navigator

Senior Members

150

Everything posted by navigator

Disagree. When the water reaches the bottom resevoirs the system with the turbine will have stored energy the system without the turbine did not. Therefore the potentials at the bottom are different, although the difference is found in a different form of energy, but the potential energy in the water at bottom resevoirs is still equal. Agree Do you not see the contradiction in the bolded part? If KE has been removed in order to convert its force to spinning the turbine, how can the potential at the bottom be the same as the system without the turbine? Trust me, I get that part. What I find perplexing is you seem to be unable to tell me what form of energy you are referring to, although you can give many different eloquent eqations to explain what happens when that form of energy goes from one state to the other, potential to kenetic and back to potential.

I understand that, but do you understand that this is a result of the height of the fall and not the work the kinetic energy does. The potential energy is less at the bottom resevoir, but it is always equal regardless of how much work it does on the way down. Why can't you just tell me what form of energy your reffering to when you describe what happens when it goes from potential to kinetic and back to potential?

The amount of work the water does in these two systems is different, because one increases the amout of potential energy over the other, but they will always have equal amount of potential at the bottom. The water could generate 1 megawatt or a 1000 megawatts and the final potential will in the lower resevoirs will always be equal. The change in the energy is due to its height, not the mechanical work it did. How so? Kinetic and potential energies are types of energy. Nuclear, chemical, electrical, mechanical, magnetic and radient are all forms of energy that contain both types of energy, the type of energy defines what state a form of energy is in. The only way you can say they are interchangable is if your trying to intentionally confuse someone. What form of energy are you saying is being converted? I did answer and gave you a reason for my confusion. My physics 101 teacher tried to use a whole chalkboard of mathematical equations to prove 1+1=3, he was also unable to tell me which form of energy is being converted in a hydroelectric dam. I sincerely do not understand how convert can be correctly used in this context. When you convert something you change its original form into something else and in doing so you lose the original form. If you can just tell me which form of energy is being converted it should clear up any confusion.
4. Does it really work? [Answered - No]

ABV: What the experiment shows is that by changing the shape of the mass in motion, compressing the angular momentum to a more usable place, it develops more force. Lets take the experiment one step further and change the shape a little more as well as the path it travels. Instead of having a constant overall diameter. Make the ring cone shaped so the longest diameter is in the very center and gradually decreases until at its widest point it reaches the open center of the ring. Instead of using a flat track, use 2 rails with the exact same height, oval size etc. The rails at the top will be wide enough so the ring rides the widest part of the ring, which is also the smallest diameter of the cone shape, but doesn't fall through. The rails run parallel until it reaches the bottom of the track and begins to enter the loop. At this point the rails begin to narrow and continue until at the 9:00 position, it is narrowest and the cone shaped ring is intersecting the rails at its longest diameter. Not only are we taking advantage of angular momentum, we have added an increase to the radial momentum. We have again developed more force with the same input. The only change was the shape and path of the object in motion.

I brought it up because the context the term convert is being used is factually wrong, unless your refferring to the velocity. Volume of water not changing is unique, can you not see that? Any other form of energy is expended when convertered to another form. Here the velocity of the water developed more energy and maintains its original form, albeit less with less potential energy than the original potential, but it is equal to the system where the falling water did no work, just fall. Didn't you mean to say, we classify the types of energy, potential and kinetic, into different forms and the changes in them due to work being done? Didn't you mean to say, any change is always, not sometimes, reffered to as converting the energy to a different type? So we agree, gravity is not being converted. Can you please end this and tell me which form of energy is being converted? I find it ironic that you feel like I am being obtuse when I am just trying to understand all the terms that are continually missused. If you don't understand what I mean go back to the middle of this post and reread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I would call that using technological developments to develop free mechanical energy.

I googled "netwons formation of gravity" got zero exact matches but I did find this at one of my favorite sites... For the sake of debate lets discuss "gravitational potential energy". It is not the term so much as the context you are trying to use it. You cannot convert gravity, it doesn't change and it always remains constant, regardless of how much work it does. If gravitational kinetic energy is the source for the force used to spin the turbine then the correct term, again, is develop because the gravity is still in its original form and maintained its potential. In a dam, using f=mv2, mass is the weight of the water and velocity defines its speed, which is result of the force of gravity. The difference takes place in the velocity and path of the water. The dam with no turbine accelerates until it reaches terminal velocity or it reaches the botttom resevoir. The system with the dam the water velocity increases and then decreases when it hits the turbines, changing its path, and then accelerates again until it reaches terminal velocity or it reaches the bottom resevoir. The conversion is in the velocity of the water, but velocity is a unit of measure, not energy. If there is gravitational potential energy then shouldn't there also be velocitational potential energy, since that is whats being converted?

