Energy Efficiency Engineer Career Training Guide

Question: what kind of jobs do environmental engineers hold? I am looking to become an energy efficiency engineer. What types of jobs would I look for? I know I need to go to college and study environmental engineering. Is this the only path to become an energy efficiency engineer?

Answer: u dont have to study environmental engineering to be that type of engineer. electrical or MECHANICAL engineering would be better. but you do have to study a form of engineering to be considered a engineer

Question: What degrees can lead into alternative energy work or energy efficiency work? physics or engineering degrees? Both? Specific physics PhD degrees for research?

Answer: It depends on what area of work you want to get into. Energy management? Energy research? Awareness raising? If you're into research, mechanical engineering would probably be a good starting point. Other possibilities are industrial chemistry, both organic and inorganic.

Question: I'm interested in working with companies to improve their energy efficiency. What should I study in college? I already have my bachelor's degree, but I'm thinking that I need some sort of engineering or environmental science degree.

Answer: Large companies, regardless of industry, need people from various backgrounds such as marketing, engineers, and lawyers. Whether you will need an engineering degree depends on what kind of position you want. Perhaps you can work on an advanced degree while you are working.

Question: I'm interested in working with companies to improve their energy efficiency. What should I study in school? I already have my bachelor's degree, but I'm thinking that I need some sort of engineering or environmental science degree.

Answer: I'd recomend a Master's in environmental science, environmental engineering, or even geography. I am in a master's program now - and I go to school with a few people studying environmental engineering - it seems they're in the best position to do what you want to do. Environmental engineers are actually in pretty high demand. It would probably be well worth the time spent in school.

Question: energy efficiency and economic efficiency? 2. Engineers at a national research laboratory built a prototype automobile that could be driven 180 miles on a single gallon of unleaded gasoline. They estimated that in a mass production the car would cost $40,000 per unit to build. The engineers argued that Congress should force U.S. automakers to build this energy-efficiency car. a. Is energy efficiency the same thing as economic efficiency? Explain b. Under what circumstances would the energy-efficient automobile described here be economically efficient? c. If the goal of society is to get the most benefit from its limited resources, then why not ignore economic efficiency and build the energy-saving automobiles?

Answer: a. no. Economic efficiency is value for money, where value includes not just gas mileage but car design, acceleration, safety, reliability, etc. Money include not just the price of car and gas, but also cost and frequency of maintenance and repairs, interest cost of the car loan, etc. b. When energy efficient car is as good as conventional cars in all of the criteria described in (a), or at least not much worse. c. B/c "benefit" is an economic concept, not an engineering one. If the goal is to maximize mpg, you would end up making everybody ride motocycles (unsafe and uncomfortable in rain). If your goal is to minimize gasoline use, then you should ban personal vehicles and replace them with public transport (Soviet Union almost did that)

Question: Could electrical engineers be associated with solar energy? I looking at becoming an electrical engineer, because im very interested in solar energy consumption and efficiency and would like to work with that type stuff. Would Electrical Engineering suit this? thank you

Answer: Yes. A solar energy project is primarily electrical and structural. The d.c. output of a solar array needs to be inverted to a.c. and transformed to the voltage of the grid. There are also protective relaying and a system to synchronize the inverter output to connect to the grid. This also poses potential problems with system dynamics. When clouds suddenly shade the sun, the energy of the solar array is immediately reduced and needs to be backed up by other sources. If solar energy, wind energy, etc. become a large part of the power on the grid, problems with fluctuating supply become significant. These are all challenges for electrical engineers. The design of the arrays themselves would involve electrical, optical and chemical engineers as well as material scientists.

Question: Don't you think it's time Engineers should start making Eco-friendly and Energy Efficient structures? I mean you can still have Beatifull Archictecture and Energy Efficiency more key in construction and also use Sustainable and Eco-friendly products in the design when Feasible.

Answer: Engineering is the art to do the most for the least. So, engineers are always trying to do something that will use the least amount of material, fuel, energy, you name it; balanced with other considerations (security, longevity, ect.) So, the energy efficiency bit IS part of the equation. But the customer say he does not want to pay 10% more for a better insulation, and claims he does not mind to pay more each year for lost energy, we engineers are stuck.

Question: Why does lowering your thermostat during the day in the winter decrease your energy usage? I already the know the common sense answer for this. A decrease in temperature difference between the inside of the house and outside of the house means the heat loss is less. Multiply the reduced heat loss by the amount of time the temperature is lower gives a daily (or hourly or whatever) energy savings. I have seen a rule of thumb that for every 1 deg C you drop the thermostat, you get a 2% savings (of course this is over that period of time). Being an electrical engineer (not a mechanical engineer), I want to know what the calculations are for finding this out. Or a link to a site that explains it would be fine. I have already done an internet search, and came up empty after 30 minutes. There are plenty of sites that have built in calculators, but none that I can find that give you the formulas, and the reasoning behind the formulas. It would be nice to be able to input the insulation R value in the mix, as well as the efficiency of the furnace. Thanks!

Answer: Consider equivalent terms. The temperature difference inside to outside can be considered as a potential difference or voltage. Heat flow through the walls is current. Insulation R-value is resistance. Power and energy work the same way. Work out the equations as an electrical system.

Question: it costs $1Billion to make 30,000 homes solar, why not spend more on that rather than defense? I have many questions.. Presently it costs $1Billion to make 30,000 homes solar, why not spend more on that rather than defense? these are proven technologies and 100 billion will make 3 million homes solar. Why doesn't the US government spend more on making the US less reliant on fossil fuel? also, why not more tax breaks on Hybrids? and make them more popular so that auto manufacturers spend more on R&D? Why do we spend so much on engineering efficient weapons and not on engineering energy efficiency? Jobs would be created either way. WHAT ARE WE DOING? Why are we so short sighted as a country? Less dependency on oil = less financing for the Middle east region = less middle east infuence in the world = less powerful muslim states = less threat from terrorists... RIGHT??? WHAT ARE WE DOING? I am not saying that the US should spend $0 on defense, I am saying that spending money on making the country more fuel efficient is another means of defense. I am also not saying that they will no longer want to destroy our country, I am saying that if we provide them with less they will have less to attack us with. I am also saying that if the middle east has less influence on us then we will have FREEDOM to interact with them how we wish, with out worrying so much about financial repercussions. Making our country less reliant on the Middle East will go a long way toward making our country more secure. EVEN BUSH SAID SO!!! What did I write that made people that I am saying the US should spend $0 on defense? geez...

Answer: And if the demand for solar went up the price would come down - so the more they invested in that the cheaper it would become .... The government has no interestin solving problems just manageing the big ones - not solving - They really don't care what happens to us just to them

Question: why not take a little from defense ans spend on making the US more fuel efficient? why not take a little from defense ans spend on making the US more fuel efficient? I have many questions.. Presently it costs $1Billion to make 30,000 homes solar, why not spend more on that rather than defense? these are proven technologies and 100 billion will make 3 million homes solar. Why doesn't the US government spend more on making the US less reliant on fossil fuel? also, why not more tax breaks on Hybrids? and make them more popular so that auto manufacturers spend more on R&D? Why do we spend so much on engineering efficient weapons and not on engineering energy efficiency? Jobs would be created either way. WHAT ARE WE DOING? Why are we so short sighted as a country? Less dependency on oil = less financing for the Middle east region = less middle east infuence in the world = less powerful muslim states = less threat from terrorists... RIGHT??? WHAT ARE WE DOING? I am not saying that the US should spend $0 on defense, just less I am saying that spending money on making the country more fuel efficient is another means of defense. I am also not saying that they will no longer want to destroy our country, I am saying that if we provide them with less they will have less to attack us with. I am also saying that if the middle east has less influence on us then we will have FREEDOM to interact with them how we wish, with out worrying so much about financial repercussions. Making our country less reliant on the Middle East will go a long way toward making our country more secure. EVEN BUSH SAID SO!!!

Answer: This is a very good idea. Unfortunately, the defense industry has a lot more political clout than the alternative energy industry. Until that balance changes, defense wins.

Question: Aeronautical engineers have invented a device that achieves the conversion of kinetic to potential energy.? The device achieves this conversion with high efficiency. In other words, a high percentage of the translational kinetic energy of motion is converted into vertical"lift" with little lost to horizontal "drag". What is the device called?

