a gravity mill (esla)
Moderator: scott
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: australia
re: a gravity mill (esla)
save your money.
Won't work.
A working PM machine has a 1000000 dollar reward offered by James Randi. No one has won yet. If some one had a working idea they would get a partner if necessary to build it. This guy used to sell plans, now he has lowered the price and rents it -- assuming you get your deposit back.
Won't work.
A working PM machine has a 1000000 dollar reward offered by James Randi. No one has won yet. If some one had a working idea they would get a partner if necessary to build it. This guy used to sell plans, now he has lowered the price and rents it -- assuming you get your deposit back.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
Re: re: a gravity mill (esla)
- thats not true, I think that guy is a shady character and I wouldnt trust him at all... plus all you here about at his website is "loop-hole" theories about the questionable contract...
No sir, James Randi wouldnt pay diddly, I think...
No sir, James Randi wouldnt pay diddly, I think...
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
james randi is a pile of......well, james randy.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
Even if Randi is a POS the economics of a fuelless engine is worth billions a year. No one with a real idea is going to sit on his duff and hustle $5 from the curious and not develop the idea himself.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: australia
re: a gravity mill (esla)
the very last page on tbe interent also runs a scam watch, i just assumed that because they featured the plans that they were automatically sound
what about the gravitational method?
you all would calim its not workable?
what about the gravitational method?
you all would calim its not workable?
re: a gravity mill (esla)
Dont like it... looks overtly simple/complicated, almost childlike (pictures dont help this)
Energy is consumed into this system and I am not convinced that what is expended to do so can be sufficiently re-integrated... without great loss.
there was one idea in there (I wont mention) that is simular to and Idea I had but its design/placement is all wrong...
I wouldnt invest anything in this idea...
Energy is consumed into this system and I am not convinced that what is expended to do so can be sufficiently re-integrated... without great loss.
there was one idea in there (I wont mention) that is simular to and Idea I had but its design/placement is all wrong...
I wouldnt invest anything in this idea...
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
I looked at ELSA a while back and thought it would not work. Now I think it might. I think he does a poor job of describing how his device works. I should make a picture but it's late tonight and I'm tired so I'll try to just paint a verbal picture. I will round off most numbers...
Take a vertical tube of water, lets say 35 foot tall. In this tube is a "shuttle", an expandable piston. The shuttle is a snug fit in the water tube, lets say 1 square foot cross section area. The shuttle piston has an expanded size of say 2 square feet and a compressed size of one square foot. The weight of the shuttle is 94 pounds. The weight of water displaced is 62 pounds when compressed, and 125 pounds when expanded. When the shuttle is compressed it will drop in the tube pushing water down the tube. When expanded it will rise in the tube pushing water up the tube. There is a second tube from the bottom to the top to carry the water that is pressured downward back up to the top, with check valves as needed. In both cases the shuttle can only push the water up a half foot higher. But it pushes a LOT of water, about 66 cubic feet of water each cycle. I figure it needs about 0.2 cubic feet of steel as weight (includes the piston case, etc.), which leaves 0.8 cubic feet of air when compressed and 1.8 cubic feet of air when expanded. The pressure in the shuttle needs to be about 16 PSI (above atmospheric) when expanded to overcome the water pressure at the bottom, which makes the compressed pressure about 36 pounds. A 12" x 12" x 8" cube of water would weigh 42 pounds and would need to drop 12 inches to compress the shuttle. So some type of "multiplier" leverage is needed to do the compressing because the water is not pressured high enough. That would use up about 2 cubic feet of the water to compress the shuttle, leaving about 64 cubic feet of water which is raised 1/2 foot.
Now if the design was modified I would think you might be able to push less water a higher distance each cycle? Height times distance (in this case) would be 32, such as 4 cubic feet of water 8 feet high. This was a very quick rough calculation and I'm tired so maybe I'm mistaken?
PS It's late, I'm AM tired, and I'M MISTAKEN!! If the required pressure in the shuttle is 36 PSI then it would require 144 sq.in. x 36 psi = 5184 pounds of water (minimum) droping 1 foot to compress the air, which is more weight than all of the water that is moved.
Good night!
Take a vertical tube of water, lets say 35 foot tall. In this tube is a "shuttle", an expandable piston. The shuttle is a snug fit in the water tube, lets say 1 square foot cross section area. The shuttle piston has an expanded size of say 2 square feet and a compressed size of one square foot. The weight of the shuttle is 94 pounds. The weight of water displaced is 62 pounds when compressed, and 125 pounds when expanded. When the shuttle is compressed it will drop in the tube pushing water down the tube. When expanded it will rise in the tube pushing water up the tube. There is a second tube from the bottom to the top to carry the water that is pressured downward back up to the top, with check valves as needed. In both cases the shuttle can only push the water up a half foot higher. But it pushes a LOT of water, about 66 cubic feet of water each cycle. I figure it needs about 0.2 cubic feet of steel as weight (includes the piston case, etc.), which leaves 0.8 cubic feet of air when compressed and 1.8 cubic feet of air when expanded. The pressure in the shuttle needs to be about 16 PSI (above atmospheric) when expanded to overcome the water pressure at the bottom, which makes the compressed pressure about 36 pounds. A 12" x 12" x 8" cube of water would weigh 42 pounds and would need to drop 12 inches to compress the shuttle. So some type of "multiplier" leverage is needed to do the compressing because the water is not pressured high enough. That would use up about 2 cubic feet of the water to compress the shuttle, leaving about 64 cubic feet of water which is raised 1/2 foot.
Now if the design was modified I would think you might be able to push less water a higher distance each cycle? Height times distance (in this case) would be 32, such as 4 cubic feet of water 8 feet high. This was a very quick rough calculation and I'm tired so maybe I'm mistaken?
PS It's late, I'm AM tired, and I'M MISTAKEN!! If the required pressure in the shuttle is 36 PSI then it would require 144 sq.in. x 36 psi = 5184 pounds of water (minimum) droping 1 foot to compress the air, which is more weight than all of the water that is moved.
Good night!
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: australia
re: a gravity mill (esla)
thanx jim!!!
please make a drawing when your well rested, any thing like a plan that i could use to construct your idea, as i have the re$orces
please make a drawing when your well rested, any thing like a plan that i could use to construct your idea, as i have the re$orces
re: a gravity mill (esla)
Jim's right, the numbers just don't add up.
The drawings are horribly done.
The guy just sounds "off" and overly optimistic in his writings.
However, if he is willing to show a demonstration, I'd be more than happy to look at it.
The drawings are horribly done.
The guy just sounds "off" and overly optimistic in his writings.
However, if he is willing to show a demonstration, I'd be more than happy to look at it.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
Here is my sketch of the ELSA. It will not work. The reason it will not work is that it takes more water weight moving distance to compress the air than it produces. In my example from last night it raises about 2058 pounds of water about 1/2 foot. To start to compress the shuttle takes about 2300 pounds of force, increasing to about 5184 pounds when fully compressed. And the compression distance required is one foot! There is just no way it would ever work.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
that helps... to understand the idea.
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
Re: re: a gravity mill (esla)
here:jim_mich wrote:Do you have a link?
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
...
Perpetual motion counts becuase its supposedly impossible...
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
re: a gravity mill (esla)
Oxygon,
I can find nothing that I feel might include a gravity wheel?
I can find nothing that I feel might include a gravity wheel?
Thanks for the link anyway.I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.