Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 14 of 16<<<1213141516>
20-07-2022 10:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Water at the bottom of a 10000 ft pipe will have a pressure of 4322psi. You have to inject hydrogen gas somehow into that pressure.
The entire purpose of this was that you have something, most likely a pump at the top reducing the pressure at the top taking pressure off the bottom. The truth is, the air in the pipe will be the same pressure on the outside of the pipe. Air pressure at sea level is 32 psi, and that will be what is in the pipe. A pipe of 144 square inch would have a total pressure of 4608 pounds. Is that what you are referring too?

Air pressure at sea level is 14.7apsi.

So NOW you are NOT filling the rising flow with water, but with pure hydrogen gas.
dehammer wrote:
That requires a pump.


One method is to put the electrolysis electrode directly in that pressure, but you will require more power than usual to cause electrolysis. In that arrangement, electrolysis is the pump.
It would be the same as having the electrolysis device directly open to the air. The only way it would be different is if you were pulling the gas out of the device with a pump.
Of course, all of this is ignored by dehammer,
No, I am not ignoring it.

Yes you are. You are ignoring the cost of running the pump. That's an additional significant load you are going to have to power with this thing.
dehammer wrote:
I understand and I can see you are trying to pretend that it is something unusual high pressure, when it is not.

You changed the conditions again. You no longer have any liquid in the rising flow.
dehammer wrote:
They do not measure air pressure by the square foot, but by the square inch. Since the bottom of this would likely be the ocean or sea, that is where the pressure would be the most. That is 32 pounds per square inch.

No. It is 14.7apsi (at standard temperature and pressure). This is the same as 29.92 in of mercury.
dehammer wrote:
Even at normal current, and light pressure in the electrolysis cell, he will use more electricity in electrolysis than he will get from his generators and fuel cell.
The amount of energy you need to turn one liter of water to hydrogen is the same no matter how much water you change. I gave you the math before and YOU ignored it. Like wise, the amount of material you need to electrolyze is the same per liter so it is only necessary to multiply the amount for the amount of water you need.

You gave NO math. You only quoted random numbers. That is not math.
dehammer wrote:
Again, I gave you the math and you said it did not matter, it could not be done.

You gave no math. Quoting random numbers is not math.
dehammer wrote:
He simply can't generate water fast enough and doesn't have sufficient hydrogen to do generate enough water.
Why? I saw a video on how to electrolyze water using what was basically 2 square inches of steel wool. It could do one liter of water per hour. So if I wanted to get 3000 liters per second, that would need 15000 cubic feet of steel wool. IF I were to build this in pipes where the bottom half was water and the top half was gas, and each pipe had two square feet of cross section, (pipe connected so the gasses would sperate) and each pipe was 100 feet long, I would need 150 pipes to generate the needed gas.

So you are changing the conditions of the rising flow again, AGAIN putting liquid in the pipe.
dehammer wrote:
IF the horizontal pipes were in stacks of 5, and were two wide (one oxygen and one hydrogen) the size of the plant needed would be 30 feet by 100.

Losses from conversion and friction in the plumbing, which of course is totally overlooked by dehammer.
The reason for the cut off at 250 feet is due to the loss to friction of the pipe.

You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again.
dehammer wrote:
Gas has a natural tendency to rise to fill a space.

No, it doesn't. Example: Earth's atmosphere. It stays with Earth, it doesn't fill space.
dehammer wrote:
The loss of the gas to friction would be minor at best.

No. It is significant. You can't ignore that loss. You can't ignore ANY loss.
dehammer wrote:
Due to its density and such the loss of friction in water pipe would be a lot greater.

Which is also loss.
dehammer wrote:
Therefore I limited it to only 250 to 300 feet instead of the entire 10000 feet.

You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again. You are also now locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 10:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:What does the hydrogen do then?

Apparently, the hydrogen is used to fill the hydrogen fuel cell ... which powers the turbines to perform the electrolysis that makes more hydrogen for the fuel cell ... in perpetuity ... while also generating lots of spare energy that can be used to save the planet.


This is a bona fide perpetual motion machine. We'll be able to throw out the book on thermodynamics. Physics will be turned on its head. And to think that this revolutionary system was conceptualized by a truly humble and scientifically illiterate philanthropist crusading to save humanity on Climate-Debate.

.
Once again, you proved you are clueless.

No, it does not work that way. It is not the water coming out of the fuel cells that turn the turbine. It is the weight of the water pushing water through a nozzle that does that. Gravity increases the weight of an object depending on how much of it is above the bottom.

Not enough water.
dehammer wrote:
A one square inch of water 2.31 feet tall weights 1 lb. At 250 feet, that is 108 lbs per square inch. IF you have a one inch pipe at the bottom pushing water at a turbine, you will have 108 pounds of force hitting that turbine.

IF you have an opening pushing 3000 liters per second at a that turbine, the water will hit it at 108 pounds. THIS is what generates electricity.

Not enough water to generate sufficient electricity to run the electrolysis.
dehammer wrote:
Again, anyone researching dams would be laughing at your stupidity.

No, you can't project YOUR problems on others. LIF.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 10:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:The elephant in the room is the 5000 psi pump needed to liquify Hydrogen to supply the fuel cell.

I'm not sure I follow you. Part of dehammer's fantasy is to let the hydrogen gas bubble up to the top of a pipe which, if it were full of a liquid (e.g. water) would require no pump to rise. I thought that was the "gravity generated" aspect of it.
No, it would not be required to liquify it. The use of liquified hydrogen is merely to store the gas, which is then warmed and used as a gas, not a liquid. Most of the use is in cars, which require a lot of fuel stored in a small areas, meaning it has to be liquified. A fuel cell has to be heated before it can be used and liquid hydrogen would destroy that.

No, the pipe would not be filled with water. I was using that as an example of what would happen if you had water in one pipe and gas in another and you connected them together.

So you are changing conditions AGAIN in the rising flow.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 10:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
duncan61 wrote:You both seem to believe that perpetual motion machines are actually valid systems
Once again, you prove you have no idea what the concept is. A perpetual motion has no input or output. This has both. Gravity brings in energy (in nature sunlight on water, and rainfall) and puts out electricity (look at dams). This is just a miniaturization of natures plan.

Gravity is not energy.
Gravity is not sunlight or rainfall.
No. Your machine does not get energy from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
James_ wrote:you need to understand the science behind your idea.
I do understand it as complete as it is possible. What people do not seem to grasp is that this is just a miniaturization of nature.

