0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"If energy cant be created, then how does buoyancy work?" Free kinetic & potential energy?
"If energy cant be destroyed, then why are things not 100% efficient?" Where is the rest of the energy going?
Sunlight turns water to oxygen and hydrogen, these are then burned across a gas turbine to give HP steam, through turbines and condensed within the reservoir of water that is then fed to the hydrolysis cell. Power from turbines used to pressurise the gasses and a self contained heat engine to take heat from the water to the gasses. Considered within a single 'box' with only a section exposed to sunlight.Mechanical losses, we call.. BUT.. if its all self contained.. Where does that energy go? if through heat it would be contained within the system. and anything this puts out could be turned to energy in one way or another.. (such as any extraneous kinetics from the turbines)
Waste heat is one of the biggest problems when it comes to efficiency
Carnot Efficiency does not seem to apply to a closed system in which the hot and cold body are in fact the same process media in different states. The hot and cold body are in relative terms which we can manipulate with small applications of technology. All we can come up with is that the energy required to achieve the manipulations MUST increase.. however since there are no losses why is this so? the water might get too hot, in this case we could remove energy through power generation.. (free energy - impossible) the water might get too cold, but where does that energy go?
My fear is that energy is not limitless..and the more we leech out of the earth's systems the less there will be? Is there any data about climate change and windmills? They MUST have some impact on the weather, however minor.
sailing ships were so successful because they enjoyed more or less continuous uninterrupted power, since the oceans contained no significant obstructions to the wind.
55% thermal efficiency for an IC engine is not hypothetical, the largest ships Diesels can just about reach this figure.
In regards to perpetual motion machines, I'd like to point out that there are three types. Two are forbidden by the laws of physics and one is not.
Sailing ships were "successful" because there was buggerall else around until the advent of steam, whereupon they all disappeared in a few years.
These ships were able to sail into the wind almost as fast as they could sail with the wind behind them. My question is how does this happen ? Take that same ship out of the water put it on castors that can turn 360 degrees in any direction, and create an artificial wind in front of it, what will happen, it will move backwards sideways, but never, ever under any circumstances forwards.
generation of bubbles underwater...seem to give rise to free energy
You can't use atmospheric pressure as a source of energy except by allowing air to flow in and out of a box, rather like the tide, as the weather changes - not terribly useful, though some clocks can be driven by their associated barometer. Atmospheric railways and lifts use a conventional engine to suck or blow: the air is a storage and transfer medium for the power of the engine
If you are looking for efficiency, try electromagnetism, as electric motors can often achieve efficiencies of around 90%, twice that of very good heat engines. Better yet, if you want high efficiency, avoid motion of any kind, as that wastes energy through friction and turbulence
Still you are wrong when you say that atmospheric pressure cannot be considered a source of energy:.....the Newcomen atmospheric engine.
Returned to steam 1976
Quotegeneration of bubbles underwater...seem to give rise to free energyIt is true that bubbles rising through a water column could turn a water-wheel and generate power, such as is done in the common ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN.However, pumping the air down under the water consumes all of the energy you could capture as the bubbles rise to the surface. Actually most of the energy from the bubbles rising to the surface is lost in friction and turbulence.
But the "continuous 10 kW" in your example still comes from the prime mover, and it isn't continuous.
What if the bubble forms underwater.. as in a submerged PV cell.. the cell splits the water by hydrolysis causing bubbles to form on the surface, when the bubble gets to a certain size it will float to the surface.. does it get to the surface at a lower temperature than the water? does it cool the water by gaining energy? I cant see how the PV cell gives it any energy rather than that which was needed to split the molecule. So where does this energy come from?
I don't know this with any certainty (as I cannot seem to find a reference to it elsewhere online), but I suspect that electrolysis of water that is at high pressure requires more energy than low pressure. Imagine that in order to do electrolysis, you must pull the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atom far away enough from each other that they are essentially no longer bound.
the volume evacuated by the vacuum device should not increase over a certain limit.
You need to review the difference between power and energy in order to understand the vacuum elevator and the flaws in your thinking.
Think of jacking up a car. You expend a few watts for several minutes and end up with a one ton vehicle a meter off the ground - 10 kJ of potential energy. Now if you tie the car to a dynamo and let it drop under gravity it could deliver 10 kW for 1 second, or 1W for almost 3 hours.
Think of the piston and the counterweight as two weights suspended by a pulley, now surely if there is a discrepancy in weight, the rate at the which the heavier load descends would be dictated solely by the acceleration due to gravity and the height from which it is descending from and not how much the lesser weight weighs.
A word of friendly advice: if you do invent or discover a machine that produces more energy than it consumes, don't publicise it here or anywhere. You won't be able to patent it, but just go into production - using your money, not mine!
if sunlight and wind work [to produce energy], why shouldn’t gravity and atmospheric pressure?
Reading such beautifully written posts brings on nostalgia ! Still you are wrong when you say that atmospheric pressure cannot be considered a source of energy:
Hi Alancalverd,Here is an update. I wrote to one of the vacuum elevator manufacturers asking how much time in seconds, it takes for the lift cage to start moving after the button is pressed, she replied that it was considerably less than a second. Does this change anything ?
Why burn the coal at all, why not just place it on the piston and see it do its work !
That's a nice animation of the Newcomen engine. It's mode of operation is as I remember it; what the animation does not convey is how slowly it operated.
I am an even stronger believer in the rapid dissipation of energy by vortices in fluids. The Home Grid will need a continuous input of energy (provided in the form of burning coal, for the Newcomen engine) to overcome losses due to friction, viscosity and turbulence.
No. The air brakes on a truck or the vacuum brakes on a train work instantaneously (we hope) when required to do so, but it takes time to charge (or evacuate) the reservoir between applications of the brakes.