New Science

[blochee]

I understand that what follows may seem crazy. I am purporting that the most fundamental law in science is wrong. If you find the parts about the law of conservation of energy being wrong are too much for you, then at least read the bit on inventions.

[dave]

I just read the sentence:

The hydrogen has a mass of M. Now, if we make all the hydrogen undergo fusion, then we'd be left with a balloon full of helium and a whole lot of energy. The mass of the helium would be approximately 0.993*M. There's a drop in mass. But gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass. So, where did that minute, but measurable, amount of potential energy go?!?

You need to read this (http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/massener.html). Basically we know that mass and energy are interchangable for high-speed particles (i.e. close to c) through E = mc2, so this explains a lot of things. Give it a read.

Plus that system you've quoted requires a lot of energy to actually fuse in the first place. Don't know about you, but I don't know many balloons of hydrogen that spontaneous undergo nuclear fusion.

From your bird example:

As it flaps its wings, two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

I suggest you read up on some chaos theory.

http://www.codynamics.net/science.htm

This explains the butterfly effect - or basically put, how a bird can cause a thunderstorm over half the planet away just by flapping its wings. However, that's just a sidenote and has no contribution to the real argument.

I can't see much else wrong with your example, apart from the fact that you've ignored quite a few fundamental laws. This bit just confused me:

So, we took care of all the forces, right? Wrong! We only considered the gravitational force of the Earth on the bird. But what about the gravitational force of the bird on the Earth? That force creates a minute acceleration of

a = G*m_b / (r+5)²
= 8.196889698 * 10^(-27) meters/second²

After 10^19 years, when the hummingbird returns to its nest, the Earth will be traveling at a velocity of

t = 10^19 years
= 3.15576 * 10^26 seconds

v = a * t
= 2.586741663 meters/second

The Earth was stationary and now it's moving at more than two meters per second! Can you account for that?

Well, yeah. You just did.

The earth is attracted to the bird (equal and opposite reaction). If it stays up there long enough, it's going to cause something to move, and indeed if it stayed up there for 10^19 years (which is about a billion times older the age of the universe, give or take) then it's going to cause it to move.

What does all of this mean? It means that the law of conservation of energy is wrong! It means that perpetual motion and free-energy devices do not contradict reality!

I think you'll find you're mistaken. Tried making a perpetual motion machine recently?

I haven't had time to read the rest of it, but you need to go through and re-read more or less all of it. I'm sure most physicists in the world have great confidence in conservation of energy for (relatively) slow moving particles. I'll post more when I'm less tired :-)

[blochee]

You need to read this (http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/massener.html). Basically we know that mass and energy are interchangable for high-speed particles (i.e. close to c) through E = mc2, so this explains a lot of things. Give it a read.


I know that mass and energy are interchangable. Let me simplify my argument:

1) Gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass.
2) Mass can be changed into energy. Now if we allow some mass to be changed into energy, then we'd be left with less mass.
4) Thus, gravitational potential energy will also decrease, without being realized.


Plus that system you've quoted requires a lot of energy to actually fuse in the first place. Don't know about you, but I don't know many balloons of hydrogen that spontaneous undergo nuclear fusion.


Yes, I understand that hydrogen doesn't spontaneously undergo fusion. This does not create a problem though, since any energy used to fuse the hydrogen in the first place will be apparent afterwards either in the bonds of the helium atoms or as kinetic energy. What matters is the initial stage and the final result.

Initial stage: a mass M of hydrogen
Final result: a mass of 0.993*M of helium and a lot of energy

There's a drop of mass, and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized.


From your bird example:

I suggest you read up on some chaos theory.

http://www.codynamics.net/science.htm

This explains the butterfly effect - or basically put, how a bird can cause a thunderstorm over half the planet away just by flapping its wings. However, that's just a sidenote and has no contribution to the real argument.


I agree that the effects of the bird's flapping it wings can have enormous repercussions. But, I stand by what I argue; that the force of the bird's flapping will not be conveyed to the ground.


The earth is attracted to the bird (equal and opposite reaction). If it stays up there long enough, it's going to cause something to move, and indeed if it stayed up there for 10^19 years (which is about a billion times older the age of the universe, give or take) then it's going to cause it to move.


Well then, can't you see that it means that the law of conservation of energy is wrong? Look at how it started and how it ended up.

