The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Homework Help => Topic started by: 12AX7 on October 25, 2009, 01:22:13 PM
-
When water is sprayed, it cools. The reason behind this is the water is broken into many smaller droplets; resulting in much greater total surface area with which to dissipate the heat.
When water is heated; it expands. The reason behind this is the molecules are farther apart. Steam, for example, has to cool before it can condense back into liquid water.
Suppose one could fashion a nozzle which 'sprayed' water with 'drops' exactly one molecule in size. The nature, composition, environment, etc would all be the same except the water molecules would be much farther apart; as they are in steam.
Wouldn't this 'spray', in fact be heated? Would actually be steam? The mechanism generating the heat energy is the energy it takes to move the molecules farther apart; the same as in steam production. This instead uses a different mechanism to spread the molecules; rather than application of heat energy initially, as in steam production.
Is there a known way to mechanically spread molecules in this fashion (devoid of initial heat source)? If so, could this be used to generate relatively cheap(er) energy? ("cold" steam >>> turbines, etc)
-
Also, I wonder why coal-fired power plants remain "coal-fired" after they are up and running and producing electricity. It seems to me that once it is producing electricity, it could use that to heat the water for steam; rather than continue to burn coal. Of course, it would need the coal facility to get up and running, but once that is accomplished, and the electric heaters are online; shut it down. Seems that would be a lot "greener", less wasteful, and just as profitable - perhaps more so eventually.
-
Like a cold mist humidifier?
-
http://www.mainlandmart.com/foggers.html (http://www.mainlandmart.com/foggers.html)
-
Also, I wonder why coal-fired power plants remain "coal-fired" after they are up and running and producing electricity. It seems to me that once it is producing electricity, it could use that to heat the water for steam; rather than continue to burn coal. Of course, it would need the coal facility to get up and running, but once that is accomplished, and the electric heaters are online; shut it down. Seems that would be a lot "greener", less wasteful, and just as profitable - perhaps more so eventually.
What you have described there is a variation of a perpetual motion machine. The problem is, if you get it to work, you will violate the laws of thermodynamics, which no law-abiding being has been able to accomplish.
In a thermoelectric plant, electricity is produced by converting mechanical motion into electricity. The mechanical motion is produced by expanding steam. Steam is produced by heating water. Heat is produced by burning fuel. You are converting the potential energy contained in the fuel into electric energy through those steps. Along the way, you also waste a lot of energy -- mostly because of escaping heat -- so you really end up with less energy than you started out with, but in a more useful form. Now, if you take the resulting energy and try to use it instead of the fuel at the beginning of the chain, you would need more energy than you actually have. You wouldn't be able to heat enough water and make enough steam to keep the system going.
Theoretically, if you create a perfectly closed system with absolutely zero energy waste, you will have a perpetual motion machine of sorts, in which mechanical energy is converted to electricity which is then converted back to mechanical energy and so on and so on. However, all this self-contained machine could do is run itself. If you try to use some of the produced energy in any form -- even light -- you will introduce waste into the system and it will shut down.
-
What you have described there is a variation of a perpetual motion machine. The problem is, if you get it to work, you will violate the laws of thermodynamics, which no law-abiding being has been able to accomplish.
In a thermoelectric plant, electricity is produced by converting mechanical motion into electricity. The mechanical motion is produced by expanding steam. Steam is produced by heating water. Heat is produced by burning fuel. You are converting the potential energy contained in the fuel into electric energy through those steps. Along the way, you also waste a lot of energy -- mostly because of escaping heat -- so you really end up with less energy than you started out with, but in a more useful form. Now, if you take the resulting energy and try to use it instead of the fuel at the beginning of the chain, you would need more energy than you actually have. You wouldn't be able to heat enough water and make enough steam to keep the system going.
Theoretically, if you create a perfectly closed system with absolutely zero energy waste, you will have a perpetual motion machine of sorts, in which mechanical energy is converted to electricity which is then converted back to mechanical energy and so on and so on. However, all this self-contained machine could do is run itself. If you try to use some of the produced energy in any form -- even light -- you will introduce waste into the system and it will shut down.
This is assuming a ‘flat’, unmodified system. 1 gallon of steam expands to X volume; and will ; in current plants, turn X turbines at X revolutions and create X power. Alterations anywhere along the way would change the outcome; some significantly.
Steam can be nozzled differently; producing more force per square inch. Turbines can be geared differently; allowing a smaller input to produce a larger output. The electricity itself can (IS)- after it is generated, be boosted via transformers to a higher voltage (or amperage, depending on the tansformer and use). A coal-fired power plant does not require the same (or more, as you’ve suggested in your theoretical model) energy to operate as it produces; or it would never be able to service homes and industries outside the plant. The power is stepped up greatly before being sent over the transmission lines to distribution stations.
Water can be heated (converted to steam) with electricity, on the same scale as the current coal-fired boilers, and a power plant can certainly produce more than enough electricity to accomplish this. It certainly doesn’t take MORE energy to heat water for steam than it does to supply an entire region with dependable electricity.
-
Well, first I have to remark that if it were possible to self-power a thermoelectric plant, we'd be doing it. Totally. The reason they are not is because it cannot be done.
The reason it cannot be done is because a self-powered plant would be producing "free" energy, and there is no "free" energy. Energy has to come from somewhere.
This is assuming a ‘flat’, unmodified system. 1 gallon of steam expands to X volume; and will ; in current plants, turn X turbines at X revolutions and create X power. Alterations anywhere along the way would change the outcome; some significantly.
Steam can be nozzled differently; producing more force per square inch. Turbines can be geared differently; allowing a smaller input to produce a larger output. The electricity itself can (IS)- after it is generated, be boosted via transformers to a higher voltage (or amperage, depending on the tansformer and use).
You can certainly make a more efficient power plant. But you cannot make a power plant that produces more energy than it consumes.
A coal-fired power plant does not require the same (or more, as you’ve suggested in your theoretical model) energy to operate as it produces; or it would never be able to service homes and industries outside the plant.
Yes, it does. The amount of energy expended is always greater than the amount of energy gleaned. Always. In the case of coal-powered plants, the output is only about 40% of the input. Let's say it takes 1 unit of coal to produce 1 unit of electricity. That 1 unit of electricity has 60% less potential thermal energy that the 1 unit of coal.
What a coal-burning plant does is transform the chemical energy locked up inside coal. You have one type of energy going in, and a much more useful type going out. But there is a net loss in the transaction. A power plant uses more energy than it produces. That is true of every power plant, no matter what kind of energy it consumes in order to produce electricity.
This doesn't really matter to us, because what we're after is the electricity. But it does matter if you want to use electricity to produce more electricity. It can't be done. Or, believe me, we'd do it.
The power is stepped up greatly before being sent over the transmission lines to distribution stations.
You're not gaining any electricity by stepping up the voltage -- you're just pumping more of it into the grid. Like opening a valve in a water main -- you're not creating new water, just putting more into the pipe. The transformer does not create new electricity. In fact, you lose a little energy through heat and vibration.
Water can be heated (converted to steam) with electricity, on the same scale as the current coal-fired boilers, and a power plant can certainly produce more than enough electricity to accomplish this. It certainly doesn’t take MORE energy to heat water for steam than it does to supply an entire region with dependable electricity.
Well, yes it does take more energy to make all that steam. The amount of heat consumed by thermal plants is staggering.
If your idea could work, why not do this: Use one power plant to power another. We could have, say, 1 coal burning plant somewhere, and use part of that plant's energy to run a second power plant, and then part of the second power plant's energy to power a third, and so on. We could power the entire world with one coal-burning plant.
That would be sweet!
-
Well, first I have to remark that if it were possible to self-power a thermoelectric plant, we'd be doing it. Totally. The reason they are not is because it cannot be done.
The reason it cannot be done is because a self-powered plant would be producing "free" energy, and there is no "free" energy. Energy has to come from somewhere.
You can certainly make a more efficient power plant. But you cannot make a power plant that produces more energy than it consumes.
Yes, it does. The amount of energy expended is always greater than the amount of energy gleaned. Always. In the case of coal-powered plants, the output is only about 40% of the input. Let's say it takes 1 unit of coal to produce 1 unit of electricity. That 1 unit of electricity has 60% less potential thermal energy that the 1 unit of coal.
What a coal-burning plant does is transform the chemical energy locked up inside coal. You have one type of energy going in, and a much more useful type going out. But there is a net loss in the transaction. A power plant uses more energy than it produces. That is true of every power plant, no matter what kind of energy it consumes in order to produce electricity.
This doesn't really matter to us, because what we're after is the electricity. But it does matter if you want to use electricity to produce more electricity. It can't be done. Or, believe me, we'd do it.
You're not gaining any electricity by stepping up the voltage -- you're just pumping more of it into the grid. Like opening a valve in a water main -- you're not creating new water, just putting more into the pipe. The transformer does not create new electricity. In fact, you lose a little energy through heat and vibration.
Well, yes it does take more energy to make all that steam. The amount of heat consumed by thermal plants is staggering.
If your idea could work, why not do this: Use one power plant to power another. We could have, say, 1 coal burning plant somewhere, and use part of that plant's energy to run a second power plant, and then part of the second power plant's energy to power a third, and so on. We could power the entire world with one coal-burning plant.
That would be sweet!
Ok.
-
Ok.
No, YOU ok. :slap
-
Well, we do have power plants that produce more energy than they consume, if you want to get technical. They just produce it by burning coal, not by using electricity to heat the steam to turn a turbine to make electricity to heat the steam...
-
The idea that a power plant could not produce enough energy to run itself disregards several important points.
To start with, using coal to heat water for steam is apporoximately 30% efficient; with 70% being lost. An electric water heating system can reach efficiencies in the upper 90's.
Also overlooked is improvements in efficiency of steam usage (nozzling). Maybe not a large gain there; but a gain nonetheless.
In addition, there is a transmission between the turbine and the generator. This is a place where significant gains could be made; using higher gear ratios.
Also, ivan's idea of the transformer is not exactly correct. Yes, you DO create "new" electricity. It isnt the same current leaving the secondary as was introduced into the primary. That current passes through the primary winding to ground (eventually). Transformers work by inducing a current in the secondary winding by passing a current through the primary. In a "buck and boost" transformer; the turns ratio between the windings determines that it will be a higher voltage leaving than was introduced. Power stations step up the kVa to "push" the power out across the grid. That is why step down stations and site transformers are used. I find it hard to summarily discount the idea that a plant could tap from this and heat (enough) water to keep running.
I also don't think that "if it could be done; we'd be doing it already". There are plenty of outstanding ideas out there on how to do things / make things / use things / create things; yet it seems we nearly always settle on using the most inefficient, the most convoluted, and/or the most difficult thing/way/procedure. Not to mention the majority of these operational plants were built circa 1960's / 1970's; surely they have had "upgrades"; but they operate basically the same way they did back then. I would like to believe we are overall more efficient today than in 1970; with more efficient devices, materials, and methods.
-
Like a cold mist humidifier?
Im not sure, Biz. My original thought was spreading the water at a molecular level by some other physical method (not heating). After thinking a while; I dont think it could be done without requiring enormous energy to force the water through the "separation device". Just misting it wouldnt create the same expansion as heating; which is what I was looking for.
-
(I havent read the whole thread forgive me if someone has already said this)
Merely seperating the molecules wouldnt give them the kinetic engry that makes steam 'work'. The heat makes the molecules vibrate and be volitile. Also all the entropy stuff ivan was talking about.
-
I would say the problem lies with the fact that the molecules cannot be separated to the point of steam without heating. However, I'm sure you could get close. If we consider steam to be 100% gaseous water, then you might have a close air / gaseous water ratio but not 100% gaseous water.
-
Well, we do have power plants that produce more energy than they consume,
No, we do not.
Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)
And: The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed-loop cycle can only convert a fraction of the heat produced during combustion into mechanical work. The rest of the heat, called waste heat, must be released into a cooler environment during the return portion of the cycle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant)
This is true of any power-generating plant, even non-thermal plants, although non-thermal plants (wind, hydropower) are FAR more efficient.
You cannot go against the laws of physics.
Yet, at least.
-
Hot, heat sink ACTION!
-
No, we do not.
Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)
And: The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed-loop cycle can only convert a fraction of the heat produced during combustion into mechanical work. The rest of the heat, called waste heat, must be released into a cooler environment during the return portion of the cycle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant)
This is true of any power-generating plant, even non-thermal plants, although non-thermal plants (wind, hydropower) are FAR more efficient.
This fraction of heat converted - by that law- in an electric system; as I stated earlier, reach efficiencies in the 90's.
A coal plant is around 30%. You're right; in the current setup; there's no way to get that 100+% back to the beginning.
70% is hard to make back up; even with massive high-efficiency transformers. But the heating system Im talking about isn't 30% efficient; its near/around 95%. Starting there; it's not hard to imagine gains made in the turbine/generator transmission gear ratio; and high efficiency transformers.
