Author Topic: Science people: debunk this (OP image fixed)  (Read 7828 times)

Since I haven't taken physics yet, and because I'd rather keep things simple, I'm just going to guess that it wouldn't work because no flap like that exists, and because the buoyancy of the balls aren't enough to spin the wheel.

I'm in 6th grade but looking at this theory carefully gives me a debunk.

You could say that the seal that lets the air-balls in would slow down the automatic moving process. Because you need to turn it first to get it going.

The water dosen't have enough weight to push it up so either you're getting little electricity or none at all.

Since I haven't taken physics yet, and because I'd rather keep things simple, I'm just going to guess that it wouldn't work because no flap like that exists, and because the buoyancy of the balls aren't enough to spin the wheel.

The fact it is difficult to engineer such a valve does not prove this impossible, the simplest explanation I can give is:

You know how it is difficult to push a ball down into water?  The pressure at the bottom of the water would be even higher than that at the surface, making it even more difficult for the ball to enter the water.  The amount of energy needed to force the ball into the high pressure water at the bottom of the tank uses up all the energy that you get from the ball floating up (btw it is not slow, a ball of air submerged just a few meters can emerge at hundreds of miles an hour) and falling back down.


I would appreciate it if this was added to the OP


If you are looking for how it works, I can explain it for you.

The reason the air is moving up is because it is traveling from high pressure to low pressure.  The energy that the air exerts while decompressing is equal to the energy it would take to recompress it.
This isn't true. Air can be compressed to exceptionally high pressures with very, very little energy. A car tire holds approximately 2 atm of pressure in it, air rises at 9.81 m/sec^2, 2atm of water pressure is 20.6 meters deep, so ballparking it the air would be moving at 15 meters per second, or 34 miles per hour.

TL;DR: With the energy required to inflate a car tire, you can cause air to exit the top of the water at 34 miles per hour. This force would be much more than the energy required to compress air to double atmospheric pressure.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 09:21:09 PM by Slicks555 »

This isn't true. Air can be compressed to exceptionally high pressures with very, very little energy. A car tire holds approximately 2 atm of pressure in it, air rises at 9.81 m/sec^2, 2atm of water pressure is 20.6 meters deep, so ballparking it the air would be moving at 20 meters per second, or 45 miles per hour.

TL;DR: With the energy required to inflate a car tire, you can cause air to exit the top of the water at 45 miles per hour. This force would be much more than the energy required to compress air to double atmospheric pressure.

Holy stuff you are like pooping out random numbers that accomplish nothing but show that you don't know what you are talking about.  You cannot use pressure directly in a kinematics problem like that.

It is a fundamental property of gas laws that the change in internal energy is constant for any full cycle (going back to where it started) and that all energy is conserved.  If you compress air, you do a certain amount of work in compressing it.  If it then decompresses, it does an equal amount of work back (assuming it returns to the same temperature).  I don't know why you are maintaining that air can be compressed with "very, very little energy" because any compression done with a low amount of energy will yield an equally low amount of energy.  I can tell you exactly how much energy it will take to compress any gas if you tell me the final and initial pressure and volume.  If you think you can handle the calculations yourself: knock yourself out:

Internal Energy = 1.5*(Number of molecules)*(Boltztmann's constant)*(Temperature in K)
Pressure*Volume = (Number of molecules)*(Boltztmann's constant)*(Temperature in K)
Work out = Change in Internal Energy + Heat Added

Just assume one mole of molecules to keep it simple.

Well, looks like the damn picture has accomplished its purpose. Good job guys.

I take physics next year.

If one could get more energy from compressed air than is used to compress it, turbine engines would be infinitely powerful without even using fuel.

I've seen this before, I think this was a legitimate attempt at creating a a perpetual motion device.

I don't know a huge lot about physics, but I am pretty sure what happens is the force pulling the balls up on the right side of the device isn't enough to let the balls on the left side pull down, so basically both sides balances out with upwards pull, and it and jams.

All I know is that this design jams, whatever the science behind it is.

I've seen this before, I think this was a legitimate attempt at creating a a perpetual motion device.

I don't know a huge lot about physics, but I am pretty sure what happens is the force pulling the balls up on the right side of the device isn't enough to let the balls on the left side pull down, so basically both sides balances out with upwards pull, and it and jams.

All I know is that this design jams, whatever the science behind it is.

What makes this so interesting is that actually both sides have force in the direction of motion, they are not fighting, so it is hard to determine where the lost energy goes.  It actually goes into forcing the ball from low pressure air into the bottom of the high pressure tank, due to fluids properties most people aren't aware of and why hasn't narko added this to OP yet :c

Whoever made the image couldn't even correct their own spelling. So without even considering how scientifically improbable that design is, I'm gonna go out and say it's bullstuff.

(perpetual motion couldn't even power your tiny wristwatch)

I've seen this before, I think this was a legitimate attempt at creating a a perpetual motion device.

I don't know a huge lot about physics, but I am pretty sure what happens is the force pulling the balls up on the right side of the device isn't enough to let the balls on the left side pull down, so basically both sides balances out with upwards pull, and it and jams.

All I know is that this design jams, whatever the science behind it is.
Is it a profitable way to make jam? Because maybe someone could implement a version for jam factories.

The machine would stop because the most of the energy would disperse into the water due to friction. Remember, energy is never created or destroyed, but always transferred elsewhere.

What if the balls were filled with helium?