Air Lift Turbine Generator

[Tom Booth]

Looks to me like four sets of sprockets are visible on the outside of the tower each looking close to 4 to 1 maybe.

So 1st sprocket turns 1 second 4 third 16 fourth 64 and there are additional smaller geared up sprockets inside the building, probably at least 2:1 I would imagine so all combined possibly. 128 to 1.

If the drive shaft makes 1 turn every 10 seconds that might be only 768 RPM at the generator. Should probably be twice that.so the gear ratio is probably something closer to 200 or 250 to 1 I'd guestimate.

[Fool]

.

Just guessing, each big to small is a ratio of about three.

3^n where n is the number of stages. n=3 would be 27.
4 would be 81.
5 would be 243.

Etc. Times any additional ratios, and stages.

.

[Fool]

.

4x4x4x4xadditonal n

256xn

Rpm of top sprocket, not the whole chain. 1 second = 60 RPM. Or 30 if one second per half turn. 10 seconds per turn equals 6 RPM.

6x256xn= 1,536xn at the generator.

.

[Tom Booth]

An enormous amount of gearing up.

A lot like a clockwork. The rotation at the mainspring is practically imperceptible

The total gear ratio in this video is much higher but gives a good idea what's going on:

https://youtu.be/TXX9BXH2yzI

If the ratio is very high but not too high so as to avoid breaking the chains or gears you could have a ton of buoyancy force moving very slowly but high RPM at the generator.

https://youtu.be/bzRP8VrT4uk

That is again, overkill. More gearing up than needed for the KPP but notice how if the mechanism is started up at the high RPM low torque end to get it going then the rotation can still be maintained at the high torque end.

A very low RPM generator could be used instead of all that gearing up but higher RPM generators are more common and less expensive and gears are relatively cheap.

[Tom Booth]

Notice how in all the demo videos the technician needs to spin up the gears by hand from the low torque, high RPM end of the drivetrain to get the thing started, as would be expected

https://youtu.be/f8of-nXiqQU

Just off camera at the start of this video but it's the same in all the other longer videos.

[Tom Booth]

For anyone who might be interested:

According to John Crowley of Ki-Tech :

Via e-mail 15 December, 2024

"On your specific questions.

The KPP is industrial-scale. It is sold in 1 MW modules.
(...)
The current list price is 4500 euros/kW.
(...)

So, based on that, an entry level system would only cost about 5 million dollars and could, in theory power 250 modern households.

A cooperative, say of 300 homeowners pooling their funds $20,000 each maybe. Including the cost of distribution infrastructure. (Not provided afaik)

Maybe that could be attractive for a developer building a private community of homes off-grid somewhere that might be sold for $500,000 or more each.

There would also be NDA's involved.

A government facility, military complex, or some such might consider that a bargain.

Personally, I'll be building mine from empty beer kegs and a hole in the ground full of water, or some such thing, if at all.

But the big question is, is this even a real thing or one of the longest running scams in history?

It may be that if they are making enough money the companies involved are happy to allow or even encourage the spread of misinformation and skepticism about their product.

If it actually works, and customers are happy, it would be impossible to keep up with the demand regardless.

[Tom Booth]

I think the basic principle of this device is quite similar to that of a butane rocket:

https://youtu.be/itRi5aziaWU

https://youtu.be/_1eISYy3e0E

Works with liquid nitrogen too:

https://youtu.be/ajsb-5ftDCg

Or dry ice:

https://youtu.be/RLSy29aZbk8

All of these examples are actually powered by ambient heat.

All the substances used were basically prepared in the same way, by compression and/or heat dissipation or removal.

I'm thinking it might be relatively easy to make a closed cycle ambient heat powered butane based buoyancy engine.

Butane can be liquified with very low compression, about 2 ATM.

A drop or two of liquid butane injected into each canister will expand about 250 to 300 times in volume as it absorbs heat and expands as a gas.

In a closed system the butane can be collected at the top recompressed and cooled (if necessary) to bring it back to liquid form and then re-injected.

Or, instead of butane, some similar refrigerant could be used. Preferably non-toxic, non-flammable and ozone/global warming friendly.

[Tom Booth]

Just to get an idea of what 300X volume expansion looks like:

300X_expansion.jpg (550.64 KiB) Viewed 980 times

[Tom Booth]

Is it a coincidence that larger molecules usually have greater .mutual attraction and most popular refrigerants are larger molecule substances?

Many refrigerants also have a boiling point, phase change temperature reasonably close to ambient temperatures, especially the low pressure refrigerants, like butane.

[Fool]

.

It is NOT surprising that larger molecules have higher boiling temperatures. It is not surprising that polar molecules with covalent bonding, or even ionic bonding, have higher boiling points than Van der Waals forces. Classical theory discovered that in the 1800"s and incorporated that into steam tables and phase diagrams, used for steam engine, and other, design.

Butane can be liquified with very low compression, about 2 ATM.

A drop or two of liquid butane injected into each canister will expand about 250 to 300 times in volume as it absorbs heat and expands as a gas.

Except at the bottom of a 35 foot tower of water the pressure would be in excess of 2 atmospheres absolute. It would prevent any expansion or gain of buoyancy.

See the benefits of working simple numbers. The devil is in the details. That is a perfect demonstration of why the whole thing is a scam. Pressure in, pressure out, compression in, expansion out, zero zero. It is the same energy gain for any working gas.

As Electro Boom says, 'there is no free energy'. Or whatever.

Suggestion for those that believe differently, and must build in order to prove it a scam. Fail cheap. Fail fast. Nothing hurts like spending years and millions to find out something won't work, especially when told it violates a law of physics. This is not an opinion, find out for yourself. Nature is a cruel Mistress. Read the comments. Avoid those using proof by hand waving.

.

[Tom Booth]

Butane can be liquified with very low compression, about 2 ATM.

A drop or two of liquid butane injected into each canister will expand about 250 to 300 times in volume as it absorbs heat and expands as a gas.

Except at the bottom of a 35 foot tower of water the pressure would be in excess of 2 atmospheres absolute. It would prevent any expansion or gain of buoyancy.
...

Mostly true, or true enough, but as far as a butane version, I was thinking in terms of a small desktop model for charging cell phones or as a night light or just a novelty.

Even a very tiny thumb size air/vacuum pump can achieve 2 atm.

Also, as far as the 35 foot or higher tower, whatever gas is used the initial high pressure at the bottom of the tank is beneficial in that it makes the process very smooth and gradual. Slow and steady. You don't really want a rocket.

The canisters do not stay at the bottom but are lifted, if not due to their own buoyancy, by that of those further up on the chain.

For air, for that to be a significant issue the tower would need to be about 2500 feet tall with a bottom pressure of more than 1000 psi and then the working fluid could be liquid air.

Nevertheless, it would still operate as the canisters are in continuous motion and don't stay at the bottom for long.

[Fool]

.

The temperature is ambient. It is well above the critical temperature of both nitrogen and oxygen. Compressing it will never produce liquid.

A force analysis of the tower follows:

A plastic bag full of air the same volume as a full buoyancy bin. Plumbed into the bottom so the air can be pushed in to fill the bin. It could be pushed by a big flat plate. But let it be in a tall tube, kind of like a syringe. A proverbial thumb could now push down injecting the air into the bin. It will only half fill the bin.

Instead, keep the almost weightless piston from the syringe and fill the tube with the same working fluid as in the 35' tower. Water.

How high would the water need to be, to push the air in? Answer: 35', plus some more to overcome drag/friction, plus enough more to speed up delivery as the bin moves by. The air would go in with a gauge pressure of about 15 psi, 30 absolute.

Assuming the bins are moving very slowly so we can get the best efficiency, one bin per week slowly. We can get by with a little extra height, say 5'. So, 40' of water to push a slug of air in for one bin. The bin then rises 35 feet, but wait, it wasn't fully expanded that whole way up. That means 40' of water work for way less than 35' of buoyancy work. So far so bad.

But wait again! Another bin is coming by and needs a slug of air. What can be done?

1) Drain the syringe, put air in the bag, refill with water.
Or:
2) The whole 40' of water in the syringe could be lifted just high enough to slip in a new bag of air, then set the syringe back down on the bag, presto the bag again injects it's air into the bin.

So how much upward buoyancy force will the massive number of upward moving bins be capable to produce? Easy figure. Less than having a column of air from bottom to top the size of the bin. Effectively that means all bins all air bottom to top no gaps. Obviously not the case. If it could be done there would effectively be 35' of air column pushing up in an attempt to lift 40' of syringe water column.

