Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 7 of 11<<<56789>>>
04-05-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
So gravity hasn't been proven?

Gravity isn't a theory of science. It is a force of nature.


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
04-05-2019 20:13
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So science has proven it exist?

Or is it a magical force?
Edited on 04-05-2019 20:14
04-05-2019 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
So science has proven it exist?

Or is it a magical force?

Now you are just trolling.


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
04-05-2019 20:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
How do you troll a troll?
04-05-2019 23:42
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
So gravity hasn't been proven?


Gravity is simply a word used to describe a series of observation, which are repeatable. There is definitely some force, that makes it predictable, that if you drop something, it goes toward the ground. You have to apply a predictable amount of force, to toss something up in the air. Once you stop applying that force, the object will fall back to the ground. All predictable, and repeatable observation, anyone can do.
05-05-2019 00:16
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Yes, if you drop water from a certain height and it hits a turbine, connected to a generator, it will produce electricity.

do you agree with that?
05-05-2019 04:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
Yes, if you drop water from a certain height and it hits a turbine, connected to a generator, it will produce electricity.

do you agree with that?


Of course, but will it produce the same energy as required to transport that water, to a certain height? For instance, could you power a pump from the generator, to transport the same water back up to the top, and do it all over?
05-05-2019 04:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Actually if you use a pump, you lose energy. That wasn't the question. No one is pumping water up hill.

Lets take a small system.
A one inch pipe can carry 30 gallons per minutes.
that is .06684 cubic feet per second.
IF you have a 250 foot pipe above a turbine, the formula is:
cf x drop x .8 (efficiency) /11.7 = kw.
.06684 x 250 x .8 / 11.7 = 1.1425kw

Do you agree?
05-05-2019 04:22
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
Actually if you use a pump, you lose energy. That wasn't the question. No one is pumping water up hill.

Lets take a small system.
A one inch pipe can carry 30 gallons per minutes.
that is .06684 cubic feet per second.
IF you have a 250 foot pipe above a turbine, the formula is:
cf x drop x .8 (efficiency) /11.7 = kw.
.06684 x 250 x .8 / 11.7 = 1.1425kw

Do you agree?


I just agreed that a column of water could feed a generator, and produce power. I followed up with a question, whether the generator would produce enough power to transport the same volume of water back up to the top. It's work to generate the electricity, it's also work, to get the water up 250 feet. Just wanted to know if you knew how much energy is required, compared to how much is converted to electricity.
05-05-2019 04:28
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IF someone was stupid enough to pump up water, no. It would not work. IF you had perfect transfer of power, it would produce just enough energy to move the water up. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have a loss of energy, so it would likely have a 50% loss each turn.

Next question, IF you have 40 times the energy, you would get 40 times the power, right?
1.1425 x 40=45kw per second.

right?
Edited on 05-05-2019 04:30
05-05-2019 04:50
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
IF someone was stupid enough to pump up water, no. It would not work. IF you had perfect transfer of power, it would produce just enough energy to move the water up. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have a loss of energy, so it would likely have a 50% loss each turn.

Next question, IF you have 40 times the energy, you would get 40 times the power, right?
1.1425 x 40=45kw per second.

right?


A one inch diameter pipe, 250 feet high, would hold about 10 gallons of water. 10 gallons of water, is a little over 80 lbs. So, 400 gallons of water would weigh 3200 lbs...
05-05-2019 05:06
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What difference would it matter what it weighs since it would be on a mountain that would support it? In fact the pipe would likely be buried.

If I am not mistaken, in one minute the system would produce 2742kwh.

Will you check that? I am not certain about this point.

Or would the weight of the water be what determined the energy from the turbine?

I tried to do this with the formula from wiki.
power = turbine eff times density times acceleration times head times flow rate.
power = .8 times 997 kg/m3 (density of water) times 9.81m/s2 times 76.2 meters times .0000645 m3/s = 38.45 kw.

38.45 times 40 would be 1538.25kw.

I don't know which of these is right or if I have done the math right.
Edited on 05-05-2019 05:37
05-05-2019 06:07
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
What difference would it matter what it weighs since it would be on a mountain that would support it? In fact the pipe would likely be buried.

If I am not mistaken, in one minute the system would produce 2742kwh.

Will you check that? I am not certain about this point.

Or would the weight of the water be what determined the energy from the turbine?


