lazygamer

I think someone should revive this thread. So, to summarize, a gas is basically a number of molecules that all bump into eachother, when you send that gas through a valve and drop the pressure (more volume in this case), the molecules bump into molecules that are all moving away from eachother, and so they bump slower (ever played pool?). This is the drop in temperature known as where the "waste heat" goes. any objections?

now you're putting words between my teeth. you're arguing over definition, and the "heat" at wikipedia defintion is somewhat outdated and should be merged with thermodynamics. and if you heat up the 4,6 million cubic kilometers of air (14 psi) our atmosphere is by 0,8 degrees C you add the same amount of energy as if you make one cubic kilometer of air (14 psi originally) into a quark plasma, I know, but you don't seem to get the fact that the quark plasma the universe at some point was, isn't there anymore, most of the energy was lost into making the plasma expand. again, where are you getting this? there's wear on the parts, the sun only lasts for about 5 billion years and eventually all matter is made into iron or heavier elements which requires energy to make fusion, you need a refill of gas every half-year or year or so because it physically teleports atoms every nanosecond to who knows where somewhere in our universe, AND the universe doesn't last forever. but, its easy to generate electricity from the sun and the heat it gives us. photovoltaics consist of two sheets of sand, both of which has been "drugged" by different materials to make one sheet have extra electrons and the other to have a lack of electrons, which are then put together at which point the free electrons jump over to the empty spots directly, gets "kicked" loose by the sunlight (photons) and travel through a circuit miles long and ends up on the original plate of the free electrons where it jumps back to the empty spots on place nr 2 where it waits for another photon. Now, do you question that? because it doesn't even happen on every photon, the photon needs a quite spesific charge (spesific wavelength, some only generate electricity from blue light, red light, UV etc), it doesn't even happen every time a fitting photon hits the panel, you get quite alot more electricity if the panel is cold (I know about Ohm and electrical resistance, and its not only that) etc. or is it just that because it only works 12 hours a day, costs alot of money and only give around 200 watts per square meter, that its "crappy enough" for it to not be "too good to be true"? no freakin' wonder we like oil so much, because we KNOW it won't last forever, that's what makes it good apparently. yes, but it is 273 kelvin or whatever when it is 200 psi, and 73 kelvin when it is 20 psi, what's "wrong" with that? you dont compress it to 200 psi with the compressor, you only compress it to 20 psi, the thermal energy transfer from the air around the radiator makes the pressure go up the last 180 psi, which is all lost through the turbine and low-pressure zone between the turbine and the compressor. I use 73 K since its a nice round number anyone should be able to figure out in celsius in their head (-200 C since -273 C is absolute zero, AKA zero Kelvin). it doesn't heat up more if you compress it fast btw. you'd need 50,4 million units a 39kw to replace the whole world's electricity supply alone, and it increases by about 1-2 million every single year, so if you want to do it in 10 years you'd need to produce 6-7 million a year, and the entire total number of combustion-engine vehicles produced every year is 50 million, so you'd need to buy around 12-14% of the world's vehicle manufacturing facilities as an example. and the manufacturing-plant that produces ONLY the bmw x5 and x6 produces around 100 000 vehicles a year, cost BMW $2.2 billion to make. in other words, you'd need to invest around 120 billion USD to make that happen, AND you'd have to get the whole world to spend around 1800 billion USD buying the products. now, why aren't they allready producing millions I ask you? they started only 1 year 11 months ago. everything sounds so easy in theory doesn't it? btw, they're from the UK, like all the other inventors (a large majority atleast. the brits invented the jet-engine, turbocharger, automatic rifle, gatling gun, rifled barrel, computer, steam engine etc). sure, around 30 of the most highly respected physicists in the world once said that "heavier than air flight is impossible, it violates the laws of physics". believe what you wish oh they're coming, I'm one of the few that get the free demo unit because of my location (Norway). and they have proven it with prototypes, its just that you all seem to be like the guy that looked under the table when that american guy showed some scientists the first ever television that could transmit the image of a face from another room electronically. one can never be too carefull, but there's a difference between being critical while giving them the bennefit of the doubt, and being critical while rejecting the idea alltogether (which was what resulted in the brits not having jet-fighters in WW2, and allmost resulted in them not being able to crack the encryption code on german military radio-transmissions). believe me, I looked it over close, and there's a paragraph about zero financial liability between parties if things doesn't go as planned (like it not working on a larger scale, not being able to produce enough of them, not working at all etc). it also helps having a paragraph about the bit that means we can see and inspect a demo-unit before any money-changing-hands contract is signed. because they're busy signing contracts and finding production-facilities, if they first made many for themselves the whole point would be mute, and they would spend years more making it happen, instead of having it going in the course of 2,5 or 3,5 years (allmost 2 years is over)(once they produce a thousand or ten thousand annually I'm sure they can afford to take a few houndred for themselves). you're forgetting something, they're british, not president of the united states of america I didn't have time to go into people not believing in global warming "magical pressure increases"? the air around being 200 degrees C/K more than the gas inside and thus warming up the gas inside, is magic? wow, we've just found magic!!! XDDDDDDDDD that elan2 thing was only to prove that nitrogen doesn't take a supernova to get a hold of. its you that believe its going to take all of the 3 million cubic kilometers of nitrogen (@ 14 psi) in our atmosphere to power it, YOU should be convincing ME we're going to need that much nitrogen. if you want spesifics, go read: http://www.kendersolar.com/index.php/The-solar-technology-of-the-Kender-Engine-Phase-1.html explain that, saying it is a "figure fudge" doesn't nudge anything either way, so you'll have to prove your statement right then (since you bang on about me proving my statements). nor is it yours, prove that it conforms to your sense of scale before you come with the hypothesis that mine is incorrect. lol, but you failed to see the point, a magnet ALLWAYS have a negative and positive pole, now, how you do place the poles if you want plasma to be repelled by it, 100% of the surface, in a doughnut-shape? that was what I meant by it but I could've just as said "bladibladibladi" cus you've probably made a funny comment about that aswell, and it still wouldn't have proven anything you say any more than if you had not spoken at all.

