merrill@raja.DEC (Rick) (04/09/85)
Subject: KSPMM ( the [offshore] tower - a summary) A couple of "improvements" were suggested: put the tower under water to increase its lift, make O2 boyant, and never run out of fuel! Recap: > Hydrolysis is performed > continuously on water and the subsequent oxygen and > hydrogen gasses are stored in balloons, which being lighter rise > to the top of the tower where the balloons are burst and a spark ignites the > gasses which combine into water. The water is permitted to fall > into a turbine which generates more electricity > than is needed to operate the aforementioned operations. There were a couple of comments like "nice idea" and a couple of sour grape messages that indicated ANGER that anyone would think about PMM! I guess some people have no sense of humor! One of the most elegant critiques proposed that the tower is a current source, a capacitor, and a resistor in parallel where the current is porportional to the resistance and that the ratio is less than unity: >The tower acts as a capacitor. For purposes of this model, >the lower end is tied to ground. From the top of the capacitor there >are two things. First, there is a resistor going to ground, and second, >there is a current source that has a current flowing into the capacitor >that is proportional to the current flowing through the resistor. >The resistor simulates the electrolysis process, where the current source >simulates the recombustion. >This circuit will either settle to ground, or run away, depending >on the constant for the proportionality of the current source to the >load resistor. - John Williams This critique omitted demonstrating that all three components are proportional to height but merely asserted that height is irrelevant! Where has rigor gone? Another critic wrote >This will initially >balance to where there is enough water pressure to sustain electrolysis, >but the friction in the generator will dissipate the energy, as well as >the inefficiencies with electrolysis, that is, current flow through >the electrolyte without molecular seperation [sic]. To which we reply, Sorry, but the tower is tall enough to generate enough power to totally overwhelm "friction", "dissipation", and "inefficiencies"!! Or, >Helium or hydrogen will eventually diffuse through >its container or out of a valve. Maybe this is just a technicality but it >has to be addressed when one talks about PERPETUAL motion. But Charlie, our supply is is 2/3 rds of the earth! Others identified signifigant realities with down-to-earth explanations: >The source of energy is the balloons being pushed upward by air. Thus, >some amount of air is displaced downwards as the balloons rise. Now, how >does this air manage to get back to its original position, so that the >cycle can be repeated? Well, it gets displaced upward again when the water >is pumped out of the vacuum column, and also during hydrolysis (because gas >is liberated, so the air has to move out of the way). Therefore the higher >you make the tower, the more energy you need to get the hydrogen and oxygen >back to the bottom again. In reality, you would also probably waste the >atmospheric energy gained from condensation at the top of the tower, and >would encounter a full 14 pounds per square inch of force to counter at the >bottom during hydrolysis. For obvious reasons, a 1"x1" column of air to >the top of the atmosphere weighs 14 pounds, so you would need to build >tower at least that high to achieve break-even. Since there is non-zero >waste in the system, break-even is in actuality impossible. >Part of the energy of electrolysis apparatus went into releasing >the gasses against atmospheric pressure. Thus you've paid for any >lift you can get out of them in advance. - Greg Right! Hydrolysis must overcome the incremental vapor pressure which IS proportional to the height of the tower. >I think the general method for solving PPM problems is to ask, "Well, where >does the energy come from?" and examine that source more closely. - Greg Good principle, but as another reply pointed out, you first have to show that the end state of the machine is the same as the starting state of the machine to proove that no "fuel" was used. I've tried to include representative replies; sorry if i've left anyone out. Rick