[eraser2005]

Biker is right. It's not perpetual motion

That's right - he's not claiming perpetual motion. Perpetual motion is child's play compared to what he is claiming.

Here is the problem in basic physics. Held up at an altitude of 100 meters, 1 kg of water has 981 Joules of potential energy. When that water falls, you can only capture a max of 981 Joules unless you convert mass to energy. Let's say your turbine is 90% efficient. So you only capture 883 Joules.

Now lets pump the water back uphill. To do so, you need to use 981 Joules (laws of physics), and that is assuming your pump is 100% efficient. Say you've got a spectacular pump that is 90% efficient. Then you need to put in 1090 Joules of energy into the pump to get it to do 981 Joules of work.

So all in all, you've put in 1090 Joules and got out 883 Joules. You're down 207 Joules. In other words, it has taken more energy to run the system than you get out. Perpetual motion would require 0 input. Biker is saying there is a net output, which would require efficiencies better than 100%, which is absolutely impossible.

The ONLY way to get energy out is to have the discharge of the system at a lower altitude than the intake. That is how dams work.

[gleeaikin]

Regarding an important step left out.

Perhaps these mines are very deep, so the fall between the multiple generators can utilize the energy of gravity to maximize the energy when it hits the generators. What do you think?