A Sustainable Renewable Energy Solution

You forgot one! Methane collecting Whoopie cushions on every cows..umm,...posterior.

That way we can save the environment, and create an entertaining work experience for the lucky workers that get to hook them up to an ultra high efficiency burner.

If only the Skull and Bones Club had written down some of their researches....

Methane collecting Whoopie cushions on every cows

Dont laugh! i just found out from a cattle rancher that in the state of Texas there is a tax of around $50/yr on emisions from each head of cattle.

'...it doesn't take much to see that....'

...and you seem well suited for that task.

.

It does, apparently, take just a little more to get it right though.

'....truth-is-not-a-compromise does not have a clue....'

Well, of course I don't!

I don't need a clues for this scenario because I already know the answer (with a high degree of certainty).

.

It would be selfish of me to be holding on to a clue when people like you are obviously in such desperate need.

.

I don't want to discourage you, check with some other people.

Perhaps someone will have something you recognize as a clue (since neither the comment about violation of the laws of thermo, or the comment about the energy required to lift an object being at least as much as the energy attainable from the object falling the same height, are sufficient to be deemed clues for your purposes).

.

.

.

Now... what are the odds that screen names 'Harami' and 'Notary' actually belong to the same person?

Isn't that a violation of CR4 rules?

Well, this seems to be a gathering place for clueless, first-time posters.

There are two of you here, so far.

I'll need to revise my first post.

There are actually three clueless people here, only two are first time posters.

The third clueless poster has "regaled" us with his fantasies before.

yeah those "not enough temperature difference" you bought in to left you fantasizing a fantasy as well...

but we will wait for an actual adherence to OP q's, ...

and the third clueless to the q's asked at times; but we will wait for some to actually get read...

"A number of the 10 sources you cite have been used to produce energy, in some cases a lot of energy, for a long time. There really isn't anything new there."

- OK, meant that. Easily Agree w/ USB.

you said...

Well, wind and wave energy are both due to atmospheric pressure. Tidal energy and hydroelectric energy are both due to gravity.

I'm not nit picking but what's the difference between wave and tidal energy? I thought that both were a result of the moons gravity

The vacuum elevator is less efficient than a standard elevator, since the partial vacuum must continuously be re-generated. It might be somewhat more efficient if the air sucked out at the top to provide 'pull' is then injected into the bottom to provide 'push'. But the whole system would be prone to leaks, so the efficiency would be poor.

Someone tried to take out a patent for a system like that, didn't work!

An idea does not have to be workable to patentable.

I notice this is your first post. Had you looked around at past postings on this forum before you posted, you would see that this is the wrong place to get a free-energy (over-unity) device accepted. Your post started out discussing 'sustainable renewable energy' so I was expecting a novel way of utilizing this, but the device described doesn't make use of it.

Surely you're not just pumping hits to a web-site?

I'm sure there will be one on every street corner very soon

Here is the simple maths that will debunk this vaccuum lift:

Power to pull up the lift , Pwr = Fx V (1) , where F is force , V is velocity.

For the vaccuum lift, you will need power to pump out the air:

The pressure you need to push up the lift is, Pressure = F/A

Power of air pump, Power=Q x pressure (2) , where Q is the flow rate.

Q = V x A (3), where V is velocity of Lift, A is the lift shaft x-section area

Plug (3) in (2) : Power = V x A x pressure = F x V .

Exactly same power as (1) . So, the power required to generate the vacuum is same as you use a cable to pull up the lift.

Thank you for applying for a name. Anonymous is not comfortable to me, nor to most people.

i don't quite get the design such as:

1-st) 4 - what there is 2 shuttles in-phase (just suspicious)

2-nd) what's the trick with the vaccuum gen. to achive 5W from 3W input

if the 2-nd's what you say - that sh­¡t will work 2kW is very good if it produces that

i don't quite get the design such as:

1-st) 4 - what there is 2 shuttles in-phase (just suspicious)

2-nd) what's the trick with the vaccuum gen. to achive 5W from 3W input

if the 2-nd's what you say - that sh­¡t will work 2kW is very good if it produces that

No boss, it does not make 5 KW out of 3 KW it is the other way around. Total kinetic energy available from the descending counterweight is about 14.7 KJ, so at least 7.5 KW is available to run the generator, the generator makes 5 KW and this 5 KW is used to run a vacuum motor that consumes 3KW. Does that make sense to you. The total system produces about 10 KW continuously, because one set of counterweights and pistons is providing the vacuum that the other two sets are using to produce useful electricity.

