This Aint Packers Talk v69

[Cakeshoppe]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Think of this instead: 

Water = ball

Turbine = dropping ball

Pump = lifting ball

If you drop a ball and it hits the floor, energy is transferred and you could in theory harvest that energy. But the amount of energy transferred is equal to the amount it took for you to lift the ball up. And you won't lift your balls all day long for free.

Now that’s where you’re wrong

[ThatJerkDave]

49 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Think of this instead: 

Water = ball

Turbine = dropping ball

Pump = lifting ball

If you drop a ball and it hits the floor, energy is transferred and you could in theory harvest that energy. But the amount of energy transferred is equal to the amount it took for you to lift the ball up. And you won't lift your balls all day long for free.

Ok, but why can't I have a second turbine being turned by the outflow of the first? It would be like:

1 water --> turbine = 1 electricity

Why can't I take

1 water --> turbine --> turbine = 2 electricity?

I am probably misunderstanding how these work.  I am envisioning a water wheel inside a pipe.  When the water passes through, it turns the wheel and then comes out of the other side of the pipe.  If 1 gallon of water turns my wheel 5 rotations, why wouldn't I get 5 rotations from a second wheel further along the pipe?

[OneTwoSixFive]

@ThatJerkDave  You are thinking about the water, but what gives water the power to flow downhill is gravity. The heavier gravity is in your area, the faster the water flows, the more power is generated.

Equally, the heavier the gravity, the more energy it costs to raise the water back up to it's original height.  

With no gravity, no water is falling. Using gravitational force to gather energy (via falling water and turbines) is countered by the cost of raising the water back up the gravity well. No matter how many turbines and water wheels you have, their combined output is directly tied to the gravitational force acting on the water at your location. Equally, the power needed to raise the water back to it's original level is tied to how heavy gravity is. If it WAS possible to gain power by cycling water around, don't you think someone, somewhere would have found a way to exploit it, it would be worth a practically infinite amount of money, if it could be exploited.

Now if you could find a pulsing gravity field, and arrange it so the water drops when gravity is heavier, and raise the water back up when gravity is lighter, you could have 'free' power.

 

[deathstar]

4 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Ok, but why can't I have a second turbine being turned by the outflow of the first? It would be like:

1 water --> turbine = 1 electricity

Why can't I take

1 water --> turbine --> turbine = 2 electricity?

I am probably misunderstanding how these work.  I am envisioning a water wheel inside a pipe.  When the water passes through, it turns the wheel and then comes out of the other side of the pipe.  If 1 gallon of water turns my wheel 5 rotations, why wouldn't I get 5 rotations from a second wheel further along the pipe?

Water is the source of energy, not turbine. Electricity is how we are harnessing that energy. You need to expend some energy to convert it to electricity. If you have a perfect turbine that loses no energy to operate, you get:

1 water -> turbine = .9 electricity

But because the perfect turbine doesn’t exist we get:

1 water -> turbine = .5 electricity 

Because water is the source of energy, the addition of turbines doesn’t affect the output. Think of it like stacking a solar panel on top of another solar panel.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Ok, but why can't I have a second turbine being turned by the outflow of the first? It would be like:

1 water --> turbine = 1 electricity

Why can't I take

1 water --> turbine --> turbine = 2 electricity?

I am probably misunderstanding how these work.  I am envisioning a water wheel inside a pipe.  When the water passes through, it turns the wheel and then comes out of the other side of the pipe.  If 1 gallon of water turns my wheel 5 rotations, why wouldn't I get 5 rotations from a second wheel further along the pipe?

In addition to what others are saying, water losses significant speed going through a turbine. 

You end up with less force to turn the second turbine. 

That's why hydro electric powerplants always have man made lakes to account for the change in flow rates.

[Uffdaswede]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

In addition to what others are saying, water losses significant speed going through a turbine. 

You end up with less force to turn the second turbine. 

That's why hydro electric powerplants always have man made lakes to account for the change in flow rates.

I’m with you on the first two points, and I agree substantially with the third point concluding that the dams ensure a steady flow rate. But the dams also harness the weight of the accumulated water to create an astounding increase in pressure.

 I mean, I know you are aware of that, I am just adding to your point. 

[incognito_man]

8 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Ok, but why can't I have a second turbine being turned by the outflow of the first? It would be like:

1 water --> turbine = 1 electricity

Why can't I take

1 water --> turbine --> turbine = 2 electricity?

I am probably misunderstanding how these work.  I am envisioning a water wheel inside a pipe.  When the water passes through, it turns the wheel and then comes out of the other side of the pipe.  If 1 gallon of water turns my wheel 5 rotations, why wouldn't I get 5 rotations from a second wheel further along the pipe?

Adding more turbines is just dropping a ball down the stairs. The overall energy output to fall all the way down the stairs, regardless of how many steps (number of turbines) it hits on the way down is still equal to the amount required to carry it back up (pump) to the top of the stairs. The ball will never expend more energy falling a total distance it needs to again climb.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, Uffdaswede said:

I’m with you on the first two points, and I agree substantially with the third point concluding that the dams ensure a steady flow rate. But the dams also harness the weight of the accumulated water to create an astounding increase in pressure.

