HAAM

Fair enough!!!

OK tell me what is the faulty logic and science with the following my logic and figures:

You are sitting 10.00 metres away froma cliff, which is 100.00metres deep. You have anumber of balls, each one has a weight of 0.25kg. Your job is to throw all the balls over the cliff, all you need to do is to throw the balls as far as the tip of the cliff. Each ball you throw, takes an input of 0.25kg x 10.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 24.5J energy from you. But eachball, from the tip of the cliff to the bottom of cliff, generatesthis amounts of energy 0.25kg x 100.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 2450.00J energy. This is a lot more than the energy you put in by 2450 – 24.5 = 2424.5J energy.

HAAM

Thank you for your contribution and joining the discussion.

I had similar experience in my early age when learning about electricity. When I saw an ac-dc adaptor converting 240V to 12V for the first time, I asked the teacher why don't we use 12V to get 240V so that we can get all the power. He used the logic of dividing a river to many streams as some thing possible but converting one stream to a river as something impossible, to explain to me as it was not possible to use the adapter to get a higher power.

True, without the fan you can not get the low pressure but this low pressure doesn't cost any input. All the input used to spin the fan and when the fan spins it pumps out air between its blades. When air pumped out between blades, it creates a vacuum or empty space between blades. When this happens air flows to between blades to refill the vacuum or empty space. It is like a large container full of water. You take out a cup of water from it. When you take out a cup of water from it, you leave an empty space inside water. But as soon as you take out the cup, the water flows to fill the space.

Air has a weight or potential energy, which is 14.7 pounds per square inch or 1.00kg/sq centimetre on sea level. To benefit from this potential energy, you have to create a hole, vacuum, in the air. This is what a fan does. It creates a hole in air. It is similar to a lake on top of a mountain. This lake has a potential energy. To harness this potential energy, you have to make a hole under the lake to let water flow down the mountain. After that you can use the energy of flowing water for any purpose.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

How is the fan responsible for creating a low pressure and not using any energy (input as you call it) to do it?

SBOT

God help me! I think I understand what Haam is trying to say. Haam correct me if I am wrong but I think you mean that the low pressure area doesn’t cost any “extra energy”. You are using energy to produce trust at the back; the low pressure at the front is free for you to exploit any way you wish.
I think what all of us are having a hard time understanding is that this LPA is free. If I bum a ride to work with a friend It doesn’t cost me anything so it’s free. Right. I mean he was going that way any way. Just like the fan is producing the LPA weather any one takes advantage of it or not.

O

HAAM

Greetings dear friend SBOT,

You have decoded the secret. You put it in words a lot better than me. That is what precisely I am talking about. This low pressure area is an output exactly similar to getting free ride with a friend or hitch-hiking. This low pressure at the front of the fan exists. It doesn't take any input with a cost and if exploited it will not reduce the output, high pressure, of the fan at the back. It is something free when it comes to cost but it is not something from nothing.

But the question is this: why so far it has not been exploited or talked about by experts like people of NASA? I think there are two reasons: first it never came to the mind of any one to think about it because culturally they thought it took an input, second when you thought about it, it sounded as it was something from nothing, which also culturally prohibited you to think about it further. Because it had become a culture if you get something mechanical for nothing it would be a perpetual machine, which doesn't work. So this culture created a barrier and it made it a taboo to talk about it.

Actually on the other hand, attempts have been made in UK and Russia to exploit this concept but incorrectly. In UK they made an aeroplane based on this concept. Later they sent it to NASA but NASA sent back to UK. In Russia they made three jet aeroplane based on this concept. The problem with UK and Russian attempts was that they applied it on aeroplanes, with which it doesn't work because of the speed and drag. This concept is good for something very powerful but not to move very fast.

Cheers.

