PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > News, Announcements, and Current Events > The Buzz > Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report
2024-11-17, 12:20:09
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report  (Read 58006 times)
Topic Options img
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #75 on: 2011-04-13, 07:21:59 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Quote
It doesn't make any difference.
If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first spring expanded to 1 m.
From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of their length.
I would agree to some extent, however if it doesn't make any difference then exactly how would you move the two springs already balanced at the 3/4 length mark so that one of them is compressed to 1/2 it's length as in my second example involving a mass so that all the energy is transferred?. I was referring to efficiency and only transferring some of the energy doesn't seem all that efficient to me, hence my examples.
Here is an easier analogy, I have a bannana in my hand for you but I only give you one half therefore my efficiency at transfering bannanas is only 50% because I still have one half of it.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #76 on: 2011-04-13, 14:00:12 »
Group: Guest
@allcanadian
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-13, 07:21:59
...
however if it doesn't make any difference then exactly how would you move the two springs already balanced at the 3/4 length mark so that one of them is compressed to 1/2 it's length as in my second example involving a mass so that all the energy is transferred?
...

Consider the situation that you previously described:
"I have a 1m spring and compress it to 1/2m and if I want to transfer the energy in this spring to another spring something which seems odd happens. If I attach another identical 1m spring to the compressed spring and allow both to balance their forces then each spring will end up compressed to 3/4 of it's length. It would seem we have lost something but this is not the case, we have simply balanced the stressed condition between the springs."

This is the case, we have really lost something: we have balanced the stressed condition but energy has been released. If the released energy is not used, then it is wasted in the spring itself after some oscillations (mainly as heat, a consequence of frictional forces due to the atoms/crystals rearrangement in the material lattice).

One must remember that the force is not constant when the spring length changes, therefore work to move the spring depends not only on the change of length, but also on the absolute length. Energy is not proportional to the spring length.
The energy in two springs compressed to 3/4 of their length is less than in a spring compressed to 1/2 and another not compressed.

So it is not a simple question of efficiency. It would be a pity to not recover this energy. But if we decide to recover it, many different means of similar efficiency can be used.

The math:
Force on springs is: F=k*(L0-L) where L is the spring length and L0 the length when not compressed.
Using a relative length, we write L0=1 and x=L0/L, thus F = k * (1-x).dx

Therefore the elementary work to change the length is: dW = F*dx = k*(1-x).dx.

For x=1, F=0 (the spring has its nominal length).

For the work to change the length from L0 to L, we have to integrate:
W = Int(k*(1-x)*dx) = k*(Int(dx) - Int(x.dx)) = k * ([x ] - [1/2*x2])

From L0=1 to L=1/2 we get:
W1= k * ((1-1/2) - (1/2*(1-1/2)2) = k * (1/2 - 1/8) = k * 7/8
(which is the total energy because when a spring length is 1/2, the other one is 1 thus it has no energy).

From L0=1 to L=3/4 we get:
W2= k * ((1-3/4) - (1/2*(1-3/4)2) = k * (1/4 - 1/32)
As we have two identical springs, for the total stored energy we must double:
W = k * 7/16

It follows that for going from the situation with a spring of length 1 and the other 1/2, to the situation where both length are 3/4, energy W is released:
W = W1-W2 = k * 7/8 - k*7/16 = - k * 7/16.

(hope there is no typo or miscalculation)
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #77 on: 2011-04-13, 22:15:30 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Now let me get this straight in my head, first Milehigh states --"There is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a most efficient
manner", then you told me "It doesn't make any difference. If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first
spring expanded to 1 m. From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of
their length." and now your telling me that "This is the case, we have really lost something" --- if I wasn't confused before I certainly
am now.

Quote
The math:
Force on springs is: F=k*(L0-L) where L is the spring length and L0 the length when not compressed.
Using a relative length, we write L0=1 and x=L0/L, thus F = k * (1-x).dx

Therefore the elementary work to change the length is: dW = F*dx = k*(1-x).dx.

For x=1, F=0 (the spring has its nominal length).

For the work to change the length from L0 to L, we have to integrate:
W = Int(k*(1-x)*dx) = k*(Int(dx) - Int(x.dx)) = k * ([x ] - [1/2*x2])

From L0=1 to L=1/2 we get:
W1= k * ((1-1/2) - (1/2*(1-1/2)2) = k * (1/2 - 1/8) = k * 7/8
(which is the total energy because when a spring length is 1/2, the other one is 1 thus it has no energy).

From L0=1 to L=3/4 we get:
W2= k * ((1-3/4) - (1/2*(1-3/4)2) = k * (1/4 - 1/32)
As we have two identical springs, for the total stored energy we must double:
W = k * 7/16

It follows that for going from the situation with a spring of length 1 and the other 1/2, to the situation where both length are 3/4, energy W is released:
W = W1-W2 = k * 7/8 - k*7/16 = - k * 7/16.

That is quite impressive however there may be an easier explanation, in our first example the resultant condition of our second spring
is a mirror image of the initial condition of our first spring because we used an intermediary mass to efficiently transfer most all the energy or the initial condition.
In the second example the initial condition of two separate 1m springs has been replaced with one single spring 2m in length which is compressed
to 3/4 of it's total length. In this case the initial stressed condition of one spring which represents energy is now spread out over twice
the volume because the two springs are now considered as one. As well we could say nothing is lost and energy is conserved because the same energy is still present however in the last example the same energy is spread out over twice the volume.
You see the real problem is the fact that we tend to see the world in the two dimensions of length and area but the conception of volume is a problem for us. This problem is further aggravated by the conception of volume as it relates to density and even more so by changes in density within any given part of a volume as a gradient. Consider the fact that if we heat one single turn of our spring then the applied force of the spring as a whole is reduced, this tells us that the stress is not solely a function of the length of the spring but the volume and density. Every single cubic mm of the spring imparts a small force which culminates at the boundary conditions at the ends of the spring.

Once we understand these simple concepts then we can deal with the issue that maybe the Hidro device is not based solely on a buoy full of air bobbing up and down due to simple buoyancy. In fact the pressure balancing device utilizes a cylinder, a "spring", a piston having mass, an opening to ambient pressure at the bottom of the tank, a balance chamber, air lines to route pressure to separate spaces and valves which determine the time when air under pressure is routed to a separate space. Perhaps the fact that we can magically seem to misplace 1/2 of the energy in some of our systems is the same reason the Hidro device claims to find energy in it's systems, of course this is just speculation.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-04-13, 22:51:07 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #78 on: 2011-04-13, 23:39:11 »
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
Now let me get this straight in my head, first Milehigh states --"There is no way to compress a mechanical spring in a most efficient manner"

This is just a simple misunderstanding.  I am thinking in simple absolute terms here.  What I mean is suppose that you compress a spring 10 cm and it takes 10 Joules of energy to do this.  What I am saying is that whatever mechanism is used to compress the spring would have to output 10 Joules of energy to do this plus some overhead energy.  In other words you can't compress a spring so that it is storing 10 Joules of energy but your mechanism only requires 8 Joules of energy to do this.

The issue relating to looking at two ways to charge a capacitor and using an inductor in between giving you better voltages on each capacitor is different.  There you are talking about your charging mechanism being more efficient when you use an inductor.  So that's indeed more efficient, and you are losing less energy when you use the inductor trick.  However, you still had to expend 10 Joules plus some overhead to put 10 Joules into the capacitor.

Relating that back to the Hidro project, the absolute terms are what it's all about.  If you have to do 10 Joules of work to evacuate water from the buoy, then your system for doing that has to expend at least 10 Joules plus some overhead.

The only way the Hidro machine can allegedly produce over unity is if it breaks through the absolute barrier associated with the work that has to be done to evacuate the buoy.  That absolute barrier has to be broken.  Everything else is just window dressing.

The Hidro system is just a gravity motor/wheel disguised as a machine based on buoyancy.  I know that there are still threads around on this 17th century idea and you can see them all over YouTube.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-04-14, 03:34:31 by MileHigh »
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #79 on: 2011-04-14, 12:48:09 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-13, 22:15:30
@exnihiloest
...you told me "It doesn't make any difference. If the second spring is compressed to 1/2m, this implies that the first spring expanded to 1 m. From the energy viewpoint, it is the same situation as the two springs ending up compressed to 3/4 of their length." and now your telling me that "This is the case, we have really lost something" --- if I wasn't confused before I certainly am now.
...

Hi allcanadian,

You are right. My first post was a big mistake that I should have corrected in my second post with the math. I apologize for the oversight. Thanks for having emphasized the inconsistency.

When I thought that 2 spings in series, one not compressed and the other ompressed at 1/2, tend to balance each at 3/4 length, I realized that they obey to the least action principle thus the second situation is less energetic than the first one. So I did the math and in fact it was obvious (the force is not constant, it is length dependant) but I missed it the first time.

The math says the truth !  (in spite I don't like it)  :) .
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #80 on: 2011-04-16, 21:45:47 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Quote
When I thought that 2 spings in series, one not compressed and the other ompressed at 1/2, tend to balance each at 3/4 length, I realized that they obey to the least action principle thus the second situation is less energetic than the first one. So I did the math and in fact it was obvious (the force is not constant, it is length dependant) but I missed it the first time.

