Curious Solution.

[hvacker]

Do you know what a perpetual motion device is?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" :grin:

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Of course I know what PM is. It's why people get kicked out of a patent office because it is against the law.
I don't know what you're grinning at because your implication is insulting. As if I just fell off the turnip truck.
Instead of throwing crap around why don't we see what You really know.

[hvacker]

You started this discussion off with WATER on page two. I'm for putting this to bed because right now you have a mental block. It will come to you when you least expect because you have shown you are a thinker not a dumb butt. The key is in the transformation of energy as it relates to the fan.

Why are you going to come when least expected? What are you , a sniper?
BY all means tell me all about your key ingredient.
My so called "mental block" can be blamed on teachers much smarter than myself.
And I would have to conclude that I'm dealing with very stubborn people who's ideas of argument become desperate. GTOGO

[shellkamp]

Of course I know what PM is. It's why people get kicked out of a patent office because it is against the law.
I don't know what you're grinning at because your implication is insulting. As if I just fell off the turnip truck.
Instead of throwing crap around why don't we see what You really know.

There's no need to be butthurt. I was grinning because I quoted Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride". :grin:

What you're talking about has nothing to do with perpetual motion, though.

I feel like I've demonstrated what I know in this debate, and unfortunately we are at a standstill since not one of us can produce a hose or duct long enough for empirical data.

Wayne has offered some very good explanations using proper terminology and sound principles of physics to back up what he says. You give examples that don't fit well with the subject of discussion (a car rolling to a stop after the engine was shut off).

This is no longer fun to debate, so I'm with Wayne that we need to just let the thread die.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[BBeerme]

When physicists come up with a newfangled formula, they put in extreme variables to see how the equation will respond. Those extreme variables are: One, zero, and infinity.

In the case of your airflow question, and using the above parameters, let's increase the density of your air to equal that of water.

Now let's fill the entire hose or duct with water. Of course we are making assumptions like there is no expansion or contraction in this hose, pipe, or duct.

If pressure is applied at one end, do you think you will or will not [eventually] see an increase of pressure at the other end?

Seems I've heard that water does not compress. It may at some level not discernible with simple instruments, but that is a topic for another discussion.

Your example isn't equal as your describing a closed system where pressure is added to to it. Your mention of water being non-compressible does apply to your closed system as far as pressure only. A static system. All pump power is consumed adding pressure. If you want to move that water around in a loop, all the resistances in the system apply and consume the power. Dynamic system. The terms static and velocity apply.

Our talk was about an open system (dynamic or moving)and what happens to pump/fan power.
You know my point is the power is consumed by the resistance in the duct/pipe friction and the added weight of the added water by pump displacement. In the case of air, the added air from displacement is compressed by the existing air. In both cases the motor energy becomes heat low grade heat.
I use the term "Low grade heat" as heat that's not easily reclaimed.

I think you just admitted defeat.

If you can get pressure to the other end of that closed system, then you can and will get flow, albeit extremely low.

[vargimike]

Actually that is a pretty common design for Unico systems.