My version of the solution to the world's energy problem.

[sebbysteiny]

Oh, and you might consider making a patent application anyway, if it is new and novel. Although it would be invalidated as soon as a competitor finds this site, it would still throw them off the scent for a while. But you must tell the investing company of your "patent's" weakness.

 

Again, don't rely on this without checking with a qualified solicitor.

[arkain101]

Just to clear up some visuals. This is somewhat the idea of the design and concept.

 

Each section is a square with a mast in the center. The body around the mast is held by cables for strength and locked into the mast. So it can act as a boat and when it meets with a group of sections it can lock in one way or another, then drop its mast to the ground which attatches firmly in some manner.

 

The waves would be best to travel through some kind of a trough or something like this to magnify the usable wave to reduce the over all number of parts. It captures more wave. Though of course many modifcations would be in need.

 

here is the design I quickly put together to give an idea of what I am invisioning. Sure beats the 'paint' drawing.

 

[arkain101]

Oh, and you might consider making a patent application anyway

 

It was the first thing I mentioned. This design I hoped to work with great success. I released the idea and design all around the internet to green energy companies and organizations.

 

I am not interested in patenting this idea as much as giving it away. It should turn out more productive and cost effective than other ocean devices.

 

If someone goes for it great, if not, thats okay too. It needs more research in order to be taken seriously.

[sebbysteiny]

5 words. Not enough water. Think Bigger.

[arkain101]

I am not sure I get exactly what you mean.

 

There has been no size defined but the limit of the ocean.

[Errin OH]

I am not sure I get exactly what you mean.

 

There has been no size defined but the limit of the ocean.

 

You have presented two different size vessels as examples.

 

"1000x1000x10 and 4000x4000x20"

 

While using natural formation (cove) is possible, building that size vessel would require many times the energy that could be generated in the life of the vessel. In both cases you calculated the output in GW using the full weight for the full time. You did not account for the vessel.

 

"10M tide for 6 hours"

 

At 10m tide, - 10' (3m) vessel = 7m total. At 20' (6m) vessel = 4m. Additionally, in both cases you multiplied the total amount of weight by the amount of reduction when you should have divided.

 

“1cm = 100m”

 

The first time you used gears and the second time you used hydraulics. Either way the per unit perduction wold only be a "part" of the whole.

 

If we managed to construct the containment vessel, which we could at great cost, the technology does not exist to contain the pressures involved. The deepest parts of the ocean only get to about 40,000 psi. Spheres with 1/2 meter thick walls go there. Your vessel is producing pressures in the 460,000 psi range.

 

In the end, even after going through the expense and process to build and develop new technology, it still wouldn't address the world’s needs as it would only serve the areas close by (few hundred miles). The transportation problem still exists and there are no seas much less tidal events 1000 miles inland.

 

And when this was pointed out to you, you accused me of attacking you. I suspect I know why this post has not garnered much response (why so few replies).

[sebbysteiny]

I think Errin has made some good points but they have been put a little harshly.

 

From my understanding, Arkain isn't suggesting a final design: mearly debating a PRINCIPAL of getting energy in that way. I think it is a fine principal and if it can work, brilliant. However, looked at objectively, Errin has raised further issues. Would the energy the plant harnesses outway the energy costs of building it.

 

When I looked at it, I think your design looks too stealy. It is a solid structure, but all you are trying to do is capture water. Is there no other material that could work as well but could spread miles and miles and hold, say, a square mile without breaking.

 

I think you need to think hugh. 4000 by 4000 isn't enough. Try 40,000 by 40,000. Take up vaste chunks of the horizen. If you can think of a way of harnessing that amount of water from a design that is comparitively easy to build, then you have found a definate energy sourse for the 21st century. I don't think 4000 is enough, especially considering the size of energy that needs to go into building the thing, as Erin pointed out.

[sebbysteiny]

Oh, and 3 pages of replies isn't too bad. Don't feel too hard done by.

[arkain101]

The first time you used gears and the second time you used hydraulics. Either way the per unit perduction wold only be a "part" of the whole.

Yes, I agree. I made a mistake and acknowlodeged it on page 2.

 

If we managed to construct the containment vessel, which we could at great cost, the technology does not exist to contain the pressures involved. The deepest parts of the ocean only get to about 40,000 psi. Spheres with 1/2 meter thick walls go there. Your vessel is producing pressures in the 460,000 psi range.

