Air Lift Turbine Generator

[Fool]

You will need to think for yourself. Tom thinks it's real. I can't see how the claim makes any cohesive sense. Matt brought it here as an example of a scam, to dispell the opening post. Read the comments in the YouTube links..Google search with the added word "debunk", or "scam". Just remembered any sufficiently determined individual can load the Internet with false reviews of fake things. Look for reviews from more independent sites.

[Tom Booth]

This looks quite a lot like some ideas that were floated in heat not too long ago using towers to generate pressure differentials, VincentG I think?

If I'm interpreting this right, it looks basically like an air-lift pump in one column of fluid causes the liquid in the left columb to be lighter, due to being full of air bubbles.

The weight of the all-fluid columb is greater than the fluid-gas bubble (air-lift pump) side causing a circulation at the bottom between the two columns or "towers" that can drive a turbine.

The gas from the air lift side is simply recirculated back down to the bottom of the tower.

Apparently 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.

https://flooidpower.com/the-flooid-towe ... le-energy/

You may all have solved this by now, but I'm not wading through the bickering to find out.
So, is it real or is it perpetual motion?
We can see thermal energy going in, but the mechanism by which it is converted is not clear.
We can also see work going in, in the form of compressed air...

As you have already observed, for a heat engine to work, there has to be cooling within the cycle: taking hot air from the top and injecting cold air in the bottom is not part of the cycle, so the explanation as given is simple nonsense.

I can imagine that the bubbles expand from the reduction in pressure as they rise, which has a cooling effect, and thus thermal energy is converted into kinetic energy, but I am not instinctively convinced.
Does someone want to do the sums? The relevant equations are eluding me for the moment...

Fool, as usual, misrepresents my position with "Tom thinks it's real".

Having a plausible theory is not a settled conclusion. I would only be likely to "think it's real" after constructing one myself and making the observation that it actually does work. Then it would also be necessary to rule out "hallucination" or self delusion of some sort by having others verify the observation.

"Harryloon" you appear to be another "Carnot Theorem" mocking bird with your statement:

As you have already observed, for a heat engine to work, there has to be cooling within the cycle: taking hot air from the top and injecting cold air in the bottom is not part of the cycle, so the explanation as given is simple nonsense.

Having already prejudiced yourself against consideration of any possibility your assumptions expressed above could be wrong you have already turned a deaf ear to anything I might have to say on the subject. You've already made up your mind.

If, however, you are not just one of "fool's" sock puppets and actually have any interest in hearing an explanation you might start by looking into Air-Cycle refrigeration.

This PDF is a good brief summary:

https://www.grimsby.ac.uk/documents/frp ... search.pdf

Get to know about turboexpanders:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboexpander

Also methods of air liquefaction, in particular the methods utilizing an expansion engine or turboexpanders to produce cooling by extracting "work" rather than cooling by heat transfer.

Understand the meaning of the equivalency of heat and work generally.

"Fool" doesn't seem to comprehend that cooling or refrigeration can be produced by taking out energy as "work" rather than "heat". It appears you are in the same boat and from your statements are equally lazy intellectually not even willing to read the tread you are asking your questions on, which would answer your questions, so I'm not inclined to waste time trying to explain something all over again which you obviously have already set your mind against anyway.

[Fool]

Refrigeration is a cycle. Not a single stroke. The refrigeration cycle requires work input.

Don't confuse adiabatic temperature drop with refrigeration. Adiabatic temperature drop applies to a contained gas and a single stroke.

Refrigeration is moving heat energy out of a cold place and injecting it into a hot place. It requires a full cycle, not just adiabatic bounce. The forward and return stroke won't be on the same adiabatic path. It requires heating the gas and cooling the gas by the process of heat transfer, not purely adiabatics.

[Fool]

My wife and I are currently negotiating a potential KPP demonstration plant on our "People's Research Center" property here in NY

Nothing says, 'I believe it's real', quite like that.

[Hairyloon]

Nothing says a failed project like a suspended website...

Screenshot 2025-01-02 at 16-54-27 Account Suspended.png (108.89 KiB) Viewed 1391 times

[Tom Booth]

Refrigeration is a cycle. Not a single stroke. The refrigeration cycle requires work input.

Don't confuse adiabatic temperature drop with refrigeration. Adiabatic temperature drop applies to a contained gas and a single stroke.

Refrigeration is moving heat energy out of a cold place and injecting it into a hot place. It requires a full cycle, not just adiabatic bounce. The forward and return stroke won't be on the same adiabatic path. It requires heating the gas and cooling the gas by the process of heat transfer, not purely adiabatics.

Try reading the document.

https://www.grimsby.ac.uk/documents/frp ... search.pdf

How does air cycle work?

Air cycle refrigeration works on the reverse Brayton or Joule cycle. Air is compressed and
then heat removed,...

Ordinary air compressor do this as a matter of course:

compressor-heat.jpg (110.64 KiB) Viewed 1386 times

this air is then expanded to a lower temperature than before it was
compressed. Work must be taken out of the air during the expansion, otherwise the entropy
would increase. Work is taken out of the air by an expansion turbine, which removes energy
as the blades are driven round by the expanding air. This work can be usefully employed to
run other devices, such as generators or fans.

The KPP or Air Lift Flooid devices, rather than using a small high speed low torque turbine to produce cold for refrigeration use a large low speed high torque "turbine" so the expansion is isothermal rather than adiabatic to maximize work output rather than cooling.

Often, though, it is used to power a directly
connected (bootstrap) compressor, which elevates the compressed (hot) side pressure
further without added external energy input, essentially recycling the energy removed from
the expanding air to compress the high pressure air further.

The heat from the compression process is completely recoverable returning back into the system for power production.

Reportedly both these very similar systems, though using somewhat different buoyancy turbines have been independently tested and the outputs verified.

Naturally, it is certainly possible for test reports to be in error or could potentially be forged or some such thing, but as disclosed earlier in the thread, there are brick and mortar facilities, installations viewable from Google Earth, building permits, involvement of inspectors, government agencies, etc. etc.

There is no reason to suspect any deception or fraud from these people other than the fact that conventional science or thermodynamics is at something of a loss to explain how it actually works.

There are two possibilities. Either the technology is not valid or conventional thermodynamics needs some revision or reinterpretation.

My own thermodynamic studies and experiments with Stirling engines and heat pumps has led me to the conclusion that the later is true regardless, or in any case.

Further, in all the time these energy firms have been active and quite transparent about the workings of their machines, no evidence of fraud or impropriety of any kind has been found and no charges have been brought and they are not running and hiding,

Infact, what brought my attention to this topic was that Flooid was recently featured in this video by Matt Ferrell whom I would judge to be a very well known and generally respected and trusted YouTube influencer whom I'm pretty sure would not be easily taken in by some "perpetual motion" scammers.

https://youtu.be/wSgv5NwtByk?si=OBI30sPePccRDqXz

[Tom Booth]

My wife and I are currently negotiating a potential KPP demonstration plant on our "People's Research Center" property here in NY

Nothing says, 'I believe it's real', quite like that.

The land for the proposed installation on our research facility is completely off-grid.

If they can successfully and continually operate a demonstration plant under such circumstances beyond the reach of any conventional power source, I would find that to be evidence that the system does indeed work as advertised, and if they are willing and able to do that we both believe they should be given the opportunity to have their technology objectively demonstrated and evaluated.

[Tom Booth]

Nothing says a failed project like a suspended website...

Screenshot 2025-01-02 at 16-54-27 Account Suspended.png (108.89 KiB) Viewed 1381 times

Is that this website:

https://flooidpower.com/the-flooid-towe ... le-energy/

Or this one:

https://www.ki-tech.global/what-we-offer

Or maybe this one?

https://rosch.ag/

????

You only provide a screenshot, your insinuations and zero facts

[Tom Booth]

This is an interesting variation, though as yet, the working principle alludes me.

buoyancy_stirling_engine.jpg (167.48 KiB) Viewed 1337 times

It appears heat is applied to the (alpha type) Stirling engine in the ordinary way but a buoyancy type turbine takes on the role of a regenerator for increased (more efficient) energy production.

From an expired 2009 German patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/DE202009000309U1/en

I think this may predate the previous two Stirling/buoyancy thermal engines, if that is infact a valid description.

It appears there are valves of some sort in the lines, this might be more clear if a better translation could be had.

