Home made energy converter.

there IS NOT ANY university that claims over unity is possible that i am aware of.
for you to make such a claim without a shred of evidence is ludicrous.
i don't know about anyone else but i'm done here.
go away das energy, as far as i'm concerned you blew it with the above statement.
oh, and take your bullshit with you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And full quote, troll. "One is every University you walk into. That suffices the Hydro power equation. 9 bar pressure one litre per second = 720 watts."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aqueous Id
Wrong, and wrong again. "That's using a refrigerator to power a Stirling engine", "It's not a generator of electricity at all. It's an energy waster"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've not seen many people with so little basic knowledge. Evindently, DaS Energy dropped out of school quite early. And he also has a major problem with reading comprehension or else he would have learned at least A LITTLE bit from all of us by this time.

 

Learnt little from you, is an assured fact.

 

Only because you have no desire to learn.

 

No! I recognise world leaders and wankers in the feild.

 

No. University physical and applied sciences departments teach the laws of nature, not naive and narcissistic beliefs about how nature ought to be, if we could only force it to change.

Over unity machines are machines that can force the sun to stand still in the sky, or to allow people to walk on water, or to bend spoons by looking at them. They are merely naively superstitious beliefs about nature, arrived at by refusing to actually study the laws of nature which make such things impossible.

Sticking to the false position, for no other reason than your mere belief that such things are possible, is narcissistic. This will prevent you from ever learning science. Unknown to you, all of this stuff (that you think is so special) is well known to first year students who have to demonstrate their understanding by preparing and demonstrating in the lab the differences between theoretical and empirical results.

You still are incapable of forming complete sentences. If you want help with learning math & science, you might want to ask someone to help write your statements for you. Let me see if I can write what you said:

9 bar x 1L /s = 720 W

The units are correct, once we convert bar to Pa and L to m[sup]3[/sup], since (PV) / s = (E) / s = Watts.

For an ideal gas:

(9 bar) x (100,000 Pa / bar) x (1L) x (0.001 m[sup]3[/sup] / L) / s = 900 W.

This equation says for a cost of 900 W you can expect to produce no more than 1 L of an ideal gas at 9 bar, assuming the gas started at 1 bar. Similarly, it says if you start with 1 L of an ideal gas at 9 bar, and expand it to 1 bar, you can develop no more than 900 W of mechanical power, but only in a perfect machine with no losses of any kind.

However, an engine doesn't work one-way. It cycles. If this is the power stroke, then you need to tell us where you get the power to take the 1 bar material and compress it from 1 bar to 9 bar. Of course, there is no point to doing this, since you are only wasting energy.

I have no idea what this sentence means. Any first year student in applied science can explain your error to you.

Let's check. First, check units:

60 L/min = 60 L / 60 s = 1 L / s = 0.001 m[sup]3[/sup] /s; 1 °C = 273.15 K

0.001 m[sup]3[/sup] /s x (274.15 + T[sub]°C[/sub])Kelvin x 0.076 J = 228,000 W ?

0.001 m[sup]3[/sup] x (273.15 + T[sub]°C[/sub])Kelvin x 0.076 J = 228,000 J ?

m[sup]3[/sup] x (273.15 + T[sub]°C[/sub])Kelvin = 3,000,000,000 ?

Your units are wrong, and the rest of this doesn't make sense.

10,000 bar above what? 1 bar? I think you need to look again. What temp/pressure are you starting at?
So far you keep posting the power stroke phase of the cycle, as if you think you have an energy gain, without ever discussing the compression stroke. How many Joules does it cost to start with the solid CO2 at temperature T, and pressure P, before you raise it 80 °C?

State the starting temp and pressure, and we can go from there.

So far it sounds like you are planning to go buy blocks of dry ice and heat it to ambient, then use the pressure differential to drive a turbine, then release the CO2 gas at ambient to the atmosphere.

The alternative is that you think you can force the exhaust gas back down to blocks of dry ice for free. That, of course, is impossible.

So far you still have nothing. The energy used to make dry ice will always be more than the energy you recover, by expanding it to gas (or supercritical state). All you are demonstrating is how to waste energy.

 

Correct! "9 bar x 1L /s = 720 W"

No mention of ideal gas. Lots mention Carbon Dioxide-Co2, R744 (CO2). "For an ideal gas:"

Dont go outside the house, things with a compression stroke will juice you all over the road. "without ever discussing the compression stroke"

Self answered. "State the starting temp and pressure, and we can go from there." "Pressure differential +50* C to +100*C, safe figures, 7,000bar. (560KW)"

Aside yourself what fool wants to turn gas into Dry-Ice. "think you can force the exhaust gas back down to blocks of dry ice"

Wrong. "So far it sounds like you are planning to go buy blocks of dry ice and heat it to ambient"

Qualification. Changing of heat/pressure differential having Abient as Hot high/pressure and -40* a Cold low pressure, saves +40*C heat input better engaged than in raisng Dry-Ice -80*C to flash point -40*C.

