Gravity fed electrical generation system

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Gravity fed electrical generation system > Page 3

Page 3 of 16

28-04-2019 22:49
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	"Dams work because of a static head or column of water. It's the weight of the water doing the work." Thank you for admitting I am right. Thank you for describing why this system works. Now think about this. What if you had 10 dams each with the same column of water above 10 separate turbines. Edited on 28-04-2019 22:51
28-04-2019 23:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: "Dams work because of a static head or column of water. It's the weight of the water doing the work." Thank you for admitting I am right. Thank you for describing why this system works. Now think about this. What if you had 10 dams each with the same column of water above 10 separate turbines. I never said you were right. The amount of water in a static head can be dependent on solar radiation. To give you a clue. It's Mozambique in Africa that has a rainforest. Solar radiation causes enough water to become vapor that it receives the necessary rainfall. A clear demonstration on solar radiation' influence. https://qz.com/africa/ Edited on 29-04-2019 00:06
29-04-2019 00:09
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Or it can be dependent on how much hydrogen and oxygen is burned at the top of a 10000 foot mountain. Lets say you burn enough oxygen and hydrogen to produce 100 gallons of water per minute. You might not have meant to, but you did. It falls out of the device (cell/motor/boiler-steam turbine combination) into a tank. At the bottom of the tank there is a pipe that runs to a turbine 250 feet down. That turbine will produce x amount of electrical power. It falls out of the bottom of the turbine into another tank and again another pipe carries it to another turbine. Again x amount of electricity is produced. 10000 feet will produce 40x the electricity of the first. Do you think it takes that much electricity to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen? No, the amount of electricity needed would be gained after 575 feet or less. After that, it would be extra electricity. Sure, some would be lost to the pump that made sure what ever device was used got the correct pressure. Sure, some energy would be lost to the gases traveling up the pipe and water coming down. Sure there would be maintenance cost. Sure all of it would have to be replace over years. But that is called expected cost. They would be calculated in. I am sure there are other cost that are not accounted for here but the fact is, none of the cost would stop it from working. It is not a perpetual motion machine any more than a dam is. This is just smaller, more stable and more controllable.
29-04-2019 01:21
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	And what happens if the hydrogen and oxygen make hydrogen peroxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide instead? Or would you somehow keep hydrogen molecules from forming H2? And just like N2, O2, etc. hydrogen probably forms a natural bond with another hydrogen molecule. Some of what this discusses are also things that would or could add significantly to the cost. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-combining-hydrog/ And another problem that could be associated with the process that you're promoting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxide I do have my own pursuits which I actually don't discuss in here. They involve both engineering and physics. That's because I'm an environmentalist. Edited on 29-04-2019 01:41
29-04-2019 01:45
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	I just looked it up and the way to use electrolysis to make peroxide is to inject the oxygen back into the water near the hydrogen side of the device. Water has two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, while hydrogen peroxide is one to one. In addition, hydrogen peroxide is unstable so light breaks it down. Any time you have molecules of hydrogen or oxygen, they will almost always join to become h2 or o2. That is why most time you see the formula for burning hydrogen it done as 2 h2+o2=2 h2o. This means due to the fact that 2 hydrogen combines to be h2, and 2 oxygen combines to be o2 its best to have two h2 to combine with the one o2. There would be no reason to try to prevent 2 hydrogen to be h2.

29-04-2019 01:53
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I don't think $20k will buy enough pipes, even for a demo model. How do you handle the H2, and O2? Kept separate and sealed, they are relatively safe. Mixed, and a small spark, big explosion. Even the little bit in the test tube, chemistry class, gave a nice 'Pop'. Falling water can create static electricity, and an arc. Don't recall the name of that experiment, but wasn't too elaborate or complex. Little skeptical about running multiple turbine from the same stream of water. To get the pressure you need to turn the generator, you need to reduce the flow. The water behind the dam provides the pressure, and stays constant. Each of your turbines down stream, would need to wait a while for enough volume to fall, to get enough pressure. Even if you were to pre-load everything with enough water at each stage, you'd still need to time and control the flow carefully, or you'd lose water in overflow, or a turbine down stream would slow or stall, for lack of water pressure.
