Bellows

[Dunesbury]

Be sure to video constructuion of 28000' lever!

[Ed]

Teleselfie

[preoccupied]

28,000' lever lifting water up a 5' pipe proves that this can be over unity. I will not construct a 28,000' lever because I would not have a place to stand. Give me a place to stand and I will lift water up a 5' pipe.

In ms painting "3" I show the different steps...

The grid shows about a quarter square of water on the lever, lifting four squares with about 20 squares of leverage. That is pretty closely balanced with one square favoring the lever. I don't have to use a whole square sized pipe though. If I use a smaller pipe I would be lifted a lighter load. I believe a 28,000 foot lever would have any size pipe work.

The amount of water in the bellows shouldn't matter. What matters should be the lever and the distance up for the water to travel and the amount of water in the pipe.

[johannesbender]

i can understand the concept of leverage yes, but

my understanding of the bellows is not up to speed , i understand the idea of leaverage and weight applying itself in compressing a bellow , after all the bellows are just levers and bag in the first place .

but how do you reposition / lift back the lever ?

[preoccupied]

johannesbender, the plan I describe is using a siphon into the bellows. The bellows is located below the water in the pipe so it will siphon into the bellows. When the water at the end of the lever flows down the lever near the bellows, The siphon in the pipe would be the counterforce that would push up the bellows and lever.

[johannesbender]

so if i understand its the siphoning that fills up the bellows to lift the lever , then by this the water must retreat in the pipe , where does the water for the top of the lever come from when the water retreats
into to bellows ?

and if the lever is dropped down some-how then will the push of the water not be the same amount in water quantity as the retreat of water , because the cavity size of the bellows remain the same ?

[Ed]

Johan gets it.

Preoccupied, your idea will not work for one main reason. Look at the following device:



This will not work because if the magnet A is strong enough to lift the ball E, then gravity is too weak to pull the ball down the hole at B so that it can return again at F and be pulled up again.

Likewise, if your effort bucket of water is strong enough to lift the back force of water up the pipe, then the force of water is not strong enough to refill the bellows. Your bellows will remain perpetually squashed.

Adding 28,000 feet of lever will do nothing to fix this. The bucket will have to descend over 2,000 feet in order to move the water only a small fraction, which is not enough distance to move the amount of water needed from the bellows out of the pipe.

[preoccupied]

Johannesbender, The water pushed out by the bellows is at least twice as much as is pushed into the bellows by the pipe. The remainder of the water is collected in the second chamber. The second chamber and the normal chamber of the bellows pushes water into the pipe. The water in the second chamber comes from water located above the lever in a storage section. The storage section is filled by the water let out by the bucket at the end of the lever. The bucket releases the water onto the lever to roll into the storage section after the lever has come to a complete fall.

ed, The 28,000' lever can only fall 5'. That is its distance to the ground. It cannot fall 2000 feet.

Magnets aren't the same thing. There is a magnet there but there is not even a lever. That example is far from my over unity idea. A 28,000' lever can lift small amount of water 5' high. Why would you disagree with that? It's so obvious!

edit
The amount of water doesn't matter because no matter how much water is in the bellows, half of the amount it pushes out will fall onto the lever, since half will fall into the lever and half will recede back into the pipe when refilling the bellows. The other half of the water comes through the second chamber.

[Ed]

Apparently it's not so obvious to you, that if you have a 28,000 foot lever and you raise it by even as little as five degrees to get some leverage on the bellows, the end of the lever will absolutely be 2,440 feet off the ground. That is simple trigonometry.

The example I showed you is not as far off as you think! It illustrates a similar problem you apparently don't see in your idea, at least as you've explained it so far.

[preoccupied]

Ed, in my previous post the angle of the bellows was 0.01 degrees to get the 28 thousand foot lever. The only reason I mentioned a 28,000 foot lever is because the angle of 0.01 and 5 feet is 28 something thousand feet. The maximum height the lever can fall at 0.01 degrees is 5 feet!!!!! You are just slightly out of context.

