Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 5 of 11<<<34567>>>
01-05-2019 07:50
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
dehammer wrote:
Its an image. That it all it is. It is used to aid in visualization nothing more.



This is why I won't be able to offer you any assistance with any invention. I have my own concerns to worry about.

http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php
Edited on 01-05-2019 08:11
01-05-2019 17:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So because an image designed to show CHILDREN the way the atmosphere acted in pressure, you cant discuss another invention. This is all about your question about what air pressure is. That's fine. You took it off track to come up with an excuse to not talk about my invention and the hypocrisy they show when they refuse to use something that would actually fix their problems.
01-05-2019 18:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
Regardless of race, gender, politics, conservative or liberal, nearly EVERYONE across the planet that uses energy loves CHEAP energy.

Why do YOU think it is that no one is willing to try your contraption?
01-05-2019 19:39
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
GasGuzzler wrote:Why do YOU think it is that no one is willing to try your contraption?

1) most people do not know what is in the patent office.
2) most people live near cities and flat areas.
3) most people do not own land.
4) most people do not have the money to build a system like this. Most that do, own stock and much of that stock would be in arenas that would not benefit from this.
5) Big oil would not build it because they could not control it.
6) Alarmist do not build it because it would actually fix the problem and mean their "solution" is not needed. That solution is for the government to take control over the energy section and to take control over everyone's rights.

The biggest reason is lack of knowledge of it. IF more people understood what it was, more people would be demanding that they do it. I have never had the money to build a test model of it. The guy that stole it and the guy that patented it, if not the same person, had no clue how to use it. He expected me to build it, then come in after with that and claim I stole it from him.
01-05-2019 19:50
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
What ever happened to the man, who stole this idea, and obtain the patent? A patent only protects for a short, so did he ever make any attempt to build the device. Did he do any promotional work, try to raise funds, sell the idea? Why steal and patent an idea, if you have no plans of using it. If worked to sell or promote it, there must be some literature, functional drawings, you might be able to dig up, and recycle a little. I know picture and diagrams would have saved me a lot of thinking (and typing).

I'll be honest, and say I don't share your faith in this device. I see a lot of energy going into it, a lot used internally, and can't except such a high potential output. Nothing is 100% efficient. From my electronics experience, claims of 90% or better, are general overstated, or simply marketing hype. Might be possible in a lab, with near perfect parts, and precision, but in an actual application, you can expect more in the low to mid 80% range. There is always some loss in energy conversion. Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient, but the fuel is plentiful, reasonably priced (most of the time). Everybody has there own beliefs, and methods for testing their faith in something. I have no faith in Global Warming, there isn't a very high concentration, 0.04%, to have such a huge effect on everything. There are a lot of people that strongly believe it's all true, have all kinds fun facts, colorful hockey-stick graphs, and will argue and fight if you say otherwise. I like a website called Hackaday.com, which might interest you some. I tend to steer clear of the comment to the articles, a very negative crowd, and pro-climate change. Though, I think some are coming around, my comments hardly ever get deleted anymore, when I inject something non-warming into a discussion. Think a lot of those people only look for ideas that can be converted to commercial product, and cash. Don't really understand the concept of hacking. Should mention, if not familiar, hacking isn't computer crimes, lot or to it, that's just vaguely similar, just with computers.
01-05-2019 20:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What ever happened to the man, who stole this idea, and obtain the patent? A patent only protects for a short, so did he ever make any attempt to build the device. Did he do any promotional work, try to raise funds, sell the idea? Why steal and patent an idea, if you have no plans of using it. If worked to sell or promote it, there must be some literature, functional drawings, you might be able to dig up, and recycle a little. I know picture and diagrams would have saved me a lot of thinking (and typing).
Not that I can find out. To this day, I am the only one talking about it that I know of.

There have been several times in history, when someone stole plans for an invention, then when the inventor tried to make money off it, they showed the patents and demanded the inventor turn over all money from it.

I'll be honest, and say I don't share your faith in this device.


Its not a matter of faith, except in the science. The science of specific gravity is proven. The science behind the electrolysis is proven. The science behind using gravity to pull water down to turn the turbine is proven. The science behind the turbines is proven. What is there to believe in.

I see a lot of energy going into it, a lot used internally, and can't except such a high potential output.
There is a balance point where the internal power is balanced by the output. When the guy patented it, he claimed it was 575 feet. The math I used said it was higher.

On the other hand, they are researching new methods of electrolysis that would make it more viable. https://www.greenoptimistic.com/hybrid-catalyst-water-splitting-20180729/#.XMnXZK8o5mQ
Nothing is 100% efficient.
Nor is this suppose to be. Solar cells are about 13% efficient, yet people use them. Why would this have to be 100% efficient if it puts out more than it uses.

From my electronics experience, claims of 90% or better, are general overstated, or simply marketing hype.
That's better than mine. Most of the time I see 50% I think its claptrap.

Lets look at this way. In the example of one on a 10000 foot mountain, there are 40 250 foot "dams" in series. The hoover dam has a average drop of 510-530 feet. 2 drops (500 foot) using the same amount of water would produce the same electricity as one of the hoover dam's turbines. There are 17 turbines in the hoover dam. IF this was to drop as much water as the hoover dam, it would produce 20% more power. Only a fraction of that would be required to electrolysis the water.

Might be possible in a lab, with near perfect parts, and precision,
There is no need for perfection or precision any more than there is at the Hoover dam.

Lets look at it this way. Lets say that each of the drops is only 20% efficient. That is they could only produce 20% of the electricity needed to power the system. Counting the top, and the bottom, there are 41 sperate drops. 41 times .2 is 8.1 TIMES the power needed.

Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient, but the fuel is plentiful, reasonably priced (most of the time).
Precisely why this works. Gravity is very plentiful. IF you have the altitude, you can overpower all of the losses.

I have no faith in Global Warming, there isn't a very high concentration, 0.04%, to have such a huge effect on everything.
That is one of many reasons I do not have any FAITH in man made climate change.

I like a website called Hackaday.com, which might interest you some.
Ill check it out.

Think a lot of those people only look for ideas that can be converted to commercial product, and cash.
Definitely got my interest.

Should mention, if not familiar, hacking isn't computer crimes, lot or to it, that's just vaguely similar, just with computers.
It used to be about computers, but now a lot of it is "life hacks"
Edited on 01-05-2019 20:52
01-05-2019 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Best water I ever tasted, was from a mountain stream out in Oregon.
Best water I ever tasted was from a rocky mountain stream. However, it must have been parasite city as I paid dearly for the next 24 hrs!

Yeah...that happens. You can use iodine, a careful dose of dilute Chlorox, or simply boil the water first, but that does change it's taste.

