A Sustainable Renewable Energy Solution

This is still ALOOB.

What do you smoke up there in Ohio?

Notary, you mention,

"So although these sources of energy, gravity and atmospheric pressure, have never yet been successfully tapped they are as perennial and ever present as the wind or solar. Can we utilize them to produce power ?"

I like this one for it's potential,

http://www.nauticaltorquetechnology.com/

Also, for pneumatics, this is a good read, and will give you pointers on how to refine and revise your argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_storage

In direct competition with aura systems motor/generator, I prefer this technology,

http://www.boulderwindpower.com/the-bwp-generator/efficiency/

Which I came across while reading these,

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-06/gardening-circuit

http://coreoutdoorpower.com/technology/

https://www.facebook.com/CoreOutdoorPower?filter=2

Moreover, you mention how beneficial your system might be based on measurements in KW and KJ interchangeably.

One flaw in this calculation is KJ converts to KW hours not KW. Therefore, the 14.7KJ of energy is converted to 0.0040833333333333 kilowatt hour (kWh) or 14.7 KW seconds

http://extraconversion.com/energy/kilojoules/kilojoules-to-wattseconds.html

http://extraconversion.com/energy/kilojoules/kilojoules-to-kilowatt-hours.html

Furthermore, the 3KW pump you mention will run for only 4.9 seconds minus some losses. Also, your calculation of 150Kg dropped for 1.4 seconds does not complete the equation for conversion to KJ because the formula for Joules (1/1000 KJ) is (KG * M squared) / (seconds squared)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

Also, the atmospheric pressure above and vacuum below creates resistance against the vacuum pump as those values accumulate and thereby require more power to operate the pump.

One last point to make, for now, is the counterweight gain requires load matching (can add complexity and cost to a design) and experiences reduced energy capture by leaks/thermal losses in a pneumatically driven counterweight.

I'd analyze your statement some more but it is getting late and I need to sleep. Good luck in revising your statements. I'm sure you will find some benefits to energy capture, just not in the argument you made.

One flaw in this calculation is KJ converts to KW hours not KW. Therefore, the 14.7KJ of energy is converted to 0.0040833333333333 kilowatt hour (kWh) or 14.7 KW seconds

Gary, how you came to that conclusion is really difficult to understand ! KJ is just energy in thousands of Joules right, take that energy per second and you have Kilowatts not Kilo watt hours. Does that make you feel better ?

14.7kWs will run 3kW for 14.7/3s. However, there will be some losses, so the above statement is correct in principle.

Logic does not work on this poster.

Yes, I agree that a KJ is just 1000 Joules.

But, before we go any further, did you state that the counterweight (150KG) drops 10M in 1.4 seconds?

That's where your calculation is going wrong!

Given, One Joule = One Watt X One Second

So, lets apply 14,700 Joules (14.7KJ) which took 1.4 seconds to create from 150KG released but more on that later to turn a 5KW generator. At maximum load, the 5KW generator will convert 5,000 Joules (5KJ) into less than 5,000Watt (due to losses) for only one second or 5KWs. And, 14.7 KJ of Total Kinetic Energy is used up in 2.94 seconds to produce an output of less than 14.7 KW seconds not 7.25KW!

Since KWs is the output variable equal to KJ, both KW or s will act as input variables into the equation. Your given 14.7KJ will consume no more than 2.03 seconds of run time at 7,25KW every second. As a result, you will run out of available free energy in that short span of time!

Therefore 7.25KW every second would not make me happy and it shouldn't make you happy either because you want your calculations to be spot on and verified, right?

Lest you be offended.....

Now on the flip side, 1 Joule = 1 KG X 1 M squared / 1 second squared

Therefore, 150 KG x 10 Meters squared (100) / 1.4 Seconds squared (1.96) = 7,653 Joules or a little over 7.6 KJ

But this value is approx. half of the 14.7KJ if you count for friction and other losses. So perhaps you are counting energy on the way down and up by mistake. But the problem here is there is no contribution from the counterweight on the lift up. Any contribution would come from the energy doing the lifting of the counterweight, not the weight itself.

one and all.... while I have read almost every comment... and get the impression that not everyone agrees with the sustainable renewable energy.. so I'd like to offer my contribution to this discussion... however for the life of me I cannot figure out how to put a link in here (using a Mac) please copy and paste the following link into your browser...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY29De0yxIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY29De0yxIg

Like that.

OOPS.

Got too busy trying to see if CCW was something worthwhile, or just a scam.

PWSlack already posted a link.

ELETTRONICA SANTERNO S.P.A seems to be the parent company.

Don't know how this relates to notary's fantasy.

No Santerno are not the parent company, they sell the inverters only.

I thought renewable energy was the theme.. what CCW do is classed as renewable!

CCW Energy Systems - Complete profile - Canadian Company ...

Scroll down to "Company Description"↓

"CCW Energy Systems are the Oil& Gas design group of Santerno Inc."

This all sounds fine, but bears no resemblance to any of notary's fantasies.

Brich. It sounds like you are using Safari as your browser. For whatever reason, Safari does not support the CR4 toolbar, or perhaps CR4 does not support Safari. In any case, Firefox does. I've used Firefox for at least six years, always on Macs. There have been two or three occasions where I had to use Safari, but I don't remember why or when. Periodically I check back to see if either Safari or CR4 have changed, but so far no luck (I just checked).

If you must use Safari, then you must use the directions given at the bottom of the edit window:

In other words, on a separate line you would type:

link url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY29De0yxIg" /link

Dick

many thanks for that.. yes using Safari.. I do see the instructions as you mentioned, however, when I try following said instructions... and I click 'preview comment' the line with the link disappears!!!

firefox for Mac methinks!!

