Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations

Ultrasonic vibration (sound waves) can be created with very little energy.

You can generate Ultrasonic (sound waves) very little energy but you get little energy out of it also. You are thinking of those Ultrasonic cleaners. Again there is no free energy to use as a process for other process.

Whatever Cable Guy.  You can think what you want.  In your world the energy of rivers flowing, the wind blowing and the sun shining are not considered free energy.  I'm glad I don't live in your world.

http://www.kodasplace.com/more/watermotors.html

I am an "idea artist" rather than a scientist,

Tells you all you need to know right there.

I have seen a demonstration for school kids on TV where they cranked the handle of a small generator a few times then pushed a button to ignite the hydrogen/oxygen gas released from the water. This caused a small explosion which blew a ping pong ball high up through a clear plastic cylinder.

The author fails to realize that the energy expended turning the generator is greater than the energy released by the explosion.  The first law of thermodynamics - it's a law for a reason!

Whatever Cable Guy.  You can think what you want.  In your world the energy of rivers flowing, the wind blowing and the sun shining are not considered free energy.  I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Of course it is free. Why not. We have lots of wind mills all over the province and many countries have also. It is not there for decor. The wind is always there to be used. Yes you have to build windmills but it is very cost effective. Windmills have been around for a very long time.

Whatever Cable Guy.  You can think what you want.  In your world the energy of rivers flowing, the wind blowing and the sun shining are not considered free energy.  I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Well see, I believe that we are actually discussing different definitions of 'free energy'. You feel that if you harness energy that is already present in the environment it is free energy correct?
However, others are discussing free energy in terms of getting more energy out of a system than what is put into the system.  For example, taking 1 kWof electrical power, electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen, burning the hydrogen and getting more than 1 kW of electricity out of this process.

The former is possible and is done all the time.  The later is not.

Also, electrolysis is not nuclear by any means.  Nuclear power houses can do electrolysis as can any other power hours.  The reason why nuclear reactors would do this over say a coal burning plant is economics.  Once the nuclear reaction starts, it continues.  If all the power isn't being used by the grid, it is just sitting there reacting anyways.  Might as well store some of that power in the form of hydrogen instead of losing it.  Where as if there is less demand for electricity from a coal burning plant, they will just burn less coal thus creating less electricity. 

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 22, 2014, 05:43:47 AM

scepti, I'd be interested in your take on the two accidents involving what became known as the demon core. (Please read the linked article if you are not already familiar with it)

Yes I've read it. I don't pay any attention to it, because it either never happened or they were experimenting with other stuff that reacted and posioned them.

So, you'd be comfortable closing a beryllium sphere around a subcritical mass of plutonium then? I'll assume your answer to be yes, since you appear to believe nuclear fission does not exist. Let's move on.

What, in your opinion, happened at Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? Fukushima?

I'll end this discussion right here.

Energy in = energy out. There is no such thing as an overunity energy device.  End of story.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2014, 05:57:40 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 22, 2014, 05:43:47 AM

scepti, I'd be interested in your take on the two accidents involving what became known as the demon core. (Please read the linked article if you are not already familiar with it)

Yes I've read it. I don't pay any attention to it, because it either never happened or they were experimenting with other stuff that reacted and posioned them.

So, you'd be comfortable closing a beryllium sphere around a subcritical mass of plutonium then? I'll assume your answer to be yes, since you appear to believe nuclear fission does not exist. Let's move on.

What, in your opinion, happened at Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? Fukushima?

Chernobly: I would say a hydrogen build up, resulting in explosion and scattering of hazardous materials, not uranium/plutonium radiation. Localised poisonous gases released for a small period of time. No threat to wider areas.

Three mile island: Maybe a chemical leak or gas leak of some sort. No uranium/plutonium partial melt down; maybe a melting of something like a heating element better known to us duped masses as a fuel rod.

Fukushima: Possible hydrogen explosion, like Chernobyl...also possibly blown up deliberately. This is open to discussion.

I'll end this discussion right here.

Energy in = energy out. There is no such thing as an overunity energy device.  End of story.

You aren't looking at the bigger picture.
We are well aware of energy in and energy out being the same. I've said it, time and time again. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You don't get more out than what you put in.

The issue is about potential fuel abundance for output energy.
This is where uranium/plutonium fissioning breaks the laws of this and is why it's bull crap, in my opinion.
Whatever the full on mix of stuff happening in those power plants, is, I can't fully say with any honesty as to what it is in its entirety. I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in.

This is more akin to a mass of heating elements or cells producing electricity, or both. It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense.
Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 22, 2014, 11:15:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2014, 05:57:40 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 22, 2014, 05:43:47 AM

scepti, I'd be interested in your take on the two accidents involving what became known as the demon core. (Please read the linked article if you are not already familiar with it)

Yes I've read it. I don't pay any attention to it, because it either never happened or they were experimenting with other stuff that reacted and posioned them.

So, you'd be comfortable closing a beryllium sphere around a subcritical mass of plutonium then? I'll assume your answer to be yes, since you appear to believe nuclear fission does not exist. Let's move on.

What, in your opinion, happened at Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? Fukushima?

Chernobly: I would say a hydrogen build up, resulting in explosion and scattering of hazardous materials, not uranium/plutonium radiation. Localised poisonous gases released for a small period of time. No threat to wider areas.

Three mile island: Maybe a chemical leak or gas leak of some sort. No uranium/plutonium partial melt down; maybe a melting of something like a heating element better known to us duped masses as a fuel rod.

Fukushima: Possible hydrogen explosion, like Chernobyl...also possibly blown up deliberately. This is open to discussion.

Thanks for answering that plainly and simply, much appreciated.

Hydrogen explosions don't irradiate... Try again.

Hydrogen explosions don't irradiate... Try again.

Everything irradiates. All energy whether it's a dog turd or perfume, down to chemicals. They all irradiate.
When radiation is mentioned, people go into spasms thinking of death or poisoning, then think nuclear. It's ingrained into our pysche.
Try again!

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 23, 2014, 12:52:17 AM

I'll end this discussion right here.

Energy in = energy out. There is no such thing as an overunity energy device.  End of story.

You aren't looking at the bigger picture.
We are well aware of energy in and energy out being the same. I've said it, time and time again. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You don't get more out than what you put in.

The issue is about potential fuel abundance for output energy.
This is where uranium/plutonium fissioning breaks the laws of this and is why it's bull crap, in my opinion.

Okay, hang on, how does fission break this rule? Given how fission works, I don't see how it would.

Whatever the full on mix of stuff happening in those power plants, is, I can't fully say with any honesty as to what it is in its entirety. I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in.

Again, given how fission works, why would you expect any difference?

This is more akin to a mass of heating elements or cells producing electricity, or both. It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense.
Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

Okay, this is a misconception. A generator, such as used at a power plant, or a portable unit, or even the alternator in your car (the only real difference being size and maximum output capability), can safely run with no power being used. In fact, it can safely run anywhere from zero load to maximum rated load. There is never any need to "dump excess power", since any generator only ever produces as much power as is being used at the time. The hydraulic equivalent would be a variable displacement pump, which only moves as much fluid as is required at any given time.

I just don't understand why do you suppose that sceptimoron knows what electricity, generator, or car is...

Okay, hang on, how does fission break this rule? Given how fission works, I don't see how it would.

It depends on how you want to view it. Basically we are told that fissioning does not require oxygen to operate. I know you'll say, "well it doesn't"..the fact is...if people can't see that atmosphere is required for any energy to work then this will go nowhere in discussion, because people are so brainwashed into believing in magic. That's not to say they are stupid, it just means we all have been battered into thinking of these fissioning miracles.

The reason why it breaks the law is because it does not change its form, even after 6/8/10 years of supposed decay.
A crude analogy would be dropping a dissolvable tablet into a glass of water. You get a reaction, yet you know that the reaction will decay the tablet to nothing.

If you were to put something more dense into water or whatever and you gain a reaction, especially a reaction that produces huge energy, then you are going to see decay over time...and I mean a short time. This is where is goes against the law.

Again, given how fission works, why would you expect any difference?

As above. The whole point is, I do not believe fissioning works like we are told. I know reactions happen but this atom splitting and creating of neutrons, splitting more atoms, etc...is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay.

Okay, this is a misconception. A generator, such as used at a power plant, or a portable unit, or even the alternator in your car (the only real difference being size and maximum output capability), can safely run with no power being used. In fact, it can safely run anywhere from zero load to maximum rated load. There is never any need to "dump excess power", since any generator only ever produces as much power as is being used at the time. The hydraulic equivalent would be a variable displacement pump, which only moves as much fluid as is required at any given time.

They disperse the power by heat transfer when not in use but running. Power stations have to do the same thing, so they have to use choices and work out what power will be used and when it will be in full demand, partial or low.

When in full demand, there's not much problem. When demand is low, it still has to dump the load otherwise serious burnout problems would occur.

The way they gauge this stuff, believe it or not, is by your tv viewing and TV intervals. For instance: they know that at certain times there will be a mass rush to put the kettle on, etc...so they are ready for the demand.
When demand is low, they need to dump or have help in dumping, which is where the storage heaters came in. People were basically doing the job for them, plus street lights are also resistor dump loads...not just see in the dark, aids.

Failing that, they would need back up dump loads which can be something like...large elements in huge pools that can serve two purposes.
One is to heat the water to dump excess electricity and the other is to make hydrogen by using the dump load method...this would be the most dagerous time I would imagine for power stations.

I just don't understand why do you suppose that sceptimoron knows what electricity, generator, or car is...

It needed a genius like you to enter the topic to put me right. Here's me explaining things and you come in and let everyone know that I don't know what a car is or a generator or even electricity is. Your contribution is such, that you have totally backed me right into a corner. 

Quote from: Donk3y on April 23, 2014, 01:48:04 AM

Hydrogen explosions don't irradiate... Try again.

Everything irradiates. All energy whether it's a dog turd or perfume, down to chemicals. They all irradiate.
When radiation is mentioned, people go into spasms thinking of death or poisoning, then think nuclear. It's ingrained into our pysche.
Try again!

Oh, so I take it logic isn't your strong suite either?
Talking about a nuclear disaster it's LOGICAL we're talking about nuclear radiation. For example, in Chernobyl you've got ~10000 roentgens/h which is quite deadly.
Again, hydrogen explosions do not irradiate. They release photons (luminous radiation) but they do not irradiate in the common sense of the word...

 

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 23, 2014, 02:04:55 AM

Okay, hang on, how does fission break this rule? Given how fission works, I don't see how it would.

It depends on how you want to view it. Basically we are told that fissioning does not require oxygen to operate. It does not. I know you'll say, "well it doesn't"..the fact is...if people can't see that atmosphere is required for any energy to work Nope, try again. then this will go nowhere in discussion, because people are so brainwashed into believing in magic. That's not to say they are stupid, it just means we all have been battered into thinking of these fissioning miracles.

The reason why it breaks the law is because it does not change its form, even after 6/8/10 years of supposed decay Because I suppose you've seen tons of nuclear waste to make such a bold claim, right?  .
A crude analogy would be dropping a dissolvable tablet into a glass of water. You get a reaction, yet you know that the reaction will decay the tablet to nothing. There's a difference between a chemical reaction and nuclear decay. Try again.

If you were to put something more dense into water or whatever and you gain a reaction, especially a reaction that produces huge energy, then you are going to see decay over time...and I mean a short time. This is where is goes against the law. You don't see nuclear decay when you're working with chemical reactions. Try again.

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 23, 2014, 02:04:55 AM

Again, given how fission works, why would you expect any difference?

As above. The whole point is, I do not believe fissioning works like we are told Well that's because you're too stupid to actually study it xD. I know reactions happen but this atom splitting and creating of neutrons, splitting more atoms, etc...is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay. Nope, wrong again. You get a totally different element after nuclear decay and after atomic fission, and you're saying there's no visible decay? LOL Okay, gratz for being either blind or grossly uneducated.

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 23, 2014, 02:04:55 AM

Okay, this is a misconception. A generator, such as used at a power plant, or a portable unit, or even the alternator in your car (the only real difference being size and maximum output capability), can safely run with no power being used. In fact, it can safely run anywhere from zero load to maximum rated load. There is never any need to "dump excess power", since any generator only ever produces as much power as is being used at the time. The hydraulic equivalent would be a variable displacement pump, which only moves as much fluid as is required at any given time.

They disperse the power by heat transfer when not in use but running. Power stations have to do the same thing, so they have to use choices and work out what power will be used and when it will be in full demand, partial or low.

When in full demand, there's not much problem. When demand is low, it still has to dump the load otherwise serious burnout problems would occur. Nope. I could run you through the electrochemistry of an electric cell or a storing device, but I doubt you'd understand it xD

The way they gauge this stuff, believe it or not, is by your tv viewing and TV intervals. Except that your lights consume more electricity than a modern television... For instance: they know that at certain times there will be a mass rush to put the kettle on, etc...so they are ready for the demand.
When demand is low, they need to dump or have help in dumping, which is where the storage heaters came in. People were basically doing the job for them, plus street lights are also resistor dump loads...not just see in the dark, aids. Except this is a load of bullshit, since most of the used electricity in any city goes to the industrial sector.

Failing that, they would need back up dump loads which can be something like...large elements in huge pools that can serve two purposes.
One is to heat the water to dump excess electricity and the other is to make hydrogen by using the dump load method...this would be the most dagerous time I would imagine for power stations.

Well done donk3y.
Straight into denial. This is more a battle of, yes it does, no it doesn't, every time with you people.
Oh yeah, I know it's because I'm a dummy and you are all top scientists. 