Obviously that will never happen.

Continuing to explore this only gets worse. Bins are not that close, round instead of rectangular, bins not full of air, required energy to refill the bag, friction, heat of compression losses. Etc...

.

[Tom Booth]

.

The temperature is ambient. It is well above the critical temperature of both nitrogen and oxygen. Compressing it will never produce liquid.

A force analysis of the tower follows:

A plastic bag full of air the same volume as a full buoyancy bin. Plumbed into the bottom so the air can be pushed in to fill the bin. It could be pushed by a big flat plate. But let it be in a tall tube, kind of like a syringe. A proverbial thumb could now push down injecting the air into the bin. It will only half fill the bin.

Instead, keep the almost weightless piston from the syringe and fill the tube with the same working fluid as in the 35' tower. Water.

How high would the water need to be, to push the air in? Answer: 35', plus some more to overcome drag/friction, plus enough more to speed up delivery as the bin moves by. The air would go in with a gauge pressure of about 15 psi, 30 absolute.

Assuming the bins are moving very slowly so we can get the best efficiency, one bin per week slowly. We can get by with a little extra height, say 5'. So, 40' of water to push a slug of air in for one bin. The bin then rises 35 feet, but wait, it wasn't fully expanded that whole way up. That means 40' of water work for way less than 35' of buoyancy work. So far so bad.

But wait again! Another bin is coming by and needs a slug of air. What can be done?

1) Drain the syringe, put air in the bag, refill with water.
Or:
2) The whole 40' of water in the syringe could be lifted just high enough to slip in a new bag of air, then set the syringe back down on the bag, presto the bag again injects it's air into the bin.

So how much upward buoyancy force will the massive number of upward moving bins be capable to produce? Easy figure. Less than having a column of air from bottom to top the size of the bin. Effectively that means all bins all air bottom to top no gaps. Obviously not the case. If it could be done there would effectively be 35' of air column pushing up in an attempt to lift 40' of syringe water column.

Obviously that will never happen.

Continuing to explore this only gets worse. Bins are not that close, round instead of rectangular, bins not full of air, required energy to refill the bag, friction, heat of compression losses. Etc...

.

You are assuming the working principle relies strictly on buoyancy which is not really the case.

The working principle, like in a Stirling engine, depends upon the temperature difference.

Also, as in a Stirling engine, the influx of heat is continually converted to work, but this has already been explained in detail in my previous posts. Obviously wasted breath talking to a complete moron with antiquated and obsolete ideas regarding thermodynamics

You are still thinking in terms of a simple water wheel / caloric theory rather than in terms of energy conversion from one form to another.

There is an initial temperature differential between the injected air and the water which is .maintained nearly all the way up the tube because the flow of heat into the canisters is converted to work to turn the buoyancy turbine.

The conversion of ambient heat into work, therefore continues all the way from bottom to top as long as there is a ∆T between the air in the buoyancy canisters and the water the canisters are rising up through.

Your assessment is only true if there is no initial ∆T.

But you have been in complete denial of these principles since your first post in here so I don't expect you are any more capable of comprehending it now.

[Fool]

.

Actually, I'm the first one to bring up the thermal engine idea in this thread. I now oppose it because the groups involved are denying any thermal conditions. You are the only one striving to put it back in. Of course, your understanding of thermodynamics is considerably erroneous, so it serves no purpose to explain it.

Again your little LTD insulated engine experiment has produced zero output power, so you have very short legs to stand on here.

In other words, how are you going to overcome the massive amount of weight opposition using a tiny whiny little bit of delta Temperature!

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Actually, I'm the first one to bring up the thermal engine idea in this thread. ....

.

Liar,

We were discussing similar systems before this thread began. In the first post I mention VincentG's previous threads as an example.

The introductory post (not by you ass hole) also noted:

"the air-lift side fluid is also solar or waste heat heated which causes the bubbles to expand as they travel upward allowing a net energy output.

Always trying to take credit yourself for shit you can't refute as if it were your idea all along. Typical thimble brain.

Aside from that the first link from the Flooid people discussed the thermal components in the references cited.

Stop trying to grab the credit for other people's inventions

Your so lacking in any imagination or creativity of your own you have to live vicariously through others.