Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [AMBIENTENERGY] Yates patent #

Expand Messages
  • george sikes
    OK Boyd, if not I will look it up when I get back home tomorrow and post it.....Also Boyd I think I should bring up this point in the discussion regarding
    Message 1 of 27 , May 19, 2001
      OK Boyd, if not I will look it up when I get back
      home tomorrow and post it.....Also Boyd I think I
      should bring up this point in the discussion
      regarding phase change. We (the group) are
      discussing this in steam turbines/engines etc.
      but for all practical purposes we should be
      talking in terms of a closed loop system such as
      the TDM, in this application there is no wasted
      energy versis the steam engine/steam turbines.
      Just wanted to clear that up.
      george
      --- Boyd Cantrell <bmc@...> wrote:
      > George,
      >
      > I can't find the Yates patent number but I
      > remember that it works on a
      > small difference in temperature just like the
      > Mento wheel. Vikrant Suri
      > has much information on that. Maybe he will
      > post a URL. I know I found it
      > very interesting.
      >
      > Later, Boyd
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
    • BobDMorris@aol.com
      It is true. howeever; however, steam is a good foundation for those not so familiar with evaporation/condensing of a liquid. I agree we should focus our
      Message 2 of 27 , May 20, 2001
        It is true. howeever; however, steam is a good foundation for those not so
        familiar with evaporation/condensing of a liquid.

        I agree we should focus our energies on a "cloced" system, like the vapor
        copression cycle used in refrigerant systems. Steam is only good reference
        point.

        Regards,
        Bob Morris
      • Hustierhof@aol.com
        Dear group members, I am stiil in doubt, that significant amounts of energy can be received from engines like the BIRD or Yates patent (US4051678, 1978). Yates
        Message 3 of 27 , May 21, 2001
          Dear group members,
          I am stiil in doubt, that significant amounts of energy can be received from engines like the BIRD or Yates patent (US4051678, 1978). Yates patent as well as Vikrant Suri's design work on the gravity(weight), which here is the weight of the liquid in relation to its 'weightless' status of its vapor (gas). In an 'real-world-engine' so, you use the 'weightless' status of the evaporated liquid ONLY for a few meters (depending on the height of the engine). In nature the evaporated water rises up (at least) a few hundred meters up to the clouds and by that transforms heat energy into potential energy. So an ambient-energy engine has to be 'as high as the clouds' to extract useful amounts of the evaporation process. An engine like this would only make sense in a big energy plant, situated near a mountainn(ridge), with the condensing chamber(giant tank) in the mountain.
          But if we want to use evaporation in a much smaller engine, we should think of condensing engines(somehow similar to the very first steam engines, which were in fact condensing engines).
          This would be a cylinder/piston engines, which work on the UNDERPRESSURE OF CONDENSION not on overpressure of steam (or any other gas). Their driving force is their vacuum. They suck in evaporated stuff, close the valve, cool down, so condension takes place (WHICH IS UNDERPRESURE!) and gives us the powerstroke by sucking back the piston....but I think you all know this concept.
          The interesting thing now about it is, to find a liquid, that
          - expands a lot during phase change, but
          - in the range of a small temperature difference, which
          - is about the ambient temperature, where the engine stands.
          For example finding a liquid that boils at 40 dergrees Celsious and expands some 10,100,1000 times (whatever).
          That would be an engine, that uses only a small temperature difference(some 20-30 degrees) and it would use it pressure-free(in its 'boiler'), so cheapest solar collectors can be used (like for example salt-layer-ponds, the israelites tried years ago and achived 50 degrees delta T; or inflated matrasses..there are a lot of possibilities here, like cold ocean water too)
          The condensed liquid then is pushed back into the cycle and preheated via the cooling condenser.
          Using this basic design most (all) of the evaporation power can be extrcated in an engine, without building it sky-high.
          So I think that's what we should focus on, because of the big material input nescessary for a Yates or BIRD engine.

          Hubert
        • george sikes
          I disagree on size of an ambient energy machine being to big to build for the small amount of energy produced. The Yates energy machine was only 9 feet in
          Message 4 of 27 , May 21, 2001
            I disagree on size of an ambient energy machine
            being to big to build for the small amount of
            energy produced. The Yates energy machine was
            only
            9 feet in diameter and it produced enough free
            energy to supply his house needs and too it was
            crudely constructed, much more highly evolved
            material is now avaliable then was the 70's, for
            example insulation materials just to name one and
            there are more.........if you look! So w/ a
            little engineering I'm sure we could come up with
            a workable TDM that would produce enough energy
            w/ out being as large as a house.........after
            all it's free for gosh sakes! So my friends
            please think positive thoughts on this and it
            will happen,
            george
            --- Hustierhof@... wrote:
            > Dear group members,
            > I am stiil in doubt, that significant amounts
            > of energy can be received from engines like the
            > BIRD or Yates patent (US4051678, 1978). Yates
            > patent as well as Vikrant Suri's design work on
            > the gravity(weight), which here is the weight
            > of the liquid in relation to its 'weightless'
            > status of its vapor (gas). In an
            > 'real-world-engine' so, you use the
            > 'weightless' status of the evaporated liquid
            > ONLY for a few meters (depending on the height
            > of the engine). In nature the evaporated water
            > rises up (at least) a few hundred meters up to
            > the clouds and by that transforms heat energy
            > into potential energy. So an ambient-energy
            > engine has to be 'as high as the clouds' to
            > extract useful amounts of the evaporation
            > process. An engine like this would only make
            > sense in a big energy plant, situated near a
            > mountainn(ridge), with the condensing
            > chamber(giant tank) in the mountain.
            > But if we want to use evaporation in a much
            > smaller engine, we should think of condensing
            > engines(somehow similar to the very first steam
            > engines, which were in fact condensing
            > engines).
            > This would be a cylinder/piston engines, which
            > work on the UNDERPRESSURE OF CONDENSION not on
            > overpressure of steam (or any other gas). Their
            > driving force is their vacuum. They suck in
            > evaporated stuff, close the valve, cool down,
            > so condension takes place (WHICH IS
            > UNDERPRESURE!) and gives us the powerstroke by
            > sucking back the piston....but I think you all
            > know this concept.
            > The interesting thing now about it is, to find
            > a liquid, that
            > - expands a lot during phase change, but
            > - in the range of a small temperature
            > difference, which
            > - is about the ambient temperature, where the
            > engine stands.
            > For example finding a liquid that boils at 40
            > dergrees Celsious and expands some 10,100,1000
            > times (whatever).
            > That would be an engine, that uses only a small
            > temperature difference(some 20-30 degrees) and
            > it would use it pressure-free(in its 'boiler'),
            > so cheapest solar collectors can be used (like
            > for example salt-layer-ponds, the israelites
            > tried years ago and achived 50 degrees delta T;
            > or inflated matrasses..there are a lot of
            > possibilities here, like cold ocean water too)
            > The condensed liquid then is pushed back into
            > the cycle and preheated via the cooling
            > condenser.
            > Using this basic design most (all) of the
            > evaporation power can be extrcated in an
            > engine, without building it sky-high.
            > So I think that's what we should focus on,
            > because of the big material input nescessary
            > for a Yates or BIRD engine.
            >
            > Hubert
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
            http://auctions.yahoo.com/
          • Hustierhof@aol.com
            Hello George, I don t want to think negative,...only realistic as far as I can. I was referring to Vikrant Suri s design. In fact the BIRD does a
            Message 5 of 27 , May 22, 2001
              Hello George,

              I don't want to think negative,...only realistic as far as I can. I was referring to Vikrant Suri's design.
              In fact the BIRD does a condesing-sucking-stroke too, when the liquid climbs up its inner tube, so this is a condensing engine(at least in parts of its cycle) and similar to that (but different too Vikrants idea) we might use the condensing vacuum in a liquid piston engine (and the BIRD is a kind of liquid piston engine too!)(if the liquid would have a specific weight of 1 (like water!)) to suck a liquid column almost 10 meters high....but that's theoretical! In practice friction-losses, heat-losses and other physical obstacles are crule to inverntors like us. So my point about the Yates patent and the BIRD is IF WE GIVE IT SOME MORE DELTA T it will SPEED UP A LOT and will overcome the above mentioned losses more easily.
              ...anyway, if you are convinced of the Yates patent, George, build it (or at least a functional model) and for sure this will help your and our understanding of evaporation and its forces.

