- View SourceMaybe 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 - View SourceI 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