Initial stage: Earth not moving. Bird in tree; not moving.
Final result: Earth moving at 2.5 m/s. Bird in tree; not moving.

Now, I'm no rocket-scientist, but in this case I don't have to be. Something that was not moving has accelerated and is now moving. The Earth has gained momentum. Where did that energy to create the momentum come from? It was created out of thin air. I will reinterate what I say in the paper:

"I hope you can now clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other forces like magnetism) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancels out". You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth) when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving."


I haven't had time to read the rest of it, but you need to go through and re-read more or less all of it. I'm sure most physicists in the world have great confidence in conservation of energy for (relatively) slow moving particles. I'll post more when I'm less tired :-)


Please read the part about inventions.

[YT2095]

As it flaps its wings, two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

although the large part of that statement is correct, the force will indeed reach the ground. it can`t NOT.
granted, it will be widely dispersed and absorbed by many other particles and objects on it`s way, but it will ultimately reach ground :)

[Sayonara³]

Look at how it started and how it ended up.

Initial stage: Earth not moving. Bird in tree; not moving.
Final result: Earth moving at 2.5 m/s. Bird in tree; not moving.
Errr... if the bird is in a tree on the earth, isn't the bird moving at 2.5 m/s as well?

[YT2095]

lol, Sayo, I think he forgot to factor in Inertial forces there :)

a bit like traveling in a car at 100mph and tossing a baseball in the air, I`ve never known it result in the back window needing replacement :)

[Sayonara³]

It's not so much the inertia I was considering as the fact that a tree can be considered part of the earth for the purposes of the scenario.

Unless of course the branch with the bird on it is 'staying still', and the rest of the tree is being compressed towards it or stretched away...

[YT2095]

Eeeew Trippy concept! :))

"There's a drop of mass, and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized."

not at all :)
D+D=T+p+4Mev there`s your basic fussion reaction, what is lost there?

[dave]

I think the problem is that he's not considering the entire system. I don't really want to write another very long post on it because I've not done systems for a while now, so I'll leave it to someone else.

[blochee]

Errr... if the bird is in a tree on the earth, isn't the bird moving at 2.5 m/s as well?

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?

[blochee]

As it flaps its wings, two things happen; one, air is pushed downward, and two, it is pushed upward. Since the hummingbird is a fair distance from the Earth (5km to be exact), the downward force on the air molecules never actually reach the ground because it gets distributed amongst other air particles.

although the large part of that statement is correct, the force will indeed reach the ground. it can`t NOT.
granted, it will be widely dispersed and absorbed by many other particles and objects on it`s way, but it will ultimately reach ground :)

What if the Atlantic ocean was still. Now, if we drop a pebble in Atlantic ocean from Canada, will the waves reach France?

[blochee]

Eeeew Trippy concept! :))

"There's a drop of mass, and since gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, we must conclude that some gravitational potential energy was lost without being realized."

not at all :)
D+D=T+p+4Mev there`s your basic fussion reaction, what is lost there?

What does "D+D=T+p+4Mev" mean?

[swansont]

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?

From the bird.

[swansont]

What does "D+D=T+p+4Mev" mean?

Deuterium + Deuterium = tritium + proton + 4 Million electron-Volts

[dave]

What if the Atlantic ocean was still. Now, if we drop a pebble in Atlantic ocean from Canada, will the waves reach France?

Yes, eventually (albeit they will be undetectable).

[blochee]

WHAT I HAD PREVIOUISLY SAID:

"Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?"

From the bird.

So did the bird push the Earth, and cause it to move? Or was the bird towing the Earth with a rope which was fastened to the ground? As far I know, the bird just pushed air. The reason why the Earth began to move is because gravity *creates* forces which then create/destroy energy/momentum. I will reiterate a part from the paper:

"I hope you can now clearly see and appreciate that gravity (and other forces like magnetism) create kinetic energy instantaneously out of nothing. But notice that at any "instance", the instantaneous energy "cancels out". You see, as the bird was hovering, we could say that the bird was perpetually falling to the Earth. Likewise, the Earth was perpetually falling toward the hummingbird. The forces on each (bird and Earth) when taken together, cancel out. However, when that instantaneous force is sustained for a real duration of time, it effects its environment by adding or removing energy from the system. In this case, energy was added to the system; that's why the Earth is moving."

