Power needed for turbines and pumps

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the flawed idea of generating more energy from a water pump and turbines in a deep well than the energy consumed to pump the water back up. The basic principles of physics, particularly the laws of thermodynamics, indicate that this concept violates energy conservation. A formula for calculating hydroelectric power illustrates that the energy produced by turbines is dependent on height and flow rate, which cannot yield excess energy. The conversation emphasizes that such perpetual motion ideas have been thoroughly debunked in scientific discourse. Overall, the notion of creating free energy in this manner is not feasible according to established physical laws.
praondevou
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a friend who insists in an idea and I want to prove to him that it cannot work because it would violate basic physical laws.

But somehow I don't find the right words.

He says if he drilled a well of 2km (or any other depth) into the Earth and at the bottom there was a pump that pumped water through a pipe back into to the head of the well he could create more electric energy than the pump would be using.

He would install a few, not just one, turbines into the well at different heights, where the sum of energy generated by all turbines is greater than the energy needed to pump all the water up.

Now according to this:

A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is:
where P is Power in kilowatts, h is height in meters, r is flow rate in cubic meters per second, g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2, and k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1.


the only parameter that is different for all turbines is the height. Unless the flow rate is changing.

This formula is similar for pumps. Leaving acceleration (fixed) and water density and losses aside the only parameters ar flow rate and height.

It looks like very easy to explain why it cannot work, yet...

Does anyone have a calculation example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula quoted is for the energy available from an uninterrupted flow, assuming that each turbine is 100% efficient then at the outlet of each turbine the velocity flow will be zero and you have to plug inthe numbers for the drop to the next turbine.
 
praondevou said:
I have a friend who insists in an idea and I want to prove to him that it cannot work because it would violate basic physical laws.

But somehow I don't find the right words.

He says if he drilled a well of 2km (or any other depth) into the Earth and at the bottom there was a pump that pumped water through a pipe back into to the head of the well he could create more electric energy than the pump would be using.

He would install a few, not just one, turbines into the well at different heights, where the sum of energy generated by all turbines is greater than the energy needed to pump all the water up.

Now according to this:

A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is:
where P is Power in kilowatts, h is height in meters, r is flow rate in cubic meters per second, g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2, and k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1.


the only parameter that is different for all turbines is the height. Unless the flow rate is changing.

This formula is similar for pumps. Leaving acceleration (fixed) and water density and losses aside the only parameters ar flow rate and height.

It looks like very easy to explain why it cannot work, yet...

Does anyone have a calculation example?


We do not waste people's time discussing Perpetual Motion Machines (PMMs) here at the PF. Here is a quote from the PF Rules link at the top of the page, giving some links to old locked PMM threads to help you understand why they do not work.

PF Rules said:
Perpetual motion and "free energy" discussions

Search PF and you will find many threads that have been closed in a number of forums. As for S&D, any claim of this nature would be reproducible and/or testable by the scientific community; hence there is no need for debate.
EDIT by berkeman -- here are some recent locked PMM threads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=522548
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=520290
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7735
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=515402
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=403572
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top