WALOOB

i gess i'm starting to get that - 1 wire for out 1 for generator . . . . ok

the partial vacuum = the piston must have enough mass to compress some air below it SSSSSO

the amount of power extractable for generators is minor (if any)

this must be calculated (not the question about is there tec. to produce it <- is the question of assembly (solved in proccess))

so ? anything Link to numerical documentation of this project ???

If this had been described in words one in ten would have said it is impossible...

I'm guessing that you'll find more than one in ten in this forum.

Not only are vacuum elevators possible, they are already manufactured. Here are just a couple of links:
http://www.daytonaelevator.com/Pneumatic%20Vacuum%20Elevator%20Main%20Page.htm
http://www.signatureelevators.com/pve.htm

Novel, but most elevators use little or no energy on the way down.

But Elevators need brakes for safety and control and these use energy.

Sleepy

Novel, but most elevators use little or no energy on the way down.

Lyn your sheer grasp of physics makes me believe that not only are you the genius that you claim to be, in matters such as the second law of the conservation of energy, but also that the world cannot do without such learned and lucid thinking.

That's obvious. Just look at the GA count.

Hi Yusef1,

As it turns out you are absolutely right when you say that there must have been a machine that worked on the same principle. The machine that I am talking about is the Newcomen Atmospheric Engine, the most powerful of these machines could pump 7 million gallons of water a day, and could lift a counterweight weighing 35 tons using nothing but atmospheric pressure in the presence of a vacuum. The vacuum was created through the condensation of steam and the piston was raised to the top of the cylinder through gravity. Here is an animation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine

The 'Home Grid' system works in an exactly similar way to the Newcomen atmospheric engine, only instead of condensing steam to create a vacuum, it uses the kinetic energy generated by a descending counterweight (about 14.7 KJ) to turn a generator (about 5 KW) to run a multistage vacuum turbine pump ( about 3 KW) to create a vacuum through the system. That vacuum together with atmospheric pressure lifts the counterweight back to its original height. Hence a repeatable cycle is established, the criteria by which the practicality of the machine is judged. So means have been provided both for the descent of the counterweight as well as for its ascent, that is all that is needed. Power is generated both on the ascent and descent of the counterweight. 10 KW is expected.

I sympathise with the die-hard believers in the second law of the conservation of energy, but as I said sailing ships did it using just existing forces of nature, and surely gravity and atmospheric pressure, fall into the same category. True a vacuum is needed in order to use atmospheric pressure but then a weight needs to be lifted for it to have P.E and the sun has to heat the sea in order to have winds.

When engineers set out on a particular difficult project, all they have to rely on basically is all the information and data that they can gather and evaluate on the project, nothing else, models won't help in more than a cursory way. I think, this is the approach we need to renewable energy, if there is to be any chance of success at all.

but...can you burn up aluminum cans to power a ship......wait, same transfer of we did that one last month previous energy. never mind!

Please note the difference between your proposed system and the Newcomen Engine; the Newcomen uses a "... vacuum (that) was created through the condensation of steam...", the energy in that steam is not free, it came from a fuel that raised the temperature of water above boiling thereby putting latent heat energy into the water. All the Newcomen does is use that latent heat as stored energy to drive the process...there is no free ride, simply a recapture of previously expended energy.

It's not engineering, it's logic; you can't capture energy that wasn't put into a system, regardless of how it gets there, or how you propose to extract it.