29-04-2019 02:11
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	For a small test you would not need more than 1/8th or 1/4th tubing. This cost $10-$15 per 50 foot. 750 foot would be 15 times this so 45 50 foot lengths, if its straight up. With a drop of 1 to 1, which is a relatively easy climb (assuming you can climb) you would need 22 for a total of 66. That makes it $600 to $1000 for the tubing. Using cheap parts from recycled area, you could easily get the remaining parts for under $1000. Part of the reason I came here originally was to find someone that could help me build the test. Obviously if there were any people like that, the trolls would have chased them out of the forums already. You would have a constant flow. In the example (not the small test model I am referring to) I have above, you would have 100 gallons PER MINUTES. Each turbine would empty into a new tank meaning that each tank had 100 gallons per minute going out and 100 gallons per minute coming in. There would be no waiting for it to refill.
29-04-2019 03:06
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: For a small test you would not need more than 1/8th or 1/4th tubing. This cost $10-$15 per 50 foot. 750 foot would be 15 times this so 45 50 foot lengths, if its straight up. With a drop of 1 to 1, which is a relatively easy climb (assuming you can climb) you would need 22 for a total of 66. That makes it $600 to $1000 for the tubing. Using cheap parts from recycled area, you could easily get the remaining parts for under $1000. Part of the reason I came here originally was to find someone that could help me build the test. Obviously if there were any people like that, the trolls would have chased them out of the forums already. You would have a constant flow. In the example (not the small test model I am referring to) I have above, you would have 100 gallons PER MINUTES. Each turbine would empty into a new tank meaning that each tank had 100 gallons per minute going out and 100 gallons per minute coming in. There would be no waiting for it to refill. What might help you is to consider how similar ideas have fared like this one https://www.thoughtco.com/drinking-bird-science-toy-608907. Science is where you find it. Ideas can seem promising but more often than not they're interesting concepts. p.s., am somewhat disappointed that you found nothing interesting about the rainforest in Mozambique. It requires a lot of work to maintain any process. Tunnel vision can be a b1tch. Edited on 29-04-2019 03:09
29-04-2019 04:04
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	I knew there was no adults here.
29-04-2019 05:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: I knew there was no adults here. ITN, his logic is incomplete. This might help him as he considers his attitude towards the individuals in this forum. He thinks he's our "friend" and has been gone for a while. Maybe the 2 of you can enjoy a nice conversation? This is intended to be educational material. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGl-1nwahCA
29-04-2019 06:19
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	What ever you kids think. Im looking for somewhere that I can discuss with someone a bit more intelligent that what I have seen here. Good luck with graduating from elementary.
