HANSCHETI Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I came across a website www.lhup.edu which shows how and why many models will not work. Initially i read and left the webpage but later while thinking i thought what if we can achieve the position as mentioned in the website Buoyancy motor #1This seems to be impossible but what if we can keep the liquid in "j" shape one in the colour image will it be able to generate electricity.reference:http://jshapeliquid.blogspot.in/https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#buoy1 Edited January 7, 2015 by HANSCHETI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 How would you keep the fluid in that shape, in an open container? Free energy is not possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 will it be able to generate electricity. It is a not a good idea to blur the text like that some of us can hardly read it. No it will not be able to generate electricity, but you might be able to contrive to keep the liquid in the J shape using electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Tilt? Still no free energy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikehanson Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Unless you have something on the left hand side of the U shaped container keeping the fluid down in place, the fluid on the left will rise and the fluid on the right will fall. In the end the fluid will end up at equal levels on both sides of the U. In your blog you say that you can keep the fluid in the J shape, but its a secret. Well, what's your "secret"? If you could keep the fluid in the J shape that's the real accomplishment. Edited January 8, 2015 by mikehanson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you could keep the fluid in the J shape that's the real accomplishment. You can using ferrofluid but it would be such a waste of ferrofluid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikehanson Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes. If the liquid is a ferrofluid and if there is a magnet on the right hand side, then the liquid could be held in the J shape. However, there would still be the same problem with the overall design as with a non ferrofluid liquid in the "John Phin" design. Pressure increases with depth. The buoyant force on the string of balls in the column of fluid does create a tendency for the system to turn counterclockwise. However, it is not enough to overcome the resistance to getting the next ball in at the bottom of the column of fluid. Even if the fluid is a ferrofluid and held in the J shape due to magnetic attraction, within the column of ferrofluid pressure still increases with depth. The ferrofluid above is still resting on the ferrofluid below (otherwise it would fall down to where the fluid below is). And this creates a greater and greater pressure down the length of the column of ferrofluid just as with a non ferrofluid fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HANSCHETI Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) hi every one i agree its not possible to keep liquid in J Shape in open container @mikehanson even i want to disclose the idea to get better discussion for the idea but i am sorry ok just for the discussion point if we use two different density liquid say mercury and water and SOME HOW i mean ASSUMING if the Left hand side water is keeping mercury in j shape(I PLEASE REQUEST YOU TO ASSUME IT DOES) then.... i really regret this impossible assumption but if this is possible then will the string heavier then water and lighter then mercury rotate...... Pleased see Assumed Model Edited January 8, 2015 by HANSCHETI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 hi every one i agree its not possible to keep liquid in J Shape in open container But on your website you say: "Exactly how it does is secret but, it is possible." if we use two different density liquid say mercury and water and SOME HOW i mean ASSUMING if the Left hand side water is keeping mercury in j shape(I PLEASE REQUEST YOU TO ASSUME IT DOES) There is no point requesting people to assume the impossible. What your argument comes down to is: if you can do something impossible, then you cam make an impossible machine work. I think this is what is commonly known as "magic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HANSCHETI Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 @Strange I agree i said its possible but have to change the model a bit since i cannot disclose it i request you to assume till then..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You could have the liquid J shaped if there were something in the other leg of the tube holding it in place- compressed air, or another liquid would do it. However to do that would stop the system "working" Equally, you could set the system up in zero gravity. Again, this would stop it working. In general, there is no way to make this system produce electricity (other than very briefly). The general reason is called the conservation of energy. It stops any and all "free energy" systems working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikehanson Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you're in the United States you can get a provisional patent for 65 dollars. And you don't need to hire an attorney to file the proper paper work. You can do it yourself. (And if you can't figure out the file it using the government web site there are also several web sites that will help you file for a provisional patent for an extra fee.) This gives you a one year protection of your idea and so allows you to tell other people about your idea without the fear of them stealing it. If it's a good idea (if other's cannot find the flaw in your proposal) then at any time during that year you can then spend the greater about of money to hire an attorney and file for a regular patent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Or, if you wish to patent a "free energy" idea, you can simply set fire to your money. It's quicker & easier, and the outcome is the same. The conservation of energy isn't just observed to be true, it's proven to be true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikehanson Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Actually you can never prove a theory is true. What you can do is show it is more and more and more likely to be true. (You can prove a theory is false. And it only takes one experimentally demonstrated exception to do this.) I doubt his "secret" will make this old known flawed perpetual motion machine work. But why not see what he thinks he's got? Edited January 9, 2015 by mikehanson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HANSCHETI Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 HI EVERY ONE I AM SORRY IF I HAVE UPSET YOU ALL I am not in USA i am in india and i ties making a small model but like i said in earlier post using mercury and water, water is available but pure mercury is very expensive and waste mercury is very hard to find because of toxic nature any ways will try make a model first and then discuss. lets see where i can find mercury thank you very much for your valued feedback and precious time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I AM SORRY IF I HAVE UPSET YOU ALL I am sure you have not upset anybody. But thanks for your concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Actually you can never prove a theory is true. What you can do is show it is more and more and more likely to be true. (You can prove a theory is false. And it only takes one experimentally demonstrated exception to do this.) I doubt his "secret" will make this old known flawed perpetual motion machine work. But why not see what he thinks he's got? Guess again. It's a mathematical proof, rather than a scientific one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now