Hidro- is a Hydrodynamic Cycle Techn

[wayne.ct]

Go Bottle Rockets....

Once Ash has signed the NDA, he must honor it. I have not signed any NDA and I have not seen the actual device, I can propose any theory I want.

...



Since I have not signed any NDA, I can disclose my understanding without any fear of any lawsuit.

In my opinion, you are on sound legal ground. I hope Ash responds to me. I think he is needlessly fearful. Somehow these people have scared him. If you come to Atlanta I would like to meet you.

As to the rocket idea, I believe you are correct in saying the effect is on the side of the ascending bouyant capsule. The source of energy is the compressed air. The energy can be recaptured as the capsule ascends. A demonstration project would be required to provide a proof of concept. A full theoretic explaination would include all the factors you mention.

...

OK, I broke away and read the physics paper. Cool. Adiabatics ... Getting energy from converting water vapor to liquid state is an idea I had not considered recently. I can't actually remember ever thinking of water vapor as an energy source. But, this is the perfect forum in which to consider it out loud.

Evaporative cooling, yeah, we've all heard of that. Right? The more I think about it, the more I like it. The capsule ascends, pressure decreases. Vapor turns to liquid. Energy is released, etc. So, we have a possible second source of energy. OU, here we come!

There is a problem with that thought, however. As pressure decreases the liquid should turn to vapor, not the other way around. Oops.

[ltseung888]

In my opinion, you are on sound legal ground. I hope Ash responds to me. I think he is needlessly fearful. Somehow these people have scared him. If you come to Atlanta I would like to meet you.

As to the rocket idea, I believe you are correct in saying the effect is on the side of the ascending bouyant capsule. The source of energy is the compressed air. The energy can be recaptured as the capsule ascends. A demonstration project would be required to provide a proof of concept. A full theoretic explaination would include all the factors you mention.

...

OK, I broke away and read the physics paper. Cool. Adiabatics ... Getting energy from converting water vapor to liquid state is an idea I had not considered recently. I can't actually remember ever thinking of water vapor as an energy source. But, this is the perfect forum in which to consider it out loud.

Evaporative cooling, yeah, we've all heard of that. Right? The more I think about it, the more I like it. The capsule ascends, pressure decreases. Vapor turns to liquid. Energy is released, etc. So, we have a possible second source of energy. OU, here we come!

There is a problem with that thought, however. As pressure decreases the liquid should turn to vapor, not the other way around. Oops.

Please read the Paper carefully. The water vapor on the bottle appears to be condensation! This means that the soda bottle has a temperature much colder than the surrounding. The moisture in the surrounding air then condenses on the soda bottle.

The same effect happens when you start with a clean, room temperature glass. You then pour ice water to it. There will be condensation or moisture on the outside of the glass. The condensation is evidence of cooler temperature at the surface of the glass.

When we see condensation on the soda bottle (inside or outside), we see evidence of cooler temperature!

[Cherryman]

Water rocket calculators

Here are two water rocket calculators, it might come in handy.

Water Rocket Simulation - Clifford Heath

Water Rocket Simulator | ScienceBits

[ltseung888]

The Hidro uses rocket science!

Here are two water rocket calculators, it might come in handy.

Water Rocket Results

Water Rocket Simulator | ScienceBits

If you want to know the complexity, read the equations page.
Water Propelled Rocket | ScienceBits

The Hidro uses rocket science! Energy Input is from both Epump and Eair_in. The temperature of the rocket dropped. Energy Ethermal has been taken from the rocket and components.

The Hidro is an OPEN system. Air flows in and out. Air is not a fuel but an energy carrier. We must include the Eair_in and Ethermal terms in any energy analysis.

@Cherryman, thanks for digging up the information.

I personally would leave James Kwok and team to continue their brilliant engineering. My focus will be on multiple LCR circuits in sympathetic vibrations – leading out electron motion energy. I have the FLEET standing waves to guide me.

The water has been turned to wine. Many servers start to appear. Amen.

