alt energy sources: cans and can'ts

What you cant do with any energy source is get energy from nothing. I do not care how many youtube videos you see where someone seems to be doing this, it isnt true. To make energy available to use, you must locate a source of existing energy and change it to suit your needs. Potential sources of energy generally are: heat (iceland takes its power from volcanos), moving water...it is moving because it is going down hill, the bigger the drop the more energy there is to use, solar, chemical conversions (which no one seems to misunderstand so i wont speak too much here)

No method of harvesting energy is 100 percent efficient and the more you change the nature of that energy the more of it you will lose. This means if your energy source is heat and you would like to heat your house, it is better to pipe the heat to your house and use the heat, if you change it into electricity, yu lose more than half the energy to the conversion to electricity, then turn it back to heat where you lose half again. This is very inefficient. This is totally transparant to anyone who wants to heat a home using heat but what if you would like to say run a fan with power obtained by water. It might be unslightly but if somehow you could run gears and bands to your living room from a near by creek and make that fan rotate, you will likely have a much much more efficient system than turning it into electricity. If you want hot water from solar, your best bet is to heat the water directly in a solar panel which heats water. One can run a refridgerator using heat (this is what rc fridges do), dry clothing in the sun. The direct ways to use power more efficiently are all over the place.

In these forums, i keep running into posts where people are making electricity where much of the time they need work of some other sort. We need electricity for televisions and lights but if your grinding flour with water power, think water mill. If you would like to harvest wind, you wont get much electricity from making it into electricity most of the time until you get large towers and major expense but you can pump water up hill all day long.

Solar energy is heat, it starts as heat and is fairly inefficiently used to make electricity. In solar, i can totally forgive this poor conversion but please keep in mind, solar is heat. There is solar powered ovens. Solar powered dehydrators, solar powered water heaters, solar powered house heaters (typically called passive solar heating as it simply stores the suns energy to be used later). If using any of these things you are much more efficiently using the solar power available to you and you can use it almost for free. All moving parts are kept to a minimum making them useful for your lifetime and likely someone elses.

Ween yourself from all your old energy habits. Do not think, how will I run my dryer, think do i want to run my dryer. Do not think how will I get electricity to my water pump think, how can I pump water.

Forgive me my outburst and ban me from the energy forums. It has been a while since I was in college, and I do not use physics often, but these energy forums make me want to cry and give lectures.

Well said Laura !

This is very much my philosophy. I use thermal oil as my heat source at approx 230C. How the oil arrives at that temperature is either by solar, or biomass. High grade heat is used cooking, generating electric with TEG.s and Steam generation. Medium grade heat 60-90C (waste heat from steam is used for DHW). Low grade heat 30-40C (waste heat from TEG's used for UFH)

r john wrote:This is very much my philosophy. I use thermal oil as my heat source at approx 230C. How the oil arrives at that temperature is either by solar, or biomass. High grade heat is used cooking, generating electric with TEG.s and Steam generation. Medium grade heat 60-90C (waste heat from steam is used for DHW). Low grade heat 30-40C (waste heat from TEG's used for UFH)

If you are currently using a steam power system with thermal oil, then please describe its specifications.

Hi Laura,
I love a good constructive rant; thank you.

One of the things that I like about these forums is that there is room for most any idea to be presented. The folks here are generally open-minded, but certainly have their biases. I share your pro-science bias. Many people here think that they don't trust science; what/whom they actually distrust is scientists. The human element.

I typically find that the energy-from-nothing/water/cosmic/farts posts get very little response. That volume of response is the proper gauge for measuring usefulness.

But, I'm glad that there are people thinking way outside the box on these things. So long as they don't want my monies, time or efforts; they are welcome to dream- or rant- out loud.

If nothing else, it's supremely entertaining.

Laura, I feel your pain. There is a monumental ignorance of basic physics displayed regularly on these forums and others. I also concur with your sentiment that alternative energy should not be confined to considering ways to generate electricity. I believe this tendency reflects our long dependence on grid power, and in more ways than one. For example, we do not tend to consider alternatives to electricity because these alternatives are not understood, but it's also the case that the hardware available on the market is generally geared toward using electricity. Hopefully this will change in the near future as I know there are very efficient ways to provide the energy needs of household with heat (and not merely for space heating and water heating). In particular, I am very interested in using heat for air conditioning, water processing, food processing, biomass fuel drying, and modest electrical power generation as well.