This simple experiment with the springs can be misleading because it is a kind of optical illusion where our mind tells us one thing but the facts tell us something different. Of course this works both ways and the facts may tell us one thing but our minds can create solutions to change the facts. Consider the fact that if there were no birds or flying insects etc... then we would have little or no comprehension of flight, what would possess any person to even think anything could fly by any means when they have been given absolutely no reason to believe it is possible -- but it is.
As well I was reading a little on the history of the Principal of Least Action which was interesting because we could essentially take all of these volumes of literature and calculations and replace them with a single word --- Balance. It is also interesting that once again we have been mislead by illusions whereby what we observe has been tainted by beliefs and opinion. If the Principal of Least Action is true then all we know should be nothing more than a fine gas dispersed evenly throughout the universe -- but it isn't. This is because balance works both ways cyclically, that is things that seek a greater area to find balance(Expansion/Entropy) at some point seek a lesser area to find balance(Contraction/Syntropy). When you find the other half of the equations which relate to the Principal of Greatest Action then things should make much more sense because if there is one thing we do know it is that everything in nature must balance therefore it must have an opposite.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  muDped
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #81 on: 2011-04-17, 02:29:49 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
On the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article is food for thought.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #82 on: 2011-04-17, 13:44:19 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Dumped on 2011-04-17, 02:29:49
On the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article is food for thought.

I read the article and there is nothing there.

Quote
Hydropower engineering, up to this day, is almost esclusively concerned with two variables, one being the altitude differential between head water and turbine and the other the quantity of water that can be brought to flow through the turbines.

A third important variable, the velocity of flow of water, is generally not thought to be important. It is taken into consideration only as the velocity resulting from the release of water pressure connected to and dependent on altitude differential but not as an important factor in its own right. In fact, current design of hydropower facilities normally excludes utilization of the dynamic energy potential inherent in the free flow of water. A dam destroys this natural energy potential by bringing the water from its dynamic state of flow to a static state, a complete absence of motion.

This is all just junk pseudoscience.  They are hinting at the implication that if you speed up the flow of water you can extract more energy from it and/or extract energy more efficiently.  No matter what you do, you still run up against the wall where you can't extract more energy from the water that was available in the first place.

In many cases you see people confusing a more efficient use of power or energy as over unity when all it really means is that you are closer to 100% efficiency.  A case in point is the famous shorting capacitor example.  If you loose 50% of your energy when you short two capacitors together and you loose only 10% of your energy when you use an inductor and a diode, that's not over unity  Some people in their enthusiasm mistakenly interpret it as over unity.  The same could apply in this example were faster flowing water transfers more of it's energy to a turbine.

Then the article goes on to talk about putting water through a nozzle so that it spirals into a vortex.  The implication somehow being that water spiraling in a vortex will get you either more power or a more efficient energy transfer.  Even if this is true, you still can only approach 100% efficiency.  In the free energy world, that means you strike out.

MileHigh
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #83 on: 2011-04-18, 00:18:44 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Dumped
Quote
On the subject of hydropower and how to get more
with less, this article is food for thought.
Yes I had read that article many years ago and concluded that Hasslberger is so vague in his descriptions that either he doesn't know or he ain't telling why and how this technology works.
The first part is obvious, normally we divert a river which has a huge mass M and a Velocity V or MV(Momentum) into a static lake at which point the turbine inlet velocity basically becomes zero. Of course it is insane that the huge amount of Kinetic energy that the source flow has is completely wasted which is why Victor Schauber stated that the  Velocity of the source of water(the river) must be conserved right up to and including the turbine inlet.
At this point we can do a little math :D
KE(Kinetic Energy)=1/2MV^2 which is not only incorrect but misleading.
KE=MV^2/2 as you cannot divide the Mass that is absurd, the /2 relates solely to V and V initial+V final/2 represents average velocity.
MV is momentum, MV x MV (MV^2)represents a change in momentum assuming M is constant
KE=MV^2 x V/2 or change in momentum times average velocity and the V^2 in MV^2 represents V x V or a change in velocity which is in fact an acceleration, which is why the momentum has changed as it is "assumed" M is constant.

Now what does EK=MV^2/2 mean in relation to Victor Schauberger vortex technology? It means that if Mass is assumed to be constant but has the appearance of change then if energy is conserved then V must change as well.
The vortex spins water at high velocity axially around a center and this center is decreasing in volume, if the water is at high speed then the pressure is reduced as an increase in velocity is proportional to a decrease in pressure. The velocity rises, the pressure drops, the reduced pressure produces expansion and cooling effects however we have a problem. The cooling effects produced by a drop in pressure indirectly cause the water to contract or become more dense not less decreasing the pressure further. Here we see a cycle, increasing Velocity, decreasing Pressure, increasing volume, decreasing temperature, increasing density, decreasing volume, decreasing pressure, increasing velocity.
The decrease in density produces a cyclic decrease in volume which in a set volume must produce a decrease in pressure and increase in velocity. The vortex is a heat pump which converts ambient heat into a velocity increase along the axial center of rotation because the water is contracting when it should be expanding. The change in volume is not a scalar function but a vector function because the contraction is in the direction of flow which is why the velocity must increase into the vortex.
This is why I basically ignore math and equations most of the time, I have no interest in them other than to understand what they really mean or moreso what assumptions have been made in the process. In this case M the MASS has appeared to change due to the circumstances involved in which case KE=MV^2/2 has limitations.

