But looks can be deceiving. Mr. Pelmear's 21-year-old pony car has enough technological innovation to quadruple the classic Mustang's original gas mileage while almost doubling its available horsepower.
That's 80 miles per gallon and 400 horsepower, folks. And the 48-year-old electronics engineer and master mechanic is not done yet.
The third-generation automotive tinkerer hopes that next year his Mustang - more specifically its engine - will help him win the $10 million Progressive Automotive X Prize: a "race" to find an affordable, marketable automobile that gets at least 100 miles per gallon, or its equivalent.
"I'm an optimist, and I think people need to know there is hope out there," Mr. Pelmear said. "That's why I decided to enter the X Prize race. I could have sold this [technology] off, but then people might not have seen it.
"It's not about the money. Our country really needs this."
The proposed X Prize rules have been released for comment, and the final rules will probably be published this summer. Teams that enter the contest will present their designs for review in mid-2008.
Judges will take a hard look at optimistic numbers and throw out the dreamers, predicts Theodore. "Somebody will say, 'We are using unobtainium, but when we get into production, economies of scale will bring down the cost to less than that of compacted dirt,'" he chuckles. "That is what we are trying to screen out."
Those teams whose cars are deemed viable will build their machines to contest the qualifying race in early 2009. To survive that round, entries must achieve 75 mpg (or the equivalent in some other form of energy, designated MPGe) and low emissions.
The qualifying race winners in the mainstream and alternative classes will split a cash prize (no amount has been set, but we've heard $25 million), with the winning mainstream team getting 75 percent of the booty and the alternative team getting the remaining 25 percent.
Top finishers from the qualifying race will advance to the final race in mid-2009. This event will require 100 MPGe and will be conducted over thousands of miles across the country, with varying conditions and even the use of non-team drivers, with possibly average citizens and even journalists taking turns at the wheel.
The winner will be the car that meets all of the minimum requirements and finishes the race in the least time. Again, the mainstream class gets triple the cash of the alternative class.
Remember the old saying about something that sounds to good to be true.
He's increasing the efficiency of that Mustang by 4-500 %. I think sceptical is a good stance right now. If he does it and gets this stuff into production though, I think we should have a beautiful girl kiss his axe on the 50 yard line of the 2010 Superbowl at half time. ;)
38% efficiency with standard internal combustion and fuel engine layout... A classic heavy framed muscle car pushing 400hp would come out on top of the "save the world" XPrize field of Jetsons-like solar snailmobiles and microeconoboxes :lol
I cannot, in my heart, believe the guy has actually done it in a mass producable, affordable way.Yeah.. I don't follow the industry much, but from what I recall, not too long ago Volvo was leading the pack of experimental internal combustion efficiency.. I can't recall what their % efficiency was, but it was impressive, and 38% is more than they had managed. And they and the rest of the world have been at it orders of magnitude more, in man-hours and funds, than this guy. 38% is more than any established energy source of any type that I can recall.
True, but you'd need less of it. :aok
hmmm doesn't sound like they are using normal gasoline..
Better efficiency on oil isn't the answer, we need to find new technologies to get away from oil altogether. This ideas (if they work) may be good for bridging the gap between now and then, hopefully.
Which sounds good until you realize that there is no viable alternative to oil. There is nothing out there that can provide as much energy as easily as oil can.
I still maintain we're on a plateau until we find that Star Trek barillium sphere power source.
I still maintain we're on a plateau until we find that Star Trek barillium sphere power source.You first. Beryllium is toxic. :D
Electronics cannot change the thermal efficiency, nor can they alter the friction inherent in the engine. They can only manage fuel and ignition better. But I don't see how they can do it 500% better.Exactly. I smell snake oil.
He never should have went public with this until after the election. I feel this guy is going to have a bad accident. Unless, of course, he is willing to sell his patent to the oil companies.
Bad Timing!
