Flywheel Generator - Split from Propane Solar Collector/Generator Thread

[brewnog]

My semi-educated guess...

Did your semi-education ever suggest that you might be able to learn something about the world from people who are fully-educated (or at least more-educated) in the field of physics and engineering?

 

[greatglory]

I'll just build the thing and prove to you that it works. "Good hardware is irrefutable proof of clear thinking." Buckminster Fuller

 

[Mech_Engineer]

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

-Thomas H. Huxley

 

[Topher925]

"Just don't hurt yourself, propane can burn in a wide range of fuel/air mixtures"

~Topher925

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't think greatglory's machine even uses propane, he's trying to utilize a flywheel to create free energy.

 

[greatglory]

Did your semi-education ever suggest that you might be able to learn something about the world from people who are fully-educated (or at least more-educated) in the field of physics and engineering?

I may not have a formal education in physics but I do have one in logic you are now arguing from a very weak logical position. I can learn a lot from people who are more educated in the field of phyics and engineering. The question is what have I learned from you?

Earlier I asked you to state your qualifications and subsequently to subject this post to others who CAN actually teach me something. Both reasonable requests which you have chosen to deny.

 

[greatglory]

I don't think greatglory's machine even uses propane, he's trying to utilize a flywheel to create free energy.

Ultimately the energy I am creating comes from the Sun by way of photo-synthesis in the growing of whatever feed stock is fed to the animals that produce the manure that is then fed into the anaerobic digester that creates the methane that powers the ramjet which spins the turbine which is attached to the flywheel-generator.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The point is, you cannot extract more energy from the flywheel than was first put into it. If you spin the flywheel up to a million rpm and store 1 MJ of energy in it, you cannot extract more than 1 MJ of energy out of it again (and it's likely you'll recover much less than you put in due to various losses everywhere). Similarly, if the flywheel is spinning at a given speed and you are extracting a set power from it (say 1W), you must put at least 1W of power back into keep it spinning at the same speed; if you take into account frictional losses you'll have to put in a little bit more than 1W.

Your arguments of your "understanding" of acceleration and moment of inertia and formal education in logic are all for naught; energy in = energy out. Period.

 

[greatglory]

The great promise of Anticipatory Design Science - The slaying of ugly facts by good hardware." - Gregory GOrDon

 

[brewnog]

Earlier I asked you to state your qualifications and subsequently to subject this post to others who CAN actually teach me something. Both reasonable requests which you have chosen to deny.

My credentials: A levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry. Honours degree in mechanical engineering. Government certification for competency in gas installations and gas fuelled engines. Postgraduate study in fundamental engine science. Nearly four years working for a large manufacturer of industrial engines, developing and installing products for CHP, landfill and bio gas applications. Currently conducting independent research into biomass power for low calorific value fuels. Oh, and three weeks ago I tested an engine with a lightweight flywheel and a heavy flywheel (and I bet you can't guess which one produces more power).

Yours?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Unfortunately for you, quotes cannot make your design work. The fact remains that you are fundamentally (and perhaps purposely) misinterpreting how a flywheel works.

Russ posed a very simple question to you a while back: if you extract 1 KW of power from a flywheel (regardless of size) how much energy must you put into the flywheel to ensure it stays at constant speed? The answer is of course 1 KW because a flywheel is not a source of energy, it is simply a mechanical energy storage device.

You can extract energy from a moving flywheel, but that energy must have been put into it first to start it spinning.

 

[greatglory]

First I want to thank all of you who have responded to my ravings and rantings about this idea. You have now forced me to put up or shut up so beginning on the first of January my primary focus will be on creating this very same contraption. Also, I have not felt so invigorated in any of my Internet usage as I have in the past two days. I've been forced to look up definitions of ideas that I have avoided for a long time as well as use my best debating skills. For that I thank you all. But...

The point is, you cannot extract more energy from the flywheel than was first put into it

.

Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

Let's think about all of the energy that is going into this flywheel in particular and that went into the original design of all flywheels in general. Remember, as I am taking out electricity the flywheel is accelerating due to the constant input of energy.

As I've identified in my prior post the Ultimate source of the energy is to be found in the Sun, converted as it were through the aformentioned processes. Therefore whether the loss is 0% or 10% does not matter for as long as the Sun will shine we can get the needed supply of energy into the system. And again and I am tired of repeating myself on this point we are talking about acceleration which does actually have something to do with the theory of relativity.

The whole point of using a flywheel generator is that it is the most efficient form of generator. Some have been known to spin on their own even overcoming frictional losses.

At this point I'd like to extend a warm welcome to all of you to view this contraption once I get it working. "Now I've got my work cut out for me."