Nothing like that attractive, cold, splashing stream after a long hike though!
GasGuzzler wrote:
Probably get more done, if I ever learn to focus.

You too?


It IS kinda hard to focus when you are paying the parasites their due.


LOL. It was an 8th grade youth group trip to Colorado. I honestly didn't know any better!! Kids bounce back quick though. If I did the same today it'd prolly kill me dead.


Kids do bounce back pretty well. It won't kill you, it'll just make you wish you were dead for 24-48 hours.



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
01-05-2019 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I've about given up try to see this invention in my mind, seems that it keeps changing, not well defined.


I have changed nothing.

Lessee...
You added pumps to pump the hydrogen and oxygen, you kept changing the diameter of your plumbing, you decided to extract water from your system yet use it twice, you decided to extract hydrogen from your system yet use it twice, you inserted and removed extraction turbines and even eliminated them altogether at one point, then you decided to submerge the whole contraption off the coast of Florida.
dehammer wrote:
The problem is your image of it.

The basic machine has stayed the same. A perpetual motion machine that uses electrolysis to power a fuel cell to generate power to run the electrolysis cell., and using a height of X to 'generate power'.
dehammer wrote:
I have discussed two versions of it, a small version and a large version. The short version, (750-1250 foot) more likely used for testing or in the ocean where the pressure would get very high very quickly. It could be used in cities with tall buildings.

You completely ignored the hundreds of tons of tensile stress your plumbing connections are going to have to withstand by submerging a 750 foot tube filled with hydrogen at atmospheric pressure.
dehammer wrote:
The large version (10000 foot) would be the main one for producing power for a state or country.

You ignored the pressures on your plumbing presented by such heights also. The machine will not produce power to even power itself.
dehammer wrote:
As an example, there are many mountains in the Rockies that soar 10000 feet above the valley below. I know there is one mountain at least that soars 8000 feet above Denver. These could produce much of the power the US.

Even the large one will not produce enough power to power itself.
dehammer wrote:
Imagine the force of 500 cubic foot of water per second rushing down a pipe 250 feet long and turning a turbine.
[quote]Power = (x feet) x (500 cubic feet per second) x (0.80 effiency) / 11.8 = y kilowatts

In this case it would be 250 feet x 500 x.8/11.8=8474.5 kilowatt.
dehammer wrote:
IF you drop it 8000 feet, that means you go though 32 of these, so the total would be 271186.4 Kw.
[quote]dehammer wrote:
It takes 157.3 kw to electrolysis 1cf of water, so 500 would take 78658 kw to electrolysis 500 cf. Even if you had no recovery of it such as a fuel cell, motor, or even a boiler/steam turbine set up, you would still gain 192528kw per minute.

WRONG. It takes 3.318 MEGAwatts to convert 500 cubic feet of water to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. You also shift the goalposts by dropping the 32 lines at a convenient time. To convert the water for 500*32 cubic feet, it will require 106.176Mw of power.

THEN you have to get the gas to the top of the column. You can't use atmospheric pressure without losing gas to the atmosphere. A closed system will require massive pumps. They will take ADDITIONAL power.

This is ignoring the electrode size required to pass 106.176Mw of power through their surface area. You will even have to use electrodes much larger than this, since the cathode erodes. That eroding cathode contaminates the water, which will leave a tremendous scale in the cell, reducing it's efficiency still further.

dehammer wrote:
That would be enough electricity for 562183 homes. Assuming 4 person per home and that 2.25 million people.

WRONG. You are using the wrong values for electrolysis.
dehammer wrote:
Assuming that you got a recovery of 60% from a fuel cell, the person that did the patent might have gotten it wrong. I was basing the 750 feet off his graph. It might have take 928 feet to break even.

Of course, my math might be wrong. He did provide the formula but it was upside so I never copied it.

Your math is wrong. Egregiously wrong.


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
01-05-2019 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Its an image. That it all it is. It is used to aid in visualization nothing more.



This is why I won't be able to offer you any assistance with any invention. I have my own concerns to worry about.

http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php


That will actually work out better for him. He won't have to continually try to bring you down from your buzzword wanderings.


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
01-05-2019 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Why do YOU think it is that no one is willing to try your contraption?

1) most people do not know what is in the patent office.

The patent is expired, dude. It expired in 1996.
dehammer wrote:
2) most people live near cities and flat areas.

Irrelevant. You only need one city. You even mentioned one indirectly. Boulder, CO.
dehammer wrote:
3) most people do not own land.

Irrelevant. You only need one land owner. There are plenty of ranchers in the West that own whole ridges higher than 750 feet.
dehammer wrote:
4) most people do not have the money to build a system like this.

Irrelevant. You only need one investor. You said the system is cheap.
dehammer wrote:
Most that do, own stock and much of that stock would be in arenas that would not benefit from this.

Bigotry. You don't know what they own, nor do you care.
dehammer wrote:
5) Big oil would not build it because they could not control it.

If it actually worked, they could easily control it and make money off of it.
dehammer wrote:
6) Alarmist do not build it because it would actually fix the problem and mean their "solution" is not needed.

Irrelevant. You don't need alarmists.
dehammer wrote:
That solution is for the government to take control over the energy section and to take control over everyone's rights.

You don't need the government either.
dehammer wrote:
The biggest reason is lack of knowledge of it.

Irrelevant. It is YOUR job to convince an investor.
dehammer wrote:
IF more people understood what it was, more people would be demanding that they do it.

Irrelevant. Public opinion doesn't matter.
dehammer wrote:
I have never had the money to build a test model of it.

Whiner. Get it.
dehammer wrote:
The guy that stole it and the guy that patented it,

You can't steal an expired patent.
dehammer wrote:
if not the same person, had no clue how to use it.

Then why develop the machine??
dehammer wrote:
He expected me to build it, then come in after with that and claim I stole it from him.

You can't steal an expired patent.

You're a whiner, dude. You just listed a whole bunch of irrelevant whines.
Don't have the money? Get it. Find an investor and convince him the value of the machine. That's all you need to convince.

You are just a 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
01-05-2019 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
What ever happened to the man, who stole this idea, and obtain the patent? A patent only protects for a short, so did he ever make any attempt to build the device. Did he do any promotional work, try to raise funds, sell the idea? Why steal and patent an idea, if you have no plans of using it. If worked to sell or promote it, there must be some literature, functional drawings, you might be able to dig up, and recycle a little. I know picture and diagrams would have saved me a lot of thinking (and typing).
Not that I can find out. To this day, I am the only one talking about it that I know of.

Then you have failed, whiner. It is YOUR job to find an investor and educate him the value of the machine, or to simply build the thing yourself and try to get it to work.
dehammer wrote:
There have been several times in history, when someone stole plans for an invention, then when the inventor tried to make money off it, they showed the patents and demanded the inventor turn over all money from it.

Whiner. People invent stuff all the time and use investors to bring it to market.
dehammer wrote:
I'll be honest, and say I don't share your faith in this device.


Its not a matter of faith,

Everything is a matter of faith. Even every single theory of science. ALL theories, scientific or otherwise, begin as a circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
dehammer wrote:
except in the science.

Buzzword fallacy. You are not using science.
dehammer wrote:
The science of specific gravity is ever proven.

Not science. An observation. No theory of science is ever proven.
dehammer wrote:
The science behind the electrolysis is proven.

That is called 'chemistry'. No theory of science is ever proven.
dehammer wrote:
The science behind using gravity to pull water down to turn the turbine is proven.

That is called 'classical mechanics'. No theory of science is ever proven.
dehammer wrote:
The science behind the turbines is proven.

That is called 'classical mechanics' and 'electronics'. No theory of science is ever proven.
dehammer wrote:
What is there to believe in.

The faith that these theories are true, because they have not yet been falsified.
dehammer wrote:
I see a lot of energy going into it, a lot used internally, and can't except such a high potential output.
There is a balance point where the internal power is balanced by the output. When the guy patented it, he claimed it was 575 feet. The math I used said it was higher.

On the other hand, they are researching new methods of electrolysis that would make it more viable.

The energy required to break the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen in water doesn't change. No matter what you do, it still requires 237kJ to break the bonds in 1 mole of water.
dehammer wrote:
Nothing is 100% efficient.
Nor is this suppose to be. Solar cells are about 13% efficient, yet people use them. Why would this have to be 100% efficient if it puts out more than it uses.

Bad math.
dehammer wrote:
From my electronics experience, claims of 90% or better, are general overstated, or simply marketing hype.
That's better than mine. Most of the time I see 50% I think its claptrap.

Lets look at this way. In the example of one on a 10000 foot mountain, there are 40 250 foot "dams" in series. The hoover dam has a average drop of 510-530 feet. 2 drops (500 foot) using the same amount of water would produce the same electricity as one of the hoover dam's turbines. There are 17 turbines in the hoover dam. IF this was to drop as much water as the hoover dam, it would produce 20% more power. Only a fraction of that would be required to electrolysis the water.

Bad math. Bad value for the required energy to break the bonds of water.
dehammer wrote:
Might be possible in a lab, with near perfect parts, and precision,
There is no need for perfection or precision any more than there is at the Hoover dam.

Irrelevant.
dehammer wrote:
Lets look at it this way. Lets say that each of the drops is only 20% efficient. That is they could only produce 20% of the electricity needed to power the system. Counting the top, and the bottom, there are 41 sperate drops. 41 times .2 is 8.1 TIMES the power needed.

Now you are denying Kirchoff's law. All drops are simply summed together as if it were one drop.
dehammer wrote:
Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient, but the fuel is plentiful, reasonably priced (most of the time).
Precisely why this works. Gravity is very plentiful. IF you have the altitude, you can overpower all of the losses.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
I have no faith in Global Warming, there isn't a very high concentration, 0.04%, to have such a huge effect on everything.
That is one of many reasons I do not have any FAITH in man made climate change.

I like a website called Hackaday.com, which might interest you some.
Ill check it out.

Think a lot of those people only look for ideas that can be converted to commercial product, and cash.
Definitely got my interest.

Should mention, if not familiar, hacking isn't computer crimes, lot or to it, that's just vaguely similar, just with computers.
It used to be about computers, but now a lot of it is "life hacks"

Hacking never meant to be about computers nor crime.

The term 'hacking' does appear in The Hacker's Dictionary, a document originally developed by programmers at MIT, programmers at Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratories (SAIL), and programmers at the University of Colorado. According to this document, a 'hacking' is constructing code or operating a machine (does not have to be a computer) carelessly or rudely, like hacking on a log with a blunt axe. A 'hacker' is a person that does this. A 'hack' is the result of such rude treatment of the code or the machine.

The useless news media picked it up and changed it to mean 'computer crime'. It's just the fake news. It's older than you know.


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
01-05-2019 23:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
So your saying that the hoover dam is a perpetual motion machine? A perpetual motion machine has no input or output. This has both. The input is gravity, just like the hoover dam. The output is electricity, just like the hoover dam.

The only difference is that this uses electricity and SPECIFIC gravity to replace solar.

Imagine this. You have a 10000 foot mountain near an ocean. On the opposite side of the mountain is a desert. You electrolysis water and turn it into hydrogen and oxygen. IF there is nothing to contain them they will just spread out in the atmosphere like all gases. BUT if there is a pair of tubes with NO atmosphere, they will begin to fill it.

Water will find its on level, meaning that it will always fill the lowest part of a system. Gases will fill any contain that you give them from bottom to top. The more gas the more the pressure. Lighter gases will rise to the top of the container. That is why when you have a hot air balloon, it doesn't have to be sealed. The hot air rises to the top of the balloon then fills it out. Because the hotter air is lighter than regular air, the balloon will rise into the atmosphere.

In much the same way, the hydrogen and oxygen rises to the pipe.

It doesn't matter how high the pipes are, if you continue to put more hydrogen and oxygen in them, eventually, they will fill up. MEANING that if the pipes are to the top of a 10000 foot mountain, that will have the gas available at the top. This does not mean the pressure in the pipe will be equal at the top as the bottom, but it does mean that if you put 100 psi at the bottom, you will have the majority of it at the top. Note that 1 atmosphere is only 32 psi at sea level.

Then you burn the gas at the top of the mountain and it becomes water. To be precise its water plus heat, which is where a lot of the energy used to sperate it is lost. A modern hydrogen fuel cell can recover 60% of that energy.

Now this is where you are likely not seeing the truth. There is a difference in the SPECIFIC gravity of water and the gases. As a result when you change the form (water to gases) you can use gravity as an energy source by increasing the potential energy of the water. When it is at the top of the mountain it has all that potential energy. Then you use gravity to pull it down and put pressure on the turbine. This converts the potential energy into electricity.

I do not the exact distance that would be best. I would guess it would be about 250 foot. IF this is true, then you have 40 lengths to create electricity in.


1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.
4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.

Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.
Edited on 01-05-2019 23:29
02-05-2019 00:59
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Wake wrote:
1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
My apologies, I thought I had. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899

2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
I have already given you the math.

At 100% efficiency energy for electrolysis of 1 cubic foot of water = 103.62kw.
They have systems that are up to 82% efficient, but lets assume @50%. Lets go with a simple 200kw.

