A "2nd kind of perpetual motion machine" got patent in USA

[pranabjyoti]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6938422.PN.&OS=PN/6938422&RS=PN/6938422
The above link is a description of US patent no. 6938422. The inventor claims to extract atmospheric heat and converting it into electricity successfully with a 105%. There is a widespread belief among many physicists any machine that claims to extract atmospheric heat and converting it successfully into electricity CERTAINLY VIOLATES 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. But at least, the US patent office clearly goes against this kind of view by granting patent to an apparatus that claims to VIOLATE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Does this machine really violates 2nd law of thermodynamics. Those who are arguing in this fashion against this kind of machines, rarely give any entropy calculation of the processes of the machines. Instead, so far as per my experience, they just say words(!) like "go back to basic physics again", "are you really a physics graduate" like kind of rubbish. Now, I just want to see what they will say to the patent examiners.

[revolution inaction]

there was some idiot promoting something like that on here not long ago, its imposible to have any kind of discussion with them, they have no understanding of science but make long posts describing things that cant work. What's really anoing is that they take in some of the other people who don't know a lot about science :(

[Dean]

How can a perpetual motion machine really be such when it takes energy from an external source? That's ludicrous. Unless it works in a vacuum, its not a perpetual motion machine.

[black magick hustla]

How can a perpetual motion machine really be such when it takes energy from an external source? That's ludicrous. Unless it works in a vacuum, its not a perpetual motion machine.

Actually that is the point. Second law of thermodynamics denies that you can turn "heat" into work.

[Lynx]

Thermocouples can convert heat into electricity.
A Stirling engine can convert heat into 'work'.

Carnot efficiency is obviously a lot less than 105%

[mikelepore]

You cannot make a device that taps into any one region and converts heat into work, and have it keep doing this in repeated cycles. You can turn heat into mechanical work if you have two regions that are at different temperatures. You must arrange for heat to flow from the higher temperature region to the lower temperature region, and some of the heat that takes that path is diverted to the task of doing work.

[revolution inaction]

Actually that is the point. Second law of thermodynamics denies that you can turn "heat" into work.

you are wrong, many types of engines turn heat into work, eg steam engines, internal combustion engines, gas turbines.
What you cant do is reduce entropy, if you could then it would be possible for a device to exist that output more energy than is put in.

[pranabjyoti]

there was some idiot promoting something like that on here not long ago, its imposible to have any kind of discussion with them, they have no understanding of science but make long posts describing things that cant work. What's really anoing is that they take in some of the other people who don't know a lot about science :(
:tongue_smilie:Sadly such "idiots" become patent examiners in USA and are now annoying Gobbets who actually know very small, but think that they know EVERYTHING.
Hey 2nd law morons, long ago (around 2699 years) a toy cum machine was invented in China that can convert atmospheric heat into motion very well. Still, with such examples, there are Gobbets who are arguing that atmospheric heat can not be transformed into motion or electricity.

[pranabjyoti]

You cannot make a device that taps into any one region and converts heat into work, and have it keep doing this in repeated cycles. You can turn heat into mechanical work if you have two regions that are at different temperatures. You must arrange for heat to flow from the higher temperature region to the lower temperature region, and some of the heat that takes that path is diverted to the task of doing work.
REALLY? Then how can the "drinking duck" toy can continue work automatically without any kind of external source of energy other than atmospheric heat? Those who want to deny reality on the basis of their scientific better go back to school again.

[pranabjyoti]

Thermocouples can convert heat into electricity.
A Stirling engine can convert heat into 'work'.

Carnot efficiency is obviously a lot less than 105%
Carnot efficiency is applicable only to heat engines. This is a combination of a heat pump and an engine and that's how it had gained a 105% efficiency.
A heat pump and a heat engine together CAN NOT GAIN 105% EFFICIENCY? JUST IMPOSSIBLE, At least, the drinking duck toy can do that for more than 2600 years. I think the patent examiners are not LESS knowledgeable than people here.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually that is the point. Second law of thermodynamics denies that you can turn "heat" into work.
In real, there are machines that can violate "your 2nd law of thermodynamics".

[Revy]

The drinking bird is a perpetual motion machine.

[pranabjyoti]

The drinking bird is a perpetual motion machine.
It exists in reality.

[mikelepore]

Motion without a load isn't an example of doing work. For a machine to have a work output means its force produces a displacement of a shaft that resists it, or a current through a resistor, or other part that subtracts energy. The drinking bird toy operates by being situated within the path of evaporating water, so the sun is its energy source, but if you try to make it rotate a generator or make some other use of the energy output, it will stop.

[pranabjyoti]

Motion without a load isn't an example of doing work. For a machine to have a work output means its force produces a displacement of a shaft that resists it, or a current through a resistor, or other part that subtracts energy. The drinking bird toy operates by being situated within the path of evaporating water, so the sun is its energy source, but if you try to make it rotate a generator or make some other use of the energy output, it will stop.
The drinking duck works inside atmosphere and there are friction in the joints, therefore it certainly have a load, however little that may be. The Sun is the source of almost all energy on the Earth, including atmospheric heat. If a large size drinking duck toy can be built, it can certainly rotate a generator and produce some electricity, however small that may be. You can say that it wouldn't be COMMERCIALLY feasible, but no question about its scientific feasibility.
From you post, it seems like it is working in a frictionless environment, which is not the fact.

