To clearify how i got to the result as seen in the video: To charge: ~12.08V x ~1.62A x 43.709 seconds = 860,64 watt-second (or joules) After a discharge: ~9.42V x ~1.15A x 57.993 seconds = 628,24 watt-second (or joules) All value's are measured by the Arduino Nano in combination with the INA3221 Power monitor module. As many of you have pointed out in the comments below, I did indeed make a mistake regarding the mention of the Watt to energy aspect. My sincere apologies for that! The core of this project was to explore, show and see what was possible with this experimental project, even with some limitations. Sometimes it's not just about the final outcome, but also about the journey and what we learn along the way. And I hope that despite any shortcomings, you still found the video interesting and/or inspiring!🤓

@Cookies4Wookiees

18 күн бұрын

Would have loved to see it charge something.

@MikevanHattum

18 күн бұрын

Just a thought, but maybe to make it basically 100% effective, by not using the motors to charge it. Make it hand cranked or something.

@user-vx9ch6rs1w

18 күн бұрын

bring the output so that it will be a stable usb-c pd and try to use a laptop with that energy, and see based on absorption if it's usable, because a larger scale version of this would mean being able to charge it with solar and release later on in a size that is way larger than car batteries( in parallel and series) that i have sometimes seen( also a cost analysis would be nice).

@Bear049

18 күн бұрын

How much energy did you loose by friction on the tube walls and pulleys

@murylocordeiro

17 күн бұрын

A potential problem with your aproach is that if you whant to store energy for long periods like hours or days, the air will slowly sip inside the cilinders, resulting in potential energy loss. and you needing to reassemble the entire rig to get rid of the air that laked iside the tubes.

If only friction of the seal did not completely kill his maths.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

I didn't mention it in the video but i did indeed have to test a number of lubricants to minimize friction as much as possible! I started with dish soap and a bit of water and eventually, after Vaseline, WD40, PTFE spray and even a combination of some of them, I ended up with silicone oil, which I can say works extremely well!

@picklesdill5462

24 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreations Wouldn't brass tubing also decrease the friction? Or another cheaper but lower friction material? I honestly would love to see this explored more and see how high you can get that efficiency up.

@michaelrenper796

24 күн бұрын

@@picklesdill5462 It needs to be airtight over extended periods

@johnschneider931

23 күн бұрын

Did it? I thought the efficiency captured it nicely. Though efficiency also captured the heat of the motors. It didn't capture the efficiency of generating the electricity in the first place so I think it matters where you draw the box to define the system.😊

@fanyoktavia1703

23 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreations is silicon oil work great for some me time?

This is basically the inside-out version of compressed air energy storage, except the maximum pressure difference is 1bar compared to the 80bar used in commercial compressed air energy storage solutions.

@romanp.5236

14 күн бұрын

Actually it is not "basically the same". This one here has a major advantage! When compressing a gas (air) and releasing it, you do temperature changes, whether you like it or not. This eats up your efficiency. Here you do not compress, so you do not have this issue!

@Wandom_wabbit

13 күн бұрын

@@romanp.5236 makes you wonder how hard it would be to convert a compressed air energy storage to one of these types of batteries and what the difference in efficiency will be doesnt it

@IntenseGrid

10 күн бұрын

@@romanp.5236 When you pull a vacuum, you're just pumping heat into the cylinder instead of out of it? How would that not be the same on both sides?

@faethewolf

10 күн бұрын

@@romanp.5236 you get the same rate of heat increase/decrease when pulling a vacuum as when pressurizing. The only difference is the amount of pressure differential, which in this case is necessarily limited to 1 atmosphere of pressure.

@romanp.5236

10 күн бұрын

@@faethewolf I disagree. If you start from a perfectly empty syringe and just increase the empty volume, no gas is there to cool down.

This is very neat but the Achilles heel is the fact that it has an upper limit on extractable force. No matter what materials or innovations you have, you can only ever get to one atmosphere of pressure. But you've kind of engineered the opposite of pneumatic storage. There's different flavours of it (cryo vs standing air) but it all works on the same principal of exploiting a pressure differential. Very cool project!

@contafamilia2092

5 күн бұрын

What about taking advantage of the pressure of the ocean by having a plant deep underwater? Could it work?

@Metalrasputian

5 күн бұрын

@@contafamilia2092 sure, but now you've got to maintain equipment under the ocean. Cryogenic storage does the same, but you can easily access the equipment.

@elderzeroremorse8582

2 күн бұрын

A duel system of vacuum and pressure could be combined.. Double /split cilinder design would quadruple the forces... In large scale this would rate at megawatt energies

@Metalrasputian

2 күн бұрын

@@elderzeroremorse8582 Realistically, all you're doing is adding 1 atmosphere of pressure to a pressure vessel with a lot more over engineering. We already have composite pressure vessels that have maximum allowable working pressures of over 300 atmospheres. Adding 1 more isn't going to make a huge difference. And on top of that, using cryogenic methods over mechanical pressurization often adds more efficiency due to avoiding friction and electrical losses. Heating a cryogenic fluid to increase pressure is much more efficient than trying to mechanically compress nitrogen.

73% is pretty damn good for not having a team of engineers perfect and tweak it over decades. Definitely some potential there for improvement.

