Gas price Idea

[marcus]

So car engines simply focus the power of the universe into a central point? They don't create energy? Fascinating.

As a matter of fact, car engines do not create energy. That is why you either have to put gas in them or power them from the wall. They use the energy stored in gasoline, or electricity, and convert it to mechanical energy. No energy is created. If you are aware of any designs that don't require an external energy supply, please let the world know.

I think the main sticking point here is "where does all that heat go? it's not going back into the machine as power so it's wasted and therefore the entire process is impossible". This is what I'm getting out of all this.

Yes, heat is a by-product of friction. No, that heat cannot be converted back into kinetic force (though you can use it to cook food with). That doesn't render the concept impossible.

And I'm not sure we're talking about the same electric motor - the one I'm thinking of does have moving parts which can be used to turn alternators and such. I'm not aware of any electric motor that sits there and produces motive force just by humming.

Heat can be converted to kinetic force, as Dr Doug stated, this is the concept behind geothermal energy. Actually, most electricity generation schemes use heat to form kinetic energy at some point in the process.

And no, I was not assuming that the motor you were talking about doesn't turn. Quite to the contrary, I was just saying that slapping an alternator on a car motor powered by electricity (as opposed to gasoline) will not produce enough electricity to justify this addition in the first place. If it takes X extra electricity to generate the extra force necessary to turn the alternator, you will necessarily generate less than X electricity with the alternator. Congratulations, you have just made your car less efficient with no real benefit. Of course asserting that the laws of physics are wrong will perhaps help you overlook this fact

[RacerX]

A turbocharger is a good example. It uses the heat (and the expanding gasses from it) to generate more power. There are other ways that are used to recapture what was once lost energy.

Technically it's the exhaust pressure - your expanding gas - that runs a turbo. Heat is actually bad for turbos, hence why intercoolers are used frequently.

[z1n]

Just mount 10 alternators under your car and and connect them to the driveshaft. Then everytime you roll downhill with the clutch in you get free powa!
Caution: must be 18 or older to attempt this and only works with 5speed Nissan titans!

[Newc]

As a matter of fact, car engines do not create energy. That is why you either have to put gas in them or power them from the wall. They use the energy stored in gasoline, or electricity, and convert it to mechanical energy. No energy is created. If you are aware of any designs that don't require an external energy supply, please let the world know.

Gasoline does not contain energy. It is a combustible liquid. When an internal combustion engine ignites the gas, the explosion produces energy (thrust) that moves the pistons which turn the crank shaft, etc etc.
Thus, the engine creates energy.

Heat can be converted to kinetic force, as Dr Doug stated, this is the concept behind geothermal energy. Actually, most electricity generation schemes use heat to form kinetic energy at some point in the process.

And no, I was not assuming that the motor you were talking about doesn't turn. Quite to the contrary, I was just saying that slapping an alternator on a car motor powered by electricity (as opposed to gasoline) will not produce enough electricity to justify this addition in the first place. If it takes X extra electricity to generate the extra force necessary to turn the alternator, you will necessarily generate less than X electricity with the alternator. Congratulations, you have just made your car less efficient with no real benefit. Of course asserting that the laws of physics are wrong will perhaps help you overlook this fact

Ok, let's assume (a.ccept the s.tastical s.tandards u.sed to m.easure e.xpectation) the motor itself is designed to operate on a specific incoming amount of power (wattage, voltage, amperage, ohmage, however you want to break it down), and is rated for a given RPM. Anything more than that specific amount is overloading the motor, increasing the RPMs (but not the motor's RPM capability, which is still the same), and decreasing its life expectancy because it's spinning more than it was designed to (similar to running a car on moonshine).

Attach an alternator (with a belt/pulley system) to this motor and the friction of turning the alternator (load) slows down the motor, thus reducing its RPMs to a level closer to what it was designed for, which negates the reduction in life expectancy (assuming, of course, that the overloaded RPMs is the sole or major contributor to shortening its life expectancy, though it is possible that the excess current coming into it would also play a role in degrading the motor's coils).

This way, the initial system (motor), while not generating excess power out of thin air itself, passes the excess incoming power to the next system in the line, which would be the alternator.

Traditional (gasoline) car engines are designed this way - the internal combustion force is more than the engine itself needs, however, to power the vehicle's drive system and turn the wheels, that excess force is needed.

An engine idling on a rack will run forever as long as you keep gas coming in, with the only signs of wear being the breakdown of internal lubrication and any non-lubricated moving parts, as well as heat from those . Add a load to that motor (such as a drive axle) and you reduce the life of the engine. Add more systems to it and more physical weight (frame, body) as well as changing the speed at which it runs (accelerate/decelerate), and you strain the engine even more.

The point here is that the failure lies in trying to design an electric motor that only has enough incoming power to run just the motor.

[thetroy]

We should just rebuild all of the roads so that they all go downhill. Problem solved!

[marcus]

Gasoline does not contain energy. It is a combustible liquid. When an internal combustion engine ignites the gas, the explosion produces energy (thrust) that moves the pistons which turn the crank shaft, etc etc.
Thus, the engine creates energy.

Gasoline doesn't contain energy? Are you serious? Try putting in water and see how well your engine runs. Fossil fuels contain a lot of energy in the chemical bonds of the hydrocarbon molecules. It is released when it is burned. Are you really questioning the law of conservation of energy?

Ok, let's assume (a.ccept the s.tastical s.tandards u.sed to m.easure e.xpectation) the motor itself is designed to operate on a specific incoming amount of power (wattage, voltage, amperage, ohmage, however you want to break it down), and is rated for a given RPM. Anything more than that specific amount is overloading the motor, increasing the RPMs (but not the motor's RPM capability, which is still the same), and decreasing its life expectancy because it's spinning more than it was designed to (similar to running a car on moonshine).

Attach an alternator (with a belt/pulley system) to this motor and the friction of turning the alternator (load) slows down the motor, thus reducing its RPMs to a level closer to what it was designed for, which negates the reduction in life expectancy (assuming, of course, that the overloaded RPMs is the sole or major contributor to shortening its life expectancy, though it is possible that the excess current coming into it would also play a role in degrading the motor's coils).

This way, the initial system (motor), while not generating excess power out of thin air itself, passes the excess incoming power to the next system in the line, which would be the alternator.

Traditional (gasoline) car engines are designed this way - the internal combustion force is more than the engine itself needs, however, to power the vehicle's drive system and turn the wheels, that excess force is needed.

An engine idling on a rack will run forever as long as you keep gas coming in, with the only signs of wear being the breakdown of internal lubrication and any non-lubricated moving parts, as well as heat from those . Add a load to that motor (such as a drive axle) and you reduce the life of the engine. Add more systems to it and more physical weight (frame, body) as well as changing the speed at which it runs (accelerate/decelerate), and you strain the engine even more.

The point here is that the failure lies in trying to design an electric motor that only has enough incoming power to run just the motor.

I honestly don't know what to say Show us your math!

[DrDoug]

Ron, while you are correct about heat being bad in a turbo system, thus the need for intercoolers, these are applied to the inlet side of the turbo. The exhaust side needs the expanding gasses/heat to operate efficently, and though you do get some transference of heat energy from the exhaust, most of the heat generated on the inlet side of a turbo is caused by the rapid compression of air molecules by the turbine itself. This also applies to belt driven blowers, and that is why (for example) Cadillac uses Lambda intercoolers in their blown Northstar engine.

Ever grab the compressor line (on a regular air compressor) between the compressor and air tank while it is running? That mother will burn the skin off your hands if you are not careful. Air is full of friction when it is in motion, and since it is compressible, it heats up rapidly when its molecules are packed tightly together.

As far as powering an electric motor in a closed loop with no external energy input, that will not happen using an alternator. What would be needed is an alternator that produces more energy than it consumes, and that is not possible. Believe me, if they could have done it they would have a long time ago. The load the alternator places on the electric motor will always be more than the amount of energy it produces. Even if you connected a DC inverter (no moving parts) to a charger to charge the batteries, the load it would place on the electric motor would be greater than the energy it produces.

This has been another episode of 'As The Geek Turns'. Please tune in next week when we build a nuclear bomb out of a toaster, a pair of fingernail clippers and smoke alarm.

[marcus]

Ron, while you are correct about heat being bad in a turbo system, thus the need for intercoolers, these are applied to the inlet side of the turbo. The exhaust side needs the expanding gasses/heat to operate efficently, and though you do get some transference of heat energy from the exhaust, most of the heat generated on the inlet side of a turbo is caused by the rapid compression of air molecules by the turbine itself. This also applies to belt driven blowers, and that is why (for example) Cadillac uses Lambda intercoolers in their blown Northstar engine.

Ever grab the compressor line (on a regular air compressor) between the compressor and air tank while it is running? That mother will burn the skin off your hands if you are not careful. Air is full of friction when it is in motion, and since it is compressible, it heats up rapidly when its molecules are packed tightly together.

As far as powering an electric motor in a closed loop with no external energy input, that will not happen using an alternator. What would be needed is an alternator that produces more energy than it consumes, and that is not possible. Believe me, if they could have done it they would have a long time ago. The load the alternator places on the electric motor will always be more than the amount of energy it produces. Even if you connected a DC inverter (no moving parts) to a charger to charge the batteries, the load it would place on the electric motor would be greater than the energy it produces.

This has been another episode of 'As The Geek Turns'. Please tune in next week when we build a nuclear bomb out of a toaster, a pair of fingernail clippers and smoke alarm.

MacGyver fan eh?

[Cygnus X1]

Between DrDoug, marcus, me, and I think a few others, no matter how we try to explain it, Newc will not remove his tinfoil hat. Laws of physics are unfortunate, but proven.
Are there better ways to propel ourselves from one place to another? I say yes, but there is no perfect way of doing it. As I suggested before, wait for a good UFO crash, and ape the anti-gravitic drive system. Otherwise, we're stuck with what we have.

[Rsmacker]

ape the anti-gravitic drive system.

What, like the one on the Starship Enterprise?






OK, I'm deliberately trying to wind up the boffins now.

[shobet]

I used to work in a Physics dept. and physicists can't prove anything.

[marcus]

I used to work in a Physics dept. and physicists can't prove anything.

That's OK, I'm an engineer. We don't care about proving anything, just building new toys

[DrDoug]

Oh, an engineer eh? One of those guys who designs something and then tells people like me that it will fit together as designed.


I had an 'engineer' at the old boat plant who redesigned the back end of one of the 27 foot, dual small block V-8's to allow the installation of a generator set and an air conditioning system. I told him it would not fit, and he told me that I did not know what I was talking about.

That shift, I personally went over the boat with one of my guys and we tried fitting it together in various ways, but no go. So I had him mount everything as 'designed', and since the air conditioner unit hung over into the rear cabin, to take some scrap wood and build an enclosure to cover it. I was a smart ass and told him to even cut a few cup holders into the top of it...lol!

The next day, I came in to work and got my ass chewed out for 'fucking the whole thing up'. I told Reggie (the 'engineer') that if he could put it together as he designed it then he could have my paycheck for that week. And if he was wrong, he had to announce over the plant PA system that I was right and he had screwed up. He was too chickenshit to put up his paycheck...lol!

He got in there and ripped everything apart, and I stood by and laughed my ass off as he tried (in vain) to make it work 'as designed'. Eventually he admitted he had made a mistake, and he refused to announce it as agreed.

So I did. :ROTF:

It was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that I caught our 'engineer' screwing up. Another one was his approving a design change that left our boats unable to recharge the batteries after extended use. I found that all it took to fix it was a small pigtail that was spliced in behind each alternator of the boats that shipped with the problem.

Sometimes the guys in the trenches know a hell of a lot more than the guy who sits up in his office and draws pretty pictures (and gets paid a hell of a lot more than I did).

[marcus]

Oh, an engineer eh? One of those guys who designs something and then tells people like me that it will fit together as designed.


I had an 'engineer' at the old boat plant who redesigned the back end of one of the 27 foot, dual small block V-8's to allow the installation of a generator set and an air conditioning system. I told him it would not fit, and he told me that I did not know what I was talking about.

That shift, I personally went over the boat with one of my guys and we tried fitting it together in various ways, but no go. So I had him mount everything as 'designed', and since the air conditioner unit hung over into the rear cabin, to take some scrap wood and build an enclosure to cover it. I was a smart ass and told him to even cut a few cup holders into the top of it...lol!

The next day, I came in to work and got my ass chewed out for 'fucking the whole thing up'. I told Reggie (the 'engineer') that if he could put it together as he designed it then he could have my paycheck for that week. And if he was wrong, he had to announce over the plant PA system that I was right and he had screwed up. He was too chickenshit to put up his paycheck...lol!

He got in there and ripped everything apart, and I stood by and laughed my ass off as he tried (in vain) to make it work 'as designed'. Eventually he admitted he had made a mistake, and he refused to announce it as agreed.

So I did. :ROTF:

It was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that I caught our 'engineer' screwing up. Another one was his approving a design change that left our boats unable to recharge the batteries after extended use. I found that all it took to fix it was a small pigtail that was spliced in behind each alternator of the boats that shipped with the problem.

Sometimes the guys in the trenches know a hell of a lot more than the guy who sits up in his office and draws pretty pictures (and gets paid a hell of a lot more than I did).

We engineers have a phrase for the all too frequent occurrence of philistines not being able to implement our designs: user error :ROTF:

[DrDoug]

And what, pray tell, do engineers call it when it is impossible for the philistines to implement their design?

Wishful thinking? :ROTF:

My explanation for it is they are the types who hold their fingers three inches apart and tell their better half that it is actually 6 inches.


Seriously, I have met some damn excellent engineers in my life. I have picked up a lot from having been around them, and it is pretty valuable stuff to know when I work on various projects. Reggie gave engineers a bad name. He had the 'wall candy' certificates, but lacked practical knowledge. I have some good stories about our clashes. But that can wait for another time...lol!