Simple answer
The nice thing about this problem is that you don't need to know how osmosis or
reverse osmosis work at the molecular level. The given information is enough.
The deception is partly in the wording of the problem, and the description that
supposes that you lower the tube already filled with fresh water. If the tube
were filled with water up to the ocean surface, the pressure difference across
the plug would be much too small to initiate reverse osmosis.
To initiate reverse osmosis the
pressure across the membrane or
semi-permeable
plug
must
be
approximately 20 atm. The pressure
at a depth of 200 meters below sea
level is about 20 atmospheres
greater than atmospheric pressure.
These approximate values will
serve our present purposes.
So, to initiate reverse osmosis
across the membrane, the fresh
water in the tube must be at least
200 meters lower than the surface
of water outside the tube, to have
a
20
atmosphere
pressure
difference across the membrane.
This is true no matter how long
the tube is or how deep it goes
into the ocean. End of story. The
idea will not work. It's that
simple.
What's amazing is how easily
people become distracted by irrelevant considerations, water salinity,
stratification of salinity density, engineering difficulties of making a long
pipe, necessity of cleaning the filter membrane, economic considerations,
storms at sea, etc. etc. They are so obsessed with what they see as "practical"
considerations that they are blinded to the simple logical flaw that really
does make the idea unworkable. For an example of this, see: a web discussion.
Hearing these people talking all around the issue as if they knew something
about it, and then still missing the point, is quite instructive. Go to any of
the internet discussion groups devoted to perpetual motion and you will see the
same sort of uninformed pseudo-profundity in abundance.
But still, one must be careful of the assumptions used to reach a conclusion.
In this case we assumed that the density of fresh and salt water were the same.
That's actually not true. Does it matter?
Details
Of course, consideration of the details can be interesting in itself. So here's
more about this classic problem.
Figure A illustrates what the optimist hopes will happen. The tube has a
permeable plug (red) at the bottom, lowered to a depth at which the
pressure of the ocean is sufficient to make reverse osmosis happen. Fresh
gushes from the top of the tube, turning a small waterwheel, W. Figures
and D illustrate what really happens.
semiwater
water
B, C,
Fig. B. The tube does not reach to sufficient depth. Nothing happens.
If we lower the tube with the semi-permeable plug to a depth of H = 200 meter
where the water pressure outside the bottom of the tube is 21 atmospheres. But
the pressure inside the tube is only 1 atm. The pressure across the porous plug
is 20 atmospheres. Still, nothing happens, for any water through the plug would
create pressure above and stop the process.
Fig. C. Now suppose we lower the semi-permeable plug to greater depths. At a
depth of 300 meter the pressure difference across the semi-permeable plug is
initially 30 atmospheres, more than enough for reverse osmosis. Pure water
rises inside the tube, and this column of water exerts pressure on the top of
the plug, so the pressure difference across the plug gets smaller and smaller
as the water inside the tube rises. The water inside the tube rises until it is
100 meter above the porous plug and exerts an 11 atmospheres pressure on the
top of the plug. The pressure difference across the porous plug is 31-11 = 20
atmospheres. Reverse osmosis stops. The water level inside the tube is 200
meters below sea level. Not good enough.
Fig D. Now lower the plug to a depth of H+Y = 400 meter. The ocean pressure at
this depth is 41 atmospheres. The pressure on the top of the plug is initially
1 atmospheres. Pure water rises inside the tube until it exerts a pressure of
21 atmospheres on the plug. The pressure difference across the plug is only 4121 = 20 atmospheres again. Reverse osmosis now stops. The fresh water inside
the tube has not reached sea level, in fact it is again 200 meters below sea
level.
That 1 atmospheres pressure goes along for the ride in the calculations above,
since it affects pressure on both sides of the plug equally. I was tempted to
leave it out, but then someone might think that its omission made a difference
in the results. It doesn't.
