Question- at any one unit in time, is the output energy larger than the energy needed to sustain the system?
The benefit of this machine is it’s multiplying effect.
1 an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container; [yes] [no]
[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y); [yes] [no]
[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above minus the energy needed to keep it running. ; [yes] [no]
Principles to run the machine SeasEngine design/potential Following is the process-
At 18 ATM, 594 feet down, the balloon is injected with air that is compressed to 36 cubic feet.
At 15 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 108 CF
At 12 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 324 CF
At 9 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 972 CF
At 6 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 2,916 CF
At 3 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 8,748 CF
At 1 ATM that same 36 cubic feet will expand to 26,244 CF
Having stated the above, the combined lifting force is--- 39,058 CF X 64 lbs. = 2,499,712-foot lbs. of lifting force.
Is the energy output greater than the energy needed to sustain the cycle?
Speed of rising bubble
Using his model and my assumptions, the balloon starts off with a radius of 6.2cm at depth of 100ft or 30.8m and a terminal velocity of about 8.28 cm/s. As the balloon rises to the surface it's volume will increase 4.19 times so it's final radius is 10 cm with a final velocity of 6.6cm/s.
Tags:
Question- at any one unit in time, is the output energy larger than the energy needed to sustain the system?
The benefit of this machine is it’s multiplying effect.
1 an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container; [yes] [no]
[2] connection multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)
Which is a greater lifting force than (Y); [yes] [no]
[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above minus the energy needed to keep it running. ; [yes] [no]
I’m just looking for alternative energy sources. I admit I’m just throwing pies on the wall just to see which one sticks.
Finding a way to store wind and wave energy is just one of my failed hobbies.
A lot of people here and elsewhere have been telling me that the gadget attached is unworkable; they have been correct. My calculations were just wrong. I have gone back and crunched the numbers once again.
Attached is my latest version.
This version only goes to a depth of 198 feet and it generates a pulling force of 1,016,183 pounds of upward pull, puling at an accelerating speed of over 4 feet per second. It’s the multiplying effect that I believe has potential. Before you shout out.,. STUPID.,.STUPID.,. idea and move on, please give me a hint as to why-?
Thanks in advance
I am totally aware of the laws of conservation of energy. What this system does is convert one form of energy into another with some lose in the process.
We have—
Mechanical energy
Wind energy
Heat energy
Wave energy
Light energy
Atomic energy
A rising, expanding bubble of air underwater
All the above forms of energy can be converted into electrical energy and it is this electrical energy that powers todays civilizations. I agree there is a lose of energy in the process but that lose is acceptable when the ultimate energy output is a positive one.
At least that is how I see it
© 2020 Created by Marshall Matheson. Powered by