Answer: Improved ducted rotorcraft. .

Question: Why does my car waste so much energy at idle? What were the engineers thinking? I've been told a typical 3 litre V-6 uses about 0.36 gallons per hour at idle. I pencil this out real quick and am shocked to learn that that this is a total waste of 15 horsepowers. What were the engineers thinking? .36 gph 1 h equals 3600 seconds .36 / 3600 = 36/100 /36 /100 = 1/10000 = 10e-4 so .36 gph equals 1/10000 gal per second. .0001 gallons equals 13.1 k Joules .0001 gal/s equals 13.1 kW equals 4/3 * 13.1 horsepower ~ 17 horsepower waste at idle multiplying by 30% gasoline to mechanical energy conversion engine efficiency that is still over 5 horse powers of wasted energy. Why so wasteful? How much of idle waste does a typical alternator recapture?

Answer: The engineers gave each car a starter, and a shut-off option. It is not their fault people are too stupid to shut the cars off when they are going to be sitting idle for any length of time, then re-started when it is time to drive. Idling is just plain a waste of fuel.

Question: Considerations for engineers when making a fuel effecient car? What considerations do engineers need to make when designing a full fledged car that allows for the maximum amount of efficiency for the energy transformations between the stored energy of the fuel and the turning of the wheels.

Answer: This question is open ended. For example, what does marketing want in the car - mini, small, medium, large or luxury? What is the target selling price and what is the desired production cost. How much do the executives expect to pay for development of new technology, design of car, production tooling, component cost, factory startup, factory cost in production. What is the operating envelope of the car; for example local versus highway. Type of fuel. Engine technology - gasoline, diesel or other. Is a new engine design and engine system (hybrid) required. What is the efficiency of the drive train - automatic, standard shift, differential, drive shatt and bearings, and the tires. Does the company currently have an engines that meet the performance envelop requirement? Can the efficency be improve by modifying the design. The same goes for the drive train. What is the energy required to keep the car rolling for traffic and for highway including performance on hills? These are just some of the considerations. Cost is important to this question because it determines the degree of development that the company will be able to make. Cost represent the amount of money the company has to pay for material and labor during design development, production tooling and startup before any sales returns and profits. Also, it effect the return on the investment. The sales price will be fixed by the competition thus it is not very variable. Thus the fixed and variable costs exert a big influence on profitablity of the car over its production lifetime. There is a lot more that has to be considered, but I've run out of time. I hope your able to complete the list of considerations. The first step is to compose a design specification for the car. The specification shall specify the critical market considerations, fuel, technology, safety requirements

Question: Gas boiler efficiency? Heat engineers please ? I live in the UK, in a 1970's ex local authority semi and it has the standard 'back' boiler which was fitted to many homes built at that time. After the recent gas bill rises I decided to turn the boiler down to hopefully reduce my energy bills but discovered that the boiler is on setting 2 (out of 5) My question is, would it be better to turn it down to 1 of in fact turn it up to 3 or even 4 making it run hotter and therefore reduce the amount of cutting in and out it does to heat the water tank. Basically I only have hot water on gas (heating is off at the mo) and it seems to be costing me around £1.50 a day which does seem quite expensive for a couple of showers and some washing up per day.

Answer: The hotter you keep your water, the more heat it will lose. The rate of heat loss is directly proportional to the difference in temperature between your boiler and the air around it. The number of times the burner cuts in and out is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is how long the burner is on in total. Answer: keep it as low as you can live with. More important to your heating costs is how much you let out the door (or the window or all of the other holes and cracks). If your water tank is not insulated, insulate it. Replace the weatherstrips on all your doors and windows. Caulk every crack or pin hole. If you can, double the amount of insulation in your attic. Think of your house as a slightly leaky pail, leaking your money -- i.e. your expensive heated air. Every pin hole you plug is money kept in your pocket.

Question: Can you explain this sentence please? Can you explain this sentence please? Both iPod and iPhone displays have been designed with arsenic-free glass and power-efficient, mercury-free LED-backlight technology. Both products ship free of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in logic boards and polyvinyl chlorides (PVC) in the handset and headphones. Apple engineers also redesigned iPod and iPhone power adapters to outperform the strictest global energy efficiency standards.

Answer: What they are saying, true - perhaps a little long in their statement, is that Apple is trying to be environmentally responsible in the manufacture of their products, and that the disposal of their products is less harmful to the environment as a result. Good on them for their efforts.

Question: Is it worthwhile for an architect to do a PhD in Sustainable Design/Environmental Engineering? I am 25 years old. I have a Diploma in Architecture, an MSc in Energy Efficiency of Buildings and 2 years work experience. I have the opportunity to do a PhD (I have been offered the funding for a full time program). I love research and I am really interested in doing that. But people around me have been really discouraging, telling me that I will lose real-world experience. What should I do?

Answer: Oh get the PhD! If you like doing it and it sounds like something you want to do then the work experience will catch up! Especially since the world is going green day-by-day I'd say the real jobs are going to open up for designing large housing systems from neighborhoods to buildings to cities and parks. So your degree would be right up the alley of what people are looking for!

Question: Thermal energy from lignite? The customary American Engineering unit for thermal energy is the British thermal unit (Btu). The heating value of a Texas lignite is 6000 Btu/lb (mass). 1) What is the amount of thermal energy, in Btu, release if 100 kg of this lignite is burned completely in a boiler generating steam? 2) The steam generated in the boiler is used to drive a steam turbine to generate electricity; the overall efficiency of power generation is 38% (electrical energy output per heating value of lignite input, expressed as percent). Calculate the amount of electrical energy generated from burning 100 kg of lignite, in watt-hours. Given: 1 Btu = 252 gram calories = 0.293 watt-hours (wh) = 1055 joules (J), 1 kg = 2.2 lb

Answer: 6000 Btu/lb (mass). pound mass has many different definitions. I'll use Avoirdupois pound (US), which is defined as 2.2 kg so 6000 BTU/lb x 1 lb/2.2 kg = 2727 BTU/kg 2727 BTU/kg x 100 kg = 273000 BTU 2. 38% of 273000 BTU is 103700 BTU 103700 BTU x 0.293 watt-hours/BTU = 354000 watt-hours .

Question: Science Project help... dam energy? You are a hydrologic engineer asked to do a feasibility study of building a hydroelectric dam on the Hiwassee River in the Narrows. The surface elevation of the reservoir is limited to 1180 feet above sea level. The Hiwassee has a 1210 mi2 drainage basin upstream from the Narrows. The average rainfall in the basin is 45 in/yr. The Hiwassee River is a 5th order stream. The average area runoff is 30%. 70% of precipitation will infiltrate the ground or evaporate before it flows through the penstock. The Narrows is deep enough to create a large upstream reservoir.The concrete dam will have one penstock that can have a discharge (Q) equal to the average natural discharge of the river into the reservoir. Electrical generation in this plant will maintain 75% efficiency. The big question you are attempting to answer is if this power plant will be able to supply total electrical energy needs for a minimum of 30,000 average households and how much direct revenue this plant will make per year the elevation of the water is about 880feet. here is the location of where the dam is going to be built: http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=35.18288&lon=-84.417&symshow=n&datum=nad27&layer=DRG the elevation difference is 880ft. an average household uses about 10000kw per year. the avg price is about 10cents per kilowatthour.

Answer: Here's an example of the power output of a hydro-electric power plant for you to plug in your own figures. What the average consumption per household will be, I've no idea. But, the following should supply at least the 30,000 households. A hydroelectric power station is 150 m below the level of water in a reservoir. Calculate the power output when water flows to the turbines at 32 m³/s and the overall efficiency of the plant is 75%. (Water density = 1000 kg/m3) In this example, the PE of the water is converted to KE to drive the turbines....Therefore: (Mass = Density x Volume) The mass of water flowing per second = 32 x 1000 kg PE of water = mgh = 32 x 1000 x 9.81 x 150 (Joules) Power is the rate of transfer of energy, measured in Watts (J/s) Assuming 100% efficiency : P = 32 x 1000 x 9.81 x 150 J/s (W) = 47.09 MW However, efficiency = 75%. Therefore: Power output = 47.09 x 0.75 = 35.32 MW. ....

Question: Nuclear energy or Re-usable energy? I am currently an engineer student and through my studies so far I have a BIG question in my head. It is about energy. Do you thing that Nuclear Energy will be the future or the reusable energy. The point is that nuclear energy is already here and can supply a good amount of cheap energy with only a big disadvantage the nuclear wastes, which in my opinion if we put more effort we can decrease their activity. Another point is the new fusion reaction plant (ITER) that will be ready before 2020 and will have a really high efficiency and with no nuclear waste. From the other hand we have the reusable forms of energy which to me seems not good enough. Of course if we increase their efficiency, if we put more effort, if...,if.... . Does it really have to be that?

Answer: the only thing holding back nuclear from taking over all forms of energy supplied is the the slow build/approval times. it takes about 10 years for a plant to be approved/built while a simple wind turbine can take a 1 week to install. once nuclear fusion is perfected hopefully more places will shut down there coal factories and switch over and stop building intrussive dams and wind turbines.

Question: Nuclear or Re-usable energy? I am currently an engineer student and through my studies so far I have a BIG question in my head. It is about energy. Do you thing that Nuclear Energy will be the future or the reusable energy. The point is that nuclear energy is already here and can supply a good amount of cheap energy with only a big disadvantage the nuclear wastes, which in my opinion if we put more effort we can decrease their activity. Another point is the new fusion reaction plant (ITER) that will be ready before 2020 and will have a really high efficiency and with no nuclear waste. From the other hand we have the reusable forms of energy which to me seems not good enough. Of course if we increase their efficiency, if we put more effort, if...,if.... . Does it really have to be that?

Answer: nuclear. the technology is evolving rapidly. we need the political will to implement it. would you live next to a coal fired plant, or a nuc facility? i,d choose a nuc plant. large piles of mined coal actually give off lots of radioactive elements into the environment.

Question: Ideas for an engineering project? I'm doing the level 3 diploma at AS/A2 level and need some ideas for a project. I need to research, design and build something (it can be anything at all) that will solve any problem we have in the real world, for example transportation of goods or energy-efficiency. Whoa! nothing too complicated :L I'm not at degree level yet!

Answer: One of the most critical problems that this world will face in the near future is the availability of clean water. If you live in the US this problem may not be apparent to you, but do a little research and you'll see what I mean. A portable device that can convert salt-water to fresh-water by means of human power will be a priceless device in the future. Research some of the devices that have already been designed and incorporate the principles into your own design. My suggestion would be to use a come-along or bottle jack with a very fine cloth filter to give you the leverage you need to make it possible to use by hand. Though I don't know much about the specifics of the devices, I've often pondered making my own incase I'm stranded at sea (would be great on life boats...etc)

Question: HHO Generators: How do you engineer a design? There are various designs out there, but none of them have any engineering information with them. 1. What kind of plates work with how much efficiency? 2. What size should the plates be for a specific input/output? 3. How many plates are required for s specific input/output? 4. How much water is needed based on plate count and size? 5. How much catalyst (baking soda/salt)? 6. How much input energy (volts/amps) is required? This is not related to a specific cell, so the answer would have to be a formula rather than "2 plates" or "1 tsp". This link has a better overview of the question that I'm asking: http://hho4gas.blogspot.com/2008/05/hho-cell-design-questions.html I agree that the answers so far have assumed something other than what is being asked. The question is related to how to design a specific device related to input/output expectations. the question is NOT can i use designed device to power a specific engine instead of gasoline or can i get out more power than i put in.

Answer: your answers so far are off-topic so I might as well throw my useless comments into the ring. the laws of thermodynamics don't actualy come into play with regard to your question. I'd have to assume that the person that wrote that answer is just mad that he thought he could use HHO to remove the gas tank from his car. He probably has no idea that people use HHO for welding or plasma cutters. Regardless of the use, you're question should have a somewhat serious answer that doesn't include trolls that are unhappy about people thinking HHO is free gasoline. Regarding power consumption, nothing is ever free. That is why we pay for things like gasoline, electricty, firewood,, etc. These guys were to busy assuming you wanted free power, and should have left the answers to people that can actualy read the question. The question, as I read it, has to do with parameters associated with customzing HHO cells not with proving cold fusion. Better luck finding better answers, I doubt the realy smart people are wasting time on yahoo answers. They probably have real jobs with real science.

Question: Engineering homework help? for engineering we are learning about our home's energy efficiency and i am doing a worksheet with the question: "How much would one BTU of energy cost you for your home?" ***can you help explain how I would get this answer

Answer: (1 BTU) x ( kW hrs/BTU) x ($/kW hr) = Cost for 1 BTU in US dollars.

Question: Why do astronomers need different telescope designs to observe across the electromagnetic spectrum? a) Telescopes have to adapt to the greater distortion of the atmosphere at shorter wavelengths. b)Astronomers and engineers enjoy the challenge of making new telescope designs. c) Photons of different energy behave differently and require different collection strategies. d) New telescopes incorporate new technology to increase their efficiency. e) because light pollution is worse at radio wavelengths than visible wavelengths

Answer: The answer is C. There's a wide range of light waves, as well as elements emitted. For instance, an instrument that detects hydrogen, wont detect gamma waves, so different instruments are needed.

Question: How does the gearbox work? a small wheeled vehicle has to spend more energy and fuel to drive the same distance when compared with a vehicle with large size wheels due to the less circumference of the small one. if we ignore the weights of the two vehicles(or consider both has the same weight), how do the engineers match up this difference in fuel efficiency by changing the wheel sizes of the gearbox? Is it possible?

Answer: Your question is not all that clear with no defined aim, and I see no reason why a small wheeled vehicle has to spend more energy and fuel to drive the same distance .

Question: poetic engineering for valentines day? I have acquired a good quality wife, she functions within normal parameters , she recycles our dishes and deletes household debris, she fit our replicated offspring’s with body warmth regulators , she regularly supplies them with energy input, and makes sure they regenerate horizontally at a reasonable time, she often transmits sinusoidal love waves that are received in phase to increase the family’s happiness by 128.4% and more, she takes note of repairable defects that often impede on servo and system control functions of other family processing errors, and comforts them by sending understanding protocols that will decrease their stress level for the purpose of increasing their energy efficiency. yes the wife unit of the species is often noted as just an auxiliary program but she should be recognized a CPU , caring, parent, unconditionally

Answer: Very interestingly stated.

Question: economics question help needed? 2. Engineers at a national research laboratory built a prototype automobile that could be driven 180 miles on a single gallon of unleaded gasoline. They estimated that in a mass production the car would cost $40,000 per unit to build. The engineers argued that Congress should force U.S. automakers to build this energy-efficiency car. a. Is energy efficiency the same thing as economic efficiency? Explain b. Under what circumstances would the energy-efficient automobile described here be economically efficient? c. If the goal of society is to get the most benefit from its limited resources, then why not ignore economic efficiency and build the energy-saving automobiles?

Answer: a - No - energy efficient is using the least energy - economically efficient is costing least b when the additional cost on building the economically efficient vehicle becomes less than the cost of the fuel saved - in other words high mileage c good question - one for the politicians to answer

Question: Can this PSU support a GTX 260? Hey guys. I'm not the best when it comes to PSU's as I have rarely dealt with them other than plugging wires in. I was looking at this PSU for my new computer and was wondering if it could support the GTX 260, I know it can wattage wise but I was also thinking about connector issues. Product info: Product Details Product Name:Corsair TX-750 750W ATX Power Warranty:12 mths-RTB1 Warranty - (Details) Manufactures:Corsair Weight(kg):3.00 Product link: Product Description: Enthusiasts looking for the optimal in price performance PSU technology will find the Corsair TX650W/TX750W series of PSUs will meet even the most demanding of required specifications. The Corsair TX650W/TX750W power supplies are engineered using advanced technology and components typically found with high performance power supplies. With design features such as a dedicated, single +12V rail offer the maximum compatibility with the latest system components. Energy efficient circuitry capable of delivering greater than 80% efficiency ratings across 20%, 50%, and 100% load conditions make the TX family of PSUs ideal for the value/quality conscious enthusiast. With a large 140mm (120mm on TX650W) diameter temperature-controlled fan that is ultra quiet, yet still more than sufficient to cool the internals of the system, reliability and stability are no longer worries for the gamer, overclocker or enthusiast and high-end system builder. Corsair TX Series Features: * Supports ATX12V v2.2 standard and older ATX12V 2.01 spec * Ultra-quiet 120mm (140mm on TX750W) double ball-bearing fan delivers excellent airflow * 80%+ energy efficiency at 20%, 50% and 100% load condition for less heat generation and lower energy bill * 99% Active Power Factor Correction provides clean and reliable power to your system * Universal AC input 90~264V automatically scans and detects the correct voltage * Dedicated single +12V rail offers maximum compatibility with latest components * Over Current/Voltage/Power Protection, Under Voltage Protection, and Short Circuit Protection provide maximum safety to your critical system components. * High quality Japanese capacitors provide uncompromised performance and reliability. * Extra long cables support full tower size chassis. * TX750W Dimension: 5.9"(W) x 3.4"(H) X 6.3"(L); * TX650W Dimension: 5.9"(W) x 3.4"(H) X 5.5"(L); * MTBF: 100,000 Hours Is that fine for me? Thanks in advance.

Answer: The Corsair 750w is a fantastic power supply. It will run 2 GTX 260s in SLI configuration. You've made a great choice! Kudos to you, it's great to see someone who knows how to do their homework! TWO BIG THUMBS UP!!!

Question: Would you paint your roof white to slow global warming? London, May 27 (ANI): US President Barrack Obama's energy adviser has suggested that as part of efforts to slow global warming, all the world's roofs should be painted white. According to a report in the Telegraph, Professor Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, said that the unusual proposal would mean homes in hot countries would save energy and money on air conditioning by deflecting the sun's rays. More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures. The Professor described climate change as a "crisis situation", and called for a whole host of measures to be introduced, from promoting energy efficiency to renewable energy such as wind, wave and solar. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist said the US was not considering any large scale "geo-engineering" projects where science is used to reverse global warming, but was in favour of "white roofs everywhere". He said that lightening roofs and roads in urban environments would offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years. "If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour and if you do that uniformally, that would be the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years - just taking them off the road for 11 years," he said. http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090527/981/tsc-paint-your-roofs-white-to-slow-globa.html

Answer: I would install sun and wind power devices to my house if the government was going to pay for it! http://www.panoramacafebar.com

Question: I have a subject at school. A strange subject? It is called science engineering. It is a new subject, so there are no past exam papers or students. The teacher is lazy and has not written the exam yet or told us much about it. I will not ask him no matter what. Please do not ask me about this. In class, we learn about alternative fuels, organic chemistry, energy efficiency of motor vehicles and aerodynamics and stuff. We have no text books, and we are to take no notes. What should i do to study for this subect's exams? I am fairly lazy, and not too keen to look into a lot of the information on the web (but a few websites couldn't hurt), especialy since he said that we should be absolutely fine on the test, as long as we pay attention. My only quim, as I would have rather not had one and simply waited till the whole class was told about what to prepare on, is that i'm quite unwell, and sure to miss ALOT in this class. I'm not keen on asking another student, as my friends in class are not studious at all, and pay no attention. help?

Answer: Ummmm You're not prepared to talk to the teacher, research on the web or ask other students in the class to help when you miss a class? Well then, you can A) Fail or B) Drop out. Good luck to your lazy self! PS what's a quim?

Question: Chemical engineering question....? Suppose a petrol car with tank volume 60L has a driving range of 400km How would i estimate the driving range of a CNG car if both the petrol and CNG has the same energy efficiency and tank volume? CNG tank = 25C, 700atm heating value =50 MJ per kg

Answer: i don't know. No one would know.

Question: Alternative Fuel Vehicles - LPG - (Liquified Petroleum Gas)? Please answer the following questions according to LPG (Liquefied/Liquified Petroleum Gas) as an alternative fuel for vehicles. Please give your answers from the perspective of a Scientist/Engineer. Give as much detail as possible and list the websites that you found information on. ? How does the vehicle work? What are the parts? How is it different from/similar to an internal combustion engine?(keep this simple) ? What is the fuel? How is the fuel produced? Is there any energy used in the production of the fuel? If so, what is the source of this energy? ? What are the by-products from this fuel source, and does this pose a problem? ? Map the energy conversions involved (all the way back to the original energy source). ? Discuss the efficiency of the vehicle. ? Include any relevant chemical equations.

Answer: How does the vehicle work? The vehicle uses a spark ignition internal combustion engine, no different than a conventional gasoline engine except for the fuel delivery system. What are the parts? Same as a gasoline. there is a carburator instead of fuel injects and a system that uses the engine hot water to vaporize the propane ( How is it different from/similar to an internal combustion engine?(keep this simple) answered ? What is the fuel? LPG is just propane except in real hot contries it might have some butane mixed in). How is the fuel produced? Most LPG is extracted from natural gas. Natural gas as it comes from the earth contains propane, butanes and longer chained hydrocarbons.The remained is created in the process of converting crude oil into useful items, like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc.. Is there any energy used in the production of the fuel? Yes about 5% to 10% of the LPG's energy is consumed in manufaturing and transportation. If so, what is the source of this energy? primarily the energy is the natural gas that it is removed from. ? What are the by-products from this fuel source, and does this pose a problem? Actually, LPG is considered a by-product under most circumstances. Sometimes the natural gas or crude oil contain sulphur compounds that are removed. The sulphur is converted to a soilid and used as fertilizer. ? Map the energy conversions involved (all the way back to the original energy source).There is no energy conversions, the propane stays as propane from welhead to fuel tank. Then the propane is burned (chemical energy to heat energy) The combustion turns an engine, heat to mechanical. The enginee drives the wheels, mechanical to mechanical. ? Discuss the efficiency of the vehicle. An LPG fueled car will have exactly the same efficency of any other car, their is nothing special about it. ? Include any relevant chemical equations C3H8 (LPG) + 5O2 = 3 CO2 + 4H2O

Question: Photosynthesis and leaves? Hey guys. I have a question that I'm having trouble with in my homework. If you could help me out that'd be great :) Only about 5% of the solar radiation that hits a leaf is converted into useful stored energy. This is a relatively low photosynthetic efficiency. 1. Explain why so much energy is not available to the leaf. 2. If you were a biological engineer, what would you do to create a plant with higher photosynthetic efficiency?

Answer: You first have to understand that the light from the sun comes in a lot of wavelengths. Form radio waves, and wavelengths within the visual light spectrum... But the leave, during photosynthesis is only able to absorb a certain wavelength of light because the chlorophyll pigments and caretenoids are only capable absorbing limited wavelengths of the light within the visual spectrum. Chlorophyll a P680 - Absorb light of wave length 680nm Chlorophyll a P700 - Absorb light of wave length 700nm Caretenoid - More of the green light This would explain the 5%. Why don't you brainstorm about part 2 from here?

Question: physics? really easy? 10 pts for first right answer? 3) An engineer can vary the rate at which water falls directly down through a generator at a hydroelectric power plant. The generator and its turbine can supply 268MW of electric power when the rate at which the water supplies power to the turbine is 335MW. a) Efficiency? b) What is the change in potential energy of the falling water per second? c) If water falls 16m to the turbine, what mass of water must be directed through the turbine per second to supply the power indicated above?

Answer: __________________________________ a) Efficiency =268 /335 =0.8 Efficiency =80 % _____________________________ (b) the change in potential energy of the falling water per second is 3.35*10^8 J ____________________________________________ If water falls 16m to the turbine, mass of water must be directed through the turbine per second to supply the power indicated above =3.35*10^8/gh mass of water must be directed through the turbine per second = 3.35*10^8/ 9.8*16 (c) mass of water must be directed through the turbine per second = 2.13648*10^6 kg /s ___________________________

Question: carnot engine!? a budding mechanical engineer, you are called upon to design a Carnot engine that has 2.00 mol of He gas as its working substance and that operates from a high-temperature reservoir at 500K. The engine is to lift a 15.0 kg weight 2.00m/cycle , using 500 J of heat input. The gas in the engine chamber can have a minimum volume of 5.00 L during the cycle. A) What must be the temperature of the cold reservoir? B) What is the thermal efficiency of the engine c) How much heat energy does this engine waste per cycle D) What is the maximum pressure that the gas chamber will have to withstand? I don't even know where to start, so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Answer: E = mgh = 15 * 9.81* 2 = 294.3J so efficiency should be 294.3 / 500 = 0.5886 Efficiency of Carnot engine is: Ec = (Th - Tl) / Th so 0.5886 = (500 - Tl) / 500 => Tl = 205.7K The engine waste 500J - 294.3J = 205.7J And I'll leave you the last item (you can start with the equations in the link)

Question: Why does accelerating quickly in gas-powered vehicle reduce gas mileage? I am an electrical engineer guy that works with electric motors a mostly, so if you mechanical folks could forgive my ignorance.... It seems to be common knowledge that accelerating quickly in your car reduces the mileage you get out of the vehicle. My initial clumsy thought process was that both a fast and slow accelerating vehicle make it up to the same kinetic energy eventually, so shouldn't their energy (gas) use be the same? Then I reasoned that it must be something to do with the efficiency at those two different operating conditions. So, enlighten me as to why we get worse mileage when accelerating hard, and why the efficiency goes down under hard acceleration (if it actually does). Thanks a bundle. Oh, and does this apply to both Otto (gas) and Diesel type engines?

Answer: Kinetic energy will be the same eventually but the inertia is the main difference here. It's easier to push a slowliy rolling car than one at rest. And yes efficiency is what makes the difference in the calculations.

Question: water powered vehicle? Elaborate hoax? I have watched several videos on youtube about engineers who claimed to have figured out ways to liberate energy from water with enough efficiency that they can power a car engine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ybmDNrd-OI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65RkcDZxPuQ I have heard that the energy required to liberate energy from H20 would negate the energy that can be released from it. So the process is completely pointless. Is this true? Are these engineers / scientists quacks, or is there something to these ideas? L Yeh, one of the guys (Stan Meyer) died and they tried to make out he was murdered by the CIA or some rich middle-eastern oil company.

Answer: Unfortunately you're right. The amount of energy input involved in producing the energy makes the whole story unworkable. BMW and VW have just stopped their investment in their hydrogen powered engines for that reason. Of course we will still hear stories about the "men in black" who cover the water tablet stories up, but nowadays there's simply no way you could cover up a real alternative source of energy. As for youtube, did you see my clip on time travel using 2 eggs and a hamster? I posted the clip on youtube. What are those guys in black doing at my window? Just a sec..................

Question: can someone help me with my drivers ed practice test? 1. The first concepts for an automobile could have originated with: A. Henry Ford B. Leonardo da Vinci C. Frank Duryea D. Michelangelo 2. The first engineer who designed and built an automobile was from :A. France B. Germany C. Japan D. America 3. The first American automobile to be produced in quantity was the: A. 1901 Curved Dash B. 1903 Model T C. 1901 Hudson 4. The term "The Big Three" refers to: A. Japan, Germany, and the U.S. B. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors C. Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and Wilhelm Maybach 5. True or false: The rise of the automobile dramatically shifted economic conditions .A. True B. False 6. Which of the following are new innovations in automobiles? A. Fuel efficiency B. Safety features C. Power sources D. A and B E. All of the above 7. A hybrid vehicle refers to: A. The two companies that joined forces to create it B. Two different sources of energy to fuel it C. A mix of fuel and oil to run it 8. Which was the #1 factor historically in the development of safety equipment? A. Accidents involving children B. Poor driving conditions C. Lack of driver education 9. Safety belts became standard features in automobiles in what year?A. 1948 B. 1968 C. 1964

Answer: 1=b 2=? b or a 3=b 4=b 5=a 6=e 7=b 8a 9=c now you know absolutely no more about driving than before.

Question: I cant pass this one drivers ed pre test HELP!!!!? . 1. The first concepts for an automobile could have originated with: A. Henry Ford B. Leonardo da Vinci C. Frank Duryea D. Michelangelo 2. The first engineer who designed and built an automobile was from: A. France B. Germany C. Japan D. America 3. The first American automobile to be produced in quantity was the: A. 1901 Curved Dash B. 1903 Model T C. 1901 Hudson 4. The term "The Big Three" refers to: A. Japan, Germany, and the U.S. B. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors C. Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and Wilhelm Maybach 5. True or false: The rise of the automobile dramatically shifted economic conditions. A. True B. False 6. Which of the following are new innovations in automobiles? A. Fuel efficiency B. Safety features C. Power sources D. A and B E. All of the above 7. A hybrid vehicle refers to: A. The two companies that joined forces to create it B. Two different sources of energy to fuel it C. A mix of fuel and oil to run it 8. Which was the #1 factor historically in the development of safety equipment? A. Accidents involving children B. Poor driving conditions C. Lack of driver education 9. Safety belts became standard features in automobiles in what year? A. 1948 B. 1968 C. 1964

Answer: 1. B (guess) 2. Germany 3. 1901 Oldsmobile Curved Dash 4. B 5. A True 6. E 7. B 8. A 9. C 1968

Question: I need help on my driving ed test? 1. The first concepts for an automobile could have originated with: A. Henry Ford B. Leonardo da Vinci C. Frank Duryea D. Michelangelo 2. The first engineer who designed and built an automobile was from: A. France B. Germany C. Japan D. America 3. The first American automobile to be produced in quantity was the: A. 1901 Curved Dash B. 1903 Model T C. 1901 Hudson 4. The term "The Big Three" refers to: A. Japan, Germany, and the U.S. B. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors C. Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and Wilhelm Maybach 5. True or false: The rise of the automobile dramatically shifted economic conditions. A. True B. False 6. Which of the following are new innovations in automobiles? A. Fuel efficiency B. Safety features C. Power sources D. A and B E. All of the above 7. A hybrid vehicle refers to: A. The two companies that joined forces to create it B. Two different sources of energy to fuel it C. A mix of fuel and oil to run it 8. Which was the #1 factor historically in the development of safety equipment? A. Accidents involving children B. Poor driving conditions C. Lack of driver education 9. Safety belts became standard features in automobiles in what year? A. 1948 B. 1968 C. 1964

Answer: You spent way too much time typing it up instead why don't you just do a search for all the facts on the internet.

Question: How to find a company to take design rights? An engineer I'm close with has recently designed an energy generator that runs at higher efficiencies than anything we have now, close to 80%, and has written a program for higher. It's a closed loop system that utilizes recent advances in hydrogen separation techniques. For now the energy generator can only be used as a static generator but the group hopes to sell the rights of design to a company that can reduce the size to fit any mid sized car (right now it's good for SUV size and above) to replace the hydrogen vehicles in about 3 years. How can I help them contact a company that would be willing to take the rights of design in return for 5% royalties?

Answer: The amount of royalties is a negotiation point. It may be worth more or less. What you are looking for is quite common. You see advertisement all the time for "Do you have an INVENTION!!!" These companies propose to guide you through the patent process. Some even tell you that they will help market your invention to "LARGE CORPORATIONS." For this naturally they charge a fee and possibility a percentage of any royalties. The moral is that it is easy to find someone who wants to take a slice of the pie for as little leg work as possible. What is much more difficult to find is someone who wants to work. No one is going to believe in the process as much as inventors do. Why don't they hire you to go door to door to engineering firms and get bids on developing the downscaled version of the process. Finding and securing such may take money for legal fees at the outset. This may require the backing of a venture capitalist. You might even secure the rights yourself but probably not get any income until the venture capitalist is on board. Good luck.

Question: Hot air, politicians & Fuel prices: Can anyone explain why [non-corn] ethanol gets MORE mpg than gasoline? Yes. It does. Engineers get stuck on "Energy Value" which just means "Heat" value. Here we are paying $4/gallon to create "HEAT"?!!!! Why?! The power, efficiency, torque and performance of compression engine are what matter! NOT the %@$%&*-in' heat! Before answering, please be sure you understand the importance of OCTANE value. Particularly of ETHANOL. It wouldn't hurt, either, to distinguish between the amount of energy needed to distill drinkable BOOZE and that needed to make FUEL-GRADE ethanol. Lordy! I can not be-LIEVE the horse-apples-4-brains I see on here. ... ==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+== Dane, DumDum: Where do I even start?! There are toy airplanes powered by rubber bands. That doesn't mean a rubber band would power a fighter jet, right? Most cheesy car engines - from Kia to Bentley, GMC to Jaguar - are DESIGNED around fossil gasoline. They are NOOOOOOOOOOOT optimized for N-Ething other than gasoline (aka: tar-snot). The most basic re-engineering could optimize engines to run far better on ethanol (liquid sunshine) than gasoline (tar-snot). And, Dane, you jumped straight into my li'l trap... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Checkmate! The notion that ethanol is 20% less effective applies to the parameters above. Decades-old, obsolete (but still the norm), inefficient (for everything but gasoline), smelly (to anything with a nose) archaic engine-design! Heck, we might as well go back to the locomotive coal shnoot design and every car owner be required to hire a coal shoveler. [cont....] ... Dane: Long story short, ethanol is really out of place in contraptions designed for tar-snot. However, a high-compression, properly-timed engine designed for fuel with ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN OCTANE [YEAH, BABY!!] can get more than twice as many miles on a single gallon as tar-sn*t. In fact, so sensibly designed an engine wouldn't permit tar-sn*t to pass through its system. ...

Answer: YOU know I lthink lyou mentioned something like this when in Texas and when we werer deciding what we were going to tell the party to do. I am not sure if lyou are talking about the same stuff, not out of oil and gas wells, but the one they put in your care. Rmeember in the old days only the cheap indies sold it and that is why the gas was about 10% less and in the long run lyou got aobut 10% less milage and it equalled out. Not sure aobut water in tank or the extra wear and tear on you and your ride as lyou had to stop and get more gas 10% more of the time. Now i rmemeber you stated a veryhigh octane. Ithink the diesel is hig because they are not watering it down with the ethanol. I could abe wrong, but with it taking 450 bushels to make gradable, drive 24 gallons of ethanol I think we should make opcorn and feed the world, even though they hate us. oh yea could you give some supportive area I could take a look at this, I don't doubt you, but think someone is telling you "an untruth" sorta like some of the pollticans. Hey I just bought five acres of land for $3 million and one is next to your apartments and i will sell you that acre for $200,000, sound like something else. Take care.

Question: What will be the implications of man-made complexity rivaling nature? Let's face it, in under 100 years, man-made technologies will start to rival, or perhaps even surpass, natural apparatus. Things found in -complex- biological life like cell's lipid bilayers, mitochondria and process like mitoses and meiosis will start to be rivaled by the end of the century by man-made technologies. While those things just mentioned are fantastically complex, the mitochondria operates at ~54% efficiency. It is because of this our bodies get so hot when we exercise -- the huge amount of energy wasted in the form of heat generated sugar(s) into ATP energy units. The trend would predict that while engineering, in the physical world, is currently ahead of engineering for computers (computer science), these two will switch places by 2040, at the latest. Then it will be engineering's turn to catch up. Of course, it has to be in this oder as humans, unaided by conscious computers, would never be able to create nature-rivaling apparatus. Regardless, once we get there, we could have machines, more efficient, powerful and intelligent than any biological beings -- including, but not limited to, homo sapiens. Their would be bodies not limited to a single form -- rendering them immune, effectively, from damage/trauma. Moreover, they would exist in a cyberspace, of sorts, and since their bodies are simply machines (as our own are, but they would be of a different creed, if you will), they could have their consciousness "re implanted" time in memorial. In short, this beings would be, in theory at least, immortal and their existence immutable, although their complexity would be the converse. These projections would follow a exponential growth curve as humans only need to deliver these creatures to cognitive abilities on a par, or slightly above, that of our own -- they'll do the rest from c.2075 on. We'll all be in the zoo! I don't know if the dates are right, but the general concept seems not only plausible and logical to conjecture, but probable, as a group of principals. Do you like this projected future? Regardless, do you think it accurate? Why or why not?

Answer: I don't find it accurate at all simply from a statistical point of view. Throughout modern history, humanity has tried to predict its own growth. But with the exception of some very general, very vague guesses, most have failed to come to fruitation. (Where's my flying car, dammit?) In any case, given the sheer amount of fear humanity feels toward anything it creates that might rival itself, it's essentially impossible for humanity to create something that replaces itself. Humans may seek technological advancement, but we seek it for the sole goal of benefitting humans. Creating sentient beings that serve only to replace us as the dominant force of intelligence on the face of the planet is not in the interest of humanity, so it cannot occur.

Question: Anybody that has experience with Scholarship essays i need somebody let me know if this essay is alright? Over the years I have developed a strong passion for discovering and utilizing alternative fuel sources. The world has become unnecessarily dependent on crude oil, especially on its most popular component, gasoline. I plan on going to Michigan State University and studying Biosystems Engineering in order to learn more about alternative energies and how they can be associated with everyday technologies. I believe that there are some occasions where the use of oil is wise but there are several areas where oil products can be substituted with other sources such as hydrogen fuel cells and solar energy. I can also apply my knowledge in Biosystems Engineering to research new methods of dealing with waste as well as decreasing the amount of waste that is produced by large industries. Most of all I want to work on increasing the efficiency production tools and machines. Every machine that uses heat is disposing valuable energy into the atmosphere. This energy can be isolated and used for many operations. The excess heat can be used to do simple things such as heating houses and water. As a matter of fact, heated water is a very important step in a cost efficient method of extracting hydrogen from water where electricity is run through extremely hot water. The molecules are then broken up into two separate substances, oxygen and hydrogen. There are so many more instances where waste can be turned into a useful byproduct and my goal is to discover and carry out these operations. I am determined to find efficient and cost effective ways for companies to produce their products while staying competitive with the everyday market. By minimizing the amount of waste factories and other mass producing companies discharge we can help protect the environment. Nature is the most important part of this world because the more we tamper with the natural courses of nature the more we are hurting ourselves as well as our ability to survive in the future. The essay is supposed to relate my engineering major to how i'm going to use it in order to help in the mechanical field.

Answer: send the essay to me at londrast@yahoo.co.uk and i will up grade the english for you if you want.

Question: Is there any way that an electric motor, can turn an alternator, and more than double the motors power? I am a tinkerer...an inventor. And, I have found a way, to make an electric motor run, at more than double the input power, from the only power source. The motor (in a unique way), is turning an alternator, and the alternator is generating power (obviously). So, it is my understanding, that if I am putting in 100 watts of power, that according to thermodynamic laws, if the alternator, and motor, were both 100% efficient, and I added the alternator's output to the motor's operation...then the total maximum operating power of the motor, would be 200 watts. Since the power source is 100 watts of power, and the alternator is generating 100 watts of power...the motor would run at twice the input power. The problem is, I am getting this motor to run at 207 watts, in this scenario (sorry, I cannot give the exact set up). I have been in a debate with my business partners (who say I need to get it validated, before we can get funding), and with a physics professor, who is treating me poorly. I just need somebody, who knows what they are talking about, to either tell me that this is not possible, or that it is...everything I have ever read, says that one cannot get more energy (mechanical, or otherwise), than is input into the motor. This is not the case, with my set up. The power that the motor runs at, is more than double the input power, from the only power source. It would stand to reason, if there is 100 watts, being input into the system (the only power source), and the motor is running at 207 watts, then the alternator must be generating more energy, than is being input into the system, as the 7 watts over 100% efficiency, must be being generated by the alternator. If someone can either ratify that I am correct in my interpretation of this data, or explain how I am not, that would be very helpful. If you are from a scientific field, and would be willing to validate this device, if this is indeed odd, I am willing to subject my methods to testing. You must have enough authority, to validate the technology, so that my business partners can tell investor's, that it has been validated by an authority, and sign a statement, to this effect. Also, before I disclose my exact method (beyond this vaugue description), there will be NDA/NCC documentation, which has to be executed. I certainly appreciate you taking the time, to answer this query. Thanks. + (Note: The point of this demonstration, is not to make electricity. So, do not say that I should hook up a resistor to the alternator output. This is a common trick that engineers use, to uphold thermodynamics. The product yielded from this experiment, is mechanical energy...more than double that of the input power. It is the seed, of perpetual motion, not the thing itself. Thanks again.) Bill Russel...I appreciate you taking time to answer my query. I think you missunderstand my point. I have it built, and working. So, please explain if what I described, is or is not in violation of thermodynamics...I have exactly what I described, working. I can show you, if you would like? 100 watt's from a laboratory, DC power supply. Motor running at 207 watts. Actually, this is just so that it is easy to explain...my best has been 121 watts, from the power supply, and 252 watts motor power. So, please...say something besides "it won't work", as it is working. In fact, I have it running right now...as I write this retort, to your abraisive answer. I just want to know, if what I described, is or is not in violation of thermodynamics...and, kindly correct my misunderstanding. Also, I should mention, that I have also connected the motor, and power supply to power analyzers, and the motor runs at more than double, the watt hours input from the power supply. I need answers...not jabs. If we can stop saying, that it is not working, and get on with answering my question, that would be great. I assure you, exactly what I described, is the case. I just need someone to say, that it is, or is not odd. The only power source is 100 watts (to talk about it), the motor is running at 207 watts. This is true...now, can you explain to me, whether or not, this is unusual...in plain, non-inflamatory, and non insulting language. I appreciate the answers...I do not need ego's...only answers. I have relayed the experiment raw data accurately. More than double the watt hours, on the motor's power, than is coming ing from a DC power supply. Now, please answer the question, and stop jabbing at me. Thanks. + Mr. Russel, I certainly appreciate your help. Yes I have a working model. I live in Austin Tx. This is my first time posting here...where is your email, please. I could certainly use the help. Also, I would be willing to share rights to the invention, if you could help me validate it. Thank you...Oh, and yes...I have the "100" watts, coming from a DC power supply...and, the motor is running at double that, plus some. So, you are agreeing that this is a breakthrough? These engineers, are very prickly...I only mean to do good things. Thanks for the nice answer. I look forward to your helping me, further...should you choose to do so. My name is Jamie (James Stockton). I have worked on this for 3 years. My partners are all affiliated with Whole Foods, in some way...the CFO, is one of my partners. They have shut down communications. I could use a hand. My email is mezmomanifesto@yahoo.com. Thank you, again. I am emotionally drained from the war I've been fighting. Good to hear a nice word Violet W, I certainly appreciate the answer. However, if there is 100 watts of thermal loss, 100 watts of power being supplied, this still doesn't change the fact that the alternator has generated 107 watts. The motor, is in fact, much more powerful, in this set up...than when run from the power supply, at a similar wattage output from the power supply, without my methods being employed. So, then are you saying for 100 watt's of thermal loss...I can yield 107 watts of mechanical force? Isn't this proof of what I am saying? Well, of course it is! Nice whack at some spin, though...you sound like my business partners. If you would supply an example of the phenomena, that you describe...then this will be sown up. Thanks. I still need more answers. For the record, what Violet W is describing, is a heat engine...I am talking about magnets and wire...electric motors, not a refrigeration anomaly. According to Lenz law, there is not supposed to be any way, for an alternator, to spin fast engough, to generate more power, than the motive force...and, yet my motor is running on something. I really need some help here. I need somebody to sign an NDA/NCC, and to test it...so that I can reap the fruits of my labor. Either that, or I'm going to end up giving it away, so that it doesn't get suppressed...which it is being. I am hitting walls. Somebody, please try to understand what I am saying. In order for the motor to run at more than double the input wattage...it has to be coming from somewhere...and, that is the alternator. So, the alternator, is producing more wattage, than the input power. Thanks to those who to the time to answer...especially Bill Russell. To bad you couldn't sign the NDA/NCC...but, thanks. + I have put a short video, that just shows the meters, on youtube...you can see the motor running, a bit...but, it was just made to show my partners. I do not show how i am doing it. I cannot...not until I see, if I can find some way to take care of my family, with my work. I am very poor...and, have some problems that have accumulated durring the 3 years I have worked on this, nonstop. Here is the video. Thanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI4kG9wOCjU Violet W. What you have just described, violates the law of conservation of energy. If the alternator, is putting out 107 watts, and the only power source is 100 watts...then by definition, the alternator is putting out, more energy than is putting in. The torque of the motor, is substantially stronger using my methods, than without (I almost broke my hand day before yesterday...and, it stayed over double the input power). So, to be clear...you are already confirming, that (whether or not it is a closed system, or open system) the alternator is making more energy, than is being supplied to the system in total. You will have to take my Word, that the motor is much stronger...and, not bogged down by pushing the alternator...with my circuit. The very point that the alternator, is producing (as you admit) more energy than is being put into the system...Violates a top ten list of physics laws. Thank you for your interest in my methods...and, for taking time to answer. I know this much...+ ...and, for the record, I would like to ad Quack, Quack...mofo's! Occam's Razor...the explanations are more convoluted than my data. I suggest my data is correct. Though I am open to being wrong...but, not by people claiming that by putting 100 watts into a system, that yes the alternator is putting out 107 watts! Let's stop right there...this defeats conservation of energy...also, the 100 watts, if we convert it to heat...and, look at the load of the motor, and convert it to heat (assuming all 207 watts is lost as heat!)...means that heat, is moving from a colder place (100 watts), to a hotter place (207 watts), and this violates the law of Entropy. Think people...I need answers, but thanks for trying. + In fact, now that I think about it...Violet W...you are saying, that at some point, the motor is running at 207 watts, and so this must be the power value, otherwise the motor would be running less...so, if at some point, after I put energy in, there is more than double the energy, and as you say...then the total heat loss, and mechanical work (not that I agree with your position...I do not)...but, assuming the total output energy is 100 watts...at some point, in this system, energy has both been created...and, then destroyed...both of which violate thermodynamics. Your answer makes no sense. Thank you for taking a stab at it, though...I actually need someone who knows what they are talking about. + And, just to distinguish between power, and energy...let's assume in the above statement, that the machine has run for an hour...change watts, to watt hours...just to talk about it. Thanks. + Violet W, you have stated, clearly...that the alternator, is generating 107 watts. This is more power than is being supplied to the motor. You are making assumptions, about my methods, that are untrue, and the angle that you are looking at is not correct. However, if there are 107 watt hours being produced the alternator, in 1 hours time, and 100 watt hours are put into the system, in one hours time...then, what you have described does violate conservation of energy, since it is not an accumulation...it holds steady. What you describe, would wind down. This does not. I do appreciate your time, but I'm sorry to say...you have missed the mark, and it seems, are subject to a syndrome, that I have discovered among engineers...they are comfortable making assumptions, without taking measurements...and,they say I am not a scientist? Thank you for your time...but, I do still need answers...or, rather, admissions. Oh, and to be clear...the mechanical force is multiplied. Thanks. I guess, Violet W...I would ask one more thing. Don't you think, this might be a better way to run electric cars? Long range, duty...generating more energy, than is input...increased mechanical force? I mean, assuming it holds, indeffinately...this could be a car, that runs at 207 HP, for 100 HP input power. How can you say, that this is not multiplying the power?...and, over time, the energy? Thanks. ...but, of course, this is just what someone of my ilk, would think! + ...and, by the way. Who said anything about a loop? R Violet W...or, shall we drop the pseudonyms...and, I should simply address Dr. Word, directly? You are stating, that the alternator is in fact, outputting more power, than the input power?...of course over time, this would equal energy. Are you deluded?! The alternator is putting out more energy, than the source energy?! In a perfect closed system...the theoretical efficiency, is 100%. You are, here...admitting, 1) that for a value of energy, the alternator is producing more power, than is being input into the system, 2) that the motor is running in a constant power level more than twice the only power source, and 3) you claim that this does not violate conservation of energy. Have you read it?...conservation of energy? The motor is running at more than twice input power, and the alternator produces more power than supplied...this violates conservation of energy, clearly. Your explanation, doesn't make sense, as I have asked another engineer, with 40 years experience... ...he said, when I asked if he agreed, or disagreed with your statements...that what you said, wasn't possible. So, your very concept, another engineer, claimed is invalid. Here is the exchange...I will keep his annonymity: no, I don't agree with her. "The power that is recirculating will increase in magnitude indefinitely, for as long as you apply the 100W from the power supply." that is totally wrong. there is no way that power can recirculate. that is just impossible ...and, for the record...I have a motor, running at more than double the input power...trusting people, is not on my agenda, at this critical juncture. Perhaps, when you sign my validation...W...then we can have some coffee, and chat. I'll not trust you, or anyone else, that is fabricating explanations, that one of his experienced peers, completely disputes...as impossible. If your explanation, is impossible, then you are stretching the truth, to attempt to discredit my work. Not that I expect you, or any of my partners to admit it...logic, and reason will do carry that load, for us all. I sent a press release to UPI. If they are fact checking...well, check it...and, check mate. Thanks to all of those who contributed, to my attaining a validation...especially, Violet W. I think Bill Russels coment, is the best answer...a press conference, is due. Thanks. +

Answer: This won't work, can't work. Don't waste your time fighting the laws of thermodynamics, you will lose. You quote the laws of thermodynamics incorrectly. If you supply 100 watts, you will get less than 100 watts output. Doesn't matter if the output is electrical or mechanical or heat or light, you are still limited to less than 100 watts. Impossible to tell exactly where the mistake is without a lot more details. It can't be validated because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. If you build one, and get it working, that is the only way to prove your point, and make a lot of physicists unhappy. edit: you say you have a working model. I have to warn you that hundreds of people make that claim, and none have ever been demonstrated. But, call a press conference, show it to the world, you have the solution to the energy crisis. But, you need to provide more details. How did you measure the motor power? How is the motor connected. You have a DC supply driving a motor and you measure the output of that motor at twice the input power, with some other unknown systems hooked in? You can email me. .

Question: Why is the "best answer" to the question "Which is more efficient: A full or empty refrigerator?" 100% wrong? It is an absolute fact that a refrigerator that is filled up with stuff uses less energy than an empty one, but when this question was asked on Yahoo Answers, the answer chosen as the "best answer" got it completely wrong. Since the question is "resolved", I can't correct it. The facts are that having extra object in the fridge ends up using less energy in the long run for 2 reasons. 1.) The extra mass has a stabilizing effect on temperature, which allows the compressor to run fewer times but for longer duration, which increases its overall efficiency. And 2.) it decreases the amount of air in the fridge/freezer that rushes out when you open the door. Because there's less cold air to rush out the door, less warm air takes its place and therefore requires less cooling. These two factors outweigh the extra energy it takes to cool the extra objects in the first place. Maybe if the question had been posted in the "Engineering" section instead of the "Physics" section, someone would've gotten it right. :-) (No offense to the physicists out there.)

Answer: Because somebody liked the answer they picked better than yours. Get over it smarty-pants.

Question: Why government purposely design windmills to be used in Wind Power projects to be expensive & inefficient? They went with huge steel 2 blade windmills or some 3 on extremely high towers to catch higher winds, when it's obvious wind is wasted between blades. They could have used more blades of a lighter material closer to the ground and got better results. It's nothing but a fact of physics, though windmill design must be tested because the variables are far to complex to just math it out accurately. Doesn't it seem they did the windmill thing for all the wrong reasons and really didn't care about efficiency, much as they did with ethanol projects? Projects that cost money and are subsidized. Have pushed up the price of food putting many 3 world countries in crisis situations, that we don't hear much about come to think of it, but they are suffering because they can't afford the food they grow, the US and other rich countries are buying it up and using our output for Ethanol, and shutting down the most fertile farm ground in the world in California because the Feds and Cal. Neo-Comms cut off water to the San Joaquin valley. The way they did this, and in fact the way they did it in Spain, which is a miserable failure and has their economy in the toilet, is just a badly engineered plan. It seems very consistent with the governments seeming scheme to drive fuel prices up and economies down. They have cut down on drilling and refining crude oil in the US, Clean hydro electric has been sabotaged by dishonest science even inventing new species which don't exist Their has been hysteria about nuclear power, while our own government encouraged France to use it and it is working out great for them, the one bright spot in their crappy economy Natural gas use has been largely blocked, though it is hugely abundant and clean burning You know, and the global Warming scamming that's been going on targets energy usage and even food production. To boot on food production measures are pushed all the time to make small farms completely impossible to run without huge losses. Folks, seems like we are under attack, buy our own government officials and the UN. So is most of the world. Seems like our energy, food, and even water is being slowly cut off. Wouldn't that be a great way to control us all? Read this site about what is being done to Science: http://nov55.com/ read the part about windmills, and global warming too, that's a good section with a lot of information, and it seems it's applicable to all thats going on.

Answer: Science is political and Science is commercial, very little of "science" is honorable these days. Water wheels use nearly all the water in their blade area to push, they don't let 90% through unused, they are efficient. Good Windmills do that too, but these idiotic contraptions used by Spain and the US are built to be complicated and require heavy engineering just to keep from failing, and they need to be scanned for cracks every so many hours of operation because they are so long then the stresses cause them to need changing after so long.

Question: Will running out of oil have to be a bad thing ? I know as far as a centralized consumer driven economy goes, it will be the death kneel. As far as our standard of living as normal citizens - will it have to be a bad thing ? Centralized powers, banks, corporations and large industrial companies will lose their means of accessing world markets. Does this have to spell doom for production on a regional scale ? We will still have technology, an educated population, knowledge and the ability to generate some energy. Maybe this will force us to allocate based on need, make real investments in science and efficiency, community semi rural living might actually improve quality of life for many. We will still have science and engineering, maybe we will value them more than we do today, and have greater respect for scarcity and human need as opposed to green and consumerism. Who will really suffer ? I know the close nit and all powerful financial community will die, but is that bad thing ?

Answer: We won't run out of oil because it will become an obsolete resource before it is all used up. As supplies become smaller and more expensive to get to, economic pressures will make currently expensive things like solar energy more feasible.

Question: Why don't automakers design solar panels in roofs of hybrid cars? Engineers lately are working on every part of a car to improve its MPG, they optimize the engine, batteries, aerodynamic shape, even regenerative breaking to win extra percents of efficiency here and there But there's one area of a car where immense energy is lost Just look at a large parking lot in the summer where you see thousand of cars baked in the sun for hours It is the roof! The sun does nothing useful but heating the habitacle to sometimes up to 125F which ages prematurely the plastics. What if designers put some 1m2 solar panel in the roof? It would silently recharge the battery, equivalent to free gas falling from the sky. The panel can also charge while driving The outer panel shape would be convex and smooth so the wind would see no difference vs regular car. It would run best in California, Arizona, and sunny states, in summers when gas is heavily demanded It could save maybe 10 percent (to confirm), heck 10 percent more MPG i take it! So why not?

Answer: These kits are available for the Prius. There are a few reasons why they're not very popular though. The panels can't be aimed very well, so they won't work at max effectiveness. For the price of covering the roof of the car with photovoltaics, one could build a much more effective solar array at home. This array could be used to plug-in charge a hybrid car or be connected to the power grid. Sending the power of a properly-aimed, permanently-mounted array to the power grid would save more emissions and resources than a photovoltaic roof on a hybrid car.

Question: i have an engineering problem relate to mechanics plz\ do help me. i am trying for it since so long ??? plzzz here comes the ques: A flywheel stores energy in the form of ( rotational ) kinetic-energy. it can be considered to hav mass ( 50 kg ) effectively concentrated at its rim ( meAN RADIUS 0.25M ) and can be run upto 50000 rev/min. what is the tangential velocity ( in m/s) of this mas?? if all the stored energy could be released as work how much could , in principle , be done in bringing the flywheel to rest? if work cannot be extracted economically at speeds below 10000 rev/min, then how much work is available ? if in addition , the conversion efficiency of the flywheel is 75%, how much work is actually available and where does the remaining energy go ?? simply this is the ques. if anyone of u know how to solve tis prob. than plz come forward and help me out , i will be very much thankful to u ................

Answer: v=wr, where v= tangential velocity, w=revolution per second, and r=radius of the wheel. kinetic energy is E=1/2mv^2 , where m is the mass of the wheel. work needed is equal to the kinetic energy and should be in the form force*distance. Work on that and good luck.