Sayonara Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 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. And how much energy does that require? heat is the freely avaliable source of energy, the average temperature on earth is over 280 kelvin above zero temperature. You've not really made any comment as to why this is a useful statement. Very few materials occur naturally at or around absolute zero on the earth's surface so it's not a thermal gradient we are apt to exploit. and you generate cold air from using the heat to expand a gas that pushes a turbine!!! colder air = spent energy from warm air. Energy crisis over then I guess. 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. O rly? Let's take a look: 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). You said that the elan2 produces 1642.5 litres of liquid nitrogen per year at an energy cost of 7.9MWh. You also pointed out that the Kender engine produces 300MWh annually. What you are implying here is that if the elan2 "only" uses 7.9MWh and the Kender engine produces 300MWh, then one can easily power the other. But your critical assumption, which I have already pointed out, is that 1642 litres of liquid nitrogen will keep the Kender engine running for a year (and if not specifically the Kender engine, then any turbine system of your choosing which has an annual output of more than 7.9MWh). I would suggest that such a volume would not keep a turbine running for a day, much less a year.
lazygamer Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 No. The balls would not lose momentum. If there's no friction and collisions are elastic, momentum will be conserved. The total kinetic energy of the system will remain the same. If there's no friction losses, there's no waste heat created, so all energy remains either kinetic or potential. Since there's no gravity, there's no gravitational potential energy. Kinetic energy thus must be conserved. Momentum is always conserved anyway. Your understanding of physics is flawed. 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. So, then, we are in agreement that PV=nRT is valid? Then you must also agree that in a closed system, there is no energy gain. Where, then, does the free energy you keep refering to come from? 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. It seems to me this idea does not work and there is no energy gained by any contraption built to work in this manner. Your arguments in favor of the idea are not pursuasive to me. 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. What would political leanings have to do with your idea? Nothing at all. 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 know what thermal energy is. You can't go making up personal definitions. I don't care how you define heat, and it doesn't even matter how you define heat if you are using someone else's definition anyways (when talking about heat engines). This is what heat is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat In physics and thermodynamics, heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact, which in turn is defined as an energy transfer to a body in any other way than due to work performed on the body. 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). Repeat it all you like, but please also listen to what I am saying. I understand that expanding a gas lowers its temperature. Here's how they fail: In phase 3, they talk of compressing the helium into the heat source, and claim that the compression and rise in temperature brings the helium back to its original pressure. This means that they are compressing the helium either back to the original pressure and allowing the temperature to rise while they do it (this process at best takes as much energy as they can get from expanding the gas in the turbine so it won't work), or they are compressing it while maintaining the temperature at -240 C, in which case this only will function in an environment at -240 C which does not exist on earth. So it won't work. 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. And how much energy does that require? 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. You've not really made any comment as to why this is a useful statement. Very few materials occur naturally at or around absolute zero on the earth's surface so it's not a thermal gradient we are apt to exploit. 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? Energy crisis over then I guess. 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. O rly? Let's take a look: You said that the elan2 produces 1642.5 litres of liquid nitrogen per year at an energy cost of 7.9MWh. You also pointed out that the Kender engine produces 300MWh annually. What you are implying here is that if the elan2 "only" uses 7.9MWh and the Kender engine produces 300MWh, then one can easily power the other. But your critical assumption, which I have already pointed out, is that 1642 litres of liquid nitrogen will keep the Kender engine running for a year (and if not specifically the Kender engine, then any turbine system of your choosing which has an annual output of more than 7.9MWh). I would suggest that such a volume would not keep a turbine running for a day, much less a year. 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 ).
vordhosbn Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Isn't there some kind of software that can simulate thermodinamic systems, hence - the Kender Engine? Or maybe easygamer can show us calculations of the energy ballance of different stages, assuming we have 100% efficiency of each cooling/heating/pressure increasing mechanism. I mean real, specific calculations, not "assuming for the sake of argument" ones.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 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). Ah, so you are saying that because you don't believe in conservation of energy, you believe this engine will work? I can understand that, but I don't see where you got the idea that energy is not conserved. Expanding a gas changes its temperature, but temperature is not the same as thermal energy. Add one thousand calories of thermal energy to one liter of water and you raise its temperature by 1 degree C. Add the same thousand calories thermal energy to one gram of water, and you will have some very very hot steam. Touch them, and you will feel one to be vastly hotter -- because it is. But you added the same amount of thermal energy to each. I wish making a perpetual motion machine were as simple as finding some stubborn people who disagree with the laws of physics, but alas it ain't so. 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. If they compress it fast, then it has to heat up, as there is no time to transfer the energy away. This is the same thing as the cooling when it expands, exactly the same in reverse (the laws of physics are symmetrical that way). If it cooled from room temperature, it will warm to room temperature. Where are you getting 73 degrees K from? 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. Sometimes an expert opinion really is better than one fraudulent person claiming to have done a test. Test this: are these guys still on the grid, or are they selling electricity all over the country?
