It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 137
74
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
I have a relative who swears his 63 Beetle is getting double the mileage or some garbage, and keeps insisting I give him the funds to build one and install it in my vehicle.


That's a weird and complex area. Can you run a crude electrolyzer from your alternator and somehow get more energy out than you put in, no, not happening.

However, if the question is "Can you cause a net improvement in gasoline combustion efficiency by adding in a small amount of hydrogen", then that's a different kettle of fish.

Stripped of all the HHO hocus pocus (that's just a way to add in a mystery point - it's not just hydrogen and oxygen from a crappy electrolysis cell...IT'S BROWN'S GAS!!) you have to explore whether there's something going on that can improve or worsen engine efficiency through a secondary effect.

As far as I can tell, no valid tests show any net gain, and the few non-woo companies that have given it a shot have dumped it. It's sort of like the thing where people were adding acetone to their gas a few years ago. Didn't make sense, chemically, but everyone was saying it made a big difference. So I tried it in my old BMW for several months, and damn if I didn't see an improvement. So I changed tack, and got the old lady to either add or not add acetone to each tank, randomly, and give me a code number for that tank's fuel consumption. She kept track if that code # was acetone or no, and I kept track of the fuel consumption.

When I didn't know if she was doing it or not, I got the same MPG for either acetone or not. I was unconsciously adjusting my driving habits to be more efficient, if I knew there was acetone in the gas.

That to say, if your relative's electrolyzer rig doesn't cause an obvious difference in drivability on or off, I'll bet you he will get the same mileage if it's randomly changed from one week to the next. Test blinding is a powerful tool.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

As far as electric, aren't the batteries kind of an issue to deal with when they expire?

I have been told why hydrogen isn't viable before, but I kind of wonder if things ever change to the point where something that was impossible before, might become a reality. (that new thread about the high sped drive prompted these questions)

And yes, I was roped into the Stanley Meyer thing a while ago, which prompted my interest in hydrogen. (an yes, I understand why his stuff wouldn't work.)

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain all that in laymens terms.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Bedlam

As far as electric, aren't the batteries kind of an issue to deal with when they expire?


You bet..."And in all electric cars, you will have to replace/rebuild the battery, which will take energy and will have a cost associated with it. Better batteries/chemistries may mitigate this."



I have been told why hydrogen isn't viable before, but I kind of wonder if things ever change to the point where something that was impossible before, might become a reality.


Well, if we had hydrogen wells, that would be good.

Reasonably, a really good, really cheap electrolyzer/fuel cell combo would make hydrogen a lot more wonderful for buffering up secondary energy sources like wind and solar. If you had fusion reactors that were cheap and ubiquitous (skunk works et al) you could start thinking about reforming atmospheric CO2 and water into natural gas for autos.

Short of that, I'm thinking that newer battery chemistries will end up with direct storage holding its own over hydrogen.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Following the particle codes for this universe
Is it possible to extract or remove electrons
from atoms to compress matter to travel through
and then return the extracted electrons to the matter
in order to return the coded region back to its original form

So you would emit a laser or wave or rings flow of electron displacement material that would compress basically space. Then somehow travel through the compressed space. And once travel is completed re expand "space"

1 is not licensed in Quantum Physics, so its understood if the question does not "fit"

What happens in reality is sort of the opposite of that, but not exactly.

The interstellar medium (spaces between the stars) has hotter regions and cooler regions. In the hotter regions, the electrons are separated from the protons, and these regions are less dense. Why is this opposite of the compression you suggest? When you separate the electrons from the protons, it generally takes up more space, not less, largely because it takes higher temperatures to keep the electrons and protons separated and as a general rule, hotter things take up more space than cooler things (all else being equal), which is why hot air balloons work. But you usually have to get matter a lot hotter than the air inside a hot air balloon to ionize it, which means separate the electrons.

edit on 2015730 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I don't doubt that the bias of the tester can affect the outcome. And I'm confident that it is entirely possible to run a small electrolysis rig from a car alternator. But, like anyone else who has looked at this situation objectively, I also have no doubt that it is a complete waste. And there's no way in hell I'm going to believe that it managed to double the fuel economy in a carburetor intake 63 VW engine.

And as always, thank you for your response.
edit on 30-7-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
oh oh I got one. no weird question this time I promise.

I understand when you have a cup of coffee and dump a dollop of creamer in there you can observe a Raleigh Taylor instability.

could one say the surface of the sun is or is similar to a Raleigh Taylor instability with the sunspots n all happening? different densities of gasses boiling around gravity weighing them down magnetic fields and heat pushing them around.

either way I wanna know more about plasma Raleigh Taylor instabilities. so if anyone has something neato about them I'd love to learn about it.



ok fun question for you guys now.

the one hit wonder band Evanescent....in light if their career, one of the most aptly named bands in history? what say you? evanecent... get it?!?


ok, ok the

stupid but fun physics question.

what's more fun to watch slow motion video capture of. elastic collisions or inelastic collisions? any examples to share?
edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

In addition to questioning fuel efficiency claims, bias and accuracy, I'd have some concerns about the effect on engine components of burning hydrogen in an engine designed to use gasoline. If you got a small increase in miles per cost of fuel but this was offset by a much larger increase in the cost per mile of engine maintenance, you wouldn't be saving any money, but I rarely see people figure this in to their calculations, and in many cases they don't even seem to consider it.

This paper implies adding some hydrogen may have some benefits but it also raises alarms for me in that such maintenance costs aren't evaluated (that takes a lot more work), but they give some clues about why it should be evaluated, talking about more heat, and more friction (see my emphasis in the quote below), where more friction means generally more wear and more maintenance costs:

Effect Of Brown Gas On The Performance Of A Four Stroke Gasoline Engine (pdf)

Fig 11 Comparison B/W Mechanical Efficiency (ηm) In Gasoline & Brown Gas at Different Load Conditions

Graph Interpretation: For the same engine running at constant speed the mechanical efficiency obtained from the blending mixture of brown gas and petro is less in comparison to that of pure petrol. This decrease in mechanical efficiency is probably because of the increase in frictional losses due to the large amount of heat produced by the combustion of mixture of brown gas and petrol.
Mechanical efficiency is lower, which isn't good. But aside from the efficiency effects of the frictional losses, what are the mechanical/maintenance costs? The lack of information answering this question is staggering considering the number of people promoting this idea who seem to have not even thought about asking the question, though you can occasionally find a guy who ran a hydrogen conversion who tells you how great it ran until his engine died (which for all I know could have been a premature death).



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
are there any natural or unnatural processes that will create chenkorev radiation in relatively undense mediums such as regular old atmosphere?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
are there any natural or unnatural processes that will create chenkorev radiation in relatively undense mediums such as regular old atmosphere?


Yes.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

good enough an answer for me.

but bedlam you still haven't answers the important questions yet.

evanecent one of the most appropriate band names ever?

elastic or inelastic collisions which ones look cooler in slow mo in your opinion?

also surface of sun. example of Raleigh Taylor effect? or just some churning magnetic fields that make the suns surface look cool like its boiling.





edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

good enough an answer for me.

but bedlam you still haven't answers the important questions yet.

evanecent one of the most appropriate band names ever?


If they aren't very long lived. Or if they're playing in a place where the sound can't propagate.



elastic or inelastic collisions which ones look cooler in slow mo in your opinion?


Elastic



also surface of sun. example of Raleigh Taylor effect? or just some churning magnetic fields that make the suns surface look cool like its boiling.


I don't know. I know you have R-T instabilities in a lot of high-energy physics. It's one reason the plasma bloom speaker sounds so hissy and crappy.







posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Sunspots form because magnetic fields block energy from the suns interior making that spot cooler.

As to how the magnetic field forms to block it we believe hydrogen is the answer. The sun is extremely hot (an average of 9944 degrees Fahrenheit, or 5,500 degrees Celsius). This means the hydrogen in the sun is ionic Ed single ataoms. Now when the magnetic field effects the flow of plasma h2 can form. This hydrogen bonding decreases the pressure in that area which also creates our magnetic field. Throw in the spin of the sun and you create plasma tubes.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

regarding plasma bloom speaker. did shape of bloom make a difference? like round orb shaped was best for fidelity, or no, elliptical acted like a speaker diaphragm best. or as long as the plasma was present in any shape even a shoestring shape like a lightning bolt or filament would do to convert electric signals into acoustic vibrations? was it like "damn wind ruined our perfectly good plasma bloom! (crosses arms and pouts) now our scary Darth Vader voice sounds like an angry chipmonk! no ones gunna be scared of that now!"



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

regarding plasma bloom speaker. did shape of bloom make a difference?


From what I recall, it was a slightly lop sided sphere.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

cool.

you say loss of fidelity occurred due to Raleigh Taylor instabilities.

would landau dampening work to reduce the Instabilities and help maintain fidelity? or is that more for dampening against outside forces like acoustic pressure via plasma resonance. or would that lead to just a secondary scattering effect and actually worsen the fidelity.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

So I changed tack, and got the old lady to either add or not add acetone to each tank, randomly, and give me a code number for that tank's fuel consumption. She kept track if that code # was acetone or no, and I kept track of the fuel consumption.



+1 for using a code in the blind study...I hope your wife appreciated your objectivity and didn't see it as an additional burden on her time.

Not related:

Was thinking about the inertia question relating to acceleration during space travel (as discussed in another thread) and wondered if it would be possible to create a true "inertial negater" using the Diamagnetic properties of Biological organisms to offset the effects of speed change.

Rationale would be that if a frog can be made to levitate, would it be feasible to create a 3d sphere of high power magnets (some sort of superconductor material) that are under granular control of a computer and suspend the human in a tolerable, diamagentically controlled environment within...?

When rapid acceleration is required the Astronauts jump in their spheres, close the door and the Diamagentic inertial negaters spin up and hold all the Astronaut atoms in place until the speed change has occurred .


Think I'm probably missing something but would appreciate clarification on principles ( why hasnt a human been Diamagnetically levitated yet might be a good alternative answer)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Got a link to the levitating frog? That sounds rather interesting. Or terrifying, if you're the frog.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone
Ever hear of Transcranial magnetic stimulation?

One of the challenges in studying it is the difficulty of creating plausible placebo effects with the following symptoms:


It is difficult to establish a convincing form of "sham" TMS to test for placebo effects during controlled trials in conscious individuals, due to the neck pain, headache and twitching in the scalp or upper face associated with the intervention.[6][8] "Sham" TMS manipulations can affect cerebral glucose metabolism and MEPs, which may confound results.
These magnetic fields aren't strong enough to levitate a human. They are about 2 Teslas, and the field that levitates the frog is 16 Teslas, but it would take even more to levitate a human because I think frogs have higher percentage water content. Even these much weaker fields can cause "neck pain, headache and twitching in the scalp or upper face", and even metabolism side effects, so do you really think it would be safe to subject humans to much stronger magnetic fields? I don't think the frog ever answered any questions about how it felt while being levitated.

But, leaving the health issues aside, let's say you could constrain an astronaut with magnetic fields somehow using the diamagnetic properties of their water content. That doesn't cancel inertia.

If you subject them to high accelerations, you've still got a field gradient and you'd still have the rest of their body tissues being compressed against the field, you're just substituting the field for the cushion on the back of the chair they sit in now on takeoff. Removing the chair and replacing it with something else doesn't change the inertial effects, which is basically what you're suggesting if I understand your proposal.

Now if you're wondering if you could prevent this compression by changing the magnetic field gradient somehow, I won't go so far as to say that's impossible, but I don't know of a way to do it. It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it can be controlled precisely enough in three dimensions, plus you've got other serious problems with the idea. One is that the magnetic effect uses primarily the diamagnetic properties of water, but different body tissues have drastically different water content, so you could end up with water-laden soft tissues getting ripped from bone if you're trying to counteract extreme inertial effects using technology that is dependent on the water content of the body tissues.

You get a star for creative thinking though.


a reply to: pfishy
Here's the frog:
Diamagnetism


A live frog levitates inside a 32 mm diameter vertical bore of a Bitter solenoid in a magnetic field of about 16 teslas at the Nijmegen High Field Magnet Laboratory.


edit on 2015731 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think I can speak for the frog about how it felt.
"Oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap."

Thanks for the link. Neat stuff.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id say worse than a couch cusion. You being suspended just means you have more time to build up momentum before hitting the wall. Can we say splat.




top topics



 
74
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join