# inverted hydro



## reubenT (Feb 28, 2012)

Just an idea. Possibly collect power from gravity by using static water and moving air instead of moving water in open air. Reverse the way a water wheel works, run the wheel under water (in a tank) and use pumped air to carry the buckets up. Supposedly the air delivery pressure drops to zero when the air is flowing out the end of a pipe under water, buoyancy of the air pulls itself out of the pipe, so the ratio of energy in to energy out should be plenty, even though common sense tells me at least very low pressure would be needed to push air through the pipe. Pump air with a bellows like the old blacksmith forge used, operated with crank arm off the wheel shaft. either 2 or 3 bellows, 2 would still leave a slight pause in air flow unless an air reservoir was used in the line, but if pressure is too low an air reservoir would be hard to make work, so 3 bellows might be better offset in operation 1/3 from each other. (any pause in air flow would allow water to backflow in the air pipe requiring more pressure to blow it back out) If the air delivery energy requirement is actually way lower than power output, it could be built anywhere to power remote homesteads without the need for a volume of water running downhill steady. Kind of bulky and stationary with low power for the size, and very low RPM, but steady power is a big benefit even if it isn't a lot. A large wheel can make a few HP at least. Experimentation needed to work out the details. Bellows size and speed of pumping, versus wheel size, speed of rotation and bucket displacement, all variables to get coordinated. Valve size in the bellows and pipe size should be large enough to allow unrestricted air flow, with the air release nozzle just the right size for the air volume to allow easy air flow but moving fast enough to prevent water backflow. I will have to build one and see for myself if it works as claimed, since I am not aware of any published figures on energy requirements for releasing a given volume of air under a given head of water. All I can calculate is the power output, same as for a wheel of the same size running in normal manner, with the added possible resistance of moving under water, although if RPM is slow that won't be much.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

What is the energy source for operating the bellows? Any energy used there will be more than is supplied by the air wheel.

WWW


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Any energy used there will be more than is supplied by the air wheel.


Party Pooper


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

reubenT said:


> Just an idea. Possibly collect power from gravity by using static water and moving air instead of moving water in open air. Reverse the way a water wheel works, run the wheel under water (in a tank) and use pumped air to carry the buckets up. Supposedly the air delivery pressure drops to zero when the air is flowing out the end of a pipe under water, buoyancy of the air pulls itself out of the pipe, so the ratio of energy in to energy out should be plenty, even though common sense tells me at least very low pressure would be needed to push air through the pipe. Pump air with a bellows like the old blacksmith forge used, operated with crank arm off the wheel shaft. either 2 or 3 bellows, 2 would still leave a slight pause in air flow unless an air reservoir was used in the line, but if pressure is too low an air reservoir would be hard to make work, so 3 bellows might be better offset in operation 1/3 from each other. (any pause in air flow would allow water to backflow in the air pipe requiring more pressure to blow it back out) If the air delivery energy requirement is actually way lower than power output, it could be built anywhere to power remote homesteads without the need for a volume of water running downhill steady. Kind of bulky and stationary with low power for the size, and very low RPM, but steady power is a big benefit even if it isn't a lot. A large wheel can make a few HP at least. Experimentation needed to work out the details. Bellows size and speed of pumping, versus wheel size, speed of rotation and bucket displacement, all variables to get coordinated. Valve size in the bellows and pipe size should be large enough to allow unrestricted air flow, with the air release nozzle just the right size for the air volume to allow easy air flow but moving fast enough to prevent water backflow. I will have to build one and see for myself if it works as claimed,* since I am not aware of any published figures on energy requirements for releasing a given volume of air under a given head of water. All I can calculate is the power output*, same as for a wheel of the same size running in normal manner, with the added possible resistance of moving under water, although if RPM is slow that won't be much.


The energy required would be a function of the depth of the air nozzle under the water. Water exerts a head pressure known as "Feet of head" or expressed in "PSI". 

I had a guy ask me why they don't put little wind turbines on the hood of cars once... they could generate power while driving down the road.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Murby please...tell me that is a joke...no one really can think that right?


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Meinecke said:


> Murby please...tell me that is a joke...no one really can think that right?


Google it. You will see several people asking the question.

WWW


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Meinecke said:


> Murby please...tell me that is a joke...no one really can think that right?


Unfortunately there are people who believe you can in fact run and push yourself.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Most people just don't have even a grade school comprehension of basic physics.. 

I wasn't joking, a piping vendor supply clerk actually asked me that question.. 

People walk around knowing how to tie their own shoes, knowing the pan on the stove is hot, and the fall from a cliff is going to kill them.. But they don't understand why, nor do they need to really if they're not trying to design something.


----------



## RazrRebel (Apr 16, 2013)

I'm totally lost now. So if you put a small wind turbine on a car, you couldn't collect the voltage to a battery? Sorry didn't fully understand what yall we're talking about. It does make voltage, just not in quantities to make it efficient. I thought for a minute you meant it would not make power at all.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

RazrRebel said:


> I'm totally lost now. So if you put a small wind turbine on a car, you couldn't collect the voltage to a battery? Sorry didn't fully understand what yall we're talking about. It does make voltage, just not in quantities to make it efficient. I thought for a minute you meant it would not make power at all.


It will make voltage but your car is spending an equal amount of energy to push it as you gather if your turbine works at 109% efficiency, which you can rest assured that it isnitthat efficient.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

The extra fuel the vehicle uses to fight the drag created by the turbine would far exceed the amount of energy the turbine creates. Interestingly, electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt use something called "Regenerative Braking".. when you hit the brakes, the car's electric motors convert the kinetic energy of the car moving, back into electrical power to charge the battery.

