Use 2000w to produce 4000w....

[Frozenguy]

Well then it should be easy for you to find and present the proof that supports what you're saying rather then just insisting it's out there. The best built windmills cause less resistence to the wind so a windmill built such that it can stop the wind is a poorly built windmill. Likewise enough windmills to stop the wind is self defeating since the wind is required to make them work.

I'll try and find a link explaining how wind pushes windmills.
Here! Here is a link to show you how one works. Notice the wind pushing the windmill.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_animation.html
Here is an explanation from that link:

The energy in the wind turns two or three propeller-like blades around a rotor.

What you've been saying is that the energy comes from the wind or that windmills siphon energy from the wind and this is misleading. The best built windmills are the ones that have the least impact on the wind because the wind is the driving force of it but the blades do not suck (siphon) energy from the wind as you keep saying. If you disconnect the generator from the blades the windmill produces nothing even though it's interaction with and impact on the wind is the same. Therefore the wind is not really where the energy is coming from, at least not in the direct sense you keep implying.[/B] The energy is coming from the generator with assistance from the wind.

The electricity IS coming from the generator. You are 100% right.

That electricity is a form of energy. The form that energy was before it was electricty was mechanical as the windmill turns. The form before that was kinetic from the wind.

If you unhook the generator, it will have LESS impact on the wind but will still effect the wind. Just a whole lot less because there is less load on the wind.

I can't agree with that because that's not correct. Windmills extract nothing from anywhere. If they extracted the wind's energy then the wind would be significantly less when it passes. The wind powers the generator that creates the energy but it's all done in a way that has no significant impact on the wind. The wind blows past the blades and just keeps on moving. I do agree that the wind has a finite source of energy but only because the sun will eventually die billions of years from now. To us however and for the purposes of this discussion wind does have a virtually infinite supply of energy. It doesn't blow just a certain distance and die off. Rather it's in a constant state of flux increasing and decreasing according to the environment it's in.

Do you guys see what I'm talking about? He still says windmills extract nothing from anywhere. WHERE DOES IT COME FROM THEN?


Wind does blow a certain distance and die. It's called a pressure gradient.


I studied this stuff in college btw. This isn't my intuition but what has been developed over hundreds of years by mathematicians, physicists, and engineers.

The wind is the sole provider of energy to a windmill. PERIOD. I'm done. I don't care if you believe it.

 

[Frozenguy]

LOL here is a wikipedia. Why didn't I think of sending you here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy
Total wind energy flowing through an imaginary area A during the time t is:

The basic relation that the turbine power is (approximately) proportional to the third power of velocity remains.

 

[HempKat]

personally i agree with frozenguy but who cares its not important here, i think some reasoning has been misinterpreted somewhere,, agree to disagree,,

Well I agree with you in that we're likely getting hung up on terminology. As I've stated I'm not liking his use of the words extracted or siphoned when he talks about getting energy from the wind because that paints a picture of there being this energy just floating around with the wind and the windmills somehow magically sucking that energy out of the wind. The wind is being used for it's energy potential but virtually nothing is removed from the wind in the process. Just like hydro the energy created from a hydro power plant doesn't suck energy from the water but rather uses the movement of water to turn things that in turn creates energy. The water is essentially unchanged by the process.

 

[Frozenguy]

Who said it was free though? I don't recall anyone here saying wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, etc are free. I have heard people in favor of these things incorrectly imply they were free but not in this thread. Therefore it seems as if you and Frozenguy are just itching to jump on any discussion of such energies assuming that because some people who favor these things thought wrong that everyone who favors these energies must also share the same incorrect understanding of them.

I jumped aboard to offer what I know about the concept. Something you said caught my attention and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe I am nitpicky sometimes but what you were/are saying about the interatcion of wind and a windmill is wrong. And when you say I'm wrong, I'm going to come up with a response. Especially when I know I'm right about something.

Sure I admit I didn't notice EXACTLY what you were saying and I responded to somethings I didn't need to. But other concepts like the wind powering the windmills I feel we were still stuck on.

I'll say it again, I don't favor a single energy source. I want them all to be developed. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, oil/coal, nuclear etc. They all have their purpose.

And when I said free, I didn't mean in a human sense but a universal sense.
Oil brings us environmental problems, so will wind power (in time) (not considering all the eagles that are killed by them today). Unless we take notice and make necessary adjustments. Any energy source has to be treated with respect or we will be in a similar position later as we are in today. How far down the road I don't know.

