Another Energy Thread

[Revoltingest]

There were a lot of ways to use fossil fuels efficiently that were developed in the late fifties and early sixties, but the internal combustion engine was more profitable for the oil folks and the US manufacturing folks, so these better ways went down the pike and were not to be seen.

Oh, really? Do you have any examples of these suppressed technologies?
And if Big Oil does conspire to keep more efficient engines off the market, why haven't they applied this power to other things which have improved efficiency, eg, variable valve timing, CVT transmissions, electronic engine control, electronic ignition, pseudo-Atkinson cycle valve control, advanced turbobchargers, cleaner compression ignition cycles, flex fuel usage, variable displacement, variable compression ration, direct fuel injection, dual combustion chambers per piston? Moreover, why haven't they squelched research into yet to be applied technologies, eg, adiabatic engines? Why haven't they opposed other fuel saving measures, eg, lighter materials, improved aerodynamics, improved tires, hybrid drives, cruise control, electronic transmission control?
Much research has been done on engine technologies which have yet to pan out as practical, eg, Stirling cycle, regenerative gas turbine, Wankel.

 

[Revoltingest]

Plasma drive and energy...It is my opinion that they are using the wrong fuel . I think that if they use water with a little dissolved calcium cabonate in it that they would find the efficiency would go up significantly. And just for fun add a little iron carbonate to the mix and it would be a bit nuclear in a mini-me way. But that would probably need shielding because there might be some gamma radiation and alpha partical stuff happening. I keep seeing wheels with plasma drive engines on them generating electricity using water as a fuel. Maybe?

Are you proposing a nuclear fusion powered engine using heavy water?
Research to get that working has been going on since the 60s, & the best success
so far has resulted in devices which fill a building, but don't generate any net power.
If you propose burning water, that won't work because water is already a combustion
product with no potential chemical energy left to wring out of it.

 

[Avi1001]

If you propose burning water, that won't work because water is already a combustion product with no potential chemical energy left to wring out of it.

I suspect mysty's thinking about another propulsion mechanism.....but I'll let him speak for himself.

Btw, one of the groups in the dimensionless number I am thinking about, to assess the optimal vehicle size, is the inertia of the vehicle.....I think there is at least one more contributing group.

Anyone here done any dimensional analysis ? We could start by discussing how the dimensionless groups are formed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suspect mysty's thinking about another propulsion mechanism.....but I'll let him speak for himself.

Btw, one of the groups in the dimensionless number I am thinking about, to assess the optimal vehicle size, is the inertia of the vehicle.....I think there is at least one more contributing group.

Anyone here done any dimensional analysis ? We could start by discussing how the dimensionless groups are formed.

It's a standard engineering tool, but one I've not used in many decades.

Btw, combustion products can be used as fuel, eg, carbon monoxide is the
result of incomplete combustion, & is used as a component of of fuels such
as town gas & producer gas (which include methane & hydrogen. But it has
potential chemical energy, unlike water.
There is no water engine...except in David Mamet plays & the minds of
conspiracy theorists.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No Brickj, the plasma drive is no prank, but it has few practical applications. Just out of curiosity, what size of the vessel do you think is optimal....very large or very small ? Please explain your reasoning...you can use dimensionless groups as needed . .

I cannot answer your question, because while the thrust force is described, the size of the device isn't given nor the physics involved. All we know is that its a cavity excited by wave energy, and normally this would not produce a force. If I have read this right it suggests an action without a measurable reaction. As it is the force is small, and it may not scale with the device. It might scale instead with something else, like the number of wrinkles in the cavity or the spin of the Earth or some other bizarre thing. If they could find out what it was reacting to or pushing against that would help a lot.

About the article: A torsion pendulum works like the twisty pendulum that spins beneath little brass clocks. You can use it to measure small amounts of force. The test was performed in a vacuum and no particles were emitted from the cavity that we know of. Where the article says the cavity 'Excited' at 935 megahertz it means that frequency of radio energy worked but not necessarily others. Where it says the paper does not discuss the physics and where it says this device produces a force 'Not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon .... potentially .... interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma' that is where it gets weird.

What I want to hear but what the paper doesn't say, is that we can use the quantum vacuum virtual plasma to halt the splitting of atoms and freeze things rapidly. That is what I want to hear. That would be really nice to hear. It would solve all of our energy problems. We could run all of our industrial applications by starlight alone and halt radioactive decay. Man, that would be tidy.

The article says

...This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign....

Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz. Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure...

Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.

Oh, you were asking about the plasma drive! Sorry. I was too excited about the EM drive.

