Air Lift Turbine Generator

[Fool]

.

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

That is the difference between telling you what's going on and just knowing what's going on. I'm sure they know more, including that it is a scam. I'm telling you from all given data it is a scam.

They haven't provided enough data to do an engineering review. Therefore a scam.

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.

The bins don't have full buoyancy until they are completely filled. If they are filled with more air than half at the bottom they will loose air, be over filled at the top. If colder air at less than half at the bottom, they will have even less buoyancy until the air warms. Matt's assumption was doing it a favor. The more you stick up for them, the more scam like it appears.

To properly debunk the scam the complete engineering data needs to be supplied.

Note: The air compressor must supply air at a much higher pressure than the water pressure to inject the desired amount as the bins pass by. Limited time, higher pressure, more wasted energy.

Give us specs Mr. Gullible.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4944

.

[Tom Booth]

.... It blows your pillow comment completely away.

.

I go by what I know and what I see.

I've watched several videos of investigators going over these machines with a fine tooth comb, taking measurements of power output etc.

I've read several reports of examinations and testing from various expert firms.

I see the machines in operation, working without breaking from supposed inadequate engineering.

And I also know, from my experience here that for a fact you are liar, an idiot and a Troll who's opinions regarding engineering, mechanics or any other issues are completely worthless.

[Tom Booth]

IMO this buoyancy device operates much like an ordinary Stirling engine, on a temperature differential.

The colder and denser and more compressed the gas can be made at the start of the power stroke the more power can be delivered.

That is IMO simply a plausible hypothesis that could be right or wrong but it makes perfect sense to me and can be easily subject to testing and experimentation.

These machines have been the subject of very thorough and intensive examination and testing for over a decade by multiple independent parties.

There are working power plants open to visitors.

In all these years none of the skeptics have been able to detect anything other than that these machines work as advertised and produced the rated power as advertised.

The companies involved have continued in business and have never been charged or prosecuted for any impropriety.

To me, the technology seems fantastic, unbelievable, impossible, too good to be true, but I reserve judgement.

So far I see no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest that Rosch Innovations is anything other than a completely legitimate international enterprise delivering on what they promise.

They have been mistreated and subject to abuse by idiots such as yourself with a démodé education in physics and a moth eaten diploma in their closet who don't understand the technology is how it looks to me, and the fact that you and Matt are dead set on trying to debunk it only cements that appearance.

Time will tell. Sorry but your conjecture that the driveshaft is inadequate is baseless speculation on your part and not the least bit persuasive.

https://youtu.be/NSNdQyrvAXQ

Open to inspection.

This looks like an actual power plant to me:

https://youtu.be/1sU09CP7kpQ

Do any huge power plants such as depicted in these animations actually exist??

https://youtu.be/iJ4mxC6dd4g

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.

The Rosch people and their associated partners etc. don't exactly strike me as the type of people to pull some elaborate prank.

These guys look like ordinary no nonsense businessmen to me.

[Fool]

.

I go by what I know and what I see

I know much more than what I see. I do think for myself.

What I see is about a 2" steel shaft turning about 5 RPM.

If it can handle 500 ft•Lbs of torque that would be about: 355 Watts or about 0.476 HP.

There is no getting around that.

The colder and denser and more compressed the gas can be made at the start of the power stroke the more power can be delivered.

The contraption is limited by the buoyancy of the bins. Without buoyancy it will have no torque. It is limited buy the maximum forces in the upper shaft. That is a combination of tension and torque. Maximum torque limits the amount of power it can produce at a given RPM speed.

The claim of 100,000 Watts is ludicrously high.

The air compressor motor is about the same size as the synchronous generator. Without specifications, engineering analysis can't be done well. Open and honest they are not.

Of course you are welcome to spend your own money how you see fit. All I see is hearsay and acting.


.

[Tom Booth]

.

I go by what I know and what I see

I know much more than what I see. I do think for myself.

What I see is about a 2" steel shaft turning about 5 RPM.

If it can handle 500 ft•Lbs of torque that would be about: 355 Watts or about 0.476 HP.

There is no getting around that.

....

I think there is something wrong with your math as well as your common sense.

I've pulled a few car and truck axles in my day and they are typically about 1.5" diameter.

That is driven by an, on average, 275 horsepower IC engine which translates to about 200 kilowatts.

