I really don't get this :( No response at all.

[nicbordeaux]

I despair of you guys. Here I am inventing the overunity washing up bowl, like this will save trillions on washing your socks, for those of you who wash your socks, and yawls is making fun about hawses.

[Mark]

Sorry bout sidetrackin' your thread, Nick. I don't have anything useful to add to your idea, figure you pretty much have a grip on the concept.

The jokin' 'round (I just couldn't resist Steve's leading comment) might better be explained by these links:
Mr. Ed - a TV show from back in the day
Mr. Ed - theme song lyrics
a brief exchange with (a very busy) Ed, awhile back
Thought I'd take one last shot at coercing a response. :)

[bluesgtr44]

I offer up my apologies also, Nic. Mark made me do it! :p

I guess what I'm kind of waiting for is how you tap this. There are many ways to manipulate water to move. The trouble has always seemed to be the control of it's movement in an open type of containment in which you are showing us. I get the interaction you're trying to achieve with the magnets and ping pong balls....I just don't see how you expect to maintain it perpetually without controlling the medium....the water.

I work with fluid flow systems and am familiar with the use of baffles and dispersion plates to help equalize and control an already regulated flow. The purpose of these for our use is to try and maintain an even flow throughout the entire tank to provide a uniformity. If you can't control the water medium then what you have is a "chaotic" effect and that's a beast of a whole different nature.

So......close the loop! That's what I'm waiting to see. How are you going to close that loop and control not just the perpetuity of this, but also regulate it so that it will provide some useful purpose. Keep up that sense of humor. It can come in handy around here.....


Steve

[nicbordeaux]

The whole exercise is pretty pointless except as a mental and therefore build challenge. Any success would be measured in terms of runtime, not output harnessed, anybody who figures out how to power a household from a washing up bowl is a hero. Or more seriously deluded than most :)

I plan to try two protuding rods from the tank, it's oblong, not square. When the tank tilts, the rods hit a "wall" (or the ground) . You have "x" amount of force put on the wall via the rod, and the wall to use fiziks stuff pushes back with the same amount of force. That is in a scenario where the rods are fixed to the tank, and the tank doesn't deform. Here, the tank donna tilto nada.

However, if your rods are let's say for reasons of simplicity (of illustration, not build) able to slide watertight through the tank wall, and have attached to their ends a plastic oblong which will push some water, and the amount of water pushed requires less force than to stop the tank tilting, you set up a wave going the other way.

It won't work 99.9% sure, but that's no reason not to give it a try. The spinning magnets beneath the tank also bust up any concentration of balls/mags, and cause water movement.

But still, just for the hecks of it, let's look at harnessing some energy, as in work. Let's be really ambitious and light a led. That's simple enough, just induction, mag on extension from tank far enough away from tank not to interfere, set a coil or solenoid (sounds cleverer) wherever the mag travels ocasionally travels a few mm or cm if you amplify the movement (gear up), led blips, hey presto, Steorn is outta business and you are the new messiah of free energy. You want mechanical energy lifting a 100 gramme weight in increments to a height ? No big mechanical challenge there. But the blockbuster would be this : you arrange your up till now described bowl on a styrofoam float in a quarter full cast iron bathtub mounted on a central pivot.

If you get real unlucky, you drop one magnetic pingpong ball into the washing up tub which does it's stuff, and this set's up a disturbance in the bathtub, which happens to be floating in a 50 cubic meter fiberglass swimming pool a quarter full of water, and that starts to move too... and you're insane enough to put that on youtube. Well, I guess you'd get a lot of love mail.

FWIW, I do have some more "conventional" builds underway... in various states of incompletion.

To give a short answer to the "how do you harvest energy" question, you quite simply take from mass shift, as via a conrod assy. The water is a means of producing mass shift of the container, not a directly harnessed "wave power".

[nicbordeaux]

Whadayaknow, after having mucked around with isolated pingpong balls with mags and stuff, champagne corks filed to a particular size, it's time to move on to a decent size oblong tank mounted on a chassis with two little half circles of oak as a central pivot allowing a small amount of incline travel. And when you reach this stage, you need a cigarette and some coffee, but just so you can play around whilst relaxing, out comes the garden hose and you fill the tank a third. Then you tip it so that a wave of water moves down one end to the other, and lo and behold it turns out you have that natural behavior which some people think clever to call double stage oscillating. Your wave hits once, reverses with a part of the volume of water, and cacades down again. And then you suddenly realize, like this image of various ways of profiting from this flit through the mind, and you just know you're on the verge of PM. Unfortunately, the wife has borrowed the power cord you had your tools on to mix up some dumb paint.

Still, whilst looking at a pretty useless mag device, I have a new project. To paraphrase "Prince" "I need another project like I need a hole in my head" .

