Electrical Generator (Additional Comments)

gadgetmaker; keep on dreaming.

You have been given some contacts with other conceptors of over 1 efficiency systems. Did you get in touch with them? I think it will be the best way for you since on CR4 you have the risk to find only skeptical people who do not believe without proof that it could be possible. Unfortunately for advanced dreamers it is not enough to put it on paper, it has to work and measurements should show that output energy is over input energy. According to actual and every where accepted physical laws this is impossible. The fact that some body was not able to show you the flaw is not an argument, even if the person worked for the Manhattan project that is not a proof that your system is correct. may be because you know him he did not want to upset you.

Prove it and every body will say thanks to you.

Hello gadget maker, I would be most happy to here more on the generator you talk of. Our work using fully recycling Co2 requires a heat sorce above zero degrees Celsius.

We currently have two models both using the same principal, the ist for temeperatures below 31 degrees Celsius using ambiant heat or other source of heat, and the other for temperatures above 31 degrees Celsius using ambiant heat, Methane gas or other fuel.

Have faith in yourself there will many who await to assail you.

Cheers

Peter

Questions:

1- have you you made at least an analysis showing you that your idea is able to work? Quantitavely not qualitatively

2- or have you made a model scaled down ?

3- if you made the model did it work?

4- have you quantified the input and output energy ? Which way did you mesure it?

5- did you notice that the output energy is higher the input?

If you answer those questions it will be great!

Hello no nick name,

In answer to your questions,

1. Professors from Queensland, and Oaklahoma Universities are in agreeance the concept works.

2. Yes we made a scaled down model.

3. Yes it did work.

4. Yes, Methane burns at 1590 degrees Celsius, 1 litre methane gas 1590 c divided by 50 to provide safe conversion table, inputs 31c heat rise of Co2.

5. At present reliant upon Co2 phase graph, and hydro turbine power conversion table1 litre per second flow at 9 bar pressure generates 720 watts.

Currently experimenting with best form of cooling device.

Cheers

Peter

So far you gave neither results of measurements nor how the values were obtained. With graphs and other computations I am not convinced.

It can turn but frictions can be important and efficiency low so that the input power (or energy) can be a lot higher than the obtained output.

When you will have quantified results please let me know about.

Nick

Thanks Nick,

Please refer to Co2 phase graph (temperature/pressure) I personally trust Professors of Chemistry, Wikipedia and other Professional providers of Co2 graphs on Google search, and fortunately so do other interested parties.

Turbine effiency is 80%. Mind you that would improve with greater quality bearings.

There is no other friction bearing part.

Energy output is 720 watts for each 1 litre flow per second at 9 bar bar pressure. Doubling by pressure or flow.

CR4 posting is to encourage others to think outside the box, but expect an avalanche of criticism from those involved with the piston engine, steam turbine, coal and oil all of who are facing a future without their dinosaur technology dumping Carbon to harm my children's future.

Cheers

Peter

You do not understand my point. I am not against new ideas, I only am skeptical when I do not have in front of me quantified results.

That is ALL!

Bring quantified results and I shall congratulate you, as long as they are not available I still doubt about computed and estimated results.

By the way how do you know that your DaS Turbine has an efficiency of 80%? May be it si higher or may be less, have you measured it?

Regard Nick

Thanks Nick,

Turbine gas pump was purchased E-bay, (any turbine gas pump shall suffice)Queensland University found it 82% efficient. Wattage output is courtiousy California University. Cooling is greatest bugbear, but Glycol coming up trumps at the moment.

Efficiency is not our greatest worry, its costs to heat and cool.

Looking promising that electric fans to Glycol radiator can be powered from system with wattage left over.

Slow progress being on invalid pension six years to date.

Temperature variant of +10c produces 720 watts at 1 litre per second flow, for temperatures 1c to 31.1c.

Latest check 28,000 litres Methane gas $10.00 US.

Worst case scenerio taking 10 litres Methane gas (1590c) per second to heat 1 litre Co2 per second, means 159 litres of Co2 heated 10c =108,000 watts. $10.00 US 28,000 litres Methane =3,024,000,000 watts per second. $36,000.00 for 3,024,000,000 watts per hour= 0.01 cents per kilowatt hour.

Cheers

Peter

Gadgetmaker,

I'm one of the perennial energy skeptics on this forum, so let me start by saying that it sounds like you have an open and inquisitive mind about your project. The fact that you consulted a physicist shows that you're both knowledgeable and oriented toward science. Usually I scoff at "free energy" claims, but I think you're open to math and reason, so I'll walk through a few of the arguments.

Energy is available only from non-conservative vector fields and certain scalar fields. We've had unanimous experimental evidence of this for more than a hundred years. So, if you want to build an over-unity device, you must not use one of the conservative fields, for example, electrostatic, magnetostatic, or gravitational. Their curl is zero, and therefore, they cannot provide energy.

Energy is available from non-conservative fields. Easily accessible examples are the trade winds, and ocean currents. These are widely known and have been used for centuries. There are probably many new and efficient ways of utilizing them.

A good example of a scalar field where energy is available is temperature, for example in a sea. Extracting energy there requires only good engineering.

But, so far, as we know, all these sources can be seen to come from the sun or from the creation of the planet itself.

So, what's left? Only electrodynamic or magnetodynamic fields. Your invention has to show that somehow you can generate these fields without using any energy. It's not enough to suggest that you can always produce more output than input since that leads to the logical inconsistency of having a machine power itself.

I've avoided the question of quantum energies since anything that happens there is either very tiny, very fast, or both. The Copenhagen belief that QM extends to macrostates has never been shown true (there are some data about very simple instances that are still open to question here).

So, I would suggest that you might want to share your proof of concept with one or more of this forum before investing much money. If you're gotten to proof of concept, you should be able to protect yourself with a provisional patent. See here

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm

Ok I am ready, after you registered your idea where you consider it to be the best protected and thus protect it the right way, to give you an official confidentiality agreement and have a thorough look at it.