You haven't defined the turbine or the generator. Your power calculation is for the amount of work, the water has the capacity to perform. It's not a 1:1 conversion. Your calculation depends on the 250 pipe to remain full. Your water power needs to go through two conversions, first to rotational energy, to spin the turbine, and the generator to convert rotational energy to electricity. Convert energy from one for to another, is never free. 30 gal/minute seems like a lot of volume for a 1 inch pipe, not sure gravity is going to provide the pressure needed to move that much water, quickly. I'm not an engineer, and would have to find the equations, to calculate this stuff. No real interest in digging, to provide them for you. I don't work with generators, so never learned the math. I'm sure there is some way to calculate how much generator, your water column can support, and how much electricity it could produce, once you got it spinning. Yep, it takes more energy to just set in motion, and get it up to optimal speed. You still need to keep the 250 foot tube full, or your power calculation drops with the volume of water, so does the power output of your generator. Which means you have to haul 240 lbs of water vertically, every minute your generator is running.
05-05-2019 07:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Your calculation depends on the 250 pipe to remain full.
In coming would equal outgoing.
Your water power needs to go through two conversions
Or you can use what the experts figured out.
30 gal/minute seems like a lot of volume for a 1 inch pipe,
That's why I went with the experts.

Which means you have to haul 240 lbs of water vertically, every minute your generator is running.
That's for another question.

No real interest in digging, to provide them for you.

Which is why I did the digging already. I don't expert you to dig for me. I only ask that you check my math.
Edited on 05-05-2019 07:59
05-05-2019 10:09
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I have attempted a (rather laughable) video on this. https://youtu.be/llk85lsDR9g
05-05-2019 17:57
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
I have attempted a (rather laughable) video on this. https://youtu.be/llk85lsDR9g


Video needs some more work. The text at the bottom was too quick, and same color as your graphics background, couldn't really read it, and I'v seen it before. The graphics were too blurry to make much sense out of, let alone try and figure out the text. Not sure if it explained anything, or really gave much information into what your idea was. Part of it might be that YouTube compresses videos quite a bit, and you lose a lot of fine detail, which cause some blurriness.
05-05-2019 18:21
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
Your calculation depends on the 250 pipe to remain full.
In coming would equal outgoing.
Your water power needs to go through two conversions
Or you can use what the experts figured out.
30 gal/minute seems like a lot of volume for a 1 inch pipe,
That's why I went with the experts.

Which means you have to haul 240 lbs of water vertically, every minute your generator is running.
That's for another question.

No real interest in digging, to provide them for you.

Which is why I did the digging already. I don't expert you to dig for me. I only ask that you check my math.


We can check you math, over, and over, and over... But it's still not going to mean what you want it to mean. One apple + One Apple, doesn't equal 2 oranges. You over simplify the parts that work for you, and ignore or deny the details that are inconvenient. Your idea is to use the force of gravity to produce electricity, but you won't consider that you have to use an equal amount of energy to move the water to the top, to keep the process going. That's over-simplifying it, there are multiple points in your process that require additional energy, and unavoidable losses. Breaking even, would be perpetual motion, producing a surplus would be over-unity, neither have ever been accomplished.
05-05-2019 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
So gravity hasn't been proven?


Gravity is simply a word used to describe a series of observation, which are repeatable. There is definitely some force, that makes it predictable, that if you drop something, it goes toward the ground. You have to apply a predictable amount of force, to toss something up in the air. Once you stop applying that force, the object will fall back to the ground. All predictable, and repeatable observation, anyone can do.


It is also described simply as a force of nature, which acts between any two masses.


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
05-05-2019 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
Yes, if you drop water from a certain height and it hits a turbine, connected to a generator, it will produce electricity.

do you agree with that?


Fixated on that aren't you? Where does that water at a certain height come from?


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
05-05-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
Actually if you use a pump, you lose energy. That wasn't the question. No one is pumping water up hill.

Lets take a small system.
A one inch pipe can carry 30 gallons per minutes.
that is .06684 cubic feet per second.
IF you have a 250 foot pipe above a turbine, the formula is:
cf x drop x .8 (efficiency) /11.7 = kw.
.06684 x 250 x .8 / 11.7 = 1.1425kw

Do you agree?


YOU are trying to just that.
Your formula is wrong too. See Newton's laws.


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
05-05-2019 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
IF someone was stupid enough to pump up water, no. It would not work. IF you had perfect transfer of power, it would produce just enough energy to move the water up. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have a loss of energy, so it would likely have a 50% loss each turn.

