This is a hydraulic ram pump, it can pump water uphill without any electricity.

>>16709327 (OP)
>put one of these on a river
>river gets bigger
>put ten more on the river
>river gets huge
>can now run electric dam
>unlimited free energy

Hydraulic engineering was crucial to the Islamic Golden Age and laid the foundation of the steam engine and Industrial Revolution.

https://primalnebula.com/the-engineering-of-the-alhambras-water-system/

More hydraulic inventions. You may find these interesting. The qanat and the water clock.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Magana

>>16709733

The water clock in question, now out of commission. How beautiful things could be if we lived in peace, the future we could build in harmony.

>>16709733
did the pre industrials ever try using water-compressed air for motive power before steam?

>>16709733
>>16709734
thank you, kind sir

>>16709742
I can't think of any examples, seems kind of advanced for the time, but I wouldn't be surprised. It would technically be after steam because Hero of Alexandria already made a steam turbine and designed temple doors that could open from air pressure created by heat.

>>16709327 (OP)
wait so where does it get energy from?
does the water input need to have pressure?

>>16709327 (OP)
Kelvin water dropper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

>>16709734
>Live in peace
A peaceful age is always proceeded with violent military conquest and destruction of buildings, books and any other records of the previous age. Islam is no exception.

>>16709848
No, it converts kinetic energy into pressure so you can just let water flow downward and it will pump it higher than it initially started. The catch is that it requires a large amount of water to pump a small amount of water uphill; about 90% of the water becomes "wastewater."

>>16709327 (OP)
This device extracts energy from the sky and ocean.

>>16710839
Can you give a better explanation on how it works?

>>16709327 (OP)
>it can pump water uphill without any electricity

>>16710845
Electrolysis works at very high pressure, so an electrolysis cell can work deep below the surface of the ocean. Electrolyze water to produce gas. The gas pressurizes and pushes the water out of the cylinder, turning the turbine to generate electricity. When you fill the cylinder, you have a portion above the surface reaching high into the sky. Use the gas at the top in a fuel cell, water falls down into another cylinder building pressure above the ocean surface. This column turns another turbine. As the gas is consumed generating electricity, more water flows into the cylinder below the surface, turning the turbine.

>>16710849
Yes, but more efficient and practical.
>>16710839
>>16710850
I'll have to think about this for a bit.

>>16709733
I love how they call it the "Islamic" Golden Age when all the inventors were White Persians converted at sword-point to Islam.

>>16709327 (OP)

>>16710849
>>16710870
I think the combination of the two is the ideal system. The water wheel can lift a large amount of water a small distance, the ram pump turns a large amount of water falling a small distance into a small amount of water rising a long distance.

>>16710839
Electrolysis industrially takes ~180MJ/kg (fyi some energy comes from envrionmental heat).
180MJ/gravity/kg=
180MJ/~10m/s^2/1=18,000km

So the watercolumn supplied by the fuel cell would need to be 18,000km tall to give suffiecent energy to power the electrolizer.
The fuel cell will recycle some of that 180MJ, so the water columb will be less, but expect hundreds of km at least.
At that height i expect gas molecules to struggle to reach the fuel cell, density up there will be like space.

That said, i don’t see why it can’t work outside of engineering challenges. Energy for the systen is probably coming from the sun heating ocean to power electrolysis and heating gas molecules to eject then high enough to reach the fuel cell.

>>16709847
that must have been sick, to be some fucking peasant wandering into town to see the priest open the door with fucking fire

>>16709327 (OP)
Shkval torpedo directs some exhaust out of its tip to create a lower friction air bubble to travel through.
Might be useful for fast air travel at low altitude.

Wimshurst machine

>>16709327 (OP)
I have had a concept in my head for a while using ram pumps

>build it into a hill
>water tank at top
>series of ram pumps
>more water tanks at different heights feeding
>downhill tube full of turbines
>bottom tank literally deep in the ground, taking advantage of ground water/spring

The ram pump is like a 10/90 discharge to pump rate, however when you make it into a closed system with positive pressure from ground water you have DONE A GOOD THING. YOU NOW HAVE ENERGY IN A SYMBIOTIC STYLE WITH YOUR ENVIRONMENT. ELEGANT. AMAZING. BEAUTIFUL.

My inspiration is Viktor Schauberger, a true genius.

>>16709327 (OP)
pretty neat.

What is the real operating principle?

>>16712445
counter rotating yoyos?

>>16709327 (OP)
a few of these on a shaft, turned slightly, would give rotational moment, like a turbine.

>>16710836
This can't be more efficient than just using a water wheel to drive a turbine impeller, can it?