I am sure that there is something wrong with the logic, I just can't put my finger on it, but believe me it is there, some oversight or mistake in your calculations.

I am a bit disappointed in dkwarner, at least in this post. What about regenerative braking in cars when almost all of the braking power is converted into electricity, you can even come up with rough answers as to the amount of electrical energy that will be generated. What about regenerative elevators which is even closer to Home Grid, than regenerative braking is, b'cos the same kind of cable pulley sheave system is being used. Regenerative elevators feed electric energy back into the building grid. Nuff said…….

p.s. ideally the load should be equal to mg of the counterweight, when this happens the counterweight will descend at constant velocity !

What is it that disappointed you? That I keep telling the truth and facing reality?

"What about regenerative braking in cars when almost all of the braking power is converted into electricity"

If you consider 80-90% to be 'almost all', then the above statement can be considered correct. I would consider 98-99% to be 'almost all', and that does not happen.

These car systems store the energy in batteries, so now you need to find a DC driven vacuum pump, or add an inverter to the system for even more losses.

" ideally the load should be equal to mg of the counterweight, when this happens the counterweight will descend at constant velocity"

NO! The load should be equal to the mg of the counterweight minus friction and other loss forces, after the system has reached equilibrium speed. If the initial load is equal to mg, then it won't move!

Having grown up with 2 older sisters, I can assure you that, as much as you might want it to be so, getting the last word in doesn't necessarily make you right. No matter how loud you SHOUT it. And yes, I've been on both ends of that .

This is what is called "peer review": when the proposer of a silly idea gets someone equally as silly to review and approve it. This technique is popular in pseudoscience, theology, and other such phony disciplines.

Ok lets play it your way.

I recently invented a beer driven lift for a bar in Arisona which worked on the principle that you described somewhere above. We are talking about an open system!

The bar is open lets say 24 hours (as it does not really matter).

Access to the bar is given with a beer driven lift.

How does it work?

Well, the toilets for said bar are downstairs and yes you guess it. The lift is a dual cab balanced system. People from the bar that have been drinking heavily need to get downstairs lifting the people up that come back from toilet or just want to get in for one or two. You get it?

It was quite amazing to think this out but to even build it used up all the mental strength we could muster! Now the vacuum that is created is on top of the beer hose. Of course we have to get the beer up to the upper level! For this we actually applied for a patent as it is a very sophisticated device that takes part of motion from the beer driven lift to create a vacuum due to friction but I don't want to bother you with details.

I was once asked if I need compressed air, but I think most of the time the air rushes through without compression!

Yes thats how my lift works! It reminded me of your machinery.

Oh and don't bother with the KW and KWh and stuff. Beer is only good with over 5%!

After reading through this thread it becomes obvious you are NOT interested in learning and expanding your knowledge base.
I can think of 3 possible scenarios why you continue to post here.
1) You ARE a scam artist looking for suckers and/or some validation of your scam idea to bilk investors.
(Suggest you try to post on a known over-unity site where your ideas may be accepted.)
2) You are completely convinced (obdurate AND delusional) that your idea actually works despite evidence that it violates all known physical rules and NO ONE ELSE can understand your unique vision.
(A medical or mental health professional may be able to help here.)
3) You really DO know this idea is junk science and you just like to POKE bee-hives.

(You are really GOOD at poking bee-hives!!)

Have a look at what you are first ! Remember that when you point a finger at someone 3 fingers are pointing back at you ! What is it with this fracking! What are you doing to a beautiful land ? Is that greed or what is it, you are poisoning the whole land. Do you know that fracking has only just started and already 0.1 per cent of all the fresh water in the country is being used for fracking ? 0.1 per cent of all fresh water ! Yes, the shale people say there is no danger but would any of them drink a glass of water used in fracking ? That water, a lot of it will stay down there for thousands of years, even if you get it back where do you put it ? So please put on your thinking cap, and don't sound so smug and self satisfied, is all I ask.

Don't sugar coat it. What are you really trying to say?

Is it, that after three posts, you have become an expert on the forum and how it works?

None of your babbling is on the subject at hand, but just childish drivel which leads one to believe that you are the other fool here, whatever their name was, on a different computer.

Cheers, there's a good boy. Go and play.

Don't sugar coat it. What are you really trying to say?

I am not sure it is all that off topic, the question seems to be one of greed, am I right ? I was reading the other day that parts of Texas are already running out of water, I forget which newspaper, most of the water was being used for fracking ! Running out of fresh water is the least of the concerns, when it comes to fracking, yet you don't want to have arguments like this where you have proved nothing, and where deep down you know it just might work.

So, it's true. You are he.

You are also still............................................................hopelessly disconnected.

I will now leave you to your delusions. May you/he come to your senses, or not.

Did you post to the wrong thread?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/86669

What does fracking, a real world issue about accessing NON-RENEWABLE energy sources with REAL pros and cons, have to do with the imaginary (not real) source of renewable energy proposed in this thread?

what he say i say again, as I say it was abovesay:

the air PRESSURE is the gravitational force on it and all stabilized in its envelope, never is an "ENERGY SOURCE"

please remove that from thoughts and then find the UNDER UNITY that regardless of any human or Lyn people-personal logic, is just sensible under-unified energy stabilization/consumption-product or summation= negative ends

The problem with gravity "power" is that what goes down to create the power, must first go up.

This requires energy in some form.

Hydro power only works because water was lifted first, in the form of water vapor, to the height from which it falls. This requires energy.

Our schizophrenic, "friends" cannot grasp this.

Why do you continue ? It is hopeless he is a BELIEVER and nothing will make him change his mind (if he has one).

I am through communication with notary/harami and any other of their personalities that may materialize.

You are right, I think it's time to pull the plug.

Adieu.

<unsucscribe>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk71GY02diY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kLqahiyuSs