Squeezing the last Drop

[James]

Before @Lucien Nunes decided to explain it, I was well on my way to wasting a mad scientists money by building a Really noisy heater that has the added advantage of being unique in its design.

Thanks Lucian

 

[justcurioustwo]

With fossil fuel energy on its way out, I have been trying to come up with a way to save the energy we now use. Here is what I came up with.

May the rock-throwing begin.
View attachment 102939

comments pro or con welcome

Electric motors are not 100% efficient. Having said that, a 100hp motor puts out 100hp+a small amount of energy not consumed in its operation. It is that small amount that I was trying to capture.

 

[ferg]

Electric motors are not 100% efficient. Having said that, a 100hp motor puts out 100hp+a small amount of energy not consumed in its operation. It is that small amount that I was trying to capture.

The losses you are trying to capture are lost in the form of heat and sound.
I think the best place to start would be to learn where, how and why these losses occur in the first place.
Once that knowledge is in place the next step is reducing / recovering these losses.

 

[James]

Electric motors are not 100% efficient. Having said that, a 100hp motor puts out 100hp+a small amount of energy not consumed in its operation. It is that small amount that I was trying to capture.

Again, if you think it will work, put your money where your mouth is, make it and test it.

 

[Rockingit]

Of which, both sound and heat are largely a result of friction (and a tiny bit of arcing). You could feasibly trap some of the heat by some kind of exchanger and feasibly use some of the air pressure from the noise to drive a diaphragm but all you will ultimately do is create yet more losses downstream in processing that kinetic energy. Newton had this figured out centuries ago - Every action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction. So whilst I applaud you for a drive in efficiency I’d suggest spending your time working on lubricants and bearings rather than this?

 

[MJPD29]

After reading this and previous posts you have made, I can only presume you are a flat earther.

 

[justcurioustwo]

After reading this and previous posts you have made, I can only presume you are a flat earther.

only if you say so

 

[justcurioustwo]

Of which, both sound and heat are largely a result of friction (and a tiny bit of arcing). You could feasibly trap some of the heat by some kind of exchanger and feasibly use some of the air pressure from the noise to drive a diaphragm but all you will ultimately do is create yet more losses downstream in processing that kinetic energy. Newton had this figured out centuries ago - Every action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction. So whilst I applaud you for a drive in efficiency I’d suggest spending your time working on lubricants and bearings rather than this?

You are contradicting yourself. Every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction. There is some loss in every action.

 

[DPG]

You are contradicting yourself. Every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction. There is some loss in every action.

Rockingit is correct in what he says.

 

[Diddy]

There is some loss in every action.

There you go there is loss. Now every aspect of science even so called settled science is and should always be challenged. The challenge here is how to efficiently recover those losses while not spending more time/money/energy than it would to just "accept" those losses.

Edit to add - the total energy output including losses proves Rockingit and some other mad scientist from a while back are indeed correct "every action......."

 

[nicebutdim]

You are contradicting yourself. Every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction. There is some loss in every action.

Those 'losses' are part of the equal and opposite reaction.

 

[justcurioustwo]

The numbers are were

 

[justcurioustwo]

Rockingit is correct in what he says.

In the theoretical world, Yes
In the real world, No

 

[Jim_e_Jib]

View attachment 104020
The numbers are were

Is it essential that this apparatus be submerged in sea water?

Here in the UK, we have Loch Ness in Scotland. At 744ft, it's plenty deep enough, with the added benefit of a wee beastie in residence who could give you a hand cranking the handle of the air compressor.

 

[littlespark]

This thread didn’t start off with this undersea contraption….

If only we could harness the power of off-topic tangents.