No, it isn't. Your machine does not use the Sun.
dehammer wrote:
Nature adds energy from the sun to start it.

Nature uses the Sun continuously to evaporate water and cause precipitation.
dehammer wrote:
I add electricity.

Not enough electricity.
dehammer wrote:
Both results in hydrogen becoming a gas.

Not enough hydrogen gas.
dehammer wrote:
In nature, it becomes steam.

Hydrogen is not steam. Sunlight does not boil the oceans.
dehammer wrote:
In mine it, it become the gases hydrogen and oxygen.

Which you have to pump to the top of the mountain (a loss) through pipes (a loss) feed it to a fuel cell which must be heated to function (a loss), drop water through pipes (a loss) to a nozzle to turn turbines (a loss), in an effort to generate sufficient electricity to generate enough hydrogen to keep the whole thing going. Not possible.
dehammer wrote:
Both go up separate pipes. The pressure at the bottom of the pipe would be the same as air pressure, 32 psi.

Air press at sea level (under standard temperature and pressure) is 14.7apsi.
dehammer wrote:
The pressure of the gas at the top is the same as air pressure at that altitude.

Approximately 10.11apsi.
dehammer wrote:
People trying to pretend that this is impossible by throwing out number as if they are something that they know about when they make it plain they do not understand the concept.

No, you cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else. You are STILL ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. You can't just set them aside.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 11:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
...fixing damaged quoting...
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
That's because it simply doesn't work.
Just because you do not have the brain to understand it does not mean it does not work.

LIF. Because YOU don't understand the laws of thermodynamics you are discarding, which say why it won't work.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I didn't say it was.
Yea, you did. You ignore the fact that the system works with dams and claim that it can not work anywhere.

It is NOT THE SAME AS DAMS. Your machine does not use sunlight.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
OK. The turbine will generate less electricity than is necessary to jet the water at that pressure.
Nothing is powering a jet. Do you see a jet at a dam? No, because pressure from the weight above it do the job just fine.

You are forgetting that there is insufficient hydrogen to keep your machine going.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Again, anyone who took high school physics would be laughing at your stupidity.
Sorry, no, they are laughing at you, you just can not see it. Even a junior high student could tell you if it works at a dam it works at a dam. It does not matter if the dam has a huge lake or a small pipe, it is the size of the headwater and the weight of the water above the turbine that matters. THAT is where it becomes gravity powered.

Still ignoring half of your machine. False equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 11:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Violating thermodynamics means that it cannot work.
So a dam violates thermodynamics? Good to know.

Contextomy fallacy. Word stuffing. Stop lying.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Dams do not load their own water.
No, gravity does. In both systems.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Your contraption generates the water pressure from the energy.
Again, you have proven that your brain is too small to get around the concept. No, The water pressure is generated by gravity.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
It pulls the water down and that puts pressure on the water below it. Yes, the hydrogen cell does load the first dam with water, but then it has no effects on other dams.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
Just like the river I mentioned before, water released from a higher dam fills the lake/pool of a lower lake down and that produces more weight on the second dam's turbine.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
I think for now on, Ill just say "what ever you think nunnuts" when you commit since you have proven to have no concept of reality.

Logic errors: Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Attempted proof by buzzword.
Illiteracy: Missing required apostrophe. Missing required commas.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 12:31
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1911)
We have the Snowy river hydroelectric plant that creates electricity from the water flow from the dam.What does your device do.I am confused and not mocking
20-07-2022 17:22
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
So you want someone to build this massive perpetual motion machine for you and to pay for this monstrous thing themselves.
IF they build it and it makes money, they get the money. I get the satisfaction of knowing I helped the future.

Now how Velco was invented. Velcro was invented by a Swiss electrical engineer by the name of George de Mestral, who notice how burrs stuck to his dog's fur. He founded the Velcro company.
He later admitted that he had read that story.


It will not work in any scale. You are still ignoring the laws of thermodynamics.
Then explain why it works in nature.

You have described what it's all about. It's about building a massive perpetual motion machine with someone else's money.
No, you ignore reality and only describe your limited imagined vision.

They already have it.
So you have a link to it?

No, you can't use the same water three times.
river systems use the same water dozens of times. Again all you have proven is you have no clue what your saying. There is river system with up to 60 dams, most constructed JUST to make electricity.
20-07-2022 18:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
What is producing the vacuum?
A pump that takes the pressure of the hydrogen in the pipe to the pressure the fuel cell needs. When the pipe is full of normal air, it simply bleeds it off. This will reduce the pressure in the pipe reducing the pressure on the ball, while increased pressure below comes from the increase in hydrogen. This means the ball will move up, since it is blocking the two from mixing
dehammer wrote:
What is producing the vacuum?
Once again, an air pump at the top. Its like a sippy straw children play with. You have liquid at the bottom and you suck air at the top, resulting in liquid, flowing upwards against gravity. Even 5 year olds can understand that.
snip


So you plug the pipe. Why?
So hydrogen and ambient air do not mix in the pipe.
Do you know how much pressure that is?????!?
Yes, sea level is psi is 14.7, and the pressure at 27000 feet is 5psi. In order to push the ball up the pipe, you only need to reduce the pressure above the ball by 1 psi and increase it 1 psi a below. Continually adding the hydrogen below and removing air above results in the ball continually moving upwards. Ideal, you will would build the upwards side of it (north side of the mountain) in sections. I do not know how high it has to be, but I would assume about 1000 feet (4 sections) would start to produce electricity, so that would be the height of the group. After that, you build them in 250 foot section. Once the gas was created, it would not matter how many sections you build, since it would use the gas at the top of the current build.

You JUST DESCRIBED A PUMP, dumbass!
No, I am saying that you do not need more pumps up the pipe. Some people have commented that you would need additional pumps to make it move up the pipe. Water would need it since it is dense, but gas does not.

What is providing the vacuum?????!?
The normal pressure of the pipe at 27000 feet would be 5 psi. That would not be enough for the fuel cell, so you would have to have a pump there for it. Prior to the hydrogen reaching the pump, the pump could be used to remove the air inside the pipe.

With what? It's not producing surplus electricity.
The fuel cell will produce 60% of the electricity needed to electrolyze the water. The weight of the water above each turbine creates pressure, which turns the turbine, creating electricity in the generator the turbine powers. Once the water is at the top, it does not matter how many turbine it comes across, as long as each one has its on headwater, it will produce electricity. At some point, the dams will produce the 40% needed and anything over that is excess that can be sold.