SH3RL0CK Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 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. I look forward to the day my house will generate all the electricity I need. But it won't be from a Kender engine, I am sure. it isn't black magic, its just simple physics, and just because you don't see how it works or whatnot, it does work We are still waiting for Kender to prove this device actually does work. Even if it could work in theory (which has been shown by others here that it cannot), it might still not work in practice. To do this they should send prototypes to some credible skeptics for independent verification of their claims (of course, I am sure they must simply wait until the patent application is completed, or perhaps some other minor details first). I won't be holding my breath. , 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. if a scam were easy to understand, wouldn't it then be much more difficult to convince people to part with their hard-earned money? IMO, a good scam always sounds credible enough for people to "invest" in it, but has just enough complexity so that the catch isn't readily observable to these people. Coincidentally, this also seems to me to be the situation regarding the claims of the Kender engine...but then I am probably just overly cynical. 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 ). Glad to know you have a vested interest in this; you have pre-ordered units and you are a shareholder. Hope you read all the fine print regarding the pre-order very carefully. And just remember, the stock values aren't realized until, and unless, you sell the stocks. But of course, I'm sure you know all this also. I wish you great sucess in your investments.
Phi for All Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) 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.Why aren't they using the engine to power their own facilities? 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.If it was simple enough for everyone to understand, it wouldn't make a good scam. It's the combination of known and less understood technologies, some shouting and hand-waving to avoid the magic hurdles, all stirred with a big "wouldn't-it-be-great" spoon that will get investors to stop asking embarrassing questions and just sign the check. 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).The Kender engine and the Mars Somnambulaporter have equal chances of being a scam? I can agree with that. The part about people who don't believe in electricity is a strawman argument, btw. It attempts to equate disbelief in electricity with a skeptical attitude towards the Kender engine, making it an easier argument to knock down like a man made of straw. It is a fallacious stance. Edited March 26, 2010 by Phi for All added comment
Sayonara Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 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. It's not in the least bit obvious when you talk in number salad and flagrantly ignore basic physical principles such as the gas equations while squawking "it isn't black magic, it's just simple physics". 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? You are still expending energy to gain energy. Your unfounded claims of magical pressure increases aside, you have yet to show ONE example of an end-to-end conversion process with the appropriate energy values. You have now twice ignored my request that you explain your ludicrous implication that the elan2 can 'power' something like the Kender engine. Whatever credibility you had when you joined this thread is wearing down rapidly. 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). Or probably fewer, since the 'success' of the system is just a figure fudge. 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. Reality is not compelled to conform to your sense of scale. 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). Yes. Because the magnets are obeying the laws of physics.
lazygamer Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 Ah, so you are saying that because you don't believe in conservation of energy, you believe this engine will work? 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. I can understand that, but I don't see where you got the idea that energy is not conserved. Expanding a gas changes its temperature, but temperature is not the same as thermal energy. Add one thousand calories of thermal energy to one liter of water and you raise its temperature by 1 degree C. Add the same thousand calories thermal energy to one gram of water, and you will have some very very hot steam. Touch them, and you will feel one to be vastly hotter -- because it is. But you added the same amount of thermal energy to each. 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. I wish making a perpetual motion machine were as simple as finding some stubborn people who disagree with the laws of physics, but alas it ain't so. 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. If they compress it fast, then it has to heat up, as there is no time to transfer the energy away. This is the same thing as the cooling when it expands, exactly the same in reverse (the laws of physics are symmetrical that way). If it cooled from room temperature, it will warm to room temperature. Where are you getting 73 degrees K from? 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. Sometimes an expert opinion really is better than one fraudulent person claiming to have done a test. Test this: are these guys still on the grid, or are they selling electricity all over the country? 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). I look forward to the day my house will generate all the electricity I need. But it won't be from a Kender engine, I am sure. 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 We are still waiting for Kender to prove this device actually does work. Even if it could work in theory (which has been shown by others here that it cannot), it might still not work in practice. To do this they should send prototypes to some credible skeptics for independent verification of their claims (of course, I am sure they must simply wait until the patent application is completed, or perhaps some other minor details first). I won't be holding my breath. 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. if a scam were easy to understand, wouldn't it then be much more difficult to convince people to part with their hard-earned money? IMO, a good scam always sounds credible enough for people to "invest" in it, but has just enough complexity so that the catch isn't readily observable to these people. Coincidentally, this also seems to me to be the situation regarding the claims of the Kender engine...but then I am probably just overly cynical. 