[blochee]

Deuterium + Deuterium = tritium + proton + 4 Million electron-Volts

Let me clarify. Consider my friend Waldo on the Earth.

First, consider a ball that has a mass of 3 kg. Now let Waldo lift the ball ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the ball has a potential energy given by the equation "force multiplied by distance". The acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. The force is 29.4 Newtons. And so, the potential energy is 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work. Now, drop that ball, and all the 294 Joules it took to lift the ball will be realized, either by sound as the ball hits the ground, or as heat due to friction, etc.

Now, consider a tank which has a mass of 0.986 kg. Inside the tank is 1000 moles of Deuterium. Now, the atomic mass of Deuterium is 2.0140 grams per mole. Thus, the Deuterium has a mass of 2.014 kg; the tank as a whole has a mass of 3 kg. Now, let Waldo lift the tank ten meters above the ground. We'd say that Waldo has done work. Let's define P as the amount of work done by Waldo. We'd say now that the tank has a potential energy of 294 Joules. Thus, Waldo did 294 Joules of work.

But, instead of dropping the tank, let's let the Deuterium fuse together to form Tritium and protons. (I understand that to fuse the Deuterium requires an input of energy. However, I am only considering the initial stage and the final result. The two are interchangeable. The road from the intial stage to the final result won't be analysed, since it doesn't effect the initial stage or the final result.) Now, in the tank we'd be left with 500 moles of Tritium, 500 moles of protons, and 2 Billion electron-Volts. (Let's assume here that the tank doesn't explode, and instead contains the mass and energy.) Now, Tritium has a an atomic mass 3.016 grams per mole, and a proton is close enough to 1 gram per mole. Thus, there is 1.508 kg of Tritium and 500g of protons. The contents of the tank now has a mass of 2.008 kg. The tank has lost a mass of 6 grams, and so, the potential energy P is less than before.

Now, we have invested energy by lifting up the tank 10 meters above the ground. Can we realize that energy now? And if we can't, then what "truth" is there in defining P, as a form of energy.

(I hope the calculations of moles, etc. are accurate.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yep, I made a mistake there. But my point still stands. Two things that aren't moving are now moving. Both have gained momentum. Where did that energy to increase momentum come from? The bird increased its momentum by flapping its wings, converting chemical energy into kinitic energy. But what about the Earth? The Earth has no wings. So where did the energy to change the momentum of Earth come from?
Chemical energy. The bird gains gravitational energy as it uses up its food, and that energy (just like gravity) pulls on the earth.

Duh.
But, instead of dropping the tank, let's let the Deuterium fuse together to form Tritium and protons. (I understand that to fuse the Deuterium requires an input of energy. However, I am only considering the initial stage and the final result. The two are interchangeable. The road from the intial stage to the final result won't be analysed, since it doesn't effect the initial stage or the final result.) Now, in the tank we'd be left with 500 moles of Tritium, 500 moles of protons, and 2 Billion electron-Volts. (Let's assume here that the tank doesn't explode, and instead contains the mass and energy.) Now, Tritium has a an atomic mass 3.016 grams per mole, and a proton is close enough to 1 gram per mole. Thus, there is 1.508 kg of Tritium and 500g of protons. The contents of the tank now has a mass of 2.008 kg. The tank has lost a mass of 6 grams, and so, the potential energy P is less than before.

Now, we have invested energy by lifting up the tank 10 meters above the ground. Can we realize that energy now? And if we can't, then what "truth" is there in defining P, as a form of energy.

That mass of 6 grams was turned into energy holding the atoms together. If you drop the tank, it will fall with 294 joules.

With the Newton Seesaw: That energy is electricity from the electomagnets. Duh. Same with the Simple Engine.

Two masses: They slow down as they get farther away due to gravity. Taking up the energy they got.

So really, your paper is worthless. If it was true, I'm sure Leonardo DaVinci wouldn't have said that a perpetual motion machine was impossible (believe me, he tried to make them).

[dave]

The conservation of energy only applies to a closed system of energy; I don't think the system you're describing is closed - where does the energy come from to spontaneously make the deuterium fuse?

(on a sidenote, the energy released that you calculated is wrong. The fusion of 2kg of deuterium produces a lot more energy than just 10 TeV).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The conservation of energy only applies to a closed system of energy; I don't think the system you're describing is closed - where does the energy come from to spontaneously make the deuterium fuse?
He was discounting the energy put in to it.
I wasn't tought that it applies to a closed system, please explain.

