Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.

~Russ

Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
«  »Last edited
ok... so we have been battling out the idea here on the forums. Its time to ask the Question.

here is basically whats in the video, ( but i would still watch it...)


https://youtu.be/72mVo5U4ad8

If I have an Air Motor, that will run at 1PSI per min (flow) , and full torque at that 1PSI

Given 1 tank through the air motor out to ATM I will get 99 min of run time... this will  be our "max run time". (call it 100%)

If I split 1 high pressure (100PSI) tank in to 2 lower pressures. (50psi each)

Those 2 lower pressures will = the same amount of work as the 1 higher pressure tank ( lest say we are going to use it to power a low pressure pump anyway  only 1psi was needed...)

so there for during the time where we used the transfer energy...  was not "used" it was just "moved"... and during that transfer it gave us useful work.  just like a wind mill. moving air from one place to a another did not change the amount of work it could do. and during the transfer we got a windmill to move and make power? same amount of air from one spot to the next.



example A.
1 Tank run
100psi consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min = 99 min of run time.
we have a total of 99 min of run time. ( we lose that 1 PSI)


example B.
split the pressure in to 2 tanks with an air motor between

100psi consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to a second tank = 49 min of run time.
we have a total of 49min of run time.

B1. we still have 50 PSI in 2 tanks now.

B2. empty the 2 tanks in to the ATM.
50psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min = 49 min of run time.
50psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min = 49 min of run time.
we have a total of 98 min of run time for B2

so B + B2 is 49+49+49= 147 min of run time.

example C:
split the pressure in to 2 tanks with an air motor between

100psi consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to a second tank = 49 min of run time.
we have a total of 49min of run time.

C1. we still have 50 PSI in 2 tanks now.

C2. empty the 2 tanks in to 2 more tainks.
50psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.
50psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.
we have a total of 48 min of run time for C2

C3. 4 tanks now with 25PSI in to the ATM.

25psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.
25psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.
25psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.
25psi  consumed by the 1psi pump at the rate of 1psi per min in to another tank = 24 min of run time.

C3 = another 96 min or run time..

we have a total C + C2 + C3 so 49+(24x6) = 193min of run time...

example D:
we could keep doing this...  however will stop at C3 for this thought experiment.

That is 193 min of run time. where as we only had 99 min of run time to start with. ( from a stranded point of view)


so with this said. where have i gone wrong?

I'm excluding a lot of things as this is a thought experiment. so for now it either is wright or wrong.

post your comments...

next we can do this with 1000PSI, and a real air motor. calculate the losses and still see that its possible to do this in the real world.

the point of this thought experiment is that the load never " consumes" the energy. in fact the load is only there to act as a resistance. but never consumes anything...   next step, convert This idea to an electrical system... dose resistor "consume" the energy??? ( if its not generating heat...)

"original" ideas from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-AiC9yiFc

~Russ
Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #1,  »
Photo from video.

Matt Watts

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #2,  »
"This video is private."

No matter.  We talked already.  How to map this to an electrical system still has me stumped though.  I really do get the feeling the resistor does not consume the energy or even translate it.  I think the resistor becomes excited from the energy flow through or around it.  It could well be the "type" of electrical energy we are familiar with is actually the wrong kind.  Seems entirely possible that with the proper "type" of electrical energy, the resistor would become cooler than ambient.  Can you say "cold electricity"  ?


~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #3,  »
it was not done processing Matt, its done now.

by the way. to make the thought experiment work, you MUST understand the parameters that the "air motor" needs...

~Russ

Diadon

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #4,  »
   I would hypothesize that the pressure between the tanks would be seen at the motor reducing its ability to do work or have (reduced torque). In electrical terms, this would be considered a cascading LC circuit ,as you have purposed in your thought experiment. The J/s seen on motor as HP would be determined by a sort of LC circuit formula. Where the motor would be the L and the tanks the C as I am sure you are aware of. Technically there is also a R in pipe length,diameter, topology, ect. but lets keep the thought experiment simple right?
If you devised a 2 way counter motor rotation that could gear differentiate between the tanks pressure and volume.. this would be like a fundamental frequency using a tuning inductor in this experiment.. you would more than likely have one hell of an efficient motor.  I do believe there a few gentlemen who have experimented with that idea with practicality in mind, and have had great success.
  I know you are totally aware of impedance and resistance in electrical terms. I also am not going to lecture you about 65-75% efficient of air motors. How would this system be any different then the capacitor paradox though? It is my feeling the reason the capacitor paradox exists is simply due to the perception of a closed systems contrived by us as a way to communicate a measurement. Many things have a known equivalence of energy correct? So what is the known energy equivalence of air? How would one increase not only the velocity of that air, but also its mass?