@Vantlor

11 күн бұрын

This.

@concadium

11 күн бұрын

yeah, but the problem is still energy density

@knifeyonline

11 күн бұрын

@@concadium hey it just needs to be about 15 times greater and then it's worth using 😁

@zippydaspinhead

11 күн бұрын

Yeah that was my first thought. Not to knock the video or the effort put in, quite the contrary rather. The idea has great merit if a dude can achieve 73% efficiency with home tools and a 3D printer.

@zippydaspinhead

11 күн бұрын

@@knifeyonline Right but this is literally a desktop sized battery. Put it on the scale of space a pumped hydro station takes up and it might be viable.

Pretty sure this whole Rube-Goldberg can be replaced with a garage door spring.

@danielmontmeny9880

19 күн бұрын

I was about to point that out. However, it may be worth doing this instead, because springs wear out faster when held depressed for long periods of time. Still, this atmosphere battery isn't much better, because it's likely it will lose "power"/stored energy over time due to small air leaks. Those rubber gaskets are under alot of load, and i don't imagine they'd last much longer than a spring.

@supercables251

19 күн бұрын

it can be replaced with capacitors, and be smaller and cheaper.

@ManSubhu

18 күн бұрын

@@danielmontmeny9880 The video literally showed air bubbling into the vacuum cylinder during charging. A spring is at least more efficient than that long term.

@kieran8266

18 күн бұрын

@@danielmontmeny9880 Wait a minute who told you that springs wear out when compressed? As long as they don't go beyond their elastic range a compressed spring should experience virtually no wear.

@boycefenn

18 күн бұрын

@@kieran8266 they do, it just happens rather slowly. large temperature variations can speed it up, but even considering that it'll happen orders of magnitude slower than a vacuum chamber will degrade

Watt is a unit of power, not energy. You didn't achieve an efficiency of 73%, those motors aren't efficient enough to turn electric power into mechanical work and back to electric power at anywhere near 73% round trip efficiency, even without all that additional friction you have in that system. The biggest fundamental and unavoidable issue with vacuum energy storage is the extreme cost per unit of capacity. Compressed air energy storage is difficult to make meaningful in comparison to other alternatives, but many times better than vacuum energy storage, in multiple ways. For the same volume, a vacuum chamber can only store as much energy as a pressure tank with one atmosphere "gauge pressure", or two atmospheres absolute pressure, and it's easier to make a pressure tank that holds 10 atmospheres gauge pressure than it is to make a vacuum chamber of the same volume. With all that work put into it, and it looked really nice, I wish you'd gotten the technical parts about the capacity and efficiency right.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment and feedback!👌 The core of this project was to explore and see what was possible, even with some limitations. Regarding the watt-to-energy aspect, you're correct that watts are a measure of power, and I appreciate the correction. To clearify how i got to the result you see in the video: To charge: ~12.08V x ~1.62A x 43.709 seconds = 860,64 Watt After a discharge: ~9.42V x ~1.15A x 57.993 seconds = 628,24 Watt All value's are measured by the Arduino Nano in combination with the INA3221 Power module. I will work on refining my future explanations to provide a better understanding of the technical aspects. Thanks for pointing that out! I hope that despite any shortcomings, you still found the video interesting and inspiring. Sometimes it's not just about the final outcome, but also about the journey and what we learn along the way. I'm always happy to receive feedback and suggestions for improvement, and I hope you'll continue to watch my future projects!😊

@court2379

25 күн бұрын

​@@ConceptCraftedCreationsCame to say the same as above. It is an accurate assessment. You are probably in the 25-30% efficiency range as those motors aren't very efficient. If you can measure your current and voltage over time (sampling at something like every 10th of a second) you can calculate your actual power use. I also recommend pressure storage instead of vacuum as it removes the 1 ATM limit on storage. However, I want to add that pressure storage really comes down to a strength and cost of materials issue. You can calculate it out to a point where you can show a figure of cost/yield strength and plot all the materials. There are other factors to consider though (like the safety of a high pressure tank full of lots of energy). Vacuum in theory could be just as economic, but has a problem outward pressure doesn't have. Buckling. To make a storage system economical you would need to use the materials to the edge of their safe limits. So 1ATM would be a very thin tube for most stronger materials. However that force is pushing inward. This causes the tube to warp and collapse in on itself (buckle). Outward force won't cause that, so for the same gage pressure a much thinner tube can be used. Vacuum pressure does have an advantage in that it is nearly constant however, which works really well for getting a constant pulling force over a distance and making the generation and tensioning system much simpler. I looked at all sorts of energy storage options years ago. Mass/gravity systems take enormous masses to be effective and is why really only pumped storage is practical. Inertia is decent for short term storage, but friction catches up to you for longer term. Safety of a spinning disk is also a consideration. Pressure stores moderate amounts of energy, but also creates a huge bomb to rupture at some future date. Capacitors don't store enough energy, but are great at buffering changes in charge and discharge rates. Chemical has been pretty inefficient and low storage amounts in all but the latest generation of batteries. The cost has been pretty high until the last 15 or so years too. There are other technologies making fuels that have some promise. Electrolysis and H2 storage could be practical for a fixed facility. I don't see it being practical for vehicles. There are too many conversion losses and safety issues to address that drive the cost way too high (they can be overcome, it just costs a lot). Internal stress (springs) don't store enough to be practical for the cost of materials used. Thermal storage can be very practical, particularly if it doesn't need to be converted to higher quality energy like electricity. Homes for instance could use store heat for space heating very effectively. It is also somewhat practical for grid scale energy storage, though I believe the plants they have built thus far are considered failures. In the end LiFe batteries are the most practical storage method available at smaller scales. They are pretty high energy density and the cost is getting pretty low. Sodium batteries will probably over take them in the next five years as the low cost option. Regardless of whether something is the best method though. It's still fun to experiment. Also sometimes efficiency is irrelevant. Sometimes it is about what you have and can achieve with it. I have interest in low temperature difference stirling engines. They will never be efficient, but if the energy source is free, sometimes efficiency doesn't matter. Good luck on your experiments. Your video was well presented.

