|
A Joke by a Great Scientist or Reality?
full version of this article is here
The debate surrounding alternative
energy sources has not died down but is becoming more burning with every
passing day. This article partly (and maybe directly) discusses the material
published in issue No 3 of the
“Alternativnaya Energetika I Ekologiya” (“Alternative
Energy and Ecology”) magazine in 2005,
an article entitled
“A new generation of damless hydroelectric stations
based on hydro-energy units”.
Background
A group of engineers has constructed
a hydraulic turbine to receive energy from a free flow of water (a free flow
hydraulic unit). However, when its capacity was measured it was established
that it generated more energy than it was designed for. It is well-known
that a flow of water has kinetic energy that can be extracted (which is what
free-flow turbines do). However, it is impossible to extract all of its
kinetic energy. In order to do this, the flow should be stopped completely
and then it would cease to be a flow. That is why the velocity of water flow
at the exit from a working unit of turbine is slower than its flow at the
entrance – it is precisely this difference that defines the efficiency of
any facility. When the velocity at entrance is 1 m/s and at the exit it is
0.5 m/s we can extract 75% of kinetic energy from the flow.
(Ein - Eout ) / Ein = (Vin 2
– Vout 2 ) / Vin 2
(existing free-flow turbines have an
even lower figure)
As we have already mentioned, this
facility produced even a greater amount of energy than the total kinetic
energy of the flow.
Where does this additional energy
received from the facility come?
Does the flow of water have kinetic
energy only?
(Here we do not consider the
internal (thermal) energy of water or the energy of the intermolecular and
interatomic bonds of water as a substance.)
Let us try to answer these
questions.
Let us take one cubic metre of water
(with dimensions of 1m * 1m * 1m) flowing with a velocity of 1 m/s.
There is no doubt about its kinetic
energy, which is:
Ek = m * V 2 / 2 =
1000(kg) * 1(m/s) 2 / 2 = 500 (Joule )
However, there is also pressure by
the top layers of water on the bottom ones (potential energy). If we let
this cube of water spread, then we can extract it. Considering that the
gravity centre of the cube is at the middle of its height, that is h = 0.5
m, it is equal to:
Ep = m* g * h = 1000(kg) *
9.8 (m/s2) * 0.5(m) = 4900 (Joule )
This means that the potential energy
of this cubic metre of water is up by almost 10 times on its kinetic energy.
It is easy to calculate that, at a speed of 0.5m/sec, this difference will
amount to almost 40 times!
In other words, we can see that – in
addition to the kinetic energy – the flow also has potential energy whose
magnitude depends on the flow’s depth. But its exergy (that is the
recoverable energy which is able to actually work) is equal to zero at
regular conditions. After all, any volume of water is surrounded by water
with the same characteristics (depth, speed, temperature). This can also be
related to the air. We know that the air surrounding us has a significant
amount of energy because the air has non-zero pressure and temperature. But
for the same reason mentioned previously, its exergy is equal to zero and it
is, therefore, useless from the energy viewpoint (later we will see that it
is not useless all the time).
(Brodyanskiy V.M “Exergic analysis. Energy: the problem of quality” “Nauka i
Zhizn” (“Science and Life”) #3, 1982)
Now let us imagine that we are
extracting part of kinetic energy from a cubic metre of water, which is
flowing within a current, and use it to “move aside” the cubic metre of
water that follows it (downstream). That is we will speed up the downstream
cubic metre of water by slowing down the upstream volume of water. As a
result, a level difference arises between them and potential energy emerges
in the difference between these levels, which can be extracted from the
current. The following question arises: will the amount of the extracted
potential energy be more, less or equal to the energy used to speed up the
second cubic metre of water – or, in other words, the energy expended to
increase its kinetic energy?
Let us resort to mathematics.
As an example, we will consider a
machine that is shown as a diagram on Picture 1, which makes it possible to
speed up the outflowing stream of water by extracting part of the inflowing
stream’s energy - that is, a machine with positive feedback between the
energies of the inflowing and outflowing streams. By the way, a machine that
works on this very principle has been invented. It is this machine that our
story started with.
Explanations for Fig. 1:
1
- Working parts of the inflowing stream of water;
2
- Working parts of the outflowing stream of water;
3
- Working parts ensuring positive feedback between the inflowing and
outflowing streams of water;
4
- Mark showing the level of the inflowing stream of water;
5
- Mark showing the level of the outflowing stream of water;
6
- Channel bed
H1
– Actual depth of the inflowing stream of water
H2
– Depth of the outflowing stream of water
V1
– Velocity of the inflowing stream of water
V2
– Velocity of the outflowing stream of water
h
– Drop between the levels of the inflowing and outflowing streams of water
The
device works based on the following principle:
The
working parts of the inflowing stream 1 extract part of the kinetic
energy from the stream and transmit it - with the help of the positive
feedback 3 - to the working parts of the outflowing stream 2,
which give the outflowing stream additional acceleration.
Because
the amount of water entering the device is equal to the amount of outflowing
water, and the speed of the outflowing stream is higher than that of the
inflowing stream, then the sectional area
of the outflowing stream will be less than that of the inflowing stream.
Therefore, its depth H2 will be less than the depth of the inflowing
stream H1 by the value h. As a result of this, potential
energy appears between the different levels of the inflowing and outflowing
streams.
The
device’s energy balance is as follows:
E =
Ep1 + Ek1 – Ek2
The total
output of energy from the device is equal to the potential energy of the
difference between the marks plus the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream
and minus the kinetic energy of the outflowing stream.
After omitting all the computations, we have:
or
where M is the weight of the
water entering the device in a unit of time, which is equal to the density
of water multiplied by the active area of the inflowing stream and
multiplied by its velocity.
Then the most interesting aspect
occurs. It can be seen that the left side of the equation, which is in
brackets, will increase in a linear fashion when it depends on h or
in a hyperbola when it depends on V2, whereas the right part will
decrease, and in a parabola at that. Which side will gain the upper hand?
Let us plot a graph showing energy’s
dependence on the drop between the levels h. The graph will be
plotted to show the various levels of the inflowing stream’s velocity V1
after designating it as a constant.
It is a paradox! The graph showing
the energy’s dependence on the drop between the levels h has an
extremum. On the rising branch of the graph, the energy balance will be
positive (the power factor > 1), i.e. the extracted potential energy will be
mostly expended as kinetic energy on speeding up the outflowing stream, and
the device will self-accelerate until it reaches the maximum.
The energy produced by the device at
this point will be several times the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream
- and under certain conditions, tens and even hundreds of times!
The speed of the outflowing stream
will be significantly higher (2 to 3 times as higher at times) than the
speed of the inflowing stream. Therefore, the kinetic energy of the
outflowing stream is 4 to 9 times the kinetic energy of the inflowing
stream.
Furthermore, the graphs show that
that not everything appears to be quite right with the inflowing speed. It
also has an extremum. To see this better, let us plot a 3D diagram.
Isn’t it beautiful?!
This is the dependence
on the outflowing speed.
However paradoxical this may seem at
first glance, but the diagrams show there is an optimal speed for the
inflowing stream. When it is exceeded, the device’s power capacity will
sharply fall. This is due to the fact that a significant amount of energy
needs to be spent on speeding up a stream that is flowing fast already.
Therefore, it can be seen that the
device can create a column of water for itself and is able to extract the
potential energy from an object (from a stream of water in this case)
without the expenditure of external energy.
Does this not remind you of
something? People who are knowledgeable about physics will immediately
exclaim: “Why, this is Maxwell’s demon!” Indeed! The much-discussed
Maxwell’s demon that has thus far been elusive. Many people will say that
Maxwell proposed his “demon” for thermodynamics, and here you are dealing
with hydrodynamics. Yes, but this does not change the essence of the matter
– we can extract from an object (in this case, a flow of liquid) the
potential energy that cannot be extracted in normal conditions. And we can
extract it without spending anything (without even building a dam!) at that.
It is true that not all of the potential energy can be extracted. Firstly,
the depth of the outflowing stream is not equal to zero. Secondly, part of
the potential energy extracted transforms into additional kinetic energy
splashed out with this flow. This energy is actually even greater than the
kinetic energy of the inflowing stream. However, this is the reward we
should give the “demon” so that it agrees to work for us.
As you see, the “demon” also “wants to eat”.
The
question may arise: “How does the outflowing stream, which has a shallower
depth, interact with the water flow around it, which has a normal constant
depth?” Here we have to recall that the velocity of the outflowing stream is
higher than that of the surrounding medium and this creates what is called
in hydraulics “hydraulic jump”, which equalises the discrepancy between the
kinetic and potential energies of the two flows. This “jump” is in essence
surf, a vortex in the flow.
The conclusions to be drawn from
what has been outlined above cannot be overestimated. In nature there exists
a process which makes it possible to extract energy which it was impossible
to extract in the past from any object - and this process has been
discovered! This is the principle of positive feedback that makes it
possible to transfer energy between different flows of energy sources.
There is the possibility of extracting free, environmentally-pure energy
from the environment, which was predicted by the great Scottish physicist
James Maxwell back in 1871 in the form of a jokey demon. Maybe it was
precisely because of this that it was always regarded as nothing more than a
joke by the great scientist. Or is it reality indeed?
It is not quite clear yet how it
works with thermodynamics and aerodynamics, but because this process exists
in hydrodynamics it should also exist in any other branch of physics. There
are some developments in thermodynamics and aerodynamics already. Even if
this process is not found for them in the near future and it drags on for
decades, then at least applying its hydrodynamic interpretation is already
promising mankind huge dividends in the form of free energy and an
uncontaminated atmosphere
In the next article, we will discuss
what seems as the utopian idea (possibility) of using this principle of
extracting energy on cars, and a hypothetical engine for them.
German Treshalov
is a hydro-energy engineer, head of the Engineering Research
Group to develop alternative sources of energy.
Copyright TiGER
erg@list.ru
01.08.06
Note: applications have been
submitted to obtain international patents for the methods of extracting
energy and designing devices that use this method and constructing such
devices.
-
V. Brodyanskiy “Exergetic analysis. Energy: the
Problem of Quality”, Nauka I Zhizn, No 3, 1982
- 2. N. Shchapov “Turbine
Equipment for Hydropower Stations”, Gosenergoizdat, 1961
-
N. Gulia “In Search of an Energy Capsule”,
a web publication
-
E. Oparin “Physical Foundations of Fuelless
Power-Engineering. The Limitation of the Principle of Entropy Increase”,
Moscow, URSS, 2004
-
L. Landau, A. Kitaygorodskiy “Physics for Everyone”,
Nauka, 1974
full version of this article is here
“Sarez, Rogun, Aral...”
article is here
“Juggling” With Molecules - or “The Emperor’s New
Clothes”
full version of this article is here
In the previous article
“A Joke by a Great Scientist or Reality?”,
we touched upon the seemingly utopian idea of creating cars that use the
operating principle described in that article - Maxwell’s demon.
Let’s make it clear from the very
beginning that this has nothing to do with water and the car will use as
fuel… warm air from the atmosphere. How do you like it? But is this idea
that utopian?
Let us try and look into the
hypothetical future.
Since we know that the air
surrounding us contains a considerable amount of energy, it is quite
realistic to imagine a car working literally on air. To all appearances, it
will have a large air inlet to suck in warm air, and its exhaust will be…
air cooled to, let’s say, minus 30 degrees, which will immediately mix with
the ambient warm air and will be ready again for the operation of the car
moving behind.
Curiously, these cars will
automatically keep a distance between themselves because it is impossible to
move in “the exhaust” of the car moving in front and they will have to wait
till the “fuel mixture” becomes ready for the following car.
It is true, though, that the cars
will move smoothly only in warm latitudes and in summer. As for cold
latitudes, cars emitting an exhaust with a temperature of minus 70 to 80
degrees will have to be manufactured. However, roads would then have to be
isolated from pedestrians. But can we not put up with this for the sake of
clean air?
Under no circumstances should such a
car have the usual type of engine - a heat engine. Otherwise, Carnot’s
formula will devour all the energy extracted from the air and will leave
nothing for Maxwell’s demon.
Is this utopia?
Let us consider everything in
detail.
To start with, let us calculate how
much energy is contained in the air surrounding us and see whether it will
be sufficient to move a car if it is extracted from the air.
Calculation: (the calculation is
approximate, only an estimate, and does not take into consideration some
details such as the change in the air’s thermal capacity when the
temperature changes)
The air’s thermal capacity C = 1
kJ/kg*K
Density of the air p = 1.28 kg/m3
Let us take the temperature of the
ambient air as equal to 20 degrees Celsius.
Cooling 1 m3 of air by 50
degrees releases energy
E = V * p * C *
T
(1)
E = 1(m3) * 1.28
(kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg* K) * 50 (K) = 64 kJ
(2)
The weight of an object multiplied
by its thermal capacity and multiplied by the difference between its initial
and final temperature.
A car needs 250 kJ of energy (10
grams of petrol) to move 100 m at a velocity of 60 km/h (the petrol’s
calorific value = 46 MJ/kg, the efficiency of the car’s internal combustion
engine is 40 to 60 %).
A car with an air inlet that has an
area of 0.5 m2 will pass 50m3 of air through while
moving this distance. By cooling all this air by 50 degrees, it is possible
to release
E = 50 (m3) * 1.28
(kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg * K) * 50 (K) = 3,200 kJ
(3)
As we already know, Maxwell’s demon
also needs energy to work, and therefore some of this energy will have to be
given to him. Some of the energy will be lost, but 3,200 – 250 = 2,950 kJ
(92 %) is a huge reserve. Because there’s a huge reserve, the area of the
air inlet and the exhaust temperature can be varied.
Let us say that with an air inlet
with an area of 0.3 m2 (which is roughly equal to the area of the
ordinary car’s radiator) and an exhaust temperature of minus 10 degrees, we
will have the following amount of energy
E = 30 (m3) * 1.28
(kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg * K) * 30 (K) = 1,160 kJ
(4)
As you can see, the reserve of
energy is still quite high.
The calculation shows, then, that if
we manage to extract energy from the air, it will be quite enough to move a
car.
And now to the main component of the
hypothetical car – its energy device, the engine.
What kind of device should it be, to
be able to take away energy from a cold body and give it to a hot one, thus
violating the fundamental law of the universe – the Second Law of
Thermodynamics? Does such a device exist? Yes, as it turns out! It was
invented almost 80 years ago. It is the
vortecal generator or Ranque’s vortex tube.
It was patented by French engineer Georges Ranque in 1933. Everyone apart
from the very disinterested should know by now that the device does work and
even generates more energy than it consumes.
It’s true, though, that so far they
have managed to generate from such devices only thermal energy, which
exceeds the expended energy by a factor of 1.5 to 2.
Does this mean that it violates the
law of conservation of energy? For its output-input ratio calculated with
the usual formula (generated energy divided by expended energy) exceeds 100
%. The output-input ratio of such machines is now cautiously called
“efficiency” (even though this parameter is not the output-input ratio, in
fact) to avoid coming into conflict with the fundamental laws of physics.
However, this does not change the
meaning. They generate more energy than they consume, and what’s more they
separate the flow of gas or liquid (the working medium (agent) for these
machines) into two flows: hot and cold. It’s noteworthy that that the cold
flow is colder than the initial (incoming) flow of the working agent, and
the hot flow is hotter, which is, as the theory goes, what is to be supposed
to be done by the oft-debated Maxwell’s demon that we have mentioned
already.
Performing calculations for the
machines is no trivial task, and no-one has done them with precision as yet,
which is evidently the stumbling block for introducing them universally.
In this case, by the way, another
interesting aspect and a reason for such insignificant use of Ranque Tube
should be considered. It should be noted that this device is mostly used
only as refrigerator (thermal pump). However, the majority of the users of
these units have acknowledged that these machines’ efficiency is extremely
low and that is why they are not often used.
Nevertheless, let us consider this
aspect more attentively.
Unlike heaters, in other words, the
units transforming any type of energy – electrical, chemical or kinetic,
into internal energy (that is, into heat), those devices that are used to
cool anything lower than the temperature of environment are heat pumps
(refrigerators).
In this case, they should not be
mistaken for coolers in which objects are cooled down to the environment’s
temperature only by transferring heat without using external energy. These
include radiators of all types, heat exchangers, cooling ponds and water
cooling towers at heat power stations and so on. The only energy that is
used in this case is the energy that a ventilator or a pump uses to force
the circulation of cooling agent (air, water, machine oil and etc).
However, the temperature in any part of this cooler in no case drops lower
than the environment’s temperature (according to the second law of
thermodynamics).
In heat pumps, heat is a mandatory
“co-product”, which is simply thrown out as wastes into the environment.
However, we keep forgetting that this heat is energy, and by throwing it out
we only decrease the unit’s efficiency (this energy is represented in the dominator of the performance index formula).
But it is indeed the main principle
of refrigerating devices’ work – unless we throw out “extra” heat, we will
not get the cold that we need. This energy is in no way utilized yet
because, in most of the cases, it is of low-grade energy against the
environment and extremely inefficient, and it is often just useless to try
to utilize it with available means.
At the same time, the following fact
is interesting – the more we want to cool an object, the more heat we will
have to throw out, thus decreasing the device’s efficiency – this is
obvious, isn’t it? In addition, if the hot air flow “thrown out” by Ranque
Tube, which is used as a refrigerator, has significant pressure and speed,
then it also decreases the efficiency of this kind of refrigerator.
By the way, one may think whether
the term “efficiency” can be applied (in a sense to which we got used to) to
heat pumps at all. The thing is the product we get from heat pumps is cold.
In other words, it is the negative energy against the environment. At the
same time, the efficiency, which is calculated with the standard scheme (the
derived energy divided by the consumed energy), takes on negative value. In
the same way, by the way, the efficiency of a heat pump, which is used as
heat source, proves to be absurd. It usually becomes more than 100 %!… It
depends on the type of a heat pump is being used, be it Ranque Tube, heaters
using Peltier effect or any other devices.
(V.M. Brodyanksiy “Exergic analysis.
Energy: the problem of quality” “Наука и Жизнь”
[Science and Life] 3, 1982) (http://www.erg.glb.net/exergy.doc)
Should one be surprised that the
efficiency of this kind of refrigerator will decrease as we cool the object
more and not use in any way the energy that is thrown out in the form of
heat. Further, a method of using this energy to increase the efficiency of a
device will be offered.
However, let’s get back to the
principle of Ranque Tube.
There are many theories for these
machines, explaining the reason why one flow cools down and the other heats
up. One theory says that the flow heats up because of friction with the
walls of the device, but that does not explain the cooling process.
Another theory explains this as an
adiabatic expansion of one part of the gas and contraction of the other
part, but this does not explain the appearance of additional energy.
Some theories for liquids (for water
in particular) explain this as the emergence of cavitation, others as
resonance, and still others as interaction between free molecules of
hydrogen and oxygen that are present in water, or, on the contrary, as bond
disruption. There are even theories explaining this as extraction of energy
from a “physical vacuum” that emerges while the device is working.
These effects may take place to a
varying degree in Ranque’s tube even though they often come into conflict
with one another.
We’d like to offer our own theory,
which we think does not conflict with any of the theories described above,
and which explains this effect from a single standpoint for both liquids and
gases.
To do this, we will need some
additional data.
The velocity of molecules of the air
at 0 degrees Celsius is equal to 400 m/s. However, this is the
root-mean-square velocity.
There are fast and slow molecules in
any gas (in the air, in particular). Their distribution by velocity is
determined by a graph – Maxwell’s distribution graph (Fig. 1). It was
precisely this distribution that Maxwell used as the basis to voice his
supposition about the possibility of sorting molecules using the
hypothetical “demon”.
Fig. 1. Maxwell’s
distribution by molecular speed
(on the X-axis – the absolute velocity of molecules, on
the Y-axis – their relative quantity in a volume of gas)
Let us imagine for a minute that we
have the “demon”. Let us see what he can accomplish by sorting molecules of
air by velocity.
Logic suggests that we can extract
the maximum amount of energy by dividing a volume of air into two parts
strictly down the peak in Maxwell’s graph. The graph shows that the volume
of hot air will be somewhat greater than that of cold air. It should also be
noted that with such a division neither the temperature of the hot flow nor
that of the cold one will have their maximum values.
To increase the temperature of the
discharged hot flow, we will need to shift the dividing point (“the working
point”) to the right. The shift will increase the hot flow’s temperature
whereas its volume will decrease because the percentage of high-velocity
molecules in it will increase but their absolute quantity will decrease. As
for the discharged cold flow, its volume will increase and its temperature
will also rise.
It is difficult to say what maximum
temperature the discharged air flow could reach in this way. Judging by the
graph, it is unlimited. But in practice, there must be a limit. All the more
so as the quantity of discharged hot air will keep decreasing and it will be
increasingly difficult to measure its temperature without the measurements
themselves causing errors in the flow. For example, how can we possibly
measure the “temperature” of the fastest molecule that we can find in the
surrounding air?
If we need to lower the temperature
of the discharged cold air, the “working point” will have to be moved to the
left. The temperature of the discharged cold flow will thus tend towards
absolute zero (-273 Celsius), while its volume will simultaneously decrease
to almost zero too.
But let us return to the process of
extracting the maximum energy from the air (this is what we need). The
root-mean-square velocity of the molecules that have entered the hot flow
will be approximately 700-800 m/s, which approximately corresponds to
500-600 degrees Celsius. In the cold flow, the speed will be approximately
200 m/s, that is a temperature of minus 100 degrees.
(These values are approximate, they
may be corrected in further drafts of the article.)
Let us now consider possible
processes taking place in Ranque’s tube. Let us not go into details about
its design. All the more so as there are a large number of them. Let us
consider it schematically, in longitudinal and cross-section.
Fig 2. Ranque’s vortex tube (scheme)
(The dotted line shows the provisional border between the
tangential and axial flows; the arrows show the movement of air flows.)
An energy carrier (air hereinafter)
is injected into the tube under high pressure. It will spiral along the
tube’s wall, turning into the tangential flow. Thanks to the tube’s design,
the axial flow appears in the tube’s centre. It moves in the direction
opposite to the tangential flow.
The ratio of the volumes of the two
flows is usually 1:4, 1:2 and 2:3, depending on the initial pressure of the
compressed air, its temperature and the device’s design. That is to say,
there is usually more hot air than cold air. Therefore, “the working point”
for sorting molecules is somewhere to the left of the middle of the graph.
What happens in the gas flows? The
velocity of the flows’ motion adds to the velocity of the Brownian motion.
However because on average the fast moving molecules travel greater
distances than the slow-moving molecules do, the probability of them being
caught in the tangential flow is higher than for slow molecules.
An example of this could be a
conventional still molecule located in the centre of the axial flow. Its
velocity will be set by the speed of the flow itself. The molecule, as well
as other molecules that do not wind up in the tangential flow while the
axial flow moves to the exit from the device, will be discharged within the
axial flow and will determine its temperature.
Let us move on. A fast molecule,
once it has been caught in the tangential flow, is now even less likely to
return to the axial flow because in addition to Brownian motion, it is now
impacted also by the centrifugal forces that seek to move it away from the
centre and thus prevent it from returning to the axial flow.
Therefore, fast molecules will
accumulate in the tangential flow while slower molecules will stay in the
axial flow. Due to this, the average velocity of the molecules in the
tangential flow will be higher than that of the incoming air and, therefore
its temperature will be higher while the opposite will be true for the axial
flow.
However, the linear velocity of
molecules cannot be used in the calculations for such devices. It is
necessary to use for these purposes the speed of diffusion, which is
considerably less than the average velocity of the molecules. But this does
not impact the principle of sorting molecules by velocity. And the
high-velocity molecules are still more likely to get into the tangential
flow than low-velocity molecules are.
Well then? We have learned how to
extract energy from the air. But our energy device seems to lack something…
This is what it lacks. The device consumes external energy – compressed air.
But because more energy is produced at the exit, why not return part of the
energy to the entry point, thus ensuring feedback between the flows of the
energy carrier?
How? Simply by returning part or all
of the hot flow back into the compressor (Fig. 3). This will increase the
pressure and temperature of the incoming compressed air and, therefore, will
increase the tangential speed and the molecule-sorting effect.
Fig. 3
It should be remembered that besides
the compressor must receive air from the atmosphere because that is where we
remove the energy from. In addition, no losses of heat (energy) should
occur in the compressor, i.e. the air compression should be adiabatic. Due
to this, the air may heat up to significant values (500-1,000 degrees
Celsius). But the temperature of the fuel mixture in the cylinders of the
ordinary car engine is also about 800 degrees Celsius.
How to take away the excess energy
to move the car? By using the difference between the temperatures of the hot
and cold flows to work a thermal machine? Under no circumstances! Otherwise
Carnot’s formula will “eat up” all the energy that was extracted with such
great difficulty.
One possible way of removing energy
is to install a turbine somewhere on the periphery of the tangential flow.
It will simultaneously feed both the car engine and the compressor. With
efficient feedback, the speed of the tangential flow will be sufficiently
high to cover all of the machine’s energy expenditure. After being
processed in the turbine, the tangential flow should have a lower speed, low
pressure and lowered temperature.
And now look here …
Fig. 4
Here it is – Maxwell’s demon
in the purest form, as created by the nature itself!
Let us look at the tornado. The
quantity of energy in the planet’s noosphere is always practically constant.
However, clusters of energy (whirlwinds, tornadoes, typhoons) appear in it
all the time. A tornado “pumps out” energy from the surrounding air, which
has greater entropy than the tornado itself, and decreases the entropy
inside itself! Who can argue with this?
It remains a mystery how under such
circumstances one could possibly conclude that entropy always grows. But
this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics – the Emperor of all of the laws
of physics, which has set the direction of developing energy engineering
on the planet for almost a century and a half!
Because the authority of the
scientists who formulated this law is extremely great, thus far no-one has
had the courage to say: “ But the Emperor has no clothes on! ”.
The similarity between the tornado
and Ranque’s tube is almost complete. The middle of the tornado, its “eye”,
cools down considerably with a considerable drop of pressure inside it.
There appears an ascending flow, which is directed upwards from the earth’s
surface. The tornado receives additional energy from the near-surface air
sucked in at its base.
And how do you like this one? Is
this just coincidence, isn’t it ?
Fig. 5
Spiral, whirlwind, cyclone, a tornado – SPINNING –
this is the very essence of the indefinite existence of the Universe!
Spinning can start from anything
whatsoever, from the spinning of the Earth on its axis, its spinning around
the Sun, the Sun’s spinning around the centre of the Galaxy, etc.
This effect of energy redistribution
manifests itself at any speed of spirally-twisted matter. It increases to a
greater degree when the speed increases. After one vortex breaks up,
another one appears, which again redistributes all the energy, and so on ad
infinitum.
In the next article we will reveal
how the “demon” turns into an “angel”.
German V. Treshalov
is the head of the ERG engineering research group that develops alternatives
sources of energy.
Copyright TiGER
erg@list.ru
20.09.06
Note:
1. All of the above calculations have been made for an ideal gas.
2. This article may not be republished for commercial purposes without the
author's prior consent.
Bibliography:
-
V. Brodyanskiy “Exergetic analysis. Energy: the
Problem of Quality”, Nauka I Zhizn, No 3, 1982
-
N. Gulia “In Search of an Energy Capsule”,
a web publication
-
E. Oparin “Physical Foundations of Fuelless
Power-Engineering. The Limitation of the Principle of Entropy Increase”,
Moscow, URSS, 2004
-
L. Landau, A. Kitaygorodskiy “Physics for Everyone”,
Nauka, 1974.
-
B.M. Yavorskiy, A. A. Detlaf, “Reference Book on
Physics”.
Publisher: Nauka. The main editorial office on physics and mathematics
literature, Moscow, 1979.
|
