Hydropower... is this idea feesable?

This is my first post, so please be patient.

Earlier I thought I had unearthed something significant, but after research I am not so sure. What I am sure of is that if my ideas rubbish I'll soon be told by you guys.

I remembered being in my friends garden and his dad showing me that if you suck on a hose ( sorry) that is in water and place the other end in water then you can move the water against gravity... the water still flowing even when the pipe is basically verticle. So I thought why not set loads of these going to suck water back up a stream, to rerun through a hydro-turbine.

But this idea could work by having a closed system, with a resevoir below the turbine and valves to prevent the water flowing in the wrong direction. (Be easier if you could see my picture) Very little water would be needed as you could have a jet that pushes the turbine (as water spurts faster from a nozzel that widens from the pipes diameter). I see the head of the water (verticle distance between highest water point and turbine) as being moved to behind the turbine, with this fall producing the pressure, and can therefore be much larger than would occur naturally, as the resevoir can be placed underground.


Therefore, what I would like to verify is whether or not this would produce continuous energy? And before anyone says it, I know its a simple idea (which is why I'm dubios) but the best ones are

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

Nah. I am not a physics freak, but I know that eventually, the friction in the 'tubing' used, would stop the flow. Of course, if Teflon is used in the tubing, it would last longer, but eventually this would create enough friction over time to halt the movement. Another issue, is the closed circuit needed. Water condense. I have no clue to how this would affect the flow, but I know for water to condence, the water uses energy, and there is so far as I know, not possible to gain more energy, than what is at hand in the first place.

Good thought, though. If You get it to work, patent it, before The rich bad men comes around and steal the idea, and hides it away in a well guarded armed concrete basement.

Friction would play some part but imagine it this way...

The water spurts onto the turbine and then falls (a long way) in waterfall style into the resevoir. The water in the resevoir will continue to have the necessary pressure to push up and into the turbine. Wouldn't the force of gravity coupled with lack of friction (except in tube to turbine and turbine itself) mean that this friction is negligable.





[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by byhiniur
Friction would play some part but imagine it this way...

The water spurts onto the turbine and then falls (a long way) in waterfall style into the resevoir. The water in the resevoir will continue to have the necessary pressure to push up and into the turbine. Wouldn't the force of gravity coupled with lack of friction (except in tube to turbine and turbine itself) mean that this friction is negligable.

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

Hmm, I think this is the way Norway produces it's vast amounts of energy, beside the oil...
Norway has 6 waterfalls fully developed. Each of at least 200m high falls.
Except for the water isn't going back up.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Ulvetann]

Giving this some thought - because I thought of it myself once before, and here's why it doesn't, work.

First, what you need is a tube that uses the pressure of the water above it to keep the water running. If you raise the tube higher than the water, then the water won't pass through the tube. So you need to find a way to get the water back to the water supply.

Second, assuming that you were able to somehow accomplish that, the amount of energy that you're producing would be very tiny. The powerplants would be way too large to be feasible for the small amount of energy they would give off.

If you raise the tube higher than the water, then the water won't pass through the tube. So you need to find a way to get the water back to the water supply.

...powerplants would be way too large...

Please can you clarify the first point. I saw someone drain a pond by sucking on a hosepipe and then the water just flowed into a bucket that was atleast half a metre above it. A valve at the top of the tube (my idea has one tube) would prevent the water flowing the wrong way.

and my idea was to have them in the basement of a house, so I aint thinkin of havin one of these tryin to power a city. It might be noisy if you need alot of water but I was readin that the higher the head the less water you need. Therefore a 20ft drop behind the turbine is alot bigger than most hyrdo's heads, which should mean you dont need that much water.

Wish I had the resources to test it...


[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

byhiniur, sorry a siphon will not work uphill with out some kind of pump, then you do not have a true siphon but a water pump.

Might I suggest an experiment for you to try. Fill a bucket with water and try to transfer that water with a siphon to another bucket that is higher than the bucket with the water in it. It cant be done unless the laws of physics and hydrology have been canceled.

How can I upload a picture. Its not merely siphoning.

Also, I just want the truth, it'd be awesome if it could work, free energy for everyone... the reason why I may seem contrary.

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

I am not sure I comprehend the idea. You want to use water for hydrogen turbines? IT sounds also like you want to use capillary action to transport water, because I have no idea what you mean by 'sucking on a hose in water'. Do you mean submerged as in both openings in water, one opening, etc? What does 'basically verticle' mean? And by 'against gravity' I assume you mean 'travels upward'.