Dear RAM, the exact point that I am trying to make is that the kinetic energy of the descending counterweight provides more than enough energy to create a vacuum as demonstrated in the working of the vacuum elevator. In the vacuum elevator about 3KW is needed and the vacuum is generated in less than a second (i.e., the 350 Kg weight of the lift cage and passenger begins to rise. ) the KE of the descending counterweight is about 14.7 KJ and time for its descent is 1.4 secs. more than enough to power the vacuum motor and don't forget that that vacuum motor has to evacuate a volume that is two to three times less than the volume being evacuated by the vacuum elevator. So granted the counterweight has to be raised to begin with but after that, as in the Newcomen engine, the raising and lowering of the counterweight is automatic.

I just now noticed your statement:" the vacuum is generated in less than a second (i.e., the 350 Kg weight of the lift cage and passenger begins to rise. )" [Underlining added]

It is conceivable that the vacuum turbine may be able to reduce the pressure measured at its input to 0.5 atm within 1 second, but the entire volume of the 0.7 m³ chamber must be pumped out before the piston will begin to rise. I seriously doubt if that could occur within one second, and that is just to BEGIN to rise. The pump must continue to run during very nearly the entire lift time.

notary,

"...In the vacuum elevator about 3KW is needed and the vacuum is generated in less than a second..." According to the spec sheet, the five turbines (vacuum pumps) draw a combined 5kW, not 3 as you state. Also, the it draws this power throughout the one minute it operates, not in "...less than a second...". The vacuum builds up throughout the 35 ft trip, not instantaneously or the passengers (up to 450 lbs) would be subject to approximately 1 G of acceleration, and would be traveling at approximately 32 ft/sec (a little bit less than 22 mph) when they reached the top.

I kinda doubt that Granny's artificial hip would take that acceleration very well, and her neck might get broken when she continues moving upward at 22 mph as the lift suddenly hits its upper limits.

All that other practical stuff aside, at least you recognize that "...granted the counterweight has to be raised to begin with...", which forms your admission that the original state of the system has stored potential energy that had to come from somewhere; i.e., work was done on the system to "charge" it.

Look, if there was enough energy to be captured don't you think someone would have designed the system to do that? That's what happens in commercial high rise elevators, but the specialty motors and control systems do that through a well known process called regenerative braking, and none of those make the claim that more energy is captured than is expended.

W A L O O B

Sailing ships use energy from the wind, just as a windmill does. No wind, no motion. The atmospheric steam engine needs steam (which needs energy in the form of heat to produce). Your crackpot system WILL NOT WORK.

Well excuse me saying so , if my crackpot system should not work, then neither should the crack pot vacuum elevator system work! The thing is that it does.

Incorrect logic linkage.

Incorrect logic linkage.

I thought he meant that you would need steam and condensation to make the vacuum elevator work. If that was not the case, I apologise.

I know the "vacuum"elevator works. The concept is well known and does not violate the fundamental laws of physics.

However the elevator requires 30 Amps at 220V to create the PARTIAL vacuum to lift the load.

There is no energy output associated with the elevator and there is no practical way that your contraption will produce a net positive power output.

"the generators are geared to produce electricity both while the counterweights are descending and ascending"

It just doesn't work that way. All the wishful thinking you can muster will never make it work that way.

You've thrown a multitude of meaningless numbers out, while not providing a single shred of evidence that any of this works. Because it will not.

Keep dreaming. Stick to fiction.

Good luck, write if you get work.

notary,

"I sympathise with the die-hard believers in the second law........................"

I sympathize with fools, too.

Personally, I find the laws of physics quite adequate in their present form. I see no reason to create fantasy "machines" that might rewrite the laws of physics to suit your "creative" interpretation of them.

I suggest that you use your considerable energy productively by volunteering at some social service agency in your area.

Or, perhaps try to write some science fiction books.

'...Or, perhaps try to write some science fiction books....'

.

...or perhaps, pseudoscience fiction? That's a genre, right?

What the fracking hell are you talking about! It is just such complacency that keeps you tethered to earth and not out there soemwhere in the Universe exploring new planets and galaxies. (That is sarcasm by the way) look after what you have or at least look for solutions where possible.

