From my own experiments (on a much smaller scale) I am fairly certain that my idea is theoretically sound. But first, a brief physics lesson for our friend, the amateur "civil engineer" furios666 (cool name btw):
Well, let's see. Here we have two water levels, one of which is decidedly higher than the other, yet you can see in "Diagram A" that the water is flowing
towards the higher water level, and out a pipe at the top of the mountain. "But Franz, how can that be?" You ask. I'll tell you! It's because despite the height difference, there is still more pressure coming from the water tower than there is at the spout on the mountain, which means that the system is unbalanced. As everyone knows, if you have an unbalanced system, it will naturally shift until it reaches equilibrium. In this case, the equilibrium is achieved by shifting water towards the low-pressure side (the mountain spout, in case you're an idiot).
In this hypothetical case of the water tower, I would estimate a hypothetical equilibrium to be as shown in "Diagram B":
Here you will note, by the conspicuous lack of motion-indicating arrows, that the water is completely still. That is to say, it's
not moving from one side of the system to the other.
I hope you learned a valuable lesson, furios666 (god I love that name). Actually, I'll summarize the lesson, in case you didn't quite garner it from my brilliant lecture.
Now back to why my Perpetual Water Machine would theoretically work. In my experiments, I created a miniature scale model of my machine (without the turbines, valves etc.) by using a tupperware container full of water and a glass tube. I put the tube in the container and filled the container with water, then I lifted the tube a bit so the water could rush in, and I observed what happened to the water levels. The water level in the container moved down a bit, whereas the water level in the tube shot up rapidly, moving about an inch past the water level in the container (sorry to contradict you there, furios666). The WL in in the tube peaked, then fell back down about a centimeter below the WL in the container, peaked at the bottom, then went back up. It waffled like this for about 5 seconds or so, then finally reached equilibrium.
Now, obviously you can't get perpetual water out of my little experiment. However, there are two key differences to the Perpetual Water Machine that enable it to theoretically work. First of all,
the water level on the outside never lowers. Think back to my water tower example, and imagine if someone was constantly pouring more water into the top of the tower. The result would be a constant spouting of water at the Mountain Spout, because no equilibrium could be reached (since the mountain spout is open-ended)
Now, I know what you're thinking. This principle alone won't create a self-sustaining system, which is of course the ultimate goal of perpetual motion. But this brings me to the second key factor in my Perpetual Water Machine. My machine is on such a scale that the great difference in pressure at the top and bottom is enough to spin the turbines while still being perpetual. The idea is that the water is being pushed from the bottom by the great pressure of the ocean, and pulled from the top by the low pressure of the atmosphere. :flourish:
)
