Buoyancy Demonstration #1

One of the things wrong with most perpetual motion or free energy "buoyancy drives" is that the inventors don't take into account the mass of the water displaced, which must be raised up again to reset the system to its initial state so that motion can continue.
If, for example, a balloon is introduced into the column from the bottom, the water is displaced. At the top of the column, an equal volume of water has been allowed to drop. This is where the buoyancy comes from. So far so good. But the air in the balloon experiences a "vaccuum" or suction effect from the weight of the water column underneath it. This suction must be overcome, no matter by what method the balloon is to be deflated at the top. Another way of seeing the situation is to realize that the volume of water displaced downward by the balloon as it rises, must be lifted up again by deflating the balloon so that the system can be reset and continue motion.
This requires work--just as much as you get from the balloon's buoyancy in the first place--plus more, to make up for the inevitable losses due to viscosity, friction, and etc.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Free
• energy
• buoyancy
• perpetual
• motion
• evil
• skeptic

[Grafschnitzel]

If you would find a way to get the cork out from under the top vaccuum; then through it back into the water; and finally let it float up again in the glass - you would have a perpetual motion. Then do it with glasses of a mile high, and corks of 1000 tons, and you solve the world's energy problem.

[TinselKoala]

Why not just say, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride"?

There are many classes of impossible devices that would solve the world's energy problems. Magic valves are just one example.

[Grafschnitzel]

Yeah, but why? What's the scientific argument? Check out my video reaction to Buoyancy Demonstration #2. Thanks for posting anyway!

[TinselKoala]

Are you asking "Why is it impossible to make a leakproof valve that will operate without friction, against a mile-high head of water pressure, and admit a solid object through it?"

Because materials aren't strong enough, friction losses cannot be eliminated, and you CANNOT get energy from a buoyancy drive even if you could solve these problems. Because for every cork you inject at the bottom, you are RAISING an equal volume of water, and this takes the same amt. of work you get back.

[stevesrd]

Have you ever wondered how much energy it takes to raise a spoon back and forth from your plate of food to your mouth? Lets say you eat the plate of food in 10 minutes, now compared to how much energy you spent on bringing the food to your mouth, chewing and the like,,compared against how much energy that one plate of food will give you, do you get more then you give here? Is less energy burned eating that plate of food and more given from that plate of food? Think about it!

[hishouseinc]

What I am saying is, for the air to escape through the tube the water pressure has to be equal to the air pressure and that can not happen with the tube submerged 1 1/2 inches under water.

[TinselKoala]

Almost. I didn't blow into the jar to equalize pressure. I just cleared the water out of the tube. If I had blocked the end of the tube so it contained only air, all I would have needed to do is unblock it. The weight of the water and the pressure of the air do the rest automatically.

[TinselKoala]

It's the weight of the water, falling. When there's no way for air to get in, the water stays up at the top (really, the air pressure on the water in the pan keeps it there). As soon as there is any way at all for air to get in, even if the opening is under the water level, the weight of the water "sucks" air in until the pressure in and out are equal and the water level is the same in and out.