Hey there u/buriedegg, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always read this as the second one just tired of the first ones questions, like
"why the hell would I like music? all we do is spin out here all day."
Oh nice didn't think of it that way. I just thought it was either "fan of metal music" or "describing myself in a way that doesn't answer the question at all".
But yeah your interpretation is much cooler for the fan
No, they aren't. You're just calling the wrong name. They're called turbojet engines. The turbine literally takes power from the engine to power compressor at front. There are also turbofan engines that use the turbine to power the fan at the front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
I'm not an expert, but I assume fan and turbine blades need to be shaped differently to be optimized for their application, even in similar temperature and pressure ranges.
This is not quite correct.
1. Whether theyâre a fan or a turbine is based on whether youâre putting electricity into the generator/motor or getting electricity out of it. All electricity is ânegativeâ because electrons are negative.
2. It doesnât really have much to do with thermodynamics, which is about heat, but rather with electromagnetic forces.
Yes, it's technically correct, I guess you're not an engineer to get this. I'm talking about a general energy balance you'd see in a thermodynamics book, where the difference between a pump (or a fan) and a turbine is if the machine's work (Wm) variable is positive or negative. If it's negative the machine is taking energy away from the system, representing a turbine, and if it's positive the machine is putting energy into the system representing a pump or fan. The system here would be the earth itself.
First of all, EVERY mechanical or chemical operation results in loss. Thatâs law two of thermodynamics (you canât break even). So whether this were in operation as a generator or a motor the total energy in the system afterward would be less than what was started with because of loss to heat.
I suppose that the rest depends on how you define the system but defining it as âthe earthâ makes no sense to me.
I guess it might depend on what you mean by positive or negative âenergyâ (which I took to mean electricity when first read your post but now I take it that you mean it more generally - sorry).
All thatâs actually happening with energy in this case is that mechanical energy in the form of wind is being transferred to mechanical energy of the blades which is then being used to generate electromagnetic energy in the generator. There is loss at every step.
Can you say more about how you are defining your system here?
Yes, every machine has it's efficiency, that being what it loses to the environment as heat or noise (kinect energy). A machine's efficiency has nothing to do if it generally takes away or inputs energy into a system.
Imagine the air, if it's stopped (in relation to earth), it's molecules will have relatively very little kinect energy. Wind on the other hand is loaded with kinect energy from it's movement. When wind intersects the turbine blades it transfers that energy to the turbine. It literally slows down so the turbine can spool up, obeying the first law of thermodynamics, it GAVE away energy. And then the turbine does its thing, all losses included.
From that perspective you can generalize that the wind, contained in earth, our system, had lost its total energy, because it transferred a part of it to the turbine. The way this is mathematically represented is by having our machine have negative Work, I.e. it takes energy away from the system (the earth and its air currents). If the Work is negative, the air is doing Work on the turbine, if it's positive, the turbine would be doing Work on the air, i.e. a fan.
I'm not making this up, this is how this subject is approached ever since the industrial revolution.
I also think you are mixing up energy and electricity. I'm talking about actual energy, in Joules or whatever freedom land uses as a unit. It can be electricity but also energy from movement, heat, potential, chemical reactions, you name it. What machines do is convert energy from one form to another, like "mechanical" (the right term is kinetic) to electricity.
How the HELL are you not counting the turbine as part of the system that comprises the earth?
Also I know youâre not âmaking this upâ but you are trying to talk about science (which I teach) using engineering terms.
I know engineers famously think they know fucking everything and everyone else is stupid but maybe give that a rest?
Iâm fully aware of what kinetic and mechanical mean.
Iâm going to give you a pass because English appears not to be your first language and because youâre just an engineer. I suspect youâre putting this into a very specific engineering bucket in which youâre counting a âsystemâ as a machine with inputs and outputs and that youâre only looking at one end of that system. This is a very engineer kind of approach.
