Unlimited power, discuss!

[hornet]

The thing I don't get is we are already in orbit round a source of (in human terms) unlimited power. Rather than fannying about with these contraptions or talking about extracting zero point energy, why don't all these people put their efforts into developing improved small scale solar devices and technologies? Most of them seem to be motivated not by the advancement of science, but by the alternative nature of it and the underlying conspiracy narrative. Whenever I heard a claim such as "well the Nazis had flying saucers powered by zero point energy!", my first thought isn't "well this must be exposed, we're clearly being lied to!", it's "really? So how come they lost?".

[anonymous-user]

hornet said:

Rather than fannying about with these contraptions or talking about extracting zero point energy, why don't all these people put their efforts into developing improved small scale solar devices and technologies?

The answer to that question is simple, how could anyone too stupid or ill educated to be unable to understand the basic laws of Thermodynamics and Energy be able to develop a high tech and complicated cutting edge device like a super efficient solar cell?
The answer, they couldn't, so they just post up endless stupid ideas on the net instead.

(If however we could somehow harness the endless and infinte amount of stupidity that is apparent in this sort of contrivance, then yes, we might just be onto something.......... ;-)

[PoleDriver]

Max_Torque said:

(If however we could somehow harness the endless and infinte amount of stupidity that is apparent in this sort of contrivance, then yes, we might just be onto something.......... ;-)

Like an infinite incompetence drive?

[boxerTen]

otolith said:

Inserting the ball at the bottom of the tank would mean displacing the ball's volume in water. The energy required to raise the water level in the tank would be the same as the energy provide by the ball pulling the rope to the surface. It's just another perpetual motion machine (which won't work in a world with friction) attached to a generator (a ploy which wouldn't work even in a world without friction).

Precisely the correct observation to demolish the proposal (my emphasis in bold).

[hairykrishna]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyan...

[deeen]

Super Slo Mo said:

You also have to consider that a system such as that posted by the OP contravenes the first law of Thermodynamics, which I know is very dull and techy, but unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

Yes we know it should't work, still waiting for somebody who can explain why it doesn't?

Forget the generator, assume the balls are 1m diameter, what is the force due to buoyancy? What / where is the opposite force? Usually I can see the flaw in the plan, not convinced I have seen it with this one, yet.

Edited by deeen on Thursday 14th June 14:22

[hairykrishna]

deeen said:

Yes we know it should't work, still waiting for somebody who can explain why it doesn't?

Several people already have. The force required to push the ball in through the trapdoor.

[wormburner]

deeen said:

Super Slo Mo said:

You also have to consider that a system such as that posted by the OP contravenes the first law of Thermodynamics, which I know is very dull and techy, but unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

Yes we know it should't work, still waiting for somebody who can explain why it doesn't?

Forget the generator, assume the balls are 1m diameter, what is the force due to buoyancy? What / where is the opposite force?

Otolith has stated precisely why it won't work.

To insert the ball at the bottom, a mass of water equivalent to the water displaced by the ball has to be lifted upward to makes space for the ball. That 'unhelpful' necessity completely negates any and all forces in the 'helpful' direction.

Then add in the friction and inertia inherent in all the moving parts.

You will have to add an amount of energy from an external source to make this system turn.

It is the opposite of perpetual motion, just like all other perpetual motion machines.

[otolith]

The flaw is the magic and undisclosed mechanism by which the volume of water occupying the space the ball is going into is pushed out of the way, raising the water level in the tank.

[deeen]

otolith said:

The flaw is the magic and undisclosed mechanism by which the volume of water occupying the space the ball is going into is pushed out of the way, raising the water level in the tank.

Sorry I do not know how to calculate the "lift" from one ball, assume 1m diameter

5 balls in the water providing lift, 1 ball displacing water coming in

I accept you need to put energy in to create the system in the first place,
can anyone do the figures to show why it won't work?

[wormburner]

deeen said:

otolith said:

The flaw is the magic and undisclosed mechanism by which the volume of water occupying the space the ball is going into is pushed out of the way, raising the water level in the tank.

Sorry I do not know how to calculate the "lift" from one ball, assume 1m diameter

5 balls in the water providing lift, 1 ball displacing water coming in

I accept you need to put energy in to create the system in the first place,
can anyone do the figures to show why it won't work?

When you put a ball into the bottom of the tank you have to lift the water up. Like putting a book to the bottom of a stack.

The ball floating to the top is the action of the water moving back to the bottom.

To get 5 balls in you have had to lift the water 5 times.

The two actions cancel out.

[wormburner]

The way to think about it isn't a ball floating upwards. Think about the water returning downwards.