I am not particularly optimistic about the prospect for using solar thermal energy (well, not as it's generally used today), at least not in most settings. Solar thermal is problematic for a few reasons: (1) it's difficult to harvest solar heat efficiently at higher temperatures due to thermal losses - a costly system is generally required, (2) the intermittent nature of solar energy requires a large store of heat, and if the temperature is low, then storing appreciable heat generally means a larger mass to store the heat, and (3) optimal solar collection requires concentration, and a region with clear solar radiation is necessary (why we only see solar thermal power plants in desert regions). These problems might be solved with phase change materials. I have yet to see a cost effective product here, but there is great promise. These are basically solids that melt at temperatures ideal for applications such as space heating or space cooling, or even water heating. For example, let's say a solar thermal system circulates solar heated water at only 100F through a phase change material that melts at 70F (just an example). Well, there will be a lot more heat stored in this material as compared to storing an equal mass of water at 100F. The material will give up heat throughout the night as it freezes, and it will do so more quickly as the temperature drops further below it's freezing point of 70F. The same material might be used to cool a home. However, the problem remains that solar radiation is not very power dense (about 300 btu per square foot per hour under ideal conditions). Considering that heat is generally desired during winter months when solar insolation is low, cloud cover is often high, and ambient temperature are low to contribute to thermal losses all mean that catching more than a small fraction of this heat is all one can expect to reasonably achieve. It can reduce fuel consumption for heating applications, but that's about the best one can hope for in most settings. Personally, I am more interested in optimizing the use of heat derived from the combustion of biomass fuels. Things get a lot more interesting when heat is available at higher temperatures.

There is another prospect for harvesting solar heat that might interest you: heat pumps. In principle, it is possible to use a solar collector to heat the evaporator of a vapor compression unit, then harvest the heat at higher temperatures in the condenser. Using something like this in tandem with a higher temperature phase change material for heating applications sounds rather interesting. Of course, a source of motive power is required here for the compressor, but photovoltaics could provide this. This approach promises to minimize thermal losses as the evaporator temperature could be tailored to operate at roughly the same temperature as ambient, but providing direct solar exposure can achieve high rates of heat transfer. Heat pumps do not normally work well for heating applications at low ambient temperatures, but solar collectors can help solve that problem. Since modern heat pumps can provide on the order of 3-4 times the amount of heat energy as compared to the electrical energy delivered to the compressor motor, then a 1 KWe system should harvest heat at a rate of 4-5 KW (the mechanical energy delivered by compressor adds to the heating value, so about 80% of the electricity delivered to the compressor motor, which represents the motor efficiency, will be delivered as heat to the refrigerant and be ultimately transferred to the heating application).

Marcos Buenijo wrote:

r john wrote:This is very much my philosophy. I use thermal oil as my heat source at approx 230C. How the oil arrives at that temperature is either by solar, or biomass. High grade heat is used cooking, generating electric with TEG.s and Steam generation. Medium grade heat 60-90C (waste heat from steam is used for DHW). Low grade heat 30-40C (waste heat from TEG's used for UFH)

If you are currently using a steam power system with thermal oil, then please describe its specifications.

Commercial or Domestic application. Commercial system is all off the shelf thermal oil boiler, thermal oil steam evaporator and two Bellis & Morcom compound steam engines vintage 1937 connected to 350 kw generators. Thermal oil heated via solar thermal and woodchip biomass.

Domestic system is still under wraps (fed up of my technology being discussed on forums only for patents being taken out in America 6 months later) It uses the same technology as the commercial operation with thermal solar tubes and a biomass boiler.

