Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths

A high pressure flowing stream through a small orifice (like a turbine) creates no kinetic energy? You cannot be that stubborn. A simple garden hose is a high pressure flowing stream that can be used to generate electricity.
I am confused.
Can you put the whole system in a thought bubble and tell us all what the net energy gain would be if no renewable's were utilized at the surface?

No, I didn't. Your crazy-straw logic might have made you think I did - but I did not.
I assumed you would not stray from the subject of "deep water pressure".
Then why did you make a comparison to it?
I have only talked about high pressure flow. That's the entire foundation of my system description. Using the ocean's deep water pressure.
Let's get away from what you imagine and use math.
Now you're talking. How efficient could this system be. I don't have a clue. I'll rely on your knowledge of the science.
Let's say one of these systems has been installed in 500 meters of water. The tank has a volume of 100 cubic meters. The turbine has an efficiency of 80% when used as a water turbine and an efficiency of 80% when used as a pump.
No, let's not restrict ourselves too much. Let's assume the tanks (in series) have a combined sufficient volume to generate 4, 8, 12 hours of electricity at a given depth. I'm sure that can be calculated as part of the system's utility. The rest of the time can be used for pumping the system out and prepare it for the next cycle?
How much energy will you get when you let the tank fill?
Exactly!
How much energy will you need to pump the tank out?
Can you do the math? I can't, I have never studied hydraulics.

As a secondary question. Even if the system has a net loss, but offers an instantaneous night time supply of electricity to supplement say, a solar system which goes dormant at night. But then during the day the surface grid is used to supplement the electricity needed for pumping. i.e. any net loss of the system is offset by its special utility at night?
The system itself does not need to store electricity for pumping. That energy can come from the surface grid, when there is plenty of other renewable electricity available.

As I said, I doubt that the system can be used as a constant supply of electricity. It has an inherently limited periodic utility, but may be useful for special applications?
If someone can do the maths, that would answer all those questions and may even render the entire proposition moot at the onset....

No, let's not restrict ourselves too much. Let's assume the tanks (in series) have a combined sufficient volume to generate 4, 8, 12 hours of electricity at a given depth.
No. There are a dozen variables that go into how much energy you need for that. Let's stick to the simplest possible example, which I gave you. Once you understand that, we can branch out into utility interaction.
As a secondary question. Even if the system has a net loss, but offers an instantaneous night time supply of electricity to supplement say, a solar system which goes dormant at night. But then during the day the surface grid is used to supplement the electricity needed for pumping. i.e. any net loss of the system is offset by its special utility at night?
You are asking if the system is still useful if all it does is produce energy for a short time, even if you need to provide it with more energy later?

Answer - YES. That is what storage is. That is what I, and the author, and the inventor, and everyone else, has been trying to tell you for about a hundred posts now.
If someone can do the maths, that would answer all those questions and may even render the entire proposition moot at the onset.
Why don't you do the math, so that in the future you will understand systems like this better?

Answer - YES. That is what storage is. That is what I, and the author, and the inventor, and everyone else, has been trying to tell you for about a hundred posts now.
Nothing gets stored, all electricity is fed to the surface grid and used. Any future electricity need for pumping comes from surface generated electricity. So there is no storage needed as long as there is active electricity production by one or the other electricity generation system.

Storage creates loss. Let's avoid the added cost of storage and deal with raw production data.

Nothing gets stored
So prove it. Show us the math.
Let's avoid the added cost of storage and deal with raw production data.
Great. Show us the math.

So prove it. Show us the math.

Great. Show us the math.
Why? I'm satisfied that at last you understand what I was talking about. I won't waste any more time on this. It is inconsequential to me......

Why? I'm satisfied that at last you understand what I was talking about. I won't waste any more time on this. It is inconsequential to me......
So you cannot explain what you were talking about. I accept your concession.

Let's move on to your next misunderstanding!

I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated my understanding of the illustration. This is not an matter of winning or losing. My quest is only for gaining "understanding".

Last edited:
I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated my understanding of the illustration.
If you can't do the math, you don't understand it. It's like an engineer who claims he knows how to design power electronics, but can't do the math to actually design anything.
My quest is only for gaining "understanding".
Great! Do the math. You might understand the problem a little better.

I am confused.
Can you put the whole system in a thought bubble and tell us all what the net energy gain would be if no renewable's were utilized at the surface?
You're right, surface electricity will have to be used in the pumping out process. Question is what is the net result and what may be the advantage if any under some circumstances. A submarine biodome?

You're right, surface electricity will have to be used in the pumping out process. Question is what is the net result and what may be the advantage if any under some circumstances. A submarine biodome?
As part of my math avoidance strategy (lol) I observe that at the moment, this system you are referring to has not been implemented after 17 years since publication.
The laws of capitalism state (re: The Ferengi in Star trek) that if the system was viable it would have been implemented or developed further. It has not and there appears to be no plan to do so.

