Lot of links and such here (includes video).
They actually built a reasonably big prototype.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... 28WAPEC%29
Direct quote:
The claim is that despite the losses from friction of the cylinders moving
through water and the other moving parts, that more energy is generated
to keep the pressurization/depressurization cycle going; and that there is
a net energy gain.
Video of buoyancy prototype
Moderator: scott
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
That's a terrible cheesy video that doesn't do anything to remove suspicion of fraud. I can't see how this is expected to work at all. As we know, you can get patents for just about anything, because patent attorneys need to feed their kids too. Doesn't mean they work. The claim that they have built a working model is the only thing that makes me wonder - but that video could easily be a scam.
IF this working model actually works, I would have expected a far more impressive footage showing electrical output and floats moving up & down etc ... the given footage could just be a movie set mockup.
I doubt very much that pressure of gas inside a float has much to do with whether it sinks or float. I think it has a lot to do with whether the float crushes or explodes, but assuming the float volume remains static and the walls don't fail, then increasing the air pressure only adds a very little mass of air to the float. Probably not enough to make any difference, compared to the mass of water outside the float.
AFAIK, buoyancy is about volume & mass (density). A float that is occupying a volume in a fluid exerts a downwards force (weight) due to the total mass of the float. If the total mass is less than the mass of water that could occupy that same volume, then there is a force/weight imbalance. The water will win, because it has more mass hence more force. Hence the float gets squeezed upwards as it doesn't have the Force to resist. The COG of the water falls to the lowest place. To force the float down again we would have to raise the COG of the water. Swings and roundabouts. Assuming the float is rigid and the volume does not change, I can't see changing the internal pressure would change the mass or weight much.
If the float has flexible walls - that is a different story but the same outcome. Changes in pressure then change the Volume significantly. If we attempt to raise the pressure in the float, we attempt to expand the float, which means we are raising the COG of the water.
Nothing gives me any confidence that this guy knows what he is talking about. Previous convictions for fraud do not seem surprising.
IF this working model actually works, I would have expected a far more impressive footage showing electrical output and floats moving up & down etc ... the given footage could just be a movie set mockup.
I doubt very much that pressure of gas inside a float has much to do with whether it sinks or float. I think it has a lot to do with whether the float crushes or explodes, but assuming the float volume remains static and the walls don't fail, then increasing the air pressure only adds a very little mass of air to the float. Probably not enough to make any difference, compared to the mass of water outside the float.
AFAIK, buoyancy is about volume & mass (density). A float that is occupying a volume in a fluid exerts a downwards force (weight) due to the total mass of the float. If the total mass is less than the mass of water that could occupy that same volume, then there is a force/weight imbalance. The water will win, because it has more mass hence more force. Hence the float gets squeezed upwards as it doesn't have the Force to resist. The COG of the water falls to the lowest place. To force the float down again we would have to raise the COG of the water. Swings and roundabouts. Assuming the float is rigid and the volume does not change, I can't see changing the internal pressure would change the mass or weight much.
If the float has flexible walls - that is a different story but the same outcome. Changes in pressure then change the Volume significantly. If we attempt to raise the pressure in the float, we attempt to expand the float, which means we are raising the COG of the water.
Nothing gives me any confidence that this guy knows what he is talking about. Previous convictions for fraud do not seem surprising.
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: Video of buoyancy prototype
Yea, that is about what I was thinking.
Not exactly a tutorial on how to make this all work.
I did come across some double talk at:
http://www.hidroonline.com/faq.html
Not exactly a tutorial on how to make this all work.
I did come across some double talk at:
http://www.hidroonline.com/faq.html
So....this is overunity....but somehow NOT perpetual motion??Is Hidro+ a Perpetual Motion Machine?
No because the perpetual motion and conservation of energy refers to thermodynamic principles (1st, 2nd and 3rd laws); but not fluid mechanics and dynamics, flow of physics, Archimedes Principles and Newtown's Laws (1st and 2nd Laws of Physics).
Now to put the above explanation into relevant equations and technically referred to as Energy and Mass Balance:
* In energy conversion: Ei = Eo - ZL; where Ei= energy input on continuous basis, such as coal, gas, biomass as heat energy, wave and wind as mechanical energy.; Eo= Energy output in electrical energy; ZL=zigma Losses due to energy conversion and frictions, and ambience conditions.
