h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Let's assume for now that we have an object that, after it sinks to the bottom in a liquid, its density decreases, and floats up. At or near the top, its density increases, and it sinks again.
If we can find something that naturally drops its density when external pressure goes up, then we're done.
And we have perpetual motion.
But nature hates this, so such a thing probably cannot be found. What a disappointment!
Now, let's find some ways to make this machine work to generate power for us:
- at the surface, the sun's heat makes the object shrink, increasing its density above water's;
- ditto, but the surface tension of water does the job (How? i don't know yet, says HB member :). But it'd be wonderful to work this one out. It'd come very close to free energy);
- the bottom layer is a different liquid, which reacts chemically with the object to reduce its density.
[link]
|
| |
//But nature hates this// |
|
| |
Please, please, nature, I beg of you, please like this. |
|
| |
I am one with nature. <ITHWOTLOT> |
|
| |
...the sun's heat makes the object shrink... |
|
| |
Let's just cut out the middle man and use the heat from the sun. |
|
| |
Perhaps you could charge up batteries at the surface using solar cells, which would drive a propeller to sink the buoyant device to the bottom, where it would then rise slowly, pulling on a tether to turn a generator to generate power. And repeat. |
|
| |
//But nature hates this//
But be grateful it's not a vacuum. Nature *really* abhors them. |
|
| |