Air Lift Turbine Generator

[matt brown]

I think I calculated that this 10m KPP tower has a tad over 1.5 tons of positive buoyancy, so Fool's torque issue is well founded and closeup of tower top shows upper shaft appears about 2" diameter.

KPP air line.png (283.38 KiB) Viewed 1149 times

Sweating mechanical details like shaft diameter and jack shaft along tower rear is minor vs the main juggernaut which you guys have missed. And any heat engine buzz regarding compression vs expansion is just more distraction. Instead, just consider air volume required vs air compressor options. Since Tom sucks at math, here's the numbers...

Assuming Stanford ME review, this "18Kw" KPP tower has

(1) 24x 100 liter barrels
(2) 100 liters = 3.5 cb ft
(3) each barrel is filled 1/2 way or 1.75 cb ft of 2bar air at bottom
(4) thus each rpm requires 42 cb ft of 2 bar air (24x 1.75=42)

KPP compressor.png (336.5 KiB) Viewed 1149 times

This raises several questions...

(1) how many CFM is this compressor
(2) what nut job would use a low volume HP piston compressor vs a high volume LP rotary compressor
(3) how is CFM supposed to flow thru that girlie yellow air line in 1st pic

In this video, a close up at tower base has barrels moving about 1 ft per second or 1 RPM which will not generate 18Kw. Everything about this scam is to relate to clueless investors, so everything needs a layman look, from "Harbor Freight" compressor thru go-kart jack shaft config. It's all about making their scheme as comfy as possible.

BTW the Flooid scheme/scam claims their magic is 40% less power to compress air than normal with 60 units in = 100 units out. The only way to achieve Wnet with these schemes is when Wpos>Wneg (expansion>compression) and would require the expanding gas to be 'hotter' than the compressing gas. Indeed a crude heat engine, but even with free Qin during expansion (think solar>ambient) this scheme is bogus unless this isothermal input is retained within tower and likely what the Flooid scheme entails.

There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes (Proell relates to regen anomaly)

[Tom Booth]

...

There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes (Proell relates to regen anomaly)

Among other things, I don't think you understand the Proell effect.

Regenerators can be used as one means of capturing the heating and cooling of the gas produced but capturing heat in a regenerator is not the same as producing that heat via the Proell effect which has to do with "secondary" compression and expansion in the gas REMOTE from the location where heating or cooling is applied.

By compressing gas with the compressor, pressure in the line causes compression and heating of the gas throughout the air line, in particular heat is transfered to the water via the steel delivery pipe.

But this modest heat contribution doesn't really amount to much compared with the enormous surface area of the water tank itself which maintains the temperature at or near ambient.

I think your assumption of 2 bar pressure is also likely baseless. I had made some calculations based on that figure, but according to what I've been reading the canisters start out much less than 1/2 filled.

IMO the small volume is a consequence of the gas having had the heat of compression removed to the water rather than due to compression alone.

At any rate your assessment "There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes " is wrong, both IMO and according to the literature published by the company producing these machines:

proell_effect.jpg (82.75 KiB) Viewed 1139 times

But of course, the Trolls on this discussion thread think they know better than the actual manufacturer or inventor of this device.

[Tom Booth]

.

A comment I translated from Russian on another video said, (I think?) that in Russia they are producing 2X more power than nuclear.

The gullibility of that poster never ceases to amaze me. This person thinks erroneously that I'm lying or have some agenda, but believes the Russians. Russian government too no doubt. This person believes with little questioning, and rallies with promotors of self powered over unity schemes, that are asking for handouts. But denies solid mathematics, that if he were smart enough, he could derive himself. Then plasters the erroneous comments as if true on social media. When all he needs to do is look up on the the Internet background information and do a quick check.

Russia is one of the largest producers of nuclear generated electricity. They produce in one year 223 TWh, of nuclear energy. 24-7 that is about 25,387,067,395 Watt hours of energy ever hour, with about 36 plants. To make that kind of power using 100 kwh buoyancy towers, as claimed, it would take 253,870 installations. To double it it would take 507,740, yes that is over 500 thousand towers. It would be producing 48% of all Russian power, as the nuclear is claimed to produce 19% of their power.