[RED DAVE]

How [the drinking bird] works


The drinking bird is a heat engine that exploits a temperature differential to convert heat energy to a pressure differential within the device, and perform mechanical work. Like all heat engines, the drinking bird works through a thermodynamic cycle. The initial state of the system is a bird with a wet head oriented vertically with an initial oscillation on its pivot.

The process operates as follows[1]:

1. The water evaporates from the felt on the head.

2. Evaporation lowers the temperature of the glass head (heat of vaporization).

3. The temperature's drop causes some of the dichloromethane vapor in the head to condense.

4. The lower temperature and condensation together cause the pressure to drop in the head (ideal gas law).

5. The pressure differential between the head and base causes the liquid to be pushed up from the base.

6. As liquid flows into the head, the bird becomes top heavy and tips over during its oscillations.

7. When the bird tips over, the bottom end of the neck tube rises above the surface of the liquid.

8. A bubble of vapor rises up the tube through this gap, displacing liquid as it goes.

9. Liquid flows back to the bottom bulb (the toy is so designed that when it has tipped over the neck's tilt allows this), and vapor pressure equalizes between the top and bottom bulbs

10. The weight of the liquid in the bottom bulb restores the bird to its vertical position

11. The liquid in the bottom bulb is heated by ambient air, which is at a temperature slightly higher than the temperature of the bird's head.

If a glass of water is placed so that the beak dips into it on its descent, the bird will continue to absorb water and the cycle will continue as long as there is enough water in the glass to keep the head wet. However, the bird will continue to dip even without a source of water, as long as the head is wet, or as long as a temperature differential is maintained between the head and body. This differential can be generated without evaporative cooling in the head—for instance, a heat source directed at the bottom bulb will create a pressure differential between top and bottom that will drive the engine. The ultimate source of energy is the temperature gradient between the toy and the surrounding environment—the toy is not a perpetual motion machine.

A recent analysis [2] showed that the evaporative heat flux driving a small bird was about 0.5 W, whereas the mechanical power expressed in its motion was about 50 microwatts, or a total system efficiency of about 0.01%. More practically, about 1 microwatt can be extracted from the bird, either with a coil/magnet or a ratchet used to winch paperclips.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird

RED DAVE

[Lynx]

Carnot efficiency is applicable only to heat engines. This is a combination of a heat pump and an engine and that's how it had gained a 105% efficiency.
A heat pump and a heat engine together CAN NOT GAIN 105% EFFICIENCY? JUST IMPOSSIBLE, At least, the drinking duck toy can do that for more than 2600 years. I think the patent examiners are not LESS knowledgeable than people here.
A heat pump is the reverse cycle of a heat engine. You can use Carnot efficiency equations to rate heat pumps.
105% suggests 105 watts output for every 100 watt input. No such device exists.

[pranabjyoti]

A heat pump is the reverse cycle of a heat engine. You can use Carnot efficiency equations to rate heat pumps.
105% suggests 105 watts output for every 100 watt input. No such device exists.
This patent shows that such device exists and can exist. The drinking duck is an example of such existing device.

[Lynx]

This patent shows that such device exists and can exist. The drinking duck is an example of such existing device.
The drinking duck has a total system efficiency of .01%
I suspect the equivalent rating for the above patent is 5%.

[pranabjyoti]

The drinking duck has a total system efficiency of .01%
I suspect the equivalent rating for the above patent is 5%.
.01% of which energy source?

[Lynx]

.01% of which energy source?
In RED DAVE's post there is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

A recent analysis [2] showed that the evaporative heat flux driving a small bird was about 0.5 W, whereas the mechanical power expressed in its motion was about 50 microwatts, or a total system efficiency of about 0.01%. More practically, about 1 microwatt can be extracted from the bird, either with a coil/magnet or a ratchet used to winch paperclips.
This means the power available to the drinking bird is 0.5 watt. It is able to convert .01% of that power (50 microwatts) into movement.

If its efficiency were 105% then 0.525 W would be 'produced' for every 0.5 W 'consumed'. This violates the law of conservation for energy, or the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[pranabjyoti]

In RED DAVE's post there is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

This means the power available to the drinking bird is 0.5 watt. It is able to convert .01% of that power (50 microwatts) into movement.

If its efficiency were 105% then 0.525 W would be 'produced' for every 0.5 W 'consumed'. This violates the law of conservation for energy, or the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Man, the drinking duck isn't a bird at all, it's a toy. Therefore, it has no connection to ANY kind of real bird. Kindly think about the source of energy in depth. In case of any bird, the power stored in its food is the source of energy. THE DRINKING DUCK DON'T EAR ANY FOOD AT ALL.

[ZeroNowhere]

You are not comprehending the post which you responded to.