[blochee]

That mass of 6 grams was turned into energy holding the atoms together. If you drop the tank, it will fall with 294 joules.


I thought the 6 grams was turned into heat, sound, light, etc. There is less mass, isn't there? And if gravitational potential energy is proportional to mass, then isn't it reduced when mass is reduced.


With the Newton Seesaw: That energy is electricity from the electomagnets. Duh. Same with the Simple Engine.

Two masses: They slow down as they get farther away due to gravity. Taking up the energy they got.


I don't think you understood that section, the part about inventions.. Both the "Seesaw" Newton Motor and the "Simple" Newton Engine are used to create thrust/propulsion.

[YT2095]

if we try to keep this simple for the sake of long posts and irrelevance :)

lets say we lift a bowl of water that has 1 liter in it, to a height of 1 meter. that now has energy P.
lets say some water evaporates the original energy P is less now.
is that what you`re trying to say?

or does it need to be an atomic reaction? I`m only trying to help here! :)

[blochee]

if we try to keep this simple for the sake of long posts and irrelevance :)

lets say we lift a bowl of water that has 1 liter in it, to a height of 1 meter. that now has energy P.
lets say some water evaporates the original energy P is less now.
is that what you`re trying to say?

or does it need to be an atomic reaction? I`m only trying to help here! :)

Yes, we need the atomic reaction. Because in your example the bowl of water loses some potential energy, but the water vapour has enough potential energy such that both the bowl of water and the vapour has a total potential energy of P.

But in the atomic reaction the mass dissapears, becoming energy, and thus gravitational potential energy disappears without being realized.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

When the water evaporates the gravitational potential energy also disappears as it turns to gas. Why atomic only?

[dave]

Yes, we need the atomic reaction. Because in your example the bowl of water loses some potential energy, but the water vapour has enough potential energy such that both the bowl of water and the vapour has a total potential energy of P.

But in the atomic reaction the mass dissapears, becoming energy, and thus gravitational potential energy disappears without being realized.

But that's the entire point; the mass doesn't 'disappear', it becomes energy. If you consider the entire system including mass instead of just looking at energy (i.e. conservation of mass and energy, as I've already stated), then there's blatently no flaw to be pointed out.

[blochee]

But that's the entire point; the mass doesn't 'disappear', it becomes energy. If you consider the entire system including mass instead of just looking at energy (i.e. conservation of mass and energy, as I've already stated), then there's blatently no flaw to be pointed out.

You haven't taken gravitational potential energy into account.

[blochee]

When the water evaporates the gravitational potential energy also disappears as it turns to gas. Why atomic only?

Well, if you're right (which I am now thinking you are) that gravitational potential disappears when water evaporates into gas, then you have simplified my atomic fusion example and have still shown that the Law of Conseravation of Energy is wrong.

Infact, you have given me an idea which can be used to convert gravity's force into electrical energy:

First, start with a tank of water which is not that wide but is tall, around 500 meters tall. Now, outside of the tank is a contraption which converts the gravitational's energy of a falling log of wood into electrical energy. When the log has fallen and has reached the ground, then it will be put into the tank of water (from the ground) and since the log is less dense than water, the log will resurface at the top of the tank, 500 meters above the ground. And then the log of wood can be dropped into the contraption to generate electricity again. Obviously, it may be hard to use a log of wood. So something other than a log and water can be used. But the method still stands; that something less dense can be moved upward due to it being immersed in something more dense. (I will have to add this bit to my paper).

This example truly demonstrates that gravity creates instantaneous forces which the can create/destroy energy.

[YT2095]

and the energy required to lift this "log" comes from where? :)

[jordan]

Like YT said, the energy you are forgetting comes from lifting the log. The equation for Potential Energy of Gravity requires a height component because the work done to get it to that height is the "Potential Energy" you are exploiting later on. It is not just appearing. Now, if you found a way for the log to simply reappear at the top without any work being done on it, then ok, but you'll have a tough time finding one.

[blochee]

and the energy required to lift this "log" comes from where? :)

The log is moved upward due to it being less dense than water.

[jordan]

Sure, but where does the energy come from?