The other day I saw a VS commodore in town that had in HUGE blue lettering on the sides THIS CAR USES WATER FOR FUEL.
http://www.clean-air.org/Hydrogen%20Commodore/hydrogen_powered_commodore.htm?Close but that car runs on bottled hydrogen gas and it's a VB commodore. The one I saw was a V6 VS commodore, a much later model and it claimed it used water as it's fuel. I was very curious to see it, since the only bona-fide water powered car I know of was Steven Horvath's Water powered Datsun from back in the 70's
Every time hydrogen is brought up people are wanting to poor water into their gas tank and have the car produce it. Why bother with that? As long as the car can run on hydrogen what's wrong with letting a gas station produce the hydrogen by what ever means necessary and let the cars fill up there instead of having the cars producing it themselves by pooring water in the gas tank. As long as I can fill up with hydrogen safely at a gas station I don't see it being a big change to the way we would use cars today.
It takes about 60 kw/h of electricity to produce 1 kg of hydrogen by electrolysis. 1kg of hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline.
Electricity from the grid costs about 10c per kw/h. Alternatives like solar and wind cost more.
Transporting hydrogen is also expensive. You have to either compress it, which uses 20% as much energy as the hydrogen contains, or better still liquefy it, which uses 40%.
Right now though it's not ready for prime time IMO.
I bet we see a few running around soon. Thumbs UP! plus Arnie is fixing it so they can run up and down the state
you people really need to get up to speed, honda is puting hydrogen cars on the street in Cal. and they are building solor powered hydrogen refueling stations to refuel them.
Eventually though tech advances may make it work out long term.
Hydrogen is an artificial, synthetic fuel. It has to be made from other energy. If you look at renewable energy, most of it is harvested as electricity, some as biomass and some as solar heat, but basically most of the renewable energy is harvested as electricity. Hydrogen has to be made artificially by splitting water by electrolysis. This requires more energy than you will ever recover from the hydrogen. However, hydrogen has to be compressed or liquefied for handling, it has to be distributed, and then reconverted back to, guess what, electricity. That means electricity derived from hydrogen has to compete with its original energy source, electricity. If you go through a hydrogen chain, you find that after the fuel cell only 25% of the original electricity is available for use by consumers. A hydrogen economy is a gigantic energy waste. We cannot afford this in the future. Therefore, three of four renewable energy power plants are needed to balance the losses within a hydrogen economy luxury.
With the same amount of electricity, original electricity, be it from wind solar energy, with the same amount of electricity you can drive an electric car three times farther than a hydrogen car. On 100 kWh of electricity you can drive an electric car 120 kilometers while a hydrogen fuel cell car of similar size can do only about 40 km. If we want to have mobility and a sustainable future, we have to go for electric cars and not for hydrogen cars because we electric cars are less costly to operate. It is not the vehicle technology, but a question of energy cost of the fuel. Hydrogen must always be much more expensive than electricity needed to split water by electrolysis etc.
Sometime over the next several weeks, a privately held and ultra-secretive company named EEStor Inc., based in Cedar Park, Texas, is expected to release the results of independent third-party testing of its electrical-energy storage unit, which aims to replace the electrochemical batteries we now use in everything from hybrid cars to laptop computers. EEStor says its system, combining battery and ultra-capacitor technology and based on modified barium titanate ceramic powder, could power a car for 400 kilometres with regular performance. It claims the unit would charge in a few minutes and weigh less than 10 per cent of current lead-acid batteries for the same cost.
Assuming 100% thermal and mechanical efficiency,
400 hp => 400 * 2525 btu = 1,018,000 btu/hr
Gasoline = 18,400 btu / lb +> 84,000 btu / gallon
400 hp = 12.11 gallons / hr at 100% efficiency
80 mpg at 50 mph = 1.60 gallons per hour.
If you want 80 mpg at 50 mph, you can only have about a 40 hp engine.... and unattainable efficiency.
I don't think the guy is claiming 80mpg while the engine is producing 400hp. Just that the car is capable of 80mpg and 400hp, not necessarily simultaneously.Yeah, the only way it makes sense is if the journalist made a mistake. You need more than 40hp to push that car safely on public roads. And it'd be pretty stupid to get on the xprize roster with such an easily debunked scam. If he's really that stupid, it's tough to believe he'd have gotten that other Ohio company to join in. Where's he profiting? He couldn't have done all this without something to gain out of it..
