This is very similar to my design in the gravity and displacement sense. However mine has no pulley system or counterweight. they are not needed. There is a very simple way around this and the resistance of water on the up stroke. Also, the parts to mine require much less supervision and maintenance. Maybe I will make a video to explain it. I am just a bit afraid to let it out without it being protected. But since YouTube will date it for me I just might. P.S. electric is just one benefit.
Using a double gearing system and a spring that will rewind itself you can make a bike go perpetually. Also you can make a lever like structure to make it go without anyone pumping it
Does anyone out there believe this could be used for say pumping air into pistons?
I couldn't see how this would work but then you added a MAGNET, it all makes sense now... everyone knows a perpetual motion machine needs one or more magnets arranged in a special way...
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
REAL Free energy technology exists!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be part of the revolution!
This is so great. Of course it will work, should you be able to maintain air pressure in the tank while sqeezing it!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe how lame some people are. Reminds of some though.
I have done a lot of work on opening reservoirs under water, to give you a rough idea for every square centimetre there is a water pressure of one kilogram of compression force so how big is the reservoir? and how much force would be required to open it? ask your local diving centre for a water pressure chart. Check out my channel it on the same lines.
You might want to google "simanek buoyancy". You will see that your design is an old one and has been extensively analyzed. And sorry, it won't work.
But of course you could always prove me wrong, just by building it and showing it working. It's simple enough, after all. But calculations based on incorrect physics, and simulations on software, aren't going to convince anybody.
Sigh. All the work in this system comes from raising and lowering the WATER volume that is equivalent to the change in volume of your tank. When your tank magically expands at the bottom, what happens is that the upper level of the water must rise. At this moment you are lifting that mass of water all the way up in the tank. That's where your work goes. The pulley system adds friction. The statement that the sinking weight is frictionless is, shall we say, impossible. Water has viscosity!
"This" implies i agree with whoever or whatever i'm referring to, namely you, idiot. Seriously, sometimes people know so much yet are so dumb, wtf is up with that.
@TinselKoala yes you are right about lifting the water at the bottom of the water tank but this is like a separate system your input force to compress the air is equal to the output force at the bottom of the tank to raise the water but what i am saying is that you can cancel both of those out since they equal each other and whats left is the movement of the air tank up and down using only gravity and buoyancy. this may not work as a machine but the concept is what im wanting to get across.
@blackjeffrey1 you are right but if you have enough pressure stored up in the tank at the bottom to lift the water, then the forces are conserved. So the force it takes to compress the air is conserved when the air is released but the movement of the tank up and down in the water is caused by the force of buoyancy and gravity. which is a separate system of conservation over energy, the compression of the air and release of the air from the tank is not directly related to the movement of the tank
@davethehunter2 No, the 2 forces are different, and thus they are not conserved. It takes a lessor force and less energy to compress the air, than you get from decompressing it.
To counter this, you will need to have the tank still pressurised when it is on the surface, this means it will require more force to compress it, meaning you will need to make the system deeper, meaning you will need more force and so on ad infinatum.
@davethehunter2 P.S. the pressure in the tank is directly related to the movement of the tank, the upwards movement of the tank is required to compress the air, the amount of compression is related to the depth it will fall.
iv studied it for a long time and have done test on small co2 tanks and they sink. it could sink for miles under the water and float back to the surface by its self but the work being done when its sinking is by gravity. the input just doesnt = the output when all the forces add up. its greater
Boyancy greate less energy than compressin air need's (maybe only 50%) It does not gretate one full cycle.
RutinaRottis 1 week ago
This is very similar to my design in the gravity and displacement sense. However mine has no pulley system or counterweight. they are not needed. There is a very simple way around this and the resistance of water on the up stroke. Also, the parts to mine require much less supervision and maintenance. Maybe I will make a video to explain it. I am just a bit afraid to let it out without it being protected. But since YouTube will date it for me I just might. P.S. electric is just one benefit.
poconopits 3 months ago
Using a double gearing system and a spring that will rewind itself you can make a bike go perpetually. Also you can make a lever like structure to make it go without anyone pumping it
Does anyone out there believe this could be used for say pumping air into pistons?
musicbill123 8 months ago
I couldn't see how this would work but then you added a MAGNET, it all makes sense now... everyone knows a perpetual motion machine needs one or more magnets arranged in a special way...