did you not read it? the walls have molecules that move aswell, every atom in the universe is moving around because of "heat". and when you have a heat-exchanger, ie the walls, which transfers the larger kinetic energy from the balls outside of the system through the metal, you give more kinetic energy to the balls inside, making the pressure higher. the radiator is only made of metal, not dark matter! not one single heat-engine in the entire universe (and all the paralells) can within the laws of physics be an entirely closed system, because heat goes through every known (and I should say proven) material known to man. and when the outside is 200 kelvin hotter than the inside, and you contain the gas, you expand the pressure, and you only consume the energy that it takes to compress the same gas to 20 psi, not 200 psi, cus the heat from around the system makes it go to 200psi, where do you not see this: 200 psi = 10x amount of energy, and 20 psi = x amount of energy. it takes ten times less energy to compress the same cool air to 20 psi as you get from the turbine at the other end (though around 50% is lost due to wear etc so 5 times less energy to compress it than you get from the turbine). the free energy comes from the sun, like Photovoltaics, only it can take advantage of the energy that shines onto earth 24/7 instead of just 12 hours a day. well to you, that is. I'm sorry if I'm not persuasive enough, but frankly I don't care what you believe, because I won't be sad if people like you (that don't this kender thing) buy the electricity my house will generate. just some funny fact I read about conservatives VS liberals (though I'm not liberal in the Fox news definition, I'm liberal in the way that I'm actually open to new ideas, to see if they work or not by bothering to test them). I have to, because somehow there's a lack of understanding that what you feel as a warm table-top or cool glass, is because of the movement of centillions of atoms (slower than the atoms in your hand = cool, faster than the atoms in your hand = warm), yes, heat is the movement of that kinetic energy, but that energy isn't ever-lasting like the nuclear energy, you can get rid of it by expanding the gas, it doesn't allways have to move somewhere. radiant heat is another case, that should be defined as light or photons, because the "heat" you keep on linking to instead of explaining why you're right and why it should be still defined after what they thought houndreds of years ago (by reading the heat-article there you get the impression they only crossed out "fluid" from the old definition that it was a fluid that moved between matter, when infact its photons and kinetic energy that is being transfered). they compress it faster than you can blink, it hasn't got time to heat up while you compress it to 20psi (it only heats up because it is compressed, to the original temperature of 73 kelvin, then it takes a while for it to heated up (not all that long, but slower than the compression takes)). then it heats up inside the radiator until it gets around 200 psi of pressure because the radiator transfers the higher kinetic energy from the air around it to the gas inside it. one test is better than a thousand expert opinions, so test it instead of saying it doesn't work, and the kender folks have tested it, it works. isn't it very obvious? to compress something to 20psi = x amount of energy, something compressed to 200 psi = 10x amount of energy (do please note: the heat from outside of the system makes the pressure go from 20 to 200 psi), then you run 10x through a turbine, lose around 50% to friction and wear of parts etc, but you still get 5x energy, only 1 of which is needed to compress the material to 20psi again. we've got liquid nitrogen and darn cool helium? we make a gas which holds 73 kelvin, keep it contained, release it into a radiator to increase the surface that contacts the air around and gas inside the system, it gets heated up by the air outside of the system, we still have it contained so the pressure goes up, we run it through a turbine, compress it back into the radiator at 20psi etc. do you have any idea how much energy 200 POUNDS per SQUARE INCH is in comparison to 20 pounds per square inch? well no, we still need to build enough of them, 50 261 538 of them infact, probably more since you won't get a houndred percent of the 39kw production capacity on all areas on the globe (for example in Norway). (every person on earth use an average of 297 watts, continuusly) but it is much cheaper to do than Photovoltaics and windpower, only around 3 years of US military budget. but then again, the US spends alot on military so its not that small of an amount either. well I reject that hypothesis, because it isn't a hole nor is there a teleporter within the system, so its frankly not possible to use the 1642,5 litres of liquid nitrogen in the course of a year, maybe 20 years. if you invent a material that releases that amount of matter then you've just made a sheet metal plate with loads of holes in it. (it is possible to teleport to mars without a teleporter because of atoms teleporting individually, but you'd have to live longer than a universe to actually have a decent chance of actually doing it, so maybe a whole liter escapes one day, but even that's highly unlikely). it isn't black magic, its just simple physics, and just because you don't see how it works or whatnot, it does work (I don't understand how the magnets are placed inside a fusion reactor to keep the plasma there, but I still know it works). and anyways, if I were to invent a scam then I would come up with something far simpler than the kender engine, because then everyone, including you, would understand it. but since it isn't a scam (or I find it has equal chances of being a scam as I have to teleport to mars while I'm asleep), then there's allways going to sceptics (there's probably still people that don't believe in electricity). I've had enough of this for today. I'll just remind myself that I have put an order in for "a few", so that I can have heating-cables in the driveway during winter and have a year-round heated pool etc, in Norway. if you're all too sceptic to do the same then so be it, keep paying the power-companies. (I dont have to hand over any money until I see it actually working with my own two eyes, you don't either, so it would be a terribly ineffective scam if it ever were one. lots of people, including me, have allready earned enough to pay for a few units just by buying some of their stocks ).

k, but I won't be offended if they throw back. just felt it had to be said. won't happen again.

idiot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermally_Agitated_Molecule.gif that is heat. the movement of the molecule, thus it hits other molecules, what you think of as "heat" is just the transfer of kinetic energy from one molecule to another (with radiation-heat through infrared included, in the "heat" definition), what I define as heat is kinetic energy, because anything that is transfered with photons is light-energy, and why I use thermodynamics is because and I quote: "In thermodynamics, the internal energy of a thermodynamic system, or a body with well-defined boundaries, denoted by U, or sometimes E, is the total of the kinetic energy due to the motion of particles (translational, rotational, vibrational) (...)". ehem, they release the gas into an somewhat empty box. I've gone through this many times now. (just to repeat: lower pressure = lower temperature, its just as low temperature at 20 psi before and after the process, because when you expand a gas the gas gets less kinetic energy, the heat doesn't have to "go" anywhere because the simple act of expanding the gas makes the molecules hit eachother less so they loose energy, ie heat (hit something going away from you and you get alot less energy bouncing back at you, its basic physics)) I meant for you to actually go see a professor, cus I ain't getting pay'd to teach and I'm really sure I'm not going to waste my spare time trying to teach you anything when there's others that might actually learn something around here. dont you see 73 kelvin written all over here? and its not the flow of heat you use (or you only use it to heat up the gas so it has more pressure), you use the pressure, even steam-engines and combustion-engines use pressure, not heat (the heat is there only to boil the water or explode the fuel so you get pressure). and as I said before, you define "heat" as the flow of heat, including light-transfered heat etc, I define heat as kinetic energy, and the radiation-heat etc as freakin' light, cus that's what it is. also, you dont use light-transfered heat primarily in this system, you take the kinetic energy of the air around the radiator, which bounces against the radiator, which transfers the kinetic energy through the metal, and then onto the gas molecules, which inturn make them hit eachother with more energy, which inturn creates more pressure. then, when you expand the gas, and the molecules start bouncing against molecules that are traveling away from themselves, they bounce back with less energy, and voilà, you've turned heat into pressure, which pushed a turbine, and turned the 273 Kelvin gas into gas at freakin' 73 Kelvin!!! if you didn't contain it, yes. but the thing about having a gas that's 200 kelvin below the temperature around the system, is that you will allways produce energy. and in return you TAKE energy from the air around the system. is that so darn difficult to comprehend? imagine a room filled with balls that bounce around in zero gravity with zero loss to due to friction (the laws of physics make sure the atoms bounce off eachother without loosing momentum because of changing shapes etc), at around 1000 miles per hour. then you introduce walls that also bounce around at a more energetic level than the balls inside the room. then the balls inside the room bounce harder and faster. then you have increased the pressure, then you double the size of the room, and the balls allmost instantly spread out and all of them get less momentum because they hit eachother when most are traveling away from eachother, therefore you just LOOSE heat, its GONE. that's why we aren't a super-heated quark-plasma right now like it was for a time after the big bang. the space increased, so all the particles bounced off particles that was traveling away from them, which made the heat go down, and made the temperature so low that today, the average temperature of the universe is just over absolute zero. you really have no idea what you're talking about do you? R-134a, which is the gas they use in most refridgerators, boil at 247 kelvin, so its useless for anything else but to create an appliance according to what the electric power companies wanted people to buy so they used more electricity (they initially used poisonus gas, and then freon, which ruins O3 (ozone)). if the refridgerator-people wanted to make a cooling apparatus which generated electricity they would have invented something very similar (if not equal) to the kender engine. but they were out to create appliances which uses electricity instead, so that the power-companies would have a market. if the air you filled in your tire was gas-form nitrogen at 83 kelvins you'd only need a fraction of what you fill your car-tyres with at 293 kelvin or whatever the temperature is around where you live and you really misunderstand things, x + 200 kelvin = 10x you spanner, I figured you'd understand it with logic... from 73 kelvin to around 273 kelvin isn't a big temperature change? its 200 kelvins! water boil at 100 kelvin above solid form! 200 kelvins, from such a low temperature as 73 kelvins, is huge, do the thermodynamics calculation, same volume, different temperature, see what you get. and how the hell does us not having helium in our atmosphere have anything to do with "it must be a closed system"? its a closed system as in there are no holes in it, but kinetic energy (AKA HEAT) transfers through metal. its like saying because "Statement 1: Most of the green is touching the red. Statement 2: Most of the red is touching the blue.", and then say "Since most of the green is touching red, and most of the red is touching blue, most of the green must be touching blue.". this is however a stupid piece of unlogical thinking ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logical_fallacy.svg ). you know what, my hypothesis, is that sherlock, shflssl or whatever, and sceptic, all consider yourself quite conservative, am I correct?

its not energy from the gas expanding, it turns a freakin' turbine at 200 pounds per square inch and you only need to compress it back to 15 or 20 pounds per square inch. heat is the freely avaliable source of energy, the average temperature on earth is over 280 kelvin above zero temperature. and you generate cold air from using the heat to expand a gas that pushes a turbine!!! colder air = spent energy from warm air. I mentioned the elan and its production-capability because you figured it took way more energy to create the nitrogen than what you can possibly produce from the kender engine. and what is heat? heat is the kinetic energy of molecules when they bounce off other atoms because they are moving. its not magical powder that flows through everything like dark matter apparently is. nitrogen at 20 psi, 73 kelvin. it warms up to around 273 kelvin and around 200 psi. then you push a turbine at 200 pounds per square inch and loose about 50% of the generated energy to mechanical loss. the space behind the turbine makes the pressure go down aswell as the temperature. then you use 20% of the energy generated to pump the gas back into the radiator at 20 psi, 73 kelvin. Ask a proffessor within thermodynamics about it if you still claim there's no heat-sink or whatever.

the lower pressure after the turbine, right before the compressor, is the heat-sink. lower the pressure and the temperature drops.

for the last time, you pump it into a box at x pressure, it increases in pressure to 10x because of the surroundings that are warmer. then you have 10 times as much pressure turning the turbine, generating 10 times as much energy, than what you need to pump it back at x pressure again. if you don't get it ......... I give up, go do whatever. (btw, why we don't have helium in our atmosphere is because the earth has too little mass to keep helium-molecules within our atmosphere. the same reason is why we dont have any pure hydrogen in our atmosphere)

"Except that once you send it through a "pressure-decrease" valve, it takes energy to repressurize, in fact, more energy than you got out of the fluid to begin with." nope, because you repressurize to 15psi, but you have 150-200 psi pushing the turbine... "Hey I can say that I can flap my arms and fly but just because I say so doesn't mean it really is so. The Kender engine doesn't fit the description of an engine and no it won't produce mechanical motion because the laws of physics don't allow it to. No matter how much they say it will." ehem, come with a hypothesis to why it won't work. a very spesific one, cus you can't just go "the laws of physics dont agree" if you don't say entire spesific why it is so. cus I can't be bothered with spending MY time disproving your stab at making it impossible, because you'll have time to figure out 5 new stabs in the same time period. and you can allways come with vague stabs, but try making a well aimed well sharpened stab instead. cus I know you can't. because I know it works, 200 psi pushing a turbine, then a compressor that compresses to 15-20psi, even with 80% loss because of the mechanical loss you'd still create twice the energy it takes to pump it back into the radiator at 20 psi. (20 pounds per square inch VS 200 pounds per square inch, there is a significant difference in force dont you think?)

WHAT??? ofcourse you wouldn't create energy by pumping the same darn pressure of gas in and out of a box!?!?! but where the heck did you think that was relevant? the kender engine uses the pressure at which the gas enters the radiator, the pressure it becomes from being heated up by the surroundings, and the pressure between the turbine and the compressor... its impossible to decrease the complexity of an example when the example needs the "complexity" to actually form a logical problem at which one can come with a conclusion to. if you just take out the number "1" out of binary in an example to simplify it all, its all pointless!