              Hubert
            • BobDMorris@aol.com
              HUBERT... Aren t the forces of condensing and evaporation the same? Water, for example, requires about 970 BTUs to change phase from liquid to vapor and the
              Message 6 of 27 , May 22, 2001
                HUBERT...
                Aren't the forces of condensing and evaporation the same?

                Water, for example, requires about 970 BTUs to change phase from liquid to
                vapor and the same number from vapor to liquid. If somehow we could utilize
                both evaporation and condensation, we have twice the amount to work with.(?)

                By the way, I believe that each of the devices you mentioned have their own
                merit, too. Keep on thinking and at some point this group will achieve a
                "better mouse trap".

                Regards,
                Bob Morris
              • george sikes
                Hi Hubert, one I don t intend to build the Yates machine, I know it works. I only gave that as a ref point and info for the group. I do intend to build Boyds
                Message 7 of 27 , May 22, 2001
                  Hi Hubert, one I don't intend to build the Yates
                  machine, I know it works. I only gave that as a
                  ref point and info for the group. I do intend to
                  build Boyds TDM becouse it incompases some of the
                  aspects of the Yates machine. My intention is to
                  combine the two somehow. So far as Boyd well
                  knows I have built the TDM to a point and funding
                  is my bigest obstacle, what I need most is an air
                  motor to act as an engine, the rest is clear. It
                  may take me a while but when I set my head to do
                  something it will get done. To bad we can't get
                  NASA in on this, but this is the way things like
                  this get done, we just do it and then the big
                  boys take over.....sad!!
                  georgel




                  --- Hustierhof@... wrote:
                  > Hello George,
                  >
                  > I don't want to think negative,...only
                  > realistic as far as I can. I was referring to
                  > Vikrant Suri's design.
                  > In fact the BIRD does a
                  > condesing-sucking-stroke too, when the liquid
                  > climbs up its inner tube, so this is a
                  > condensing engine(at least in parts of its
                  > cycle) and similar to that (but different too
                  > Vikrants idea) we might use the condensing
                  > vacuum in a liquid piston engine (and the BIRD
                  > is a kind of liquid piston engine too!)(if the
                  > liquid would have a specific weight of 1 (like
                  > water!)) to suck a liquid column almost 10
                  > meters high....but that's theoretical! In
                  > practice friction-losses, heat-losses and other
                  > physical obstacles are crule to inverntors like
                  > us. So my point about the Yates patent and the
                  > BIRD is IF WE GIVE IT SOME MORE DELTA T it will
                  > SPEED UP A LOT and will overcome the above
                  > mentioned losses more easily.
                  > ...anyway, if you are convinced of the Yates
                  > patent, George, build it (or at least a
                  > functional model) and for sure this will help
                  > your and our understanding of evaporation and
                  > its forces.
                  >
                  > Hubert
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                  http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                • Hustierhof@aol.com
                  Hello Bob, the amount of energy of evaporation and condensing are the same, but: If somehow we could utilize both evaporation and condensation, we have twice
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 22, 2001
                    Hello Bob,

                    the amount of energy of evaporation and condensing are the same, but:
                    'If somehow we could utilize
                    both evaporation and condensation, we have twice the amount to work with.(?)'
                    DOES NOT WORK !!!
                    See, evaporation 'costs' heat energy
                    condension 'gives back' the heat energy, but
                    using both is like: the three of us-> me, myself and I.
                    You understand ?
                    Focussing on the evaporation...I mean to give it some more numbers: D.Schager, a german Stirling engine enthusiast, once built a Senft-LTD-Stirling, the one which was told to work on a delta T of less than 1 degree. Then he tried to let it run on AMBIENTENERGY and he succeeded !
                    What he did ?
                    He laid a piece of cloth whith its one end onto the cold side of his Senft-LTD-Stirling, made the cloth wet and let the other side hang in a small water basin(bowl).
                    The engine run and run and run ! After 14 days the engine was still running in his cellar (!). But then he stopped it, because he did not want the bearing and his graphite piston be stressed that much. So, yes, even with Stirling technology it is possible to run an engine on ambient energy..BUT the power output is so damned low.
                    Mr.Schager measured the temperature difference he achieved and came up with-> 3-4 degrees Celsious for his experiment and his engine only worked, because it was very frictionless (Mr.Schager is building LTD models since years and he is an expert in that. Have a look at:
                    http://www.stirlingmotor.com and look here at the gallery, there you can see some of his models)
                    So, these 3-4 degrees, that's what the BIRD works with and that is not much. You might say that is more than 1% of efficiency (Carnot) we can get !...and I say: Theoretical! But practical it's much much less?
                    See, a LTD (direct solar heated) may achieve a delta T of 70 degrees Celsius. That is more than 20% total efficiency we can achieve from such an engine....BUT real live physics is crule and so in reality the world record of the best engine of that kind is about 4% total efficiency. The smaller the delta T, the more problems (frictions) we have, so the problems rise in square and we cannot even achieve
                    4%/20% (like in my LTD-example) of 1%, which would be 0.2% overall efficiency only!
                    So, I doubt, that Yates really achieve much power output.
                    Anyway, if we just have more than just 3-4 degrees delta T, we will gain a lot and the cost of the engine in relation to its low output will be in a better relation....otherwise the engine is more or less an academic proof.....like the BIRD is.

                    Hubert
                  • BobDMorris@aol.com
                    GEORGE... I suggest that you consider incorporating a payback motor for reducing energy consumption of the compressor...thereby providing more available
                    Message 9 of 27 , May 22, 2001
                      GEORGE...
                      I suggest that you consider incorporating a "payback" motor for reducing
                      energy consumption of the compressor...thereby providing more available power
                      on the "air" motor side. Boyd can help.

                      The BIRD works!
                      Bob Morris
                    • Vikrant Suri
                      Dear Hubert , Nice place to meet you . Its me Vikrant . If you got such a liquid why would the Bird have to be sky high ? Frankly I think that your
                      Message 10 of 27 , May 22, 2001
                        Dear Hubert ,

                        Nice place to meet you . Its me Vikrant .

                        If you got such a liquid why would the Bird have to be
                        "sky high" ? Frankly I think that your pre-disposition
                        against the Bird is so strong , taking it as a
                        competition to your own invention , that it gets the
                        better of your inventive thoughts . Second what makes
                        you believe that Pressure will give superior results
                        to gravity flow ? Thirdly the Bird will not have to be
                        "cloud high" - it will neither have to be "dam height"
                        . A multi-channel will be used .

                        More later . I am right here . Ultimately we will see
                        who of all of us , including you Hubert , has the most
                        rational , sound , practical and clairvoyant head of
                        all . Remember - my head is the size of a football so
                        their must be some brains inside .


                        By the way check the google search for stirling engine
                        . Your name now appears in the first 100 . So the job
                        was well done . Pat on my back!!


                        More later ( sure )

                        Regards .