[wayne.ct]

Rocket Question

I submit that there is no nozzle or focus of the expelled water from the cylinder or capsule. This does not fit my mental picture of a rocket. This does not work for me, at least. I agree that all the relevant known forces need to be considered. And, a numerical incremental calculation process will be more instructive than assuming a closed system and conservation of energy.

Hopefully, someone with a similar interest will help me develop a spreadsheet along the lines I suggested above. I disagree that the cost of a physical model is out of reach cost wise. I think it is a reasonable task that could be accomplished with a few thousand USD and probably much less with a little added creativity.

One needs to do a bit of engineering, however, to get the sizes in the right ballpark. I don't intend to develop this alone. I have other things to do. I can offer to help someone else or perhaps partner in the project.

[Roland]

Since my last post I have done more reading on Hidro. Ashtweth started this thread but since he has actually seen the Hidro device he knows a lot of stuff he can't tell because he is under an NDA. Shame on you, Ash. You cannot contribute to open knowledge because you have been compromised. To gain personal knowledge you have signed an NDA. You can't talk because you fear you will be pursued by Hidro. Or perhaps, you hope for some personal gain. Whatever, you have taken a dive, in my opinion. You are on the side of the greedy corporations. Please feel free to defend yourself.

I won't sign any NDA, God willing. I will do my own research and I will do my own thinking. And, I will do my own experiments. This forum has other members that have also compomised their integrity, in my opinion. Still, if this is real, it will be easy enough to prove and demonstrate.

Damed if he does, damed if he does not.

This Hidro may have gone completely dismissed if Ash had not investigated. As it stands, even with he investigation most still question it's validity. Before Ash's reviewe, i for one put Hidro in my "probable a scam" file. So im glad that at least someone with a reputation steps up to investigate with or without NDA.

I dont believe anyone ever wants to sign a NDA. So i for one give him a .

[ltseung888]

Damed if he does, damed if he does not.

This Hidro may have gone completely dismissed if Ash had not investigated. As it stands, even with he investigation most still question it's validity. Before Ash's reviewe, i for one put Hidro in my "probable a scam" file. So im glad that at least someone with a reputation steps up to investigate with or without NDA.

I dont believe anyone ever wants to sign a NDA. So i for one give him a .

Agreed. I would not have done any study on Hidro if Ash had not bought it up. It was fun for me. The first time I played with the water rocket was over 50 years ago!

James Kwok and team must have experimented with compressed air and the control of the air and water valves. It is logical that they ejected water out downwards to provide the vertical thrust. They might have turned the water valve off before the air valve. That would have allowed stronger compressed air to propel the submarine container. They then turned the water valve on again to provide the propulsion. They did not quote this fact in their literature. The likely reason is that they do not want competition at this point. The average person may just use the buoyancy aspects and never understand the real mechanism. Ash may know this fact but once he signed the NDA, he has to let somebody else to point out that fact.

My gut feel is that their device is not ready for market yet. In the interview, Ash mentioned that the demonstration was stopped after 30 minutes because the flywheel might burn out the generator. James Kwok and team might not have mastered the pulse rotation wheel technique yet. They need to read the Tong wheel thread and the toranarod threads. Short pulse at the exact time is critical . Use of a flywheel may be detrimental as I found with the Tong wheel! We need the pulsing – NOT constant rotation!

[wayne.ct]

Replication

I honestly think Hidro may be a hoax, but I am willing to keep an open mind. The rocket formulae clearly have the weight of science behind them. I know a bit of physics. I studied it as an undergraduate.

Nobody wants to spend time and money on a replication if they don't believe it will work. They would at least have to have hope it will work. Give me a reason to have hope.

Back to earlier comments.... All Ash has done is revive the conversation and quote from Hidro's website. Has he REALLY expressed his opinion? Is he dropping everything to produce a replication? No. That is not the feeling I get. Here you have an eye witness that is TOTALLY unenthusiastic. It looks dead on arrival.

Overall, there is NO BIG PUSH to replicate or prove this idea. It looks like another back-burner, to me.

[wayne.ct]

Spreadsheet

Ok, I started a spreadsheet but I can't attach it because the forum won't let me upload the xls or zip formats. So, you can see a pdf version. Take a look at it and offer me your feedback and critical comments.

