babble: Float Sink electrical generation

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » right brain babble » humanities & science » Float Sink electrical generation

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Float Sink electrical generation

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 08:51 PM

i was thinking about power generatin last night....do you think its possible to build an electrical turbine that uses the power of air and water to sink and float power generation devices?...i can imagine a ferris wheel type of device in the ocean....using technology that allows a sub to sink (water ballist)...why not use the flow of water of a sinking encased turbine to produce energy?...and conversely...why not use the science of buoyancy/floatation to produce power....so...while the device is sinking it can produce power...and then when the device floats back up it can produce power...such a system could operate using the science/potential of air (compressed) and water (ballist)

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 16 October 2005 09:08 PM

Courtney,

I'm not sure I completely follow you but it sounds like you've just described a perpetual motion machine.

From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001 | IP: Logged

Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 October 2005 09:17 PM

I really like Courtney. I really do.

From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 16 October 2005 09:34 PM

Courtney, you probably shouldn't take these ideas public until you have secured patent protection.

From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 October 2005 09:38 PM

(science geek)

Heat transfer in the oceans is a recognized device to get energy, but it isn't perpetual motion. It requires energy from the sun in the form of heat to create a temperature difference between the top of the ocean and the deeper waters underneath. Without this temperature difference there would be no convection currents to drive your turbine.

(/science geek)

[ 16 October 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 09:49 PM

think of the idea as a piston-like device....picture this...a device that looks like a submarine...a big, hollow tube with a generator/turbine in the centre....the walls of the tube would have compartments that could be filled with water (to sink) and air (to float)...the water used for sinking could be freely and easily come by...simply open the gates and allow for flooding of ballist...the air used for floating/buoyancy would have to be such that it could be reused and compressed....how about this....what about a ballon-like device that reuses the air?....the water flooding the ballist could be used to recompress the air....and the air could be used to emepty the ballist

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 09:54 PM

Dr.Conway---

i can't remember the name of the device...but some research institute is building an underwater glider that uses the currents of oceans to propel....the idea i'm discussing aboved would be fixed and closed rather then rely on the open ocean temps

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572

posted 16 October 2005 10:18 PM

and this would be the device you saw,.i believe
http://www.bwea.com/marine/devices.html
and the firstinstallation. http://www.oceanpd.com/
we are so far behind chasing fossil fuel generation in north america

From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005 | IP: Logged

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 10:29 PM

blacklisted....all those ideas use wave power to produce electricity...what i'm thinking of would use the power of floating and sinking

and don't you wonder how many devices are being surpressed?....i fully believe its possible to have virtually pollution-free energy in huge, inexhaustable amounts....for some reason methinks there's certain peoples who would rather suppress technology so as to allow people to be tied into conventional sources and the grid...the fact that the Ontario governement is even considering billion dollar boondagle enery source called nuclear is completed mindless

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 16 October 2005 10:31 PM

There are a few problems with the idea:
- having to recompress the air would require energy, making the system exhorbitantly inefficient.
- Stuff doesn't rise and sink with that much force. When you compare it to what goes into any other generator (think of the amount of force behind a dam, for instance) the energy harvested would be minimal, especially when you consider that most of it is going to go to recompressing air after surfacing. You're talking about building a submarine generator in order to get the power for your wristwatch.

From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 10:49 PM

Raos---

couldn't the water that's used for ballist also be used to recompress the air?....might the air be stored in a ballon/bags that uses the mass from ballist water to squish/push the air back into tanks to be used again to refloat the device?

use water to sink...then air to float...then water to sink and compress air....then air to float and expel water....

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 October 2005 10:52 PM

Can't get a free lunch. You lose energy to heat in the compression process which you don't get back in the gas expansion.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 16 October 2005 11:05 PM

Dr.Conway---

i agree that it would take some energy to push the water ballist out at great depths and cause floatation...but would the amount of energy created sinking + surfacing be greater then the amount of energy needed to remove ballist?...it would seem that some "free" energy could be utilized forcing/compressing air with water while sinking...?...

i remember seeing a program in which an architect built a structure with nothing more then cement, rebar and air pressure.....a little compressed air was used to lift thousands of pounds of steel and wet cement...it was quite a remarkable feat of engineering

From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 17 October 2005 12:55 AM

quote:
Heat transfer in the oceans is a recognized device to get energy, but it isn't perpetual motion. It requires energy from the sun in the form of heat to create a temperature difference between the top of the ocean and the deeper waters underneath. Without this temperature difference there would be no convection currents to drive your turbine.

It would probably make more sense to use the temperature difference to create electricity via the thermoelectric effect. This is the principle behind a heat pump.

From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: