As close to perpetual motion as we might ever get.

[mugaliens]

Goest, you nailed it.

 

[Freshtictac]

Thermodynamics hommie,
it's all about transferability. If you make a device to utilize less energy then it's output you demonstrate a greater function of thermodynamics. The closest thing to this is a magnetic generator. Not perpetual but defiantly long lasting motion. I believe the Dyson fan could be evolved into a tesla turbo prop similar to your initial description. take out the turbine, poke some holes and smack some N/S alternating magnets in said holes.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

most of you seem to miss the point, the Dyson machine is a real thing, so its not perpetual. however, inducement and entrainment are what I thought would cause the surrounding air to fallow the flow of what the small fan does produce. since the breeze is "multiplied" I figured that if a tube was placed far away enough to allow inducement and entrainment but close enough to catch the breeze, and a cone inside the tube blew the wind straight into the turbine's blades, there would be more kinetic energy turning the turbine than electric energy turning the fan.


@Freshtictac

Honestly, I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds like you know what your doing, so hey, you got my vote... now if only this where an election...

 

[Redbelly98]

... the breeze is "multiplied" ...

To have a discussion about this, you need to be clear just what property of the breeze is being multiplied. Pressure? Flow rate? Either (but not both simultaneously) are possible. Energy or power? Not possible.

 

[pallidin]

Right, to have both simultaneously increase is what is required, and this cannot be done without an increase in input electricity greater than what the turbine could produce.
So no, your design will not, cannot nor ever will work as you describe.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

well, I thought pressure increased flow rate, but okay...

lets say the flow rate is increased, but the plastic tube I described would tighten the flow, increasing its pressure and direting all of the breeze towards the blades with maximum efficiancy

if that doesn't work, could I get more than just a reason? like a source or an equation?

 

[russ_watters]

well, I thought pressure increased flow rate, but okay...

Pressure of what? Where? What kind of pressure?

Have you read the link about the Venturi effect?

let's say the flow rate is increased, but the plastic tube I described would tighten the flow, increasing its pressure and direting all of the breeze towards the blades

if that doesn't work, could I get more than just a reason? like a source or an equation?

That's Bernoulli's principle and the venturi effect: The Velocity through the cone increases, the pressure decreases. Please read the link provided about the Venturi effect - and follow links from it to Bernoulli's principle.

 

[pallidin]

Look, your beating a dead horse that's been beaten for hundreds of years.

It is not even conceptually correct to suggest that you can get more energy from a system that does not exist in the system.
Would not make any sense at all.
Even nuclear weapons don't do this. NOTHING can do this.

 

[russ_watters]

Look, your beating a dead horse that's been beaten for hundreds of years.

It is not even conceptually correct to suggest that you can get more energy from a system that does not exist in the system.

This is what frustrates me so much about the situation we're in here. As I said before, conservation of energy is so well proven that it isn't even treated as a theory, but rather is a postulate - a starting assumption - on which problems can be solved. It isn't even possible to divorce the issue of conservation of energy from such problems because the question of if energy is conserved hasn't been relevant in science for hundreds of years.

So while my Venturi/Bernoulli explanation above is correct, it is derived based on conservation of energy, so if someone doesn't accept conservation of energy, then there is no reason to believe they would accept Bernoulli's principle and no way to deal with the problem.

All I can say is that I design HVAC systems for a living and I use these principles on a daily basis. If these principles were wrong, the systems I design wouldn't work. That's just a personal experience, but an enormous amount of our technology requires these principles to be correct, otherwise our technology wouldn't work.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

It's not that I don't accept failure, its just that when my theory is explained to be incorrect, usually an important part of that explination has nothing to do with the proposal. Things like "you can't make energy" "perpetual motion is impossible" ect, just stupid things people wouldn't say if they just read what I had to say and paid attention. so I am sorry if I am a bit persistent against critisism that I can't be sure is even on topic. half of the time people miss the point of what I have to say or don't understand me, I just want to be sure that they completely understand me before they start giving me reasons why it won't work.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not that I don't accept failure, its just that when my theory is explained to be incorrect, usually an important part of that explination has nothing to do with the proposal. Things like "you can't make energy" "perpetual motion is impossible" ect, just stupid things people wouldn't say if they just read what I had to say and paid attention. so I am sorry if I am a bit persistent against critisism that I can't be sure is even on topic. half of the time people miss the point of what I have to say or don't understand me, I just want to be sure that they completely understand me before they start giving me reasons why it won't work.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to convince you that one of your starting assumptions is wrong and as a result, you think people aren't understanding your proposal. You're wrong about that (in fact, you don't understand the implications of your own proposal!), but we've been uable to convince you or teach you. At this point, my only suggestion is to read about and learn the principles we've told you to read about and learn and hopefully the light will go on.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

@russ

which assumption?

 

[alxm]

which assumption?

To begin with, you assume, erroneously, that the fact that the fan 'multiplies the air' 15x (which is a fairly meaningless number) means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.

It does not. It carries only a fraction of the power consumed by the fan.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

To begin with, you assume, erroneously, that the fact that the fan 'multiplies the air' 15x

dont blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson



(which is a fairly meaningless number)

15x is a small number? if you say so...



means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.
It does not. It carries only a fraction of the power consumed by the fan.

again, blame false advertising.

 

[Xtensity]

(which is a fairly meaningless number)

15x is a small number? if you say so...

