Gravity fed electrical generation system

dehammer wrote:
Its an image. That it all it is. It is used to aid in visualization nothing more.

GasGuzzler wrote:Why do YOU think it is that no one is willing to try your contraption?

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).

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,

Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient, but the fuel is plentiful, reasonably priced (most of the time).

I have no faith in Global Warming, there isn't a very high concentration, 0.04%, to have such a huge effect on everything.

I like a website called Hackaday.com, which might interest you some.

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

Should mention, if not familiar, hacking isn't computer crimes, lot or to it, that's just vaguely similar, just with computers.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
The problem is your image of it.

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.

dehammer wrote:
The large version (10000 foot) would be the main one for producing power for a state or country.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

dehammer wrote:
2) most people live near cities and flat areas.

dehammer wrote:
3) most people do not own land.

dehammer wrote:
4) most people do not have the money to build a system like this.

dehammer wrote:
Most that do, own stock and much of that stock would be in arenas that would not benefit from this.

dehammer wrote:
5) Big oil would not build it because they could not control it.

dehammer wrote:
6) Alarmist do not build it because it would actually fix the problem and mean their "solution" is not needed.

dehammer wrote:
That solution is for the government to take control over the energy section and to take control over everyone's rights.

dehammer wrote:
The biggest reason is lack of knowledge of it.

dehammer wrote:
IF more people understood what it was, more people would be demanding that they do it.

dehammer wrote:
I have never had the money to build a test model of it.

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

dehammer wrote:
if not the same person, had no clue how to use it.

dehammer wrote:
He expected me to build it, then come in after with that and claim I stole it from him.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:

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

Its not a matter of faith,

dehammer wrote:
except in the science.

dehammer wrote:
The science of specific gravity is ever proven.

dehammer wrote:
The science behind the electrolysis is proven.

dehammer wrote:
The science behind using gravity to pull water down to turn the turbine is proven.

dehammer wrote:
The science behind the turbines is proven.

dehammer wrote:
What is there to believe in.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

Wake wrote:
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bad math.

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.

THEN you need to get it to altitude where the fuel cell resides.

WRONG. The machine will not even power itself, much less any homes.

Seriously? You just shot down your own machine!

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

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.

It takes 3.318 MEGAwatts to convert 500 cubic feet of water to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis

so 500 would take 78658 kw to electrolysis 500 cf.

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.

dehammer wrote:

Bad math.

It could be, but if it is, show me where. other wise, your just whistling into the wind.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

dehammer wrote:
Come back when you learn real science.

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.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
Gases will expand to fill any container that it is in.

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

dehammer wrote:
The "container" that keeps the gas on the earth is gravity.

dehammer wrote:
YET the atmosphere goes up about 300 miles.

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

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
Or you have multiple fuel cells.

dehammer wrote:
I would appreciate if anyone would check my math.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
No, you simply said it was wrong.

dehammer wrote:
Show it or it doesn't exist.

dehammer wrote:
I showed you the math.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Wake wrote:
This is literally fantasy on a large scale.

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.

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.

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,

dehammer wrote:
which is a gas.

dehammer wrote:
They are in an enclosed container called a gravity well.

dehammer wrote:
IF clouds were solid,

dehammer wrote:
you could not fly a plane though them.

dehammer wrote:
IF they were liquid, they would be heavier than air and fall (ever heard of rain? snow? hail?)

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Wake wrote:
Only nightmare would think that a radioactive material couldn't be used to operate a reactor.

Wake wrote:
Only nutjob nightmare would think that Methane in the quantities used to generate power was unlimited.

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.

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.