# Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths

now you are being silly....
I am not being silly.
You are simply seeing the conundrum in a more obvious way and realizing it obviously can't be right. You're almost there.

the simplest way is described in my post #17
A rigid tube requires no moving parts and no energy input.

If your ideas about energy from pressure were sound, why would the tube not work?

That is a question left for you.

Once you solve it, you will see why no system can extract ocean-depth water pressure to do work.
And that, if compressed air is the goal, it can be made at less energy cost with resources we already have.

Ocean water pressure is no more a source of harvestable energy than rocks at the bottom of a cliff. They are as low as they can get. The only way to extract any energy from them is to first put energy in to raise them.

Last edited:
No it isn't.

The point is that your idea fails it fails for the same reason - a lack of application of basic thermodynamics. The fact that you must put energy in to your system to get energy out. And PMM-inventors always discount the amount of energy required to put in. As you are doing.
no it isn't
try this:
Take a manual hand bike tire pump. You know the sort people use to pump up their bicycles tires.

Pull the plunger out to its maximum.
Block off the output port...keep the input ports open.

Throw it in to 1000 meters of water.

What happens to the pump? ( other than getting wet lol)
The laws of physics will state that the plunger will compress the pump air chamber due to ambient water pressure as the pressure forces the pump plunger to pressurize the air in the air chamber.
you good so far?
The pump is sitting at 1000 meters with compressed air trapped inside it.
Lock down the plunger so the compressed air chamber can not increase in size and retrieve the pump to the surface.
Bingo... you now have a pump with compressed air in it.

as I said it ain't rocket science...
and I have just now harvested pressure from the ocean depths...using a bike tire pump.

As Write4u posted in another thread
"The oceans can be used as a natural compressor" or something to that effect...

Last edited:
The intriguing thing about this is that we can take advantage of the ambient pressure at ocean depth with out reducing that ambient pressure.

Bingo... you now have a pump with compressed air in it.
Great, now what do you do?

In simple terms, sink a chamber with air that can trap the pressure (compressed air) then float it back to the surface.
Since it would be buoyant, it would take energy to winch it down there. Since the ascending chamber will have less volume, it will be less buoyant, so you can't recover that energy. You might as well just use the energy you spent to compress the gas to begin with.

There's no free lunch.
For example: 1000 cubic meters of compressed air at 100 atm is a lot of stored potential energy.
Yep. But you have to put a lot of energy in to compress it that far. Again, do the math.

try this:
Take a manual hand bike tire pump. You know the sort people use to pump up their bicycles tires.
Pull the plunger out to its maximum.
Block off the output port...keep the input ports open.

Throw it in to 1000 meters of water.

What happens to the pump?
It, being full of air, will float.

I am confident even running a diesel powered winch arrangement to raise the chamber with large amount of compressed air will be cost effective.
So yes water pressure can indeed be a source of energy.
And that is the point of this thread..
Pressure harvesting the ocean depths... it ain't rocket science... you could even use your back yard swimming pool if you wanted to...

For some reason I get the impression that you and Billvon are stuck on the idea that this is a pseudo Perpetual motion or energy thread. It isn't.
That is exactly what it is.

When you lower your chamber into the water, a volume of water equal to its volume is displaced, reducing its apparent weight by the amount of buoyancy due to the volume of air inside. If we assume the chamber is still heavier than the buoyancy force it will sink, doing work on your pulley system as it does so.

When it gets to the bottom you open the valve, allowing seawater to compress the volume of air inside and greatly reducing the volume it occupies.

You then have to pull the chamber up to the surface again with the reduced volume of air inside, i.e. with a much reduced buoyancy force. So you do more work pulling it up than the work it does on your pulley system in descending.

It turns out this extra work you have to do is exactly equal to the work you can extract from the stored energy in the compressed air, once you have recovered the chamber at the surface.

So you have no net energy available to do any work. In other words, your idea will not work.

Since it would be buoyant, it would take energy to winch it down there. Since the ascending chamber will have less volume, it will be less buoyant, so you can't recover that energy. You might as well just use the energy you spent to compress the gas to begin with.

There's no free lunch.

Yep. But you have to put a lot of energy in to compress it that far. Again, do the math.
SNAP!

