Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Harnessing the power of the sun

sunpowerport.com
harnessing the power of the sun
The Sun Power Port:

Ideal for camping or emergency power outages, the
Sun Power Port is a portable generator that when used
to its full potential will pay for itself in less than two years.
In one day of full sunshine, the solar panel easily charges
the 12 volt (standard automobile) battery. An inverter
changes the DC current to AC. From there the electrical energy
is easily accessible to most standard 110 volt small
appliances used in North America.

On a full charge, without the sun, the battery has enough
power to run and charge a laptop computer for about three
hours, a 19" television for over an hour or a twenty watt
light for about ten hours. Next time the power goes out, read
in silence, listen to music, surf the Internet while the Sun Power
Port provides a clean energy source.
_________________
reynantevargas
http://www.sunpowerport.com/

The carbon footprint of every device could be roughly expressed by its price. $695.00 cost of solar panel device has a carbon footprint corresponding over 46 kWh for 15 USD/kWh (DOE price at the U.S. in April 2009), i.e. 63 days of permanent operation, i.e. at least 200 days of real operation (for ~8 hours of direct sunlight per day).

Just after 3/4 year of daily operation your device becomes "clean" source of energy. In real case (20 vaccation days per year) the pay-off period becomes prolonged to more then ten years...

at the below web site you can get solar pannels for as low as $1.37 per watt.

you could get a pallet of 25 (60 watt 48 volt) pannels with a combined wattage of 1500 watts for $2000.00

http://www.affordable-solar.com/solar-panel-pallet-kaneka-60-watt-solar-panel.htm

1500 watts x 8 (hours) x 63 (days) = 756 kWh

to put it in simpler form thats $90.00 USD in electric bill savings every 63 days with a electricity rate of 12 cents per kWh.

or apx $540.00 USD per year , so in 4 years they are paid for and then you pocket the $540.00 every year from then on.

I am not sure if this constitutes spamming or not. I will let it stand and see what Kate and Mike think.

Amaranth

SPAM ?

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

there are thousands of instances of spam on this forum.

most are found in the link of the signature line that
links to a web site.

such as the signature line of the starting thread in this thread.

all links are not spam however , as some links point to further relative data or comparison data that helps the readers more clearly understand the topic.

my post and link was to clarify to the readers that solar power does not require 10 years to repay the initial cost , if the initial cost is lower per watt.

as the starting poster of this thread has found a great power supply for campers , yet the per watt cost of this unit is way above the cost of a home power supply when using solar cells that are purchased for $1.34 a watt.

not the D.O.E estimated $15.00 a watt.

the D.O.E does not really want people to save money on energy , not large quantities of it.
they protect the fuel tax income that is part of their job it seems.
they mostly just advertise that they want people to become more energy efficient.

that is why they do not fund anything that would save energy and that is why they always give the funding dollars they get to large corporations that will also protect that tax income by not saving any energy.

Hopefully there is not as much spam on this forum as you suggest Paul.
Too much spam is a definate spoiler on a Science Forum.
I must admit that some times it might be difficult to separate Company names from the new and unique ideas
that companys have come up with, and wish to market.
Reynante talking about a Solar panel powered electric generator is not new, since the idea has been common knowledge for twenty years, and of little scientific interest.
But it is Reynantes first post, and I am sure it wont be his last. As he is very welcome to these pages.

The point being...that anyone can write about any scientific idea, pseudo-real, made up, or not...but once you write in a companys name that they are using strictly for advertising purposes...then it is generally considered spam, in this forum.
Remember one can get lots of thoughts and extra ideas from reading SAGG's Front Page.
In my opinion it is very under used, regarding discussions.

The exact same wording as this message appears on a number of different fora along with the same link. I'm not sure what you call that except for spam.

If it really pays for itself in 4 years then anybody planning on staying in the same house for that long should use them!

But I think your calculations were a little optimistic. Little-no power on cloudy days, and probably not getting the advertised power output unless it's facing the sun, which it won't be for 8 hours.

And without batteries, you have to use that power in the middle of the day or it's wasted. What's consuming 1500 watts all day while you're at work? Forgot to turn the oven off?

With batteries that introduces a whole new ongoing cost of replacement, as well as power loss through charge/discharge inefficiency.

kallog



you dont need batteries any longer , you get a one way meter that your power company supplies and installs.

you connect your solar power system directly to the grid and the power company buys your power for apx 18 cents per kWh.

when you use their electricity they deduct the power your system generated previously then any amount over that is charged on your electric bill.

there is no need to buy and replace batteries.

there is no need to buy a inverter.

all you need to buy is the solar power pannels and a converter to convert the solar pannel power from DC to AC.

Oh I'm a bit behind the times. I always wondered when people would start doing that! Amazing!

I wonder then why it hasn't taken off? Maybe people just don't know about the opportunity? Or can't be bothered having things installed?

I also wonder why people don't just generate power commercially with PV panels. Surely there's more to the cost that makes it uneconomical. Maybe the land area it would consume?

Kallog



naturally its not something that is widely advertised
due to its corporate impacts.

But with this type of distributed power system the power companies could eventually be relieved from the expense of building and maintenance of centrally located power plants except for those that would be required durring cloudy days and durring nights.

there is also a national security benefit at play here as the ability to attack the centrally located power plants would be easier to accomplish than the ability to attack all the solar pannels on peoples houses.

There are companies that are taking advantage of this one way metering and selling power to the grid as a commercial non corporate entity. however the amounts of electricity that they can sell to the grid is limited to 100 kWh at the .18 cents per kWh and those that sell above 100 kWh can only recieve apx 4-5 cents per kWh.

even so these systems can provide an enormous relief of
CO2 emmissions that would normaly be in play in our environment.

these systems can use any alternative sustainable energy source.

be it wind , solar pannels , solar collectors , bio fuels,
people pedalling generator bikes etc... LOL

Wait a minute, things aren't really adding up.

Small producers can get a much higher price than large ones? What kind of market is that? A government subsidized one perhaps?

I just saw that America has something called Renewable Energy Credits, which people have used for this purpose. Instead of selling power they're selling credits which power companies have to collect enough of to meet regulations.


As an aside, pedal power isn't generally good for the environment. Pedal power means food power, and typical food has a higher carbon footprint than petrol. That's on top of the human body having poorer efficiency than a generator. It may actually be better to ride a motorbike than pedal a bicycle.

Kallog

the below link is to a actual electricity company bill where the customer uses net metering , he uses a total of
1,568 kWh for the month and is charged $124.68 @ .08 cents
per kWh for his usage.
his solar pannel system sent 187 kWh to the power company
durring the month and he was credited $32.54 @ .174 cents per kWh.

his final cost was $103.70

judging from his credit amount of 187 kWh's he only has a
750 - 1000 watt system.

750 watts x 8 hours x 31 days = 186,000 watt hours
or 186 kWh

http://www.gasolar.org/uploads/exampleofgeorgiapowercredit.gif

Recovering the cost of these credits is accomplished through block purchases of green energy through the power company , where environmentally driven consumers or corporations wishing to present to the public their environmental consiousness purchase thousands even millions of these green watts of electricity.

and yes most states offer several incentives to consumers to purchase solar pannels and wind turbines and a large variety of green products.

in fact the federal government has a tax credit for home owners that will pay for 30% of the entire installation cost.

below is a link to info on tax credits

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index

Yea he's selling it for more than he's buying it. So this isn't really a sustainable scheme, and won't work on a much larger scale. He's basically being payed for doing something for the environment rather than for the value of the power he's producing.

That 10 year payback period you mentioned before, and which I've heard elsewhere too, is probably for selling power of any sort, which would be safe from changes in public opinion about renewable energy, safe from oversupply of that product, and applicable to other states and countries.

Kallog



I believe I said in 4 years the system would pay for itself.

I was wrong.

its more like 2.6 years !!!

then its money in your pocket to buy other products with.

suppose I bought a 6 kW system and installed it on my roof top.

and instead of paying the DOE estimate of $15.00 per watt
I only pay $1.37 per watt as shown in the above link.

my initial investment for the 6 kW pannels is $8220.00

assumming that I get 8 hours a day of 6 kW for everyday of each year.

6 kW x 8 hours x 365 days = 17,520 kWh's per year.

the electric company credits me for 3,153.60 each year.

$8,220.00 / 3,153.60 = 2.60 years

after the initial 2.6 years for the remaining 23.4 years of the 25 year lifetime of the pannels I would be getting FREE ENERGY LOL.

OK. But again, it's subsidised by the government, so sure you can do it, and that's great. But in doing so you're taking money that could have been spent on something else, say healthcare, road safety or my personal favourite, nuclear fusion (not fission).

Kallog

the example system I refferenced that cost $8220.00
didnt include any of the available government tax credits.

the $0.18 cents per kWh credit is not a government subsidy.

the power companies charge more for green energy as shown in the below link where consumers can purchase green energy blocks of 100 kWh to support environmentaly friendly power generation such as solar power.

https://customerservice.southerncompany.com/corporate/green_residential_signup.asp

in the example of a actual electrcity bill posted above if the consumer purchased a 100 kWh block for every 100 kWh he used durring the month he could purchase 15 blocks
because he used 1564 kWh that month.

the purchase would cost him either $3.50 or $4.50 per 100 kWh block depending on the plan he chooses.

he would pay either $52.50 or $67.50 extra on his bill.

OK it's not a government subsidy, it's paid for by consumers. I see some power companies choose to offer a premium green service, but others may simply charge everybody more. Wikipedia says half of American states have renewable energy quotas, that means power companies will want to buy it at an artificially high price regardless of whether consumers want it.

If more renewable power was generated, the premium prices would fall and further growth would be stopped.

Well what I keep trying to get at is we can't just cover the planet with solar panels because it would cost more than coal, oil, gas or nuclear.

Kallog



the U.S. consumes apx 1.3 trillion kWh per year.

the amount of land required to power the U.S. solely by solar power pannels is an area of
apx 62.5 miles x 62.5 mies or 3905 sq miles.

each of the above $1.37 per watt solar pannels have the dimentions of 40 inch x 40 inch or 11.11 sq ft each pannel.

it would require 2.509 million pannels to cover 1 sq mile.

9.7 billion pannels to cover the entire 3905 sq mile area.

the pannels cost $82.20 each.
the cost of enought pannels to solely power the U.S.
using solar power pannels would be only 805 billion dollars.

-----------------

that doesnt seem like much when you are dealing with anual trillion dollar budgets does it.

this would supply apx 587 billion watts when the sun is shinning.
or 587 million kW when the sun is shinning and
for every hour the sun shines it would produce
587 million kWh's


total est U.S. electricity consumption is 1,300,000,000,000 kWh a year

1.3 trillion kWh's a year
/ 365 days
3.5 billion kWh's a day
/ 6 hours a day
593 million kWh's a hour @ 6 hours sunshine a day.


its not exact but its pretty close thats not much land at all when you think about it , and the money it would cost
is also extremely low compared to the return on the investment.

of course no power company will ever build a single solar power instalation this large and besides I think that
putting solar pannels on the roofs of houses would be the best way to utilize this energy source.

thats a anual return of 156 billion dollars
for 25 years totaling 3.9 trillion if sold at the national average of $0.12 cents per kWh.

It's not really meaningful to compare production cost to retail price, that ignores all the other costs and markups along the way. Here I'm crudely comparing $/kWh for your solar idea to nuclear, which is pretty expensive.

1.3 trillion kWh/year = 140GW

Solar, assuming power can be stored/sold elsewhere to ignore nighttime:
Setup cost, 140GW of solar panels: $5700/kW
Setup cost, other: ?
fuel: 0
other ongoing costs: ?
Cost over 25 years: 5700/kW / (25*365*24)
= $0.026 /kWh

Nuclear:
Setup cost: $2000-5000 / kW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o..._cost_estimates)
fuel 0.0071 $/kWh (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html)
other ongoing costs: ?
Cost over 25 years: $4000/kW / (25*365*24) + fuel = $0.018/kWh + $0.0071/kWh
= $0.025/kWh

So they end up about the same, but for solar I ignored labour, land, maintenance, etc. For nuclear I ignored maintenance. That means this result is inconclusive, but certainly doesn't show any clear advantage of solar. For solar PV there's also the impossibility of storing power overnight and adjusting generation to match variations in demand, so it can never be the major power source.

Someone else has done it properly for Australia, this shows solar PV as the MOST EXPENSIVE of many existing power sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_co...fferent_sources


If you're generating power at twice cost of your competitors, and selling it at the same price in a competitive market, you're bound to fail.

Kallog

Im not sure where you got the $5700.00 per kW installation cost figures from.

the $1.37 per watt pannels in the above link would only cost $1370.00 per kW.

it only takes a few hours to install the 16.67 pannels required for 1 kW as they are 60 watt pannels.

1000 / 60 = 16.67

2 people earning $20.00 per hour for say 4 hours is
only $160.00

there is no need to buy land as they would mount on the roof of your house.

the only maintenance normaly required is to rinse them off once a year with your water hose.

so the final figure is apx $1530.00 per kW not $5700.00

5700 / 1530 = 3.73

your $0.26 kWh / 3.73 = $0.069 per kWh

To me that is a very clear difference.



I agree.

I didnt realize nuclear was so expensive.
but nuclear power will be necessary to use durring cloudy days and nights and we can expect that there will be many new nuclear power plants built across the U.S. to provide this much needed power when the sun does not shine.

theres no way that we can afford to store solar power using batteries on a national scale.

i got $5700 from your $800billion / 150GW which is from your national power usage.

It should be higher than the panel price /rated wattage because this figure includes nighttime. Further on I assumed it was running 24hrs/day, so that cancels it out.

However, the proof of solar PV's impracticality is in the pudding. Where are the solar panel farms? Why doesn't some enterpeneur go and build one? It can be done on any scale from a single roof up to hundreds of megawatts, so financing is easy. In fact why don't you? Cover your entire roof. With the profits, rent the roof of another property and cover it too, as you get richer keep expanding!

It's not being done because it isn't economical. Solar thermal seems to be cheaper on a large scale, and I think there are some commercial plants in America using that. Solar thermal also has the ability to store power. I know it feels nice to have no moving parts, but at the end of the day, steam turbines are still cheaper than silicon.

Wind is also used all over the world, because that too is cheaper than solar PV when scaled up.

Kallog




heres a 6 mW farm in germany on 16.5 acres.
it uses thin film technology vs crystaline modules as do the $1.37 per watt pannels.



http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/worlds_largest_5.php

--------------------------

Portugals 45 mW solar farm which combines solar wind and wave energy.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/06/renewableenergy.alternativeenergy

--------------------------

and many many more

google search for "largest solar power farm"


with the emergence of new technologies such as thin film
solar the cost of production has greatly decreased and following suite there are a growing number of buisnessmen who are taking advantage of this reduction in cost.

those who remain clinging to fossil fuel as a energy source will watch their investments turn into rust as the solar industry gains more and more recognition.

they may have pudding in there fossil fuel bowl right now , but it cost a lot to make their pudding and normaly people stray away from expensive pudding.

OK. Tho it doesn't have to cost a lot. Solar PV is extremely scalable, that's why I'm still sceptical that these projects are standing on their own two feet. Why doesn't every homeowner cover their entire roof? The German government does subsidise renewable energy, and farmers are building wind turbines with government aid. But to rely on government subsidies means it's not sustainable - yet.

I recently heard a green MP in my country stating that solar isn't economical for us. And we don't have any such solar farms.

Coal and oil plants are still going to be the mainstay for a long time, and I'm very sure their investors will be making profits. Sure not forever, but that's fine, when they finally shut down some people will have got very rich off them - and without taking tax dollars from the innocent public either!

I recently heard on TV, many old nuclear plants being described as "money printing machines". They've exceeded their planned life and paid off their huge initial investments. No doubt these early solar farms will end up that way too. Good on them, I just hope it does eventually happen.

Kallog



Or a portion of the roof at least.
I think the reason is that the initial cost is preventing many from doing so.

these days if you hire a contractor to paint your house a single room in your house will cost you apx $600.00 a room.
several thousand dollars depending on the number of rooms you have.

the contractor will most likely hire a sub contractor and the sub contractor will either find an additional painting sub contractor or he will actually have painters at his disposal or as employees.

then if you ask the painter how much he is getting paid he will most likely tell you just above minimum wage.

the painter might work 3-4 hours for 2 days and move between other painting jobs.

whats going to have to happen will have to be something other than the average contractor sub contractor scenario.

where most of the initial cost is actually spent on materials and labor, and not put in the prime contractors pocket.

its the same with solar power only much more has to go into the materials cost so when a new house is built you would probably have to pay a contactor at least $10,000 extra just to put in his pocket if you wanted a solar power system.

then the price of the house would go up apx $20,000 to cover the materials , labor , and the contractors pocket cash and of course the additional value to the home.

what Im trying to say is that although the materials price has greatly decreased, the installation cost is probably being increased to consume any savings.

if it could be done much like the satelight tv installers that make apx $80.00 an installation that takes an hour or so to perform.

then the installation labor cost would drop to around $200.00 for a average 2 bedroom home.

this would provide 2 installers $20.00 an hour for 5 hours.
thats what its going to take to really get it going strong.

So it should be easier in countries with low wages. Panels and electricity costs are probably fairly uniform around the world, but labor is a bit excessive in developed places.

But then a developing country probably doesn't have renewable energy incentives, so it's that much harder.

Kallog



Just imagine living in china and working in one of the many wallmart owned factories there that produce the worlds products that are sold in wallmart stores.

you want to use solar power to decrease your electric bill
however you only earn $0.13 Cents an hour.
you work 15 hours every day 7 days a week but you still only earn apx $13.65 a week.

if you saved every cent that you made for 6 months you could only afford to buy 1 $82.20 solar pannel like the ones being discussed here.

this is not just happening in china its all over the world
most of the developing nations are being used as slave labor farms by corporations.

So the developing nations people cant afford to be energy efficient even if they wanted to , and Im sure there are billions that would love to have a solar power system of their own to reduce their monthly bills.

but they have to choose to buy food and shelter and clothing first.

the price of energy isnt that great here because of our minimum wage laws but to them it is a strangle hold or death grip that gets stronger every year.

but if things dont change and the corporations dont move jobs back to the U.S. and to all the other developed countries where jobs have been removed in favor of the slave labor in china and other developing nations even our minimum wages will be lowered in order to allow more people to work in a more competitive market.

remember that the next time you buy a product made in another country.

Chinese factory workers earn about 10 times that, and plenty of people earn much more.

I see your point that the parts costs are higher in a low-wage country. But if (a big if) you're already paying international prices for power, and using just as much, then you can automatically afford the solar panel with the same couple of years pay-back.

Actual $0.13/hour workers probably aren't paying power bills!

Your idea of taking jobs from the poorest people to make the richest even richer is pretty unethical!! Every working American should be happy to take a big pay cut if it means a whole family in India can afford enough food. Try telling your idea to a low-paid factory worker who's elderly parents will die without their work. There is very little adult slave labor these days. Typically the workers are only bound by their desire for money. Just as many workers in America are.

It's win-win really. Nobody can doubt that China is a much better place to live today than it was before it started making things for Americans. And America is better off too!

Kallog



http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

I believe that the 2/3 legal minimum wage mentioned above is the minimum wage in china.



not all wallmart factories are located in Guangzhou city as it has the highest minimum wage in china.
the movie I watched titled
"wallmart the high cost of low prices"
showed a factory in china where the workers were paid $0.13 cents an hour so the wallmart factory in the film must have been located in the lowest minimum wage areas of china and it seems that they have raised the minimum wage since the film was made because $0.13 cents would only be 1/3 of $0.39 cents an hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#People.27s_Republic_of_China

The facts are that our country the U.S. cant sustain these low wages of other countries that are causing our workers to lose their jobs.

I agree that it would not be a good thing for the people in other countries if they had no source of income , however all they will ever gain with the non competitive wages is a extreme lack of internal security.

their economy is extremely dependant on almost the entire world. they need to grow their own economy and higher wages is the only way this can be accomplished.

a factory worker making $0.39 cents an hour cannot buy hardly anything therefore their economy cannot even be sustainable without the stable economies of other countries.

and if their low wages is causing instability in the countries that their economy depends on then that is not a wise venture.

What would you prefer? That china never made cheap products for America? Where would that leave it? Subsistance farming? Brutal communism? Certainly much worse off than it is today. Now they're so wealthy the government is hoping to create a domestic consumer market comparable to America, as you suggested. That would be impossible without all those exports, and those exports would be impossible without low wages.

However they could certainly improve things for people, at the expense of economic growth by allowing their yuan to appreciate rather than keeping it locked to the USD. This would stealthily make all Chinese richer and Americans poorer without causing a riot.

It's very misleading to measure wages in USD when they're not being spent in America. When I lived in eastern Europe my rent was $30US/week in the most expensive district of the capital city, 10min walk from parliament. The metro train cost about 10c to travel anywhere in the city. If somebody earned $0.60/hour and lived with their extended family (very common), they'd be OK.

Well my main point is that it's really wrong to take a job from a poor person and give it to a rich person, simply because you imagine the poor person doesn't want their job. Americans lost their own jobs by demanding too much pay! That's why so much IT is done in India - the Indians are lower bidders in a free market, it's totally fair. They can afford to demand low wages because they don't waste their money on McDonalds, petrol and big TVs, the way Americans do.

Kallog



in the movie "wallmart the high cost of low prices" a product made in china that sells in a U.S. wallmart for $19.00 only had a combined materials , production , and shipping cost of $0.38 cents by the time it was put on the shelves in a wallmart in the U.S.

what I get out of that is that the chinese people could buy these products , if they were allowed to because they make enought and the price is within their wage range , even with a 100% mark up of the materials , production ,
and including the shipping cost that woud not be necessary
they could sell the product for $0.76 cents U.S.

but they couldnt afford to buy the product for the $19.00
that it sells for in the U.S.

heres the real dangerous part.
there is no way that a factory in the U.S. can build that product for $0.38 cents.

if a factory did try to start up to build that product and compete with wallmart then given that wallmart has a 5000% markup on that particular product all they would need to do is keep dropping their prices until the new company folded up its sidewalks and closed the doors.

which is what they do.



I can see $18.62 cents per each product produced including its shipping that would allow for higher wages in china that would also allow for new buisnesses to start up in other countries to produce this particular product.

so Im not falling for that one.



its all connected if the chinese leverage their monetary system then there will be less products purchased from china so both would suffer.

but the U.S. wouldnt suffer long , if the sun comes up the next day the buisnessmen will find ways to make more money.
thats what they do.



Americans lost their jobs because the buisnessmen decided they could make loads more money if they deserted the American people by producing the products they sell to the American people in other countries.

I sense you have a prejudice towards Americans. I don't want to put money in the pocket of a greedy overpaid American worker when somebody who needs the money more will do the same job for less. It's called the free market.




Of course some countries won't be able to compete in some markets. But it's a self correcting problem. Back in the day Japan was making the cheap products that nobody could undercut, Then it was Hong Kong and Korea, then it was China, now China's getting too wealthy so Vietnam and other places are taking over. Oh and it gets worse:

"Trade between China and Africa soared 40% to a record $55.5 billion last year. Direct investment has reached a cumulative $6.5 billion. A whopping third of Chinese oil now comes from Africa."

Now those poor Africans are being abused by the rich Chinese businessmen selling things to rich Chinese consumers! Where will Africa turn when it finally needs cheap labor? American perhaps

Kallog

and then after the americans become rich again after performing the cheap labor for the africans they will need the cheap labor that could be found in the japanese people again , etc , etc , etc , over and over again and again.

but if countries build there own economies that can support there own people then that would not happen.

Im not saying that all trade should be done away with
but that more responcibility should be taken to ensure that
each country can sustain itself without a large dependance on other countries.

this way the rich couldnt take advantage of the poor the
way they do.



No Im not prejudice towards any countries people.

Tell me what China should do if it always paid its workers the same as American workers? It wouldn't have any industry, for a start. What then? Peasant farmers? Is poverty OK as long as nobody benefits from it?

Maybe poverty in Africa is OK because nobody is taking advantage of those people. They brought it on themselves and should just become self-sufficient?

Free international trade is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries, evening out the differences. And everybody wins! Well there is one loser - national pride.

Kallog



if it worked that way , but it doesnt.

look at the $19.00 product sold in wallmart that is produced in china.

from what I see , china gets a extremely small portion of the $19.00 and the american wallmart workers get just above minimum wage and wallmart tells its employees to apply for government assistance.

the only transfer of wealth is from the people in america who purchase the wallmart product to the owners of wallmart.

those who own wallmart take that $18.62 profit and build more wallmart stores and more factories in china and other countries where low wages can be found.

this only perpetuates the problem.

now lets look at it this way.

what if the chinese workers were paid $5.00 U.S. per hour.

just suppose it takes 1 hour for 1 employee to produce the product and the factory has 100 employees.
thats $500.00 an hour labor.

wallmart still makes $1,400 profit from the sale of the 100 products.

now suppose those 100 employees put 100 dollars an hour in the bank for 1 year , that would be 547,000 dollars a year in savings.
given that they still get to work 15 hours a day.

they still have $400.00 an hour to spend durring the year.
they will buy product after product and because they buy so many products those 100 employees can buy land , build factories , and work in the factories they now own.
or they can hire more employees at $5.00 per hour to ensure that the economy continues to sustain itself.

they would be building their own sustainable economy.
even if they reduced exports their economy would sustain itself.

and they could think of exports as extra income not as their prime source of income.

and as long as the rich in china dont horde all the profits the growth will continue.

I know its more complicated than that but you should understand that a sustainable economy depends on people spending money and if they dont have enought to spend then
the companies that hire them will eventually have to fire them.

here is a film about the year of leap forward
it was made in 1958.
was this before free trade?.

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.643188

Chinese workers are doing the same thing Marx's English workers did. They're getting richer and becoming able to buy the things they make.

Unfortunately I couldn't watch that whole movie because my internet is too slow. But the great leap forward is widely regarded as one of the worst tragedies in human history, putting the holocaust to shame. Tens of millions starved to death because farmers were made to work in factories, despite the fact the people wanted food more desperately than they wanted steel.

You're still assuming that people who have very low living costs actually need as much money as somebody living in New York. When I worked in England I thought I'd be fabulously rich, until I realized my rent was 3 times higher and food was twice the price.

You're also putting fairness ahead of quality of life. It actually doesn't hurt anybody if some rich guy gets rich. The only problem is jealousy.

If the workers are so disgruntled, why don't they go back to their farms? The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank with their fistfuls of US dollars. Walmart is already helping Chinese people by giving them jobs. If you want to provide charity then pay out of your own pocket, don't ask them to give away money just because they're rich.

But getting back towards science (oops!), did you see the 'wood burning bus'? Those things, wood gasifiers, are amazing. Who needs petrol when you can just pour sawdust into the tank! Hehe well not quite, but it certainly works, and could help us if we suddenly run out of oil. Greenies should love them, totally carbon neutral, better than batteries.

Hey have a look at 9:20 in the video! It's even perfectly on topic for this thread!

It almost makes me want to go bush just so I can build one of those. And drive into town with my wood gas car :P

Kallog


what ever , I guess you pretty much have it all figured out.



it caught my eye , there not as amazing as you seem to think , the wood gassifiers like the one on the bus use wood as a heat source to release the hydrogen gas that the engine burns as a fuel.
they were used durring ww2 on a large scale.

heres a gassifier that can be built at home it uses wood pellets.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1322/

and heres a link to plans to build one ... its extremely informative.

http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/contents.shtml

Yep I do have it all figured out :P

About the woodburners, but sorry matey, after seeing that Jefferson video, I seem to think they're even more amazing than before! Yea they take time to warm up, and maybe the fuel doesn't last long, but you can just chop down some more fuel along the way :P

LOL...
you would be chopping down trees along the highway
and I would be driving by and waving because mine would
be runing on 100% water !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JbXLGIL_fc&feature=related

the backfire is occuring because the spark plug fires each time the piston is at just below TDC and because the intake valve is opening at this time the spark ignights the Hydrogen that is being fed into the engine.

Im sure that this would also work fine with a small engine that is powering a small generator , perhaps a 3kW gen set

I know most people think that the same amount of energy required to generate the hydrogen is all you could get out of a engine that runs on hydrogen , even less.

I have seen hydrogen generator cells that consume apx 130 watts @ 13 volts and 10 amps , so using a 3 kW gen set should leave apx 2870 watts room for more gas if needed
and whatever is left over is free energy.

before long we might see people reaching down and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Yea even less. But it's still cool. I used to make those balloons and ignite them with a burning stick. Fun :P

here are 2 tricks or mods that could be used when your goal is making a 100% HHO gen set.

one of the tricks to making a 100% HHO gen set would be in using a vacume.

when a vacume is placed on a HHO generator cell the cell produces much more HHO than it will at normal atmospheric pressures.

like boiling water at 20,000 ft the water boils away in a very short time but the water never really gets hot.

those who are running their cars on HHO use the vacume from the carberator to increase HHO production.

another would be in using a 4 stroke engine and making it a 2 stroke engine by eliminating the intake and compression strokes and using an injector system to deliver the HHO mixture to the cylinder.

you would also need to make a new distributor system that would fire the spark plug every time the piston gets just below TDC after the injectors have injected the HHO mixture into the cylinder.

this along with a vacume pump on the HHO generator might just bring HHO engines into play in the near future.
granted you most likely wont be able to just get one in your new car , I believe you might be able to buy a new car without the engine and the savings on the engine and fuel tank and all the associated equipment might pay for the HHO engine.

and then again there are more simpler ways to use HHO that I never hear about.

You can't generate hydrogen onboard! You need more power to do that than what you get out of it. If you could it'd just be a perpetual motion machine :P

LOL... welcome to 2010

heres a Ford F150 V8 running on HHO ONLY, yes only.

now if this engine can run on HHO only I know a 10 kW generator could be sitting behind the engine instead of a ford F150 !!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2238805429946487167#

I'd rather run my truck on gasoline or electricity, either of which can be made from the "woodgas" produced from solar distillation of wood or any other waste biomass.

That's how we should be recycling our wastes....

Yea of course you can run a 10kW generator off HHO. But it can't create enough gas to run the engine driving it. It can't even create enough gas to compensate for the power it took from the engine.

I once saw somebody on the news who'd made such a thing from a plastic bottle and a pipe. He plugged it into his car's alternator and fed the gas into the air intake. The silly reporters took it seriously, but that was 2 years ago and I never heard any more about it.

solar distillation of biomass? That sounds cool! Do you need a solar concentrator or something? I thought it required pretty high temperatures to get the gas out. I'd rather just light a fire :P

I suspect biomass isn't a viable large scale energy source because it grows so slowly. Ultimately it's powered by the sun. But it would certainly be great in the short term.

Go nuclear fusion! If they can get that finished it really could be water power, the end of all energy problems.

That sounds like a distribution problem. Gosh, we'd need trainloads of biomass criss-crossing the country, I guess.

Sort of like the trainloads of coal that now criss-cross the country. Maybe we could replace those with these biomass trains.

...and you don't need such gigantic equipment --as coal requires-- to collect biomass.
...or to process biomass....



Does fusion help reverse CO2 build-up, solve peak nitrogen and phosphorous problems, or clean the water --as biorecycling does?
We need to manage the carbon and nitrogen cycles here on Earth if we want to maintain sustainability. The soil, and biomass, are key to managing those cycles wisely (and controlling atmospheric CO2 levels as a side benefit).


Fusion is great for cheap energy, but how many jobs does it create?
Biomass collection, processing, and distribution would create many more accessible jobs (and as many high-tech jobs as fusion research currently creates).

Kallog

I suppose your saying that the HHO is being produced by the already charged battery and this would not be sustainable.

but the 5.5 H.P. engine was not connected to a battery and I suppose that the 5.5 H.P. engine would be capable of powering a 3kW generator that the browns gas machine could be plugged into and if this closed loop would run without any external energy then you would be convinced given there was additional energy left over from the generator.

otherwise it would just be a perpetual toy.

I still think that because gasoline has a 44 MJ/kg vs hydrogens 140 MJ/kg energy content that these guys are onto something if they use 2 stroke engines and injectors.

my points on this are

the power stroke of a gasoline 4 stroke engine
is all the power it can supply untl the next power stroke.

it is followed by the exhaust stroke which has to pump the exhaust gasses out through the exhaust system.

it then has to pull fuel into the cylinder on the intake stroke.

and after all that energy has been wasted the next stroke just about drains all the energy thats left , the compression stroke where allthe gas and air mixture is compressed into about 1/100 th its original volume inside the cylinder.
some of the energy goes to air compressors alternators etc...
then the remainder of the remaining energy goes to the cars drive train.

a 2 stroke engine would be better because

there would be a power stroke and a exhaust stroke and thats all.

and no energy wasted on drawing fuel into the cylinders and no energy wasted compressing the gas and air mixture in the cylinder.

so the 4 stroke engine itself is a waste of energy. LOL

But don't you have to wait for the biomass to grow? You can get coal as fast as you need it. Maybe we'll have farms of biomass plants that cause another food price crisis like we had a couple of years ago, with the - oh wait the biofuel fad!

It also can't take CO2 out of the atmosphere because the gas it generates carries that carbon out the exhaust when it's burnt.

Jobs is a bad thing, not a good thing. If we have a power source that needs less labour then it's good for everyone! Those people can spend their time doing some other productive work.

Tho don't get me wrong, I do like the idea!

A 4-stroke engine is less efficient than 2-stroke with compressed gas running it? But to get that compressed gas you have to put energy into it, so no gain. Why not just compress the petrol/air in a car and do it with a 4-stroke? Then you get all the extra efficiency and reliability of a 4-stroke.

If you can make a self-sustaining engine that uses no fuel (except perhaps water), then you've got yourself a guaranteed Nobel prize along with becoming the most important person in human history. But I suppose you don't want to help the world by doing it. Hehe either that or you know it won't work :P

If you connect a 5.5HP engine to a 3kW generator, the generator will generate less than 3kW of HHO. So putting that gas back into the engine makes it a less-than-3kW engine, no longer able to run the generator.

Kallog



since hydrogen gas has more explosive power in it per unit than gasoline ( apx 3 times that of gasoline ) the
amount of compression needed would be less if any.

how is it that you calculated the "so no gain " I am curious or did you just think that there would be no gain.

as for any extra efficency or reliability of a 4 stroke I cant see where the additional strokes of a 4 stroke engine could possibly add efficiency or reliability.
In my opinion the less work an engine has to do before the torque reaches the shaft the more efficient and reliable.





Oh really !!! LOL thats both funny and sad.




I would like to see your calculations of how you decided that a 3kW generator cannot produce enough hydrogen to run a 5.5 H.P. engine.

at the below link there is a 2000 watt browns gas machine
that produces 10 lpm , I dont know the wattage of the welder used in the video of the 5.5 H.P. engine running on a balloon filled with 2 psi HHO but Im sure its less than 2000 watts probably more like 800 watts.

http://www.brownsgas.com/browns_gas_ecoenergy_hho_e3_generator_heating.html

but still I would like to see something other than
you just saying something wont work.
I could just say that your wrong but you have the opportunity to support your claims.

in support of my belief that this would work I show an additional energy output of at least 1000 watts
because 3000 watts - 2000 watts = 1000 watts

but maybe in your disbelieving world 3000 watts is only 2000 watts.

or it may be that you just didnt bother to calculate anything beause you have some engineering background.

and that background tells you its not possible even if it is. LOL

I just found this about people who are making water only generators , so either you are right and they are all wrong or they are all right.

http://pesn.com/2009/12/22/9501597_Watercar_electric_generators_on_hydroxy_water/

Hehe I just said it :P But not without reason:

You said the intake and compression strokes of a 4-stroke wasted power. I agree they use power. If you avoid these by compressing the gas before it enters the engine then the compressor that originally compressed the gas was doing those intake and compressions strokes itself, and it used power for that.



Isn't it proved by their use in cars? Even lawnmowers are going 4-stroke now. Why else besides those two reasons?




Well first of all I confused kW with HP, but they're not far different so I hope that doesn't matter.

My calculation is:
Output power = Input power * efficiency
efficiency < 1
If input power is 3kW then output power is < 3kW
This applies regardless of the energy form: electric, mechanical, HHO chemical energy, or potential energy of compressed gas.


Input power = 2000J/s
Output power = 10lpm * 9e-5kg/l * 140MJ/kg
= 2100W
Efficiency = 2100/2000 = 105% so there's a mistake somewhere. I only used density of H2, but I suppose HHO has higher density making it even more wrong.




The guy used a no-fuel generator for 2 1/2 years, but in a fit of madness he 'upgraded' to a 15% diesel one to get more power?!?!! Why not just use a bigger no-fuel generator and save 100% of that diesel bill?

But yes, I'm right and they're all wrong. :P

I see where your mistake begins.

you assume that the input power is 3kW
1 H.P. = 0.745 kW
5.5 H.P. = 4.09 kW



I presume that the people who are making the browns gas machines are not getting 100% faraday , but that still leaves us with who or what you believe to be true.

the above 900 litres an hour represents a 100% faraday conversion of liquid water into HHO gas , which uses
2,106 watts , the 600 lph machine must have other electrical equipment that the 2000 watt input power consumes.

still thats pretty close and gives an example of decissions based on gathered data vs decissions based on incorrect math or assumptions.



you dont need to apply a mechanical compression when the gas you are compressing is an explosive , you can simply use a small portion of the gas to compress te gas that enters the cylinder.



I dont know , it doesnt make any sence to me either.
maybe it was the only engine he could afford a diesel engine works alot different than a gas engine , if
I were going to step up to a better power plant I would use a turbine , this way the wasted energy from constantly stopping the pistons and then accelerating them in the opposite direction would be removed from the picture.

but I suppose that will come later.

Yea but it doesn't affect the result. Just in case we're miscommunicating, this is it yea?:
Petrol motor with 4.09kW output power
It's shaft is connected to an electric generator with 3kW output power.
The electric output is connected to a HHO generator.
The HHO gas is piped into the motor without any petrol or other fuel.

You seem to be saying a 3kW HHO generator can produce more than 4.09kW of gas. This would be the revolutionary part, and the rest is conventional.



Who's Boyce and Cramton? I can't argue those figures because I don't know how much energy a litre of HHO contains. That's the crucial deciding piece of information. It would be much more useful than comparing to what some ancient authority said.



You're forgetting something I mentioned previously and made a strange comment about:
Anybody who has a working perpetual motion machine will be RICHER THAN GOD!



I don't mean to nit-pick, but that uses almost no energy. When a piston is stopped, its energy is transferred to the crankshaft, not just damped into nothing. However you're right that turbines are more efficient with high powers.

Kallog

sorry for the delay in answering your last reply.



we must be because if faraday can make 1 litre in 1 hour
using 2.34 watts in 1 hour that means that we could produce
15 litres in 1 hour using 35 watts.



and that also means that a 4.09 kW generator could produce
1,747 litres in 1 hour.

because the generator is constantly putting out 4,090 watts
and only 2.34 watts is required to make 1 litre.

unless you are saying that faraday was wrong.
then the above is correct.

and the engine that was running on HHO only only had apx 3 litres of HHO in the balloon.

and it was running for around a minute total on HHO
but the 1,747 liters an hour breaks down to 29 litres a minute.

I cant see how it couldnt work !!

OK, so it's like this:
Motor -> 4.09kW mechanical power ->
electric generator -> 4.09kW electric power ->
gas generator -> 4.09kW of gas (> 1747 l/hr) ->
motor.

We know a petrol motor has <30% efficiency, so one of the other components must have >100% efficiency. If you find that component, you can trade it in for a Nobel prize.


The engine in the video can't run a 3kW generator with that rate of gas usage. You could see it was idling very slowly and I think it stalled once or twice. Don't forget that if you put a load on the shaft, then even at the same RPM, it consumes fuel faster.

Kallog



from what I have read a petrol engine has apx 15% efficiency
by the time the torque meets the streets.

its not necessarily the components its the entire engine.
the problem is that a petrol engine is designed to use petrol
not the more explosive hydrogen gas.
although a petrol engine is for the most part a hydrogen engine itself that burns the hydrogen in hydro carbon fuels such as petrol or gasoline.

try fueling up a aircraft jet engine with gasoline.
try fueling up a diesel engine with gasoline.
better yet try to launch the space shuttle with gasoline.

the efficiency needs to be designed into the engine
when the first automobile engines were built they didnt run very well either.

but they were designed to burn petrol not hydrogen gas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qudpRXZE3Yo



yes I see , but there are still 26 litres remaining of the 29 that can be made from the 4kW engine.
the engine is using apx 3 litres per minute to idle so
it is consumming 7.02 watts of HHO.

it is probably ideling at apx 2000 rpm so if we were to increase its rpm to 4000 by doubling the amount of HHO gas it would probably be consumming apx 14 watts of HHO per minute.

so there is still 23 litres of HHO gas remaining to use
durring that minute to power the generator and produce more gas for the next minute.

If your fuel contains more energy then the motor has to output more energy just to keep the same efficiency.

Sure you can probably redesign a petrol engine to be more efficient on hydrogen fuel, but it's still much less than 100%. And you need _more_ than 100% efficiency somewhere in the system.

I'm sure you don't believe what you're saying because if you did, you'd be foolish not to give up everything you own to invest in this. Which isn't really hard, just maybe $1000 for the bits, and bingo! Remember this isn't just another gadget, this would turn all of physics and economics on its head. It would revolutionize the world overnight.

I think that the design is the key here.
suppose I wanted to design a boiler to quickly boil water and the end result I want to achieve was not hot steam but to just
quickly boil off water.

all I would need to do is apply a small vacume to the boiler above the water.

the temperature needed to boil the water off would be much lower
and likewise the water temperature in the boiler would never get very hot.

this is the way that those that are working with the 100% HHO engines are doing it , they use the carberator vacume to create a low pressure inside the hydrogen generator or water seperator.
and this causes the gasses to be seperated using LESS ENERGY just like the above boiler that boils off more water with less heat applied.
the end result that they are loking for is not a hot gas but just the HHO gases to use as fuel to burn in the cylinder.

I have thought of building a HHO engine but I am still figuring out all of the different efficientcies that can be built into it as I am not designing an engine that runs on a product but one that runs on water alone.

with a little salt or some other additive to increase the conductiveness of the water that only needs to be added once to the system and not to the fuel.



I dont know how you picked that up , but you seem to be so sure of many other things , I dont believe as a belief that it will work , I believe it will work as I believe that 1 + 2 = 3




physics wouldnt be turned on its head it would only begin to teach its students proper physics.

as far as economics is concerned I suppose that thats how the horse feed compaines felt when the horseless carriage came into the picture and how the coal companies felt when nuclear power came into play.

tell me how do you physically explain our universe using physics.

using your energy out = < energy in method ?

I know you dont want to visualize this but heres a
small turbine running off of hydrogen built at a place of higher learning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKrtstz4fI

nobody seems to be exploring the use of HHO in water displacement.

how about a water wheel that gets its water displaced at the bottom ( under the water ) by HHO , then the buoyancy of the HHO could be converted into electricity


Im sure that if there is a problem or a need to have more electricity to use to generate the HHO the additional energy could be had this way.

after the HHO has performed work on the wheel it is still HHO so now the energy out = < energy in equation
is energy out = > energy in

900 litres of displaced water at 100 ft depth would probably get all or more of your (energy in ) back before you begin the (energy out) process.

now wheres my nobel prize?

What efficiency are you aiming for? Increase from 10% to 15%? 20%? That's nowhere near the >100% required.



I've made a small HHO generator once, and adding salt did spectacularly increase the output rate. But it also spectacularly increased the power consumption: P=V^2/R


A few years ago I found a giant gold nugget in the forest. It would have been worth millions of dollars. It was too big to dig out by hand and I didn't have a spade so I just left it there. It was at 39°43'15.08"N, 104°47'39.76"W and if I'm ever in the neighborhood I'll pick it up. Can't afford the airfare at the moment tho. I hope somebody else can find it so it doesn't go to waste just laying in the dirt.

Apart from the unlikely find, do you see a problem with my behavior in this story? This is analogous to the people writing those no-fuel generator websites. Why don't they bother taking the last few steps to get the huge payoff?



Not sure about the universe, but it is extremely useful all over the place. Eg. I expect a 2000W heater to make twice as much heat as a 1000W heater. Why? Because the heat output is equal to the 1000/2000W electrical input. Power in = power out. Seems trivial but wouldn't you be suprised to find that the lower wattage heater produced more heat, while costing less on the power bill?


You answered that yourself. The higher pressure underwater means it requires more energy to generate the HHO.

Similarly the reason that using vacuum isn't amazing is because it requires a vacuum pump that must continually use energy. Even if it's the engine, it's still using energy sucking gas through a pressure difference. That's energy that could have gone into the crankshaft. Don't believe me? Using a carburetted car, try repeatedly stomping on the brakes while the engine's idling. The booster uses up so much vacuum that the revs drop. Well it did for me, YMMV.


I'm still waiting for you to build it. Remember the rewards - richer than God, the new Einstein, Nobel prize, end global warming, end food shortages, prevent oil shortage, stop pollution, improve everybody's life. With that kind of motivation I don't know where you find the time to talk to people on message boards.

Kallog

there would be no increased pressures at the 100 ft depth that would interfere with HHO production because as the HHO is being produced at the bottom inside a closed container and the HHO is being directed out of the container at the bottom for use as a fuel and water is being fed by gravity into a previously emptied container at the top of the wheel , the electrolisis that occurs inside the containers would not be affectd by the pressures outside of the containers.

this would not cost any additional energy for the production of HHO however there would be additional energy produced by the torque of the wheel as it spins due to the buoyancy of the emptied containers.

so what you end up with is an overbalanced wheel that can produce more energy than is required to produce the HHO and you still have the HHO to use as a fuel.

now about that nobel prize.

How exactly does it work?

Are you using the bouyancy of HHO in air to help lift the empty buckets back up to the top of a traditional water wheel? Then you burn the HHO at the top as well as the additional HHO at the bottom too?

I think nobel prizes are only given to people who make useful contributions to the world. There have been a million and 1 ideas for perpetual motion, and not one has ever done any good. So you have to build a working model, demonstrate it to a few people, along with enough information for them to build their own, then the floodgates are open. Then comes the prize.

Kallog



yes I use the buoyancy to lift the containers back to the top.

no its not a traditional water wheel type wheel.

the HHO is piped away from the containers both at the bottom and as water fills the container at the top.

I havent built this part yet.
I am still thinking of ways to improve on the overall system.

the wheel is an oblong wheel that is taller than it is wide.

picture two large gears and a chain one above the other and seperated by any distance you choose.

the distance is the deciding factor here.

the taller the oblong wheel the more empty containers on one side of the oblong wheel.

the containers are connected to the chain.
and spaced apart so that as the containers are emptied of water and replaced by HHO the gasses are piped out of the system.

as one container approaches the bottom , the container at the bottom is leaving the point where the HHO gasses are extracted from the water.

the electricity is delivered by contacts at the bottom to one container at a time.

the container at the bottom then releases the HHO gasses through the pipe system.

it is now buoyant to the extent of the amount of water that has converted to HHO.

the buoyancy of the emptied container and all of the emptied containers above it depending on the number of emptied containers above it will decide the amount of shaft torque that is available to produce energy.

so if each container holds 1 cu/meter of water or 1000 litres of water.

and each container is a 1 metre cube for instance the weight of each container would be 1000 kg or 2,204 lbs.

if you have 100 of these containers on each side of the oblong wheel and on one side there are 100 emptied containers the buoyant force of the 100 emptied containers
would be 100,000 kgf or 220,204 lbf
at the periphery of the gears or where the chain contacts the gears.

the center of the containers would need to be at least 2 meters away from the center of the gears so the shaft torque to a 10 cm dia shaft would be a ratio of 200 - 10
or 1,000,000 kgf or 2.204 million lbf

so there is plenty of torque to convert the slow moving rotation and high torque of the oblong wheel into a faster moving rotation and lower torque of a electric generator.

I used the sizes above for explanation purposes but a large one such as this could make a good power plant for industrial purposes.

the unit could be made as tall as the amount of electrcity you need or the amount of HHO you need as the amount of HHO you can get is only limited to height and lenght of the containers and number of containers , Im sure there are a number of configurations that could be used to accomplish any desired requirement of HHO production.

at the top where the water is being piped into the containers again there is a similar mechanism that connects piping to the containers to fill the container with water , water is not taken from the water that is being used to provide the buoyancy of the containers and this water that provides the buoyancy effect could be pressurized to provide even greater upward force.

the water that is used to fill the containers is comming from the water that is comming out of the exhaust of the engine that the HHO is directed to.

and that engine could power a massive generator or several.
it just depends on how much electricity you want !!!




Im not really concerned with a nobel prize , besides if someone actually tries to keep something like this a secret long enought to build a working model and to attain a patent on it , he might get the usual high velocity lead prize that so many others have probably recieved in honor of their contributions to mankind.

and there are already so many people working on this HHO stuff in their garages and workshops already this added buoyancy effect energy might just help them along in their work.

it would be a great tool to use in a discussion or a debate as to the negative comments always made about the HHO requiring more energy in than you could ever get out.

the tables have just turned on those debates.

There's a difference in ambient pressure between the top and bottom. That's needed to make bouyancy work. So you're using more electric energy creating HHO at the bottom than you would at the top. But you're using it at the top. So ignoring the energy taken from bouyancy, you'd use less energy generating it at the top where it's used. After you recover some of it from bouyancy, it probably gets back towards even, as if you'd done nothing.

It doesn't matter how popular these things are on the internet, none of them have been shown to actually work. Maybe because they don't work, or maybe because the people writing the websites don't appreciate the magnitude of their claims, so they don't bother providing the much stronger evidence they need to persuade anyone. The only way is to demonstrate a working model in real life. Not on the internet, but in your own garage, or in a lab, to real people, and allow them to test whatever they like - at your expense.

Remember there have been millions of small improvements to the efficiency of engines, generators, etc. But despite these improvements, not one machine has ever been shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics in even the tiniest way. You're saying you can make similar little tweaks, but your tweaks will somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. Don't think nobody's tried bouyancy on a water wheel, or a conveyor instead of a wheel. Even the motor->generator->HHO->motor loop has of course been attempted many times, with no known successes. These kinds of ideas are as old as the hills and have never ever been shown to do anything inconsistent with our current theories, let alone the larger deviations required for perpetual motion.

You're worried somebody will get shot if they patent such a thing??!!?! After it's patented the cat's out of the bag. Nobody can put the cork back in. That's just an unfounded excuse.

The only useful tool to combat negative comments about HHO is a WORKING MODEL!! But somehow nobody can quite manage to do more than talk about it.

Kallog



the inside of the containers are not subject to the water pressures outside of the containers.

the container itself will not implode due to pressures outside of the container if it is built strong enough to withstand the highest pressures that it would be subjected to.

the water inside the containers will only be subjected to atmospheric pressures or the vacume that is supplied by the carburetion of the engine used to burn the hydrogen.

if you tie the end of a water hose to a plastic bag , then insert two electric wires
(that have the ends stripped of insulation)
through the water hose , then fill the plastic bag full of water , and sink this in a swimmng pool , then yes the underwater pressures would require more electricty to convert water into HHO.

but if you use a metal container or a continer that would not bend under pressure under water then the same amount of electricity would be required as if the conversion from water to HHO were being done in an open container above the water.

Im sure you know this as you say you have some engineering experience.

think of a submarine they go thousands of feet under water
but the people inside the submarine are living in atmospheric pressures inside the submarine.

for an example the outside skin of a submarine at a depth of 3000 ft will be apx 1300 psi while a sailor inside the submarine can drink a glass of water at 14.7 psi or 1 atm.



with something like this the cat might live longer if you let it out of the bag before you attempt a patent , otherwise the bag and the cat might end up in a storage area somewhere along with all the other cats in the bag.


here is an example of someone who uploaded a video to youtube about usng the buyoancy of hho to gain the lost energy back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2ZDmotdwpc

Then you have to use energy evacuating it. I've already explained that vacuum energy from the engine intake consumes fuel. So does any vacuum pump. If you had a source of free vacuum power that was otherwise wasted, you could simply drive a generator with it directly.




That's beside the point. What's relevent is the sailor can't go for a piss over the side. To do so requires a lot of energy to pump fluid from the low internal pressure to the high external pressure.




here is an example of someone who uploaded a video to youtube about usng the buyoancy of hho to gain the lost energy back.

He's generating the gas at high pressure, so we know why that doesn't work. If he did it in an atmospheric container that moves up and down, he'd have to use a huge force pushing the empty container back to the bottom. If he fills it with water at the top and lets it sink, then drains the water out, then fills it with gas that could work. But he has to keep topping up the main vessel which of course requires a pump.


"I have set this idea to the side to work on ideas involving sterling engines to power cars."
As usual. Why do these people all have an extreme lack of motivation to finish their projects? Don't they know the future of the planet is in their hands? Would you really walk away from the million dollar gold nugget because you got distracted by a pretty butterfly? But that doesn't matter, he hasn't got a working model so his ideas are as worthless as the millions of other perpetual motion machines that've been proposed but never worked.

Kallog



well if the buoyants dont produce enough energy then all you have to do is add more buoyants / containers , its that simple.

I know your brain is rejecting this as this is not what you have been taught , but its what is and theres plenty of time to relearn the wrong stuff the right way.

otherwise before long you will be trying to say that the coriolis effect would be why it wont work , then it would be the alignment of the planets or any straw you could pick.



that idea he has wouldnt work because he is not using a sealed container.
he is using a lever at the top which could avoid the need for a wheel as he could pressurize hydraulic fluid to turn a hydraulic motor to turn a generator.
he just needs to figure out how to get the HHO out at the bottom without subjecting the water inside the container to the water pressure at the bottom.


water expands 1800 times when converting water into HHO gasses so in the example I put up with the 1 cu metre containers the 1 cu/metre would expand to 1800 cu/metres of HHO.

but the example could be scaled down to 1 litre per container.
because the experimenters are working with 1 litre HHO measurements this way someone might build a working model
to determine the height that a unit would need to be
and post it on youtube for others to see.

determine how much energy your HHO generator looses during HHO production then find a generator to generate that much energy plus apx 25% then determine the generator requirements for rpm and H.P.and build from there.

number of 1 litre buoyant containers x the buoyant force of a 1 litre container to find the force needed to be applied to the chain or gears.

my point was to clarify that HHO production can be paid for in a simple to understand process.

If one bouyant doesn't produce enough energy to make up for filling/emptying itself, then adding more will only compound the problem.




Again you're ignoring the significance of this claim. It's not something to waste time arguing about. If you're right then you better quit your job, sell your house, commit everything in your life to building one ASAP. The benefits are too huge to imagine, and will easily repay any investment you might put into it. But you aren't doing that, so you know it probably can't work.



The only way to clarify that is to build it. It really is pretty simple. I mentioned I built an HHO generator once. It was harder for me because I wanted to separate the H2 and the O so I had to spend $10 or so on garden hose connectors and plastic tubes. This is trivially easy stuff! Just go and do it!


Anyway! I actually can't solve this problem. Here's a picture of what I imagine after combining your description with convenient bits of the youtube video. Any idea why it won't work?

Open the image in a new window if it's too small.

Kallog

in your image it looks like you are fillig the container at the bottom , and extracting the buoyant energy as it rises upwards to the top , then filling it with water and sinking it , then at the bottom you would need to let the water out again in order to put more gasses in.

this wont work because you would need to pump that amount of water back into the resouvior.

in my example the water is turned into HHO inside the container then the HHO is fed out of the system to the engine.

and in my example you dont fill the container from the water in the resouvior to cause it to sink again.

this way you dont need to pump water into the resouvior as in your example and the example in the video.

it does not use the buoyancy of all of the HHO it only uses whats left in the container after the electrolisis
process is completed.




if I have a rope that has a 1 lb weight tied at the end of it and threw the end with the weight into the ocean.

and you were holding the other end , and you jump into the ocean , and I was going to tie 1 more 10 lb weight to the end dangling in the ocean every minute at which point would you ask me to stop.

because every time I tie on another weight to the rope
you must supply the force to keep yourself afloat.

if the rope has only 1 lb of weight on it you need to supply a constant force of 1 lb to keep you from sinking.

but if the rope has only 100 lb of weight on it you need to supply a constant force of 100 lb to keep you from sinking.

so adding more buoyants does make a difference and since you are only emptying 1 container at a time , the more empty containers the more force they will supply to pay for the energy you use to make the HHO.

for instance a 1 litre container has a buoyant force of
2.2 lbs
2 = 4.4 lbs
4 = 8.8 lbs
10 = 20.20 lbs

remember constant force.

the energy reqired to make 1 litre of HHO a minute at the bottom will never change.

but the amount of energy you can recover with the buoyants will increase with every added container.

No, I let it fill with air at the top. That's why it says "air" :P It sinks because air is heavier than HHO and the container is carefully balanced to be bouyant with HHO and sinking with air.

I think it's the same as your idea. I just drew the HHO generator outside, but it could have been electrodes in the container itself. Neither is ever subjected to the water pressure at the bottom of the main vessel.

There's no pumping of water or gas. The air just drifts out at the bottom as it's displaced by HHO, and drifts in at the top as the HHO is used by the generator. You could have a membrane to keep the two gasses seperated.

You could also generate excess HHO at the bottom and burn off what doesn't fit in the container, driving the generator. But you may as well burn it at the top because there's HHO in the container when it gets to the top. Also, the less burning you do, the more siginficant any bouyancy power becomes by comparison.

Kallog

I couldnt read any of the writting sorry.

the containers at the top in your design would sink as they are counterballanced by the containers on the opposite side.

and the extra buoyancy you would have would only be the difference of the weight of the HHO as it goes up and the weight of the air as it goes down.

still thats cutting it pretty close and you need energy to open and close valves etc.

but its interesting just not practical.

1 litre of water can be converted into HHO in 1 hour using 2.34 watts of electricity.
1 (cu foot) = 28.3168466 litres

if I used 1 cu/ft containers in my example the energy to convert 1 cu/ft of water into HHO gasses would be
2.34 watts x 29 hours = 67 watt hours.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/foot-pounds/to/watts+second

to regain this energy I would need to generate 49 ft/lbs
using the buoyancy of the container.

1 cu/ft of water has a weight of 62.4 lbs
and the empty container has an upward force of 62.4 lbs
if I allow it to rise for 1 foot
it would generate 62.4 ft/lbs

but then theres valves and resistance and such so we could let it rise for 2 feet.

then we will probably be using a inefficient modern product somewhere where every bit of the efficiency has been designed out , so we should opt for 3 feet.

I think your catchin on to the idea prety well.
you might want to keep it to yourself when at work
because it could cause problems.

but your off time is yours as I see it.

who knows you might be the first to upload a video to youtube that explains this stuff.

Open the picture with right-click or download it/etc. It's much bigger than in the forum. I think you got completely the wrong idea.


That's effectively zero, not doing any work.


Practicalities are unimportant. If it works in theory, that's already a breakthrough.


How do you get the container back to the bottom for another cycle? As you said, can't fill it with water. Can't push it down with the bouyancy of another container or that one won't be generating energy.


I already know my design won't work. I know from applying the law of conservation of energy. I just don't know where the energy is lost, it's not obvious to me.

Kallog


I have a image upload account now so it should be
much easier to explain things.

clicking on the below image should open a new window
where 4 images can be viewed to better understand how
the container would sink again.

I see.

I think the engine must be located at the top of the main tank. Otherwise the water exhaust will have to be pumped up to refill the container - wasting any bouyancy energy you recover.

This might be where the problem is. The HHO generated at the bottom has to climb up to the top. It won't float up because there's no air flowing back into the container to displace it. The energy needed to 'pump' the entire containerful of water (in HHO form) up to the generator is no less than the energy you can recover from the bouyancy.

Kallog



exactly. we wouldnt want to build all this just to remove
the efficiencies by pumping water uphill.



the vacume of the engine supplies the power to pull the HHO
up to the engine.

in a internal combustion gas engine the vacume is used to pull the heavy liquid gasoline up into the cylinder.

HHO is much lighter than the heavy gasoline fuel.

even if there was no vacume pulling the HHO up to the engine
the HHO being generated in the container at the bottom would generate plenty of pressure to just push the HHO through the pipe to the engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfk8jXVUF34

remember the pipes cross sectional area x the lenght of the pipe
to the engine would contain the amount of HHO that would need to be pumped.

if its 5 ft tall and the pipe is 1/2 inch dia inside then

((.5 / 2) ^2 * pi) * (12 * 5) = 46.8 cu/inches

0.78 x 60 = 46.8 cu/inches

if you go outside and hold your hand out you will have
all the air from your hand to outer space sitting on top of it.

which delivers a pressure of 14.7 psi to your hand , but you dont
feel it.

neither would the container !!!

and HHO is lighter than air !!

Kallog

wow what a mistake.



I dont know if you caught that mistake or not but the above is wrong.

it should have been 1 litre of HHO gasses can be converted in 1 hour using 2.34 watts.

so the 1 cu/ft container would expand to 1800 cu/ft.

there are 28.31 litres in 1 cu/ft so lets rework the math.
so to convert the entire 1 cu/ft of water into HHO

2.34 watts x 1 hour = 2.34 watt hours

2.34 watts x (28.31 x 1800 hours) = ? watts

2.34 watts x 50958 hours = 119241.72 Watt hours
or
119 kWh in 2123 days.

thats a long time.

...

I found that 1 watt is equal to 44.253 ft-lbf/minute

so the target here is 119,241 watts hours

obviously it wont take 2123 days for the 1 cu/ft container
to rise to the top of the tank.

now how far up would a single 62.4 lb container have to travel to produce that much energy in 1 hour?

well if it travels 1 foot in 1 minute it will exert
62.4 lbf x 1 foot = 62.4 ft-lbf/minute.

but lets say it travels the entire distance in 1 minute.

now what is the distance?

well 62.4 ft-lbf/minute = 1.41005 watts.

so I divide 119,241 watts by 1.41005 = 84565 ft

62.4 lbs x 84565 ft = 5276856 ft-lbs

5276856 ft-lbf/minute converts to 119 kW

thats 16 miles !!!!!

it would have to be traveling 960 mph to go that far in
1 minute.

so I suppose using a 1 cu/ft container is not a good idea.
and using only 1 container for recovering the energy in
HHO production by using the buoyant energy is also not a good idea.


.