                        Vikrant Suri



                        --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Dear group members,
                        > I am stiil in doubt, that significant amounts of
                        > energy can be received from engines like the BIRD or
                        > Yates patent (US4051678, 1978). Yates patent as well
                        > as Vikrant Suri's design work on the
                        > gravity(weight), which here is the weight of the
                        > liquid in relation to its 'weightless' status of its
                        > vapor (gas). In an 'real-world-engine' so, you use
                        > the 'weightless' status of the evaporated liquid
                        > ONLY for a few meters (depending on the height of
                        > the engine). In nature the evaporated water rises up
                        > (at least) a few hundred meters up to the clouds and
                        > by that transforms heat energy into potential
                        > energy. So an ambient-energy engine has to be 'as
                        > high as the clouds' to extract useful amounts of the
                        > evaporation process. An engine like this would only
                        > make sense in a big energy plant, situated near a
                        > mountainn(ridge), with the condensing chamber(giant
                        > tank) in the mountain.
                        > But if we want to use evaporation in a much smaller
                        > engine, we should think of condensing
                        > engines(somehow similar to the very first steam
                        > engines, which were in fact condensing engines).
                        > This would be a cylinder/piston engines, which work
                        > on the UNDERPRESSURE OF CONDENSION not on
                        > overpressure of steam (or any other gas). Their
                        > driving force is their vacuum. They suck in
                        > evaporated stuff, close the valve, cool down, so
                        > condension takes place (WHICH IS UNDERPRESURE!) and
                        > gives us the powerstroke by sucking back the
                        > piston....but I think you all know this concept.
                        > The interesting thing now about it is, to find a
                        > liquid, that
                        > - expands a lot during phase change, but
                        > - in the range of a small temperature difference,
                        > which
                        > - is about the ambient temperature, where the
                        > engine stands.
                        > For example finding a liquid that boils at 40
                        > dergrees Celsious and expands some 10,100,1000 times
                        > (whatever).
                        > That would be an engine, that uses only a small
                        > temperature difference(some 20-30 degrees) and it
                        > would use it pressure-free(in its 'boiler'), so
                        > cheapest solar collectors can be used (like for
                        > example salt-layer-ponds, the israelites tried years
                        > ago and achived 50 degrees delta T; or inflated
                        > matrasses..there are a lot of possibilities here,
                        > like cold ocean water too)
                        > The condensed liquid then is pushed back into the
                        > cycle and preheated via the cooling condenser.
                        > Using this basic design most (all) of the
                        > evaporation power can be extrcated in an engine,
                        > without building it sky-high.
                        > So I think that's what we should focus on, because
                        > of the big material input nescessary for a Yates or
                        > BIRD engine.
                        >
                        > Hubert
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >


                        =====
                        vikrantsuri2@...
                        vikrantsuri@...

                        ____________________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                      • Hustierhof@aol.com
                        Hello Vikrant, I pat on your back you DID A EXTRAORDINARY JOB on promoting my site, thank you very much. I am not against the BIRD, only I say, that it works
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                          Hello Vikrant,

                          I pat on your back you DID A EXTRAORDINARY JOB on promoting my site, thank you very much.
                          I am not against the BIRD, only I say, that it works on the mere 3-4 degrees, so it can not be strong...we can not extract much power from a 'weak' process...and when it comes to the point of 'competition to my invention'--> The competitor is NATURE and physics !
                          So, let's stick to the statements and my statement was, that it's only these 3-4 degrees...so let's think and discuss about that, to come to a solution. But so you mentioned my invention-> One further possibility to use evaporation and condension is in a 'wet' Stirling cycle.
                          This would be using a LTD Stirling and put SOME of the liquid (which we look for) inside. The Stirling cycle then acts as evaporating, when heating and through the regenerator condensing the liquid-> which results in underpressure. So we get a STRONGER Stirling acting on the 'BIRDs force'...How about that ?

                          Your question on pressure against gravity:
                          Just an easy and rough example. Let's suppose one liter of just evaporated steam (weight let's say 1 gramm)rises up into the cloud(500 meters high, perhaps 1000 meters or even 2000 meters). The cloud is exactly the point, where humidity, ambient pressure and temperature stops that steam from rising further. That is the potential power of 1 gramm *500meters = 500gramms in 1 meters height.
                          If we would have a that 1 liter of steam put in a U-Tube of water(with a surface of 1 square centimeter) on one side and this one liter would be the only gas there and we close the U-tube top....and then it condenses it would give us a vacuum, which would suck the water column almost 10 meters high, right ?
                          So 10 meters of 1 square centimeter watercolumn is exactly 1 liter which is 1000 gramms.
                          These 1000 grams are in the average height of 10/2=5meters, so --->
                          the evaporation to the cloud is 500gramms in 1 meter
                          the pressure is 1000gramms in 5 meters.
                          I might be wrong with the height of a usual cloudand in an ideal world experiment those two were equal, but I only wanted to show you the relations...a liquid (water for example is 1000 times heavier than its gas) is much heavier than its gas. AND THIS IS STILL GRAVITY !..I mean power, viewed by its appearance in relation to gravity !
                          But even if we build a BIRD engine with a U-tube, we still have the problem of NOT USING the contraction force during its contraction(condensing). That is the dynamic force or in other words the kinetic power of the moving mass of water moving up in the water column with its speed......but that's a further problem, which is not our point currently and it's not that big anyway in a low energy engine like the BIRD or the Yates patent.

                          I hope this gives some explanation to you Vikrant and to the group, why evaporation is physically best used/transformed using pressure in principle.
                        • Vikrant Suri
                          Dear Hubert , As much for “cloud high” , sky high” , “500 meters “, “your heater in a valley and your condenser up in the mountain” . I will know
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                            Dear Hubert ,

                            As much for “cloud high” , sky high” , “500 meters “,
                            “your heater in a valley and your condenser up in the
                            mountain” . I will know when you have pulled up all
                            the water of the Oceans by Steam power as my sea mail
                            will be refused by the Postal authorities .

                            Meanwhile please refer to your first e-mail to me last
                            year and my reply to it – regarding the imposing
                            heights imagined by you in a biased mental frame-work
                            - as above .These are pasted below . .

                            The problem seems to be – no one understands a
                            particular invention better than the inventor himself
                            . Remember I have not passed a single comment on your
                            invention – till date – despite your communication .
                            Similar is the case with the moderator of the group (
                            Sir – are you out there ? ) for the same reason .
                            Unless one has worked step by step , laboured with
                            sweat and blood , ( perhaps you are not aware of the
                            limits of my effort to reach this stage ) one cannot
                            in internet luxury simply offer mental comments on
                            precise details of functionability .

                            As such you have just one valid comment – the cost per
                            kilo volt ampere of Electricity generated as compared
                            to competition from other alternate electricity
                            producing devices , both existing and those being
                            developed . Right . Take all and discount all factors
                            – even the narrow Temperature Range – the low
                            efficiency etc ..
                            It all adds up to the cost per unit of Electricity .
                            Correct or wrong ?

                            This is where I step in . You trust your mind and
                            brain with your invention – and I have the fullest
                            confidence to overcome the steepest of hurdles .

                            Regards .