It looks like a 1 hp air compressor would be more than enough to put up to 1 CFM of compresses air in the bottom of a 45 foot tall water tank at least once per minute. The water pressure at that depth would be less than 20 psig and the air compressor could probably run up to 100 psig. This would provide more than 50 pounds of bouyancy in a 2 cu. ft. tank to get the machine in motion.

I have not finished my calculations, at this point. I'll do some more later when I have a bit of time.

[ltseung888]

Calculated results based on the water rocket

Parameters

Bottle Volume 2000 cc
Diameter 110 mm
Water Fill 800 cc
Launch Pressure 345 Kpa (50 PSI, 3.40 Bar)
Nozzle diameter 22.0 mm
Nozzle viscous losses 0.16
Dry mass 100.0 grams
Coefficient of drag 0.30
Initial Velocity 0.0 m/s
Launch Tube length 0.0 mm
Launch Tube diameter 22.0 mm
Results
Launch and thrust phase
Initial thrust 240.5N
Initial burn acceleration 257.4 m/s2 (26.2G)
Average acceleration 409.0 m/s2 (41.7G)
Burnout
Burnout after 102 milliseconds
Burnout Velocity 41.7 m/s (150.3 kmh, 93.4mph)
Burnout Altitude 1.7 metres (5.5 feet)
Burnout acceleration 797.2 (81.3G)
Drag force at burnout 2.0 newton (0.2kgf)
Deceleration due to drag 2.0G
Speed increase due to air pulse 3.0m/s
Coast
Drag-free coast 88.8 metres to apogee at 90.5 metres after 4.4 seconds
Actual apogee at 42.11 metres (138.2 feet) after 2.66 seconds
Crashdown
Crashdown speed 20.9 m/s (75.4 kmh, 46.8mph)
Total flight time 5.95 seconds

I used the Water Rocket Simulation program and put in a pressure of 50psi and got the above results. I can lower that to 30psi and still get height greater than 15 meters (28.42). The other values are left unchanged.
Water Rocket Simulation - Clifford Heath

Note that the resulting height for 50psi is 42.11 meters. With the Water Rocket, the main force limiting its height is gravity. In the Hidro, the main force is buoyancy helping it to float higher!

The actual Hidro Tower is only 15 meters. There is much room for James Kwok and team to tune. Thus if the soda bottle rocket theory and experiments are correct, applying them to the Hidro will yield results far better than what James Kwok and team have achieved.

I am sure that the Hidro is NOT a hoax. The debunkers are not rocket scientists.

[ashtweth]

Since my last post I have done more reading on Hidro. Ashtweth started this thread but since he has actually seen the Hidro device he knows a lot of stuff he can't tell because he is under an NDA. Shame on you, Ash. You cannot contribute to open knowledge because you have been compromised. To gain personal knowledge you have signed an NDA. You can't talk because you fear you will be pursued by Hidro. Or perhaps, you hope for some personal gain. Whatever, you have taken a dive, in my opinion. You are on the side of the greedy corporations. Please feel free to defend yourself.

I won't sign any NDA, God willing. I will do my own research and I will do my own thinking. And, I will do my own experiments. This forum has other members that have also compomised their integrity, in my opinion. Still, if this is real, it will be easy enough to prove and demonstrate.

It appears the patents pending relate to the "high viscosity air transfer pump" which may solve certain "problems" but may in fact be non-essential to the operation of the device. If that seems obvious to me, perhaps someone else can confirm it.

If somone reading this can help, I would like answers to a few questions concerning the physics and engineering calculations.

1. Assuming a water tank that is say 40 feet tall, containing a two tanks of say 2 cubic feet capacity. Assume the tanks are fastened to some kind of conveyer chain. Say the upper extreme of travel is at the 38 ft mark and the lower extreme of travel is at the 3 ft mark. Say the tank is 1 ft tall and is at the lower extreme of travel. The tank is full of water and you want to replace the water with compressed air. What is the water pressure at that depth? How much compressed air is needed? How much time will it take to replace the water with air? What size valves and tubing would you need to replace the 2 cu. ft. in say 1 second? How bouyant would the tank be before and after? How much potential energy would be transferred to the tank by this action? How much force would the bouyant tank exert on the chain mechanism?

