BS: Alternative energy sources

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: mg
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM

I think we have to get away of thinking of one do it all source...a car and a house have different energy needs. A car has to move.   A house can just sit there. Then there are industrial needs. Also, I bet if we quit buidling so many houses out of wood we could get by with much less heat...have an impervious house, say made out of stone, that doesn't care what the weather is..I suspect a lot of heat goes to trying to prevent houses from rotting etc...and then think about heating the little tiny space around each occupant...say Granny is in her rocking chair...have a little heat bubble for that..an invalid..a premature infant...all need more heat..actually most of us could do with much less and would be better off for it. Lorna was just telling me how children are believed to have brown fat and because we overheat them and they aren't out enough their own natural little furnaces shut down..interesting concept..I haven't heard much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:53 PM

In the early to mid 1980s (date from vague recollection) Scientific American carried an extensive report on energy storage using flywheels. The "specific energy" (excuse tech jargon) storage capacity is impressive, but works well only at very high rotation speeds. Contrary to what might be expected, it works much better with very lightweight flywheels, which were run in vacuum containers in most prototype devices.

In most trial applications, another kind of power source is used to spin the flywheel up, and a motor/generator taps energy from the flywheel only to meet peak power demands. Regenerative braking, to recover the kinetic energy of the vehicle when it's slowed can avoid throwing away some energy.

The concept works quite well in "normal" situations, but handling the rapid release of stored energy in an abnormal situation such as a crash or even an unusual maneuver presents some subtle but substantial difficulties.

When large amounts of energy are "contained" in a rotating mass, there is an inherent large gyroscopic moment. Problems that result from unexpected inputs to a device with large angular momentum include effects similar to what happened when GE put their first twin-engined diesel electric locomotive on the tracks. The first time it tried to go around a curve at useful speed, the gyroscopic moment lifted the wheels off the track and the engine jumped the rails.

With proposed flywheel storage devices, an "accident" that damages the containing vessel can result in an "explosion" - by nearly instant release of all the stored energy - that's every bit as destructive as dynamite.

A few laboratory and industrial applications do use flywheels for energy storage, but it hasn't been found viable for vehicle use. An example of a lab use is at the Bitter Magnet Lab, where a multi-ton (20,000 pound?) ten foot diameter flywheel is brought up to speed over a fairly long time - limited by how much electric power they can suck out of the grid without dimming all the lights in Cambridge MA. When the switch is thrown, the inertia of the flywheel is dumped into a generator that brings the flywheel from a few hundred rpm to zero in about 10 or 20 milliseconds, to produce "massive magnetic pulses" in the laboratory apparatus.

But the Bitter flywheel wouldn't fit in your trunk.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: autolycus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:25 PM

So reducing consumption is not an option, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 12:23 PM

Many people fail to understand the difference between generating energy, and transporting it.


The main ways we can currently see to transport energy, ie for use in cars etc, away from the electricty grid are:

Stored Hydrocarbons- Petrol, gas, LPG etc,
Stored Hydrogen- fuel cells
Batteries.


The main ways we can generate power currently are:

Burning Hydrocarbons,
Nuclear Fission,
Geothermal power,
Tidal power,

Solar-derived power forms:
Solar power,
Wind power,
Hydro-Electric power,
Biomass burning.

Any other suggested power source has to be looked at carefully. Is it something new that actually generates power, such as nuclear fusion, or is it just a new way of transporting energy derived from one of the processes above.

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

flywheels are nothing new, the 1892 Vancouver to New Westminster inter-urban railway was electrically powered and also used a flywheel to store kinetic energy.

good link Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:11 AM

The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis (opinion in the GUARDIAN)

A harsh (self) critique of a former believer in biodiesel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: patmc
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 03:34 PM

extraction of electricity from the quantum flux

go on - google it

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 01:24 PM

Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol.
The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste.

You now have two problems to deal with.

Solids handling is far more complicated than gas/liquid handling. Everyone avoids them if at all possible

Storing the oxidised fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:59 AM

Not exactly an alternative energy source but an innovative application of existing technology to replace an inefficient method of heating water:

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Posted at 2:57 PM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Pulsar Advanced Technologies has announced will next week launch its lead product, the Vulcanus MK4, a water heater USING microwave technology to heat water on demand. This technology with super-heating capabilities will drastically cut energy costs and totally eliminate the need to store hot water. The Vulcanus MK4 is making its world premier at Construct Canada in Toronto between Nov. 30 and Dec. 2.

The tankless system uses microwave technology to heat water on demand, saving energy and providing an endless supply of hot water for residential and commercial usage. The technology is designed to eliminate the deadly Legionella Pneumophila, since water will not stagnate, as it does with conventional hot water heaters.

Powered by electricity and unaffected by the volatile gas markets, the Vulcanus MK4 can heat water from 35 degrees Fahrenheit to 140 degrees Fahrenheit in seconds and can source multiple applications at once: showers, dishwasher, sink usages and more. The Vulcanus MK4 is the size of a stereo speaker with a sleek modern look, making it ideal for condos and apartments, while powerful enough to serve the needs of any size family.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM

Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol.
The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM

They were running electric buses with storage in big flywheels.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:43 AM

H storage is a problem as people here suggest but not insurrmountable. Storing it in hydride crystals was a pioneering offering but new ways are in the wings.

Production of H fuel while driving is advantageous. Then one would pull into a sevice station to have their H compressed with electic pumps - hopefully powered by sustained fusion reactors.

One energy alternative area I feel we should stay away from are mini black hole manipulation. Even the dimmest bulb could figure out why.

If we do want to experiment in this area, lets wait until we can do it 4.2 light years away from Earth, just in case their is a super nova "incident".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:56 AM

I'm not sure what's wrong with clockwork cars, but I would guess it's being unable to store enough energy to power it very far.

Otherwise, one would already have been built by some Victorian. It's not as if you knowledge of how to make clockwork mechanisms has advanced that much since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM

This getting far too technical. I still want to know what's wrong with clockwork cars...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

A FIRST: HYDROGEN ATOMS MANIPULATED BELOW SURFACE OF PALLADIUM CRYSTAL, December 02
For the first time, scientists have manipulated hydrogen atoms into stable sites beneath the surface of a palladium crystal, creating a structure predicted to be important in metal catalysts, in hydrogen storage and in fuel cells. The research will be published in the Dec. 13 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8690.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:25 PM

There are mineral powders which can be used (although i forget their name) to store hydrogen in an inert combination and release it on demand at low overhead. In addition current research into nanotubes (molecular scale constructions of C-60 molecules) indicates they can be developed into an effective hydrogen transport system with low risk.

Hydrogen's greatest benefit is the benevolence of its by-products in combustion -- drinkable water.

Our current addiction to portable energy sources requires something comparable to the petrol-driven personal vehicle, and hydrogen potentially provides that. On the other hand if we could raise the efficiency of batteries we could transition to solar-, tidal- or wind-powered electrical systems which would do as well, if we could engineer a method of "refillling" them that was as efficient as gas stations are currently.

The biggest single thing that is missing in all this is a sponsorship with enough clout to bring the various parts of technology together and fund the evolution of deployable, workable solutions, the establishment of infrastructure, and the emergence of workable engines in market-ready vehicles.

The biggest players in the current scenario are the oil companies who are galloping to transfer their near-monopoly of the oil-based energy economy to the renewable energy economy so they can make the transition without disrupting their jolly revenue stream. Having every wage earner in the developed world in your customer base is not a situation to walk away from.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:17 PM

that last comment might be misleading, hydrogen does pack 3x more energy per pound than gasoline, but takes up 4x the space.

hydrogen vs gas

(so youd need 5 tanker trucks of hydrogen, to carry the same amt of gasoline, and of course it takes energy to compress) if you wanted to make a pipeline it would be as wide as a house..

there are ways of storing hydrogen in metal hydrides, which would avoid the high pressure, but still costs energy..
It seems that one problem of the costs of fuel cells is you need platinum which is ridiculously expensive.

its quite possible rechargable batteries may be the way to go, as lithium is far less expensive than platinum...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:32 AM

You get much less energy from a gallon of liquid hydrogen than a gallon of petrol, and you need a bulky tank to maintain the cryogenically low temperature.
It can be done but it is a poor substitute.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 04:00 AM

Hydrogen powered cars have been around since before 1980, and they did not blow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:02 AM

But WHAT do you use to fuel the power stations? Especially at night?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 06:54 AM

Preventing hydrogen from blowing up is simply an engineering challenge. It's been done with petrol, and now LPG. Hydrogen is slightly harder to work with, but not impossibly so.

AS you say, almost any energy source can be used to produce Hydrogen. I would lean towards large power stations , which produce electicity, and an on-site electrolysis plant for hydrogen. When demand for electricty is lower, ie late at night, step up hydrogen production.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:17 AM

Donuel, you're cavilling. The point is that there's a huge difference between recycling stored fossil energy (which releases CO2 into the atmosphere) and using sources of energy that are derived from outside the Earth (wind/ tidal = solar), or using energy from nuclear reactions, both of which don't add to the CO2. the problem with current fission solutions is that they add to something else instead.