29-04-2019 17:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: What ever you kids think. Im looking for somewhere that I can discuss with someone a bit more intelligent that what I have seen here. Good luck with graduating from elementary. Gosh, you know I think of the Earth as a perpetual motion machine myself. Saw you discussing it with ITN. That and melting glaciers. When glaciers melt, their weight moves away from the axis of rotation. Then when the planet cools, glaciers increase in mass which means that water is moving in towards the axis of rotation. This in turn changes how quickly the Earth rotates In Perpetuum. At the same time it allows for Natural Climate Variation. I plan on making a model where people can see the Earth's spin speed up then slow down depending on whether or not the weights are moving towards or away from the axis of rotation. I do have to agree with ITN and scientists that perpetual motion is impossible. That is unless you isolate a lone molecule of gas. Then that gas would suffer no entropy because it would interact with nothing. It would in reality be in stasis. Wooden it be funny if someone did it and it went down like a Led Zeppelin? That's what Keith Moon of The Who said about The New Yardbirds "new" sound. When The New Yardbirds couldn't use that name because of copyright infringement (they would've been frauds), they remembered Keith Moon having insulted them and became someone else. This is The Yardbirds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y078n95ApA, now you know why Led Zeppelin has a similar sound and why they weren't allowed to use the name The New Yardbirds. Edited on 29-04-2019 18:35
29-04-2019 18:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: The point is submarines can only go a few hundred feet beneath the surface because the pressure increases the further you go down. That proves you know nothing of science. Come back when you learn the first things about science, or you decide to stop trying to make people made enough to leave (trolling). Until then, you aren't worth noticing. Depends on the submarine. Some can go all the way to the bottom of the Marinas Trench, some six miles down. Why do you suddenly want to talk about submarines? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 29-04-2019 18:32
29-04-2019 18:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: Notice that is talking about a bathyscape, not a true submarine, such as the US navy uses. It is strictly a specialty type vehicle. It was built for a one off type of mission. I was not referring to this but REAL submarines that are rarely built for only 2 people. Also note that this backs up what I said about pressure increasing, SO you defeated your own argument. Nice going troll. A bathyscape is a submarine. It is a real and true submarine. The only one talking about pressure increase is you. I was not making any kind of argument in that area, and neither was anyone else. You have completely wandered into an irrelevant topic. Redirection fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2019 18:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: "Dams work because of a static head or column of water. It's the weight of the water doing the work." Thank you for admitting I am right. Thank you for describing why this system works. Now think about this. What if you had 10 dams each with the same column of water above 10 separate turbines. Where's all that falling water coming from? You still haven't answered that question. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

29-04-2019 18:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: Or it can be dependent on how much hydrogen and oxygen is burned at the top of a 10000 foot mountain. Lets say you burn enough oxygen and hydrogen to produce 100 gallons of water per minute. You might not have meant to, but you did. It falls out of the device (cell/motor/boiler-steam turbine combination) into a tank. At the bottom of the tank there is a pipe that runs to a turbine 250 feet down. That turbine will produce x amount of electrical power. It falls out of the bottom of the turbine into another tank and again another pipe carries it to another turbine. Again x amount of electricity is produced. 10000 feet will produce 40x the electricity of the first. Do you think it takes that much electricity to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen? To split water into hydrogen and oxygen, all you need is a flashlight battery. To split enough to power your machine, you need more power than your machine can provide. dehammer wrote: No, the amount of electricity needed would be gained after 575 feet or less. After that, it would be extra electricity. Nope. You will not produce enough hydrogen to power your machine. You will produce some, but it's not enough. dehammer wrote: Sure, some would be lost to the pump that made sure what ever device was used got the correct pressure. Sure, some energy would be lost to the gases traveling up the pipe and water coming down. Sure there would be maintenance cost. Sure all of it would have to be replace over years. But that is called expected cost. They would be calculated in. I am sure there are other cost that are not accounted for here but the fact is, none of the cost would stop it from working. All sources of lost energy. dehammer wrote: It is not a perpetual motion machine any more than a dam is. You are still fixated on only one aspect of the machine. The falling water. You are not considering what it takes to get that water into a position to fall as you need to produce the power. You are doing the same with the dam. You have completely failed to consider where all that falling water comes from. Without it, the dam doesn't function. The dam is solar powered. Your machine is self contained, attempting to manufacture its own fuel from the power it produces. That is a perpetual motion machine of the first order. It violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't just create energy out of nothing. dehammer wrote: This is just smaller, more stable and more controllable. No, it is completely different. A dam is solar powered. Your machine is not. It tries to power itself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2019 18:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: For a small test you would not need more than 1/8th or 1/4th tubing. This cost $10-$15 per 50 foot. 750 foot would be 15 times this so 45 50 foot lengths, if its straight up. With a drop of 1 to 1, which is a relatively easy climb (assuming you can climb) you would need 22 for a total of 66. That makes it $600 to $1000 for the tubing. Using cheap parts from recycled area, you could easily get the remaining parts for under $1000. Part of the reason I came here originally was to find someone that could help me build the test. Obviously if there were any people like that, the trolls would have chased them out of the forums already. You would have a constant flow. In the example (not the small test model I am referring to) I have above, you would have 100 gallons PER MINUTES. Each turbine would empty into a new tank meaning that each tank had 100 gallons per minute going out and 100 gallons per minute coming in. There would be no waiting for it to refill. So build it. Try to make it work. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2019 18:55
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	What ever you say kid.
