As close to perpetual motion as we might ever get.

[WhatIfMachine]

well, I thought pressure increased flow rate, but okay...

lets say the flow rate is increased, but the plastic tube I described would tighten the flow, increasing its pressure and direting all of the breeze towards the blades with maximum efficiancy

if that doesn't work, could I get more than just a reason? like a source or an equation?

 

[russ_watters]

well, I thought pressure increased flow rate, but okay...

Pressure of what? Where? What kind of pressure?

Have you read the link about the Venturi effect?

let's say the flow rate is increased, but the plastic tube I described would tighten the flow, increasing its pressure and direting all of the breeze towards the blades

if that doesn't work, could I get more than just a reason? like a source or an equation?

That's Bernoulli's principle and the venturi effect: The Velocity through the cone increases, the pressure decreases. Please read the link provided about the Venturi effect - and follow links from it to Bernoulli's principle.

 

[pallidin]

Look, your beating a dead horse that's been beaten for hundreds of years.

It is not even conceptually correct to suggest that you can get more energy from a system that does not exist in the system.
Would not make any sense at all.
Even nuclear weapons don't do this. NOTHING can do this.

 

[russ_watters]

Look, your beating a dead horse that's been beaten for hundreds of years.

It is not even conceptually correct to suggest that you can get more energy from a system that does not exist in the system.

This is what frustrates me so much about the situation we're in here. As I said before, conservation of energy is so well proven that it isn't even treated as a theory, but rather is a postulate - a starting assumption - on which problems can be solved. It isn't even possible to divorce the issue of conservation of energy from such problems because the question of if energy is conserved hasn't been relevant in science for hundreds of years.

So while my Venturi/Bernoulli explanation above is correct, it is derived based on conservation of energy, so if someone doesn't accept conservation of energy, then there is no reason to believe they would accept Bernoulli's principle and no way to deal with the problem.

All I can say is that I design HVAC systems for a living and I use these principles on a daily basis. If these principles were wrong, the systems I design wouldn't work. That's just a personal experience, but an enormous amount of our technology requires these principles to be correct, otherwise our technology wouldn't work.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

It's not that I don't accept failure, its just that when my theory is explained to be incorrect, usually an important part of that explination has nothing to do with the proposal. Things like "you can't make energy" "perpetual motion is impossible" ect, just stupid things people wouldn't say if they just read what I had to say and paid attention. so I am sorry if I am a bit persistent against critisism that I can't be sure is even on topic. half of the time people miss the point of what I have to say or don't understand me, I just want to be sure that they completely understand me before they start giving me reasons why it won't work.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not that I don't accept failure, its just that when my theory is explained to be incorrect, usually an important part of that explination has nothing to do with the proposal. Things like "you can't make energy" "perpetual motion is impossible" ect, just stupid things people wouldn't say if they just read what I had to say and paid attention. so I am sorry if I am a bit persistent against critisism that I can't be sure is even on topic. half of the time people miss the point of what I have to say or don't understand me, I just want to be sure that they completely understand me before they start giving me reasons why it won't work.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to convince you that one of your starting assumptions is wrong and as a result, you think people aren't understanding your proposal. You're wrong about that (in fact, you don't understand the implications of your own proposal!), but we've been uable to convince you or teach you. At this point, my only suggestion is to read about and learn the principles we've told you to read about and learn and hopefully the light will go on.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

@russ

which assumption?

 

[alxm]

which assumption?

To begin with, you assume, erroneously, that the fact that the fan 'multiplies the air' 15x (which is a fairly meaningless number) means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.

It does not. It carries only a fraction of the power consumed by the fan.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

To begin with, you assume, erroneously, that the fact that the fan 'multiplies the air' 15x

dont blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson



(which is a fairly meaningless number)

15x is a small number? if you say so...



means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.
It does not. It carries only a fraction of the power consumed by the fan.

again, blame false advertising.

 

[Xtensity]

(which is a fairly meaningless number)

15x is a small number? if you say so...

He didn't say 15 was a small number, it said it was meaningless. Numbers mean nothing by them selves, they have to have some association with units.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

He didn't say 15 was a small number, it said it was meaningless. Numbers mean nothing by them selves, they have to have some association with units.

but it does have an association with a unit. 1/15 of the amount of power it takes to power a regular fan (so I don't want to buy a fan just to test the voltage, use algebra)
lets say a fan uses 150 watts then the Dyson fan uses 10 watts. that's your association, okay?

 

[russ_watters]

@russ

which assumption?

1. Your incorrect definition of "perpetual motion".
2. Your assumption that induction results in an increase in pressure.

You keep repeating these errors over and over again without listening when people try to correct you. Have you read the link about the Venturi effect yet?

don't blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson
[snip]
again, blame false advertising.

It's not false. They make no claim whatsoever about power or pressure and they tell you exactly what scientific principle it is based on. There is nothing in that link that suggest what you are claiming. You're simply making a claim based on misunderstanding the scientific principle on which it is based.

means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.

No! It! Doesn't! You haven't read the link about the Venturi effect yet, have you?

 

[russ_watters]

but it does have an association with a unit. 1/15 of the amount of power it takes to power a regular fan (so I don't want to buy a fan just to test the voltage, use algebra)
lets say a fan uses 150 watts then the Dyson fan uses 10 watts. that's your association, okay?

Where, exactly in that link is that claim made? I don't see the word "power" anywhere in that link.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

It boils down to physics. While it's true that the atmosphere is gaseous, gases obey the physical laws of fluid dynamics. As air flows through the slits in the tube and out through the front of the fan, air behind the fan is drawn through the tube as well. This is called inducement. The flowing air pushed by the motor induces the air behind the fan to follow.

Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor.

I believe the link is in my first post http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

and honestly, no, but I will read it now

 

[alxm]

dont blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson

No, because Dyson's advertising is not incorrect. The airflow through the fan is 15x larger than the airflow coming out of the ring.

15x is a small number? if you say so...

No, I said it's a 'meaningless' number. Because it says nothing about the efficiency of the fan, nor is there any equivalent number for a conventional fan to compare to.

again, blame false advertising.

No, I blame you, because you made that assumption - not Dyson. Dyson knows full well you can't put a wind turbine in front of their fan and use it to power it (if only the original flow was great enough), which is in effect what you claimed in your first post.

 

[russ_watters]

It boils down to physics.

Yes, of course - what a useless thing to say, especially since the problem here is simply that you don't understand the physics of the issue.

While it's true that the atmosphere is gaseous, gases obey the physical laws of fluid dynamics. As air flows through the slits in the tube and out through the front of the fan, air behind the fan is drawn through the tube as well. This is called inducement. The flowing air pushed by the motor induces the air behind the fan to follow.

Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor.

I believe the link is in my first post http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

That's not well worded, but in any case, nothing in that explanation you just gave discusses a change in pressure or power.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Dyson knows full well you can't put a wind turbine in front of their fan and use it to power it (if only the original flow was great enough), which is in effect what you claimed in your first post.

oh so you happen to know what Dyson does in their labs? I thought they where all about vacuums (and now fans)

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Yes, of course - what a useless thing to say, especially since the problem here is simply that you don't understand the physics of the issue. That's not well worded, but in any case, nothing in that explanation you just gave discusses a change in pressure or power.

I quoted that straight from Dyson http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

 

[russ_watters]

oh so you happen to know what Dyson does in their labs? I thought they where all about vacuums (and now fans)

Let me put it another way: I have no reason to believe Dyson is a perpetual motion crackpot. He has said nothing to suggest to me that he is, so I highly doubt he has tried that.

I quoted that straight from Dyson

Yes. And the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in that link, do they?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Let me put it another way: I have no reason to believe Dyson is a perpetual motion crackpot. He has said nothing to suggest to me that he is, so I highly doubt he has tried that.

so the last few quotes reguarding Dyson and turbines are meaningless?

Yes. And the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in that link, do they?

might I direct your attention to the quote of said link in the top post of this page?
"Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor."

 

[pallidin]

You CAN NOT get more energy out of a closed system than what exists in it.
@WhatIfMachine... do you agree with that or not?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

You CANNOT get more energy out of a closed system that exists in it.
@WhatIfMachine... do you agree with that or not?

thats the kicker, its not a closed system. that's why I don't straight out call this a perpetual machine. the extra energy was suppose to come from the surrounding air as it was dragged by the breeze from the Dyson fan which was I thought was a regular fan that was remade to be highly energy conservative.

but apparently I am completely wrong, so unless further challenged I will leave and let this thread die.

 

[Xtensity]

thats the kicker, its not a closed system. that's why I don't straight out call this a perpetual machine. the extra energy was suppose to come from the surrounding air as it was dragged by the breeze from the Dyson fan which was I thought was a regular fan that was remade to be highly energy conservative.

but apparently I am completely wrong, so unless further challenged I will leave and let this thread die.

The closed system is referring to the room, not the device itself.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

well, if that really has anything to do with it, put it outside. any other challenges? in case you haven't noticed I am persistant/ignorant and you might want to take this oppurtunity to say I accept my failure.

 

[Xtensity]

If you put it outside, the closed system is the atmosphere, if not that, just the universe itself. Yes the atmosphere/universe has lots of "unused" energy in it, hence this is why wind turbines are used. Though nothing in the Space-Time Continuum is infinite, that is a logical impossibility. Perhaps outside Space-Time, but then totally different rules begin to apply and a lot of it is just theoretical right now.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

do you really need to argue about this? yet AGAIN it is NOT perpetual motion, so none of that matters.

 

[Xtensity]

You were trying to say it's not a closed system, which it is... it will always exist in a closed system if it's made of physical matter(at least to current understanding).

 

[WhatIfMachine]

but its not as closed as he implied, so it still doesn't matter. there is still air surrounding the Dyson fan, and that's all that matters

 

[Xtensity]

The air has energy. The air is being used by the machine. The air is part of the closed system.

Energy by fundamental-nature tries to balance out. High areas of energy balance out in the system so that the energy distribution is uniform. The reason the Ice in a cold drink melts is because the energy is trying to balance out; the energy from the surrounding air is rushing into the ice causing it to melt into water. When your water is room temperature, then the energy in the cup is the same as the surrounding air.

-When you freeze a cup of water in the freezer, the reason it freezes is because the energy in the water is rushing into the system(out of the water) until the energy distribution is uniform. Though the freezer keeps taking the energy out of the system in there, which is why the bottom/back of the fridge/freezer is hot when you feel it.

Basically even if you somehow manage to pull energy out of the air, wherever you pulled the energy from a displacement will exist, meaning the energy in the closed system will try to balance out the displacement by taking the energy from another source.

read these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

 

[WhatIfMachine]

The air has energy. The air is being used by the machine. The air is part of the closed system.

in which case you don't have to worry about getting more energy form outside a closed system because all the necessary energy is inside the system already.

I will only read your links because I don't often decline new knowledge.

But I'm tired of fighting with you. Notice how you are now the only other person posting? you can't accept loss can you? even if its a victory, you can't stand losing, even to maturity. I already agreed with everyone, my idea is a dud and does not work, I get it now. I will take my own advice and let this thread die.

 

[Xtensity]

This had nothing to do with a "loss" I was just directing you at links you should read so YOU can understand WHY the idea doesn't work. You should at least know why you're agreeing with something besides the fact everyone telling you that you're wrong.

edit: and by the way the only reason I kept posting is because you kept trying to come back with a rebuttal of some sort. You claim that you're agreeing but then you keep trying to debunk what everyone is saying, more specifically about the closed systems. If you don't believe me, search your memory or simply look at the last 6 post on page 4.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

http://psionix.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=855&start=75

"but I get your point. so now this board is dead? if you agree, you might as well not reply"

edit: and by the way the only reason I kept posting is because you kept trying to come back with a rebuttal of some sort. You claim that you're agreeing but then you keep trying to debunk what everyone is saying, more specifically about the closed systems. If you don't believe me, search your memory or simply look at the last 6 post on page 4

my "rebuttal comebacks" is me saying I understand why it doesn't work and that I don't want to pointlessly fight you, but you keep posting the same stupid posts over and over in a pointless attack after I agreed with you.

 

[alxm]

[link to cook site]

I suggest you start by reading actual science sites more, and sites about 'psionics' less, and then you'll be on your way to making an real contribution.

 

[russ_watters]

so the last few quotes reguarding Dyson and turbines are meaningless?

might I direct your attention to the quote of said link in the top post of this page?
"Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor."

Again, the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in those quotes, do they?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

I suggest you start by reading actual science sites more, and sites about 'psionics' less, and then you'll be on your way to making an real contribution.

its just a conversation, no need to coach me in my beliefs

Again, the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in those quotes, do they?

power/energy same difference and I am pretty sure you know what I meant :P