Posted by Terry (63.231.163.88) on February 04, 2003 at 21:21:46:
In Reply to: Re: Question for I. Newton posted by Steve on February 04, 2003 at 19:16:34:
No, you've got the results BACKWARDS. In both set-ups five gallons go from upper to lower. No difference in kinetic energy. When, in the process of going from upper to lower, the water did work, it produced energy. When it did nothing but travel, it produced very little. The marked difference between the two set-ups is the time it takes for the water to travel. Is time convertable to energy??
Terry
: Kinetic energy, you got the increase when you lifted the water up. If you did not have the turbine, the water would 'splash' or move rapidly releasing the energy in diffrent form. Adding the turbine slows the water, causing it to release its energy into heat, rather than motion. At least that's my take on it. Alas :(
:
: : In a container suspended five feet above the floor, we have five gallons of water. A 1/2 diameter tube leads from bottom of said container to a second, similar container placed on the floor. Stopper on upper container is open, water flows to lower container. A temperature difference of less than one tenth of one degree is noted between the top and bottom containers.
: : Turbine apparatus inserted between upper and lower container. Water replaced to top container. Stopper opened. Water flows, turbine turns(producing .5 miliamps). Water at bottom shows temperature rise of one degree.
: : Since energy cannot be produced, where did it come from.
: : Terry