  The beauty I have always felt with this type of circuit is it can be ran in reverse according to the second law of thermodynamics Gibbs free energy. What I mean by this, and what many others have eluded through experimentation, is as follows.  If you increase your closed systems size, you increase your total energy in a particular thought experiment. So once you open your system up to incredible sizes that may times pose a challenge to measure... the perception of energetic motion becomes unfathomable for the mind to process alone ;) This is why the closed system was developed in the first place... its also why we have not reached a zero point in any form of motion.
That is certainly some philosophy, but without philosophy, how would one do a thought experiment in the first place? I hope at least some of this has made sense.

Love the video my friend and by no means are my words meant to discourage from perusing this experiment in real life.  You know me, I will give it to you how I see it.

-Love Diadon

PeakPositive

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #5,  »
I'm thinking that discharging into atmosphere has little resistance compared to discharging into a sealed tank which has an increasing pressure build.

So if tank B was evacuated down close to 0 psi first then maybe the 2 tanks would equalize to around 50 psi.
Otherwise I'm thinking the 2 tanks would equalize maybe higher say around 60 to 70%.

If we took a 100 gallon tank of water running to a water motor then to atmosphere we could drain 100 % of the water.

Or if we ran it into a second tank with an open top we could get about 50 gallons in each tanks.

But if the second tank had a sealed top then pressure would build and we would not get 50 gallons in each tank.

PeakPositive

talisman

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #6,  »
My first thought no math is that in the real world the motor would run longer in time but at a lower torque.

Like if I were in a stranded Apollo and needed a longer oxygen pump. The flaw intuitively is in the assumption

because if it was one psi at full 100 psi it would be about 100 psi torque translation in the real world not

linear (straight line or constant) reduction but a differential pressure (fractional reduction) decay in pressure

on a half life.   

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #7,  »

Quick real world thoughts come to mind and that would be thinking about a 0 psi vacuum effect needs a pump beforehand outside of
an atmospheric pressure at the start needing energy. Besides the resistance pressure internally as the opposite filled another thought
is if rubber tanks then atmospheric pressure would also resist at below atmospheric.   
 

evostars

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #8,  »
I see it has been posted already here but ill shortly mention it again.

emptying a full tank into a constant pressure ambient air is different than filling another tank up. no need to explain further.

Ill let my brain storm freely and type it here (with the analog of 2 capacitors as tanks, and a coil as motor in the back of my mind)

the motor only uses 1 psi to get full power, so I assume the pressure flow is limited to 1 psi per second.
this creates a problem in my opinion.

why? because without the 1 psi limitation, there would be an oscillation back and forth between the 2 tanks, that slowly fades until it is equalised.

this oscillation would happen at the resonant frequency. (which I love)
So the load/motor kills the resonance.

On another perspective, this is about impedance.
filling an empty tank represents a changing impedance(of both tanks),
that is different from emptying a full tank into the (constant pressure) ambient. then only the source tank impedance changes.

with oscillating tanks the impedance of both tanks are constantly changing.
So the load/motor would also need to change its impedance to perfectly match.

end of brainstorm transmission

It is very interesting to see this concept worked out. the output is re used as an input on the next cycle. this is what I have in mind for the back emf.
 ;)

talisman

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #9,  »
Yes this is a thought exercise.
I have not worked the math just thought.
There are hypothetical assumptions.
The math is straight forward only if those assumptions exist and not otherwise in reality.
The exercise is mainly teach an isolated concept an algorithm or steps to an answer.
 Without a good grasp of the many other real world behaviors that would not necessary translate to a real solution alone
but it might be a way to teach a differential calculus (at a risk of being increasingly misunderstood by some).
There are half lives in real world behavior this seems similar.
That could be applied to radioactive decay (or a geometric collapse possibly deionization?).
But this is a thermodynamic and pressure system as an illustration.
It cannot be applied on equal terms with electrical theory.
Electricity is more of a subatomic interaction in energy transformation.
Thermodynamic systems are more pressure temperature or friction force related.
Air is the gas and opposing air pressure results mostly to a heat or cooling transfer.
Electrical sub atomic opposing forces can result in sub atomic electrical transformation,
and if near over capacity of the conductor medium a heat translation both as well.   
 