>>16711711
...Yes. It's called the Islamic golden age because it's about the religion, which happens to be good. It's not called the Arab golden age because it's not about the arabs who happen to be bad.

>>16713134
muhammed gargles my shit, piss and cum

>>16711711
Persians are not White, and Muslim inventors came from all over the middle east, not just Persia.

>>16711700
This is so cool

>>16709417
>>river gets bigger
?

>>16713133
It probably is

This is a clock/watch spring coil
It was invented because they tried to put a grandfather clock onto boats/ships to track time

>>16709847
This is horseshit. Watch the variable length tubing going from the pot to the receiver. The Romans had half inch poly tubing for pressure transfers? My ass.

>>16709327 (OP)
Lazy fucks timed the valve timing wrong, the vent valve shuts and then the water hammer forces the flow valve open.

>>16715660
That is just an interpretation of how it might have worked if it were ever built, I don't know why the pipe changes length, it seems it isn't even necessary. Most other diagrams don't have that.

Pic related is a steam engine that was actually built by him.

>>16715660
That is just an interpretation of how it might have worked if it were ever built, I don't know why the pipe changes length, it seems it isn't even necessary. Most other diagrams don't have that.

Pic related is a steam engine that was actually built by him.

>>16711700
they have issues but can work pretty well

>>16713379
It was the persian golden age, it had been taking place before mohamed's arab raiders took over,

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/103749/what-makes-a-wrist-energized-gyroscope-rotate-faster

>>16709733
Fun fact, there's no such thing as an Islamic golden age. That shit is pure fiction

>>16715660
>Watch the variable length tubing going from the pot to the receiver.
You could prolly just have a fixed tube and make the bucket very deep and narrow and partially filled with water in the first place.

>>16709417
Who are you quoting?

>>16709734
The current era is more peaceful than any other in human history or prehistory.

>>16715151
Why?

>>16711700
How does the water level on the left affect the level on the right? There's no connection between them.

>>16718026
The air pressure. The air moves when the water displaces it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfzj3rRIVU4

>>16716601
>That is just an interpretation
Opinion discarded.

>>16717975
>You could prolly
Opinion discarded.

bump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

Also, has anyone tried the trick of looking at the same wikipedia pages in different languages? Sometimes the other languages have better content?

>>16721136
Can probably make a non destructive variant that morphs on impact with something to do the compression.

>>16721146
Maybe do something similar to OP where you let some of the flux decompress to pressurize the flux elsewhere.

>>16718024
you're drawing from the same energy source (water's kinetic energy) but that doesn't mean it has the same efficiency
the turbine + pump is a lot more complex, has more ooportunities for energy loss so it probably is a lot less efficient

>>16713133
Probably better than an impeller, but how does it compare against a piston pump powered by the same drive line?

Canada patent 2,876,642.

Pogue was right, completely vindicated almost 100 years later.

Your 15 mpg v8 truck can get 150 mpg with a proper gasification conversion.

And no it does not need "wet" fuel to cool the engine, wood gas and natural gas engines run "dry" perfectly fine even if they have lower energy density than gasoline.

I came to this conclusion by thoroughly analyzing and debunking Malcolm Bendalls "plasmoid" engines as shown in videos and PDFs. It is a glorified less efficient Pogue process intake system, no plasmoid fuel replacement involved. Oil and gasoline companies are literally wasting 50-90% of their fuel.

The gasification process is not as simply as mistifying the fuel, you have to ideally nearly completely gasify it with heat and aeration prior to injection into the combustion chamber. You also have to play with ratios and intake rates. The optimal solution is to have an external gasifier under the hood that takes fuel from the gas tank and then gasifies it for injection into the intake.

>>16724531
Further explanation of the Pogue-Ogle process. At a minimum you can expect a 40% fuel efficiency increase, at maximum you can possibly achieve a 1,000% (10 times) fuel efficiency increase. The Canada patent 2,876,642 experimentally referenced elsewhere an increase in fuel efficiency from 15 mpg for an old 5.0L Ford v8 truck to roughly 70 mpg (a 460% increase in efficiency). Tom Ogle and Charles Pogue both referenced significantly higher fuel efficiency increases (10-15 mpg to 100-200 mpg). The Tom Ogle system was an improvement and a refinement over the Pogue process (fuel gasification process). There are also videos online of gasoline fuel being gasified and used as a torch to cut through steel, further showing gasoline can be gasified.

Charles Pogue came up with a crude form of this process in the 1930s. Tom Ogle came up with a perfected form in the 1970s. This technology and principal has been available for nearly 100 years.