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). Glad to know you have a vested interest in this; you have pre-ordered units and you are a shareholder. Hope you read all the fine print regarding the pre-order very carefully. And just remember, the stock values aren't realized until, and unless, you sell the stocks. But of course, I'm sure you know all this also. I wish you great sucess in your investments. 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. Why aren't they using the engine to power their own facilities? 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). If it was simple enough for everyone to understand, it wouldn't make a good scam. It's the combination of known and less understood technologies, some shouting and hand-waving to avoid the magic hurdles, all stirred with a big "wouldn't-it-be-great" spoon that will get investors to stop asking embarrassing questions and just sign the check. you're forgetting something, they're british, not president of the united states of america The Kender engine and the Mars Somnambulaporter have equal chances of being a scam? I can agree with that. The part about people who don't believe in electricity is a strawman argument, btw. It attempts to equate disbelief in electricity with a skeptical attitude towards the Kender engine, making it an easier argument to knock down like a man made of straw. It is a fallacious stance. I didn't have time to go into people not believing in global warming You are still expending energy to gain energy. Your unfounded claims of magical pressure increases aside, you have yet to show ONE example of an end-to-end conversion process with the appropriate energy values. You have now twice ignored my request that you explain your ludicrous implication that the elan2 can 'power' something like the Kender engine. Whatever credibility you had when you joined this thread is wearing down rapidly. "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 Or probably fewer, since the 'success' of the system is just a figure fudge. 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). Reality is not compelled to conform to your sense of scale. nor is it yours, prove that it conforms to your sense of scale before you come with the hypothesis that mine is incorrect. Yes. Because the magnets are obeying the laws of physics. 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.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 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. What? This makes no sense at all.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 now you're putting words between my teeth. You said, 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. How is that not a violation of the law of conservation of energy? you're arguing over definition, and the "heat" at wikipedia defintion is somewhat outdated and should be merged with thermodynamics. No, you're arguing over the definition and I'm correcting you on it. Please, go ahead and try to find any scientist with a basic knowledge of thermodynamics that defines heat as you do. Or, go ahead and find any text that talks about heat engines that defines heat as you do. Why do you insist on using the wrong definitions? I mean you're welcome to if you want, but then you need to rewrite all the texts that refer to "heat" to say "transfer of thermal energy" or otherwise you'll be all confused. Why not just accept the correct definition and cause less confusion all around?
Phi for All Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 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).If they made just one that powered one building, raising money wouldn't be the most time consuming thing Kender does.
Sayonara Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) "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 Sigh. It's magical if you just assume the effect that you want. You have provided no mechanism which would show how PV=nRT applies; you have simply begged the question and declared by fiat the temperatures and pressures that you want to see. 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. I call bullshit. As I have now explained three times, you foolishly declared that the elan2 can produce a certain amount of liquid nitrogen in a year, and then made the observation that this uses much less energy than the Kender is supposed to produce in a year, and implied that they could effectively fuel each other. Either state unequivocally that this is not the case, or accept that you are making a claim positive and then back it up. if you want spesifics, go read: http://www.kendersolar.com/index.php/The-solar-technology-of-the-Kender-Engine-Phase-1.html Have you even read this thread from the start? You are starting to look a lot more like a troll with that comment. 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). You don't understand? Okay, let me put it another way. You are declaring by fiat that "small amount of energy goes in, large amount of energy comes out". You have pulled figures out of the air, ignored the fundamentals of thermodynamics, and avoided doing any calculations to show energy flow through a system. Every figure you come up with is a fudge. As for me having to "prove my statements" (which is a bit weird seeing as they are rational objections), I don't think you understand how science works. In science, you put up or shut up. You are making the positive claim so You have the burden of proof. That is how it works, that is the best system available, and that is what is going to happen in this thread. nor is it yours, prove that it conforms to your sense of scale before you come with the hypothesis that mine is incorrect. When your opponent actually knows what he's talking about, and you yourself haven't got jack, mutually assured destruction just doesn't work. 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. And yet... despite your incredulity and sense of bewilderment... the magnets are still obeying the laws of physics. Edited March 27, 2010 by Sayonara³
