🧵 Breakthrough in clean energy generation: The hydro-gravitational generator
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 14:30:36 UTC No. 16462130
I'm talking about this device: https://youtu.be/T6fK8EcFizI
The video gives you 2 explanations of how and why it works, let me give you a third one:
Let's think about the asymmetrical tube. The wide part holds 10 liters of water, while the thin part holds only 1 liter, and it was already manually filled with water before we start.
So, what happens to the water inside the asymmetrical tube?
There are only four outcomes that are even theoretically possible:
1- The water splits in two. The water inside the wide part falls into the higher container, while the water inside the thin part falls into the lower container.
2- The water doesn't move at all.
3- The whole of the water moves up the wide part, down the thin part, and into the lower container.
4- The whole of the water moves up the thin part, down the wide part and into the higher container (i.e., what is shown in the video, which creates a perpetual motion machine).
Thing is, options 1, 2, and 3 are physically impossible.
Option 1 would cause a vacuum at the top of the tube, but none of the forces are strong enough to create a vacuum.
Options 2 and 3 cannot happen because the whole point of the asymmetry of the tube is to ensure that the force produced by the 10 liters of water in the wide side is by far the strongest force in the whole system. No force produced in the thin side is anywhere near strong enough to oppose the 10 liters in the wide side.
By design, we can ensure that nothing can prevent the water in the wide part from moving downwards.
Imagine a balance scale with 10kg on one side and 1kg on the other. The only possible outcome is that the 10kg are moving down. It is simply impossible for the 1kg to prevent the scale from moving, let alone to overpower the 10kg, and cause those 10kg to move upwards.
So option 4, the one where we get free electricity, is the only possible one.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 14:45:27 UTC No. 16462153
>>16462130
>no video of the device in action
I don’t think the uphill siphon is going to work. I think siphons work by some kinda atmospheric pressure and can’t go uphill even if they have a funny shape.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:21:06 UTC No. 16462202
>>16462130
Retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:31:07 UTC No. 16462304
>>16462130
Retards, gravitational perpetu mobile is never good enough, yes gravity is there and going to last, but you've got only 10N/kg, which is pretty much fucking uneffective to burning coal.
Stop guessing start learning at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:03:52 UTC No. 16462346
>>16462130
Ohhhh my god another perpetual motion device. You did it man this is it. Congratulations you solved the energy crisis.
Now where should we send this publication?
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:14:35 UTC No. 16462360
>>16462130
>>16462153
Experiment at my place!
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:26:10 UTC No. 16462373
>gravity is not a source of energy. At best you put out the same energy you put in, and that's assuming magical materials with 100% efficiency.
>you can't create magic out of nothing due to thermodynamics
>quantum processes do not generate energy because they are always compensated by another event (hence why virtual particles always appear in pairs)
Bottom text.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:41:43 UTC No. 16462393
>>16462373
No, you can absolutely tap gravity for power, but hecking 10N/kg isn't fucking wroth for any mind to spend time like that, besides having gadget that'll spin, until it wears of.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:47:29 UTC No. 16462409
>>16462393
>No, you can absolutely tap gravity for power
So where is the energy coming from?
Does the Earth get 10N/kg lighter when you turn the energy generator on?
If you build a generator and keep it going for millions of years will the planet shrink and eventually dissapear?
Now you see why gravity isn't a source of energy.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:53:39 UTC No. 16462419
>>16462409
It comes from potential energy, that's being lowered due to gravity, but gained back by using lever and more time. Gravity doesn't obey to conservation of energy. Dumbfuck.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:58:22 UTC No. 16462428
>>16462419
>"Gravity doesn't obey to conservation of energy"
>Calls ME a dumbfuck
If that's what science enthusiast nerds are like in 2024 I'm genuinely scared of what the average normie IQ is.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:01:49 UTC No. 16462435
>>16462428
Like literally you can measure gravity in joules per second, I don't understand how you can't energy that.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:08:36 UTC No. 16462446
>>16462435
If a rock falls from a height of 10 meters, the maximum you will ever be able to extract from it falling is the amount of energy it took to put it there in the first place.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:22:03 UTC No. 16462459
>>16462446
If 10kg rock falled over, I can lift it by 10gram rock, for 1000times the time it took 10kg rock to fall, using gears... Then I have 9.990kg rock I left to fall there, and my 10g counterweight I lift that heavy rock back up using gears.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:26:08 UTC No. 16462467
>>16462459
Bro, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:30:28 UTC No. 16462472
>>16462130
it's 3, though. water will flow through both tubes towards the lower container. asymmetry doesn't do shit; water will simply flow slower upwards in the wide part and faster downwards in the thin part.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:54:47 UTC No. 16462500
>>16462472
>water will simply flow slower upwards in the wide part and faster downwards in the thin part.