Lets assume that this is a 500cf per second system. Lets say its falling 10000 feet in 250 foot segments. Every 250 it hits a turbine and then falls into a tank.

This means that each set is completely separate.

To electrolysis 500 cubic feet, you would need 100000 kw per second.
Most fuel cells currently are about 60%.
Assuming this one is only 40%.
100kw to separate means at 100% it gives back 100kw.
At 40% you only get 40kw.
500 cubic foot means you get back 20000kw.

100000- 20000=80000 kw.

When water falls to a turbine, the formula is kw = cu.ft times height times efficiency devided by 11.8
normally they assume that efficiency is 80%, but lets go with 50%.

500*250*.5/11.8=34722.2 kw.
40 sets times 34722.2=1,388,888kw

Even with all of these very inefficiency readings, this manages to make 588,888kw more than it cost. That's enough to power over a million homes. Yes, there would be maintenance cost, just as their is in any system, but the fuel cost, which is generally 40% of your electric bill would be zero. You could easily see a 25% saving on the cost of electricity.

Current hydrogen production systems produce hydrogen at about 35% greater than gas, but as gas goes up and efficiency of hydrogen production goes down, that range closes. IF you could reduce the cost of electricity by 25%, that makes the range that much smaller.

3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.
SERIOUSLY? You think it would be better to pump it up hill and then get a fraction of the power back?

4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.
There is the patent number. I thought I had already given it before. As you can see, he figures the efficiency would be high enough that it would hit the balance point at 575 feet, and that's with a single stage.

Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.
Those are systems where they are simply trying to produce hydrogen. What they are trying to do is make it cheaper than the gasoline for standard engine.

This would use gravity to produce the electricity, thus would be able to produce the hydrogen, even at a very inefficient (they think they can get it to 82% in the next decade), systems. By using one of their systems, this can be done even at lesser heights.
Edited on 02-05-2019 01:11
02-05-2019 04:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
So your saying that the hoover dam is a perpetual motion machine? A perpetual motion machine has no input or output. This has both. The input is gravity, just like the hoover dam. The output is electricity, just like the hoover dam.

The only difference is that this uses electricity and SPECIFIC gravity to replace solar.

Imagine this. You have a 10000 foot mountain near an ocean. On the opposite side of the mountain is a desert. You electrolysis water and turn it into hydrogen and oxygen. IF there is nothing to contain them they will just spread out in the atmosphere like all gases. BUT if there is a pair of tubes with NO atmosphere, they will begin to fill it.

Water will find its on level, meaning that it will always fill the lowest part of a system. Gases will fill any contain that you give them from bottom to top. The more gas the more the pressure. Lighter gases will rise to the top of the container. That is why when you have a hot air balloon, it doesn't have to be sealed. The hot air rises to the top of the balloon then fills it out. Because the hotter air is lighter than regular air, the balloon will rise into the atmosphere.

In much the same way, the hydrogen and oxygen rises to the pipe.

It doesn't matter how high the pipes are, if you continue to put more hydrogen and oxygen in them, eventually, they will fill up. MEANING that if the pipes are to the top of a 10000 foot mountain, that will have the gas available at the top. This does not mean the pressure in the pipe will be equal at the top as the bottom, but it does mean that if you put 100 psi at the bottom, you will have the majority of it at the top. Note that 1 atmosphere is only 32 psi at sea level.

Then you burn the gas at the top of the mountain and it becomes water. To be precise its water plus heat, which is where a lot of the energy used to sperate it is lost. A modern hydrogen fuel cell can recover 60% of that energy.

Now this is where you are likely not seeing the truth. There is a difference in the SPECIFIC gravity of water and the gases. As a result when you change the form (water to gases) you can use gravity as an energy source by increasing the potential energy of the water. When it is at the top of the mountain it has all that potential energy. Then you use gravity to pull it down and put pressure on the turbine. This converts the potential energy into electricity.

I do not the exact distance that would be best. I would guess it would be about 250 foot. IF this is true, then you have 40 lengths to create electricity in.


1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
He did, Wake.
Wake wrote:
2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
That is not the machine does, Wake.
Wake wrote:
3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.

Nature already does this for hydroelectric power. No pumps needed.
Wake wrote:
4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.
The patent expired in 1996.
Wake wrote:
Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.

Not what his machine does, Wake. He is making hydrogen oxygen from water to power his machine using solely the power the machine generates by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to make water at some height X, then dropping that water through a turbine wheel back into the electrolysis cell at the bottom of the machine.

His math is bad, and he is using the wrong values for breaking the bonds of hydrogen and oxygen in water.


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
02-05-2019 05:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Have ever sat down and shopped for parts, for the various stages, and narrowed it down to size and type needed to build this thing. There are all kinds of options for each stage, maybe why I have some trouble seeing how you would so firmly believe it could work. I really can't see it doing much more than consuming more than it's producing. It's not hard to find parts online, and full specifications. Many even provide the math (equations) to see if it will fit your application. Some electronics manufacturers have online calculators, where you type in what you need, and it suggest the parts you should look at. I'm sure generators and fuel cells have something similar. It's marketing, but very useful, even you don't buy their parts. Most people will, since they already have the right part number for their application, they order the parts suggest, rather that look for something similar from another company, and still have to do the math, each time, since the parts will be a little different. Basically, you can get an idea how much energy each part needs, or produces, volume, pressure. I think once you get down to actual parts available, and try to fit them together, you'll start see how this is going to work out better.

Yours is pretty complex, but I think I have an analogy, that's been attempted many times...
you take two DC motors, and connect the wires to each other. You spin the shaft of one motor, the other motor spins. Now, if you couple the shafts together, give it a spin, it slows down and stops. Doesn't generate enough electricity to keep going. You have to keep adding rotational energy, to produce any electricity. Your is a similar closed system, you recycle the water, not continually adding a large volume. The fuel cell isn't going to release a huge stream of water, for the volume of gas you feed into it. It won't be enough to turn a generator, list no one big enough to provide enough current to separate the water, back in to gas. You really can get the numbers you need from the various manufacturers of the equipment you will need. I'm entirely confident, that this thing will consume more energy than produces, you won't be able to take anything away, without it stopping. Won't keep running, unless you keep adding energy. Gravity won't help, since you have that uphill battle first, which will cost you more energy than you can recover.
02-05-2019 05:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
My apologies, I thought I had. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899

You did already. Thanks for repeating the link for Wake. He's too lazy to go look it up in past posts.
dehammer wrote:
2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
I have already given you the math.

Bad math.
dehammer wrote:
At 100% efficiency energy for electrolysis of 1 cubic foot of water = 103.62kw.
They have systems that are up to 82% efficient, but lets assume @50%. Lets go with a simple 200kw.

