As close to perpetual motion as we might ever get.

[russ_watters]

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

Post #47, point #1: you don't understand what "perpetual motion" means. That's the central issue in this thread - everything else is the particulars of why you don't understand.

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.

Where? You've claimed that the energy of the airstream after mixing is greater than before mixing. So where is this energy coming from?

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

So you're claiming that the word "energy" appears in those quotes...? Did you even read your own link?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Post #47, point #1: you don't understand what "perpetual motion" means. That's the central issue in this thread - everything else is the particulars of why you don't understand.

Perpetual Motion: A mechanical motion that produces more energy than consumed

Where? You've claimed that the energy of the airstream after mixing is greater than before mixing. So where is this energy coming from?

the high vibration that keeps the gas a gas and not a liquid/solid?

So you're claiming that the word "energy" appears in those quotes...? Did you even read your own link?

*sigh* let me quote it again...

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.

Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze.

how do you think that happened? magic? it doesn't say it uses energy, but what else would it use? I still don't see how this makes the said quotes relevant.

 

[cjl]

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."

Yep. That says nothing about the energy content though. All it says is the the output is 15 times the flow rate of the input into the pedestal. What you don't seem to understand is that the output is lower pressure and velocity than the air from the pedestal alone. Just because there's more air doesn't mean that they are increasing the efficiency. In effect, they could have made a much smaller jet of much faster moving, higher pressure air using the same fan, but instead they decided to use the same amount of energy (minus losses) to move a much larger quantity of air with a much lower speed and pressure.

 

[russ_watters]

Perpetual Motion: A mechanical motion that produces more energy than consumed...

You can quote it, but when it comes to applying it, somehow you still get it wrong.

...the high vibration that keeps the gas a gas and not a liquid/solid?

Internal energy? So you think that when it goes through the device it gets much colder? Seems to me that if that were true, it would be a major selling point of the fan (in fact, it would render traditional a/c irrelevant).

...it's also now a perpetual motion machine of the second kind:

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

[cjl]

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.

Nope - if anything, the Dyson fan uses more power than a standard fan for the same airflow. The Dyson fan was made to create smoother, more steady airflow than a standard fan, as well as to be somewhat of a novelty device.

The surrounding air gets its energy from the fan - as it is dragged in, it is taking energy from the high speed flow that the Dyson fan is creating via the base. The air itself isn't contributing any additional energy - all the energy comes from the fan itself. Because of this, it can be considered to be a closed system.

 

[russ_watters]

Nope - if anything, the Dyson fan uses more power than a standard fan for the same airflow.

Yes. Higher velocity flow necessarily involves more frictional and pressure losses than lower velocity flow. In particular, the airflow will lose a substantial fraction of its energy as it exits the nozzles.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Yep. That says nothing about the energy content though. All it says is the the output is 15 times the flow rate of the input into the pedestal. What you don't seem to understand is that the output is lower pressure and velocity than the air from the pedestal alone.

I get that now, that's why I am trying to end this thread.

Internal energy? So you think that when it goes through the device it gets much colder? Seems to me that if that were true, it would be a major selling point of the fan (in fact, it would render traditional a/c irrelevant).

see now this is what I meant by I don't accept the reasons of failure from a person who doesn't even understand what my point is...

Nope - if anything, the Dyson fan uses more power than a standard fan for the same airflow. The Dyson fan was made to create smoother, more steady airflow than a standard fan, as well as to be somewhat of a novelty device.

you didnt read the link did you?

I can't read all of these posts coming up now, so for real this time, I am not even going to look at this thread anymore

 

[russ_watters]

I get that now, that's why I am trying to end this thread.

see now this is what I meant by I don't accept the reasons of failure from a person who doesn't even understand what my point is...

Ok, well we've beaten this to death and you aren't listening to what is being said anyway, so I guess this thread has run its course.

All I can do is hope you read up on the Venturi effect and Bernoulli's principle and figure out for yourself why you're wrong. Good luck.

Thread locked.