Gravity fed electrical generation system

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Snip

Don't bother responding, I can see no one is interested in a real scientific discussion. I will no longer be following this since all I get is insults.

Denying science isn't a real science discussion. You really should study some theories of science, especially the ones you ignore, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law.

Into the Night wrote:
Kirchoff's law

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Snip

Don't bother responding, I can see no one is interested in a real scientific discussion. I will no longer be following this since all I get is insults.

Denying science isn't a real science discussion. You really should study some theories of science, especially the ones you ignore, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law.

Into the Night wrote:
Kirchoff's law

gesundheit!

dehammer wrote:Seriously? We are talking about water and he uses a law about electricity as a shield against having to think about it?

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:Seriously? We are talking about water and he uses a law about electricity as a shield against having to think about it?

Seriously? You were supposedly talking about electricity generation and you are now once again using your rapid-design-pivot to create a new water-focused version to force the discussion towards "water" as a shield against having to consider what he said.

The cacophony of vocal support for your "system" is deafening in its silence. I was going to ask you on what sites you have received any sort of financial support ... but nobody is going to fund a system that avoids definition just to hide the fact that its design violates physics.

.

James_ wrote:If you have a single wave that is 10 milliamps and has a sine wave function of 1.2 Hz then when it is split in 2 energy will be lost.

James_ wrote:Work requires energy.

James_ wrote:This might be one reason why microprocessors (computer chips) get so hot.

James_ wrote: This need for cooling shows entropy.

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:Seriously? We are talking about water and he uses a law about electricity as a shield against having to think about it?

Seriously? You were supposedly talking about electricity generation and you are now once again using your rapid-design-pivot to create a new water-focused version to force the discussion towards "water" as a shield against having to consider what he said.

The cacophony of vocal support for your "system" is deafening in its silence. I was going to ask you on what sites you have received any sort of financial support ... but nobody is going to fund a system that avoids definition just to hide the fact that its design violates physics.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:If you have a single wave that is 10 milliamps and has a sine wave function of 1.2 Hz then when it is split in 2 energy will be lost.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy is never destroyed into nothing. If you "split" a 10-milliamp 1.2Hz wave of electrical current (whatever you mean by "split"), there is still the same amount of energy.

Electrical current requires matter as a medium and therefore suffers losses from resistance, which converts the electrical energy into thermal energy, along with other impedances to the electrons' flow.

Electromagnetic waves in a vacuum do not suffer losses from resistance but they diminish per the inverse square law as they dissipate.

James_ wrote:Work requires energy.

Of course. This is why work is treated as energy and is measured in energy units.

James_ wrote:This might be one reason why microprocessors (computer chips) get so hot.

Microprocessors get so hot because of two factors:

1. Resistance cannot be totally eliminated, and resistance converts electrical energy into thermal energy, and

2. Microprocessors operate at extremely high frequencies, thus performing a great deal of work through the logic gates. More work in the same amount of time means greater power consumption ... and more work of course means more energy used.

James_ wrote: This need for cooling shows entropy.

Correct. Yes, it does. It shows that work is being performed and some amount of otherwise usable energy has been converted into unusable thermal energy.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy is never destroyed into nothing. If you "split" a 10-milliamp 1.2Hz wave of electrical current (whatever you mean by "split"), there is still the same amount of energy.

dehammer wrote:Once again, you prove you are nothing but insults.

dehammer wrote: Go ahead and gloat.

dehammer wrote: Since you can not defeat an argument

dehammer wrote: ... with actual scientific information to which I will listen

dehammer wrote:, all you can do is insult and run people off with your gross behavior.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:Seriously? We are talking about water and he uses a law about electricity as a shield against having to think about it?

Seriously? You were supposedly talking about electricity generation and you are now once again using your rapid-design-pivot to create a new water-focused version to force the discussion towards "water" as a shield against having to consider what he said.

The cacophony of vocal support for your "system" is deafening in its silence. I was going to ask you on what sites you have received any sort of financial support ... but nobody is going to fund a system that avoids definition just to hide the fact that its design violates physics.

.

Ka....ka...karchüff......

If you have a single wave that is 10 milliamps

James_ wrote:
and has a sine wave function of 1.2 Hz
then when it is split in 2 energy will be lost.

James_ wrote:
Work requires energy. This might be one reason why microprocessors (computer chips) get so hot.

James_ wrote:
This need for cooling shows entropy.

James_ wrote:
Now if you get into quantum tunneling or super conducting where there is no entropy such as a mag-lev train then we're discussing something else.

James_ wrote:
Of course I think mag-lev uses nitrogen to super cool its magnets and then that's about 2º C. ABOVE absolute 0.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:Seriously? We are talking about water and he uses a law about electricity as a shield against having to think about it?

Seriously? You were supposedly talking about electricity generation and you are now once again using your rapid-design-pivot to create a new water-focused version to force the discussion towards "water" as a shield against having to consider what he said.

The cacophony of vocal support for your "system" is deafening in its silence. I was going to ask you on what sites you have received any sort of financial support ... but nobody is going to fund a system that avoids definition just to hide the fact that its design violates physics.

.

Once again, you prove you are nothing but insults. Go ahead and gloat. Since you can not defeat an argument with actual scientific information, all you can do is insult and run people off with your gross behavior.

Into the Night wrote:

Liquid nitrogen boils at 77 deg K. The Centigrade scale is not referenced to 0 deg K.

IBdaMann wrote:snip.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:snip.

Unlike you, I actually understand what the science is.

dehammer wrote: I did some research and found that, yes it could work in theory,

dehammer wrote: but the necessary height would be nearly 2 MILLION feet.

dehammer wrote:Obviously, there is no place on earth it would work.

dehammer wrote:IF we can ever get the efficiency of the fuel cell + electrolysis of hydrogen below 1% loss (i.e. 99+% efficient) this would work.

dehammer wrote:That is the difference between you and me. I do understand what I am talking about.

dehammer wrote:You throw out phrases and such

dehammer wrote: ... just as those that said we would never fly, or that a carriage without a horse would never move.

dehammer wrote: People like you do your best to block science, while people like me try to advance it.

dehammer wrote:Small minds look at a problem and look to the sky and say "why me?"

dehammer wrote:Average minds look at a problem and then the sky, and say "why?"

dehammer wrote:Smart minds look at a problem, look to the sky, rub their jaws and say "why not?"

"We're predicting that if you get out far enough in the solar system, you actually have the opportunity to start measuring the dark matter force," said Jim Green, study co-author and advisor to NASA's Office of the Chief Scientist. "This is the first idea of how to do it and where we would do it."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/how-dark-matter-could-be-measured-in-the-solar-system

Einstein became world famous on 7 November 1919, following press publication of a meeting held in London on 6 November 1919 where the results were announced of two British expeditions led by Eddington, Dyson and Davidson to measure how much background starlight is bent as it passes the Sun.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

James_ quoted:"We're predicting that if you get out far enough in the solar system, you actually have the opportunity to start measuring the dark matter force,"

James_ quoted:p.s., rest mass is either something sitting on a scale or an element in a mass spectrometer.

James_ quoted: This is basically what has led to ITER. And they're trying to create a fusion reaction like the Sun has. What they're working on in France has so far cost over $10 Billion.

James_ quoted: And yet I am cursed for spending $20,000 on a perpetual motion machine in a perpetual motion forum.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and when those smart people discover the reason why not, they don't proceed to delude themselves, do they?
.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ quoted:"We're predicting that if you get out far enough in the solar system, you actually have the opportunity to start measuring the dark matter force,"

Why should any rational adult believe in the existence of "dark matter"?

Don't you get suspicious at the implication that you need to be away from planet earth to be able to observe/measure it?

James_ quoted:p.s., rest mass is either something sitting on a scale or an element in a mass spectrometer.

The problem lies with morons who insist that photons must have a rest mass, when they know that photons only exist at the speed of light.

James_ quoted: This is basically what has led to ITER. And they're trying to create a fusion reaction like the Sun has. What they're working on in France has so far cost over $10 Billion.

In the case of ITER, politics prevents any meaningful progress because all want ownership of the final valuable product, and hence they just will never be able to agree. If there were no such prize of incalculable value at the end of that rainbow, like the ISS, they'd be able to agree and get it made.

James_ quoted: And yet I am cursed for spending $20,000 on a perpetual motion machine in a perpetual motion forum.

You spent $20,000 on your Bessler wheel?

Wouldn't you have preferred an entire home theater instead ... for half the price?

dehammer wrote:The reason smart people say "why not" is they look for solution instead of simply saying that everything is a failure before trying.

dehammer wrote:Small minded people believe everything will fail

dehammer wrote:Have fun with the small mind never learning or find a way to improve things.

dehammer wrote:You have obviously reached the pentacle of your success on the day you were born.

IBdaMann wrote:


You are relegated to clinging to your preferred non-solution because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who cannot distinguish the scientific method from a can of Pringles potato chips.

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:The reason smart people say "why not" is they look for solution instead of simply saying that everything is a failure before trying.

Only marginally correct. Smart people utilize the scientific method to eliminate non-solutions. Stupid people instead cling to their preferred non-solution.

You are relegated to clinging to your preferred non-solution because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who cannot distinguish the scientific method from a can of Pringles potato chips. This is why the "design" of your non-solution is so fluid and why it can be changed more often and more quickly than my daughter changes her clothes, i.e. because details simply don't matter in any non-solution.

dehammer wrote:Small minded people believe everything will fail

Small-minded people have to misrepresent the positions of others in order to better cling to their preferred non-solutions.

dehammer wrote:Have fun with the small mind never learning or find a way to improve things.

Have fun clinging to your non-solution and never adding value in any way.

dehammer wrote:You have obviously reached the pentacle of your success on the day you were born.

I was going to recommend you learn the words "pinnacle" and "pentacle" ... but that would require you to stop obsessing over your non-solution for a while, which I realize would be a short while too long ... so nevermind.

duncan61 wrote:
DeHammer.Hydrogen cars work here in Perth as the plant in Kewdale can fill cars. The benefit is they are clean. Construction has begun on putting solar panels on Perth airport.100% of the materials are sourced from W.A. Kewdale is in the area that the panels will supply electricity. Hydro electric works by water volume passing and generating electricity.Are you suggesting using some of that electricity to create hydrogen and then powering fuel cells with the hydrogen.What is the return on the fuel cell?

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:snip.

Unlike you, I actually understand what the science is. I did some research and found that, yes it could work in theory, but the necessary height would be nearly 2 MILLION feet. Obviously, there is no place on earth it would work.

IF we can ever get the efficiency of the fuel cell + electrolysis of hydrogen below 1% loss (i.e. 99+% efficient) this would work. At our current level of technology, it does not.

That is the difference between you and me. I do understand what I am talking about. You throw out phrases and such and think that it never work, just as those that said we would never fly, or that a carriage without a horse would never move. People like you do your best to block science, while people like me try to advance it.

There is a saying I heard as a child.
Small minds look at a problem and look to the sky and say "why me?"
Average minds look at a problem and then the sky, and say "why?"
Smart minds look at a problem, look to the sky, rub their jaws and say "why not?"

Maybe, one day, if you work at it, you can advance to the point you are saying "why". I will not hold my breath.

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:The reason smart people say "why not" is they look for solution instead of simply saying that everything is a failure before trying.

Only marginally correct. Smart people utilize the scientific method to eliminate non-solutions. Stupid people instead cling to their preferred non-solution.

You are relegated to clinging to your preferred non-solution because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who cannot distinguish the scientific method from a can of Pringles potato chips. This is why the "design" of your non-solution is so fluid and why it can be changed more often and more quickly than my daughter changes her clothes, i.e. because details simply don't matter in any non-solution.

dehammer wrote:Small minded people believe everything will fail

Small-minded people have to misrepresent the positions of others in order to better cling to their preferred non-solutions.

dehammer wrote:Have fun with the small mind never learning or find a way to improve things.

Have fun clinging to your non-solution and never adding value in any way.

dehammer wrote:You have obviously reached the pentacle of your success on the day you were born.

I was going to recommend you learn the words "pinnacle" and "pentacle" ... but that would require you to stop obsessing over your non-solution for a while, which I realize would be a short while too long ... so nevermind.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:


You are relegated to clinging to your preferred non-solution because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who cannot distinguish the scientific method from a can of Pringles potato chips.

Insulting Pringles potato chips, really? Next it'll be the Ford Pinto. Where will your lunacy end?

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

dehammer wrote:The reason smart people say "why not" is they look for solution instead of simply saying that everything is a failure before trying.

Only marginally correct. Smart people utilize the scientific method to eliminate non-solutions. Stupid people instead cling to their preferred non-solution.

You are relegated to clinging to your preferred non-solution because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who cannot distinguish the scientific method from a can of Pringles potato chips. This is why the "design" of your non-solution is so fluid and why it can be changed more often and more quickly than my daughter changes her clothes, i.e. because details simply don't matter in any non-solution.

dehammer wrote:Small minded people believe everything will fail

Small-minded people have to misrepresent the positions of others in order to better cling to their preferred non-solutions.

dehammer wrote:Have fun with the small mind never learning or find a way to improve things.

Have fun clinging to your non-solution and never adding value in any way.

dehammer wrote:You have obviously reached the pentacle of your success on the day you were born.

I was going to recommend you learn the words "pinnacle" and "pentacle" ... but that would require you to stop obsessing over your non-solution for a while, which I realize would be a short while too long ... so nevermind.

Please don't tell me that Pintos caught fire when rear ended. That and their single over head cam had a lubrication problem so they didn't last any longer than a Yugo.
And now we know that gasoline powered automobiles are unsafe at any speed. A historical reference to the Corvair and why they were unsafe. They used gasoline engines like the Ford Pinto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mqu-gRqt3g
To please Swan we need to ban all petrol products. Petrol is flammable so should not be used. Fortunately we have his wisdom to guide us.

duncan61 wrote:
DeHammer.Hydrogen cars work here in Perth as the plant in Kewdale can fill cars. The benefit is they are clean. Construction has begun on putting solar panels on Perth airport.100% of the materials are sourced from W.A. Kewdale is in the area that the panels will supply electricity. Hydro electric works by water volume passing and generating electricity.Are you suggesting using some of that electricity to create hydrogen and then powering fuel cells with the hydrogen.What is the return on the fuel cell?

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:DeHammer.Hydrogen cars work here in Perth as the plant in Kewdale can fill cars. The benefit is they are clean.

Why is hydrogen 'clean'? Did someone wash it?

duncan61 wrote:
Perth does not have a smog problem but many cities do.A lot of car exhausts in a small area.

duncan61 wrote:Hydrogen cars do not emit smog.

duncan61 wrote:I use OXY/LPG for my plumbing work as it burns very clean and does not contaminate the copper and brass.I have the cutting torch for this set however it does not cut anywhere as deep as OXY/Acetylene.Some plumbers use OXY/Acetylene but the flame is dirty when you start up and clouds of soot are emitted.Not good in someone's house but fine in an industrial workshop.

duncan61 wrote:Not at all IBDm.CO2 is a trace gas.I have learned so much on this forum.Thank you

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Hydrogen cars do not emit smog.

Smog is a result of O3 (ozone), not CO2.

duncan61 wrote:
Perth does not have a smog problem but many cities do.A lot of car exhausts in a small area.Hydrogen cars do not emit smog.I use OXY/LPG for my plumbing work as it burns very clean and does not contaminate the copper and brass.I have the cutting torch for this set however it does not cut anywhere as deep as OXY/Acetylene.Some plumbers use OXY/Acetylene but the flame is dirty when you start up and clouds of soot are emitted.Not good in someone's house but fine in an industrial workshop.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Hydrogen cars do not emit smog.

Smog is a result of O3 (ozone), not CO2.

And where does ozone in the troposphere come from? From hydrocarbons.

James_ wrote:
Hydrocarbons are emitted when burning fuels like petrol and diesel

James_ wrote:
Interestingly enough hydrocarbons only contain hydrogen and carbon elements.
As to what you say, smog (ozone) could be said to be a byproduct of CO2 being generated. CnH2n+2 is the most common hydrocarbon associated with the emission of gasoline/petrol.
Obviously n represents any positive integer. If n is 7 then C7H16 would be the hydrocarbon's molecular composition.
Then if 7C + 7O2 (7 oxygen molecules) > 7CO2 + O. Then the O can bond with O2 to form O3. Of course O3 might be because of how O2 reacts to hydrocarbons.
Actually they say it is when NOx (nitrogen oxides) interact with hydrocarbons. And then what causes nitrogen oxides? From burning fuel. This then means that some of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from pollution.

James_ wrote:
NOx is also and ODS (ozone depleting substance). So maybe there is good CO2 and bad CO2 depending on its source?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
NOx is also and ODS (ozone depleting substance). So maybe there is good CO2 and bad CO2 depending on its source?

So generating ozone deplete ozone...gotit.

We examine measurements from three aircraft platforms from the INTEX-B campaign, including a Canadian Cessna taking vertical profiles of ozone near Whistler Peak. The contribution to the mean simulated ozone profiles over Whistler is at least 7.2ppbv for Asian anthropogenic emissions and at least 3.5ppbv for lightning NOx emissions.
https://www.academia.edu/20161430/Trans_Pacific_transport_of_reactive_nitrogen_and_ozone_to_Canada_during_spring?email_work_card=view-paper