You cannot go against the laws of physics.
Don't tell the bumblebee that.
Yet, at least.
Which is in the spirit of this thread. :-)
When MY plant comes online and I'm a wealthy Energy Baron; I hope these pages are cached somewhere. 8-) :lol:
-
there's no way to get that 100+% back to the beginning.
In a 100% efficient system, you would get 100% energy conversion.
A 100% efficient power generator is still to be built, although wind and hydropower generators are practically there.
Now, please tell me (and you too, Joesixpack):
If you create a 100%+ efficient power generator, that produces more energy than what you put in -- where does that extra energy come from?
God?
-
Are you now only talking about the generator? Or are you talking about the entire system? "Gains" made in the gear ratio, transformers, etc that I mentioned "equate" in the total system as energy.
If you are now talking just about the generator; then I have nothing to say. Thats not my argument idea. I havent said, and wouldnt say that there is a such thing as a 100% efficient generator.
-
Also, I think Joe was referring to electrical power with his statement; and he's right. They consume more energy [as per our discussion]; yes, but they DO produce more electrical power than they use.
-
Are you now only talking about the generator? Or are you talking about the entire system? "Gains" made in the gear ratio, transformers, etc that I mentioned "equate" in the total system as energy.
If you are now talking just about the generator; then I have nothing to say. Thats not my argument idea. I havent said, and wouldnt say that there is a such thing as a 100% efficient generator.
The entire system.
The goal is to produce electricity by the most inexpensive means.
The cheapest way we have right now is to spin a turbine using steam, which is produced by burning fuel.
So, fuel goes in one end, and electricity comes out the other. In the middle, you lose some energy. There is a net loss of useable energy, but it is worth it because we end up with a bunch of electricity, which is the goal here.
If you use electricity as the fuel to heat the water to spin the turbine to make electricity, the BEST you can POSSIBLY hope is to produce as much electricity as you used. You cannot produce more than you use, because that would require the intervention of supernatural forces. Actually, you will produce less than you use, because of waste. That's why there are no electric-powered electric generators.
You can't make an electric-powered power plant that produces more electricity than is used to make it. You can't even make an electric-powered power plant that produces AS MUCH electricity as is used to make it.
Look at it this way: in the entire process, the most efficient step is the last one: converting kinetic energy to electricity. That's the turbine. The energy you spend spinning the turbine is converted to electricity with nearly 100% efficiency. So why not take some of the electricity that the turbine produces, and use it to power a motor that... spins the turbine? That is a more efficient version of what you are proposing (to use some of the electricity produced to heat water). And even though it is more efficient, it still will not work. A turbine cannot produce enough electricity to spin itself and have power left over.
-
12v motor > turns shaft > spins generator producing 12v > 12v motor
That's your "100%" electric system. (Although in reality even this would not be completely 100%)
Now introduce a transmission between 12v motor and shaft with a 3:1 gear ratio.
Gain
Introduce another transmission (again, 3:1) between the shaft and generator <---**edit
Gain
Now introduce a buck and boost tranformer after the generator; before the 12v motor
Gain
Where am I wrong?
-
12v motor > turns shaft > spins generator producing 12v > 12v motor
That's your "100%" electric system. (Although in reality even this would not be completely 100%) Now introduce a transmission between 12v motor and shaft with a 3:1 gear ratio.
Gain
You now need more power to turn the shaft. The motor now consumes more electricity.
Introduce another transmission (again, 3:1) between the shaft and generator <---**edit
Gain
Same again. Your power requirement has increased. That is not a gain.
Now introduce a buck and boost tranformer after the generator; before the 12v motor
Gain
We already covered this. Transformers do not make more electricity -- they transform voltage. In fact, they use up a little bit of electricity in the process. There is no gain here.
You can build this device at home. Try it out.
Or, browse some of the devices here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
Your idea of powering a power-plant with electricity is called an "over-unity" device, and inventors have been after one for centuries (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/impossible.htm):
Throughout the history of technology, people have been fascinated with the possibility of a machine that would do useful work while requiring no energy input, or at least much less energy than conventional machines that burn fossil fuels, or use "natural" sources such as wind and water. Their goal is a machine that puts out more energy in the form of useful work than it takes in, a hypothetical device that they call an "over-unity" machine, because its energy efficiency would be greater than one. Sometimes this is loosely called a "perpetual motion machine" because if some of its output energy were used to provide the input energy, it could run forever and still put out some useful work. Needless to say, no one has achieved this goal.
