blochee

Idea! It would be better if we used glycerol instaed of water and water instead of logs of wood. This would be the setup: *Two tubes, one contains water (tube A) while the other contains glycerol (tube B). Both are connected at the base by a semi-permeable membrane, which allows water through but not glycerol. 1) Water from tube A enters tube B via the semi-permeable membrane 2) The water in tube B is less dense than the glycerol, and so it rises to the top of tube B. 3) The top of tube B is turned so that it empties into tube A. Thus, the water at the surface of tube B then falls into tube A. This falling water is supposed to turn a turbine. 4) The water returns to tube A. Repeat cycle.. If you want a diagram look for "Figure-1" at http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/members.tripod.com/~urila/index.htm The diagram shows everything except the top of tube B (which is turned so that it empties into tube A). I'd love to make this, but my problem is finding a semi-permeable membrane. So, if you know where to get or know the name of a membrane which is permeable to water but impermeable to glycerol, then let me know.

No. It seems that this dynamo is not effective. Even if you have a 200 kg log of wood falling from the height of 500m, you'd get 1 000 000 J. If you could keep it at a rate of 30 seconds per log, then you have 33 333 W. That's only enough to light up thirty-three 100W light bulbs (discounting all other losses). Overall, this setup will not be effective. If we could find something *really* heavy (like an anvil) but which is less dense than water (or perhaps some other liquid) then perhaps this invention would be practical.

At the bottom of the tank, we could have a door which can be opened and closed. That door would be connected to a small tank, which has a door which connects to the outside. -First, put the log into the small tank. -Then, fill the small tank with water. -Then, close the door of the small tank which connects to the outside. -Then, open the door which connects the small tank to the large tank. -Alas, push the log into the large tank. -Close door connecting small and large tank. This is somewhat like how an astronaut who wants to go on a space-walk has to go into a bay which depressurizes. If the connection between the small and the large tank is somewhat vertical, then we wouldn't need to push the log, because the log would automatically float up into the large tank. And ideally, I think we can get the log to fall into the small tank when it has gone through the contraption which generates the electricity. Thus, we'd only need input energy to open and close the doors, and to fill the small tank with water. And at the top of the tank, we need input energy to move the log into the contraption.

how do I delete this message?

Let me clarify by putting it into steps: * We have a tank of water which is 500 meters tall. There is a door at the bottom of the tank which allows us to put a log of wood into the bottom of the tank without losing water. * We have a contraption which converts the energy of a falling log of wood into electricity. 1) Log is on the ground. 2) Put log into the bottom of tank, without spilling water. 3) Log floats to the top of the tank, and thus gains a gravitational potential for energy. 4) The log is dropped into the contraption, which converts the gravitational potential for energy into electricity. 5) The log is on the ground again. (repeat cycle) Now, there needs to be an input of energy used to move the log to and fro the tank and the contraption. But, if the contraption makes enough electrical energy from the falling log, than once the dynamo has started, the output electrical energy could cover the cost of the input energy and still have electrical energy left over.

The log is moved upward due to it being less dense than water.

Well, if you're right (which I am now thinking you are) that gravitational potential disappears when water evaporates into gas, then you have simplified my atomic fusion example and have still shown that the Law of Conseravation of Energy is wrong. Infact, you have given me an idea which can be used to convert gravity's force into electrical energy: First, start with a tank of water which is not that wide but is tall, around 500 meters tall. Now, outside of the tank is a contraption which converts the gravitational's energy of a falling log of wood into electrical energy. When the log has fallen and has reached the ground, then it will be put into the tank of water (from the ground) and since the log is less dense than water, the log will resurface at the top of the tank, 500 meters above the ground. And then the log of wood can be dropped into the contraption to generate electricity again. Obviously, it may be hard to use a log of wood. So something other than a log and water can be used. But the method still stands; that something less dense can be moved upward due to it being immersed in something more dense. (I will have to add this bit to my paper). This example truly demonstrates that gravity creates instantaneous forces which the can create/destroy energy.

You haven't taken gravitational potential energy into account.

I don't think you understood that section, the part about inventions.. Both the "Seesaw" Newton Motor and the "Simple" Newton Engine are used to create thrust/propulsion.

Let me clarify. Consider my friend Waldo on the Earth. First, consider a ball that has a mass of 3 kg. Now let Waldo lift the ball ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the ball has a potential energy given by the equation "force multiplied by distance". The acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. The force is 29.4 Newtons. And so, the potential energy is 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work. Now, drop that ball, and all the 294 Joules it took to lift the ball will be realized, either by sound as the ball hits the ground, or as heat due to friction, etc. Now, consider a tank which has a mass of 0.986 kg. Inside the tank is 1000 moles of Deuterium. Now, the atomic mass of Deuterium is 2.0140 grams per mole. Thus, the Deuterium has a mass of 2.014 kg; the tank as a whole has a mass of 3 kg. Now, let Waldo lift the tank ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the tank has a potential energy of 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work. But, instead of dropping the tank, let's let the Deuterium fuse together to form Tritium and protons. (I understand that to fuse the Deuterium requires an input of energy. However, I am only considering the initial stage and the final result. The two are interchangeable. The road from the intial stage to the final result won't be analysed, since it doesn't effect the initial stage or the final result.) Now, in the tank we'd be left with 500 moles of Tritium, 500 moles of protons, and 2 Billion electron-Volts. (Let's assume here that the tank doesn't explode, and instead contains the mass and energy.) Now, Tritium has a an atomic mass 3.016 grams per mole, and a proton is close enough to 1 gram per mole. Thus, there is 1.508 kg of Tritium and 500g of protons. The contents of the tank now has a mass of 2.008 kg. The tank has lost a mass of 6 grams, and so, the potential energy P is less than before. Now, we have invested energy by lifting up the tank 10 meters above the ground. Can we realize that energy now? And if we can't, then what "truth" is there in defining P, as a form of energy. (I hope the calculations of moles, etc. are accurate.)

WHAT I HAD PREVIOUISLY SAID: "Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?" So did the bird push the Earth, and cause it to move? Or was the bird towing the Earth with a rope which was fastened to the ground? As far I know, the bird just pushed air. The reason why the Earth began to move is because gravity *creates* forces which then create/destroy energy/momentum. I will reiterate a part from the paper: "I hope you can now clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other forces like magnetism) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancels out". You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth) when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving."

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?