this also wont work, because at 0:22 tube will simply wont open. the same capillary that forced water into the tube will act like a glue, prevent water from leaving the tube. to push water out u will need the same amount of energy that u gained.
i think it is related to potential fields. gravity, attraction of molecules(which is basis of capillary effect), magnetic fields are all potential fields. it means that it is a zero sum game.
@efrow Assume for a moment that the water cools down by a small amount, and that the energy transfer from the water's temperature is what permits the motion of this experiment. It would then still be a zero sum game, but the motion would take place, no?
This guy has no Mechanical mind at all.. Every single one of these vids will not work, And he always thinks water just jumps from the ground to the roof when u stick a single tube in it lol.. all ur doing is displacing the water a bit. not moving it nearly enough to climb to the top of a tube with any reasonable length to even work. Uggg. Un-Educated Ideas just make more Un-Educated ideas. Ideas with actual science backing them tend to work.
@AmericanExpresss I'm getting the impression that you don't know what capillary tubes are. I suggest a search, even on YouTube, regarding capillarity. For example, there is a video of a capillary experiment done in space. As we deal more and more with nano technologies, knowledge about capillary forces will become more important.
@AmericanExpresss Why are you being soo rude with him ?! As I read your comments that you wrote on his videos, you're the one that seems ignoring Jurin's physic law. He never mentioned "Perpetual Motion" And soo what if he does ? at least he keeps trying and being creative. He seems much more educated than you because his videos have logical principe combined togetter. Why discouraging people to find free energy instead of encouraging them ? Keep up the work adanieltorres (Y)
Nice idea but it wouldn't work because the diameter of the tube would have to be very small for the water to rise that far which would mean the amount of water in the tube would not be enough to even form a drop so it wouldn't pour out like in the animation. On such small scales, surface tension is an important consideration that your animation does not take into account. Besides, you would have built a perpetual motion machine, which is not possible.
@llichtveld I'm glad you like the idea. As with the other video, soome lingering doubts remain, in particular the possibility of using a hydrophobic coating on parts of the tube to get the water to form smaller drops, or drops that drip more easily. Also, perhaps different kinds of liquids could be used. Again, I point out, there is no claim to break any laws of physics. If there exists a combination of parameters that work, the energy would be having to come from somewhere... the water?
@adanieltorres The problem with a hydrophobic coating is that it is the water's affinity for the surface of the tube, combined with the surface tension of the source water, that causes it to enter the tube. A hydrophobic coating would cause the water to stop where the coating starts. You are right that if it worked the energy would have to come from somewhere, but the water contains only heat energy and unless your machine, through its actions, transfers this heat to the air, it won't work.
@llichtveld Like I said, hydrophobic coating could be used in *parts* of it. If you mix a hard material with soft material, you sometimes get an even harder material (e.g., steel by adding carbon). In this case, the top that opens may have nano sized points of hydrophobia, for example. The machine, by moving the air, or by making sound when it bumps, is necessarily transferring heat to the air, for example. But going further, your paradigm of heat transfer is countered with planetary motion.
@adanieltorres When it bumps it is only transferring kinetic energy, not heat energy. Anyway, it is irrelevant, there already exist engines that can extract energy from slight temperature differences (sterling engine) and I don't think that was the purpose behind your idea. You were dealing with extracting energy from capillary action, but that is not possible because it takes the same amount of energy to pull the water out of the tube as it took to get it in there.
@llichtveld You seem to have your decision and are only making arguments that lead to it, ignoring the ones that don't. Are you suggesting that by water going up a capillary tube, not heat energy is changed to kinetic? And that by moving the air in the container, the tube is not causing any friction? And that by bumping to a stop, no heat is produced in the tube itself, the bumper, or the air? That the sound waves are produced with free energy? I'm sure not. So, energy is coming from...
Interestingly enough, it is. Think of a man falling on an already taut bungee cord: the reason he falls against the pull of the bungee is that the pull of gravity is stronger. His gravitational potential energy (GPE) is exchanged for energy stored as tension in the bungee, and also for energy stored in him as kinetic energy. Eventually the bungee pulls hard enough to arrest his fall, but as you correctly observed he still has the energy of movement.
@LotsOMovies I'm missing something. If I hold the capillary tube so that it fills but does not drop, there is not kinetic energy, only GPE. When I let go, the tube drops, picking up Kinetic Energy (KE) as it loses GPE. The water in the tube should not gain or lose any Electrostatic Energy (EE) from this. When the tube hits the stopper, if the KE is greater than the EE holding the tube together, the tube should open, If it opens, the water spills, the tube goes back, fills, etc.. Right?
The water sticks the separating portions of the tube together pretty strongly. I bet that experimenting with this concept will show that making the bottom half of the tube heavy enough to split open would make it too heavy to be lifted by the water in the solid section of the tube on the other side of the fulcrum.
@LotsOMovies That's my fear, too. :) What I'm imagining, though, is maximizing the inertia of the swing, so that it is mostly the momentum of the water itself that causes the opening of the tube. One could also minimize the strength with which the water adheres to the top portion, by making the top narrower, perhaps, or lessening its adhesive properties.
