Jump to content



Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  agyat : (23 May 2013 - 01:23 AM) Wow! Mr. Sb Back Home.
@  OpaQue : (23 May 2013 - 12:44 AM) Ting
@  OpaQue : (24 April 2013 - 02:44 PM) I guess, Time to run Mycent script.
@  OpaQue : (24 April 2013 - 02:43 PM) wow.. not much spam. except habatt posting lot of links.. :P
@  yordan : (23 April 2013 - 01:04 PM) You're welcome, agyat. Nice to have been helpful. Second lesson: try full words, "you" instead of "EW".
@  agyat : (23 April 2013 - 05:03 AM) @YORDAN: tHANK EW FOR YOUR FIRST LESSON.   :D
@  yordan : (22 April 2013 - 09:43 PM) @agyat : "why don't you help me", or "please help me", or "please teach us"
@  yordan : (22 April 2013 - 09:42 PM) welcome back, velma
@  velma : (22 April 2013 - 07:51 AM) **yawns** Good to be back, wonder what is going on here :)
@  agyat : (22 April 2013 - 03:50 AM) Oh! so, why don't help me learn english..
@  yordan : (21 April 2013 - 08:38 PM) The goal mentioned by shiu : "learning english, learning computer"
@  agyat : (21 April 2013 - 06:31 PM) WHAT GOAL?
@  yordan : (20 April 2013 - 10:39 AM) yes, that's our goal. simultaneouly learning English and teaching/learning computer using.
@  shiyu : (20 April 2013 - 07:30 AM) learning english,learning computer
@  yordan : (19 April 2013 - 01:11 PM) Oh, I see, it's just a trick in order to force people looking at your texte. Somehow smart, maybe.
@  agyat : (19 April 2013 - 02:54 AM) And of course I know it is not SEO friendly.
@  agyat : (19 April 2013 - 02:52 AM) There may be two possible answers for that ....


1) Shout was posted using mobile keypad.

2) To force people read content carefully and/or with more concentration.
@  agyat : (19 April 2013 - 02:49 AM) There may be two possible answers for that ....
@  yordan : (18 April 2013 - 09:35 PM) however, why this mixing of capital letters in the middle of your text?
@  agyat : (18 April 2013 - 11:10 AM) false feelings.

Replying to Nuclear Fusion


Post Options

    • Can't make it out? Click here to generate a new image

  or Cancel


Topic Summary

kraizii88z

Posted 09 March 2005 - 12:42 PM

I think this is another step inthe evolution of nuclear energy and is not a change, oh no, it's just a shift from one dangerous thing to another. It's safer, but not cloe to safe.
consider .. man-made objects do no good for the human body, the planet, or the ecosystems that flourish under "god's natural design" that was designed perfectly for all living things..how can a new system of nuclear energy be safe? :D ?




-


shahidiimran

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:16 AM

i Thinkif we can control the fusion process then that will be good for world need of feul, that is good advancment...best of luck to world...

lasto i glemyr

Posted 08 March 2005 - 04:37 AM

Interesting idea...however, I can see some flaws. So far, nothing has been able to generate 100% efficiency or higher, and it appears to be impossible.

Basically in your system, you are converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, and then with the generator it is being reconverted into electrical energy through back-EMF. I think that, in perfect conditions, this would yield 100% efficiency. However, perfect conditions are unattainable...forces such as friction and heat loss due to resistance in the wires would lower the efficiency of the machine. Therefore, we end up with less energy than what we started with.

Instead, I think that we should try to convert matter into energy, for this actually will generate more output energy than what is input. It is for this reason that, once we perfect it, fusion will be the next big breakthrough in energy...a huge output with little or no environmental consequences.

excellen

Posted 07 March 2005 - 12:11 PM

really interesting idea. really.
before this, i've have stumble upon the same kind of thinking. i've been studying about it and actually tried it. but then, i know i was wrong. it would never work.
remember the idea about "energy cannot be created, only can be converted into another form"?. it true.

the system you have design might have the ability to retain energy (electricity) for some period of time, but then, the energy will slowly dissipiate. why? consider this;
1. the copper wire you are using will impose some resistance, where the electricity will be converted to heat and slowly dissipiate into the sorrounding invironment.
2. the mechanical movement will impose some physical resistance to the wheel and wind. so, again, the energy inside the system will be converted to other energy and dissipiate into the invironment.

this system, at the best will only be able to retain energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



But those factors (friction and resulting loss of energy through heat) would have little effect surely? They wouldnt have enough influence to stop the machine creating more energy than it consumes would they? esides, the machine obnly ever uses a set amount of power anyway. all what friction would do is make it take a little longer to increase the speed, right?

Im sure there is a reason as to why this machine wouldnt work, but I dont think friction is the reason.

excellen

Posted 07 March 2005 - 12:03 PM

really interesting idea. really.
before this, i've have stumble upon the same kind of thinking. i've been studying about it and actually tried it. but then, i know i was wrong. it would never work.
remember the idea about "energy cannot be created, only can be converted into another form"?. it true.

the system you have design might have the ability to retain energy (electricity) for some period of time, but then, the energy will slowly dissipiate. why? consider this;
1. the copper wire you are using will impose some resistance, where the electricity will be converted to heat and slowly dissipiate into the sorrounding invironment.
2. the mechanical movement will impose some physical resistance to the wheel and wind. so, again, the energy inside the system will be converted to other energy and dissipiate into the invironment.

this system, at the best will only be able to retain energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


wanhafizi

Posted 07 March 2005 - 02:58 AM

Here is the entire article I wrote about the magnetism idea I mentioned previously. The picture is a bit crude but It does the job.

prm.jpg

PART A: Here you can see how this machine essentially works. The Inner part is a wheel, attached to an axil. On this wheel, is at least one permanent bar-magnet. On the outer part, is a ring of opposing electro-magnets. These are activated in sequence, controlled by a computer system. This is similar technology to Christmas ''chaser'' lights: Only one magnet is on at any time, the moment the next in sequence is activated, the one before has been de-activated. By activating the electro-magnets in sequence, the permanent bar-magnet on the inner wheel is pushed in a clockwise direction. The magnets could be switched on/off faster and faster, but only consume a set amount of electricity. In this example, each electro-magnet consumes electricity at a constant rate of ''10''. There could be any set number of electro-magnets active at any time in the sequence depending on how many permanent bar-magnets are on the inner wheel, but for this example only one is used. More torque could be generated by having more permanent bar-magnets. Both the wheel and outer part would be made of a substance that is un-affected by magnets such as ceramic or plastic, and the inner wheel would be quite heavy, to increase momentum ounce moving.

PART B: This is the computer system that controls the electro-magnet activation sequence. It would have some kind of controls that allow the rate to be increased, therefore generating more power.

PART C: Attached to the inner wheel by an axil, this is the generator. On a small scale, It could be similar to a car alternator.

PART D: This is some kind of device that manages the electricity from the generator. In this example, "10" electricity is fed to PART B, and any additional electricity could be fed into batteries, a power grid etc.

PART E: This is a battery of some kind. It is necessary to start the machine working, after that it would be self-sustaining, and the battery could be recharged, like in a car.

It is quite obvious that this machine would be HUGELY important if it worked. Large scale versions could be set up in power stations, which could replace coal, nuclear, oil and other pollution generating means of power generation. Small scale versions could be set up to power private homes or small country towns. It may have further applications such as vehicles. One of the laws of physics states that you cant get more energy out than what you put in. This machine works on magnetism which is not well understood, and I cant see any reason why it would not work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


really interesting idea. really.
before this, i've have stumble upon the same kind of thinking. i've been studying about it and actually tried it. but then, i know i was wrong. it would never work.
remember the idea about "energy cannot be created, only can be converted into another form"?. it true.

the system you have design might have the ability to retain energy (electricity) for some period of time, but then, the energy will slowly dissipiate. why? consider this;
1. the copper wire you are using will impose some resistance, where the electricity will be converted to heat and slowly dissipiate into the sorrounding invironment.
2. the mechanical movement will impose some physical resistance to the wheel and wind. so, again, the energy inside the system will be converted to other energy and dissipiate into the invironment.

this system, at the best will only be able to retain energy

excellen

Posted 06 March 2005 - 10:29 AM

Here is the entire article I wrote about the magnetism idea I mentioned previously. The picture is a bit crude but It does the job.

prm.jpg

PART A: Here you can see how this machine essentially works. The Inner part is a wheel, attached to an axil. On this wheel, is at least one permanent bar-magnet. On the outer part, is a ring of opposing electro-magnets. These are activated in sequence, controlled by a computer system. This is similar technology to Christmas ''chaser'' lights: Only one magnet is on at any time, the moment the next in sequence is activated, the one before has been de-activated. By activating the electro-magnets in sequence, the permanent bar-magnet on the inner wheel is pushed in a clockwise direction. The magnets could be switched on/off faster and faster, but only consume a set amount of electricity. In this example, each electro-magnet consumes electricity at a constant rate of ''10''. There could be any set number of electro-magnets active at any time in the sequence depending on how many permanent bar-magnets are on the inner wheel, but for this example only one is used. More torque could be generated by having more permanent bar-magnets. Both the wheel and outer part would be made of a substance that is un-affected by magnets such as ceramic or plastic, and the inner wheel would be quite heavy, to increase momentum ounce moving.

PART B: This is the computer system that controls the electro-magnet activation sequence. It would have some kind of controls that allow the rate to be increased, therefore generating more power.

PART C: Attached to the inner wheel by an axil, this is the generator. On a small scale, It could be similar to a car alternator.

PART D: This is some kind of device that manages the electricity from the generator. In this example, "10" electricity is fed to PART B, and any additional electricity could be fed into batteries, a power grid etc.

PART E: This is a battery of some kind. It is necessary to start the machine working, after that it would be self-sustaining, and the battery could be recharged, like in a car.

It is quite obvious that this machine would be HUGELY important if it worked. Large scale versions could be set up in power stations, which could replace coal, nuclear, oil and other pollution generating means of power generation. Small scale versions could be set up to power private homes or small country towns. It may have further applications such as vehicles. One of the laws of physics states that you cant get more energy out than what you put in. This machine works on magnetism which is not well understood, and I cant see any reason why it would not work.

Kyle Perkins

Posted 06 March 2005 - 03:27 AM

No problem. I don't think they're claiming that they own the internet, they are just claiming that they gave birth to the idea of computers netoworked, then those networks internetworked. That may be true, but you are correct in that nobody owns the internet, and no one group is responsible for it's creation. Personally, I think the internet is arguably one of the most influential inventions of the 20th century.

-Kyle

Admiral Lyoko Samus

Posted 06 March 2005 - 02:59 AM

I seriously doubt their "creating the internet" since no one man/organization owns the internet (that and I don't see any copyrights or understand why an organization specializing in Nuclear Physics would want/have the skills to do so), but thanks for the info anyway. :)

Kyle Perkins

Posted 06 March 2005 - 02:52 AM

I found a good resource, especially since it is the website of the group that created antimatter: CERN. CERN stands for Conseil Europeén pour la Récherche Nucleaire (in English, the European Organization for Nuclear Research), and they have the world's largest particle physics laboratory. CERN also claims to have invented the internet, thus joining the ranks of the US Department of Defense, and of course Al Gore. Who really invented the internet? We may never know...but who cares, anyway. Anyway, you wanted a good resource on antimatter, and there it is! :)

-Kyle

Review the complete topic (launches new window)