Once you have reached equilibrium, i.e. producing enough electricity to electrolyze the water needed, it does not matter how high the system is. The gas will reach the top of the pipe and fuel the fuel cell, producing water. The higher the fuel cell, the more potential energy the water now has.
20-07-2022 18:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:I get the satisfaction of knowing I helped the future.

Finally we arrive at the desperate hope to which you cling. At the moment you are looking at the apparent meaninglessness of your existence and your inability to add value in society and you don't know what to do. You have no options ... except to concoct a fantasy whereby you save the world with your genius ... except you are scientifically illiterate and your English proficiency is crap.

You come across as someone who doesn't have any children. Do you? If so, why aren't they the focus of your contribution to the future?

dehammer wrote:Then explain why it works in nature.

It doesn't. This is precisely why we have the laws of thermodynamics.

It's nobody else's fault that you are too uneducated to see the huge difference between your hair-brained, physics-defying notion (that you keep modifying so that you can't be pinned-down on any particular flaw) and common, proven systems.

Again, your ignorance is nobody else's fault.

In the future, you should specify which version of your notional contraption you wish to discuss, e.g. Version A, Version B, Version C.2-3A, Version D.X, etc ... It's really not fair for someone to critique one version of your perpetual motion machine only for you to suddenly shift to a different version and say "No, that's not how it works."

If you'd like, I'll be happy to draft up your design in UML, if you'll commit to one specific "design" and eliminate all the other versions. This will give you something to display in your discussions and get everyone singing from the same sheet of music.

dehammer wrote:No, you ignore reality and only describe your limited imagined vision.

You don't get to say this until you have a design specification. Until you stop bouncing around between versions like a pinball, all concerns remain valid and you remain the one ignoring reality.

dehammer wrote:So you have a link to it?

Did you just imply that reality is determined by internet hyperlinks?

Do you have a link to my backyard? No? Are you denying that it exists? What a moron!

dehammer wrote:river systems use the same water dozens of times.

That's not what he meant. Your English comprehension sucks. The context was the process of your design. You were trying to have your cake and eat it too, except you were trying to have your cake become two cakes by eating it.

dehammer wrote: There is river system with up to 60 dams, most constructed JUST to make electricity.

Not a single one of those dams loads its own water to make its electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity which it uses to load more water behind it to make electricity ...

... not a single one.

The offer to draft your design in UML remains extended. You simply have to settle on one "design."

.
20-07-2022 19:00
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
Air pressure at sea level is 14.7apsi.
Once the air has been removed, the pressure in the pipe would be the same.

So NOW you are NOT filling the rising flow with water, but with pure hydrogen gas.
From the beginning, the RISING pipe would be filled with hydrogen. Once burned at altitude, the FALLING pipe would be water.

That requires a pump.
The "pump" would be the gas generated from the electrolier below sea level. Both hydrogen and oxygen would naturally flow to the surface of the water, increasing the pressure in the pipe. This would push the surface of the water down, while pushing the gas up. At the same time, a pump at the top would be pressurizing the gas for the hydrogen fuel cell. This would remove hydrogen from the top, lowering the pressure there. Since gas naturally moves from high pressure to low pressure, it moves up the pipe without a pump. As it does, it takes pressure off the sea level and that increases the height back to normal. Since it is an on going process, the water level would most likely remain stable a couple feet below the outside sea level. To keep it stable, you would most likely use a two tank/lake system. The first would allow sea water in at high tides, and then shut off at low tide. It would then feed the second tank/lake to keep the level at a specific height, most likely a little below low tide. This would mean there would be no pump needed to add water to it but it would remain stable.


Yes you are. You are ignoring the cost of running the pump. That's an additional significant load you are going to have to power with this thing.
There would be no need for a pump at the bottom. As the gas is created, it pressurizes the bottom of the pipe. At the top of the system, there is a pump that is an integral part of the fuel cell. The cost of pressurizing it to the needs of the fuel cell is incorporated into the energy needs, i.e. the 40% loss in energy needed to produce the fuel. Low pressure at the top and high pressure at the bottom will keep the gas moving up the pipe.

You changed the conditions again. You no longer have any liquid in the rising flow.
There never was. I only talked about liquid in the example of two tubes, one with liquid and one with gas, equalizing with half gas and half liquid in both. In every discussion of the system, I continually state that one pipe, (the one you call rising), is filled with hydrogen gas, and the other (you call falling) water. They are never mixed and never were.

No. It is 14.7apsi (at standard temperature and pressure). This is the same as 29.92 in of mercury.
Sorry, its been decades since high school and I misremembered the pressure. I looked it up earlier (after that post) and you are correct.

You gave NO math. You only quoted random numbers. That is not math.
No, they were not random. I looked it up and gave you the formula, which makes it math. The formula was from a tutorial on building a hydroelectric dam on your property (assuming you had running water, such as a small stream) and another science class on electrolysis water into hydrogen. You can look it up and find the same sites.


So you are changing the conditions of the rising flow again, AGAIN putting liquid in the pipe.
No, once again, the rising pipes are filled with hydrogen. The electrolysis station is where the hydrogen and oxygen are taken from the water. The water does not rise in the pipe.
Kirchoff's law
Once again with throwing scientific terms out as if you understand them. Simply throwing out words does not negate the facts. Fact is, you have no clue what that means, let alone how it impacts the situation.


No, it doesn't. Example: Earth's atmosphere. It stays with Earth, it doesn't fill space.
You must seriously love to prove your lack of understanding of science. The atmosphere remains on earth because of gravity. Because the earth's gravity pulls to the center of the planet, the atmosphere basically creates a sphere around it. It tries to fill the vacuum but the gravity pulls it back. That is why the psi is 14.7 at sea level and 5 psi at 27000 feet. The weight of the gas above it is pushing pressure on the lower levels. Despite the fact is is less mass dense, it still has weight.

No. It is significant. You can't ignore that loss. You can't ignore ANY loss.
Friction come from the movement against a surface. All of the effects of the friction is felt in a certain distance from the surface. After that the flow is stable with no friction. The distance is determine by how dense the medium is. For water, it is about a half inch. For oil, it can be over 2 inches. For a gas, it is a millimeter. For a large system, the pipe would be several inches across, meaning the amount of friction would a tiny fraction of the flow. The pressure of the gas pushing it up would easily over come the tiny friction without even heating up.