Here is a basic analogy, I have a long stick made of water and everytime I push on one end it moves forward and in the process it gets physically shorter in length in a direction away from my push, what happens? Relatively speaking the water stick is now twice the distance from me as it should be because the mass has contracted away from me.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-04-19, 04:13:53 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #84 on: 2011-04-18, 01:28:47 »
Group: Guest
Just for fun I'll take a stab at the vortex nozzle modeling.

A long pipe terminating in a partially open valve releasing water has a fairly simple model.

The long pipe is like a length of wire.  The pressure and the flow are like the voltage and current.  As water flows through a long pipe the water pressure drops slowly because of the energy lost in the water turbulence and due to friction with the inside surface of the hose.  That resistance causes a pressure drop per unit length just like an electrical resistor causes a voltage drop per unit length.

The long pipe is more accurately a "lossy" wire with considerably more resistance than an equivalent electrical wire.  Also, the flowing water has a lot of momentum and stores a fair amount of energy.  That translates into inductance.  So the pipe is like an inductor made with moderately resistive wire.  That's pretty much what an electrical wire is because it possesses inductance and resistance.

The partially open valve is like a resistor.  Heat is being generated but you can't perceive it because the flowing water is taking it all away.

Note that all of the pressure in the pipe will drop to zero as it passes through the partially open valve.  The equivalent is all of the voltage dropping across a resistor connected to ground.

When you look at the vortex valve it's a bit more complicated.

Let's just look at the fact that the water exits out of a smaller nozzle, so it's at a higher velocity.  Lets also assume that it goes into a smaller diameter pipe.  Let's also assume that there is a constant flow rate of water.

Note the water flow rate in the smaller pipe remains the same, so the current remains the same.  Interestingly enough, the pressure does not increase.  It can't because the vortex valve represents a restriction and the water pressure has to drop across the restriction.

So you end up with something very interesting.  When you switch over to the new smaller diameter pipe, you have the same flow rate and the pressure is still dropping a certain amount per unit length, but the water is moving faster through the smaller pipe.  So the way to model that is that the hydraulic inductance per unit length for the narrower pipe is higher.

So the circuit for the simplified example where you assume that you have a normal pipe, the vortex valve,  which then connects to a smaller diameter pipe is as follows:

A voltage source connected to a resistive inductor #1 (the normal pipe), which connects to a resistor (the vortex valve), which then connects to resistive inductor #2 (the small pipe).  Then where the water spills out of the end of the small pipe you have another regular resistor to ground.  Resistive inductor #2 has properties of more resistance and more inductance per unit length as compared to #1.

Anyway, all food for thought.  The key point is that typically valves act like resistors.  They literally burn off energy.  Of course the water itself is still moving and contains energy after it passes through a valve.  If the valve empties that moving water onto the street that energy also gets dissipated off and the water pressure returns to "ground."
« Last Edit: 2011-04-18, 05:21:53 by MileHigh »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #85 on: 2011-04-18, 02:37:50 »
Group: Guest
AC:

That posting was really something.  I wouldn't know where to begin.  Two things for your consideration.  The first is that KE = 1/2MV^2.  You can look up the simple derivation for that.  The second is that water can normally be considered as an incompressible fluid.  So there are no cooling effects because of pressure drops or volume changes.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #86 on: 2011-04-18, 02:56:28 »
Group: Guest
Interesting final comments.

Quote
A voltage source connected to a resistive inductor #1 (the normal pipe), which connects to a resistor (the vortex valve), which then connects to resistive inductor #2 (the small pipe).  Then where the water spills out of the end of the small pipe you have another regular resistor to ground.  Resistive inductor #2 has properties of more resistance and more inductance per unit length as compared to #1.

Notice that I said "voltage source."  That means that you view the water supply as a constant pressure source.

But, supposing the water source went through a water pump that used pistons like a car engine.  Supposing that the engine has a governor on it that keeps the RPM constant.  Then you would have a pump that maintains a constant flow rate as opposed to a constant pressure.  That would be equivalent to a current source.

When you run a fixed flow rate through the water hose and vortex valve and smaller water hose everything on the surface will seem the same.  You will see the pressure drop linearly across the length of the hoses.

But if you change the flow rate, modulate it up and down, now the pressure readings in the pipe setup will start to fluctuate wildly.  The momentum of the flowing water in both the normal and the small pipes will want to resist the changes in the water flow rate.  Changing momentum (mv) with respect to time is force.  (f=ma == mdv/dt == dmv/dt)  So you get high pressures (forces) rapidly changing in time inside the pipe.