[Lynx]

Do not feed the troll. QED

[Ovi]

You cannot make a device that taps into any one region and converts heat into work, and have it keep doing this in repeated cycles. You can turn heat into mechanical work if you have two regions that are at different temperatures. You must arrange for heat to flow from the higher temperature region to the lower temperature region, and some of the heat that takes that path is diverted to the task of doing work.
You are confusing heat with thermal energy. Heat is defined as the amount of thermal energy transfered from one body to another. Obviously thermal energy can't be transformed in mechanical energy in a monothermal cyclic process, but heat implies differences in temperatures which can be made into work.

Man, the drinking duck isn't a bird at all, it's a toy. Therefore, it has no connection to ANY kind of real bird. Kindly think about the source of energy in depth. In case of any bird, the power stored in its food is the source of energy. THE DRINKING DUCK DON'T EAR ANY FOOD AT ALL.
The drinking duck is not a perpetual motion machine, thus it doesn't violate any thermodynamic principle. The reason why our electricity isn't generated by drinking ducks is cost: it outweighs any other form of generating electricity, including solar, wind or geothermal, making it impractical. Why? Because of the very low efficiency; if you'd have bothered to look at this psychrometric chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/PsychrometricChart-SeaLevel-SI.jpg) you'd have noticed for instance that the wet bulb temperature at 20 C dry bulb temperature and 60% relative humidity is 15 degrees C. That means the highest efficiency possible, the Carnot cycle efficiency, is (20-15)/(273+20)=1.7%=impractical. The temperature difference of 5 C is even smaller than the typical difference between night and days which clearly shows that such a device can't generate any significant temperature difference to make it worthwhile.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do not feed the troll. QED
Silly Lynx, Pranab doesn't live UNDER A BRIDGE. Nor do they TURN to stone in sunlight. THEY DON'T EVEN CAPTURE PRINCESSES.

[pranabjyoti]

The drinking duck is not a perpetual motion machine, thus it doesn't violate any thermodynamic principle. The reason why our electricity isn't generated by drinking ducks is cost: it outweighs any other form of generating electricity, including solar, wind or geothermal, making it impractical. Why? Because of the very low efficiency; if you'd have bothered to look at this psychrometric chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/PsychrometricChart-SeaLevel-SI.jpg) you'd have noticed for instance that the wet bulb temperature at 20 C dry bulb temperature and 60% relative humidity is 15 degrees C. That means the highest efficiency possible, the Carnot cycle efficiency, is (20-15)/(273+20)=1.7%=impractical. The temperature difference of 5 C is even smaller than the typical difference between night and days which clearly shows that such a device can't generate any significant temperature difference to make it worthwhile.
Actually you are confused between commercial and scientific feasibility. The drinking bird just showed that such machines can be possible in reality and it's now our duty to make such a machine that can commercially profitable. It is the need of the hour now. The human kind need such machine to continue its existence on Earth.

[mikelepore]

More importantly, human society hasn't yet made extensive use Faraday's discovery of 170 years ago that relative motion between a coil and a magnet will generate a current. With all the wind and water and magma swirling around on this planet, there must be a huge number of new ways to produce relative motion between two objects.

My pet peeve is the skinny construction of wind turbine blades, designed so that much more wind misses the blades than hits it. I argue that their design should be more like a pinwheel toy, so that the surface area is maximized. If they were made of fabrics developed for ships' sails, the maximizing of surface area could be achieved without making the mass excessive.

[pranabjyoti]

More importantly, human society hasn't yet made extensive use Faraday's discovery of 170 years ago that relative motion between a coil and a magnet will generate a current. With all the wind and water and magma swirling around on this planet, there must be a huge number of new ways to produce relative motion between two objects.

My pet peeve is the skinny construction of wind turbine blades, designed so that much more wind misses the blades than hits it. I argue that their design should be more like a pinwheel toy, so that the surface area is maximized. If they were made of fabrics developed for ships' sails, the maximizing of surface area could be achieved without making the mass excessive.
Extracting atmospheric heat is a far more easier option than this.

[ckaihatsu]

In RED DAVE's post there is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

This means the power available to the drinking bird is 0.5 watt. It is able to convert .01% of that power (50 microwatts) into movement.

If its efficiency were 105% then 0.525 W would be 'produced' for every 0.5 W 'consumed'. This violates the law of conservation for energy, or the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Anytime someone claims that a *conversion* of one form of energy into another is a "violation" of some law of physics it's most likely because they're forgetting that conversions happen *across* physical domains, or types, of energy -- laws of physics address linear operations within *closed*, or single-context, environments. So it's the fallacy of assuming a *closed*, linear *context* when in fact the context is a *non*-linear, or *complex*, one.





Example

A geothermal heat pump operating at COPheating 3.5 provides 3.5 units of heat for each unit of energy consumed (e.g. 1 kWh consumed would provide 3.5 kWh of output heat). The output heat comes from both the heat source and 1 kWh of input energy, so the heat-source is cooled by 2.5 kWh, not 3.5 kWh.

A heat pump of COPheating 3.5, such as in the example above, could be less expensive to use than even the most efficient gas furnace.

A heat pump cooler operating at COPcooling 2.0 removes 2 units of heat for each unit of energy consumed (e.g. such an air conditioner consuming 1 kWh would remove heat from a building's air at a rate of 2 kWh).

The COP of heat pumps (300%-350% efficient) make them much more efficient than high-efficiency gas-burning furnaces (90-99% efficient), and electric heating (100%). However, this does not always mean they are less expensive to operate. The 2008 US average price per therm (100,000 BTU) of electricity was $3.33 while the average price per therm of natural gas was $1.33.[1] Using these prices, a heat pump with a COP of 3.5 would cost $0.95[2] to provide one therm of heat, while a high efficiency gas furnace with 95% efficiency would cost $1.40[3] to provide one therm of heat. With these average prices, the heat pump costs 32% less[4] to provide the same amount of heat. The savings (if any) will depend on the actual cost of electricity and natural gas, which can both vary widely.

Conditions of use

While the COP is partly a measure of the efficiency of a heat pump, it is also a measure of the conditions under which it is operating: the COP of a given heat pump will rise as the input temperature increases or the output temperature decreases because it is linked to a warm temperature distribution system like underfloor heating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

[Lynx]

The article doesn't specify what the efficiency rating is calculated on. And its not a heat pump.

[mikelepore]

Extracting atmospheric heat is a far more easier option than this.

What kind of machine are you proposing?

A temperature gradient must be used.

--

"It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

--

"Only by transferring heat from a warmer to a colder body can heat be converted into work in a cyclic process."

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~cassano/atoc5050/Lecture_Notes/wh_ch3_part4.pdf

[red cat]

I really know almost nothing about this, but how about using the motion of water ? I mean like the oceanic tides or even waves in general ?

[pranabjyoti]

What kind of machine are you proposing?

A temperature gradient must be used.

--

"It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

--

"Only by transferring heat from a warmer to a colder body can heat be converted into work in a cyclic process."

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~cassano/atoc5050/Lecture_Notes/wh_ch3_part4.pdf (http://atoc.colorado.edu/%7Ecassano/atoc5050/Lecture_Notes/wh_ch3_part4.pdf)
Kindly go through the semi-imaginary experiment below and try to find out any fault.
I want to discuss about Carnots theorem with some little imaginary addition and alteration to real experiment. In a real experiment of Open-Cycle OTEC by Dr. L.A.Vega, it is found that with a temp. diff. of 20ºC (25ºC and 5ºC) and with a steam flow rate of 26 kg/sec, the gross output is 1838 kW. The energy spent in diff. stages are 334 kW for cold water pumping from a depth of 1000 m, 284 kW for hot water pumping, 80 kW for the compressors i.e. vacuum pumps and 14 kW for pumping desalinated water to the shore. In total, the net output is 1126 kW.
Now, lets keep the whole system intact but just replace the cold water pumping with a heat pump of c.o.p of 3 and an input value of 364 kW and the whole system will deliver its heat to raise the temp. of the vapor. Then the output would be 1092 kW of heat and that means 260 kcal of heat and that will raise the temp. of the 26 kg vapor by 10ºC. then this hot vapor will be used to produce electricity and if a 20ºC temp. diff. can produce 1838 kW of electricity then 10ºC temp. diff. can produce 919 kW of electricity I suppose as per Carnots theorem on efficiency of heat engines without going into further complicated details. Then by subtracting all other energy expenditures, we can get a net output of 177 kW of electricity and that is done without using the released cold gas of the heat pump at the condenser for your satisfaction. I am very much sure that if the heat pump will be further used to cool the condenser at the same time, and then we can get at least a temp. diff. of 30ºC and the gross output would be 2757 kW and the net output of 2015 kW of electricity, certainly an improvement over 1126 kW of net output. The more the input in the heat pump, the more will be the net output.
This imaginary experiment clearly shows that even without violating laws of thermodynamics, machines and systems can be built that could extract such heat from atmosphere and convert it into electricity with a positive energy balance. Skeptics please try to clear your point clearly; don’t just say this machine violates laws of physics.
Can anybody tell me what is the flaw in the above-mentioned experiment without just by saying that this violates laws of thermodynamics? I want him/her to properly point out the flaw (and very much sanguine that he/she couldn’t).
N.B; don’t disturb me by asking for T-S, P-V diagram etc. or entropy calculation. If you wish, why don’t you do that by yourself? I know, when processes are real, their combination is also real and doesn’t violate any law of thermodynamics.

[Ovi]

Actually you are confused between commercial and scientific feasibility.
Of course it's about commercial feasibility. We might as well extract energy out of hamsters running in a wheel, the problem is that, just like your design, it's completely impractical. Put the same labor into wind turbines or solar panels and you get far more power.


N.B; don’t disturb me by asking for T-S, P-V diagram etc. or entropy calculation. If you wish, why don’t you do that by yourself? I know, when processes are real, their combination is also real and doesn’t violate any law of thermodynamics.
If you wanted to make a point you were the one supposed to calculate the efficiency of the design, all the working parameters and the cost/KWH . Yes cost. Just because we are socialists that doesn't mean we should revert to stone age productivity. But on the contrary.