Ninja'ed.

As Write4u posted in another thread
"The oceans can be used as a natural compressor" or something to that effect...
This is more accurate statement, The oceans can be used as an inefficient and expensive natural compressor.
It is much more efficient to use a mechanical compressor.

no it isn't
try this:
Take a manual hand bike tire pump. You know the sort people use to pump up their bicycles tires.
View attachment 3147
Pull the plunger out to its maximum.
Block off the output port...keep the input ports open.

Throw it in to 1000 meters of water.

What happens to the pump? ( other than getting wet lol)
The laws of physics will state that the plunger will compress the pump air chamber due to ambient water pressure as the pressure forces the pump plunger to pressurize the air in the air chamber.
you good so far?
The pump is sitting at 1000 meters with compressed air trapped inside it.
Lock down the plunger so the compressed air chamber can not increase in size and retrieve the pump to the surface.
Bingo... you now have a pump with compressed air in it.

as I said it ain't rocket science...
and I have just now harvested pressure from the ocean depths...using a bike tire pump.

As Write4u posted in another thread
"The oceans can be used as a natural compressor" or something to that effect...
Your error is in neglecting the energy you have to expend getting the pump down and then back up again. It will differ by the amount of stored energy in the compressed air that you trap in the pump. No free lunch.

If Write4U's quote was not ballocks, it will have referred to wave energy. This you can extract and use to compress air and drive a turbine, because it is extra kinetic energy of the water, imparted by the wind, which you can convert to something else.

What you can't do is magically get energy continuously out of a static body with no energy input. That defies the 1st law of TD. And that is what you are trying to dowith your device.

Last edited:
Your error is in neglecting the energy you have to expend getting the pump down and then back up again. It will differ by the amount of stored energy in the compressed air that you trap in the pump. No free lunch.

If Write4U's quote was not ballocks, it will have referred to wave energy. This you can extract and use to compress air and drive a turbine, because it is extra kinetic energy of the water, imparted by the wind, which you can convert to something else.

What you can't do is magically get energy continuously out of a static body with no energy input. That defies the 1st law of TD. And that is what you are trying to do with your device.

Fact is I can sink my bike tire pump into deep water lock it down and retrieve compressed air with out depleting the ambient pressure.
I do not think it conflicts with any laws but perhaps you can explain how you think it does...
Your error is in neglecting the energy you have to expend getting the pump down and then back up again. It will differ by the amount of stored energy in the compressed air that you trap in the pump. No free lunch.

You are yet another member fixated on perpetual energy devices...this idea of pressure harvesting has nothing to do with it.
Why do you think it is referring to a perpetual energy device?

Gosh when they discovered nuclear energy did they have the same hysterical problem?

If Write4U's quote was not ballocks, it will have referred to wave energy. This you can extract and use to compress air and drive a turbine, because it is extra kinetic energy of the water, imparted by the wind, which you can convert to something else.

Write4U was simply stating that the ocean depths can be used as a natural compressor... is this not true?

Fact is I can sink my bike tire pump into deep water lock it down and retrieve compressed air with out depleting the ambient pressure.
I do not think it conflicts with any laws but perhaps you can explain how you think it does...

You are yet another member fixated on perpetual energy devices...this idea of pressure harvesting has nothing to do with it.
Why do you think it is referring to a perpetual energy device?

Gosh when they discovered nuclear energy did they have the same hysterical problem?

Write4U was simply stating that the ocean depths can be used as a natural compressor... is this not true?
. You can certainly achieve compression by taking something to the bottom of the sea. But the sea cannot be run as a compressor, no. As I have already said, you cannot continuously extract energy from a static object with no net energy inputs.

You are ignoring what billvon and I have both independently pointed out: that work is done when the container is made to sink to the bottom of the sea and work is done when it is recovered. And the two will not be the same. The difference will be the amount of stored energy in the container due to the compression of the air in it.

There. This has now been explained to you 3 (three) times. It is about time you started to address this explanation, rather than demanding that we explain it to you a fourth time.

By the way, these references you are now making to "fear" and "hysteria" are most peculiar. All three times the explanation has been given (once by billvon and twice by me) this has been done quite calmly and dispassionately.

This is more accurate statement, The oceans can be used as an inefficient and expensive natural compressor.
It is much more efficient to use a mechanical compressor.
well at least you agree that it isn't a perpetual energy device... sigh!

The thing to do first is to agree in principle that the ocean depths provide a naturally occurring resource called "Pressure".
That this pressure is a resource whether expensive or not, efficient or not is irrelevant to the principle.
You could build a water tank tower that is 100 meters deep/high and you would have a similar pressure resource.

As to cost effectiveness the current cost of providing medium scale mechanically compressed air for industry is one of the most expensive forms of energy delivery.

A few cubic meters of 36000 kPa (5221 psi) compressed air can provide enormous supply when reduced to the pressures commonly utilized.
At 5221 psi compressed air could replace the need for coal to fuel power stations.
You could decentralize the power stations and lower the pressure required for example.

Cost effectiveness after clever design and engineering would be vastly superior, is my guess if anything because it is entirely renewable, clean and incredibly versatile.

Last edited:
. You can certainly achieve compression by taking something to the bottom of the sea. But the sea cannot be run as a compressor, no. As I have already said, you cannot continuously extract energy from a static object with no net energy inputs.

You are ignoring what billvon and I have both independently pointed out: that work is done when the container is made to sink to the bottom of the sea and work is done when it is recovered. And the two will not be the same. The difference will be the amount of stored energy in the container due to the compression of the air in it.

There. This has now been explained to you 3 (three) times. It is about time you started to take in this explanation, rather than demanding that we explain it to you a fourth time.

By the way, these references you are now making to "fear" and "hysteria" are most peculiar. All three times the explanation has been given (once by billvon and twice by me) this has been done quite calmly and dispassionately.
so you still think we are discussing a perpetual energy device.... why?
Of course in simple terms there is a pressure retrieval cost. A cost that could be mitigated but never removed entirely by clever engineering and clever design.

well at least you agree that it isn't a perpetual energy device... sigh!

The thing to do first is to agree in principle that the ocean depths provide a naturally occurring resource called "Pressure".
That this pressure is a resource whether expensive or not, efficient or not is irrelevant to the principle.
You could build a water tank tower that is 100 meters deep/high and you would have a similar pressure resource.

As to cost effectiveness the current cost of providing medium scale mechanically compressed air for industry is one of the most expensive forms of energy delivery.

A few cubic meters of 36000 kPa (5221 psi) compressed air can provide enormous supply when reduced to the pressures commonly utilized.

At 5221 psi compressed air could replace the need for coal to fuel power stations.
You could decentralize the power stations and lower the pressure required for example.

Cost effectiveness after clever design and engineering would be vastly superior, is my guess if anything because it is entirely renewable, clean and incredibly versatile.
This will not work.

Please address the points made in my post 32 and the previous ones by myself and by billvon.

so you still think we are discussing a perpetual energy device.... why?
Of course in simple terms there is a pressure retrieval cost. A cost that could be mitigated but never removed entirely by clever engineering and clever design.
I have told you why, twice.

I have told you why, twice.
Do you think I should work out how it could become a perpetual energy device?
Doomed to fail but perhaps it could be fun!

This will not work.

Please address the points made in my post 32 and the previous ones by myself and by billvon.
when you actually address the thread topic I might do so... but at the moment you are answering the wrong questions.
1. Sink your bike pump (plunger extended)
2. lock of the plunger ( at the depth required)
3. retrieve it
and you have harvested the pressure at depth.

Yes or no?
Agree or disagree?

Last edited:
You can certainly achieve compression by taking something to the bottom of the sea. But the sea cannot be run as a compressor, no. As I have already said, you cannot continuously extract energy from a static object with no net energy inputs.
• we are extracting potential energy in the form of pressure using air as a medium from an ocean that is providing the energy inputs.
• sinking a container of air IS compressing the air in the container.
• the oceans do provide a natural form of compression as the container sinks.
Primary school science..

Last edited:
I have told you why, twice.
If you could solve (zero) the retrieval energy cost problem then and only then would have a close approximation of a perpetual energy device...

Have a go at it ... you might learn something about displacement and buoyancy while you are at it..