[YT2095]

no no no, you missed the point, what lifted the log up there in the FIRST PLACE to get dropped into the water?

[jordan]

The log was never lifted up and dropped in, it was placed at the bottom of the tank and allowed to float up.

[YT2095]

ok then, fair enough, HOW did the water get into the tank then, surely 500 meters tall of water takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to stack up so to speak, and just to make one log flot up that`s been chained to the bottom of the tank before filling hardly seems worth it?

oh yeah, and the missing energy comes from the amount of water you DIDN`T have to put in because the log displaced it making the tanks volume greater, so no, you still gain nothing :)

[edit] these laws are inviolable :)

[blochee]

ok then, fair enough, HOW did the water get into the tank then, surely 500 meters tall of water takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to stack up so to speak, and just to make one log flot up that`s been chained to the bottom of the tank before filling hardly seems worth it?

oh yeah, and the missing energy comes from the amount of water you DIDN`T have to put in because the log displaced it making the tanks volume greater, so no, you still gain nothing :)

[edit] these laws are inviolable :)

Let me clarify by putting it into steps:

* We have a tank of water which is 500 meters tall. There is a door at the bottom of the tank which allows us to put a log of wood into the bottom of the tank without losing water.

* We have a contraption which converts the energy of a falling log of wood into electricity.

1) Log is on the ground.
2) Put log into the bottom of tank, without spilling water.
3) Log floats to the top of the tank, and thus gains a gravitational potential for energy.
4) The log is dropped into the contraption, which converts the gravitational potential for energy into electricity.
5) The log is on the ground again. (repeat cycle)

Now, there needs to be an input of energy used to move the log to and fro the tank and the contraption. But, if the contraption makes enough electrical energy from the falling log, than once the dynamo has started, the output electrical energy could cover the cost of the input energy and still have electrical energy left over.

[jordan]

But, if the contraption makes enough electrical energy from the falling log, than once the dynamo has started, the output electrical energy could cover the cost of the input energy and still have electrical energy left over.

Do you have any calculations to back that up?

[swansont]

Well, if you're right (which I am now thinking you are) that gravitational potential disappears when water evaporates into gas, then you have simplified my atomic fusion example and have still shown that the Law of Conseravation of Energy is wrong.

Infact, you have given me an idea which can be used to convert gravity's force into electrical energy:

First, start with a tank of water which is not that wide but is tall, around 500 meters tall. Now, outside of the tank is a contraption which converts the gravitational's energy of a falling log of wood into electrical energy. When the log has fallen and has reached the ground, then it will be put into the tank of water (from the ground) and since the log is less dense than water, the log will resurface at the top of the tank, 500 meters above the ground. And then the log of wood can be dropped into the contraption to generate electricity again. Obviously, it may be hard to use a log of wood. So something other than a log and water can be used. But the method still stands; that something less dense can be moved upward due to it being immersed in something more dense. (I will have to add this bit to my paper).

This example truly demonstrates that gravity creates instantaneous forces which the can create/destroy energy.

How do you get the log into the bottom of the tank?

[blochee]

how do I delete this message?

[aman]

The log has to displace its volume in water and that takes an input of energy.
I tried an idea of rolling barrels down the side of a dam, putting them in a lock and opening it up to have them float up again. The water displacement problem is where the actual energy loss is encountered.
Just aman

[blochee]

How do you get the log into the bottom of the tank?

At the bottom of the tank, we could have a door which can be opened and closed. That door would be connected to a small tank, which has a door which connects to the outside.

-First, put the log into the small tank.
-Then, fill the small tank with water.
-Then, close the door of the small tank which connects to the outside.
-Then, open the door which connects the small tank to the large tank.
-Alas, push the log into the large tank.
-Close door connecting small and large tank.

This is somewhat like how an astronaut who wants to go on a space-walk has to go into a bay which depressurizes.

If the connection between the small and the large tank is somewhat vertical, then we wouldn't need to push the log, because the log would automatically float up into the large tank.

And ideally, I think we can get the log to fall into the small tank when it has gone through the contraption which generates the electricity. Thus, we'd only need input energy to open and close the doors, and to fill the small tank with water. And at the top of the tank, we need input energy to move the log into the contraption.