29-04-2019 20:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Energy can not be created, or destroyed, only changed... Or something like that. It's going to require a certain amount of energy to move water up to the top of the tube. Really doesn't matter how you perform that work, it requires energy. You'll never recover the energy you used to perform that work, because there are always loses. Molecules moving against a surface, lose energy to friction, friction creates heat, and is lost energy. The turbine uses energy to turn, but it's not perfect either, there is some frictional lose, and your dynamo provides reluctance(resistance). Greater the load, the more reluctance to turn. Doesn't produce electricity, without turning. They aren't all that efficient either, since the water is free, it never mattered that much. Probably some applications, they made improvements. The design is optimized to fit the application, to get consistent output. You can add more stages, turbines, fuel cells, but you will always get less energy out, than you put into moving the water up to the top. Each stage is going to lose energy in the conversion to electricity. How many rivers have multiple dams and hydroelectric stations on them? There are a few, but there are many miles apart. It's not anything like the multiple stages of your device. In Between those dams, several rivers and streams merge in to the larger river with the dams. I'm mostly into electronics, but have many side interests. My views on why this shouldn't work, are from my electronics point of view. You want to see this thing built and tested... Have you considered making a YouTube video, or social media, maybe create a website. Patents only give minimal information, to protect an idea, usually the fine details are left out, explanations are more pointed toward what needs protection. I'm not concerned with CO2 or warming, both are good things in my opinion, don't understand the problem. My interest in the whole thing, is purely economic and financial. I don't want to get robbed buy some cult, nor am I happy seeing my tax dollars wasted on such nonsense. If you say nothing, do nothing, they'll take everything you value most...
29-04-2019 21:55
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	"Energy can not be created, or destroyed, only changed... " Such as being changed from gravity. It's not anything like the multiple stages of your device. That is because those are natural. This is not intended to be natural. Its an improvement on nature. Have you considered making a YouTube video, or social media, maybe create a website When it comes to making videos and such I am rather illiterate about it. I would love to make one, but I am somewhat afraid of getting in the video because I might break the camera. Seriously if anyone knows a good tutorial on how to make vidoes, please post them. Most of the ones I have seen basically expect you to know how to do it, but tell you how to do it better.
29-04-2019 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: What ever you say kid. Whiner. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2019 22:35
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	As usual with your type, if you cant defeat the science, insult.
29-04-2019 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: "Energy can not be created, or destroyed, only changed... " Such as being changed from gravity. Gravity is not energy, dude. It's a force of nature. It can do no work by itself. You are still fixated ONLY on the falling water. Where is that water coming from? What put it in a position to be able to fall? Dams are solar powered. They extract energy from the Sun. Your machine is self contained. It attempts to make it's own fuel. That's a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. You cannot create energy out of nothing. dehammer wrote: It's not anything like the multiple stages of your device. That is because those are natural. This is not intended to be natural. Its an improvement on nature. It is not possible to build such a machine. You still ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. dehammer wrote: Have you considered making a YouTube video, or social media, maybe create a website When it comes to making videos and such I am rather illiterate about it. I would love to make one, but I am somewhat afraid of getting in the video because I might break the camera. Whiner. dehammer wrote: Seriously if anyone knows a good tutorial on how to make vidoes, please post them. Most of the ones I have seen basically expect you to know how to do it, but tell you how to do it better. Go buy a camera and a microphone and learn, whiner. It's not hard. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2019 22:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: As usual with your type, if you cant defeat the science, insult. I'm not trying to defeat the science. YOU are ignoring it. As far as insults, don't play innocent with me. You've been throwing more insults out than most people here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-04-2019 00:13
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	IF you know the science, you are a troll. That is someone that plays on the internet with the intention of making people angry. That is precisely what you have been trying to do. In the short time I have been here, I have seen you do that to someone else. You and I both know that either you do not know what your talking, or (more likely) your just playing games trying to upset people. When people prove you don't know science, you just throw insults like whiner. Edited on 30-04-2019 00:13
30-04-2019 00:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: IF you know the science, you are a troll. That does seem to be how you define a 'troll'. dehammer wrote: That is someone that plays on the internet with the intention of making people angry. You are only angry because you deny the science, and I won't let you get away with it. dehammer wrote: That is precisely what you have been trying to do. Actually, I would much rather you learn the science. But you are lazy. You would rather insult people and call them trolls. You would rather whine about your own inabilities rather than to build such a machine and try to make it work. dehammer wrote: In the short time I have been here, I have seen you do that to someone else. Basically for the same reasons. They denied science, and I won't let them get away with it. dehammer wrote: You and I both know that either you do not know what your talking, or (more likely) your just playing games trying to upset people. The laws of thermodynamics, which you deny, are not games. dehammer wrote: When people prove you don't know science, you just throw insults like whiner. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-04-2019 01:03
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	You have to be a politician. You are too full of it.
30-04-2019 02:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: You have to be a politician. You are too full of it. Not all politicians are full of it. Bigotry. I am not a politician. I am a scientist and engineer. I own a company that manufactures sensors for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-04-2019 02:25
30-04-2019 02:36
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Sure, and I'm a movie star.
30-04-2019 02:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: Sure, and I'm a movie star. No, you're a clueless idiot that denies the laws of thermodynamics. You don't have to believe my credentials. I am not basing my argument on my credentials. That's Wake's mistake to try to do that. The laws of thermodynamics do not change. They are what they are. You just choose to ignore them. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

30-04-2019 02:55
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Then prove it. Link a site where it says that gravity does not power the turbines in a dam. You claim that the 2nd law proves it? Link a site that says that heat and infrared energy are not related. You claim that the 2nd law proves that. So lets see it. You can not because you do not know science. As I expected, you likely work where they make those sensors, but youre the sanitation engineer. Edited on 30-04-2019 02:55
30-04-2019 03:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	dehammer wrote: Then prove it. Link a site where it says that gravity does not power the turbines in a dam. You claim that the 2nd law proves it? Never made any such claim. Stop making stuff up. dehammer wrote: Link a site that says that heat and infrared energy are not related. You claim that the 2nd law proves that. So lets see it. Never made any such claim. Stop making stuff up. dehammer wrote: You can not because you do not know science. Strawman fallacy. Inversion fallacy. dehammer wrote: As I expected, you likely work where they make those sensors, but youre the sanitation engineer. Irrelevance fallacy. No, I started and own the company as a sole owner. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-04-2019 04:09
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Others can read what you said. You cant have it both ways. Either dams are a perpetual motion machine, or mine a variant based on nature is not.
