So I am standing here watching youtube videos on solar arrays, and solar water heaters, and I still can't find any info on making a pv panel from scratch. It must be possible, I would think.
Then I got to thinking about other ways to generate electricity.
1. I wonder if small hydro turbines could be installed in water lines. Every time you turn on the water, electricity is generated. I don't know about you, but in our house, we do a lot of laundry, and dishes. It would be neat if power could be prodused while doing those things, even if it is a very small amount.
2. wastelines in skyscrapers. Why couldn't there be turbines in them?
3. skyscrapers with wind turbines not only on the roof, integrated into the architecture, but also integrated along the sides. The way I picture it, they would be installed within tube-like structures, that have uni-directional inlets, to capture the air currents that occur when wind hits the side of the building and goes up. Hot air also convects up and over tall buildings, and creates a bit of a current.
4. If you go to the gym, and ride a stationary bike, wouldn't it make more sense to use one that is also a small generator? I am not a gym goer, but with all of them out there, it could make a difference. Perhaps it is something that we all should do at home for an hour a day. Lord knows we would all be healthier for it!
5. I know that there are ways to generate electricity with reciprocal action, what about a rocking chair? If you have two on the porch, and you go sit in them every day and rock away, why not have that hooked up.
I know that none of these would cancel out all of the electricity that we use, but it sure couldn't hurt!
Just a bunch of thoughts, FWIW
How about parking the work truck on a platform when arriving home at night. The platform would be hooked to a highly geared generator on one end so a little movement rotated it a lot. Counter weights would return the platform to the top as the truck is driven off and the generating would go on again as it returned to place.
Quote from: Jens on January 10, 2009, 02:10:05 PM
... I still can't find any info on making a pv panel from scratch. It must be possible, I would think.
Possible, but not too practical in my book.
Hone up your soldering skills.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 10, 2009, 02:21:30 PM
How about parking the work truck on a platform when arriving home at night. The platform would be hooked to a highly geared generator on one end so a little movement rotated it a lot. Counter weights would return the platform to the top as the truck is driven off and the generating would go on again as it returned to place.
For that matter, install these on every major highway. I bet the 405 would create a bit of energy at rush hour in LA!
I have also wondered if solar panels could be made that were like a one way mirror. They could be installed on the south and west sides of all buildings. This would be made even easier with the new film PV's that stick on. I have also imagined a coating, that is made of silicon, that can be sprayed on any surface and would become a producer. It would have to have (probably) some kind of catalyst to form a molecular reaction to fuse all of the particles together. I just wonder if it is possible.
Quote from: MountainDon on January 10, 2009, 02:25:37 PM
Possible, but not too practical in my book.
Hone up your soldering skills.
Yeah, really. "Thanks for the vote of confidence, friend" (the "" were my attempt at sarcasm in print)
You can get the pre-made cells to solder together and make your own panel -- space ones at that. i'll buy mine assembled though. They are working with the paints and printers. Some are in limited production.
http://www.partsonsale.com/solarcells.html
Quote from: Jens on January 10, 2009, 02:10:05 PM
4. If you go to the gym, and ride a stationary bike, wouldn't it make more sense to use one that is also a small generator? I am not a gym goer, but with all of them out there, it could make a difference. Perhaps it is something that we all should do at home for an hour a day. Lord knows we would all be healthier for it!
20 + years ago I remember reading about a chiropractor that had their only TV hooked to a stationary bike and the only way to watch TV was to pedal. The kids (one boy, one girl) would help each other out and pedal while the other watched their favorite show. [cool]
Bill in the U.P.
Green Microgym in Portland, Ore., Is One of First 'Human-Powered' Facilities in the U.S
There are also some in the UK and Hong Kong; probably other places too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/SmartHome/Story?id=5754828
"It's a little humbling -- a person can make about a penny's worth of electricity an hour. So it's not a lot," said Michael Tagget, president of Henry Works, adding that on his or her own, an individual can create 50 to 100 watts of electricity.
http://www.henryworks.com/ (http://www.henryworks.com/)
(http://www.henryworks.com/images/HumanDynamo_version4.jpg)
Price is $1450 FOB El Paso, Texas. The electricity generating Dynamo will be available in March, 2009.
http://www.humandynamo.net/howtobuy.html
So, riding an hour a day, the payback in electric is in about ----- roughly 400 years [waiting]
A fit cyclist can generate in the neighborhood of 200 watts. The best pro's , think Lance type, can maintain 400 or so watts for an hour or more. Top sprinters put out ~ 2000 watts, but only for a brief duration.
The average folks at the fitness center only generate 50 to 100 watts. I am guessing this number is the actual electrical output which would also include some conversion losses.
I've been an avid cyclist most of my life. I rode competitively when I was young. These proposals pop up every time there is another energy"crisis" but sadly we just don't put out much energy. It might make some sense in the fitness center. Their spin bike are kinda pricey anyway. They have to be built better than what a home user would buy so the added complication might not be a much bigger investment. There would also be some advertising buzz, being the human powered gym ....... I'm thinking the human powered gym is going to have trouble with air conditioning.
Quote from: John C on January 10, 2009, 04:19:02 PM
I'm thinking the human powered gym is going to have trouble with air conditioning.
rofl
I see similar cost problems with a lot of the other ideas to capture free energy. The mechanical and electrical components cost too much to be of any real use, IMO.
As John stated the bicycle exerciser generator might find a home in an exercise gym. Or someone with deep pockets could buy their own and feel good about it; similar to owning an E85 capable vehicle.
Hi Jens,
I don't think its feasible to build your own solar cells, but you can build your own panels. Here is a link I ran across lately of a guy doing just that. (He also made his own wind generator.)
http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html (http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html)
The same issues always seem to crop back up - Either you are expending too much work in order to generate a meager return or you are expending too much cash for the components to ever reach ROI. ???
-- Pritch
To sum up the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
"There is no free lunch; ... heck, there isn't even a reasonably priced lunch!"
a practical way to put your kids' excess energy to use...
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/07/playpumps_kid_powered_merrygor.html
Quote from: Pritch on January 10, 2009, 05:03:08 PM
http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html (http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html)
Two comments FWIW.
1. That guy had lots of patience to do all that soldering and handling of those fragile cells. :)
2. I can't help wonder how the plywood support and Plexiglas glazing has stood up over time. PV cells get very hot. In the Southwest, with light or no cooling wind, we typically see modules operating 80–95°F
above ambient air temperatures; that means temperatures of over 200 degrees for several hours on a typical summers day.
Maybe I'm too concerned about high temperature degradation of materials. ???
That may be because I degrade when exposed to our high outdoor desert temperatures. ::)
That's why we have the cabin in the 8800 foot mountains. :D
I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel, or trying to get a perpetual energy machine here, just throwing out little thoughts that might be able to make a bit of a difference. The only real solution, is to just destroy every electricity using practice and technology, along with the information and desire to produce them.
To this day (from what I've heard), not a single alternative energy producer has been developed or manufactured without the use of fossil fuel power plants.
I think that a lot of small generators could be put in a lot of places we have never thought of before though, and could make a bit of impact. For example, a hydro turbine is basically an impeller, spinning on a couple of bearings, in a case, that turns a generator. A generator is simply a magnetic field, revolving around or within a copper coil, correct?
A 200A alternator for a car can be modified for maximum output, without shutting down, if run at 3500 RPM. Seems to me, like that connected via belt to an exercise bike should do the trick too. Remember, some people sell small cabins for half a million dollars too, not just overpriced bikes out there.
Maybe I'll just put it on the list of things to try out. I can rig it up to be a TIG welder, and just get my son to ride it.
I heard somewhere, about small generators that they sell for sailboats. When you set them in the water, the natural oscillation of the ocean produces some electricity to power small things. I don't know how small, but I think it was like basic low voltage lighting or something.
So Jens where are you going to find the cyclist who can generate 2400 watts (200A x 12V) for any length of time? ???
There are a handful of sprinters in the world who can produce that kind of power for 10 - 12 seconds (eg. Scottish World champion and Olympic triple gold medalist Chris Hoy for one) .
The average person is doing well to break 100 watts. A dedicated cyclist 150 - 200 watts. Hooking them up to a 200A alternator isn't going to increase their output.
I built a variety of chargers that were to be dragged behind sailboats when at sea. They were usually fairly low output but they operated whenever there was enough wind to sail. During calm periods most folks were motoring.
QuoteTo this day (from what I've heard), not a single alternative energy producer has been developed or manufactured without the use of fossil fuel power plants.
Either I don't understand the statement or you are misinformed. Iceland for example has harnessed their abundant geothermal energy for many uses. If you mean nothing has been done start to finish without the use of fossil fuels that
might be true. If someone used steel from a conventional foundry (powered by fossil fuels) to build a waterwheel hydro rig, would that compromise the validity of the project?
(http://scandarrell0001)
testing
Quote from: Jens on January 10, 2009, 07:18:53 PM
The only real solution, is to just destroy every electricity using practice and technology, along with the information and desire to produce them.
I guess you are kidding around. ???
Quote from: John C on January 10, 2009, 07:38:38 PM
The average person is doing well to break 100 watts.
From what I've found 100 watts would be very good. 75 watts may be more like it for a sustained period of time. Of course the more one would do this, over time they would likely be able to increase their output.
So I will agree that a dedicated person, with time available to spend several hours on a bike in the basement or wherever, could put a little bit of power into a battery bank. But there's one of the problems I see. The battery bank. Most folks don't want to mess with batteries. Batteries are expensive and if the owner screws up, forgets about maintenance, or runs their level of charge down too far, they've just thrown more money out the window than they will ever recoup from pedaling up a few hundred watts every day. Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride batteries would not require maintenance, but they cost even more than lead-acid.
When I look at providing alternate energy my mind thinks, "will this work for my wife, or my sister, or my non technical neighbor."
I may be missing the point of what you guys are trying to say about producing the watts, but then I don't really understand the relationship between watts and amps anyway. Don't know if I really want to know either! Just having thoughts here, but then I am used to having my thoughts immediately shot down! I guess sometimes, if you think of something, its already been thought of.
Yes Don, I am kidding, but serious at the same time. The only way to truly green electricity, is to neither require, nor need it. In many ways, I think we would be much better off as humans, as would the environment, if we just did away with our techno umbilical cord. Most don't agree with me, I know. I am a bit crazy.
QuoteFrom what I've found 100 watts would be very good. 75 watts may be more like it for a sustained period of time. Of course the more one would do this, over time they would likely be able to increase their output.
You might be right on that. I have a lot of information on power output of recreational cyclists, local-club racers and elite racers. All semi to extremely dedicated cyclists, and virtually none on what the casual person would do while getting a bit of exercise.
One of the major training advances in the last few years has been the development of power meters built into the cranks. Some provide a printout so output can be graphed for an entire training session. They can also tell if power output is evenly distributed or if a rider is favoring one leg. Lance Armstrong was one of the pioneers in the use of power monitors during his comeback from cancer surgery. While he was training in Europe he would send his daily power output records via email to his coach, Chris Carmichael, in the U.S.
More recently some of the Tour de France competitors have been wired up during the race and their power curves posted daily on cycling web sites.
It an expensive technology but as costs have come down it has become available to the general, if well heeled, public. I wasn't trying to be too specific, mostly to point out that there just isn't a lot of power there to be harvested.
Also the drag behind rotors for generating power while under sail were only a modest success. They often fouled with seaweed and the vibrations were just right for generating shark hits. Everyone I knew abandoned them for solar panels.
Quote from: Jens on January 10, 2009, 09:29:30 PM
I may be missing the point of what you guys are trying to say about producing the watts, but then I don't really understand the relationship between watts and amps anyway. Don't know if I really want to know either!
Jens, you must have a little understanding of watts in order to conceive of methods to generate the power.
Basically, volts x amps = watts. If you know any two of those the third can be determined.
You have a small TV that's rated at 75 watts. Pedaling a bike generator producing power at a rate of 75 watts would power that TV. That's disregarding any power losses in the wires.
But you couldn't pedal at a consistent enough speed to power the TV directly. You'd have to pedal the bike to charge a battery. Doing that will incur losses. Once the power is in the battery you draw that DC power through an inverter to make AC. That's going to lose 5 -20%.
Batteries being as inefficient as they are, won't give all the power back to you either; you might lose 20% or more.
So at those 75 watt rates you might have to pedal the generator for 1.5 to 2 hours to watch one hour worth of TV.
I don't know if that helps or confuses the issue ???.
That's way cool technology John. :)
Quote from: Jens on January 10, 2009, 09:29:30 PM
I may be missing the point of what you guys are trying to say about producing the watts, but then I don't really understand the relationship between watts and amps anyway. Don't know if I really want to know either! Just having thoughts here, but then I am used to having my thoughts immediately shot down!
Not really trying to shoot you down but to point out that the human engine is a fairly low powered one. I can't take the motor on a chainsaw and power a drag race or a bull dozer with it.
IF you wanted to harvest the power of a stationary bike you'd probably want to start off with a generator that was optimized for about 100 watts and peaked at maybe 500 or so. You'd want it's internal friction and power losses to be as small as possible because there isn't much there to stsrt out with. In the end you'd still have to come to grips with the short duration of power output. How long are you going to sit there and pedal? 1 hr @ 100 watts? 2 hrs. @ 80 watts? 4 hrs. @ 75 watts?
scandarrell0001.jpg wanted to see if this works
devildog, you need to have that image hosted someplace like photobucket.com. Copying an image file name and pasting doesn't do it.
There's a tutorial under Forum News.
Or, the short quick answer; get a photobucket account, upload the image to there, copy the IMG tag under the photobucket thumbnail and paste that into the message.
G/L :)
(http://www.conneely-studio.com/pics/srm.jpg)
their web site http://www.srm.de/usa/index.html (http://www.srm.de/usa/index.html)
Darrell and Cindy (devildog) was having trouble getting an image upload to work. Here's his email to me and following that his sketch...
My wife and I tried for about an hour to make this reply,and couldnt make it work. the pic wont show.
anyway jens ideas sparked my memory about something I had drawn up. Basically, you have apump, maybe 1hp to fill a 500g water tank, up the hill, from a creek on our property(it doesnt have enough fall), and of course add ashut off for when the tank is full. then reduce the pipe for pressure to go back down to the creek and turn some hydro(maybe 2kw or something that would power the entire cabin, and also having the gutter rainwater filling the water tank. Of course you could still have some solar panels and a battery bank. the only electric you would be paying for is the cycling of the pump. Im not sure how often the pump would cycle, but I want to believe it would be alot less cost than running the entire cabin on the grid.
I was curious to know if the people on this forum thought this idea would work .
I was hoping maybe you could post this for me, this is one of my favorite subjects
thanks, darrell
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q75/djmillerbucket/oddsnends2/scandarrell0001.jpg)
The system works, within certain parameters. About 75% of the pumped energy can be recovered. So it depends how much the energy to pump costs. It might be a practical use for excess PV or wind power "electrical" storage.
There are large scale commercial systems around the world. One of the first is in Wales, built in the 1980's.
http://engineer.openguides.org/?Dinorwig_Power_Station (http://engineer.openguides.org/?Dinorwig_Power_Station)
http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm (http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm)
Another concept is to pump air with the excess power; pump air into underground caverns, old emptied oil fields and the like. The compressed air is then used in turbines to generate electricity as needed.
THanks MD, if this doesnt work Im going to bed! (https://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/dgmatt/scandarrell0001-1.jpg)
As Don mentioned, it could not work for full time due to efficiency losses, but as a fill in power gap measure it could work.
The rain water could fill some of the losses but you also want to use te power, which is another loss.
It takes more power to pump the water than the generator can recover.
The only real way to gain with the hydro is if you have an uphill source of water.
I have that situation at my place. Water at the bottom of the hill - me at the top.
If that creek is flowing at the bottom full time then a water ram could be used to pump to the top within limits. It would work free 24/7 then you may be able to generate a limited amount of energy with the free pumped water.
Quote from: JRR on January 10, 2009, 05:45:01 PM
To sum up the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
"There is no free lunch; ... heck, there isn't even a reasonably priced lunch!"
Amen!
Anytime you convert from one energy source to another, you have losses in the form of heat (sometimes light, but mostly heat). Even driving a car up onto a ramp that cycles an assembly to generate electricity... uses more energy from the gas to move the car than you get from the little generator that you might have built.
Alternators from cars are not easy to spin at 2000 RPM with any sort of load attached. The more power you try to pull from them the harder they are to spin.
I'm trying to remember the numbers and am too lazy to google. But 1 HP is roughly 700W. So 2400 Watts is roughly 3.5 HP, which is about what a gas powered lawn mower generates. Think about how hard it would be to manually swing that mower blade and cut the lawn as well as that mower does.
As a side thought, think about how efficient our bodies really are! With just a small amount of food, we can do amazing things.
Anyway, keep thinking about it Jens. We need people who are not afraid to push the corners when it comes to innovative thoughts.
There goes the ramp theory. d*
One I have read over the years and have not actually seen done uses a uniflow steam engine powered by propane that is heated with solar - maybe a water bath. The propane is converted to a gas, runs the engine turning a generator then is condensed and returned to the tank for reuse via a pressure pump or 3 way valve from low to high pressure. It is a bit complicated so I haven't bothered. Solar panels are a more passive activity for a lazy man.
1 HP = 746 watts
and from a google this AM I found 2 sources that state a human can sustain an effort of about .1 HP.
746 watts x .1 = 74.6 watts That's a good match for the 75 watts I found referenced yesterday.
Re: food and human power. Think of how much food we'd need to eat if we could put out 1 HP, let alone 3.5 ;D ;D
If in the next life, I must come back as a light bulb, let me come back as a compact florescent. [idea]
A 75 watt incandescent is not very bright. [waiting]
Quote from: MountainDon on January 11, 2009, 12:21:33 PM
1 HP = 746 watts
.......Think of how much food we'd need to eat if we could put out 1 HP...... ;D ;D
There are a few 1 hp humans around
Fabian Cancellara is the Swiss Olympic time trial and two time World time trial champion. He is considered to have one of the most powerful "engines" in cycling. An excerpt from a discussion of his winnining attack in last years Milan - San Remo race.. keep in mind this was at the very end of a 300km ~ 180 mile race
" For example, Fabian Cancellara - "Spartacas" - generated 700-800 watts for 2 minutes in his final attack during Milan-San Remo."
He's been known to put forth efforts of 500 - 550 watts for 20 minutes or so.
Hmm hmm Gas powered?
Probably. Many cyclists seem to like burritos.
[rofl2]
I will not be in second place. [scared]
Now that is true wind power!
well, there you go, hook a gas line to the bicycle seat after a few burritos,,, you can power a generator to power your house!!!!! you jsut have to keep eating burritos... d*
Will this really work...it's not a perpetual motion machine? hmm
Something smells rotten in Denmark. [waiting]
I still just don't understand how you can say that a person produces x-watts. If it is V x A = W, there may be amps, depending upon how measured, but I don't see how there are volts. Thats an electric personality, that is.
Didn't know about the resistance increasing as the rpms increases on an alternator, but it makes sense.
I wonder if there are any liquids that boil at lower temps than water. I read about a guy that ran PEX through the base of his compost pile, and then to his house. Compost piles create consistantly high heat, those poor little microbes, slaving away. I can't remember if he just used it for heat, or as a water heater. Anyway, I wonder if it would be possible to vaporize the liquid, condense at a higher plane (turning a steam turbine along the way, then drop back down to turn an impeller.
A friend of mine has had an idea to heat a house with sterling engines in the walls. The differential output created, would theoretically heat the house in winter, and cool it in summer.
The watt is named after James Watt for his contributions to the development of the steam engine
.....equal to one joule of energy per second.
A Watt is just one measure of work. So is a horsepower. 1 horsepower = 33,000 ft lbs of work in one minute. with or without a horse involved. It's also equal to 746 watts . The watt is the accepted scientific unit. There are watts without volts just as there are horsepower and no horses. Because we rate electrical goodies in watts we think of it as an electrical term more so than a general scientific term. Maybe if we thought of the 200 hp car as the 149,200 watt car we'd all get used to it. Actually we may come to that many years from now if the electric car become the norm.
Would it help if we said the average human could generate 1/10 of 1horsepower while riding a bike, and that what we now call a 75 watt incandescent light bulb is really a 1/10 hp light bulb.
When considering alternative energy sources it's prudent to start with how much energy is available. Hydro is a good example. Just because I have a stream on my property doesn't mean I can build a useful cost-effective hydo rig. I need flow and head in some useful combination in order to produce enough power for it all to be worthwhile. If I know the flow & head there are tables that will tell me how much power (watts) I have available. I could use those watts to generate electricity, or I could grind grain with them.
Solar in good sunlight produces about 1500 watts per square yard if you could harvest it all. Innefficiencies in equipment prevent getting it all but it's there. That is about 2 horsepower per square yard. Going off the top of my head.
Correct me if I'm wrong, John -- good explanation.
Good John. Below is what I was going to contribute...
Quote from: Jens on January 13, 2009, 09:10:54 AM
I still just don't understand how you can say that a person produces x-watts. If it is V x A = W, there may be amps, depending upon how measured, but I don't see how there are volts.
We're using the terms watts as an expression of how much work a human can do, not necessarily as an electrical measurement. It's a convenient measure as we have all sorts of electrically operated devices around us. We could also use horsepower as mentioned, or BTU's, joules, calories and so on.
