FAQ
TL;DR: “The lifting force is equal to the volume of water displaced,” and 1 cubic foot of water weighs 64 lb; this balloon chain stores, not creates, energy. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684044]
Why it matters: Many ask if rising underwater balloons can make free power; this FAQ explains limits, safety, and realistic use for tinkerers and energy-harvesting hobbyists.
Quick Facts
- Buoyancy basis: lift equals displaced-water weight; 1 ft³ ≈ 64 lb of lift minus container weight. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684044]
- Not a generator: you must input energy to compress and send air down. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684047]
- Stacking balloons: combined lift is Y + Y + ... across containers, but needs matching input energy. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684054]
- Viability hinges on efficiency; it’s energy storage and retrieval, not perpetual motion. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684048]
Does this underwater balloon gizmo generate free energy?
No. It stores energy by using compressed air to create buoyant lift. You must supply that energy first. The system can retrieve some of it as mechanical work on the rise, but never more than you put in. Losses occur during compression, air transport, and conversion. It is best described as an energy storage and retrieval method, not a power source. “It takes energy to compress the air and to transport the air to the bottom of the water.” [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684047]
How does buoyancy set the maximum lift for each balloon?
Lift equals the weight of displaced water minus the balloon and rigging weight. In fresh water, 1 cubic foot provides about 64 pounds of gross lift before subtracting hardware mass. Scaling lift requires larger volumes or more balloons, which also increases material weight and drag. The principle that keeps a boat afloat governs this design. Accurate volume and weight accounting are crucial for any power estimate or prototype sizing. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684044]
If I stack multiple balloons, do I get more usable power?
Stacking increases total lift because each balloon displaces water. However, the input energy must cover compressing and delivering enough air for all balloons at depth. More balloons also add hose friction, drag, and control losses. Net output depends on system efficiency, not just lift sum. Treat the chain as a larger storage device, not a free-energy amplifier. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684054]
What’s the goal of this machine according to the thread?
Participants asked the originator to clarify objectives. The core question was whether the device could “work,” meaning provide useful output. Responders steered the discussion toward treating it as storage rather than generation. Before building, define whether you want to lift payloads, spin a generator, or buffer intermittent energy. A clear goal guides sizing, controls, and efficiency targets. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684053]
Why do posters call it an energy storage and retrieval system?
Because compressed air carries the energy you added earlier. When released at depth, that air expands and produces lift, converting stored pneumatic energy into mechanical work. The cycle cannot exceed 100% efficiency. Each stage—compression, transmission, expansion, and conversion—introduces losses. Therefore, the device retrieves part of what you supplied, similar to other storage methods. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684047]
Is it a perpetual motion or infinite energy machine?
No. Posters explicitly reject that framing. Any claim of self-powering violates basic energy conservation. The discussion emphasizes that efficiency matters and bans elsewhere resulted from pushing impossible-machine narratives. Build within physics, target reasonable round‑trip efficiency, and accept unavoidable losses. “If you think this machine will generate infinite energy and power itself... you should be banned.” [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684048]
What mistakes did reviewers find in the shared calculations?
A reviewer noted the volumes and lifting forces in a PDF were not self-consistent. Unreadable numbers in a reduced image also blocked verification. Inconsistent math leads to unrealistic power claims and failed prototypes. Always match calculated displaced volume to stated lift, and keep source figures legible for review. “It’s hard to take you seriously if you can’t do the math correctly.” [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684049]
How much energy does compression and delivery consume?
Compression work grows with pressure, which increases with depth. You also pay for pushing air through hoses and valves. The thread stresses that energy must be supplied for both compressing and transporting air to the bottom. Those inputs cap net output. Treat hose length, diameter, and depth as key loss drivers when estimating performance. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684047]
What single stat helps size my lift and payload?
Start with the buoyancy baseline: 1 cubic foot of displaced fresh water equals about 64 pounds of gross lift. Subtract balloon, frame, hose, and payload weight to find net lift. Scale cautiously and verify every assumption with measured volumes. This one statistic anchors realistic expectations and prototype tests. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684044]
Does forum consensus say it can ‘work’ at all?
Yes, as a concept, it can function as storage and retrieval if designed efficiently. A responder affirmed it is not impossible, while warning that efficiency determines usefulness. The device will not power itself or produce infinite energy. Focus on minimizing losses and proving practical output under load. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684048]
What edge cases could make the design fail?
Incorrect volume-to-lift math or unreadable specs can invalidate the design. Overlooking compression and transport energy leads to negative net output. Hardware weight and drag may erase buoyant gains in small builds. Document numbers clearly and account for every loss before claiming power. “The volumes and lifting forces... are NOT self-consistent.” [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684049]
Why did another site ban the proposal?
The originator shared a ban notice citing “No impossible machines” and misunderstanding of basic energy conservation. Communities enforce such rules to prevent perpetual motion claims. Framing the device as energy storage, not generation, keeps discussion constructive and physics‑compliant. Respect forum guidelines when presenting concepts. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684045]
Can redefining ‘infinite’ make the claim acceptable?
No. A later comment said “Infinite is a concept,” but that does not change physical limits. Energy conservation still applies to any build. Use precise, testable metrics like lift, depth, pressure, and round‑trip efficiency instead of philosophical terms. That approach earns credible feedback and progress. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684050]
What’s a sensible next step if I want to iterate?
Draft an improved version that integrates peer feedback. Clarify goals, correct math, and plan measurements. Then share readable figures for review. The thread’s author indicated updating the design after comments. Iteration with transparent data accelerates learning and avoids repeating mistakes. [Elektroda, Anonymous, post #21684051]