One might have thought people would give up this effort once scientists formulated and then understood the laws of thermodynamics, which tell us that energy is strictly conserved in any mechanical device, whatever its detailed construction, whether it be strictly mechanical, or electrical or magnetic, or whatever else you might conceive.
-
The whole idea of the transmission is to use less power to turn the shaft. Or, use the same power and the shaft turns faster. The whole point of a transmission is a gain in work produced per input. Or to step an "energy" level down. Maybe you have your transmission on backwards?
-
Here is a very detailed (and over-my-head) description of an over-unity device. These guys say they actually built this motor, which is self-powering, and runs at like 300% efficiency, meaning it produces far more electricity than it uses to produce it.
The device: http://www.explorepub.com/articles/beardon/overunity.html (http://www.explorepub.com/articles/beardon/overunity.html)
Unfortunately, this device never made it into production. Apparently, the Yakuza are now enforsing the laws of thermodynamics: http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kawai.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kawai.htm)
-
12v motor turns shaft at 10 rpms w/ same as above (powered by generator producing 12v @ 10 rpms)
+transmission (the 3:1 I suggested for no real reason) = shaft turns at 30 rpms (maybe not consistenly 30 over time; but certainly more than 10 rpms)
shaft @ 30rpms + transmission (3:1) = generator armature @ 90rpms
90 > 10
If the generator's output is dependent on its rotation; it should now be outputting near 90% (some will be lost)
That's nearly 70% more than the 12v motor needs. So even if you don't have a transformer, and you account for the
inefficiencies; you have around 70% to work with.
-
The whole idea of the transmission is to use less power to turn the shaft. Or, use the same power and the shaft turns faster. The whole point of a transmission is a gain in work produced per input. Or to step an "energy" level down. Maybe you have your transmission on backwards?
The idea of the transmission is to change rotary speed or torque without having to change the rotary speed or torque of the engine. This might give you a mechanical advantage, but you don't actually gain energy from the transmission. If you are powering a generator using a motor, and you make the generator spin faster than the motor by using a transmission, you will use up more power. Like pedalling a bicycle up a slight grade: if you're moving at 7 mph, and then increase your speed to 10 mph by gearing up, you won't have to pedal faster, but you will have to pedal harder.
-
12v motor turns shaft at 10 rpms w/ same as above (powered by generator producing 12v @ 10 rpms)
+transmission (the 3:1 I suggested for no real reason) = shaft turns at 30 rpms (maybe not consistenly 30 over time; but certainly more than 10 rpms)
shaft @ 30rpms + transmission (3:1) = generator armature @ 90rpms
90 > 10
If the generator's output is dependent on its rotation; it should now be outputting near 90% (some will be lost)
That's nearly 70% more than the 12v motor needs. So even if you don't have a transformer, and you account for the
inefficiencies; you have around 70% to work with.
Build it.
-
Fund it?
-
Radio Shack takes credit cards. If your device works, you can sell it for millions.
-
The idea of the transmission is to change rotary speed or torque without having to change the rotary speed or torque of the engine. This might give you a mechanical advantage, but you don't actually gain energy from the transmission.
As a matter of fact, due to things like friction, you actually lose energy in the transmission process.
-
If your device works, you can sell it for millions.
HAHA! Who'll be laughing then, eh?
-
HAHA! Who'll be laughing then, eh?
Or, you can build it with Lego (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:LEGO_electromagnetic_motor_hoax_by_Tom_A)!
-
No offense 12 but the transmission takes more torque to spin the output shaft faster.'
Get on your ten speed.
1st gear takes very little effort to move the bicycle.
2nd takes a little more.
By the time you get to 10 it is very hard to take off from a standing start.
Something has to provide the torque to turn this higher gear ratio in the form of energy/electricity.
-
The plant (itself, as a black box, say) does make more energy than it takes to run it, or we wouldn't build it.
This is not a thermodynamic/closed system/perpetual motion statement, the universe is the only closed system, and maybe not even then. That's all. I'm not arguing for 12's scheme or against ivan. And you probably couldn't make millions even if it worked, because the USPTO won't accept patents for this type of thing. So even if it did work someone would come along and steal it from you.
-
You're mean. :w:
Edit: just has this image of you taking me seriously. Please don't.