 

[Frozenguy]

Well I agree with you in that we're likely getting hung up on terminology. As I've stated I'm not liking his use of the words extracted or siphoned when he talks about getting energy from the wind because that paints a picture of there being this energy just floating around with the wind and the windmills somehow magically sucking that energy out of the wind. The wind is being used for it's energy potential but virtually nothing is removed from the wind in the process. Just like hydro the energy created from a hydro power plant doesn't suck energy from the water but rather uses the movement of water to turn things that in turn creates energy. The water is essentially unchanged by the process.

Um.. Ok I think I get what you're saying now.

Yes wind is air. The air is unchanged after it passes a windmill! you are right. But the wind is changed. The difference between wind and air: Wind is moving air.

The water backed up in a dam has potential energy.
But the wind has kintetic energy.


Send the water down the damn through turbines and the water comes out JUST THE SAME! you're right! but it has less potential energy then when it started.

Just as the wind (air) passes through the turbine. The air is unchanged! but the WIND is not. The wind is less kinetic energy then when it started (but still unchanged air! as you say).

kinetic energy of air essentially defines the term wind. The wind is changed. The air is unchanged.

Terms are a bitch, you're right.

 

[HempKat]

LOL here is a wikipedia. Why didn't I think of sending you here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy
Total wind energy flowing through an imaginary area A during the time t is:

Maybe because you can't think for yourself? Besides as nice as all that is there is nothing there saying that using windmills significantly weakens the wind to support your opinion that using alot of windmills would actually kill the wind.

 

[lost in a sea]

Maybe because you can't think for yourself? Besides as nice as all that is there is nothing there saying that using windmills significantly weakens the wind to support your opinion that using alot of windmills would actually kill the wind.

dont get bitchy now,, your not providing much apart from your opinion so be respectful,,

seems like simple science to me,,

 

[Frozenguy]

Maybe because you can't think for yourself? Besides as nice as all that is there is nothing there saying that using windmills significantly weakens the wind to support your opinion that using alot of windmills would actually kill the wind.

What do you mean because I can't think for myself? Where does that come from?


I see your choice of words: significant. I agree, our current windmills in our current situation wont significantly effect our weather.
You agree wind has finite energy. If anything is finite, and you can take from it, you can reduce it to virtually 0.

The fact that you agree it wont significantly change our weather means you should agree it has the potential. And if you agree it has the potential (as extreme as it may be) what mechanism do you propose would do that if not the concept I put forth?

 

[HempKat]

I jumped aboard to offer what I know about the concept. Something you said caught my attention and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe I am nitpicky sometimes but what you were/are saying about the interatcion of wind and a windmill is wrong. And when you say I'm wrong, I'm going to come up with a response. Especially when I know I'm right about something.

Sure I admit I didn't notice EXACTLY what you were saying and I responded to somethings I didn't need to. But other concepts like the wind powering the windmills I feel we were still stuck on.

I'll say it again, I don't favor a single energy source. I want them all to be developed. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, oil/coal, nuclear etc. They all have their purpose.

And when I said free, I didn't mean in a human sense but a universal sense.
Oil brings us environmental problems, so will wind power (in time) (not considering all the eagles that are killed by them today). Unless we take notice and make necessary adjustments. Any energy source has to be treated with respect or we will be in a similar position later as we are in today. How far down the road I don't know.

You keep talking about how you favor using multiple sources of energy as if anyone here is saying we should only use one source. Yet nobody here has been saying that. In fact this whole thread isn't even about developing and using energy sources. This thread is about a product, being sold in a store with the claim it can turn 2000W of power into 4000W of power.

 

[Frozenguy]

You keep talking about how you favor using multiple sources of energy as if anyone here is saying we should only use one source. Yet nobody here has been saying that. In fact this whole thread isn't even about developing and using energy sources. This thread is about a product, being sold in a store with the claim it can turn 2000W of power into 4000W of power.

No I'm saying that because I feel people think, from my posts, that I am against these types of energy. And I feel that many on this thread are in support. So I'm trying to say hey, I share in the same beliefs as some of you when it comes to this. Some have contacted me trying to sell wind power, solar etc. So I'm just getting it out there that I already do support this. Like many/some of you.

And we are discussing the reason why the product would be impossible. The thread isn't hijacked.