Do you think Russia has built that many in the last few years? Really!

https://www.google.com/search?q=russian ... e&ie=UTF-8

Generation mix: natural gas 514 TWh (44%); nuclear 223 TWh (19%); hydro 216 TWh (19%); coal 187 TWh (16%); oil 8.5 TWh (7%); biofuels & waste 4.0 TWh; wind 3.3 TWh; solar 2.2 TWh. Source: International Energy Agency and The World Bank. Data for year 2021.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it might be not so wise to jump on anything that you haven't researched at least a little yourself first.

In other words, grow up. Learn something. Be kind. Do you really think name calling a person that goes by the handle "Fool" is helping. He's or she's probably just laughing at the real fool.

.

Reportedly Roche/Save The Planet has been busily installing utility scale systems at a rapid pace since around 2015, so, if that happens to be factual, the figures may not be so unbelievable.

Also your data source is obsolete by about 4 years. Also I don't think this is considered a "recognized" energy source. Roch seems content to maintain a low profile and keep their activities under the radar.

But of course, I don't know anything, just reporting on a statement made in the comments section of the video.

https://youtube.com/shorts/pT0L0VC-MdQ? ... pnZoZigBhk

That BTW, is of course, only a very small amateur DIY version being put into place

[matt brown]

...

There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes (Proell relates to regen anomaly)

Among other things, I don't think you understand the Proell effect.

It appears you're suffering from brain fade...I'm the guy who discovered this independently and sought to quantify it in my anomaly thread. I normally wouldn't post such a chase, but the blatant hot vs cold PP issue of Qin vs Wout (Essex vs Stirling) made it obvious that something was awry. Despite a long and twisted path, I managed to resolve this dilemma except I'm still lacking a simple equation that relates this anomaly. The mere suggestion that you've 'overtaken my lead' is friggin' crazy. I'll be posting a Proell update shortly.

Regenerators can be used as one means of capturing the heating and cooling of the gas produced but capturing heat in a regenerator is not the same as producing that heat via the Proell effect which has to do with "secondary" compression and expansion in the gas REMOTE from the location where heating or cooling is applied.

By compressing gas with the compressor, pressure in the line causes compression and heating of the gas throughout the air line, in particular heat is transfered to the water via the steel delivery pipe.

Are you suggesting that there's a Proell effect when compressing gas into a 'reservoir' ??? (tank or long pipe)

I think your assumption of 2 bar pressure is also likely baseless. I had made some calculations based on that figure, but according to what I've been reading the canisters start out much less than 1/2 filled.

I based this on simple math and ideal isothermal values where 50 liters 2 bar at bottom becomes 100 liters 1 bar at top. The idea is to "fill" ascending barrels as much as possible, since less fill means less buoyancy. The buoyancy doesn't care about temperature, so the only way to maintain max buoyancy within 1-2 bar system constraint is to fill barrels less than 50 liters while water temperature expands gas to 50 liters prior ascent, then isothermal >ambient continues on schedule. As eluded previously, this scheme has Wnet where Wpos>Wneg, but air expands little between ambient and boiling point of water (thus, hot oil suggestion, and maybe replace air with argon). It's all about constraints and calcs, not starry-eyed fantasies.

At any rate your assessment "There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes " is wrong, both IMO and according to the literature published by the company producing these machines:

But of course, the Trolls on this discussion thread think they know better than the actual manufacturer or inventor of this device.

I haven't seen that buzz before, like a Kamala word salad...

[matt brown]

I don't remember if anyone linked this Flooid video, but I watched it again recently and saw it in a different light. Very strange that they claim their magic is in the compressor...

Flooid video.png (239.33 KiB) Viewed 1116 times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWX__r2lu6w

[Tom Booth]

...

There's no Proell effect at work with these buoyancy schemes (Proell relates to regen anomaly)

Among other things, I don't think you understand the Proell effect.

It appears you're suffering from brain fade...I'm the guy who discovered this independently and sought to quantify it in my anomaly thread....

Hmmm...

I posted about it here on Nov. 26:

viewtopic.php?p=27248#p27248

You started a thread on the subject three days later.

viewtopic.php?t=6387

Trying to relate the Proell effect to your nonsensical trash is an obvious attempt at a red herring. Nobody cares about your "cartoon" charts and nonsensical theories.

