It appears a certain member may be making good his threats:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/threatening-behavior-and-possible-hack.162934/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/threatening-behavior-and-possible-hack.162934/
Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Let me apologize here as well.
Sorry to have played games with you and sorry you did not see that I was playing with you.
I won't diminish my apology with any qualification as to my motivation.
I complement you on a wonderful thread and finally understanding why others disagreed with you.
You have my respect and keep up the good work.
Alex
Accepted and I hope you will accept mine for any discomfort I may have caused you..
I think that is one of the most important factors in both maintenance and establishment cost...
We can design all sorts of things but the ole salt water corrosive effect never goes away..
May be recycle all that oceanic plastic and build saltwater devices with them..lol.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you appreciated and accepted.
You need not worry about my discomfort..I don't get upset...I do pretend a little ...for effect.
All good and the positive is progress is being made.
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Let's finally put all that plastic waste to good use.
I haven't read the entire thread, so correct me if I'm wrong. The energy generation idea is supposed to go something like this:
Take a container full of air at the ocean surface and allow it to sink to the bottom of the ocean. Assume the container has a moveable piston lid that allows the water pressure to compress the air inside as the container sinks. When the container reaches the ocean floor, extract the compressed air from the container and pipe it back to the surface. Use that compressed air to run a generator (for instance). Then hoist the container back to the surface, fill it with air again and repeat.
Is that correct?
Consider the work done in each part of the process. At the start of each cycle, the piston lid must be raised by something (machinery, say) and air allowed to enter the container. The raising of the piston requires energy input, which we must pay for.
The container is allowed to sink. When this happens, some of its gravitational potential energy goes to compressing the piston, but most is lost due to friction with the surrounding water as the container sinks.
The compressed air is allowed to flow back to the surface when the container is at the bottom of the ocean. The air pressure will have to fight the air pressure already in the vertical pipe, so gaining the full benefit of the depth of the container won't be achievable. There will also be frictional losses as the high-pressure air flows through the pipe back to the surface.
At the surface, the remaining air pressure can possibly be used to do some useful work.
The compressed container must then be lifted back to the surface, ready for the next cycle. This will require a lot more energy than can be extracted using the compressed air piped back to the surface. Again, there will be frictional losses as the container is pulled back to the surface, but the major loss will be in the energy that must be supplied to provide the required gravitational potential energy to the container.
Overall, the entire process would consume a lot more energy than could be extracted from it. As a perpetual motion "free energy" source, this is a non-starter.
Take a container full of air at the ocean surface and allow it to sink to the bottom of the ocean. Assume the container has a moveable piston lid that allows the water pressure to compress the air inside as the container sinks. When the container reaches the ocean floor, extract the compressed air from the container and pipe it back to the surface. Use that compressed air to run a generator (for instance). Then hoist the container back to the surface, fill it with air again and repeat.
Is that correct?
Consider the work done in each part of the process. At the start of each cycle, the piston lid must be raised by something (machinery, say) and air allowed to enter the container. The raising of the piston requires energy input, which we must pay for.
The container is allowed to sink. When this happens, some of its gravitational potential energy goes to compressing the piston, but most is lost due to friction with the surrounding water as the container sinks.
The compressed air is allowed to flow back to the surface when the container is at the bottom of the ocean. The air pressure will have to fight the air pressure already in the vertical pipe, so gaining the full benefit of the depth of the container won't be achievable. There will also be frictional losses as the high-pressure air flows through the pipe back to the surface.
At the surface, the remaining air pressure can possibly be used to do some useful work.
The compressed container must then be lifted back to the surface, ready for the next cycle. This will require a lot more energy than can be extracted using the compressed air piped back to the surface. Again, there will be frictional losses as the container is pulled back to the surface, but the major loss will be in the energy that must be supplied to provide the required gravitational potential energy to the container.
Overall, the entire process would consume a lot more energy than could be extracted from it. As a perpetual motion "free energy" source, this is a non-starter.
true... Pseudo perpetual motion and or energy devices are impossible ( 2nd law I think)
What makes you think it is supposed to be a perpetual motion energy device? ( you are not the first poster to think so btw)
Seriously... for some reason so many posters have assumed this thread was to be about perpetual energy devices. Why is that?
It is truly puzzling...
What did I say in the OP that suggested this?
Admittedly the thread title is technically worded badly. But perpetual motion/energy was certainly never intended.
It was an offer for members to get creative about harvesting pressure ( energy ) from the ocean depths. That is all.
How would you word the OP if you were starting this thread? ( rhetorical)
We have since discovered that the displacement of the vessel affords a potential energy that can be exploited for PE at the bottom of a given depth and transported to the surface in a one way trip to the bottom ( not economically viable ) and a non starter as a realistic energy source.
see post #338 for an updated outline (less the displacement solution which comes up later) of how my posts have evolved and possibly take in Write4u's contributions as well... Post #184
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
How would you word the OP if you were wanting to?Not wrong just very late.