He didn't say 15 was a small number, it said it was meaningless. Numbers mean nothing by them selves, they have to have some association with units.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

He didn't say 15 was a small number, it said it was meaningless. Numbers mean nothing by them selves, they have to have some association with units.

but it does have an association with a unit. 1/15 of the amount of power it takes to power a regular fan (so I don't want to buy a fan just to test the voltage, use algebra)
lets say a fan uses 150 watts then the Dyson fan uses 10 watts. that's your association, okay?

 

[russ_watters]

@russ

which assumption?

1. Your incorrect definition of "perpetual motion".
2. Your assumption that induction results in an increase in pressure.

You keep repeating these errors over and over again without listening when people try to correct you. Have you read the link about the Venturi effect yet?

don't blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson
[snip]
again, blame false advertising.

It's not false. They make no claim whatsoever about power or pressure and they tell you exactly what scientific principle it is based on. There is nothing in that link that suggest what you are claiming. You're simply making a claim based on misunderstanding the scientific principle on which it is based.

means that the airflow passing through it has 15x the power.

No! It! Doesn't! You haven't read the link about the Venturi effect yet, have you?

 

[russ_watters]

but it does have an association with a unit. 1/15 of the amount of power it takes to power a regular fan (so I don't want to buy a fan just to test the voltage, use algebra)
lets say a fan uses 150 watts then the Dyson fan uses 10 watts. that's your association, okay?

Where, exactly in that link is that claim made? I don't see the word "power" anywhere in that link.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

It boils down to physics. While it's true that the atmosphere is gaseous, gases obey the physical laws of fluid dynamics. As air flows through the slits in the tube and out through the front of the fan, air behind the fan is drawn through the tube as well. This is called inducement. The flowing air pushed by the motor induces the air behind the fan to follow.

Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor.

I believe the link is in my first post http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

and honestly, no, but I will read it now

 

[alxm]

dont blame me, blame false advertising by Dyson

No, because Dyson's advertising is not incorrect. The airflow through the fan is 15x larger than the airflow coming out of the ring.

15x is a small number? if you say so...

No, I said it's a 'meaningless' number. Because it says nothing about the efficiency of the fan, nor is there any equivalent number for a conventional fan to compare to.

again, blame false advertising.

No, I blame you, because you made that assumption - not Dyson. Dyson knows full well you can't put a wind turbine in front of their fan and use it to power it (if only the original flow was great enough), which is in effect what you claimed in your first post.

 

[russ_watters]

It boils down to physics.

Yes, of course - what a useless thing to say, especially since the problem here is simply that you don't understand the physics of the issue.

While it's true that the atmosphere is gaseous, gases obey the physical laws of fluid dynamics. As air flows through the slits in the tube and out through the front of the fan, air behind the fan is drawn through the tube as well. This is called inducement. The flowing air pushed by the motor induces the air behind the fan to follow.

Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor.

I believe the link is in my first post http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

That's not well worded, but in any case, nothing in that explanation you just gave discusses a change in pressure or power.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Dyson knows full well you can't put a wind turbine in front of their fan and use it to power it (if only the original flow was great enough), which is in effect what you claimed in your first post.

oh so you happen to know what Dyson does in their labs? I thought they where all about vacuums (and now fans)

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Yes, of course - what a useless thing to say, especially since the problem here is simply that you don't understand the physics of the issue. That's not well worded, but in any case, nothing in that explanation you just gave discusses a change in pressure or power.

I quoted that straight from Dyson http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/dyson-bladeless-fan1.htm

 

[russ_watters]

oh so you happen to know what Dyson does in their labs? I thought they where all about vacuums (and now fans)

Let me put it another way: I have no reason to believe Dyson is a perpetual motion crackpot. He has said nothing to suggest to me that he is, so I highly doubt he has tried that.

I quoted that straight from Dyson

Yes. And the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in that link, do they?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

Let me put it another way: I have no reason to believe Dyson is a perpetual motion crackpot. He has said nothing to suggest to me that he is, so I highly doubt he has tried that.

so the last few quotes reguarding Dyson and turbines are meaningless?

Yes. And the words "power" and "pressure" do not appear in that link, do they?

might I direct your attention to the quote of said link in the top post of this page?
"Dyson claims the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor."

 

[pallidin]

You CAN NOT get more energy out of a closed system than what exists in it.
@WhatIfMachine... do you agree with that or not?

 

[WhatIfMachine]

You CANNOT get more energy out of a closed system that exists in it.
@WhatIfMachine... do you agree with that or not?

thats the kicker, its not a closed system. that's why I don't straight out call this a perpetual machine. the extra energy was suppose to come from the surrounding air as it was dragged by the breeze from the Dyson fan which was I thought was a regular fan that was remade to be highly energy conservative.

but apparently I am completely wrong, so unless further challenged I will leave and let this thread die.

 

[Xtensity]

thats the kicker, its not a closed system. that's why I don't straight out call this a perpetual machine. the extra energy was suppose to come from the surrounding air as it was dragged by the breeze from the Dyson fan which was I thought was a regular fan that was remade to be highly energy conservative.

but apparently I am completely wrong, so unless further challenged I will leave and let this thread die.

The closed system is referring to the room, not the device itself.

 

[WhatIfMachine]

well, if that really has anything to do with it, put it outside. any other challenges? in case you haven't noticed I am persistant/ignorant and you might want to take this oppurtunity to say I accept my failure.

 

[Xtensity]

If you put it outside, the closed system is the atmosphere, if not that, just the universe itself. Yes the atmosphere/universe has lots of "unused" energy in it, hence this is why wind turbines are used. Though nothing in the Space-Time Continuum is infinite, that is a logical impossibility. Perhaps outside Space-Time, but then totally different rules begin to apply and a lot of it is just theoretical right now.