 I mean, I know you are aware of that, I am just adding to your point. 

That is why I don't understand why the discharge can't turn another turbine. 

 

I only recall a quick glance about electricity generation in school, so this has been informative.  P-Chem was the hardest class (for me) to understand, "D" for diploma on that one.  It was actually funny, there was a block for me where I had no problem calculating the energy in chemical bonds and biological processes, but if you said, "I throw a rock with force x what is the velocity," I would draw a guy throwing a rock with an arrow pointing to him showing that it was Nolan Ryan and write, "104 mph."

[ThatJerkDave]

Anyway, preseason game #3 will also be on my local FOX affiliate.  St. Louis is in the Green Bay market, confirmed.  Now if we can just get you guys to support the proper baseball team, we will have a happy time!

I went to the game last night.  The Brewers couldn't find the strike zone. It took forever.  I don't recall being so bored with a 9-5 victory in my life.  You guys need to trade us Yelich for Dexter Fowler and his contract.  

[skibrett15]

10 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I would argue this thought experiment is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind (and not necessarily in violation of the 1st law of TD). An ideal system (100% efficient turbine, 100% efficient pump) would result in a useless powerplant that simply moves the water perpetually without ever harvesting any useful energy. There's no "work" being done without energy input (which would violate CoE). But, alas, there's no such thing as 100% efficiency so it's still a perpetual motion machine, but not of the first kind.

seemed like what he initially proposed was creating free energy, no?

Your proposal is a bit different with 100% efficient machines and pumps, all of which are impossible.

[skibrett15]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

That is why I don't understand why the discharge can't turn another turbine. 

because whatever force it had initially to turn the initial turbine was removed from it when it turned the turbine, and now it doesn't have the force required to turn the 2nd one.

It's now a still puddle of water with a turbine in it.  It doesn't turn at all.

 

If you're picturing a paddle wheel, remember that the water gets dumped down into the pond below very gracefully.  It's no longer "moving" when it's released so it doesn't have any energy or force to turn a second turbine.

 

If you simply put a 2nd paddle wheel below the first one, you are only increasing the height at which we now have to pump the water back UP, which defeats the entire purpose.

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

because whatever force it had initially to turn the initial turbine was removed from it when it turned the turbine, and now it doesn't have the force required to turn the 2nd one. It's now a still puddle of water with a turbine in it.  It doesn't turn at all. If you're picturing a paddle wheel, remember that the water gets dumped down into the pond below very gracefully.  It's no longer "moving" when it's released so it doesn't have any energy or force to turn a second turbine. If you simply put a 2nd paddle wheel below the first one, you are only increasing the height at which we now have to pump the water back UP, which defeats the entire purpose.

Which is why paddle wheel boats were converted to nuclear some time ago

[15412]

Once again, nat gas is the source for the foreseeable future all things considered.  Warms the planet?  So do cow farts.  I used to be full on with nuclear, but reality bites.  It takes what, more than a decade to get a nuclear power plant permitted and built in the USA?  Is that going to change?  The enviro whackos will never allow that.  These palnts are being built left and right in parts of Europe and China, not so here and that will NOT change.  We have seemingly boundless reserves of nat gas, we're flaring out the stuff at sickening rates.  Time to get serious about this abundant resource.    I'm just a Sasquatch, I'd love to power the plant with nothing but the wind that blows through my hair and the sun that bakes my backside.   But like I already said, reality bites. 

[ThatJerkDave]

Just now, skibrett15 said:

seemed like what he initially proposed was creating free energy, no?

Your proposal is a bit different with 100% efficient machines and pumps, all of which are impossible.

I was thinking of a free fuel source. The hydroplant doesn't consume water, like a coal plant consumes coal.  So my input of "1 water" can be used again whereas my "1 coal" cannot.  If that "1 water" can create a net positive amount of electricity when powering a pump to refill its reservoir, a plant can be self sustaining.  I have been informed that the hydroplant is not nearly that efficient.  Like I said, I have no idea how much power any type of power facility produces, I just vaguely know how they work.  I was also under the impression that I could use the same input to do more units of work, "1 water" turns "1 turbine" 1 rotation, so a series of 2 turbines could be turned by the same "1 water" but it cannot.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, 15412 said:

Once again, nat gas is the source for the foreseeable future all things considered.  Warms the planet?  So do cow farts.  I used to be full on with nuclear, but reality bites.  It takes what, more than a decade to get a nuclear power plant permitted and built in the USA?  Is that going to change?  The enviro whackos will never allow that.  These palnts are being built left and right in parts of Europe and China, not so here and that will NOT change.  We have seemingly boundless reserves of nat gas, we're flaring out the stuff at sickening rates.  Time to get serious about this abundant resource.    I'm just a Sasquatch, I'd love to power the plant with nothing but the wind that blows through my hair and the sun that bakes my backside.   But like I already said, reality bites. 

The ideas of humans flying used to be unrealistic, too.