@1kreature

25 күн бұрын

I'd love to see the piston system being used with a valve to drive the motors in a ratchet-way so compressed air could be used to drive them. That would allow a fun test of pumped storage.

@54l68l65l20l47l61l6D

24 күн бұрын

@@court2379 Good breakdown and accurate afaik.

@NH-vf4se

23 күн бұрын

​ @ConceptCraftedCreations You must take in account the time needed for charging / discharging if you want an accurate evaluation of the efficiency of your battery : Efficiency=(Td x Pd) / (Tc x Pc) = Ed/Ec Td : discharging Time in seconds Pd : average discharging Power during Td in Watts Tc : charging Time in seconds Pc : average charging Power during Tc in Watts Ec : Energy needed for charging in Joules Ed : Energy recovered while discharging in Joules @fishyerik Without explaining how to correct it, pointing a mistake has low value.

I think everybody here is missing the point thats its a proof of concept, some of the maths might not be exact or perfect but im sure none the less he had a alot of fun building and designing this project, learnt a bunch of things on the way. C'mon ppl his not saying he is making zero point energy just having fun expermenting with alternative battery types. Im looking forward to a MkII.. 😊

@ConceptCraftedCreations

14 күн бұрын

Yes, exactly what you say is indeed what I first thought when I saw all those comments coming in😄. But the other side of it is that it does spark fun discussions🤓 Thanks for your support! Appreciate it!👌

@kmikl

12 күн бұрын

As a POC it's interesting, and it's going to spark some thought, but it's got several major challenges that will make it less than ideal for implementation. It's part of the reason the Hyperloop concept was doomed to failure after over a century of pneumatic pressurized tube passenger rail trials.

@Essence1123

8 күн бұрын

A proof of concept is supposed to show something as being feasible, this contraption is just not feasible. The friction, multiple layers of energy loss, air leaked and wear, there's just so much worse about this than a spring, compressed air storage, or even just a weight on a very rope.

Make it a sealed large diameter diaphragm to minimize the losses and maximize the space efficiency

@SmilingDevil

7 күн бұрын

That should also largely increase the lifespan… those friction seals will not be around long, and the habit of leaking will rub off fast…

i really did not expect your losses to be at 27% i though it would be much more! i didnt expect you to beat hydro with basic tools and to be honest this could be scaled up pretty easily and fit into a home, i would be interested in its weight or volume / energy capacity but this video is very inspiring by itself. Thank you

I clicked on the video because I was intrigued by the idea. I didn't expect a great outcome, but I found the idea interesting. The approach was very entertaining, and adding a bit of science always enhances it! You deserve more encouragement than just open opinion or criticism. Great explanation and a nice idea; keep making this kind of content!

very nice seeing someone execute the project very well i have thought of this, but in reverse storing the energy as air under pressure but slowly releasing it, this is awesome

I was glad to see some more experimenting done with this concept. I started buying screen door closers for my experiments, unfortunately I never made it to any prototyping

Vacuum batteries, what a neat idea. Awesome work, man, I hope your channel keeps growing.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

Thanks mate! Appreciate it👌

I like it, and I think that cost and size are more important than efficiency, because these are intended as solar powered batteries. This idea doesn't require an artificial lake in mountains (die we niet hebben in Nederland) or holes in the earth. If the batteries don't get you through the night, you just need more of them. So great job!

I'm just watching half of the video and I'm already amazed at the experimental setup you implemented for each phase. Kudos to you! BTW, which model are these motors you're using? Thanks!

I work with equipment that is very sensitive to atmospheric pressure changes and I will say that this energy storage is extremely interesting. Especially, in climates that have massive ambient pressure spikes.

