Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968

Thread: Free if not Cheap Energy Proposal

  1. #1 Free if not Cheap Energy Proposal 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2
    Might this return more energy than it costs to operate?

    Imagine constructing two water-tight, cylindrical vats, each a minimum of 200 feet in height, and a minimum radius of 40ft (these dimensions are just for the sake of argument). One vat is positioned vertically 100ft below ocean surface, and the other just beneath.


    The vat on top is filled with intuitively positioned hydro-electric turbines to receive water that will be released through the ceiling of the vat.

    The cylindrical vat beneath the first has a semi-spherical top, with a welded opening about 1ft in diameter and is connected to the one above it.


    Let water fall through the top of the first vat until the 2nd vat fills up. Then shut off the connection of the first vat to the second vat. Detach the two vats. Then unlatch the spherical top and bottom of the 2nd vat and raise it up to the surface of the ocean so that it empties. Re-attach the top and bottom and submerge it again beneath the first vat, or have many similarly constructed filler vats rotating the cycle to keep water flowing through the first vat.

    What do you think? Is there a better way to remove the water that has collected at the bottom of the first container?

    concept1.jpg

    Or...

    concept2.jpg


    Last edited by psinick; December 6th, 2012 at 11:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Might this return more energy than it costs to operate?
    Well, we an answer this one straight away, without even looking at your idea. The answer is the same for any such proposal:
    No.

    A bit more detail as to why: the energy required to lift the lower tank above the first is greater than the energy you will get out of that water falling through the turbine.

    Next!


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    It's entirely possible to get more $$value from some energy systems than the cost of the inputs.

    It is not possible to get more energy out than is put into it.
    "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  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    the energy required to lift the lower tank above the first is greater than the energy you will get out of that water falling through the turbine.

    What if we changed things around a bit,

    concept3.jpg

    so that the force required to submerge an empty filler tank would be greater than the force required to lift an opened returning filler tank back to the surface?

    You would assume the weight of water in a full tank would be greater than the weight of the tank itself.

    The only force required would be to drive a motor to run the tanks attached to the surrounding circular rail.

    Are you absolutely sure it would not be worth modeling this to see if more energy could come out of the falling water than energy required to run a rail of filler tanks in the above pictured concept model?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Cue Mr. T. !



    You can never get more energy out of a system than what you put in....it's not just a good idea...it's the law.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by psinick View Post
    Are you absolutely sure it would not be worth modeling this to see if more energy could come out of the falling water than energy required to run a rail of filler tanks in the above pictured concept model?
    Absolutely sure. There is a grand history of people trying to do this in all sorts of complicated ways. But ultimately: TANSTAAFL and Laws of thermodynamics.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by psinick View Post
    Are you absolutely sure it would not be worth modeling this to see if more energy could come out of the falling water than energy required to run a rail of filler tanks in the above pictured concept model?
    The law of energy conservation is not merely a generalization based on a history of failed attempts. There is a deep connection between the laws of physics at a microscopic scale, and energy conservation. If you google "Noether's first theorem," you'll be led to a formal explanation. The informal explanation is that certain symmetries in the laws of physics imply energy conservation. Since these symmetries are tested daily in countless experiments, energy conservation holds, and it is therefore a complete waste of time trying to devise schemes to violate it. That is one reason that the US Patent Office won't even bother to read a patent application that claims a violation. They understand that it's a waste of time. As Strange said, TANSTAAFL. I wish it were otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by psinick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    the energy required to lift the lower tank above the first is greater than the energy you will get out of that water falling through the turbine.

    What if we changed things around a bit,

    concept3.jpg

    so that the force required to submerge an empty filler tank would be greater than the force required to lift an opened returning filler tank back to the surface?

    You would assume the weight of water in a full tank would be greater than the weight of the tank itself.
    Then the energy needed to submerge the tank would exceed the energy you got from filling the lower tank from the upper.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The informal explanation is that certain symmetries in the laws of physics imply energy conservation. Since these symmetries are tested daily in countless experiments, energy conservation holds, and it is therefore a complete waste of time trying to devise schemes to violate it. That is one reason that the US Patent Office won't even bother to read a patent application that claims a violation. They understand that it's a waste of time. As Strange said, TANSTAAFL. I wish it were otherwise.
    Well, they will read it. But it will get rejected real fast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    Ughh, it still requires energy to separate the tanks...

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by psinick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    the energy required to lift the lower tank above the first is greater than the energy you will get out of that water falling through the turbine.

    What if we changed things around a bit,

    concept3.jpg

    so that the force required to submerge an empty filler tank would be greater than the force required to lift an opened returning filler tank back to the surface?

    You would assume the weight of water in a full tank would be greater than the weight of the tank itself.

    The only force required would be to drive a motor to run the tanks attached to the surrounding circular rail.

    Are you absolutely sure it would not be worth modeling this to see if more energy could come out of the falling water than energy required to run a rail of filler tanks in the above pictured concept model?
    A cylinder of water 100 ft tall will produce 58.080 psi so the bottom would likely need to drop out of the tank to turn the turbines to produce high volumes of power.... Now if you took niagra falls and caught the water in tanks as it fell then run that through a turbine system then you would have a great volume of water to operate many turbines to generate power for a few major cities.... If you asked me i'd say we could use more Hoover Dams across the country/world so we burn less coal.... Like strange said this is a very inefficient for the design which you had proposesed....

    Cost and materials it would be far more plausable to buy up some land and put in some wind turbines and selling the power to a utility company....
    Last edited by warthog213; January 13th, 2013 at 09:32 PM.
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    You're ignoring the ramifications of hydro power. While it may be cleaner than burning coal, it can have severe environmental impacts. Also, I seriously doubt anyone would support turning one of the world's most popular tourist locations, beautiful natural formations, and a major source of income for the nearby population into a hydro ower plant.
    "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  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Free energy.
    By Michel in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2013, 04:21 PM
  2. Free Energy
    By shekib82 in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 8th, 2011, 05:00 AM
  3. Anyone into free energy?
    By stevensrd1 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  4. Free energy!
    By InsaneDesign in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 25th, 2009, 11:36 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 15th, 2008, 11:49 AM
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
  •