| Author | Topic |
|---|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Tue, 08 October 2002 21:48
 
|
 |
E=mc^2 is what enabled them to split the atom, i think it describes any law of energy but honestly don't know, its the worlds most famouse equation yet hardly anyone knows what it really means  but there has been comments on the light which travels from the other side of the universe and they found that the light has actually slowed down a bit by the time it gets here so they are now trying to say light is not a constant speed  which throws out that equation E-MC^2
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 01:31
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 09 October 2002 01:48 |
E=mc^2 is just a theory, I don't think anyone can prove it right or not, it's just a good estimate, but I never heard this formula mentioned with "nuclear reaction",
|
Quoting from Einstein himself:
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 04:35
|
|
One of the problems with some of these equations is a few of the less reputable 'scientists' just made up equations that were not really accurate and they never meant them to be accurate... They simply made a name for themselves by making up bogus equations that had to be deemed correct until they were proven wrong. I believe this pissed off Einstein & other legit scientist because they had to waste their time proving these morons wrong...
...WAIT A SECOND!! WHATS THIS GOT TO DO WITH ELECTRIC SUPERCHARGERS?!??!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane - Chapel Hill
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 06:21
|
|
Good thinking, however all your theories miss one of the major determining factors to the failure of the perpetual motion machine. Energy is lost as Heat (from the reference frame we are talking about, which is the system converting one form of energy to another) Usually in the form of friction heating containing vessels, energy lost as heat to the surrounding atmosphere in the case of raising some chemical reaction above its activation energy etc
Every form of energy has its associated problems. Electrical energy is one of the best for mechanical motion however, with nearly 80% efficiency standard in electric motors. This is opposed to something like 40% in the internal combustion cycle.
Also, electric motors can produce massive amounts of Torque (turning force) which is great for burnouts!
The biggest problem with electricity is however, storage. Battery technology just isnt up to the standards we require to carry enough electrical energy for a vehicle with a comparable power output to an internal combustion engine. Hybrids seem to be a good compromise to this, but I dont think they'll be beating any RX7's in the near future. Electric motors could also have better packaging possibilities, not requiring drivetrains, g/boxes etc etc ...
On another point. Nuclear fuel is an excellent source of energy. I cant stand ill-educated people who discount it simply because they have heard of Cherynobyl (ever driven a Lada???) or were alive during the Cuban Missile Crisis and consequently think anything nuclear is bad!
Nuclear energy is clean and efficient. And in Australia, abundant. (So we sell it overseas) What people must realise is that Nuclear Fission produces far far less pollution per unit of energy than our current (Australia) means of producing electricity - burning coal.
This however does neglect the relative toxicities of the pollutants produced, but nuclear waste _is_ managable.
With the price of solar technology falling in the last decade, I know where I will be investing in the future. Fields of solar cells. High Investment, yet Low maintenance. 50-60% efficiency on reasonably cheap dies these days, up to 90% if you can afford the somewhat hit-and-miss production process. And what better form of energy is there than electrical energy? Unless you are moving, it has no weight!
Well this post is getting too long. If any of you wish to argue with me, remember one thing: I ride a bike to and from uni/work, so dont bring any of that holier than thou shit down on me regarding fast cars or motoracing! 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 10:33
|
|
i may be wrong here but i thought the most efficient solar cell was about 30% efficient and that was done by aSydney university, will have to get my mag out to check that though.
and its just about imposible to get anything fully ifficient, like we now have super conductors "metals with 0 resistance" so in theory you could connect a motor and generator up and they will run off each other non stop, BUT you have friction which will prevent that from happening, only way i see it would work with the two motors running off each other and that is by getting rid of the bushes or bearings and suspending the motor axes by a magnetic field, which that should happen anyway as superconductors don't absorb magnetic fields so there for they would be suspended in the air, but then you have air friction and only way around that is by doing it in a vacume, anyway who knows what i'm going on about all i know is it makes me sound smarter  
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 13:45
|
|
but in the end it's still not going to be 100% efficient as the resistance in the copper wire is already enough to produce a bit of heat, getting rid of that heat loses more efficiency..
nuclear energy is great, as long as the generator doesn't break down &/or leak, at the end of the generator's life, you'll need to isolate the generator somehow since there's still so much radiation in there to kill the whole city, the nuclear waste gets buried under the ocean, but one day we're going to run out of space (maybe?)
but still, it'd be nice to have a nuclear reaction in a car, as long as there's no accident!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Wed, 09 October 2002 21:49
|
|
| gt20v wrote on Wed, 09 October 2002 23:45 |
but in the end it's still not going to be 100% efficient as the resistance in the copper wire is already enough to produce a bit of heat, getting rid of that heat loses more efficiency..
|
Superconductors have no resistance, that makes a wire the size of a hair capable of carrying infanet amounts of current without burning out, as it has no resistance,
although at the moment there is currently only a few types of metals which they are able to turn into super conductors,
they found when they cool some metals down to around -300'C it turns into a super conductor which magnets will then repel themself from and also have 0 resistance,
only problem is how do you keep a large device "like a motor" down to that sort of temperature?
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 00:48
|
|
Here's an interesting calculation I thought of, so I could be a bit wrong.
Say you have a 3litre engine...I do so it's easy for me to calculate
3 litre capacity, engine sweeps or sucks that amount of air in two full cranks. So...Say that you have it running at idle, approx, 1000rpm when cold. You are sucking 500 times 3 litres in a minute.
1500 litres of air/minute at idle!!!...Now thats a lot of air.
Works out to be about 25 Litres/Second...Imagine trying to see that in motion...How damn fast do those turbos have to spin? well...
For turbo cars, because the air is under pressure, it would be more air than normal so it would be greater than 25L/sec...However, on the other side, because in na cars the air is under a vacuum, the value would be slightly less...
Interesting I think nonetheless.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 00:59
|
|
|
i couldn't get over my remote control cars engine, one cylinder 2 stroke revs up to 33,000rpm means the piston is goin up and down 550 times a second!!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 02:46
|
|
| frebbles wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 10:48 |
For turbo cars, because the air is under pressure, it would be more air than normal so it would be greater than 25L/sec...However, on the other side, because in na cars the air is under a vacuum, the value would be slightly less...
|
A piston engine is a positive displacement pump, which means it will always consume the same volume of air per revolution (if we ignore VE curves for the time being). A turbo will simply increase the mass of air being pumped into the engine; the volume remains the same. At the other end of the scale, closing the throttle will decrease the mass of air, but again the volume remains the same.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 03:28
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you guys say O2, are you refering to oxygen? I wasn't the best at science in school but oxygen on the periodic table was just 'O'
from memory, O2 is a compound called 'Dioxide'
Do they both work the same? Mangew, help us out here!
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 03:52
|
|
I'm pretty sure you'll find that your non-turbo 3 Litre engine doesn't fill up with 3 litres when it's running...
I'm unsure of the figure but it's less than half.
It can contain 3 litres but as the engine's running it will probably only suck in around 1.4 Litres(efi and a G head will suck in more).
This is where turbos come in;
Turbo's are used, so that they can push in more air to fill up the space in the motor (to get your around your full 3 litres), therefore using the motors' full potential.
When there's too much pressure (more than your 3 litres) in the motor you get detonation(or pinging).
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 04:06
|
|
O is oxygen, but because of it's outer valence it bonds to other molecules and must bond with another molecule. When it bonds with another oxygen molecule it becomes oxygen as it is in the atmosphere (O2).
However, unsure why but O3 (Ozone) is toxic to breathe and will kill you.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 04:31
|
|
ahh, thanks!
Yeah, when they eventually make air flow meters and knock sensors for lungs, we can suck in O3 all day at full boost. hehe
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane - Chapel Hill
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 04:40
|
|
I doubt that the cylinder could ever be completely filled with fuel mixture, but I dont have any figures on it.
The best way to think of turbo/supercharging is increasing the _effective_ compression ratio of the engine. It is however, a dynamic increase of course, depending on howmuch boost you are running... That worx for me anyway
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 05:37
|
|
| Norbie wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 12:46 |
A piston engine is a positive displacement pump, which means it will always consume the same volume of air per revolution (if we ignore VE curves for the time being). A turbo will simply increase the mass of air being pumped into the engine; the volume remains the same. At the other end of the scale, closing the throttle will decrease the mass of air, but again the volume remains the same.
|
Volume/mass, I always get mixed up...hehe, thanks 
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 05:41
|
|
Just something I though I should mention,
at the start T was saying about superchargers on motorbikes, I know you can get turbo kits for many different types of bikes now (efi 600cc and up). It'll set you back around $1,000 and you don't need any kind of engineers reports for them either.
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 05:55
|
|
Anyway back to the subject...
It's going to be hard to calculate what sort of volume of air your engine sucks without using the proper equipment.
But I think the point we're trying to get at is, it's a lot more than most people would expect.
|
|
|
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 06:15
|
|
| GIN51E wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 07:49 |
Superconductors have no resistance, that makes a wire the size of a hair capable of carrying infanet amounts of current without burning out, as it has no resistance,
although at the moment there is currently only a few types of metals which they are able to turn into super conductors,
|
of course super conductors have no resistance, and any metal is a superconductor at absolute zero (-273c -459f or 0 degrees kelvin) the conductor may become 100% efficient at that moment, but tell me the efficiency of the device keeping the conductor at -273c! Would it even be close to 40%?
I thought super-chargers and turbos are supposed to increase the "volumetric efficiency" of the engine, that's where the extra power comes from, efficiency?
an oxygen atom is negatively charged at -2 valency, it cannot exist by itself in the atmosphere, so it must be bonded to something else, same as hydrogen and nitrogen, they're all O2 H2 and N2, there's a few other gases too, but I don't think they exist so "naturally" like Cl2..
| Quote: |
The best way to think of turbo/supercharging is increasing the _effective_ compression ratio of the engine. It is however, a dynamic increase of course, depending on howmuch boost you are running...
|
I'm sure there's dynamic increase too, as a 8:1 turboed engine isn't really compressing the gases at 8:1, probably more like 12:1 or 13:1 or even more.. they talked about the static compression and the effective compression or something (can't remember the words)
but yeah... I noticed we have gone way off the topic, but we're still bringing up crazy ideas for our automobiles, even though there's so many problems associated with our ideas (mainly cost!  )
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 07:11
|
|
|
Oxygen gas exists as O2. O3 is ozone and O by itelf is just an oxygen atom.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 07:59
|
|
[quote title=gt20v wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 16:15]| GIN51E wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 07:49 |
I thought super-chargers and turbos are supposed to increase the "volumetric efficiency" of the engine, that's where the extra power comes from, efficiency?
|
Yes and no. There are different types of efficiency, and volumetric efficiency is simply the volume of gas consumed by the engine compared to its swept volume. That means a 3 litre engine with 100% VE will consume exactly 3 litres of air per cycle (ie two revolutions).
Of course forced induction can increase VE way above 100%, but some NA engines can get greater than 100% in certain conditions (usually via careful inlet and exhaust tuning).
So if you look at it that way, a turbo engine is more "efficient" than a non-turbo engine. However, if you're talking about thermal efficiency (ie percentage of energy extracted per unit of fuel) or fuel efficiency (distance travelled per unit of fuel), turbo/supercharged engines aren't necessarily any better and often they're worse.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: A really stupid idea, but hear me out...
|
Thu, 10 October 2002 09:35
|
|
[quote title=gt20v wrote on Thu, 10 October 2002 16:15][quote
of course super conductors have no resistance, and any metal is a superconductor at absolute zero (-273c -459f or 0 degrees kelvin) the conductor may become 100% efficient at that moment, but tell me the efficiency of the device keeping the conductor at -273c! Would it even be close to 40%?[/quote]
Read your books again, not every metal is a super conductor at -273'C all metals can become super conductors but they have to be at extreemly low temperatures, they have only got a few metals that they have made which are capable of becoming super conductors at 273'C but we will see this temperature drop as they find new alloying elements to help make the metal become a super conductor at a warmer temperature
|
|
|