@pvic6959

14 күн бұрын

imagine if this is done under water. or lik ea mile deep in the ocean. the force of the water on the equipment would be a lot higher

@cyclesaviorn2700

13 күн бұрын

I work in an industry where i get to witness how quickly seals fail

cool idea but your efficency calculation are wrong. Watt is the unit that mesures how mush energy is used/generated at the moment. but it is not a messuremtn of how much enegergy is stored. for that you need to take time into consideration (ie. Wh, kWh, Ws). you can have a battery that chages with 10 watts over an hour and dischage 100 watts in 2 seconds. with your calculation, it would have an efficency of 1000% and thats not the case. in reality the battery charges with 10 W over 1 hour (60 min -> 3.600 s). so it saves 36.000 WS. it discharges 100 W over 2 seconds so 200 WS. so the real effiency would be ~5,5% and not 1000%

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

I understand what you mean👍 and the power monitor module in combination with the Arduino Nano measured the voltage, current and time for both charging and discharging. So the wattage is, as you say, the full and actual consumption and power generated by this setup👌

@lukaszlesniak

24 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreations Are you saying that it took 860Wh to charge this battery? If so, this result seems unlikely because the video shows that charging takes less than a minute, which means that in order to store such energy in such a time, the engines should have a power over 50kW. You must have a miscalculation somewhere, maybe this capacity is 860mWh?

@funnycatvideos5490

24 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreations Yep it's pretty easy to understand all the so-called people using precise exact overthinking terminology just don't understand it. you measured what it takes to charge and what it discharges.

@janglur

23 күн бұрын

This Batteries are a hell of a drug

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

To clearify how i got to the result you see in the video: To charge: ~12.08V x ~1.62A x 43.709 seconds = 860,64 Watt After a discharge: ~9.42V x ~1.15A x 57.993 seconds = 628,24 Watt All value's are measured by the Arduino Nano in combination with the INA3221 Power module.

Interesting that a home made hobby project managed to get such a high efficiency. Though i would be curious to see what the power loss while in storage over time is and how that compares to other storage methods

This was actually pretty brilliant. A great example of lateral thinking the gravity based system. Regardless of the efficiency and others critiques, I really enjoyed this project and look forward to more.

Where I live, the area has been powered by pump storage supported by various power plants since the 1980s. About 15-20 years ago though, they started putting in wind turbines. Many people were critical and still are. I think it's really cool though. In the time since they started installing the turbines, they've put enough in that the pump storage is entirely powered by wind energy and it's really cool to live 20 miles away from something like that. I feel fortunate to have such clean energy generation in my area and if I go past that, it's just a giant lake all the way to Wisconsin so the air here is pretty clean

@kitsunekaze93

18 күн бұрын

pumped storage is such an interesting and useful idea! its so simple yet effective. it helps combat the unrealiability and demand problems of green energy by allowing the energy to be stored and made more stable!

What sets this apart from compressed air energy storage is that the pressure differential remains basically unchanged while charging/discharging and never exceeds 1 bar, since the limiting factor is the atmosphere itself. That can be an advantage, because the power output remains constant, but also a disadvantage because you need significantly bigger tanks to store the same amount of energy. Fun fact: since you can't do weightlifting exercices on the ISS for obvious reasons, NASA had to come up with a special apparatus to allow for a similar type of exercice so astronauts can keep their bones healthy (living in microgravity for months at a time can lead to dangerous loss in bone density because you're not straining your skeleton as much, since you don't weigh anything). You might think "well just have them push against a piston or a spring instead of lifting a weight" but the issue is that in both cases, the amount of force required increases as you compress the spring/volume of gas (as described by hooke's law), whereas the force needed to lift a known weight remains constant. So, instead, they make astronaut pull a vacuum inside a reservoir, the same way you did here, because then you're pushing against the air pressure inside the ISS instead of trying to compress a comparatively smaller volume of air at an ever increasing pressure. This way, the pressure exerted on the piston remains basically the same, meaning the amount of force astronauts need to exert during their workout remains the same all throughout!

Very good video, amazing work and creation! No bs no useless face camera talking, straight to the point & the build, with stunning ingeniosity! So good man!!!

That was super cool! I really liked your innovative testing procedures, like using the syringe to fill the water bottle to test the torque required to move the system. All of that looked like so much work to ideate, design, and build and then to film and edit on top of that. Woah. All I can say is thank you for taking the time to create this and share your work with the world!

You can improve efficiency by making the tubes larger in diameter, and less tubes. This will reduce contact area of the plunger to the walls massively and therefore losses due to friction.

@surveysays8335

10 күн бұрын

You could probably increase efficiency using thermodynamics too. Store while warm discharge cold..

@aeroant

10 күн бұрын

Nope. Friction is independent of area of contact.

@gnaarW

10 күн бұрын

That would increase the pressure and thus making his seals fail quicker... Nevertheless it is working by using vacuum pressure so it is limited in the amount of energy stored per volume compared to a compressed air storage. i think 1 bar was less than 20% of a kWh per cubic meter. which is 1000 liters and those tubes maybe had 1 liter each ;)

@surveysays8335

10 күн бұрын

So if it takes less energy to store, and you get the same energy out... it doesn't matter that it's a vacuum. It's the differential that is important. I don't think seal failure would be any different. I'm not talking about 100degree differences... I'm talking about normal atmospherical temperature differences from night/day. It doesn't make sense if you have to create heat/cold. I'm thinking you're just being obtuse.

@AmorDeae

9 күн бұрын

Kinda, in theory, in purely static or dynamic scenarios, with rigid bodies. adhesive force is proportional to the surface of contact, and rubbers are very adhesive

Oh, I see Robert Murray-Smith all OVER this idea if he ever comes back to KZread. RIP Patti Smith.