When it comes to the subject of the Proell effect you obviously don't know what you're talking about and just see it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement by trying to relate it to your own nonsensical idiocy.

When it comes to spewing lies and misinformation I don't know who tops the bill, you or "fool". You're about neck and neck I'd guess

[Fool]

.

Look in a mirror the answer is you. Your lies, vituperation, and immaturity, out pace anyone I've ever read. And I've read some very horrible things from very horrible people.

You have absolutely zero retort to the point of torque. It's been given. It stands. Your off topic, personal attacks and lies are proof of your failure.

.

[Fool]

.

Reportedly Roche/Save The Planet has been busily installing utility scale systems at a rapid pace since around 2015, so, if that happens to be factual, the figures may not be so unbelievable.

Also your data source is obsolete by about 4 years. Also I don't think this is considered a "recognized" energy source. Roch seems content to maintain a low profile and keep their activities under the radar.

But of course, I don't know anything, just reporting on a statement made in the comments section of the video.

https://youtube.com/shorts/pT0L0VC-MdQ? ... pnZoZigBhk

That BTW, is of course, only a very small amateur DIY version being put into place

Yep. Gullible To the extreme. Defending your position by a YouTube comment is just plain silly.

To think Russia could build 500,000 of these in 5 or ten years, and relatively zero reference to Any of them actually working. I bet you fantasize about capturing the Easter Bunny too.

.

[matt brown]

When it comes to spewing lies and misinformation I don't know who tops the bill, you or "fool". You're about neck and neck I'd guess

Hey asshole, go back and study that KPP report where the guy lists

(1) speed as .3m/sec (1 ft/sec) which is about 1 rpm
(2) and 3Kw output at this speed (1 rpm)

yet somehow this piece of shit is producing 11 Kw at 1 rpm

When you live with your head up your ass, you only can see shit, talk shit, and eat shit...

[Fool]

.

Matt, correctly said. But please, illegitimi non carborundum. He's a narcissistic fool, and all they do is drag everyone down into the gutter. We all understand the frustration of having one around. The worse part is they simply don't learn. It is caused by their own anger blinding them to simple obvious data completely showing their error. Although Tom is very libelous, he seems to live for any reason to vituperate obscenities back and forth. Don't let him bully us. All that matters is we continue to provide good science to the readers. I hope that makes his lies more palatable.

Tom sould have never brought a scam like this, Flooid, or KPP, into a Stirling heat engine website. Tom widely spaced random experiments for all his enthusiasm have virtually led nowhere. That means he is his own worst enemy. He has discovered some interesting side effects and anomalies but has refused to incorporate any real science to discover what is really going on, or he's just a plain and simple scammer, like the KPP and Flood guides. Tom sounds legitimate in his processes but his refusal to do more let's us all down, and pings my sceptic response. Again he is doing it to himself.

His uneducated, disrespectful, misguided, Carnot bashing, and his challenge to all for correction is what brought me here in the first place. I hope hought, wow, there is an easy one. Tom's caustic personality and Darryl's support and interference made it very difficult to provide the Mathematics and Science that I've put forth here. Some of the readers here understand that, some don't. A scientist gets very little praise and lots of caustic retort. It is no wonder science has progressed so slowly over the last 200 years. But we now have computers, cars, bridges, space flight, airplanes, all because someone put together mathematics describing it. Classical theory. Only I would call it modern theory.

.

[Fool]

.

Modern hydroelectric generators generate mega Watts at around 200 RPM's. They have shaft diameters measured in feet. I've been in a dam and put my hand on the shaft while in full power operation and spinning. Diablo Dam in Washington State.

Number of turbines: 2
Turbine capacity: 64.5 MW each
Installed capacity: 129 MW
Capacity factor: 61%
Annual generation: 689,400,000 KWh
Diablo Dam is part of the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, which also includes the Gorge Dam and Ross Dam. The project provides electricity to Seattle and the surrounding areas.

Perhaps one day, torque, speed, and power will be understood by Tom, perhaps not. Most people in the world don't understand. Even the occasional physicist. Oh my!

Considering how simple the mathematics is, it's a wonder why there are so few. Considering how stupid the average person is, it's a wonder that anyone understands at all, let alone have hundreds of schools teaching it yearly in the world. More power to schooling. Less to scammers.