Lets get back to that... At this point the energy from the sun is useless, if it wasn't for gravity the process would stop. I think you want it to sound correct, but this is the very twisting of definitions I spoke of. The fact is, gravity is a constant force of nature that cannot be converted. It is an invisible force that requires a medium to "show" itself. This also explains the reason you "quoted" converting. Your subconscience mind remembers english class and knows the only way your statement is close to factual is if converting is used as a euphimism for develop. A fuelless energy? What way are you thinking? When you convert something you lose its original form. The water, which is the medium gravity uses to turn the turbines does not lose its original form nor does the gravity... Again all you have done is redefine gravity by adding energy to it. What is the fuel/source of so-called gravitational energy?

My intent in this thread is too see if my theory can be invalidated by facts and not twisting of definitions. All forms of energy have a fuel or source that is expended when the energy goes from potential to kinetic, except mechanical energy. The only way we can produce mechanical energy is by converting a different form of energy into mechanical energy. This is done by applying force to matter. My theory is any type of matter in motion is the fuel or source for mechanical energy and it can be freely developed. It does not create something from nothing. It does not convert something to something else. It develops the kinetic energy that is present when you put matter in motion. Thomas Young coined the term energy and defined it as "work stored within". To me that means all matter has energy stored within, therefore potential mechanical energy is in all matter. If you studied classical mechanics in any depth you understand some of the phenomenans that occur when you put different types of matter in motion. Are you familiar with the brenoulli principles dealing with air/gas and water/fluid? Can you give me a reason I shouldn't expect third type of matter to also show unique charateristics? Crack-pot notion? Maybe I am wrong about the way this thread has gone, but it seems to me most are just using different terms in place of convert, I guess because it sounds better. The fact is they are just as incorrect as using the term convert for the process that happens with a dam, a windmill and an airplane wing etc.The fact that I am not encumbered by the old science taught in school today and understand that theories are proven wrong everyday actually gives me a leg up. What I know about classical mechanics and fluid flow and the rest I learned from google search. 2000 years prior to Galileo, it was accepted as fact that a 10lb rock falls faster than a 1 lb rock. It wasn't till Galileo actually dropped the two rocks and realised the truth.

Yes, the velocity is very important given f=mv2. The system with the turbine is using the velocity and mass of the water to turn the turbine and therefore has less kinetic energy as a result of less velocity, not less volume, right before it reaches the surface of the lower resevoir, than the system without the turbine. The energy converted shows up as a velocity difference and not the volume of water difference, but you cannot convert velocity, by definition, you can only increase or decrease it. I say again...nothing is converted except the path of the water. If there is a conversion of kinetic energy to mechanical energy, the volume of water would have to be different when it reached the lower resevoir. The definition of convert clearly states when you convert something you change it from one form to another and the original form is lost. This can be seen in the burning log analogy earlier in the thread. The burning wood converts the potential energy into heat. Because the original form of wood turns to ash, it is correct to use convert. But if I throw that same log and harness the kinetic energy from the motion of the log and store it in a battery, when the log becomes still again, I have increased the total potential energy. What changed? the velocity of the log, not its form, volume or chemical make-up. It still holds the same to potential if it were to to be put in motion again. You cannot convert velocity, but we can harness or develop it using any form of matter as a medium. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The water has less kinetic energy just above the surface of lower resevoir of the system with the turbine due to the change in velocity, not volume of water. Velocity cannot be converted, only increased and decreased, and since the volume of water remains the same there is no conversion. The only two varibles that determine the amount of kinetic energy in the falling water is mass and velocity, fact. The volume of water is not decreased, therefore it was not converted into anything, fact. The velocity of the water is decreased, due to impacting the turbine blades causing them to spin. If the velocity is being converted then you must redefine velocity, because, by definition velocity can only be increased or decreased. The reduction is due to less velocity, not the volume/mass. Please, explain to me how you convert velocity?

Or at the bottom of dam A the water hits the surface at 100 mph and dam b the water hits the surface of 50mph? I would agree, but didn't man develop the distance of the head to the turbine increasing the velocity? Velocity is the only difference in the kinetic energy right above the surface of the lower resevoirs and velocity directly effects the output of the dam, the only thing converted is the path of the water. The volume is not converted into anything and remains the same. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The wood converts to ash, the water in the bottom resevoir remains the same, but is no more "higher up" water. Thats a big difference to me I guess. The wood is gone because it was converted. The water can go from potential to kinetic and back again without losing volume. There are systems in use that use a dam to generate elec. during the day and at night, when elec. is a fraction of the price, pump the water back into the upper resevoir.

