It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Frenergy

page: 2
3
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:38 PM

I did, and there were no experiments listed that I could see, only claims of 2 to 1 energy ratios.

As i say I am a complete novice ... But the presenter clearly states that that law is broken in experiments ... Could tyou please explain what a 2 to 1 energy ratio is ... if you can be bothered

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:40 PM

originally posted by: artistpoet

As i say I am a complete novice ... But the presenter clearly states that that law is broken in experiments ...

He could state that the earth is riding on the back of a triceratops, should we take him at face value?

Could tyou please explain what a 2 to 1 energy ratio is ... if you can be bothered

That the application in question is producing twice the energy that is being imputed.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:44 PM

And what happens when you factor in entropy to your equations?

Entropy is a dismal theory ... I do not believe it personally ...
Before the Universe came to be there was nothing ... something came from that nothing ... we came from that something ... It is all a matter of belief and the foundations they are built upon ...

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:46 PM

originally posted by: artistpoet
Entropy is a dismal theory ... I do not believe it personally ...

Your choice but entropy is part of the foundation of our universe and time proves that entropy occurs.

Before the Universe came to be there was nothing ...

I have not seen a theoretical model that postulates that 'something came from nothing'.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM

He could state that the earth is riding on the back of a triceratops, should we take him at face value?

Of course not ... I am now more curious to look at the show again and see what he is actually saying ...

That the application in question is producing twice the energy that is being imputed.

Maybe I am confused ... but if you are getting twice the energy you put in from something ... is that not breaking this law ... thank you for being patient

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:50 PM

I have not seen a theoretical model that postulates that 'something came from nothing'.

Sorry going off topic here but it still relates ... Then what caused the big bang if the big bang is true ...

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:54 PM

originally posted by: artistpoet
Sorry going off topic here but it still relates ... Then what caused the big bang if the big bang is true ...

There are several theories but none postulate it came from nothing. If you disagree then link one.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:01 PM

There are several theories but none postulate it came from nothing. If you disagree then link one.

These are my own thoughts ... which I could expand upon ... but it would be wildly off topic ... Like if I asked where God came from ... if you follow me ... but thank you for being patient and addressing my questions and points

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM

There are no experiments that show that law being broken.

I do apologise ... on further reading ... it is only claimed and as yet to be proven ... so I will butt out and just follow this thread and hopefully learn

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 04:24 PM

originally posted by: rkingpin
it will not cause much friction to really make a noticeable difference.

Have you done the math?

This is how regenerative braking works, but it stops the car.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:17 PM

originally posted by: Cuervo
But... it already does exactly that. An alternator does exactly what you say it can't do. The only difference would be putting more batteries in the car. If there wasn't a surplus, you wouldn't be able to start your car in the morning.
No that's not how it works. The more load you put on the alternator, the more gasoline is burned to power the alternator. The fact that it charges the battery doesn't mean there's surplus energy, it means that more gasoline was burned to recharge the battery, in addition to propelling the car.

If we use your definition of surplus then every time you fill your gas tank that's surplus energy. That's not a useful definition of surplus.

edit on 29-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:58 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Cuervo
But... it already does exactly that. An alternator does exactly what you say it can't do. The only difference would be putting more batteries in the car. If there wasn't a surplus, you wouldn't be able to start your car in the morning.
No that's not how it works. The more load you put on the alternator, the more gasoline is burned to power the alternator. The fact that it charges the battery doesn't mean there's surplus energy, it means that more gasoline was burned to recharge the battery, in addition to propelling the car.

If we use your definition of surplus then every time you fill your gas tank that's surplus energy. That's not a useful definition of surplus.

So when the battery is fully charged, the alternator no longer puts a load on the engine? I was under the impression that fuel was being consumed at the same rate regardless if the battery was full or not. I didn't know alternators were "smart" in that sense.

If that's how it works, then I'm totally looking at this wrong. Sorry. Dammit Jim, I'm a witch not a mechanic.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:36 PM

The alternator has a regulator to prevent over-charging the battery by stabilising the voltage, it works by monitoring the terminal voltage and modulating the field current. The battery in a car is only there to provide the energy to start the engine (so you don't have to crank it over by hand as you did 100 years ago) and once the engines running, that cranking energy must be replaced by running it long enough. Hence lots of short drives with frequent stop/starts results in a flat battery.

The alternator powers the entire electrical demand of the vehicle (lights, radio, ignition system, engine management etc) as well as recharging the battery for the next startup and all the energy is coming from the fuel tank. I've seen some rally cars set up with 2 alternators, the second one for powering the crazy amount of spotlights used when blasting through wilderness roads at night.

No free energy here, more energy out means more energy required in. Even re-generative braking is only recovering a tiny amount of energy originally sourced from the fuel tank to initiate motion in the first place.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:53 PM

originally posted by: Cuervo
So when the battery is fully charged, the alternator no longer puts a load on the engine? I was under the impression that fuel was being consumed at the same rate regardless if the battery was full or not. I didn't know alternators were "smart" in that sense.

If that's how it works, then I'm totally looking at this wrong. Sorry. Dammit Jim, I'm a witch not a mechanic.
Pilgrim is correct, alternators are "smart", smarter than generators. Here's a little bit of light reading on alternators versus generators:

Alternators versus generators

Alternators are considered more efficient than generators. Alternators conserve energy by using only the energy that is needed, while generators use all the energy that is produced.
Whether the alternator load goes to zero or not gets a little tricky and probably depends on the voltage regulator design, but while the engine is running, the coil is using electrical power to generate power for the spark plugs in a typical car. Not very much though because I've had an alternator fail and I was able to drive the car for about a tank of gas on the highway, before it drained the battery completely. That was on an old car without a lot of other drain on the electrical system and of course I had the radio and everything off. With more modern cars you're also powering a computer and various control systems, so while I haven't measured the output of an alternator on a late model car under all conditions, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it never actually went to zero load because of all the electrical gadgets in modern computerized cars.

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:19 PM

originally posted by: Pilgrum
Even re-generative braking is only recovering a tiny amount of energy originally sourced from the fuel tank to initiate motion in the first place.

Right, because it only needs to take the car from 60 to a lower speed (even down to 0) in a short distance but the energy used to move the car X miles before applying the breaks went into moving the car. The car isn't some free flowing stream that is always coasting downhill. That is the main flaw in the OP.

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:39 AM

so if you believe in God and believe that God said "BE" at it is. Then that makes it make sense and easier for us to understand, nothing more to know, we can now get on with our lives and be happier?

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:42 AM

why is it hard to understand, the wheel already experience friction, if you switched the engine off and the car was rolling along a flat surface it would come to a stop. if you add some form of mechanism around the driveshaft or whatever you call it (im not a engineer) it doesnt even have to cause friction, its todo with the spin which is source of the energy. Think of a generator, the work is already being done we just utilise it better

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: Cuervo

If that's how it works, then I'm totally looking at this wrong. Sorry. Dammit Jim, I'm a witch not a mechanic.

lol, dont you guys use brooms, what powers those things, maybe we could use that?

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:48 AM

originally posted by: Pilgrum
Even re-generative braking is only recovering a tiny amount of energy originally sourced from the fuel tank to initiate motion in the first place.

Right, because it only needs to take the car from 60 to a lower speed (even down to 0) in a short distance but the energy used to move the car X miles before applying the breaks went into moving the car. The car isn't some free flowing stream that is always coasting downhill. That is the main flaw in the OP.

There are some devices that can generate power by shaking. If i went for a jog and then put one of these things in my pocket, it would not affect my jogging much, id still jog. But the device would still charge a little. Obviously im burning "energy" to do the jogging, so we are just utilise the motion or energy (kinetic) that is already present and then converting this to electricity. It wont be a huge amount but its the principle of generating electricity from existing "flow"

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
Dynamic braking only applies to electric or hybrid vehicles IE the wheels are driven by electric motor(s) that act as heavily loaded generators for the braking effect dumping the kinetic energy of motion back into the bank of batteries, energy that would have been wasted in heating up the brakes in a normal vehicle. Anyone who ever built/raced slotcars could attest to how effective it is (maybe I'm sounding a bit old now

new topics

3