<...where possible...>

Exactly. The contraption is still ALOOB.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

_{Pssssssssssst! Americans don't understand sarcasm!}

'...I sympathise with the die-hard believers in the second law of the conservation of energy...'

.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the 'second law of conservation of energy'???

Okay, I'll bite. What is the 'second law of conservation of energy'???

One thing I am sure about is that it is not anally retentive, by which I mean that it does not preclude new ideas or technology, after all look at all the new technology which the second law of conservation of energy would have great difficulty in answering or coming to grips with. Take the distance that the light from a tiny laser pointer travels, consuming some milliwatts of energy... and things like that and you will start wondering just how far the second law of the conservation of energy can stretch.

It can't stretch as far as your imagination.

Nor your wishful thinking.

OK, now I'm just toying with you because I'm getting bored with this.

Cheers

Well, if you won't state it outright yet, at least tell me how many laws of conservation of energy there are?

.

I'm assuming since you are referencing the second, that there must be at least one additional at a minimum... but the range of numbers >=2 is pretty broad. Would you please narrow it down for me, to a specific number?

Er - I've got THE stuck in my mind. Love someone to get rid of it (but somehow can't see it).

If a system does not have the capacity to do work (energy) then one ought not to be surprised when work does not come out of it at any rate (power) other than zero.

Well. Build a model.

Let us watch it work.

Have it examined by an independent team to prove over unity.

Win a million dollars for your trouble.

I'll build you a statue, bigger than Tesla's statue at Niagara Falls.

Otherwise, as fun as this is, you have not convinced me that your vacuum elevator is an over unity device. And before you jump up, be advised...you won't be able to convince me unless I get to examine a working model. If it works, I will do all the above. Until then I have to unsubscribe since clearly this thread is just a happy puppy pile of granola bars. (full of fruits and nuts)

I wish you no ill will. This advice is sound, and you know it.

Regards.

(and this is how you can win the million. No. Really. But be prepared for a lot less respect than you have got from here! Their money is at stake! But, you know, I am willing to put up with a lot of xxxxx for a million semoleons.)

We have amazing technology available to us and it gets better every year. The problem is we cannot generate something from nothing. Over-unity in a closed system is just NOT possible. Learn about basics physics and accept the facts.

The point is that it is not a closed system, a closed system is one where the same energy source is being used to work against ltself. Take the over balanced wheel as the ideal example, where the weights are supposed to weigh 6 pounds going up one side and 9 pounds coming down the other. In the 'Home Grid' system you are using one system to generate energy during the descent of the counterweight ( gravity) and another system to pull the counterweight up ( atmospheric pressure in the presence of a vacuum).

What you describe is NOT two independent systems; you must use the energy generated by the falling weight to produce the partial vacuum to lift the weight back up. Without that partial vacuum, atmospheric pressure is useless.

Again Atmospheric pressure is NOT a source of energy!

I wish I could remember more of the first-time posters who have come here with ideas to save the world, and no matter how many rational members point out the folly of their dreams, they refuse to accept any denial that they have redefined the laws of physics.

joe.fordham is the only name I can remember.

There was the barge guy, and the guy who never wore a shirt, but their names and the names of the rest escape me.

I'll add notary to the list.

I wish I could remember more of the first-time posters who have come here with ideas to save the world, and no matter how many rational members point out the folly of their dreams, they refuse to accept any denial that they have redefined the laws of physics.

joe.fordham is the only name I can remember.

There was the barge guy, and the guy who never wore a shirt, but their names and the names of the rest escape me.

Sounds interesting, any chance that these posts are still around and we can have a look, especially the one from the guy without a shirt.

You have ceased to be even remotely humorous.

What you describe is NOT two independent systems; you must use the energy generated by the falling weight to produce the partial vacuum to lift the weight back up. Without that partial vacuum, atmospheric pressure is useless.

