On May 11, 8:03 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj.
> Ahmad" <othm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I still have not
> >found ways totravelin the air withzeroenergycost.
> Nor are you going to.
Actually they are possible but are so bizarre it is highly unlikely.
But we may never know.
I shall give you a clue. We can go up and down with zero energy. Lifts/
Elevators have shown the way.
> >is a good survey site for more information about researches into
> >vacuum tube trains but all of them miss thezeroenergyaspect of
> >their designs.
> Yes, well, things that do not exist are rarely mentioned in such
The reason why they are not ZERO ENERGY is because they only reduce
This is insufficient to achieve zero energy transfer. Another
condition need to be achieved.
I was inspired by Toyota Prius, but actually even Lifts have been
If you can recover your kinetic energy, then you achieve zero energy
At the moment it is wasted by braking.
I know of only 2 ways of 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Gravity, as shown by the experiment and the proposal for the
But this is useless for cars that allow us the freedom to move.
Gravity is only useful for mass transit systems.
However we are lucky in that kinetic-electromagnetic conversion is
Practically, the best superconducting generator WILL achieve 99.5%. At
the moment it is only 99% for the biggest generators.
Operating in vacuum may increase its efficiency further. 99.6%?
If you achieve 99.5%, a car travelling in urban cycle, can achieve
3000 miles per gallon, with engine efficiency of 80%.
Current petrol cars only 23%.
Electric cars 90%. You lead acid battery, 80%.
If you use ultracapacitors, you may achieve 95%.
In a 60mph cycle, consumption will be high because of the high air
drag component. You have to operate in a vacuum or reduced pressure.
Are we willing to drive in vacuum tunnels?
Somedays we may have to.
> > Even Science fiction has failed to point this fact.
Hopefully, Science Fiction will be more imaginative and invent stories
revolving around zero energy travelling.
You are not breaking any of the laws of physics.
> Two reasons -
> Firstly, it is not a fact.
> Secondly, even the worst hack science fiction writers have a much
> better grasp of basic science than you do, and they try to keep their
> works reasonably credible.
> > I
> >have not read all the Science fiction books to confirm this but I
> >shall start reading them. One thing is certain, I have watched Star
> >Trek the movie. I could be wrong so any comments are most welcomed.
> >I am actually preparing a manuscript to be printed at various
> >publications. The technical level of thiszeroenergytravelis so low
> >that it is not really worthwhile to print it in academic journals.
> Don't do it. Save yourself the grief. You will be publicly
> >That is why I intend to submit them to magazines such as IEEE
> >Spectrum. the firs priority is to our local engineering publications
> >but they seem to be so slow.
> It will be interesting to do peer review on that!
> > I shall be presenting a poster in our
> >innovation exhibition at Universiti Malaysia Sabah in June, 2011 if
> >they approve of my research proposal, which is where this crazy idea
> >ofzeroenergytraveltook off.
> If taxpayer money is wasted on such an obviously non-sensical notion
> by someone so obviously unqualified to pursue it, I will be most
> disappointed indeed.
> >I only useenergyconservation laws to prove the concept ofzero
> >energyfor travelling. If someone suggests that I use other more
> >thorough approaches to prove it, I shall decline. I am not interested.
> >I am an engineer, not a Theoretical Scientist.
> I would suggest that you are most qualified to be an incompetent.
> > I feel disappointed
> >that the aspect ofzeroenergytravelis not explained in engineering
> >and physics text books, especially electrical engineering text books.
> It is bullshit, so thank goodness.
> >If for whatever reason, I fail to publish thiszeroenergytravel
> >explanation soon, I shall self publish it in my blogs. I am too
> >impatient to wait and not so concerned about my career prospects. The
> >world needs to know and ponder. We have to recycle ourenergyjust as
> >we have to recycle our water.
> It is hard to believe that you got through first year engineering,
> listening to this tommy rot.
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.