* In perpetual motion: Ei = Eo + DE; where Ei=a one-time-only energy input, such as movements of filaments due to heat and pressure variants from ambience conditions, and/or mechanical energy.; Eo= energy output in electrical energy; DE= delta energy gained due to whatever (which we concur with you as invalid!).
* In Hidro+: Ei + EProd = Eo - ZL; where: Ei= electrical energy input on continuous basis; EProd=energy gained due to deep water pressure energy conversion including bouyancy at 1010kg/m3 and deep water pressure at 1bar (100kPa) per meter of water depth; Eo= energy output including gravity and potential energy of freefall object and terminal velocity; ZL=zigma losses due to conversion and frictions, etc.
Thanks DrWhat. This 'trick' is a good example why bouyancy will never create free energy. In the bottle there is trapped air, we can assume at atmospheric pressure. Acting on the neck of the bottle is atmospheric pressure. So as far as the trapped water in the bottle, that volume of water isn't going to change, and the volume of air is not going to change without apply external force.
When we insert the matches into the inverted bottle, we see them rise to the top of the water. This is because wood is lighter density - it floats on water. If we inserted a lot of matches - they would not alter the volume of air at the top - because we know it would take force to compress that air.
All that is happening is that the water is falling down around the matches. If we inserted a lot of matches, the water would start to drop out the bottom. We are simply exchanging volume of water for volume of wood, with the end result that the Centre of Gravity of the water is falling.
The power of bouyancy is simply the power of gravity - it is the action of mass falling down. As such - it requires mass to be lifted up to reset this. Net energy loss - no gain is possible.
When we insert the matches into the inverted bottle, we see them rise to the top of the water. This is because wood is lighter density - it floats on water. If we inserted a lot of matches - they would not alter the volume of air at the top - because we know it would take force to compress that air.
All that is happening is that the water is falling down around the matches. If we inserted a lot of matches, the water would start to drop out the bottom. We are simply exchanging volume of water for volume of wood, with the end result that the Centre of Gravity of the water is falling.
The power of bouyancy is simply the power of gravity - it is the action of mass falling down. As such - it requires mass to be lifted up to reset this. Net energy loss - no gain is possible.
re: Video of buoyancy prototype
Or .. he slips a little flat washer over the mouth with a small hole in it & a membrane covering - he pushes the match thru the match sized membrane with small hole - match goes in & water leaks out - match has buoyancy & pulls itself thru after a while - water doesn't flow out of membrane hole when upside down because not enough pressure on membrane - when he turns bottle over he slips washer away from view.
The real magic is how he lights those matches after they've been in the water ? - Bear Grils could do it, no magic on his show.
The real magic is how he lights those matches after they've been in the water ? - Bear Grils could do it, no magic on his show.
Ei = Eo - ZL - - > shouldn't that be Ei = Eo + ZL instead? Or Ei - ZL = Eo?* In energy conversion: Ei = Eo - ZL; where Ei= energy input on continuous basis, such as coal, gas, biomass as heat energy, wave and wind as mechanical energy.; Eo= Energy output in electrical energy; ZL=zigma Losses due to energy conversion and frictions, and ambience conditions.
* In perpetual motion: Ei = Eo + DE; where Ei=a one-time-only energy input, such as movements of filaments due to heat and pressure variants from ambience conditions, and/or mechanical energy.; Eo= energy output in electrical energy; DE= delta energy gained due to whatever (which we concur with you as invalid!).
* In Hidro+: Ei + EProd = Eo - ZL; where: Ei= electrical energy input on continuous basis; EProd=energy gained due to deep water pressure energy conversion including bouyancy at 1010kg/m3 and deep water pressure at 1bar (100kPa) per meter of water depth; Eo= energy output including gravity and potential energy of freefall object and terminal velocity; ZL=zigma losses due to conversion and frictions, etc.
Ei = Eo + DE - - > shouldn't that be Ei + DE = Eo? Anyways, he left out ZL... so it should really read:
Ei + DE = Eo + ZL, correct?
Ei + EProd = Eo - ZL - - > It seems to me that Eprod is equal to DE (from above equation) [that is, some source of energy besides the inputted energy]... so that upon substitution we would get:
Ei + DE = Eo - ZL, only again, there is the subtracting of ZL instead of addition... which means we should get:
Ei + DE = Eo + ZL. Correct??
But my point being, that the end (albeit corrected) formulas for "perpetual motion" and for his "over-unity" machine (upon substitution of DE for Eprod) are the same.
That being said, pudding speaks louder than words.