[revolution inaction]

Kindly go through the semi-imaginary experiment below and try to find out any fault.
I want to discuss about Carnots theorem with some little imaginary addition and alteration to real experiment. In a real experiment of Open-Cycle OTEC by Dr. L.A.Vega, it is found that with a temp. diff. of 20ºC (25ºC and 5ºC) and with a steam flow rate of 26 kg/sec, the gross output is 1838 kW. The energy spent in diff. stages are 334 kW for cold water pumping from a depth of 1000 m, 284 kW for hot water pumping, 80 kW for the compressors i.e. vacuum pumps and 14 kW for pumping desalinated water to the shore. In total, the net output is 1126 kW.
Now, lets keep the whole system intact but just replace the cold water pumping with a heat pump of c.o.p of 3 and an input value of 364 kW and the whole system will deliver its heat to raise the temp. of the vapor. Then the output would be 1092 kW of heat and that means 260 kcal of heat and that will raise the temp. of the 26 kg vapor by 10ºC. then this hot vapor will be used to produce electricity and if a 20ºC temp. diff. can produce 1838 kW of electricity then 10ºC temp. diff. can produce 919 kW of electricity I suppose as per Carnots theorem on efficiency of heat engines without going into further complicated details. Then by subtracting all other energy expenditures, we can get a net output of 177 kW of electricity and that is done without using the released cold gas of the heat pump at the condenser for your satisfaction. I am very much sure that if the heat pump will be further used to cool the condenser at the same time, and then we can get at least a temp. diff. of 30ºC and the gross output would be 2757 kW and the net output of 2015 kW of electricity, certainly an improvement over 1126 kW of net output. The more the input in the heat pump, the more will be the net output.
This imaginary experiment clearly shows that even without violating laws of thermodynamics, machines and systems can be built that could extract such heat from atmosphere and convert it into electricity with a positive energy balance. Skeptics please try to clear your point clearly; don’t just say this machine violates laws of physics.
Can anybody tell me what is the flaw in the above-mentioned experiment without just by saying that this violates laws of thermodynamics? I want him/her to properly point out the flaw (and very much sanguine that he/she couldn’t).
N.B; don’t disturb me by asking for T-S, P-V diagram etc. or entropy calculation. If you wish, why don’t you do that by yourself? I know, when processes are real, their combination is also real and doesn’t violate any law of thermodynamics.

your previose posts leave me with the impression that you don't realy care about the science, but here are some remarks on your scheme.

you appear to be suggesting using a vacuum pump to reduce the boiling point of water so that it will vaporise at room temperature, and then the using the water vapor to produce energy? don't you see the problem with this? steam turbines and other kinds of steam engines are moved by the high pressure steam moving from the boiler to the lower pressure atmosphere, but in you plan the water vapor is at lower pressure than the atmosphere, how can any energy be extracted from it?

secondly you appear to propose that a heat pump be used to provide the heat the power a heat engine, which is used to power the heat pump. given that nether the heat pump or the heat engine will be 100% efficient then this will not even be self sustaining. also the heat engine as described doesn't apper to work as i pointed out above.

I also think that if you are in any way serious about this you would have basic diagrams to show how it would work.

[ckaihatsu]

its not a heat pump.


Yes, it is.

[pranabjyoti]

Of course it's about commercial feasibility. We might as well extract energy out of hamsters running in a wheel, the problem is that, just like your design, it's completely impractical. Put the same labor into wind turbines or solar panels and you get far more power.
Before, most of the posts talked about that such projects are "scientifically not feasible". Now, when a patent had been granted, then they are talking about commercial feasibility. In my opinion, commercial feasibility depends mostly on innovative capability.

If you wanted to make a point you were the one supposed to calculate the efficiency of the design, all the working parameters and the cost/KWH . Yes cost. Just because we are socialists that doesn't mean we should revert to stone age productivity. But on the contrary.
It's not my duty to produce all proof and you just have the right to make remarks. If you want to say that this technology violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then calculate the entropy and show at the end that the entropy of universe decreased at the end instead of increasing.

[pranabjyoti]

your previose posts leave me with the impression that you don't realy care about the science, but here are some remarks on your scheme.
you appear to be suggesting using a vacuum pump to reduce the boiling point of water so that it will vaporise at room temperature, and then the using the water vapor to produce energy? don't you see the problem with this? steam turbines and other kinds of steam engines are moved by the high pressure steam moving from the boiler to the lower pressure atmosphere, but in you plan the water vapor is at lower pressure than the atmosphere, how can any energy be extracted from it?
Kindly notice that in my imaginary experiment, there is a temp difference between Boiler and Condenser and that means pressure difference too.

secondly you appear to propose that a heat pump be used to provide the heat the power a heat engine, which is used to power the heat pump. given that nether the heat pump or the heat engine will be 100% efficient then this will not even be self sustaining. also the heat engine as described doesn't apper to work as i pointed out above.
Please stop using phrases like not 100% efficient kind of rubbish. A heat pump of c.o.p 3 is capable of making 90 °C temp diff theoretically and 50 °C in reality. I have proposed just 10 °C and still you are talking about not 100% efficient like rubbish.

