New Science

[blochee]

But that's the entire point; the mass doesn't 'disappear', it becomes energy. If you consider the entire system including mass instead of just looking at energy (i.e. conservation of mass and energy, as I've already stated), then there's blatently no flaw to be pointed out.

 

You haven't taken gravitational potential energy into account.

[blochee]

When the water evaporates the gravitational potential energy also disappears as it turns to gas. Why atomic only?

 

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.

[YT2095]

and the energy required to lift this "log" comes from where?

[jordan]

Like YT said, the energy you are forgetting comes from lifting the log. The equation for Potential Energy of Gravity requires a height component because the work done to get it to that height is the "Potential Energy" you are exploiting later on. It is not just appearing. Now, if you found a way for the log to simply reappear at the top without any work being done on it, then ok, but you'll have a tough time finding one.

[blochee]

and the energy required to lift this "log" comes from where?

 

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

[jordan]

Sure, but where does the energy come from?

[YT2095]

no no no, you missed the point, what lifted the log up there in the FIRST PLACE to get dropped into the water?

[jordan]

The log was never lifted up and dropped in, it was placed at the bottom of the tank and allowed to float up.

[YT2095]

ok then, fair enough, HOW did the water get into the tank then, surely 500 meters tall of water takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to stack up so to speak, and just to make one log flot up that`s been chained to the bottom of the tank before filling hardly seems worth it?

 

oh yeah, and the missing energy comes from the amount of water you DIDN`T have to put in because the log displaced it making the tanks volume greater, so no, you still gain nothing

 

[edit] these laws are inviolable

[blochee]

ok then' date=' fair enough, HOW did the water get into the tank then, surely 500 meters tall of water takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to stack up so to speak, and just to make one log flot up that`s been chained to the bottom of the tank before filling hardly seems worth it?

 

oh yeah, and the missing energy comes from the amount of water you DIDN`T have to put in because the log displaced it making the tanks volume greater, so no, you still gain nothing

 

[edit'] these laws are inviolable

 

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.

[jordan]

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.

 

Do you have any calculations to back that up?

[swansont]

Well' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

How do you get the log into the bottom of the tank?

[blochee]

how do I delete this message?

[aman]

The log has to displace its volume in water and that takes an input of energy.

I tried an idea of rolling barrels down the side of a dam, putting them in a lock and opening it up to have them float up again. The water displacement problem is where the actual energy loss is encountered.

Just aman

[blochee]

How do you get the log into the bottom of the tank?

 

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.

[aman]

I don't know the efficiency of turbines but they generate massive power quickly.

This might be able to generate power more efficiently but on a smaller scale. The energy input would have to be minimized.

Its kinda like perpetual motion. I tried filling fifty gallon drums with water, rolling them down with chains, emptying them in the lock closing it and releasing them chained as they float up. It would work but is not perpetual which was what I was investigating years ago and has a net loss in efficiency. Good luck with your investigations

Just aman

[blochee]

Do you have any calculations to back that up?

 

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.

[aman]

I was considering whether there is a better return of energy having the water fall in drums the 500 ft, emptied, and air filled drums returning rather than logs. Was this more efficient than water discharged at 500 ft under pressure in the volume of a 50 gal drum. Wood is a constant density and I tried to maximize the gravitational energies. Thanks for the joules calculations since it makes it seem efficient but not practical even with thousands of logs or barrels.

Just aman

[swansont]

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.

 

The invention will never be practical. As I implied and Aman stated, you have to do work at some point in getting the log into the high-pressure end (i.e. bottom) of the device. Ignoring losses, that will be exactly the amount of energy you would recover from dropping it after it reached the top. With losses, it becomes a net work/energy sink. You heat the water up a little, and it makes noises. Whoopee.

[YT2095]

the amount of water you`re trying to displace with the log will be huge, and the greater the water pressure (a taller tank) the more work you`ll use to get the log into the bottom, because the water is trying to push it back out

[blochee]

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.

 

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.

[YT2095]

1-2-3 Propan Triol is a large molecule, so an ordinary porous pot material would work

[J'Dona]

"4) The water returns to tube A."

 

Hmmm... putting the water in again at the bottom still requires forcing it in at high pressure, because the high pressure water at the bottom of the tube will resist being pushed against by the entering water, whether it is a solid (like a log) or not. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do witht he original reason why the First Law of Thermodynamics could be wrong, that is, the loss of gravitational potential energy due to a loss of mass (though it seems to me that that extra energy the GP energy lost might just be expressed in the form of more kinetic energy in the reaction products). And if the law was wrong and energy could be destroyed, that doesn't necessarily mean that energy can be created as well (much like the Universe's entropy can decrease, but not increase).