.

[Fool]

.

Matt, Tom seems to erroneously think that the energy put into compressing a gas is going to be less than the energy of expanding the gas at the same temperature, T atmosphere. Or in the case here that energy, for compressing the gas at the same temperature as expansion, is going to be less if the air is cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect as it is injected. He erroneously thinks the loss of energy of injection is somehow going to make up for the work of injection.

[Tom Booth]

.

You have absolutely zero retort to the point of torque. It's been given. It stands...
.

I already posted my experience regarding torque and shear strength.

Solid steel drive shafts do not bend or break except from very sudden stops or sudden acceleration from a dead stop.

Torque alone is just turning force. To break something you also need hard resistance.

Breaking an iron drive shaft with buoyancy floats is like trying to break a railroad track rail with bed pillows. It's never going to happen. The air is compressible and will provide a cushion. The buoyancy floats are like a stack of pillows or balloons. If their is a sudden stop the air in the canisters will compress like a pillow before any metal parts would break.

That's why cars have air bags, they are compressible and absorb the sudden shock of an accident so you don't break your skull on the windshield.

That's why boats hang rubber bumpers on the side of the boat to absorb shock so the boat doesn't bang directly into the dock.

The floats in the buoyancy train are like a giant shock absorber. It would be very difficult to ever break anything from a sudden stop or sudden start-up, and once things are moving there's no problem.

[Tom Booth]

.

Reportedly Roche/Save The Planet has been busily installing utility scale systems at a rapid pace since around 2015, so, if that happens to be factual, the figures may not be so unbelievable.

Also your data source is obsolete by about 4 years. Also I don't think this is considered a "recognized" energy source. Roch seems content to maintain a low profile and keep their activities under the radar.

But of course, I don't know anything, just reporting on a statement made in the comments section of the video.

https://youtube.com/shorts/pT0L0VC-MdQ? ... pnZoZigBhk

That BTW, is of course, only a very small amateur DIY version being put into place

Yep. Gullible To the extreme. Defending your position by a YouTube comment is just plain silly.

To think Russia could build 500,000 of these in 5 or ten years, and relatively zero reference to Any of them actually working. I bet you fantasize about capturing the Easter Bunny too.

.

Something inspired that guy to go to all the trouble of constructing a gigantic DIY buoyancy engine.

I sure wouldn't do such a thing unless I had some assurance it would be worth all the time and effort.

I'm not in Russia, so I have no first hand knowledge but I assume the guy there building and installing that huge contraption with a crane knows more about what's going on there than you or I do.

[Fool]

.

You have absolutely zero retort to the point of torque. It's been given. It stands...
.

I already posted my experience regarding torque and shear strength.

Solid steel drive shafts do not bend or break except from very sudden stops or sudden acceleration from a dead stop.

Torque alone is just turning force. To break something you also need hard resistance.

Breaking an iron drive shaft with buoyancy floats is like trying to break a railroad track rail with bed pillows. It's never going to happen. The air is compressible and will provide a cushion. The buoyancy floats are like a stack of pillows or balloons. If their is a sudden stop the air in the canisters will compress like a pillow before any metal parts would break.

That's why cars have air bags, they are compressible and absorb the sudden shock of an accident so you don't break your skull on the windshield.

That's why boats hang rubber bumpers on the side of the boat to absorb shock so the boat doesn't bang directly into the dock.

The floats in the buoyancy train are like a giant shock absorber. It would be very difficult to ever break anything from a sudden stop or sudden start-up, and once things are moving there's no problem.

That is a slippery slope argument. The.maximum torque a solid drive shaft can handle depends on its material and diameter. Or if you are correct you could replace a half inch drive torque wrench with a one quarter inch drive and use it for 100 ft-lbs of torque without breaking the wrench. Or replace the drive line in your car with a 1/4 steel rod.

Sudden load just plays with mass and acceleration. Try rolling your truck loaded with firewood or gravel up a hill by putting a long handle on a lug wrench. See if you break.that punny little lug stud right off.

Your knowledge of torque is erroneous. But please calculate the torque needed to render 100,000.watts at 4 Rpm and question how much torque a 2" steel shaft can withstand. It blows your pillow comment completely away.

.