@LotsOMovies Yes, but could there exist a happy medium in which the top is adhering enough that capillarity is not lost, yet as little adhering as possible that the bottom is able to break away from it?
@adanieltorres My guess would be no, there cannot exist such a happy medium. Feel free to experiment with it, of course. My guess comes from the very premise of this thought experiment: production of an oscillating motion that can continue indefinitely without input, and the impossibility of producing such an oscillation.
@LotsOMovies I wouldn't think it would be "without input"; I imagine the possibility of the energy for the oscillation coming from the water, so its temperature would diminish.
@adanieltorres Assuming for a moment that the temperature decrease can indeed be made to affect an oscillation in the system (see thermoacoustic devices), there would need to be something driving the temperature change. If what you envision is a system at a stable temperature equal to its environment, and then the water begins to decrease in temperature to below its environment, such a system defies reality.
@LotsOMovies Where does the energy come from to get water to rise in a capillary tube? I can only hypothesize that the temperature of the water decreases a slight amount when it climbs. Do you see it coming from anywhere else? As to the temperature of the evironment, for the purposese of this thought experiment I'm assuming a perfect container with no energy transfer to/from the outside, which implies that the water would freeze at some point, thus ending the oscillation.
@adanieltorres The rise of water appears to be useful work, because it is contrary to the pull of gravity, but it allows the water to enter a lower energy state. The gravitational potential energy increases, but the electrostatic potential energy (as it is the electrostatic forces between the water molecules that drives capillary action) decreases in proportion, which is why capillary action is spontaneous, and there does not need to be an external source of energy.
@LotsOMovies Hmmm. Hadn't thought of it that way. Yet motion is created from the water rising at the beginning to the first time it hits. That energy must have come from somewhere, so it cannot simply be an exchange of gravitational potential energy for electrostatic potential energy, can it?
@adanieltorres (continued) In the example of the man with the bungee, the kinetic energy is pretty huge, because he has fallen a great distance while being accelerated by gravity. When he reaches the end of the bungee the extra stretch to absorb his kinetic energy is also huge. With capillary action, the kinetic energy of the water is quite minimal, so the period of time in which the water overshoots its final height in the tube is unnoticably small, but the same interplay of energy is at work.
Why not think of an idea using osmotic pressure??? Sea (salt) water and River (not salt) water. I'm a membrane specialist. I know all of this.
CarlosWever 8 months ago
@CarlosWever Ooooh! Awesome suggestion. Now I won't be able to sleep well until I come up with something. I love it. Thanks.
adanieltorres 8 months ago
this also wont work, because at 0:22 tube will simply wont open. the same capillary that forced water into the tube will act like a glue, prevent water from leaving the tube. to push water out u will need the same amount of energy that u gained.
i think it is related to potential fields. gravity, attraction of molecules(which is basis of capillary effect), magnetic fields are all potential fields. it means that it is a zero sum game.
efrow 9 months ago
@efrow Assume for a moment that the water cools down by a small amount, and that the energy transfer from the water's temperature is what permits the motion of this experiment. It would then still be a zero sum game, but the motion would take place, no?
adanieltorres 9 months ago
This guy has no Mechanical mind at all.. Every single one of these vids will not work, And he always thinks water just jumps from the ground to the roof when u stick a single tube in it lol.. all ur doing is displacing the water a bit. not moving it nearly enough to climb to the top of a tube with any reasonable length to even work. Uggg. Un-Educated Ideas just make more Un-Educated ideas. Ideas with actual science backing them tend to work.
AmericanExpresss 1 year ago
@AmericanExpresss I'm getting the impression that you don't know what capillary tubes are. I suggest a search, even on YouTube, regarding capillarity. For example, there is a video of a capillary experiment done in space. As we deal more and more with nano technologies, knowledge about capillary forces will become more important.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@AmericanExpresss Why are you being soo rude with him ?! As I read your comments that you wrote on his videos, you're the one that seems ignoring Jurin's physic law. He never mentioned "Perpetual Motion" And soo what if he does ? at least he keeps trying and being creative. He seems much more educated than you because his videos have logical principe combined togetter. Why discouraging people to find free energy instead of encouraging them ? Keep up the work adanieltorres (Y)
ppaattrriissee 11 months ago
Nice idea but it wouldn't work because the diameter of the tube would have to be very small for the water to rise that far which would mean the amount of water in the tube would not be enough to even form a drop so it wouldn't pour out like in the animation. On such small scales, surface tension is an important consideration that your animation does not take into account. Besides, you would have built a perpetual motion machine, which is not possible.
llichtveld 1 year ago
@llichtveld I'm glad you like the idea. As with the other video, soome lingering doubts remain, in particular the possibility of using a hydrophobic coating on parts of the tube to get the water to form smaller drops, or drops that drip more easily. Also, perhaps different kinds of liquids could be used. Again, I point out, there is no claim to break any laws of physics. If there exists a combination of parameters that work, the energy would be having to come from somewhere... the water?