Next question, IF you have 40 times the energy, you would get 40 times the power, right?
1.1425 x 40=45kw per second.

right?


Evasion. Answer his question, dumbass.


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
05-05-2019 19:26
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:We can check you math, over, and over, and over... .


Then just answer the questions as I ask them.

IF there is water at the top of a mountain (doesn't matter at this time how) and it is getting a steady replacement, would it produce power as it falls though a turbine 250 feet below?

Yes, or No?

Simple question.
05-05-2019 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
What difference would it matter what it weighs since it would be on a mountain that would support it? In fact the pipe would likely be buried.

Makes no difference except to make it harder to maintain.
dehammer wrote:
If I am not mistaken, in one minute the system would produce 2742kwh.

You are mistaken. Bad math.
dehammer wrote:
Will you check that? I am not certain about this point.

I am. Use Newton's laws, not some hack formula you found on Wikipedia.
dehammer wrote:
Or would the weight of the water be what determined the energy from the turbine?

The mass of the water, the mass of the Earth, the distance it has to fall, the resistance of the pipe, the size of the turbine wheel, and of course the efficiency of the generator itself.
dehammer wrote:
I tried to do this with the formula from wiki.

Wikipedia is a horrible place for reference information. That's why I discard it on sight. The articles are too often incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong.
dehammer wrote:
power = turbine eff times density times acceleration times head times flow rate.
power = .8 times 997 kg/m3 (density of water) times 9.81m/s2 times 76.2 meters times .0000645 m3/s = 38.45 kw.

Bad math, even using this formula. Acceleration is NOT efficiency. You must calculate acceleration first. See Newton's laws.
dehammer wrote:
38.45 times 40 would be 1538.25kw.

40 times the bad math is still bad math.
dehammer wrote:
I don't know which of these is right or if I have done the math right.

You haven't done the math right. Your are using the wrong formula, and you are using THAT incorrectly, substituting 'efficiency' (using a number you just pulled out of your head) for acceleration.

Further, you are STILL ignoring how the water you are using got there in the first place.


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 05-05-2019 19:30
05-05-2019 19:42
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Answer the question. If there is water at the top and it is being replenish so that the water level doesn't drop, is it going to produce power at the turbine 250 feet blow?

Yes or no.
05-05-2019 19:43
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
I have attempted a (rather laughable) video on this. https://youtu.be/llk85lsDR9g


Video needs some more work. The text at the bottom was too quick, and same color as your graphics background, couldn't really read it, and I'v seen it before. The graphics were too blurry to make much sense out of, let alone try and figure out the text. Not sure if it explained anything, or really gave much information into what your idea was. Part of it might be that YouTube compresses videos quite a bit, and you lose a lot of fine detail, which cause some blurriness.


I am trying to figure out how to change it, but I cant figure that out yet. Any advice or a link to a video that shows how would be welcome.
Edited on 05-05-2019 19:43
05-05-2019 19:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
Answer the question. If there is water at the top and it is being replenish so that the water level doesn't drop, is it going to produce power at the turbine 250 feet blow?

Yes or no.


I am not going to answer the question, since it has already been answered. YOU need to answer the questions put to you. You are still evading.


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
05-05-2019 19:49
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, you haven't, you have evade it, as I expected. You know if you answer the questions I ask you will lose the argument.
05-05-2019 20:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
No, you haven't, you have evade it, as I expected. You know if you answer the questions I ask you will lose the argument.


Argument of the stone fallacy. Circular argument fallacy. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you.


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
05-05-2019 20:28
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
That's the perfect answer to you. I have answered, but you do not accept anything.
05-05-2019 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
dehammer wrote:
That's the perfect answer to you. I have answered, but you do not accept anything.


Lie. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you.


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
05-05-2019 23:29
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
oookkaayy
06-05-2019 00:31
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We can check you math, over, and over, and over... .


Then just answer the questions as I ask them.

IF there is water at the top of a mountain (doesn't matter at this time how) and it is getting a steady replacement, would it produce power as it falls though a turbine 250 feet below?

Yes, or No?

Simple question.