>>16724969
Interesting. Reminds me of hot vapor engine of smokey yunick. What does the bubbler do?
Electric heater is good for cold start, I would even suggest microwave which seems magical at times in thermal conversions. A little crank and battery power is no issue.
But I think during normal operation the fuel heating should be taken from exhaust waste heat. Organic tends to create tar and carbon upon high temperature of direct heating and indirect heating by double potting or steaming reduce the issue. You can use a heat pipe (aka tube sealed while boiling liquid is inside).
I'd even try injecting a little of the hot exhaust into the fuel stream to see what happens. Should at the very least carbonate the fuel.

>>16724969
Is this anything like what those guys who designed water powered cars before they got black bagged and their inventions stolen were likely talking about?

>>16713337
>>>/r/atheism

>>16713134
>which happens to be good
lamo, your prophet didn't even exist, neither did mecca or aisha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVYzBjyVXW8

>>16709847
Ancient Indian texts describe an automated door opener.
Something like a mechanical pressure switch in the floor outside the door would activate the mechanism which would swing the doors open via some system of gears, weights, levers, pulleys or some such apparatus.

>>16725045
>>16725055
To give just relatively quick posts on how this gasification theoretically works now. CNG has an retractable energy density of roughly 9 mj/l, experimentally in gasoline engine vehicles it produces almost the exact same hp and torque as gasoline (within about 5%), additionally CNG converted gasoline engines also get almost the same GGE fuel economy as liquid gasoline engines. The only performance loss on CNG engines is acceleration loss, usually shave off about 1-3 seconds to any speed vs liquid gasoline. Next, LNG is chemically almost the same as CNG, however it is stored in a liquid state by cooling it, it has an retractable density of roughly 22 mj/l. It is difficult to find performance specs on LNG engines but it seems comparable to CNG, which itself is comparable to liquid gasoline. Because of the chemical properties of both CNG and LNG they are both more difficult to store than liquid gasoline, also gasoline starts to boil (gasify) at only 40-200C and combusts at around 250-300C. All very manageable temps. Now comparing LNG to liquid gasoline, gasoline has a roughly 1.55 higher retractable energy density than LNG, at roughly 34 mj/l. Assuming the density gradient drop is roughly similar to LNG compared to CNG, while the performance stays roughly the same like CNG. Then at a minimum you can theoretically extract 50-55% more energy per unit volume of gasoline over CNG and LNG. In general combustion of liquids and solids occurs in the gas state, this means cleaner more efficient burns are achieved in gas state not liquid state.

cont

>>16725731
cont

Thus, in theory if CNG is almost the same performance in power and fuel efficiency as liquid gasoline but gasoline has a 1.55 higher energy density, you can convert gasoline to a gas to achieve a cleaner and more effcienct burn over liquid gasoline, at a minimum you can achieve 40-55% higher fuel efficiency by gasifying gasoline and injecting it at the appropriate proportional ratios. Next is rarification, the ideal AFR of liquid gasoline is 14.5:1, whereas for gaseous gasoline it is theoretically 17.5:1. Resulting in a further minimum 20% increase in fuel efficiency over liquid gasoline. All you need to do to gasify gasoline is heat it up, or increase the volume massively before injection. This means you can automatically take a 15mpg highway v8 and bring it to about 21-23mpg by gasification alone, then a further 2-3mpg by AFR, giving at least 23-26mpg in theory. However, in extreme rarification you can save significantly more fuel, in some of the higher quoted AFRs you can theoretically reduce fuel consumption by 90%, this needs more study however. These extreme AFRs have only been quoted on carbureted engines AFAIK, the Tom Ogle and Charles Pogue engines were also carb engines. Gasification is slightly more difficult in fuel injected engines, but AFR rarification is even more difficult in injector engines.

cont

>>16725732
cont

Next, is the concept of restriction. You can restrict an engine by reducing the diameter of the air intake at the throttle body and reducing the total fuel volume flow per cycle. This concept is different from gasification, and it does result in power loss. However, the power loss is not as severe that it prevents your vehicle from driving mostly normally and still at highway speeds 65-75mph. You can double your fuel efficiency on high performance engines with this method, while also taking a big loss in acceleration performance however. Essentially a properly geared 4000lb vehicle only needs about 55-90hp and 100-150 ft lbs of torque to drive normally. For a 5.0l does v8, you can at most restrict the intake to roughly 1/2.6 of original and reduce fuel volume by a similar or slightly higher rate and still drive 75mph highway, but with 40mpg. If you combined restriction with gasification you might be able to achieve at least 50mpg on that same 5.0l v8. If you combined restriction with gasification and rarification, you might be able to achieve 170mpg and be able to drive at highway speeds with the same 5.0l v8. Lookup ThunderHead289 lawn mower carb videos on youtube to see an example of restriction efficiency taken to extremes. In theory restriction only works best on engines with a high performance output per displacement volume and good starting power, it does not work as good on smaller and less efficient engines, but restriction can work equally well on fuel injected engines as it can carb engines.