Assuming 100% thermal and mechanical efficiency,
400 hp => 400 * 2525 btu = 1,018,000 btu/hr
Gasoline = 18,400 btu / lb +> 84,000 btu / gallon
400 hp = 12.11 gallons / hr at 100% efficiency
80 mpg at 50 mph = 1.60 gallons per hour.
If you want 80 mpg at 50 mph, you can only have about a 40 hp engine.... and unattainable efficiency.
I don't know what to believe about this movie about Free Energy - No Fuel Magnetic Motor,
Well if anyone can make an electric car work it would be these guys they seem to have the right idea:
Tesla Electric Car
The unveiling of the Tesla Motors Electric Car
Tesla Electric Car Segment - BBC World
However it might meet the same fate as GM's EV1..
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Nashwan, have you heard anything about eestor's batteries?
Just out of curiosity, how does that calculation work with the new "wonder" fuel, hydrogen and oxygen, made at about 1 to 2 liters per hour in the vehicle?
"No Fuel Magnetic Motor?"Yep. Apparently they were getting those results from incorrect measurements.
It's the latest in a very long line of free energy fakes. The most famous in recent years was by an Irish company called Steorn. They paid £100,000 for a full page advert in the Economist, and promised a public display in London. The display went ahead, the machine didn't work, they blamed "bearing problems" and promised another demonstration. That was a couple of years ago.
Haven't heard any news from them for quite some time. That's not a good sign. The market for a battery/capacitor that can power a reasonable, cheap electric car is huge. The fact that they haven't announced manufacturing deal with major industry players suggests that they haven't got anything ready for mainstream yet.Thanks, that's all I'd heard too, but as Toad found they're supposed to get peer reviewed in a few weeks.
According to Wikipedia, they have signed a deal with Lockheed, but of course the military requirements are very, very different from the car buying public's.
If you have a HHO booster that is only putting out 1 to 2 liters per hour you REALLY screwed something up. Mine on the bench right now is generating 1.5 liters a minute and I haven't finished conditioning my core yet.
Just out of curiosity, how does that calculation work with the new "wonder" fuel, hydrogen and oxygen, made at about 1 to 2 liters per hour in the vehicle?
While the battery needs a lot of work, the electric motor also needs a lot more work to improve its efficiency as well.
At what pressure is your hydrogen produced / measured?
Larger electric motors are already pretty efficient, over 90% in most cases. Tesla quote 85 - 95% for their motor.
Hornet, Typo there I meant to put in liuters per minute. Now how many liters per minute of air does the car flow per minute?
Larger electric motors are already pretty efficient, over 90% in most cases. Tesla quote 85 - 95% for their motor.
I didn't figure using the browns gas would take the place of gasoline. I am extremely skeptical of the claims regarding the use of the conversion gadgets on gasoline vehicles. To date I have not seen any 3rd party analysis of the results of using the gadget. I doubt that adding a 1.5 to 2.0+ liter per minute of hydrogen and oxygen will have anything but a trivial impact on the hundreds of cubic feet per minute of air flow through a vehicle engine. That large amount of air also contains more than a trace of oxygen so adding a trivial amount (.5 to .75 liter per minute of oxygen as a third part of the browns gas) to the amount of ambient oxygen is not likely to have a significant impact. To prove that it does would require the use of a lab dyno analysis and no one seems to be willing to do that.
Also I don't think an engine is moving hundreds of cubic feet of air a minute through intake.Just for the sake of argument, the numbers on the Holley carbs are their rating in CFM, so a 350 Holley would have a max. flow of 350 Cubic Feet per Minute, a 650 would flow 650CFM, and the 750 would flow 750CFM. :aok
My booster at "full" operation and going through two bubblers is running right at 5psi on the core. Now my measurements are done using the water displacement method. I'll fill a 2 liter soda bottle with water, place that in a bucket of water and turn it upside down. The output line from the booster goes into the bottle and I time with a stopwatch how long it takes to displace 2 liters of water. Right now I'm getting right at 1.5 liters a minute of HHO gas at 1 atmosphere outside pressure and 5psi booster pressure.
So P = 14.7 + 5 = 19.7 psi 19.7 * 144 = 2896.8 psf
I'll assume 80 deg F ,,, 540 Deg R
you made a stochiometric mixture gas of H2 and O2 out of H2O...