For that water to be able to move downwards, you have to have already lifted every ml upwards.

Effort.

[Flibble]

deeen said:

Sorry I do not know how to calculate the "lift" from one ball, assume 1m diameter

5 balls in the water providing lift, 1 ball displacing water coming in

1 ball in, 1 ball out. Therefore each ball going in gets the lift of one ball going out.

Formulated another way, each ball has to lift 5 balls in beneath it, so it only provides 1/5 of its lift to any one ball. 5 balls lifting but only providing 1/5 of their lift means the new ball experiences 5 x 1/5 of a ball's worth of lift, or 1 ball.

So in a friction-free fluid you have no net energy produced; in a real fluid you're consuming energy. And we haven't even connected a generator yet.

[deeen]

Flibble said:

1 ball in, 1 ball out. Therefore each ball going in gets the lift of one ball going out.

Formulated another way, each ball has to lift 5 balls in beneath it, so it only provides 1/5 of its lift to any one ball. 5 balls lifting but only providing 1/5 of their lift means the new ball experiences 5 x 1/5 of a ball's worth of lift, or 1 ball.

I don't accept this because you only "lift" 1 ball in at a time, the other 4 balls underwater are all giving an upward force without displacing extra water. As soo is the ball is fully "in", it is providing lift.

To put my confusion another way, if you put 10 balls underwater you have 10 times the lift, but you are still only lifting 1 ball in at a time.

Anyway, I will research how to do the sums and work it through at the weekend.

I agree "So in a friction-free fluid you have no net energy produced; in a real fluid you're consuming energy. And we haven't even connected a generator yet." but that is energy, not forces...

[Flibble]

deeen said:

I agree "So in a friction-free fluid you have no net energy produced; in a real fluid you're consuming energy. And we haven't even connected a generator yet." but that is energy, not forces...

So you agree that there is no energy produced... Power is energy over time, so with no energy produced there is no power. QED.

[wormburner]

deeen said:

I don't accept this because you only "lift" 1 ball in at a time, the other 4 balls underwater are all giving an upward force without displacing extra water. As soo is the ball is fully "in", it is providing lift.

To put my confusion another way, if you put 10 balls underwater you have 10 times the lift, but you are still only lifting 1 ball in at a time.

Anyway, I will research how to do the sums and work it through at the weekend.

I agree "So in a friction-free fluid you have no net energy produced; in a real fluid you're consuming energy. And we haven't even connected a generator yet." but that is energy, not forces...

I'd don't mean to sound abrupt, but are you going to be able to do the sums? Do you genuinely think someone has discovered perpetual motion, and published it for peer review on pistonheads?

These 10 underwater balls you mention - where did the energy come from to force them underwater in the first place? Think about the balls as bubbles: what is easier - blowing air through a straw into atmosphere, or blowing air through a straw into the bottom of a glass? Pushing the bubbles to the bottom of the glass requires more energy. That energy is spent lifting the fluid out of the way. You still haven't addressed that problem.

The reasons it won't work have been plainly stated several times. Did you disagree with those reasons or not understand them?

[hairykrishna]

deeen said:

I don't accept this because you only "lift" 1 ball in at a time, the other 4 balls underwater are all giving an upward force without displacing extra water. As soo is the ball is fully "in", it is providing lift.

To put my confusion another way, if you put 10 balls underwater you have 10 times the lift, but you are still only lifting 1 ball in at a time.

Anyway, I will research how to do the sums and work it through at the weekend.

I agree "So in a friction-free fluid you have no net energy produced; in a real fluid you're consuming energy. And we haven't even connected a generator yet." but that is energy, not forces...

Read the page on buoyancy on 'The Museum of Unworkable Devices' I posted. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyan...

[skinley]

deeen said:

if you put 10 balls underwater you have 10 times the lift,

How do you put the balls underwater without using any energy?

[stefd]

Here's a similar concept:

http://www.gazetc.com/blog/2012/02/patent-issued-f...

While a ball that floats to the top of a tank seemingly creates free energy the fact is it took energy to get it in position at the bottom of the tank in the first place.

[wormburner]

blindswelledrat said:

Doesnt matter though. THe whole point of these sort of fantasies is whether it is scientifically possible, not how big the balls are in the set-up.
THere is a base assumption that perpetual motion = unlimited power = completely impossible according to all current scientific understanding.

It is true though. Energy cannot be created, it can only be changed from one state to another. However clever or sophisticated the machine, and however much or little energy it is given in the beginning, eventually, through losses to heat, sound, vibration, friction, viscosity, whattever, it will come to a stop.

The overall energy in the system will be the same but the 'useful' component, the kinetic energy, will have been changed into something else and not replenished.