Law of Energy Conservation...A ***** in the armour?

[navigator]

Supposed to read "C*H*I*N*K" in the armour, like a crack in the armour. That was not intended as a racial slur, I apologize if I offended anyone.


Basically it says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted.

Imagine 2 identical systems. Both have upper and lower resevoirs, with the same finite volume of water in the upper resevoir. In the first system we place a system of mechanics/turbine in the path of the falling water. The turbine is then hooked to a generator and finally some batteries. Then we release the water.

When the water reaches the lower resevoirs and settles, both still have the same amount of potential energy, albeit less. If the extra potential energy stored in the batteries was a result of conversion of kinetic energy in the water, then shouldn't the potential energy in the lower resevoir reflect this when compared to the potential in the system with no turbine, just falling water? The volumes of water have not changed, but we increased the total potential energy compared to the system without the turbine. You could generate 1 megawatt with a small system or 1000s of megawatts in a large system and the volume of water/potential energy will always be equal in the lower resevoirs, regardless.

The definition of convert is to transform into something else and the original form is lost.

The definition of develop is to bring forth something from something, but the primary thing remains in its original form able to bring forth something else or more of the same.

Other forms of energy use fuel that must be replaced. They go from potential to kinetic energy and their done. Thats converting energy.

Water can go from potential to kinetic and back to potential with the volume never changing. Thats developing energy.

What do you think?

[dambit]

But your not converting the water to energy, you are converting the falling water. The energy of the falling water originates in gravity. So essentially you would be converting gravity to electricity. The medium in which this takes place just happens to be the water and turbine.

I don't know.

Cheers,

Steve

[navigator]

But your not converting the water to energy, you are converting the falling water. The energy of the falling water originates in gravity. So essentially you would be converting gravity to electricity. The medium in which this takes place just happens to be the water and turbine.

I don't know.

Cheers,

Steve

Gravity is a constant force of nature that cannot be converted, it can be developed/harnessed, but it needs a medium to "show itself".

Gravitational energy is another term science has come up with to maintain their comfort zone of how things work.

[sucahyo]

What if energy is recycled? Think of it like breathing, inhaling fresh air exhausting dirty air, and the air is unlimited.

[dambit]

I don't look at gravity they way regular science does. I look at gravity along the lines of pressure and density. Similar to why some gasses "float" on top of others. Walter Russell's book "The Universal One" contains excellent examples of this and other thories (once you figure out his terminology )

Cheers,

Steve.

[navigator]

What if energy is recycled? Think of it like breathing, inhaling fresh air exhausting dirty air, and the air is unlimited.

Recycling has to do with taking used/worthless matter and converting it into something useful?

Energy is recycled, think of all the oil that is now sold by restaurants etc...but it is converted, it changes volume and chemical make-up to another form and always less volume.

This crack in the armour is also exposed by the unlimited air you mentioned. What happens when you place a mechanical object in the path of the wind? You get mechanical energy harnessed/developed by a windmill. Where does the energy lifting an airplane come from? Once again we placed mechanical system in the path of the air, converting the path the air travels and developing a lifting force. The only converting in a dam is the path of the water, which uses the force of gravity to develop mechanical energy.

In both air and water the path is converted to one the has a higher velocity usually due to compression. Technological developments have allowed us to use mechanics to our advantage. We take knowledge of technology and develop it every day.

All forms of energy use a medium. Thomas Young coined the term energy and defined it as "work stored within". Any of the three kinds (air, water, solid objects) of matter have potential energy that becomes kinetic energy when in motion. Regardless of the amount of kinetic energy while in motion, once the matter comes to a stand still, it keeps it original form, volume and potential energy.

[navigator]

I don't look at gravity they way regular science does. I look at gravity along the lines of pressure and density. Similar to why some gasses "float" on top of others. Walter Russell's book "The Universal One" contains excellent examples of this and other thories (once you figure out his terminology )

Cheers,

Steve.

Gravity makes much more sense to me that way too.

Its more than just coincedence that physists and mechanical engineers seldom excel in literature. I have encountered many that will twist words, like convert, and their definitions to validate their theories.

[Ted Ewert]

The water, after it has passed to the lower reservoir, has LESS potential energy than it did in the higher reservoir. If it had the same potential energy you could run it back through the turbine again in the opposite direction.
The only reason electrical energy is produced is because of the differential in pressure between the input and the output of the turbine. As long as this pressure differential is maintained, water flows at a certain velocity and at a certain volume which directly corresponds to the amount of power generated.
The energy that is converted into electricity was originally generated by whichever mechanism (sun, pump, etc) raised the water up to it's highest level.
If you're going to convert energy, you first have to determine what energy you're trying to convert. The conservation of energy is a perfectly valid concept. What most people don't realize is that there are other forms of energy just waiting to be tapped. The whole point of this forum is to find and exploit those reservoirs of potential energy.

[navigator]

The water, after it has passed to the lower reservoir, has LESS potential energy than it did in the higher reservoir. If it had the same potential energy you could run it back through the turbine again in the opposite direction.

Agreed.

The potential energy in the lower resevoirs is less, but they remain equal in both lower resevoirs regardless of how many 1000s of megawatts you generate from the system with the turbine using the falling water to make it spin.

The only reason electrical energy is produced is because of the differential in pressure between the input and the output of the turbine. As long as this pressure differential is maintained, water flows at a certain velocity and at a certain volume which directly corresponds to the amount of power generated.

Given f=mv2, the mass and its velocity are the only varibles that determine the kinetic energy in the falling water.

The energy that is converted into electricity was originally generated by whichever mechanism (sun, pump, etc) raised the water up to it's highest level.

The water wasn't converted, it maintains the same form, volume and chemical make-up, fact.