                            Vikrant Suri

                            ****************************************************************************

                            Hello MR.Vikrant Suri,

                            after studying your internetpage and trying to find
                            out its working principle I came to the following
                            conclusions:Your engine is a kind vapour engine.The
                            maximum power output that you get is the weight times
                            the height of the liquidyou use (potential energy) and
                            you get this power by for example using a water
                            turbine in a usual dam...or a in an (old) mill (like
                            we havehere in europe. So in your engine you 'play'
                            nature -> vapouratingwater (or any other (better
                            fitting) liquid, it gets lifted high (like water over
                            the ocean up to a few hundredmeters high up in the
                            clowds),Then (in nature it rains on the mountain, and
                            dams or mills use thedifference in water level of
                            their rivers to generate energy)you have your
                            potencial energy you use in a turbine or water wheel
                            of a mill or whatever. SO let's calculate roughly and
                            let's suppose you would have a1000W heat input without
                            losses....->1000W is (I think roughly) 870kcal per
                            hour (that means one kilowatt brings 1 liter of water
                            of little more than 0 degreesCelsius to almost 100
                            degrees Celsius in less than 7 minutes)If you would
                            have a liquid thats vapour heat would be only77
                            calories (water has 539 calories !) and a heat
                            differencebetween condenser and heater of 10 degrees
                            then you mightvapourate 870.000/87.000= 10 liters of
                            that liquid per hour.Let's suppose the weight of that
                            liquid would by the samethan water so you would have
                            10 kilogramms up there in your condenser.1000 watts
                            (in an ideal world) would lift 10 kilogrammsduring one
                            hour to 36.000 meters height--> that would be 100%
                            efficiency.To reach only 1% efficiency your condenser
                            has to be 36.000/100 = 360 meters higher than your
                            heater.(Letting aside the fact, that in 360 meters
                            thepressure is different and so condensing situationis
                            different too)You might reach that, by putting your
                            heater in a valleyand your condenser up in the
                            mountain. You can buildcheap heating (solar)
                            collectors, because there is no pressurechange in your
                            system, BUT THE (at least) 360 meters of CONNECTING
                            TUBE WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AND WORK AS A CONDENSER ITSELF
                            AND BY THAT YOU WOULD GET A
                            DISASTRESPERFORMANCE.Appreciating your critics on
                            that,Sincerly,




                            HSTIERHOF@...

                            Dear Hubert Stierhof ,

                            Thank you for having written back .

                            Your analysis are absolutely correct and we have no
                            arguments with them .Moreover there are no shortcuts -
                            as someone on the Keelysnet says - it is iron clad and
                            copper bottomed .

                            However I do hope , as with ourselves , you are open
                            to a discussion .

                            The visualisation of the system resembling a hydro
                            cycle - vapourisation - condensation - dams - turbines
                            - internally contained in a system - is what I had
                            originally thought of in 1995 - and it is the first
                            time - yourself - that someone has projected it in
                            similar terms . Therefore I value your words a lot .

                            There are no shortcuts - but there are ways to meet
                            these challenges .

                            1 ) We do not propose going beyond Twenty ( 20 )
                            meters height - so to take up your own calculations -
                            divide 360 by 20 - get 12 . Twelve units should do the
                            job - but will not - their interlinking will have
                            greater gross friction losses etc.. So lets go for 24
                            units .
                            That again is what we have in mind - a multi condensor
                            - heater - multi-pipe - system - not one crossing 20
                            meters .

                            2 ) The Specific density of internally used liquid is
                            an area needing immediate attention . It is
                            scientifically feasible to conceptualise on a Liquid
                            with a specific density of 4 or 5 grams / centimeter
                            cube . So we may divide 20 by 4 and get Five . We have
                            not done this yet - therefore we admit the technical
                            challenges in getting there.

                            3 ) We propose Lifting the Liquid by Vacuum pull - the
                            condensation action in incidental - not central to the
                            models functioning . Our own models having a height of
                            Seven ( 7 ) Feet use "vacuum" pull to get the Liquid
                            to the Collector not "condensation" . The condensation
                            is required to create the less pressure - and this
                            decreased pressure lifts the liquid by vacuum pull -
                            the collector is very safely calculated with regard to
                            its placement in height above the Lower container - so
                            that even in the worst operating conditions the liquid
                            is collected and not dependant on condensation .
                            Please be very clear on this part - take my honest
                            word on this - else please think of constructing these
                            models on your end and see the results for yourself .
                            I can send you the drawings - these are not these on
                            our web site .
                            Please make some fresh empirical calculations keeping
                            this in mind.

                            4 ) The contact point of Central tube with surface of
                            liquid of Lower container - hot - will be broken
                            internally - by a mechanical movement lifting it
                            upwards - by a force partially taken from the Liquid
                            already lifted up . So we conceive stationary models
                            and Energy extracted internally at the point of return
                            of the liquid to base position .

                            5 ) Our effort is to try . Right or wrong is your
                            discretion . We appreciate your criticism as it
                            cautions us of our shortcomings .

                            I will thank you once again for having communicated
                            with us .

                            With Regards.

                            Viktant Suri

                            *****************************************************************************







                            --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Hello Vikrant,
                            >
                            > I pat on your back you DID A EXTRAORDINARY JOB on
                            > promoting my site, thank you very much.
                            > I am not against the BIRD, only I say, that it works
                            > on the mere 3-4 degrees, so it can not be
                            > strong...we can not extract much power from a 'weak'
                            > process...and when it comes to the point of
                            > 'competition to my invention'--> The competitor is
                            > NATURE and physics !
                            > So, let's stick to the statements and my statement
                            > was, that it's only these 3-4 degrees...so let's
                            > think and discuss about that, to come to a solution.
                            > But so you mentioned my invention-> One further
                            > possibility to use evaporation and condension is in
                            > a 'wet' Stirling cycle.
                            > This would be using a LTD Stirling and put SOME of
                            > the liquid (which we look for) inside. The Stirling
                            > cycle then acts as evaporating, when heating and
                            > through the regenerator condensing the liquid->
                            > which results in underpressure. So we get a STRONGER
                            > Stirling acting on the 'BIRDs force'...How about
                            > that ?
                            >
                            > Your question on pressure against gravity:
                            > Just an easy and rough example. Let's suppose one
                            > liter of just evaporated steam (weight let's say 1
                            > gramm)rises up into the cloud(500 meters high,
                            > perhaps 1000 meters or even 2000 meters). The cloud
                            > is exactly the point, where humidity, ambient
                            > pressure and temperature stops that steam from
                            > rising further. That is the potential power of 1
                            > gramm *500meters = 500gramms in 1 meters height.
                            > If we would have a that 1 liter of steam put in a
                            > U-Tube of water(with a surface of 1 square
                            > centimeter) on one side and this one liter would be
                            > the only gas there and we close the U-tube
                            > top....and then it condenses it would give us a
                            > vacuum, which would suck the water column almost 10
                            > meters high, right ?
                            > So 10 meters of 1 square centimeter watercolumn is
                            > exactly 1 liter which is 1000 gramms.
                            > These 1000 grams are in the average height of
                            > 10/2=5meters, so --->
                            > the evaporation to the cloud is 500gramms in 1 meter
                            > the pressure is 1000gramms in 5
                            > meters.
                            > I might be wrong with the height of a usual cloudand
                            > in an ideal world experiment those two were equal,
                            > but I only wanted to show you the relations...a
                            > liquid (water for example is 1000 times heavier than
                            > its gas) is much heavier than its gas. AND THIS IS
                            > STILL GRAVITY !..I mean power, viewed by its
                            > appearance in relation to gravity !
                            > But even if we build a BIRD engine with a U-tube, we
                            > still have the problem of NOT USING the contraction
                            > force during its contraction(condensing). That is
                            > the dynamic force or in other words the kinetic
                            > power of the moving mass of water moving up in the
                            > water column with its speed......but that's a
                            > further problem, which is not our point currently
                            > and it's not that big anyway in a low energy engine
                            > like the BIRD or the Yates patent.
                            >
                            > I hope this gives some explanation to you Vikrant
                            > and to the group, why evaporation is physically best
                            > used/transformed using pressure in principle.
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >


                            =====
                            vikrantsuri2@...
                            vikrantsuri@...