HAAM

The fan is not responsible for creating low pressure at the front. The fan isresponsible for creating high pressure at the back because it pumps out air between the blades backward. Weight, pressure, of the air is responsible for creating low pressure at the front. Because air at the front has higher pressure than the air between blades of the fan. This causes air from the front to flow into the space between the blades. This flow of air, into the space between blades, causes low pressure at the front.

perreback

*edit - never mind*

jester_s1

2 things, then I'm done. First for the umpteenth time your ball analogy logic is faulty because you aren't counting the energy required to get the balls there. When you add the energy used to lift and throw the balls you'll get a larger figure than you'll get when the balls hit the ground.
Second, you've now shown us just how out of touch with reality you really are with that NASA comment. The best aeronautic engineers in the US haven't been able to build an efficient fan in 70+ years of research, but you think you've done it. Get some education and put your creativity to some real use.

HAAM

1- No need for emotional outburst. Prove yourself with figures as I did. I am going to ask you the same question, use figures to prove yourself, don't jumble words and phrases: OK tell me what is the faulty logic and science with the following my logic and figures:

You are sitting 10.00 metres away from a cliff, which is 100.00metres deep. You have a number of balls, each one has a weight of 0.25kg. Your job is to throw all the balls over the cliff, all you need to do is to throw the balls as far as the tip of the cliff. Each ball you throw, takes an input of 0.25kg x 10.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 24.5J energy from you. But each ball, from the tip of the cliff to the bottom of cliff, generates this amounts of energy 0.25kg x 100.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 2450.00J energy. This is a lot more than the energy you put in by 2450 – 24.5 = 2424.5J energy.

2- You still have not understood my concept. Why do you think I have invented an efficient fan? I have not invented an efficient fan but I have discovered something very important about fans, which is that the lower pressure in front of the fan doesn't take any input and it is another output in addition to the high pressure output at the back. All inputs go to the thrust, high pressure, of the fan at the back. The front output, lower pressure, doesn't cost any thing. If you exploit it it will not cost you anything except the cost of the equipment.

3- you also stated in another previous post that the lower pressure at the front causes extra load on the fan, which is not correct. Actually the lower pressure at the front make the job of the fan easier. Because all air molecules get a momentum before falling between the blades of the fan. This makes it easier for the fan to throw them out backward with extra momentum. It is similar to a football when a player kicks it towards another player, who also kicks it to give it more momentum to go a lot further.

init4fun

[8D] Hello Mr. HAAM ,

I believe , that what your missing here is this ;

Yes , as a fan spins it does indeed create a low pressure in front and a high pressure in the back . As a concept of science , we are all good with this .

BUT HOWEVER !!!!!!!

If you go messing with the low pressure in front by "tapping off this unused power" , you most certainly WILL negatively affect the production of the high pressure in the back !

That low pressure exists by the action of the blades to create the force of drawing the air into the blades . Taking away some of this low pressure will reduce efficiency of the fan . Any "saved" energy will thus be at the expense of reduced high pressure output .

So , what exactly would be "saved" ?

Please notice that I , init4fun , have not once mocked your idea , because I can tell you've put a great deal of thought into this . I would never insult someone looking to improve on the already known parameters of operation of a devise such as our fan here . I just really don't think you've thought it through enough to come to the conclusion that robbing from the front will reduce output from the back .

Keep working on your ideas , who knows , maybe the next one , or the one after that , will be successful . Till then , best to keep that $20 K in your pocket , and apply your talent for research elsewhere .

Good Luck to you Mr. HAAM ,

jester_s1

I'll try to explain this in a new way that maybe you'll understand. A fan's job is to move air, right? So we're starting with air that is not moving. The task is to move the air from one place to another as efficiently as possible ie, with the least amount of electrical (of whatever turns the fan) energy consumed per mass of air moved. When the fan turns a given number of times at a given speed, it moves a given amount of air. Work is done on the back end to create high pressure and move air in that direction, and work is done at the front to create low pressure to also move air in that direction. So essentially what a fan does is create a pressure differential that causes air to move. I think we agree on that point, right?