I also think that if you are in any way serious about this you would have basic diagrams to show how it would work.
I have my diagrams but those are not for public display and discussion. You can understand the whole process if you kindly read the whole post with a little more attention.

[Lynx]

Yes, it is.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

"Ambient Energy Fueled Mechanical and Electric Power Plant" (AEFMEPP) generates mechanical and electric power from ambient energy in the environment.
Heat pumps do not generate mechanical or electric power, that is the function of a heat engine.

How is this contraption more efficient than a Stirling engine?

[pranabjyoti]

Heat pumps do not generate mechanical or electric power, that is the function of a heat engine.

How is this contraption more efficient than a Stirling engine?
This is just an example to show that such can be scientifically possible. A Sterling engine or basically any heat engine can ONLY work between a higher and a lower temp. But, this experiment shows that a heat pump and an heat engine combined together can extract atmospheric heat and can covert it into electricity successfully.
How is the magic done? By vacuum evaporation of water. The vacuum pump can operate betwen very low temp, but the amount of heat that it can gain is high because the heat is latent heat, which doesn't do any kind of change in temp or pressure. Thus the vacuum pump can act a heat pump of very high c.o.p. As per the experiments of open-cycle OTEC, just 3 kW of energy is necessary to make a vapor flow of 1 kg/sec, while the power embedded in the 1 kg/sec vapor flow is 2.31 MW. UNBELIEVEABLE? BUT IT IS A FACT.
If in the next step, this vapor can be heated and used to produce electricity, much less energy will be needed to heat up the vapor but the amount of electricity produced will be at the same level as a conventional thermal power plant.

[Lynx]

This is just an example to show that such can be scientifically possible. A Sterling engine or basically any heat engine can ONLY work between a higher and a lower temp. But, this experiment shows that a heat pump and an heat engine combined together can extract atmospheric heat and can covert it into electricity successfully.
How is the magic done? By vacuum evaporation of water. The vacuum pump can operate betwen very low temp, but the amount of heat that it can gain is high because the heat is latent heat, which doesn't do any kind of change in temp or pressure. Thus the vacuum pump can act a heat pump of very high c.o.p. As per the experiments of open-cycle OTEC, just 3 kW of energy is necessary to make a vapor flow of 1 kg/sec, while the power embedded in the 1 kg/sec vapor flow is 2.31 MW. UNBELIEVEABLE? BUT IT IS A FACT.
Concentrating or moving heat around doesn't violate the laws of physics. A mirror array can do this with sunlight.

If in the next step, this vapor can be heated and used to produce electricity, much less energy will be needed to heat up the vapor but the amount of electricity produced will be at the same level as a conventional thermal power plant.
What do you mean by conventional thermal plant? Atmospheric heat is more diffuse than geothermal, solar, chemical or atomic.

[pranabjyoti]

Concentrating or moving heat around doesn't violate the laws of physics. A mirror array can do this with sunlight.
I am not concentrating EM radiation, but rather atmospheric heat. In night and cloudy conditions, there will be no sunlight. But, in tropical and temperate zone, comparatively warm atmosphere can be found almost over the year.

What do you mean by conventional thermal plant? Atmospheric heat is more diffuse than geothermal, solar, chemical or atomic.
Well, kindly try to read and understand carefully the matter before making any remark. I want to say, when vapor will be produced, no latent heat of vaporization will be necessary afterward. What we need is just to heat up the vapor to desired temp, but that vapor can produce same amount of electricity that a conventional thermal power plant can produce.

[Lynx]

I am not concentrating EM radiation, but rather atmospheric heat. In night and cloudy conditions, there will be no sunlight. But, in tropical and temperate zone, comparatively warm atmosphere can be found almost over the year.
And you believe it is economical to spend energy to gather this heat?

Well, kindly try to read and understand carefully the matter before making any remark. I want to say, when vapor will be produced, no latent heat of vaporization will be necessary afterward. What we need is just to heat up the vapor to desired temp, but that vapor can produce same amount of electricity that a conventional thermal power plant can produce.
This is nonsensical. A conventional power plant uses steam turbines to generate electricity. Some newer ones use Stirling engines. Which do you propose is best for the type of thermal plant being discussed?

Heat gathered from the atmosphere is no more advantageous than if you had used energy to compress air or pump water into a reservoir.

[pranabjyoti]

And you believe it is economical to spend energy to gather this heat?{/QUOTE]
By vacuum evaporation, we can get 2.31 MW by just spending 3 kW, I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE. PLEASE DON'T CHALLENGE IT, IT'S TESTED AND VERIFIED. At the end, my calculations showed that we can get 1.5 MW of electricity by spending just 250 kW. If you can not believe it, its your problem, not mine.
[QUOTE=Lynx;1676307]This is nonsensical. A conventional power plant uses steam turbines to generate electricity. Some newer ones use Stirling engines. Which do you propose is best for the type of thermal plant being discussed?
The electricity generation part of my technology is same as that of any conventional thermal power plant. What is unique is the vapor production system.

Heat gathered from the atmosphere is no more advantageous than if you had used energy to compress air or pump water into a reservoir.
At least US patent examiners don't think in this way, as per granting the patent to the technology mentioned in the first post in this thread.

[Lynx]

And you believe it is economical to spend energy to gather this heat?
By vacuum evaporation, we can get 2.31 MW by just spending 3 kW, I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE. PLEASE DON'T CHALLENGE IT, IT'S TESTED AND VERIFIED. At the end, my calculations showed that we can get 1.5 MW of electricity by spending just 250 kW. If you can not believe it, its your problem, not mine.
You can get more electricity (or an EROEI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI)) by extracting from denser energy reserves like oil, coal or gas. This doesn't mean it is necessarily economical to do so.

The electricity generation part of my technology is same as that of any conventional thermal power plant. What is unique is the vapor production system.
What is unique about it?
Evaporative, condensing, compression cycles have been known for a long time. Meanwhile, energy is collected, not created. Carnot efficiency limits still apply.

At least US patent examiners don't think in this way, as per granting the patent to the technology mentioned in the first post in this thread.
Most patents sit around doing nothing. If you are interested in having this technology implemented, release it as an open source project. Patents only get in the way of action.

[Lynx]

Perhaps such a plant could be built in areas that are below sea level, like Death Valley, the Dead Sea, etc.

[pranabjyoti]

Perhaps such a plant could be built in areas that are below sea level, like Death Valley, the Dead Sea, etc.
No need for that. Seashore is the best place, which I designed for operation.

[revolution inaction]

By vacuum evaporation, we can get 2.31 MW by just spending 3 kW, I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE. PLEASE DON'T CHALLENGE IT, IT'S TESTED AND VERIFIED. At the end, my calculations showed that we can get 1.5 MW of electricity by spending just 250 kW. If you can not believe it, its your problem, not mine.


bullshit, evidence or gtfo

[pranabjyoti]

bullshit, evidence or gtfo
Kindly go to http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/07_landbased_OTEC.html. (http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/07_landbased_OTEC.html)
In the experiment, it has been clearly stated that 26.1 kg/vapor flow has been achieved using just 80 kW at the "compressors" i.e. at the vacuum pumps. I think you can understand that means 3 kW for 1 kg/sec vapor flow. And the amount of power embedded in 1 kg/sec vapor is (1000X550X4.2) W or 2.31 MW. IS IT CLEAR?

[Klaatu]

This sounds like an air conditioner running in reverse (generating electricity instead of using it) But, skimming the claim, one thing caught my eye:

"power extracting means extracting an amount of energy greater than 105% of the compressing energy"

This means that if we "extract" 105% of the "compressing energy," we are getting a device with only 5% efficiency. In other words,
100 joules input, 105 joules output. This is useless from a commercial standpoint, but interesting as a novelty only. :sleep:

[pranabjyoti]

This sounds like an air conditioner running in reverse (generating electricity instead of using it) But, skimming the claim, one thing caught my eye:

"power extracting means extracting an amount of energy greater than 105% of the compressing energy"

This means that if we "extract" 105% of the "compressing energy," we are getting a device with only 5% efficiency. In other words,
100 joules input, 105 joules output. This is useless from a commercial standpoint, but interesting as a novelty only. :sleep:
That's the point. New projects can be designed which can give us much more than 5%, upto 500% more of the energy consumed. Still, it is a viable technology, as it doesn't consume any fossil fuel.

[Klaatu]

I know a little bit about refrigeration and thermodynamics, and I do not claim to be an expert in this field,
but I do not see where you are getting 500% efficiency here. He is claiming 5%, that is all. How is a machine
like this going to generate useful power? Such a machine is not practical, considering that one of the most
inefficient of machines in usage, the internal combustion engine, is only around 30% efficient. It seems that
a 5% efficient device would be more expensive to build /maintain than it can export, in terms of useful energy.
Even wind turbines and solar panels claim efficiencies greater than 10%, double that of this contraption.

[pranabjyoti]

I know a little bit about refrigeration and thermodynamics, and I do not claim to be an expert in this field,
but I do not see where you are getting 500% efficiency here. He is claiming 5%, that is all. How is a machine
like this going to generate useful power? Such a machine is not practical, considering that one of the most
inefficient of machines in usage, the internal combustion engine, is only around 30% efficient. It seems that
a 5% efficient device would be more expensive to build /maintain than it can export, in terms of useful energy.
Even wind turbines and solar panels claim efficiencies greater than 10%, double that of this contraption.
I am not talking about the patent, I am talking about my design. Which can produce with 1 kg/sec vapor flow 1.5 MW gross output with just 250 kW input.
You have no idea about how useful and efficient this machines can be. This patent is just an example that this can be possible in reality. Now, it's our turn to invent much more efficient machines.

[Klaatu]

I would like to see your patent.

[pranabjyoti]

I would like to see your patent.
At present, the patenting cost is beyond my reach. But, at least this patent shows that I have a chance to get my patent application approved.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perpetual motion machines are bunk. Either this is some honest mistake, or it's a fraud.

[pranabjyoti]

Perpetual motion machines are bunk. Either this is some honest mistake, or it's a fraud.
The drinking duck is operating for more than 2600 years. And how can you say that a machine, that claims to extract atmospheric heat and convert it into electricity is a perpetual motion machine. What is your idea about a perpetual motion machine?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The drinking duck is operating for more than 2600 years.