61Mn3j+GgnL.jpg (75.39 KiB) Viewed 927 times

And what do you say you see?

A 2" shaft (1/2" larger diameter than the jeep truck axles) can only handle fractional horsepower of 0.476 ?

You're out of your mind.

[Tom Booth]

Anyway, I'm not speculating.

I found this huge vase that should serve the purpose of putting together a small model:

KPP_model.jpg (552.93 KiB) Viewed 926 times

(27" tall, 6" diameter.)

Merry Christmas!

[Fool]

.

275 HP out of the engine at 4000 RPM. = 361 ft•lbs of torque. 3 to 1 speed reduction rear end gear ratio. 361×3=1083. Ft•lbs maximum torque in the rear axel.

Quite a bit less than the torque needed for the claimed 100,000 Watts, or 133 HP at 4 RPM's.

But higher than the 500 maximum I used. Gives a safety factor of more than two. The rear axel of a car is probably a higher strength steel. And 1000 ft•lbs of torque is very close to the strength of the axle. Probably why my axles fatigue failed after supping up the old family car.

Just remember I was guessing at 500 ft•lbs of maximum torque. They are claiming, over 139703. of torque. Very unrealistic, I might add.

I like the vase. Very visible. Good building, may you prove me wrong.

Merry Christmas to you and all too.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

.... 3 to 1 speed reduction rear end gear ratio. ...Probably ....

Just remember I was guessing ...
.

A lot of guesswork based on nothing but more guesswork.... Guessing at sizes of shafts seen in videos etc.

That's what you call "real science" ?

I call it a joke. Baseless nonsense with no foundation.

[Fool]

.

What needs to happen is they need to publish the data. I asked for it you refused. I guessed, cause you asked for it. Now you are claiming bad science. Good luck with that. Publish or perish.

Please explain how the get 100,000 Watts at 5 RPM.

A scam will never publish. A good start would be the data plates of each pump motor and generator. More will also be necessary. It is not so difficult that the request is unwarranted, unless they are hiding a scam.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

What needs to happen is they need to publish the data. I asked for it you refused. I guessed, cause you asked for it. Now you are claiming bad science. Good luck with that. Publish or perish.

Please explain how the get 100,000 Watts at 5 RPM.

A scam will never publish. A good start would be the data plates of each pump motor and generator. More will also be necessary. It is not so difficult that the request is unwarranted, unless they are hiding a scam.

.

They are under no obligation to reveal detailed IP to anyone IMO.

They have been more than generous in their willingness to allow detailed, close up examination of the machines by a multitude of competent researchers and investigators including skeptics. You were not one, obviously, so have no basis for your ridiculous conclusions.

Personally, I could care less about any "exaggerated claims".

IMO the technology either works or it does not.

I'd be shocked and surprised to find out the thing is even self-sustaining with any "excess" power output AT ALL. : a theoretical impossibility according to all the 2nd Law naysayers. If a 30 foot tower runs itself + generates 1 extra watt it would be a "miracle".

Not practical, but still a violation of known physics principles (supposedly) and therefore significant.

Anyway, I also found these little canisters that seem to be about the right size.

They will need to be sealed, have holes drilled etc. A little bit of a tight fit, but they might work.

KPP_canisters_1.jpg (314.89 KiB) Viewed 914 times

KPP_canisters_2.jpg (265.48 KiB) Viewed 914 times

[Tom Booth]

According to the theory proposed by myself, and, as I've found others commenting on YouTube, metal canisters might be better to permit more rapid heat transfer, but I saw those plastic soap holders and bought them on impulse. Perhaps not optimum, but there should still be some heat transfer, though quite a bit slower than metal.

[Tom Booth]

A depth of only about 2 feet is also less than 1 psi of water pressure. Probably 1 or 2 psi is not enough to generate a whole lot of "heat of compression" to be transfered to the tank water.

Repeating my previous "ideal gas law" calculations, however, even a few psi pressure could theoretically result in a significant temperature drop of the air, once cooled and released into the canisters.

I may be wrong, but from what I can gather, (from a YouTube comment translated from Russian) the guy who invented this was working on how to recover additional energy from the "waste heat" in the cooling water from nuclear power plants, and he found that expanding air bubbles that were colder than the water delivered additional power to the turbine in some manner or other. So, apparently something of this technology is being used to extract energy from low grade heat in water by expanding air bubbles through the warmer water, maybe? though I have no idea about the exact details.

