"Unlimited Clean Energy" from EF9 (atmospheric pressure).I'm not science literate. Is this possible

They claim that there is inherent harvestable energy contained in the pressure of the earths atmosphere and that he has devised a way to harvest it.

Fluid dynamics is way beyond me but I know there are many smart people around here. Is this possible?

Article here with audio explaination half way down.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/06/altcar-2009-ef9s-u... /

and a bit of an explaination from the co's website:

http://ef9energysystems.com/page6.html

pics
http://green.autoblog.com/gallery/ef9s-unlimited-clean-... /

Gov. Schwarzenegger takes a look

I'll ask around.

It'd be a new golden age of free energy.

0th) Score is kept.
1st) You can't win.
2nd) You can't tie.
3rd) The game will eventually end.


There is no inventor. There is only a crank.

He's just randomly scrambling science and engineering together while avoiding a complete thought.

Basically, he's saying he's going to attach a fan to a car. And as the car goes forward it turns the fan. And as the fan turns it generators power which helps the car go faster. Which turns the fan.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with that, there's no helping you.

Reply #2 has the MOST validity in this thread

You can NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES make energy.

Period. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever in the past.

Take coal power plant. It produces electricity = energy right? Well no it doesn't. It CONVERTS energy. It converts the chemical energy in coal into thermal energy by burning which produces kinetic energy in a spinning turbine which is attached to a magnet which converts that kinetic energy into electrical energy.

A coal plant is simply a chemical -> thermal -> kinetic -> electrical CONVERTER. It produces nothing. It never has and never will. Without energy to put into it (in this case in the form of chemical energy stored in coal) you can't make electricity. If you want to go even further the coal is compressed chemical energy from organic material which got its energy either directly or indirectly from the sun.

So the question you have to ask yourself whenever one of these quacks is looking for their 15 minutes of fame is WHERE IS THE ENERGY COMING FROM?

If you can't explain that without breaking one of the laws of thermodynamics then the scam is clear.

:rofl:

I suppose I could have given you the variational principles-version, but I figured that wouldn't be particularly helpful to you.

You didn't understand it. Like you said, you're scientifically illiterate.

That doesn't mean he didn't.

I think there may be a 'fatal' assumption in his 'explanation', but I'm not a 'fluid dynamics' expert, just some high school physics and common sense. Let's grant his figures that his 'small turbine' only uses 10hp of energy to push air out the SMALL diameter hole at 500mph. Now he 'LEAPS' to the statement that 500 mph air can turn a LARGER wind turbine that generates 80hp. BUT he does NOT prove that the small volume of 500mph from his 'machine' will in fact turn the LARGER wind turbine, generating 80hp. In fact it may take the exhaust from 8 or more of his machines to generate 80hp from the LARGER wind turbine generator, showing a net "LOSS" of energy.

Just my 'thoughts', any other comments?

so in theory it is possible.

Your best example of this... wind mills.

science he put forward.

If you have taken a look at the science he puts forward would his device really do what he claims?

Essentially what a bernoulli device does is that it accelerates the liquid as it forces it to go through a very narrow space... same volume that came in. So in theory you could.

They use this principle to get energy out of water... air might be more difficult.

The only reason I know about this is... there is a particular O2 mask that uses this principle and achieves very high concentrations that you could not achieve on a normal mask.

:-)

in a smaller area. It still contains the same amount of energy. It won't mystically turn a larger generator.


I am right, right? This just seems absurd to me.


On edit: That is all assuming 100% efficiency. Which is also absurd. Compression would cause more loss throough heat and drag.

Pssst....

I have some really great deals on Real Estate, ....... Bridges mostly

The guy is completely full of shit

Arnold's advisors will quickly be trying to cover up the fact that Arnold stopped at the guy's booth and was taken in by him.

You're just looking for somebody, anybody to tell you this guy's right.

Even if the machine is 100% perfect (which only exists in textbooks) any energy captured by the turbine is EQUAL to the drag created by the turbine.

So if the turbine captures 100hp by wind passing over it then it has produced 100hp of drag which requires the engine to output 100hp to prevent the car from slowing down. The fuel burned by the engine is EXACTLY equal to the energy captured by the turbine.

