A new energy source; maybe/maybe not?

[exchemist]

It doesn't have to be pumped down to the bottom, you could use scuba tanks. When the bubble comes to the surface a discharged scuba tank is exchanged for a charged one. Still I am aware that every bubble needs to be recharged with air.



I don't believe you are taking into account the "combined" lifting force which is greater than the energy needed to fill one bubble.
-

No, look. I calculated the lifting force per litre of compressed air and the distance over which that force is exerted. That is the work done per litre as it rises to the surface.

I set that against the work needed to compress the air, again per litre.

Doing this on a per litre basis makes the conclusion independent of the size and number of the buckets. So calculating the "combined force", in a particular design, is not relevant to the conclusion.

As for the remark about scuba tanks, that is just silly. Somebody still has to fill the scuba tanks, right? And that means air still has to be compressed, right? And that compression still takes energy, right? You can't magic away the uselessness of this device by just getting someone else to expend the energy needed for it to operate and then trying to ignore it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No need. See post 18.

That's because you can't make the damn contraption because it simply won't work in the real world.

 

[exchemist]

That's because you can't make the damn contraption because it simply won't work in the real world.

Eh? no.

The point of applying physical science to problems such as this is to save yourself the trouble of building the bloody thing. But of course if a person can't understand physical science, then you may be right, in that the only way they can convince themselves is to actually make it. But James is obviously not going to do that. He is going to hawk his useless idea round the internet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is. When each bucket reaches the bottom air is pumped into it which maintains the cycle..

That takes energy. There goes your energy gain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least you are willing to see something new.,.,./\.,.

now it's your turn to disprove it.

If you can -
​

No, when you claim over unity the burden of proof is upon you.

At the U.S. Patent Office a working model is not needed to get a patent. An accurate scale.illustration will do the trick. Unless one makes the error of claiming perpetual motion or over unity. Then you are going my to need a working model.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Eh? no.

The point of applying physical science to problems such as this is to save yourself the trouble of building the bloody thing. But of course if a person can't understand physical science, then you may be right, in that the only way they can convince themselves is to actually make it. But James is obviously not going to do that. He is going to hawk his useless idea round the internet.

Uh me...??...! ?..

I'd prefer to see the real thing. A bottom line type of person. "Put the money where your mouth is" and all that.


If there's no working prototype then, it's obvious to most it simply doesnt / wont work and diagrams are pretty much worthless other than its intent to look impressive if it doesn't translate over to practical applied science.

It's why I'm not such a big fan of theoretical model-based science* if it's all that it's ever going to be.

*Or pseudoscience levied at one's discretion of course.

 

[james dixon]

It's why I'm not such a big fan of theoretical model-based science* if it's all that it's ever going to be.

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]


-

 

[columbus]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]

No.
The energy needed to fill a container is much larger than the energy created by the container rising to the surface.
See post #18.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]


-

This visualization may help you to see your error. If you put your system in a column you should be able to understand that when you pump air in at the bottom you lift the entire column above you. Now even if it were in the ocean where the lifting would be spread over then entire ocean so that you would not notice it you are still lifting a the ocean above you when you pump air in. That takes at least as much energy as you are going to get out of the system.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]


-

There's another thing you can't deny.

The real thing won't work and nobody wants to build one because they know it won't work.

 

[exchemist]

Principles to run the machine

There are a few basic principles that you cannot deny.

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;
[yes] [no]

[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);
[yes] [no]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]


-

3 is wrong.

 

[james dixon]

3 is wrong.

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]

SeaPower description

This is a diagram that details a new energy generating power from the expanding rise of air underwater

In the diagram, there are balloons that air was injected in the lower balloon. As the balloon rises it expands and this expansion is caused by the reducing pressure applied upon it.

Picture this as if each balloon was a hot air balloon with an opening at the bottom. The first balloon at the bottom is injected with air; as the balloon rises it expands creating more lifting power.

This is the same principal that keeps a boat afloat.

I realize that there must be a reason this idea won’t fly but as of yet I have not found it.

If you really believe this contraption won’t work, please explain; otherwise you don’t have a clue.

 

[james dixon]

No, look. I calculated the lifting force per litre of compressed air and the distance over which that force is exerted. That is the work done per litre as it rises to the surface.