OtagoMark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
despinapjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REAL Free energy technology exists!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be part of the revolution!
urgencyharviefcem 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop these
information. If you want a Free energy machine , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
glennjgd 1 year ago
nobody remembers the law of conservation of energy...?. there is a leak in every system. unless your in a black hole of course.
jaymcd84 1 year ago 2
@jaymcd84 lol i dont understand what your trying to say
davethehunter2 1 year ago
This is so great. Of course it will work, should you be able to maintain air pressure in the tank while sqeezing it!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe how lame some people are. Reminds of some though.
freekeyet 2 years ago
I have done a lot of work on opening reservoirs under water, to give you a rough idea for every square centimetre there is a water pressure of one kilogram of compression force so how big is the reservoir? and how much force would be required to open it? ask your local diving centre for a water pressure chart. Check out my channel it on the same lines.
tevwhat 3 years ago 4
You might want to google "simanek buoyancy". You will see that your design is an old one and has been extensively analyzed. And sorry, it won't work.
But of course you could always prove me wrong, just by building it and showing it working. It's simple enough, after all. But calculations based on incorrect physics, and simulations on software, aren't going to convince anybody.
TinselKoala 3 years ago
Sigh. All the work in this system comes from raising and lowering the WATER volume that is equivalent to the change in volume of your tank. When your tank magically expands at the bottom, what happens is that the upper level of the water must rise. At this moment you are lifting that mass of water all the way up in the tank. That's where your work goes. The pulley system adds friction. The statement that the sinking weight is frictionless is, shall we say, impossible. Water has viscosity!
TinselKoala 3 years ago 2
@TinselKoala this
Doppe1ganger 1 year ago
@Doppe1ganger
This what? Cat got your tongue? This will never work? WHAT ????
TinselKoala 1 year ago
@TinselKoala
"This" implies i agree with whoever or whatever i'm referring to, namely you, idiot. Seriously, sometimes people know so much yet are so dumb, wtf is up with that.
Doppe1ganger 1 year ago
@TinselKoala yes you are right about lifting the water at the bottom of the water tank but this is like a separate system your input force to compress the air is equal to the output force at the bottom of the tank to raise the water but what i am saying is that you can cancel both of those out since they equal each other and whats left is the movement of the air tank up and down using only gravity and buoyancy. this may not work as a machine but the concept is what im wanting to get across.
davethehunter2 1 year ago
@davethehunter2 No, it isn't. Water is more dense at the bottom and thus requires more force to expand the box than it does to close it.
blackjeffrey1 3 months ago
@blackjeffrey1 you are right but if you have enough pressure stored up in the tank at the bottom to lift the water, then the forces are conserved. So the force it takes to compress the air is conserved when the air is released but the movement of the tank up and down in the water is caused by the force of buoyancy and gravity. which is a separate system of conservation over energy, the compression of the air and release of the air from the tank is not directly related to the movement of the tank
davethehunter2 3 months ago
@davethehunter2 No, the 2 forces are different, and thus they are not conserved. It takes a lessor force and less energy to compress the air, than you get from decompressing it.
To counter this, you will need to have the tank still pressurised when it is on the surface, this means it will require more force to compress it, meaning you will need to make the system deeper, meaning you will need more force and so on ad infinatum.
blackjeffrey1 3 months ago
@davethehunter2 P.S. the pressure in the tank is directly related to the movement of the tank, the upwards movement of the tank is required to compress the air, the amount of compression is related to the depth it will fall.
blackjeffrey1 3 months ago
Dave,
There is something you must know : there is an abyss betwen theory, simulation, AND reality.
You think you hae a good idea ?
==> build it in the real world. There you will see if it is yet a good idea...
Good luck !
BlueManCa.
bluemanca 3 years ago
iv studied it for a long time and have done test on small co2 tanks and they sink. it could sink for miles under the water and float back to the surface by its self but the work being done when its sinking is by gravity. the input just doesnt = the output when all the forces add up. its greater
davethehunter2 3 years ago