perpetual motion free energy by siphoning

Not being a scientist or an academic, I don't know anything about HEP and you don't actually explain how we've been using this for ages, or in which context, but anyway... initially, we could use any energy source at our disposal to create the higher water level and to initiate the siphon, but afterwards, if the siphoning system actually works, the expensive energy would be replaced by the perpetual.

And hey, I'm not trying to ram this down your throat, I'm just going with trains of thought here and I don't understand your defensive and negative attitude. If you are qualified and are willing to explain in detail, why this idea is STUPID and could never work, then please do so and enlighten us all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"the expensive energy would be replaced by the perpetual."

No, because you'll always have to put more energy into the system to make it move than you'll get out of it. And if your using the sun to power it all, why not just use solar cells or orbital collectors?

I have a handy wee book called "the extension of man" by J D Bernal, who was a physicist of note some 50 or more years ago. In it, there is a picture from 1673, showing a water wheel working a drive that powered a grinding wheel. It also caused an archimedes screw to turn, which raised the water that had fallen down the water wheel. Now, imagine that, and then think of the energy to be gained from the water falling onto the wheel. Give a number, say 100 energy per litre or something. Then think of the grinding wheel that it is turning as needing 20 energy to turn, which leaves 80 for the archimedes screw. Which has to raise that litre or so up a certain height, which takes say 110 energy. As far as is known, in this universe, it will always take more energy to raise the water up again through the distance it fell, than it generates whilst falling. Then there is the energy lost in the water wheels bearings, the bearings of the archimedes screw. Thats why you always seem perpetual motion fraudsters saying their set up is frictionless, or "if only we had a frictionless bearing....."

I hope this makes some sense. Thermodynamics is both simple and rather complex, and it took quite a few lecturs at university to make as much sense as I liked it to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how about siphoning into Death Valley?(282 feet below sea level) as long as evaporation is faster than your siphon you will not fill it up. I really don’t think you can get much energy out of it, but wouldn't it work? or would the fluid-solid friction slow it down enough over time to counteract the siphon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That much is obvious, but don't you think if your flight sof fancy were possible, scientists and academics would have cracked it by now? The Romans and Greeks were very good at moving water. If anybody was going to crack making it move uphill for free, it would have been them.

Again, that much is obvious, and all you have to do is google for HEP (Hydro Electric Power), and there'll be more information about it than you can handle. I therefore don't need to explain it, you just need to do some research. Research beforehand is often a good idea before blurting out some idea, to see if it's already been done, or can't be done.

It's not about initiation, but keeping it going! If you take energy out of a system, how do you get energy back in? There's a fixed quantity of energy in any closed system, if you keep taking, and not replenishing, you'll eventually run out. Can't you see that?

Which it won't.

Energy is only perpetual if you never tap into it. And what is this 'expensive' energy you speak of? The Sun lifts our water upwards, as water vapour for us, for free. It rains down into reservoirs, for free. It gets pulled down towards Earth releasing the gravitational potential energy that the Sun gave it, for free. This is why HEP is very popular.

You are rather, several people have told you it won't work, but you persist.

I'm not being defensive. I'm not benig negative. I'm purely realistic. Telling you the truth is not negative, it's just the truth. Anything you feel about the truth is your perspective, and yours alone.

Yes I am qualified, and no, I'm not willing to explain. I'm not your teacher. If you didn't pick the basics of physics up at school, perhaps you should do some self study. Start with concepts such as 'conservative energy fields' , and 'friction and efficiency'.

The idea is stupid, because it doesn't take into account the way the Universe actually functions.

 

allow me to quote my self.

at this point though, you may as well just dig a canal, it would probably be cheaper.

 

The idea of a siphon is just adding unnecessary complexity to what is really going on, gravity moving water, which, as people have said, is the idea behind dams, which is indirectly-solar energy. In the ocean, you can use the difference between high and low tide to generate electricity with turbines, valves, and other interesting technology that has already been developed, which is indirectly- lunar energy.

 

100% agreement.

 

Just a recap on what I attempted, I used a pipe that would normally used for an airpump for a fishtank (this I believe didn't have enough of a circumference and wasn't measured accurately).

I had the pipe go straight up from the sink (with water in) then come back down to the sink, however the length coming down was approximately twice that of the length going up, I coiled the length around the pipe going up to deal with it's extra length.

The theory was that the volume of liquid in the coiled side up to the pivotal point at the top would be greater than the volume in the straight "upward" pipe.

However I believe due to the nature of my experiment being rather awkwardly constructed, and lacking the necessary provisional mathematics that should accompany such an experiment. The experiment itself did neither what people dictated or I suggested.

