1. ## THRUST KINETIC GENERATOR

Hello and sorry for my english

I have a question about THRUST KINETIC GENERATORs in south africa.
A company from swissland/germany now say it is finish and they can build it and do it for example in south africa.

http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/en/ent...riebskraftwerk

The media work for the politics, like everywhere.

Thanks for help

Thor

2. Originally Posted by Thor Thror
The media work for the politics, like everywhere.
And then there's the problem that the science doesn't add up either.

The claim is you put in 4.2kW to get 12kW out.
Already a problem even before we factor in the resistance effect of the water in this get-up.

Nominated as a scam. Any seconders?

3. The question is really, how much energy is required to vacate the the plastic chamber of the water.
If anyone can do this calculation, then it may be possible for this unit to work.
Bearing in mind that the depth of the tank is only a few meters, so the water pressure is points of a pascal. A compressor can very quickly fill up the pressure reservoir tank in a few minutes, to 6 KPA. The amount of volume required at the low pressure will be multiples of air tanks to make the plastic containers float. So effectively 5 minutes of compressor run time, could produce many tanks of low pressure chambers, in which the kinetic energy could be used to create movement, and converted to electricity.

Another point that many people do not realise, is that in today's power electronics world, there is no requirement to ensure that the produced electricity is in synchronism to the mains, the power electronics can easily take care of this.

The amount of energy required to fill the plastic chambers, s the key to make this work or not.
The other question is going to be, how efficient is the mechanical to electrical conversion going to be.

4. Looking at the last line in the article

The above described proves the Rosch patent principals valid, or in other words used 4,2kW to supply three-phase air compressor ensured mechanical movement of the entire mechanism and secured kinetic energy that gained 12kW after being converted into electrical three-phase energy.
This is a theoretical model and has not been tested.

Somehow at the back of my mind, my computer tells me what you put in is more than what you can pull out.

5. Thinking about this further, I don't think its gonna work, whilst filling the chambers with water for the down stroke sounds logical, the plastic chamber being filled, will have no buoyancy, you have to take into consideration, the friction loses of the plastic chamber, as it creates a drag and vortex, and as the speed increases, so will the drag force increase.

Dave I must agree with you, it is not going to work, so will call it a scam.

6. Just like you can't build sand castles without sand (or an equivalent), you have to get that missing 7.8kW from somewhere.

7. I did watch the video, and it looks authentic from the prospective way in which it has been filmed. However they never show the plastic chambers or the manner in which they are controlled.

There is kinetic energy involved, which can be used, and I think this is what is being attempted, one chamber at a time. If you take a plastic container, which is filled with water, and is placed inside a water tank, and then displace the water in the chamber, it automatically has buoyancy and immediately wants to float to the surface, and depending on the volume of air, as long as the pressure of the air equalizes the water pressure at the depth that it is currently in, it will immediately want to float to the surface. Just like an iron ship floats on the water with out energy, the equilibrium maintains it afloat. The movement of the plastic chamber is where the kinetic energy lies.

Interesting food for thought.

8. Oh, it will move alright.

But generate more energy than it takes to drive it?

9. Lets look at it another way shall we.

Lets take an instance that you are a scuba diver, with an air cylinder on your back. At that moment in time, if you at the bottom of the ocean, the cylinder will remain at the bottom.
Now if you had a giant plastic bag with you, or an empty balloon, nothing much will happen. OK now fill the giant plastic bag/balloon with air.
What is going to happen? At some point in time, the buoyancy of the air in the giant bag will lift you and the air cylinder to the surface.

If lets say the depth was 60 meter, how much energy did you expend to get there? If you used weights as divers do, theoretically you used no energy.
How much energy was required to fill the cylinder? Approximately 1.5Kwatts
How much energy was required to bring you up to the surface? Zero - nature did it for you. So there may be something in there some where.
With the movement to the surface, a tremendous amount of energy was released.

I am not an engineer, but the real question is the amount of energy required to cause the buoyancy to overcome the mass it is attached to in the change from a water filled container to a container filled with air.

I am trying to get an engineer to work this one out for me. As soon as I have some info I will post.

Hmmmm more food for thought.

If lets say the depth was 60 meter, how much energy did you expend to get there? If you used weights as divers do, theoretically you used no energy.
How much energy was required to fill the cylinder? Approximately 1.5Kwatts
How much energy was required to bring you up to the surface? Zero - nature did it for you. So there may be something in there some where.
With the movement to the surface, a tremendous amount of energy was released.
I'm not sure, but physics has basically proven (again and again) that you use up the same energy/mass as you produce. The balance needs to be kept constant else it's a physical impossibility.

This scenario doesn't convert mass to/from energy (like nuclear reactions do) so we should be able to ignore mass in the equations. What's happening is the density gets varied so the "tank" gets buoyancy at the bottom, which in turn causes an upward force from the more dense water. Then at the top the density is increased by releasing the air and filling the tank with water (either this then means it's similarly dense as the surrounding water so moves downward with little force requirements, or is slightly more dense thus making gravity give a helping hand).

What's not clear is how much input is required to both compress the air at the top as well as release it at the bottom, in comparison to the buoyancy effect (in both directions). And if taking such from physical requirements it means such input has to be more, since it needs to augment the loss due to friction caused by the moving parts as well as the displacement of water as it moved through it.

Many of these so-called zero-input machines (also known as perpetual motion) have been attempted through the last few millennia. Thus far none have actually worked. IMO this is an exact similar idea to this one here (at least if only considering the same kinetic ideas):

Nope, I think such isn't going to get us anywhere. What's needed is a new source of power input. I.e. some other way of tapping an energy source or converting mass into energy which is abundant (or at least easily replaceable) and easy to access without dangerous consequences (or at least easily avoided consequences).

The only possibility I can think of where this might receive some "energy for free" is: "and on the top of the well the compressed air discharges". What happens when you release compressed air? Heat exchange happens. I would think that if the 4.2kW input into 12kW output is true, it needs to draw the rest of that input from somewhere else - most probably this heat exchange as the release of compressed air extracts heat from the surrounds. I think some investigation into this might be needed before anything could be said further on the matter.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last