@atrumluminarium

24 күн бұрын

I miss him tbh 😢 I hope he's doing ok

@EgonSorensen

23 күн бұрын

@@atrumluminarium I miss him too 😭 Loosing your significant other is a tremendous blow, and then there's ALL the practical things on top Give it time, they say. I'll give him all the time he needs - and yes, I'm sure he'll have some wonderful insights on this amazing idea

@elkneto4334

22 күн бұрын

oh no i didnt know that.. how sad :(

@buddyguy4723

21 күн бұрын

Awww. I'm sad now.

@effervescentrelief

20 күн бұрын

Been wondering what happened. Poor guy.

I clicked on this video to see what other technical vids would be suggested because i knew this wasn't going to be efficient enough to be practical lol. I watched it all though so you get the algorithm credit. Keep at it man!

This is a really nice project! It's nice to see a rarely utilized physical effect used for a practical purpose. The efficiency is very impressive especially for a prototype. It would be interesting to compare the energy density as well. Both in Joules/kg and Joules/m3.

Really cool project! I think friction is your big problem. First of all. The pistons are not staying vertical as they are pulled slightly off axis by the timing belt. I'd make the pistons have skirts made of Teflon to keep them vertical. I'd also consider trying different seals on the pistons to see if there is anything capable of producing a vacuum but causing less friction. Finally, the big move is to reduce the number of pistons by increasing piston diameter. When you double the diameter, you double the friction surface, but you quadruple the displaced volume. 8 pistons looked cool. But it made the friction problem worse. It's why you don't see many small displacement, high cylinder count engines like a 2 liter V8.

"Vacuum energy" sounds somewhat like Stargate technology, it even looks a bit like Zero Point Module ;)

@jakobrosenqvist4691

20 күн бұрын

If only it could produce power on par with one of their zero point muduels, that would be amazing and terrifying.

I have my doubts about how you rate efficiency, but the video is great and the time you put into that nice looking device makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the interesting video.

This seems to have amazing potential with those kinds of numbers from a 3d printed setup, I imagine with machined parts and possibly an exterior, partially vacuum sealed space to reduce leaks over time do to the pressure differential, I imagine it would have a much smaller loss over time on the pistons. I had a similar idea many years back for how to produce useable methane on farms where I imagined building a circular tank (concrete manhole, they prefab similar stuff) to ferment cow shit in and have a giant round weight with a seal, could be on a solar powered winch that you top it off with, give it some time for the bacteria to work then lower the weighted seal to create pressured gas that you could then pipe out on site and put into cans provided some filtering mechanism of course.

Seems pretty cool. Considering this is 1 guy making what would effectively be a prototype I bet you could get the efficiency drastically higher than that and you're already in the range of other energy storage systems. There are many questions that come to mind, such as how much efficiency would be gained by having a single larger vacuum chamber since you are increasing volume (potential energy) and reducing the circumference of the seals contact point (loss)

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

Indeed, if you were to use a single piston you would reduce friction. I did however use silicone oil in this setup which worked really well I must say! 👌 I also think the great thing about vacuum is that it is easy to scale up because when you double the diameter of the cylinder, the force of the piston quadruples.

@1pierce158

24 күн бұрын

I second trying a bigger single piston wonder what the difference would be between a small medium and large scale and maybe the scale of efficiency follows a pattern in relation to volume. Awesome implementation and beautiful explanation of forces required in the hearing ratio

@michaelrenper796

24 күн бұрын

What matters more is total energy storage relative to resources invested. The result: It has a very low capacity. Nobody with an undergraduate degree in physics of engineering would even bother wasting more then 2min on the idea. A slight more serious concept has been using concrete container deep under water (200-500m). At 400m you have 40 athmospheres of pressure and correspondingly 40x higher energy storage. But even this idea failed so far when put to practical tests. Just too much effort for too little energy.

@ttyler333

24 күн бұрын

Can you maybe make a 1 & 4 piston setup. Try keeping the area within the piston the same overall. Really neat idea! I subscribed 👍

I couldn’t stop thinking of using diaphragms for vacuum formation instead of pistons the entire time I was watching the video. It would eliminate leakage and friction.

@smoketatum6730

22 күн бұрын

friction, leakage and maintanance for this battery would be to high to be practical, But idea with diaphragms would reduce those. You could build closed sealed system with less wear. But! you can create vacum, how dou you want to turn it back to mechanical energy? they won't vibrate by constant vacum and i think mechanical solution to turn the vacum back to mechanical would add the problems back that you solved by using diaphragms :)

@Alkatross

21 күн бұрын

​@@smoketatum6730One way valves and a crankshaft?

@smoketatum6730

20 күн бұрын

@@Alkatross yep, and thats what i ment, by adding complexity You are adding more maintanance and leakage possibilities, so You are back to Point 1

pretty cool. I'm just an armchair enthusiast of energy storage but the thought experiments are fun. For a compact energy storage method with no chemical danger, no real degradation and easily serviceable parts, I think this is a pretty cool experiment. I think scaled up with some refined tolerances could absolutely get the efficiency up. The danger, of course, is large vacuum chambers, but this would be interesting to see something like this on houses. It makes me wonder if there is any potential in simple having a large vacuum chamber with a regular vacuum pump and then a valve to switch it over to a fan generator.