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres The problem with a hydrophobic coating is that it is the water's affinity for the surface of the tube, combined with the surface tension of the source water, that causes it to enter the tube. A hydrophobic coating would cause the water to stop where the coating starts. You are right that if it worked the energy would have to come from somewhere, but the water contains only heat energy and unless your machine, through its actions, transfers this heat to the air, it won't work.
llichtveld 1 year ago
@llichtveld Like I said, hydrophobic coating could be used in *parts* of it. If you mix a hard material with soft material, you sometimes get an even harder material (e.g., steel by adding carbon). In this case, the top that opens may have nano sized points of hydrophobia, for example. The machine, by moving the air, or by making sound when it bumps, is necessarily transferring heat to the air, for example. But going further, your paradigm of heat transfer is countered with planetary motion.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres When it bumps it is only transferring kinetic energy, not heat energy. Anyway, it is irrelevant, there already exist engines that can extract energy from slight temperature differences (sterling engine) and I don't think that was the purpose behind your idea. You were dealing with extracting energy from capillary action, but that is not possible because it takes the same amount of energy to pull the water out of the tube as it took to get it in there.
llichtveld 1 year ago
@llichtveld You seem to have your decision and are only making arguments that lead to it, ignoring the ones that don't. Are you suggesting that by water going up a capillary tube, not heat energy is changed to kinetic? And that by moving the air in the container, the tube is not causing any friction? And that by bumping to a stop, no heat is produced in the tube itself, the bumper, or the air? That the sound waves are produced with free energy? I'm sure not. So, energy is coming from...
adanieltorres 1 year ago
Interestingly enough, it is. Think of a man falling on an already taut bungee cord: the reason he falls against the pull of the bungee is that the pull of gravity is stronger. His gravitational potential energy (GPE) is exchanged for energy stored as tension in the bungee, and also for energy stored in him as kinetic energy. Eventually the bungee pulls hard enough to arrest his fall, but as you correctly observed he still has the energy of movement.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies I'm missing something. If I hold the capillary tube so that it fills but does not drop, there is not kinetic energy, only GPE. When I let go, the tube drops, picking up Kinetic Energy (KE) as it loses GPE. The water in the tube should not gain or lose any Electrostatic Energy (EE) from this. When the tube hits the stopper, if the KE is greater than the EE holding the tube together, the tube should open, If it opens, the water spills, the tube goes back, fills, etc.. Right?
adanieltorres 1 year ago
The water sticks the separating portions of the tube together pretty strongly. I bet that experimenting with this concept will show that making the bottom half of the tube heavy enough to split open would make it too heavy to be lifted by the water in the solid section of the tube on the other side of the fulcrum.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies That's my fear, too. :) What I'm imagining, though, is maximizing the inertia of the swing, so that it is mostly the momentum of the water itself that causes the opening of the tube. One could also minimize the strength with which the water adheres to the top portion, by making the top narrower, perhaps, or lessening its adhesive properties.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres Ah, but you NEED the water to be attracted to the walls of the tube. That's what makes capillary action happen in the first place.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies Yes, but could there exist a happy medium in which the top is adhering enough that capillarity is not lost, yet as little adhering as possible that the bottom is able to break away from it?
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres My guess would be no, there cannot exist such a happy medium. Feel free to experiment with it, of course. My guess comes from the very premise of this thought experiment: production of an oscillating motion that can continue indefinitely without input, and the impossibility of producing such an oscillation.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies I wouldn't think it would be "without input"; I imagine the possibility of the energy for the oscillation coming from the water, so its temperature would diminish.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres Assuming for a moment that the temperature decrease can indeed be made to affect an oscillation in the system (see thermoacoustic devices), there would need to be something driving the temperature change. If what you envision is a system at a stable temperature equal to its environment, and then the water begins to decrease in temperature to below its environment, such a system defies reality.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies Where does the energy come from to get water to rise in a capillary tube? I can only hypothesize that the temperature of the water decreases a slight amount when it climbs. Do you see it coming from anywhere else? As to the temperature of the evironment, for the purposese of this thought experiment I'm assuming a perfect container with no energy transfer to/from the outside, which implies that the water would freeze at some point, thus ending the oscillation.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres The rise of water appears to be useful work, because it is contrary to the pull of gravity, but it allows the water to enter a lower energy state. The gravitational potential energy increases, but the electrostatic potential energy (as it is the electrostatic forces between the water molecules that drives capillary action) decreases in proportion, which is why capillary action is spontaneous, and there does not need to be an external source of energy.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago
@LotsOMovies Hmmm. Hadn't thought of it that way. Yet motion is created from the water rising at the beginning to the first time it hits. That energy must have come from somewhere, so it cannot simply be an exchange of gravitational potential energy for electrostatic potential energy, can it?
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres (continued) In the example of the man with the bungee, the kinetic energy is pretty huge, because he has fallen a great distance while being accelerated by gravity. When he reaches the end of the bungee the extra stretch to absorb his kinetic energy is also huge. With capillary action, the kinetic energy of the water is quite minimal, so the period of time in which the water overshoots its final height in the tube is unnoticably small, but the same interplay of energy is at work.
LotsOMovies 1 year ago