An easier way to see this is to note that there must be a minimum of
20 atmospheres pressure difference across the plug. So, when static
equilibrium is reached, at any depth, the liquid inside the tube must
exert on the plug 20 atmospheres lower pressure than does the water
outside. Therefore the top of the water column inside the tube must
be 200 meters lower than sea level, since a 200 meter high column of
water exerts a pressure of 20 atmospheres.
So no matter how deep you lower the porous plug, the water inside will rise
only to a height where it is 200 meters below sea level, then stop. Our hopes
of infinite energy and unlimited fresh water are dashed.
Some may quibble that we haven't taken into account the 2.5% difference in
densities of salt and seawater. Or some may note that we haven't considered
changes in salinity with depth, or some other detail. We explore that objection
in the next section.
Thanks to Roy Havenhill for useful and perceptive comments and suggestions for
improvement of this document.
fresh water inside the tube is 2.5% longer than I calculated above.
So when the porous plug is 40 meter below the surface, the water
inside is not 200 meters below the surface, but 200 - 200(0.025) =
0.975(200) = 195 meters. So for every additional 200 meters we lower
the porous plug, we get the fresh water 0.5 meters closer to the
surface. 200/5 = 40, and if we lower the plug to (40+1)(200) = 8200
meters = 8.2 km, the fresh water level inside the tube would be at
sea level. Lower the pipe and plug still more and you'd have the
fresh water surface above sea level and could then let it overflow to
produce fresh water and useful work for free.
The greatest depth in the ocean, the Marianas trench, is about 11 km, so ocean
depth isn't a limitation!
Can we then use this to create a cyclic perpetually sustained process from
which we can extract energy and fresh water? We suspect this analysis can't be
right. As I've said elsewhere on these pages, the basic and well-tested laws of
nature, like Newton's laws, conservation laws, and laws of thermodynamics
crucially depend on an even more fundamental law, the principle of Perpetuum
immobile, or "Nature abhors perpetual motion." (Nature cannot produce
perpetual motion.) Whenever our analysis of a physical system concludes that it
might allow perpetual motion or over-unity performance, then we know that we
should look for one of the following errors in our analysis:
We
We
We
We
We
We
or
This can be a powerful approach for clearing our thinking about puzzling
devices.
But here I must still leave this one remaining problem to the readers, for I
havn't a good answer to this messy problem.
[Dec 18, 2007] A note to those who have been knocking this problem around on
a message board recently. I am fully aware that this device is not perpetual
motion, and certainly isn't an "over-unity" device, for I'm convinced that such
devices are not possible in nature. Why is this puzzle here at all? Because
when Derek Christie in New Zealand directed my attention to it in Scientific
American I realized that, as it was presented there, it was a clever deception,
and certainly qualified as "unworkable". But, when you take into account the
density differences between salt and fresh water, and make the pipe long
enough, it seems that it could "pump" water continually, so it becomes a bit
perplexing. The analysis in Scientific American seemed incomplete and
unsatisfactory to me.
Frankly I was sorry I got into this, for I don't care for such messy problems.
They can become an obsession. So I've left it alone, suspecting that there's
some simple resolution that I'm not seeing because I'm looking in the wrong
place or using an inappropriate approach. I was hoping someone else might "see
it".
Now our reverse osmosis tube is different. The salt is removed physically
by the plug within the system, and there's energy required to do that
removal, which has to come from somewhere in the system.
Before one gets excited about the practical possibilities of getting
useful work for free from this device, consider this fact derivable
from thermodynamics: "0.66 kcal / liter is the minimum energy required
for desalination of one liter of seawater, regardless of the
technology applied to the process..." This calculation assumes a
reversible process and perfect efficiency. "Practical desalination
systems are never fully reversible and there are energy losses that
are due to unavoidable irreversible contributions. These losses, that
depend on the water recovery ratio, increase the energy [required for]
desalination above the reversible thermodynamic limit." These quotes
are from Energy of Seawater Desalination by Uri Lachish. Note: 0.66
kilocalorie/liter is 0.767 kilowatt-hr/m3 . But the best reverse
osmosis desalination systems are far less efficient than the
thermodyamic ideal, requiring more like 5 kilowatt-hour/m3 .
