Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 38 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
momos

I dont agree , because you still think that the vacuum is not
supporting the weight of the water in the straw.

water will not expand or stretch inside the straw.

the partial vacuum at the top of the straw is generated by the falling water in the straw.

when I lift the straw the water in the straw pulls down just as if a piston were pulling downwards on the air above the water in the straw.

the vacuum is exerting a upward force on every molecule
in the straw , why should I apply a electric field to accomplish the same result?

but if you want to spend a few billion dollars to lift the water
go ahead.

then you can float a few frogs when your finished.

I'll just use the $30.00 vacume pump.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
"the vacuum is exerting a upward force on every molecule
in the straw"

That's just plain wrong. I give up, you don't believe me, you don't believe internet sources, apparently you don't believe in scientific textbooks.

http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14265/css/14265_206.htm: "Assuming the liquid is water and there is a perfect vacuum below the piston, atmospheric pressure pushes water up into the cylinder to a height of 34 feet, even though the piston may be raised higher than 34 feet"

Go ahead, try to build a PM without basic knowledge of pysics. Good luck.

--

You shouldn't apply the electric field. It was just a thought experiment and actually that's part of a scientific process: You have an Idea (like pressure gradient is responsible for floating) and then you try do think of an experiment to falsify your claims (e.g. water columns without a pressure gradient shouldn't let things float).

In this video you can see a drop of water, levitating in a magnetic field. Notice the air bubbles: they are not floating upwards, despite the still working gravity and the density difference. Instead they are behaving like they would in zero-g. (actually they should sink downwards, I guess the thermic motions are to strong or the air itself is diamagnetic to).

http://www.ru.nl/aspx/download.aspx?File=/contents/pages/534727/drop2a.mpg&structuur=hfml

Last edited by Momos; 05/02/10 06:59 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
its easy to see that they are not levitating anything in the
video , they have built a area that is not affected by gravity and that is all they have done.

which is quite a feat none the less.

the vacuum is pulling on the top of the water in the straw.
water cannot stretch so the remainder of the water below the surface is pulling on the surface.

etc etc etc...

use your brain for thinking.

not just for reading.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
Kallog
it doesnt matter how you word it.

Yep. As long as we all understand each other. Which I think we surely do because this is such a simple phenomenon that we've all done with a rubber duck in the bath when we were a kid.

Quote:

when its time to turn the cards its density that wins.

Not on the ISS it doesn't. No gravity = no bouyancy.

Quote:

in this situation the pressure gradient you speak of is negligible or
non existant.

No, the pressure gradient is constant and non-negligible. That's where the force comes from in the first place. The downward force on top is less than the upward force at the bottom, so the thing get a net upward force. Without that difference there's no buoyancy. Equally of course without a density difference in the two things, there's no buoyancy either, when you define buoyancy to include the object's own weight. Different colored rhinoseroses.


Quote:

and to try to continue our discussion if a HHO cell is at the bottom of the 10 ft pipe
..
and less at -50 kPa guage pressure.


Yep. Can you describe this whole new system?


Last edited by kallog; 05/03/10 10:33 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul

the vacuum is pulling on the top of the water in the straw.


I think for our purposes it doesn't matter if you say the vacuum is pulling or the atmosphere is pushing. The net force adds up to the same. Just have to remember that vacuum's pulling force is limited, as Momos has explained.

So can we get onto the actual device? Or are you still working it out?

Last edited by kallog; 05/03/10 10:43 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul

video , they have built a area that is not affected by gravity and that is all they have done.


Whoa! When did they invent antigravity?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Well , I havent finished completely I still have to do a
little more drawing and wording so I suppose you can have
a look at the below images from a water engine Im designing.

I didnt include the HHO cells in the images yet , but
they are located inside the water in the tanks at the bottom of the images.

also I havent shown the piston rods at angles as they
push the crankshafts around in a circle.

just use your imagination.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I was waiting for your explanation.

I can see basically how it works. But how's it different from a normal engine?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Im really not sure !!!

but I was thinking that the vacuum generated in the one side will require less energy to generate HHO.

also as the piston strokes into this vacuum the piston will
have an extra force applied by the vacuum.

so what we have here is HHO being generated in a vacuum.
and HHO being burned in a higher pressure.

plus the extra umph from the vacuum as the piston strokes towards the vacuum.


3 plusses.

it should be capable of providing enought power to run a generator , that should provide the electricity to generate
the HHO.

and if anythings left over then that is free energy.

so the real difference is that it contains its own fuel
supply that never dimminishes.

because the water is recycled from water to HHO then back to water then back to HHO , etc etc etc.

you just need a battery to start it , just like a car
engine.

it probably wont work as fast as a car engine , because there is a time factor involved in the HHO generation
but by using a heavy flywheel the force from the explosions can be transfered into the flywheel that will hold the force until it is used.

although the flywheel could be turning very fast , the
engine rpm could be very low , by using a geared ratio
between the engine and flywheel.

this way the engine can have a slower rpm that will allow
more time between explosions and allowing more time for the build up of HHO gasses.

and you could have several of these inline to achieve more power.

and they could be timed so you would have a more balanced
fireing order and power input to the flywheel.

I think it really would work !!!

can you think of anything that would stop it?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
???

Sorry, but this must be the most inefficient engine ever!
Just use an electric engine, and you will be much much better off.

"that it contains its own fuel "

No, it doesn't. It contains a very inefficient indirect way to convert electrical energy to mechanical motion.

--

Just think of a conventional combustion engine with hydrogen.

Last edited by Momos; 05/08/10 08:07 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
maybe you could explain your reason for thinking its
inefficient.

or should we just take your word for it.

just give it a try , your so good at it , and you know everythng
about energy , it shouldnt take much effort.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Making the piston pull a vacuum consumes energy. Then you fill that vacuum with HHO, so you can't recover the lost energy by having it pull the piston back again.

You've said that free energy is already possible. Why not investigate one of these "possible" methods that others have talked about? There's no need to improve on them if they already work.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
kallog

when the spark fires the HHO ignights , all of the HHO in the chamber explodes
sending the piston forward.

forcing the piston to move.

transfering the force from the explosion to the heavy flywheel.

immediately after the explosion the HHO converts back into water.

causing the vacuum.

the vacuum is caused by the imploding HHO not the piston.

then as you say the chamber fills with HHO again but the HHO
is being generated in a vacume that is being held steady as the
piston moves further out.

producing more HHO for less energy.

we have already discussed the fact that HHO cost less to produce
in a vacuum , so if you explode the HHO in a higher pressure
then you naturally get more energy from the explosion than you put into making the HHO that caused the explosion.

this is all rudimentary , currently used processes.

this is a highly possible and applicable method as everything points to its viability.


dont you agree that HHO can be generated at a lower cost
in a vacuum?

dont you agree that HHO would supply more force if exploded
in a compressed atmosphere.

you have previously stated each was true , has something changed.

we know already that hydrogen has 140 mj of energy compared to gasolines 40 mj

we know that a gasoline engine has a
power stroke
exhaust stroke
intake stroke
compression stroke

and this engine only has a
power stroke !!!

and it has 3 times the amount of energy in the fuel that powers these strokes.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, I missed the way the vacuum was formed.

It doesn't clearly work until you add up all the energies.

When the explosion occurs it pushes the piston, then immediately the gas condenses and forms a vacuum which tries to pull the piston back the wrong way! There's a loss of energy, taken from the flywheel.

That's assuming the burnt HHO goes straight to liquid water. It'll first turn to water vapour, and that vapour won't condense until there's enough pressure. Keep it sealed off and it'll probably never condense even after it's cooled to room temperature.

The energy losses from the compression,exhaust and intake strokes in a normal engine are pretty low. The massive dumping ground of most of the fuel's energy goes into high temperature exhaust and heating up the components of the engine when it burns. Your engine is no better in those regards - it still needs massive external cooling to dump all that heat from the burnt gas.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I've just had a thought.

You could do a similar thing with a normal engine. Take the hot exhaust gas, allow it to cool to room temperature inside a cylinder, and extract power from that piston as the cooling gas contracts.

That seems to be equivalent to what you're doing. It's called a 'bottoming cycle', and can get you a bit more efficiency, at the expense of extra parts. Many car engines actually do that, it costs more money and gives you a little bit more efficiency - called a turbocharger.

However all the bottoming cycles added up still can't give more than Carnot efficiency, which is still much less than 100% for burning gas and room temperature ambient.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
There's a loss of energy, taken from the flywheel.


yep , like the other three strokes in a ice engine.

wonder why they work?

and to think that they only have 1/3 the explosive force that moves the piston by using such a low grade fuel as gasoline.

just think it could also double as a furnace because theres no heat being wasted out of an exhaust pipe !!!

hmmm...water heaters , Ive also noticed that by placing a vacume on hot water the bubbles form
much more rapidly , maybe the heated water would help the HHO out a little.

and of course you failed to mention that in a vacuum the HHO would be generated much more rapidly
so the piston wouldnt be making much of a vacuum as it moves out.

as the vacuum would be filling very rapidly with HHO.

Quote:
It doesn't clearly work until you add up all the energies.


I agree










3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
That seems to be equivalent to what you're doing.


no where near that , sounds like an old steam condensation engine to me.

what Im doing is a ice engine that has only 1 stroke
and uses the most powerfull fuel we have.

but also the most friendly fuel , no pollution.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
A magic carpet uses an even friendlier fuel with even less pollution. There's no need to sell it until it works. Everybody already knows perpetual motion would be amazing.


So you have almost no vacuum because it's mostly filled with HHO? Then the HHO's not being generated in much vacuum and you lose the almost all the advantage! If you have a little bit of vacuum, it uses a little bit less energy to generate the HHO, and takes a little bit of energy from the flywheel. Until you can show that the little gain is more than the little loss then you might as well be talking about a magic carpet.


There's no point using waste heat as a furnace unless you have something nearby that needs a furnace. That's no different from any conventional engine which could be used the same way, but usually there's nothing nearby that needs heating. This is a totally unrelated idea to what you're talking about - muddying the waters.

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
Why not just generate the hydrogen in an industrial facility and just burn it in a combustion engine?
The engine and the production facility can be optimized for their sole purpose.

Your engine design would need a constant source of electrical energy. If thats availible we could use an e-engine.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So you have almost no vacuum because it's mostly filled with HHO? Then the HHO's not being generated in much vacuum


uhhh , when its filled with HHO theres really no need to generate more HHO.

then the piston compresses the HHO.

are you two guys thinking before you write?

Quote:
There's no point using waste heat as a furnace unless you have something nearby that needs a furnace.


a house , a factory , a building , etc...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5