rjbutwell

I wasn't advertising anything, the webpage about 10 pages and was solely about this problem and had no other material on it at all. And there were no advertisements at all. I wasn't selling anything. I wish the moderator had at least looked at the page, oh well. But the moderator removed the links. Well, if I'm right you'll hear about it in the news . Thanks to those who gave the problem a go. Sincerely, Rob

Nope, he said, "I can't see where you are wrong, make this your senior project." Did you check the website? I don't think you have seen all of the material. Link removed Thanks very much for your help, Rob

Thank You very much for taking the time to look at my post. Did you go to the website? There is much more there. Link removed It explains the hygroscopic method very well, plus there are a few other methods to accomplish this task. Thanks Rob Butwell

I really appreciate the feedback. J.C. - no water would condense on your turbine because we are in an isothermic environment, everything is at 70F. PZK - Water naturally mixes with air. There is a limit depending on the air temp. In a closed system, humidity will be at 100% regardless of Temp. Eise- Im not a chemist but there are so many different water attracting substances. It depends on which one you are using. I calculated the energy to remove water from one substance by reverse osmosis and it was doable. It is an easy calculation. Just water weighs 18g per mole, 3785grams/gallon, 210moles per gallon, 1 gallon weighs 8.3 lbs, 1 footpound =1.36 Joules. So, if we had a hygroscopic substance that absorbed twice it's weight in water and we started with 100lbs of the substance, it would absorb 200lbs of water. If we had it at 1000ft, we would get 100,1000 foot pounds of energy or 136,000 joules. That would be 1000 watts for over 2 mins. At 10,000 ft, we would have a hair dryer running for 20 mins. We need a chemist to find the right hygroscopic substance for us. Do you know one. He would probably have an immediate answer. Common knowledge for a chemist. Strange- Interesting idea, but the hygroscopic substance binds with water and would run at all. Your right about picking the best hygroscopic substance that we have to remove the water from. We have a lot of play on the energy available, just by raising the dry substance before it soaks up the air mositure. Swan - I think your right, we want a hygroscopic substance that absorbs lots of water but is lightly bound to it. So we have the surplus energy(from harvesting the positional or gravitational potential energy), after removing the water.

We are in a closed system. there is a pool of water at the bottom., by design. , Rob

Good question. The turbine requires a force on it's blades, which comes from the force of gravity on the water. So, we are changing the water's gravitational potential energy into electrical potential. With the our heat machine, we are just harvesting heat energy. According to the Kelvin-Planck 2nd Law corollary, that is impossible. So, it comes down to, can we harvest heat energy in a single temperature environment? If we can, we ahave a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind. This is a closed system, no light, no sun, nothing comes in except the force of gravity. I really appreciate you helping me, Rob

Thank you so much for your reply. It is different because we are in a closed system, no outside energy enters or leaves our box. So no solar energy is allowed. Our only source of energy is any potential energy in the system and heat energy. The temperature in the closed system starts at 70 F but will decrease as we harvest the heat energy. Rob

Long, Long ago, I brought my idea for reversing entropy to my college thermodynamics professor. He couldn't figure out why I was wrong but kind of politely ushered me out of his office after an hour. Well, over three decades later, I want to cross this off my list. Would a physicist kindly review my thoughts and tell me why I'm wrong? I would greatly appreciate it and thank you in advance. The link is - Link removed Sincerely, Rob J Butwell