OP’s theory is that the action of a siphon is caused by a difference in the weight (force?) of the water in the two sides of the hose (separated at the apex), which are playing a game of tug-o-war. by this theory, it stands to reason that if one side of the hose is fatter, then it does not need to be as long to win the tug-o-war. this can absolutely be tested by experiment and thought experiment.
my personal theory is that atmospheric pressure will push the fat side down into the bucket and pull the thin side out of the bucket, and somehow this will give us equilibrium. fixing them in place may well cause rapid motion of water
an interesting variant of this thought experiment places both the fat and thin ends in the same bucket. my instinct is that it will cause the water to soin increasingly fast round and round, leading to a simpler but perhaps less controllable engine design than OPs original
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:04:34 UTC No. 16462510
For people who just want the answer of what is going to happen, suppose the walls of the containers are very high so no water will spill, and the higher container is always taller than the lower one to keep it simple.
What will happen is that all the water in the high container at least above the opening of the left mouth of the normal tube will drain into the lower container. As long as there's enough water in the higher container such that the left mouth of the asym. tube is submerged, water in the left of the asym. tube will fall down, and water in the right of the asym. tube will flow up do to the lower pressure, e.g. water will flow through the asym. tube counter clockwise.
Because there's more water flowing out of the "higher container w/ the left asymp. tube" and down into normal tube than water out of the lower container up into the thin asym. tube, this extra water must be coming from inside the "higher container without the asym. tube". This means that overall there's more water leaving the higher container than coming in from the left asym. tube. which means there's more water entering the lower container from the normal tube than exiting from the right asym. tube.
At some point when the height of the water in the higher container is either lower than the mouth of the left asym. tube or the left normal tube the clockwise flow of water will break. If the former happens, then the asym. mouth won't be submerged and you lose the vacuum, which means air bubbles will enter the mouth causing all the water on the left of the asym. tube to drain left, and the water on the right to drain right. If the latter happens first, that means the right asym. tube has no more competition from the normal tube, which means the water will now reverse from the higher container through the asym. tube to the lower container, and will do so until the former condition is reached.
May the thread now die in peace
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:07:12 UTC No. 16462513
>>16462510
that’s for normal tubes. this tube is bigger on one end
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:08:59 UTC No. 16462514
>>16462513
So? Retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:10:19 UTC No. 16462517
>>16462513
The post was written for the bigger end tube, as the picture describes.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:11:24 UTC No. 16462518
>>16462500
>OP’s theory is that the action of a siphon is caused by a difference in the weight (force?) of the water in the two sides of the hose
I get that, but this simply shows that he has trouble with the notion of pressure, which is independent of water column thickness. the pressure at the bottom of the thick end is going to be the same as the pressure inside the thin part at the same level as the water surface in the upper container and it will be less than that at the bottom of the thin part. the thick part may hold more water but it is held up by the same pressure over a larger surface, so it doesn't matter.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:12:08 UTC No. 16462520
>>16462513
It literally says asym. tube
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:13:29 UTC No. 16462522
>>16462514
if I have a weight scale with on its two sides:
>a 2inch gold cylinder of height 2inches
>a 1inch gold cylinder of height 8inches
I will be rich, but also they will weight the same. The hypothesis is that the corresponding setup for tubes of water is also the same, so that the upper meniscus and lower meniscus may be in equiliubrium even though they are upper and lower from an outside reference fran
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:19:56 UTC No. 16462531
>>16462522
Retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:27:54 UTC No. 16462542
Both tubes would empty into the bottom container.
You people are stupid. Op is a grifter, and you are a rube. A siphon does not work by the total weight of the water, but by the difference in pressure. It is not the weight of the water in total, but the pressure at the level of the water. The pressure is always constant at every level, because the area of force increases with the increase in volume above it. Regardless of the shape of the container, the pressure is always the same at every level, otherwise, if the pressure increased or decreased depending on the size of the body of water, 10 feet underwater in the ocean would be at an astronomically higher pressure than 10 feet underwater in a lake or a pool.
The only way to get water to flow uphill is by osmosis or by adding energy to the system with a pump.