 

[HempKat]

What do you mean because I can't think for myself? Where does that come from?

I'm sorry, that was wrong of me but you're getting on my nerves with all this nitpicking. Your whole approach to this discussion which is already off topic is based on things nobody ever suggested such as trying to replace oil with just wind power. Yeah maybe if we crammed as many windmills as is physically possible to cram into an acre of land we might have a noticeable impact on the wind. But we don't do that when we build wind farms. This is what I mean when you keep bringing up scenarios that will never happen.

It's been fairly established in most if not all people's minds that too much of anything is usually bad even if it's something usually thought of as a good thing.

 

[HempKat]

No I'm saying that because I feel people think, from my posts, that I am against these types of energy. And I feel that many on this thread are in support. So I'm trying to say hey, I share in the same beliefs as some of you when it comes to this. Some have contacted me trying to sell wind power, solar etc. So I'm just getting it out there that I already do support this. Like many/some of you.

And we are discussing the reason why the product would be impossible. The thread isn't hijacked.

No we're talking strictly about renewable energy sources now, there's been no reference to ohm's law for quite some time.

 

[HempKat]

dont get bitchy now,, your not providing much apart from your opinion so be respectful,,

seems like simple science to me,,

I don't see were you're providing anything more so what makes you think you're in control?

 

[Frozenguy]

I'm sorry, that was wrong of me but you're getting on my nerves with all this nitpicking. Your whole approach to this discussion which is already off topic is based on things nobody ever suggested such as trying to replace oil with just wind power. Yeah maybe if we crammed as many windmills as is physically possible to cram into an acre of land we might have a noticeable impact on the wind. But we don't do that when we build wind farms. This is what I mean when you keep bringing up scenarios that will never happen.

It's been fairly established in most if not all people's minds that too much of anything is usually bad even if it's something usually thought of as a good thing.

No we're talking strictly about renewable energy sources now, there's been no reference to ohm's law for quite some time.

Ohms law? Voltage equals current times resistance? That does not have anything to do with the problem of this product. At all. I think you mean the laws of thermodynamics.

It wasn't nitpicking. Not the driving force behind my posts.

It was you saying windmills dont really take energy from the wind, but the wind assists in electrical generation. It made no sense so I had to respond.

We don't have to talk specifically about the product. We can talk about why it wont work. Which is what we are doing. Sure we/I are using other examples, but just to show why this product wont work as advertised.

 

[HempKat]

Ohms law? Voltage equals current times resistance? That does not have anything to do with the problem of this product. At all. I think you mean the laws of thermodynamics.

No I'm talking Ohm's law and how it relates to Power (wattage) Ohm's law says that Power = Current x Voltage.

http://www.the12volt.com/ohm/ohmslaw.asp

It wasn't nitpicking. Not the driving force behind my posts.

Funny because I even used the word nitpicking because you suggested yourself in an earlier post that you were nitpicking.

Maybe I am nitpicky sometimes but what you were/are saying about the interatcion of wind and a windmill is wrong.

It was you saying windmills dont really take energy from the wind, but the wind assists in electrical generation. It made no sense so I had to respond.

Which I didn't say until it suggested that building a windfarm would change weather patterns. So stop trying to pretend you came into this thread solely to clear up what you felt was misinformation being given out. Hell you weren't even sure what was being said because your first post to me was you asking if I was saying what you thought I was saying. Which wasn't what I was really saying but rather a misinterpretation of what I was saying.

Are you saying that there is no limit to the amount of energy we could extract from the wind? That no matter how much energy we extract, the winds will still blow?

Which to reanswer, no I'm not saying that because what gives the wind it's energy isn't the space the windmill takes up. Until windmills are capable of entirely blocking out the effects of the sun and moon and other forces that give wind it's energy, then the winds will continue to blow regardless of windmills. Also yes there is a limit to the amount of energy we can generate from the wind but it's not a fixed limit because the strength of the wind isn't fixed.

And this is relevant to this thread. It has nothing to do with ohms law. It has to do with the laws of thermodynamics. Ohms law says voltage is equal to resistance times current. We don't have to talk specifically about the product. We can talk about why it wont work. Which is what we are doing. Sure we/I are using other examples, but just to show why this product wont work as advertised.

Okay show me how the impact of windmills on the environment relate to a device that claims to take the fixed input and magically double it as the output.

