Home made energy converter.

you aren't from around here are you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

leopold,

The first quote is not accompanied by the reply. Not getting half smart are we ?

Had a couple of sperm breaths once who though they could put their lies with my name. GOT ME!

See ya round

Peter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hello billvon,

Cant get reply under your post, sorry.

"It's like 20 pounds of electricity. Or 300 calories of copper. Or forty degrees of a gallon"

No, its just new ways are not in the old text books. The primitive heat engines you see around are styled on 18th Centuary work. What happens is people try and apply that outadated technology to make the new technology work, but cant so they throw a hissy fit.

Its neither hot nor cold that makes any engine go- its FORCE. Hot and cold are purely numericals of no work value, yet people get hung up on them. An engine efficiency is force in force left over.

Ok to apply 200 years ago when all there was was Steam. Today its a different world.

Some still quote the Carnott cons. A. If you take the heat and water from making steam and put it back into making steam the first time the first making steam it shall be twice as efficient. No mention of where you get the heat and water from for first time. (Brilliant)

B. Heat=Energy, what a load of bullshit. Heat is heat, Force=Energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read-Only

Some never got past being spoon fed. If its not on the spoon feeding them it cant be.!

 

Read-Only

No conversion losses in 560KW, they all happened before hand. Never mind one day they may take to showing things in pictures so needed by your intellectual level.

 

Restated: Ambient heat air vs ... cold something (not clear, and not likely); ground heat vs ... cold air? (only works in cold weather); geothermal heat (same as preceding, possibly including hot springs); solar collector - that's clear enough; and burning fuels is clear, too.

Then why all the bullshit? At one point it sounded like you were depending on tennis balls and leather seals to operate at 7000 bar. A lot of what you said was so bogus, it comes across almost as compulsive lying.

That's ridiculous. It's simply a matter of cost. Your "engine", so far, if it worked at all, appears only to apply to the solar collector then. And first it will have to be redesigned since what you're proposing does not work (at least as you've explained it).

That's part of the bullshit I was referring to.

No, as billvon explained to you, water remains a useful working fluid, period. Most important of all: water is cheap, abundant, non-toxic, and relatively low in corrosion for suitable materials. A huge infrastructure exists to bring water to all the home engines in the developed world. And of great importance to system design: it's stable, and remains a liquid at standard environmental temperatures. In short, we will never be past boiling water, since no alternative exists that meets all of these criteria. That's not to say other working fluids don't have their place. Obviously refrigerants (including ammonia) will always remain the working fluids of choice for chilling applications.

CO2 is closer to the nature of refrigerants, in that is is not readily available out of the faucet, it requires special manufacturing and handling, can't be left alone unsealed in the open air (even dry ice will sublimate) and, to get supercriticality, requires system operating parameters that are extreme. (And since it has the properties of a solvent, it may decompose certain lubricants). In any case, it boils down to cost, availability, ease of use, impact on system design and chemically reactive properties.

Use in arid places reverses a lot of what I said above, however, it's still easier to recycle the water from a boiler than to furnish CO2 to an desert home, so commoners can join the revolution.

No, no, no, never. There is no self-sustaining. Here's where you crash and burn. You just won't take no for an answer. But the minute I give you a simple over-unity problem to solve from a freshman science book, you won't even be able to formulate the problem. This is the only caveman mentality you should be worrying about - the stubborn resistance to learn, and to take advice from experts who have been down the road you are on, way back when they were just getting started in their careers. That's the overriding personal obstacle you would have to overcome in order to launch an energy independence revolution.

That being said, if you want to talk about a homemade device to generate electricity from solar heat, or the more difficult possibility of a homemade geothermal electric generator, then bring it on. That's at least working in a positive direction. But you have to dump your primitive ideas about science back at the cave, or it goes nowhere.

 

What a load of nonsense. You are nothing but an ignorant crank - and that's ALL you'll ever be.

By the way, have you even noticed that not one single person here has ever bought into your stupid idea??? Wonder why they haven't...

 

Hello Aqueous ID.

SEE OP. SEE EXPANSION CHAMbER COOLING! pleas read before having something to say.

Sit it on the floor it will absorb heat. Sit in a pool of hot water it will absorb heat. absorbSit it in hot ground it will absorb heat. Sit it in a fire it will absorb heat. You seem to a prblem with the words "absorb heat"

Coal fire, Geothermal, Ground source and Soalr focus in the main provide heat above minus 10*C.

Self sustaining comes from the same text books your quoting, so they or you are obviosly wrong.

Water as you describe not in any important unless you wish to keep cave man technology going.

No bullsit made using tennis balls and leather seals, however leather gave out just past 600 bar.

Still await someone who claims to know all about it to actualy know the fist thing about it.

I think one or two here have got a handle on it but they arent the vocal ones who havent.