I did not click on the link, but if you are seeing a video of this happening, it is a magic trick. I would suspect that there was a sealed glass division between the water coming into the bottom trough and that which is going to the upper tube, that allows pressure to be added to the sealed portion of the bottom trough, forcing the water up the tube.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:36:49 UTC No. 16462719
>no video of the device in action
The one making that video could literally buy 2 pipes 2 buckets and prove it once and for all instead of putting that explanation
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:25:03 UTC No. 16462848
tubes
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:01:24 UTC No. 16462993
>>16462848
toobes innit
TOOBES INNIT
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:11:08 UTC No. 16463000
CHOOBS
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:13:01 UTC No. 16463007
>>16462393
>>16462304
nigga it can't generate 10N/kg, you are just as retarded as the other cunts
there is no such thing as a perpetual motion device
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:29:32 UTC No. 16463421
>>16462848
series of.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:23:46 UTC No. 16463555
>>16462500
>an interesting variant of this thought experiment places both the fat and thin ends in the same bucket. my instinct is that it will cause the water to soin increasingly fast round and round
It would reach catastrophic speeds.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:40:55 UTC No. 16463661
>>16463007
Go to be delusional somewhere else.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:41:29 UTC No. 16463663
CHEWBS INNIT
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:45:26 UTC No. 16463911
>>16462130
>*blocks your path*
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:50:02 UTC No. 16463922
You can extract energy from gravity you morons. The EVROPA king is gonna do several gravitational boosts.
And yes, gravity is used up. You see the heavier object loses kinetic energy same as the other gains it.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:36:20 UTC No. 16463997
>>16462428
You are the dumbling here. Energy conservation breaks in GRT. Only the 4-momentum is conserved.
>>16462130
Even if water would go upwards here, there is absolutely no reason to assume the broader part would be fully filled with water. It would just drip over the zenith.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:37:51 UTC No. 16463998
>>16463911
>linear momentum
>linear
Dropped.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:37:49 UTC No. 16465072
bump
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 02:07:16 UTC No. 16465603
>>16463997
>Energy conservation breaks in GRT
yes but not in almost flat spacetime or around single massive body
you need many gravitational objects with comparably huge mass and light years of distance to see a measurable amount of energy plap out of it
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:44:12 UTC No. 16466320
>whenever any region of X liters of water moves downwards in the system, in order to avoid creating a vacuum, it has to be replaced by X liters of water coming from above
>X liters of water must be moved all the way to the top and come back down again before it can be used as the replacement
>the replacenent water requires exactly the same amount of potential energy to be moved upwards as the water moving downwards generated
So fake and gay
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:41:50 UTC No. 16466477
>>16462130
It's similar to systems with gear ratios in mechanical systems or voltage vs current transformers in electrical systems, and this is something that's often difficult to logic out but that I tend to understand intuitively.
The width of the asymmetrical tube will be compensated by lower flow rate. Basically, the wide side is driving the narrow side in "high gear", making the flow more difficult because the same flow distance in the wide part requires WAY more flow distance in the narrow tube. Or the other way around, the narrow side is driving the wide side in low gear, giving the narrow side better leverage over the wide side. From here on I trust that the math works out.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:47:13 UTC No. 16466484
The second law of thermodynamics might as well be the supreme law of nature. There has never been any research or experiment that even implies it doesn't hold. Even thought experiments trying to violate it break down. It'd be more believable for someone to prove God exists than to invent a perpetuum mobile.
I don't care how dogmatic this comes across, if your toy model violates this law you must scrape all of it and restart.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:05:10 UTC No. 16466508
>>16466484
I'm going to risk a ban by suggesting - not in this OP's case - but that a general /sci/ rule should exist to include "defies thermodynamics" as a bannable offence.
Like, spend a day off of /sci/ to fucking read a junior-high science book.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 23:36:31 UTC No. 16466586
>>16462428
/sci/ is for schizophrenics, chuds, and schizophrenic chuds. There’s the stray gigasperg (oblivious) every once in a while too.
Science enthusiasts don’t come here.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 10:20:08 UTC No. 16466986
fags
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:15:39 UTC No. 16467006
>>16466508
I second that motion
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:42:39 UTC No. 16467030
>>16466508
>appeal to authority
>appeal to banhammer
Trump won. You lost.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:02:45 UTC No. 16467039
gravity is a conservative field, that's all you need to know to know that this shit is impossible
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 18:36:50 UTC No. 16467418
>>16466477
Or if you just realize that if stuff goes down, stuff must move up the same amount so there must be an equilbrium where nothing moves. Doesn't matter what the diagram looks like.