/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11731588
Power loss happens for many reasons. Bends are one. Friction with tubulation is another. Turbulence would also cause some loses, and the degree of turbulence also magnifies losses due to other elements in the system. I'm not saying that your mechanism is completely useless - it might recoup otherwise lost power to some extent if the system is designed for it. But you can't just extend an hydraulic system forever - eventually you'd lose too much power to the ambient.
Talking about the screw part itself, if you have a single water particle push a greater amount of water with the same ammoun of force, it is going to accelerate less. So I believe that stacking so many screws in series would simply lead to all of them rotating more slowly than they individually would. Now, having it spin more slowly isn't all that bad, since many losses would decrease (like heating up due to friction and less turbulence), but now you have more sources were you can lose power, like more sealed ends and more curves, besides the longer path/ greater surface area.
If you're wondering about hydraulic loss, here's an article from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy%E2%80%93Weisbach_equation
Remember: if your system seems to generate energy out of nowhere, it is very likely wrong. There is a finite ammount of gravitational potential energy stored within the water resevoir, and you can't exploit more than what it can give.

>>11731588
the water particles lose energy when moving those screws => the molecules willl eventually run out of energy to move back up one of the latter screws.
It could be used to increase the overall efficiency but I'd guess they are usually already using most of the energy that you can get

>>11731743
Why do think my idea implies power out of nowhere? It literally is just extending the effect of gravity, and I was also aware of the slowing effect, but when you look at the Bernoulli equations the velocity of water stays ~ constant through a system like this because every parameter the only parameter that are not kept constant at any point in the system are :
- height
-pressure
which are directly inversely correlated - also a property which my design makes sure to account for. So basically velocity will be constant ( albeit not so high) in this system ( also enabled by the circular turning points.

As far as not exploiting more than it can give, I agree that you cant exploit more than it can give, but if you have a vector with 100 scalar values, and you have to exit points, you insert a value through one of them - naturally the one at the other end would have to instantly move out- which means every value in the vector has shifted- hence you have moved all of the values by pushing in a single value.

The system should function continually because the most dominant force in it is gravity, which is also fully continuous- so water molecules would always find their way out as long as the dam on the other side is higher.

>>11731751

You could just as well imagine the dam letting water in from the bottom and the effect would be completely the same.

>>11731871
take your meds schizo

>>11731871
excuse my spelling - some of my keyboard keys register pretty shitty.

>>11731879
Im in the process of wrapping up my bachelors in physics so yeah I will make sure to note your high IQ post.

>>11731588
why dont you just make a prototype and spam it on the internet with all of the other shit for brains overunity devices?

Water going down is what pushes other water up. I don't know why you think your idea is good.

>>11731871
>naturally the one at the other end would have to instantly move out
It would propagate at the speed of sound, and that pressure wave can be dispersed along the way.

>I have also proven that this allows to infinitely extend the power output of a dam by a multiple only limited by how many turbines you can set up.
>Why do think my idea implies power out of nowhere?
Because you said it did. Unless you meant an increase in efficiency. The overall power avalible is roughly equal to the mass x height x gravity (ignoring stuff like changing fields along height and earth's surface), and you only 'gain' it when water goes down, having to 'spend' it when water goes up. So everytime the water moves through both sides of the screw, you have netted zero power. Of course, your screw was spun, but that used the energy that you made avalible by dropping the water from the dam height to the height at the top of the screw.

>So basically velocity will be constant ( albeit not so high) in this system
If your overall speed decreases, you'll spin the screws slower, which will generate less power than if they were rotating faster at the same torque. There's a peak efficiency point for torque and speed when designing these systems, but it's usually about the eletric side of things and you can never exceed the total avalible power of course.
Oh, and you should take another look at the Bernoulli equation, because the link I sent to you adds more terms to it, which are actually varied within your system - namely, pipe lenght and number of mechanisms. Possibility Reynolds number as well, albeit you might be able to get away with assuming it constant as you did with velocity magnitude. (but the vector direction change also causes some losses)
Also, your mechanism can, in fact, stop. If you lose too much pressure, you'll either have the atmospheric pressure balance the water at the other end together with viscosity and surface tension, or you'll suffer from cavitation.

>>11731871
Ok, pic related for a second try on my explanation, since you didnt seem to understand the first one.
Lets look at a particle at points 1, 2, 3 and 4
Energy conservation tells you the following (in a system without friction): E_kin1 + E_pot1 = E_kin2 + E_pot2 = E_kin3 + E_pot3 = E_kin4 + E_pot4
You can assume E_kin1 = 0 and E_pot1 = m*g*h (m being mass of particle, g the local gravitation constant, h the height of your cylinder).
The problem is however that when a particle moves through one of those tubes, it will lose some portion of its kinetic energy to try and make this screw move.
If we look at this in the case of the first tube we get that E_pot1 is no longer equal to E_kin2, but that E_pot1>E_kin2 and because of this you get
E_kin1 + E_pot1 > E_kin2 + E_pot2 > E_kin3 + E_pot3 > E_kin4 + E_pot4.
So at some point the energy left will just not be enough to make the water go up completely. Effectively in a real system you might measure a drop in pressure at each tube.

>the absolute state of degree mills.

>>11732066
Yikes buddy. Is this truly the extent of your education?

Hint: there's a bit more complexity to hydraulics than that "science"

Everyone in this thread is either trolling or a pseud. The energy available is proportional to the height difference between the inlet and outlet so most of OP's machine is wasted materials.

>>11732184
I mean its pretty easy to understand it using simple terms, so why would I use a more accurate model if simple energy conservation is enough to give a qualitative result?
And to add to your "hint": hydraulics is just many body particle physics. I mean you can go the continuum route, but either way you'll get the same result.

>>11732211
Retard

>>11732247
>ReTARd

Different screws can be thought of as just one screw of varied length, they all introduce evenly distributed resistance to flow of water and you have a pressure relief which is end of the screw, it means after the end the pressure of the water is dropped to 0(for simplicity)
With a short enough screw total resistance to flow is small enough that the pressure releif can not negate it in any meaningful way, and thus the pressure drop before and after relief is significant
The longer you make the screw, the slower the water will be able to get to the relief and thus the pressure drop will keep getting smaller, and since the resistance of the screw is linearly even the pressure of water in the screw will also be dropping linearly along the length of the screw
After certain length dependant on the initial pressure and unit resistance of the screw, the pressure of the water will reach effective zero in the screw
The energy taken fron the flow can be though of as either internal energy in form of pressure taken from the volume of water fit in the screw(like thermodynamic work of gases but without actual volume change), or taken kinetic energy of the flow of certain weight and speed proportional to initial pressure and screw throughput
This maxumal energy taken exactly correspongs to total energy of that water created by the dam because energy conservation is a bitch

>>11732285
This ofcourse doesnt include things like parasitic resistances of the screw and walls and internal hydrodynamic resistances of water inroduced by certain conditions like turbulence at certain pressures and flow speeds, flux from rotating screw and others i may not even know about, all of this impedes efficiency in ways longer screw wont help you with

>>11731588
This might be the only new trolling I've seen on /sci/ in a while. It's basically troll-physics but without the obvious troll-face to let people know. I give you full points for not making a flat earth or 5G thread.

>>11732308
How about larger diameter with minimal width of the spiraling edges of the screw?

>>11732211

>hydraulics is just many body particle physics

anon I... You might want a refund on however many years you've wasted on that fake degree

>>11732884
I'm not him but it's always funny how stupidest posters make the smugest posts

This shit is stupid

>t chemfag