    Especially as B, not being compartmented, would have a larger surface area = more air pressure.
    I would have thought (after giving it not much thought) that the maximum you could transfer just using this way be around 50% (and that'd probably be without compartments).
    As soon as you get matching quantities there's nothing to cause flow either way.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Really?
    As soon as you have more water in B than the compartment in A why would it flow from A to B?
    The pressure of water in B would prevent any flow from A to B, no?
    Especially as B, not being compartmented, would have a larger surface area = more air pressure.
    I would have thought (after giving it not much thought) that the maximum you could transfer just using this way be around 50% (and that'd probably be without compartments).
    As soon as you get matching quantities there's nothing to cause flow either way.
    But if there were multiple vertically stacked compartments (with tubes and valves, etc.) and you released (and then sealed) each valve in turn (going from bottom to top) then you shouldn't you end up with more water in B than A?

    To keep the maths simple (for my sake, not yours) let's just imagine 2 vertically stacked compartments - let's call them C1 and C2 - and between them they contain all the water in Container A.

    Opening the valve in C1 would cause 50% of the water in C1 to transfer to Container B. 50% of 500 litres = 250 litres.
    Now close the C1 valve.
    Opening the valve in C2 would cause 75% of the water in C2 to transfer to Container B. 75% of 500 litres = 375 litres.
    In total, Container B will have 625 litres.

    Or have I missed something important?
    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  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Once the compartment setup has run it's course:

    Boil the rest of the water in the top container of A with a large conical reflector and sunlight by connecting a small diameter tube to the bottom of the top and let it run through a radiator on it's way to container B. You can also do this from the start and you'll purify all the water in the process as well.
    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  
     

  17. #16  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Boil the rest of the water in the top container of A with a large conical reflector and sunlight by connecting a small diameter tube to the bottom of the top and let it run through a radiator on it's way to container B.
    I expect that breaks the "No energy except gravity" rule.
    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  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Boil the rest of the water in the top container of A with a large conical reflector and sunlight by connecting a small diameter tube to the bottom of the top and let it run through a radiator on it's way to container B.
    I expect that breaks the "No energy except gravity" rule.
    I expect it does.
    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  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    segment A as much as possible, with a seperate valve fed from the bottom of each segment feeding a manifold and then to a single pipe into bottom of B with a check valvestopping flowback from B.

    Drain each segment of A one at a time, then shut off the valve for that drained segment
    when done
    there will be more fluid in b than in a
    You still can't transfer more than half the water. The first of your compartments will empty almost completely because the amount of water it contains will only cause a small rise in B. The next one will drain a little less. ... The last one will drain half way, but that will be a small amount of water because the segments are small.

    Sum up the total amount of water and it will be <= 50%.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Or have I missed something important?
    I was about to point out the obvious reason that doesn't work. But then I realised it does!

    I *think* this might (slowly) approach 100% with an infinite number of compartments. (But, of course, it is not reversible.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    strange
    Did i forget to mention that A is segmented by vertical walls
    when you open the last valve on the last segment of container A, the water in that compartment will still be at original height, and therefre have more pressure than the water height of container b

    Think height of water column, and not volume.
    And, ignore air pressure.

    as you progress, each subsequent virtical segment of container A will also have a higher level than the preceeding segment(s).
    RP got a good rough start on the math.

    The difference in final volume of water in B vs A is directly related to the number of verticle segments in conatiner A
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Using my 2 compartment example:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The first of your compartments will empty almost completely because the amount of water it contains will only cause a small rise in B.
    Won't the first compartment empty half of it's water?
    i.e. 50% of 50% of 1000 litres?
    250 litres?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The next one will drain a little less. ...
    The next compartment (2) is higher than both compartment 1 and the water level of Container B.
    It would require 250 litres to bring the level of Container B up to meet the bottom of Compartment 2.

    The remaining water in Compartment 2 would then distribute evenly between A and B.
    (500 - 250) / 2 = 125 litres would transfer to Container B.

    Remember, Compartment 1 has been sealed - water can't run back into it when you empty Compartment 2.
    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  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Using my 2 compartment example:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The first of your compartments will empty almost completely because the amount of water it contains will only cause a small rise in B.
    Won't the first compartment empty half of it's water?
    In your vertically stacked version, yes. The next will be 1/2 + 1/4.

    If you have 4 compartments, then the amounts will be 1/2 + 3/4 + 7/8 + 15/16 (I think). So the total transferred is (1/2 + 3/4 + 7/8 + 15/16)*250 = 766 litres.
    RedPanda likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Here's my suggested solution to bring 80-90 percent of the water to B.

    -Make in advance 10 horizontal 'bassins' in A, using horizontal compartiments
    -Connect a tube from each bassin of A to B horizontally, except no tube at the lowest bassin.
    (The tubes at the A bassins would have to be connected at the right down flank of each A bassin.)
    -Start valving of each A bassin towards B, starting with the second bassin (! The lowest bassin is left untouched)
    So the natural pressure in bassin A will make the water flow to the lowest level available, being container B, at a level just below the level of bassin A.
    -Continu until you have transferred the water of 9 A bassins into B.

