The Search For Answers Part 2: Potential to kinetic Using Air. Thought Experiment.

https://youtu.be/tikUOy_n5Z0

see Q's in video...

~Russ 

Kinda of cheating since we already talked about this, but here goes anyway...

Scenario 1, 2, 3 -- I fully agree.

Last scenario.  Provided the air motor is actually an air motor/pump as stated with the proper mechanics, valving etc. potential transfers unimpeded at its characteristic resonance, cycle time.  This scenario is analogous to a capacitor (A), inductor (B) and capacitor (C).  The inductor would be the component responsible for managing the magnetic field and thusly would have inertia--once in motion, tends to stay in motion.


Evident from this thought experiment is:
  *  When energy is transferred, we can use it during the transfer or waste it.  Using the energy does not incur any cost to us of the volume of energy transferred.

  *  When we attach a flywheel to the air motor/pump we don't directly get kinetic (usable) energy.  If we tap this energy at all, the flywheel no longer reaches top speed.  We ruin the impedance match.  The rotating flywheel takes on the form of the pressurized air tank, with the energy now converted, but still potential energy.


Scenario #5 (That you didn't have room on the whiteboard to draw out) --  Multiple air motors inline, in series.  If scenario #2 is true, multiple air motors should not change any of the behavior, yet the possibility of performing more work should be considered.

Scenario #6 (Also not drawn) -- A combination of air motor/pumps, some with flywheels and some without.

Scenario # N  --  This thought experiment opens the door wide open for all sorts of mutations and modifications along with their electrical equivalent circuits.  One of particular interest to me is the parametric oscillation which is by definition over unity.

I would recommend being careful when talking about ( atmo ) or atmospheric pressure, same as barometric pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure

Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 psi or 30 inHg

So in #4 atmospheric pressure would be about 14.7 psi inside tank B before we even started to fill it from tank A

Filling a battery or capacitor  would not be under the same rule as using air or water pressure.

As for the flywheel test we must take into account the time and energy required to fill the tank to 1000 psi, then the time the flywheel runs and the energy produced.

I say yes the flywheel consumes energy because to fill the tank A in the first place requires energy to do so.

For free energy to be true you need to start with zero input to tank A  and then the motor start running, so no free lunch for the thought experiment. Sorry

Just my opinion.   :)

PeakPositive

Matt.

All good thoughts.

In senaro 5. This only works if there is no restriction in flow. IE no resistance.

Else things react not as we would expect.

More resistance. Less flow past the first motor. It acts as a regulator.

Same works for an inductor.

If we stick to the first video (other thred)  and use our magic air motor then it would work.

Dont forget. If we put 1000 generators in a river 1000miles long. As long as the grade is steep enough. We can run all the generators. However stick all 1000 genaraters in a 1000foot section of the river...  You better be in a water fall....  Same gose for air.


Peak positive

For this thought experment. We are concerned about the HOW we use the stored air. Not where it come from. (Yet) 

~Russ

The kinetic "fluid" energy of the air should transfer to kinetic angular energy in the motor. My hypothesis regarding your question #4 is that the motor acts as both an energy transfer device from one form of kinetic energy to another,as well as helps facilitate timing with the entire system.  So in electrical terms the motor is an inductor and with the two capacitors, it is an oscillator as well. A copper crystal oscillator to be exact ;) 

  I hope I didn't irritate you with my statement.  The idea of energy being free or not is something very much derived in our minds. In the laws of thermodynamics1 and 2, we find it, with even our closest approximations, to be infinite. So here is a great question as a philosophical thought experiment. Who puts the value on something, that with all observable data, has seems to haveno limit in our human understanding?   I have an answer, but perhaps it is an answer only for me. People must come to there own conclusions on these topics, and I understand what you are trying to express. I too have attempted to do it using a caloric model. Remember this video?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ShixUTkpq8&list=PLsryTvGn_bCniItGhAl0EGlDAXfFhw0Kc&index=1
 
  While also trying to get people to think about the paradox we have placed ourselves in with the idea of ownership, scarcity, and resistance to the natural patterns of the world.

Keep it real and seek the 7th seal.
-Diadon

I love the parallels!