Powertrain

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

Not open for further replies.

Messages:
12
Dr. Dave I really do hope your DAGAFEED works, but you can not ignore the laws of physics you don’t like. I will pay pal you $5.00 for your R&D work on your DAGAFEED if you will stop teaching your DAGAFEED and POWERTRAIN physics to kids. After your DAGAFEED passes its 30 day test and you win your Nobel prize you can teach what ever you like. 2. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 3. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member Messages: 62 You don't see nothing. You are blind as a bat, or don't read. You should consider a freeride to the loony bin....lol It was in reference to a Alex's assumption that a trains deisel to electric motor direct drive is more efficient....Clownshoes....! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 4. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member Messages: 62 Dr. Dave I really do hope your DAGAFEED works, -Edgar, I can't tell,... you do? -It does, and the proof, schematics, and drawings have been noterized. No hope required, I simply need to see the patent lawyer. -DAGAFEED does not violate or supersede any physics, conservation of energy, or thermodynamic laws. It's no miracle, just simple applied ingenuity coupled with mechanical and electrical engineering. -My POWERTRAIN concept has been documented in several places. I have letters attesting to it's theoretical validity. but you can not ignore the laws of physics you don’t like. -Have been smoking crack, I don't think at any point I did. I will pay pal you$5.00 for your R&D work on your DAGAFEED if you will stop teaching your DAGAFEED and POWERTRAIN physics to kids.

-I'll concider $5 billion, but even then, I'd be selling myself short. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! After your DAGAFEED passes its 30 day test and you win your Nobel prize you can teach what ever you like. -Sure you'll listen then, I'll have the credibility. Although, what you should be doing, is listening now. LOL -Come up with$5,000 for 49% patent ownership, and I'll display it on the net for all investors to see. Once displayed, I guarentee you noteriety, and access to billions in readily available funding.

-But let's face it, everyone here is obviously broke and using their mothers computer. LOL

Thank You,

7. TrilobyteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
If it is a good idea why wouldn't all of the experts from all over the world have decided to use trains instead of power stations. There is a reason why only you think it is a good idea, and that is because you are not right (about "POWERTRAIN") (it is true as above that we cannot comment officially yet on DAGAFEED, but we probably can say with high certainty that you cannot "get energy from gravity" by a cycle that involves lifting and dropping a mass in gravity).

However the idea of regenerative braking is a useful concept. In this senario you make use of some of the energy that would normally be totally gone through brake disc heating, etc AND most importantly it is only used when a driver etc would incidentally require the vehicle to slow down (not while driving as you suggest -so instead as I said in a previous post (page 1) have regenrative braking at train stations or in cars but remember that it will only make the cars or trains more efficient nothing more).

The only advantage of your idea that you have managed to put across is that you are replacing cars and lorries and power stations with trains. This is NOT better. It is less efficient and less convenient - not everyone or everything needs to travel the same way as others, that is why most prefer personal cars over public transport. Also if this was a better system again the thousands of experts across many countries would have realised this from years of study and statistical analysis, time has proven that they have NOT selected this, and for very good reason. (see my second post on this thread)

8. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
If it is a good idea why wouldn't all of the experts from all over the world have decided to use trains instead of power stations. There is a reason why only you think it is a good idea, and that is because you are not right (about "POWERTRAIN") (it is true as above that we cannot comment officially yet on DAGAFEED, but we probably can say with high certainty that you cannot "get energy from gravity" by a cycle that involves lifting and dropping a mass in gravity).

-Well, you're clearly wrong on both. I've obvious;y made that clear with POWERTRAIN. Why it was and/or has not yet been implimented most likely relates to the economy, and pocket lining. Do you have an idea what has been spent so far to prepare areas for nuclear waste buriel alone? Wake up cracka! You obviously 'cannot say anything' with certainty, never mind high certainty.

However the idea of regenerative braking is a useful concept.

-No, it's not, it's for clowns with no vision.

In this senario you make use of some of the energy that would normally be totally gone through brake disc heating, etc AND most importantly it is only used when a driver etc would incidentally require the vehicle to slow down (not while driving as you suggest -so instead as I said in a previous post (page 1) have regenrative braking at train stations or in cars but remember that it will only make the cars or trains more efficient nothing more).

-Clownshoes, this has been used for many years already, it's ass backward engineering. Gm is now moving in the right direction by placing alternators at each wheel, to re-charge the battery while in motion.

The only advantage of your idea that you have managed to put across is that you are replacing cars and lorries and power stations with trains. This is NOT better. It is less efficient and less convenient - not everyone or everything needs to travel the same way as others, that is why most prefer personal cars over public transport.

-It's thousands of times more efficient than any other fuel to electrical conversion, (cough) although I'm positive I've said that more than once already. Who said anything about making your car go where you don't want it to? Stay off the drugs! We're utilizing the same rail tracks and routes, and if your going to try and debunk POWERTRAIN, at least try not to display an abundant amount ignorance.

Also if this was a better system again the thousands of experts across many countries would have realised this from years of study and statistical analysis, time has proven that they have NOT selected this, and for very good reason. (see my second post on this thread)

-I am seeing your post on this thread, you're the one that displays a half hearted effort to debunk advanced engineering. Scientist know many things they are not saying. They also know why many things are being suppressed.

-Do us a favor,....take a new car battery and drain it's energy, mount a bicycle wheel and tire to an alternator and the alternator to an aluminum pole, connect the alternator to the battery, go out to the rail tracks and wait for the next passing train, hold the bicycle tire to the side of the boxcars as they wend by. Then measure the battery with a voltage meter
and come back here and tell us how much energy you harnessed, that would have otherwise not been harnessed. We're all ears.

-When you finish that....Come back here and debunk the world's first free energy device, The Hoover Dam. Again, we're all ears.

-The problem here is clear, your mind is way to small to comprehend advanced technology.

Thank You,

9. ShitstormRegistered Member

Messages:
17
wouldn't a windmill be considered a free energey device?..predating the hoover dam by a few hundred years...

10. TrilobyteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
Cryo most scientists use proofs and some tangible calculations to prove things. You just make claims without anything. But as they say, those who can't do, teach.

As for your bicycle wheel thingy. Why would you want to slow down a train? It loses enough energy as it is. And it is not "unused", I beleive the train is still using it to move at a fixed speed and cope with losses due to resistance.

The Hoover dam is a dam, what else to it? The source of energy that it ultimately converts to electricity is solar via the hydrological cycle.

11. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
But that's what is....I can't paint a rosey picture for you. I can't reveal it's dynamics without first having applied for a patent. Before 2010, everyone will own the 100KW model to power their home, possibly to charge their automobiles.

12. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Cryo most scientists use proofs and some tangible calculations to prove things. You just make claims without anything. But as they say, those who can't do, teach.

-You've lost yer crackers cracka! get a car battery, alternator, and bicycle tire, try it yourself cracka! You're too easy....How much proof do you need, are you that much of a complete reject? Obviously....you're spewing it all over this thread.

As for your bicycle wheel thingy. Why would you want to slow down a train?

-If you think this will slow down the train, you've lost your crackers, cracka!

It loses enough energy as it is.

-Wha?....Go back to 5th grade cracka, you're lost! LOL

And it is not "unused", I beleive the train is still using it to move at a fixed speed and cope with losses due to resistance.

-What do you think fuel is for, boney marony? If you would have taken physics, you'd know that it only requires 1ph to keep an automobile at 60mph once up to speed. The rest is wasted hp/energy/fuel. Mercedes has introduced a V8 that cuts out 4 cylinders once up to cruising speed. Why? Because there was wasted hp/energy/fuel. Get a clue.

The Hoover dam is a dam, what else to it? The source of energy that it ultimately converts to electricity is solar via the hydrological cycle.

-Not so, it's the sun's thermonuclear fusion and ecosystem that fills the basin, and the basin becomes GPE. It then requires GKE or gravity, to run the device. It generates 2 billion watts per day, and powers 5 states.
If you're hind set on debunking free energy, start with the Hoover Dam, that's what else to it. Free energy exists, that's the bottom line.

-Any reasonable questions or comments out there concerning DAGAFEED free energy/over-unity machines or POWERTRAIN? C'mon, I know someone here has vision, y'all can't be rejects.

Thank You,

13. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Hoover Dam is the first commercially distributed free energy device. Windmills and stream mills could, I guess be concidered the first devices, although lets not forget that they are intermittant and the cost to construct is never recovered compared to 5.5 cents per kwh to purchase from the grid. A few hundred years? Not hardly, there were no generators. The first windmill to turn a generator was the brush postmill in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1888, as far as I know.

The first steam/coal driven locomotives to generate electrical lighting for the train, pulled a caboose which had a wheel that drug on the ground at the rear of the train, between the tracks. Years later, the generator was turned by the cabooses rear axle.

14. AlexKRegistered Member

Messages:
16
What is 1ph? If you mean 1hp then I have a question for you. If this fictional car requires only 1hp to cruise 60mph, what would it need to cruise 100mph? 500mph? Air resistance on a moving body is roughly proportional to 1/2 A Cd rho V^2 with Cd being the drag coefficient, usually around 0.5 or so for a well designed car. An average car with a frontal area of 2 m^2 would require 15.5 hp to overcome wind resistance only at 60mph in sea level air. Rolling resistance and drivetrain friction only add to the power requirement, probably doubling it. You are a goddamn idiot but I can't help checking back on this forum because your responses are so entertaining. Sometimes I think you are acting stupid on purpose just to bait us.

A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. A Joule is a unit of energy. A Watt is a Joule per second. Saying Hoover Dam generates 2 billion Watts per day is like saying your mom gives 10 blow jobs per hour per day. It just doesn't make sense.

You are not a scientist (this is obvious to everyone reading this forum). The response "you've lost your crackers" indicates this as you cannot even address simple comments about your inventions. We are not criticizing your inventions because we hate you, we are criticizing them because they have obvious flaws. We hate you because you are a jackass.

So now the DAGAFEED patent only costs $5,000 and not$50,000? If you are so sure of it, why don't you fund it yourself? \$5,000 isn't a lot, put it on your credit card. It's a lot easier to waste other people's money I think. You don't even have confidence in your own design.

Last edited: Jun 28, 2005

Messages:
62

16. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
No vision Alex?.....LOL

Can't we all just get along?......

17. TrilobyteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
Finally I have someone to agree with (AlexK). Cryo I can quite easily see why you didn't bother puting your idea on the Physics and Maths forums. It would be torn to shreds left right and centre. In fact I dare you to put it on there.

Also: Proof please. In simple terms that means numbers and equations comparing power stations and trains!

Last edited: Jun 28, 2005
18. cryogenicRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
It's completely adjustable, just add fuel. What figures would you like? Better yet, why don't you involve yourself and give 'us' the figures. I don't think you can Trilow, I've read your posts, and to my dismay, observed over-whelming 'ignorance'. And If you're agreeing with Alex, please be specific, Alex has already agreed to the validity of POWERTRAIN whether he'd like to admit it or not, pal. But at least this shows he's brighter than the rest here so far.

...Hey Alex, 2 billion watts per day! LOL Like it or lump it, biotch! It's posted at the Hoover Dam web site! But hey, if you did your reaserch first, you'd know this.

Would you like that in watts, kilo, mega, tara, joules, or crammed up your ass?! rofl

Thank You,

19. cptfreerideRegistered Member

Messages:
12
2 billion watts per day

20. cptfreerideRegistered Member

Messages:
12
Dr DAGAFEED if was pushing a magic box that made free energy and when ever I was given a question I would say “Would you like that in watts, kilo, mega, tara, joules, or crammed up your ass?! Rofl”, “When you stop presenting yourself as a bonehead, perhaps we can move forward“, “car requires only 1hp to cruise 60mph or 2 billion watts per day “? Would you fund it?

21. freeenergyRegistered Member

Messages:
5
Mr. Adams he so samrt. It tech me all about freeinergy. His DAGFEED will work realy good. Alex you Dumb like Margie not smart like me and mr.(at least margie pritty. Adams he make albert insties the of relativity simpull. Nutune no nothing about gravity or pyisics. Nutoniam Mack nicks no good must use DAGAFEED and POWERTRAIN phisics to make stuff work. Dumb as it takes all cars 1hp to go 60mph and 2 hp to go 120 you like margi and not to this.LOL She say it would take almost any care more than 1Hp to go 60mph and even if it only toke one hp to go 60mph it would take 8 to go 120 you doumb Margi like Ales.LOL 1x2=2 not 8 lol. Me smart to I git A+ in Mr. Adamas pisic class. Me can aser all you DAGAFEED POWERTRAIN qutions if MR. A wont. Couse me smart. Cptfreeride 6billion wahhts lot of power. Dumb ass. And Trilobyte Mr adams post his stuff on forms not to be torn apart but to teach you so u can be smart like me. Me no DAGFEED cool. Odin'Izm now u no huver dam first free energy befor that no dam or wind mill no whater mill you lisin to mr adams he smart. I going to have the first dagfeed car as soon as GM lets me preorder.

22. TrilobyteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
Remember this Cryo? You seem to have completely ignored it.... I wonder why....( also remember that cptfreeride was quoting YOU, before you argue otherwise)

(Maybe you can find some way to comment)

Also, Cryo you are the one making the claims (referring to the train). You are responsible for providing a proof not me. I (/we) challenged your idea, the least you can do (maybe you can't) is defend it. Therefore, Proof PLEASE.

Last edited: Jun 28, 2005
23. AlexKRegistered Member

Messages:
16
The secret of the DAGAFEED

As David explains, the secret is the use of a 12V motor to bring the weight back to the top, so it can fall again and power 50kW generators.

David, a lower voltage motor does not use less power to do the same work as a higher voltage motor. In fact, low voltage motors are usually less efficient. How did you come up with this hair-brained idea? Did you perhaps measure the motor's no-load current and assume it stays the same when a load is applied?

I love the part where you explain to Jerry the mechanical engineer how to make it work, and he agrees. Where did he get his degree from, a cracker jack box?

OK instead of telling me I'm on crack or I've lost my crackers, answer this one question please: If the energy required to raise a weight is mgh, how much energy is harnessed when the weight drops? According to your previous posts the DAGAFEED uses 1% of it power to run itself so I am expecting to hear 100mgh but I am all ears.

So if Hoover Dam produces 2 billion Watts per day, what does it produce in a year? 700 billion Watts? You are not only ignorant, but determined to stay that way.