-
Even if I did, I'm sure you could find a better example. Especially when it comes to 12's cockamamie threads :)
-
As a matter of fact, due to things like friction, you actually lose energy in the transmission process.
^^ This is why you have the term "brake horsepower" to indicate the power that actually makes it to the road, as opposed to what the engine actually produces. bHP is usually something like 10-20% less.
-
The plant (itself, as a black box, say) does make more energy than it takes to run it, or we wouldn't build it.
We're not talking about the energy it takes to run, or operate, the facility.
The plant, as a black box, requires X amount of energy to produce electricity. In the case of a coal-burning plant, 60% of X results in waste, and 40% results in electric energy. Then, on top of that, you need energy to run the facility, so you use another 1% of X, a number I am making up, but which should demonstrate the concept. So the plant consumes X amount of energy to produce .39X amount of energy.
Why am I in the position of having to defend and explain the First Law of Thermodynamics in these forums? Am I being punked?
-
It's not a question of thermodynamics. Coal goes in, is burned, creates steam, turns turbine, electricity is created, runs the lights and heat, and the extra comes out. It makes more than it takes to run it. That's all I'm saying.
-
The waste exhaust is energy.
The equation is always x=x
The outputs equal the inputs. waste+electricity+whatever else=stored energy (natural gas, coal, etc.) + liberating process + catalysts + whatever else
-
It's not a question of thermodynamics. Coal goes in, is burned, creates steam, turns turbine, electricity is created, runs the lights and heat, and the extra comes out. It makes more than it takes to run it. That's all I'm saying.
Well, if it makes more than it takes to run it, then why not take some of what it makes and loop it back in, and eliminate the coal, as 12AX7 suggested? Good idea, eh?
-
The waste exhaust is energy.
The equation is always x=x
The outputs equal the inputs. waste+electricity+whatever else=stored energy (natural gas, coal, etc.) + liberating process + catalysts + whatever else
I don't know. Somehow people are coming up with x = x + y where y > 0. The only way I can figure it is either I'm being pranked, or somehow God is involved.
-
Well, if it makes more than it takes to run it, then why not take some of what it makes and loop it back in, and eliminate the coal, as 12AX7 suggested? Good idea, eh?
Because without the coal it doesn't make more than it takes to run it. Thermodynamics and all that, you know :)
-
Because without the coal it doesn't make more than it takes to run it. Thermodynamics and all that, you know :)
Without the coal, it doesn't make any at all. Not even enough to turn on a desk fan.
And with the coal, it still does not make more than it takes to run it, because it takes coal to run it. Coal is where the energy comes from. The net energy gleaned in the form of electricity is less than the energy used to produce it. The plant consumes more energy than it produces. *
The fact that the plant's electrical usage is less than the plant's electrical output was not part of the conversation 12AX7 and I were having. No one suggested otherwise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
------
* Or, as pbSaurus would specify, the plant emits exactly as much energy as it consumes, but only a portion of the energy it emits is in the form of useable electricity.
-
I didn't say anything to contradict any of that, it is self evident. I'm only saying that a power plant is not some Orwellian black hole used to eat up the products labor. It produces more energy than it takes to run it. I didn't say it was a closed system, just the opposite.
And there are no straw men here because regardless of how it looks, I'm not arguing with you!
-
wow. even mods fall prey to the free energy crap.
I read that post and I was like "wow. I cant believe he actually thinks that is possible"
in the meantime, lets use compressed air to power an air compressor!
-
No offense 12 but the transmission takes more torque to spin the output shaft faster.'
Get on your ten speed.
1st gear takes very little effort to move the bicycle.
2nd takes a little more.
By the time you get to 10 it is very hard to take off from a standing start.
Something has to provide the torque to turn this higher gear ratio in the form of energy/electricity.
Right. But remember; the generator now outputs a higher voltage. All one has to do to give the 12v motor what it needs is a step down transformer. With the higher voltage produced by the generator; the transformer will cut that voltage down to 12v; which will result in a higher amperage = the "extra" oomph the 12v motor needs to produce the now-needed torque.
The 12v motor won't pull any more than 12v; it will need the current.
-
It produces more energy than it takes to run it.
It... takes... coal... to... run... (http://www.ivandavidoff.com/misc/myheadassplode.gif)
-
look, people have been trying to make a machine like that literally for millenia. it cannot be done. end of story.
-
I read that post and I was like "wow. I cant believe he actually thinks that is possible"
There's a difference "believeing something is possible" and discussing ideas. If no one ever thought further what was thought impossible; we'd still have a flat Earth.
