Gravity fed electrical generation system

dehammer wrote:
So gravity hasn't been proven?

dehammer wrote:
So science has proven it exist?

Or is it a magical force?

dehammer wrote:
So gravity hasn't been proven?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Your calculation depends on the 250 pipe to remain full.

Your water power needs to go through two conversions

30 gal/minute seems like a lot of volume for a 1 inch pipe,

Which means you have to haul 240 lbs of water vertically, every minute your generator is running.

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

dehammer wrote:
I have attempted a (rather laughable) video on this. https://youtu.be/llk85lsDR9g

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

HarveyH55 wrote:We can check you math, over, and over, and over... .

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.

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

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

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

dehammer wrote:
I tried to do this with the formula from wiki.

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.

dehammer wrote:
38.45 times 40 would be 1538.25kw.

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

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.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
That's the perfect answer to you. I have answered, but you do not accept anything.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

Asked many times, how do you plan on getting the water to the top?

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