>>16725734
I know of restriction has beneficial effects but how does a small cab positioned to WOT differ from a larger cab positioned to place the same restriction but with a feather foot? Is there anything particular that can explain chockpoints and chocking flow that in the end, increases engine output or reduces engine loss to see an increase in efficiency? Because chocking goes against of the idea of rarifications that gets more air mass to heat up and do expansion work.

>>16725745
The smaller carb has a smaller diameter throughout, which results in increased flow velocity which results in lower pressure on injection, even if the total volume of the smaller carb is smaller. This also means that the higher you rev the engine the air flow velocity also increase. The increased flow velocity at the aperture and through the smaller carb or air intake then enters a larger volume manifold and then a smaller volume combustion chamber, so the interaction is complex. The increased flow velocity also serves to more evenly disperse the fuel at the carb even at normal AFRs. The smaller carb essentially has a lower maximum possible CFM, and if you are reducing total fuel volume as well (which is very likely on a much smaller carb) you end up almost proportionally decreasing total air flow and total fuel volume flow. This results in lower hp and torque, but increased fuel efficiency. On a big carb that is being choked, the air is initially restricted and the pressure reduced, but the total fuel volume remains similar and the absolute diameter of the aperture prior to injection is also larger, resulting in a still higher total possible CFM than a smaller carb with much smaller diameters and volume off the bat. For a fuel injected engine, you can tune the total fuel volume on injection lower near proportionally to the reduced diameter throttle body, in theory you can take a 2.4l I4 3300lb coupe to 50mpg and be able to still drive at highway speeds. Heat is also not really an issue on restricted engines, but at worst you can add air vents in the hood and or a cooling fan and scoops.

>>16725753
Oh and mind you this is all without gasification yet. And with a normal AFR still.

Things to consider.

-Total possible and actual CFM (air)
-Total fuel volume (regardless of pressure)
-Minimum hp and torque for the vehicle to drive normally on highways and up hills (typically 55-90hp and 90-150 ft lbs torque), gearing is also useful, a transmission geared to run high rpms for a given speed can accept a higher power loss for normal operation.
-AFRs, even just putting a regulator and setting it at 14.5:1 will give you more fuel efficiency over most stock setups.

More complex is.
-Gasification
-Extreme rarification of AFRs with normal operation (needs more research). It is important to note that rarification can occur in several ways. One is by using an extremely high AFR, the other is by restricting total flow volume of both air and fuel.

>>16725771
Wouldn't the benefit be less pronounced when fully gasified fuel gas would naturally mix and dispers with air without any technique of aggressive shearing and vacuum evaporate to break liquid/air barriers?
I think the real explanation to the fuel efficiency is the improvement in the engine cycle, the rarification of air served as equivalent in reducing the intake stroke length in miller cycle. One can modify the crank to physically has a shorter in intake stroke than power stroke, adjust the valve timing so that air is either shut off early or reject back out later so the equivalent intake stroke is reduced, or the most simple of them all is put restriction on intake so the intake is always starved thus less air.
The compression ratio for compression is therefore less than the expansion ratio of the power stroke. In the diagram it is shown that the intake stroke is much shorter and begin left of the otto. This reduces the work done to compress the air.
In addition, less pressure left by the time exhaust valve open, which is wasted to exhaust pipe as pulse, which explains the noise reduction.
Less work is generated, but a lot more work compares to the work put in than before.

>>16726409
>or the most simple of them all is put restriction on intake so the intake is always starved thus less air.
Yes, this is what restriction is, but on an intake setup that does not automatically adjust the AFR to accommodate for this, you have to also manually set the fuel intake volume to the proportional restriction of the air. On a fuel injected engine you have to tune the ECU to ignore performance and purposefully retard the air and fuel at the proportional ratio. Restriction alone will result in loss of engine power, but it can be tuned just right so that you have the minimum amount of power needed to run the gearbox effectively and normally.

This is basically proportional restriction in this video. Stock this engine should get about 15 mpg highway, he gets 41mpg and drives it for over 1,500 miles at highway speeds without issue.
https://youtu.be/1xHQWu2ZzPc

To show you the effect of restriction here's the rough stats on his setup.

1974 Ford 5.0l v8
~310 hp
~330 ft lb torque
390 CFM stock 4 bbl carb

Restriction
~59 hp
~140 ft lb torque (intsantly)
>150 CFM lawn mower carb

AFR is the same on both setups,14.5:1.

The smaller air and fuel volume and diameters of the smaller carb starves the engine at higher RPMs resulting in power loss but massive gains in fuel efficiency. It is setup in a way that it does not stall. Other variables are also happening but this is the gist of it.

cont.

>>16726813
Reducing the intake stroke is yet another variable. But the easiest way to perform restriction is simply reduce total fuel and air volume proportionally and starve the engine without stalling. Gasification is more complex, but it essentially is simply burning the fuel more efficiently in a gaseous state, which should give you up to at least 55% improved efficiency over liquid injected gasoline. Gas AFR is 17.5:1 resulting in more efficiency as well. AFR rarefication is also more complex, but essentially if you stop using gasoline as the coolant (wasting gas) and introduce another coolant like water vapor you can immediately improve efficiency on totally stock setups by that alone. This is what the water air bubbler does on the diagram, it forces a significantly higher amount of water vapor into the air stream of the intake process. In some studies introducing water to the air intake increase fuel efficiency by 13% and power by 5% on totally stock unmodified engines. Controlled direct injection engines can achieve custom AFRs of 25:1, these are modern setups though and not old carbs which is why the Ogle and Pogue AFR rarefication needs more study because they quoted AFRs as high as 90:1. In theory if you perform all of these things (gasification, higher AFR, restriction, water vapor intake etc) and get them to work together properly you can absolute get at least a maximum of 50-100 mpg on the same engine and drive at highway speeds, and theoretically you can double fuel economy without any loss in power. The simplest redneck setup though would be restriction and water vapor injection, without messing with gasification yet.

https://youtu.be/JvRCB_HhseY?si=Kb4OK67vYSh_82KN
2:44

>>16725731
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas

>>16727688
LPG is a chemically different mixture from gasoline. Gasoline has never been gasified in commercial production engines by design. Gasoline has a still higher energy density than LPG is stored as a liquid under pressure and then becomes a gas prior to injection naturally because of the chemical properties of propane and butane. Gasoline is stored and injected as a liquid and is only gasified during the combustion cycle, during which auto manufacturers are actually injecting at least 40-70% too much fuel resulting in very high emissions and poor fuel efficiency. LPG is less efficient than CNG as well. When using the water air bubbler with partial gasification the "plasmoid" engines show pic related for exhaust emissions. In restricted engines the emissions output is also significantly reduced, but if you apply the water air bubbler and gasification as well the total emissions can drop even lower as you end up with almost a complete burn.

Tom Ogle in the late 1970s said the exact same thing. His carb reduced emissions to literally almost zero while his big 300 ci v8 was getting 100 mpg, no plasmoids needed. Auto manufacturers in the early 1970s gas crisis did make extremely slight restriction setups on engine which only improved fuel efficiency by about 20% at the most, when it is actually possible to more than double fuel efficiency with restriction alone (see ThunderHead289 lawn mower carb video).

Tom Ogle was likely killed at 26 years old or at least targeted because he went public with his gasification carb, it is reported he was offered 25 million USD for his carb design rights. He was shot under mysterious circumstances, survived, then four months later found dead under mysterious circumstances.

US Patent 4,177,779.

The Ogle system used a complex system of vacuum draw, filters, bubblers, and a feedback coil that fed hot engine coolant through a heater coil in the vapor tank to prevent vapor cooling and increase gasification prior to injection.

>>16718023

>>16727904
More on pure 1:1 energy specifications of gas state gasoline vs CNG, LNG, and liquid state gasoline in ICEs. This provides indirect and theoretical scientific proofs for the increased energy efficiency. Again, this is without touching AFRs or engine restriction. Modifying either or both of those two concepts and adding them into the mix will massively increase efficiency yet again over pure gasification of liquid gasoline.

If your gasoline engine vehicle gets 25 mpg at 60 mph highway with a standard load (driver + vehicle + fuel weight + flat driving conditions), simply gasifying the liquid gasoline will get you *at least* 33-39 mpg at the same speed and loads. Without touching anything else like AFR or restriction (both of which combined with gasification can more than triple your fuel efficiency). Your engine will also put out significantly less pollutants of all classes (CO2 and NO2).

>>16727904
But if this is true, there is a thriving engine hobbyists. What is the limitation that stop people from hitting the experimental edge and seeing this? Does it require overcoming some unusual physical challenge? Does the mixture ratio require a tuned mixing design that can't be obtained in the sabotaged designs?
Perhaps turbos and such are de facto proof of the claim anyways.