The idea would be ineffecient because it would be more effecient to place the turbine below the resevoir.

Frosty
If anyone thought of something better than water then we could replace that.
Not hydrogen, hydro... as in water... what are they teachin in scools. Maybe that is the technical word, cheers, I'll research it and let you know if it helps. And it didn't, am I right in thinkin that the capillary action is about water climbing at atomic levels?
My plan was one opening, although I do remember from my experience (stated above) that both ends were in water.
"Basically verticle" means almost straight up...
You understand against gravity but not basicaly verticle??? Give me a break.

Originally posted by Frosty

The idea would be ineffecient because it would be more effecient to place the turbine below the resevoir.

I think my idea is more efficient. It isn't what we have now, well pointed out. If the resevoir is above then its harder to refill... water flows more easily to the place that has less water. The resevoir should be below to provide pressure for moving the water back towards the turbine.

A pic will allow everyone to see my idea, how do I do it.

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

Go here:

www.imageshack.us...

You'll be able to upload your picture and than the website will give you a link which you can post in a future reply.

Originally posted by byhiniur
Frosty
If anyone thought of something better than water then we could replace that.

It has already been replaced by fossil fuel and solar and wind power.

Not hydrogen, hydro... as in water... what are they teachin in scools.

Hydro- is the prefix for hydrogen. Water turbine is the proper term for what you are describing. And 'they' are teaching roots of complex numbers and chemical thermodynamics.

And it didn't, am I right in thinkin that the capillary action is about water climbing at atomic levels?

Capillary action is when water dreeps up the sides of a capillary tube with a bohr hole. This is the action that allows plants move water about its system.

My plan was one opening, although I do remember from my experience (stated above) that both ends were in water.
"Basically verticle" means almost straight up...
You understand against gravity but not basicaly verticle??? Give me a break.

A basic proposal of why the water is traveling upwards when at angle x would be appreciated. Basically verticle is not too specific when talking about a hose in which one segment can be vertical and the other horizontal, leading me to believe that this too can be construed as 'basically verticle'.

I think my idea is more efficient. It isn't what we have now, well pointed out. If the resevoir is above then its harder to refill... water flows more easily to the place that has less water. The resevoir should be below to provide pressure for moving the water back towards the turbine.

Your idea is limited by the capillary action and the amount of pressure.


SO, you want to take one tube (first tube) with water running down to exert pressure on a body of water which pushes water through another tube inside the water running upward to deliver water to a turbine and then have the water running out the turbine to the first tube? I suppose the tank of water you have must be sealed of any space (gas) so that the system works optimal.

Now all that is needed is to test the idea.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Frosty]

Frosty, all the other types of power have limitations... I'm trying to get continual energy... so I think saying fossil fuels have usurped water powered electric generators is absurd. Also, I meant that I wanted to replace water within my machine with a better liquid. Any ideas?

Now for all those who have been waiting... i know its not that good a picture but it describes the basis of my idea. I admit that the real thing would probably look completely different.

img213.imageshack.us...

As you can see, it is not capillary action, and it is not siphoning...

1)The nozzle will increase the speed of the water at point of contact with the turbine arms. Therefore, the pressure created by the reservoir doesn't have to be so great.

2)The valves prevent water going the wrong way, although they may not be necessary (and could be wrong if they slow down the water's speed without reason).

Fair enough it isn't a work of art. But do you now understand why I think it would work?

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

If only we lived in a Communist world, then the state would actually give you adequete funding to test your idea. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalist society and therefore you must earn your own money in order to fund your own research. The reuling body in Capitalism will only give you funding if you have tested and shown a prototype that may have the ability to work with further research. Until then the ruling body, and most of society will consider you a quack.

I think it is quite intersting though, and will be willing to help you out with a prototype if you live in the Central Florida area.

Originally posted by DYepes
I think it is quite intersting though, and will be willing to help you out with a prototype if you live in the Central Florida area.

Dude, you've made my day, all these people saying it can't be done and now I have some intrest. I'm in England, but thank you very much for the offer... I'd have needed help digging that resevoir.

I don't agree with capitalism, because it quickly degenerates into consumerism, as so greatly shown by the UK... but thats a different story. I say it because I am offering this idea to the world. If anyone could get this working it would surely be an awesome power source. They can be built anywhere, unlike most conventional water turbines I've seen, and it looks pretty cheap to make. Please post anything you see that could prevent this working. This could greatly remove our need to use so many fossil fuels.