It's basically more of a fight with you people than trying to put some thought to things. It's simply into debunk mode...a sort of, let's all just deny anything any flat Earth theorist says.

Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite! 

scepti here is your statement:
"I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in."
Here is another statement: :is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay."

The half life of Uranium-235 is 703.8 million years. If it was in there for 30 years it would look perfectly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite! 

I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

My life can go 3 ways.

1. I may never find the physical truth of our past and stuff we are told of today.

2. I could find out that I am totally wrong in a lot of what I've said, inwhich case, I'd be delighted to at least know the truth.......I don't expect this to ever happen.

3. Our history will be told to us and also the lies of many things will come to the fore. In which case, I can sit back and shrug my shoulders and say, " well; at least I didn't live my life believing lies told to us by so called top scientists.

Your life will end in 3 ways.

1. You will end up hanging on to what you're told and be content. Which is fair enough if it happens.

2. You will continue through life but actually start to question things and be a bit more critical of what you're asked to believe.

3. You get to the end and actually find out you've been lied to and have to bang your head off the wall, shouting, " why...why didn't I question things. Why did I just follow the crowd like a weakling."

scepti here is your statement:
"I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in."
Here is another statement: :is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay."

The half life of Uranium-235 is 703.8 million years. If it was in there for 30 years it would look perfectly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

Try and get your head around some stuff.
The half life of uranium, as you are told by people who have no idea...is over 700 million years old...told to us by people who have a few hundred years of dropped down experience passed on like Chinese whispers.

The life of lead, laid on the floor would be X amount of years...make a number up. We know it would be a slow decay...but then again, it's not doing anything. It's just decaying so slowly that we would be dead before we seen much of anything change, apart from weathering.

With your uranium. It's supposedly shooting out immense energy for a decade or so and yet, no change. If you really think this is feasible, then go ahead. I think it's preposterous and we are dealing with liars who have us believe this crap, because it hides the real energy being used. Energy that we should have by right, for free or at least so cheap, it wouldn't be a problem.

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 04:39:11 AM

scepti here is your statement:
"I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in."
Here is another statement: :is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay."

The half life of Uranium-235 is 703.8 million years. If it was in there for 30 years it would look perfectly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

Try and get your head around some stuff.
The half life of uranium, as you are told by people who have no idea...is over 700 million years old...told to us by people who have a few hundred years of dropped down experience passed on like Chinese whispers.

The life of lead, laid on the floor would be X amount of years...make a number up. We know it would be a slow decay...but then again, it's not doing anything. It's just decaying so slowly that we would be dead before we seen much of anything change, apart from weathering.

With your uranium. It's supposedly shooting out immense energy for a decade or so and yet, no change. If you really think this is feasible, then go ahead. I think it's preposterous and we are dealing with liars who have us believe this crap, because it hides the real energy being used. Energy that we should have by right, for free or at least so cheap, it wouldn't be a problem.

It is pretty obvious you know nothing about nuclear physics.

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 23, 2014, 05:06:56 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 04:39:11 AM

scepti here is your statement:
"I'm not convinced at all that it's pellets of uranium simply heating up and boiling water for years on end, only to be taken out, looking exactly the same as when they went in."
Here is another statement: :is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay."

The half life of Uranium-235 is 703.8 million years. If it was in there for 30 years it would look perfectly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

Try and get your head around some stuff.
The half life of uranium, as you are told by people who have no idea...is over 700 million years old...told to us by people who have a few hundred years of dropped down experience passed on like Chinese whispers.

The life of lead, laid on the floor would be X amount of years...make a number up. We know it would be a slow decay...but then again, it's not doing anything. It's just decaying so slowly that we would be dead before we seen much of anything change, apart from weathering.

With your uranium. It's supposedly shooting out immense energy for a decade or so and yet, no change. If you really think this is feasible, then go ahead. I think it's preposterous and we are dealing with liars who have us believe this crap, because it hides the real energy being used. Energy that we should have by right, for free or at least so cheap, it wouldn't be a problem.

It is pretty obvious you know nothing about nuclear physics.

Nobody knows anything about nuclear physics, because it's bogus, in terms of power plants and bombs and deadly radiation.
Don;t start pretending you know anything. You're just a google manic. You learn on the go. Or should I  say, you parrot on the go.

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 05:11:00 AM

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.

How does a 9v battery dump power?

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 05:11:00 AM

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.

Where do they dump it? This is not true, unless you have a link.

This would mean they are always 'dumping' unless their full load is being used.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 23, 2014, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 05:11:00 AM

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.

How does a 9v battery dump power?

It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 05:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 23, 2014, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 23, 2014, 05:11:00 AM

Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.

Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.

How does a 9v battery dump power?

It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.

Link please.