That phenomenon is somewhat similar to the wild voltage swings in Rosemary's power connections because of the wire inductance.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #87 on: 2011-04-18, 05:45:53 »
Group: Guest
Hot off the presses, the story of an Australian con artist:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-menace-of-magnetism-20110416-1diuk.html

The scam website:

http://www.cycclone.com/

Quote
Please be patient with our site.

Due to unprecedented demand, we are experiencing an extreme amount of traffic

LOL
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #88 on: 2011-04-18, 09:01:17 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-18, 00:18:44
...
At this point we can do a little math :D
KE(Kinetic Energy)=1/2MV^2 which is not only incorrect but misleading.
KE=MV^2/2 as you cannot divide the Mass that is absurd, the /2 relates solely to V and V/2 represents average velocity.
MV is momentum, MV x MV (MV^2)represents a change in momentum assuming M is constant
KE=MV^2 x V/2 or change in momentum times average velocity and the V^2 in MV^2 represents V x V or a change in velocity which is in fact an acceleration, which is why the momentum has changed as it is "assumed" M is constant.

In KE=MV^2/2, 1/2 is just a factor. It doesn't divide any thing else than MV^2 which has the dimension of an energy.
Where 1/2 comes from? If a mass M inside a closed system is accelerated until speed V relative to the center of masses, then the other part of masses of the system is accelerated towards the opposite direction (action/reaction, momentum conservation), carrying the other half part of the total energy. This applies even though the "other part of masses" is the earth. In general it is not viewed because the change of earth speed is unnoticeable due to the ratio of masses, M being negligible relative to the earth mass, and we keep our referential attached to the earth instead of the center of masses earth+M.

Back to the river. The flow of a river is expressed as a moving water volume/s (in m3/s), which is equivalent of tons/s. If the water of a river flows in a much wider riverbed, the flow is conserved, the same number of tons/s is flowing. I agree that the speed changes but the momentum of the whole river doesn't change: there is a new distribution of masses. If we had 1 ton/s through a cross section of 1 m2, and the total section of the riverbed is now multiplied by 10, then we have still 1 ton/s but crossing 10 m2, meaning that the water speed is divided by 10 according to v2=m1*v1/m2, because the mass of water by length of cross section is now multiplied by 10.
It is the same as a current in a conductor. If we put in series another conductor of 10 times the section of the other, then the same current flows but the density of current is divided by 10. The "density of current" in a river could be expressed in tons/s/m2 (mass of water crossing a 1 m2 section every second).

In any case, we see that momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. I dont see why vortexes would change anything. They could reduce the cross-section and increase the speed, which doesn't give extra-energy.
   
img  muDped
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #89 on: 2011-04-18, 23:11:30 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-04-18, 09:01:17
...

In any case, we see that momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. I dont see why vortexes would change anything. They could reduce the cross-section and increase the speed, which doesn't give extra-energy.


Perhaps not any extra energy - this would have to be
verified by actual fabrication and experimentation.

This project,
however, is an example of how small the concept is
capable of being implemented with very little water
head.

Those who have shallow water flow could efficiently take
advantage of such a situation with creativity and
ingenuity.  It is under serious study.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #90 on: 2011-04-18, 23:15:58 »
Group: Guest
Lawrence:

Quote
2. If he uses energy from air (formula in reply 18), he can control the speed of ascent of the submarine container. He does not need to rely on the buoyancy alone. He can jet out some of the water + Air in the submarine container. That will give a very high upward force. He is effectively firing a torpedo! That force is much higher than what step 1 can possibly provide.

3. Most people (even scientists) may mistakenly think that the energy supplied to compress the air is the total Input Energy. They are mistaken. Air is not a fuel but an Energy Carrier. The total Input Energy should be the sum of the Epump + Eair. Epump is the energy supplied. Ein is the Energy carried into the submarine container by air.

Please show me your equations to back up your claim that it works.  There are no real formulas or equations in your reply #18 above.

MileHigh
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #91 on: 2011-04-19, 08:16:38 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Dumped on 2011-04-18, 23:11:30
Perhaps not any extra energy - this would have to be
verified by actual fabrication and experimentation.
...

In matter of proof, I always agree for experimenting.
Now conventional laws of physics have been already verified and reverified, so we have to do it again only if we have serious reasons to think there is a grain of sand in the machine. Otherwise our entire life would not be enough.
Each point taken apart (gravity/buoyancy/fluid dynamics/gas theory...), is well known. It can't be different when put together, it is a mathematical impossibility, and a physical impossibility if a new elementary physical phenomenon was not involved in the system, letting us expect for something different. What could it be? What is the point in hidro that should trigger our interest?


