Would a wind turbine on a moving car generate energy efficiently?

In summary, the mini wind turbine on a car would not produce enough usable energy to make a difference.
  • #71
OmCheeto said:
Well, I must admit that I do not fully understand the Fluctuation Theorem, but I don't think I'll further my studies of the subject, as you cannot utilize it for anything on the scales we are talking about.

In the article referenced by the wiki entry, the FT is only valid at the nano-scale. I believe I once heard something about all of the atoms in a pot of water having a mathematically finite possibility of all of the atoms moving in the same direction, hence having the water jump out of the pot. Unfortunately, the probability is so low that you would have to wait for a bazillion (that's the age of the universe times a gazillion) years.

Thanks OmCheeto, for the response.

I'm still a long way from making my defense sound intelligent, but think there has been an improvement of my understanding during this last couple of weeks.

I'm sorry I made one post yesterday, but I did, so it stands.

What I'm finding so far does not make me feel less sure of my thoughts, I do put full faith in the first law (no creation and no destruction of energy) and the second law as I have always believed, only limits exceeding 100%, so if the general accepted rule is that in all cases extra energy has to be added to any process, then maybe that limit needs to be lowered a little bit (98% ?)

I did find something in a handbook of physics, recently, that makes mention of a fourth phase in equilibrium with a first phase. I'm not quite sure of how to visualize what is being said, as only a phase diagram showing a triple-point of some component has come to my efforts of study.
I'm trying to find if it is referring to a plasma condition, or a vacuum so hard as to bypass the sublimation of ice, and send it straight to a vapor phase ?

I'm out of time for now, but will make a few quick checks during the rest of the day.

Later
Ron
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
RonL said:
Thanks OmCheeto, for the response.

I'm still a long way from making my defense sound intelligent, but think there has been an improvement of my understanding during this last couple of weeks.

I'm sorry I made one post yesterday, but I did, so it stands.

What I'm finding so far does not make me feel less sure of my thoughts, I do put full faith in the first law (no creation and no destruction of energy) and the second law as I have always believed, only limits exceeding 100%, so if the general accepted rule is that in all cases extra energy has to be added to any process, then maybe that limit needs to be lowered a little bit (98% ?)

I did find something in a handbook of physics, recently, that makes mention of a fourth phase in equilibrium with a first phase. I'm not quite sure of how to visualize what is being said, as only a phase diagram showing a triple-point of some component has come to my efforts of study.
I'm trying to find if it is referring to a plasma condition, or a vacuum so hard as to bypass the sublimation of ice, and send it straight to a vapor phase ?

I'm out of time for now, but will make a few quick checks during the rest of the day.

Later
Ron

Ron, I'm trying hard not use Russ's phrase. Actually, I can't remember what exactly it is. All that comes to mind is spaghetti physics. Pulling all manner of ideas from every avenue of the physics community into a tangled web of incomprehensibility.

I would say more, but the river is calling.

------------------------

All work and no play makes OmCheeto a dull boy.
 
  • #73
RonL said:
1. This is not working between two reservoirs, just one.
As already explained, that's an explicit violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Every heat engine and heat pump has two reservoirs.
OmCheeto said:
Ron, I'm trying hard not use Russ's phrase. Actually, I can't remember what exactly it is. All that comes to mind is spaghetti physics. Pulling all manner of ideas from every avenue of the physics community into a tangled web of incomprehensibility.
You mean "word salad"? Unfortunately, I have to agree. Ron, you're apparently operating on an incorrect assumption/understanding about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is driving your efforts here. We've had trouble figuring that out because unfortunately, you have not been able to convey what you are trying to do. If you can't come up with a simple description in the spirit of my request a few posts back, perhaps a sketch would work. If you can come up with something more coherent (a sketch or description), please feel free to post it in the engineering forums (probably mechanical), but for now, there really isn't any coherent content in this thread and thus no reason to keep it open.

Locked.

Note:
The classic thought experiment involving the second law of thermodynamics is a perfectly insulated box, from which mechanical or electrical energy is extracted, causing whatever is inside to get cooler. One heat reservoir + decreasing entropy + work out = violation of 2nd law.
 

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
12K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Back
Top