Marcos Buenijo wrote:

I am not particularly optimistic about the prospect for using solar thermal energy (well, not as it's generally used today), at least not in most settings. Solar thermal is problematic for a few reasons: (1) it's difficult to harvest solar heat efficiently at higher temperatures due to thermal losses - a costly system is generally required, (2) the intermittent nature of solar energy requires a large store of heat, and if the temperature is low, then storing appreciable heat generally means a larger mass to store the heat, and (3) optimal solar collection requires concentration, and a region with clear solar radiation is necessary (why we only see solar thermal power plants in desert regions). These problems might be solved with phase change materials. I have yet to see a cost effective product here, but there is great promise. These are basically solids that melt at temperatures ideal for applications such as space heating or space cooling, or even water heating. For example, let's say a solar thermal system circulates solar heated water at only 100F through a phase change material that melts at 70F (just an example). Well, there will be a lot more heat stored in this material as compared to storing an equal mass of water at 100F. The material will give up heat throughout the night as it freezes, and it will do so more quickly as the temperature drops further below it's freezing point of 70F. The same material might be used to cool a home. However, the problem remains that solar radiation is not very power dense (about 300 btu per square foot per hour under ideal conditions). Considering that heat is generally desired during winter months when solar insolation is low, cloud cover is often high, and ambient temperature are low to contribute to thermal losses all mean that catching more than a small fraction of this heat is all one can expect to reasonably achieve. It can reduce fuel consumption for heating applications, but that's about the best one can hope for in most settings. Personally, I am more interested in optimizing the use of heat derived from the combustion of biomass fuels. Things get a lot more interesting when heat is available at higher temperatures.

).

Marcos

Dont be so negative your problems are easily engineered out. The losses you describe in 1 can be overcome using thermal oil high temperature insulation and vacuum storage tanks. Intermittent solar collection requires thermal solar panels to be arranged in series and then the use of thermostatic controlled variable speed pumps. I agree with concentrated solar but the technology is already out there to make it cost effective even in wet cloudy climates like the UK.

r john wrote:

Marcos

Dont be so negative your problems are easily engineered out. The losses you describe in 1 can be overcome using thermal oil high temperature insulation and vacuum storage tanks. Intermittent solar collection requires thermal solar panels to be arranged in series and then the use of thermostatic controlled variable speed pumps. I agree with concentrated solar but the technology is already out there to make it cost effective even in wet cloudy climates like the UK.

Hello. Well, yes, I'm sure the problems can be solved... but at what cost? I should emphasize that I'm restricting my discussion to a modest residential setting. Personally, I don't see a way to pull it off in a cost effective manner. However, I'm sure willing to learn otherwise.

If you have a system currently operating, then please describe its specifications. In particular, if you have a steam engine operating, then please describe its design and specifications.

Marcos Buenijo wrote:

r john wrote:

Marcos

Dont be so negative your problems are easily engineered out. The losses you describe in 1 can be overcome using thermal oil high temperature insulation and vacuum storage tanks. Intermittent solar collection requires thermal solar panels to be arranged in series and then the use of thermostatic controlled variable speed pumps. I agree with concentrated solar but the technology is already out there to make it cost effective even in wet cloudy climates like the UK.

Hello. Well, yes, I'm sure the problems can be solved... but at what cost? I should emphasize that I'm restricting my discussion to a modest residential setting. Personally, I don't see a way to pull it off in a cost effective manner. However, I'm sure willing to learn otherwise.

If you have a system currently operating, then please describe its specifications. In particular, if you have a steam engine operating, then please describe its design and specifications.

Domestic market as I said is still under wraps but uses an existing biomass boiler therefore cost will not be significantly more than a normal system just needing another insulated tank and a heat exchanger.
As for steam engines its just off the shelf thermal oil boiler,thermal oil steam evaporator producing steam at 150PSI feeding the B&M steam engines. Just a mini power station really.

Laura,

I'm new to this forum, but I agree with this concept completely. The concept of going without even the most minor of "conveniences" (if more bills and maintenance can be called that ;p) is the primary barrier in selling green options to friends and family.