This is brilliant, the reverse method causes you to store pressure vs. remove pressure. If this fails it implodes vs. explodes. Much easier to handle from a safety perspective.

I think the best part in vacuum storage over pressure storage is the fact, that it provides linear force and can be generated and used very fast. I could see it as a kind of capacitor. Used when an excess of Mechanical energy is there that needs to be stored and then used almost instantaneous afterward, so airtightness isn't as big of a problem. I had to think of one video from Tom Scott, where he uses a Motion wheel to transfer the momentum of a bike to use it for accelerating afterward. This seems like a pretty good use case especially because it is limited energy that can be converted, and it doesn't bring any access weight with it like the flywheel.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

You are absolutely right! And the way you describe it is also the best way to look at it, I think👌

@jakobrosenqvist4691

20 күн бұрын

You can get a linear force using preassure storage as well, you just ned a preassure regulator.

Commenting so you get recommended by KZread.

@Iamapinkelephant

11 күн бұрын

I think it worked because it got recommended to me lol. Worth it.

@kemaleddinjohnson5391

5 күн бұрын

it worked buddy 🎉

I have always thought that stored air was great and never thought of the opposite. Great concept. Maybe rethink the gears and motor but all was awesome

storing energy like this always wondered me, from giant flywheels to air/water pressure contraptions. i think the main advantage of this kind of idea vs chemical storage is the material availability and thus scalability

Would submerging the tubes underwater or in a pressurized air tank increase the total resistance it has to overcome thus you could increase the gear ratio to also increase run time?

@raphaelsampaio7172

16 күн бұрын

A giant vacuum battery in the bottom of the ocean could theoretically store a huge amount of power... Maintenance would be a PitA though

@romanp.5236

14 күн бұрын

@@raphaelsampaio7172 It would also strongly want to float

Nothing is a waste of time if you collect valuable data 😊

I just loved how the moisture in the cylinders started to boil the moment you lifted the plungers. Very neat! The main disadvantage I see over pumped hydro is complexity and cost. A reservoir and a pump vs. all of this. Pumped hydro also allows easy control over discharge power over time and I think you would need a very beefy gearbox to achieve the same here. Still it's a great experiment and a very interesting result!

Just the compactness of it makes it viable I think! I'd love to see you try to make a smaller-scale sand battery that can be used for charging 5V electronics like mobile phones.

I appreciate and applaud the investigation, though there are significant losses and efficiency issues here. I initially thought you were going to try and make a barometric powered energy generator- it is possible to pull energy out of the atmosphere by harnessing barometric pressure changes. The Atmos clock is one practical example of such a device.

Great Idea! One question: In the efficiency calclulation you wrote "watts" which is power, not energy (would be watthours). Were the motors consuming 860 Watt during charing and generating 628 Watt during discharging? If yes, how long does it take to charge and discharge the "battery"? - Watt * Seconds / 3600 = Watthour. Stored energy of about 700 Watthour seems to much... Thank you for your answer and keep your great work up and the KZread channel up!

@cmdr_scotty

24 күн бұрын

Was about to ask this as well, how long does it discharge vs charge. Having something put out 600 watts is nice an all but if it only lasts for a few seconds, that's not really much usable power

@xd-qi6ry

24 күн бұрын

He said tripple before so i’m assuming 1:3

@heckyes

24 күн бұрын

Hrm, no response yet. Not a good sign.

@cmh-re

24 күн бұрын

exactly that.

@snakes8323

24 күн бұрын

Must be ~4Wh on output. ~4.5 second for ~4cm of tube...

I think that's a pretty cool idea. I thought that it was gonna struggle to pull the plungers up until I remembered that atmospheric pressure is constant for a given altitude

Very cool project. The design gets cool points. A few suggestions: To cut down on frictional losses, 1 vacuum chamber with a diameter optimized for ideal torque. And something to better stabilize the plungers as it looks like they are crooked in their cylinders which will reduce efficiency.

Neat but dude come on, just use a spring! ... it's basically already working as one and you are just complicating it with all those rubber seals that will need lubrication and still fail in a couple of thousand cycles. Using a steel spring would be so simple and just as effective.

Nice video. It reminds me of compressed air storage (CAES). It is a shame you didn't calculate the energy capacity in Joules or Watt-hours.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

To clearify how i got to the result you see in the video: To charge: ~12.08V x ~1.62A x 43.709 seconds = 860,64 Watt After a discharge: ~9.42V x ~1.15A x 57.993 seconds = 628,24 Watt All value's are measured by the Arduino Nano in combination with the INA3221 Power module.

@user-il7xt9ml2q

22 күн бұрын

Thanks for the clarification. Then your calculation is correct, but the units are the Joules not Watts. Hence why others have commented on that. Again, thanks for an amazing video!

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

I should have paid more attention indeed! In the future I will double check everything before uploading a project🤓

Very interesting project even and if it lacks potential the main thing is that you tried and did. Very good work on the design of the print parts

This is the first time watching your content. It's great! I subscribed immediately. Do you have technical videos too? For example, a detailed video on the arduino in this project. If not, that would be awesome too

No offense, but measuring energy in watts is a bit cursed 💀

@kiraPh1234k

19 күн бұрын

It's not measured in Watts. He said Watts, he meant Joules. We're all going to be fine 😂

@JohnDoe-ej3wp

17 күн бұрын

It's fine. He's measuring the power in and out. Energy is going to have a linear relationship to that. It's the same as when people talk about their weight in kg. We understand what it means.