I already answered this one, guess you didn't like the answer, even though I did agree... I just knew where this was going, since we've been through it a few times. Repetition isn't going to alter my thinking, don't forget easy.
06-05-2019 00:35
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
I have attempted a (rather laughable) video on this. https://youtu.be/llk85lsDR9g


Video needs some more work. The text at the bottom was too quick, and same color as your graphics background, couldn't really read it, and I'v seen it before. The graphics were too blurry to make much sense out of, let alone try and figure out the text. Not sure if it explained anything, or really gave much information into what your idea was. Part of it might be that YouTube compresses videos quite a bit, and you lose a lot of fine detail, which cause some blurriness.


I am trying to figure out how to change it, but I cant figure that out yet. Any advice or a link to a video that shows how would be welcome.


YouTube use to have a whole bunch of tools and tutorials, for producing better videos, and improving quality. I only look through some of it briefly, long time ago. My uploads took a long time, needed to speed things up.
06-05-2019 01:15
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So if there is 40 drops of 250, that's a lot of energy right?

I did the calculation and found that if you had a zero efficiency of the burn, you would need 2400 feet to recover the cost of breaking up the water. So 10000 has to have more energy than the electrolysis right?
06-05-2019 01:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Just forget it, no one really cares anyway.

the worlds going to hell in a handbasket and we will soon be at war with those that are using climate change alarmism as an excuse.

no one wants to use things like this.
06-05-2019 02:14
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
dehammer wrote:
Just forget it, no one really cares anyway.

the worlds going to hell in a handbasket and we will soon be at war with those that are using climate change alarmism as an excuse.

no one wants to use things like this.



dehammer,
The world has already gone to Hell. I tried working with others online and wasn't allowed to. One person who I asked to work with me on an invention threatened to sue me.
I mean could you imagine if someone created a simple invention which could do something as simple as pumping air? There is no need for an over unity device. With that being said, nuclear power is over unity because it produces more energy than what it takes to create the process that allows for it.
So I have to agree with my detractors in the past that over unity isn't possible and disabilities don't matter.
People get paid for doing work. Building a working prototype results in a pay check. The only thing I can suggest is finding a forum that is willing to consider an over unity device. Surely they will support such efforts. And if those forums can't support research on an over unity device then it's up to the individual himself. Then those in such forums can promote how it was the achievers fault for not stating the obvious which they failed to do.
There are 2 types of forums. One is for discussion and the 2nd is for judging. All online forums are for judging. They are the wrong place to look for compatriots who might share a similar belief.
Of course since I'm not an American, I could be wrong.
06-05-2019 03:35
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
dehammer wrote:
So if there is 40 drops of 250, that's a lot of energy right?

I did the calculation and found that if you had a zero efficiency of the burn, you would need 2400 feet to recover the cost of breaking up the water. So 10000 has to have more energy than the electrolysis right?


Wrong. You calculate for a single column of water, then start sub-dividing and expanding, as if it's the same. Asked many times, how do you plan on getting the water to the top? A 0ne inch pipe, 250 feet long, holds 10.2 gallons of water. You gave 30 gal/minute flow rate, so you the pipe only holds 20 seconds, before it runs dry. You depend on a 250 ft column of water to provide the force to drive the turbine. Less water, less force. Each of your 'drops' is a stopping point, which separates it as flowing like a continual column. You take power out of it, to covert to rotational energy with a turbine. Oh, have you consider a Tesla Turbine? I don't really see them used all that much, but the man invented a whole lot of very good stuff, many we still use, a hundred years later, with little change or improvement. Dr. Nikola Tesla is my favorite inventor, best one ever. The Tesla turbine can also be used as a pump. Tesla also developed a lot of the generators we still use. There were already generators, before Tesla's work, he just made them much better. Besides, the free-energy guys hijacked the Tesla name, and mis-represent some of his ideas and inventions.

Back to water column. It takes power to turn the turbine, and the generator will put a load on the turbine, so your column of water is doing even more work, using up that power you calculated earlier. You just converted a portion of the water column power, into electricity, the water no longer has that to pass on to the next drop.

You can add as many drops as you want, keep adding pipe and go higher, but you still need to do the work of hauling a lot of water up to the top. Work requires power, and the further you have to move the water, and faster, that power requirement increases, dramatically. Very high pressure is needed, a lot of energy expended.
06-05-2019 04:25
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
So if there is 40 drops of 250, that's a lot of energy right?

I did the calculation and found that if you had a zero efficiency of the burn, you would need 2400 feet to recover the cost of breaking up the water. So 10000 has to have more energy than the electrolysis right?


