Home made energy converter.

billvon,

Fully agre with you, no phase change required. However for the sake of all I posted the question, especialy since Read-Only is rivetted to the idea phase change must occur.

I take it that you have noticed the demonstrator model comes with a built in pulse. Not of real advantage to a turbine.

This being overcome by later model.

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

Cheers Peter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no expanding. Your device starts at a static condition, temperature and pressure are the same everywhere. Nothing happens.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He never claimed you need a refrigerant phase change to cool something. You need to read a little more carefully.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read-Only,

The number of times the words "phase change" appears in his threads appears to have swamped you into beleiving there were none.

Example. "Here's two more: "Gas does not have to return to liquid to obtain a pressure difference!" and "Absolutely no need whatsoever that CO2 be condensed to liquid to obtain drive forces." The poor jerk doesn't even realize that PHASE CHANGE is precisely the MAJOR factor exploited by both refrigeration and power generating systems."

 

Aqueous ID

Give it a break, troll.

 

You mean science is a troll. I'm just one of several people here who you call trolls, merely for addressing the science questions you have not been able to answer.

You still haven't addressed the science.

Let's go to supercritical CO2 at 7,000 bar constant pressure over the temperature range 50-100 °C. The enthalpy at 50 °C is 26.863 kJ/mol. At 100 °C it's 30.208. The difference is 3.345 kJ/mol.

Now let's look at using water which is cheaper than CO2. At 7,000 bar constant pressure: the enthalpy at 50 °C is 13.623 kJ/mol. At 100 °C it's 17.002. The difference is 3.379 kJ/mol.

So what's your point?

 

Again, you need to read more carefully. He discussed phase change a lot. He did not claim that a refrigerant phase change is needed to cool something.

That is true. You do not need a phase change to change the pressure. Changing volume or temperature will also change pressure.

Also true. You do not need a phase change to obtain high pressures.

True a third time. It is the major method used in both refrigeration systems and Rankine cycle heat engines. It is not the only method that works, however.

Did you learn something from this?

 

Read all his threads and stop trying to defend the idiot.

 

They are not defending ME, jerk, they are defending (and explaining) real science. Something that you don't have the faintest clue about.

 

Not defending him, just explaining to you what he said (which you clearly misunderstood.) If you don't want to understand, don't read my posts - just keep posting attacks.

 

Havent come across Refrigeration phase change yet, many times phase change -the physical propperties of a substance. Unless a girl one should not bring a dolls plate to a big dick party, if they dont like it back, then who owns the problem!

 

Read-Only

Not yet their not! "they are defending (and explaining) real science"

 

I still say you dropped out of school MUCH too early. You cannot even write a coherent sentence - just jumbled up words. <shrug>

 

They certainly are - you're just not bright enough to understand it.

 

Are you saying you don't understand why refrigeration often uses phase changes? Vapor-compression refrigeration, which is what most modern refrigerators and A/C's use, rely on phase changes to run efficiently. There is a lot of value to having the ability to absorb and release heat at fixed temperatures - which is why phase changes are quite useful in refrigeration.

Are you the one with the doll? Why does the doll have a plate? Or are you the one that has big dick parties? That metaphor doesn't make much sense.

 

All an aquired learning. Engineers thrive on the stuff.

 

Read-Only,

I'm backing NASA its got some pretty bright boys!

 

Read-Only,

Didnt let school hold back my education, though others I see not so fortunate!

 

You mean you didn't let your narcissism interfere with your plans to avoid work. This is probably why you favor over-unity machines. They do no work, they can not be made to work, and they are mocked by everything that actually does work.

Meanwhile, in the real world, where really capable people generally only get paid for machines that actually work, you find a culture that requires math and science (and other necessary skills, like language) as the basic tools for entry-level jobs for which actual customers will only pay for things that actually work.

The engines all around you, the roads and bridges you use, and every kind of device and system that you benefit from, whether in telecommunications, transportation or energy to power your home, were all conceived of and implemented by educated scientists and engineers, some of whom are visiting this thread with the intent to help you understand basic science, and also to disabuse you of your errors so that unsuspecting readers will not be misled.

That's not to say that some experts couldn't be self-taught. Learning to walk is self-taught. It simply says that they actually passed the exams that separate the wheat from the chaff.

Speaking of being chafed:

Let's go back to billvon (an excellent commentator in science) introducing the Rankine cycle to you. Think of Thermodynamics as a tool to help you build things that actually work, and you will not despise it any more than you despise a screwdriver or welding rig. A corollary to this is that Thermodynamics is a tool to help you avoid wasting time and money on things that don't actually work. First, understand what we mean by a heat engine and a cycle. Here is a very basic explanation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heaeng.html

(Note the comments about conservation of energy.) Start with a diagram that plots Pressure vs Volume:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heaeng.html#c2

Notice: energy (or work) = pressure times volume. Work is equivalent to energy; both have units of Joules. In the PV diagram which accounts for the heat engine performance, the work done is the area enclosed by the thermodynamic cycle. This is usually an idealized representation, one that doesn't account for all losses, but of course it can be improved using a realistic modeling tool, such as a software simulation of each of the components of the engine. A PV diagram does, however, set an upper limit on how much work can possibly be done by a particular machine, so that we get a quick glimpse of what may or may not be adequate to solve a particular problem.

You can read more about the various kinds of heat engine cycles here, about midway down the page, under the heading "Common Thermodynamic Cycles":

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Engineering_Thermodynamics/Applications#Rankine_Cycle

In order to understand what will happen if you were to actually build such a homemade device as you propose, you only need to construct such a diagram. If the diagram can not be constructed, the device cannot be constructed. However, the diagram will force you to obey conservation of energy because the total work enclosed is finite. That may serve as a reality check for you, but at least it keeps you honest, and keeps this thread from being moved to crank theories.

Then again, if you are at all trainable, and able to learn how to apply these principles, you might someday be able to create something useful and practical. (And safe, cheap, efficient etc.)

If your intent is to benefit the world, you will have to do actual work, to analyze the heat engine that actually does work. The negative feedback you are getting is from folks who see no cycle, and can quickly tell it won't work; or who can imagine various way to get it to cycle, some of which were mentioned to you, but you demurred.

 

Das Energy,

Take what I gave you above and apply it to your device, and you get something like this:

http://www.eng.usf.edu/~hchen4/Supercritical Rankine Cycle.htm