[aman]

I don't know the efficiency of turbines but they generate massive power quickly.
This might be able to generate power more efficiently but on a smaller scale. The energy input would have to be minimized.
Its kinda like perpetual motion. I tried filling fifty gallon drums with water, rolling them down with chains, emptying them in the lock closing it and releasing them chained as they float up. It would work but is not perpetual which was what I was investigating years ago and has a net loss in efficiency. Good luck with your investigations
Just aman

[blochee]

Do you have any calculations to back that up?

No. It seems that this dynamo is not effective. Even if you have a 200 kg log of wood falling from the height of 500m, you'd get 1 000 000 J. If you could keep it at a rate of 30 seconds per log, then you have 33 333 W. That's only enough to light up thirty-three 100W light bulbs (discounting all other losses). Overall, this setup will not be effective. If we could find something *really* heavy (like an anvil) but which is less dense than water (or perhaps some other liquid) then perhaps this invention would be practical.

[aman]

I was considering whether there is a better return of energy having the water fall in drums the 500 ft, emptied, and air filled drums returning rather than logs. Was this more efficient than water discharged at 500 ft under pressure in the volume of a 50 gal drum. Wood is a constant density and I tried to maximize the gravitational energies. Thanks for the joules calculations since it makes it seem efficient but not practical even with thousands of logs or barrels.
Just aman

[swansont]

No. It seems that this dynamo is not effective. Even if you have a 200 kg log of wood falling from the height of 500m, you'd get 1 000 000 J. If you could keep it at a rate of 30 seconds per log, then you have 33 333 W. That's only enough to light up thirty-three 100W light bulbs (discounting all other losses). Overall, this setup will not be effective. If we could find something *really* heavy (like an anvil) but which is less dense than water (or perhaps some other liquid) then perhaps this invention would be practical.

The invention will never be practical. As I implied and Aman stated, you have to do work at some point in getting the log into the high-pressure end (i.e. bottom) of the device. Ignoring losses, that will be exactly the amount of energy you would recover from dropping it after it reached the top. With losses, it becomes a net work/energy sink. You heat the water up a little, and it makes noises. Whoopee.

[YT2095]

the amount of water you`re trying to displace with the log will be huge, and the greater the water pressure (a taller tank) the more work you`ll use to get the log into the bottom, because the water is trying to push it back out :)

[blochee]

No. It seems that this dynamo is not effective. Even if you have a 200 kg log of wood falling from the height of 500m, you'd get 1 000 000 J. If you could keep it at a rate of 30 seconds per log, then you have 33 333 W. That's only enough to light up thirty-three 100W light bulbs (discounting all other losses). Overall, this setup will not be effective. If we could find something *really* heavy (like an anvil) but which is less dense than water (or perhaps some other liquid) then perhaps this invention would be practical.

Idea! It would be better if we used glycerol instaed of water and water instead of logs of wood. This would be the setup:

*Two tubes, one contains water (tube A) while the other contains glycerol (tube B). Both are connected at the base by a semi-permeable membrane, which allows water through but not glycerol.

1) Water from tube A enters tube B via the semi-permeable membrane
2) The water in tube B is less dense than the glycerol, and so it rises to the top of tube B.
3) The top of tube B is turned so that it empties into tube A. Thus, the water at the surface of tube B then falls into tube A. This falling water is supposed to turn a turbine.
4) The water returns to tube A.

Repeat cycle..

If you want a diagram look for "Figure-1" at

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/members.tripod.com/~urila/index.htm

The diagram shows everything except the top of tube B (which is turned so that it empties into tube A).

I'd love to make this, but my problem is finding a semi-permeable membrane.

So, if you know where to get or know the name of a membrane which is permeable to water but impermeable to glycerol, then let me know.

[YT2095]

1-2-3 Propan Triol is a large molecule, so an ordinary porous pot material would work :)

[J'Dona]

"4) The water returns to tube A."

Hmmm... putting the water in again at the bottom still requires forcing it in at high pressure, because the high pressure water at the bottom of the tube will resist being pushed against by the entering water, whether it is a solid (like a log) or not. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do witht he original reason why the First Law of Thermodynamics could be wrong, that is, the loss of gravitational potential energy due to a loss of mass (though it seems to me that that extra energy the GP energy lost might just be expressed in the form of more kinetic energy in the reaction products). And if the law was wrong and energy could be destroyed, that doesn't necessarily mean that energy can be created as well (much like the Universe's entropy can decrease, but not increase).