Please don't be taken by the concept art and designs. Each square is a single unit. The actual size for each pod I am not exactly sure.

 

The structures would obviously not be made out of large plate steel. The best way I can see designing the deck for each pod is to contruct a tube frame. As to imagine a very strong cage with many triangular crossmembering. Then line the inside and/or outside of this strong and light frame with a water proof fabric to hold the air and water. This way no actual metal of the frame is in contact with the ocean, which will help prevent corrosion issues. It will be much lighter.

 

The pressure you've calculated is not accurate. Each pod carries a mast. And each mast supports the weight of each deck frame. So the pressure in each masts hydraulic system will only measure according to the force one 50by50 to around 100by100 foot deck can apply.

 

The force I calculated was to simplify the math. The force calculated was a sum of the force of all the pods. I have read that hydraulic systems can operate in the 50,000psi range with titanium parts. Although of course that much pressure is not required so it is of no bother to consider.

 

 

In the end, even after going through the expense and process to build and develop new technology, it still wouldn't address the world’s needs as it would only serve the areas close by (few hundred miles). The transportation problem still exists and there are no seas much less tidal events 1000 miles inland.

 

The pods are and would be self transportable.

The waves and windmills could act as the water pumps since they generate very little useful amout of energy. This way at slack tide onboard systems could be used to fill the container full of water while it sits floating at the 10m mark. Then it it falls all the way to low tide making energy on the way down. Then it drains the water and uses that to make energy for something.

As the tide comes up the container is full of air and will float up and make energy again.

 

I agree its an iffy idea. But if we think large enough some amazing numbers can be created. For example, the system could be applied to replace water dams. Instead of building a large damn that blocks the river. One would only need to construct a large water container that holds a few millions of kgs of water. Then apply the same idea. It takes a bit of the river and over time you collect nearly a whole lakes worth of water. A giant container supported by hundreds of hydraulic rams begins pushing down and turning generators.

When it finally reaches bottom. A secondary one is already full from the river and begins making pressure.

 

A dam needs to be huge and very all to create alot of power. Then it can only allow so much water at a time to flow through and also can only flow as much force as the height of the dam.

This pressure system could grow and grow untill the numbers just get incredible.

 

On the ocean. Next to rivers. Next to water falls.

 

The concept is to think big with billions of newtons of force and simplicity. Then you got a winning concept. Not to mention low enviormental impact.

[arkain101]

And when this was pointed out to you, you accused me of attacking you. I suspect I know why this post has not garnered much response (why so few replies).

 

I am not sure I accused anyone of attacking. I never once felt attacked in any of the replies.

 

The only thing I wanted to state related to this was that negetive repsonses to ideas never make ideas happen.

You know and I know that all throughout history people with ideas were laughed at, ridiculed, told to stop it and get a real job. It is relentless and still happens.

I am not saying the idea is a winner.

I am saying 1 trillion newtons of force is a hell of alot of energy to make use of.

The details which we are getting hung up on here are nothing more than temporary propositions and brainstorming.

 

I would have to say one of the most powerful and accesable sources of energy on earth is the tide. It is just a matter of correctly setting it up and setting it up in a way that can be added to, modified, and mobile.

[Errin OH]

I am not sure I accused anyone of attacking. I never once felt attacked in any of the replies.

 

My bad, I went back and re-read it and it was "attacking the idea", sorry bout that. I have been very disappointed in the replies though. Yes it is three pages but the number of posters can just about be counted one hand and only three of us even bothered to work/test the idea. Very disappointing given the potential. Had our replies not been mini books, it would have maybe been a page. I purposely waited for another to chime in and support one position or the other. I wanted to see if I was the one who was incorrect. Using their feed back to correct my position if needed. My harshness was only meant to provide a dose of constructive criticism, as it seemed that you changed the parts as the idea/process failed to meet the test.

 

The only thing I wanted to state related to this was that negative responses to ideas never make ideas happen.

You know and I know that all throughout history people with ideas were laughed at, ridiculed, told to stop it and get a real job. It is relentless and still happens.

 

Yes and no. It all comes down to how you as the inventor/designer receive them. You can give up or use them. Negative response is the fuel that drives the innovator. It makes you think, it makes you verify, it makes you correct mistakes, and it makes you improve/prove the idea. I have a story I'll share in a second post.