You mean those stupid little toys? They do no useful work.


And how can you say that a machine, that claims to extract atmospheric heat and convert it into electricity is a perpetual motion machine.

Because it claims to use energy with a high degree of entropy, which means it either won't work or will have truly pathetic output.


What is your idea about a perpetual motion machine?

I think they're a waste of time. We'd be better off researching fusion.

[revolution inaction]

Kindly go to http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/07_landbased_OTEC.html. (http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/07_landbased_OTEC.html)

this is fundamentally different to the system that you describe, it is a form of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
which makes use of the natural difference in temperature between different layers in the ocean. while your system attempts to artificially create a temperature difference, a process that clearly takes more energy than can be extracted from the temperature difference.



In the experiment, it has been clearly stated that 26.1 kg/vapor flow has been achieved using just 80 kW at the "compressors" i.e. at the vacuum pumps. I think you can understand that means 3 kW for 1 kg/sec vapor flow.

no not true, it also requires " 334 kW for cold water supply pumping; 284 kW for warm water supply pumping; and 14 kW for desalinated water pumping"




And the amount of power embedded in 1 kg/sec vapor is (1000X550X4.2) W or 2.31 MW. IS IT CLEAR?

these numbers look wrong, the plant in the link you provide is "1.8 MW-gross" that is a lot less than what you are saying for 1/26th the amount of water vapor.
also how are you calculating the power from the vapor follow? could you show your working?

[revolution inaction]

I know a little bit about refrigeration and thermodynamics, and I do not claim to be an expert in this field,
but I do not see where you are getting 500% efficiency here. He is claiming 5%, that is all. How is a machine
like this going to generate useful power? Such a machine is not practical, considering that one of the most
inefficient of machines in usage, the internal combustion engine, is only around 30% efficient. It seems that
a 5% efficient device would be more expensive to build /maintain than it can export, in terms of useful energy.
Even wind turbines and solar panels claim efficiencies greater than 10%, double that of this contraption.

actually plants like the one in the link exist, although they are vary inefficient according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion the theoretical max effective is 7%
i had heard of the concept before but i didn't know anyone had actualy bult one until now, i suspect the most practical use for them may be providing fresh water not power.

[revolution inaction]

when i first read the title of this tread i was expecting that it would be some one taking the piss out of the patent office, i'm vary disappointed that instead at least one person thinks this lends legitimacy to this "invention", maybe they should check this out Lawyer moves to patent wheel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418165.stm)

[mikelepore]

Various writers here said that low efficiency itself makes a device impractical. That's not necessarity true. The output has to be compared to the initial cost and maintenance costs. There might be nothing wrong with making a power generator that's only 1% efficient, if you could build it for under $100 and then you get a little trickle of free power continuously for the next hundred years. It's necessary to see the whole plan.

[pranabjyoti]

You mean those stupid little toys? They do no useful work.
AS PER DEFINITION OF THERMODYNAMICS. IT'S A HEAT ENGINE.



Because it claims to use energy with a high degree of entropy, which means it either won't work or will have truly pathetic output.
Pathetic output is a result of bad design and thinking.



I think they're a waste of time. We'd be better off researching fusion.
Well, then better go and make a fusion thread and leave us alone here.

[pranabjyoti]

this is fundamentally different to the system that you describe, it is a form of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
which makes use of the natural difference in temperature between different layers in the ocean. while your system attempts to artificially create a temperature difference, a process that clearly takes more energy than can be extracted from the temperature difference.
I just want to discuss about the vapor production, not the other factors. In that page, it has been clearly stated that 80 kW is used by "compressors" i.e. vacuum pumps to produce 26.1 kg/sec vapor flow.

no not true, it also requires "[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT] 334 kW for cold water supply pumping; 284 kW for warm water supply pumping; and 14 kW for desalinated water pumping"
Cold water and desalinated water pumping isn't necessary for vacuum evaporation. We may consider the warm water pumping, but even with that, the power necessary for pumping rises to just 14 kW for 1 kg/sec vapor flow. KINDLY CONCENTRATE ON THE POINT, NOT ON UNNECESSARY DETAIL.

these numbers look wrong, the plant in the link you provide is "1.8 MW-gross" that is a lot less than what you are saying for 1/26th the amount of water vapor.
also how are you calculating the power from the vapor follow? could you show your working?
BECAUSE THAT PLANT HAS AN EFFICIENCY OF 3-4%. Kindly mutiply 1000 gm with 550 cal/gm of latent heat with heat to work conversion ratio 4.2 joule per calorie and you will get the 2.31 MW which I have stated.

[pranabjyoti]

Various writers here said that low efficiency itself makes a device impractical. That's not necessarity true. The output has to be compared to the initial cost and maintenance costs. There might be nothing wrong with making a power generator that's only 1% efficient, if you could build it for under $100 and then you get a little trickle of free power continuously for the next hundred years. It's necessary to see the whole plan.
With proper design by using counter current heat exchange and also by use of vacuum pump, we can increase the efficiency upto much higher level.