Dear Wilbur Hubbard:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in
message
anews.com...
....
Lame suggestion and unworkable on most boats. Ya
gotta think outta the box, man.

However, there is another way. I thought it up all by
my lonesome. All you need is a reverse osmosis
membrane. You put it into a chamber that is vented
to atmosphere on the inside and to the ocean on the
outside of the membrane. You lower it into the
ocean to a depth of only 500 feet and the pressure
of the water is enough to push fresh water through the membrane
into the chamber. When it gets full you
haul it up and empty in into your tanks. Reverse
osmosis without any energy used to get it. Ain't Wilbur
brilliant?

You are still displacing that much water... not a small feat.

David A. Smith

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:51:56 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

When it gets full you haul it up and empty in
into your tanks. Reverse osmosis without any energy used to get it.
Ain't Wilbur brilliant?
You haul it up without using any energy to do it? Absolutely not/ It
will take a foot pound for each pound for each foot you haul it.
No your basis for perpetual motion will not work. And is the opposite
of brilliant.

Casady

Richard Casady brought forth on stone tablets:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:51:56 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


When it gets full you haul it up and empty in
into your tanks. Reverse osmosis without any energy used to get it.
Ain't Wilbur brilliant?

You haul it up without using any energy to do it? Absolutely not/ It
will take a foot pound for each pound for each foot you haul it.
No your basis for perpetual motion will not work. And is the opposite
of brilliant.

Casady

Well, not quite. The harvested fresh water is actually buoyant in the
sea water. Hauling up the water is energy free. Hauling up the
container and the rope is not, however.

With suitable flotation, the container could be made neutral-buoyant,
and so hauling it up could be free also, Finally, if the rope were HD
polyethylene or something else with about 1.0 density, the rope could be
free to hoist too. It would be necessary to attach a weight greater
than the weight of water to be harvested to the container in order to
get it to sink. This weight would then be disconnected/abandoned before
hoisting the recovered water. From an energy standpoint, the investment
would be that necessary to cover the friction in the hauling apparatus,
and the the invested energy content of the abandoned weight (steel:
high, concrete: medium, rock: free).

Venting the container to the surface would be impractical. Evacuate it
instead.

With Wilbur, one must be careful to not discard the wheat with the chaff...

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:59:46 -0700, RW Salnick
wrote:

Richard Casady brought forth on stone tablets:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:51:56 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


When it gets full you haul it up and empty in
into your tanks. Reverse osmosis without any energy used to get it.
Ain't Wilbur brilliant?

You haul it up without using any energy to do it? Absolutely not/ It
will take a foot pound for each pound for each foot you haul it.
No your basis for perpetual motion will not work. And is the opposite
of brilliant.

Casady

Well, not quite. The harvested fresh water is actually buoyant in the
sea water. Hauling up the water is energy free. Hauling up the
container and the rope is not, however.

With suitable flotation, the container could be made neutral-buoyant,
and so hauling it up could be free also, Finally, if the rope were HD
polyethylene or something else with about 1.0 density, the rope could be
free to hoist too. It would be necessary to attach a weight greater
than the weight of water to be harvested to the container in order to
get it to sink. This weight would then be disconnected/abandoned before
hoisting the recovered water. From an energy standpoint, the investment
would be that necessary to cover the friction in the hauling apparatus,
and the the invested energy content of the abandoned weight (steel:
high, concrete: medium, rock: free).

Venting the container to the surface would be impractical. Evacuate it
instead.

With Wilbur, one must be careful to not discard the wheat with the chaff...

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle


And how much of the time are you sailing in 500 ft deep water, which
was the original specification?

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

brought forth on stone tablets:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:59:46 -0700, RW Salnick
wrote:


Richard Casady brought forth on stone tablets:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:51:56 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:



When it gets full you haul it up and empty in
into your tanks. Reverse osmosis without any energy used to get it.
Ain't Wilbur brilliant?

You haul it up without using any energy to do it? Absolutely not/ It
will take a foot pound for each pound for each foot you haul it.
No your basis for perpetual motion will not work. And is the opposite
of brilliant.

Casady

Well, not quite. The harvested fresh water is actually buoyant in the
sea water. Hauling up the water is energy free. Hauling up the
container and the rope is not, however.

With suitable flotation, the container could be made neutral-buoyant,
and so hauling it up could be free also, Finally, if the rope were HD
polyethylene or something else with about 1.0 density, the rope could be
free to hoist too. It would be necessary to attach a weight greater
than the weight of water to be harvested to the container in order to
get it to sink. This weight would then be disconnected/abandoned before
hoisting the recovered water. From an energy standpoint, the investment
would be that necessary to cover the friction in the hauling apparatus,
and the the invested energy content of the abandoned weight (steel:
high, concrete: medium, rock: free).

Venting the container to the surface would be impractical. Evacuate it
instead.

With Wilbur, one must be careful to not discard the wheat with the chaff...

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle



And how much of the time are you sailing in 500 ft deep water, which
was the original specification?

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

500 feet? That's only 83 fathoms. My sailing area is Puget Sound, much
of which is 150 fathoms or more. Why? Is Thailand in a skinny water zone?

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle