Powertrain

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by cryogenic, Jun 1, 2005.

Not open for further replies.
1. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Yes Matt, I'll agree....That's why I originally nicknamed him Odumb. LOL

Last edited: Jun 25, 2005

3. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Looks like that story and photo are bunk. There is no reference, no website, no way that box produces energy in that range. I'd say craiglist fabricated that story using my name, nor was this story available before I started this thread. I can't stop laughing, nice effort though. I've also seen this photo before, it is not DAGAFEED.

5. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Why is the moderator here always tea baggin?

7. TrilobyteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
You already have plenty of leaks - an entire class that knows how "DAGAFEED" works.
Why not just explain it. (your website is also a joke)

A maglev is NOT PERPETUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cannot use the energy since it had to have been sped up before, and it will eventually stop due to resistance!!!!!This is the icing on the cake. You insult everyone, you have no explanation and now you have proven, undisbutably, that you have no knowledge of basic physics or common sense!!!!

8. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Trilow, you're such a dumbass. Maglev makes POWERTRAIN an over-unity device if it is producing more that is consuming.(reject) Granted the first trains down the line would have to use fossil fuel or be battery powered to get the system started and rolling.

Secondly. If I have plenty of leaks, please explain to us how DAGAFEED works, we're all ears genious. My class of 6th grade students knows how POWERTRAIN works, not DAGAFEED dumbass. You see, 12 year olds have higher IQ's than you. Craiglist is the real joke here. My webpage is the best you've seen, face it!

ROFL at this clown. He needs to troll his way on over to Loony Tunes forum.

9. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
All truth passes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed;

Second, it is violently opposed;

Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Y'all will come along soon, and when you do, remember I'm holding plans for the Holy Grail.

Dave

Messages:
62
11. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Animation and Explanation of a Theoretical 8 Rotor CIP Engine
Animation and Explanation by Victor Cook

PHASE 1: The rotors (yellow) are at the mass exchange point. The masses (bright blue) are being dropped off by the pickup arms (black). There is no shock to the system during the weight transfer.

PHASE 2: The masses are at their optimum centrifugal force imbalance at this point. When coupled with a counter rotating unit, this would be the peak of the centrifugal force imbalance. The device would move toward the viewer from this angle.

PHASE 3: The rotors have now reached the exchange point with the pickup arms after 45° of arm rotation. The masses transfer back to the pickup arms at this point, again with no shock.

PHASE 4: The masses once again generate their optimum centrifugal force imbalance at this point. The imbalance is independent of whether the masses are on the rotors or the pickup arms. The cycle repeats itself after this phase.

12. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Forceborne Converts centrifugal force into a linear motion. "Bob has a working prototype that must be seen to believe. It is nothing short of amazing. I have actually seen it work as have many other people." -- Alfred Holzheu

Nowthen, not more than 1hp here with forceborne. DAGAFEED produces 130hp, and that is the small 100KW residential model.

13. cptfreerideRegistered Member

Messages:
12
If you are teaching your 6th grade class this stuff you should be fired.

14. AlexKRegistered Member

Messages:
16
Cryo,
I'm being serious now. All prodding aside, why do you think it would save fossil fuels to power a train (with fossil fuels) and then slow it down slightly at each station and convert that power (with significant losses associated with mechanical friction, generators, inverters, etc) into electrical power? The energy generated through this complex system would be less than the additional energy the train's engines would need to supply to get the train back up to speed (I hope you accept the fact that energy is always conserved). In a conventional power plant where natural gas or coal is used to either run gas turbine engines or power a steam cycle, cogeneration is used to bring efficiency levels as high as possible. The large size of these systems has additional efficiency advantages. A train's diesel engine is not nearly as efficient as a power plant.

The DAGAFEED idea is just silly. Since you haven't told us how it "works" we therefore can't tell you exactly which law(s) of physics will prevent it from working. Fools have tried for centuries to make perpetual motion machines, they probably always will (DAGAFEED is evidence of this).

Oh, when soliciting investors you might not want to say anything about how your 6th grade class has confirmed that your invention will work. It's just a hunch, but I don't think that gains you any credibility.

15. cptfreerideRegistered Member

Messages:
12

how would you no that box "can not produce energy in that range". Don’t you claim about the same. No website, no reference. You don’t have a lot of ether one. You must not believe your own lie.

16. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
I don't know, I simply don't believe it because of it's size. But then I'm just like you, skeptical until I see it's mechanics/dynamics/figures, I could be wrong. I wouldn't want anyone to invest in my DAGAFEED without seeing the pertinent info, that of which I will disclose at the patent office. The complete patent will be about $4800, I will give the patent partner 49% ownership of said patent for the investment. Investments are risks, although I assure you this one is risk free. Once the patent has been applied for, I have an investor that will supply$50,000-$100,000 once they also see schematics, to produce the proto-type. This same investors, guarentees to invest upwards of$1 billion if and when the proto-type has wings. Don't ask, he is reluctant to first cough up the patent funds. I'll be closing on a property soon that will give me $75,000 of my own, if I do not apply for the patent before then with a patent partner, I will be going to the patent lawters office solo. Therefore, I expect DAGAFEED to be worth the trillion dollar range, a great investment at ground floor for anyone with$4,800. The patent lawyer is waiting for me and the cash to walk into his office, that is my possition at this time, although this offer will not last long. I am not interested in MOU's or confidentiality agreements, I simply won't disclose without the patent. I've said enough here to prove my solidarity.

That green box is not DAGAFEED. I'll tell you what that green box is and who those people are on Monday.

17. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Cryo,
I'm being serious now.

-Hey.... that's a first?

All prodding aside, why do you think it would save fossil fuels to power a train (with fossil fuels)

-Because we use fossil fuels in Power Plants/cross country trucking. Sending trains across country that also power the country, saves billions in trucking fuel/Fossil Fuel Power Plants.

and then slow it down slightly at each station and convert that power (with significant losses associated with mechanical friction, generators, inverters, etc) into electrical power?

-No, we speed up the trains slightly via more throttle, as they wend by the alternator stations. This in turn spins the alternators generating electricity. We are utilizing force/momentum/velocity/hp to turn the alternator stations, that of which are placed every 1 mile on the tracks, preferable underneith. The more trains we keep on the line, the more cargo/passengers/livestock we move and the more electricity we produce. Sure there is friction, but insignificant loss. There are also conversion and transmission losses, but hey, insignificant when you're producing energy for pennies in fuel, and sending product cross country for the same coin.

The energy generated through this complex system would be less than the additional energy the train's engines would need to supply to get the train back up to speed (I hope you accept the fact that energy is always conserved).

-Not so. We are utilizing momemtum 'and' producing more momemtum before we hit an alternator station. We produce the energy for slighly more throttle at each station, or pennies.

In a conventional power plant where natural gas or coal is used to either run gas turbine engines or power a steam cycle, cogeneration is used to bring efficiency levels as high as possible. The large size of these systems has additional efficiency advantages. A train's diesel engine is not nearly as efficient as a power plant.

-'It is' when you utilize the trains force. It requires 1ph to keep an automobile at 60mph once up to speed. The rest is wasted energy.

The DAGAFEED idea is just silly. Since you haven't told us how it "works" we therefore can't tell you exactly which law(s) of physics will prevent it from working.

-No, DAGAFEED is not silly, my gracious offer to give away 49% ownership in the DAGAFEED patent without revealing it's dynamics, is silly.

Fools have tried for centuries to make perpetual motion machines, they probably always will (DAGAFEED is evidence of this).

-How is DAGAFEED evident of this if you don't know a thing about DAGAFEED?

Oh, when soliciting investors you might not want to say anything about how your 6th grade class has confirmed that your invention will work.

-No, they know haw POWERTRAIN will produce electricity for the entire country, and at the time eliminate nuclear waste.

It's just a hunch, but I don't think that gains you any credibility.

-Perhaps not, but what I've said on this forum so far, does.

-Thank You,

18. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
And one more thing Alex, I'll tell you what and who that green box is you posted with a bunk webpage using my decices name on monday. Stay tuned....

19. AlexKRegistered Member

Messages:
16
For simplicity's sake lets assume the powertrain generater and power conversion system is 100% efficient. If 1000kW was produced for 10 seconds, the total amount of energy produced would be 10E6 Joules. Therefore the kinetic energy of the train would be decreased by this same amount, and the trains engines would need to supply 10E6 additional Joules of energy to regain the lost speed. There is nothing magical that would allow massive energy production from pennies worth of fuel.