At last some progress, would you admit then that the KE of the descending counterweight provides enough energy at 14.7 KJ to run the multi-stage turbine vacuum device. Remember that it needs 3 KW, I can give you the link if you need it. Also in the 'Home Grid' the volume to be evacuated is less than half that evacuated in the vacuum elevator. Time taken to generate the vacuum is less than a second, confirmed this from the manufacturer. Now since enough energy exists to generate the vacuum, why are you so obdurate that it cannot be used ? Now comes the interesting part, the pressure exerted by atmospheric pressure is much greater than that needed, for instance if the counterweight weighs 150 KG and the piston surface area is 30 cms, the available force from atmospheric pressure will be 706.5 Kg. So again, just as in the energy generated by the descending counterweight, a lot of margin for error left left over.

Did you read my post #53?

NO, I will NOT admit that the 14.7kJ is enough energy to run the multi-stage turbine vacuum device; that is, not for long enough to lift the weight back to the top.

I regularly work with large vacuum devices. We do require significantly greater vacuum levels than this device, so it's not really a fair comparison, but our times to produce a vacuum ONCE are measured in hours, while using three different kinds of vacuum pumps at once, at a total power around 30kW for the vacuum pumping system.

Please do provide the link to your turbine vacuum pump. Once I've seen the specs, I'll be able to get some idea of how long it would take for it to produce the vacuum level required.

You describe your chamber as something like 30cm in diameter and 10 m long. Your piston has an area of A=πR² =3.14*(0.15*.0.15)≈0.071m². Atmospheric pressure can be expressed as 10,340 kg/m², so the atmospheric force pushing on each side of a 30 cm piston would be about 730kgf, and thus your value of 706.5kgf is reasonable. Now it will take 150kgf just to prevent the weight from moving down; to lift it back up at the same speed it fell will require another 150kgf, for a total of 300kgf. When you add a little to overcome friction, you get just about 350kgf. In other words, your vacuum level will need to be close to 1/2 an atmosphere.

With an area of 0.071m² and a length of 10m, your cylinder volume is 0.71m³. You plan to pump half the air out of this cylinder in one second! Good Luck!

NO, I will NOT admit that the 14.7kJ is enough energy to run the multi-stage turbine vacuum device; that is, not for long enough to lift the weight back to the top.

These vacuum elevators are available everywhere, why don't you try one out and see if you, and the weight of the cage, get lifted within a second and we can move on from there.

This guy is totally delusional a raving lunatic. I don't know why any of us are still here.

OK, curiosity.

info@daytonaelevator.com

• "Flexibility and Speed: 30 feet/min, available in 2 and 3 stops, up to 35 feet, installation is less than a week and can be relocated if needed"
  
  

Unfortunately, your link is an email address, not a URL. I went to daytonaelevator.com, but did not find any data. Where did you find the 30 ft/min?

Not that it matters! The 30 ft/min is all we need. That gives us over 60 seconds to go the 10 meters.

OOPS.

Pneumatic Vacuum Elevators - Daytona Elevator: Residential ...
Scroll down 1/4 page to (right side):

• Flexibility and Speed: 30 feet/min, available in 2 and 3 stops, up to 35 feet, installation is less than a week and can be relocated if needed

I can just see granny pinned to the floor at 30 feet/second.

Right! On both issues!

10 meters is three stories! Within ONE second? You must accelerate from zero, possibly travel at speed for a while, then decelerate back to zero.

I have to admit that the way in which you attack a problem, trying to find out whether the facts say it is possible is good. But why after that, go into hyperbole, no-one stated that the cage would reach the top of 10 m in 1 seconds, what was said was that it would start to move within 1 sec. Then either ultra capacitors, that would be primed by the power generated by the counterweight as it ascends, or flywheels or a combination of both would be used to stimulate the electric motor so that the vacuum is maintained throughout the pistons descent. In any case, it doesn't really matter how long the counterweight takes as long as it generates the requisite power on the way. So if atmospheric pressure is exerting 700 Kg, then the counterweight would take about 1.8 secs to ascend but since it would have a KE of more than 9KW it doesn't matter, it has to generate only 5 KW and so on.