no, you can choose to release the same psi back into it, or you can send the same amount, only with 200psi pushing it there instead of the original psi. (if you pump 15psi out of the box, and release the same amount of gas per second that the compressor can pump out, you create energy because you pump 15psi out, but the energy coming into the box is at 200 psi which pushes the gas into the box quicker m/s than you pump it out and with more force). think about it, you pump out 15 psi, and between the box and the box with the 200psi in it there is a turbine, the 200 psi gas pushes its way through the turbine at over 13 times the force or energy than what you need to pump it out of the box. where don't you see what I see? 200psi - turbine - low-pressure zone - compressor (20psi to make it easier). heated - pushes - cools down and gets pumped out - re-heats. 200psi against turbine and mechanical stuff, around 50% effecient, so you get 5 times more energy than what you are using to pump it back at 20 psi. its not that difficult, I dont know how I can explain it simpler btw, a solar panel delivers aproximately 6 to 7 MW of power average annually if it has PV panels with a max capacity of 50MW, and you need square miles in space because you only get about 200 watts per square meter (or per 9 square feet aproximately), and you need direct sunlight, and you need it to be daytime. and with windmills you need wind, and that's usually way out 2 miles from the middle of nowhere, which you need to make a road to, then an electricity-wire to, then you need to put up the windmill, then you need to hope and pray that its windy when you need the energy the most. doesn't really sound like good technologies? (and btw, windmills are over 300 feet tall these days, and they produce 2,5MW then, a kender-engine would only take up aproximately 25 square meters at 2-3 meters tall, and it would produce energy independently of wheather-conditions and you can place it right where it is needed instead of spending just as much as you spend building the facility on making powerlines to just get the electricity out'a there) in comparison to wind and PV, the kender engine is in a different league, its just that you don't get it so you don't "believe" in it, even though fact is fact, it works (one test is better than a thousand expert-opinions, there's allways going to be sceptics (the day before they launched one of the apollo missions the story in Times magazine was that "the rocket couldn't work because there were no air to push against in space"), and you can't mix opinion into fact).

steel is very general of a term. density, melting-point and percentage of carbon are all variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel an electric arc furnace use a cathode (if it weren't an anode, don't remember off the top of my head), usually made of something with very high melting-temperatures (atom-number 68 I think is the metal with the highest melting point, but I'm not sure if its correct, its the number that fell out as I thought about it), they run loads of electricity through it to create an arc of electricity (like a lightning bolt sort of) wich they use to warm up the metal (just a glowing kitchen-oven wouldn't be enough no matter how many you have unless you do something really clever with gas and pressure). EDIT: cobalt I think was the metal with the warmest melting-point.

ehm, no you :facepalm: (sensored because there probably are americans around). heat = kinetic freakin' energy that comes from the molecules moving. the sun shines on the planet all day long, for about 5 billion years into the future. If we had no atmosphere we'd have 380 kelvin on the surface of earth during day (over boiling point of water), that energy is distributed into our atmosphere, we take a substance with little energy and _trap_ it (you only have to refill it once or twice a year because of quantum mechanics, ie some molecules teleport now and again). then we heat it up by it just EXISTING in our atmosphere which holds loads of energy (288 kelvin or something average temperature), and the pressure increases, we send it through a turbine (and still keep it freakin' trapped) and thus the pressure decreases and it becomes just as cold as it was to begin with. how do we cool it? we release x amount of gas at room-temperature, into 10x amount of space and cut the pressure and temperature by alot (any box without gas in it is a freakin' vaccuum! and what do you think the 1/5 energy produced goes to? a compressor (compressor compresses the gas to 15 psi or whatever, and it comes out 200 psi or whatever at the other side, therefore you produce energy, there's many percents losses oh yeah like on everything else, that's why 20% of the energy is lost instead of just 10% (cus if there were far less losses due to all the gas-physics and mechanical stuff it would produce about twice the amount of energy but still only need the original compressor-energy)). release the gas into an artificially made low-pressure part, right where the compressor gets the gas it pumps back into the radiator. the only thing you spend energy on is a small compressor that constantly keeps one area (or several) a little lower in pressure than the rest (on the nitrogen thing). then you just put a nozzle that releases just enough gas so its for example 1 psi at the output end when there's 14 psi at the input end. the kender energy isn't free either, you create cold air by using the heat. heat is energy, this is a heat engine, but you have to forget about that little nagging voice in the back of your head that is thinking "everything below the freezing point of H2O is zero energy or somehow a different type of temperature than any temperature above 273 kelvins". all heat above zero kelvin can be used if you just know how (though its difficult to get it really close to absolute zero since one photon would ruin it... cus its not the cooling that's difficult, its keeping the heat away from all the stars, planets and americans around it. though it must be said that if you managed to pump something at absolute zero into this thing, you'd create alooot of energy). btw, where the hell did all of you get the idea that the kender-folks were so stupid they made a machine that is dependant on a constant stream of nitrogen at the thousands of litres a year level? that would be like inventing the heat-pump I have in my home BEFORE the kender engine, oh wait the heat-pump people really did mess up that badly. (btw, a heat-pump gives back 300% more heat-energy than the energy you put in it, simply because there's so much energy in the heat allready in the air that its not difficult to use it, google it). just to clarify: THE NITROGEN DOESN'T GET RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, it simply teleports like happens all the time, which is why your tyres go flat after a while etc. you don't have to drag a hose filled with air after your car do you? XD I'm staggered

the system I am describing? the one that makes the nitrogen? or the kender engine? because the kender-engine will produce over 300MWh annually, and look here: 900 Watts, times 24 (hours in a day), equals 0,0216MWh, and a minimum of 4,5 liters of liquid nitrogen - nitrogen-machine ... you could infact produce 1642,5 liters of nitrogen with ease, and still only use 7,9MWh out of 300MWh (annually). not exactly a hugely fantastic technology, its actually very simple. @ Sh3rlock well heat-transfer is not a one-way street, no, but if a molecule with less kinetic energy (heat) hits one with more kinetic energy, the one with more will allways give kinetic energy to the one with less. Therefore you can allways make something very close to absolute zero (lets say 23 kelvin is very easy in this case) just by using the clever pressure-decreasing trick only a more elaborate setup, but you'll need alot of tubes and pipes and valves. btw, if you "reduce the amount of gas present in the system", don't you DEcrease the temperature? anyways, its not black magic, you just use the 14 psi's in our atmosphere, send it through a valve that decreases it to 1psi or something like that, then you cool the 14 psi pipe with the cooler gas, then you get cooler and cooler gas out of the 14 psi thing until it allmost stops (pressure decreases, it pulls in more air behind it, pressure increases and then decreases more etc until it begins to slow down because of excess heat from the surroundings), then you send the super-cool air through a small compressor and into a container-of sorts and divert the next batch of super-cooled air to cool the container down (the container is far more than 14 psi, so when you reach for example minus 150 degrees C like the super-cool air at only 14psi you release the gas in the container and get 200 minus, voilà). (or to the PhD's here, sort of ((AX-z)*(BY-z)) second per second (where A is pressure, 14psi, x is temperature of the gas in the A, B is 1psi and the subequent temperature of the gas in B after a decrease in pressure from 14 to 1 psi. Z is the fall in temperature since last cycle in the respective sides of the equation. for every second the temperature in A and B decreases)).

its something that creates mechanical motion, that's an engine in my world, and probably allmost everyone else's world aswell.

