Free Energy ok is free energy possible? see what you think

[Striker9 0]

ok, i have had this idea for some time now but seems a little bit 'simple' to be viable, on the other hand the best ideas are usually the simplest. Well see what you think about the following idea i had ,its in a very basic form just to try and make it understandable...
To start off you will need a small electric motor 2 or more dynamos bulbs and battery.

ok i will assume this is a 12v system, i.e. battery bulbs dynamos ect

if you conect the battery to the motor it spins right?

so...

if you connect the motor to a dynamo via a small pully on the motor and a large one on the dynamo then you can use the dynamo output to power a bulb right?

so...if you add a pully and dynamo to the motor and connect the dynamo to the battery it will charge wont it? Thus giving you free energy via the bulb!

The reason I think this will work is because the motor should spin no slower having 2 pullys so each dynamo will produce the same amount of power, i accept that 1 dynamo wont charge the battery but it was to get the point across, you could add another 3 or 4 pullys and dynamos in theory thus creating enough combined energy to power the bulb for free

can anyone give there opinion? am i wrong?

No, I'm sorry but I don't think you are right. The incoming energy is not at all the same as the outgoing energy. When the motor heats up, then it's using part of the energy and thus won't produce the same exact amount of energy and therefore we won't be having "free" energy; we'll be wasting energy in a way or another. And keep in mind that energy can never be created, nor destroyed... and this theory has been proven perfectly and as a consequence this should refute your idea because what you're suggesting is somehow generating free energy from nothing. But try it anyway and test for yourself, and good luck on doing that

[iGuest 3]

Can Air Be Forced Downstream In a Pipe Of WaterFree Energy

Heres my big idea. To Use Syphoning to trickle feed a tank uphill. I know a syphon will work so long as the outlet is lower than the inlet. The first time I tried this I thought I could simply puncture the hose at a height and this would trickle the water out - wrong - the sucktion is too great and instead it sucks IN air to collapse the syphon, ending the syphoning process. Now I came up with the idea of having a series of valves at the highest point, which could be opened and closed a) using wind  using a solar panel or c) the movement of the water within the pipe itself to turn a wheel which in turn snapped open and shut periodically based on a coiled spring. Now the idea is to have an isolation chamber here which normally would fill up and be occupied by water at the start of the syphon process. Now using the valves and any of the three triggers above, this chamber couuld be isolated from the syphon and drained into the holding tank which we require to fill. The problem I have is that once drained - to bring it back online to the syphon process, the air must be released into the syphon - very slowly (so as not to collapse the syphon) and refill it with water. I say that with the right valves and the added energy externally applied (solar/wind/waterflow) the collection chamber can be filled/drained/re-filled at a lower energy cost than pumping the entire stream up hill via electric/fuel powered pumps. My question is - is there a scientific way to make air travel down the syphon pipe and out the bottom - ie via looping the pipe or arranging it in such a way to make catchment areas that are flushed when the collection chamber is off-line...Understand my question - will air bubbles travel down hill carried by the force of the water ? or would I benefit from having a larger diameter pipe up-to the collection chamber and a smaller outlet pipe or vice versa ? my question is this - are there any valve systems that would allow water and air to flow unidirectionally so that the air in the sustem could be discharged somehow - without destroying the syphon process ?

ps: I am aware of ram pumps and so on. I just wanted to invent another way and this is my idea. The application of this is for rural places where an abundance of water exists below the desired storage tank and to get that water up-hill via syphoning using a series of valves and the addition of wind/solar to assist in drip feeding a tank at the top of the loop... Any suggestions are most welcome.

-question by suran jan roy

 

[rogerthecamel 1]

Its an interesting idea you have Suran, and while I don't understand your full explanation here are my thoughts on the matter.So a syphon works because:a) the weight of the liquid on the ascending end of the pipe is lower than the weight of all of the liquid on the descending end of the pipe:P the pipe is air tight so the liquid cannot escape and the pipe cannot fill up with airSo to extract liquid at the top of the syphon would require two things:a) only extract enough such that the weight of the liquid in the descending pipe is still more than that of the ascending pipeB) maintain the air tight nature of the system while managing to extract liquidThe first requirement is easy, say you have 100kgs of water in the pipe up and 200kgs of water in the pipe down, then you could extract almost 100kgs of water at the top before the syphon would stop at a standstill. The real problem is working out the mechanism to extract the water. I'm sure it has been done but its hard to say exactly how, without trying it out practically.

[mm22 0]

As I understand the main idea in this design is to have the output tank of the syphon higher than the input tank, yet the output tank will fill because a lower pressure is maintained in the upper tank, thanks to a system of valves.

 

If that is the case I believe it would be hard to empty the upper tank "into the holding tank which we require to fill" (as suran puts it) without letting the outside pressure (i.e. that of the holding tank) get into the output tank whom we intended to keep at a lower pressure so that the syphoning process could continue.

 

Did I get the point?

 

ps iGuest where was this idea originally posted?

[rogerthecamel 1]

I think in this system there would be 3 tanks. An input tank, an output tank and a ... middle tank.In the normal syphon system the input tank is higher up than the output tank, but the pipe between the input and output tanks raises up higher than both tanks.I guess the question is how can we take some water out at the top of the system into the middle tank without breaking the syphon.