@yertzar775

17 күн бұрын

@@JohnDoe-ej3wp Yes and no. Depends if he is measuring stuff for the same duration. But yeah, it's just a physics thing. He is actually measuring Joules, just said it was watts

@TheAshYam

15 күн бұрын

Its the most efficient way if doing it. Wdym lmao. You cant find current without both volts and amps. You can convert your current to whatever you want, 1000000 volts or 3 volts. The only important part is the wattage. Its just amps X volts.

@yertzar775

14 күн бұрын

@@TheAshYam Not really. The important part here was Joules because he wanted to know the efficiency of the battery. Watts is useful to calculate Joules. The main issue was the nomenclature because he ended up calculating Joules, but called them watts

it's super freaking cool, with a little bit of decoration this could be a functioning sci-fi power cell

@Chevifier

19 күн бұрын

Whats funny is that it basically alreay looks like a power cell. Imagine a charge station were you just plug in the button and theres a motor to pull them up creating the vacuum lol. In a sifi setting it wouldd charge in seconds but take a while to run back out based on application.

a neat idea I seen was someone use was sand to gen power. because it can flow like water when being poured so they used it to spin a water wheel and an auger screw to lift the sand up into a holding tank. would be neat to see someone make a nice sized one from 3d printed stuff.

I thought the capacity of this system would be around 50 - 100 watts, but 800 - damn!! It have a big potential, and it is relatively small too.

Also just a crazy idea for a gravity battery that could work is turn a whole parking garage into a gravity battery. The roof can be all solar panels. It should be loaded like a spiral column with a car elevator in the middle to load and unload cars. It will double as a space saver too.

@Malakawaka

19 күн бұрын

You'd have to park by day and unpark at night

Given the easy access to the used materials and the easy way to construct it: Yes please for a bigger version! This has so many possibilities and just the reduced need of special materials makes this a very cost effective way. I love your creative engineering!

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

Thank you for your compliment👌 and I'm glad you enjoyed the video! This result has made me itch to start working on a large version.. So there is a good chance that this will happen in the future!🤓

@dwiss2556

25 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreations I am an engineer myself and too many of our projects are only looking at high-end solutions, that cost a fortune to build. If we really want to enable others with less financial abilities to be part of this transition, we desperately need solutions like the ones you show.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

25 күн бұрын

That's one of the main reasons i wanted to try this approach. To get new results, you sometimes have to try new things! And i always think that if you don't try, you won't know! Right?

Would be interesting to build a gravity machine using weights that has nearly the same power output as your contraption, to see if you are saving space. If your build produces the same energy but is 10x smaller, that definitely makes it worth looking into! Especially considering the volume to surface area ratio.

Awesome video and very clear explanations, thanks! I would bet you're losing some efficiency due to friction inside the cylinders, but you have still obtained an excellent result. Please keep the great content flowing!

Watts, or Watt/seconds ? I assume W/s as the gearmotors are not very big and the charging time was quite long.

@StefanReich

24 күн бұрын

Watt per second is not a thing

@1kreature

24 күн бұрын

@@StefanReich You are right. The correct notation is either Ws W*s or W-s depending on the nomenclature. Point is still, we need a measurement of energy not power.

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

To clearify how i got to the result you see in the video: To charge: ~12.08V x ~1.62A x 43.709 seconds = 860,64 Watt After a discharge: ~9.42V x ~1.15A x 57.993 seconds = 628,24 Watt All value's are measured by the Arduino Nano in combination with the INA3221 Power module.

@StefanReich

22 күн бұрын

@@ConceptCraftedCreationsYour unit is Ws then (Watt seconds). 860 Ws vs 628 Ws

@ConceptCraftedCreations

22 күн бұрын

Indeed! Or.. because 1 Watt scond is equal to 1 joule: 860 joule vs 628 joule

better seals made 2 handle that pressure, build a plate to hold all the plungers and run a single cable. Interesting idea , worth a look

Very impressive. I wonder if a version of it might be possible using the temperature difference between day and night, specially during the hot summer.

wow, this is amazing project, I can only imagine the amount of time for building and testing it all

Are you Dutch?

@nefarious_blue

14 күн бұрын

Dacht het zelfde 😂 lekker Nederlands ge-Engelst

@kaiperdaens7670

14 күн бұрын

@@nefarious_blue Ja.

@matthewgriffiths9642

14 күн бұрын

He’s 100% listen those dulcet tones he’s gargling

@kaiperdaens7670

14 күн бұрын

@@matthewgriffiths9642 Fr.

i think considering you were using less expensive materials for this project the efficiency might change if you were able to use more exotic/higher quality materials really cool experiment & I'm glad you share it with the world

is that a serpentine belt i saw? this is a cool project man! didn't expect to see a powerful vacuum seal today but here i am lol.

Really impressed you get something over 50% efficiency on this small scale

I think that's a well executed concept build.

That was a really neat project and a damn well made video. Right on man.

