Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 06:39:58 UTC No. 16379663

Cool

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:41:56 UTC No. 16380446

>>16379663
Yes kinetic energy gives very dramatic results for the joules invested.

By contrast, a 100kg human body at a body temperature of 310 Kelvins contains over 92,000,000 joules of heat energy.

The 'problem' with kinetic energy is that converting other forms of energy to and from kinetic is incredibly inefficient and laborious.
Only like 25% of the chemical energy in gasoline actually ends up converting into kinetic energy. And that's in artificial engines that have been meticulously designed to maximise efficiency.
The human body will burn like 10x as much chemical energy to produce a given amount of eventual kintetic energy.

That also works in the reverse. The reason why being struck by relatively small amounts of kinetic energy can cause such destruction to molecular structures is because they have no way of actually absorbing/converting that energy into other forms. It just carries on straight through them as kinetic force, tearing them apart. They have no way to deal with it.

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:17:06 UTC No. 16380497

Physics are a cruel mistress.

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:56:30 UTC No. 16383019

>>16379637
imagine if there was an explosive with the energy density of gasoline

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:57:40 UTC No. 16383022

>>16380446
*subverts thermodynamics*

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:54:26 UTC No. 16383236

>>16383022
Nah, you're retarded...

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 15:05:15 UTC No. 16383251

>>16379637
>Mechanical kinetic energy = thermodynamics energy
If only.

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 15:16:56 UTC No. 16383265

>>16379637
>58 mph
25.926 m/s
>62,500 lbs
28,349.52 kg
Try again?

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 22:38:36 UTC No. 16383877

>>16383236
>single image as pdf
nah, the retard is you

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 22:48:28 UTC No. 16383889

>>16380446
>Only like 25% of the chemical energy in gasoline actually ends up converting into kinetic energy. And that's in artificial engines that have been meticulously designed to maximise efficiency.
EVs just can't stop winning

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:06:09 UTC No. 16384702

>>16379637
That was before Trump got cheated out of his second term. Big macs got nerfed so much they ain't worth half of that.

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 16:00:28 UTC No. 16384753

>>16383022
>concentrator
>output is larger than input
The only thing that's been subverted are your two braincells

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 16:10:06 UTC No. 16384767

>>16383889
Now remind me, how is electricity made?

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:00:16 UTC No. 16384830

>>16384767
with solar panels
nta btw

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:06:47 UTC No. 16384839

An american eats big mac with large fries and regular cola:
>Now I have become Death, the destructor of worlds

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:09:26 UTC No. 16384842

>>16379637
imagine believing burning a big mac would produce enough energy to get a firetruck up to 60 mph.

Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:10:27 UTC No. 16384844

>>16384842
Replace the engine with bicycle and enough gears and it might be done

Anonymous at Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:21:45 UTC No. 16385411

I would enjoy the fire truck much more

Anonymous at Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:09:56 UTC No. 16387595

>>16384753
>output is larger than input
You mean the cooler radiator has a larger surface area? Cooler objects radiate less energy. To ensure both radiators release an equal energy of photons, the cooler radiator must be larger than the hotter one.

Anonymous at Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:27:21 UTC No. 16387616

>>16384767
Where I live, most of our power is natural gas and nuclear. I get your point about fossil fuels, but burning gas in an ICE is not as efficient, nor are the emissions able to be filtered as well as power stations. Also, granted that you're comparing so many variables that things get too muddied to say exactly what sort of ratios work out better (battery life, available charging stations affecting trip distance, engine idle time, blah blah), but we're generally not talking about Chinese coal plants belching out soot to rival industrial England. Then there's the fact that commuter emissions are dwarfed by industrial and agricultural impacts, so it really doesn't matter in the big picture.

Anonymous at Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:24:43 UTC No. 16387749

>>16383236
Have I interpreted your drawing right?
I suspect that you won't harvest energy; the perpetualness of your machine is coming from a portion of the heat energy of Loop 1 being converted to work via the turbine, then transmitted through the shaft to the compressor, where it's converted to heat & pressure in Loop 2. This heat is then returned to the boiler.

Anonymous at Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:29:32 UTC No. 16387756

>>16383236
>>16387749
Green arrow highlights where I think energy is recirculating. This energy is initially pushed into the machine by the starter motor.
Most of this energy is lost each cycle by the turbine, due to inherent Carnot inefficiencies. This lost energy escapes via the condenser.

Anonymous at Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:30:56 UTC No. 16387758

Whoops, pic
>>16383236
>>16387749 (You)
Green arrow highlights where I think energy is recirculating. This energy is initially pushed into the machine by the starter motor.
Most of this energy is lost each cycle by the turbine, due to inherent Carnot inefficiencies. This lost energy escapes via the condenser.

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 08:03:03 UTC No. 16391026

>>16383022
What kind of magic can produce a lossless engine that doesn't radiate heat away?

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 08:50:04 UTC No. 16391062

>>16387749
You've got it.

I've even though of a version with, condenser having Loop 3, with another compresor#1, that will heat up stage between heat exchenger and compresor#1.

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 08:52:38 UTC No. 16391066

>>16387758
I've somehow assume, that Catnot's theorem doesn't apply due to the fact it's not reversible heat engine.

Compressor can reach COP of over 4 so you'd need turbine with atleast 0.25, to keep it spinning after starters impulse.

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 12:04:12 UTC No. 16391233

>>16391026
The low temperature heat sink of the heat engine is the "low temperature" radiator.
I'm assuming a simple carton efficiency limited heat engine so we only have to deal with minimal variables.

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 13:36:49 UTC No. 16391349

>>16379637
>mph
>pounds
>Joules
pick a fucking system already, dummy

Anonymous at Sat, 21 Sep 2024 23:57:44 UTC No. 16392167

>>16391062
When air is compressed, it heats up. The amount of thermal energy stored in a mass of air depends on it's specific heat.
Here's a table of thermal energy with temperature. I've added a column showing the difference in thermal energy between heated air samples vs 20C 1bar air, as 20C air has 353.0J of thermal energy.

I've assumed specific heat of air stays at 1kJ/kg, and that 1.204kg/s of air was compressed. I've also assumed the specific heat doesn't change with temp/pressure. I don't think the variability of specific heat is that important.

My question is how much work is required to compress air? An online calculator is giving energies less than the energy difference from ambient.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Sep 2024 00:16:10 UTC No. 16392200

>>16380446
>The reason why being struck by relatively small amounts of kinetic energy can cause such destruction to molecular structures is because they have no way of actually absorbing/converting that energy into other forms. It just carries on straight through them as kinetic force, tearing them apart. They have no way to deal with it.
Interesting way of looking at it.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Sep 2024 00:18:57 UTC No. 16392204

>>16387616
>Then there's the fact that commuter emissions are dwarfed by industrial and agricultural impacts,
You're overstating it. Transportation emissions are the single largest share of the pie and people-moving is a large share of it.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Sep 2024 00:22:07 UTC No. 16392207

>>16391349
It's roughly equivalent to 8 bananas for scale.

Or about 0.8 μSv.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Sep 2024 11:36:19 UTC No. 16392725

>>16392167
Simulation of turbine efficiancy is my biggest problems, when it comes to gas I know that p*V=nRT