[mm22 0]

I think in this system there would be 3 tanks. An input tank, an output tank and a ... middle tank.
In the normal syphon system the input tank is higher up than the output tank, but the pipe between the input and output tanks raises up higher than both tanks.
I guess the question is how can we take some water out at the top of the system into the middle tank without breaking the syphon.

OK, so in its simplest form this system would transfer water from a higher tank (h2) to a lower one (h1). The pipe (or syphon) connecting the two tanks though raises up higher than both tanks (h3) during the trip. Now we wonder if it is possible to extract water from the highest point of the pipe (h3) without causing the flow in the pipe to stop.

It is indeed an interesting question... now I fully understand the original idea. At first I would say that yes it is possible because for doing that we would only use part of the energy generated by the flow of water from h2 to h1 (which is what you explained in your previous post, i.e. 100kg of water ascending vs. 200kg descending). But, as stated by the original poster, if water goes out at the top of the pipe (h3) air must be allowed in in order to fill the space previously occupied by water. This air must be allowed down the pipe into the lower tank (h1).

I could think of the same "solution" the original poster came up with, i.e. having a smaller section pipe in the descending part of the pipe so that water could continue its travel after some water has been spilled out. I don't know if theory and modeling alone could answer this question. I could imagine the laws of fluid dynamics are likely to be involved, when we think of how the water flow behaves when it is "punctured". In this case there might be different behaviors with different speeds and only experiments could say if this idea is viable or not.

[rogerthecamel 1]

Yes, I think you are right. I mean I am sure that someone more experienced in this area might be able to look at it and give reasons why this wouldn't be possible, or know that it is, but given my experience I cannot answer that without trying it out.Although thinking about it now, I am actually leaning towards the possibility that it isn't possible. The pulling of water from the first tank to the top is based on the pull of the water in the pipe between the top and the last tank. To extract water from the top position without allowing air to enter into the system requires more water to be pulled from the first tank, and therefore would cost as much energy as pumping it from the tank in the first place. A smaller pipe on the way down wouldn't help either, as it would only pull enough water to keep itself full. The only possibility would be to replace the water taken with air, which would remain in the pipe and not necessarily break the syphon, but that would only work so far, once too much water had been replaced with air the syphon would ultimately end....On the plus side, with a water wheel this would be entirely possible. Water fills up buckets dangling from the wheel mid way, and then dumps them at a lower level on the other side. With this model you could work out how much of the water from each bucket you could take without stopping the cycle.

[mm22 0]

On the plus side, with a water wheel this would be entirely possible. Water fills up buckets dangling from the wheel mid way, and then dumps them at a lower level on the other side. With this model you could work out how much of the water from each bucket you could take without stopping the cycle.

Actually yes this would be a much better way to do the same thing, provided you can build a big enough wheel, and in fact I think this method has already being used. The whole idea here is being able to use some of the energy which is "freely" available by having an altitude difference between two tanks. Of course it is not "free" energy, but it is certainly a better way than transforming that mechanical energy (of the water) into some other form of energy, for example electricity. That would involve losses and create issues as to how to store it.

Although thinking about it now, I am actually leaning towards the possibility that it isn't possible. The pulling of water from the first tank to the top is based on the pull of the water in the pipe between the top and the last tank. To extract water from the top position without allowing air to enter into the system requires more water to be pulled from the first tank, and therefore would cost as much energy as pumping it from the tank in the first place. A smaller pipe on the way down wouldn't help either, as it would only pull enough water to keep itself full.

I think here you are forgetting that the pipe on the way down can be (much) longer than the one on the up side, therefore the total volume (i.e. weight) of the water it can carry can be bigger than the volume in the up side of the pipe even if some water is pulled out at the top.

But yes I cannot say for sure whether it will work or not, I so want to try it out now! Please if someone tries it first let us know

[novic_1223 0]

your theory is kinda off. In "theory" it would give you back some energy but it wouldnt be free energy becasue no machine is 100 percent efficient; therefore some energy would be lost. No energy is free; it always takes something to create it and it is never 100 percent efficient. % efficiency=load/effortthis is what i was thought but i am not entirely sure about it becasue what about solar energy?what is the load and effort of that?But the statement of no machine is 100 percent efficient is definately true!...think about it...

[rogerthecamel 1]

But the statement of no machine is 100 percent efficient is definately true!

Depends what you mean by 100% efficient. Technically all machines output as much energy as you put into them, but some of the energy output is undesired such as heat.Solar energy uses energy radiated from the sun, so it is technically not free, as it is using up the fuel that is inside the sun.
And there are some theories about obtaining free energy from zero point or vacuum energy.

I think here you are forgetting that the pipe on the way down can be (much) longer than the one on the up side, therefore the total volume (i.e. weight) of the water it can carry can be bigger than the volume in the up side of the pipe even if some water is pulled out at the top.

That may be, but the water on the down side is pulling water from the upside to replace itself. There is no way that it could pull extra water as the mechanism doesn't allow for that. If water is going to be extracted from the top without the replacement of air or some other substance then extracting that water is going to take as much energy as pumping the water directly from the first tank.
Take for example the following illustration.

The water is trapped in the tube much like a syphon but with no flow. There is water at point A where we want to extract it, but to remove it we either have to replace it with air which quickly means there is no water left to remove. Or we need to remove it without replacing water, which means that water will be pulled up from B and so removing the water will require much more energy to remove. The same is true of the sphyon.