Be careful to assume that just because someone is arguing a point online that they believe it. I was an electrician for over 10 years; I've worked in power plants, and built and/or installed something that uses power in just about every way you can conceive. I know full well the laws of thermodynamics, the fallacy of a "perpetual motion machine", how a transformer works and more importantly that IT ACTUALLY DOES take more ENERGY to run a coal (any kind) of plant than what it produces.
-
look, people have been trying to make a machine like that literally for millenia. it cannot be done. end of story.
Says WHO "end of story"? You?? Get the fuck out. You'd be the one who de-funded Oppenheimer.
-
There's a difference "believeing something is possible" and discussing ideas. If no one ever thought further what was thought impossible; we'd still have a flat Earth.
Be careful to assume that just because someone is arguing a point online that they believe it. I was an electrician for over 10 years; I've worked in power plants, and built and/or installed something that uses power in just about every way you can conceive. I know full well the laws of thermodynamics, the fallacy of a "perpetual motion machine", how a transformer works and more importantly that IT ACTUALLY DOES take more ENERGY to run a coal (any kind) of plant than what it produces.
Ok, so back to your idea. If you take out the bit about replacing the coal as fuel, there is still something to think about: what if some aspect of the process can be made a lot more efficient with a judicious application of some electricity. So maybe feeding back a little bit of the electricity can cause a jump in efficiency that increases output by more than what you are feeding back. Is that possible?
Here is the logic: coal-burning plants operate at 40% efficiency.
If we take 5% of the resulting power and feed it back, and there is no increase of efficiency, we are now operating at 35% efficiency.
But let's say the feedback causes a 10% increase in efficiency. Now the coal-burning plant is operating at 45% efficiency. We are still burning the same amount of coal, but we're getting more out of it.
This can work as long as the net energy output of the plant is the same as the energy input. The only way to gain efficiency is to reduce waste. If you can somehow use 5% of the produced electricity to reduce waste by 10%, you'll still be ahead, and no laws of physics will stand in your way.
But you'll never be able to replace the coal as the heat source with electricity produced by the plant -- that is simply not possible. God said so.
-
Says WHO "end of story"? You?? Get the fuck out. You'd be the one who de-funded Oppenheimer.
Dude, if Oppenheimer had proposed a perpetual motion machine, he would've de-funded himself.
-
Yes. My original statement didnt have any basis other than "complaint": "WAH! They oughta..." But when you began pointing things out; I figured; "Why not? Lets see what can be thought out"
To make the idea work at all; you would either need
a. Some form of "extra" (externally input) energy or
b. Capacitance of either electricity, or heat.
I don't think there's anything currently in existence that would do it. Not that it couldn't be invented; now that such a device would have been thought about and decided feasible to build.
Actually, there may be such a device now (or near future) (http://cleantechnica.com/2009/04/20/arizona-to-get-billion-dollar-solar-thermal-power-plant/)
-
Dude, if Oppenheimer had proposed a perpetual motion machine, he would've de-funded himself.
Yes; but I didnt propose one. I suggested they shut off the coal after getting the plant running; no further thought than that.
Besides; my point was that just because someone - EVERYone - tells you something is the absolute truth doesn't mean you should never question it nor discuss it.
-
all right, sorry. I just think its funny how some people get taken in by that sort of thing.
at a billion dollars a pop, those may well be the future. we could power the whole country at the bargain price of another bank bailout!
-
No need to worry. Our good friend John Hutchison (http://www.hutchisoneffect.ca/) is ever-vigilant in these matters.
-
Ok, my bad, this is the link I meant to post:
link (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2144)
discussing the new thermal storage technology. That first link was just about the CSP plant.
-
youre telling me that a few tanks full of salt represent a breakthrough? spain must have really lowered it's standards :wink:
-
Will think about this later, but know that one molucule H2O has by far not the same properties as a droplet of water.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuAV315__OE#noexternalembed&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuAV315__OE#noexternalembed&feature=channel)
-
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/garage-science/exp/electricity-from-water-kelvin-water-drop-generator/ (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/garage-science/exp/electricity-from-water-kelvin-water-drop-generator/)
Wonder if there's a way to harness that electricity.
-
Nice! Very interesting...
On another note; suppose we master quantum entanglement? What then?
-
...profit?
-
step 1: master quantum entanglement
step 2: ?
step 3: Profit!