Law of Energy Conservation...A ***** in the armour?

[navigator]

Stealth: Thanks for your input. I checked out your thread and the video, very interesting. The self running pump is exactly the sort of thing I am thinking, only using solid objects. It appears it could be improved upon, especially if the lower end of the turbine is passing through the water.

What if the turbine ran horizontally just above the water surface and the water was pumped from just below the surface, greatly lowering the height the water has to be pumped, wouldn't that lower the input wattage required to pump the water?



Ted: Wouldn't changing the nozzle diameter to gain more pressure also require more input to the pump?

What if you attached compound pendulums to the rim of the turbine, as you suggested in the sling effect thread? It would require some complex mechanics to get everything sychronized, but it would lower the required input once spinning.

What effect, if any, would increasing the diameter and number of paddles on the turbine have?

[MileHigh]

To navigator: Energy is constantly being converted from one form into another form. The last stop in the conversion process is typically heat. Almost any process you discuss around here will eventually turn all of the energy into heat energy. That is the way the universe works. You should try to visualize this process.

Both of the reservoirs loose gravitational potential energy because the water moves down through the gravity field. If you look at the simple non-turbine example, and assume that you have a pipe connecting the two reservoirs, here is what happens: When the water falls through the pipe, the friction between the pipe walls and the water generates heat. When the water exits the pipe at high velocity into the lower reservoir, that becomes heat. What is heat? It's molecules moving randomly, and the average velocity equates to the temperature. The water molecules exit the pipe at high velocity, and that energy is transferred into the water increasing the average velocity of the random movements, and that is effectively an increase in the temperature of the water.

I can assure you that your example is very well understood and demonstrates the conservation of energy and various conversion processes.

[Stealth]

As I see it, the only arguement for the conservation of energy is, that some forms of energy may be more efficient than others, otherwise it would be impossible to convert one type of energy to another, then back and gain energy. In an OU system the energy transfer has to be a gain to make a system OU in the first place. Only experimentation will prove this point. Good Luck. Stealth

[Ted Ewert]

Ted: Wouldn't changing the nozzle diameter to gain more pressure also require more input to the pump?

Changing the nozzle diameter would either increase or decrease water velocity. More or less pressure from the pump would also effect the velocity of the water, but these are two entirely different things. Bernoulli found that when velocity is increased, as in a nozzle, pressure is correspondingly decreased. If the pressure were constant, the increase in velocity would constitute a gain in total energy.
Modern science agrees with Mr Bernoulli and says that there is no net gain in this type of "conversion". That may be true in a narrow sense. However, in the real world, this increased velocity may be able to work for us and indeed provide some gain.

Ted

[navigator]

To navigator:

Both of the reservoirs loose gravitational potential energy because the water moves down through the gravity field. If you look at the simple non-turbine example, and assume that you have a pipe connecting the two reservoirs, here is what happens: When the water falls through the pipe, the friction between the pipe walls and the water generates heat. When the water exits the pipe at high velocity into the lower reservoir, that becomes heat. What is heat? It's molecules moving randomly, and the average velocity equates to the temperature. The water molecules exit the pipe at high velocity, and that energy is transferred into the water increasing the average velocity of the random movements, and that is effectively an increase in the temperature of the water.

Using your example, the water in the system with the 10 turbines would be hotter then, no?

If that much energy is being converted to heat, then the system with the 10 turbines would be much hotter. not only does it go through the same process you described 9x more than system A, it impacts 10 different turbines at its max KE.

So, theoretically we have developed a 3rd source of of PE system A did not.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, great stuff Navigator, your really thinking. So now to really put things over the edge, using another reservoir next to the one used with turbines, fill it with water with a large heavy float rising with the water level and when full heavy float is latched at top for later use as gravity powered generator. Now use the pressure in float reservoir to reach the top of the turbine reservoir and now the turbine reservoir is functioning and when finished we can extract energy from heavy float dropping attached to generator mechanisms. A pump is at bottom of turbine reservoir and pumping into top of float reservoir whenever needed to maintain pressure to top of turbine reservoir.
What ya folks think.
peace love light

[MileHigh]

> Using your example, the water in the system with the 10 turbines would be hotter then, no?

No, the water that ends up in lower reservoir will be cooler because it has less kinetic energy as compared to the non-turbine system.

Some of the water's kinetic energy goes into the turbines, leaving you with less available kinetic energy in the water to convert into heat energy.

[navigator]

Milehigh: When you say "ends up in lower reservoir." I interpet that to be PE, which is equal in both lower reservoirs, not KE. Nevertheless, it seems you have also forgotten the design, in which right above the surface of the lower reservoir the KE in the water is also = in both systems.

But to be honest with you, we have already went down this path, which tells me your marriage to the laws of physics have taken precedence and it would be best to just agree to disagree.

[navigator]

Skywatcher: I think its a great idea, your idea might be worth a try, it would only have to be 2 water tanks with a turbine in between and a floating weight in each tank. Thats three seperate sources of PE, enough to pump the water back up with a surplus???

After seeing the video in Stealths thread of the guy with the water pump turning nothing more than a paddle wheel it seems very possible.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Navigator, thanks, but its not my idea I just recall someone mentioning it online somewhere and thought it might go well with what your doing here.
peace love light

[MileHigh]

Navigator, I will agree to disagree, my final comments:

At risk of repeating myself, let me summarize it here below. I am using arbitrary units to illustrate the point.

1. Non turbine-system.

Start: Gravitational potential energy: 200 units. Water temp: 20 C

End: Gravitational potential energy: 100 units. Water temp: 22 C


2. Turbine system

Start: Gravitational potential energy: 200 units. Water temp: 20 C

End: Gravitational potential energy: 100 units. Water temp: 21 C, and some gravitational potential energy was transformed into kinetic energy which was then transformed into to turbine energy.

That is the energy trail audit in both cases and in both cases energy was conserved. Nice debating with you.

[Ted Ewert]

But to be honest with you, we have already went down this path, which tells me your marriage to the laws of physics have taken precedence and it would be best to just agree to disagree.

I don't think anyone on this forum is "married" to the present laws of physics or they wouldn't be here. We all realize that there are many more potential sources of energy available than commonly thought of.
Nevertheless, your arguments aren't making a lot of sense. You are claiming things that you offer no evidence for. You're playing with semantics, which isn't proving anything.
I'm not trying to discourage new ideas, but they have to be connected to a common language. They also have to hold up under scrutiny, which includes many accepted laws of physics which are perfectly valid.
Ultimately, it is up to you to do the experiments to prove your point. As they say, talk is cheap. Give us some concrete evidence to back up your claims. There is nothing like proof to silence your critics.

Cheers,

Ted

[navigator]

Ted: Sound advice, point taken.

Milehigh: That was a cheapshot you didn't deserve, for what its worth, I'm sorry.