Commercial airliners are also equipped with mini-turbines just a few inches in diameter. If a plane looses electrical power, the pilot can deploy the turbine which will use the kinetic energy of the plane traveling hundreds of mph through the air to generate power for the electronics.. thus allowing the pilot to continue piloting the mostly electric aircraft. The turbines are tiny but generate lots of energy because of the high speeds.
I love this youtube channel:





One thing I had thought of long ago along those lines is to install mini-turbines down the sides of roads to capture the wind energy that comes from vehicles as they travel. It would work.. cars generate quite a bit of wind as they travel 60+ mph and trucks bring huge gusts. 
A 36 diameter turbine could probably push out 300 to 500 continuous watts during rush hour. 

But just because something is possible does not make it practical.. Cost would be prohibitive and damage to the turbine(s) would probably be frequent as well as the turbines would have to be placed close enough that it would make them a hazard themselves to drivers.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

It sounds like perpetual motion machine. Zero point energy. If it was that easy someone would have built it by now.


----------



## reubenT (Feb 28, 2012)

So; too many telling me it won't work without doing experiments and/or running the figures and demonstrating it mathematically by known experimental measurements. Just because either "someone would have done it already" or it might have gain and that can't happen. Not a scientific approach, and the reason why progress doesn't happen until someone ignores all the naysayers and tries it anyway. (as the wright brothers did when everyone was telling them that a mechanical bird was ridiculous) But hey, gain is not impossible, since we don't live in a world with all closed energy loops. without running the figures and demonstrating it mathematically by known experimental measurements. I tried to do that and found some figures. First a calculation of energy in versus energy out comes up with a loss of around 25%, using figures from the chart at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/horsepower-compressed-air-d_1363.html and basic HP calculation from approximate torque and speed figures that it might run. but there's a hitch to that. Air compressed and then released creates energy gain of it's own of almost 1.6 times the input. (which I've heard of previously and people having used that gain to make compressed air powered vehicles that beat electric drive or IC engines on efficiency by a good bit) Demonstrated in calculation at https://www.coursera.org/lecture/th...ample-the-work-required-to-compress-air-7TnGy
So with a 1.25 loss combined with 1.6 gain it equals overall gain. Not much, unless there's a better way to get energy from the compressed air. But then there's yet another aspect that may enter the picture making it more complicated. Answer the question "Can more air be moved with less energy by venturi compression than by simply pumping it all through an air compressor?" (William Penberthy invented one for pumping feed water into boiler using steam from the same boiler) I haven't found any figures on that. So it remains to build an actual working model to finalize the figures and see if gain can be achieved in sufficient amount to be worth doing it.

Oh and what I read about the reduced pressure required to move air under water after flow starts is not bearing out in my initial experiments, so I'm leaving that segment of the idea out of the picture.


However there's a whole nother water based system where plenty of gain is available by already demonstrated results. And that's the idea of pumping water with a hydroxy powered water piston IC engine (made with standard plumbing) and then running it across a standard pelton turbine. The only problems there would be getting the hydroxy and ignition systems running trouble free long term to make it reliable, if reliability of the system is limited, running more than 1 would help cover for breakdowns. It does require a special spark plug and plasma ignition, regular plugs foul too fast. But a plasma ignition is easy to make, especially one that operates that slow, only a few fires per minute depending on size of combustion chamber versus water flow rate. A special spark plug is not too hard to make. The figures I have found indicate maybe 6-10 gain potential at least. One figure involved 250 watts pumping water at 25-30 gpm and 250 psi. I may try both ideas soon. Since I have my own small foundry and machine shop, and somewhat experienced in electronics. (ham radio guy from way back) It's all well within my capability. I love steam engine power for short term power needs, like firewood processing truck which I already built with antique westinghouse engine and ofeldt watertube boiler. But when power is needed 24/7 for home and especially greenhouse heating all winter, it takes something else. And I have water enough gravity flow from springs for home and irrigation, but not enough to bother trying to use it direct to power anything, since it drops to around 1 gpm in the fall and have about 100 ft fall to work with. Plus all the water under pressure will be needed during low flow for irrigation and domestic.

So deciding to go ahead with a build of the one with greater potential first, I start looking at pipe fittings for larger pipe. just 3" steel, and I find totally rediculas prices on fittings. $150 more or less just for one 3" pipe fitting, forget it. (the prototype is using plastic pipe and it works, but I'm afraid the combustion of the hydroxy might break it in time since a normal IC engine develops around 1200 psi in the chamber, although this application is not providing the initial compression so it may not be building that high on impact) I remember when pipe and fittings were fairly cheap, but that was 30-40 years ago. So it makes me think I need to go ahead with an induction furnace so I can melt steel to make my own parts and fittings. I already have a cupola for iron, and that might work ok, but steel is much stronger, and to get steel from iron requires setting up the bessemer process. Probably easier to make an induction furnace, steel in=steel out. A cupola may be hard to get hot enough to melt steel with my charcoal choice of fuel, and when it does it will convert it back to iron. Since I already have the induction refractory, just need a roll of copper pipe, a water pump, and a high power high frequency power source and controller. I can come up with all that easily I think, already have most everything needed. All relatively simple stuff to do, just takes time, a bit of supplies here and there, and the basic info collected from books and internet sources. Now doing the foundry thing just to save a few hundred on fittings is way overkill. But I need to set it up for multiple projects anyway, so it's certainly not wasted effort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

reubenT said:


> So; too many telling me it won't work *without doing experiments and/or running the figures* and demonstrating it mathematically by known experimental measurements.


The experiments have been done and the laws of physics say you can *not* get more energy out of any system than what is put in. 

You can only change the *form* of energy, with losses due to heat and friction.


----------

