# Thread: Free if not Cheap Energy Proposal

1. 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

2.

3. 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!

4. 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.

5. Originally Posted by Strange
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?

6. 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.

7. Originally Posted by psinick
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.

8. Originally Posted by psinick
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.

9. Originally Posted by psinick
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

10. Originally Posted by tk421
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.

11. Ughh, it still requires energy to separate the tanks...

12. Originally Posted by psinick
Originally Posted by Strange
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....

13. 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.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement