How do plants suck? / Did my school lie?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
ive allways wondered if it would be posible to get "free energy" using millions of very small tubes to move water up in elevation and then let it fall back down hydroelectric style. (even if the water could only be raised several inches it would style give energy without any input that i i can think of)

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as free energy. You can't get more energy than you input. You're utilizing energy that's already there. That's like saying wind power is free energy.

Or maybe you meant something else by free energy?

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ive allways wondered if it would be posible to get "free energy" using millions of very small tubes to move water up in elevation and then let it fall back down hydroelectric style. (even if the water could only be raised several inches it would style give energy without any input that i i can think of)

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as free energy. You can't get more energy than you input. You're utilizing energy that's already there. That's like saying wind power is free energy.

Or maybe you meant something else by free energy?

[/ QUOTE ]

^^ These 2 posts are EXACTLY what lead me to post the OP.

My ideas went - how about using the tubes to raise the water, The tubes are 2X 1/2 cylinders with a hinge, the hinge opens, releasing the water and on the way down we capture the energy, and that is the energy used to open and close the hinges. Yes a perpetual motion machine.

But I was aware that it was not possible, because it was a perpetual motion machine. But it had been in my head for about 12 years and I thought I'd post it here.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ive allways wondered if it would be posible to get "free energy" using millions of very small tubes to move water up in elevation and then let it fall back down hydroelectric style. (even if the water could only be raised several inches it would style give energy without any input that i i can think of)

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as free energy. You can't get more energy than you input. You're utilizing energy that's already there. That's like saying wind power is free energy.

Or maybe you meant something else by free energy?

[/ QUOTE ]

^^ These 2 posts are EXACTLY what lead me to post the OP.

My ideas went - how about using the tubes to raise the water, The tubes are 2X 1/2 cylinders with a hinge, the hinge opens, releasing the water and on the way down we capture the energy, and that is the energy used to open and close the hinges. Yes a perpetual motion machine.

But I was aware that it was not possible, because it was a perpetual motion machine. But it had been in my head for about 12 years and I thought I'd post it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm seeing a theory by which this might be possible. Let me call the one way osmosis type sucking mechanism the "membrane". The source of energy for a molecule of water passing upwards through the membrane would be it's normal movement within the jostling water molecules due to their heat energy. In other words, one water molecule collides with another, sending it through the membrane. This process should tend to cool down the water at the base of the system. The heat differential is the source of energy.

The machine you describe would not be perpetual because for it to continue working indefintely it would need a continued source of energy reheating the water source. It might be a kind of solar powered device though.

I don't see why it's necessarily true that the energy required to get the water out of the capillaries is the same as that which you will get from letting the water fall back down. I don't see why the energy required getting the water out of the capillaries should depend on the height at which you're doing it. It should be the same whether you do it at a low level or high level. The higher the level you do it the more energy you get out.

I'm curious to know what the correct physics answer is on this.

PairTheBoard

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
The heat differential is the source of energy.

The machine you describe would not be perpetual because for it to continue working indefintely it would need a continued source of energy reheating the water source.
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

TY PTB, this has put my mind well and truly at ease.