Which is also loss.
[b]AND
taken into account.

You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again.
What does water flow have to do with electricity? You just proved you do not even have a clue what the words you throw out mean.
20-07-2022 19:13
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
Not enough water.
What determines the pressure on the turbine is the amount of water build up in the waterfall of the headwater. As long as the same amount of water enters the headwaters of the dam as goes out, the amount of water putting pressure on the turbine will remain the same. The formula involves the amount of water flow, the weight of the water above the turbine and the acceleration. The acceleration is standard gravity, and the weight of the water is determined by how high your pool is above the turbine.

Not enough water to generate sufficient electricity to run the electrolysis.
IF you have only one "dam", yes, you are right. That is why the water goes through multiple systems. Also, the dams do not have to produce all of the electricity since the fuel cell will generate 60% of it.

No, you can't project YOUR problems on others. LIF.
I am not. You are just trying to pretend you understand science so that you can stop others from doing anything. YOU have proven your lack of understanding, and therefore everyone is laughing at you.
20-07-2022 19:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
So you are changing conditions AGAIN in the rising flow.
No, but maybe if we are really lucky, you are finally seeing the truth. [b]GAS flows up the rising pipe, water fall DOWN the falling pipe. Due to the fact that water has a high specific gravity, the earth pulls down on it more, which is why oceans are below the atmosphere and air is above the ocean, since air has a low specific gravity.
20-07-2022 19:28
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
Gravity is not energy.
Gravity is not sunlight or rainfall.
No. Your machine does not get energy from the Sun.
Never said gravity was sunlight or rainfall. Gravity creates POTENTIAL energy in water. Gravity is the reason rain FALLS. Gravity is why dams work. It creates weight which pressurizes the water so that it can move turbines around.

It does not matter how the water gets above the dams, the dams will work one way or the other.

Do you know why they build huge lakes behind dams? So the water levels will remain stable. Seasonal differences cause water levels to change and differences between rain/snow between years can change a lake by a huge amount. So they determine that they need a specific amount of water flowing at a specific pressure and if the pressure is too high, they restrict the flow or allow water to bypass the turbine. If the pressure drops they can increase the flow to a certain amount, but then the water level drops faster.

To counter the changes, they make the dams in areas they can have huge lakes, keeping the levels in a specific range. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of areas they can do this with.

In my system, the water flow is steady and so a large pool is not needed above each turbine. That means you do not need an area for a huge lake and can build them one after the other.
20-07-2022 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
...fixing damaged quoting...
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you want someone to build this massive perpetual motion machine for you and to pay for this monstrous thing themselves.
IF they build it and it makes money, they get the money. I get the satisfaction of knowing I helped the future.

It will not make money.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Now how Velco was invented. Velcro was invented by a Swiss electrical engineer by the name of George de Mestral, who notice how burrs stuck to his dog's fur. He founded the Velcro company.
He later admitted that he had read that story.

Lie. Stop making shit up.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It will not work in any scale. You are still ignoring the laws of thermodynamics.
Then explain why it works in nature.

It doesn't. Perpetual motion machines do not work in nature. RQAA.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You have described what it's all about. It's about building a massive perpetual motion machine with someone else's money.
No, you ignore reality and only describe your limited imagined vision.

LIF. You are describing yourself.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, you can't use the same water three times.
river systems use the same water dozens of times. Again all you have proven is you have no clue what your saying. There is river system with up to 60 dams, most constructed JUST to make electricity.

Contextomy fallacy. Stay on topic.

No, you cannot compare hydroelectric power at dams with your system. Your system does not use the Sun to power it. False equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 19:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is producing the vacuum?
A pump that takes the pressure of the hydrogen in the pipe to the pressure the fuel cell needs. When the pipe is full of normal air, it simply bleeds it off. This will reduce the pressure in the pipe reducing the pressure on the ball, while increased pressure below comes from the increase in hydrogen. This means the ball will move up, since it is blocking the two from mixing

A pump requires energy. That is another energy loss for your system.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is producing the vacuum?
Once again, an air pump at the top. Its like a sippy straw children play with. You have liquid at the bottom and you suck air at the top, resulting in liquid, flowing upwards against gravity. Even 5 year olds can understand that.

No. Suction pumps don't work for a pipe that high. Not even for hydrogen.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you plug the pipe. Why?
So hydrogen and ambient air do not mix in the pipe.

So you plug the pipe for no useful reason.
Into the Night wrote:
Do you know how much pressure that is?????!?
Yes, sea level is psi is 14.7, and the pressure at 27000 feet is 5psi.

In order to push the ball up the pipe, you only need to reduce the pressure above the ball by 1 psi and increase it 1 psi a below. Continually adding the hydrogen below and removing air above results in the ball continually moving upwards. Ideal, you will would build the upwards side of it (north side of the mountain) in sections. I do not know how high it has to be, but I would assume about 1000 feet (4 sections) would start to produce electricity, so that would be the height of the group. After that, you build them in 250 foot section. Once the gas was created, it would not matter how many sections you build, since it would use the gas at the top of the current build.[/quote]
Not enough gas.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You JUST DESCRIBED A PUMP, dumbass!
No, I am saying that you do not need more pumps up the pipe. Some people have commented that you would need additional pumps to make it move up the pipe. Water would need it since it is dense, but gas does not.

Gas does.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is providing the vacuum?????!?
The normal pressure of the pipe at 27000 feet would be 5 psi. That would not be enough for the fuel cell, so you would have to have a pump there for it. Prior to the hydrogen reaching the pump, the pump could be used to remove the air inside the pipe.

Pumps require energy. That is energy you can't use for anything else.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
With what? It's not producing surplus electricity.
The fuel cell will produce 60% of the electricity needed to electrolyze the water.

Not enough hydrogen, so not enough water is available at the top.
dehammer wrote:
The weight of the water above each turbine creates pressure, which turns the turbine, creating electricity in the generator the turbine powers. Once the water is at the top, it does not matter how many turbine it comes across, as long as each one has its on headwater, it will produce electricity. At some point, the dams will produce the 40% needed and anything over that is excess that can be sold.

TANSTAAFL.
dehammer wrote:
Once you have reached equilibrium, i.e. producing enough electricity to electrolyze the water needed,

You will never reach that point.
dehammer wrote:
it does not matter how high the system is.

Correct.
dehammer wrote:
The gas will reach the top of the pipe and fuel the fuel cell, producing water.