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Nick,

I remember that a guy invented a wave generator, it was a wheel with a weight on one side laying flat on a float, when a wave hit it the wheel tilted and the weight then raised rotating the wheel as the weight went downwards again, in your tank this should work, for a while at least, when the weight move down again it will be on the back of the wave and most of it kinetic energy could go back into the wave, there is still timing to sort out but I think it would be a bit of fun to play with it, you have bike wheels, you just need a bit of high density foam and keep the wife out of the bath for a while, that will be the hard part, this maybe the one experiment that pushes her over the edge!

Regards Trevor

Edit, missed words.

[nicbordeaux]

...a decent size oblong tank mounted on a chassis with two little half circles of oak as a central pivot allowing a small amount of incline travel. Then you tip it so that a wave of water moves down one end to the other... Your wave hits once, reverses with a part of the volume of water, and cacades down again.

And this, the point where after having harvested the energy from the tank hitting something at the heavy end, and the counter flow of wave moving back up tank and alleviating weight on the heavy end, is where you catch gravity with it's pants down. (Fletcher, you might want to start saving up for the ten euro payment lol)

Pics and vid to follow.

Tabloid Headline: mad backyard shed wannabe inventor claims to have caught Newton with his pants down. Shocking photos and video footage to be released

Breaking News : Besslerwheel. com deserted as all members rush off to buy and play with washing up tubs.

[Gwheel]

Put some goldfish in first.

[nicbordeaux]

Before proceeding further, may I, Ladies an' Gennlmen, please ask your advice on a point of some import ?

In the following sketch, a tank of water is level, has a given com. Also a given cog.

In the two cases where the tank is tilted, the center of grav has obviously changed, but not the overall height (or averaged out) center of mass . No gain, no loss of height of mass. Any dissenters ?

In the two cases where the tank is tilted and the water accumulated one end, there has been linear displacement of mass. Whilst the end result is identical com, no height lost or gained, in a scenario where one uses this movement to obtain rise of a mass other than the water by harnessing the impact of the tilting tank at end of arc travel (let's not involve buoyancy in this, enough room for argument as it is), one does not include in the height/loss math the linear travel. Just the force or weight which initiated the tilt.

Where in a "impact" scenario, for example, one would freefall a 10 kg ball one meter onto the container (not into the water) to get the tank tilting, and if a second 10 kg ball was by some mysterious means raised to a height of 1.10 m, the com would be raised 10 kgs over 10 cm. And this would prove that gravy isn't conservative.

A further concern is the slopping about of the water in the tank before it subsides, or tank tips the other way. Are we likely to see here a case of change in com what with drops of water jumping a few cm ?

Comments most welcome. This, of course, is just a minor preliminary skirmish.

[Gwheel]

nic,

In the two cases where the tank is tilted, the center of grav has obviously changed, but not the overall height (or averaged out) center of mass . No gain, no loss of height of mass. Any dissenters ?

Edit: Edit: I'm re-posting my original answer.

I'm sorry to dissent. If you have moved any of the water (mass) below the support/pivot, then you have necessarily lowered the CG. Due to the property of water, the COM will be at the same point.

By the way, where are the goldfish?

Regards,
Chris

[nicbordeaux]

Chris, there is during the slippage of liquid a transfer of center of gravity from one side to the other. But as you agree, the center of mass, or average height of mass is identical in all three situations. Therefore any height gained by an object acted upon by the tilting tank is gain of com ? Which is theoretically impossible ?

The goldfish are not required at this point. A 5 kg koi carp might be more in order.

I'm moving this particular question and illustration to another post, where more people might read it...

[Gwheel]

Chris, there is during the slippage of liquid a transfer of center of gravity from one side to the other. But as you agree, the center of mass, or average height of mass is identical in all three situations. Therefore any height gained by an object acted upon by the tilting tank is gain of com ? Which is theoretically impossible ?
Nic,

The goldfish are not required at this point. A 5 kg koi carp might be more in order.

LOL, Great answer.

But as you agree, the center of mass, or average height of mass is identical in all three situations.

Actually, what I meant was that the CG and CM would be at the same point. Due to the properties of moving water, they will be at the same point or very near to the same point (the CM will be moving along and following closely the CG unless the water is splashing and sloshing vigorously).

Regards,
Chris

[nicbordeaux]

Thx Cris, yes the CG and CM will follow. The question wasn't properly formulated in that the sketch with the tank flat is only a transient state, or could be a start/end point of several cycles. What matters is that at each opposing tilt position when the water is at rest, the only change is in that the cog/com has been shifted laterally. And whether this needs to accounted for in any calulation of gain of height of any component not shown as part of the system in the sketches if these extremes are the start/end positions respectively.