The first thing that people list when suggesting things to go without is always the dryer though, and that's one of the things I haven't figured out how to get rid of yet. We have very high humidity, lots of rain, and tons of bugs. The clothes never seem to completely dry, it takes forever (sometimes multiple days!), then they're infested with insects =[ We battle humidity so much already I don't want to dry them inside. I know people used to dry clothes in the area before dryers existed, but if there's a trick I haven't learned it.

My current theory is to reduce all other electric use and see where we're at. The fridge, the many computers, the dehumidifiers, and the AC in summer are the culprits I'm looking to eradicate/improve now. Our monthly kwhs are about 350 in winter and 500 in summer, which as far as I can tell is way too high for alternative power. The dryer is probably the highest surge in watt usage at one time though, so I may need to figure out something different (rocket stove heated, bike powered tumbler perhaps =D ).

Anyway, aside from my rant, I just wanted to say I agree with you. I'm always trying to get people to switch to LEDs, or use non electric can openers, or use power switches with individual off buttons, but no one wants to wait for an appliance to boot up, or do anything manually, or have anything CHANGE in even the slightest manner. Grrr.

Thanks for your post!

EDIT # I just found the post about hanging clothes to dry in a small room with a dehumidifier. What a great idea! And the removed water could further be used as grey water =D I'm going to give this method a shot.

Alice Lynn wrote:I just found the post about hanging clothes to dry in a small room with a dehumidifier. What a great idea! And the removed water could further be used as grey water =D I'm going to give this method a shot.

Alice, the biggest problem in implementing a lot of the ideas presented on these forums is the general lack of hardware available. Most everything on the market requires grid electricity, and if not, then it requires some other form of commercial energy source under central control. Therefore, one must engineer a solution. A dehumidifier might be relatively easy to do by using a dessicant, and these can be regenerated with heat. So, if you're goal is to reduce electricity consumption, then this might be a solution for a humid climate. A couple of examples you might consider include silica gel (can be had with crystal cat litter) or calcium chloride (inexpensive and fairly nontoxic). I've done a lot of unconventional thinking with respect to alternative energy, and this is one technology in particular that I believe has merit for use in humid climates. By the way, the water absorbed by a dessicant is released in the form of steam when heated. Therefore, in principle, it's possible to put this heat to use in whatever heating applications you might have (i.e. water heating). I admit I'm thinking really "off grid" here, and I don't know how far you're willing to go in this respect, but it's just food for thought.

Marcos Buenijo wrote:
Alice, the biggest problem in implementing a lot of the ideas presented on these forums is the general lack of hardware available. Most everything on the market requires grid electricity, and if not, then it requires some other form of commercial energy source under central control. Therefore, one must engineer a solution. A dehumidifier might be relatively easy to do by using a dessicant, and these can be regenerated with heat. So, if you're goal is to reduce electricity consumption, then this might be a solution for a humid climate. A couple of examples you might consider include silica gel (can be had with crystal cat litter) or calcium chloride (inexpensive and fairly nontoxic). I've done a lot of unconventional thinking with respect to alternative energy, and this is one technology in particular that I believe has merit for use in humid climates. By the way, the water absorbed by a dessicant is released in the form of steam when heated. Therefore, in principle, it's possible to put this heat to use in whatever heating applications you might have (i.e. water heating). I admit I'm thinking really "off grid" here, and I don't know how far you're willing to go in this respect, but it's just food for thought.

I'm trying to retrain my brain to think of more alternative solutions such as this, but I still fall into the trap of only using things for their marketed purpose. Using the silica gel from cat litter is a much better idea than buying a desiccant dehumidifier and then drying it out with electricity. I've experimented a bit with calcium chloride, but it didn't work fast enough, but maybe with a small fan it might be more effective.

I probably don't need to worry about water use as much as electricity in my area, and we are already fairly efficient with water (for the area at least). But I would like to get our electric use down much lower.

Two weeks ago I purchased 10.5 acres, and am now working on plans to build a house off the grid. I only recently discovered the concept of permaculture and as far as I can tell it seems to go along with many things I've felt for years:

Not wanting to participate in the wasteful consumer cycle of buying a trunkfull of "necessities" and then throwing out just as much in the garbage every single week.
Not wanting to have a car payment and mortgage until death.
Wanting to learn the skills my ancestors had for basic survival/self-sufficiency.
Wanting to live by my own ethics.
Wanting to enjoy the diversity of food, instead of what is mass marketed.

