Topic: "cold" steam? (Read 15342 times)

12AX7 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:04:35 PM »

  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.

ivan · « **Reply #26 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:15:22 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on October 26, 2009, 03:53:21 PM

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.

ivan · « **Reply #27 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:16:08 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on October 26, 2009, 04:04:35 PM

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.

12AX7 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:20:04 PM »

Fund it?

ivan · « **Reply #29 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:24:25 PM »

Radio Shack takes credit cards. If your device works, you can sell it for millions.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:24:45 PM »

Quote from: ivan on October 26, 2009, 04:15:22 PM

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.

12AX7 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:31:54 PM »

Quote from: ivan on October 26, 2009, 04:24:25 PM

If your device works, you can sell it for millions.

HAHA! Who'll be laughing then, eh?

ivan · « **Reply #32 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:38:54 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on October 26, 2009, 04:31:54 PM

HAHA! Who'll be laughing then, eh?

Or, you can build it with Lego!

dcrog · « **Reply #33 on:** October 27, 2009, 07:54:57 AM »

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.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #34 on:** October 27, 2009, 09:23:29 AM »

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.

Probie · « **Reply #35 on:** October 27, 2009, 09:25:23 AM »

You're mean.

Edit: just has this image of you taking me seriously. Please don't.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #36 on:** October 27, 2009, 10:32:45 AM »

Even if I did, I'm sure you could find a better example. Especially when it comes to 12's cockamamie threads

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #37 on:** October 27, 2009, 10:38:16 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on October 26, 2009, 04:24:45 PM

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.

ivan · « **Reply #38 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:27:13 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on October 27, 2009, 09:23:29 AM

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?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #39 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:53:40 PM »

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.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #40 on:** October 27, 2009, 01:32:34 PM »

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

ivan · « **Reply #41 on:** October 27, 2009, 02:26:41 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on October 27, 2009, 12:53:40 PM

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?

ivan · « **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2009, 02:29:09 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on October 27, 2009, 01:32:34 PM

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.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2009, 02:49:20 PM »

Quote from: ivan on October 27, 2009, 02:26:41 PM

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

ivan · « **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2009, 03:45:47 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on October 27, 2009, 02:49:20 PM

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.

------
* 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.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2009, 03:54:52 PM »

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!

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2009, 04:27:48 PM »

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!

12AX7 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2009, 04:57:22 PM »

Quote from: dcrog on October 27, 2009, 07:54:57 AM

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.

ivan · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2009, 05:00:30 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on October 27, 2009, 03:54:52 PM

It produces more energy than it takes to run it.

It... takes... coal... to... run...

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2009, 05:02:39 PM »

look, people have been trying to make a machine like that literally for millenia. it cannot be done. end of story.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: "cold" steam? (Read 15342 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7