Mole % will be 16 weights of O2 for 1 weight of Hydrogen... so 1/17th of your gas is hydrogen.
Using partial pressure, we can assume 1/17th of the pressure is due to H2, 16/17 of the pressure is O2.
P = 2896.8 psf / 17 = 170.4 psf
R = 1545/MW Mw of Hydrogen
=> 2.016 => 1545/2.016 = 766.34
V = 1.5 L = 1.5 (0.03532 cu ft) = 0.0471 cu ft
PV = MRT (Ideal Gas Law)
170.4 * 1.5 = M * 766.34 * 540
M= ..0006 slugs ==> ..0199 lbs.
at 60 kBTU per lb you have produced 1,193 BTU's of hydrogen...
next material milestone with EEStor is the third party verification of permittivity of their production materials
First trials for EEStor (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/eestor-announces-certification-additional-key/story.aspx?guid=%7BAB6D95CC-0C6B-4734-83CB-990B4451270C%7D) passed above expectations..
The Electric Lightning GT appears to have everything an ecoconscious lover of British sports cars could want: a luxury interior, a top speed of 130mph and acceleration that would put a Porsche to shame
Hornet,
You already know non dyno comparisons on the road on differing conditions makes the results invalid and totally subjective. Particularly when there is no lab work done before as well as after the modifications were done. If it makes you happy to make an unsubstantiated claim go for it.
FWIW I wasn't talking about your specific situation only either but you are also welcome to think I was as that is your problem not mine. My particular objection is towards the folks who market a piece of technology, make claims for improvements of mileage, power, sexual attributes of the user, hair restoration of same etc., and sell the same product without any 3rd party analysis. If their product was such hot stuff they would be demanding an independent test to prove it. At that point they just might be able to show unequivocally that they have a real product that is worth the investment. Secondarily that would also negate any oil company hit squads that might be called in to "eliminate the competition".
Just what are the manufacturers of this little gadget promising you will see in your vehicle?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/09/travelandtransport.carbonemissions
http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/
The problem with Lithium-Ion cells is that even though they held more advantages over NiMH (found in your Prius and other hybrids on the road today), they couldn't deliver high output electrical surges. Granted in a hybrid the gas engine could take over for this when needed in fast acceleration, but in a total electric car you'd be seeing some problems.
But if all pans out with Lithium-titanate, pure electric cars could really prove feasible on a large scale.
problem with pure elecrtric cars is that you have to recharge them sometime. you're not cleaning anything. you're only moving the source of polution.Lithium-titanate, from the claims can charge insanely fast as compared to Lithium-Ion. The fastest Li-Ion cells can do about a 2.0C rate. E.g. A battery can charge from 0-100% in 30 minutes (1.0C being 1 hour). IIRC, titanate can do 10C as it claims. I'd wait 6 minutes to charge my battery.
Lithium-titanate, from the claims can charge insanely fast as compared to Lithium-Ion. The fastest Li-Ion cells can do about a 2.0C rate. E.g. A battery can charge from 0-100% in 30 minutes (1.0C being 1 hour). IIRC, titanate can do 10C as it claims. I'd wait 6 minutes to charge my battery.
Or what if I mounted solar panels on the roof of my car, and at least extend the range on the batteries before I need to pull over and charge my battery.
However, any battery that charges at a high rate is going to generate a lot of heat, so insulation will be key.
The problem with Lithium-Ion cells is that even though they held more advantages over NiMH (found in your Prius and other hybrids on the road today), they couldn't deliver high output electrical surges. Granted in a hybrid the gas engine could take over for this when needed in fast acceleration, but in a total electric car you'd be seeing some problems.
But if all pans out with Lithium-titanate, pure electric cars could really prove feasible on a large scale.
Tesla motors did a decent job using Lithium-ion batteries to deliver a fast 0-60 time in 4 seconds,
Tesla motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/)
I'm assuming they are using the standard lithium-ion battery. I wonder how they handle safety for it.
The last part of the video shows 'Thermal runway'(a politically correct way to say the battery explodes) with a standard lithium-ion battery during nail penetration.. However it looks like A123system has developed a lithium battery that does not do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ayuFBDrSg
altairnano's Lithium-titanate avoids the 'thermal runway' as well..
[edit]
hmmm tesla doing 120 at le mans... cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMUuEEd2jws&feature=user
lab work and reality are like theory and reality. they seldom agree, and reality almost always wins........
I stand corrected... It does not explode, it just 'vents violently'...
:devil
[edit]
another video of lithium ion 'venting violently' when it is overcharged...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5f0VCoFuFM&feature=related
Lithium Polymer 'venting violently'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjudHKh-bI&feature=related
If you had something to say here you failed to really communicate anything.
Just wanted to plug my company, we make kick bellybutton electric dirt bikes.
www.zeromotorcycles.com
EV's are inevitable, just a matter of when...
i saw this site before. they are kick ass.....
but the fact still remains with electric vehicles. we're not cleaning anything up at all. we're just moving the source.
how's that helping anything?
i realize i could be wrong on that, but it's just a thought.......
I'm willing to bet ICE won't die, for the sake of motorsports. Petrol ICEs maybe.
CAP - Cutting car pollution by changing them to electric will move the pollution to energy production sites, which if nothing else will be easier to control than x hundred million polluting cars scattered over the road system.
Blacklight is bogus.
EASIER, yes. but also much more expensive. that's the main reason they've been taking aim at cleaning up cars to begin with.
if it still works like i remember, when NJ(for instance) cleans its air by XX amount, they earn carbon credits(or clean air credits i'm not sure what they call them now). NJ then in turn sells these credits to power companies, or manufatuurers, allowing them to continue to function without cleaning up.
so basicly, nothing will change.
if it does, when the govt finally starts forcing the power companies to clean up, it's going to raise their costs, and they're only going to pass that on to us, the consumers. at that point, we'll be in the same boat.
Then why is a power company in Delaware signing on with them to install their new power generator system? The installation is supposed be completed within the next 12 months and the system online providing power to the grid within 6 months after that.I did what you're doing now, almost 10 years ago. They're just another crank investor bait, just like Steorn and countless others. Did you notice Mills' "Grand unified theory of classical quantum physics"? It's the basis (or bootsrap'd to look like it) for his whole energy scam and doesn't even stand up mathematicaly. There might be something going on in his patented cells, but at best he has no idea what's going on and is just using it to (you guessed it) rake in more suckers' investments.
Blacklight isn't some fly by night outfit. They've been in buisness for almost 20 years, all of it in the hitech application fields. Lasers, hydrogen power, optics, ect. Read the bio's of the scientists and engineers that work there. These are some highly inteligent folks working on this thing.
You forgot one little thing there Moot, Blacklight has had independant third parties come in and check their system out. Folks that said what they are doing is impossible have seen it and said that even though it's mathmatically impossible by current physics standards, it works. So if it works is Blacklight fooling everyone (people with PHD is phyics and mathmatics) or have they discovered something totaly new and are re writing the book?
The theory's of quantum physics that are used today are still in their infancy. No one knows with 100% certainty what can and cannot be done in regard to physics. Blacklight is punching a hole in alot of theory's that people believe can't be broken.
Smart people happen everywhere and when they show people something that nobody believes is possible, the majority of the believers of the status quo will try to shoot it down. Kinda like the Earth is flat theory, or the Earth is the center of the universe, or the sound barrier can't be broken.
The folks that are saying this breakthrough violates the laws of physics and is impossible might not be right. The Earth is round, we're not at the center of the universe, and the sound barrier was broken.
As far as you doing what I'm doing now 10 years ago, I assume your talking about building a hydroxy booster, and I'm also going to assume that it didn't work for you? If you don't mind can you tell me what you tried and what results you got?
Something that will turn the world on it's ears if they're given half a chance to run with it... You mean like 50 M$ and counting? Where are the hydrinos?
You're just along for the ride based on some social dynamics gut feeling Hornet. .. You mean like 50 M$ and counting? Where are the hydrinos?
Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states!or
Hence CQM lacks important features of quantum mechanics and does not
describe known physics properly.
