Free energy (Just using criativity)

Home Forums Archive Infrastructure Free energy (Just using criativity)

This topic contains 15 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Farmer 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
• Author
Posts
• #1338

Snowmeow
Participant

Ok, I was reading about compressed air-powered engines, that will move the cars of tomorrow. These engines already exist, they aren’t fiction, and they work well.

So, let’s do an exercise of criativity:

-Air-powered engine moves a dynamo;

-Dynamo generates electricity;

-Electricity is distributed to the needed areas of a boat, ship or seastead;

-Part of this electricity goes to an air compressor;

-Air compressor pumps air to the reservoir;

-Compressed air in the reservoir goes to power the air-powered engine, that continues working…

Example, the engine moves a 6Kw dynamo, and the air compressor needs 1 Kw to compress air to the engine, remains 5 Kw to use in other electric devices.

In other words: Free energy.

Opinions?

______________________________________

“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul Seixas

#11255

tusavision
Participant

I am face palming so hard right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

I’ll even try and help explain.

Energy is measured in a unit called a joule.

Conservation of energy says that any system ends with as many joules as it started from.

Now, if I take electricity in the ammount of 100 joules and feed it in to a perfect electric motor: I get 100 joules of rotational kinetic energy out.

Despite the best efforts of engineers: no one has ever come close to a perfect motor or perfect generator.

Motors convert energy in to work.

Generators convert work in to energy.

The reason for this is normally friction. Friction robs most mechanical processes of energy and converts that energy in to heat.

So: If I have an almost perfect motor(95% efficiency) and a perfect generator (100%) efficiency: what is the net proceed of hooking them together: 5% loss of energy to heat.

Now: at first this suggests two things:

1.We can optimize efficiency of mechanical systems by adding heat engines such at peltier coolers, or sterling engines.

2.Conservation of energy is wrong: what happened to the 5% heat.

There are problems with both of these.

The problem with #1 is that in many cases: this “waste heat” is not a waste. If you take that heat away: the efficiency goes down. An example of this is automobile gasoline engines which work more efficiently at high temperatures.

#2. Doesn’t take in to account the transformation of that 5% heat energy in to other energy states. Perhaps that energy acted as a catalyst for the oxidization of a metal. Perhaps it heated up the ambient atmosphere. Perhaps it was used to boil a cup of tea.

Energy radiates away from condensed usable forms to “non-recoverable” energy. Energy that the current state of technology cannot recover it.

An example would be a bamboo plant. By growing: bamboo accomplished work. If you cover a bamboo plant in transparent plastic sheeting, and leave a gallon of water in a puddle in that sheet: by increasing that waters elevation: you could theoretically build a water wheel which could recover energy from the down hill flow of that water.

But a water wheel is not a perfect generator. It has mechanical losses. While 1 gallon of water may be able to generate a net profit. We don’t have the fascilities to cost effectively recover energy from 1 Tsp of water. Particularly when the market value of electricity is determined by the price of oil which is VERY energy dense. It has a lot of energy profit, making it recoverable. As the price of electricity goes up, so does the recoverable supply, as suddenly new sources of energy become cost effective.

Now: since I mention water: lets talk about the electrolysis scam. The hydrogen ->water fuel cycle is very efficient, but it takes more energy to create 1 joule of hydrogen than even the most efficient generator can produce using 1 joule of hydrogen.

Electrolysis and chemical reactions are generally fairly efficient, except in that they usually are endothermic or exothermic, and as a result produce waste heat or consume heat energy. Driving a heat engine off of hydrogen is a perfectly viable way of transporting energy as it’s efficiency is competitive with the electricity distribution grid,(powerlines) however it does not produce a net profit. It can replace less effecient/more pollution causing energy delivery mechanisms.

Enter nuclear fission. More energy than the world could ever consume.(until exponential population growth changes that)

Thanks to nuclear fission: we have more energy than we know what to do with. Here’s the trouble: nuclear reactors are SO expensive to build because of regulatory dogma, security, public relations and waste transport expenses, we have a bottle neck where no one can make any money by building nuclear reactors.

The nuclear waste issue is very sad. Not because it is unsolvable, but because it is solvable yet it is left unresolved for nuclear nonproliferation security reasons.

The once through fuel system generates really nasty nuclear waste. So nasty that it is the least significant contributor to cancer on the planet.

The french use “breeder reactors” to burn up their nasty nuclear waste. Even less cancer than non-existant! Unfortunately: this involves plutonium which is really easy for an ignorant terrorist to make a bomb from. Then again: if really easy was building a house, the under pants bomber and the times square incident demonstrate that terrorists can’t even build a bird house, let alone plumb a toilet.

Now: nuclear fission generates a lot of electricity near nuclear power plants, and it has a very hard time getting that electricity to your microwave oven. Power lines are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Hydrogen is explosive and has some interesting chemical properties. Batteries. Won’t do.

Now: in terms of power distribution: your idea has merit. Compressed air has this nice benefit of being virtually lossless. In fact: the loss takes place at the motor or compressor. Similarly: elevating water in to water towers is very efficient.

One of the greatest thing you can do is cut out redundant unecessary steps from the equation.

Why are hydroelectric dams generating electricity from rotational work so that it can be transported at a loss to you, so you can drive an AC motor in your coffee maker back in to rotational work?

Because it’s been decided that transportation of forms of energy other than electricity is prohibitivel expensive.

Change that: and you change the world.

Watch this: http://members.cox.net/waterbullet/

Get inspired.

Then watch this:

http://quicklaunchinc.com/

Lessons learned:

Vacuum assisted transportation of resources is brilliant. Mag levs are retarded. Light Gas Guns are awesome. NASA is a jobs program.

Take a physics class btw. You would like it.

#11259

Farmer
Participant

Impressive.

#11263

Snowmeow
Participant

From:

I am face palming so hard right now…

to:

…Batteries. Won’t do.

And from:

Why are hydroelectric dams…

to:

Take a physics class btw. You would like it.

It was completely nonsense to me.

Man… I am not willing to say that it is a perfect scheme. But it works, unless an air-compressed engine loses power continously while working, or the air compressor sucks less air across the time. A little loss does not matter, unless it means loss of power that leads to an energy cut.

Compressed-air engine move a dynamo, to generate electric power, to activate an air compressor, that takes air to the engine!

tusavision wrote:
Now: in terms of power distribution: your idea has merit. Compressed air has this nice benefit of being virtually lossless. In fact: the loss takes place at the motor or compressor. Similarly: elevating water in to water towers is very efficient.

One of the greatest thing you can do is cut out redundant unecessary steps from the equation.

THIS was useful, thanks.

______________________________________

“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul Seixas

#11264

Melllvar
Participant

What he’s saying is that your system will not work because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system cannot produce energy out of nothing, which is what you’re describing (see perpetual motion machine). Specifically, here’s what goes wrong:

Snowmeow wrote:
Example, the engine moves a 6Kw dynamo, and the air compressor needs 1 Kw to compress air to the engine, remains 5 Kw to use in other electric devices.

In other words: Free energy.

The engine and air compressor will use up more energy that you get back by running the generator/dynamo, so you would have to provide outside energy to keep the system running as you describe (and that’s before even adding the extra electrical devices). Even if everything was perfectly idealized and frictionless, and there were no extra electrical loads, you would still lose energy because the maximum theoretical efficiencies of things like engines and air compressors depends on the temperature (for engines) or pressure (for compressors) difference on either side of the device.

#11265

tusavision
Participant

Snowmeow wrote:

From:

I am face palming so hard right now…

to:

…Batteries. Won’t do.

And from:

Why are hydroelectric dams…

to:

Take a physics class btw. You would like it.

It was completely nonsense to me.

Man… I am not willing to say that it is a perfect scheme. But it works, unless an air-compressed engine loses power continously while working, or the air compressor sucks less air across the time. A little loss does not matter, unless it means loss of power that leads to an energy cut.

Compressed-air engine move a dynamo, to generate electric power, to activate an air compressor, that takes air to the engine!

tusavision wrote:

Now: in terms of power distribution: your idea has merit. Compressed air has this nice benefit of being virtually lossless. In fact: the loss takes place at the motor or compressor. Similarly: elevating water in to water towers is very efficient.

One of the greatest thing you can do is cut out redundant unecessary steps from the equation.

THIS was useful, thanks.

______________________________________

“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul Seixas

[/quote]

Physics provides us with very accurate models and predictions. It saves you a significant amount of time, money, and head scratching when you can use math to make predictions about the outcome of an experiment in mechanics, and have then have the reality of testing consistently verify that this isn’t just wild guess work at play.

I should know, as I am one of those unfortunate ignorants who doesn’t have a good enough understanding of physics to save myself from excessive testing. I recommended it to you, because I can’t afford the physics education that you can currently benefit from free of charge at public school. If you want to be like me, suffering through an inability to communicate any with sophistication while attempting to make contributions to advanced engineering discussions: by all means, turn your nose up at the opportunity to benefit from 300 years of painstaking research dedicated to giving you incredibly accurate tools and methodologies.

Lessons are valuable and if you learn something by actually testing your hypothesis then by all means: please do construct your machine.

Do me a favor and when it doesn’t work: come to a different conclussion than “We just need to make it bigger. Please donate money to help me finance this.”

#11267

Snowmeow
Participant

tusavision wrote:
Lessons are valuable and if you learn something by actually testing your hypothesis then by all means: please do construct your machine.