So the system must not have the outcome wished for, expected or promised. It is simply not profitable in money and energy.
However as a thought experiment it has value and as a way of learning about investing ( emotional money) in something that seems to provide a profit when it doesn't.
I believe the key benefit of this system is to expose the reality that we have a vast resource available to us in the form of a never ending deep ocean compressor if only we are clever enough to capitalize on it.
If only understanding this factor is achieved the whole exercise has proved quite valuable IMO.

BTW. I have found no evidence that it was or is a scam.

Edit: Once this COVID-19 scare has passed I might actually attempt to get in touch with the research company, if it still exists and offer the VVSS system for their review and potential investment...

Potential energy can indeed be harvested from ocean depths but only to the value of displacement.

Edit: Once this COVID-19 scare has passed I might actually attempt to get in touch with the research company, if it still exists and offer the VVSS system for their review and potential investment...
I'll look forward to your report.

A pump would in theory use Q g dh =P power . Q [kg/s] , g=9.81m/s^2 , dh elevation or pressure in [m].
For 200 bar 1 m^3/s you need to pump 1000kg*9.81m/s^2*2000m=19.6 MW=26000 hp.
The energy of the trapped air is (rho)g h=1000kg/m^3 *9.81m/s^2*2000m =19.6MJ/s = 19.6MW
You gain only losses to pay for, only free water at sea is to wait tide to come in on submerged tank.
At dh 5m 1000l you get 500l 0,5 bar =>24.5kJ 6.8 Wh (your electrical bill is in kWh:s

Ample resource
No waste product

Average depth of the oceans is about 3600 meters
At this depth the pressure is 36000kPa (360 atm or 5263 psi)

What could you do with an endless supply of 36000 kPa?

Extracting pressure using appropriate two chamber systems seems too easy...
Why haven't we?
i think harvesting real energy need further studying on fields. if we learn to manipulate field perhaps can harvest pressure from oceans and gravity......eg. if we consider gravity an constant velocity field. create a machine which harvest potential.Lol....

i think harvesting real energy need further studying on fields. if we learn to manipulate field perhaps can harvest pressure from oceans and gravity......eg. if we consider gravity an constant velocity field. create a machine which harvest potential.Lol....
I agree...
I can easily imagine that one day we may find a certain metal or crystal or combination etc. that can be dropped to the ocean floor and produce electricity due to the pressure being exerted.
The purpose of this thread was to highlight the potential.
When researching
PiezoElectric crystals are quartz and tourmaline and rochells salt. The Crystal has a hexagonal shape with at both ends. It has three axis, there are Optical Axis and Electrical Axis and Mechanical Axis. When a pressure or mechanical force is applied along the piezo electric crystals, then it Produce the electricity...

then consider that there is always present a small but consistent vibration at depth from the water molecules... etc. Perhaps a material not unlike a solar cell, could be developed that can effectively capitalize on this inherent dynamic environment.

A pump would in theory use Q g dh =P power . Q [kg/s] , g=9.81m/s^2 , dh elevation or pressure in [m].
For 200 bar 1 m^3/s you need to pump 1000kg*9.81m/s^2*2000m=19.6 MW=26000 hp.
The energy of the trapped air is (rho)g h=1000kg/m^3 *9.81m/s^2*2000m =19.6MJ/s = 19.6MW
You gain only losses to pay for, only free water at sea is to wait tide to come in on submerged tank.
At dh 5m 1000l you get 500l 0,5 bar =>24.5kJ 6.8 Wh (your electrical bill is in kWh:s
yes I came to a similar less informed conclusion. (if I read you right)
The volume of uncompressed air would need to be massive to achieve any significant result upon compression at depth.
Return on investment would be minuscule and not practicable.
However once the principle is more recognized there is a possibility that at some time in the future a more efficient method of potential energy harvesting from depths will be developed.

Last edited:
I agree...
I can easily imagine that one day we may find a certain metal or crystal or combination etc. that can be dropped to the ocean floor and produce electricity due to the pressure being exerted.
Nope. If that was true, you could put a piezoelectric crystal in a vice and get free energy forever. That violates the first law of thermodynamics.
then consider that there is always present a small but consistent vibration at depth from the water molecules.
That's Brownian motion. Perpetual motion machines that harvest Brownian motion violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Nope. If that was true, you could put a piezoelectric crystal in a vice and get free energy forever. That violates the first law of thermodynamics.

That's Brownian motion. Perpetual motion machines that harvest Brownian motion violate the second law of thermodynamics.
I wasn't referring to Brownian motion I was referring to a more nuclear variety.
Water molecules vibrate ( temperature) . This vibration could possibly be capitalized upon making use of some sort of Piezo effect.
Even an object held in a vice is vibrating...to not do so would indeed violate the laws of thermodynamics...

I wasn't referring to Brownian motion I was referring to a more nuclear variety.
Water molecules vibrate ( temperature) .
That is Brownian motion.