 

[mystic64]

Oh, really? Do you have any examples of these suppressed technologies?
And if Big Oil does conspire to keep more efficient engines off the market, why haven't they applied this power to other things which have improved efficiency, eg, variable valve timing, CVT transmissions, electronic engine control, electronic ignition, pseudo-Atkinson cycle valve control, advanced turbobchargers, cleaner compression ignition cycles, flex fuel usage, variable displacement, variable compression ration, direct fuel injection, dual combustion chambers per piston? Moreover, why haven't they squelched research into yet to be applied technologies, eg, adiabatic engines? Why haven't they opposed other fuel saving measures, eg, lighter materials, improved aerodynamics, improved tires, hybrid drives, cruise control, electronic transmission control?
Much research has been done on engine technologies which have yet to pan out as practical, eg, Stirling cycle, regenerative gas turbine, Wankel.

Revolt you seem to have taken the same power mechanics class that I took back in the early seventies. Basically I am talking about the small turbine engines that the car companies designed, built, and tested durring the sixties. They had great gas milage, great power to weight ratio, and were tested in cars, trucks, and busses with great results. And they could be designed to use any thing that combusted for a fuel. Basically Revolt I am echoing the opinions that my college power mechanics professor had back in the day . His main complain back then was that the elertonic ignition concept was not being used. But today it is in everything. But anyway, the small turbine engine was suppose to be the engine of the future, but that has not happened yet and probaly won't because of the electric car. In the meantime because of past business reasons we have a serious globle warming concern because of versions of Henry Ford's first to be massed produced engine being in use. Yes they have improved them, they are up to thirty miles per gallon. The small turbine engines were getting over fifty miles per gallon back in the sixties.

 

[mystic64]

Are you proposing a nuclear fusion powered engine using heavy water?
Research to get that working has been going on since the 60s, & the best success
so far has resulted in devices which fill a building, but don't generate any net power.
If you propose burning water, that won't work because water is already a combustion
product with no potential chemical energy left to wring out of it.

Heavy water would be fun, but it is expensive . So I am not proposing heavy water. It turns out that you can create certain electo-magnetic frequency environments with certain combinations of elements, along with a little heat and pressure, that allows certain non radioactive elements to go through small nuclear changes. Most of those combinations are considered classified information by verious folks, but the calcium, carbon, iron, and oxygen combination is not. So if you strip off the electons of these elements, super heat them a bit, and then combine them in the forcing cone of a plasma drive engine you get steam propulsion with an attitude , Is all. The problem is, as AVI is cryptically trying to hint, the build up of scale. Which is the same problem that one has with everything that involves steam. I personally think that the scale problem would be linited because you would only need small amounts of calcium, iron, and carbon in the mix to get steam with an attitude.

 

[mystic64]

At the moment I don't understand what math they are relying upon if any. It may only be fiddle faddle, but the NASA prototype looks interesting. Despite it being interesting my guess is that it will be a disappointment or a prank and we will be back to horse and buggy, not light speed. :sad4: maybe not but probably. )(If the engine works then its applying a physical force to something in space other than matter. (Assuming I read the article properly.) That is a very big deal. Applying a force to non-matter is the equivalent of creating an unlimited cold sync for heat engines. You are sending energy into nowhere. If you can do that you can make heat engines almost 100% efficient, which does not seem possible. I don't know, but maybe this EM engine is a prank?

Brickjectivity, I am inclined to think that it is not fiddle-faddle. Physics has always known that Creation seems to be moving through a solid. The problem is that they could not prove it. So Einstien said it doesn't matter because we can explain things without it. From there he presented his Realivity stuff, which worked great for a while. The EM engine hypothesis takes things back a bit to some of the older findings of the physics world. And if it works, which it should, then sombody is going to have to find some new math to truely explain what is going on . And it will probably be the "String Theory" people because the partical theory people don't have the math framework to explain it. That is my opinion .

 

[mystic64]

Hi mysty, your background in physics and theoretical physics is very valuable....your background in metaphysics is BS.....if you ask me.

I like your idea of adding calcium carbonate to water as fuel, but it cannot work...please explain why ? You should know this if you are a strong physicist...lets see.

You are a professor . Or you at least think like one. "Metaphysics is BS." Maybe . Metaphysics is an old concept and it has never been proven to be real. So if one were to step out there and claim to be an advanced student of metaphysics, I am working on my PhD, then one would have to expect to incounter sever doubt in the minds of others . Which is "ok", because like Revolt (I love him dearly. He is fun and very creative.), I am a bit rogue. Anyway AVI, I do take a friendship request seriously and I do consider being able to interact with you in a message board reality a gift and a privilege that is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolt you seem to have taken the same power mechanics class that I took back in the early seventies.

I never took a course with that title. I'm going by engineering thermodynamics
courses, auto industry experience, & heat engine history research.

Basically I am talking about the small turbine engines that the car companies designed, built, and tested durring the sixties. They had great gas milage, great power to weight ratio, and were tested in cars, trucks, and busses with great results.