Hydrogen spectra in deep space (21cm right?) is from electrons going from higher to lower states, isn't it? Wouldn't conversions between Mills' particle and regular H radiate differently? No mass spectrometer needed there. Where did you learn your science Hornet? Even on earth, why hasn't a single scientist working on H plasma or gas or playing around with particles detected this? Where have you been hiding under for the last few dozen years to miss all the crackpots attracting tons of investor cash? DId you read the paper I linked to? Did you see this part?or
All I'm sure of is that the guy you're insisting will change the world has been caught making mistakes on the order of fundamental inconsistencies in his math and physics, or of copying others' previous scientific research into his papers word for word. I'm saying this guy, if he's really discovered something new, doesn't know how to explain it.
My gut feeling is that Mills is full of poop and is milking his little anomaly (if not hoax). The trials ought to bear the truth sooner or later, and so far even NASA back in the 90s (when BLP was "HydroCatalysis" ) failed to get the hydrino stuff to work. My gut feeling is that he's found something funky like the cold fusion people did, and that the phenomenon isn't going to produce anything anywhere near extraordinary or world changing. Not in his hands anyway.
Yep.. I remembered right, here you go Hornet:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/h21.html#c1
I do not think you need acres of land. One of my little projects is generating about 3000W@120V in a 10 square foot area. However, it is a little different than what is commercially available.
I have not taken any time to calculate how much hydrogen could be produced as I think hydrogen powered cars is something not really practical yet.
I could probably push the output to 4500W with little effort, but it served the purpose I needed at the time.
You have made assumptions about the configuration that do not apply Holden.
Tesla production model #6 has crashed...
Well that didn't take long..
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/worlds-first-fo.html
:cry
Tesla production model #6 has crashed...
Well that didn't take long..
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/worlds-first-fo.html
:cry
I got my numbers from http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/ (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/)
I made my assumptions based on solar insolation in kilowatt-hours per square meter per day.
This is a physical phenomenon based on the sun and the earth. Configuration of the system is moot.
http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html (http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html)
The chart in the link above shows the insolation for many US cities.
This shows that your goal of 3kw/10 sq ft is much more than the sun sends us.
bones.. I don't get it. If you are never going to get a thing out of the deal.. and you are going to spend all of your time and money on working on it anyway...
Why not just put it out there for everyone?
It is possible that you are some unsung genius and not a bitter nutjob. I have no way of knowing. I do know that I can't figure out your explanation for why you are acting the way you are.
Why not just open a website and put all your thoughts out on it? why not update as you progress? If it is worth a damn.. there should be plenty of people who see the value and would be glad to contribute even.
If you have lost faith in people... I would put forth that your attitude doesn't do much for my faith in people.
lazs
Missed this before. I was not ignoring you.
You are correct. You do not know if I am a nutjob or the real deal. However, I thought I was pretty clear. I was doing it for the money. I took my life savings, countless hours, and poured it into this project and others.
I sought out investors. They told me they had to have a working model. I did it. Then they wanted a full blown model. I did that. Then they wanted the plans to the models so they could have third party people verify them. All without showing me a nickle. That I did not do and will not do. I do not have the money for a patent attorney and right now feel it would be a waste of money. I got screwed out of a patent before.
In my life I have made a lot of people very rich. Twice burned. It was not gong to happen again. I have nothing to show for the millions I made for others but some plaques on the wall. When I need motivation to go keep going I remind myself of what I have created that will never be available to anyone. I can say, "Screw society!" with a smile on my face.
I am not above rubbing salt in the wound, so I will probably post pictures of the system when it is completed. No one will be able to tell enough about it to help duplicate it.
Allow me to take anohter tack. What you do not know about my design is plentiful. You have not idea how or what is being coverted to what in the design. The assumptions you are making are too many to list. You have no idea what energy or method is being used to convert to electricity. You are also assuming a flat conversion of energy per square foot. It is quite easy to multiply the amount of energy collected per square foot.
smart thing not giving them the plans and stuff......they sound like they were roping ya along.
i thought that once you had a patent on something, it was yours and yours only for whatever the time was? or was that twisted around by a ""better"" lawyer than you had?
If I change the design of a dam can I multiply the amount of water so that the river flows over it twice or is there only so much water flowing by?