[Ed]

Ok, so you have a 28,648 foot lever, raised .01 degrees to put the effort end at 5 feet off the ground. Not much room to fit a bellows in there, but you're the genius. :-)

Isn't it obvious you will not get the water to raise 5 feet when the effort side of the lever descends 5 feet?

[johannesbender]

okay , so here are the rest of what i do not grasp with the concept .

i would imagine that a system as such that uses water as a moveable weight medium would have to be designed to prevent loss of water through evaporation , for this reason i presume your pipes would be sealed by some manner by gates or valves .

now if that were to be the case , it would need to draw and expell air as the bellows contract and expand wich would by this action expose the water to a form of opening , leading to evaporation concidering that heat would be involved from an outside source or from mechanical interaction .

any explanation as to how such a loss would be prevented ?

the second thing i cannot grasp is when the bellows are full of water , and ,
the lever upright , now when the lever receives the water on the end the transfer from the resorvour towards the leaver needs to be in a sealed manner if i am not mistaken (my point above) assuming this is done then ,
when the water weighs down on the lever i presume the intend was not a full drop of the lever because the water needs an angle of decline towards the bellows ,but as the water moves through this period towards the bellows the leverage decreases by the position the water is at and imagining water would not move in one single point mass but spread across the lever , would the siphoning not overcome this sutuation ?

[AB Hammer]

preoccupied

Something was bothering me about your design. I posted a similar approach a long time ago back in 2009 over on over unity post 31.

http://www.overunity.com/6660/finally-i ... 1WItFewXws

I think mine has a better chance of working. But here it is so you don't have to go to OU.

[preoccupied]

Ok, so you have a 28,648 foot lever, raised .01 degrees to put the effort end at 5 feet off the ground. Not much room to fit a bellows in there, but you're the genius. :-)

Isn't it obvious you will not get the water to raise 5 feet when the effort side of the lever descends 5 feet?

Yeah, the water is not raising five feet though. The water is raising twice as much as is in the bellows. So as you say, not much room for a bellows, means that there is almost no water being lifted at all with a 28,648 foot lever. When the lever is longer, so also is the bellow smaller, and the height of the pipe can remain the same. The bellow being smaller should make the task easier, so it's complementary to make the lever larger, the bellows smaller, but also the pipe height remains the same.

Johannesbender,
Evaporation can happen, that's fine with me. The goal is to simply lift and produce useful work a few times proving over unity, and it's possible application in mechanical engines as an enhancement.

The transfer from the reservoir to the lever might better if drawn and designed better than I have drawn. A slanted bucket with a door on one side that opens and closes comes to mine. The door opens and then the water pushes out. The door closes when the lever descends and the door opens when the lever is in position to receive the water. Springs could be utilized but not to power the bellows.

The siphoning should happen when the water goes mostly all down the lever to the way into the storage area for the second chamber. There can be a ramp positioned on top of the lever to give an incline for the water to run down. (this would be a slow and tedious perpetual motion machine) I think this would make a better enhancement to an IC engine because a perpetual motion machine would be redundant process.

AB Hammer, your patent is so complicated I dare not say it is even similar to mine. I don't think your water pump would work but I think mine will because my lever could potentially be 28,648 feet long, push up a fixed amount of water, and release half that amount to fall on the lever. Your drawing looks really cool. Are you an artist?

[AB Hammer]

preoccupied

Similarities are bellows pumping water up and out, and they both would be a very slow action system.
But instead of using the pumped out water to work the bellows. It us using the pumped water to work a water wheel generator. The slide weight works the Bellows causing a vacuum to pull up the water. The treys are to use the first pumped out water to help keep that side down to finish the action until that side get lighter from the pumped out water. The water pulled out helps the weights to help complete and then it rocks back due to the weight of the water.

I look at yours to be better off as a waves activating the pumping device. Just an idea for consideration.

Alan