By definition you cannot convert velocity, only increase or decrease it.

There is no conversion taking place unless you redefine velocity.

If you're going to convert energy, you first have to determine what energy you're trying to convert. The conservation of energy is a perfectly valid concept. What most people don't realize is that there are other forms of energy just waiting to be tapped. The whole point of this forum is to find and exploit those reservoirs of potential energy.

For two thousand years, proir to Galileo, it was thought that a 100lb rock would free fall faster than a 1 lb rock. This was also accepted by science as a perfectly valid concept.

[gmeast]

Supposed to read "C*H*I*N*K" in the armour, like a crack in the armour. That was not intended as a racial slur, I apologize if I offended anyone.


Basically it says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted.

----------------------------------------

The volumes of water have not changed, but we increased the total potential energy compared to the system without the turbine. You could generate 1 megawatt with a small system or 1000s of megawatts in a large system and the volume of water/potential energy will always be equal in the lower resevoirs, regardless.

---------------------------------------------
Water can go from potential to kinetic and back to potential with the volume never changing. Thats developing energy.

What do you think?

Potential energy and then it's utilization (kinetic - or other- energy) is NOT power. Power is the RATE at which that energy is "consumed", "dissipated", etc. The power (your example - watts) will be limited by the ever decreasing RATE at which you can utilize the potential energy.

You'll be better with just one efficient pass because you ultimately must lift the "next course" the initial (greater) height to repeat the process. Nature will refill the reservoir (when she feels like it).

Ask Hoover Dam. The conversion system is based on pressure differentials that the turbines are subjected to. Actually a reservoir with a water column of 100 ft will do work more efficiently than two reservoirs with 50 ft columns because of multiple efficiency losses. The theoretical outputs are the same.

[Ted Ewert]

Agreed.

The potential energy in the lower resevoirs is less, but they remain equal in both lower resevoirs regardless of how many 1000s of megawatts you generate from the system with the turbine using the falling water to make it spin.

I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about usable kinetic energy with respect to gravity. There is also absolute energy in the mass, which is a whole different ball of wax.

The water wasn't converted, it maintains the same form, volume and chemical make-up, fact.

By definition you cannot convert velocity, only increase or decrease it.

There is no conversion taking place unless you redefine velocity.

Velocity is is only a form of reference. It's obviously the movement of the water that imparts energy through the turbine, which converts that motion into electrical energy. The water is just the medium that accumulates and disburses potential energy. Just as it accumulates and disburses heat.
The ultimate origin of this energy is the interesting part. Unlocking that secret will open up all kinds of possibilities.

For two thousand years, proir to Galileo, it was thought that a 100lb rock would free fall faster than a 1 lb rock. This was also accepted by science as a perfectly valid concept.

You're preaching to the choir here.
Nevertheless, I've learned the hard way that you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Why completely reinvent the wheel when 95% of the work has already been done? There's a lot of good science that has been accomplished in mechanical engineering, and I try and take advantage of all I can.
There's nothing wrong with conservation of energy. Nature abhors an imbalance and will only use what is necessary to rebalance it. It's all about being able to recognize how Nature voids this imbalance, and to be able to use this information to produce usable energy.

Cheers,

Ted

[navigator]

I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about usable kinetic energy with respect to gravity. There is also absolute energy in the mass, which is a whole different ball of wax.


Velocity is is only a form of reference. It's obviously the movement of the water that imparts energy through the turbine, which converts that motion into electrical energy.

Ok, I agree the kinetic energy in the water is converted into mechanical energy, but what is the fuel/source of the kinetic energy?

The water is just the medium that accumulates and disburses potential energy. Just as it accumulates and disburses heat.
The ultimate origin of this energy is the interesting part. Unlocking that secret will open up all kinds of possibilities.

Agreed

You're preaching to the choir here.
Nevertheless, I've learned the hard way that you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Why completely reinvent the wheel when 95% of the work has already been done? There's a lot of good science that has been accomplished in mechanical engineering, and I try and take advantage of all I can.
There's nothing wrong with conservation of energy. Nature abhors an imbalance and will only use what is necessary to rebalance it. It's all about being able to recognize how Nature voids this imbalance, and to be able to use this information to produce usable energy.

Cheers,

Ted

Agree with everything here too, except the bold, which I guess is why I started the thread.

[navigator]

Ok, I agree the kinetic energy in the water is converted into mechanical energy, but what is the fuel/source of the kinetic energy?

I conceded as an olive branch for the sake of debate...

If the source is "gravitational potential energy" then convert cannot be correctly used in that context. You cannot convert something that is a constant and unchanging, you can develop it though.

The only conversion is the path and velocity of the water, neither of which are forms of energy.

[tjnlsn255]

If you really had a generator and pump with OU > than 1 you could motor/pump the same water from the lower tank back up to the top tank and start all over again......

Tj

[navigator]

Potential energy and then it's utilization (kinetic - or other- energy) is NOT power.

Not sure what you mean by "other energy" here...there are only two types.

Power is the RATE at which that energy is "consumed", "dissipated", etc. The power (your example - watts) will be limited by the ever decreasing RATE at which you can utilize the potential energy.

Power is also the rate work is performed, perspective is everything, I try to look at from the "half full" side.

What potential has decreased due to the water spinning the turbine?

You'll be better with just one efficient pass because you ultimately must lift the "next course" the initial (greater) height to repeat the process. Nature will refill the reservoir (when she feels like it).

Ask Hoover Dam. The conversion system is based on pressure differentials that the turbines are subjected to. Actually a reservoir with a water column of 100 ft will do work more efficiently than two reservoirs with 50 ft columns because of multiple efficiency losses. The theoretical outputs are the same.

Agreed, except for the way you use conversion. What form of energy is involved in this conversion?