Would have loved to see it charge something.

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.

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).

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

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.

This.

yeah, but the problem is still energy density

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

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.

@@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.

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!

@@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.

@@picklesdill5462 It needs to be airtight over extended periods

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.😊

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

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!😊

​@@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.

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.

@@court2379 Good breakdown and accurate afaik.

​ @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 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.

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

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

@@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.

@@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

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

Nope. Friction is independent of area of contact.

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 ;)

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.

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!

@@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

@@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?

@@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.

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

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

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

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!👌

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.

Thanks mate! Appreciate it👌

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

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.

@@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

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.

@@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

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👌

@@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?

@@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.

This Batteries are a hell of a drug

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 miss him tbh 😢 I hope he's doing ok

@@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

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

Awww. I'm sad now.

Been wondering what happened. Poor guy.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

@@raphaelsampaio7172 It would also strongly want to float

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 :)

​@@smoketatum6730One way valves and a crankshaft?

@@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

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

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

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

Hrm, no response yet. Not a good sign.

exactly that.

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

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.

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!

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

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

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!🤓

@@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.

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?

Watt per second is not a thing

@@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.

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.

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

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

Dacht het zelfde 😂 lekker Nederlands ge-Engelst

@@nefarious_blue Ja.

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

@@matthewgriffiths9642 Fr.

I agree with that indeed! But it was worth a try, right?🤓

Thanks man! Really appreciate it👌Started this channel not so long ago and I'm still looking for the right combination of what I want and what the viewers would like to see, so feedback like this helps a lot!

I'd like to add my design did not use seals as I immediately recognised that it would be a major weak point never mind efficiency losses due to friction.

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