The OP said
The answer is still “no”. you can’t get more energy out than you put it. As simple as that. You can’t. If you could you would have free energy, perpetual motion and a bunch of other things which are impossible in this universe.
In other words, If you have a power plant which can produce X kilowatts by buring coal at a given rate and you have Y kilowatts from another source, eolic or otherwise, the best combined output you can hope for is X + Y kilowatts.
The idea that you can put Y kilowatts into a process and get more than Y Kw out of it is impossible. In any case, it would not matter if the energy came from the wind or from the stars. You wcould just take those Y Kw from the output of your coal plant, feed them back into the input and you would have a free energy producer. If that worked why would you want the wind energy in the first place when you have unlimited energy?
You are reading a great deal more into that post than is really there. The question as I see it is as follows: By using a raw material that you don’t have to purchase (wind) could you use the raw materials that you do have to purchase (coal/oil) more efficiently?
I still don’t think you or anyone else has answered the question. Would it make sense to increase the pressure differential using a vacuum and thereby make the turbine turn with as much force while using less coal/oil?
This isn’t a question about perpetual motion or of getting out more energy than you put in to a system. It is a new way of looking at an old problem. Turbines turn by having a high pressure on one side and a much lower pressure on the other. Traditionally this equation has been altered just by increasing the pressure behind the turbine. The original poster asked the very reasonable question, couldn’t you get the same differential by lowering the pressure in front of the turbine?
This is not a freaky out of left field question. There are all sorts of mechanical systems that rely on the creation of a vacuum as a source for power. The steam engine for example.
I know of no theoretical reason why a steam powered turbine couldn’t be made to operate at a lower temperature in a partial vacuum, thereby using less oil/coal. No one has pointed out any reason that this would not be true.
I pointed out in a previous post that in a total vacuum liquid water could be used to turn a turbine. You completely ridiculed that post but I suggest you re-read it because it would work up until the point where the water froze assuming you could have the continued use of the vacuum pumps powered by the wind mills. That is such basic physics that I am astounded anyone could disagree with it.
Your reply:
Wasn’t really helpful in the technical specs you offered. Perhaps you could take a few minutes, reread the thread and offer some reasons why this would not work rather than casting aspersions.
Gah. This thing is getting ugly.
First let me apologize for the “storage” hijack. The OP was about generation. Specifically, marrying a wind source to a heat engine.
Both the upper limit of extractable energy and the overall ideal efficiency of any engine are determined by the height of the gradient you’re tapping.
In other words, given a fixed lower potential (river level or heat sink temperature) you can convert more power more efficiently with a higher dam than a lower one (hydro plant) or a higher temperature source than a lower one (heat engine).
In the OP, Cartooniverse postulated a reduced pressure boiler (in essence) which would necessitate a reduced temperature. Since the heating value of the fuel is fixed, what we have created is just a much larger, much less efficient plant engine. That’s all there is to it.
It wasn’t a bad question, it just doesn’t work.
It sure is getting ugly. Man, this isn’t the Pit… While it may be a lame-brained idea, it did engender some interesting discussion here.
I audited Senior Year High School Physics. Uh, that’s why I ASKED the O.P.
My thanks to those who offered constructive proof of WHY it was a lame-brained idea ! To those who chose a more abusive approach, the Pit is just down the hall on the right. It’s the door that’s on fire. Get it?
Oh and yes, honkytonkwillie, I sure was. It was sarcasm. Believe it or not, I have the death notice still, for the man who invented Velcro ®.
Just to clean things up…
Degrance - The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are well defined. I tried to address them in my last post in everyday English, but I may not have been clear. The written word is not my preffered mode of communication.
You can’t get out more than you put in, and putting in extra stuff that doesn’t directly affect what’s going on doesn’t count. How’s that?
David Simmons - OTEC is a great idea that may someday be practical. In Hawaii. If it gets to the point that importation of resources to the islands gets prohibitably expensive, and we can’t ship enough oil and/or coal, OTEC will be a lifesaver. The problem with it is that it’s going to continue to suck down development money, and the temperature gradient is so small that any facility built to serve a city the size of, say Honolulu, is going to be HUGE. FTR - the proposed working fluid is propane.
k2dave - the OP just asked a question. I don’t understand the hostility.
CRAP…
That last post reads like I’m being really snarky. I didn’t mean it that way.
And I mispelled “preferred.”
And I’m most likely an idiot.
Cartooniverse, I don’t mean to sound testy and apologise if I do. The fact though is that this is a very simple question of physics and thermodynamics. You can just study any basic text on these subjects and you will understand. OTOH, if you do not want to study and understand, then you will just have to take the word of those who do know about the subject. I get frustrated because you raise objections which make no sense and which ignore the most basic principles of nature
>> You are reading a great deal more into that post than is really there. The question as I see it is as follows: By using a raw material that you don’t have to purchase (wind) could you use the raw materials that you do have to purchase (coal/oil) more efficiently?
I am not “reading a great deal more into that post than is really there”. You may not realize it but, in this universe, what I am saying would a direct and inescapable consequence if what you propose was possible. You are confusing yourself by inserting vacuums and other things you do not understand but the question is very simple. You do not understand that what I said does answer your question and that is because you lack the most basic understanding of physics, work, power, etc. I am not picking on you when I say this, I am just telling you why the OP makes sense to you.
>> I know of no theoretical reason why a steam powered turbine couldn’t be made to operate at a lower temperature in a partial vacuum, thereby using less oil/coal. No one has pointed out any reason that this would not be true.
Let’s start with one thing: the origin of the power is irrelevant. If creating a vacuum makes a machine more efficient then you just take the power to create the vacuum from the machine itself and there is no need to use wind or anything else. Power is power.
Existing machines require power to do many things like move pumps, move valves etc. The power is just taken from the machine itself and getting power from another source just means you have saved the power you got. That’s all. If I give you a dollar, you can say you have saved a dollar when you buy a dollar’s worth of something. But just because I gave you the dollar does not mean you can buy more than a dollar’s worth of anything. A dollar is a dollar and buys you a dollar’s worth and the source of the dollar is irrelevant.
Besides wind power is not only not free but more expensive than other forms of power. Coal and oil are also free. It is the conversion to energy that costs. Same with wind. This has been discussed in other threads but, as I say, it is completely irrelevant.
The question posed (whether you realize it or not) is “can I put 1 Kw into a process and get more than one Kw out of it?” The answer is NO. The Kw can come from wind, earth or fire, it does not matter. You cannot put one Kw into a process and get more than one Kw out. If you could, it would not make sense to get it from the wind when you could just get it from your own output. If you need 1 KW of mechanical power why get it from the wind? Just take it from your output as you will get more than that in return.
The idea that the power on a rotating shaft is somehow different because it is generated by the wind or that if it is used for creating a vacuum somehow has special properties contradicts the most basic laws of nature and this is what you are failing to understand. You need to understand these basic principles if you want to understand why what you propose is impossible.
I would have liked to have participated before things got out of hand in here, but I was out working on coal and gas power plants in two different States for a few days…
I personally think the key points in here w.r.t. the OP are:
and
Essentially, you aren’t gaining any energy, and what power you produce is what we call “low quality” power (which doesn’t quite mean what it sounds like it means…), and one likely would get more net power production by having the wind turbine drive a generator directly.
This is one application of hydroelectric dams. Some just allow water to constantly flow through a turbine to turn a generator. Other hydroelectric dams pump the water from a lower elevation to a higher elevation during off-peak hours…as described. - Jinx
Correction -
Before some wiseguy says this, let me clarify that pumps do the actual pumping. I wasn’t trying to say the hydroelectric dam actually does the pumping. Ok? 
Thank you for the explanation, sailor. Please accept my apologies for asking a question to which I did not know the answer, nor understand the underlying principals that would explain WHY it was a breathtakingly stupid question to ask in the first place.
You are entirely correct, of course. I have not read a physics textbook. I chose to ask my question here instead, in the hopes of discovering whether or not I was way off base in my O.P. WITHOUT signing up for a Physics Class. So, I’ll live. It was a stupid idea.
Thank you again for setting me straight.
Cartooniverse
Cartooniverse, I think you mean “underlying principles” because I have never seen a principal underlying anything. Be that as it may, please tell me exactly which one of my posts directed at you personally you find offensive because I cannot find any which would be offensive to a reasonable average person.
I do admit I have little time for people who do not know what they are talking about and come in and make assertions which are clearly erroneous. Not with those who ask questions but with those who make erroneous assertions. In any case, I do not wisk to offend anybody here. I already apologised for the tone of my posts if you found them offensive in any way. I guess that is not enough. Please tell me what you would consider adequate reparations for my unforgivable transgression.
I don’t know. Ms. Krabappel always seemed like the dominatrix-type… which might make Seymour Skinner an underlying principal.