Would the Coriolis Effect have to be considered if the bell jar were not at a pole or
pendulum's motion were not perpendicular to the equator?
pendulum's motion were not perpendicular to the equator?
an idea of perpetual energy, tell me what you think
- Thread starter Urson
- Start date
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
The Coriolis Effect would be extremely small; or it would have to be a rather enormous bell jar/pendulum if the effect was to show up. And if that is the case than you are extracting energy from the weather system.
Wouldn't even an "extremely small" effect stop the pendulum eventually?
Energy Buff
Registered Member
sideshowbob said:
True, but the force of gravity would continue to take effect, reguardless of how many times you multiply the paddlewheels, and so, the same stream of water would gain momentum in between paddles; thus more energy would be created.
More energy would be "created"? From what?
Doesn't the potential energy of the water depend only on the height of the fall?
The momentum would increase between the paddles, but it would decrease when it hit the next paddle.The total change in momentum should be the same rgardless of the number of paddle wheels.
Doesn't the potential energy of the water depend only on the height of the fall?
The momentum would increase between the paddles, but it would decrease when it hit the next paddle.The total change in momentum should be the same rgardless of the number of paddle wheels.
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
sideshowbob said:
Probably. It depends on how it acts on the system and I don't know the specifics. But if the Coriolis effect did transfer energy I would assume the pendulum would stop.
Tesla worked on transmitting energy, not generating "free" energy.
Although there is constantly the mention of how perpetual motion systems can't work because of the loss of energy through friction etc, there are still people constantly dreaming what they think might beat the reasoning.
I think the main reason for this is a kind of testiment to rules, if people believe something is impossible should people not research into it a little, or experiment themselves? So in a sense the creation of a system that always seems to involve fluid dynamics, is thoughtup to test the system.
I created a diagram some time back for a perpetual motion system using liquid, It didn't use a paddlewheel since they loose alot of energy, (You have to imagine that if your using fluid and energy is lost with friction then you want the area that is turned to have a large surface to try and conduct most of that lost energy into energy creation.)
So rather than using a paddlewheel my design used something similar to the film "The Hunt for Red October's" Caterpillar drive, but an inverse effect, Rather than turning a screwshaped pillar of water through an inlet and out an outlet for propulsion, I was looking at forcing the water through the spiral to cause the spiral to turn an crank a generator.
The way my diagram worked was that you had a large vessel of water (a water tank) which had an outlet that went straight down, when it starts to bend round (90 Degs) you have the Inverse Caterpillar system the pipe then Bends up (90 Degs) and continues up until it's above the height at which the tank is.
The pipe is then to spiral around like one of those helterskelter slides (or coils) above the tank, This generates a greater length and body of water that is pulled by gravity than the water being "Sucked up".
There are then two "non-return" valves applies to both the outlet pipe and this spiral pipe that is now the inlet to the tank, the use of these valves is to attempt to stop the water from inversing flow (although the calculations suggest they wouldn't be necessary).
The Water tank with both input and output pipes, has to be sealed to maintain the correct Pressure, (Not the pipes being sealed, but the container is "housed".
I think the main reason for this is a kind of testiment to rules, if people believe something is impossible should people not research into it a little, or experiment themselves? So in a sense the creation of a system that always seems to involve fluid dynamics, is thoughtup to test the system.
I created a diagram some time back for a perpetual motion system using liquid, It didn't use a paddlewheel since they loose alot of energy, (You have to imagine that if your using fluid and energy is lost with friction then you want the area that is turned to have a large surface to try and conduct most of that lost energy into energy creation.)
So rather than using a paddlewheel my design used something similar to the film "The Hunt for Red October's" Caterpillar drive, but an inverse effect, Rather than turning a screwshaped pillar of water through an inlet and out an outlet for propulsion, I was looking at forcing the water through the spiral to cause the spiral to turn an crank a generator.
The way my diagram worked was that you had a large vessel of water (a water tank) which had an outlet that went straight down, when it starts to bend round (90 Degs) you have the Inverse Caterpillar system the pipe then Bends up (90 Degs) and continues up until it's above the height at which the tank is.
The pipe is then to spiral around like one of those helterskelter slides (or coils) above the tank, This generates a greater length and body of water that is pulled by gravity than the water being "Sucked up".
There are then two "non-return" valves applies to both the outlet pipe and this spiral pipe that is now the inlet to the tank, the use of these valves is to attempt to stop the water from inversing flow (although the calculations suggest they wouldn't be necessary).
The Water tank with both input and output pipes, has to be sealed to maintain the correct Pressure, (Not the pipes being sealed, but the container is "housed".
You don't specify: Do you expect this to work?
I may not be visualizing correctly what you described, but it seems to me that all your system does is minimize mechanical losses. You're still trying to pump something uphill with you same energy it got from going downhill.
(By the way, I thought the Caterpillar drive in "Red October" was based on magnetohydrodynamics - not that I know anything about that.)
I may not be visualizing correctly what you described, but it seems to me that all your system does is minimize mechanical losses. You're still trying to pump something uphill with you same energy it got from going downhill.