I disagree. While there are some similarities, the main difference I see is the wood, a finite amount, is the vehicle supplying the fuel for the fire. A hydroelectric dam uses water as a vehicle for the force of gravity, which is a constant or even infinate force of nature, as the fuel to spin the turbines. When your fire goes out all you have is ash. The water reaches the bottom of the two resevoirs, there is still the same amount of water. The wood was converted to ash. The water still has the same volume and chemical make-up. If anything is converted its the force of gravity, although it is a constant that cannot be converted. By definition, develop, is the term that comes the closest to defining what is happening. It is using the force of gravity on water to develop mechanical energy, its not using the water like the wood in your analogy.

I interpet, you do work on it, in this context as spinning the turbine. If spinning the turbine was a result of converting the potential energy, then by definition, the result would be less potential energy in the lower resevoir than the system without the turbine. Sounds like your telling me that the system with no turbine expends more potential energy just free falling, rather than slamming into a turbine blade with many thousands of lbs. of pressure behind it. And it also knows exactly how much mechanical energy the turbine system is generating so it can expend the exact amount in order for the potential energy in the lower resevoirs to end up equal. That is what would have to happen if you use the word convert.

Maybe science taught in schools these days is hung up twisting the definitions of words in order to fit them into their comfort zone of how things work. Would you consider potential energy a type or form of energy? I am also curious as to your "off the cuff" definition of energy?

The fact that the potential in the lower resevoir remains the same makes it factually correct. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTo say that a hydroelectric converts the waters potential into mechanical energy is factually inncorrect, otherwise the lost potential in the conversion would show up as a loss in the amount of potential left in the water when it reaches the lower resevoir. But when compared to a identical system with no turbine the potential is always the same. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree with you here. But you can extract the energy without affecting the potential left at the bottom. This is not converting energy, it is developing it.

If the same energy in both systems is lost, it is due to many factors; a turbine in the path of the water is not one of them. To convert potential energy it would be lost moving through the turbine causing it to spin. This can be stated as scientific fact, not theory, because the potential energy in the lower resevoirs remains equal, regardless of how much mechanical energy you develop from the falling water. I am not sure how else to say it. A hydroelectric dam does not convert the suns energy. Once the H20 reaches the clouds gravity takes over. Gravity is a not a form of energy. It is a force that can be used as a fuel for mechanical energy, but because it requires some type of matter or vehicle to show itself it cannot be a form of energy, it is an invisible force. All forms of energy lose potential whenever they are converted into mechanical energy, but the losses in a hydroelectric dam system are not associated in anyway with the output. The output can be increased and the potential will always remain the same in the lower resevoir.

Two Identical systems, two identical upper and two identical lower resevoirs. Same height same amount of water, everything is identical. Open both penstocks and release all the water in both systems. When the water collects in the bottom of the 2 resevoirs the potential energy is less, but it is identical in both lower resevoirs. You can line up as many turbines as possible in one of the systems, leaving the other just a waterfall. You can increase the output by adding more turbines etc. But the potential in the lower resevoir will always end up the same. No energy has been converted, the loss in potential is relative to its height, not the output of the dam. No potential energy is converted, it remains the same in the lower resevoir regardless of how many turbines you put and megawatts you develop as the water falls.

You produce something by using somwthing or a combination of things to make something better, but once you make it the materials used cannot be re-used, unless the production is deconstructed. To develop something, you bring forth something from something else, but the primary thing remains in its original form and can be used to develop that thing again or even something else. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Exactly my point! Regardless if I put turbines in the path of the falling water the potential energy at the bottom is the same, nothing is converted! I am not concerned with the loses due to friction, I am interested in the excess mechanical energy and how science reconciles this fact with the law of energy conservation. The 2000 megawatts in the hoover dam comes from somewhere. If it was converted from the potential energy in the water, then why does the potentail at the bottom not reflect a loss?

You guys are throwing words around paying little attention to their definition. Lets take two dams, one with the turbine developing mechanical energy, the other with no mechaical objects in the path of the water, just the open penstock directly into the lower resevoir which is identical to the system with the turbines lower resevoir. If I captured some of the potential energy from the falling the water hitting the turbines,then potentials, once all the water has collected into the two lower resevoirs, would be different.

Ok, but can you not see the unique difference in the mechanical energy developed by a hydroelectric dam and the mechanical energy that is produced by expending any other form of potential energy in order to convert it into mechanical energy?

In order to convert all forms of energy into mechanical energy you lose some of the original form of potential energy, but you just said the loss of potential energy is soley due to the position and not the conversion??? You have changed the definition of convert...

So the potential energy has decreased, due to its height relative to sea level, not because some was converted into mechanical energy as it passed across the turbines causing them to spin?

What is the difference between mechanical energy and gravitational potential energy? Is gravity not a type of fuel for mechanical energy? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Assuming there is no wave action or wind, the potential energy at the suface of any lake or the ocean is the same, zero. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The potential energy of the water in the resevoir 1000' above the turbines is x. After the water drops through the turbines producing mechanical energy and collects in the lower resevoir, has the potential energy decreased, or does it remain the same?