- #1
- 5
- 0
I guess that depends; are you asking us to calculate the output while ignoring the input? I suppose we could, but why? Given that it's an obvious perpetual motion machine and would not work (produce an output greater than the input), what would be the point? Either way, I'm not sure if even this narrow request conforms to the spirit of the PF rules against discussion of PMMs. I'll leave it open for now while we decide.Setting aside whether this works or not, can someone here compute the output in watts-?
Setting aside whether this works or not, can someone here compute the output
Easy, if it doesn't work, the output will be zero. :-)
Seriously, I agree with @russ_watters . Perpetual motion machines PMM is a forbidden topic on PF.
If you think it is not PMM, tell us where the energy is coming from and where it goes to.
Thanks for continuing this discussion. When considering input and output you also need to consider the energy output of multiple balloons or inverted umbrellas or whatever working in tandem as opposed to the one balloon being filled at the bottom.Edit: I'll give you the short version since its easy: a balloon with known volume at a known depth expands linearly as it rises, so the total work done is just the starting depth times the average buoyancy (initial vs final displacement).
No, the answer/analysis for four, staggered balloons/umbrellas is the same as for one balloon repeated four times. Don't over-complicate the analysis. Keep it simple and well organized and you will avoid making mistakes.When considering input and output you also need to consider the energy output of multiple balloons or inverted umbrellas or whatever working in tandem as opposed to the one balloon being filled at the bottom.
Watts is not a unit of force, so no, there is no conversion factor for that. But 100 cubic feet (I assume at atmospheric pressure) submerged to 100 feet compresses by a factor of 3. You know the weight density of water, and I gave you the method, so you tell me the forces and mechanical work done. Pay attention to the units.You can look at this in a different way, instead of multiple balloons, just tell me the upward force of 100 cubic feet of air submerged down to 100 feet and once computed, can you convert this upward force to watts?
I'm going to give this a bit more leash (perhaps more than my colleagues would prefer...) so you can answer the question of the math above, but you aren't understanding conservation of energy and what a "perpetual motion machine" is. Conservation of energy tells us that when you account for all the energy inputs and outputs, the net energy output of a system in steady state is *always* zero. So, a stand-alone machine (that doesn't harvest an external energy source like fuel) must always have a net output of mechanical work of less than zero.This is NOT a perpetual motion machine. It is getting its energy from the rising force of captured air under water. The question to ask is whether it requires more energy to run it than the energy output. I personally believe the doubters here who scream PMM, PMM, PMM are the ones who do not want to discuss a machine that they do not understand or they like the idea and want to make a claim to it somewhere else.
Or, someone just doesn’t like my UN and is slandering me for the fun of it.
Horsepower to watts conversionWatts is not a unit of force, so no, there is no conversion factor for that.
Thank you. This thing "idea" of mine has been haunting me for years. I was trying to find a new energy source to replace fossil fuels and this is what I came up with.I'm going to give this a bit more leash.,.,.
Thank you for your patience and willing to go along with this old man; for the moment at least.Conservation of energy tells us that when you account for all the energy inputs and outputs, the net energy output is *always* zero.
The external energy source is gravity and buoyancy.So, a stand-alone machine (that doesn't harvest an external energy source like fuel) must always have a net output of mechanical work of less than zero.
Ok, sorry, but you aren't really trying here. You have some math in the image you posted, so you should be able to do at least some of this, and given a little prompting make an effort to actually do the calculation I suggested. Just posting links to definitions and conversion factors isn't doing that. In any case, since it is obvious this is an attempt at a perpetual motion machine, I'm locking the thread per our guidelines.Horsepower to watts conversion
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/hp-to-watt.html
1 hp(I) = 745.699872 W
Thank you. This thing "idea" of mine has been haunting me for years. I was trying to find a new energy source to replace fossil fuels and this is what I came up with.
Thank you for your patience and willing to go along with this old man; for the moment at least.
The external energy source is gravity and buoyancy.
Horsepower to watts conversion
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/hp-to-watt.html
1 hp(I) = 745.699872 W
Definition of buoyancy
1a: the tendency of a body to float or to rise when submerged in a fluid
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buoyancy
noun
the power to float or rise in a fluid; relative lightness.
the power of supporting a body so that it floats; upward pressure exerted by the fluid in which a body is immersed.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/buoyancy