Lets assume that this is a 500cf per second system. Lets say its falling 10000 feet in 250 foot segments. Every 250 it hits a turbine and then falls into a tank.

This means that each set is completely separate.

To electrolysis 500 cubic feet, you would need 100000 kw per second.

WRONG. You would need 650Mw.
dehammer wrote:
Most fuel cells currently are about 60%.
Assuming this one is only 40%.
100kw to separate means at 100% it gives back 100kw.

WRONG. Efficiency of a fuel cell does not describe anything but the cell itself. It does not have anything to do with the electrolysis cell.
At 40% you only get 40kw.
500 cubic foot means you get back 20000kw.
100000- 20000=80000 kw.[/quote]
Bad math, and the use of efficiency ratings improperly.
dehammer wrote:
When water falls to a turbine, the formula is kw = cu.ft times height times efficiency devided by 11.8
normally they assume that efficiency is 80%, but lets go with 50%.

500*250*.5/11.8=34722.2 kw.
40 sets times 34722.2=1,388,888kw

You need 650Mw to generate the necessary hydrogen and oxygen. THEN you need to get it to altitude where the fuel cell resides.
dehammer wrote:
Even with all of these very inefficiency readings, this manages to make 588,888kw more than it cost. That's enough to power over a million homes. Yes, there would be maintenance cost, just as their is in any system, but the fuel cost, which is generally 40% of your electric bill would be zero. You could easily see a 25% saving on the cost of electricity.

Current hydrogen production systems produce hydrogen at about 35% greater than gas, but as gas goes up and efficiency of hydrogen production goes down, that range closes. IF you could reduce the cost of electricity by 25%, that makes the range that much smaller.

WRONG. The machine will not even power itself, much less any homes.
dehammer wrote:
3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.
SERIOUSLY? You think it would be better to pump it up hill and then get a fraction of the power back?

Seriously? You just shot down your own machine!
dehammer wrote:
4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.
There is the patent number. I thought I had already given it before.

You did.
dehammer wrote:
As you can see, he figures the efficiency would be high enough that it would hit the balance point at 575 feet, and that's with a single stage.

Improper use of efficiency ratings and bad math.
dehammer wrote:
Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.
Those are systems where they are simply trying to produce hydrogen. What they are trying to do is make it cheaper than the gasoline for standard engine.

No, they are not trying to make it cheaper. They are trying to replace gasoline with 'clean' burning hydrogen....never mind the cost or loss of engine efficiency.
dehammer wrote:
This would use gravity to produce the electricity, thus would be able to produce the hydrogen, even at a very inefficient (they think they can get it to 82% in the next decade), systems. By using one of their systems, this can be done even at lesser heights.

WRONG. It requires 237kJ to break the bonds of one mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen. That value does not change, no matter what you do.


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
02-05-2019 05:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have ever sat down and shopped for parts, for the various stages, and narrowed it down to size and type needed to build this thing. There are all kinds of options for each stage, maybe why I have some trouble seeing how you would so firmly believe it could work. I really can't see it doing much more than consuming more than it's producing. It's not hard to find parts online, and full specifications. Many even provide the math (equations) to see if it will fit your application. Some electronics manufacturers have online calculators, where you type in what you need, and it suggest the parts you should look at. I'm sure generators and fuel cells have something similar. It's marketing, but very useful, even you don't buy their parts. Most people will, since they already have the right part number for their application, they order the parts suggest, rather that look for something similar from another company, and still have to do the math, each time, since the parts will be a little different. Basically, you can get an idea how much energy each part needs, or produces, volume, pressure. I think once you get down to actual parts available, and try to fit them together, you'll start see how this is going to work out better.

Yours is pretty complex, but I think I have an analogy, that's been attempted many times...
you take two DC motors, and connect the wires to each other. You spin the shaft of one motor, the other motor spins. Now, if you couple the shafts together, give it a spin, it slows down and stops. Doesn't generate enough electricity to keep going. You have to keep adding rotational energy, to produce any electricity. Your is a similar closed system, you recycle the water, not continually adding a large volume. The fuel cell isn't going to release a huge stream of water, for the volume of gas you feed into it. It won't be enough to turn a generator, list no one big enough to provide enough current to separate the water, back in to gas. You really can get the numbers you need from the various manufacturers of the equipment you will need. I'm entirely confident, that this thing will consume more energy than produces, you won't be able to take anything away, without it stopping. Won't keep running, unless you keep adding energy. Gravity won't help, since you have that uphill battle first, which will cost you more energy than you can recover.

Your example with a DC motor using another DC motor as a generator to power it is right on. It is the same with using a waterwheel to pump water uphill to supply another waterwheel connected to the same shaft.


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
02-05-2019 05:42
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Bad math.
It could be, but if it is, show me where. other wise, your just whistling into the wind.

WRONG. Efficiency of a fuel cell does not describe anything but the cell itself. It does not have anything to do with the electrolysis cell.
The efficiency says how much of the potential energy of the hydrogen it can return. THAT is what I calculated.

THEN you need to get it to altitude where the fuel cell resides.
Specific gravity and density will do that. Hydrogen takes up 840 times the space and it always goes ABOVE water, at least in real life. Im sure your fantasy world magic can make water float above the gas.


WRONG. The machine will not even power itself, much less any homes.
Such a compelling argument. Where is your math, I showed you mine.

Seriously? You just shot down your own machine!
No, my invention does NOT pump it uphill. It changes it then allows nature to push it up, just as it does with water vapor.

Unless you are talking about trying to pump water vapor up, which would require keeping the vapor just hot enough to keep it from turning back to water, which is not likely. Then at the top you have to lose the heat to turn it back to water.

No, they are not trying to make it cheaper. They are trying to replace gasoline with 'clean' burning hydrogen....never mind the cost or loss of engine efficiency
The majority of people will not buy a hydrogen car if it cost them 5 times as much to run it as a gas car. Right now, the cost, even with the carbon tax scam is still 2 times. You will find a few people but not enough to get it going.

WRONG. It requires 237kJ to break the bonds of one mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen. That value does not change, no matter what you do.
ONLY if you have 100% efficient electrolysis. So far the best they can do, even in labs is 80%.

Come back when you learn real science.
02-05-2019 05:52
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It takes 3.318 MEGAwatts to convert 500 cubic feet of water to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis
Oh, so your saying it takes a lot less than I calculated. I said
so 500 would take 78658 kw to electrolysis 500 cf.
78658 KILOwatts is 78.6 megawatts. That could be why I am so far off.
02-05-2019 05:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
Your example with a DC motor using another DC motor as a generator to power it is right on. It is the same with using a waterwheel to pump water uphill to supply another waterwheel connected to the same shaft.
that would be using the same form of energy to do both the input and output. That is what is known as a perpetual motion machine.

This uses specific gravity.

Gases and liquids act differently. Liquids will always fill the bottom of any container they are in. That is why you can have a jug of water with an open top.

Gases will expand to fill any container that it is in. IF there is no top, such as in space, it will simple continue to expand. The "container" that keeps the gas on the earth is gravity. YET the atmosphere goes up about 300 miles. In the same way, if there is no atmosphere in the pipes, the gas will fill it.

In this manner, the gas will "pump" itself to the top, just as water vapor "pumps" itself to the levels of the clouds.
Edited on 02-05-2019 06:00
02-05-2019 10:58
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
The fuel cell needs to produce two things, electricity, and a sufficient volume of water to keep the turbine spinning the generator. The combined output of the fuel cell, need to be enough to power the electrolyzer. The turbine also needs to pass enough water, to keep the electrolyzer wet. The fuel cell isn't going to produce a lot of water quickly. You have a lot of options for your turbine and generator, but you will have compromises. If you pass a lot of water quickly, so the electrolyzer doesn't run dry, you produce less electricity. This is just one node in your system. The fuel cell has to produce a surplus of water to pass on to the electrolyzer and generator of the second phase, and so on... Fuel cells focus on producing electricity, the water is a byproduct, a waste product. Since it needs to be handled, I'm sure that information is available from a manufacturer. There are several types of fuel cells to choose from, so you can pick the one that produces the most water, quickest.
02-05-2019 16:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Or you have multiple fuel cells.
02-05-2019 17:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I would appreciate if anyone would check my math.
02-05-2019 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Bad math.
It could be, but if it is, show me where. other wise, your just whistling into the wind.

I already did. You're just whistling in the wind. Argument of the stone fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
WRONG. Efficiency of a fuel cell does not describe anything but the cell itself. It does not have anything to do with the electrolysis cell.
The efficiency says how much of the potential energy of the hydrogen it can return. THAT is what I calculated.

Fuel cells don't produce hydrogen.
dehammer wrote:
THEN you need to get it to altitude where the fuel cell resides.
Specific gravity and density will do that. Hydrogen takes up 840 times the space and it always goes ABOVE water, at least in real life. Im sure your fantasy world magic can make water float above the gas.

Nope. It WON'T rise in closed tubing. You have to pump it.
dehammer wrote:
WRONG. The machine will not even power itself, much less any homes.
Such a compelling argument. Where is your math, I showed you mine.

Bad math.
dehammer wrote:
Seriously? You just shot down your own machine!
No, my invention does NOT pump it uphill. It changes it then allows nature to push it up, just as it does with water vapor.

Nature won't push it up in closed tubing. You have to pump it.
dehammer wrote:
Unless you are talking about trying to pump water vapor up, which would require keeping the vapor just hot enough to keep it from turning back to water, which is not likely. Then at the top you have to lose the heat to turn it back to water.

Irrelevant.
dehammer wrote:
...deleted off topic portion...
WRONG. It requires 237kJ to break the bonds of one mole of water into hydrogen and oxygen. That value does not change, no matter what you do.
ONLY if you have 100% efficient electrolysis. So far the best they can do, even in labs is 80%.

Electrolysis is 100% efficient if the electrodes are large enough to handle the current.
dehammer wrote:
Come back when you learn real science.

I'm already here. It is YOU that is denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that is denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that makes up bad math and made up numbers. It is YOU that is whining about how you can't build the machine and try to get it to work.

This is YOUR problem. You can't cope with it, you just insult, invert arguments, deny laws of thermodynamics, use buzzwords, and in general just whine and complain.


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
02-05-2019 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
It takes 3.318 MEGAwatts to convert 500 cubic feet of water to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis
Oh, so your saying it takes a lot less than I calculated. I said
so 500 would take 78658 kw to electrolysis 500 cf.
78658 KILOwatts is 78.6 megawatts. That could be why I am so far off.

Bad math. You forgot to multiply that by the 32 units you used to get your 78.658Mw.


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
02-05-2019 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Your example with a DC motor using another DC motor as a generator to power it is right on. It is the same with using a waterwheel to pump water uphill to supply another waterwheel connected to the same shaft.
that would be using the same form of energy to do both the input and output. That is what is known as a perpetual motion machine.

This uses specific gravity.

Specific gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
Gases and liquids act differently. Liquids will always fill the bottom of any container they are in. That is why you can have a jug of water with an open top.

You can also have a jug of gas with an open top.
dehammer wrote:
Gases will expand to fill any container that it is in.

So do liquids.
dehammer wrote:
IF there is no top, such as in space, it will simple continue to expand.

Space is not a top. It is not a lid. There is no lid. It is quite possible to have a container filled with gas and the gas does not escape. You DO realize that some gases are heavier in air, right?
dehammer wrote:
The "container" that keeps the gas on the earth is gravity.

Same as the liquid or gas in a container.
dehammer wrote:
YET the atmosphere goes up about 300 miles.

Earth is a large 'container'.
dehammer wrote:
In the same way, if there is no atmosphere in the pipes, the gas will fill it.

So you are using a vacuum??? What produces the vacuum???
dehammer wrote:
In this manner, the gas will "pump" itself to the top, just as water vapor "pumps" itself to the levels of the clouds.

Uh...no.

Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.


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
02-05-2019 18:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The fuel cell needs to produce two things, electricity, and a sufficient volume of water to keep the turbine spinning the generator. The combined output of the fuel cell, need to be enough to power the electrolyzer. The turbine also needs to pass enough water, to keep the electrolyzer wet. The fuel cell isn't going to produce a lot of water quickly. You have a lot of options for your turbine and generator, but you will have compromises. If you pass a lot of water quickly, so the electrolyzer doesn't run dry, you produce less electricity. This is just one node in your system. The fuel cell has to produce a surplus of water to pass on to the electrolyzer and generator of the second phase, and so on... Fuel cells focus on producing electricity, the water is a byproduct, a waste product. Since it needs to be handled, I'm sure that information is available from a manufacturer. There are several types of fuel cells to choose from, so you can pick the one that produces the most water, quickest.


This is correct. There is also the resistance of the pipes. They actually follow Ohm's law. Current is not infinite in the pipes.


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
02-05-2019 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Or you have multiple fuel cells.


If one don't work, multiple ones don't work either.

Multiplying a zero by any number is still a zero, y'all.


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
02-05-2019 19:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
I would appreciate if anyone would check my math.

Already did. I showed you where your math was bad and how.

You denied it, just like you deny the laws of thermodynamics.

This machine has become a religion to you. You are being fundamentalist about it.


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
02-05-2019 19:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, you simply said it was wrong. Show it or it doesn't exist. I showed you the math.

As usual you throw out the litany of "thermodynamics" and every time you mention it, you prove you have no clue what it means.
02-05-2019 19:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?
02-05-2019 19:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
My apologies, I thought I had. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899

2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
I have already given you the math.

At 100% efficiency energy for electrolysis of 1 cubic foot of water = 103.62kw.
They have systems that are up to 82% efficient, but lets assume @50%. Lets go with a simple 200kw.

Lets assume that this is a 500cf per second system. Lets say its falling 10000 feet in 250 foot segments. Every 250 it hits a turbine and then falls into a tank.

This means that each set is completely separate.

To electrolysis 500 cubic feet, you would need 100000 kw per second.
Most fuel cells currently are about 60%.
Assuming this one is only 40%.
100kw to separate means at 100% it gives back 100kw.
At 40% you only get 40kw.
500 cubic foot means you get back 20000kw.

100000- 20000=80000 kw.

When water falls to a turbine, the formula is kw = cu.ft times height times efficiency devided by 11.8
normally they assume that efficiency is 80%, but lets go with 50%.

500*250*.5/11.8=34722.2 kw.
40 sets times 34722.2=1,388,888kw

Even with all of these very inefficiency readings, this manages to make 588,888kw more than it cost. That's enough to power over a million homes. Yes, there would be maintenance cost, just as their is in any system, but the fuel cost, which is generally 40% of your electric bill would be zero. You could easily see a 25% saving on the cost of electricity.

Current hydrogen production systems produce hydrogen at about 35% greater than gas, but as gas goes up and efficiency of hydrogen production goes down, that range closes. IF you could reduce the cost of electricity by 25%, that makes the range that much smaller.

3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.
SERIOUSLY? You think it would be better to pump it up hill and then get a fraction of the power back?

4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.
There is the patent number. I thought I had already given it before. As you can see, he figures the efficiency would be high enough that it would hit the balance point at 575 feet, and that's with a single stage.

Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.
Those are systems where they are simply trying to produce hydrogen. What they are trying to do is make it cheaper than the gasoline for standard engine.

This would use gravity to produce the electricity, thus would be able to produce the hydrogen, even at a very inefficient (they think they can get it to 82% in the next decade), systems. By using one of their systems, this can be done even at lesser heights.


Looking all of it up, what I discover is that this is called a Gravity Harvester. The problem is that it doesn't work. The idea is that somehow you electrolyze water into gases, RAISE those gases and recombine them into water which if dropped far enough would generate energy.

Firstly not only does it require energy to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen but you have to pump that gas up to the height necessary to drop it. Those gases to not move of their own accord. So it requires more energy to get the gases up to recombine them into water than you can retrieve just from dropping the water from recombination.

Plus your math is all screwed up. The energy of falling matter is the square of the velocity - that means that in order to get much energy it has to fall a LONG way to gain enough energy to retrieve. What's more - it would have to fall in a vacuum not to lose energy to friction. And it would STILL lose energy to the wall friction of the tubes it is falling in.

Actually there are literally dozens of problems with this and every single one lessens the recovered energy. But why would you do it when it costs more energy just to pump the gas to an altitude without even counting the electrolysis. I hope you are aware that lifting the amount of gas to make one cubic foot of water is the same as lifting one cubic foot of water.

This is literally fantasy on a large scale.
02-05-2019 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
No, you simply said it was wrong.

No, I showed you the math.
dehammer wrote:
Show it or it doesn't exist.
I did. It does exist.
dehammer wrote:
I showed you the math.
Bad math. I showed you why.
dehammer wrote:
As usual you throw out the litany of "thermodynamics" and every time you mention it, you prove you have no clue what it means.

Off topic. We are talking about math, not thermodynamics.


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
02-05-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?


Clouds are not gas. They are also not in a closed pipe. Clouds are liquid or solid.


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
02-05-2019 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. Why did you not offer the patent number?
My apologies, I thought I had. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899

2. You could not recover even a tiny portion of the energy to electrolyze water to make "clouds" that would drop "rain" that would drive a turbine of any sort.
I have already given you the math.

At 100% efficiency energy for electrolysis of 1 cubic foot of water = 103.62kw.
They have systems that are up to 82% efficient, but lets assume @50%. Lets go with a simple 200kw.

Lets assume that this is a 500cf per second system. Lets say its falling 10000 feet in 250 foot segments. Every 250 it hits a turbine and then falls into a tank.

This means that each set is completely separate.

To electrolysis 500 cubic feet, you would need 100000 kw per second.
Most fuel cells currently are about 60%.
Assuming this one is only 40%.
100kw to separate means at 100% it gives back 100kw.
At 40% you only get 40kw.
500 cubic foot means you get back 20000kw.

100000- 20000=80000 kw.

When water falls to a turbine, the formula is kw = cu.ft times height times efficiency devided by 11.8
normally they assume that efficiency is 80%, but lets go with 50%.

500*250*.5/11.8=34722.2 kw.
40 sets times 34722.2=1,388,888kw

Even with all of these very inefficiency readings, this manages to make 588,888kw more than it cost. That's enough to power over a million homes. Yes, there would be maintenance cost, just as their is in any system, but the fuel cost, which is generally 40% of your electric bill would be zero. You could easily see a 25% saving on the cost of electricity.

Current hydrogen production systems produce hydrogen at about 35% greater than gas, but as gas goes up and efficiency of hydrogen production goes down, that range closes. IF you could reduce the cost of electricity by 25%, that makes the range that much smaller.

3. It would be vastly cheaper to use solar power to evaporate sea water to obtain fresh water and pump this to the necessary site.
SERIOUSLY? You think it would be better to pump it up hill and then get a fraction of the power back?

4. Whatever would give you the idea that if you have any sort of workable idea for making power that it would have been at least tried? With the actual patent no doubt I could calculate the return.
There is the patent number. I thought I had already given it before. As you can see, he figures the efficiency would be high enough that it would hit the balance point at 575 feet, and that's with a single stage.

Looking it up hydrogen generators are highly energy inefficient. That means that they use FAR more power than they could possibly be used to generate power of any sort. This is why hydrogen powered cars never got off the ground. Most of them never even got off the drawing board.
Those are systems where they are simply trying to produce hydrogen. What they are trying to do is make it cheaper than the gasoline for standard engine.

This would use gravity to produce the electricity, thus would be able to produce the hydrogen, even at a very inefficient (they think they can get it to 82% in the next decade), systems. By using one of their systems, this can be done even at lesser heights.


Looking all of it up, what I discover is that this is called a Gravity Harvester. The problem is that it doesn't work. The idea is that somehow you electrolyze water into gases, RAISE those gases and recombine them into water which if dropped far enough would generate energy.