The results were horrible. The Chrysler (car) version had a primitive regenerator, so fuel economy was horrible in all driving cycles. The truck version which Ford pursued (with a better regenerator) had good economy only at full power....which is a rare operating state for trucks. They couldn't compete with diesels. On top of that, they had bearing life problems. Ford lost a fortune on this debacle....a long story....too boring for RF.

And they could be designed to use any thing that combusted for a fuel. Basically Revolt I am echoing the opinions that my college power mechanics professor had back in the day . His main complain back then was that the elertonic ignition concept was not being used. But today it is in everything. But anyway, the small turbine engine was suppose to be the engine of the future, but that has not happened yet and probaly won't because of the electric car.

The electric car is a long way off from garnering major market share. The only future I see for gas turbine vehicles is in hybrid applications where they can supply full power when they're running. The turbine is better for flex fuel applications, but this advantage doesn't overcome high fuel use. And the Stirling engine is even flexier, since it's an external combustion engine.

In the meantime because of past business reasons we have a serious globle warming concern because of versions of Henry Ford's first to be massed produced engine being in use. Yes they have improved them, they are up to thirty miles per gallon. The small turbine engines were getting over fifty miles per gallon back in the sixties.

No turbine I know of did that.
Also, Ford's engine wasn't the first to be mass produced. I'd say that honor would go to Lenoir or Otto.
(I once owned a 1903 Ford engine....wish I'd kept it for my collection.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Heavy water would be fun, but it is expensive . So I am not proposing heavy water. It turns out that you can create certain electo-magnetic frequency environments with certain combinations of elements, along with a little heat and pressure, that allows certain non radioactive elements to go through small nuclear changes. Most of those combinations are considered classified information by verious folks, but the calcium, carbon, iron, and oxygen combination is not. So if you strip off the electons of these elements, super heat them a bit, and then combine them in the forcing cone of a plasma drive engine you get steam propulsion with an attitude , Is all. The problem is, as AVI is cryptically trying to hint, the build up of scale. Which is the same problem that one has with everything that involves steam. I personally think that the scale problem would be linited because you would only need small amounts of calcium, iron, and carbon in the mix to get steam with an attitude.

What's the fuel to "super heat them a bit" & to generate the electro-magnetic force?
What are the "small nuclear changes"?

 

[Alt Thinker]

The results were horrible. The Chrysler (car) version had a primitive regenerator, so fuel economy was horrible in all driving cycles. The truck version which Ford pursued (with a better regenerator) had good economy only at full power....which is a rare operating state for trucks. They couldn't compete with diesels. On top of that, they had bearing life problems.

Other points about the Chrysler turbine cars that I saw mentioned in the early 1960s but for some reason never again...

Car and Driver magazine had the opportunity to drive one and reported that the exhaust was extremely hot, even dangerously so. Not surprising with a primitive regenerator - lots of power potential going bye bye out the back. There was also major turbo lag. Delayed acceleration is one thing although it does tempt he driver to put the pedal too far down with an unpleasant surprise just around the corner. But the engine continuing at high power for several seconds after moving your foot to the brake is bad news. I recall some discussion of linking a waste gate to the brake but the problem was where to dump all that hot gas to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Other points about the Chrysler turbine cars that I saw mentioned in the early 1960s but for some reason never again...

Car and Driver magazine had the opportunity to drive one and reported that the exhaust was extremely hot, even dangerously so. Not surprising with a primitive regenerator - lots of power potential going bye bye out the back. There was also major turbo lag. Delayed acceleration is one thing although it does tempt he driver to put the pedal too far down with an unpleasant surprise just around the corner. But the engine continuing at high power for several seconds after moving your foot to the brake is bad news. I recall some discussion of linking a waste gate to the brake but the problem was where to dump all that hot gas to.

A hybrid turbine electric drive would mitigate the lag & fuel efficiency problem.
The Wall-Mart concept truck uses this approach. Pie in the sky stuff, but intriguing.

 

[mystic64]

I never took a course with that title. I'm going by engineering thermodynamics
courses, auto industry experience, & heat engine history research.

The results were horrible. The Chrysler (car) version had a primitive regenerator, so fuel economy was horrible in all driving cycles. The truck version which Ford pursued (with a better regenerator) had good economy only at full power....which is a rare operating state for trucks. They couldn't compete with diesels. On top of that, they had bearing life problems. Ford lost a fortune on this debacle....a long story....too boring for RF.

The electric car is a long way off from garnering major market share. The only future I see for gas turbine vehicles is in hybrid applications where they can supply full power when they're running. The turbine is better for flex fuel applications, but this advantage doesn't overcome high fuel use. And the Stirling engine is even flexier, since it's an external combustion engine.