Momentum is not energy. They are totally different concepts. For example, a 150 grain bullet from my .357 travels at about 1000 mph. It's momentum is about 4.4 kg*m/s. A 16 lb bowling ball would only need be traveling 1.4 mph to have the same amount of momentum. Which one would you rather get hit with? The answer is easy, the bowling ball. That's because it has 750 times less kinetic energy than the bullet. Even if the force of the bowling ball impact was concentrated onto an area the size of a bullet, the damage would be minimal. I used this example just so you can agree that momentum and energy are totally different. When you slow a moving object to extract energy from it, you reduce it's kinetic energy directly. Momentum will also be reduced, but since momentum is linear with velocity and kinetic energy is a squared relationship, kinetic energy will be reduced much more quickly than momentum. For example, a train which slows from 60mph to 55 mph loses only 8% of its momentum but loses 16% of its kinetic energy. You can't just throttle up "slightly" to replace that lost energy.

20. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
For simplicity's sake lets assume the powertrain generater and power conversion system is 100% efficient. If 1000kW was produced for 10 seconds, the total amount of energy produced would be 10E6 Joules. Therefore the kinetic energy of the train would be decreased by this same amount, and the trains engines would need to supply 10E6 additional Joules of energy to regain the lost speed. There is nothing magical that would allow massive energy production from pennies worth of fuel.

-Whew Alex, you've lost your crackers.

Momentum is not energy. They are totally different concepts. For example, a 150 grain bullet from my .357 travels at about 1000 mph. It's momentum is about 4.4 kg*m/s. A 16 lb bowling ball would only need be traveling 1.4 mph to have the same amount of momentum. Which one would you rather get hit with? The answer is easy, the bowling ball. That's because it has 750 times less kinetic energy than the bullet. Even if the force of the bowling ball impact was concentrated onto an area the size of a bullet, the damage would be minimal. I used this example just so you can agree that momentum and energy are totally different. When you slow a moving object to extract energy from it, you reduce it's kinetic energy directly. Momentum will also be reduced, but since momentum is linear with velocity and kinetic energy is a squared relationship, kinetic energy will be reduced much more quickly than momentum. For example, a train which slows from 60mph to 55 mph loses only 8% of its momentum but loses 16% of its kinetic energy. You can't just throttle up "slightly" to replace that lost energy.[/QUOTE]

-Yes you can with increased force/velocity/momentum/hp, which is provided via throttle. If you don't understand this, I can't help you. There once was a girl in my Advanced Physics class, she did not understand the concept of anything, regardless how many times the teacher and class tried to help her understand it, you are a classic "Margie", Alex. LOL

Thank You,

21. AlexKRegistered Member

Messages:
16
-Whew Alex, you've lost your crackers.

-Yes you can with increased force/velocity/momentum/hp, which is provided via throttle. If you don't understand this, I can't help you. There once was a girl in my Advanced Physics class, she did not understand the concept of anything, regardless how many times the teacher and class tried to help her understand it, you are a classic "Margie", Alex. LOL

David,
Obviously a train can speed up with more throttle. What I am trying to tell you is the amount of energy needed to speed up the train is exactly the same as what is generated (minus significant frictional and conversion losses). You seem to think more energy can be harvested from the train than the engine produces. Hell if that was the case, why not use the generated power to propel the train?
You are right, if I was in your Advanced Physics class (not impressed) and you were teaching me the David Adams Laws of Physics, I would not get it.

22. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
The City of Los Angeles uses 2 deisel locomotives as back-up to power the city in a black out.

Please explain to us, how you can eliminate cross country trucking and reduce chronic exposure to hydrocarbons, generate electricity, reduce trucking and photochemical pollution, emmisions, carcinogenicity and/or reduce/eliminate environmental contamination with man-made waste and/or nuclear waste, while getting products and people across country, and all for the same coin? It's an entirely new conceptual planetary dispersion model.

We're all ears. I already have, and it's thousands of times more efficient than direct fossil fuel drive. Why? Because it also utilizes what? Say it louder for everyone to hear it, Margie! LOL

There is no greater fuel to electrical conversion concept in use or theoretical, than POWERTRAIN. Period.

It also allows us to use all electric vehicles and transend transportation conformity. Since we're producing nuclear waste, we should all have been driving fully electric vehicles for many years already. In that big oil runs the economy, the barrons push the continuation of the vicious circle to line thier estates, and prevent ecomonical deprivation. A gradual transition is imminent, therefore, why not now? In 50 years it will be to late, but that's all another story straying from the subject at hand.

When folk road horses, and someone said "a thing with wheels that rolls people across country without a horse", not only would they say this someone had lost their crackers, they would be avoided and their sanity questioned, perhaps even shot.

They/we beheaded a man for saying the world was round, not flat. Check any history book.

Thank You,