Do me a favor and when it doesn’t work: come to a different conclussion than “We just need to make it bigger. Please donate money to help me finance this.”

Don’t worry, I am planning to test my hypothesis and I will blame nobody but myself if it doesn’t work (And use the air-powered engine in my car). Plus, sorry if did I offend you.

Melllvar wrote:
What he’s saying is that your system will not work because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system cannot produce energy out of nothing, which is what you’re describing (see perpetual motion machine).

Hey, air is nothing? That’s not a closed system: it sucks air from the surroundings, and this air feeds the air-powered engine.

It’s like an oil-powered generator, but uses air instead oil.

And from the “exhaust” of the engine goes just cool air, that can to cool the engine that sucks the air to the compressor.

I did some estimation to an air-powered engine of 70 hp, that is more than enough to move a 6 Kw dynamo, or just enough to move 24Kw dynamo. I just need to do more calculations, about the air consumption by the engine, and size of the match compressor, but to avoid more complaints, let’s say that you may have a second compressor and may power it on from times to times to fill the reservoir (Remembering that this reservoir is aparted from the compressors, and receives compressed air from them) without to need to power off the whole generator. Once you pay nothing for the air used, it’s still free energy.

______________________________________

“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul Seixas

#11269

Anonymous

‘Free’ energy can be captured, but it’s not cheap… Wind-generators and batteries, being more durable than compressors, engines and such… There are wind-powered compressors, which would assist with shop-use…

The idea, as presented in this thread, will not be able to function as a continuous source of energy. It is full of losses, due to friction. The more moving parts, the more friction, resulting in a dead-end loss.

As for the ‘compressed-air-motor,’ it is nothing more than a fancy steam engine…

Later,

J.L.F.

Never be afraid to try something new…

Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

#11271

Melllvar
Participant

Snowmeow wrote:
Hey, air is nothing? That’s not a closed system: it sucks air from the surroundings, and this air feeds the air-powered engine.

The air itself isn’t the problem, the problem is the energy needed to keep compressing it for the engine. What you get back from the dynamo won’t be enough. Maybe you think you can get around this by keeping the exhaust end of the engine at a lower pressure than the surroundings, so it’s “pre-compressed.” But then the pressure on that end will increase as compressed air is pumped into it, and you’ll still have to recompress it to pump it out.

Snowmeow wrote:
I did some estimation to an air-powered engine of 70 hp, that is more than enough to move a 6 Kw dynamo, or just enough to move 24Kw dynamo. I just need to do more calculations, about the air consumption by the engine, and size of the match compressor

70 hp = 52 kW (approx).

How do you expect your 24 kW dynamo to run compressors for a 52 kW engine?

#11272

Anonymous

If you start your system with x amount of energy in it you can only extract this much energy.

x equals x. x never ever equals more than x.

If you plan on adding energy as you go along you could just add that energy to the energy consuming process directly. Going the long way around the compressed air machine is pointless.

I also doubt cars will be powered by compressed air anytime soon. Not because the engines are bad but because of the lousy energy storage capacity in compressed air. I think it is even worse than batteries, and those are already pretty bad (compared to gasoline or diesel). There is a reason why all vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons, and it’s not some big conspiracy by evil oil companies.

#11273

Anonymous

Snowmeow, if you want to experiment with novel mechanical systems, you might try to build a solar heated steam engine.

#11283

Snowmeow
Participant

Firstly, I am letting here the link to the video of the engine working. This is the engine I was speaking of.

Ok, let’s go to replies. I am noticing you I am not a physicist, neither I want to reinvent the wheel. I am just joining things that work to create apparently a great stuff that nobody has thought before.

J. wrote:
‘Free’ energy can be captured, but it’s not cheap… Wind-generators and batteries, being more durable than compressors, engines and such… There are wind-powered compressors, which would assist with shop-use…

Unfortunately, “wind generators” are kinda huge to be applied to a seastead that needs to save space. Or even to a cargo ship.

J. wrote:
As for the ‘compressed-air-motor,’ it is nothing more than a fancy steam engine…

See the video before get this conclusion.

J. wrote:
(Sign) Never be afraid to try something new…

That’s what I’m doing. ^^

Melllvar wrote:
How do you expect your 24 kW dynamo to run compressors for a 52 kW engine?

Generating electricity. Or it’s needed a 52 Kw electric engine to take enough air to a 52 Kw air-compressed engine do nonstop running?

wrote:
I also doubt cars will be powered by compressed air anytime soon. Not because the engines are bad but because of the lousy energy storage capacity in compressed air. I think it is even worse than batteries, and those are already pretty bad (compared to gasoline or diesel). There is a reason why all vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons, and it’s not some big conspiracy by evil oil companies.