No turbine I know of did that.
Also, Ford's engine wasn't the first to be mass produced. I'd say that honor would go to Lenoir or Otto.
(I once owned a 1903 Ford engine....wish I'd kept it for my collection.)

That is good information Revolt. The power mech book that was used in that class wouldn't have agreed with you but I am inclined to agree with you . That is why hanging out with you guys is good for me. Some reality orientation is good for a person .

 

[Revoltingest]

That is good information Revolt. The power mech book that was used in that class wouldn't have agreed with you but I am inclined to agree with you . That is why hanging out with you guys is good for me. Some reality orientation is good for a person .

Don't trust me.....I'm just some guy with his hand down a toilet spout'n off on the internet.

 

[mystic64]

Don't trust me.....I'm just some guy with his hand down a toilet spout'n off on the internet.

Revolt that is an approach to reality that is after my own heart ! Real is in the eye of the beholder until you stub your toe one it .

 

[mystic64]

What's the fuel to "super heat them a bit" & to generate the electro-magnetic force?
What are the "small nuclear changes"?

Well I am not a nuclear physicist in any way, shape, or form. So, please take what I say with a grain of salt so to speak . Back in my thirties I was doing some independent research on the legends, myths, and children stories that involved turning lead into gold. Because I do not believe in magic there had to be a scientific reason behind the phenomenom of legend and myth. What I discovered was that limestone (calcium carbonate) was what the legends and myths were calling the "Philosopher's Stone". And that if you take lead sulfide (galena) wrap some powered limestone with enough water added to make a paste and then wrap some ceramic clay around that, which I made egg shaped just for fun, and cook it in a very hot charcoal fire that eventually it will turn into gold, but for some reason it turns into bismuth first. Because that method is very endothermic and takes weeks to get anything out of it, it is not an ecconomical way to gold mine .

So the question became, "Why does it work?" The first part of that answer is that all heavy metals want to change into gold because gold is more stable. And when I asked the intuitive mind, for lack of any other term, the question, "Why does it work?" The answer was, "The key is in the limelight." It turns out that when calcium is heated it gives off an eletro magnetic frequency as does the sulfur and carbon and when lead is exposed over a long period of time to this generated electo magnetic environment along with a lot of heat that the lead goes through nuclear changes with the end product being gold. Now just for the record this has not been scientifically varified. Absoutely not!" And may be totally not real.

From there question becomes what else can be messed with? To make a long story shorter, it turns out that carbon wants to beome two lithium atoms and I have no idea why. And the process requires a lot of heat and pressure along with calcium, iron and some other stuff. So my idea for sexing up water as a plasma drive engine fuel would be to add a little carbon, calcium, and iron just to excite the reaction that goes on in the forcing cone a bit . My hypothesis indicates that it will work but I do not have the technology to test it. So at this point Revolt it is all just the gibbering of an old mystic and may not actually be real. Also today's physics (the partical side of it anyway) says that what I am presenting is impossible as AVI will probably tell you .

And the electricity comes from an electric generator.

 

[Avi1001]

Well I am not a nuclear physicist in any way, shape, or form. So, please take what I say with a grain of salt so to speak .....

.....So at this point Revolt it is all just the gibbering of an old mystic and may not actually be real. Also today's physics (the partical side of it anyway) says that what I am presenting is impossible as AVI will probably tell you .

Yup, mystie, we know you are dreaming away.....enjoy yourself...it's absolutely free to post anything you want to this forum !

 

[mystic64]

Yup, mystie, we know you are dreaming away.....enjoy yourself...it's absolutely free to post anything you want to this forum !

Thank you AVI

Well the question should be, "Why does today's physics say that it is impossible?" Because it, on the surfice, breaks the Law of the Conservation of Matter. Which basically says that matter can not be created or destroyed. Stephen Hawking had the same problem with today's physics with his Black Hole math because it claims that matter just goes into a black Hole and is "gone", Which breaks the Law of the Conservation of Matter because matter can not be destroyed. Stephen Hawlking's answer was that it is not destroyed, it just goes into a different dimension. Which now the String Theory folks are beginning to understand. And according to old physics it is impossible for matter to go into a Black Hole and be gone. No longer a part of anything that today's science can measure. Left Creation.

Anyway it turns out that if you set up the right energy environments that you can let energey back in again. If you let in a lot of it, then you get the same thing that happens when universes are created. The key is to let little bits in at a time, and those little bits, can cause nuclear change.

The hills are a live with untapped energy sorces the future is going to be fun!

 

[Avi1001]

Ok, mystie, but I think most cosmologists still accept Big Bang. But I believe you are right. If mass leaves the universe through a black hole, it has to be going somewhere...we just don't know where. Another dimension in the multi-universe is certainly possible.