By stating a human may be able to produce 75 watts we are not saying the human is going to produce electricity directly, We're saying the human is capable of producing that much
work.
When talking about electricity the V x A = W equation is true. At 12 volts you would need 6.25 amps to get that 75 watts; but at 120 volts you would only need 0.625 amps for the 75 watts.
There are many liquids that boil at lower temperatures than water. Alcohol, acetone, benzene, gasoline, ether and more. That's not going to help make a turbine to produce work (power) though. Simply put, if the liquid boils with less heat input it contains less energy.
Propane and many other gasses boil at a much lower temperature than water, but when they change to a gas from a liquid they produce freezing temperatures. That is how we get refrigeration. In a closed system they can be recovered and reused as in a refrigerator.
There are methods that use that for power such as the uniflow steam engine. Solar can be used as the heat source from which the power is taken.
I personally wanted to try and create a very small scale coal power plant. There doesn't seem to be anyone doing it. So, it must not be worth it. I figured you could shovel a bucket of coal every 8 hours or so, that ought to produce enough steam to power a generator of some size.
Then again, if we hooked up tubes to all the breathalizers, we could inject high amounts of flammable gas directly into micro steam generators... :) new-drunk-hyrbid-police-vehicles.
How much energy do you figure is in a bucket of coal?
Are you talking about a bucket like on a front end loader?
small bucket... not big bucket. I don't know how much is in coal. I do know that I grew up running 1 1/2" scale live steam locomotives. We could build up a lot of steam with a couple of hand fulls of coal.
Coal has an amazingly high energy density. Betcha Don will have a comparison table before this thread is done ;D
I was told once that the average human puts out about 200BTU of heat energy during normal activities.... Just your 98.6deg radiation X surface area of body.
There are lots of conversion tables. Here is one
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml
Quote from: NM_Shooter on January 13, 2009, 05:32:51 PM
.... Betcha Don will have a comparison table before this thread is done ;D
Sigh...such high expectations...
BTU comparisons of some other fuels
1 gallon diesel = 139,200 BTU
1 lb hydrogen = 51,892 BTU with steam as product
1 lb coal (anthracite) = 12,700 BTU
1 lb coal (subbituminous) = 8,800 BTU
1 lb coal (bituminous) = 11,500 BTU
1 lb pine wood bark = 9,200 BTU
1 lb hardwood bark = 8,400 BTU
1 lb wood = 7,870 BTU
1 lb dung = 7,500 BTU
1 lb waste paper = 6,500 BTU
1 lb sawdust/shavings = 3,850 BTU
1 kWH electricity = 3,413 BTU
1 therm any fuel = 100,000 BT
1 gal propane = 91500 BTU
1 lb propane = 21600 BTU
1 cu ft Natural Gas = 1075 BTU
;D ;D
A coal fire demands being tended on a rigid schedule. Unlike a wood fire that can be left to die down to embers, coal fires can not. They must be maintained. You need to shake or rotate the grates, have ashes and clinker fall through below the grates and add new coal on top of the fire. If you mess up and let the fire die down too far, you have to pretty much clear the firebox and start over by first building up a good bed of hardwood coals, then adding coal, preferably anthracite as it burns cleaner.
The coal ashes are toxic compared to wood ashes that can be beneficial. Coal smoke has an distinct, and to me acrid smell I don't particularly like.
Alomg with the fire tending there's the boiler tending. Steam is or can be dangerous.
But it would be a cool unit. :) :)
1 lb dung = 7,500 BTU
Hmmmmm, this gives me an idea....wait, no, I better not post. Don will post a diagram... I better go ahead and make my point. Perhaps others can follow and we can all do our part.
(http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/images/redneck_grill_3.jpg)
"I dig sixteen tons and whadda I get? .... "
.... agh, you kids are too young.
I'm sure my wife will notice that you forgot to close the lid... rofl
I bet she will have a comment... d*
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2009, 09:14:18 PM
"I dig sixteen tons and whadda I get? .... "
.... agh, you kids are too young.
...a hernia
..another day older and deeper in doodoo...
QuoteSolar in good sunlight produces about 1500 watts per square yard if you could harvest it all. Inefficiencies in equipment prevent getting it all but it's there.
I didn't know the number. What is the current level of efficiency converting to elec?
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 13, 2009, 09:16:33 PM
I'm sure my wife will notice that you forgot to close the lid... rofl
I bet she will have a comment... d*
And not to disappoint you, DH, you used to always close the lid, it's only been in the past few months that you have been rather absent-minded... and it's not fun in the middle of the night in the dark, when I lift what I think is the lid & it's actually the seat & I sit down d* d* [slap] n*
JRR, now I have the song running through my mind... not so bad, I always liked the song & at least I don't have System of a Down music in there right now (Glenn plays it over & over & over - he still thinks he's a kid ::) )
It is very entertaining when she hits the cold porcelain though.... rofl
Quote from: John C on January 13, 2009, 09:32:09 PM
What is the current level of efficiency converting to elec?
12 to 17% IIRC. ???
I haven't looked it up recently.
You know Sassy, you bring up a pet peeve of mine. Why in the world can't you ladies put the toilet seat up when you are done. I mean, do you know how upset we men get when we have to go and you forgot to put the seat up again. I mean come on,, its just manners!!!! d*
I would say that's close --- 10 square feet of panel puts out around 120 to 135 watts
Quote from: phalynx on January 13, 2009, 10:12:23 PM
You know Sassy, you bring up a pet peeve of mine. Why in the world can't you ladies put the toilet seat up when you are done. I mean, do you know how upset we men get when we have to go and you forgot to put the seat up again. I mean come on,, its just manners!!!! d*
::) [slap] [noidea'
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2009, 09:14:18 PM
"I dig sixteen tons and whadda I get? .... "
.... agh, you kids are too young.
"St Peter don't ya call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company sto"
Lance Armstrong is in the first race of his comeback. He was in a breakaway with 12 other very good riders and here is a quote about the pace....
"I mean, I looked down at my power metre and the average after two hours was 340 watts, you can't do that in training"
That's .45 horsepower.
From Friday's time trial in the Tour of California
Gustav Larson ........ his 486 average watts in the 30-minute event.....
.... good enough for third place.
Some of these guys would be worth connecting to a generator.
instead of having low flow shower heads, why not have full flowing heads that simply have a small hydro turbine inside of them to restrict the flow? Airration might be a problem though, to still feel like you are getting full pressure.
Not a lot of power produced there but could be some.
I often think of a stirling cycle engine on top of my wood stove in the winter to generate a bit of power for a pretty long period of time. Why haven't I tried it hmm .... I'm pretty lazy... [waiting]
Quote from: glenn kangiser on November 28, 2009, 11:22:38 PM
hmm .... I'm pretty lazy... [waiting]
might be more energy used in the implementation than that produced. :-\
For me likely but I think that the Stirling could do a bit of good. Even 50 watts for 10 hours is something.
It's one of those things that would be cool, but I need some reason that's more tangible than being cool. I'm cool as it is. ::) ::) ::)
Practical... - if you have a small draw in the winter - more than you are picking up with solar, then even a small positive charge for quite a few hours could eliminate having to run the generator, and we run the stove for a good four months a lot of the time.
It seems like a decent energy source.
...and Hot ---they say I'm Hot, Don. :o
Glenn,
I always thought a sterling engine would be awesome to have . I've seen the parabolic shaped reflective disc with a sterling engine mounted to it. They don't seem to sell it any more. I wish I could find someone that made them.
KNOW OF ANYWHERE ???
how about a rotary sterling engine.... :D I'm not sure how that would work though c*
The sterling engine on stove idea seems like a great idea esp if the other side of the sterling is sitting outside in the cold air .
I thought about a satalite dish with a sterling engine in the middle with the "cool" side of the engine ran through a cool water source. this way is the summer the temp differental could be raised more then just using the ambient air?
JEns, I know a few towns that get their water from a mountain spring pretty high up in the hills and the pressure is to high by the time it gets down the hill. I'm not sure how they regulate the pressure but instead a turbine would make a lot of sense.
I agree that the shower head idea may not make sense fiscally. Then again, an electric motor is just a generator in reverse, and they can manufacture electric drills cheap enough to sell them for really cheap. Even if it only produced 1/1,000,000 of the power needed for a city for an hour, imagine once everyone in the city has taken a shower for the day? A free hour of electricity for a city would be awfully impacting.
It would appear to me that the basic premise would be correct. The water flowing through the turbine would have its flow restricted while the water does that work. So that reduction in flow could be made to approximate what a low flow shower head does.