 

I am not saying the idea is a winner.

I am saying 1 trillion Newton’s of force is a hell of a lot of energy to make use of.

The details which we are getting hung up on here are nothing more than temporary propositions and brainstorming.

 

I am not saying it is a looser. Just trying to provide the fire that tempers the idea into a solid workable solution. Simply saying "this will do that" is not enough. The guys who do "that" for a living are going to question the idea/process. You must be able to provide/prove the answers. BTDT

 

I would have to say one of the most powerful and accessible sources of energy on earth is the tide. It is just a matter of correctly setting it up and setting it up in a way that can be added to, modified, and mobile.

 

And I would agree, to an extent, but you must factor in the proportions (accessible x usable x "QUAINTY"). Solar covers half the planet at any time, can only be used when present, peaks out in the 1kw per sq meter, of which we can only recover about 30% for the most part. Tidal forces follow the moon, are limited to transport distances from source, peaks out in the 25w per cubic meter range, and we can recover up to 80%. Wind (air current) covers the entire planet, can be used anywhere, is another high % producer, but only works when it is moving.

 

I have a couple ideas that will need some critiquing in the near future. I hope you will take the time to show me the flaws. I am not quite ready to share them as I want to reserve the ability to patient them for now. But I can say one is electricity production and the other is low loss transportation of electricity. One is still in the calculation stage, don’t know if it will ever get off the drawing board, and the other, I think, is ready for designing a small scale working prototype.

 

I feel there are the three basic problems we need to over come for a quote "solution". Production, Transportation, and Mobility; providing usable electric production (not necessarily quantity), without pollution, expensive fuels, and/or massive production cost. Moving it from place to place with little or no loss, and storing it until needed (I have no ideas on that one). With production tied directly to transportation (better transport means less production needed). Storage/mobility can be addressed later, but could also help with production as it could be used to lower the production by averaging over longer periods while meeting peak demand. However we don’t do any of these today. We produce large quantities of energy; transport it over lousy systems, with almost no ability to store it. Could you imagine if we did that with anything else? Water pipes that literally loose up to 70% of the water between point A and point B, and is running all the time wither you need it or not. Cars that, well that's a bad example, as we do that, to some extent, with cars too. To only address one part does not fix the whole. Even with what we do do today, they deliver limited quainites, at massive cost to a lousy transport system, compounding the actual cost to the user. What good is clean energy if nobody can afford it?

 

Back to the point, it is a big leap from an “idea” to a working design/formula. It is test/prove/pass/fail, test/prove/pass/fail, and more test/prove/pass/fail, until it all passes and is proven. I wonder how many times the Wright brothers went through this process? How discouraging it must have been.

[arkain101]

Erin, I DO apreciate your insight and thoughts in all your posts, with your intentions of helping workin out kinks and errors.

 

I suppose I was not expecting to debate the concept. I wanted to share the idea, and leave the readers imagination to the rest. There was nothing finalized, nothing designed, valued, or complete. The concept was that this version of making energy uses a very efficient value of the available force. Where as many other types of power generating devices do not capture the avaiable energy potential or kinetic.

anyway, enough of that related stuff.

 

If you have ideas, I would happily look over the concept and offer any kind of assistance I can.

[IDMclean]

Tesla Turbine

 

I don't know if this helps or not, but Tesla was one who wished to make the world's power free. So it might be worth looking into.

 

this sounds good by the way, and have you tried making a working simulation of your device in the hammer editor? I do believe you could. It has a physics engine and you could run simulated experiments to get an idea of how well it would work. I would suggest grabbing a book called the Machinist's handbook 87th edition (I think). It has friction co-efficiants and stuff.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Oh and Patnent it, the problem with "giving" it away is that greedy companies will take advantage of that and will patent it and then sell it. It's what happened to Tesla a few times, from my understanding.

[arkain101]

Thanks K.A.C,

 

I am huge fan of telsa's work. I am sure it can do nothing but help. Too bad the guy wasnt given the opportunites he needed. I heard he worked with Einstien to help him with math!

 

Oh and Patnent it,

 

Nah, this was the purpose of releasing in on the internet. To create a larger think tank and increase the chances of it being fullfilled.

 

I have too many inventions already, I am happily allowing anyone to get the information.

 

I too have considered releasing others. I am confident I will continually come up with hundreds more and I am more about the big picture than my own personal gain.