 

[Frozenguy]

No I'm talking Ohm's law and how it relates to Power (wattage) Ohm's law says that Power = Current x Voltage.

http://www.the12volt.com/ohm/ohmslaw.asp



Funny because I even used the word nitpicking because you suggested yourself in an earlier post that you were nitpicking.






Which I didn't say until you suggested that building a windfarm would change weather patterns. So stop trying to pretend you came into this thread solely to clear up what you felt was misinformation being given out. Hell you weren't even sure what was being said because your first post to me was you asking if I was saying what you thought I was saying.



Okay show me how the impact of windmills on the environment relate to a device that claims to magically take the fixed input and magically double it as the output.

The windmills impact on environment is an example of the lack of 'free/inifinte' energy. It is an example that what you get came from somewhere. You cant get 4Kwatts from the wall without taking it from the wall. You can't get 4k watts from 2k watts.

You can't get 4kwatts of electricity from 2k watts of wind power
If you get 4kwatts from the generator, you were taking 4k+++ watts from the wind (more than what you get! Less than 100% efficient). Some people didn't realize the wind was the sole provider of energy to a windmill. And that was integral to understanding why you cant just get the extra power magically. It must come from somewhere.

And sometimes I start off a post with a question even though I know what the person was saying. You get people to think about what they say when you ask it back to them.

Ohm's law helps people analyze circuits and electronics. The fact that you keep bringing it up shows you have never studied it or thermodynamics in a formal situation. WHICH IS FINE! But maybe when someone that has is telling you something else, you might want to look into it. I'm not telling you to just believe me. But maybe you should consider it for a moment.
Ohms law has nothing to do with why this product would or wouldn't get more electricity from the wall than what it is taking. You have to refer to the laws of thermodynamics to explain that.


http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html

 

[HempKat]

The windmills impact on environment is an example of the lack of 'free/inifinte' energy. It is an example that what you get came from somewhere. You cant get 4Kwatts from the wall without taking it from the wall. You can't get 4k watts from 2k watts

You can't get 4kwatts of electricity from 2k watts of wind power
If you get 4kwatts from the generator, you were taking 4k+++ watts from the wind (more than what you get! Less than 100% efficient). Some people didn't realize the wind was the sole provider of energy to a windmill. And that was integral to understanding why you cant just get the extra power magically. It must come from somewhere.

Bullshit, you weren't trying to make that point intially otherwise you would have said something correlating the two such as "You can't get more out then you put in" up until now all you've been saying is that the windmills take power out of the wind.

And sometimes I start off a post with a question even though I know what the person was saying. You get people to think about what they say when you ask it back to them.

Yeah that's all fine and dandy except you didn't know what I was saying intially, otherwise you wouldn't have had that aha moment where you said something along the lines of "Now I get what you're trying to say.

Ohm's law helps people analyze circuits and electronics. The fact that you keep bringing it up shows you have never studied it or thermodynamics in a formal situation.

Tell that to the college I got my BA degree in Electronic Technology from, maintaining a 4.0 GPA the whole time. Better yet stop spouting shit you obviously have no way of knowing for a fact. Plus I didn't "keep bringing it up" I brought it up once. You replied using the form of ohm's law most unlike what's being discussed (V = I x R) I then came back and gave the form of Ohm's law most like what is being discussed (P = I x V). So I brought it up once and mentioned it a second time because you're acting obtuse

WHICH IS FINE! But maybe when someone that has is telling you something else, you might want to look into it. I'm not telling you to just believe me. But maybe you should consider it for a moment.
Ohms law has nothing to do with why this product would or wouldn't get more electricity from the wall than what it is taking. You have to refer to the laws of thermodynamics to explain that.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html

For someone that claims to have studied these things it just totally mystifies me that you fail to see how ohm's law proves this thing can't do what it claims.

The power going in is a constant with a constant voltage and a constant current. If the power out is more then the power in then according to ohm's law either the voltage or the current would have to be magically created by this device but those of us who have any understanding of electronics knows that youcan't increase those without increasing the current and/or voltage in which means increasing the power in. The law of thermodynamics is fine for discussing windmills and the like but doesn't really explain why a device can't give more power out then the power coming in.

Seems to me you just have an inability to admit when you are wrong.