As the water flow increases or slows the output will vary. You'd need to regulate that output. Where does the output go? Into batteries or into the power grid. Batteries make for a complication most folks don't want to deal with or can't deal with. The grid requires both the voltage and the frequency to be tightly regulated. It could all be done I'm sure but at what cost for what benefit? That is the point where many plans fall down.
Quote from: speedfunk on December 01, 2009, 07:59:46 PM
Glenn,
I always thought a sterling engine would be awesome to have . I've seen the parabolic shaped reflective disc with a sterling engine mounted to it. They don't seem to sell it any more. I wish I could find someone that made them.
KNOW OF ANYWHERE ???
how about a rotary sterling engine.... :D I'm not sure how that would work though c*
The sterling engine on stove idea seems like a great idea esp if the other side of the sterling is sitting outside in the cold air .
I thought about a satalite dish with a sterling engine in the middle with the "cool" side of the engine ran through a cool water source. this way is the summer the temp differental could be raised more then just using the ambient air?
JEns, I know a few towns that get their water from a mountain spring pretty high up in the hills and the pressure is to high by the time it gets down the hill. I'm not sure how they regulate the pressure but instead a turbine would make a lot of sense.
I haven't found any great plans for a working stovetop sterling but lots of theory and many small models. It is a very interesting engine and would likely be worth experimenting with if there is ever time. Magnets could be built onto or into the flywheel and coils could pick up the electricity off of them. A linear engine could work too as forward and back motion or passing past a coil in any manner is all that is required to produce electricity. Windings, voltage etc. would have to be proper for it to be of use.
Glenn you need to get more time free!!
Between the rust batteries and the sterling engine I with ya all the way d*
http://www.discoverthis.com/how-to-build-stirling.html
Quote from: speedfunk on December 02, 2009, 04:26:57 PM
Glenn you need to get more time free!!
Between the rust batteries and the sterling engine I with ya all the way d*
Some treadmills have PM motors. I have two that I got from cheap to nothing - people get tired of exercise. I need to build the windmill one of these days using one of them for power output.
The stirlings are external combustion engines - the fre burns outside or simply heat engines, and they could power a generator. They are not perpetual motion, but they actually produce horsepower.
Thanks for the link, Don. People like that in poor countries generally discover the cheapest and decent ways to homebrew things like this with whatever is available.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19226200/Stirling-Engine-Design-Manual-2nd-Ed
Link to download stirling design manual
LaMar, you piqued my curiosity on the playground power and wind mills adjacent to the autobahns, but I haven't had any luck with Google. Could you point us in the right direction, I'm certain they are other curious folks here as well.
On the solar power from space, I recall reading that Japan is doing research in a big way. The difficult part is getting the energy down to the surface. I heard radio frequency waves (microwaves) mentioned. I wonder what sort of hazards that would produce. These beams would have much more power than the microwave signals used in ground based communications. It would be concentrated into a relatively narrow beam. What would happen to a bird flying through such a beam? It is all very interesting.
Quote from: MountainDon on December 03, 2009, 03:21:24 PM
On the solar power from space, I recall reading that Japan is doing research in a big way. The difficult part is getting the energy down to the surface. I heard radio frequency waves (microwaves) mentioned. I wonder what sort of hazards that would produce. These beams would have much more power than the microwave signals used in ground based communications. It would be concentrated into a relatively narrow beam. What would happen to a bird flying through such a beam? It is all very interesting.
If we have to resort to that, I say we just get rid of all electricity. Call me old fashioned if you like...
Good old Nicola Tesla was playing with beaming very high frequency around, wanted to have wireless power distribution.
I worked for one guy that said the earth is just one huge spinning magnet, we just need to figure out how to spin a coil of wire around it :D.
we could just wrap the Earth in copper coils that stay stationary, then when the Earth spins it'll be just one huge generator. Yeah sure, so we won't be able to see the sun anymore, and we'll be living within one huge electro-magnetic field but, the alternative- a world without computers and espresso machines, and cable- that is just unfathomable! d*
Actually that's what they've been doing on all these supposed moon trips, the copper is painted black so we don't see it. Ever wonder the northern lights are? Look at the brushes while a drill is turning ;D
Was watching a show on History channel the other night, Earth 2100. There was an "expert" on there talking about what big cities will look like in 100 years. He said that there will be windmills on top of all tall buildings, a solar panel film over all of the surfaces including windows, and farms growing in and on skyscrapers.