 
 
     

~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #10,  »
Quote from talisman on September 8th, 2017, 07:08 AM
Yes this is a thought exercise.
I have not worked the math just thought.
There are hypothetical assumptions.
The math is straight forward only if those assumptions exist and not otherwise in reality.
The exercise is mainly teach an isolated concept an algorithm or steps to an answer.
 Without a good grasp of the many other real world behaviors that would not necessary translate to a real solution alone
but it might be a way to teach a differential calculus (at a risk of being increasingly misunderstood by some).
There are half lives in real world behavior this seems similar.
That could be applied to radioactive decay (or a geometric collapse possibly deionization?).
But this is a thermodynamic and pressure system as an illustration.
It cannot be applied on equal terms with electrical theory.
Electricity is more of a subatomic interaction in energy transformation.
Thermodynamic systems are more pressure temperature or friction force related.
Air is the gas and opposing air pressure results mostly to a heat or cooling transfer.
Electrical sub atomic opposing forces can result in sub atomic electrical transformation,
and if near over capacity of the conductor medium a heat translation both as well.
Verry good answer. Verry verry good.

I agree with most everything you posted.

Thanks for the input.

(Thanks for the feed back to everyone else too) 

~Russ

Matt Watts

Electrical Self Runner -- Thought Experiment
« Reply #11,  »Last edited
So Rick designates his stage II circuit as the Loving Path where the load resides in between two potentials of differing values.  He states "the load runs for free".  Personally I'm not yet convinced, so I devised a proof of concept circuit I'd like people to consider and gather y'all's thoughts.  No batteries here, just capacitors that would need to be charged up initially.  Pretend there are voltage sensors that recognize when the capacitors need to be rotated and switching to handle rotating them.  Try thinking though different input/output values for the DC 2 DC convertors and see if you can come up with a combination that would be suitable--remember watts out will be approximately equal to 90% of watts in.  For this thought experiment you can also assume the DC 2 DC convertors have a wide input operating voltage, though +/- 30% of target is more reasonable.  DC 2 DC convertors are all isolated as well.

My feeling is in order to create enough potential you will trade amperage for voltage; by doing this you decrease discharge time without also decreasing charge time.  So the only possible hope is the fact you have two charging capacitors and only one discharging capacitor.  I'm very curious if anyone sees this differently.  My gut tells me with no losses, this system would likely be unity at best--same could be said for a superconductor piece of wire.
Rotating Dipole -- Thought Experiment
« Reply #12,  »Last edited
Okay, you chewed on that one.  Now try this one, a rotating charge system.

Can C3 ever charge by simply rotating the dipole around the circuit?

Remember, no more than two switches are ever on at one time, so the system is essentially open loop, i.e. no actual current flow.

Will the charge on the plates of C1 and C2 ever migrate to the plates of C3?  If the charge does, will this discharge C1 and/or C2?

Would having huge conductors with a lot of mass make any difference whatsoever?

~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #13,  »
I haven't thought about this yet the way your asking I will later today.

But just as a side note.

I spent 4 weeks chewing on this as you know. What resulted in the first post.

And there are things to think about here that don't directly make sense. But later will make sense if you get through all the videos. (I think) 

Any hoo. I'll post. My thoughts on your thought experment later today.

~Russ

namirha

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #14,  »Last edited


777 7 8 9

Mendeleev has expressed his thanks to Panini who was Sanskrit's grammarian 2800 years ago . Mendeleev had said that there are ultra rare AETHER gases preceeding Hydrogen on his periodical table. Nikola Tesla always believed that electrical and magnetic forces were streams of Aether gas ( Akasha , as explained to him to him by Vivekananda ) Gravity does not pull as contended by Newton of apple bump on head fame. Rather it pushes, due to the depression or warp in the time space fabric. The faster you move the slower time progresses.

THE UNIVERSAL MIND, 

THE FRACTAL GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE,

THE  SRI YANTRA

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.nl/2010/03/theory-of-everything-consciousness-and.html



The Sri Yantra is drawn from nine triangles, four pointed...

PHIve



All we are doing is using the force in the middle to get work done.
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3071.0
3071
137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Chapter 6: Pulse-Charging Battery Systems
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt6.html

Mark Chapter 6
http://dcsymbols.com/design/mark6.htm



~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #15,  »Last edited
Quote from Matt Watts on September 17th, 2017, 01:49 AM
So Rick designates his stage II circuit as the Loving Path where the load resides in between two potentials of differing values.  He states "the load runs for free".  Personally I'm not yet convinced, so I devised a proof of concept circuit I'd like people to consider and gather y'all's thoughts.  No batteries here, just capacitors that would need to be charged up initially.  Pretend there are voltage sensors that recognize when the capacitors need to be rotated and switching to handle rotating them.  Try thinking though different input/output values for the DC 2 DC convertors and see if you can come up with a combination that would be suitable--remember watts out will be approximately equal to 90% of watts in.  For this thought experiment you can also assume the DC 2 DC convertors have a wide input operating voltage, though +/- 30% of target is more reasonable.  DC 2 DC convertors are all isolated as well.

My feeling is in order to create enough potential you will trade amperage for voltage; by doing this you decrease discharge time without also decreasing charge time.  So the only possible hope is the fact you have two charging capacitors and only one discharging capacitor.  I'm very curious if anyone sees this differently.  My gut tells me with no losses, this system would likely be unity at best--same could be said for a superconductor piece of wire.
just getting to this... what a day in a half.

ok, i know where you gathered theses thoughts from...

and you have to know whats in the box... i think i know whats in the box... and at that point. something makes scene.

however if i tell you you might not get it. if you make it all the way through and still dont know... Ill point you in the right direction.

However. i posted a senaro that appears to work with caps. battery's however i guess it should still work because WE ARE WORKING WITH PULSED SYSTEM...

any hoo, ill wait to go further on this one.

to answer your question. "He states "the load runs for free"."

This has to be thought out with the right mind set. Using ricks thoughts... be in that place for a moment...

If we place a short between a battery... Then the short allows the battery to discharge its self. At the rate the wires allows it. 

so if we place a higher value resistor in place of the wire then the battery discharges its self at the rate that the resistor allows it....

so IF we agree that the resistor / The wire dose not discharge the battery but rather it discharges its self... at the rate that the load allows it...  ( just as i explain in my part 2 "search for answers" air tank > atm Vs air taink > through motor > atm...  )

IF you think  this way... you can see new ways to make this work...

~Russ
Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #16,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 17th, 2017, 02:25 AM
Okay, you chewed on that one.  Now try this one, a rotating charge system.

Can C3 ever charge by simply rotating the dipole around the circuit?

Remember, no more than two switches are ever on at one time, so the system is essentially open loop, i.e. no actual current flow.

Will the charge on the plates of C1 and C2 ever migrate to the plates of C3?  If the charge does, will this discharge C1 and/or C2?

Would having huge conductors with a lot of mass make any difference whatsoever?
hummm... i'm not sure if i understand what your asking. i guess i do because your asking about charge on a plate. moving to a different charge on a plate.

however i devised a way to pull a cap negative. switch the configuration and have more " potential difference" than i started with... keep switching at the exact correct time and it works...

sure... its a sim but hey ill move to the bench soon enough.

This was me messing around. might not be worth watching...   but i build a more advanced system beyond the attachment.
some where in here you can see a cycle finish with more potential difference than i started with. a lot more to do on this i was just messing around. However i think it will work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GglZxjzR2Wg
also note that this idea is not really directly connected to this, but it is similar.


dont for get... this "negative energy" ( Opposite of Positive energy) manifests its self BEST in a LOW RESISTANCE...

so if we have 2 battery in parallel Vs 2 battery's in series... tell me.. what one has less resistance? Now do the same with caps...

so if we can have more capacity... but lower resistance.  then... 2 caps in series charging 2 caps in parallel will work... ( capacity here through you for a loop. but if you remember that we care about resistance... then... )

~Russ 
Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #18,  »
locked for a day or so so we migrate to the correct threads... see above post

namirha

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #19,  »Last edited

http://negromodelo.tumblr.com/post/91967283366RENAiSSANCE Φ RESoNANCE
Ossie Callanan’s Free-Energy System
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3071.msg45961#msg45961

TREE of LIFE in TREE D



Nassim Haramein decoded the geometric figure that is know as "The Tree of Life". 10 "golden globes" connected by 22 channels, they say they come in pairs: 10 + 22 x 2 = 64, the same number as the number of tetrahedrons you need to create the first octivisation of the perfect vector equilibrium geometry of space-time.
https://www.facebook.com/Nassim.Haramein.official/videos/246951138829485/



It would seem that the transcendence of this holy ratio of pi has been hiding beneath our language this entire time. And according to the symbolic representation of the Tetragrammaton, the ratio of pi seems to have a direct connection to this Great Mystery many of us simply call...

https://grahamhancock.com/leedsm1/

"be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:22) PHIve

NO icONs
...https://youtu.be/-JmNKGfFj7w?t=1m42s



Quantum Gravity Research: 3D Printing the Substructure of Spacetime
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2972.msg44232#msg44232



the Best People Are Dead
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIIaqGtvN08



http://www.waldorftoday.com/gallery/Geometric+Drawing/6th+Grade+Geometric+Drawing/grade6_geometry.jpg.html

~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #20,  »
thanks for putting references back to theses places! 

~Russ

Ragnor

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #21,  »
Hey I found the thread, LOL! I'll take a seat :)

~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #22,  »
lol. well apparently this video is not going over well.

and thats how people cant grasp how to do this... :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wee9ArsdPI8

~Russ

jeremy gwilt

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #23,  »
one person can generate dozens of thumb downs....c'mon man!you are used to this!

~Russ

Re: Air Taink Efficiency. Thought Experiment.
« Reply #24,  »
Lol. Yes. We it use to be that you cant. But hey. It's just a video. ;)   happy B day bro!  ~Russ