Enlighten me. How can you harvest more sunlight than the sun sends us? If the sun sends us 1 kw per sq meter, designing a collector that is not more than a sq meter that collects more than 1 kw is a guaranteed Nobel Prize in physics.
I'll say it one more time. You and those two sites you are quoting, make assumptions that do not apply to my design.
bones.. at the risk of maybe getting a letter bomb in the mail....
I have upgraded you from nutjob to dangerous bitter nutjob.
I bet your system wouldn't help anyone.
I know if I exaggerated the case a little I could say that I have come up with several ideas in the past that have made others millions and.. I never seen a cent of it.
What I did was enjoy the fact that others had a good time with some of my ideas..
lazs
Well Holden, you get it then you dont.
I will say it again. It is easy to have a collector surface area of 100 sq. ft in an 8 sq. ft area of land. Not sure what about that you are not understanding. You even said it yourself/ It is a simple engineering issue. Nothing more.
Unless you can grasp that simple concept, then we are at an impasse. I have never stated what the collector area is. I have never stated I use a collector. I have never stated anything about how the system works. You can assume whatever you like. I am done with it.
Yes CAP1, that is essentially it.
I MISSED PARTS OF THIS, BUT I THINK I GET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY.
holden is saying that you can only harvest (for instance) 10 KW of solar energy per 100 sq. ft.
so by taking and fitting 100 sq. ft of collector into 10 sq. feet, you could then place 9 other collectors of the same capacity, each one collecting 10KW, thus multiplying the amount of energy you can collect.
i think?
It does not increase the surface area. I was simply discussing how you could create a 100 sq ft collector and not have to lay it out flat on the ground. Why that concept is so difficult for people is beyond me. I cannot take credit for it either. Not my idea. I have seen the designs and various implementations of the concept.
There is no disconnect. Everyone seems to be assuming a system that is 100% solar driven, in a conventional collector or photovoltaic manner. This is where the problem is. This is where I can understand why there is a misunderstanding. You are not familiar with the design nor the concept of the design. Therefore you cannot begin to toss numbers and formulas at it which would make much sense.
Analogous to calculating the thermal energy in a gallon of gasoline for a car which is only using 1% gasoline to generate motive power and then stating you cannot get 100 miles to the gallon from the gasoline. Hmmm. A bit wordy. Maybe the point will stick though.
Steam requires an enormous amount of continously supplied thermal energy and the potential for energy loss is high. Then you have the problem of continuing to supply that thermal energy over night unless you want to use some type of battery storage system as a backup. Then you have maintenance costs, which can be quite high, due to the corrosive effects in dealing with steam and battery systems.
A steam turbine would be out of the question for personal use. Far too expensive.
Well Holden, you get it then you don't.
I will say it again. It is easy to have a collector surface area of 100 sq. ft in an 8 sq. ft area of land. Not sure what about that you are not understanding. You even said it yourself. It is a simple engineering issue. Nothing more.
Unless you can grasp that simple concept, then we are at an impasse. I have never stated what the collector area is. I have never stated I use a collector. I have never stated anything about how the system works. You can assume whatever you like. I am done with it.
One of my little projects is generating about 3000W@120V in a 10 square foot area. However, it is a little different than what is commercially available
Holden I see what you're getting at but I think you're missing the point. What you state is true IF you are using conventional collection techniques.
What Bones is alluding to is that although the physical size of his apparatus is only 10sq.ft. the effective collector area in his design is 30sq.ft.
No Holden, I mean the only way to break the insolation limit for any given area is for any given area to put the insolation to work on more than just the topmost layer.
The next question from that basis is "Is there any way to exploit photons without entirely stopping them from continuing on to the next panel (to be exploited)?".
Holden I see what you're getting at but I think you're missing the point. What you state is true IF you are using conventional collection techniques.
What Bones is alluding to is that although the physical size of his apparatus is only 10sq.ft. the effective collector area in his design is 30sq.ft.
exactly. this way, he could....using your example........triple the amount of energy in a given space.
i think
exactly. this way, he could....using your example........triple the amount of energy in a given space.
i think
5 times the output ? 230 watts of energy on just one centimetre? That can't be possible since that would work out to more than 1KW/M2 :O