2. How would you size the air compressor system? How much energy would it consume to deliver the required volume of air? You need a few more input variables to do the calculations. Say the trip from the bottom to top or top to bottom takes 60 seconds. That would be 35 feet in 60 seconds or about 6 inches per second.

3. As long as I am the engineering professor handing out questions, let me tell you how I want you to turn in your answers. Please create a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format that allows the constants given above to be changed so verious combinations can be evaluated and compared. Kindly upload your spreadsheets to this thread.

I feel better getting this out in the open. Good luck, and happy calculating...

Wayne, i am a respected worker in this field and non profit plus i do every thing i can and its more than you,, you are some one who has nothing to contribute or makes any sense. You are not worth even a post report, but should be displayed to show others how to use their time objectively. You do have some purpose. Its minor in contribution here. I dont need you however.

Hidro would not talk to you, you not only have no clue but have nothing to help, who the hell even needs to acknowledge you? Try again mate. Good luck, try and be useful so far 0 out of 10

Ashtweth

[ltseung888]

Wayne, i am a respected worker in this field and non profit plus i do every thing i can and its more than you,, you are some one who has nothing to contribute or makes any sense. You are not worth even a post report, but should be displayed to show others how to use their time objectively. You do have some purpose. Its minor in contribution here. I dont need you however.

Hidro would not talk to you, you not only have no clue but have nothing to help, who the hell even needs to acknowledge you? Try again mate. Good luck, try and be useful so far 0 out of 10

Ashtweth

Dear Ash,

I talked to my United Nations Contacts about Hidro. I used the soda bottle water rocket example to impress them.

The preliminary comment was:
“I do not believe simple buoyancy can achieve the claimed results – snapping a thick cable. But if it is rocket science, I shall look into it.”

At least one team from United Nations will investigate Hidro in greater detail. They will travel to Hong Kong to meet some “Bring-in” energy researchers and academics on a proposed seminar/workshop. I shall participate via Skype from USA. I am sure that they will discuss the Hidro technology in great length. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Travelling to Australia or asking one of their experts in Australia to visit James Kwok would not be a problem for them. I shall keep you posted on their progress.

Lawrence

[quantumuppercut]

Grrrgggg.... The ideal COP for this device should be 2. The company claims the energy input is 30% lower than output. That should tells us 100 output and 70 input. 20 are equipment and ineffiency losses.

[wayne.ct]

I bow to the high and mighty

Wayne, i am a respected worker in this field and non profit plus i do every thing i can and its more than you,, you are some one who has nothing to contribute or makes any sense. You are not worth even a post report, but should be displayed to show others how to use their time objectively. You do have some purpose. Its minor in contribution here. I dont need you however.

Hidro would not talk to you, you not only have no clue but have nothing to help, who the hell even needs to acknowledge you? Try again mate. Good luck, try and be useful so far 0 out of 10

Ashtweth

Bully bully for you, matey.

[Roland]

Hi Lawance
Im not sure where the idea that the Hidro uses compressed air as a propellant also, to aid in moving the ______ buoy? I not saying you are wrong, I just cant think of a single example of a underwater rocket working efficiently. The energy required for that extra push may have very diminished returns. I'm no authority on the subject but it would seem that the extra air pressure needed to go from buoyancy alone, to buoyancy plus propellant would be a waste in a underwater environment. that extra air could be better used for a second _________buoy. When i look at torpedoes, submarines and the like, they don't appear to react well to propellant underwater. That is to say the same energy used on a boat will move mass much more efficiently.

On the other hand, a buoyant object seems like it would move very efficiently in the underwater environment. It even seems that maximum/terminal velocity of a buoyant object underwater is achieved very quickly, almost instantly.

I would like to know the deference in the speed a buoyant object would travel at 15 meters of depth vs 1 meter of depth. I assume it would reduce speed as it comes closer to the surface but i think it would be minimum difference?


That said, i have no idea what else in a device like described here, to snap a wire cable (1000lbs cable or so?) Just thinking out loud.