Not enough gas, producing too little water.
dehammer wrote:
The higher the fuel cell, the more potential energy the water now has.

Irrelevant.

Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch, dude. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 19:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. Your machine does not use the Sun.
It replaces the sun with specific gravity and electrolysis.
dehammer wrote:
Nature uses the Sun continuously to evaporate water and cause precipitation.
When you evaporate water, the low specific gravity causes it to rise into the air. When you electrolize water, you create a gas with a low specific gravity which also rises.

Not enough electricity.
How would you know. You have no clue how much electricity it will generate because you do not want to see it.

Not enough hydrogen gas.
Again, nothing but hot air.

Hydrogen is not steam. Sunlight does not boil the oceans.
I did not say hydrogen was steam, nor does it require you to boil water to get steam. If you put a glass of water in the sun on a warm day, the water will evaporate out without ever boiling. We have clouds because the surface of the water loses a certain amount in order for the energy of the sun to be removed and keep the rest cool. Again, your lack of understanding of science is remarkable.
.
Which you have to pump to the top of the mountain
wow, you really do like to showcase your lack of understanding of science. There is no need for a pump. Gas will naturally flow from a high pressure to a low pressure without a pump. Lower the pressure at the top and add pressure at the bottom and it "pumps" itself up.
dehammer wrote:
Both go up separate pipes. The pressure at the bottom of the pipe would be the same as air pressure, 32 psi.

Air press at sea level (under standard temperature and pressure) is 14.7apsi.

Approximately 10.11apsi.
Depending on the altitude. At 27000 feet, like it would be in Africa, it would be 5 psi.
You can't just set them aside.
And again, you throw out terms as if you understand them. Yes, we will eventually all fall into a back hole and nothing like this will work but until then it can. IF you have a system with both an input and an output (example a car, you put gas in, burn it and you get motion out), it is not a perpetual motion machine. I have little doubt you would have told Karl Benz that his Motorwagen would never move because of the laws of thermodynamic. Or the Wright brothers that a plane could never get off the ground due to the laws of thermodynamics.

There are always naysayers trying to throw out scientific terms as if they had a clue what it meant.
20-07-2022 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
Into the Night wrote:Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch, dude. You cannot create energy out of nothing.



20-07-2022 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
...fixing damaged quoting...
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Air pressure at sea level is 14.7apsi.
Once the air has been removed, the pressure in the pipe would be the same.

Not possible.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So NOW you are NOT filling the rising flow with water, but with pure hydrogen gas.
From the beginning, the RISING pipe would be filled with hydrogen. Once burned at altitude, the FALLING pipe would be water.

So you've said describing ONE of several of your models.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That requires a pump.
The "pump" would be the gas generated from the electrolier below sea level.

That is not a pump.
dehammer wrote:
Both hydrogen and oxygen would naturally flow to the surface of the water, increasing the pressure in the pipe.

What water?????!? You say your pipe is fill with hydrogen gas! Are you shifting to a different model again???????!?
dehammer wrote:
This would push the surface of the water down, while pushing the gas up.

What water???????!? NOW you are claiming there is water in the rising pipe!!!!!
dehammer wrote:
At the same time, a pump at the top would be pressurizing the gas for the hydrogen fuel cell.

Pumps require energy. That is energy not available for anything else. It is additional loss.
dehammer wrote:
This would remove hydrogen from the top, lowering the pressure there. Since gas naturally moves from high pressure to low pressure, it moves up the pipe without a pump.

NO IT WON'T. You have to pump it!
dehammer wrote:
As it does, it takes pressure off the sea level and that increases the height back to normal.

NO IT DOESN'T. You have to pump it!
dehammer wrote:
Since it is an on going process,

NO IT ISN'T. You have to pump it!
dehammer wrote:
the water level would most likely remain stable a couple feet below the outside sea level.

??????? Now you are changing your model AGAIN???????????!?
dehammer wrote:
To keep it stable, you would most likely use a two tank/lake system. The first would allow sea water in at high tides, and then shut off at low tide. It would then feed the second tank/lake to keep the level at a specific height, most likely a little below low tide. This would mean there would be no pump needed to add water to it but it would remain stable.

???????? What is THIS about????????!?
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes you are. You are ignoring the cost of running the pump. That's an additional significant load you are going to have to power with this thing.
There would be no need for a pump at the bottom.

YES THERE IS.
dehammer wrote:
As the gas is created, it pressurizes the bottom of the pipe.

Not a pump!
dehammer wrote:
At the top of the system, there is a pump that is an integral part of the fuel cell.

Not a pump!
dehammer wrote:
The cost of pressurizing it to the needs of the fuel cell is incorporated into the energy needs, i.e. the 40% loss in energy needed to produce the fuel.

Argument from randU fallacy. Using random numbers is data is a fallacy. Stop making up shit.
dehammer wrote:
Low pressure at the top and high pressure at the bottom will keep the gas moving up the pipe.

NO IT WON'T. It is no different than the atmosphere.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You changed the conditions again. You no longer have any liquid in the rising flow.
There never was. I only talked about liquid in the example of two tubes, one with liquid and one with gas, equalizing with half gas and half liquid in both. In every discussion of the system, I continually state that one pipe, (the one you call rising), is filled with hydrogen gas, and the other (you call falling) water. They are never mixed and never were.

First there was, then you describe a model where there isn't, then you describe a model where there is. You are locked in paradox. You are being quite irrational. Which is it, dude?????!?
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. It is 14.7apsi (at standard temperature and pressure). This is the same as 29.92 in of mercury.
Sorry, its been decades since high school and I misremembered the pressure. I looked it up earlier (after that post) and you are correct.

Fine.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You gave NO math. You only quoted random numbers. That is not math.
No, they were not random. I looked it up and gave you the formula, which makes it math.

The formula you gave does not describe anything in your system. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
dehammer wrote:
The formula was from a tutorial on building a hydroelectric dam on your property (assuming you had running water, such as a small stream) and another science class on electrolysis water into hydrogen. You can look it up and find the same sites.

No need. I already understand electrolysis. I use it myself. You don't have sufficient energy to generate sufficient gas.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you are changing the conditions of the rising flow again, AGAIN putting liquid in the pipe.
No, once again, the rising pipes are filled with hydrogen. The electrolysis station is where the hydrogen and oxygen are taken from the water. The water does not rise in the pipe.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Kirchoff's law
Once again with throwing scientific terms out as if you understand them.

