The interconnected?

[Opale2sang]

Well, I understand your suspicion, I'm trying another sketch, it's up to you to judge.

vase_01.png (9.74 Kio) Viewed 3992 times

Tell me if here (this is another possible configuration) I manage to "save" more than 50% of the water and where the losses are according to you.

Kind regards.

[Opale2sang]

If the tank is 2 half height it is to have a tank higher than the other as I said above.

I open a tap of the tank in the upper left and I empty in the tank bottom right.
100% is transferred!

I remain to say that this thread is useless.

It's wrong.

The sketch represents the steps one by one in any case the first tank at the top left is found above the "tank at the bottom right".

It's just that it works.

[Gaston]

It's just that it works.

For energy production, what matters in addition to the volume transferred is the difference in height between the starting tank and the arrival tank.

By emptying 1/2 tanks into tanks that are already half full, the "recoverable" energy is divided accordingly.

[Christophe]

Of course there is nothing more "recoverable" with this trick.

It does not prevent me I like the concept of subdivision to improve the 50% gravity transfer

As I said above, it could be the subject of a nice problem in physics ... just to spot the smartest students! I do not think I would have personally found this trick ...

[Opale2sang]

It's just that it works.

For energy production, what matters in addition to the volume transferred is the difference in height between the starting tank and the arrival tank.

By emptying 1/2 tanks into tanks that are already half full, the "recoverable" energy is divided accordingly.

Well, that's right, we lose potential energy, because each emptying is done at a height lower than the total height of the water column.
Concretely I think that if we continue to go down the floors one by one without adding to it, by making a large number of movements with each faith a smaller and smaller amplitude, and that is what I think corresponds to the true performance of the device.
the water volume of a stage could be moved more than 2000 times (only one stage and not the entire water column and in the case of 100 stages).
You find that normal
This is where I stuck me.
I'll make another sketch I hope tomorrow for now I'm going to eat.

Kind regards.

[moinsdewatt]

Well, I understand your suspicion, I'm trying another sketch, it's up to you to judge.

vase_01.png

Tell me if here (this is another possible configuration) I manage to "save" more than 50% of the water and where the losses are according to you.

Kind regards.

It is no longer a tank on the left and a tank on the right but

30 tanks on the left and 30 tanks on the right.

each tank on the left (or on the right) must be leak-free with respect to the lower tank. And you need 30 valves.

It is no longer a communicating silt system, but a gas plant, and finally a liquid plant.
Really practical!

[Opale2sang]

@ lessdewatt, in fact but I find it a pity to throw an idea like this in the bin, moreover this is the principle that I want to emphasize (the more floors and less we lose water) .
A raw idea is on its immediately not the same effect that a device finish and optimize.
But it does not matter I will continue to study alone.
I thank you for your constructive comments which globally join what I already thought before.

However we can also use this with a column of water in the open air if we compensate for the thickness of the partitions by positioning the tanks all around the column, well it brings nothing a priori, because if we put a float, the volume of the latter increases the losses, it is then a kind of water engine ...

With a performance difficult to evaluate I think.

But obviously still less than 50% water loss ...

Kind regards.

[Obamot]

Speculation when you hold us ...!

The patterns are good though: nothing wrong with the reasoning

Well, the gray energy that it took to transform into a 100-storey cistern with sections, will never have been provided before construction and will never provide anything after ... In addition, the slabs and water will have to be reinforced. it is 1T / m3 x surface ...! It will cost bomb to absorb the bending moment in the center and send it back to the foundations on each floor ... Increase the template, stretch the floor space, widen the walls, shoe the slabs accordingly etc ... is the complete opposite of optimization to build a "thing" that is useless .... nothing.
All for no gain and you say that "the reasoning would be correct".
This is wrong because if we forget the cost of the shell, the result may only be below zero if we count that we have to pump the fleet in the tanks ... here we are already in- below zero !. And not to a hypothetical> 1 (let it be cleverly "more or less claimed"is not the problem, we can dismantle a false theory quite easily):

Archimede.jpg (8.38 Kio) Viewed 3880 times

Such a response is zero pointed in college.
Because in the final balance, it is necessary to take into account the embodied energy is there it is <0
And we can say it! And if we can say it, so it's good that the original proposal is wrong!

QED

[Opale2sang]

Hello, indeed Obamot is right, his point of view is correct and the statement "I cannot say that this> 1".

Of course it is "I affirm that it is <1" that it should have been written that goes without saying.

On the other hand, if we prefer to use pumps to raise water 50% of a transfer by communicating vessel, this is wrong because over time the energy to spend a number of pump transfers a day or the other will return to the amount needed to modify the tanks, so the argument is not as valid as it seems, but overall, indeed we will not win millions with this device, which I recall it n is a first sketch of the idea.

By cons I propose another sketch as promised (with a lot of late sorry).

water engine.png (19 KIO) Viewed 3875 times

The losses are always less than 50% of the water, and obviously the volume of the weight is part of it, and it should be emphasized that the kinetic energy produced by the movement of the pulley, cannot have an efficiency> 1, but still I persist and sign to move a weight just by opening valves with an efficiency of less than 50% water loss could be interesting.

To close your eyes on this system is like saying that moving a magnet with an electromagnet with a yield greater than 50% is useless.

But the comparison is incorrect because it takes the energy needed to open the valves, and it is true, but I still think that theoretically this system is interesting to study because compartments with a certain volume can benefit transfer energy to make the valves less energy-consuming or almost energy-free.

As for the system of pulleys and weights it is only interesting if the water available to top up is above the device of course, but also and above all it allows to exploit a water source with a low flow.

Kind regards.

[Obamot]

Just so we know a little more about you (and at random):

How old are you?
What certified studies have you done with a diploma, do you already have a "real" job?
In what field are you a researcher exactly?

Otherwise we risk explaining things that you would have already seen in class, which would be a waste of time, or that you would not have seen, and maybe you would not understand?

Cordially. ^^