Firstly not only does it require energy to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen but you have to pump that gas up to the height necessary to drop it. Those gases to not move of their own accord. So it requires more energy to get the gases up to recombine them into water than you can retrieve just from dropping the water from recombination.

Plus your math is all screwed up. The energy of falling matter is the square of the velocity - that means that in order to get much energy it has to fall a LONG way to gain enough energy to retrieve. What's more - it would have to fall in a vacuum not to lose energy to friction. And it would STILL lose energy to the wall friction of the tubes it is falling in.

Absolutely correct, Wake. Good job!
Wake wrote:
Actually there are literally dozens of problems with this and every single one lessens the recovered energy. But why would you do it when it costs more energy just to pump the gas to an altitude without even counting the electrolysis. I hope you are aware that lifting the amount of gas to make one cubic foot of water is the same as lifting one cubic foot of water.

Again, absolutely correct.
Wake wrote:
This is literally fantasy on a large scale.

Quite right. The concept ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing. It also ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy in a closed system.


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
02-05-2019 20:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?


Clouds are not gas. They are also not in a closed pipe. Clouds are liquid or solid.
Clouds are a vapor, which is a gas. They are in an enclosed container called a gravity well. IF clouds were solid, you could not fly a plane though them. IF they were liquid, they would be heavier than air and fall (ever heard of rain? snow? hail?)

Once again, you are as fake a scientist as Bill Nye is. Or perhaps you are Bill Nye.
02-05-2019 21:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?


Clouds are not gas. They are also not in a closed pipe. Clouds are liquid or solid.
Clouds are a vapor, which is a gas. They are in an enclosed container called a gravity well. IF clouds were solid, you could not fly a plane though them. IF they were liquid, they would be heavier than air and fall (ever heard of rain? snow? hail?)

Once again, you are as fake a scientist as Bill Nye is. Or perhaps you are Bill Nye.


Nightmare is wrong on every single front. But that isn't going to stop him from yammering on. I have yet to understand what he thinks he is accomplishing with so much obviously incorrect and even stupid claims.

Since there ARE thorium reactors (the first was part of the Manhattan Project in WW II) exactly why would you suppose the nutcake would claim there isn't?

I can't remember now if I said that a thorium breeder generates U238 or U235 but it is U238 - the fissile component of the conversion. Only nightmare would think that a radioactive material couldn't be used to operate a reactor.

Only nutjob nightmare would think that Methane in the quantities used to generate power was unlimited. Hell, they have natural gas fired power plants all over the bay area and they have to put them in areas that aren't too close to homes because of the noise they make. Bay Area Rapid Transit uses natural gas fired power plants to power the entire line. They do not use commercial power sources.

After watching a video of Bill Nye last night Nightmare certainly has the same sort of stupid attitude but they have exactly opposite position about climate change. Bill Nye will not debate anyone on the subject - instead he tries to shout them down. Pretty stupid on his part.
02-05-2019 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?


Clouds are not gas. They are also not in a closed pipe. Clouds are liquid or solid.

Clouds are a vapor,

WRONG. Clouds are liquid water or solid ice. Water vapor is not visible.
dehammer wrote:
which is a gas.

WRONG. A vapor is not a gas.
dehammer wrote:
They are in an enclosed container called a gravity well.

A gravity well is not enclosed.
dehammer wrote:
IF clouds were solid,
Some are. High cirrus clouds are ice. They are solid water crystals.
dehammer wrote:
you could not fly a plane though them.
You can fly a plane through both.
dehammer wrote:
IF they were liquid, they would be heavier than air and fall (ever heard of rain? snow? hail?)

Liquids do not always fall, dude. Neither does ice. If the clouds get dense enough and cold enough, some moisture DOES fall as rain or snow.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you are as fake a scientist as Bill Nye is. Or perhaps you are Bill Nye.

Nah. You just deny meteorology as well. You apparently never learned how clouds form, how thunderstorms happen, and how they dissipate.


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
02-05-2019 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Gas has weight, even hydrogen. I will not fill a vacuum on it's own in a closed pipe. It will only fill it part way, then stop. Even more so with oxygen.
So clouds do not exist?


Clouds are not gas. They are also not in a closed pipe. Clouds are liquid or solid.
Clouds are a vapor, which is a gas. They are in an enclosed container called a gravity well. IF clouds were solid, you could not fly a plane though them. IF they were liquid, they would be heavier than air and fall (ever heard of rain? snow? hail?)

Once again, you are as fake a scientist as Bill Nye is. Or perhaps you are Bill Nye.


Nightmare is wrong on every single front.

You just denied your own argument when I agreed with you. I'll consider your entire argument about his machine retracted.
Wake wrote:
But that isn't going to stop him from yammering on. I have yet to understand what he thinks he is accomplishing with so much obviously incorrect and even stupid claims.

Going to show us how little you know about meteorology, Wake?
Wake wrote:
Since there ARE thorium reactors (the first was part of the Manhattan Project in WW II) exactly why would you suppose the nutcake would claim there isn't?

No, they used uranium and plutonium reactors.
Wake wrote:
I can't remember now if I said that a thorium breeder generates U238 or U235 but it is U238 - the fissile component of the conversion.

U235 is the fissile isotope of uranium, Wake. U238 is not fissile.
Wake wrote:
Only nightmare would think that a radioactive material couldn't be used to operate a reactor.

It can't. If it was, you could make a practical nuclear reactor out of carbon. It has radioactive isotopes too, you know.
Wake wrote:
Only nutjob nightmare would think that Methane in the quantities used to generate power was unlimited.

It is. It's a renewable fuel. But you deny chemistry, too, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Hell, they have natural gas fired power plants all over the bay area and they have to put them in areas that aren't too close to homes because of the noise they make.

WTF?? What is this got to do with whether methane is a renewable fuel??
Wake wrote:
After watching a video of Bill Nye last night Nightmare certainly has the same sort of stupid attitude but they have exactly opposite position about climate change. Bill Nye will not debate anyone on the subject - instead he tries to shout them down. Pretty stupid on his part.


I already consider your arguments about his machine retracted. I agreed with you, but you shot your own argument down.

Bulverism fallacy. Paradox. Insult fallacy. Irrelevance fallacies. Redirection fallacies.


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
Edited on 02-05-2019 21:59
02-05-2019 22:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I do believe this guy is Bill Nye, the science fraud guy.
Page 5 of 11<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gravity because it's a heavy subject022-10-2019 08:44
Removing plastic cards from the system306-07-2019 05:14
Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer1605-07-2019 05:18
Fed researcher warns climate change could spur financial crisis027-03-2019 15:50
Climate is the Earth's Operating System(OS) and we definitely need to protect it.2423-12-2018 21:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact