Electric cars are a pipe dream

Sure. That's how diesel-electric locomotives work now - diesel engine, generator, motor. But that doesn't save you any fuel, it just makes power transmission more flexible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hello billvon,

I Fully agree that's how diesel-electric locomotives work now, however modern gas turbines (Helium especialy) has no need of fuelled heat source, ambient heat is more than sufficienient. Other gasses may be exploited though Helium provides the most energy for least heat apart from Oxygen which cannot be contained without excessive weight of cylinder. As all turbine have high pressure entery and low pressure exit, a gas that easily cools is preffered along with qualities of providing high forces at any given temperature. Helium pressure is that great that at 30* Celius it becomes solid, so its not so much heat that is needed but cooling below 30*C.

Cheers Peter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know about ambient heat, you need some kind of heat gradient but yes you can get a stirling engine on helium to operate on nothing but the differential between a black surface under the sun and the shadow below, but this energy is only a few watts, certainly not enough to run a car! A gas turbine and combine cycle gen set in a car could provide much greater efficiency over a simple engine and mechanical drive train. heck and electric car operating off of combine cycle gas turbine power plant is a model of efficient fossil fuel usage, far more efficient than simply burning the fuel in the a car its self which as peak efficiency generally of 25%, verse 50-60% for a combine cycle minus the power line transmission losses (national average 7% loss) and charging/discharging of lithium ion batteries (only 10-5% loss) and your still getting nearly twice as much power the same amount of fuel energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not very clear about how much energy it would take to cool the (He) down enough to make your system work. Could you supply a link that supports what you are talking about?

 

Hello Killjoyclown,

I will have to get an answer back to you on Helium as our work has been with CO2. Any assistance in finding a temperature pressure phase graph would be appreciated.

Thank you, Peter

 

Hello Killjoyclown

I found the phase graph I was looking for on the internet, but for reasons unkown to me it wont fully past.

Helium Vapor Pressure versus Temperature
P(torr) T(3He) T(4He) P(torr) T(3He) T(4He) P(torr) T(3He) T(4He)
0.1 0.4814 0.9846
0.2 0.5176 1.0582
0.3 0.5494 1.1063
0.4 0.5742 1.1425
0.5 0.5946 1.1721
0.6 0.6120 1.1973
0.7 0.6274 1.2193
0.8 0.6412 1.2390
0.9 0.6537 1.2568
1.0 0.6653 1.2731
2.0 0.7504 1.3898
3.0 0.8086 1.4667
4.0 0.8543 1.5257
5.0 0.8927 1.5743
6.0 0.9260 1.6160
7.0 0.9556 1.6527
8.0 0.9825 1.6857
9.0 1.0071 1.7158
10.0 1.0300 1.7435
12.0 1.0713 1.7933
14.0 1.1083 1.8373
16.0 1.1418 1.8770
18.0 1.1726 1.9132
20.0 1.2012 1.9468
22.0 1.2279 1.9781
24.0 1.2531 2.0075
26.0 1.2769 2.0352
28.0 1.2995 2.0617
30.0 1.3211 2.0869
32.0 1.3417 2.1111
34.0 1.3615 2.1344
36.0 1.3806 2.1569
38.0 1.3989 2.1786
40.0 1.4167 2.1998
42.0 1.4338 2.2203
44.0 1.4504 2.2403
46.0 1.4666 2.2599
48.0 1.4822 2.2790
50.0 1.4975 2.2977
55.0 1.5339 2.3387
60.0 1.5682 2.3793
65.0 1.6007 2.4175
70.0 1.6316 2.4538
75.0 1.6611 2.4884
80.0 1.6893 2.5214
85.0 1.7164 2.5530

90.0 1.7424 2.5833
95.0 1.7676 2.6125
100.0 1.7918 2.6407
110.0 1.8381 2.6943
120.0 1.8817 2.7447
130.0 1.9230 2.7922
140.0 1.9623 2.8373
150.0 1.9998 2.8803
160.0 2.0357 2.9213
170.0 2.0702 2.9607
180.0 2.1034 2.9984
190.0 2.1354 3.0348
200.0 2.1664 3.0699
210.0 2.1963 3.1039
220.0 2.2253 3.1367
230.0 2.2535 3.1686
240.0 2.2809 3.1995
250.0 2.3076 3.2295
260.0 2.3336 3.2588
270.0 2.3589 3.2873
280.0 2.3837 3.3151
290.0 2.4078 3.3422
300.0 2.4315 3.3687
310.0 2.4546 3.3946
320.0 2.4773 3.4200
330.0 2.4994 3.4448
340.0 2.5212 3.4691
350.0 2.5425 3.4930
360.0 2.5635 3.5164
370.0 2.5840 3.5393
380.0 2.6042 3.5619
390.0 2.6241 3.5840
400.0 2.6436 3.6058
410.0 2.6628 3.6272
420.0 2.6817 3.6482
430.0 2.7003 3.6689
440.0 2.7186 3.6893
450.0 2.7366 3.7094
460.0 2.7544 3.7292
470.0 2.7719 3.7487
480.0 2.7891 3.7679
490.0 2.8062 3.7868
500.0 2.8230 3.8055
510.0 2.8395 3.8239
520.0 2.8559 3.8421
530.0 2.8720 3.8601

540.0 2.8880 3.8778
550.0 2.9037 3.8954
560.0 2.9193 3.9127
570.0 2.9346 3.9297
580.0 2.9498 3.9466
590.0 2.9648 3.9633
600.0 2.9796 3.9798
610.0 2.9943 3.9962
620.0 3.0088 4.0123
630.0 3.0231 4.0283
640.0 3.0373 4.0441
650.0 3.0513 4.0597
660.0 3.0652 4.0752
670.0 3.0790 4.0905
680.0 3.0926 4.1056
690.0 3.1060 4.1206
700.0 3.1193 4.1355
710.0 3.1325 4.1502
720.0 3.1456 4.1648
730.0 3.1585 4.1792
740.0 3.1713 4.1935
750.0 3.1840 4.2077
760.0 3.1966 4.2218
770.0 3.2090 4.2357
780.0 3.2214 4.2495
790.0 3.2336 4.2632
800.0 3.2457 4.2767
810.0 3.2577 4.2902
820.0 3.2696 4.3035
830.0 3.2814 4.3167
840.0 3.2931 4.3298
850.0 3.3047 4.3429
860.0 3.3162 4.3558
870.0 3.3276 4.3686
880.0 3.3389 4.3813
890.0 3.3501 4.3939
900.0 3.3612 4.4064
910.0 3.3723 4.4188
920.0 3.3832 4.4311
930.0 3.3941 4.4433
940.0 3.4048 4.4555
950.0 3.4155 4.4675
960.0 3.4261 4.4795
970.0 3.4367 4.4913
980.0 3.4471 4.5031
990.0 3.4575 4.5148
1000.0 3.4677 4.5265

 

Hello Killjoyclown,
I found the graph I was looking for but am unable to get it to past across, sorry.


3He Vapor Pressure - Jefferson Lab
www.jlab.org/~ckeith/TOOLS/HeVaporTable.html
Block all www.jlab.org results
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.

Cheers Peter

 

Sorry, didn't realize you were a perpetual motion type.

 

You need the graph in some kind of picture format. The common one's are (.gif, .jpg, .png). If you have a snapshot or snipping tool you can select any area on your monitor and make a picture out of it for your use.

But I'm not sure a vapor pressure chart is what I was looking for. From what you said It seemed like you needed to get the (He) fairly cold. Maybe that's not the case, but if it is, that would take a bit of energy all by itself.

 

Das Energy is worse than that. With his ideas of using "ambient energy" to generate electic power, he is an over unity nut. He has zero undestanding of the Carnot limits (on both thermal conversion AND refrigeration COP).* When he does mention a cold sink, thinks he can keep it cool with a refrigerator running on only part of the power he is generating, in violation of the Carnot limits, so gets net power from the enviroment with no need for fuel, etc.

*and the Carnot limits are totally valid regardless of the working fluid used. I.e. it can be horse piss vapor, CO2, or helium, etc.

 

Hello billvon,

Perpetual motion is acheived without any outside energy source, atoms, electrons, nuetrons etc are a good example. Heat absorption is the intake of an energy source, thereby ruling out it be perpetual motion.

Cheers Peter

 

Hello Billy T

I have forgotton more about carnot than you have ever learnt. Whatever you do dont go near a steam turbine nor fridge physics, your mind wont handle it.

Cheers Peter

 

Hello KilljoyKlown,

Thank you for your assistance.

Your are correct in that the Helium must be cooler at input than the temperature raised to, however unlike CO2 I am having difficulty in finding a chart/graph that give corresonding pressure to temperature up to 30C.

Helium is much in use in the Stirling engine but alas no graph that I look for.

Helium like CO2 is also a refrigerant. Cooling is completed either by radiator as seen at back of a fridge or by expansion chamber as found inside all fridges. Both methods of cooling needs no energy extra but in fact can be said to lose energy due to temperature loss.

Cheers Peter

 

So you must also have a Ph.D in physics too. From what university? Mine is from The Johns Hopkins university with alumni number 32154 so you can check.
Give yours so I can check. (They will not tell anything about you other than your name. - This is how firms can check claimed degrees.)

Surely you can also prove why no other cycle can be better than the Carnot cycle, as I can. You need not give the proof - just out line the approach in two or three lines.

I know your full of BS and spouting ignorant false physic in your posts. For most recent example, you claim "Helium like CO2 is also a refrigerant."
I.e. you claim He is cools as it expands in a refrigerator in post 2833, quoted below graph below. Well the physical fact is that both H2 & He get hotter as they expand thru the throttling value refrigerators use as even dry ice temperature is far above the Joule-Tompson inversion temperature, which for He is about 40 degree K or ~233 degrees (C or K) below H2O ice temperatures, which the refrigerators make! See graph below and read this text:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note He is negative for temperatures above ~40K and very different from CO2.
Here is your most recent of many false physics "facts" you have posted:

BTW, it was little trouble for me to quickly find these things to rub your nose in the horse shit you post as I already knew these facts and their names for quick look-up in Wiki etc.

 

Hello ElectricFetus

I fully agree with all that you say with little exception.

Sterling engines efficiency 13% is very low compared to a gas turbine of 60% efficiency.

Wattage output is calculated by lites per second passing from hot to cold. Example 1 litre per second at 9 bar pressure passing through a 82% efficiient turbine produces 720 watts, which increases by volume per second, or by added heating cooling. As in all turbines the greater the volume per second the greater the wattage.

The other calculous is pressure differential between the hot and cold side, any added pressure adds to wattage output.

Most engineers work on heat for power, yet heat may remain constant and greater wattage output gained simply by greater cooling. It matters not if the hot side be 100*C or 0*C its the cooling factor that remains critical not he heat.

Cheers Peter

 

Hello Billy T,

Carnot is a factor of heat loss. Heat loss is energy loss. 0 degree heat loss defeats Carnot. Carnot itself is not a cycle but that which may occur during the cycle. Perfect Carnot is 0 heat loss. Didnt have to go to University to learn that.

Cheers Peter

 

Hello Billy T,

If you can find any such diagram phase diagram or chart you state posted by me please supply where posted, a little honesty goes a long way. All my graphs have remained CO2 Critical and Supercritical.

Cheers Peter

 

Your device is a Type 2 perpetual motion machine, one that violates the second law of thermodynamics. From Wikipedia for your reference:

===============
A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A more obscure category is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always) defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine,[6][7] as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section). Such a machine would not serve as a source of energy but would have utility as a perpetual energy storage device.
================

 

Hello billvon,

Should it be that a radiator or expansion chamber not be defined as a cooler reseviour then the law is wrong not the workings. See "Einstein" Ammonia absorption fridge.

Cheers Peter

 

All three of your first sentences are just more of your ignorant false physics - I.e. BS. The final sentence explains why you know essentially no physics - not even what a good high school teaches!

Carnot was the man who first described the thermo-dynamic cycle consisting of two isotherms and two adibates sections. He did not know how to calculate the efficiency of his cycle, but intutitively suspected no better one existed. He could not prove that. To compute the Carnot cycle efficiency you need to know about absolute temperatures, (Kelvin scale, K) which were still unknown when he died.

Carnot is not a "factor" of anything - it is the most efficient closed cycle heat engine possible (or refrigerator when cycle is reversed)

Heat is a form of energy, not "heat loss" nor "energy loss."

Nothing "defeats Carnot" just as nothing defeats gravity - Carnot was a man and is a well defined cycle and one does not "defeat" definitions or long dead men.

You say: "Carnot itself is not a cycle but that which may occur during the cycle." -That is such silly BS that I can´t even tell what you are asserting - Sounds like you are saying that Mr Carnot will "occur" if you run a Carnot engine.

This post of yours has an unusually high percentage of ignorant, arrogant, misunderstanding assertions and false physics posted, even for you. Normally only about half your sentences about physics are false BS as I proved in my last post with refuting text and graph from wiki. (Post 2834 for readers who need to see proof of how false your posts are.)