                            ____________________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                          • Vikrant Suri
                            Dear Hubert , I must say your logic given below made me take out my pen and paper and break up your statements into pieces to see what you were trying to mean
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                              Dear Hubert ,

                              I must say your logic given below made me take out my
                              pen and paper and break up your statements into
                              pieces to see what you were trying to mean .

                              Your example is very flawed .

                              Let us analyse in detail –

                              1 . You have conveniently taken an arbitrary figure of
                              500 meters for the one gram of water . Why ?

                              2 . Next you have compared I gram of water with one
                              litre of steam – trying to confuse with the physics
                              that water expands 1000 times on becoming steam . The
                              correct comparisn is of the energy in joules of
                              raising 1 gram of water to 500 meters with the energy
                              in joules to convert one gram of water into steam .

                              3 . You close the U-tube top . That is rather
                              convenient escapism .
                              How ? Without expending energy ? If we could generate
                              one litre of steam above standing water , providing
                              energy just to convert that I gram of water to steam ,
                              then – bingo – all of the worlds energy problems would
                              end and also herald the shut down of this forum .

                              Have you understood ? No . Well then try this –

                              You use just enough energy to convert one gram of
                              water to steam and place it above standing water and
                              then close the top . You get a near perfect Vacuum and
                              all the water rushes up to 10 meters . This water
                              column may not just be 1 sq cm . It may be 1 metre
                              square too and the water will still rush up too 10
                              meters . Make some calculations and you will have an
                              over unity device right there in your backyard in
                              Frankfurt . And theoritically you could pull up all
                              the water of the oceans – with litres of steam - and
                              you would be known as Hubert Stierhof – but Miracle
                              Man .

                              Don’t mind that – you have started this not me . What
                              ? Your mental frame in always going “cloud high” , sky
                              high” , “500 meters” – when-ever it comes to scaling
                              up the Drinking Bird principle . And this is despite
                              me giving you a detailed explanation about a year ago
                              and you then coming on to the costs of Vapourising the
                              Liquid – which indeed is the valid point . More in my
                              second e-mail on this subject .

                              And so the rats decided that since the cat created
                              havoc in their ranks – all that was required was to
                              place a bell in the cats neck – thus providing an
                              advance warning .

                              And the the wise old rat said – but who will Bell the
                              Cat ?

                              How do you propose emptying the U-tube of its contents
                              ? And if you use a Vacuum pump – what of the energy
                              required to operate it - to completion of the
                              required job ? Emptying a container , putting steam
                              there , condensing it , getting a 10 metre water
                              column , comparing with one gram of water 500 metres
                              high - no such logic is possible .

                              4 . Who says that the contraction force during the
                              condensation stage will not be used ? It will be used
                              to the point where it is in excess of the required
                              rate of climb of the liquid – internally .
                              And remember – most engines use either the expansion
                              or the contraction stage to extract power – not both .


                              Regards .

                              Vikrant Suri




                              -- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Hello Vikrant,
                              >
                              > I pat on your back you DID A EXTRAORDINARY JOB on
                              > promoting my site, thank you very much.
                              > I am not against the BIRD, only I say, that it works
                              > on the mere 3-4 degrees, so it can not be
                              > strong...we can not extract much power from a 'weak'
                              > process...and when it comes to the point of
                              > 'competition to my invention'--> The competitor is
                              > NATURE and physics !
                              > So, let's stick to the statements and my statement
                              > was, that it's only these 3-4 degrees...so let's
                              > think and discuss about that, to come to a solution.
                              > But so you mentioned my invention-> One further
                              > possibility to use evaporation and condension is in
                              > a 'wet' Stirling cycle.
                              > This would be using a LTD Stirling and put SOME of
                              > the liquid (which we look for) inside. The Stirling
                              > cycle then acts as evaporating, when heating and
                              > through the regenerator condensing the liquid->
                              > which results in underpressure. So we get a STRONGER
                              > Stirling acting on the 'BIRDs force'...How about
                              > that ?
                              >
                              > Your question on pressure against gravity:
                              > Just an easy and rough example. Let's suppose one
                              > liter of just evaporated steam (weight let's say 1
                              > gramm)rises up into the cloud(500 meters high,
                              > perhaps 1000 meters or even 2000 meters). The cloud
                              > is exactly the point, where humidity, ambient
                              > pressure and temperature stops that steam from
                              > rising further. That is the potential power of 1
                              > gramm *500meters = 500gramms in 1 meters height.
                              > If we would have a that 1 liter of steam put in a
                              > U-Tube of water(with a surface of 1 square
                              > centimeter) on one side and this one liter would be
                              > the only gas there and we close the U-tube
                              > top....and then it condenses it would give us a
                              > vacuum, which would suck the water column almost 10
                              > meters high, right ?
                              > So 10 meters of 1 square centimeter watercolumn is
                              > exactly 1 liter which is 1000 gramms.
                              > These 1000 grams are in the average height of
                              > 10/2=5meters, so --->
                              > the evaporation to the cloud is 500gramms in 1 meter
                              > the pressure is 1000gramms in 5
                              > meters.
                              > I might be wrong with the height of a usual cloudand
                              > in an ideal world experiment those two were equal,
                              > but I only wanted to show you the relations...a
                              > liquid (water for example is 1000 times heavier than
                              > its gas) is much heavier than its gas. AND THIS IS
                              > STILL GRAVITY !..I mean power, viewed by its
                              > appearance in relation to gravity !
                              > But even if we build a BIRD engine with a U-tube, we
                              > still have the problem of NOT USING the contraction
                              > force during its contraction(condensing). That is
                              > the dynamic force or in other words the kinetic
                              > power of the moving mass of water moving up in the
                              > water column with its speed......but that's a
                              > further problem, which is not our point currently
                              > and it's not that big anyway in a low energy engine
                              > like the BIRD or the Yates patent.
                              >
                              > I hope this gives some explanation to you Vikrant
                              > and to the group, why evaporation is physically best
                              > used/transformed using pressure in principle.
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >


                              =====
                              vikrantsuri2@...
                              vikrantsuri@...

                              ____________________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                            • Charles Ford
                              In the desert swamp coolers provide many thousands of BTU / hr of cooling just by evaporating water. There is no need to recondense because nature will do
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                                In the desert swamp coolers provide many thousands of BTU / hr of cooling
                                just by evaporating water. There is no need to recondense because nature
                                will do it for you

                                Its called rain

                                Attempting to close this system and contain the water used to make the
                                thermal gradient will defeat the system. Losses of recondensing will be
                                equal to energy gained from evaporation and the process losses in between
                                will finish you off.

                                As I said there is no free lunch. This is a reference to all troublesome
                                thorn in our side physics theory called "The Conservation Of Energy"

                                If someone has a drinking bird and a fish tank we can do an experiment to
                                prove this.

                                Set up the drinking bird the bottom of an empty fish tank and get it
                                started. Then cover the tank with a good seal like saran
                                wrap. Eventually the dew point inside the tank will reach the temperature
                                and the bird will stop.