But I'm new to the culture part, so forgive me if my terminology is off and my logic has holes now and again =]

Alice Lynn wrote:Laura,


EDIT # I just found the post about hanging clothes to dry in a small room with a dehumidifier. What a great idea! And the removed water could further be used as grey water =D I'm going to give this method a shot.

that water is not grey water, that is prefectly drinkable, although not tasty, distilled water.

Of course it will contaminate if left sitting around for very long.

Hi Laura,

I agree with most of your statements. However Solar energy is not heat initially. We perceive it as such, but heat can not travel through space. Solar is light and therefore the dualism of photons becomes important. Otherwise solar power would not be possible in the way we produce it or you could just heat up the panels and produce electricity.

I sold my dryer, and dry my clothes outside in the summer and inside in the winter. I have exposed beams in my kitchen where the wood stove is located and stuff dries really fast. It also keeps my humidity up in the winter, where most people need humidifiers to prevent looking like yesterdays prunes. So I don't even need the dehumidifier. And that water is actually quite dirty. Because of the design of dehumidifiers the amount of spores and moulds ion the water collected is through the roof.

About drying with high humidity, that is a tough one. Seems to me you are paying for a dehumidifier now.

I have not thought on this much but you cannot change the humidity outside but you can lower the relative humidity by raising the temperature....this is how a clothes drier works.

If you have outbuilding which heats up, try hanging them up high within that building. Of course, if you are like me, you dont have this option...
All the designs for solar dehydration should also work for clothing but you are forced to build a pretty large unit to dry for a household.

I might choose these options sometimes but it seems to me (i am so going to get slayed for saying this) I would use the drier if I cant dry outside.

What a lot to think about and more than I have time to comment on. However here is something to think about: when the industrial revolution first started people had no knowledge of electricity so they used motive power directly. That first came from water wheels and wind. Shafts and belts transferred the power from the source to the use. While this seems glorious, these systems are difficult to maintain and there are heavy losses in these systems. Here in North Wisconsin there were many water powered mills producing wood products and paper that were run directly from moving water and then steam. Today all these mills run on electricity, and often the electricity is made on-site with water power. Why? Because it is more efficient.

I lived off grid for many years, and in the beginning there were no solar electric panels, so we did without. I would personally never go back to that. Now I have a modest PV (photovoltaic) system that pumps my water, lights my home and keeps my food preserved.

Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that using the most efficient electrical devices was important. I double that concept. Today there are incredibly efficient electrical devices that do everything on needs, from water pumping and lighting to refrigeration. Do that first, no matter where you get your power from.

Bob

I cannot say for sure about it but i suspect that they do it this way because they can harvest electricity 24/7 and store for the usual 50 hours a week that they need to power the mill, even with a 60 percent loss on energy they are using more of the hydro energy. It is also simpler to transfer energay from one machine in use to the next.


That and of course the electric mills have standard parts to order and install.

Electricity has many advantages, to start with everyone has the same power source so there is mass production of products which are run on electricity. It isnt too hard to store, transfer, distribute and measure (so you can be properly billed). When electricity came into being in the cities, its main use was lighting, then the toaster. there was uses outside the home, electric motor was known but no one owned one, telegraphs did not come to peoples houses. Very quickly electricity started to improve home life, it does make life much simpler to live comfortably. I know I would hate to give up my refrigerator and computer. On my land, no way can i produce power with water or wind so to take a stand against electricity would be disingenuous.

What I am saying is if you have a form of energy you really should think twice before you change it into electricity. I see people here thinking of how to produce electricity for applications where direct use of the energy in the form it is in is more useful to them. I also think people have been totally bamboozled at times by utube videos which tell how to produce power from nothing. Some of these videos are fakes, others are producing electricity by the milliamp while we generally use electricity by the Kilowatt hour.

oh yeah i forgot...whoever posted that solar is not heat, you are right of course and that statement bothered me so much since i posted it. I was simply trying to say try to use energy in the form it comes in, most people do not see photons they see the heat which comes off when the photons hit the surface, this is good enough way to see it for sure until you go to build a photoelectric cell, then you have to consider all properties.

Alice Lynn wrote:I'm trying to retrain my brain to think of more alternative solutions such as this, but I still fall into the trap of only using things for their marketed purpose. Using the silica gel from cat litter is a much better idea than buying a desiccant dehumidifier and then drying it out with electricity. I've experimented a bit with calcium chloride, but it didn't work fast enough, but maybe with a small fan it might be more effective.

You would need a lot of calcium chloride for it to be effective. Like I wrote before, the main problem with a lot of off grid solutions is that the hardware doesn't exist, so one must spend time to engineer a solution (and this R and D can get really expensive). However, I am convinced that many of these solutions are viable, it just takes a lot of effort to develop practical and effective systems. With respect to calcium chloride use as a desiccant, you need to increase dramatically the surface area of the desiccant exposed to air, and blowing air over the material will improve results. A common method in industry is to spray or drip a concentrated aqueous calcium chloride solution over packing material through which air is blown. The solution picks up water as it drains over the packing, collects at the bottom, then it can drain to a central location where it can be heated to remove the water. Now, in principle, it is possible to induce air flow through such a system without a fan since a concentrated solution of calcium chloride can reach high temperatures as it absorbs water from the air. This increase in temperature can induce a convective air flow. The heated air could then return to the home through duct work outside the home for cooling. Also, in principle, if the air can be dried sufficiently, then it can be cooled effectively by evaporative cooling. In this case the distilled water cooked out of the desiccant can be collected after it condenses (hopefully this heat is put to some use), then it can be sent into the home through atomizing spray nozzles with a very low volume but high pressure water pump. Again, this is just one more example where a system might be engineered, but not without a lot of time and effort (and money). In my opinion, industry doesn't bother these kinds of systems simply because cheap grid power is available. The small number of people who seek off grid solutions (read: low or no electricity required) are pretty much left to come up with their own solutions. Since there seems to be a growing trend toward off grid living, then I hope to see some signficant capital investment in off grid solutions in coming years. We'll see.

Ho that's great Laura!
I do agree with you, and you made me see something about myself!

HOW MUCH DO WE SEE THE RIGHTNESS THAT SOMEONE SAYS ...AND FALL INTO THE TRAP AT THE SAME TIME!

I was wondering about electricity from my irrigation water, and I did not think about just using its FORCE!
direct use of the power.

Sun is heat, and I want to use it for water and drying. I can also heat through windows.
And indeed I did not want photovoltaïc. I was totally with you about sun...

And you opened a new door for this irregular water strength I can see in my pipes.
Now, what can I use it for? And how...

Physix is not a done deal until all the anomalies are sorted. IMHO, there are flaws deep in pile of laws and theories which generate anomalies and require the stretchy thinking we use to go on.

I think the nature of energy is that it's free. There are incredibly calcified vested interests which strongly resist going deep enough into the pile to bust the anomaly generator. It's hard to admit what is really known and what isn't. If you've paid for the education, then it was all correct, or you may have been suckered. It's not necessarily out of malice, but there could be some ego there, preventing our breaking out and actually understanding, say, the force of gravity or the nature of electricity.

Sorry, but I'm an unapologetic heretic. But, I was lucky, I had learning disorders. I won't accept that anything is impossible, especially if you tell me you "taught that in school."

Enjoy some possibilities today.

Home build off the shelf, incorporates the boiler of the Absorption Fridge, and the compressor of the Electric Fridge.

Lowest heat function -30*C, 20 PSI. Worked to +100*C, 142,000 PSI.

Less complicated build is straight Absorption Fridge physics creating liquid drive force to a hydro turbine.

Aha, here is a renewable resource- people riding bikes! How about bike generators? Or some other super efficient exercise machine that creates power from humans burning food calories. It is so silly that you plug in exercise machines.

This would be great for burning kids' excess energy in inclement weather. Make them charge the batteries if they want to watch tv!

It was once quite popular in Australia when listening to the radio. A famous quote being recorded for history. "Peddle faster you black bastard"

Pedal power is a means of generating electricity however it has difficulty in being more inefficient! Putting the dog in a wheel is near four times as efficient.

Yeah, there's got to be a more efficient design for human generated power. And with all these overweight people, there's energy to spare.

Hello Laura Sharpe,

"No method of harvesting energy is 100 percent efficient and the more you change the nature of that energy the more of it you will lose."

This be true for a period but no longer so. DaS Energy designed and constructed energy conversion mechanism 222% efficient.

The attached is working by Steam pressure however CO2/R744 is much better due to its extreme energy output for very little heat, and the fact it returns colder to the boiler than when it leaves the boiler.

Efficiency of energy conversion is measured by how much energy is available and how much of that energy is converted, 100% being ideal.

Manufacturer stated efficiency are thus. Steam 60% efficiency. Pelton Wheel 82% efficiency. Francis 82% efficiency.

Attached is DaS Energy riser turbine mechanism.

Random figure, commencing with 1 litre of gas as at 100 psi. Pelton wheel turbine converts 82% of the original energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Francis turbine converts 82% of the energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Steam turbine converts 60% of the energy and leaves the gas forcing the water with 40% of its original energy.

Total energy conversion 222%. Done by the use of physics, gas to liquid.

Peter Mckinlay wrote:This be true for a period but no longer so. DaS Energy designed and constructed energy conversion mechanism 222% efficient.

Efficiency of energy conversion is measured by how much energy is available and how much of that energy is converted, 100% being ideal.

Manufacturer stated efficiency are thus. Steam 60% efficiency. Pelton Wheel 82% efficiency. Francis 82% efficiency.

Random figure, commencing with 1 litre of gas as at 100 psi. Pelton wheel turbine converts 82% of the original energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Francis turbine converts 82% of the energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Steam turbine converts 60% of the energy and leaves the gas forcing the water with 40% of its original energy.

Total energy conversion 222%. Done by the use of physics, gas to liquid.

If you understand these claims, then please clarify. A few questions:

How can "the gas forcing the water" lose "none of its original energy"? If it's used to move water through a turbine, then the gas must expand and therefore have a reduced capacity for work (i.e. lose energy).

Next, why would these efficiencies be additive? For example, if I convert work to ac electricity by driving a dc generator, then I must consider the efficiency of the turbine, the efficiency of the dc generator, and the efficiency of an inverter used for ac electricity. The overall efficiency is (turbine eff)(dc generator eff)(inverter eff)... taking the product and not adding.

Finally, what is meant by "222% efficient"?... 222% of what? Does the energy input include the latent heat of vaporization of the water (that vast heat required to convert water to steam)?

NOTE: Based on the diagram, the system looks like a boiler connected on the water side to a Pelton turbine and a Francis turbine in parallel. So, in this case the efficiency of these two components together will be the weighted average between the two acting alone. Also, water will flash during the pressure drop, so these are acting more as small single stage steam turbines than traditional hydro. The output of these turbine should be a lot higher from a specific volume of water standpoint, but this comes at the expense of a very large quantity of heat. The thermal efficiency of something like this is certainly very low indeed. I'm being generous as I do believe your claims so far are nonsensical, but I'll give benefit of doubt. Please explain the process more carefully, define the system, identify the energy inputs and outputs, and please specify how >100% efficiency is achieved.

Random figure, commencing with 1 litre of gas as at 100 psi. Pelton wheel turbine converts 82% of the original energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Francis turbine converts 82% of the energy, however the gas forcing the water loses none of its original energy. Steam turbine converts 60% of the energy and leaves the gas forcing the water with 40% of its original energy.

The energy loses are cumulative, not the other way around.

Here's my "fuzzy math":
We'll start of with, say 100kw:
100kw * 82% = 82kw remaining,
82kw * 82% = 67.24kw remaining,
67.24 * 60% = 40.344kw remaining.

This example shows that the conversion consumed nearly 60% of the original energy.
If you started with 100kw, by the time it gets to your end use, there is only ~ 40kw remaining, not 200%+.
You are losing energy at each step of the process, not gaining energy.

Marcos Buenijo,

Enlarge attachment. Gas and water sealed in same pipe have same pressure 100 psi, water 100 psi goes up to Pelton wheel 82% efficient conversion of water energy.

Gas 100 psi now moves to be above the water having fallen off the Pelton wheel. 100 gas psi water now moves down to Francis turbine 82% efficient conversion of water energy. Refilling the gas cavity.

Gas 100 psi now above the water goes to gas turbine 60% efficient conversion of gas energy. Leaving 40 psi gas.

82,82 and 60% total 222%.

Enlargement to assist.

Peter Mckinlay wrote:Gas and water sealed in same pipe have same pressure 100 psi, water 100 psi goes up to Pelton wheel 82% efficient conversion of water energy.

Gas 100 psi now moves to be above the water having fallen off the Pelton wheel. 100 gas psi water now moves down to Francis turbine 82% efficient conversion of water energy. Refilling the gas cavity.

Gas 100 psi now above the water goes to gas turbine 60% efficient conversion of gas energy. Leaving 40 psi gas.

82,82 and 60% total 222%.

If the upper and lower volumes have the same pressure of 100 psi, then how is flow through the Pelton wheel achieved?

If the lower volume has a higher pressure to support flow through the Pelton wheel, then how is flow through the Francis turbine achieved?

If the lower volume has a higher pressure to support flow through the Pelton wheel, then saturated water will flash to steam when it reaches the lower pressure in the upper volume. Does this steam leave the system through the upper steam line? If so, then this represents a very large energy loss. Do your figures here account for this loss? The lower volume seems to represent a boiler, and heat must be supplied to maintain pressure in the lower volume as the steam expands in the lower volume to force water through the Pelton wheel, and this is the same heat that would be lost through the upper steam vent. Again, do your figures consider this heat energy input?

You mention 100 psi gas supplied to a "gas turbine". Do you mean steam turbine? Again, if the lower volume is at 100 psi, and water just moved through the Pelton wheel, then how is the steam in the upper volume still at 100 psi? Next, how do you suppose 60% efficiency in a steam turbine with 100 psi saturated steam? What kind of "efficiency" do you mean? The thermal efficiency of a steam turbine with 100 psi saturated steam will 10% at best.

Finally, why have you decided to add these efficiencies? What does 222% represent? 222% of what?

energy is neither created nor destroyed-it is only converted into a different form.

Nils Rehmann wrote:Solar is light and therefore the dualism of photons becomes important.

Excellent observation Nilis. I for one am putting a lot of (well reasoned?) hope into the amazing work being done by Professor Daniel G. Nocera. Professor Nocera is the Patterson Rockwood Professor of Energy at Harvard University. Before joining Harvard, Nocera was on the faculty of MIT where he was the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy. In this 17 min TEDx Talk Daniel Nocera describes his incredible discovery: how to emulate photosynthesis, to store energy in water splitting and meet future global energy needs. Very Permie!



If you enjoyed that & have a bit more time you may enjoy watching this as well.



Looking forward to any & all informed opinions.

Philip Durso wrote:I for one am putting a lot of (well reasoned?) hope into the amazing work being done by Professor Daniel G. Nocera. Professor Nocera is the Patterson Rockwood Professor of Energy at Harvard University. Before joining Harvard, Nocera was on the faculty of MIT where he was the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy. In this 17 min TEDx Talk Daniel Nocera describes his incredible discovery: how to emulate photosynthesis, to store energy in water splitting and meet future global energy needs. Very Permie! Looking forward to any & all informed opinions.

Interesting, but my enthusiasm is limited without knowing specifics. I'm wondering how the H2 and O2 are stored, and more important, how are these gases recombined to get electricity? A fuel cell? He didn't say. By the time this technology is viable, then how far will photovoltaics and batteries have advanced?

His hamburger for splitting hydrogen is very neat but splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using solar has never been a problem the difficulty lies in storing hydrogen. To me its easier to use natures natural storage units in the form of biomass and then process it into a standard fuel capable of use in any diesel engine.