 

[Frozenguy]

Tell that to the college I got my BA degree in Electronic Technology from, maintaining a 4.0 GPA the whole time. Better yet stop spouting shit you obviously have no way of knowing for a fact. Plus I didn't "keep bringing it up" I brought it up once. You replied using the form of ohm's law most unlike what's being discussed (V = I x R) I then came back and gave the form of Ohm's law most like what is being discussed (P = I x V). So I brought it up once and mentioned it a second time because you're acting obtuse



For someone that claims to have studied these things it just totally mystifies me that you fail to see how ohm's law proves this thing can't do what it claims.

The power going in is a constant with a constant voltage and a constant current. If the power out is more then the power in then according to ohm's law either the voltage or the current would have to be magically created by this device but those of us who have any understanding of electronics knows that youcan't increase those without increasing the current and/or voltage in which means increasing the power in. The law of thermodynamics is fine for discussing windmills and the like but doesn't really explain why a device can't give more power out then the power coming in.

Seems to me you just have an inability to admit when you are wrong.

Ohms law has failures. 1st law of thermo does not. Ohms law shows there is something potentially/probably wrong. 1st law of thermo states it is fundamentally impossible and goes against all that is.

1.) "BS" you had a 4.0 in college. Was this a full four year institution? Even if you had a 3.0 you would understand what I'm saying. Oh it wasn't even a BS but a BA? Maybe if you're studying a science, you should get a Bachelors of SCIENCE instead of a Bachelors of ARTS.

2.) The first law of thermodynamics incorporates the principle of conservation of energy. It is the fundamental reason this wont work. Ohms law is a tool used to analyze systems. It's not a law governing them. I suppose I was being rather loose with my words when telling you to look at the other laws instead of ohms.

 

[HempKat]

Ohms law has failures. 1st law of thermo does not. Ohms law shows there is something potentially/probably wrong. 1st law of thermo states it is fundamentally impossible and goes against all that is.

1.) "BS" you had a 4.0 in college. Was this a full four year institution? Even if you had a 3.0 you would understand what I'm saying. Oh it wasn't even a BS but a BA? Maybe if you're studying a science, you should get a Bachelors of SCIENCE instead of a Bachelors of ARTS.

2.) The first law of thermodynamics incorporates the principle of conservation of energy. It is the fundamental reason this wont work. Ohms law is a tool used to analyze systems. It's not a law governing them. I suppose I was being rather loose with my words when telling you to look at the other laws instead of ohms.

Ohm's Law has no failures, if it had failures it wouldn't be a law. Nor does it show something is potentially/probably wrong. What it does is show the relationship between current, voltage and power, hence P (power usually expressed in Watts) = I (current usually expressed in amps) x E (voltage usually expressed in volts). Thru Ohm's law if you have 2 of the 3 you can solve for the third missing value using Ohm's law. The only time it shows what potentially/probably is wrong is when it's used in troubleshooting but that's not the only use for it. One could also use it in the design process. Like if a certain voltage drop is needed across a particular resistor in a circuit Ohm's law can help determine what the value of that resistor needs to be to get the desired voltage drop.

As far as my GPA I could give a flying fuck if you believe me.

As for BA vs BS I guess it's too much for your brain to notice the A key and the S key are located next to one another and theorize that a typo has accured?

 

[Frozenguy]

Ohm's Law has no failures, if it had failures it wouldn't be a law.

It does have failures. Please tell me, are you talking from intuition or have you actually researched this.
Not only does it fail on non-linear components (diodes, semiconductors etc) it fails elsewhere.
You should read this.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20025897?seq=2

Nor does it show something is potentially/probably wrong. What it does is show the relationship between current, voltage and power, hence P (power usually expressed in Watts) = I (current usually expressed in amps) x E (voltage usually expressed in volts). Thru Ohm's law if you have 2 of the 3 you can solve for the third missing value using Ohm's law. The only time it shows what potentially/probably is wrong is when it's used in troubleshooting but that's not the only use for it. One could also use it in the design process. Like if a certain voltage drop is needed across a particular resistor in a circuit Ohm's law can help determine what the value of that resistor needs to be to get the desired voltage drop.

As far as my GPA I could give a flying fuck if you believe me.

As for BA vs BS I guess it's too much for your brain to notice the A key and the S key are located next to one another and theorize that a typo has accured?

Lol ok buddy. How am I supposed to know what a typo is and isn't? They offer that in a BA if you didn't know. And if you said BA why am I supposed to assume it was BS.