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

[navigator]

Lets take the experiment one step further in an effort to prove the The Law of Energy Conservation and the context in which it uses convert, is factually incorrect.

Lets say the distance the water falls in both systems is 1100' and the elevation of the lower resevoirs is where water reaches its terminal velocity in 100' free fall.

The first system, the water exits the penstock and accelerates until it reaches terminal velocity, at which point the KE in the water is at its Highest, and maintains that speed or maximum KE until it impacts the resevoir below. The water settles and has x amount PE.

The second system we place 10 turbines at 100' intervals. The water exits the penstock, begins accelerating, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, then impacts the first tubine, slowing it down and lowering its KE. The water then exits the first turbine and begins to accelerate again, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, then impacts the second turbine, the cycle continues 8 more times. When it exits the last turbine it begins to accelerate again, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, and impacts the resevoir. When it settles it has the same x amount of PE as the first system.

When the water impacts the lower resevoir, both systems have the same amount of KE and when the water settles they have the same PE in the water. But the system with the turbines ends up with an excess mechanical energy the can be coverted and stored in the battries, therefore increasing the overall PE of the system.

In order to convert the KE, it would have to expend some of the PE, but the KE at the bottom remains the same as well as the PE. The correct term for the mechanical energy in a dam is free developed mechanical energy using water as its fuel. The water takes advantage of the fact that gravity is a constant and no matter how much work it does its PE is always x. Gravity cannot be converted, it is a constant force that requires a type of matter to show itself. The water is not converted, at the bottom its the KE and PE of the two systems are equal.

As a side note, this also goes against the theory that says "in a closed system, energy cannot be increased or decreased in a streamline"(no pun intented). I am not as confident of this due to not understanding all the perameters that define a closed system in the context of the system used in this experiment.

What do you think?

[Ted Ewert]

Lets take the experiment one step further in an effort to prove the The Law of Energy Conservation and the context in which it uses convert, is factually incorrect.

Lets say the distance the water falls in both systems is 1100' and the elevation of the lower resevoirs is where water reaches its terminal velocity in 100' free fall.

The first system, the water exits the penstock and accelerates until it reaches terminal velocity, at which point the KE in the water is at its Highest, and maintains that speed or maximum KE until it impacts the resevoir below. The water settles and has x amount PE.

The second system we place 10 turbines at 100' intervals. The water exits the penstock, begins accelerating, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, then impacts the first tubine, slowing it down and lowering its KE. The water then exits the first turbine and begins to accelerate again, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, then impacts the second turbine, the cycle continues 8 more times. When it exits the last turbine it begins to accelerate again, reaches terminal velocity/maximum KE, and impacts the resevoir. When it settles it has the same x amount of PE as the first system.

When the water impacts the lower resevoir, both systems have the same amount of KE and when the water settles they have the same PE in the water. But the system with the turbines ends up with an excess mechanical energy the can be coverted and stored in the battries, therefore increasing the overall PE of the system.

In order to convert the KE, it would have to expend some of the PE, but the KE at the bottom remains the same as well as the PE. The correct term for the mechanical energy in a dam is free developed mechanical energy using water as its fuel. The water takes advantage of the fact that gravity is a constant and no matter how much work it does its PE is always x. Gravity cannot be converted, it is a constant force that requires a type of matter to show itself. The water is not converted, at the bottom its the KE and PE of the two systems are equal.

As a side note, this also goes against the theory that says "in a closed system, energy cannot be increased or decreased in a streamline"(no pun intented). I am not as confident of this due to not understanding all the perameters that define a closed system in the context of the system used in this experiment.

What do you think?

You forget that with an 1100' "head", the pressure at the bottom would be significant. This pressure is what would translate into more power and not just the kinetic energy the water accumulates by falling.
Head pressure combined with flow rate is how potential power is calculated for a turbine.

Ted

[navigator]

You forget that with an 1100' "head", the pressure at the bottom would be significant. This pressure is what would translate into more power and not just the kinetic energy the water accumulates by falling.
Head pressure combined with flow rate is how potential power is calculated for a turbine.

Ted

I haven't forgotten it, the context you are using head is a strawman in this system.

The systems are identical and the head has no bearing on the results. The first system has the same head as the second in the upper resevoir, the distance from the surface to the penstock opening or headgate.

The head is not measured from the top resevoir to the bottom resevoir, rather the distance from the surface of the upper resevoirs to the penstock openings or head gates.

[MileHigh]

The energy in this example is conserved. The temperature of the water in the lower reservoir that did not pass through the turbine(s) will be higher as compared to the reservoir where the water passed through the turbine(s).

For the reservoir system without the turbine system, the potential energy of the water due to its height gets converted to kinetic energy as it falls, and then that kinetic energy gets converted into heat when it enters the lower reservoir.

For the reservoir system with the turbine system, some of the kinetic energy is drawn off by the turbine(s) and this water arrives at the lower reservoir with less kinetic energy, heating the lower reservoir less.

The law of conservation wins. If you drop a book on the floor, the temperature of the book increases very slightly because of the law of conservation of energy.

[Ted Ewert]

I haven't forgotten it, the context you are using head is a strawman in this system.

The systems are identical and the head has no bearing on the results. The first system has the same head as the second in the upper resevoir, the distance from the surface to the penstock opening or headgate.

The head is not measured from the top resevoir to the bottom resevoir, rather the distance from the surface of the upper resevoirs to the penstock openings or head gates.

The fatal flaw in your 10 turbine example is that you're equating velocity with pressure. Even though the water accelerates to terminal velocity, the pressure will be reduced at the turbine input. The best you could do is to get the pressure from a 100 foot head because the total pressure does not add from one turbine through to the next. If it did, you would have no pressure differential across each turbine and they would not spin.

Ted

[navigator]

The energy in this example is conserved. The temperature of the water in the lower reservoir that did not pass through the turbine(s) will be higher as compared to the reservoir where the water passed through the turbine(s).

How so? Wouldn't the water impacting the turbines also increase the water temp., 10x more than the system without the turbines? Is there a formula to calculate how much the heat would increase in each system?

Remember, the water impacts both the bottom resevoirs at terminal velocity/maximun KE.

I guess it seems to me the turbine side would have more heat, not only does the water impact 10 turbines all at max. KE, but it accelerates to terminal velocity just prior. Maybe I am wrong, but will water that free falls accelerating the first 100', reaching terminal velocity, then maintaining that velocity the remaining 1000', have more heat right above the surface of the lower resevoir, when compared to the same amount of water that accelerates to terminal velocity then is slowed by impacting a turbine and then accelerated back to TV, not just once, but ten times?

For the reservoir system without the turbine system, the potential energy of the water due to its height gets converted to kinetic energy as it falls, and then that kinetic energy gets converted into heat when it enters the lower reservoir

Can you tell me the form of energy you are referring to when you say KE or PE?

KE and PE are types of energy that define the state the energy is in, it is in motion or motionless, but what form of energy are you describing by using KE and PE in the context of these systems?

[navigator]

The fatal flaw in your 10 turbine example is that you're equating velocity with pressure. Even though the water accelerates to terminal velocity, the pressure will be reduced at the turbine input. The best you could do is to get the pressure from a 100 foot head because the total pressure does not add from one turbine through to the next. If it did, you would have no pressure differential across each turbine and they would not spin.

Ted

The reason for equating the two is earlier in the thread somebody said that the KE in the falling water would be less right before it impacts the lower reservoir. I attempted to eliminate that by throwing terminal velocity into the mix.

Regardless, your fatal flaw is a valid point I overlooked. It could be overcome by simply adding a resevoir above the 9 lower turbines. As the water exits the first turbine it begins filling the reservoir for the second turbine, giving it the 100' head, and so on. The result is still the same although it would take much longer.

[MileHigh]

> Can you tell me the form of energy you are referring to when you say KE or PE?

Keeping it all simple:

The PE is a function of the water height and the mass: PE = Mgh
The KE is a function of the water velocity and the mass: KE = 1/2Mv-squared
The total PE is equal to the total KE.
The temperature increase is due to converting the KE into heat: 4.19 Joules = 1 calorie of heat.
The difference in the heat energy in the water from the top reservoir as compared to the bottom reservoir is equal to the PE which is equal to the KE.

[navigator]

> Can you tell me the form of energy you are referring to when you say KE or PE?

Keeping it all simple:

The PE is a function of the water height and the mass: PE = Mgh
The KE is a function of the water velocity and the mass: KE = 1/2Mv-squared
The total PE is equal to the total KE.
The temperature increase is due to converting the KE into heat: 4.19 Joules = 1 calorie of heat.
The difference in the heat energy in the water from the top reservoir as compared to the bottom reservoir is equal to the PE which is equal to the KE.

No forms that I know can be at work in this system without violating the Law. The fact is KE is doing work on the turbine, but KE must have a medium to do work. The volume of water at the bottom is the same, so it wasn't converted. Gravity is a constant force of nature that by definition cannot be converted. Gravitational potential energy contradicts the law, due to the fact that in order to convert it to another it must first change to KE to do any work. If it does then the correct classification would be free GPE and free GKE. Its supply is unlimited and constantly present. Regardless of how much work gravity does, the force of gravity is constant. Gravity has to use matter as a medium. But the medium, and the forces gravity puts on it, can go from PE to KE and back to PE with no loss to its original form, volume, chemical make-up, etc.

Thomas Young coined the term "energy" and defined it as "work stored within".

To me that means all matter has PE, putting it in motion changes it to KE. When you drop a log, the force of gravity is the fuel for the motion and the log is the medium that owns the KE. Although physics can explain away whats happening, windmills and hydroelectric dams share these unique characteristics. Both use matter and the forces of nature to develop free mechanical energy, by placeing solid objects in the path of wind and falling water. What is converted is the path and shape of the matter as it impacts the turbines.

I would call it "free developed mechanical energy", but I could really care less what its called.

[MileHigh]

You can assume that the top reservoir of water is solar powered. The sun lifted the water to the higher height. Just like a windmill is solar powered.

When the water is falling some of its KE goes into the turbine. The water "gives up" some of its KE. This slows the water down, keeping the total energy in balance.