                                Another note is that if we exploit this as our only source of power the
                                meteorologic effect could be very bad. I have said on other lists that
                                exploitation is what got us into this mess and is certainly not the way
                                out. As a race we will have to use all of the available methods of
                                generating power as well as continuing to find better ways to conserve that
                                which we have.
                              • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                Hello Vikrant, there is a misunderstanding in our conversation and it looks like you would mix my old email with my new one. In my old email I was trying to
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                                  Hello Vikrant,

                                  there is a misunderstanding in our conversation and it looks like you would
                                  mix my old email with my new one. In my old email I was trying to explain the
                                  potencial power of one kilowatt hour. In my yesterdays mail I referred to one
                                  liter of gas and what usually happens in nature all the time-> evaporation
                                  and the rising of the evaporated water up to the clouds--> That are DIFFERENT
                                  experiments!
                                  We should not get upset in a conversation about the behaviour of nature!
                                  1.) 1000Watts for one hour is the same energy than lifting a weight of 10
                                  Kilograms to a height of 36.000 meters during one hour.
                                  2.) One gramm of water turned into steam is lighter than air(which has a
                                  weight of 1.28 gramm a liter). This amount of steam is roughly the volume of
                                  one liter(0.28gramms lighter than the ambient air), so it flys up into the
                                  clouds, like a ballon. Sinking air pressure the higher you fly makes this one
                                  gramm of steam (partly )condens at a height, which is exactly the height of
                                  the clouds(that's why there are clouds!) . The 500 meters are just a rough
                                  figure, perhaps it's 1000. You have to ask the meterologes for more exact
                                  numbers. So if you want to extract ALL the power of its evaporation from a
                                  cloud, you would have to go into the mountains (in an ideal world experiment)
                                  at 499.9 meters height, then the cloud would rain out its water and in a long
                                  tube leading down to the ocean level of 0 meters, you would let that water
                                  run down and have a turbine there. Supposing you would have a turbine of 100%
                                  efficiency you would be able to get almost ALL THE POWER OF THE EVAPORATED
                                  WATER ACHIEVABLE IN A CLOSED CYCLE, NAMED EARTH back so. This is a very
                                  theoretical experiment with very rough numbers, but I only intended to state
                                  with that, that if you want to use gravity to gain your power a big height is
                                  involved and if you use pressure, specially underpressure, you need only 10
                                  meters height. So don't get upset Vikrant, just try to understand my point of
                                  description.
                                  So coming now to your points:
                                  1.) 500 meters was just a rough number for how high clouds fly...that might
                                  be wrong, but it's no few meters only and it's no 10.000 meters either.

                                  2.) Yes it looks more correct to calculate in Joule, but steam is only
                                  somewhat lighter than air and so it's not that much wrong to estimate the
                                  volume of 1 gramm of steam to 1 liter of air.
                                  3.) A vacuum sucks maximum 10 meters in height and of course we could imagine
                                  a very thin U-Tube and so in that experiment could suck up almost the whole
                                  liter of water to 10 meters with one liter of vacuum.
                                  4.) Old steam engines used contraction and expansion force of the steam by
                                  having a condenser and Striling engines use both anyway.

                                  We should not get upset be or confused by describing nature. There is one
                                  advantage we have in physic above other sciences. We have the experiment to
                                  proof/verify our ideas and the experiment tells us the truth of how nature
                                  acts on our ideas and so we inventors have to build these experiments to
                                  verify (called prototypes in our special case).

                                  Still my statement, that only the 3-4 degrees temperature difference acts on
                                  the BIRD and that this is not very much (according Carnot's law) wasn't
                                  critisised in the group yet. Let's continue there !

                                  Hubert
                                • Vikrant Suri
                                  Dear Hubert , In your current e-mail there is no direct or understandable explanation to your comparisn of one gram of water with the same amount as steam ,
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                                    Dear Hubert ,

                                    In your current e-mail there is no direct or
                                    understandable explanation to your comparisn of one
                                    gram of water with the same amount as steam , the
                                    subject of your prior e-mail , so I am closing the
                                    subject .

                                    Second - efficiency of Engines and systems is only a
                                    matter of comparative cost - ultimately . Livestock
                                    convert 8 to 10 percent of grain into meat - but the
                                    economic industry accepts the dish !!

                                    To put it in the simplest English - the efficiency
                                    calculation does not deter as long as the cost of
                                    construction of the device leads to competitively
                                    priced electricity as output . Putting it the contrary
                                    , and again in the simplest English - if you have an
                                    engine which is 90 ( ninety ) percent efficient but
                                    costs 100 times more to build - option one is the
                                    winner . You may point out the cost of running these
                                    two devices only if the input fuel ( we are using
                                    plain simple water here ) had any meaningful price or
                                    if the first device required greater maintenance costs
                                    .

                                    Thanks for your prompt response .

                                    Regards .

                                    Vikrant Suri








                                    --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Hello Vikrant,
                                    >
                                    > there is a misunderstanding in our conversation and
                                    > it looks like you would
                                    > mix my old email with my new one. In my old email I
                                    > was trying to explain the
                                    > potencial power of one kilowatt hour. In my
                                    > yesterdays mail I referred to one
                                    > liter of gas and what usually happens in nature all
                                    > the time-> evaporation
                                    > and the rising of the evaporated water up to the
                                    > clouds--> That are DIFFERENT
                                    > experiments!
                                    > We should not get upset in a conversation about the
                                    > behaviour of nature!
                                    > 1.) 1000Watts for one hour is the same energy than
                                    > lifting a weight of 10
                                    > Kilograms to a height of 36.000 meters during one
                                    > hour.
                                    > 2.) One gramm of water turned into steam is lighter
                                    > than air(which has a
                                    > weight of 1.28 gramm a liter). This amount of steam
                                    > is roughly the volume of
                                    > one liter(0.28gramms lighter than the ambient air),
                                    > so it flys up into the
                                    > clouds, like a ballon. Sinking air pressure the
                                    > higher you fly makes this one
                                    > gramm of steam (partly )condens at a height, which
                                    > is exactly the height of
                                    > the clouds(that's why there are clouds!) . The 500
                                    > meters are just a rough
                                    > figure, perhaps it's 1000. You have to ask the
                                    > meterologes for more exact
                                    > numbers. So if you want to extract ALL the power of
                                    > its evaporation from a
                                    > cloud, you would have to go into the mountains (in
                                    > an ideal world experiment)
                                    > at 499.9 meters height, then the cloud would rain
                                    > out its water and in a long
                                    > tube leading down to the ocean level of 0 meters,
                                    > you would let that water
                                    > run down and have a turbine there. Supposing you
                                    > would have a turbine of 100%
                                    > efficiency you would be able to get almost ALL THE
                                    > POWER OF THE EVAPORATED
                                    > WATER ACHIEVABLE IN A CLOSED CYCLE, NAMED EARTH back
                                    > so. This is a very
                                    > theoretical experiment with very rough numbers, but
                                    > I only intended to state
                                    > with that, that if you want to use gravity to gain
                                    > your power a big height is
                                    > involved and if you use pressure, specially
                                    > underpressure, you need only 10
                                    > meters height. So don't get upset Vikrant, just try
                                    > to understand my point of
                                    > description.
                                    > So coming now to your points:
                                    > 1.) 500 meters was just a rough number for how high
                                    > clouds fly...that might
                                    > be wrong, but it's no few meters only and it's no
                                    > 10.000 meters either.
                                    >
                                    > 2.) Yes it looks more correct to calculate in Joule,
                                    > but steam is only
                                    > somewhat lighter than air and so it's not that much
                                    > wrong to estimate the
                                    > volume of 1 gramm of steam to 1 liter of air.
                                    > 3.) A vacuum sucks maximum 10 meters in height and
                                    > of course we could imagine
                                    > a very thin U-Tube and so in that experiment could
                                    > suck up almost the whole
                                    > liter of water to 10 meters with one liter of
                                    > vacuum.
                                    > 4.) Old steam engines used contraction and expansion
                                    > force of the steam by
                                    > having a condenser and Striling engines use both
                                    > anyway.
                                    >
                                    > We should not get upset be or confused by describing
                                    > nature. There is one
                                    > advantage we have in physic above other sciences. We
                                    > have the experiment to
                                    > proof/verify our ideas and the experiment tells us
                                    > the truth of how nature
                                    > acts on our ideas and so we inventors have to build
                                    > these experiments to
                                    > verify (called prototypes in our special case).
                                    >
                                    > Still my statement, that only the 3-4 degrees
                                    > temperature difference acts on
                                    > the BIRD and that this is not very much (according
                                    > Carnot's law) wasn't
                                    > critisised in the group yet. Let's continue there !
                                    >
                                    > Hubert
                                    >
                                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    >
                                    >


                                    =====
                                    vikrantsuri2@...
                                    vikrantsuri@...

                                    ____________________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                                  • BobDMorris@aol.com
                                    Energy conservation has a special meaning in thermodynamics: survival. Energy can be moved and used ...and it survives, usually at a lower grade. All those
                                    Message 17 of 27 , May 23, 2001
                                      Energy conservation has a special meaning in thermodynamics: survival.
                                      Energy can be moved and used ...and it survives, usually at a lower grade.

                                      All those lights make a spactacular view!!!

                                      Most all that heat being pumped out by them was once a "fossil" fuel. Nature
                                      applied a biological process to convert ambient energy to a higher grade
                                      fuel: fossel fuel.

                                      My way of thinking is that nature has provided fossil fuel as a stop gap
                                      until we get smart enough to follow her example. We must find a way to
                                      effectively and efficiently up-grade ambient thermal energy.

                                      One of the best ways to use less energy is to recycle it. When we recycle
                                      all that energy coming from those millions of lights, we will help nature
                                      balance ambient thermal energy...global warming can be stopped by harvesting
                                      ambient energy.

                                      Regards,
                                      Bob Morris
                                    • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                      Hello Vikrant, the one gramm of steam was just ment to be compared with one gramm condensed to water in your design and running through your turbine. So one
                                      Message 18 of 27 , May 25, 2001
                                        Hello Vikrant,

                                        the one gramm of steam was just ment to be compared with one gramm condensed to water in your design and running through your turbine.
                                        So one gramm of water running through a water turbine (only inforced by gravity and the water column above) can maximum give some milleWatts/sec.
                                        One liter of water lifted 10 meters high is (THEORETICAL!) 100Watts/sec.
                                        That was what I only intended to make clear to you.
                                        Continuing the brain storm in our group, for me it's now important to get the numbers for the pressure (underpressure) we can achieve by the BIRD's process.
                                        This is important/essential information for the innovative thinking on -> HOW CAN WE HANDLE THAT POWER ?

                                        Hubert
                                        Hubert
                                      • Vikrant Suri
                                        Dear Hubert , This is your third e-mail on an incorrect comparisn yopu have made . You have taken arbitrary figures and then afforded a conclusion . The
                                        Message 19 of 27 , May 25, 2001
                                          Dear Hubert ,

                                          This is your third e-mail on an incorrect comparisn
                                          yopu have made . You have taken arbitrary figures and
                                          then afforded a conclusion . The relevant portions of
                                          your e-mail's are pasted under . I will repeat - you
                                          have drawn incorrect inferences .

                                          Lifting One ( 1 ) kilogram of Liquid to a height of
                                          Ten ( 10 ) Meters per second is no big deal . It is
                                          something I can design in less than Three ( 3 ) months
                                          with this weight being lifted every second for all 24
                                          Hours of the day .

                                          The constraints are not the technical or science part
                                          but the appropriate Research facilities and backup .
                                          Thus is what I am working for - you are well aware of
                                          this even outside this forum .

                                          Regards .

                                          Vikrant

                                          ************************************************
                                          the evaporation to the cloud is 500gramms in 1 meter
                                          the pressure is 1000gramms in 5 meters
                                          **************************************************

                                          ***************************************************
                                          the one gramm of steam was just ment to be compared
                                          with one gramm condensed to water in your design and
                                          running through your turbine.So one gramm of water
                                          running through a water turbine (only inforced by
                                          gravity and the water column above) can maximum give
                                          some milleWatts/sec.
                                          ***********************************************
                                          Dear Hubert ,

                                          I must say your logic given below made me take out my
                                          pen and paper and break up your statements into
                                          pieces to see what you were trying to mean .

                                          Your example is very flawed .

                                          Let us analyse in detail –

                                          1 . You have conveniently taken an arbitrary figure of
                                          500 meters for the one gram of water . Why ?

                                          2 . Next you have compared I gram of water with one
                                          litre of steam – trying to confuse with the physics
                                          that water expands 1000 times on becoming steam . The
                                          correct comparisn is of the energy in joules of
                                          raising 1 gram of water to 500 meters with the energy
                                          in joules to convert one gram of water into steam .

                                          3 . You close the U-tube top . That is rather
                                          convenient escapism .
                                          How ? Without expending energy ? If we could generate
                                          one litre of steam above standing water , providing
                                          energy just to convert that I gram of water to steam ,
                                          then – bingo – all of the worlds energy problems would
                                          end and also herald the shut down of this forum .

                                          Have you understood ? No . Well then try this –

                                          You use just enough energy to convert one gram of
                                          water to steam and place it above standing water and
                                          then close the top . You get a near perfect Vacuum and
                                          all the water rushes up to 10 meters . This water
                                          column may not just be 1 sq cm . It may be 1 metre
                                          square too and the water will still rush up too 10
                                          meters . Make some calculations and you will have an
                                          over unity device right there in your backyard in
                                          Frankfurt . And theoritically you could pull up all
                                          the water of the oceans – with litres of steam - and
                                          you would be known as Hubert Stierhof – but Miracle
                                          Man .

                                          Don’t mind that – you have started this not me . What
                                          ? Your mental frame in always going “cloud high” , sky
                                          high” , “500 meters” – when-ever it comes to scaling
                                          up the Drinking Bird principle . And this is despite
                                          me giving you a detailed explanation about a year ago
                                          and you then coming on to the costs of Vapourising the
                                          Liquid – which indeed is the valid point . More in my
                                          second e-mail on this subject .

                                          And so the rats decided that since the cat created
                                          havoc in their ranks – all that was required was to
                                          place a bell in the cats neck – thus providing an
                                          advance warning .

                                          And the the wise old rat said – but who will Bell the
                                          Cat ?

                                          How do you propose emptying the U-tube of its contents
                                          ? And if you use a Vacuum pump – what of the energy
                                          required to operate it - to completion of the
                                          required job ?

                                          4 . Who says that the contraction force during the
                                          condensation stage will not be used ? It will be used
                                          to the point where it is in excess of the required
                                          rate of climb of the liquid – internally .
                                          And remember – most engines use either the expansion
                                          or the contraction stage to extract power – not both .


                                          Regards .

                                          Vikrant Suri




                                          --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Hello Vikrant,
                                          >
                                          > the one gramm of steam was just ment to be compared
                                          > with one gramm condensed to water in your design
                                          > and running through your turbine.
                                          > So one gramm of water running through a water
                                          > turbine (only inforced by gravity and the water
                                          > column above) can maximum give some milleWatts/sec.
                                          > One liter of water lifted 10 meters high is
                                          > (THEORETICAL!) 100Watts/sec.
                                          > That was what I only intended to make clear to you.
                                          > Continuing the brain storm in our group, for me it's
                                          > now important to get the numbers for the pressure
                                          > (underpressure) we can achieve by the BIRD's
                                          > process.
                                          > This is important/essential information for the
                                          > innovative thinking on -> HOW CAN WE HANDLE THAT
                                          > POWER ?
                                          >
                                          > Hubert
                                          > Hubert
                                          >
                                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          >
                                          >


                                          =====
                                          http://www.geocities.com/vikrantsuri3/index.html
                                          vikrantsuri@...