 

[greatglory]

Oh, and three weeks ago I tested an engine with a lightweight flywheel and a heavy flywheel (and I bet you can't guess which one produces more power).

Neither one, as according to you flywheels can't produce power they only "store" it.

So as to not leave without stating my credentials: Bachelor of Science Degree; International Environmental Science-Public Policy Analysis, 1980, Cook College, Rutgers University. Attended Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California Berkeley, CA. Left to do my duty as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, which was to make war with the anti-Christ: former United States President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Inventor of The Dynamic Light Reflection, Author: Impeach the Anti-Christ, Image of the Beast, The Beast Hunter and Ronald Reagan: Anti-Christ. Have appeared on over 20 national radio and television shows and have my own reality TV Big Brother type show known to me as The G's'S Christ Light Show.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

Egads, it's worse than I thought...

Let me ask you then, if you're going to be extracting excess energy from the flywheel (as in, more energy than you're putting in) where is the energy coming from? You're suggesting that your invention will break the first law of thermodynamics, so I'm wondering what basis you have for backing up your claim?

 

[Topher925]

So because your religious you have all the answers?

Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

It would be right where it is because scientists DO think like him. I think you need to take your nose out of the bible and put it into some mechanics textbooks and then report back in a few weeks.

 

[greatglory]

So because your religious you have all the answers?

No, its not because I am religious, it is because I can read, write, understand and stand on my own, inspite of insults and illogical doubts as to the validity of what was earlier called "Obvious" in this very discussion.

Again according to the Wikipedia: The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light.

so I'm wondering what basis you have for backing up your claim?

I base most of my information on [crackpot link deleted].

It takes less energy to keep a flywheel spinning that is already in motion than it does to get one started in the first place. Hence if you can get 1kw out of 1kw in from scratch each additional kw will take less and less energy to create. Remember there is a spinning mass associated with this plan and that mass is also converting itself into energy as it spins. And if we use the proper flywheel-generator system as per Alfred Evert's work the efficiencies increase even more.

I agree with all of his conclusions except this one: "Motor must not work continuously. Motor should not transfer power onto flywheel at phases of high forces (here at vertical position of flybeam), because thus motor would drive generator directly and previous leverarm-effect could not work."

The reason I disagree with this is that my motor is actually also a flywheel of sorts. It is a free spinning turbine that can and will also increase in speed as the flywheel increases in speed. That is why it matters very much whether or not it is a hampster wheel, or not. Forgive me for not explaining this before, but I thought it was obvious. Hence "at phases of high forces... the lever arm effect" would work for the turbine, the generator and the flywheel. All of his other calculations are merely added efficiencies. It is upon this free spinning turbine alone that my design is based.

It is like a double edged razor one is good but too is better. Come to think obout it, this may work by simply adding another flywheel or free spinning element else where in the system. What that could be I am not sure of yet. But it WILL come to me.

Here's the total scope of the plan. I will create an engine that CONSTANTLY inputs energy from an unlimited and virtually free source of methane gas, namely feces, dung, manure, ca-ca, do-do or whatever you care to call it, into a ram jet that expells a heated gas at a high velocity through a free spinning turbine which will then spin the flywheel-generator to which it is attached. In this scenario the turbine is actually the motor.


According to Newtons Second Law this will cause the flywheel to accelerate, acclerate, accelerate, (for emphasis). It is through the phenomenon of accelration that the excess energy will be created.

Now it is time for me to get off of my high horse and ask a legitimate question. Can someone please explain the phenomenon of acceleration to me. I've read up on it and all of the links take me to general theories and special theories of relativity, which quite frankly is way out of my league at this sage of the game.

 

[greatglory]

It would be right where it is because scientists DO think like him.

Do you think that is supposed to impress me.

"People do not see the past as what was once the present or the present as what will be visible past." Paul Williams

We are as much in the dark ages as at any time in history. At one point in time the Earth was flat... and it was thought that flywheels could not produce energy.

 

[russ_watters]

Greatglory, this started with an apparently simple misunderstanding of some basic physics. I should have concentrated on f=ma, because it is the one physics equation you have acknowledged and is really all that is needed here (or, rather, its rotational equivalent) (edit: ehh, yeah, power too). Your claim boils down to this: a force applied in one direction will cause a different acceleration than a force applied in the opposite direction. This is an obvious violation of f=ma. This misunderstanding is apparently based partly on working backwards from a misunderstanding of the difference between power and energy, but those concepts really need to be tackled after learning/accepting f=ma, not before.

But the thread has progressed beyond this simple high school level misunderstanding to off-the-wall crackpottery and won't be allowed to continue.