30-04-2019 04:52
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Making a video isn't hard, doesn't even have to be great, or even motion video, a slideshow is fine as well. You don't even have to narrate, or use sound either. I once did an experiment with making a metal casting mold out of silicone caulk. Mostly, I just recorded the first time I poured the mold, as I had no way of knowing if it was actually going to work, or if it would fail spectacularly. That video got over 50,000 views, pretty quick too. Most of the comments are derogatory, do to my apparent lack of safety precautions. Was even nominated for a 'Darwin Award'. I was wearing only shorts, and a leather welding glove... The mold exceeded my expectations though, there was a considerable amount of smoke/steam (maybe) the first couple of pours, but it held up fine for over fifty, and still in good shape. Not bad for a $4.00 tube of generic 100% silicone caulk from Walmart. There was no sound or narration, as I use very slow internet, and do what I can to keep file size small for uploads. Basically, all you really need to do is show drawings, explain how it works, provide links to the patent. Any information you can provide. Probably not a good idea to point at this site though... After you upload to YouTube, you get to add tags for their search engine, which are keywords that you feel relate to your video. You can do it honest, or select words un related, but something popular and common. Google owns YouTube, so there is a relationship for searches on the web as well. There is a comment section for your video, which viewers can ask question, or leave derogatory remarks, which you can respond to. You reach a large audience, easy, and free. I don't know a lot of things, but it doesn't stop me from learning, or figuring it out myself. I bought a 3D printer back in March, something that has interested me for years. I had never actually seen one, not a great understanding of how they work, just the basics. It's been a fun adventure, not a great one so far, but still have many things to learn and figure out. One thing I learned, is that the filament sucks water out of the air, and really messes up the print head, bitch to get cleaned out. Florida has a lot of water in the air... So, I bought a food dehydrator, modified it a little, and dried out that spool of filament. That first spool didn't print well from the start, suspect it was bad to begin with, had patches brittle, like uncooked spaghetti. Didn't know any of that stuff going in, but learned, and learned to deal with it. Will eventually build a dry box, for which I can store and print from, to limit exposure to moisture in the air. Already have the air tight storage, and silica beads to keep it dry, just need to make a hole to feed the filament, a spool holder, and some way to mount to, or near the printer. There is a solution to every problem, with the tools and materials you have on hand, or easily sourced. I have a mindless warehouse job, so I think, while I work, plenty of time to figure things out. I don't know much about video editing, but needed to reduce file size mostly, so I found a free program on the internet, learn to cut out clips, and combine them, resize the whole video, until I got something that didn't take too long to upload. I have around 50 videos on Youtube. Most are things I just randomly caught on camera, and thought interesting, like from my security cameras, dash camera, drone.
30-04-2019 07:00
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	Just had a chance to catch up on some reading here.... Dehammered, I've been here a while and I can tell you this....ITN knows his shit. If you want to throw insults he'll be happy to toss them right back. He's quite good at it! On the other hand, if you want to discuss anything, and I mean ANYTHING, he will discuss to no end. His knowledge is quite incredible on a multitude of topics, so much so that I've often wondered if he is more than one person. If you have questions, ask them and he will answer with the heart of a teacher that cares. I do have a question for you and ITN. Up front I will say from your first post that your patent sounded like perpetual motion. I have no doubt it won't work. so... Forget for a moment that that you are trying to create free energy. You talked about 100 gallons a minute available to a 1000 ft drop. 100 gpm seems pretty minuscule, doesn't seem like enough to generate anything substantial/worthwhile. How much do you think this would generate? ITN, is there a way to calculate what kind of KW could be generated given ONLY these 2 factors? (100 gpm at 1000 ft of fall)
30-04-2019 10:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21705)	GasGuzzler wrote: Just had a chance to catch up on some reading here.... Dehammered, I've been here a while and I can tell you this....ITN knows his shit. If you want to throw insults he'll be happy to toss them right back. He's quite good at it! On the other hand, if you want to discuss anything, and I mean ANYTHING, he will discuss to no end. His knowledge is quite incredible on a multitude of topics, so much so that I've often wondered if he is more than one person. If you have questions, ask them and he will answer with the heart of a teacher that cares. humble bow GasGuzzler wrote: I do have a question for you and ITN. Up front I will say from your first post that your patent sounded like perpetual motion. I have no doubt it won't work. so... Forget for a moment that that you are trying to create free energy. You talked about 100 gallons a minute available to a 1000 ft drop. 100 gpm seems pretty minuscule, doesn't seem like enough to generate anything