I'm working on a theory of gravity, and it fits with my theory of everything (neither is published as they are not completely done yet). and I can tell you that there are no particles that create gravity, its just that our universe is in 11 dimensions. I'll debunk dark energy, dark matter, particle-gravity and make a few adjustments to M-theory aswell as black-holes and give all of the sollutions for why gravity seems to be different at different scales and why travel from xyz to another xyz value is impossible through black holes (even why our laws of physics seem to be inadequate in black holes). there'll still be lots to figure out, I'll literally make it possible for us to view other paralell universes. and there is quite alot of math to do for everyone to dot the i's and cross the t's between all the laws of physics aswell as figuring out the stuff that comes into view from my theory. When I eventually publish it, be ready (I'll give the LHC a little extra time to find the graviton and the other scientists a little time to find the dark-matter particle, just so they can't say "we haven't looked long enough" when I tell them those things doesn't exist as particles at all).

too late, kender engine is allready invented. You use a gas, that is at for example -200 C at 15psi pressure, then you put it in a radiator, the air around the radiator warms up the gas inside, and voilà, you have 150-200psi at room-temperature, which you send through a turbine or whathaveyou and a pressure-decrease valve, then you just repeat.

liquid nitrogen costs the same as milk these days, and once you put nitrogen or helium or whatever in it at 73 kelvin you don't loose the energy, you top it up maybe once or twice a year with more gas, but once you put it in at 20 psi and 73 kelvin and it heats up, the pressure goes up to 200psi, which doesn't escape (once you have put the cool gas in it you can allways take out the same gas at the same temperature if you want to). you don't need an external source, you only need liquid nitrogen, and if you take 39kw and multiply it by 8760 (number of hours in a year) you produce so much energy you could produce thousands of litres of liquid nitrogen. (and it isn't particulary energy-consuming to produce nitrogen, its 80% nitrogen in the air so you only use air, run it through a pressure-decrease valve and use the cooler air to cool down the hose before the pressure-decrease valve etc. dont forget that the air we breathe is at 14 psi, so no problems making cool air, its just that such a system is somewhat too big to fit in a refridgerator) btw, also take the 39x8760 answer and multiply it by the electricity-prices around where you live, then take out the cost for a litre or ten of milk (nitrogen), not exactly a huge expense. Most of the expense is probably going to replacing the valves and turbine etc, its not a 25 year-do-nothing like PV, but PV doesn't produce energy 24/7 in any weather. (btw, technically you dont need energy to cool something down, you just need to let the molecules you are trying to cool to give their energy away to other molecules)

wow, I got really suprised and excited when I saw the chair in the background XD I thought it was like a normal small car-trailer, not a freakin semi-trailer trailer XD go forth! ^^ and you should definetly do some distance-shooting with it

what all of you seem to have forgotten is that zero Kelvin is the actual bottom temperature, everything above that is kinetic energy regardless of if its below or above the freezing point of water. the point about the kender-engine isn't the pressure, but the pressure/temperature relation, ie, you put 20psi gas at 73 degrees kelvin or so, lets it heat up to over three times the temperature, that is 273 kelvin or whatever temperature there is in the air (plus what the sunshine provides, though it heats up the atmosphere 24/7 so its ultimately solar nevertheless), and the pressure goes up in relation to the temperature to 200psi or something like that. then you run it through a turbine and a sort of a pressure-decrease valve and the temperature goes down to 1 or 5 or 20 psi or whatever and an equally low temperature, then it gets pumped into the radiator again at 20psi at 73 kelvin and heats up to the temperature outside and the pressure goes up. all you get is a little cool air (or cool to us, since there's absolutely no difference in the type of heat be that at 73 kelvin or 373 kelvin (373K=boiling point of water)). btw, heat only travels to molecules where there are less heat, a cool wind doesn't cool you down, you warm it up. (the kinetic energy in your molecules hit the molecules in the air that have less kinetic energy and transfers some of its kinetic energy to the molecules in the air) so no matter how you look at this, its far more effecient than any heat-engine that uses temperatures above the surrounding temperature to function (water needs to be aproximately 100 degrees above 273 kelvin to boil, so loads of the heat is going to warm up the air around the system, but if you use a medium that is liquid or gasious 100 degrees below the temperature around it, you can create loads of energy because everything around the system heats the system up). I'd think this forum would know these things...