(By the way, I thought the Caterpillar drive in "Red October" was based on magnetohydrodynamics - not that I know anything about that.)
Well The theory is that the body of water in the "coil" at the top, is greater in Mass than the body of water that's suppose to come up the pipe from the inverted caterpillar screw. (Afterall scales work on the method that if two weights are exactly the same, they balance, Namely one weights gravity is giving the energy to the other weight to rise, and when they are balanced in weight the scale is balanced.)
So the coil was to generate a larger volume at the output, than on the input.
As to whether it works, I haven't had a chance to test it, It's the sort of thing to go out into a garden shed or garage and build as a hobbiest thing to do (currently I have neither shed nor garage, so it hasn't been built.)
As for the "Red October" drive, I'm not sure what method they used to turn the Cylinder that contained the screw shape, however it was what I theorised the propulsion system to be from discussion around the time of the film, and it makes sense since it has a greater surface area than a convention propellar, and could take water from the front of the vessel through inputs to then be used to create a forced output stream.
In fact NASA has been (to my knowledge) working on utilising systems like this, I suppose you could say that martial artists have for years known of using an opponents energy rather than excert their own. Any motion of a craft forwards implies resistance force, however if the resistance force can be turned to an advanced (e.g. deflect to an output force) you haven't just increased the efficiency of your propulsion system but lessened the resistance forces that your working against.
So the coil was to generate a larger volume at the output, than on the input.
As to whether it works, I haven't had a chance to test it, It's the sort of thing to go out into a garden shed or garage and build as a hobbiest thing to do (currently I have neither shed nor garage, so it hasn't been built.)
As for the "Red October" drive, I'm not sure what method they used to turn the Cylinder that contained the screw shape, however it was what I theorised the propulsion system to be from discussion around the time of the film, and it makes sense since it has a greater surface area than a convention propellar, and could take water from the front of the vessel through inputs to then be used to create a forced output stream.
In fact NASA has been (to my knowledge) working on utilising systems like this, I suppose you could say that martial artists have for years known of using an opponents energy rather than excert their own. Any motion of a craft forwards implies resistance force, however if the resistance force can be turned to an advanced (e.g. deflect to an output force) you haven't just increased the efficiency of your propulsion system but lessened the resistance forces that your working against.
Not perpetual motion, but it works.
Eventually my side dock will be moved to a location where I can set up a generator that runs off rack and pinion gears to a large flywheel then to a generator and batteries. The rack mounts to the piling and the pinion gear turns the flywheel as the dock moves up and down on the tides.
Eventually my side dock will be moved to a location where I can set up a generator that runs off rack and pinion gears to a large flywheel then to a generator and batteries. The rack mounts to the piling and the pinion gear turns the flywheel as the dock moves up and down on the tides.
Stryder, it won't work, so don't go building that shed.
As for magneto hydro dynamics in 'Hunt for Red October', it didn't power a screw, but rather, acclerated water by ionising it, and repelling it using electromagnets. It used a low frequency pulse (so must have swept a large volume each pulse), which wasn't picked up by the monitoring software, as it was tuned to listen out for the expected frequency noise generated by the standard five bladed screw on a Kursk class submarine.
As for magneto hydro dynamics in 'Hunt for Red October', it didn't power a screw, but rather, acclerated water by ionising it, and repelling it using electromagnets. It used a low frequency pulse (so must have swept a large volume each pulse), which wasn't picked up by the monitoring software, as it was tuned to listen out for the expected frequency noise generated by the standard five bladed screw on a Kursk class submarine.
How about a perpetual motion machine driven by a pressure differential?
Let's say we make a pipe a hundred kilometres high, and extremely narrow - narrow enough that capillary action can carry water up through the pipe. It has a series of valves so that water will flow upward but not downward.
Initially, we drive the water up by some positive pressure from the bottom. When it reaches the top, it is vented out through a little turbine that generates energy from the flow.
Now, at the top, the pressure is much lower, and so the water will evaporate very quickly from the top end, leaving low pressure within the pipe. Water cannot flow down the pipe, only up, so there will always be a water flow up the pipe from the negative pressure. Finally, as long as the flow of evaporated water is enough to drive the turbine, the turbine will always produce power - even if not very much.
The water sprinkles back down onto the Earth, because of gravity. The water rises up the pipe because of the pressure differential. The turbine turns from the flow.
How's about that! No loss?
Let's say we make a pipe a hundred kilometres high, and extremely narrow - narrow enough that capillary action can carry water up through the pipe. It has a series of valves so that water will flow upward but not downward.
Initially, we drive the water up by some positive pressure from the bottom. When it reaches the top, it is vented out through a little turbine that generates energy from the flow.
Now, at the top, the pressure is much lower, and so the water will evaporate very quickly from the top end, leaving low pressure within the pipe. Water cannot flow down the pipe, only up, so there will always be a water flow up the pipe from the negative pressure. Finally, as long as the flow of evaporated water is enough to drive the turbine, the turbine will always produce power - even if not very much.
The water sprinkles back down onto the Earth, because of gravity. The water rises up the pipe because of the pressure differential. The turbine turns from the flow.
How's about that! No loss?