   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #92 on: 2011-04-19, 17:08:31 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Quote
Each point taken apart (gravity/buoyancy/fluid dynamics/gas theory...), is well known. It can't be different when put together, it is a mathematical impossibility, and a physical impossibility if a new elementary physical phenomenon was not involved in the system, letting us expect for something different. What could it be? What is the point in hidro that should trigger our interest?
Of course if we put something together different we can get different results which is why there are thousands upon thousands of "new" patents issued every year, you see a patent must be new technology not something which is not different. I think what you are implying is that you cannot seem to do anything different therefore you have assumed nobody else can, here is a simple example of the impossible.
I have a 100 foot vertical pipe full of water in the ground, a piston and some valves and I want to pump this water out of the ground, now it should be obvious that my piston pump must be at the bottom of the 100 foot pipe and that I can only pump the water "up". You see if I tried to suck this water up the pipe then the low pressure at the top due to the weight of the water column would make this impossible, this is just common sense and obvious. Therefore we could state that it is a mathematical and physical impossibility that we could ever under any circumstances have a pump at the top of the pipe. Of course this is an assumption and it is in fact completely wrong and misguided because this very thing was done in 1930 and the technology is simple and obvious.

Popular Science--1930
Quote
Following the example of the United States Patent Office, 18 countries have issued patents to an Argentinian inventor upon an amazing pump that seems to violate natural laws. By creating waves in a pipeful of water, it makes the liquid run uphill.
When the inventor, Toribio Bellocq, applied for a US patent on a pump to be mounted on top of a well and to draw water up from almost unlimited depths, officials pointed out that his device apparently would have to defy the law of gravitation. Every high school student knows that by no effort can a pump suck water higher than approximately 33 feet. This is the limit at which the weight of an imprisoned column of water balances the atmospheric pressure outside. To force water higher from its source, authorities have always agreed that it must be pushed from below. Therefore Bellocq's "wave pump" seemed in a class with perpetual motion machines, which are not patentable because they are impossible.
----http://www.rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm

Note that the "experts" of the day made the same ridiculous and completely absurd claim that this technology must amount to a perpetual motion machine, which gives me reason to believe ignorance may be hereditary. You see this is what silly people do, they assume if they cannot understand something then it must be impossible and be a perpetual motion machine which is of course completely insane. Now let's try to rationalize this silliness, Let's say I have a device in front of me but I do not understand how it could possibly work therefore if I do not understand it ------ It is impossible and a perpetual motion machine------, now how in the hell could anyone make such a leap of faith considering they have no facts?. This is exactly the same kind of silliness which occurs when someone see's a simple light in the sky then proclaims --- It must be little green aliens from another planet who want take over our planet and eat us, ;D, no it is a light in the sky and we do not know what it is --- nothing more nothing less. Personally I think the moment anyone assumes "Perpetual motion" they lose all credibility because first it implies a complete lack of understanding and second they have taken a leap of faith not based on facts because they have none.

Now the Bellocq wave pump works because water IS compressible, sound waves in water are due to the fluid being compressed and rarefied which is what sound is. Bellocq produces waves of compression which act like a piston when they act on a boundary condition and the differences in pressure in the waves is the reason the water is pumped upward. Now again one has to wonder how could all the experts be completely ignorant to this simple fact considering they are supposedly "experts" and why did they jump to the ridiculous conclusion that this must be a perpetual motion machine?.
As well before someone jumps in and tries to explain the fact that this pump technology is based on conventional science, YES I understand this perfectly well but that is not the point. The point is why has most everyone assumed that any very efficient device or free energy device is not based on known science and known effects which may not be known by everyone which may not include us? Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that it must be OU or a perpetual motion machine when it does something we do not fully understand? You see when a supposed expert does this then they may as well drag Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny into this as well because it is not science it is pure fantasy.
Maybe we should start with a new premise here that is not flawed on every level and completely insane, what if from now on whenever we find something we do not understand we say to ourselves---" I do not fully understand what is happening that is all " instead of leaping into the realm of OU, perpetual motion machines and the Easter Bunny.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #93 on: 2011-04-20, 09:42:23 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-19, 17:08:31
@exnihiloest Of course if we put something together different we can get different results which is why there are thousands upon thousands of "new" patents issued every year, you see a patent must be new technology not something which is not different.
...

These patents work according to the physics laws.
With your 100 foot vertical pipe, you suggest that a new technology can defy our "common sense" linked to partial knowledge.
It is true but it defies the "common sense", not the math. If you do the math with a pump at the bottom or top, you see obviously if the pump can work or not. Instead, Hidro is incompatible with math of known science at a fundamental level, it is not a simple question of new technology, if it works it is also new science: extra energy in a closed system is claimed.
If my assertion is false, than back to my question: what is there special in hidro that should let us study it and not consider a scam like cycclone and others?

