1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question Answered

  1. Jun 18, 2007 #1
    A few months ago I was seeking an answer to a question about using buoyancy in a closed or semi closed system to generate electricity on anything of a useful scale. I came across the thread below on these forums.


    I was exploring this topic to see if there was a way to generate green electricity in places like my parents farm where there is not a lot of wind, sun is sporadic and not a heck of a lot of water. The solution I came up with was not dissimilar to the one presented in the thread above. But after reading the posts therein it quickly becomes apparent that you cannot get something for nothing.

    The big hurdle in this case is the mechanical compression of air to release at depth is not energy efficient and that their are better and more efficient ways to generate electricity.

    So the problem as I saw it was is there a way to compress air with no mechanically moving parts and heat in the system through friction. I decided to investigate and found out quickly that greater minds than mine had investigated such Holy Grail concepts and come up with the same answer "You can't get something for nothing!!!!"

    So I abandoned the idea as to difficult as any great closet scientist like me always does.

    That was until about a month ago when the answer was shown on a pseudo scientific TV show. The solution was not to generate electricity but to achieve another task. Nevertheless they were compressing air with no moving parts and using the energy stored therein to exert a lifting force.

    It still was not a closed system and their was an external energy input, in fact was probably worse than using an air compressor. A day later was watching a history show on the Romans and discovered they had achieved the critical portion of the solution to this problem some 1800 years ago. These two combined with my aviation knowledge as a pilot gave me an idea and I rushed to the hardware store to buy some stuff to make a prototype.

    A week later I had a working system. It compresses air with no moving parts, uses an input energy source provided by nature, again no moving parts, dissipates the heat generated through friction and generates electricity. And also as of today has been filed through my patent lawyer for consideration. <--- hence why I am being vague.

    Once my lawyer gives me the thumbs up me will release the solution here. It is so beautifully simple.

    I would like to pass on my thanks to everyone who commented on the thread above.

    To the people who supply and maintain this forums I applaud you. It took me a while to find these forums again and to find out now that it is geared to students and learning is all that much better as the journey to the solution began here. I plan to take this commercial. I’m a UK businessman now. What I am not is a real scientist so will be looking back to this community in the near future for support in getting the physics and engineering right to make it work well in places where it is needed. I therefore think it only more than fare that some proceeds go back into resources like this, the places that grow and foster the most important renewable resource, the human mind.



    Sorry all. I read incorrect. This is not just for students. Still the same points though.

    END EDIT!!!!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 17, 2009 #2
    I would be keen to know your apparatus/invention :) this is my sort of thing... as i am an engineering student :)

    Please keep me informed when your lawyer does give you the green light :D
  4. Feb 17, 2009 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with efficiency. Even if all parts of your apparatus were 100% efficient, the best you could do is produce exactly zero output energy.
    Again, there is no need for this: it is much simpler to assume 100% efficiency (no friction) when analyzing a hypothetical machine. Friction is not what kills type 1 pmms, conservation of energy is.
    Sorry, no. You've made an error. Because you are being vague, we can't help you find it, but from what you said above, it would be natural for us to assume that you simply don't know how to analyze what you've made. You need a beginner's guide to understanding conservation of energy. A high school or college freshman level physics textbook is where you should probably start.

    As this appears to be nothing but a brag about an invention that you've come up with, there is no real content to discuss and perpetual motion, since it isn't science, is not something we discuss here anyway. Thread locked.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook