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

[microhydro] Re: to:piggot

Expand Messages
  • hugh piggott
    Maybe it s time to develop a sense of humour :-) ... -- Hugh Just home after 4 weeks off-line http://www.ScoraigWind.co.uk
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 1, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Maybe it's time to develop a sense of humour :-)

      >no tony I was not.
      >lesser engineers scoff at what they dont understand.
      >a time proven fact.
      >paul.
      >
      >and the challenge remains
      >
      >--- In microhydro@y..., "tony c sales" <tonysales@m...> wrote:
      >> Hey Hugh,
      >>
      >> Give Paul a break! He was just being funny. That's what lesser
      >engineers do.
      >>
      > > TONY
      --
      Hugh

      Just home after 4 weeks off-line
      http://www.ScoraigWind.co.uk
    • kloskie@hotmail.com
      I have read this post intencely with great interest and due to the completeness of the overall explanation minus a couple of easy to repair mistakes of which
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 1, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I have read this post intencely with great interest and due to the
        completeness of the overall explanation minus a couple of easy to
        repair mistakes " of which I repaired two " in the wording or
        description I have determined that the concept may be a workable one.
        I have not thouroughly done all the necessary calculations as of yet
        but with great anticipation I intend to do so.
        and may require the addition or removal of some text to provide a
        close to accurate finding.
        and will reveal my findings at a later date.
        the concept seems solid and useable to provide large amounts of
        energy.
        however I must warn you that I have never found a overunity or free
        energy device to date that I can not prove in capable of performing
        as a useable over unity or over energy production machine.

        and unlike others I will stick to the example provided.
        and render my determination in a truthfull non missleading manner.

        I will provide actual pumps with actual specs in my findings.
        I will provide actual flow data of actual pipe in my findings.

        so good luck to you mr inventor.

        k.l. oskie





        --- In microhydro@y..., paul@w... wrote:
        > ok I made a long drawn out example but it seems that what Im up
        > against here
        > is an engineering firm.
        >
        > you must have been refering to the 200 foot long section of pipe I
        > was using to try to get a point across about using
        > the flow of water instead of the pressure of water .
        >
        > anyway to continue.
        >
        > if we use the 1 foot square version that is 1000 foot long.
        > and for the sake of ease of explanation lets make the square pipe
        > 1020 feet long so we can have exactly
        > 1000 feet in lenght when calculating the force of the water flow. ok
        >
        > and that each end of the pipe is turned upward for a distance of 10
        > feet.
        > and that the two ends are side by side.
        > and the remaining 1000 feet are in a circle.
        > and to be techinical the pipe is not in a perfect circle as I have
        > heard that one before.
        >
        > so that if you were standing in the center of the almost perfect
        > circle the distance from where you
        > are standing to any point along the circumference of that almost
        > perfect circle would be approximatly
        > 159 feet. " corrected from 318.
        >
        > now if we filled the pipe with water .
        > and we lift 1 cubic foot of water per second from one end
        > and place this 1 cubic foot of water in the opposite end.
        > by doing so continuosly we would create a flow of water.
        > in the amount of 1 cubic foot of water per second.
        >
        > we have exerted a force of 62 pounds to lift this 1 cubic foot of
        > water
        > this is because 1 cubic foot of water weighs 62 pounds
        >
        > and we exerted this force over a distance in height of 1 foot
        > and the time in which we exerted this force was 1 second
        > therefore we have exerted exactly 0.1127 horse power
        > a little over 1 tenth of a horse power in 1 second.
        > this is because 1 horse power is the lifting of 550 pounds a height
        > of 1 foot in 1 second
        > therefore 62 divided by 550 = 0.1127 horse power
        >
        > this flow of water would move inside the pipe at a speed of 1 foot
        > per second.
        >
        > now this 1000 cubic feet of water is traveling at 1 foot per second
        >
        > and this 1000 cubic feet of moving or flowing water has a momentum
        > of 62380 pounds
        >
        > at the 1000 foot mark just before the water turns to move upwards.
        >
        > this is because water weighs .0361 pounds per cubic inch.
        >
        > and that there are 1728 cubic inches of water in 1 cubic foot of
        > water .
        >
        > 1728 x .0361 = 62.3808 pounds.
        >
        > now to recap the above 62 pounds was lifted in 1 second a distance
        > of 1 foot
        >
        > from one end of the pipe to the other end of the pipe.
        >
        > and that the pipe forms a circle.
        >
        > and that the two ends of the pipe are side by side.
        >
        > and that 0.11 horse power was expended in this process
        >
        >
        > now to simply keep things simple as I prefer to do.
        >
        >
        > if we want to prove that this flow of water has more energy in it
        > that the amount of energy
        > required to create this flow.
        >
        > first we ask the simple question.
        >
        > how many horse power can we get out of the momentum of this flow of
        > water in 1 second ?
        >
        > we already know that it takes 0.11 horse power to maintain the
        flow.
        >
        > in physics a body or weight that has movement has energy.
        >
        > this is due to momentum.
        >
        > notice that im leaving out mass...
        >
        > the body or weight that we have is 62,380 pounds.
        >
        >
        > this weight is calculated at the 1000 foot mark as described above.
        >
        >
        > the movement of the body or weight we have is 1 foot per second.
        >
        > in physics a term called mass is usualy used in the below formula.
        >
        > but to use this term would be to also include density specific
        > gravity angular momentum etc...etc...etc...
        >
        > and this needs to remain simple.
        >
        > it is highly known that a extremely close sum can be derived using
        > weight in the place of mass.
        >
        > it is also highly known that to achieve a substaintually acurate
        > force result you can use force = speed x weight.
        >
        > effectively replacing the term acceleration for the term speed.
        > and effectively replacing the term mass for the term weight.
        >
        >
        > therefore the formula f = ws
        > or force =( weight ) multiplied times ( speed )
        > is comparable to f = ma
        >
        > where
        > f = force in pounds per second
        > w = weight in pounds
        > s = speed in feet per second
        >
        > resulting sum = force in pounds per second.
        >
        > 62,380 x 1 = 62,380
        >
        > the momentum of the force of the moving water is 62,380 pounds .
        >
        > the force is 62,380 lbf/s pounds force per second.
        >
        > a force of 62,380 pounds per second over a distance of 1 foot can
        > lift
        > a total of ( 113 ) ( 550 ) pound weights a height of 1 foot in 1
        > second
        >
        > this force converts exactly to 113.418 horse power in 1 second
        >
        > and the amplitude of the ratio of input energy and capturable
        output
        > energy
        >
        > is a whopping 1000 to 1 ratio.......
        >
        > in a time frame of 1 second............
        >
        > I am sure you simply miscalculated as you are attached to an
        > engineering firm.
        >
        > therefore as I know calculations can get confussing I will not
        > critisize your 1 hp total output reply.
        >
        > and also I would like to stress that you were probably looking more
        > at the fact that the fluid would
        >
        > slow down and stop.
        >
        > this is also the way I have explained the input and output energies
        > so that you can use the same though pattern
        >
        > you had previously to verify the validity of the input and output
        > energies.
        >
        >
        > in other words the horse power required to stop this moving or
        > flowing water is 113 hp
        > the force required to supply this moving or flowing water is 0.11 hp
        >
        > utilizing a moment in time as engineers often do the entire
        > opperation can be
        >
        > examined if the opperation is a continous one.
        >
        > the moment in time I am using is a section of time of 1 second
        >
        > and given the fact that I am stopping the flow of water.
        >
        > to measure the energy output.
        >
        > bears little consideration to the fact that surplus energy can be
        > taken
        >
        > from the process.
        >
        > as the flow of water could be stopped and restarted over a period
        or
        > cycle of 2 seconds. " corrected from 5 seconds according to below "
        >
        > 1 second to stop the flow and 1 second to regain the flow.
        >
        > because water will seek a balance in a closed system or a container.
        >
        > and it seeks this balance at a speed of 32.2 ft per second in all
        > directions.
        >
        > therefore although we have completely stopped the flow of water
        >
        > the water will almost instataneously begin its flow again.
        >
        > because we did not remove any of the water.
        >
        > this can be calculated.
        >
        > this would render a total of 30 peroids that the process could
        occur
        > in a 60 second section of time.
        >
        > this 60 second section of time could deliver 30 seconds of 113
        > hp/second energy output.
        >
        > for a total of 3390 hp/minute
        >
        > or 56.5 hp/sec
        >
        > whereas the entire minute would require an energy input of only 6.6
        > hp/minute
        >
        > or 0.11 hp/sec
        >
        > and a total energy gain of 3383.4 hp/minute
        >
        > or 56.39 hp/sec
        >
        > although the input would be continous the output would be greater.
        >
        > this force was created in 1 second
        >
        > and the captured force was captured in 1 second
        >
        > if physics is wrong then perhaps the invention will not work.
        >
        > but if physics is right then the invention will work.
        >
        > I personaly do not doubt that this flow usage is better to use than
        > the used pressure methods.
        >
        > as energy could be generated anywhere using this process.
        >
        > and this is also not the method I would use to extract energy from
        a
        > flow of water.
        >
        > of course I could have gotten technical in my example but then I
        > would probably have more explaining to do.
        >
        > this is the simplest way I could explain it.
        >
        > I suppose that you would now like to know how I intend to extract
        > this surplus energy.
        >
        > that information will be put up on the upcomming web site.
        >
        > for all interested to observe.
        >
        > also the status of the funding from the dept of energy and the
        status
        > of the patent applications.
        >
        > and maybe even a short physics tutorial or two as well to help some
        > to follow the math.
        >
        > think of it as a learning experience.
        >
        > paul
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.