|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:23 am
I've thought, since I was in 6th grade, that if you had a giant fan powered by batteries that it could create a wind powerful enough to spin the turbines (that are used to generate electricity) fast enough to make, not just the amount needed to power any househeld aplience but, also enough to take a small amount to power itself, creating a never ending cycle. That way it could save natural recources and it would be a lot safer for the enviroment than other sources like atomic power or burning fossel fuels.
Do they already use that?
If not, do you think it would work?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:02 pm
I dunno. I don't think that would really work. Well I'm assuming that you're using recharagable batteries, otherwise that doens't work at all.
It's because physics says you can't have what's called a perpetual motion device. That's something where you put some energy or power into it and then it somehow produces more energy or power which then keeps itself going. That's not possible because there's always energy lost to heat a friction and things like that.
I think your idea is possible to do, but I dunno if it would really be that efficient at making energy. I think there are lots more effiecient ways.
I suggest you could try making a smaller modle of that for yourself and see how long it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:19 pm
Yeah. Like AG said, you have to deal with the law of diminishing returns. No method of energy production is 100% efficient, because you simply can not harness every form of energy produced. Electricity is usually the energy in question, but it's only the main factor, because heat is also generated (another form of energy, and filament lightbulbs are an excellent example of this), as well as radiation of various forms (light, electromagnetic, and so on). In order to harness all of this energy, you would have to expend more energy than you would be creating, because you have to also power whatever device it is you're using to harness these other energy forms.
This doesn't mean that we'll never have extremely energy efficient devices or discover new technologies that require less power to do the same job. The advances in computer technology make this amply clear. It does mean, though, that it is impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. Even my thread about perpetual motion and how wormholes could be used to achieve it contains that flaw, because it requires an obscene amount of energy to get it started, and it's unlikely that it would ever reach a point where the energy required for keeping the wormholes stable in a progressively unstable environment would be eclipsed by the power generated using that method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:28 pm
Erm.
Actually, i quote you
"enough to take a small amount to power itself, creating a never ending cycle"
This is impossible : if you give to a system a certain quantity of Energy, it will not produce more :
So, if at the beginning , you give X Energy to a system, and that that system is made to give energy to the exterior surroundings [ don't know the english word D; ] ,
then the Energy left that is given again to the system cannot be equal to the initial one, if you don't furnish any kind of other Energy to that system.
Erm I'm not sure this was very clear sweatdrop
I'm gonna make a draw
Ok, let's say X = initial Energy
Y = Energy given to the outside surrounders [house appliances, for example]
X-Y= Energy left after you've given a quantity to the outside surrounders
So, if you don't give any Energy to the System, and that you use its energy for the outside surrounders , it will end up by having none left.
Thus, it cannot be endless.
Plus there is a loss of Energy by Joule Effect [ release [?] of heat ]
One of the simplest princips of Thermodynamic is that there is no loss, no creation of Energy, only Transformation.
The quantity of Energy in the universe is , to what we currently know, unvariable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:23 pm
Thermal Depolymerization. Look it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:00 pm
Ah. good ol' thermodymanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:27 am
radioactive waste101 I've thought, since I was in 6th grade, that if you had a giant fan powered by batteries that it could create a wind powerful enough to spin the turbines (that are used to generate electricity) fast enough to make, not just the amount needed to power any household aplience but, also enough to take a small amount to power itself, creating a never ending cycle. That way it could save natural resources and it would be a lot safer for the environment than other sources like atomic power or burning fossil fuels. Do they already use that? If not, do you think it would work? There is a lot that we can due, and better airfoil design is the best bet for us all. Some wind turbines only have a down time of 6-7%, which is not bad. The mot efficient mechanical device to produce electricity is a water wheel, 95%. Energy in the system is also lost to heat, so your still going to loss some in the process. I bet if you use magnet gears, the strong powerful ones you could reduce the friction as the energy is transfered to the generator in the tower hub, you will still lose energy to heat.I made a wind turbine, vertical and horztonal axis turbine, and a system with electricity that is stored in a battery is used to adjust the wind turbine for wind direction, never to power it though it can be to jump start it if one wished, but I don't think thats what you wanted. As for my turbines your better of having a good site location and a good airfoil than to use batteries. Turbines are only fault to the wind if there is not enough win to start it using electricity to produce more electricity proves to be inefficient, as others have stated. Test it like AG said, thats what I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:18 pm
"If something cannot create more Energy than it needs, then how do you explain Nuclear Fusion? This is one reason why so many Scientists are trying to perfect Nuclear Fusion. Because it produces more energy then it needs to continue, star-wise anyways"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:24 pm
Red 5 "If something cannot create more Energy than it needs, then how do you explain Nuclear Fusion? This is one reason why so many Scientists are trying to perfect Nuclear Fusion. Because it produces more energy then it needs to continue, star-wise anyways"... Fusion need TONES of energy. That's why we haven't developed a way to use it yet. For stars it's very effectient way to make energy, but that's cause stars already ahve the crazy high temperatures in their cores that you need to get enough energy to start fusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:41 pm
AstronomyGirl Red 5 "If something cannot create more Energy than it needs, then how do you explain Nuclear Fusion? This is one reason why so many Scientists are trying to perfect Nuclear Fusion. Because it produces more energy then it needs to continue, star-wise anyways"... Fusion need TONES of energy. That's why we haven't developed a way to use it yet. For stars it's very effectient way to make energy, but that's cause stars already ahve the crazy high temperatures in their cores that you need to get enough energy to start fusion. "Nonetheless, Fusion generates more energy than it needs to start. This may not be the way by human standards, but elsewhere it is"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:33 pm
Red 5 AstronomyGirl Red 5 "If something cannot create more Energy than it needs, then how do you explain Nuclear Fusion? This is one reason why so many Scientists are trying to perfect Nuclear Fusion. Because it produces more energy then it needs to continue, star-wise anyways"... Fusion need TONES of energy. That's why we haven't developed a way to use it yet. For stars it's very effectient way to make energy, but that's cause stars already ahve the crazy high temperatures in their cores that you need to get enough energy to start fusion. "Nonetheless, Fusion generates more energy than it needs to start. This may not be the way by human standards, but elsewhere it is"... Is there are reason for making more energy than it start with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:32 pm
the difference with Fusion is that it consumes fuel, unlike wind power as mentioned earlier which simply uses otherwise untapped energies.
Granted, it produces far more energy than it takes to start, but the fuel used in the process is consumed (sort of) and so new fuel is needed to continue the process. Different scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:51 pm
Red 5 "If something cannot create more Energy than it needs, then how do you explain Nuclear Fusion? This is one reason why so many Scientists are trying to perfect Nuclear Fusion. Because it produces more energy then it needs to continue, star-wise anyways"... mass into energy. and it takes alot of energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:38 pm
I was thinking that we could use antimatter as an alternative fuel source, but the problem is there is no way to contain it, it's highly expensive to create even a drop of it, and there is no other way to obtain it. Any antimatter would have reacted with normal matter already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