Whaa, might I suggest an experiment for you, get a bucket, and put a hole in the bottom, attach a hose to it. Fill the bucket with water, with your finger over the hole of the tubing. Place the tubing in front of your face. Do you really wanna take your finger away?

To power the entire world, not to likely but hydropower could supply enough for a good portion of the world. Granted you take River turbines, Dams, and buoy power as all hydropower.


some info

[url=http://www.oceampowertechnologies.com/technology/[/url]

i hope that clikey works

[edit on 1-3-2006 by thesnafued1]

Ok well lets get to some brainstorming here. First of all, how thick a hose are we talking about. Do you want me to use garden hose or a little dinky hose like the tubing used in home aquariums and such. what elevation should I have this buket at. Is it going to be below me or above me?

I know that when I change out my water in my aquarium, the water has to travel up the hose in order to eventually come down into the bucket. The bucket is at a lower elevation though. The point where it goes above the water is only like an inch though. I will do some experiments here at home later to see if I can do what you are talking about.

And how large a reservoir are we talking?

Communist countries only appear to fail in this world because the most powerful Capitalist nations attack as hard as possible to destroy it by way of sanctions and even military action as was the case in the mid 20th century.

Capitalism is just a game in which the goal is to amass as much wealth as heavenly possible. The purpose of gaining wealth is simply to multiply your wealth. Often the only time scientific achievements come to pass then is when wealth can be gained. In a true Communist society scientific achievements are made in order to better the lives of the people so that less resources can be used in order to achieve greater standard of living.

Obviously many scientific achievements today help to better the lives of society, but typically only because they are a great source of wealth and power to the people who achive them. And in many cases, it isnt the scientist.

Originally posted by byhiniur


Whaa, might I suggest an experiment for you, get a bucket, and put a hole in the bottom, attach a hose to it. Fill the bucket with water, with your finger over the hole of the tubing. Place the tubing in front of your face. Do you really wanna take your finger away?

Dude, I'm gonna use beer and put the tube in my mouth. This is an old experiment first developed by frat rats at the ATS University at Slackdom.
They preferred pilsner, but I think this time I'm going to use a nice Larger or Stout.

Thank you for your suggestion as I have a sweet bird to revel in the pursuit of science with me.

Whaa, I'm glad to here you found a good use for my ideas...

I'll do more research tomorrow about exact measurements. If people think we're onto anything can they atleat give ourselves a thumbs up.

Does anyone know if you can change the title of the thread... think people might be thinkin this is another hydrogen thing. Waters the way forward... we fill the resevoirs with salt water, no more problem with the glacier melting.

[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by byhiniur

Therefore, what I would like to verify is whether or not this would produce continuous energy?

And before anyone says it, I know its a simple idea (which is why I'm dubios) but the best ones are

Thanks for sharing your idea! It is always fun to discuss thought-experiments of others!

This particular set-up would not work to produce "continuous energy". The problem is due to having to overcome gravity, line friction losses, and mechanical losses. You would always have to put more energy into pumping the water back up to the higher level than you got from the water as it flowed through the turbine generator.

When you siphon water (that's what you are talking about when you suck on a hose and get the water flowing from a lower level to a higher level) you create a negative pressure gradient that draws the fluid forward. That's exactly how pumps work. Pumps move fluid by creating a relatively lower-pressure area at their inlet that draws the fluid from the initial point (reservoir). So in order to mimic sucking on the hose, you have to utilize mechanical pumps to draw the fluid uphill. Each mechanical pump will lose energy from its brake horsepower rating (bhp) to the hydraulic horsepower output rating (hhp). So you input more energy into the pump than the pump outputs in moving fluid.

Then, when your fluid flows through the turbine generator, you again have so much hydraulic horsepower due to the fluid movement, but you lose energy as the mechanical turbine converts that hhp to brake horsepower (bhp) which is needed to generate electricity.

(as water spurts faster from a nozzel that widens from the pipes diameter).

Actually, it's just the opposite. For a given conduit...let's take your garden hose, you have a constant flowrate. That flowrate either slows down as the area it moves through increases, or it speeds up as the area it moves through decreases (this is where the phrase "still waters run deep" comes from because as a river's depth increases it's flow area increases and the velocity of the water slows down....conversely, as a river becomes more shallow you get rapids - it speeds up!). So to get a higher velocity with the same flowrate you have to DECREASE the nozzle size relative to the pipe.

This is the only way we can ever get to the next level of energy production is by people thinking through these ideas, presenting them to others and talking through the pitfalls, or possible avenues of success. So keep up the good work! And I look forward to reading your ideas for the future!


[edit on 3-1-2006 by Valhall]