Maybe someone else has some actual information about this?

[Tom Booth]

The way this would work, or "theoretically" could possibly work is this:

First look at the Vuilleumier heat pump.

Take a long cylinder of air and heat one end. The air in that heated end will expand and also the air way off at the other end will experience "compression" and heat up also, not by direct heating but by "work" from compression.

If we have a regenerator at the remote end we can sweep it through this remotely compressed hot air in one direction and gather heat into the regenerator.

Now if we cool the originally heated air at the first end of the cylinder the air will "contract" while the gas at the remote end will expand and cool. Now we can sweep the regenerator in the other direction.

The heat previously stored in the regenerator is left in one area and the regenerator is cooled.

Repeat this entire process again and again and you have a kind of "Maxwell's demon" separating out (or pumping) the heat at the remote end of the cylinder creating hot and cold zones with negligible mechanical work input just to move the regenerator.

It does not mater if the compression and expansion are generated through thermal or mechanical means, the remote side regenerator/ Maxwell's demon will separate out the heat either way with almost no additional work involved just sweeping the regenerator back and forth at the appropriate moments.

Now apply this concept to the KPP air compressor with a long pipe (cylinder of air) going down into a cold water tank.

With each stroke of the compressor piston the air in the line (pipe) is compressed.

Now think of the water in the tank as the remote end "regenerator' to temporarily take up and later release heat.

The air in the line is compressed and as a result the air in the pipe in the tank is "heated" by indirect compression (or the so-called "Proell effect").

The water/regenerator absorbs the heat of this secondary compression immediately

Some of the COOLED air that has decnded down through the water tank (having been repeatedly cooled and compressed as it traveled down), is released into a submerged canister at the bottom of the tank. This is now the beginning of a very long "power stroke" as the injected cold compressed gas absorbs the heat back out of the liquid "regenerator" as it rises up through the water.

The previously USELESS "waste heat" has been separated out by the so-called "Proell effect" or "secondary heating and cooling' (Vuilleumier "heat changes") and moved (pumped' a short distance via a "regenerator" (temporary storage) and from there released into an buoyancy "engine" where it can expand and do useful work.

Very little energy is expended because as each small volume of gas is compressed into the pipe the heat of compression is immediately transfered out of the compressed air to the water., so the next stroke of the compressor piston never has to do any more work than the first, etc. etc. etc. The compressor has relatively little pressure build up

There really is no appreciable buoyancy from the small amount of cold air injected into a float. The buoyancy develops as the injected air absorbs the compressors "waste heat" from the water along with whatever supplemental ambient heat might be needed in addition or instead of the transfered or lost "heat of compression".

So with this arrangement, you get all that tremendous buoyancy force driving a generator from an air compressor that is hardly doing a lick of work.

[Tom Booth]

Another aspect of this I've tried to get across in a Stirling engine is that as the gas in the cylinder expands from heat input during the power stroke the gas also does work, which takes energy out of the gas causing it to cool and contract SIMULTANEOUSLY.

So in this way, the heat going in is converted to work so the expansion of the gas is much less than the expansion would be without external mechanical work output.

This throws off conventional PV analysis.

The expansion is therefore much less and the actual work output is much more than is apparent from a PV chart analysis because heat is going in and work is going out simultaneously so the volume increase doesn't actually happen, or is very minimal.

I think the same thing happens with the KPP, but even moreso, because the "power stroke" is very long and slow. Nearly perfectly isothermal.

As the air rises up through the tank, it takes in heat, but SIMULTANEOUSLY does work, loosing the energy it takes in as heat and putting it right back out again as work. So as a consequence the air takes a very long time to expand as it travels upward because it is expanding from heat intake AND CONTRACTING from work output SIMULTANEOUSLY, all the way up.

Saying that the gas is both expanding from heat intake and contracting from energy/work output simultaneously may sound like a contradiction, but how else to explain it?

[Tom Booth]

BTW

I came across this photo from inside one of the KPP power plants:

kinetic_power_plant_drive.jpg (478.02 KiB) Viewed 880 times

Looks like a pretty hefty drive shaft to me.