 

Technically, that's incorrect. It's not "equal" until you supply a model. Under the ideal gas model, the upper limit "equals" 900 W. You are saying you are at 20% below the ideal. That's may be right, but not "equal". Prove that 720 W is the correct number to use. That's all you need to do.

Look up the ideal gas law, figure out what it means and why we use it at all. Then go find the law that gives you the numbers you are using.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, when we go outside we see people pouring barrels of oil into the common machines that develop those power strokes. You are ignoring the cost side of your machine. You aren't discussing how you put energy into it to get it in the state where it generates energy back. If you expand a gas (as in your diagram), then you have to spend energy to compress it back to the initial state. Read about engines and you'll catch on.

No, I asked you for the initial conditions. State the starting pressure, temperature and volume. CO2 starts at room temperature at 1 bar. I compress it. Say I spend 560 kW compressing it. Now I expand it, and drive a turbine. Let's assume 50% efficiency. I get back 280 kW. Now I need to compress it again. So I spend 560 kW compressing it, and I get back another 280 kW. All you have done is to suggest an energy waster. You see the problem? You need a cycle. You need to account for the cost of compressing it. (Referring to your diagram, which has an expansion chamber or evaporator).

Wrong. You said you are expanding CO2, which means you are evaporating it. You further said you had it in solid form, which is commonly called dry ice. Make up your mind. Just state the complete conditions of temp, pressure, volume and phase, and the final conditions of temp, pressure, volume and phase. What ever energy is released in that part of the cycle has to be put back in, to get you back to initial conditions, plus all the energy you lose due to inefficiency.

It's an energy waster.

 

No, though did qualify prior incorrect. See picture (posted) for workings. See Ideal Gas Gas Laws- CO2 a Heavy Gas.
Evapourate is to tranform from liquid to gas, expand is to spread over a greater area. Pick any two numbers any two numbers above -40*, go to heat/pressure chart, find the difference between those those two numbers then divide by 9 then multiple by 720. Pointless waste of heat heating Dry-Ice -80*C to flash point -40*C.

 

No, you've jumped the track just a bit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

According to him, his silly machine doesn't employ any phase change of any kind. In a nutshell, he starts with CO2 gas, heats it with ambient air which produces pressure, he uses that pressure to drive a turbine to generate electricity, then sends the gas into an expansion chamber where it expands and cools - and then starts the process over again with ambient air heat.

He's nuts, of course, and doesn't know the first thing about about basic physics, much less energy conversions and thermodynamics. <shrug>

 

BINGO. "machine doesn't employ any phase change of any kind. In a nutshell, he starts with CO2 gas, heats it with ambient air which produces pressure, he uses that pressure to drive a (HYDRO) turbine to generate electricity, then sends the gas into an expansion chamber where it expands and cools - and then starts the process over again with ambient air heat."

Correct. No phase change occurs. (R774 not a flourocarbon refrigerant, phased out along with proponents of)

Also works at heat above ambient temperature.

Also a model with assisted cooling.

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee397/DaSEnergy/NEW.png

 

Aqueous ID,

"Cost side. -Ambient or other heat supply!

Energy into it" -HEAT! "If you expand a gas (as in your diagram), then you have to spend energy to compress it back to the initial state" -NO! Why compress the R744 to liquid state. (which cant be done above 31.1*C) Nothing but a waste of energy!

"Read about engines and you'll catch on". Now theres good advice you dont apply to yourself.

 

OPEN CALL ALL POSTERS,

Can anybody supply any text book passage demanding a refrigerant phase change to acheive cooling?

Noted lots of refrigerant suffer a phase change caused by compressor pressure prior the restrictor plate, however it not be necessary such refrigerant phase change to acheive cooling. Phase change purely a side effect of being taken to high pressure by compressor!

Cheers Peter

 

There are a great many ways to achieve cooling - radiation, the Seebeck effect, conduction, you name it. You don't need a phase change.

 

BINGO. You brought up solid CO2 (AKA dry ice) here, here, here, here, and here.

The issue is moot. You still have nothing. Your "machine" will not do anything except store CO2. Unless you put energy in, nothing happens. If you do add energy (an external hot source and an external colder source) then it costs you money (except for the free natural sources billvon, Billy T and I have noted elsewhere), and whatever you spend adding energy will be substantially wasted.

Just start at step 1. What is the initial temperature, pressure and volume of your device? You have no idea, do you. If it's at ambient temperature, then it's at ambient temperature throughout the whole device. If it's at pressure P, it's at P throughout the whole device. There's nothing to change either the temperature or pressure. So nothing happens. It's just a tank of pressurized CO2, nothing more.

 

billvon,

I fully agree, however that is doubted by others. Read-Only especialy is of the beleif phase change must occur, I now note he not speak for all.

Cheers Peter

 

You claim expansion. That reduces the pressure somewhere. Next you must provide compression, to restore the pressure back. You have nothing, just a tank with pressured CO2 in it.

 

Now I am with you!

The hot CO2 expands to cool, the "cooling" causes the CO2 to compress in volume and as such give of less pressure.