Now that is with a PERFECT MACHINE! We use perfect machines in text books because it makes modeling concepts easier. No machines are perfect. In reality the energy captured by the turbine will ALWAYS be LESS than the energy lost via drag. Even worse the engine, drivetrain, and wheels are all inefficient systems losing energy as heat, friction, and wear instead of useful work. The ouput of the engine will need to be more than the drag which will be more than the turbine produces. Period. If it wasn't you just created energy from nothing. We know energy can never ever under any circumstances be produced. Energy can only be converted from one form to another.

A simpler analogy would be:

take a light bulb connect it to the output of a solar panel. Aim lightbulb at the solar panel. Now wait. If this guys machine worked then my lightbulb solar panel machine would eventually given enough time produce more power than the entire human race has ever created.

Of course we know it won't because:
1) the solar panel only converts about 20% of light into electricity
2) the wiring causes losses in electricity getting to the lightbulb (the energy doesn't disapear it instead becomes heat which radiates off the wire).
3) the light bulb wastes useful work by converting only some of the electricity into light (the rest becomes wasted heat).

When he is forcing all the "Air" into the venturi he omitts the energy requirements to presurise the air.

He dropped part of the equation

I bet he shows an 800% gain with math like that

It's also called wind.

I had a quick look. Here is my admittedly cursory opinion (my B.Sc. is in geophysics for what it's worth).

It's like saying you could put a pump underwater and the hydraulic pressure of the water above would make the pump work, allowing you to tap free energy. It violates conservation of energy, since any water flowing downwards would have to be replaced by water flowing upwards, filling in the 'hole' in the surface of the water. The gravitational energy released by the water flowing down into the pump would be offset by the energy needed to lift the water flowing upwards. So it's a variation on a perpetual motion machine.

Saw the picture, and said "This is crap"

You can harness power from air pressure, by wind mill, or by building a long pipe 1 mile straight up. High pressure would go up to lower pressure, like in an elevator shaft.

Don't see no long shaft on this thing. If you have 1psi outside, and 1psi inside, you get no energy.

It's a perpetual motion machine.

How interesting.

You exploit the temperature difference between surface water (warm) and deep ocean water (cold).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

Like most things the real trick isn't getting energy but rather getting energy efficiently and at a rate that is competitive with traditional sources.

The "problem" with OTEC is the margins are very small. Pumping water up from 1km down takes energy and the potential energy between "cold" 5C water and warm 5C water is not substantial. You have very small margin between being a net producer of energy and being a net consumer of energy (pumps and other inefficiencies use more power than generator creates).

I know you get viscous winds in the elevator shafts of skyscrapers. That's why they don't go from the bottom all the way to the top.

It only happens in the largest buildings, like the sears tower or larger.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading something about it. It's like a direct route from high to low pressure, without a stop in between.

They were also going to do something with hot/cold water by sinking a pipe into the ocean. I think I saw that in discover 10 years ago.

It's just something I thought I read. It could have had something to do with the jet stream also. It was a long time ago, give me a break.

From the 'audio clip', I think I found a 'flaw' in his speech, that would account for the 'unlimited free energy'.

I think there may be a 'fatal' assumption in his 'explanation', but I'm not a 'fluid dynamics' expert, just some high school physics and common sense. Let's grant his figures that his 'small turbine' only uses 10hp of energy to push air out the SMALL diameter hole at 500mph. Now he 'LEAPS' to the statement that 500 mph air can turn a LARGER wind turbine that generates 80hp. BUT he does NOT prove that the small volume of 500mph from his 'machine' will in fact turn the LARGER wind turbine, generating 80hp. In fact it may take the exhaust from 8 or more of his machines to generate 80hp from the LARGER wind turbine generator, showing a net "LOSS" of energy.

We all know that very LARGE Wind Turbines can generate commercial electricity at slower wind speeds of 15-40mph, but they take a very large VOLUME of air to turn them at that speed. Therefore, I would conclude that the VOLUME of air, as well as the AIR SPEED must be considered to determine the POWER generated. I do not believe that he has SHOWN that his SMALL volume of 500mph air will, in fact, generate 80hp of POWER!

Just my 'thoughts', any other comments?

Call me skeptical, but I am leery of anyone touting new technology, when they couple that with, 'The first ten people to pay $5,000 get a new system installed in their home ((WHEN they are BUILT))!!!!
How many here think that he will 'turn away' the 11th and 12th sucker willing to hand him $5,000????