    Note : At each stage you valve off the right tube connection at compartiment B after transferring the water.
    Nota also that an air ventile would be necessary at the topfank of each A bassin, otherwise it would vacume itself while transferring the water.

    Does this make sense ?

    (Maybe you could even increase the result if you made even more bassins, but this would lead to a point of decreasing positive effect)


    Images : START POSITION > TRANSFERRING > END POSITION





    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Did i forget to mention that A is segmented by vertical walls
    No.

    when you open the last valve on the last segment of container A, the water in that compartment will still be at original height, and therefre have more pressure than the water height of container b
    But by this time, the water in B will be at (almost) 50%. So the water in this compartment of A is twice the height of B. So half the water will flow out of the compartment. But, because the compartments are small, this is a small amount of water.

    Think height of water column, and not volume.
    I am.

    Unless I have misunderstood your scheme. I am assuming it is something like:
    ||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||
    --------------------

    Whereas, Red's is more like:
    |----------------------|
    |----------------------|
    |----------------------|
    |----------------------|
    |----------------------|
    ------------------------
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Here's my suggested solution to bring 80-90 percent of the water to B.
    Very good. That transfers slightly less(*) than RedPanda's method but is simpler to understand (always a good thing in my book!)

    (*) With 8 divisions, his will transfer 87.55% while this one will only do 87.5%
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    ... but is simpler to understand (always a good thing in my book!)
    Pish!
    I claim victory!! :P
    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  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Interesting approach RedPanda and Sculptor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    RP wins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Boil the rest of the water in the top container of A with a large conical reflector and sunlight by connecting a small diameter tube to the bottom of the top and let it run through a radiator on it's way to container B.
    I expect that breaks the "No energy except gravity" rule.
    Gravity is responsible for compressing the hydrogen in the centre of the sun to cause fusion that leads to the emission of the sunlight. So, you should be OK.
    KALSTER and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Ok, let's assume theoretically that we can transfer, by anyone's method, 95% of the water from A to B.

    Imagine placing a lever between the vessels, vessel B being a harmonica structure or compressable bag of a sort.

    On top of the lever above vessel B we put a weight of ? KG.


    >Vessel B compresses and pumps up the water.

    >Vessel A goes up

    >> Can we refill vessel A to a certain level, so it will go back down and we can retransfer the water from A to B, and repeat the sequence ?
    Baring in mind that we would have to 'help' it with extra water or extra torque.

    The question would be : Just how much help would be needed to have an interesting energy-efficiency going on.

    Many such levers placed in sequence along side an axel could provide torque, for any purpose.


    >> My question is to see if we can create some sort of what i would call a Bicycle-effect :

    Compare the performance and labour needed for a running man on foot, to a man using a bycicle, to obtain a certain steady velocity : it is a very big difference.
    The man 'helps' the incomplete perpetuum mobile (the bycicle) to keep it going if you will (Damn, i wasn't going to use that word..,),)

    In parallel just how much help would the 'lever-water-motor' need in comparison to it's usefull output ?

    A quick very simple sketch (incomplete)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Of course the simplest answer is to have a cube of heavy material that fits almost exactly into container A.
    And merely let gravity pull it to the bottom: it will displace all of the water (apart from a neglible film on all surfaces) as it sinks.
    sculptor and Noa Drake like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The man 'helps' the incomplete perpetuum mobile (the bycicle) to keep it going if you will (Damn, i wasn't going to use that word..,),)

    In parallel just how much help would the 'lever-water-motor' need in comparison to it's usefull output ?
    Give it up. You can't beat the conservation of energy principle. Many clever inventors have tried and failed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The question would be : Just how much help would be needed to have an interesting energy-efficiency going on.
    The tricks used for moving more water from A to B are, by definition, non-reversible. So it makes no difference to the amount of energy that can be extracted from the system.

    Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's not just a good idea; it's the law.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    No intent to defy the laws, i'm looking to use a small continuous extra force applied to keep it going, as illustrated with the bicycle.


    A remark on reversing the transfer.

    If you install compartments in conrtainer B and a set of 'B to A' tubes and valves,
    then you can transfer 95% of 95% of the water back to A.

    And if you first put the residual 5% water from A into B, then it's a 100% back transfer.



    But what you imply is that the input needed for putting the 50 liters up into B, is equal to the gain from transferring 950 liters from A to B.
    Minus even som losses due to friction etc.

    Yes ?
    Last edited by Noa Drake; September 14th, 2013 at 03:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    And if you first put the residual 5% water from A into B, then it's a 100% back transfer.
    Oh boy...
    babe likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    RP wins
    no he doesn't!

    Move one of my legs into container "B"

    perfect transfer (running for the hills)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Siphons?
    My thought also, just like kids transferring gas from one vehicle to another.
    Is atmospheric pressure related to gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    And if you first put the residual 5% water from A into B, then it's a 100% back transfer.
    Oh boy...
    Meaning 100% of 95% there, not transferring back 100% of the water from B to A of course
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    And if you first put the residual 5% water from A into B, then it's a 100% back transfer.
    Oh boy...
    Meaning 100% of 95% there, not transferring back 100% of the water from B to A of course
    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  
     

  41. #40  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Why would a siphon not be able to transfer all the water?