I don't know if there was ever any kind of working prototype, but it at least has the advantage of having a conventional heat source applied to the engine.

[Tom Booth]

Back in 2011 I had an idea for using a Stirling engine displacer chamber alone, with check valves as an air pump or air compressor:

Stirling_Air_Pump_Compressor.jpg (161.77 KiB) Viewed 1313 times

viewtopic.php?p=3032#p3032

I built a very crude prototype using springs from retractable ball point pens and rusty pitted old ballbearings from roller skates bearings or from something that was lying around to make check valves.

Stirling_Air_Pump_Prototype.jpg (335.77 KiB) Viewed 1313 times

It eventually ended up as my first YouTube video experiment:

https://youtu.be/S8MBj6_sdSw?si=hNqqcV4nrInbfSgY

As can be seen, the thermal "Stirling air pump" did function and operate as intended, for at least a couple of strokes.

I found afterwards that one of my check valves soldered inside the side chamber had come apart and I never did any further work on it but I considered it a successful "proof of concept" demonstration.

What I had in mind at the time was to use this to drive a turbine. The above forum link is in a thread on that subject

viewtopic.php?t=461

A buoyancy type turbine was not on my radar at the time, but now that I think about it, looking at the above patent, a simple thermally driven or temperature difference air pump/compressor feeding air to a buoyancy motor certainly seems quite doable given a source of heat or cold.

My original idea was to use the compressed air generated to drive an air-cycle refrigerator or heat pump to supply the temperature difference.

The idea in the patent, I could see possibly working, but I''m skeptical about the choice of an Alpha type Stirling.

As demonstrated in my video, all that is really required is a displacer and check valves.

Actually, just a source of heat between two check valves could probably pump air hydraulically even without a displacer.

https://youtu.be/eamC-so82Rc?si=TpNqzNHUv73epQKk

https://youtu.be/DiFqgiRnNFI?si=Qj8V_f-MAg5OvZ66

There is a thread in here somewhere. Someone eventually got this concept working very effectively to pump water with an impressive rate of flow.

[Tom Booth]

https://youtube.com/shorts/tisahnp5ApI? ... rCl4SHajb3

viewtopic.php?t=5413


I think there may have been an additional thread or continuation.

[Fool]

That's it? Name drop Matt Ferrell, a comedian.

Then claim there are 'valves' of some sort in the lines... Yeah that proves it, the all powerful valve... NOT. You might as well said 'snifter valve' for all the meaningless drivel that is. Sorry I still don't buy it. The government isn't going to stop the installation of a useless tower. They just insure its code.

Then to top it all off you start your last paragraph with "I don't know"...


Please! You could have said that as a preamble to this whole thread and every paragraph.

This looks quite a lot like some ideas that were floated in heat not too long ago using towers to generate pressure differentials, VincentG I think?

You kind of did. Here and there...

"I think?" Maybe not. It was Matt and his mile high mercury tube.

[Fool]

Check valves have a pressure to open requirement. If you aren't producing enough pressure difference to open them, they won't open.

The case of a displacer chamber, the pressure swings will be quite small. Less than 30 psi, and likely less than 10 or 15. Smaller diameter checks will need higher pressure than for larger diameters. Springs on the will make them worse. A vertical rubber flap one inch in diameter and very slight closing elasticity, like a pet door, might have been an improvement.

Still 10 to 30 psi is not much pressure. 30 if you can heat the entire air volume to 600 Kelvin. 10 or 5 if it averages much lower.

[Tom Booth]

Fool, your incessant negativity is why you are preemptively and permanently banned from any future forums.

Your attitude sucks and brings everybody down. In a way I feel sorry, it must really suck to be you.

[Tom Booth]

That's it? Name drop Matt Ferrell, a comedian.
...

This looks quite a lot like some ideas that were floated in heat not too long ago using towers to generate pressure differentials, VincentG I think?

... It was Matt and his mile high mercury tube.

The comedian is Will Ferrell, not Matt Ferrel.

Does this really look like an episode of Saturday Night Live to you?

https://youtu.be/wSgv5NwtByk?si=zdIFnLZmaXerZaqA

This is VincentG's thread I was thinking of:

viewtopic.php?t=5545