In your example, the log is an energy storage device. The fuel source is whatever lifted the log into the higher position in the first place. Then the log falls and releases its stored energy.

The gravity field is like a frame of reference for your potential energy level. The higher up you move in the gravity field, the higher your potential energy. It is a variable that you play with. The same thing applies to the velocity, it is a frame of reference for your kinetic energy level.

It takes the expenditure of energy to move up in the gravity field, and likewise you can receive energy back if you move down in the gravity field. On the kinetic side, the same applies, it takes the expenditure of energy to move up in velocity. When you move down in velocity you can receive energy back also.

[Stealth]

Navigator, you are on the right track. Check out my thread on page 5, most efficient free energy. You can see a video of a pump powering a turbine/generator, powering the pump and also a light bulb. Also read about Schaubergers methods. Stealth

[Ted Ewert]

Navigator, you are on the right track. Check out my thread on page 5, most efficient free energy. You can see a video of a pump powering a turbine/generator, powering the pump and also a light bulb. Also read about Schaubergers methods. Stealth

I agree those things work, but for different reasons than we are discussing here.
Schauberger discovered that water in a stream,traveling around a rock, actually gets colder after coming in contact with the rock. The centripetal aspect of the water's path cools the water. This is why streams and rivers don't heat up as they fall.
The pump powering a turbine/generator, powering the pump and also a light bulb is a fascinating study. Which part of the whole cycle do you think generates the most power?

Cheers,

Ted

[Stealth]

The pump has to supply enough power to overcome the friction of the turbine and the generator with volume and pressure. So, when you drink from a glass through a straw, is it vacuum or pressure that is causing the liquid to flow up the straw? Stealth

[Ted Ewert]

The pump has to supply enough power to overcome the friction of the turbine and the generator with volume and pressure. So, when you drink from a glass through a straw, is it vacuum or pressure that is causing the liquid to flow up the straw? Stealth

Generator is lossy, pump motor is lossy, friction in the system is lossy. The only thing left is the pump head, nozzle and the turbine, and the turbine is my vote for most gain. The pump head might also be OU, but it's hard to differentiate cause from effect without some experimentation. The nozzle is converting pressure into velocity, which could be considered a type of mechanical gain, but it's debatable.
My opinion at this point is that the turbine gains from being pulsed, but more importantly I think that the path the water takes once it hits the turbine blades is significant. If the water can be pulsed and deflected through 180 degrees, it acts just like a pendulum, with the force applied in the direction of rotation. The pulsing gets the turbine into resonance, which also adds energy.
Once I get my turbine running some of these hypotheses can be tested. Nevertheless, I think we're heading down the right road.

Ted

[navigator]

You can assume that the top reservoir of water is solar powered. The sun lifted the water to the higher height. Just like a windmill is solar powered.

When the water is falling some of its KE goes into the turbine. The water "gives up" some of its KE. This slows the water down, keeping the total energy in balance.

In your example, the log is an energy storage device. The fuel source is whatever lifted the log into the higher position in the first place. Then the log falls and releases its stored energy.

The gravity field is like a frame of reference for your potential energy level. The higher up you move in the gravity field, the higher your potential energy. It is a variable that you play with. The same thing applies to the velocity, it is a frame of reference for your kinetic energy level.

It takes the expenditure of energy to move up in the gravity field, and likewise you can receive energy back if you move down in the gravity field. On the kinetic side, the same applies, it takes the expenditure of energy to move up in velocity. When you move down in velocity you can receive energy back also.

This debate has taken full circle, I give you my word that my intention is not to be obtuse, I just can't wrap my mind around the use of the word convert in these systems.

It sounds to me like you are saying GPE is what is converted into mechanical energy, but the GPE in both of the lower reservoirs is equal, therefore nothing was converted. Energy may have been conserved due to heat differential, although it seems like quite a stretch, but the bottom line is one system gained PE the other did not, while the matter the gravity applied its force to maintained the same PE between the two systems. That is unique when compared to all other power plants. I guess science could not explain this so the term GPE was added as a form of energy, which is free energy. No matter how much work gravity performs, height is the only varible that can decrease its potential.

Whats next, centrifugal potential energy? I am not looking for an answer, just trying to make a point. Why is science so scared of free energy? All matter has work stored within. You put that matter in motion, use forces of nature and mechanical design to increase the velocity, pressure, etc. place mechanical objects in its path and you have mechanical energy.

Science cannot define the source or fuel for mechanical energy, we can only convert to it.

It seems to me, all matter has potential energy in the form of mechanical energy. You use input to put the matter in motion, apply different forces of nature combined with unique mechanical designs and you have, free developed mechanical energy. The fuel is the forces of nature used and the matter those forces act on is the medium. The forces of nature are constant and cannot be converted, the matter has not changed its form or chemical make-up, so no matter how much work it does the PE is not affected. Using the forces of nature, free developed ME can go from PE to KE back to PE and never decrease its overall PE. No other form of energy can do that.

Understanding this is the basis for my inspiration. Free energy is out there and when it is developed the law of energy conservation will be obsolete, IMHO.