    You take the water from a hole in the bottom of A and add it to the top of B, by means of vacuum tubing. The energy is supplied by downward air pressure (due to gravity) on the surface of the water in A.

    Even if, after transfer, any water is left in the tubing, one can then lift the tubing to drain the remainder of the water into B. 100% transfer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why would a siphon not be able to transfer all the water?
    Because, in a syphon, the outlet has to be below the level of the water in A.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why would a siphon not be able to transfer all the water?
    Because, in a syphon, the outlet has to be below the level of the water in A.
    I can see this in a purely gravitational transfer, but does that hold with a vacuum system as well?

    From what I remember of transferring gasoline from one vehicle into another, all we did was suck on the hose until the hose was full with gasoline, then capping it with the thumb to keep the hose filled and sticking it into the gastank of the other vehicle. This never failed even if the other tank (B) was higher than the original.

    It was my impression that by draining the hose a vacuum was created in the hose strong enough to "suck up" (due to atmospheric pressure), an equal amount from tank A. As soon as the vacuum in the hose was broken the transfer would stop, thus my assumption of a vacuum effect.

    Similar to the sucking a hardboiled egg into a bottle from which air was removed by burning a little piece of paper. It makes no difference if you hold the bottle upside down, the egg always gets pushed into the bottle.

    I visualized a similar arrangement might work in this problem as long as a vacuum can be maintained inside the tube.

    Perhaps I am missing an important point here and frankly I never did pay attention to the relative depths of the hose ends although I seem to recall that we always had to keep the outlet above the gas level in tank B or the transfer process would slow down or stop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Perhaps I am missing an important point here .
    Yep. The outlet must be lower than the fluid level.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Perhaps I am missing an important point here .
    Yep. The outlet must be lower than the fluid level.

    ok, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Perhaps I am missing an important point here .
    Yep. The outlet must be lower than the fluid level.
    Pour me some coffee....I just got a chuckle out of this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I believe I have found a way to transfer 100% from container A to container B. We need to make a slight modification to the containers and instead of two square containers, we use one cylinder of equal volume as the original containers.
    At the bottom of each we attach a valved tube as well as an additional valve at the bottom of container B.
    If we just open the valves 50% of the water will flow from A to B (achieve equal levels). But now we lower a sealing piston (of sufficient weight) into cylinder A which will force all the water from A to B, except for the remaining water in the tube between the cylinders. We close the valve at the bottom of B and both valves at the tube ends. Then we detach the tube from both cylinders and tilt the tube downward into cylinder B, open the valves and the remaining water will flow into B. 100 % transfer, using the criteria of the problem except for the shape of one container (but of equal volume).

    Theoretically, all we need do is force the water out of the cylinder A with the gravitational force of a heavy piston, at which time we can transfer the water to any container, at any reasonable height when sufficient gravitational pressure is applied to the surface of the water in A.

    A very simple design, but 100% effective. IMO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Write4U,
    You violated the rule of no external energy source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Write4U,
    You violated the rule of no external energy source.
    I understand your point, but how does my design violate the instruction that gravity can be the only source of energy? The instructions allow for modification. We can assemble tubes, valves, compartments to the set-up. And (as I stated) the piston is not powered by anything other than it's gravitational weight.
    But I guess the intent was to use the water's gravity only and another gravitational source is not allowed.
    But it would work, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Write4U,
    You violated the rule of no external energy source.
    I understand your point, but how does my design violate the instruction that gravity can be the only source of energy? The instructions allow for modification. We can assemble tubes, valves, compartments to the set-up. And (as I stated) the piston is not powered by anything other than it's gravitational weight.
    But I guess the intent was to use the water's gravity only and another gravitational source is not allowed.
    But it would work, no?
    If you want to insert a piston of sufficient weight, then you must first lift this weight above tank level, this requires external energy input.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Just reading along.....can't contribute.....just learning a little
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Write4U,
    You violated the rule of no external energy source.
    I understand your point, but how does my design violate the instruction that gravity can be the only source of energy? The instructions allow for modification. We can assemble tubes, valves, compartments to the set-up. And (as I stated) the piston is not powered by anything other than it's gravitational weight.
    But I guess the intent was to use the water's gravity only and another gravitational source is not allowed.
    But it would work, no?
    If you want to insert a piston of sufficient weight, then you must first lift this weight above tank level, this requires external energy input.
    Ok, I had not considered that additional aspect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. relaxed blood vessels
    By hjs101 in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 17th, 2013, 09:33 PM
  2. Ideas For An Industrial Site With Access To Green Energy
    By oilferry in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 14th, 2011, 11:10 AM
  3. New efficient energy converter?
    By Stanley514 in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 05:28 PM
  4. Engineered Blood Vessels Function like Native Tissue
    By scpg02 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 7th, 2007, 09:05 AM
  5. New Efficient AC
    By erich in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 4th, 2005, 09:44 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
  •