I do understand them.
dehammer wrote:
Simply throwing out words does not negate the facts.

What facts?????!? Void argument fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Fact is, you have no clue what that means, let alone how it impacts the situation.

LIF. You are describing yourself.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it doesn't. Example: Earth's atmosphere. It stays with Earth, it doesn't fill space.
You must seriously love to prove your lack of understanding of science. The atmosphere remains on earth because of gravity. Because the earth's gravity pulls to the center of the planet, the atmosphere basically creates a sphere around it. It tries to fill the vacuum but the gravity pulls it back.

It never went anywhere. It is not pulled back. It never tries to fill space.
dehammer wrote:
That is why the psi is 14.7 at sea level and 5 psi at 27000 feet.

A convenient little fact that you completely ignore in your hydrogen pipe.
dehammer wrote:
The weight of the gas above it is pushing pressure on the lower levels. Despite the fact is is less mass dense, it still has weight.

Another convenient little fact that you completely ignore in your hydrogen pipe.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. It is significant. You can't ignore that loss. You can't ignore ANY loss.
Friction come from the movement against a surface. All of the effects of the friction is felt in a certain distance from the surface. After that the flow is stable with no friction.

WRONG!!!!! There is ALWAYS friction in a pipe!!!
dehammer wrote:
The distance is determine by how dense the medium is. For water, it is about a half inch. For oil, it can be over 2 inches. For a gas, it is a millimeter.

Laminar flow makes NO difference. There is ALWAYS friction in a pipe!!
dehammer wrote:
For a large system, the pipe would be several inches across, meaning the amount of friction would a tiny fraction of the flow.

Laminar flow makes NO difference. You cannot reduce friction to zero that way!!!
dehammer wrote:
The pressure of the gas pushing it up would easily over come the tiny friction without even heating up.

Friction ALWAYS causes heating. That is waste heat. You don't get that lost energy back. It is dissipated away.
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Which is also loss.
AND taken into account.

Lie. You are NOT taking it into account!
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again.
What does water flow have to do with electricity?

Kirchoff's law is not about electricity, although it also applies to electrical circuits just as it applies to plumbing.
dehammer wrote:
You just proved you do not even have a clue what the words you throw out mean.

LIF. You are describing yourself again.

You have managed to put yourself in multiple paradoxes trying to describe the many different models for your machine. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of any paradox. You MUST clear your paradoxes. You cannot ignore them.

Do not damage quoting. Learn how to respond to a post. I will begin deleting damaged quoting instead of fixing it. It's too much work to compensate for YOUR incompetence each time.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-07-2022 20:17
20-07-2022 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Not enough water.
What determines the pressure on the turbine is the amount of water build up in the waterfall of the headwater. As long as the same amount of water enters the headwaters of the dam as goes out, the amount of water putting pressure on the turbine will remain the same. The formula involves the amount of water flow, the weight of the water above the turbine and the acceleration. The acceleration is standard gravity, and the weight of the water is determined by how high your pool is above the turbine.
...deleted damaged portion...

Insufficient water. You don't have enough hydrogen to make it. All your generators and fuel cell combined aren't enough to make sufficient hydrogen.

You are still losing energy as well to friction and your pumps.

No, you don't get to compare your system to hydroelectric power at dams. Your system does not use the Sun. False equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 20:22
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
duncan61 wrote:
We have the Snowy river hydroelectric plant that creates electricity from the water flow from the dam.What does your device do.I am confused and not mocking
The system changes water into hydrogen and oxygen, which has a low specific gravity. A one liter of water electrolyzed will produce 22.4 liters of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere. IF you have a pipe filled with hydrogen, it will remain above the water and will press down on the water at the same rate that the normal atmosphere would. In fact the pipe would act just like the same volume of air. Just like air it moves for high pressure to low pressure. IF you lowered the pressure at the top and increased the pressure at the bottom, the gas would flow upwards just like air would.

I have been using the example of a mountain in northern Africa, since the effect there would be most dramatic. The construction of the system there would not be the same as it was used later. So lets ignore the construction phase and look at what it would do, say, a year after construction would be finished.

At sea level on the northern side of the mountain range, you would have a plant that would take electricity and water and create hydrogen and oxygen. IF you want the water to remain pure, you can pump the oxygen up parallel to the hydrogen. The way this would work is you separate the two gases in to parallel pipes. Here is a video on a tiny system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJEDe_HUcw&t=428s.

Once the two gases are separated and natural pumping beings the gas to the top of the pipe, they would be combined in a hydrogen fuel cell that would recover 60% of the electricity needed for the electrolysis. The water would then be dumped into a tank that would act the same as a huge lake behind a dam. The difference is that since the water flow would be steady, there would be no need for a large headwater.

The water would flow down a pipe to a turbine 250 feet below. To avoid a large loss from friction, the pipe would likely be about 25 times larger than the outlet at the bottom feeding the turbine. When the water exist the turbine it goes into another pool/tank. 4 to 6 of these would provide enough electricity to recover the remaining 40% needed for the electrolysis. After that, excess electricity would be created by gravity which could be sold to pay for the system. After about 100 of these turbines, the water would reach the Sahara desert to be used for irrigating farms.

Over time, the water that evaporates from the plants would fall as rain down wind of the farm (to the east since the natural airflow is basically circular and goes to the east along the north). This would produce lakes and more plants which would release more water to the air, which would fall farther east and so on.

Add enough water through the system and the Sahara would be come a garden again.
20-07-2022 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you are changing conditions AGAIN in the rising flow.
No, but maybe if we are really lucky, you are finally seeing the truth. GAS flows up the rising pipe, water fall DOWN the falling pipe. Due to the fact that water has a high specific gravity, the earth pulls down on it more, which is why oceans are below the atmosphere and air is above the ocean, since air has a low specific gravity.

Gravity does not change from one pipe to another.
Air is dissolved in ocean water, just as ocean water evaporates into the air.
You have entered another paradox. You claim the Sun causes rain, now you just claimed it can't.

Which is it, dude?????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 20:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:snip
.
What ever you say numnuts
20-07-2022 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Gravity is not energy.
Gravity is not sunlight or rainfall.
No. Your machine does not get energy from the Sun.
Never said gravity was sunlight or rainfall. Gravity creates POTENTIAL energy in water. Gravity is the reason rain FALLS. Gravity is why dams work. It creates weight which pressurizes the water so that it can move turbines around.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
It does not matter how the water gets above the dams, the dams will work one way or the other.