Alex
Here is the OP again
we found out that the issue of displacement hadn't been considered. Which I must admit is a real insight gained from this thread IMO
Something worth exploring further IMO.
I corrected the word pressure and replaced with energy...
we found out that the issue of displacement hadn't been considered. Which I must admit is a real insight gained from this thread IMO
Something worth exploring further IMO.
Yes.
If it isn't supposed to be that, then it seems like a pointless method. If you want high-pressure at the surface of the ocean, you'd be better off building a decent pressure pump.
Maybe the word "harvesting", for starters. The opening post also refers to "an endless supply of 36000 kPa?", like it's a resource free for the taking.
What do you mean by "harvesting"? Taking the pressure on the ocean floor and "bringing it up" to the surface? What are we supposed to gain in that process? It would be a colossal waste of time and energy, wouldn't it?
see if you can make sense of the following from one of the posts I recommended you review:
Using that cryptic text idea:
From surface to 30 meters and back to surface:
--[-----v------] 0 at surface
---[-----------] 10 meters
-----[---------] 20meters
------[--------] 30meters
-------------[-] ==>------[-------] transfer air pressure to surface. (58.34psi)
-------------[-] 30 depleted of air pressure
-------------[-] 20
-------------[-] 10
-------------[-] 0 at surface
Shows
- A collapsing volume to the depth of 30 meters. (58.34 psi)
- The transfer of pressurized air to the surface (58.34psi)
- The retrieval of the vessel with out any air volume gained or remaining.
I hope this is not confusing the issue more so.
The main issue is the cost in energy to retrieve the variable volume vessel once it is depleted of pressurized air. ( PE)
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
20,000 Leagues under the Sea will the energy be free?
When writing an add you need something that stands out and triggers memories.
The bulkof the add you just want to cause the phone to ring remembering it is only when face to face you can make the sale so all you sell over the phone is an appointment. All you need is something to cause folk to look into the thread.
I feel to have more hope of getting somewhere any criticism needs careful consideration and to be welcomed and use the opportunity to ask ..is there any way we can overcome the problem you raise.. that way you have the person raising the problem trying to solve it with you.
See how things picked up when minds met rather than strike opposite positions.
I had a thought but I am not sure it would work or if it did a practical application.
We have a pipe to the bottom with a chamber...the chamber connects to a large Ballon or similar. Down the tube we drop explosive that when set off fills the balloon and I expect we have energy not only from the explosion but from the pressure of the water. Ideally the explosives come from collecting bombs that need to be disposed of...
Do you see any problems and how could we manage them and assuming we manage to solve the problems can we make a list of possible practical applications.
Alex
So you agree that energy can be exploited, harvested, or other wise acquired from the ocean depths. This at least is a good start.
It proves that energy can be harvested from the ocean depths in principle.
Whether it is economical or not is not the point.
It is the principles first, economics second...
Besides until you do a proper investigation you cannot know the economics of it.
My guess is that when finished it will run about 70% efficient but that is just a guess..
and it is only one idea, there are others patented by research firms etc...
but still you haven't addressed why you felt this thread was about perpetual energy/motion devices?
perhaps other members would like to address your questions...
Sure, but you can't get out even as much energy as you put in this way, so there are far more efficient and cost-effective ways to get useful energy than this.
Thermal harvesting would be much more efficient, at the expense of heating the ocean depths.
No. If that was the case then we would have replaced all the coal-fired power plants with this long before now.
Yes I did. Explicitly.
certainly using your bucket idea that would be the case, but there are considerably more clever ways of doing it.
Imagine sinking a variable volume storage vessel down 3000 meters and compress 1000 m^3 air to 35000 kpa and pipe it to the surface to a storage chamber. High density Potential energy.
Do the figures on how many homes that would power and for how long...
The work out a cost effect way to retrieve the vessel using the energy gained by it's descent...to supplement the energy needed to raise it.
and you may be surprised to find the system may work well at about 70% efficiency.
Ie. Drop 10 ton anchor attached to a cable driven gen set on the surface and you get electricity from dropping the anchor.
Replace anchor with the variable volume vessel. Use the energy generated to supplement the energy needed to raise the empty vessel.
Figure out all the buoyancy (displacement) issues and you will see it isn't that far off from being economically viable.
It's the same method as before. How is this any more "clever" than the other method? What is saved? You still have to re-inflate your collapsed storage vessel and drag it back to the surface. That will cost more energy than you get from the pressurised air.
Why don't you do them? It's your thread.
Show me your maths.
Yes. And then you have to hoist your 10 ton anchor back to the surface, ready for the next drop, or else supply a new 10 ton anchor each time.
Show me your maths.