Now here's the kicker for your idea. If you do anything at all to make it harder to create that pressure differential on either end of the fan, you reduce the efficiency of the fan. Such things would include putting turns in the duct, narrowing the nozzle area or the intake, placing a turbine in front of the fan or behind it to tap some energy from the air movement, or putting any mechanism that reduces pressure in front or increases it in back. All of these things will reduce the efficiency of your fan. Obviously the opposite is true as well; if you can reduce the back pressure or increase the front pressure or if you can reduce the resistance to airflow (which is what a duct basically does if it's designed right) you will make your fan more efficient. I think that's what you are trying to do, but there is a major flaw in your thinking.

The error you are making is that there is no such thing as free energy. In order to plan out your project, you have to start with non-moving air. Using the example you love to tout so much, you must start with a ball that is on the ground, not on top of a mountain. When you start with non-moving air you'll find that there is simply no way to get more output than input. It can't be done anymore than you can make a ball deliver more energy to the ground than what was put into it to lift it off the ground and then drop it. If there was a way to get air moving through your device without having to spend any energy getting it to do so then you would be on to something, but there isn't. What you are describing in, in fact, a perpetual motion machine which is impossible according to the very laws of physics which govern the universe. If you still don't believe me stop posting stuff about dropping balls off a cliff and go build your machine. I'll be waiting to see your results.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I tried to post this theory on a popular physics forum and I was given a warning and the post was removed, abruptly.

Could not post about "Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science"

I figured professionals could talk HAAM "off the edge of the cliff" (pun intended) but no luck.

HAAM I hope this all stays a positive learning experience, then it will not be a waste of time in any case. I hope you don't loose your zest for science. I also hope you can prove the science to yourself, because it does not look like you are going to listen to anyone else!

HAAM

Many thanks for your contribution.

You said: "That low pressure exists by the action of the blades to create the force of drawing the air into the blades". That is our points of disgreement. Because the fan doesn't draw the air. It is the air, which is going to the fan because the fan creates lower presssure between the blades. The fan doesn't have any influence outside the blades. It is like when you drink your milkshake with the straw. You think you suck it into your mouth but actually that is a wrong concept. Practically sucking doesn't exist. You create low pressure in the straw. This low pressure is lower than the external air pressure. So the external higher pressure pushes the milkshake into the straw. So you don't suck your milkshake, you don't have influence on it. It is pushed into your mouth. You only used input to create lower pressure in the straw. But you didn't put any input to the milkshake coming to your mouth.

HAAM

No!!! I disagree. No work done at the back and no work done at the fornt. All the work is done is between the blades. The fan, the blades, has no influence outside the blades at the front and at the back. When the fan spins, it pumps out or throws out air between the blades to the back. This causes low pressure between the blades. Higher external air pressure tries to enter the position of lower pressure between the blades at the front and at the back. It can not do that at the back because the fan causes higher pressure at the back by pumping out air backward. But higher external air pressure easily pushes air into between blades at the front.

Any way, I would liketo thank you a lot for your big input. But I appologize because I can not agree with it. Bear in mind I agree with all your points apart from the above.

HAAM

Many thanks for your atempt to go on physics forum.

I will try to go on physics forum in a different way. I will write an article about the inputs and outputs of fans and put it on physics forum. I will inform you about it.

regards.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Post to http://www.physicsforums.com

You cannot link to your webpage, just paste your theories into a post.

Good luck

HAAM

Thank you mr-matt.

I have done exactly that. This is the link: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...46#post4176246

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

No link HAAM.


If it is gone look in your PMs for the reason.

HAAM

You are right. It is gone. This is I think because when I joined I didn't upgrade to become a paying member. This is the article I put there:

Some Secrets of the fans

A fan creates an air stream when it is operating. This air stream is made up of lower pressure at the front and higher pressure at the back. This air stream is the output of the fan. In other words, the output of the fan made up of lower pressure output at the front and higher pressure output at the back.
Highest natural air, atmospheric, pressure is 14.7 psi or 1.00kg/sq centimetre. So theoretically lower pressure output can not become less than -14.7 psi or -1.00kg/sq centimetre but higher pressure output always is more than 14.7 psi or 1.00kg/sq centimetre. We can put this in a formula. If the fan can generate a pressure of 0.25kg/sq centimetre the output at the front will become – 0.25kg/sq cm and the output at the back will become 1.00kg/sq cm + 0.25kg/sq cm

Theoretically a fan can be made to generate a pressure higher than 1.00kg/sq cm or 14.7 psi but this fan can not generate an output at the front lower than -1.00kg/sq cm or -14.7 psi. This is because air weight or atmospheric pressure at the front of the fan, when it is not operating, is 1.00kg/sq cm or 14.7 psi. So it is impossible for the fan to create a lower pressure output less than -1.00kg/sq cm or -14.7 psi

A fan operates with an external input. An electric fan operates with an external electric input. Not all the external input converted to the thrust of the fan to generate both outputs at the front and at the back. Only the mechanical efficiency, input efficiency, of the fan converted to a thrust to generate both outputs. Some external inputs wasted as heat because of the friction of the fan. The rest of the input is the efficiency of the fan and converted to a thrust. Lets call the efficiency of the fan as 'input efficiency'.

So how this input efficiency used to operate the fan? It is used to spin the fan and when the fan spins it creates an air stream, which is made up of lower pressure output at the front and higher pressure output at the back. But how does the fan generate this air stream? The fan throws out or pumps out air between its blades backward, which creates high pressure output air stream at the back. In other words, all input efficiency used as a thrust by the fan to spin to pump out or throw out air between its blades backward.

But the question is this: if all input efficiency goes to generate a thrust to spin the fan to pump out air between its blades backward to generate the air stream at the back, how is the front air stream generated? The answer is easy; when the fan pumps out air between its blades, it creates lower atmospheric pressure between blades. This lower atmospheric pressure between blades is lower than the external natural atmospheric pressure. So natural atmospheric pressure at the front and at the back tries to enter between blades to bring back atmospheric equilibrium between blades.

However the fan creates a pressure at the back higher than the atmospheric pressure. So the atmospheric pressure at the back can not do any thing. But the fan doesn't do any pressure changes at the front. So the atmospheric pressure at the front rushes into the space between blades to bring back atmospheric pressure equilibrium. This act causes the air stream output at the front

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Weeeellll, I don't think so.

Log in and check your private message, it is just below the welcome box in the upper right.


Let me know what they wrote to you, I am curious.

HAAM

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Why did they take your post down. Did you get a private message (PM)?

HAAM

No I am afraid no. I couldn't find anything.

init4fun

Course ya couldn't ...... Funny thing , just as a test , I posted a nonsense thread there , and when it was eliminated , I was sent a PM admonishing me to keep to proven or possibly provable scientific theory . I'll wager that Mr, Matt got the same PM when they deleted his posting of your , Um , Theory ....

I call BS on you , Mr. HAAM dude , and am now beginning to believe your nothing but a forum troll , trying to see how many of the mechanically uneducated you can get to fall for your little bit of nonsense !

Frankly , I believe your full of Bovine excrement !

HAAM

There is no need for personal insult. We can understand things only if we can act in a civilised manner. People in charge of physics forum are ordinary folks like yourself. They are conditioned culturally with present established existing social and acadimic norms and traditions.

You can see the same article above. You, yourself, need to judge it, not depending on the judgement of others. This not some thing easy to understand especially if you don't look at it in an open mind andyou don't have aerodynamic knowledge. Read the article again. If can make a sense of it you can judge it if itis correct or not. Don't take my word for it, don't take the word of any one else for it, just use your own judgement.

Kind Regards.