You may want to re-read that checking your ups and downs (or maybe it's me - in which case apologies).

This is the bit that confused me:

"There will be no upward motion until the air below the piston has been reduced to less than roughly 0.7 atm"

General principal and numbers sound fine.

So it is! I keep getting confused between the motion of the piston and the weight...

The statement is correct if you understand it as:"There will be no upward motion of the weight until the air below the piston has been reduced to less than roughly 0.7 atm"

Thanks for checking the principle and numbers.

Dick

If read the whole he meant "above" but wrote "below".

May I make again a remark: energy can be harvested ONLY between 2 potential levels and it will ALWAYS flow from HIGH level to LOW. In the case of a mass M in the gravity potential field the energy is harvested if it moves under the field from high to low i.e. from far to near the other bigger mass. In fact since gravity intensity depends on distance it will be an integral with "g" as variable. Because earth radius is so big "g" can be considered as a constant if the movement is on distances small with respect to it.

When the mass should be moved in the other directio SAME energy MUST be applied to it for same stroke.

Unfortunately as all who claim fantastic ideas in energy harvesting systems the author of OP is a NON cultivated person with a VERY low level of knowledge in physics and who is sooo impressed by his idea that he cannot accept to be wrong.

I would close this discussion since it is IMPOSSIBLE as we several times noticed to convice such limited persons where the truth can be found.

Do not take the wrong way his comments HE IS NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND and of course he is happy to consider himself as a genius. He will not be the last unfortunately who will try to bend reality to fit his erronated thoughts. Be kind with a fool he is not responsible but avoid him.

'....I've got to interject here, will you guys stop thinking in imperial units and stick to metric units......'

.

Metric units using base ten for most units, does have some advantages. I'd be all for it if it just went ahead and made the leap to using base ten for all units.

.

If you are going to ask other people to make a change, you should be willing to make changes yourself. What say you? Will you begin using the modified Metric system, with all units adhering to base 10?

.

Come on. It will be so much better using nanodays, millidays, and decidays instead of seconds, minutes and hours.

As an amateur astronomer I already do use a form of metric time that is measured in days, and decimal portions thereof.

Doh!

I really wasn't expecting that. That leaves me with no choice, except to make the shift here and now.

.

I now fully support a complete shift to the metric system (with decimal time of course)!

.

Are there any initiation rituals for new devotees, that I might need to be on the look out for?

Lack of headaches trying to convert back and forth between imperial and metric. Not forgetting the greatly reduced chance of crashing a billion dollar spacecraft into the surface of Mars because the navigation controllers were working in pounds of thrust and the engine control engineers were working in newtons. End result is a 6 month flight and 4 years of construction created a new crater on Mars surrounded by lots of tiny bits of spacecraft.

Please tell another deciman Chris Dixon in Victoria to contact me: he is a state solar research director that traveled and we met 1981 in Cincinnati Ohio. was visiting Dad and Mom.

I've almost undoubtedly said this before on CR4: After teaching Physics and related subjects for 32 years, entirely using metric units, I unwittingly started a new career in aerospace. I was aghast to find that aircraft and turbine engines are still done almost entirely in imperial units! I've been in that second career 17 years now, and the only times I see metric units are when we do something for Rolls-Royce!

Everything I see from the other aerospace companies is in inches. I'd love to work in metric units, But I must use what our customers use...

Thus I used the units the OP used, except that you will see that I insisted on using kgf, rather than kg as if it were a force.

Just SHOW us , please-

with a smaller model

one could use a base on the table of a strong magnetic piece

your "cylinder"

an elastic "balloon piece" as the atmosphere above,

and then a magnetic material / plate or disc sitting on the balloon-piece of the test rig

since the magnet IS the force that "pressurizes" the balloon section under the magnetic piece, where is the "atmospheric pressure' ever going to be an "ENERGY SOURCE" as any form of source-energy which is different than the magnetism/ gravitational pull in your model, that is the atmosphere's only SOURCE of its pressure within your system?

No differential, no output positive result, I have reason to believe.

No. Was one supposed to?