Energy through weight.
Question:
Hi, You might like to take a look at http://www.liquid-leak.com – under the renewable energy proposals. I have searched the net and cannot find anyone who has proposed this. However that does not mean it cannot be done. The "springs" will most probably be magnets with like polarities facing each other. The free compression force will probably be the depth of water – out at sea, where the atmospheric pressure increases by one atmosphere for each ten metres depth. I have checked with some university mathematicians – just to make sure that I am not a "nut". Any ideas – now that the information in on the web it is public – and cannot be patented. Regards Denis Gibbs
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, > You might like to take a look at http://www.liquid-leak.com – under the > renewable energy proposals. > I have searched the net and cannot find anyone who has proposed this. > However that does not mean it cannot be done. > The "springs" will most probably be magnets with like polarities facing each > other. The free compression force will probably be the depth of water – out > at sea, where the atmospheric pressure increases by one atmosphere for each > ten metres depth. > I have checked with some university mathematicians – just to make sure that > I am not a "nut". > Any ideas – now that the information in on the web it is public – and cannot > be patented. > Regards > Denis Gibbs
Try checking with engineers or physicists. In the originla proposal with the tanks and springs, the input energy is the original potential energy iof the water at some height- there are already very efficient and less complicated ways to exploit this energy. Actually the only energy stored in the spring is the force times the distance moved in compressing the spring from its unloaded condition. "Weight" alone is not energy. — Don Kelly remove the urine to answer
Response:
> You might like to take a look at http://www.liquid-leak.com – under the > renewable energy proposals. > I have searched the net and cannot find anyone who has proposed this. > However that does not mean it cannot be done.
These ideas are hardly new or even very efficient. Let’s take them one at a time. : Rainfall as Weight. : Example 1 : A garden tank of, say, 50 gallons capacity has a total weight of some : 500 lbs. This tank may sit on a framework which incorporates a : compression "spring" mechanism. As the tank fills with water it : compresses the "spring" which is underneath the tank. When the tank is : almost full the "spring" is "latched" in the compressed position. : There is stored energy in the latched "spring". : At a given point of fullness of water in the tank, a ball-valve opens : a tap at the bottom side of the tank, allowing the water to flow out : into another tank below the first tank. At the same time another : unlatched "spring" underneath the first tank raises the empty tank to : its original position. : The lower tank is perhaps a replica of the upper tank. The cycle of : "spring" compression therefore is repeated. Ok, so you are talking hydropower here. The energy provided by water falling down a height. In this case it’s used to compress a spring. This is not fundamentally different than any existing use of hydropower except that it’s not as effective. Springs are not very efficient forms of energy storage. A freeplay radio has a big spring that only stores enough energy to play a transistor radio a few minutes. A single AA battery stores many hundreds of times this energy with much less mass. A couple of grams of gasoline stores many thousands of times this much energy. : Transported Goods as Weight. : Example 2 illustrates that water is not the only source which can be : used. : When goods are transported around the world, they are many times : shipped in "containers". These containers are loaded at the source : onto container transporters, taken to, say, a dock, unloaded into a : waiting bay, then loaded onto a ship. After the ship has left and : reached its destination the container is unloaded into a waiting bay, : then loaded onto a container transporter, which delivers the container : to a depot, where it is again unloaded. : If, in almost all these instances, the containers could sit on a : simple platform and compress a "latchable" "spring", then the energy : from the weight of the container could be stored for further use. No : additional input energy is required. This is, of course, completely false. The additional energy input is from the machines or methods used to move the containers in the first place. They would have to lift the containers higher to place them on top of springs. You would effectively be wasting more energy rather than saving energy. : Deep water sources as Weight. : Example 3. : Imagine a sort of London Eye, out in the deep sea waters. Uncompressed : "springs" systems are loaded at the top, and are then circulated : downwards to the deep water. There is an additional atmosphere : pressure for each 10 metres below the surface of the sea. This can be : used to obtain "spring" compression at the lower parts of the Eye : cycle. The then compressed "springs" reach the surface, where their : stored energy may be used. They are automatically replaced by a new : uncompressed "spring" system, and the cycle continues. Ok, how are these springs getting down into the deep water? Some device must force them there or they would not get compressed. That device would use more energy to compress the springs than those springs would store. You would lose energy in this situation This is much like those perpetual motion machines that use floating balls that enter at the bottom of a tank of water, float to the top, circle around on a chain and then enter at the bottom again. They don’t work, of course. : The rewards for success are considerable. : 1. The "springs" are transportable – the energy in the "springs" can : be sent almost anywhere. Energy density is minimal for springs. Electric batteries are much better. Hydrocarbon fuels are even better yet. Electricity and natural gas are highly portable through the use of transmission infrastructures. Nuclear fuels are even better yet, though they pose some hazards. : 2. The "springs" can be economically produced, and can have very long : life times. I would like the see the numbers on this. I just don’t believe it. First, they require more materials than other forms of energy storage. Then their life spans are limited by such things as fatigue. I believe the author simply does not understand enough about how springs work. : 3. The converted energy can be electric or kinetic. Why not stick with electric to start with? Much less complex. Much easier to transport. Much more flexible all around. : 4. The "springs" can be used in parallel, thus providing very large : amounts of energy in one place. The electric grid, gas pipes, fuel tanks, nuclear reactors, all provide very large amounts of energy in one place. I don’t see how a spring is so much better or even as good. Anthony
Response:
Hi, See here PLEASE: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic. php?t=44&sid=0a7ce7468c9a409615114d6f909843bc — Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr http://forums.club-internet.fr/
Response:
Related Posts