tonton Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Ok, Monday morning, it's a bad idea to do thermodynamics before finishing my first coffee, but here it goes. It's certainly a scam (coffee or not, I can recognize stupidity). Kender Solar Energy is a scam (<-- remark for Google hits). The system is essentially an open system with a turbine and a compressor. That simply means that the system has 2 areas with a different pressure. There is the entire heat exchanger and Helium storage, which should be entirely at 200 atm. And the little part between the turbine and the compressor is apparently at 20 atm. Now, laws of thermodynamics (before or after coffee) say that even in an ideal case, the turbine will generate at best the same amount of energy as the compressor needs. There is no heat exchanger between the turbine and the compressor... so, the two steps (expansion and compression) are two equal but opposite steps. They seem to suggest that the pressure after the compressor is not yet 200 atm (the pressure "builds up in the heat exchanger"). That means it would not work. If the heat exchanger is an open system (in its essence it's just a pipe), then the pressure is the same along the entire heat exchanger. This idea might just work if you have a set of valves which are controlled by a measuring system that can open them and close them. As a continuous system, I fail to see how this can work. You also will need a cold sink (a place to dump your heat). Carnot says that no cycle will run at 100% efficiency. That means that every Joule that isn't converted to electricity will become waste heat. Waste heat must be dumped. Finally, if this is a continuous process... why do they add this helium storage (the storage won't become mre or less full... so why not leave it out altogether)? And why don't they just use nitrogen, which is more dense and (I believe) will carry heat a bit easier? I'll read this again later. Feel free to correct my early morning thermodynamics. I got a feeling that it's correct though [edit] 39 kW from a (0.8*2.5 = 2 m2 area???). The sun provides about 10 times less even in the best circumstances. Just forget about this scam... If you want to make electricity from the sun, use either a solar cell, or go with a simple steam cycle (invented by Mr. Watt in 1745). Here's a picture of it. Just replace the boiler by a solar boiler. [edit 2] I finished my first coffee, and I still think it's a scam. sorry guy,s I have met the inventor, and seen it working, gas expands and retracts there is no heat lost , it,s all a concealed unit and trust me, the only reason there are not using it is because of the contract,s between different people involved,and money this will and I insist will be one of the most and one of the most important inventions of our time coming close to tesla, and stan meyer, so lad,s take it and see soon the developrment of this machine, that can be even used to replace nuclear, and petrol, in car,s and boats, and firstly what jean cousin wanted was free heating for third world countries, and europe at a small investment,
insane_alien Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 it,s all a concealed unit yep, there'll be something concealed all right. look, if you actually performed a proper analysis on it, you'd find it was complete rubbish.
tonton Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 has it be all, we know only what we are taught ,and hydrogene like we know can run cars and stuff?so who stop,s the market,?? and all your efferts in school are for who? d,ont learn anything you shoud,nt, and be good. doctor tonton. yes magic gas and availiable at all times.
insane_alien Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 hydrogen power isn't in the market because of a few reasons. 1/ currently more expensive. 2/ currently less energy density than petrol 3/ efficient fuelcells with the power density needed for automotive transport are still maturing. but saying all that, you CAN but a fuel cell car if you're willing to fork out the money for it, so the market does exist. i don't see what the education system has to do with this. reality works the same way everywhere. you can't change reality because it does not give a crap what you think is a good idea. it just so happens that captain panic and myself are engineers who know exactly how stuff like the device in question should behave. and it won't work as described. its like saying you've invented a car that will run uphill forever without an engine. sure, you can claim thats what you've done, and you could even make a demonstration model that would appear to function like that as long as you didn't let anyone look too carefully at it, but you have not achieved what you said you achieved. 1
tonton Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 The kender engine does not use surrounding air temperature. It uses a thermal solar panel to heat the helium. What you are left with is some very cold air with trace amounts of helium which would be refilled annually as it would exhaust itself in one and a half years. The amount of helium will cost around $2.00. The exact specifications as to how it works are not revealed on the website. This is only a guideline as the guts of this is a trade secret. The unit will be demonstrated in the new year with both a CE & UL mark. As for the 'make money with us' web page it is only implying a homeowner with this unit will be making extra energy to sell to the grid in places where they currently allow for this. Watch for big changes to come across North America allowing for this. Please save your criticisms until the actual unit has been demonstrated and then there will be more then speculation to converse about.
insane_alien Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 it was crap when sunshine said it, it's crap now you're repeating it.
Sayonara Posted October 3, 2010 Posted October 3, 2010 sorry guy,s I have met the inventor, and seen it working, gas expands and retracts there is no heat lost , it,s all a concealed unit and trust me, the only reason there are not using it is because of the contract,s between different people involved,and money this will and I insist will be one of the most and one of the most important inventions of our time coming close to tesla, and stan meyer, so lad,s take it and see soon the developrment of this machine, that can be even used to replace nuclear, and petrol, in car,s and boats, and firstly what jean cousin wanted was free heating for third world countries, and europe at a small investment, We know it can't be as it is advertised because the advertised machine violates well-established principals of physics. Apologetics won't change that. Your entire account - errant punctuation and all - is blatantly dedicated to being a shill for Kender. Get over yourselves. 1
Recommended Posts