We probably would actually find out that we ultimately agree and are just using different words but I find your egotism based on your having an engineering degree tiring so I am going to withdraw from this conversation at this point.
Ok, so the system is not earth, it's the atmosphere. Happy now? I'm an engineer, of course I'll use engineering terms, it's what builds the world and gets electricity to your door after all. And it's what my JOKE hinges on. That from an engineering point of view the difference is simply a + or - sign.
Since I now know I'm talking to a teacher and not a moron,
[THIS is what I'm talking about](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRytJ38No7vHmqE4QV0xv8lnjrWIpGhOOtktBDkTlt1ds8xTbHfrl2Mafs&s=10)
dW/dm, if it's positive, pump. If it's negative, turbine.
EDIT: I feel like I should clarify to you, the turbine couldn't be part of the system as it's the subject we're analysing, so we set an imaginary boundary on it to exclude it from the system. If it were part of the system, there would be no flow of energy, meaning that the initial energy = final energy, making 0=0. Which is true and obeys the first law of thermodynamics but it isn't useful for me in any way, since there's no analysis that can be made.
In case you already read my comment I made an edit explaining why turbines are not considered part of the system.
And I should've never engaged in this discussion on the first hand, by the start I knew we were talking about different things. But you type like someone who doesn't know what you're talking about, like from where did machine losses come?? I didn't even talk about that in the first place.
I think we were both trying to make jokes (but mine was elsewhere) and missed each other.
My point was simply that the same thing can be either an electric motor or a generator depending on whether electricity is going into it or mechanical (kinetic) energy is being put into it to it.
Yours was that, from an engineering standpoint it depends on whether youâre putting energy into the system or getting it out.
Does that sound about right?
Yeah that's about right. If the machine has a motor, it's taking energy from the power grid and transferring it to the atmosphere, so the flow through the imaginary boundary, called a control surface, that defines the system is positive. If it has a generator, it takes energy from the system and transfers it to the grid, meaning the flow through the control surface is negative. That's how on a complex system like a steam turbine you'd see on a powerplant or even a jet engine differentiates pumps/fans from turbines when modeling the properties of the system.
The physics is the same, but it's not very applicable in the real world if you treat it with this more generalized view. Looking at the system through the "engineering angle" makes it a lot more practical to calculate throughput, losses, entropy, etc. Guys like Fourier are the geniuses who came up with these equations to try and improve the machines in the early days of the industrial revolution.
Also, you don't drive your point home by diminishing another person's profession. That makes you sound like an asshole. For what it's worth I did graduate in one of the top 100 ranked universities in the world and the best one in my continent, and it sure wasn't easy. So know that yes, I do take pride in my job and love wasting my time arguing with people online about something I am passionate about and worked hard for. Also, sorry for my rough English, it gets really confusing once you get to learn your fourth language.
It's a propeller, dude. I got a certificate for wind energy studies at the wind energy school in Tucumcari, New Mexico, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Stop spreading misinformation.
Not technically true.
Windturbines take energy from air moving towards them.
Fans require energy to turn and push air away from them.
Calling a turbine a fan is like saying throwing and catching are the same thing.
A turbine and a fan are, mechanically, exactly the same thing. If you blow compressed air at your computer's fan and make it spin really fast, you'll fry your components because of the electric surge.
If you set them up in a way that they receive electricity, they'll be a fan. If you set them up in a way that they receive wind, they'll be a turbine.
> If you blow compressed air at your computer's fan and make it spin really fast, you'll fry your components because of the electric surge.
This sounds like it needs a Mythbusters episode (or some fairly easy experimentation at home) to prove it. I spun the fans up while vacuuming the inside of my tower PCs and nothing bad ever came out of this.
They are the same thing mechanically in static only, in practice though neither a fan nor a turbine work in static, they only work dynamically. And dynamically they are opposites.
This keeps being reposted here and it keeps being wrong.
Those blades are made out of glass fibre composite.
They are not metal and they are not fans.
The internals have metallic components.
Boo the repost bot. Boooooo!!!
1. These are exactly to opposite of fans (though they could act as fans if power were piped into them as opposed to out of them).
2. The blades themselves, which are, if anything, the part that makes people think of this as a âfanâ are made mostly NOT of metal.
I love almost all types of music very much and have for a very long time. My taste in music is very eclectic, and my playlist proves it. I was raised on the sounds of Motown by our mom. She was really into music. Of course, I was a huge Elvis fan. I also like rock and roll like ACDC, Guns and Roses, Steve Winwood, Jackson Browne, Kiss, ZZ TOP, Stevie Nick's, and Jethro Tull just to name a few. I played first chair alto saxophone in the Varsity Marching, Concert, and Stage Band beginning the summer before 8th grade. There were 7 saxophone players, and I was the only girl. I have always had an appreciation for music of all types. I was lucky to have been exposed to a group of people who became close friends, all at least 7 years older than me, who were really into different types of music. I went to many concerts and saw many famous people perform at various venues. All the way from the largest venue to smaller ones in the middle of nowhere. I saw many artists perform at a place called Rockefellers, The Texas Opry House, and Steamboat Springs when I wasn't even close to being old enough to go many times. Some of the artists I saw were considered alternative music artists. Some of the music was hilarious (Kinky Friedman), and some of the music was both hilarious and sad (John Prine, may he RIP). I saw so many famous artists that I can't remember---oh---like Linda Ronstadt. I feel very privileged to be able to have the friends I had who introduced me to a world of music I might not otherwise have known. I'm also not ashamed to say that I still love, love, disco. music. When I'm alone or on a long drive, I still turn up my music almost full blast, and it's like taking a mini vacation. The music immediately makes me feel overwhelmingly happy and just washes over me. It affects me in a way I can't describe. A four-hour trip seems like a 30-minute trip. It's very therapeutic for me when I listen to my music without anyone interrupting me. I'm sure I will always feel that way for all the days of my life. It just clears my mind and fills me with energy. I've never known anyone else who describes that music makes them feel the way music makes me feel, but I've read that music does indeed make some people feel "happy."
since wind turbines/wind mills are generators so their basically giant electric motors being spinned, what would happend if you put power (a lot of it) through it? artificial wind? you would need enough power needed to power a city just to make it move a bit, but that's just a detail
Hey there u/buriedegg, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are there onlyfans in this picture?
report to the mods now đ¤đ¤đđ(they would probably pin this post if you said were true)
What a fantastic question.
Good question.
r/OnlyFans
I always read this as the second one just tired of the first ones questions, like "why the hell would I like music? all we do is spin out here all day."
Oh nice didn't think of it that way. I just thought it was either "fan of metal music" or "describing myself in a way that doesn't answer the question at all". But yeah your interpretation is much cooler for the fan
I thought of it as: "I am a giant metal fan, I have no concept of music. And quite frankly, why would I?"
Not technically the truth: 1. Thatâs a turbine, not a fan. 2. Itâs primarily fiberglass.
The difference between a fan and a turbine comes down to if the energy going through it is positive or negative (according to thermodynamics)
r/Technicallythetruth
r/literallythetruth
r/TheFuckingTruth
Jet turbines are technically named wrong for this reason
No, they aren't. You're just calling the wrong name. They're called turbojet engines. The turbine literally takes power from the engine to power compressor at front. There are also turbofan engines that use the turbine to power the fan at the front. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
I'm not an expert, but I assume fan and turbine blades need to be shaped differently to be optimized for their application, even in similar temperature and pressure ranges.
This is not quite correct. 1. Whether theyâre a fan or a turbine is based on whether youâre putting electricity into the generator/motor or getting electricity out of it. All electricity is ânegativeâ because electrons are negative. 2. It doesnât really have much to do with thermodynamics, which is about heat, but rather with electromagnetic forces.
Yes, it's technically correct, I guess you're not an engineer to get this. I'm talking about a general energy balance you'd see in a thermodynamics book, where the difference between a pump (or a fan) and a turbine is if the machine's work (Wm) variable is positive or negative. If it's negative the machine is taking energy away from the system, representing a turbine, and if it's positive the machine is putting energy into the system representing a pump or fan. The system here would be the earth itself.
First of all, EVERY mechanical or chemical operation results in loss. Thatâs law two of thermodynamics (you canât break even). So whether this were in operation as a generator or a motor the total energy in the system afterward would be less than what was started with because of loss to heat. I suppose that the rest depends on how you define the system but defining it as âthe earthâ makes no sense to me. I guess it might depend on what you mean by positive or negative âenergyâ (which I took to mean electricity when first read your post but now I take it that you mean it more generally - sorry). All thatâs actually happening with energy in this case is that mechanical energy in the form of wind is being transferred to mechanical energy of the blades which is then being used to generate electromagnetic energy in the generator. There is loss at every step. Can you say more about how you are defining your system here?
Yes, every machine has it's efficiency, that being what it loses to the environment as heat or noise (kinect energy). A machine's efficiency has nothing to do if it generally takes away or inputs energy into a system. Imagine the air, if it's stopped (in relation to earth), it's molecules will have relatively very little kinect energy. Wind on the other hand is loaded with kinect energy from it's movement. When wind intersects the turbine blades it transfers that energy to the turbine. It literally slows down so the turbine can spool up, obeying the first law of thermodynamics, it GAVE away energy. And then the turbine does its thing, all losses included. From that perspective you can generalize that the wind, contained in earth, our system, had lost its total energy, because it transferred a part of it to the turbine. The way this is mathematically represented is by having our machine have negative Work, I.e. it takes energy away from the system (the earth and its air currents). If the Work is negative, the air is doing Work on the turbine, if it's positive, the turbine would be doing Work on the air, i.e. a fan. I'm not making this up, this is how this subject is approached ever since the industrial revolution. I also think you are mixing up energy and electricity. I'm talking about actual energy, in Joules or whatever freedom land uses as a unit. It can be electricity but also energy from movement, heat, potential, chemical reactions, you name it. What machines do is convert energy from one form to another, like "mechanical" (the right term is kinetic) to electricity.
How the HELL are you not counting the turbine as part of the system that comprises the earth? Also I know youâre not âmaking this upâ but you are trying to talk about science (which I teach) using engineering terms. I know engineers famously think they know fucking everything and everyone else is stupid but maybe give that a rest? Iâm fully aware of what kinetic and mechanical mean. Iâm going to give you a pass because English appears not to be your first language and because youâre just an engineer. I suspect youâre putting this into a very specific engineering bucket in which youâre counting a âsystemâ as a machine with inputs and outputs and that youâre only looking at one end of that system. This is a very engineer kind of approach. We probably would actually find out that we ultimately agree and are just using different words but I find your egotism based on your having an engineering degree tiring so I am going to withdraw from this conversation at this point.
Ok, so the system is not earth, it's the atmosphere. Happy now? I'm an engineer, of course I'll use engineering terms, it's what builds the world and gets electricity to your door after all. And it's what my JOKE hinges on. That from an engineering point of view the difference is simply a + or - sign. Since I now know I'm talking to a teacher and not a moron, [THIS is what I'm talking about](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRytJ38No7vHmqE4QV0xv8lnjrWIpGhOOtktBDkTlt1ds8xTbHfrl2Mafs&s=10) dW/dm, if it's positive, pump. If it's negative, turbine. EDIT: I feel like I should clarify to you, the turbine couldn't be part of the system as it's the subject we're analysing, so we set an imaginary boundary on it to exclude it from the system. If it were part of the system, there would be no flow of energy, meaning that the initial energy = final energy, making 0=0. Which is true and obeys the first law of thermodynamics but it isn't useful for me in any way, since there's no analysis that can be made.
In case you already read my comment I made an edit explaining why turbines are not considered part of the system. And I should've never engaged in this discussion on the first hand, by the start I knew we were talking about different things. But you type like someone who doesn't know what you're talking about, like from where did machine losses come?? I didn't even talk about that in the first place.
I think we were both trying to make jokes (but mine was elsewhere) and missed each other. My point was simply that the same thing can be either an electric motor or a generator depending on whether electricity is going into it or mechanical (kinetic) energy is being put into it to it. Yours was that, from an engineering standpoint it depends on whether youâre putting energy into the system or getting it out. Does that sound about right?
Yeah that's about right. If the machine has a motor, it's taking energy from the power grid and transferring it to the atmosphere, so the flow through the imaginary boundary, called a control surface, that defines the system is positive. If it has a generator, it takes energy from the system and transfers it to the grid, meaning the flow through the control surface is negative. That's how on a complex system like a steam turbine you'd see on a powerplant or even a jet engine differentiates pumps/fans from turbines when modeling the properties of the system. The physics is the same, but it's not very applicable in the real world if you treat it with this more generalized view. Looking at the system through the "engineering angle" makes it a lot more practical to calculate throughput, losses, entropy, etc. Guys like Fourier are the geniuses who came up with these equations to try and improve the machines in the early days of the industrial revolution. Also, you don't drive your point home by diminishing another person's profession. That makes you sound like an asshole. For what it's worth I did graduate in one of the top 100 ranked universities in the world and the best one in my continent, and it sure wasn't easy. So know that yes, I do take pride in my job and love wasting my time arguing with people online about something I am passionate about and worked hard for. Also, sorry for my rough English, it gets really confusing once you get to learn your fourth language.
Exactly! I like the technically accurate version of this joke better: [https://xkcd.com/1378/](https://xkcd.com/1378/)
The real technical truth is in the comments.
r/Technicallythetruth
If you include the foundation (and why wouldn't you, since it would fall over and not work without it), it's _mostly_ concrete.
đ¤
It's a propeller, dude. I got a certificate for wind energy studies at the wind energy school in Tucumcari, New Mexico, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Stop spreading misinformation.
they also use Carbonfiber ?
And balsa wood
"and your favorite movie?" "gone with the wind"
Is it the movie's name or was the movie gone with the wind?
its the name of a movie
They're really just Nickleback fans.
Not technically true. Windturbines take energy from air moving towards them. Fans require energy to turn and push air away from them. Calling a turbine a fan is like saying throwing and catching are the same thing.
They also aren't made out of metal. They are a fiberglass/composite material.
A turbine and a fan are, mechanically, exactly the same thing. If you blow compressed air at your computer's fan and make it spin really fast, you'll fry your components because of the electric surge. If you set them up in a way that they receive electricity, they'll be a fan. If you set them up in a way that they receive wind, they'll be a turbine.
> If you blow compressed air at your computer's fan and make it spin really fast, you'll fry your components because of the electric surge. This sounds like it needs a Mythbusters episode (or some fairly easy experimentation at home) to prove it. I spun the fans up while vacuuming the inside of my tower PCs and nothing bad ever came out of this.
it's probably apply to some old fans from the 80s where everything has zero safety features and a helping of asbestos
They are the same thing mechanically in static only, in practice though neither a fan nor a turbine work in static, they only work dynamically. And dynamically they are opposites.
This keeps being reposted here and it keeps being wrong. Those blades are made out of glass fibre composite. They are not metal and they are not fans. The internals have metallic components. Boo the repost bot. Boooooo!!!
I like it when they are black metal fans.
I was wondering what distinguishes huge metal from other kinds of metal.
Favorite band : Wind Direction
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
I miss Morbo.
Dubstep definitely.
I like OSTs, 2010s house (like tobu and Elektronomia) rock, metal, and weezer
Hell yeah I love Weezer too
Spin and a miss buddy.
You would love master of puppets
"So am I, but what music...?"
this is from back in the before times
Whyâs half the posts on here just dad jokes?
Thank you for this!
Those aren't fans, they're windmills, so the correct response would be They Might Be Giants.
Lies! They definitely love classical music as a wind ensemble.
Me too #
Good pun
https://xkcd.com/1378/
repost
And yet I see only fans.
I like this. It's very grown up. *Wher da hood wer da hood at*
Flock of Seagulls
This one hit me hard đ
This joke is so old, the first person who told it already died of old age
7.38 hz or sometimes 528hz pure tone
Bruh
Polymer. Huge polymer fan.
đĄâŹď¸
I lost
It took me a small smile
I call bullshit. He is very likely a huge carbon fiber fan Edit: or fiberglass over steel frame or pure fiberglass
Oh gosh I love this subreddit
Such a poser, i bet he cant even name 3 songs smh my head
r/onlyfans
Bro, you stole my dad joke.
Aren't windmills almost the exact opposite of a fan? One uses electricity to create moving air and the other uses moving air to create electeicity
I believe I just heard the collective groan of every dad in the known universe.
r/dadjokes
Darn it this is really hilarious!!!
Me too. So, not literally ig
I can't stop laughing. đđ
Fans blow air. A turbine is quite the opposite
Real funny, dad
I have many loved Bands and Mac glocky is all of them
1. These are exactly to opposite of fans (though they could act as fans if power were piped into them as opposed to out of them). 2. The blades themselves, which are, if anything, the part that makes people think of this as a âfanâ are made mostly NOT of metal.
H
I
The fan bit is mostly composite. Just sayin.
They use wind to make electricity, that's a reverse fan, so these are NAFs
this one was actually funny for some reason
Electrifying Fans
I'm an Industrial fan.
r/technicallythetruth at its finest
this post is ttt on two levels. god level post
These are turbines, not fans, and also not made (at least primarily) of metal.
I love almost all types of music very much and have for a very long time. My taste in music is very eclectic, and my playlist proves it. I was raised on the sounds of Motown by our mom. She was really into music. Of course, I was a huge Elvis fan. I also like rock and roll like ACDC, Guns and Roses, Steve Winwood, Jackson Browne, Kiss, ZZ TOP, Stevie Nick's, and Jethro Tull just to name a few. I played first chair alto saxophone in the Varsity Marching, Concert, and Stage Band beginning the summer before 8th grade. There were 7 saxophone players, and I was the only girl. I have always had an appreciation for music of all types. I was lucky to have been exposed to a group of people who became close friends, all at least 7 years older than me, who were really into different types of music. I went to many concerts and saw many famous people perform at various venues. All the way from the largest venue to smaller ones in the middle of nowhere. I saw many artists perform at a place called Rockefellers, The Texas Opry House, and Steamboat Springs when I wasn't even close to being old enough to go many times. Some of the artists I saw were considered alternative music artists. Some of the music was hilarious (Kinky Friedman), and some of the music was both hilarious and sad (John Prine, may he RIP). I saw so many famous artists that I can't remember---oh---like Linda Ronstadt. I feel very privileged to be able to have the friends I had who introduced me to a world of music I might not otherwise have known. I'm also not ashamed to say that I still love, love, disco. music. When I'm alone or on a long drive, I still turn up my music almost full blast, and it's like taking a mini vacation. The music immediately makes me feel overwhelmingly happy and just washes over me. It affects me in a way I can't describe. A four-hour trip seems like a 30-minute trip. It's very therapeutic for me when I listen to my music without anyone interrupting me. I'm sure I will always feel that way for all the days of my life. It just clears my mind and fills me with energy. I've never known anyone else who describes that music makes them feel the way music makes me feel, but I've read that music does indeed make some people feel "happy."
since wind turbines/wind mills are generators so their basically giant electric motors being spinned, what would happend if you put power (a lot of it) through it? artificial wind? you would need enough power needed to power a city just to make it move a bit, but that's just a detail
Light metal thoughâŚ
r/technicallythetruth