Great video! Cool concept! Getting creative and testing out is great even in light of limitations.

you made a tutorial with no precedent. The didactic value of your work is as great as the mashine you made. Thank you so much for this video!

Nice build and good energy. Rather than making a bigger one, try something like a flywheel battery. Thanks for sharing 👍🏼

Awesome channel! loved the video. my only tip is regarding the video style: i would like to see the batery being used to power something in the end right before the numbers of efficiency, it helps with the story-telling if you have a "final results"/resolution part in the final edit :) keep the good work!

@ConceptCraftedCreations

14 күн бұрын

Thanks for the feedback👌 I will definetly keep that in mind for the next video!

I seem to remember a clock from over a 100 years ago that had one of these. It’s still running.

very well executed. I am nicely surprised by how well it worked, especially on the first try, wow!

before I watched this video but after reading the title I had an idea of small piezo generators that react to changes in atmosphere pressure and seeing the preview I thought about chambers with different pressure in them to make this all work on any height

Great attempt. One important thing to note is that when a load is connected to the motor the force required to to overcome inertia will be significantly more than when no load is connected. You measured the force required with no load on the motor.

Hello, Your work is so good keep going I want to check when you compared the efficency did you compare the power efficency or energy storage efficency Best

First of all, great job. I'd like to see this system with all 8 tubes at at least 1m in length. 😎

Man, I'm just impressed with the 73% energy return, I figured with the friction that the seals and belts have to deal with it'd be more like

What a cool project! I would love to see a Pressure tank storage instead of a vacuum one. Exploring more aspects like the importance of the lubricant in the tubes, the power efficiency of the motors (the difference between a brushless motor, the impact of gear reduction in efficiency, and so on.) In the future, maybe explore some thermal advantages, for example: we know that when some gases get colder, they have the tendency of occupying less space, so, if you “charge” the vacum battery in the sun, then wait for it to cool off, would it have some impact on efficiency? (Black tubes would be necessary, but i think you got the idea). Definitely deserves some follow ups on this, could turn into a series, just like the 3D printed Air Motor from Tom Stanton.

It is an interesting idea, you are brave to stand next to it while charging, lol. Good job. That was some hardcore calculating.

This is brilliant. With a couple mods you can add hand crank to charge it up.

I've always dabbled in pico hydro & aero turbine for energy generation. This concept is entirely new for me (but yeah... Efficiency will need a lot of work). Thanks!

great work so far! you should also graph, lifespan, energy density, cost per kilowatt of storage and then you would have a better idea of wear your headed, its worth noting that a prototype is probably significantly worse than it could be with upgrades

Impressive mechanical engineering! And awesome test setups

I have always been interested in gravity energy storage. This was a fascinating concept and design. At 73% and being a prototype only.. there is always a lot of room for improvement. Especially with a team of engineers. On that note. This holds good potential. Thank you for the video!

Love it, is there away to get the plan's for this to test it in different ways

wow that's a lot of work, now do one with metal springs

what about pulling up a heavy puck outside the tube so less resistance and then dropping it down a tight fit tube. would the pressure be similar?

I'm new here, first vid. If you're gonna make a second version, make it to the dimensions of current solar batteries. This version has the tubes in a circle to make many things more convenient, but a real consumer version might still look like a big box. Could hold 200 of those tubes in theory. I wish I had more advice to share regarding improving efficiency, because I'm so very sure there's at least something to improve over 73%. Imma wrack my noggin on this one for sure cause this is an interesting concept I've just learned of. Shits neat 4 sure.

For long term storage excellent seals will be needed. How long did you let the system stay at full charge?

There's a few things I think It would be worth testing: - Scaling up from 8 to 16 tubes and seeing if you get double or more than double the energy storage - longevity testing - how many charge/discharge cycles can you get before the rubber seals wear out and then you can calculate the ongoing cost to maintain this type of battery - there are applications where longevity and weight matter more than size - if this design can be made in a manner that a few pieces of rubber can be swapped out in an hour for n thousand charge/discharge cycles then it could be quite cost effective against chemical batteries in high cycle applications

Intriguing and great job bringing your idea to a working model. Would have liked to have seen it power something, Even if for just a few seconds.

Erik, I have an idea for electricity generation using the gravity model. Basically a house that floats in its own Dock. The tides lift the house and then the house through some kind of gearbox/generator acts as stored potential energy until the tide comes back in, alternatively the Dock could be pumped with water to float the house then a series of houses on a hill use the same water to float meaning you could float several houses only needing to pump the water to the top of the hill. I need help developing this

Pretty cool and I think definitely work messing with. My largest concern is leakage and maintenance to this type of system. I'm never heard of pumped hydro but what if you used a series of mirrors to heat water to steam to fill a vessel then use gravity to generate power with pumps?

Tray too optimize it with a gearbox with a coupling and a Movement lock for the switch of the gearbox😊

This is an excellent concept and I wonder if it could be combined with gravity gravity storage you know like having the Pistons also be weights

Very cool concept. Disregarding the issue of efficiency/size or using compressed gas instead of a vacuum, which several people have already mentioned in the comments, I was curious to know how many charge/discharge cycles this system can withstand before it starts to lose efficiency due to atmosphere leakage.