substantial/worthwhile. How much do you think this would generate? ITN, is there a way to calculate what kind of KW could be generated given ONLY these 2 factors? (100 gpm at 1000 ft of fall) Assuming that the water is in a position to fall this far, such as sunlight moving water vapor into such position as rain, or another machine consuming energy to move water into that position: Yes. There is a way to calculate it. Water weighs approx 8.34lbs per gallon. We are talking 100 gallons dropping 1000 ft in a minute. This is equivalent to dropping a 834lb weight 1000 ft in that minute. Converting this to metric means dropping 378kg 305 meters in 60 seconds. This works out to be about 1920 watts. To move that much water back into position to generate power again will also require 1920 watts, assuming no losses. The first law of thermodynamics states that dU=Q-W. The work we get out of the falling water (or W) is 1920 watts. The work to put the water back into place with no losses (or Q) is also 1920 watts. This results in a change of energy (or dU) of zero. In other words, there is no extra energy to extract from anywhere. All of the available energy is used to move the water back into position. All machines have losses, however, in which some of the power is lost as waste heat. This means, in order to compensate for such losses and achieve a dU of zero, then MORE power will be required to raise the water back into position to generate W. In words, the lost heat is also part of W. Q will have to be raised correspondingly to cover such losses to again achieve no overall change in energy, where dU is again zero. That means you have to add additional energy from somewhere. The only way to get usable energy out a machine is if dU is made positive. Then, and only then, is energy increasing in the machine, and you can safely increase W without causing the machine to stop. The only way to do that is to increase the energy added (or Q). You can get that additional energy from the Sun. That's what a hydroelectric power plant does. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-04-2019 11:24
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	What does the sun have to do with hydroelectric power generation? Growing up in Oregon, we didn't get that many sunny days, but Bonneville dam consistently produced power, day or night, summer/winter, and normally overcast, or raining. The sun really never seemed to figure into it. I never doubted that it was the weight of the water, that provides the force to turn the generator's blades.
30-04-2019 15:37
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	It doesn't Harvey. He pretends he knows science but uses the term "thermodynamics" as if its some kind of shield that protects him.
30-04-2019 15:53
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	You guys need to pay attention. He already explained that the water comes from the ocean. The sun, through evaporation/condensation/rainfall, is the "pump" if you will, that returns the water to a position in the system where is can flow back through the turbine and create electricity. It violates no law of science.
30-04-2019 15:56
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	The first law of thermodynamics states that dU=Q-W. No, it doesn't. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of any isolated system always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system. More simply put: the entropy of the universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases. The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance (perfect order) at absolute zero temperature is zero. This statement holds true if the perfect crystal has only one state with minimum energy. One day, everything will collapse into a blackhole because of gravity. At that time, according to theorist, everything will be equal, so there is no difference, thus no potential energy. Until then as long as there is a little bit of difference, specific gravity will say that gases will rise above liquids and solids. This system works because of the specific gravity difference between gases (hydrogen and oxygen) and liquids (water). the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a standard, usually water for a liquid or solid, and air for a gas. Because water at 4 degrees Celsius is the standard scientists use to determine specific gravity, it follows that its specific gravity is 1. However, a water sample at a different temperature or pressure or one containing impurities has a density that differs slightly. Gaseous hydrogen, with a density of 0.00523 lb/ft3, has a specific gravity of 0.0696 and is thus approximately 7% the density of air. ... Hydrogen's expansion ratio of 1:848 means that hydrogen in its gaseous state at atmospheric conditions occupies 848 times more volume than it does in its liquid state. Oxygen Density (at STP) 1.429 g/L . IF you have 1 cubic foot of water and you turn it into gas, at one gravity, the hydrogen will spread out 848 cubic foot. Oxygen will cover about half that because it is only 1/2 as much in the water. Device invented by Johann Wilhelm Ritter to develop the electrolysis of water That is the first experiment and you can easily see from his experiment that the gasses rise above the water when the gases are separated.

Page 3 of 16

Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Gravity	10	30-03-2024 02:38
Gravity Has Energy Debate	33	03-02-2024 17:02
The USA electricity system - Hourly billing.?	108	02-02-2024 20:52
The Weather, Climate Change Are Revealing The Truth Of This Corrupt Society System	50	10-01-2023 16:48
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is	0	01-09-2022 13:50