« Last Edit: 2011-04-20, 10:12:09 by exnihiloest »
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #94 on: 2011-04-20, 16:45:29 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Quote
These patents work according to the physics laws.
With your 100 foot vertical pipe, you suggest that a new technology can defy our "common sense" linked to partial knowledge.
It is true but it defies the "common sense", not the math. If you do the math with a pump at the bottom or top, you see obviously if the pump can work or not. Instead, Hidro is incompatible with math of known science at a fundamental level, it is not a simple question of new technology, if it works it is also new science: extra energy in a closed system is claimed.
I like the Bellocq wave pump because it defies common sense and also defied the math at the time because nobody had correctly applied the math in the right context prior to Bellocq. Imagine one day all the math tells us something cannot be done, it is impossible, then the very next day we are taught the correct way to apply the same math in a new way and now not only is it possible but easy. Here we would see the technology was never incompatible with math of known science in any way --- in was incompatible with the beliefs of the "people" applying the math. So I would agree with what your saying but the problem was never the math, the problem is how people apply the math, mathematics is not some magical thing which just automatically gives us all the answers it can only prove what we already know, mathematics cannot discover anything only people can.


Quote
If my assertion is false, than back to my question: what is there special in hidro that should let us study it and not consider a scam like cycclone and others?
I believe your assertion may be correct, that is if someone asked me for an answer right now I would state "I do not know and given the circumstances I believe it should not work as claimed", that is my answer given the facts I have but that is not to say my facts cannot change. Is it a scam?, I do not know and have been given no reason to believe it is a scam or not, it should be obvious that if I simply called everything that I do not understand a scam I would be crazy because this would mean all reality must be dictated by my personal opinion,lol, that is crazy.

In regards to new technology here is an analogy, I give 20 people a package containing a clear plastic sphere with a shallow slot around the circumference and tell them this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. At which point some try to bounce it and it shatters, some try to spin it and all kinds of odd things and most everyone agrees it's a scam as it is obvious it does nothing. Then someone enters the room and say's what in the hell are you people doing there is a string in the package --- this is a yoyo, what in the hell are you people thinking?. You see if you don't have ALL the facts and understand them and can put them in the right context then science, math and logic mean absolutely nothing as everything is open to interpretation which is seldom the true reality of the situation.
This analogy is relevant because I have seen it time and time again and have seen some of the smartest people I know completely baffled by the simplest of things which I thought were obvious, in the same context I have been completely baffled by things as well which always turned out to be obvious only after the fact. It is not the fact that science and math are wrong it is the fact that we are not perfect, we cannot know everything, as such science and math are completely dependent on how we apply it and our perspective.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #95 on: 2011-04-21, 10:50:14 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011-04-20, 16:45:29
...Is it a scam?, I do not know and have been given no reason to believe it is a scam or not, it should be obvious that if I simply called everything that I do not understand a scam I would be crazy because this would mean all reality must be dictated by my personal opinion,lol, that is crazy.

More than a century after Tesla, researchers of "free energy" have not yet a working machine.
Nevertheless in this period, thousands of people claimed "new technologies" or "new sciences" in spite of no evidence and no facts.

We must retain the lessons from the past:
- 100% of the so-called free energy inventions led to not one practical application, not even to a  simple duplicable fact proving a new phenomenon
- 100% of the so-called free energy inventions were:
  - pure scam (Mylow, Cycclone, Johnson motor, MPI, EBM...)
  - conventional effect, misinterpreted (Avramenko single wire transmission, T.T. Brown Electrogravity, Steorn, Milkovic's double pendulum, DePalma N-machine...)
  - false or empty theories, without facts (MEG, Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology, magnetic transistor...)

Therefore when a new free energy device is presented, we have almost 100% risks it is not working. So if we evaluate a new "technology" such Hidro, we must use drastic methods otherwise we will be perpetual losers as in the past.
Do we want to repeat again and again the errors of the past? If the answer is no, then we have to adopt a different attitude, this one of skeptics. We must reckon that general science can convince skeptics (a skeptic can admit that an electron is a real particle in despite the fact he never saw one) and general science works. Why science of free energy could not convince skeptics? If it works, it will.

In a skeptic attitude, we have not to suppose a priori that a free energy device works. It is supposed to not work until proof of the contrary. The proof is given by third party duplications. Of course when there are not yet duplications, the attitude of skeptics can be to lead them themselves. But if the inventors want spread their inventions, considering the vast amount of not working devices in the past, they have to present reasonable elements of evidence, either physical or theoretical, in order to trigger the need of testing their device. I don't see such elements in Hidro, so I have asked if some one saw them.

