Air Lift Turbine Generator

[Fool]

.

Your a numbskull.

You're way of base. And childish to boot.

You are using a constant volume model, for claimed adiabatic, with work process. Constant volume processes can only reduce pressure by conduction heat out to a available cold plate. Where are you getting the 150 K to cool it?

In other words how do you plan to reduce the pressure? Something in your description is missing.

.

[Fool]

.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4684

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Your a numbskull.

You're way of base. And childish to boot.

You are using a constant volume model, for claimed adiabatic, with work process. Constant volume processes can only reduce pressure by conduction heat out to a available cold plate. Where are you getting the 150 K to cool it?

In other words how do you plan to reduce the pressure? Something in your description is missing.

.

It's in the math. An "idealization". It doesn't require a practical explanation any more than how can a Carnot engine operate.

You have the state of one mole of gas at a certain volume and pressure. The ideal gas law, the math, says it will be 150°K.

You could imagine the mole of gas is compressed inside a glass vessel. The vessel is within our atmosphere at 300°K

Break the vessel. The pressure the instant the glass breaks dropped by 1/2. Before the gas had time to absorb any heat and expand the temperature fell by 1/2 due to the absence of 1/2 the pressure.

That might be one way, But the "process" is irrelevant in an "ideal" mathematical model.

You should be used to that sort of thing. Thermodynamics is replete with 'impossible" mathematical models of cycles and what not.

You're always harping on how "science is mathematics", now you are questioning the math? Shame.

At any rate, take the REAL example of the guy with his new compressor making "snow cones".

By the time the air hits the wall it has, no doubt, already absorbed a lot of heat mixing with the 300°K ambient air.

If it were, instead released into an insulated bag or balloon (adiabatic) it would be much colder.

The same way you can make dry ice.

https://youtu.be/g8hJyR6P-qM

The towel provides some insulation so when the CO2 gas is released from pressure it does not immediately absorb heat.

Under pressure it was a gas at 300°K

Release it from pressure and the temperature drops to -109°F

Why does the CO2 gas condense into a solid rather than "expand forever"? I wonder..

[Tom Booth]

I think, probably, logically the gas did not "condense".

Rather, under pressure it was a gas. When the gas was released from that pressure the temperature of some of the gas dropped so that it formed a solid before it had an opportunity to expand.

That is what the ideal gas law calculator shows. The temperature of the gas at the instant the pressure goes to 1 ATM before the gas expands and before it absorbs any heat.

[Tom Booth]

....
...
A link to John Crowley:

https://independent.academia.edu/JohnCrowley45

You'd think that he'd at least mention PKK or Flooid Power if he were connected to a free energy device that actually worked.

My guess is the power companies that list his name, do so without any real connection....

Your links yielded zero information to enlighten us regarding that alleged connection....

What the hell are you talking about? One of those links is to his profile on the Ki-Tech "Who we are" website itself:

https://www.ki-tech.global/about-us

His "alleged connection" with KPP is not in question.

twitter_post.jpg (132.15 KiB) Viewed 1424 times

[Fool]

.

You're getting further off base. You are a erroneously assuming V1=V2=0.4 for any 'expansion'.

Volume gets larger when there is an expansion. How much depends on what process. A piston moving outwards, Joule-Thomson into a bag, constant Volume non expansion by heat conduction, all have different volumes as endpoints going from P1=2•P2, 2 atmospheres P1, to one atmosphere P2.

All three states change when compressed air leaves a shop compressor.

Volume gets larger.
Pressure goes down.
Temperature decreases.

P1•V1/T1=P2•V2/T2

I don't know where you are getting this magic V1=V2=0.4 for anything that you can call an 'expansion'. V2 will be different from V1 in your claimed expansion.

In other words, are you claiming an expansion or constant volume?



Try the calculator with different volumes, with the same change in pressure P/2.

P1×V1÷T1 = P2×V2÷T2 for the following four:

2×0.4÷300=1×0.4÷150 constant volume no expansion (your's).

2×0.4÷300=1×0.2÷75 compression V2 smaller than V1.

2×0.4÷300=1×0.8÷300 expansion, isothermal, V2 larger than V1.

2×0.4÷300=1×0.6÷225 different amount of expansion, less, V2 larger than V1.

Note: Left side, starting point, always the same. You can cut and paste any one of those eight sides into your phone's calculator and get the same number after hitting the '=' button. They are all equal 0.00266666666--- .

In other words, four different processes, ending at four different points all with the same values. Five if you count the starting point. They all are are valid PV=nRT results, and they all end at different temperatures. That states nR is constant.

The process determines the end states.

You can even plug those numbers in, for P, V and T, into an online calculator and see for yourself. T2 will be different.

.

[Fool]

.

What the hell are you talking about? One of those links is to his profile on the Ki-Tech "Who we are" website itself:

https://www.ki-tech.global/about-us

His "alleged connection" with KPP is not in question.

His "alleged" connection, is what is being questioned, along with his qualifications, what he says about PKK, and all.

Anyone can create a profile, real, fake, or stolen without permission, and link it to their website. The difference between you and me is, you believe PKK cannot tell a lie, where, because of claims of laws of physics being broken, I'm skeptical and am looking for realistic explanations. Lies are one possibility.

The link I gave:

https://independent.academia.edu/JohnCrowley45

Appears to have no connection to PKK, but does appear to be connected to John Crawley. It doesn't appear to even mention the world changing event that PKK claims. I could be wrong, it might be in there, but I was unable to find any connection. No description. No professional analysis. Please post a link of Mr. Crawley's analysis, or his description. Not as you seem to be doing, sourcing all your information from KPP and cohorts.

.

[Fool]

.

I believe the following YouTube link is the one the person is looking for on the alternate site.

https://m.youtube.com/@JohnIwaszko/videos

If you want you may post it there for that person. Thanks.

.

[Fool]

.

Being that this is another alleged energy scheme, it should have the following kink posted as well:

https://www.livescience.com/55944-perpe ... hines.html

.

[Tom Booth]

.

You're getting further off base. You are a erroneously assuming V1=V2=0.4 for any 'expansion'.

Volume gets larger when there is an expansion. How much depends on what process. A piston moving outwards, Joule-Thomson into a bag, constant Volume non expansion by heat conduction, all have different volumes as endpoints going from P1=2•P2, 2 atmospheres P1, to one atmosphere P2.

All three states change when compressed air leaves a shop compressor.

Volume gets larger.
Pressure goes down.
Temperature decreases.

P1•V1/T1=P2•V2/T2

I don't know where you are getting this magic V1=V2=0.4 for anything that you can call an 'expansion'. V2 will be different from V1 in your claimed expansion.

In other words, are you claiming an expansion or constant volume?



Try the calculator with different volumes, with the same change in pressure P/2.

P1×V1÷T1 = P2×V2÷T2 for the following four:

2×0.4÷300=1×0.4÷150 constant volume no expansion (your's).

2×0.4÷300=1×0.2÷75 compression V2 smaller than V1.

2×0.4÷300=1×0.8÷300 expansion, isothermal, V2 larger than V1.

2×0.4÷300=1×0.6÷225 different amount of expansion, less, V2 larger than V1.

Note: Left side, starting point, always the same. You can cut and paste any one of those eight sides into your phone's calculator and get the same number after hitting the '=' button. They are all equal 0.00266666666--- .

In other words, four different processes, ending at four different points all with the same values. Five if you count the starting point. They all are are valid PV=nRT results, and they all end at different temperatures. That states nR is constant.

The process determines the end states.

You can even plug those numbers in, for P, V and T, into an online calculator and see for yourself. T2 will be different.

.

Yes, well a Carnot engine is also impossible in real life, that does not prevent it's bring held up as an absolute standard.

Likewise, in the real world air released from an air tank expands, but that is beside the point.

Obviously these advanced principles are way over your head, given your limited 1820's "classical" understanding.

[Tom Booth]

.

What the hell are you talking about? One of those links is to his profile on the Ki-Tech "Who we are" website itself:

https://www.ki-tech.global/about-us

His "alleged connection" with KPP is not in question.

His "alleged" connection, is what is being questioned, along with his qualifications, what he says about PKK, and all.

Anyone can create a profile, real, fake, or stolen without permission, and link it to their website. The difference between you and me is, you believe PKK cannot tell a lie, where, because of claims of laws of physics being broken, I'm skeptical and am looking for realistic explanations. Lies are one possibility.

The link I gave:

https://independent.academia.edu/JohnCrowley45

Appears to have no connection to PKK, but does appear to be connected to John Crawley. It doesn't appear to even mention the world changing event that PKK claims. I could be wrong, it might be in there, but I was unable to find any connection. No description. No professional analysis. Please post a link of Mr. Crawley's analysis, or his description. Not as you seem to be doing, sourcing all your information from KPP and cohorts.

.

This nonsense does not warrant a response.

Your last two are off topic and I don't know what you're talking about regarding some person on some "alternative" site.

[Fool]

.

Sandy is the poster.

I'm not going to join just to post a reply. So as a kindness I asked ask if you might.

.

[Fool]

.

The John Crawley connection sure is nonsense. Thanks.

.

[Fool]

.

Likewise, in the real world air released from an air tank expands, but that is beside the point.

Good. That is the point. The volume gets larger, so the new volume needs to be incorporated in the calculation. As I stated in my first attempt to help you in calculating the end temperature. Temperature doesn't go as low as just a pressure change would appear, because volume gets larger.

I am schooled in 1980's thermodynamics. An improvement by 160 additional years of science and mathematical improvement. You have no education remotely close to the study I've done. And you are denying it and me, and anyone else that you don't understand and disagree with. Take a step back. It isn't that hard to learn, it's just slightly painful.

.

[Fool]

.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4621

.