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.

 

Most of all my threads will not be found anywhere else and I may although want can not provide links

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Here is something that I wondered just now; if we would take the same amount of air that a house has and compress it in a chamber and keep rotating it while keeping that pressure in it and not loosing any force by usiing the de-compression energy to compress the incoming compression and if we heat that chamber to heat that house ; would it not take less energy to heat the house? i MUST EXPLAIN FURTHERAS THE FIRST POSTS CAME FORTH; THE DECOMPRESSION OUTPUT DRIVES THE INPUT COMPRESSIon" sorry for the caps lock" and an explosion is then relitive to the size of chamber where safety measures would be at hand and reasearched and the question I am after is that I am wondering hypertetically; does it take less energy to heat compressed air than it's equal uncompressed?
edit on 16-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: To explain a different way I guess.
If you can't get nothing for free; than how do you explain expanding water to ice of 9 % and can't stop it while taking little energy to freeze it?
edit on 16-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: Explain further.
For me the only sense on this matter would be that the humidiy would be the only relevance in it and would then take the same energy that it would where in a decompressed state.
edit on 16-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: My conclusion.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
[font=courier][color=FF9600]I’m completely lost. Where does the woodchuck come into play? And is this house being foreclosed?

~AMNQ[/font]



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


I can't answer to the efficiency except that you would probably use allot of energy compressing the air.

I can say that this would be extremely dangerous, it would only take one valve to fail or one gear to stop it from spinning and you could have a catastrophic explosion seriously Ka-BOOM


Tlasalt
edit on 16/8/2011 by tlasalt because: spelling



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
"You Can't Get Something for Nothing..."

www.chem.ox.ac.uk...
edit on 8/16/2011 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
How would you keep it compressed and have air flowing threw it?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
There's no such thing as "air"...

It's all gas.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sabbathcrazy
 


By uding the pressure that is releaved from to motor the other.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Oh really; so why is it called air and not gases. Kidding but I do understand that since you pointed that out; so I mean our atmospheric gases here on earth then.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I don't know why I just thought that liquid nitrogen prices might go up
with no more NASA launches as a by product of making liquid oxygen.

Sorry I don't get your freezing idea perhaps because its hypothetical.
Just gave me another cool thought that Tesla made liquid air, before
the process was patented by another and still making piles of money,
to increase magnetic currents and supply city lights with frozen
underground wires.
ED: Wow


does it take less energy to heat compressed air than it's equal uncompressed?

I think the answer is yes.
The way to the Tesla oscillator and overunity generator.
Lyne thinks it lives in a few submarines.
Not heating, refreezing expanded gasses after providing a certain amount of
work, if enough electrical energy is made, would carry on for a great extent.

edit on 8/16/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


does it take less energy to heat compressed air than it's equal uncompressed?

I think the answer is yes.


I don't hink it matters what pressure it is under - it is the same mass of hte same gasses, so it takes the same amount to heat whether compressed or not.

Possibly you are egetting confused by the fact that compressing it will heat it up?? But that is all part of the energy requierd anyway.

And of course when you release the air back into the house it cools down - so you lose that heat induced by compression.

Alternatively you may be getting confused by how airconditioning/refrigeration/heat pumps work because htey seem to use less energy to "create" heat?

Of course these mechanism do not actually create the heat - rather they use the fact that compression heats and expansion cools to "shift" heat intoor out of the desired area


Not heating, refreezing expanded gasses after providing a certain amount of
work, if enough electrical energy is made, would carry on for a great extent.


Yes - but not as much as the "extent" of the work you put into it. There is, for example, a car that that runs on comressed air - en.wikipedia.org... - but it's not actualy very good!!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
A car that uses compressed air should be still using the same but retrofitted engine with heavy pistons that are driven with levee smartly established air cylinders and there are even further means of improving this drastically with each additions of such as logics.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 



???

sorry but what you wrote doesn't make sense.

The car's engine is designed to run on compressed air - running it with an internal combustion engine running in reverse (which is what I think you might be saying??) would not resuult in better efficiency - quite the reverse - teh internal combustion engine is optimised for internal combustion - not running on compressed air!

If that's not what you meant to say then sorry - I don't understand at all.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Most of all my threads will not be found anywhere else and I may although want can not provide links


What has the title got to do with compressed air


To be honest the whole thread is bizarre in a sort of totally brilliant way

edit on 18/8/11 by Versa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Versa

Most of all my threads will not be found anywhere else and I may although want can not provide links


What has the title got to do with compressed air


To be honest the whole thread is bizarre in a sort of totally brilliant way

edit on 18/8/11 by Versa because: (no reason given)


Yeah I could not pin down what the whole OP was about but just had a thought about
heat is taken out of air until it is liquid and cold. So it is compressed well and good.
If you use some of the expansion the left over gas or liquid and be re-compressed
and used over again with less energy than at the start. Its call .. well can't remember
.. its call the specific heat of sorts like the making of ice but in a wasteful manner in
the water to ice process and you always lose energy it seems. In an atomic gas the
process yields a storage ability and yields an overunity process if the overunity crowd
is correct.
ED: There is a car that runs on compressed air, of French origin was in the news.

ED+: I think compressed air does have the energy storage ability but having to run
a car can't help much. A better engine or movement process, over unity motion
process, would help of course.

edit on 8/22/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join