It DOES matter. You are ignoring it. You are also still making a false equivalence fallacy. You are also still locked in your paradox here. Irrational.
dehammer wrote:
Do you know why they build huge lakes behind dams?

They don't.
dehammer wrote:
So the water levels will remain stable. Seasonal differences cause water levels to change and differences between rain/snow between years can change a lake by a huge amount. So they determine that they need a specific amount of water flowing at a specific pressure and if the pressure is too high, they restrict the flow or allow water to bypass the turbine. If the pressure drops they can increase the flow to a certain amount, but then the water level drops faster.

Paradox. You said the lakes are built, now you say they are caused by nature. Which is it, dude????????!?
dehammer wrote:
To counter the changes, they make the dams in areas they can have huge lakes, keeping the levels in a specific range. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of areas they can do this with.

In my system, the water flow is steady and so a large pool is not needed above each turbine. That means you do not need an area for a huge lake and can build them one after the other.

Not enough 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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. Your machine does not use the Sun.
It replaces the sun with specific gravity and electrolysis.
When you evaporate water, the low specific gravity causes it to rise into the air. When you electrolize water, you create a gas with a low specific gravity which also rises.
...deleted damaged portion...

It won't rise. Gravity is not energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
We have the Snowy river hydroelectric plant that creates electricity from the water flow from the dam.What does your device do.I am confused and not mocking
The system changes water into hydrogen and oxygen, which has a low specific gravity. A one liter of water electrolyzed will produce 22.4 liters of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere. IF you have a pipe filled with hydrogen, it will remain above the water and will press down on the water at the same rate that the normal atmosphere would. In fact the pipe would act just like the same volume of air. Just like air it moves for high pressure to low pressure. IF you lowered the pressure at the top and increased the pressure at the bottom, the gas would flow upwards just like air would.

It won't flow upwards, and neither does air. You need a pump.
dehammer wrote:
I have been using the example of a mountain in northern Africa, since the effect there would be most dramatic. The construction of the system there would not be the same as it was used later. So lets ignore the construction phase and look at what it would do, say, a year after construction would be finished.

Never mind the money wasted on constructing this thing.
dehammer wrote:
At sea level on the northern side of the mountain range, you would have a plant that would take electricity and water and create hydrogen and oxygen. IF you want the water to remain pure, you can pump the oxygen up parallel to the hydrogen. The way this would work is you separate the two gases in to parallel pipes. Here is a video on a tiny system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJEDe_HUcw&t=428s.

Once the two gases are separated and natural pumping beings the gas to the top of the pipe,

There is no natural pumping. You need a pump.
dehammer wrote:
they would be combined in a hydrogen fuel cell that would recover 60% of the electricity needed for the electrolysis.

Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers.
dehammer wrote:
The water would then be dumped into a tank that would act the same as a huge lake behind a dam. The difference is that since the water flow would be steady, there would be no need for a large headwater.

Insufficient water, caused by insufficient gas.
dehammer wrote:
The water would flow down a pipe to a turbine 250 feet below. To avoid a large loss from friction, the pipe would likely be about 25 times larger than the outlet at the bottom feeding the turbine. When the water exist the turbine it goes into another pool/tank. 4 to 6 of these would provide enough electricity to recover the remaining 40% needed for the electrolysis. After that, excess electricity would be created by gravity which could be sold to pay for the system.

You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again.
dehammer wrote:
After about 100 of these turbines, the water would reach the Sahara desert to be used for irrigating farms.

So now you took the water out of your system. There is nothing to run the electrolysis from.
dehammer wrote:
Over time, the water that evaporates from the plants would fall as rain down wind of the farm (to the east since the natural airflow is basically circular and goes to the east along the north). This would produce lakes and more plants which would release more water to the air, which would fall farther east and so on.

You are attempting to create water out of nothing!!!!!
dehammer wrote:
Add enough water through the system and the Sahara would be come a garden again.

No, you CANNOT create mass out of nothing. No, you cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 20:45
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:snip
Sorry had to remove all the dross in that post. so on to the discussion you brought up...

.

.

.

.
20-07-2022 20:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:snip
What ever you say numnuts.
20-07-2022 20:47
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:zzz
zzz
20-07-2022 20:59
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
Gravity does not change from one pipe to another.
Air is dissolved in ocean water, just as ocean water evaporates into the air.
You have entered another paradox. You claim the Sun causes rain, now you just claimed it can't.

Which is it, dude?????!?
No, nor does it.
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a reference substance.

Water is used as the reference for specific gravity. It therefore has a specific gravity (at 4°c) of 1.

Hydrogen has a specific gravity of 0.0696 (1 atmosphere). This means it floats above water.

The sun creates water vapor. Gravity creates rain when the water vapor loses its energy and condenses. This means its specific gravity is higher than air and thus can not remain airborne. Gravity pulls it back to the earth and eventually back to the ocean.

Once again, it is astounding how bad you like to parade your lack of scientific knowlege in a forum supposedly about science.
20-07-2022 23:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a reference substance.

Big deal. None of this explains how you can somehow circumvent thermodynamics.

Have you considered, perhaps, going back to school and getting your GED?

Better late than never.

dehammer wrote:Once again, it is astounding how bad you like to parade your lack of scientific knowlege in a forum supposedly about science.

Actually, Climate-Debate is a magnet for scientifically illiterate morons like yourself. It must be the perfect name to catch the attention of total losers who are looking for someplace devoid of science so they can roleplay thientific geniutheth!

What gets me is the abject need to live out a totally fraudulent fantasy knowing all the while everyone is totally aware that they're dealing with a moron . For those like yourself who insist they are science-wielding crusaders for humanity, I offer to help them best deliver their message and achieve their ultimate objective. Since the objective is not what is being overtly stated (in your case, to develop a revolutionary energy-generation system) but rather to roleplay a scientific genius crusading for humanity, I already know that you can't possibly take me up on my offer. You should have seen sealover when he was essentially doing the exact same thing, claiming that he was trying to develop a "library of wisdom."

I offered to let sealover build his library on Politiplex so that it would have a home and be online for all his "followers" but he couldn't reject my offer fast enough ... because there never was any library. I offered to draft a UML specification of your "system" ... which you couldn't reject quickly enough, because it would reveal the total fraud you are pushing and remove any remaining doubt from anyone reading your threads.

The other funny thing about you in particular is that you believe that my posts are somehow deleted, and unavailable for others to read and quote if you respond with a "[snip]."