You do have loss in your one-way valves.
I'm not even sure that capillary action would be enough to open the valves, but if it did open them, you'd lose power.
And I'm not convinced that capillary action will lift water 100 km.
Good idea using the natural water cycle, but you're only using it for the easy, downhill part. What you really need is a rain turbine.
I'm not even sure that capillary action would be enough to open the valves, but if it did open them, you'd lose power.
And I'm not convinced that capillary action will lift water 100 km.
Good idea using the natural water cycle, but you're only using it for the easy, downhill part. What you really need is a rain turbine.
BigBlueHead said:
... and what energy input do you use to evaporate the water? Do you heat it from energy derives somehow from the capillary action? In which case, we have another imperfect closed system, that can never be 100% efficient, and therefore not perpetual. OR we have input from the ambient temperature. In which case it isn't a closed a system, and therefore, not perpetual.
Why does nearly every perpetual motion idea involve water, btw? Curious, because none of the ideas hold water, .....
I decided to create a little diagram to show what I suggested.
I'm not suggesting that the system would be completely perpetual since there is constantly the failed projects and why they won't work, however with what I put forwards I wasn't concentrating on the emphasis of generating power by a turbine (Unless it was to light say a lamp), however I was suggesting that certain things contradict the overall rulings about why such systems can't work.
For instance, "Newton" preposed 'For every action, there is an opposite an equal reaction'. This is proven in such instances as scales balancing or the same downforce applied in a seesaw being applied as up force on the opposite end. Admittedly there are marginal amounts of energy displacement at the hinge, but the hinge is also suffering force from gravity from the whole seesaw arm.
My diagram (although not 100% accurate since it's just a paintshop slaptogether-for-quickness) suggests that although the pipe (the thick blackline) has a certain tension value at which water pressure can amass (since water can't actual be compressed beyond a certain atmospheric pressure).
As you can see in the diagram, the water tank holds a fair amount, it's weight alone would be enough to generate a preportionary syphon effect, however my addition of the coil (which is at the wrong angles in the diagram) generates a greater water body that is in a downward gravitation pull rather than the pipe's volume that requires upward lift. This is a "purposeful imbalancement" to try and cause a continued motion within the enclosed system.
Now there are points like "What of evapouration?" or "What of temperature changes?", the system itself would have to be maintained at a particular temperature and be topped up with water to get the right balance, this does mean it's not perpetual since it requires maintainence, however I believe its as close as you could get if proven to work.
I'm not suggesting that the system would be completely perpetual since there is constantly the failed projects and why they won't work, however with what I put forwards I wasn't concentrating on the emphasis of generating power by a turbine (Unless it was to light say a lamp), however I was suggesting that certain things contradict the overall rulings about why such systems can't work.
For instance, "Newton" preposed 'For every action, there is an opposite an equal reaction'. This is proven in such instances as scales balancing or the same downforce applied in a seesaw being applied as up force on the opposite end. Admittedly there are marginal amounts of energy displacement at the hinge, but the hinge is also suffering force from gravity from the whole seesaw arm.
My diagram (although not 100% accurate since it's just a paintshop slaptogether-for-quickness) suggests that although the pipe (the thick blackline) has a certain tension value at which water pressure can amass (since water can't actual be compressed beyond a certain atmospheric pressure).
As you can see in the diagram, the water tank holds a fair amount, it's weight alone would be enough to generate a preportionary syphon effect, however my addition of the coil (which is at the wrong angles in the diagram) generates a greater water body that is in a downward gravitation pull rather than the pipe's volume that requires upward lift. This is a "purposeful imbalancement" to try and cause a continued motion within the enclosed system.
Now there are points like "What of evapouration?" or "What of temperature changes?", the system itself would have to be maintained at a particular temperature and be topped up with water to get the right balance, this does mean it's not perpetual since it requires maintainence, however I believe its as close as you could get if proven to work.
Phlodge said:
True, I never intended this to be a closed system - after all, it's using the pressure differential created by the gravity well of an entire planet. It isn't much of a perpetual motion machine at all by the usual standards.
I understood, however, that even extremely cold water would evaporate in such a low pressure environment. The turbine used to generate power would have to be pretty efficient to get much power out of such a small amount of water vapor, of course.
Stryder,
They say "water finds it's own level". It looks to me like the water in the tube on the right would stay at the same height as you picture it on the left - i.e. it would never get to the top. It shouldn't be too hard to do the experiment, though, with a bottle and some aquarium hose.
Bigbluehead,
You say "it isn't much of a perpetual motion machine", and yet you expect it to move perpetually.
Unfortunately, yours would be a lot harder to test by experiment, given the large size (but I still don't think you'd even get water to the top).
They say "water finds it's own level". It looks to me like the water in the tube on the right would stay at the same height as you picture it on the left - i.e. it would never get to the top. It shouldn't be too hard to do the experiment, though, with a bottle and some aquarium hose.
Bigbluehead,
You say "it isn't much of a perpetual motion machine", and yet you expect it to move perpetually.
Unfortunately, yours would be a lot harder to test by experiment, given the large size (but I still don't think you'd even get water to the top).
