All modern power production methods are doing is converting one type of energy into another. In the case of fossil fuels, they're converting chemical energy into electrical. In the case of nuclear, they're converting atomic energy into electrical.
You can't convert electric energy into other electric energy and get more out of the system some how. This is why the self licking ice cream cone cannot exist.
In the case of your RC car, you are simply mistaken. The car simply would not continue indefinately. You can increase the efficiency of the car and make it last longer, but not indefinately (or even signifigantly longer unless you're using some sort of revolutionary superconducting capacitor).
If you exert 40 units of energy to get the turbine running initially and lose 3 in the process to conversion inefficiency, the turbine now has an energy potential of 37 (basically in the form of it's turning speed), you send 15 to residential, 15 to the capacitor and lose 4 in the process, 15 is now in residential and 15 in the capacitor, 3 is left in the turbine (the turbine is spinning much more slowly), you exert the 15 in the capacitor to get the turbine spinning again, lose 2 in the process, the turbine is now at 16, you send 5 to residential, 5 to the capacitor and lose 1 in the process, the turbine is now at 5 with 5 in the capcitor, you use the 5 in the capacitor to get the turbine spinning at a loss of 1, the turbine is now spinning at 9, you send 4 to residential, 4 to the capacitor at a loss of 1, the turbine is now standing still, you use the 4 in the capacitor to get it running again at a loss of 1, the turbine is spinning at 3, you send 1 to residential, 1 to the capacitor, for the sake of simplicity at a loss of 1 again, you now only have 1 unit in the capacitor which will not be enough to spin the turbine up due to loss and the turbine is standing still. You invest 40 units from your backup power source to get the turbine running again.....
You have sent 25 units of energy to residential for an initial investment of 40 and now have to exert energy to start the process up again. I pulled the inefficiency ratios out of thin air but you can substitute any amount of loss and you will still have lost energy in the process at the end, it will just take longer.
quote:
Maradon! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
There's no such thing as a free lunch in physics. You ALWAYS get less energy out of a system than you put in. There are no exceptions to this rule. Ever.All modern power production methods are doing is converting one type of energy into another. In the case of fossil fuels, they're converting chemical energy into electrical. In the case of nuclear, they're converting atomic energy into electrical.
You can't convert electric energy into other electric energy and get more out of the system some how. This is why the self licking ice cream cone cannot exist.
In the case of your RC car, you are simply mistaken. The car simply would not continue indefinately. You can increase the efficiency of the car and make it last longer, but not indefinately (or even signifigantly longer unless you're using some sort of revolutionary superconducting capacitor).
Went to bed after last post last night, came back and read all the responces, and my curiosity is now sated. 
Thanks.
Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 07-28-2005 at 12:58 PM.
However in this one you did say It would increase its efficency due to the setup, while it may not last indefinitely it does last longer, so wouldn't that type of system still help take the load off to a degree in a supplemental sense? Using the fuels more sparingly to reboost the system instead of its main form of support? Or is it still performing at too much of a loss?
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Faelynn LeAndris who doth quote:
However in this one you did say It would increase its efficency due to the setup, while it may not last indefinitely it does last longer, so wouldn't that type of system still help take the load off to a degree in a supplemental sense? Using the fuels more sparingly to reboost the system instead of its main form of support? Or is it still performing at too much of a loss?
You're still missing some of this - a "self-powering" system produces nothing at all, it only consumes some energy and converts the rest into another form. Energy is a zero-sum game, it cannot be created by any means.
In regards to efficiency, with energy production as huge and vital an industry as it is, every possible efficiency optimization allowable by current science and technology already goes into power plants the second it is economically feasible to impliment it.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about dark elf butts:
However in this one you did say It would increase its efficency due to the setup, while it may not last indefinitely it does last longer, so wouldn't that type of system still help take the load off to a degree in a supplemental sense? Using the fuels more sparingly to reboost the system instead of its main form of support? Or is it still performing at too much of a loss?
Let's say you had a handful of quarters. You have a tube with holes in the sides. You're allowed to keep the quarters that you run through the tube, but any quarters that fall through the holes in the sides are lost forever. You'd want to put the quarters through as few times as possible, right?
Because if you took the quarters at the end and ran them through again, you'd just end up with less quarters each time, gaining nothing but losing a little each time. It works essentially the same way as the power conversion process.