[ * L * O * S * E * R * ]
21-07-2022 00:46
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:
Actually, Climate-Debate is a magnet for scientifically illiterate morons like IBdaMann
That explains why your here.

IBdaMann wrote:I offered to draft a UML specification of your "system" ...
At no point have you ever offered me anything but insults.

When I post a "snip" it means that there is nothing there worth discussing. Mainly because all you do is insult and repeat the same bs.
Edited on 21-07-2022 00:50
21-07-2022 01:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:Snip
Don't bother responding, I can see no one is interested in a real scientific discussion. I will no longer be following this since all I get is insults.
21-07-2022 02:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:Don't bother responding,

I think I will.

dehammer wrote: I can see no one is interested in a real scientific discussion.

... only in a world where you are everybody.

dehammer wrote:I will no longer be following this since ...

... your fantasy is ruined.

dehammer wrote: ... all I get is insults.

There's a good reason for that. You are pretending to be a thmart perthon, you are demanding others play along and you insult those who are trying to discuss actual science and engineering.

There are fantasy role-playing sites for that, and there's always YAP for the seriously dishonest, i.e. those who are willing to delude themselves.

.
Edited on 21-07-2022 02:34
21-07-2022 02:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you'd like, I'll be happy to draft up your design in UML, if you'll commit to one specific "design" and eliminate all the other versions. This will give you something to display in your discussions and get everyone singing from the same sheet of music.

[other text deleted]

The offer to draft your design in UML remains extended. You simply have to settle on one "design."
At no point have you ever offered me anything but insults.


I do make allowances for your lack of English proficiency.
.
21-07-2022 05:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1911)
dehammer wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
We have the Snowy river hydroelectric plant that creates electricity from the water flow from the dam.What does your device do.I am confused and not mocking
The system changes water into hydrogen and oxygen, which has a low specific gravity. A one liter of water electrolyzed will produce 22.4 liters of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere. IF you have a pipe filled with hydrogen, it will remain above the water and will press down on the water at the same rate that the normal atmosphere would. In fact the pipe would act just like the same volume of air. Just like air it moves for high pressure to low pressure. IF you lowered the pressure at the top and increased the pressure at the bottom, the gas would flow upwards just like air would.

I have been using the example of a mountain in northern Africa, since the effect there would be most dramatic. The construction of the system there would not be the same as it was used later. So lets ignore the construction phase and look at what it would do, say, a year after construction would be finished.

At sea level on the northern side of the mountain range, you would have a plant that would take electricity and water and create hydrogen and oxygen. IF you want the water to remain pure, you can pump the oxygen up parallel to the hydrogen. The way this would work is you separate the two gases in to parallel pipes. Here is a video on a tiny system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJEDe_HUcw&t=428s.

Once the two gases are separated and natural pumping beings the gas to the top of the pipe, they would be combined in a hydrogen fuel cell that would recover 60% of the electricity needed for the electrolysis. The water would then be dumped into a tank that would act the same as a huge lake behind a dam. The difference is that since the water flow would be steady, there would be no need for a large headwater.

The water would flow down a pipe to a turbine 250 feet below. To avoid a large loss from friction, the pipe would likely be about 25 times larger than the outlet at the bottom feeding the turbine. When the water exist the turbine it goes into another pool/tank. 4 to 6 of these would provide enough electricity to recover the remaining 40% needed for the electrolysis. After that, excess electricity would be created by gravity which could be sold to pay for the system. After about 100 of these turbines, the water would reach the Sahara desert to be used for irrigating farms.

Over time, the water that evaporates from the plants would fall as rain down wind of the farm (to the east since the natural airflow is basically circular and goes to the east along the north). This would produce lakes and more plants which would release more water to the air, which would fall farther east and so on.

Add enough water through the system and the Sahara would be come a garden again.

I am starting to get it.Does your idea work with the hydro electric system or is it a stand alone thing.


duncan61
21-07-2022 07:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Gravity does not change from one pipe to another.
Air is dissolved in ocean water, just as ocean water evaporates into the air.
You have entered another paradox. You claim the Sun causes rain, now you just claimed it can't.

Which is it, dude?????!?
No, nor does it.
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a reference substance.

Water is used as the reference for specific gravity. It therefore has a specific gravity (at 4°c) of 1.

Hydrogen has a specific gravity of 0.0696 (1 atmosphere). This means it floats above water.

What water?????!? There is no water in the pipe!!!
dehammer wrote:
The sun creates water vapor.

Water creates water vapor, especially when heated by the Sun.
dehammer wrote:
Gravity creates rain

Gravity does not create rain.
dehammer wrote:
when the water vapor loses its energy and condenses.

That's called a 'cloud'. Perhaps you've seen one.
dehammer wrote:
This means its specific gravity is higher than air and thus can not remain airborne.

Clouds remain airborne with no problem.
dehammer wrote:
Gravity pulls it back to the earth and eventually back to the ocean.

No. Clouds don't fall.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, it is astounding how bad you like to parade your lack of scientific knowlege in a forum supposedly about science.

LIF. You are describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-07-2022 07:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Actually, Climate-Debate is a magnet for scientifically illiterate morons like IBdaMann
That explains why your here.

Careful, dude. Misquoting people on some forums will get you banned. It won't happen here, but I recommend you stop this childish behavior.
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I offered to draft a UML specification of your "system" ...
At no point have you ever offered me anything but insults.

He specifically offered to draft a UML specification. Why don't you take him up on it? It is because YOU DON'T HAVE ONE???????!?
dehammer wrote:
When I post a "snip" it means that there is nothing there worth discussing. Mainly because all you do is insult and repeat the same bs.

LIF. You are describing yourself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-07-2022 07:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Snip
Don't bother responding, I can see no one is interested in a real scientific discussion. I will no longer be following this since all I get is insults.

Denying science isn't a real science discussion. You really should study some theories of science, especially the ones you ignore, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 14 of 16<<<1213141516>





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
My New Digital Currency System Will Destroy The USD, Euro & Make World Peace014-08-2022 11:29
It Is Perfect Safe To Begin Make Some Big Changes In The World Financial System011-08-2022 07:31
New Bank Type In Banking System To Give Power Back To The People010-08-2022 17:05
Many Big Ideas For Global Currencies Using Rules In The Current World Financial System010-08-2022 09:51
How The New Global World Economic Financial System Will Be130-07-2022 19:47
▲ 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