(draft)
Many years ago, a friend of mine explained his idea of a 'free energy' machine to me,
At the time I believed in my classic engineering background and decided that I know it can not work because free energy is impossible.

Recently I was researching electrolysis under pressure and remembered his idea.
If this works I claim a fair share of the profit for him (I have lost contact but could find him)
I am physically unable to investigate the idea,
so
I thought it may stimulate someone to either try it, or mathematically disprove it,


His idea with a few of my thoughts mixed in ;

The basic idea is the electrolysis of sea water at depth *

The hydrogen and oxygen produced displace some or all of the water in gas tanks, increasing their bouyancy,
The tanks are chained in a continuous loop to the surface, where the gasses are recovered
by allowing water to fill the tanks which then descend.,
So real power is available from the difference in bouyancy between the ascending and descending tanks,

At the bottom, where electrolysis takes place,
tanks could be filled to expell all water, but the surface pressure may be too great
in which case the tanks can be partially filled with gas at the bottom,
the gasses wil expand due to  P.V=.R.T, until no water remains, and a valve is closed.
.
The d.c. generator on the surface can be driven by the 'bouyancy power' of the elevator tanks and/or H₂ + O₂ = heat + (pure water)

To reduce losses due to hydrodynamic drag, I think that the tanks need to be in an 'up' and a 'down' tube.

I can't do the math !

just an idea thrown out there !

* this is what reminded me
... at practical depths (1000's feet below sea level) the energy consumption for electroltsis is only 20% more than at STP. (please cross-check ... )


EDIT: I saved as a draft, could not find it for ages, found it, had to edit it to be able to post it.... try editing next ....

My hunch is that, as it takes equal amount of pressure "down there" to empty the water filled tanks, the gasses will by default have to be compressed with the same pressure that which are at that very depth, which at the end of the day would leave you with no net gain in energy exchange as the total dissipated energy spent in generating the gasses in the first place, down below, would amount to or be greater than the sinking energy of the now water filled tanks.

But it's a most interesting concept though and I do hope I'm wrong here ;-)

Precisely why I'm posting ... that is the FALSE assumption that i made,
electrolysis AT PRESSURE is only 20% less efficient than at the surface,
(this key detail should be verified, this is based on only light incidental research)
the H2 and O2 will be produced at whatever depth.

i do not know how soluble H2 and O2 are in sea water under pressure,

who ever is keen can find out :)


Edit: sorry, not shouting, just for emphasis

P.S. even if all of the recovered H2 and O2 had to be burned to supplement the 'bouyancy power'
you still get free pure water, but the value of pure H2 and O2 is higher.

I would be happy if someone could scientifically disprove this idea so that I can clear some grey-matter space
I would be overjoyed if it works !

On the other hand, if the tanks were to be made elastic/expandable, they would have the same volume when filled with water on their way down, but as the gas filled tanks ascends to the surface they would expand proportionally on their way up, giving more bouyancy as they ascend, I.E give more lift/floating power/energy as they go, sort of speaking.

Food for thought, no doubt about that :thumbsup2:

O.K.  its your problem now ... but don't forget my friend

(Peck... if you ever read this, I meant well)

Quote from Sulaiman on September 1st, 2016, 09:32 AM

O.K.  its your problem now ... but don't forget my friend

(Peck... if you ever read this, I meant well)

Problem, what do you mean?

This idea has lurked in my head for ages,
I can see that you appreciate the possibility of the idea,
I hereby unload this problem onto you
and free myself ........

Well I'm kinda busy with other things ATM, let's hope someone more driven would like to pick up on this.

O.K.
at least a burden shared is a burden lessened,
I too hope someone with time and enthusiasm takes the idea
even if only to disprove it and put it to rest.

Btw Sulaiman, this thread doesn't belong in the sandbox in my opinion as this is anything but irrelevant, so I'm just gonna find a nice "regular" subforum instead and move it there ;-)

Search for "Wally Minto Water Wheel". It's a similar idea but without the electrolysis and the need for deep water.

The wheel is made up of chambers around the perimeter containing a refrigerant that has a low boiling point liquid state, e.g R12 or similar. The chambers are cross connected across the wheel with tubes that let the vapor phase travel to the chamber opposite it on the wheel. The chambers pass through a container of heated water at the bottom of the wheel. The heated chamber at the bottom causes the refrigerant to vaporize and travel through the connecting tube to its opposite chamber where, being cooler, the vapor condenses back to a liquid and the weight of the liquid causes the upper chamber to fall thus rotating the wheel and in the process moving the chamber containing the liquid into the heated water to cause it to vaporize again and repeat.

It needs heated water that can be supplied by a solar water heater on a good day or any other means.

These are large devices but can produce tremendous torque. I read somewhere of one that was connected to an automotive rear end and transmission to raise the RPM to usable levels for pumping water and/or generating electricity.

Isralift Giant Minto Wheel

Hi, Sulaiman, this sounds like a very promising idea! What are the latest developments on this?
May I suggest that you invent a unique "code name" for the device, to make googling information on it easier in future?

If it works, your device would seem to create energy out of nothing, so I'm trying to get a handle on where this new energy might be coming from.
Unlike the Minto Water Wheel, which is a purely thermo-mechanical device (it uses heat to expand gas to cause mechanical energy, and this process is always governed by the ideal gas law),
your device breaks that linkage,  using a processes that may or may not be sensitive to pressure: electrolysis.

If classical conservation of energy holds, then the electrolysis process ought to be less efficient at depth. But how would it know this? How would the electrolysis process be able to sense the surrounding pressure, in order to be less efficient?  Who knows, maybe the extra pressure might actually help the process by forcing the reagents closer together?
Only once the H and O atoms are liberated from the surface of the electrodes, are they subject to the common gas PV=nRT rule.
But if electrolysis is not severely impeded by pressure, then you have managed to sneak the gas deep down into the depths without having to pay the energy cost of overcoming buoyancy.

Thus, the new energy from your device might actually come from the newly liberated H & O atoms spreading their wings, so to speak, by drawing energy from the Vacuum, as all atoms do.

Of course, if electrolysis is severely impeded by pressure, then it won't work, but still, it would be intriguing as to how Nature manages to balance energy flow between two totally unrelated processes - electrolysis and buoyancy.