Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could this be future free energy?

  1. Sep 10, 2006 #1
    could this be future free energy?

    http://www.boinc.ch/~sleepsleep/blend/fe.png

    when the bowling ball drops down from left (air) tube, we would use its energy (due to gravity) to pull another bowling ball in (water) tube.

    if u see the graphic, there is a "air" pad that to make the bowling ball easier to goes up in water tube.

    i use psp to draw this, hopefully u guys could understand my idea :P :P

    what do you thinK?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2006 #2
    What? Theres no way to keep the water from flowing into the "Air tube". I see you drew a line seperating the air from the water at the bottom, but thats hardly a solution.
     
  4. Sep 10, 2006 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    This is free entertainment, not free energy.
     
  5. Sep 10, 2006 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Great line!

    - Warren
     
  6. Sep 11, 2006 #5

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    ?? I'm not sure what an "air pad" is- just a very light support?

    Nor do I see what the air-water has to do with anything; the only effect the water could have is to make the whole assembly less. Wait, are you thinking that "bouyancy" will make the bowling ball going up lighter? A major problem you will have is preventing the water from flowing into the air side. Any mechanism you use to "lift" the bowling ball will have to have a connection from water to air. Indeed, in order to keep this system running, you have to have some mechanism to allow the bowling ball on the air side to move into the water at the bottom. How do you prevent the water from flowing into the air side at the same time?

    In any case, if you are setting up any mechanism to reduce the weight of an object, you have to take that mechanism into account in calculating energy. The bowling ball in water "weighs" less than the bowling ball in air because the water under it supports it. As you lift the bowling ball, you have to move it through water and move water around it. Have you calculated the energy effects of that?
     
  7. Sep 11, 2006 #6

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hi sleepsleep. I've seen this one before, and at first it stumped me.

    A few others here have pointed to the difficulty of making some mechanism, such as a valve or trap door, that allows the ball to pass from the air column into the water column. When debunking perpetual motion machines though, we can't use the fact something may be very difficult to design as reason to debunk it.

    There's a much more fundamental problem with this concept having to do with water pressure and how much force is required to push the ball into the column of liquid at the trap door as opposed to the bouyancy which would result when it is in fact inside the water. The force needed is larger than any bouyancy force created. The ball can't be forced into the column of liquid.
     
  8. Sep 11, 2006 #7
  9. Sep 11, 2006 #8
    Although the law of conservation of energy is empirical, one is better of just accepting them as axioms.
     
  10. Sep 11, 2006 #9
    All the best sources of "free" energy have already been noted and exploited: the energy that can be harvested from flowing water and wind, solar energy, methane digesters, etc.

    What we need are cheaper, simpler ways of collecting and utilizing this energy.
     
  11. Sep 11, 2006 #10

    The great irony of solar power: If we were to actually implement it on a large enough scale to meet all current power needs (assuming efficiency doesn't sky rocket) the environmental impact would be disastrous, due to the significant albedo increase of the earth's surface.
     
  12. Sep 11, 2006 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  13. Sep 11, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Albedo increase? Aren't most solar cells black?

    Anyway, what's to stop people from doing something to offset the change?

    Besides, we're not talking about a large fraction of the earth's surface. My calcs, perhaps .05%.
     
  14. Sep 11, 2006 #13
  15. Sep 11, 2006 #14
    Collecting solar energy would be limited to places like the American Southwest and other desert areas of the world where the sun shines bright and hot most of the year round. It's a resource we have here that no one is doing much to exploit.

    The Pacific Northwest, on the other hand, and similar places, would best be put to use as a methane based energy producing area. It's a rainforest climate, vegetation grows thick by itself with no need to be cultivated. The highly nutritive leftovers can be put right back into the soil (it's claimed to be fantastic fertilizer).

    And wind power is best developed in, obviously, really windy places.

    I don't think we should plan in terms of converting everthing over to solar, or wind, or any one means of gathering energy.

    The main problem is how to store and transport it the way we can now store and transport oil. The best way seems to lay in hydrogen, more specifically, hydrides. But there's already been massive threads about that problem.
     
  16. Sep 11, 2006 #15

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OK, have your discussion about solar and wind power in a new thread, the OP was asking about the device he's posted. :grumpy:

    sleepsleep:

    If we drastically simplify the mechanism just for a moment to examine the principle, we can see it as two bowling balls, one on on each seat of a seesaw with one of them immersed in water.

    OK, the seesaw ball that's in the water will rise and will be able to do work to turn an axle. But it will only turn it a little bit. All the complexity of the mechanism you illustrated is devoted to sustaining the cycle by recycling the bowling balls, and getting them from the air side to the water side. So, the tricky bit is this recycling.

    Agreed?

    Now, I'll grant that we can make a valve where the bowling ball can pass from water to air without any leakage.

    But ** just because it can pass from water to air doesn't mean it will. The water at that valve is under pressure. That column of water is pushing down, and will resist the bowling ball moving from air to water. (Note that, at this point, the bowling ball has a tall column of water pushing against it and only air pushing with it). Something will have to do work to push it through.

    How much work will it take to push the bowling ball into the water side? I'll bet it's as much work as you get out of the system - making it net zero output.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2006
  17. Sep 11, 2006 #16

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  18. Sep 11, 2006 #17
    Every body talks about new forms of energy production but no one ever comes around to saying what we are all thinking...whale oil. if it was good enough for grandpa it is good enough for me.
     
  19. Sep 11, 2006 #18
    All that blubber just swimming aimlessly around...what a waste of oil.
     
  20. Sep 11, 2006 #19

    Seriously.
     
  21. Sep 11, 2006 #20

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe we just need to start a whale liposuction clinic. That's perfectly ethical, no?

    - Warren
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Could this be future free energy?
  1. Free Energy! (Replies: 11)

  2. Free Energy? (Replies: 9)

  3. Free Energy (Replies: 11)

Loading...