They dictated the water would "find it's own level" and therefore flow in reverse till it had emptied out the pipe, I suggested it could be possible that it would generate a continuous flow due to it's volume unbalancing it, however as mention by Phlog. the pipe remained static.

The water didn't move in either direction which I believe was down to something do with how much pressure could be applied via the pipe size in regards to water tension.

I will if I get the chance to do it properly in the future document the whole thing, the outcome I'm not bothered about it being a failure or a success as long as it's properly documented, afterall it would help people understand about such things in the future.

 

Very weird. I tried this at home. Placed a 5 gallon bucket of water on the kitchen table, a 5 gallon empty bucket on the kitchen floor, and a hydro turbine in between. Attached a siphon tube and voilly, free energy! I used the free energy to charge a battery that powered a motor which would empty the now full bucket on the floor into the now empty bucket on the table. Unfortunately, it only pulled the full bucket 3/4 way up to the empty bucket. I had to pick the dang thing back up and refill the empty bucket on the table. All things considered though, it only took 1/3 the effort as it did to fill the bucket the first time. By my calculations, if I repeat the process 4 more times, I will get free energy. Will try again after I eat, I am hungry now.

 

Stryder, if that was your experiment, I understand why it was static now. The pressure on either side of your columns, irrespective of length, is determined by their vertical height, not length. With an inverted manometer type arrangement as you describe, they columns are the same height, they have to be, that's maths, as it's vertical height, one column starts becoming the other after tha maximum, and the distance down is the exact same distance as the distance up!

So the pressure is equal in either side, and you need inequality to make things move. The inequality you need, however, is a height difference, the _only_ force the water is experiencing is gravity, which acts vertically downwards, so you need a vertical drop to get things moving. Therefore, syphoning only works in the direction of the applied force, _downwards_. More pie, fater pipe, anything, is immaterial, it's all down to gravitational potential energy, which means purely vertical height, and nothing else.

Let's explain this another way. Divers watches are quoted as being useable up to a certain depth, mine are all 200m rated, although I'll never go that deep, it's a safety factor. It doesn't matter how wide the body of water I am in is, or whether I swim down in a large spiral, or straight down, it's just the vertical depth that matters. Same goes for your inverted manomenter. Striaght pipe on one side, coiled spairal on th eother. Doesn't matter, it's the depth (or height, depends where you start measuring) of the system that matters, no more. The pipework doesn't affect how gravity works, it's the same, with or without the pipe. Ask yourself if your experiment would work with an open trough of water, an aquaduct type arrangement, and if the answer is 'no', it won't work in a pipe either.

 

What was 'free' about that? You can't use this on an industrial scale to produce 'free' energy, because you are going to have to pay someone to lift buckets onto the table!!!!!

YOU put energy into the system by lifting the bucket. You've managed to extract _some_ of the energy you put in and store it in a battery. But, and this comes as no surprise, the conversion wasn't 100% efficient, and you can't even end up back to square one, and pump all the water back up to the top bocket, and break even, energy wise. So far from creating free energy, you're losing some energy via inefficiency in your system. It's delivering 75% ish accordig to your post, you need >100%!!!!!!

ps, it's 'voilà!' not 'voilly', its French, 'look at that', 'behold' or ' simple 'there'

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=607003#post607003

 

The difference in density between fresh water inside the LONG "Sea Fountain" tube and the salt water outside permits both the fresh water column inside the tube to extend above sea level and the pressure difference across the membrain closing the deep end of the tube to great enough for reverse osmosis. This pressure difference is directly proportional to the length of the tube. I have not done the numbers, perhaps no point in ocean is deep enough. but this is a practical detail. In principle the Sea fountain produces both fresh water and enegry just by a very long tube hanging in the ocean.

 

Unfortunately Billy, the problem with your idea is that the energy getting in your tube by osmoses has been put in earlier already.

When the tube filled with lighter water was lowered into the sea, the bouyancy required to use work and hence energy to push it down.

Too bad, I guess it's hard to defeat the law of constant energy.

 

Why dont U just put Large N number of container on all the unused beaches of your planet with each having a tiny electric generator at its lower end ?

At the high tide power will be generated when water enters the containers and at the low tide power will be generated as water leaves the containers.

 

that might work, however despite the relative infinty of power thru that method it relies on having gravity, so really its not perpetual, pretty close though. sort of like the wave catchers: they have large shets connected and sitting near the coast, as sheets get lifted by waves, the connectors move up and down to create power

 

Well, american government is endorsing siphon energy by raising the sealevel using global warming, phase 2 will started soon, using big hoses, the Sahel dessert could be siphoned to become fertile again, or roque states could be flooded

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So can U explain from where will the energy come in my invention ?

 

The moon orbiting the earth.

 

For 4 billion years ?

And if that were true then instead of going away every year the moon should have crashed on earth.

Think More.