SeaPower description

This is a diagram that details a new energy generating power from the expanding rise of air underwater

In the diagram, there are balloons that air was injected in the lower balloon. As the balloon rises it expands and this expansion is caused by the reducing pressure applied upon it.

Picture this as if each balloon was a hot air balloon with an opening at the bottom. The first balloon at the bottom is injected with air; as the balloon rises it expands creating more lifting power.

This is the same principle that keeps a boat afloat.

I realize that there must be a reason this idea won’t fly but as of yet I have not found it.

If you really believe this contraption won’t work, please explain; otherwise you don’t have a clue.

The lifting force is equal to the volume of water displaced. This is the same principle that keeps a boat afloat. One cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs. A balloon that displaces 10 cubic feet of air has a lifting force of 640 lbs.
AS the balloon rises it expands increasing its lifting force.
-

 

[Ouroboros]

View attachment 32343

I am bringing this drawing back into the discussion just to ask one last question.

In the drawing there are twelve (12) buckets on the right side. Just for discussion each bucket has a lifting force of 100-foot pounds. 12 buckets times 100 = 1200-foot pounds of lifting force.

1200-foot pounds of lifting force can produce more energy at any one moment in time than 100-foot pounds;

Once all the buckets are full and this machine is running, the process continues to produce 1200-foot pounds of force if you continue to fill one (1) bucket at the bottom in sequence with the rest.

YES or NO?

Have you accounted for water pressure increasing with depth?

 

[exchemist]

SeaPower description

This is a diagram that details a new energy generating power from the expanding rise of air underwater

In the diagram, there are balloons that air was injected in the lower balloon. As the balloon rises it expands and this expansion is caused by the reducing pressure applied upon it.

Picture this as if each balloon was a hot air balloon with an opening at the bottom. The first balloon at the bottom is injected with air; as the balloon rises it expands creating more lifting power.

This is the same principle that keeps a boat afloat.

I realize that there must be a reason this idea won’t fly but as of yet I have not found it.

If you really believe this contraption won’t work, please explain; otherwise you don’t have a clue.

The lifting force is equal to the volume of water displaced. This is the same principle that keeps a boat afloat. One cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs. A balloon that displaces 10 cubic feet of are has a lifting force of 640 lbs.
AS the balloon rises it expands increasing its lifting force.
-

Ah I see. You have changed your design to adopt the suggestion I made to you in post 11.

In that case, if you re-read post 11, you will see that yes indeed you will get back exactly the energy you put in, if the machine is free from all losses (e.g. heat lost in compression and friction), which it obviously won't be.

So, er, it still won't work. As everyone has been pointing out since the start of the thread.

What is the point in continuing this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;
[yes] [no]

SeaPower description

This is a diagram that details a new energy generating power from the expanding rise of air underwater

In the diagram, there are balloons that air was injected in the lower balloon. As the balloon rises it expands and this expansion is caused by the reducing pressure applied upon it.

Picture this as if each balloon was a hot air balloon with an opening at the bottom. The first balloon at the bottom is injected with air; as the balloon rises it expands creating more lifting power.

This is the same principal that keeps a boat afloat.

I realize that there must be a reason this idea won’t fly but as of yet I have not found it.

If you really believe this contraption won’t work, please explain; otherwise you don’t have a clue.

It takes massive energy to pump the air into the "balloons". If you ignore the explanations of how much energy it will take you will never understand your errors.

 

[james dixon]

What is the point in continuing this?

to find the reason this contraption won't work.
I haven't found it yet.
Have you-?
-

 

[james dixon]

It takes massive energy to pump the air into the "balloons". If you ignore the explanations of how much energy it will take you will never understand your errors.

I sorta understand what you are saying

Yes, it takes massive amounts of energy to keep it running.

Based on the appropriate definition of “massive”.

Call “massive” the lifting force of a sealed 10 cubic foot container of air

At two atmospheres, 33 feet below the surface, the pressure will compress the balloon by half (50%)

[yes] [no]

 

[james dixon]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sorta understand what you are saying

Yes, it takes massive amounts of energy to keep it running.

Based on the appropriate definition of “massive”.

Call “massive” the lifting force of a sealed 10 cubic foot container of air

At two atmospheres, 33 feet below the surface, the pressure will compress the balloon by half (50%)

[yes] [no]

In this case I would define "massive" as more energy than you will get out of it.