/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12057278
unlucky

[math]\color{orange}{\mathrm{Thank~you~for~informing~the~world.}}[/math]
[math]\color{orange}{\mathrm{This~may~warrant~your~doxing~and~subsequent~extraction~of~information.}}[/math]

[math]\color{green}{\mathrm{you~know~what~to~do,~janny}}[/math]

>>12057305
[math]\color{red}{Learn~to~use~LaTeX,~faggot.}[/math]

>>12057278
Maybe I could sell the idea to the government or somethin

>>12057278
Theoretical results don't count in engineering. Unless you have a proof of concept model working, nobody will take you seriously.

>>12057338
It's simple. I think any physicist would agree its 100% efficient. The only way for energy to leave is the generator

>>12057342
Physicists are not engineers, the don't design or implement engineering concepts, they have little to no knowledge on efficiency of engineering design.

>>12057346
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_(thermodynamics)

Care to explain?

What is the definition of heat engine?

>>12057368
Whats the definition of heat engine?

>>12057417
Anything that converts heat (thermal energy) into mechanical energy.

Pretty much all electricity generators use heat to produce mechanical energy that then is used to generate electricity, so all of this applies here.

>>12057429
I dont think it applies to my idea. There really isnt anywhere for the heat to go.

>>12057429
It doesnt have a cold reservoir

My thermodynamics professor used to tell me that once every few years he'd get guys phoning up and telling him they've invented an engine with 100% efficiency, and every time he'd start asking about the math, they'd put the phone down in anger.

>>12057278
well then, explain it to us
or whats your point of making this thread?
a simple google search will help you figure out how to file a patent
you didnt just come here for attention, right?

>>12057437
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to your idea?

>>12057488
Its about 97 percent efficient. Doesnt reverse entropy

>>12057493
>>12057479
answer, OP

>>12057493
You said it was 100%

>>12057504
I need advice. I made the thread for advice. I dont want to file a patent, I dont have money for that

>>12057493
>>12057278
>>12057505
almost like OP is full of shit and unable to substantiate his construct
what are the odds?!

>>12057505
Yea but mechanical to electricity isnt completely efficient

>>12057278
>I found a way to convert heat to electricity with 100% efficiency
you did not
>Dont know how to file patent tho
superfluous, since there is nothing to be patented

i 100% guarantee you did not think this through
how many years did you spent in university so far?
what is your education on system theory, mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, differential equations, numerical computation and optimization?
high school levels at best

no you did not discover anything, next time go to >>>/r/ for wasting peoples time

>>12057549
Its simple, only requires high school physics lol

>>12057549
>what is your education on system theory, mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, differential equations, numerical computation and optimization?
high school levels at best

You don't need above highschool understanding to prove that 100% efficient energy conversion system is impossible, though.

>>12057555
It's 97 percent. I have above high school education

>>12057551
then it shouldnt be hard to explain, right?
also why didnt anyone else come up with your hot idea if its so simple?
you are not familiar at all with current research on topics of energy conversion and the state of art for generators and turbines, right?

how would you know if your idea doesnt already exist if you invested little to no research on this topic?

>>12057559
I can't explain it i need to sell it. Its more efficient than a turbine

>>12057562
We already have things "more efficient" than a turbine.

Turbines sit at around 40% efficiency, there's an engine that's 63%,

Shouldn't be hard to explain 97%?

>>12057568
Lol i cant explain it. i want to sell it

>>12057557
>It's 97 percent
oh, is it? how did you come up with that number?
did you consider mechanical and electrical resistances, mechanical attrition, windup cycle of you system?
you surely did a simulation of it right?
only as software or do you have a working prototype?
did you measure the 97%, is it an estimate or a result of some calculation you did?
what are the constraints of your system and what things have you considered in your calculations and which things have you ignored?

so many questions, but you are having a hard time providing any answers
>>12057562
>I can't explain it
well thats bad, if you want to sell it
>i need to sell it
you wont be able to, not right now and not in a decade from now

>>12057508
My advice is that you tell us your idea so we can have a good laugh.

>>12057576
There is a loss from heat to mech. But its negligible. I dont want to say anything else. I havent made a program. Its an idea. Everyone could see its doesnt lose energy

>>12057585
>But its negligible
ah, this is the reason for 97% instead of 100% efficiency
>Everyone could see its doesnt lose energy
>There is a loss from heat to mech
???
explain what is the point of this thread supposed to be
english is not your first language and you are also not an engineer, correct?
>But its negligible
where does your expertise to make that judgement originate from?
>I havent made a program
>Its an idea
fine, but you would be able to easily simulate your idea, right?
that shouldnt be an issue at all, right?
>everyone could see its doesnt lose energy
good, do you have a system model?
how dedicated is your system model?

>>12057594
I could simulate it, but its simple enough that i dont have to. I havent made a system model

>>12057594
The loss from heat to mechanical is due to something slightly above room temperature losing heat to the environment

I can't believe what I have just witnessed. OP... You are a genius! Your idea is groundbreaking! Such simple, yet such beautiful. Thank you for sharing and as promised - I will not tell anyone. Genius!!!

>>12057600
If its simple, just do it in 5 mins and show us.

>>12057600
>but its simple enough that i dont have to
then you likely make gross generalizations and ignore a plethora of physical effects that would completely ruin the efficiency of your idea, making it completely unfeasible
>I havent made a system model
this typically is the first step for any kind development

how performant is your system? can you name any operating figures or basic system parameters?
you should be able to answer that without revealing your super secret idea

>>12057606
No, then you would figure out how it works. lol

>>12057609
It pretty much doesnt use a heat sink. But has a heat source. The heat sink is the air. It cools something negligible heat

>>12057611
>then you would figure out how it works
>it works
that part is highly doubtful

>>12057278
OP reminds me of a faggot who wanted to
[math]π = 3.2[/math]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

>>12057278
You suffer from some kind of disphoria where you believe that you ever had a single thought that was unique.

>>12057278
There is not a single thought construct around high school level that would have any relevancy today. Especially, ESPECIALLY nothing with physics or math.