For someone making it up on the run about CO2, whats your point, beside not knowing what your talking about. Run a few CO2 turbines have we ?

NO EXPERTS SEEN YET>

 

The word is 'set', not 'sit'. Continuing to stumble over basic English tells me you flunked out of school early.

'Absorb' is not the best choice of words, but that's not the problem. The problem is: nothing at all happens in any of those scenarios unless the device is moved from a cold place, where it cooled, to a hot place (or vice versa), and this has to be done back and forth to keep the machine running. This is your fatal flaw. Nothing will happen if a device at room temperature is moved to another place at the same temperature. There has to be a temperature difference. I can't understand why you keep resisting this. It's a law that can't be broken. Even your common sense should alert you to your mistake.

You just pulled that number out of thin air. So what?

I haven't quoted any text books. All I've said is that you obviously have no science education. I've been trying to assist you, but all you do is resist. Read my lips: there is no perpetual motion machine, there is no self-sustaining machine, and there is no over-unity device. If you need lessons in science I can probably help you, but you first have to get off the gas and do some actual mental work, starting with solving beginner's textbook problems.

OK keep it up. You're just hurting yourself. Every one of these posts is an opportunity for you to turn a corner and gain knowledge in a subject in which you are way, way behind the curve.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell if you're trolling, a compulsive liar, or just kind of dumb and not aware of what you're saying to me. I can flatten a tennis ball with my bare hand. How many bars do you think an average human hand puts out?

No you're not. You're waiting for another sucker to come along and offer you help so you can act like a complete idiot.

What the hell is a voval? Are you aware of the gibberish you are posting? If you want to be understood, at least try to proof your posts. I am by no means perfect, but I do at least make an effort to proof what I'm posting.

Coming from a dropout, I consider that a compliment.

Said the dropout who flunked science.

You're just responding like a dumb cluck. Say something at least halfway intelligent, otherwise you're trolling here. Cut the crap and speak to the issues. Answer the mail. You've been confronted by elementary questions in science. At least do some reading, go fetch the answers, if you're too knuckle-headed and ungrateful to take the free advice you've been given.

Homework/suggested reading: find out what an engine cycle is. Learn about over-unity machines and why they are impossible. Find out the pressure required to flatten a tennis ball. Explain the equation I posted on page 2. Get out your best hillbilly boots, step on a tennis ball, then estimate how many bars you applied to the ball to flatten it.

 

The intelligent learn, those not attempt to show others they are wrong. They are easy to spot , usualy spoon fed and cant think for themselves. The rock apes watch a car driving down the road and say that cant happen and spend the rest of the day explaining why not.

 

self sustaining.
i kind of figured it.
the "einstein" refrigerator, nor any other refrigerator i am aware of, is "self sustaining".

 

I dont know of any self sustaining fridges either! Dont know NASA knows of one either, but they sure do know about CO2. So does web site R744. Waste their time.

 

Of course they do, and so do *many* others.

But not a single one of them is stupid enough to even remotely suggest using it the way YOU want to. Your idea is completely insane.

 

In general, you'll be disappointed if you take the approach "I know better than all those boring old science textbooks because I can SEE THE TRUTH!"

Really? The gas turbines that are at the heart of a modern combined cycle gas power plant are "18th century work?" Interesting that you'd think so.

Really? You think the "old" equations for thermodynamics and gas expansion don't work any more?

You are describing a recuperator, which is common in Rankine cycle engines. There's generally no mention of where you get the heat and water from for the first time since it doesn't really matter; what matters (in closed cycle systems) is steady state operation.

Heat is energy. It's sort of the definition.

Force=energy?

OK then. Here's a physics problem for you.

I have a strong concrete wall. I build a machine to apply a million newtons of force against the wall. How much energy am I generating?

I want to generate more energy, so I build an even better machine to apply TWO million newtons of force against the wall. How much energy am I generating now?

 

bilvon.
Bye, waste some body elses time time.

 

Read-Only
Waste some body elses time.

 

Sorry. I know physics confuses and depresses some people.

 

Sorry to hear about you.

 

Have you learned thermo yet?

No, Gawd forbid anyone should correct another person's mistakes.
(BTW: your grammar still needs work.)

I know! They have been force fed obvious propaganda, like gravity, electricity, and of course, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. .... all the standard brainwashing.

Mindless rocket apes. They're the same nitwits who say the sun will come up in the morning and then it obviously doesn't, and then they sit there trying to explain it, ignoring folks like you, who have been trying to set them straight. They're just too stupid to learn anything.

Well you'll show 'em. After you patent your 600 bar leather, and especially when you sell a billion 7000 bar CO[sub]2[/sub] ambient air electric generators -- yeah, you'll show 'em.

 

Parrot, learn some words for yourself.