forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

Hydroelectric in open environment, an artificial waterfall in 1 volume of water, is such a model possible? if not why ? (physical, technical constraints) you cannot directly post your images, I leave it to hydraulic specialists to think about motor skills and possibility from the start with some clues:

the principle starts and feeds towards the top of the tube, a turbine to receive the water from the fall, an accumulation tank, and valve pockets with expulsion valves with air valves to perform the cycle continuously. The fall turns continuously non-stop.

Simple question for technicians, less for others: what do you think of the concept? is it efficient?

This system would simply violate the rules of thermodynamics ...
The web is teeming with "eccentric" achievements "demonstrating" the possibility of perpetual energy: nothing prevents believing in it!

This system would simply violate the rules of thermodynamics ...

Yes at what level? Where is the problem ? do you have an example i can understand? what is violated? Thank you

Do not worry! The violation of physical rules is not a crime!

Clearly, you cannot hope to create energy from nothing ...

In a cyclic system, as you envision it, the law of conservation of energy means that the various losses (dispersion and not disappearance) will cause downstream a quantity of useful energy less than the upstream (initial) energy = > stop of operation.

The classic example is that of the electric motor which drives a dynamo which itself powers the motor: the dynamo transforms into electricity only part of the mechanical energy of the motor (the difference is lost in heat due to friction and resistance of electrical circuits (Joule effect)), hence the impossibility of supplying the motor with the amount of current necessary to make it run.

I didn't understand anything, or is it not playing? in which compartment? the cylinder that creates the fall? I'm talking to you about a waterfall! Is there a problem with a waterfall? are we talking about the same thing?

You call a lake an energy coming from nothing ?? a lake is energy at rest, and river in motion. It's not nothing!

In traditional waterfalls energy is only stored downstream since upstream energy is unused, it's the same principle, it can be more but it can not be less than 0, still water (volume of water) it cannot be applied further upstream (surface), it is unused because not in motion, we cannot make a lower energy than a volume of still water, you have read too much Wikipedia and their energy theory? lol
.

Your lake does indeed contain potential energy *, energy which will however be expressed only if it is possible to transform it into kinetic energy by directing it towards a lower point.

* It is solar energy in a gravitational storage situation, which conforms, not only to Wikipedia (sic!), But to the law of conservation of energy which states that it cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed ...
In other words, you can hope to recover (under the conditions described above) part of the energy used to evaporate the water and raise it despite the gravity.

Hello ZippO

Note that at the presentation of your subject, we do not understand more:

"Hydroelectric in open environment, an artificial waterfall in 1 volume of water, is such a model possible?"

Note that at the presentation of your subject, we do not understand more

we ? you speak for 2? Do you have a twin? If I understand you you are 2, you are worth 2 and speak for 2 ... You don't speak much, and I don't understand you better either. To start correctly I will see with someone else thank you, I will let you understand little by little.

The forums, it is not easy to understand.

Since I speak little, I will develop. In principle I try to be understandable to most, in what I write.

I said "we", and not "two", only ...

Because for me your sentence:
"Hydroelectric in open environment, an artificial waterfall in 1 volume of water, is such a model possible?"
is unclear to clarify your question, starting a subject, where you are asking.

That Ahmed was in the same situation, and that apparently, if others did not intervene, it is undoubtedly for the same reason.

Have I answered your question?

By cons your mood response is not very useful.

Zypp0 wrote:we ? you speak for 2? Do you have a twin? If I understand you you are 2, you are worth 2 and speak for 2 ... You don't speak much, and I don't understand you better either. To start correctly I will see with someone else thank you, I will let you understand little by little.

Because still you alone understand it.