In the video I saw one element about the principle: two reservoirs filled with air, are interconnected by a tube, one is floating at the top of a water recipient and the other is at the bottom, attached to a weight. When the operator pushes the upper reservoir down, the pressure reduces its volume, more air is given to the other reservoir so that Archimede's force becomes sufficient to raise it up with its weight. What would be astonishing? This works perfectly according to physics laws.


   
img  Chet K
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #96 on: 2011-04-21, 13:19:35 »
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
EX

And then of course there is the silly idea that we don't know everything !
Action reaction,
take a magnet in your hand ,swipe it across an inductor
you just caused a few meter per second action to have a 299792458 meters per second reaction  [you must be very strong].

Well perhaps you think to yourself "Silly Boy"?

And then there's this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc

And maybe once again you think
"So what silly boy"

Perhaps you think you know everything there is to know.................

Silly Boy..

Chet
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #97 on: 2011-04-21, 14:29:39 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-04-21, 10:50:14

In a skeptic attitude, we have not to suppose a priori that a free energy device works. It is supposed to not work until proof of the contrary.


One go to a candy stand and wants to buy a lollipop.  Both parties encounter a problem.  The buyer wants to have the candy first then give the money.  The seller wants to have the money first then give the candy.  Which is the right way? 
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #98 on: 2011-04-21, 18:51:42 »
Group: Guest
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=post;quote=13096;topic=785.75;num_replies=97;sesc=9240190be35a1fff2788231f87369f9e

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-04-18, 23:15:58
Lawrence:

Please show me your equations to back up your claim that it works.  There are no real formulas or equations in your reply #18 above.

MileHigh

In reply 18 in the thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7798-seminar-workshop-united-nations.html#post138071

Quote
1.   He uses energy from air. The formulas used are:
Ein = Pin x Vin (1)
Eout = Pout x Vout (2)
Ein = Energy of Air brought into the system
Pin = Pressure of Air at Input
Vin = Volume of Air at Input
Eout = Energy of Air flowing out at Output
Pout = Pressure of Air at Output
Vout = Volume of Air at Output

2. Ein can be much greater than Eout. That explains where the energy comes from. Energy from Still Air is brought-in from the environment. So long as there is air flowing in and out of the system, the system must be an OPEN system. Energy will be flowing in and out with the flowing air. Thus we cannot blindly apply the Law of Conservation of Energy.

3. The supplied energy is from the compressed air at the bottom of the tower. Work is done to expel some of the water from the submarine type container. So long as the compressed air pressure is slightly above the pressure of the water column at that level, the water will be displaced. We can call this as Esupplied.

4. Most people made the mistake of assuming that Esupplied = Ein. They did not see the fact that air actually flows into the system and flows out from the system. Air itself is not a fuel but an energy carrier. Ein can be considered as the bring-in energy. It can be much greater than Eout. The difference can be used to do work (in addition to Esupplied).

5. Pin can be the minimum pressure of air at that water level. In the submarine type structure, that pressure can be much, much higher. The principle is similar to the water rocket or torpedo. When a valve is opened, the compressed air will force the water out, generating a large thrust. The submarine container goes up both from the floatation and the thrust.
Please work out the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2) in Point 1.  You may be making the same mistake as most people in Point 4.

Ein can be much greater than Eout.  The genius of James Kwok and team is the use this energy.  I know an Inventor in Hong Kong and another one in China.  Both worked along similar lines but they did not have the engineering capabilities to build working systems.

Please study reply 18 and reply 20 in that thread carefully.  

Edit: Please read reply 26 and the scientific report by Dr. Kagan et al.
« Last Edit: 2011-04-22, 03:32:41 by ltseung888 »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report « Reply #99 on: 2011-04-21, 23:35:06 »
Group: Guest
Lawrence:

Quote
Please work out the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2) in Point 1.

I am asking you for equations where you show step-by-step how a Hidro system works.

In addition:

Quote
3. The supplied energy is from the compressed air at the bottom of the tower.

Where does the compressed air come from?

Quote
So long as the compressed air pressure is slightly above the pressure of the water column at that level, the water will be displaced.

I think that you are implying that if the air pressure is just slightly above the water pressure the buoy can be evacuated with no real work done.  This is wrong.  It will take a lot of real work to evacuate the buoy.

Quote
Air itself is not a fuel but an energy carrier.

The ambient air pressure around the Hidro cannot in any way do work to keep the alleged process going in the Hidro.  The ambient air itself and associated air pressure around the Hidro are as dead as a doornail.

Quote
The principle is similar to the water rocket or torpedo. When a valve is opened, the compressed air will force the water out, generating a large thrust. The submarine container goes up both from the floatation and the thrust.

I didn't see anything in the James Kwok Hidro literature that indicates that this takes place.  Even if it did take place, it wouldn't matter because you had to do work to compress the air in the first place.  An air-powered torpedo is certainly not a source of free energy.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-17, 12:20:09