Then there's the little overlooked matter of what happens at the top. If
the fresh water did rise a bit above the ocean surface, and was
redirected over to the salt water tube, that fresh water would gradually
decrease the salinity in the salt water tube. As one correspondent
suggests, this might continue until all the water in the system was fresh.
How long might that take? But if we are using a closed system isolated
from outside energy sources, we must ask, "Where did the energy come from
to maintain flow?" I am confident this scenario will not happen, for it
ignores the large continual energy loss as water flows through the porous
plug.
Indeed, I'm convinced that it is energy loss of water forced through the plug
that dooms this device to failure. Construct a sufficiently long U-tube with
porous plug at the bottom, and fill it with salt water on one side and fresh
water on the other. Now these columns of water would be in static equilibrium
with the fresh water higher than the salt water by 2.5%. That is the simple
fact that seduced us into this mess.
But could that same result be obtained if the fresh water side were initially
empty and then allowed to fill from pressure difference and reverse osmosis?
The two cases are not the same energetically. In the static case we didn't lose
energy dissociating salt from water. Also, the static case did not lose energy
as water is forced through the porous plug. For both of these reasons the
height on the fresh water side would end up lower than on the salt water side.
And extra pipe length won't help.
(slowly) into the ocean. In the process it displaces its own volume of
seawater. Due to the buoyancy of the empty tube, you must do work on the tube
as you lower it. This is because the tube pushes salt water aside and therefore
raises the level of the ocean ever so slightly. When the tube is at the
required depth, open the cap and let the reverse osmosis begin. Fresh water
rises in the tube until flow stops. Now let's compare the energy of the initial
and final states. The tube system (tube and ocean) had initial potential energy
equal to the work you did when lowering it. At the end, the ocean energy has
lowered slightly, but the fresh water column gains potential energy as it
rises. But the water inside is fresh, and the salt that was in that volume of
water has been left outside the bottom of the tube. It has lower potential
energy than when that salt was distributed from that depth up to the ocean
surface. When you sum the energies before and after you get zero, assuming an
idealized reverse osmosis process (which is never even closely achieved in
practice.)
A kind reader, Glen Robinson, has done the work I was too lazy to do, and I
quote his email in full.
Hi Donald,
Ie enjoyed reading your Museum of Unworkable Devices. Having read
the Reverse Osmosis problem, it appears that you didn end up with a
solid reason (or at least one that you were satisfied with) as to why
it wouldn work when the 2.5% density difference is taken into
account.
The answer is that theoretically, it would work as described, however
not on earth. The minimum hydrostatic pressure needed to separate out
the salt is 27.8bar (2.82MPaassuming that the temperature at the
deepest part of the ocean is 3). Using this figure instead of 20
bar, the minimum depth required is 11,502m, approximately 500m deeper
than the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench. At this exact depth,
the flow rate through the membrane would slow to zero at the point
that the fresh water made it back to the surface, requiring that a
orkable system (one where there was reasonable flow) would need to
be quite a bit deeper.
That said, the theory is soundthe energy in the system comes from
the potential energy difference between having the mass of the salt
at the top of the ocean to the bottom of the ocean. 25kg of salt (the
difference in mass between 1m3 of salt and fresh water) moved 11502m
can supply 2.82MJ which exactly matches the work needed to push a
1m2 piston a distance of 1m (hence moving 1m3 of water) through a 1m2
membrane requiring a pressure of 2.82MPa. Additionally, the system
wouldn need to have much excess pressure (as it does in commercial
reverse osmosis systems), since the salt wouldn concentrate around
the membrane during the process (increasing concentration increases
the force needed to separate it) as the salt it would diffuse back
into the surrounding salt water.
The depth issue can potentially be overcome in two ways: one, adding
pressure to the salt side, or two, removing pressure from the fresh
side.