Wrong. You calculate for a single column of water, then start sub-dividing and expanding, as if it's the same. Asked many times, how do you plan on getting the water to the top? A 0ne inch pipe, 250 feet long, holds 10.2 gallons of water. You gave 30 gal/minute flow rate, so you the pipe only holds 20 seconds, before it runs dry. You depend on a 250 ft column of water to provide the force to drive the turbine. Less water, less force. Each of your 'drops' is a stopping point, which separates it as flowing like a continual column. You take power out of it, to covert to rotational energy with a turbine. Oh, have you consider a Tesla Turbine? I don't really see them used all that much, but the man invented a whole lot of very good stuff, many we still use, a hundred years later, with little change or improvement. Dr. Nikola Tesla is my favorite inventor, best one ever. The Tesla turbine can also be used as a pump. Tesla also developed a lot of the generators we still use. There were already generators, before Tesla's work, he just made them much better. Besides, the free-energy guys hijacked the Tesla name, and mis-represent some of his ideas and inventions.

Back to water column. It takes power to turn the turbine, and the generator will put a load on the turbine, so your column of water is doing even more work, using up that power you calculated earlier. You just converted a portion of the water column power, into electricity, the water no longer has that to pass on to the next drop.

You can add as many drops as you want, keep adding pipe and go higher, but you still need to do the work of hauling a lot of water up to the top. Work requires power, and the further you have to move the water, and faster, that power requirement increases, dramatically. Very high pressure is needed, a lot of energy expended.



Harvey,
If water is cönverted intö a gas, it will rise tö the töp regardless öf height. Da?
Kind of why I think Americans are stoopid. er stöpid. ö is oo if you don't understand how to talk and to write. It's like saying föl or fool. Or even фуль.
The ь means the consonant is pronounced softly, in American it is like fuel and without the ь then the l sounds like the one in petrol. It's so fükken phöny you Americans only know one way to do something.
I've heard it's like being handicapped. While I might think it is a handicap, I am always wrong.
With me, I think it's sad if the US is the hope of the world. Rome exploited the people around it and fell. It became the exploited people and is called Italy today.
History repeats itself. If that is true then one day America will become the people that it exploits today.
06-05-2019 04:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Asked many times, how do you plan on getting the water to the top?
Once. The bottom of one is the top of the next. It comes our of the bottom of the tesla turbine into the tank for the next drop. The tank stabilizes the height.

Think of it like this. IF you are running 30 gallons per minute and there is some kind of interruption in the flow (don't see why, but its possible). If there is no tank, that means the water in the will drop several inches in a single minute. IF it is in a large tank, it MIGHT drop 1 inch in that minute.

Yes, I had planned on a tesla turbine if I could build it.

the water no longer has that (the energy from the previous 250 foot drop) to pass on to the next drop.

Of course it doesn't. That's why it goes into the tank.

Here is the reasoning for that. The higher the drop, the more of the energy from the pressure is lost to the resistance of the tube or pipe. Up to about 250 to 300 feet, the resistance of the pipe is almost non existent (less than 1%). By the time it hits 600 feet, it has lost 10% of the power. At 1000 feet its close to 50%.

By splitting it into 250 foot segments, you lose about 2% of the power of the 10000 foot drop. Without the break up, you lose about 90%.

So the entire things is a 10000 foot drop, but with segments to keep the resistance loss down.
Edited on 06-05-2019 04:53
06-05-2019 05:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
As for the gas going up the tube, here is what experts say.
Andreas J Schwab, Dr.rer.nat. (equivalent to PhD) in Physiological Chemistry at Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich
Updated May 21, 2016 · Author has 839 answers and 1m answer views
The density of hydrogen and oxygen are 0.0899 and 1.429 g/l at 0 degrees centigrade.
Density for all the elements in the Periodic Table
One liter of water will thus produce 111/0.0899 =1235 liters of hydrogen and 888.81/1.429 = 622 liters of oxygen. Note that according to Avogadro's law, the volume of hydrogen is about twice that of oxygen, because 1 mol of water produces 1 mol of hydrogen and 1/2 mol of oxygen.
Gas Laws


This means at one atmosphere (14 psi) hydrogen from a single liter will take up 75364.32 cubic inches.

A 10000 foot, 1 inch pipe would have 94,248 cubic inches.

This means it would only take 1.5 liters to fill a 10000 foot 1 inch pipe at 14 psi. My design would have it at 30 psi, so it would take 3 liters.
Page 7 of 11<<<56789>>>





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