h a l f b a k e r yRomantic, but doomed to fail.
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,
|
|
|
This is a power generator which works using steady ocean currents. It is composed of:
- a watertight housing where the generator sits
- one or more neutrally buoyant vessels which include an electrically operated iris. The vessels are tied to a cable
- a vertical tube housing a weight which
is tied to the other end of the cable.
The following describes the functioning of the system:
1. The initial setting of the system has the vessel with the iris on the open position and close to the generator housing and the weight inside the tube at the lowest position in relation to the sea bottom.
2. The irises are then closed, resulting in the current pulling them. This will in turn, turn the generator, producing electricity and pulling the weight up.
3. Once the vessel pulls the weight to its highest position, the irises open, which reduces the current drag and allows the system to reset. The weight descent will turn the generator and produce electricity.
4. Rinse and repeat.
This system could be used in offshore rigs to provide power, or connected to continental power grids via underwater cable.
Drawing
https://drive.googl...VJ/view?usp=sharing
Hopefully this clarifies? [PauloSargaco, Jan 26 2023]
[link]
|
| |
Any chance you could throw up a quick drawing to clarify? |
|
| |
Pffff... as if something I drew would actually clarify anything... Ok, I'll try, but don't get your hopes high. |
|
| |
Keep in mind, (for whatever it’s worth) I autobun anything with artwork, no matter the quality. |
|
| |
But you're adding a lot of mass with this system, the tapping of the water's movement could just as easily be achieved by a reciprocating system of some kind. |
|
| |
And keep in mind, that weight movement downwards at the end of your cycle isn't free, you loaded it at the beginning with energy to lift it. |
|
| |
I'm surprised the drawing worked, [doctor], but I'll take any compliments I can get :-). |
|
| |
Now, regarding your comment about the energy cost of the weight movement downwards. Unless I'm not looking at this from the right angle, I believe that the movement is better than free. The system will produce energy in both directions. When pulling the weight up, the energy is provided by the sea current and it will not only pull the weight up, but also build potential energy. When the irises are opened, the current effect is nullified and gravity does its thing. So, yes, the system did load that potential energy in, but if the vessels are sized correctly for the weight and current strength, then there will be a positive electricity production. |
|
| |
Right, but the potential energy of pulling that weight up isn't free, it's taken from the horizontal pull. So if you get 2 newtons of energy from that horizontal pull, let's say half goes to turning the generator, half goes to pulling that weight up. So 1 newton netted. Now you get another newton back when it comes down, but what have you gained? You've reset the system but with the energy you paid into it at the beginning. If you didn't have the weight you could have just gotten those 2 newtons
directly into your generator assuming you had a way to reset it. |
|
| |
In other words, the same might be achieved by having your cup shape on a windmill, open as it turns with the current and have it collapse as it turns 180 degrees and goes against the current. |
|
| |
And keep in mind, any weight taxes the system so simpler with less mass is better. |
|
| |
So to simplify, you could have two parachutes, one opens up, the other collapses. Once one gets pulled a certain distance then closes, then the one upstream opens up and to pulls back and forth. |
|
| |
Hmm, wonder if anybody's done that before. |
|
| |
Hey Paul, mind if I post that? It's different from your idea in that it's two parachutes rather than a parachute and a weight. Probably been done before but didn't find it with a quick search. |
|
| |
[doctor], I see what you mean, but you are being very conservative. Yes, there would be loss in the pulling of the weight, but make that vessel big enough and for the two newtons of the weight you can get 3 net newtons when pulling, and then, because you make the vessel neutral by opening the iris, your weight pulls with the 2 full newtons (already counting with the water resistance). |
|
| |
But the reciprocating idea sounds better since the open ended vessel would place very little resistance to the water when passive. Now that I think about it, instead of the cumbersome iris, a simple disk which is either perpendicular or parallel to the current would do the trick. |
|
| |
I agree with everything you wrote, [a1], except for the contribution of the waves to the degradation of the system since it would be submerged. The cable would be subject to the sea water, which is very unforgiving, but it could be kept clean of barnacles and seaweed by passing through the tight tube into the generator housing. |
|
| |
As for the iris solution, it is probably over-engineering it. I proposed a better and simpler solution on my answer to [doctor]. |
|
| |
I thought of a possible solution to improve the system, which would be to have the weight inside a vacuum tube to avoid the drag of the water in both both directions. But I don't think it would be possible to maintain the vacuum with the cable going in and out of it... unless the generator itself was inside the vacuum tube and it would be actuated by a wheel outside the vacuum, possibly using magnetic coupling with another wheel on the vacuum side. I'll try to add another drawing tomorrow to make this clearer. |
|
| |