                                          ____________________________________________________________
                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                                        • Vikrant Suri
                                          Dear Menmbers , For the avid Bird Fans here is a good web page - http://vortex.viptop.ru/eng/linkp8.html Regards . Vikrant Suri =====
                                          Message 20 of 27 , May 25, 2001
                                            Dear Menmbers ,

                                            For the avid Bird Fans here is a good web page -

                                            http://vortex.viptop.ru/eng/linkp8.html


                                            Regards .

                                            Vikrant Suri


                                            =====
                                            http://www.geocities.com/vikrantsuri3/index.html
                                            vikrantsuri@...

                                            ____________________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                                          • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                            Hello Vikrant, it seams we run into a perpetual misunderstanding ...somehow. I quit the discussion of that 1-gramm-of-steam-thing now but I continue
                                            Message 21 of 27 , May 25, 2001
                                              Hello Vikrant,

                                              it seams we run into a perpetual misunderstanding ...somehow.
                                              I quit the discussion of that 1-gramm-of-steam-thing now but I continue contributing to our group.
                                              So I have drawn a little basic design of a BIRD-similar-cycle and it's attached here.
                                              It should be in our FILES, but somehow I failed to do it.
                                              It's only 21KB so I attach it here (it's also in the vikranksuri5 directory now).
                                              With the risk of being misunderstood, you all please have a look at it.

                                              Hubert
                                            • Vikrant Suri
                                              Dear hubert , I have checked the drawing and say it is a good start . Just be sure how to re-introduce the Cooled Freon into the lower container for there is a
                                              Message 22 of 27 , May 25, 2001
                                                Dear hubert ,

                                                I have checked the drawing and say it is a good start
                                                .

                                                Just be sure how to re-introduce the Cooled Freon into
                                                the lower container for there is a pressure system in
                                                operation there - which is infact moving the piston .

                                                A minute closeup of the piston . Its specific design
                                                to cope with this entry and exit of Freon . The Entry
                                                for example may have to be higher than the exit .
                                                Gravity will bring the Freon into the condensor and
                                                then back to the hot side .


                                                So two things .

                                                1. The exact mode by which the Freon re-enters the
                                                heat providing Chamber .

                                                2 . Minute details of the piston system upto the last
                                                final details .

                                                And you have a wonderful design in operation .

                                                Wonderful because by some further innovation a
                                                temperature difference of even upto 7 to 8 Degrees
                                                Celsius CAN be achieved .

                                                Next - the cheapest material - even plain simple iron
                                                sheets cam be used for the condensation and base hot
                                                containers .

                                                This design will work .

                                                Regards .

                                                Vikrant Suri






                                                --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > Hello Vikrant,
                                                >
                                                > it seams we run into a perpetual misunderstanding
                                                > ...somehow.
                                                > I quit the discussion of that 1-gramm-of-steam-thing
                                                > now but I continue contributing to our group.
                                                > So I have drawn a little basic design of a
                                                > BIRD-similar-cycle and it's attached here.
                                                > It should be in our FILES, but somehow I failed to
                                                > do it.
                                                > It's only 21KB so I attach it here (it's also in the
                                                > vikranksuri5 directory now).
                                                > With the risk of being misunderstood, you all please
                                                > have a look at it.
                                                >
                                                > Hubert
                                                >
                                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                >
                                                >

                                                > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/octet-stream
                                                name=underpressure_basic.jpg



                                                =====
                                                http://www.geocities.com/vikrantsuri3/index.html
                                                vikrantsuri@...

                                                ____________________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                                              • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                                Hello Vikrant, very nice, that we do agree (fundamentally, basically) on my drawing ! In that drawing I did not mention, that the inlet valve opens at
                                                Message 23 of 27 , May 28, 2001
                                                  Hello Vikrant,

                                                  very nice, that we do agree (fundamentally, basically) on my drawing !

                                                  In that drawing I did not mention, that the inlet valve opens at uppermost dead center and closed exactly at the downermost center---> then the outlet to the water-cooled evaporation chamber opens and because pressure is lower in there(, there will be 1.0 bar on the backside of the piston(pushing) and (let's roughly say) 0.96 bar pressure on the piston( which is the same than inside the water-cooled evaporation chamber) WORK IS DOWN (mechanical energy) !
                                                  1.) This design is a very basic one, so there might be a counter-flow-heat-exchamnger between the outlet and the entrance to the evaporation-cooled-chamber.
                                                  2.) If you aske for pressure system -> evaporation-cooled-chamber(blue) versus Freon-evaporation chamber(red) you see the solution in my drawing-> they are connected via a (water) siphon (or however this is called correctly)..I mean the liquid level of the Freon in the blue chamber will be (according to my above mentioned rough numbers! and supposing the specific weight of the liquid would be like water (1.0)) 400mm higher than the level in the red chamber (It would be 10.000mm (=10meters) if we would achieve an absolute vacuum).

                                                  3.) So for me now the major question is: How can we change the design of the cylinder/piston/valve device to a more simple design (not using a turbine, because this will be too expensive/complicated) ?
                                                  So one solution would be to use an Archimedic screw backwards! SO we would need no valve, no piston, no cylinder !! Only we would have a quite big friction because the liquid has to pass through a lott of tubing.
                                                  Perhaps the design Archimedic-screw-backwards is a littlebit hard to understand ao perhaps somebody else can explain better...or I have to draw it(?)

                                                  Or what's the groups opinion on that ?

                                                  Hubert
                                                • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                                  So dear group members, here is a basic schematic drawing of the Archimedic screw backwards or Archimedic screw engine. I hope you may understand it, although
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , May 28, 2001
                                                    So dear group members,

                                                    here is a basic schematic drawing of the Archimedic screw backwards or Archimedic screw engine.
                                                    I hope you may understand it, although the drawing is very schematic.
                                                    I have built it once and tested it as a steam engine (running on water).

                                                    Hubert
                                                  • Vikrant Suri
                                                    Dear Hubert , You are aware that I do not open attachments and for that purpose had devised the operation through a geocity with you . So please upload there
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , May 28, 2001
                                                      Dear Hubert ,

                                                      You are aware that I do not open attachments and for
                                                      that purpose had devised the operation through a
                                                      geocity with you . So please upload there and either
                                                      just inform me or send along the URL too .

                                                      By the way - the password there is now shared by six
                                                      persons .

                                                      Regards .

                                                      Vikrant Suri



                                                      --- Hustierhof@... wrote: > So dear group members,
                                                      >
                                                      > here is a basic schematic drawing of the Archimedic
                                                      > screw backwards or Archimedic screw engine.
                                                      > I hope you may understand it, although the drawing
                                                      > is very schematic.
                                                      > I have built it once and tested it as a steam engine
                                                      > (running on water).
                                                      >
                                                      > Hubert
                                                      >
                                                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                      > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                      >
                                                      >

                                                      > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/octet-stream
                                                      name=Archimed_screw_expander.jpg



                                                      =====
                                                      http://www.geocities.com/vikrantsuri3/index.html
                                                      vikrantsuri@...

                                                      ____________________________________________________________
                                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                                      For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
                                                    • Hustierhof@aol.com
                                                      Vikrant, sorry I have forgotten this. I will upload the file Archimedic_screw_expander.jpg there at vikrantsuri5 Hubert
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , May 28, 2001
                                                        Vikrant,

                                                        sorry I have forgotten this.
                                                        I will upload the file Archimedic_screw_expander.jpg there at vikrantsuri5

                                                        Hubert
                                                      • hustierhof@yahoo.de
                                                        Hello Vikrant and the other members, still it seams interesting what pressure differences might be achieved by the different liquid available. HAs anybody any
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , May 30, 2001
                                                          Hello Vikrant and the other members,

                                                          still it seams interesting what pressure differences might be achieved
                                                          by the different liquid available. HAs anybody any number ?



                                                          Hubert
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.