So hydrogen, whether converted in fuel cells or burnt directly in an IC engine, is merely a means of transmitting the energy from the site of production (by whatever means) to the point where the energy is used. Unless we find a reservoir of molecular hydrogen somewhere on Earth, it can't generate anything.

Having said that, its flexibility- you can make hydrogen from anything from a waterwheel or a bicycle to a nuclear power station- makes it very attractive as a storage medium for low- grade alternative production sources. If we can keep it from blowing up.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:10 AM

G.W.BUSH      lots of hot air.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

The pig manure post lost this sorry

it is buried in the source code, but didn't display, so if a clone wants to fix it and delete this, fine, thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:03 AM

Paul Burke - sorry charlie but no one creates energy. Everything is a conversion process.

We were talking about fuel for the H gas fuel cell, which is a marvelous way to power cars. Outside of the manufacture of the new highly efficient fuel cells, the only "pollution/exhaust" that the fuel cell cars and busses produce is pure water.

I made a design for homes that converts wind power to electricity that is then stored in batteries and then used to run a small motor that powers a dual tank saline heat pump buried 15 ft underground at a constant 52 F, to heat a large home. Solar back up is helpful but not required.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:59 AM

Sorry Alice, the coal to liquids conversion doesn't work just like that.

Yes, you can gasify coal, and reform the product into a synthetic petroleum, with very low sulphur and nitrogen content.

They kept on talking about 'virtually no emissons'. That is simply not true. If you are burning petroleum, regardless of it's source, it will produce the same CO2.

You also use a considerable amount of coal in the procees itself- IIIRC from my lectures, somewhere between 65-75% efficient, and are left with alot of slag and other by-producys, rich in all those toxic or undesireable elements removed from the end product- heavy metals, sulphur and nitrogen.

The main advantage of the process is that it uses domestic feedstocks. The two places where it has been done on a large sclae are Nazi Europe, and Apartheid South Africa. This is as neither of those places could import or produce enough conventional oil to meet demand.

It may be secure, but it's not clean. The US has huge coal reserves. Australia and much of Europe also have very large reserves. It's just too dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM

Rooster Booster If we can't harness the hot air produced on here, then this may make use of some of the sh*t produced instead.
I note that the manure used is chicken manure, so we may only be able to use GUEST posts!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:25 PM

Donuel,
re the solar energy NPR report - is what I mentioned above,

www.Stirlingenergy.com - is still the most efficient way of converting solar power -

(also the www.Newscientist.com site mentioned a patent on a solar energy drone plane that uses the same Stirling (not sterling) engine as above.
\\

despite the US opting out of the Kyoto accord, and doing as much to resist the 'Son of Kyoto' conference that is starting in Canada this week - many advances in wind and solar happened recently thanks to Kyoto..
cheers
Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:10 PM

So instead of "Put a TIGER in your tank...........?
should be, put a pig's Sh*t in your tank.........."

Sorry, but it doesn't scan.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:07 PM



Crude oil and gasoline prices are near an all-time high. But don't
despair. One scientist has found an alternative source of energy: pig
manure.

[SNIP]

For now, each half-gallon (two-liter) batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces (0.26 liter) of oil.

[SNIP]

So should oil companies be worried about Zhang?

"Maybe," he said. "I have no support from the oil companies, that's for sure."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:08 PM

Today on NPR there was a segment dealing with energy alternatives.
The main thrust was the announcement of a new dawn in the area of soar power. Enormous parabolic mirrors focus the sun's rays on a tank of H that then undergoes a process of heat transfer for the production of electricity. Production is starting in California of this huge solar energy plant.

The other method of note was a re emergence of the Sterling engine.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,ivor
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:23 PM

How about alternatives to the amount of energy we spend/are going to spend.

Like rethinking our way of life in an effort to begin reducing our energy consumption.

Or do we consume ourselves to extiction. After all, the system we live in assumes infinite growth/ ever- more profit, while the Earth is obviously finite.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 01:08 PM

A lot of hope is being expended on hype.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:56 PM

Paul Burke -

Conduction isn't necessary. Radiation alone will melt the materials shown as being used on the diagram about as fast as a ground zero nuclear EMP pulse.

The main point about the focused fusion site is that it states (or makes inuendos about) a lot of things, but gives no scientific evidence for validity, or even rationale, for what is claimed. It's not a "scientific" article, and perhaps wasn't meant to be.

If it's to be given any real credit, a few equations are needed, or at least citations for where they, and supporting reports on actual experiments, can be found. I'm not sufficiently impressed with the site to go looking for them. There are far too many such sites to spend time on all of them, and this one gives no real reason to expect it to be any better than many others.

"Focused fusion" is a term that was tossed about at least as far back as the early 1980s and was seriously investigated then. This site doesn't even tell me if they're talking about the same thing or about some new magic wand they think they've found. The early - and sensational - reports on "Cold Fusion" a few years back were more credible.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:41 AM

"That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions." said Donuel.

But that doesn't produce any energy, it merely changes it from one form (electricical, mechanical) to another (chemical). You still have to produce the input from somewhere, and the only possible non- fossil sources are from outside (solar- this includes wind, tidal and wave energy since they are powered ultimately by the sun), or internal, that is nuclear (geothermal, fusion or fission).

Of those, solar options and geothermal energy are rejected as uneconomic (nobody having priced the Earth), fission is filthy (google for Dounreay, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield, etc.), and fusion hasn't worked yet (except uncontrollably, as a weapon).

JiK... temperatures are high, but the pressure is low, so it's almost like a vacuum flask- the idea is that there isn't sufficient conduction from the plasma to the metalwork to make cooling a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM

The problem with coal is that no matter how clean they are able to make it burn, extracting it from the ground always creates pollution and serious damage to the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

Thanks JiK.

Donuel, I don't think skepticism is necessarily the best first response from me just because the site asks for money. But I do appreciate getting responses from people about what they thought of the premise itself and how it is being approached by the people doing the research.

Good luck with your invention.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Alice
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM

Amos mentioned clean fuel from coal. We have a new Democratic governor in Montana, as of the last election, who has made clean alternative energy a focus of his administration. New technology now can be used in creating electricity from coal that does not pollute the air or water. Here is a bit about what Montana is doing to create a change in energy use toward clean alternatives, including wind power, biomass, synthetic fuels, solar/geothermal :

Coal to Liquids conversion
A page on the synthetic fuels project in Montana
"At 120 billion tons, Montana's coal is, in liquid terms, one quarter the size of the entire Middle East oil reserve..."
"Are there other applications of this technology?
In addition to making liquid fuels, coal gasification can be used to generate electricity with virtually no emissions and, looking toward the future, can be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells."

Alternative energy projects and links
Click here

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:53 AM

John

The focused fusion site refers to having achieved 1 billion degrees - not 1 million.

Carol,
This year the quest for a sustainable fusion reactor took a leap forward in the discovery that larger test vessels to magnetically suspend plasma for fusion were more effective than smaller vessels.

This sort of contradicts the claims of the focused fusion people who say smaller is better.

In the 80's I had several friends who worked for the University of Rochester laser fusion lab. They would use enormous amounts of electricity in a split second to blast, compress and fuse a few atoms. To my knowledge this technique has still not achieved any sustainable results.

I have never invented a field of science or discovered a new phenomenon but I have been able to take off the shelf parts and reassemble them for new purposes.

Perhaps you recall Burkes book 'Connections' that shows how most inventions are a reassembly process and almost never a linear process.

That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions.
Coupling these devices with my specific acoustic lens chamber will "cold boil" / cavitate pure water and seperate H from O more efficiently and thereby provide cheap H for use in the fuel cells of cars, buses, trucks and possibly trains and ships.

I found there were more nay sayers to my concept of cheaper H production here than there was to focused fusion. I would have thought that a sleek website that concludes with asking for your money would have generated more skepticism than it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM

Ah JiK!

In Vino, Veritas!

And thus the God-Fearing American Capitalist Democracy will Triumph over the Evil Communists Again!

Ronib

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:12 PM

Thank you, Old Guy, for yet another example of your brilliant insight and depth of thought, not to mention your keen sense of relevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:46 PM

Robin -

The recently announced layoff of 30,000 General Motors employees is a secret plot. They have discovered a new highly efficient non-poluting vehicle technology, but the expense of putting it into production requires a rapid recovery of the manufacturing investment.

Since even a vastly superior vehicle can be sold only to people who's existing car is uneconomical - or has enough problems otherwise to convince them to junk it, they must let the used car market "dry up" so that a large percentage of drivers will need their new vehicles.

Once the used market is dominated by real junkers, they intend to announce their new vehicles, sell as many as possible, and then sell their automotive divisions to the Chinese - who will find the market already saturated with clean vehicles that will last virtually forever, and China will go broke.

I know it's true, because I heard it from a drunken PhD in a very high class bar.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 09:11 AM

Well, there's pages and pages of highly technical stuff, so I'll try and simplify it a bit....

No, no, don't run away - you asked... and could you all please at least go 'la-la' in tune?

You can't just grab a lot of solar sells and shove onto batteries to store the charge - and that's DC anyway, and if you want to economically transfer the power any distance, it needs to be AC.

Firstly, there is something called Peak Sun Hours, charts of which can be obtained for each month for locations. You can get more energy in certain places at certain latitudes, at various times of the year, and it will rarely be the max rate a simple calculation might suggest. And don't forget that cloud, smoke etc will reduce this.

An average sort of solar panel is rated at say 80 watts. BUT... that's at a particular temperature of the panel surface and must be derated as the temp increases. Also that 80 watts is a clever bit of marketing, cause you can get a max output voltage and a Max output current, but not both at the same time....

Example: 80 Watts = 4.6A at 17.3V across the load (which must be the right impedance/resistance, but we won't go there...)

But if you want to run on the normal sort of standards the rest of the world uses, one would expect to use a '12V' battery to store the power. So you would need some sort of DC-DC converter to run the charger, thereby incurring losses. of course if you want to have a higher storage voltage, then you need to run several solar cells in series, and that has its own set of problems to ensure that things are kept under control.

Now the charger itself needs to be regulated, as the battery needs to be charged at certain current ranges within certain voltage ranges to ensure that the maximum storage life of the battery is obtained for economy reasons. (more losses in the charger/regulator) You also have to consider the internal resistance of the battery which changes with the voltage state (Peukert's Law).

Further more, rechargeable batteries are an arcane art too - a '12V' car battery voltage varies from a max of about 14.4V down to whatever is deemed to be an effective voltage for the circuit it is in, and the construction type of battery it is. A 350AH battery can't be run to recover 100% of charge, as you would seriously shorten the life of the battery. Some battery types are designed to give a greater depth of discharge (deep discharge cells), but you can effectively over a reasonable design life store and recover say about 70% of the AH rating.

I don't know about you, but my head's spinning, and I for one am glad that there are professionals trained to do this sort of stuff. Look, I don't pretend to really understand all this stuff.... Get someone with a P.H.D. if you REALLY want to know more...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:25 AM

Connect Amos to a gas turbine generator. He produces enough hot air to light up LA

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:39 AM

Carol C

Re your post on "focused fusion." I don't find sufficient detail to tell precisely how they intend to accomplish whatever they expect to do, but I'm a little troubled by their comment to the effect of "temperatures near one million degrees centigrade have been achieved in the laboratory," and are "near the temperatures required for focused fusion."

That sounds quite reasonable, but their schematic diagram shows this "one million degrees centigrade" in close proximity to one electrode made of copper and another made of brass. This suggests either extremely bizarre metalurgy, or an incomplete concept.

Pardon my doubts, but I am a bit dubious. And it does not look "scientific" at all to me, ... but then they didn't really provide any supporting theory.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 12:37 PM

Spin of the wheel isn't too much of an issue - I was thinking more of the spin of the Earth providing the energy;-)

Bugger about the asteroids though - Could we use a giant tube of asteroid cream?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:47 AM

what I recall from university apprx 30-40% of solar energy is reflected, the remaining goes into latent heat (heating the temperature of the soil etc) and evaporation of water (the largest portion).
When I asked the professor how much actually goes to support life on earth - the answer was 'negligible' less than 1%.
or to put it another way..

according to Hubbert's peak.com the amount of

solar energy in 24hrs = total amount of oil reserves (past-future)

I should say the while pv solar conversion is not that efficient,
the solar dish mentioned above (made by stirling energy) focuses the heat on a stirling engine - and is approx 40% efficient (Id have to double check) but that's what I recall reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:41 AM

The giant pylons with wheels would indeed be a simple and elegant engineering solution.
I am more concerned with how you replace the energy you draw so that the ring does not slow down.
If the ring was more like a mill wheel, passing comets and asteroids would collide with the paddles and impart momentum.
You would just need to shield the side of the wheel that would face the oncoming flow of planetoids.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM

MIcrowave transmission would serve.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM

Ah but it does Keith - and that answers your question. If was in a geostationary orbit spinning slower that the earths rotation (or in the opposite direction) all we need is very tall pylons with wheels on the end going up into space to make contact with the ring. The wheels are of course huge dynamos and are connected back to earth down the very tall pylons with bits of wire...

Easy when you know how:-)

Now then. Anyone up to building a prototype out of meccano?

Cheers

DtG