MDI and other companies are improving their engines. And the reason why “all” vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons are these: 1)- Cheaper oil – Not always – ; 2)- An electric engine was added to start the gas engine; 3)- Oil industries’ greed, yes sir.

If don’t you believe in conspiracies, why did Chevron and Texaco buy the rights over the production of Ni-MH batteries (And never produced them), and GM destroyed the EV1s, being that those cars would stay with their satisfied customers? And why Stanley Meyer was deadly poisoned after receiving death threats? But talking about conspiracies will start an offtopic.

No fear: I’ll try my hypothesis in an university, and if I’ll be wrong, when I find you, I’ll pay a beer to each one of you, How about it?

______________________________________

“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul Seixas

#11286

xns
Participant

I’ll try to break the language barrier by using as simple terms as possible, since you seem to have a basic understanding of electrical energy(W and kW) and horsepower(HP). What everyone is trying to say, is that your proposed system is wrong, not the individual parts. The reasons are:

1) An engine that can power a 6kW dynamo, cannot be powered by a 1kW air-compressor. Example, a ball dropped from 1m onto a hard floor, will not bounce back to the original 1m. Even though, we might THINK that the air or gravity would have… energy, they do not. Because there is no chemical reaction between the ball and the air. This is unlike petrol/gasoline which is combustible(meaning, it can be burned) which reacts with a small heat source and oxygen(a substance in air) to release stored chemical energy. Again, you must understand that Air has NO CHEMICAL ENERGY to release into the system(You cannot burn air).

2) Everything Practical has to do with Physics, which is the study of how things like cars, dynamos, energy, power and atoms work.

I too, would recommend you take a basic science class or read a few books on things like physics, biology and chemistry. The reason is so that you understand how the world works and why things that seem possible and simple at first, really are not. It would also help you build better compressed-air engines. You’re obviously someone with an inquisitive mind, so I expect you’d enjoy yourself while you learn new things =)

Also some useful info for you:

1) It’s spelt CREATIVITY

2) The conversion for kW to HP is 1kW = 1.3410221HP

And if all else fails, build the engine you described, you should immediately realize that the air compressor cannot turn the engine fast enough for the dynamo to generate enough electricity. Remember, it will only produce 6kW when it runs at full speed.

Do remember to wear proper safety gear, and make sure you use insulated gloves when dealing with the dynamo.

King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.

#11287

Anonymous

How do Compressed Air Vehicles compare against oil vehicles?

Diesel fuel contains 37 Megajoules per liter or 46 MJ per kilogram.

Compressed air contains 0.2 MJ per liter and 0.5 MJ per kilogram.

So with a comparable vehicle, the hydrocarbon version will have something like a hundred times the range of the compressed air version.

Who is going to buy a car that has a hundred times less range than the alternative?

No conspiracy is needed.

Oil will become more expensive in the future. -Probably, but there will be no dramatic “Peak Oil” disaster. There are lots of untapped natural hydrocarbon resources, and we can even make oil out of the air. Put up nuclear power stations and use their energy extract the CO2 from the air and combine with hydrogen from water and then you have synthetic hydrocarbon fuel. “Carbon-neutral” even…

Compressed air engines are getting more efficient all the time. -Sure, but so are internal combustion engines. Todays IC engines are 40% efficient and very clean.

#11320

OceanPhoenix
Participant

xns, gravity does have energy, its called gravitational potential. Air doesn’t (except for stored chemical energy. But your point is correct.

Let’s use the rubber ball idea then, snowmeow. A rubber ball held still in the air has X amount of gravitational potential. It is then dropped. That X amount of gp has now been turned into X amount of kinetic (or movement) energy. As soon as it hits the ground, some of that energy is absorbed by the ground, leaving the ball with LESS then X amount of energy. It also makes a noise. The noise is also energy being lost from the ball as the ball vibrates, transferring the energy through vibration into the air. A small amount is also lost because the friction against the air and ground causes it to heat up, and that heat is energy. It bounces up again with less energy, meaning it doesn’t go as high as before. The process is repeated again and again, and it keeps losing more energy until it lies still on the floor.

If that ball made no friction against anything, didn’t vibrate at all, made no sound when it hit the floor and bounced back up with all of its energy, then it could only bounce as high as it did before, because X energy took it that far down and can only take it that far back up.

Newtons law of conservation of energy states (roughly) that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form.

I am not sure if it is true, but I was once told there is an exception to that law. Inside a star, there are lots of nuclear reactions. One such reaction (involving silicon, I think) destroys a miniscule amount of energy. no idea how it works, but I was told this, so I’d be interested to know if it’s true, if anybody knows.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

The forum ‘Infrastructure’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Posted on at

Categories: