| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"FEerguy9" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2004 04:03:47 AM |
| Object: |
eer |
Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to accumulate
and store electrical energy from any source. The storage would be intended to
accommodate such things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc. The best
example is the EV - an electric car that would run on an ever-accumulating
power source. That is to say, any and all sources of electrical energy --
including diffuse sources -- would be collected, combined and stored in the
form of capacitance. But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the
vehicle? Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of
the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned. The plates (and the
dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain optimum charge. I suggest that
Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, or possibly even nanotechnology be
used to accomplish this -- whatever could configure roughly halfway to the
molecular level. Doing this -- configuring massive surface area within a small
perimeter -- is the heart of eer. It could involve steps, or grooves to 'tuck'
the surface areas away. BTW, this would necessarily require a *much* stronger
dielectric, which admittedly is taken on faith - but it could be many years
away.
The object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they all fit like
Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter -- while yielding
enormous surface area. That way, it is hoped, enough charge could be stored to
run an EV. Further, it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy
(solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool' of
stored electrical energy. In time, renewable energy stored in this way could
effectively replace fossil fuels and batteries for vehicles.
The renewable sources need not necessarily have a device actually *on* the
vehicle; it is anticipated that such renewable devices could be located, say,
in or on a garage, and the electric charge transferred to the vehicle when
required.
I ask you -- with the advent of electric cars, might not this concept (if it
worked) pretty much end our dependence on oil?
NOTE: This idea absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! No more than a
12v car battery does.
Frank Lincoln
FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com
PS: In case you hadn't noticed, I am VERY weak with computers.
More, if you like..........
This is no more than a guess from a novice
There are some mistakes in here
In one sentence, I am saying that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
and would accommodate most of the energy problems we have today -- basically it
would do the job that the energy function of oil now does.
An energy concept
Yes, there is a 21st Law of Thermodynamics. That is no knock on Faraday, just
a reference to the 21st century, and the new technology it has brought.
Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving renewables shall ever be
considered unless the word 'diffuse' is used, understood, and taken into
consideration."
Faraday could not have seen this coming. In his day, there was not the
multitude of diffuse renewable energy sources available, which can be converted
to electricity.
If human beings are ever to use renewable, natural energy sources, they will
have to take into consideration the diffuse nature of sunlight, wind, wave,
etc. I was actually surprised to find that Faraday, himself, used the word
"diffuse" in his writings. But, this was in reference to the spread of charge
on capacitor plates, and not the UN-concentrated free energy that is available
today for conversion to electricity.
There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there in no way around
solving the "diffuse problem," before we are able to put renewable energy
sources to work in any effective way.
A goal......an idea......a prediction.......energy is easy........ there is no
crises.
We don't need oil.
We don't need batteries.
We don't need internal combustion engines.
We don't need fusion.
We don't need hybrids.
We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
We don't need ethanol.
We don't need natural gas.
We don't need methane.
We don't even need efficiency.
We don't even need conservation.
All we need are the renewable energy sources that God - in His infinite wisdom
-- provided us.
Some could be used, some not. For a while. Eventually renewable energy
sources would be all we would need to power our EV's, and heat our homes. We
would have the luxury of choice, while at the same time powering our EV's with
them. All of them. Any of them. As long as they are able to generate any
amount of electricity.
To those who have read this before, and may have rejected it out of hand, let
me say that it is my strong belief that two major companies may be engaged in
pretty much the basic idea presented here. They have patents - I do not. In no
way do I - nor will I - attempt to claim any right whatsoever to this idea --
even though all my writing on it came from my own independent thinking for over
12 years. I wish them well. But, in case I am wrong about that effort being
made, I surely wish some interested party would help me connect this to the
people in government who say they want an energy solution. What they are
looking for is contained on this letter. I am THAT confident.
Note: I can see EER powering an automobile. That is almost a lock, in my mind.
Further applications are, perhaps, a little harder to deal with. Once a car
IS powered by EER, then all the entrepreneurs will take the rest to the logical
conclusion. For the most part, EER will be discussed in terms of an electric
vehicle.
EER in Brief
Electronic Electricity Repository (EER) is merely a concept at this time. There
is no business, no patent, and no money involved with this.
This involves solid state capacitors as a usable energy storage device for
electric vehicles, and other items. Conventional wisdom limits capacitors to
power surges, and the like. The full text of this concept will suggest a way to
make them fully competitive with the internal combustion engine, while not
violating the laws of energy density.
The easiest way to explain it is to use an electric vehicle as an
example. To power an EV with EER, an array of electronic devices --
perhaps solid-state capacitors, perhaps another device -- would
contain the electrical charge accumulated from a variety of sources
of electricity. Renewable energy sources are suggested, but *any*
source of electricity would work. With the questionable future of
battery-powered EV's, and fusion as an energy source, and the political debate
about fossil fuels, there are strong reasons to take a look at EER.
In fairness, many say it cannot be done. But, perhaps another war
-- or avoiding one -- could put the right minds to work on this concept. It
*would* provide a way to be independent of foreign oil, while providing a
structure for the transition to renewable forms of energy to power EV's - or
any other device powered by electricity.
This is merely a shell of an idea, but perhaps some further thought could help
bring it about.
Frank Lincoln....72430,2407......Feerguy9@cs.com
**************************************************************************
**************************
A TRIP TO THE STORE IN AN EER POWERED EV
Let's suppose that the EER concept is fully developed, and built
into an electric vehicle. Let's also suppose that the newest and best
technological devices -- some of which are now being used in EV's - are
integrated into the vehicle's design. What follows is a description
of what might possibly have happened during an everyday trip to the store
in such a vehicle. (This assumes the use of an *advanced* solid-state
capacitor).
Ms. Jones notices her "fuel gauge" as she starts her vehicle; it
tells her that her microchip capacitor battery is 85% full. This means
that of the vast number of microchip capacitors in her "battery," 85% are
charged with their very small electric capacitance.
She proceeds to the store, and returns home -- a quarter mile
trip. As she pulls in her driveway, she looks again at her gauge. It
reads 84%. She thinks that she used only 1% of her battery capacity for
her trip.
But, she is wrong.
She used 10% of her available charged capacitors for the quarter
mile trip. So, why didn't her gauge read 75% when she returned?
There were several devices built into her vehicle which were
replenishing used capacitors, almost as fast as she was using them. (All
figures below are guesses -- just to make the point.)
1. The advanced solar panel on the roof of her vehicle was, as
always during sunlight, continuously recharging at a slow, but
steady rate. Because she had happened to drive and park in
the sunlight, the solar panel recharged 5% of her capacitors.
2. The air scoops arranged in her vehicle's design -- although
accounting for some drag -- were directing the air through
small dynamos, which recharged another 2%.
3. The regenerative brakes on all four wheels replenished another
2% of the capacitors.
So, she did, in fact, use 10% of the available capacitor charges,
but 9% were replaced by the activity of her trip.
This is nothing like perpetual motion; it is merely taking
advantage of the natural surrounding energy to replenish the energy
spent on the trip.
It is even conceivable that her "fuel gauge" might have read a
higher percentage upon her return; a shorter trip on a windier and
sunnier day, in a more sunlit route and parking spot, and many more
occasions to use the brakes, might have made that possible. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is not violated, because energy from outside the
vehicle was being absorbed along the way.
It is noted that a battery-powered EV could have done much the
same, but the weight difference would have changed the percentages, so
as to defeat the purpose.
Frank Lincoln CS# 72430,2407
**************************************************************************
**************************
It is understood that high energy density is something that has been sought for
many years -- the concept is nothing new. What is suggested here is the
possibility that modern technology may now be in the position to actually
attain it -- to a degree that could combine the many energy sources (new and
old) into a common pool.
GIVEN:
- Trench capacitors, at the present time, have nowhere near the capability to
deal with the degree of energy that would be required in Electronic Electricity
Repository.
- The area of the plates in a trench capacitor will, for the most part,
determine the capacitance -- not exclusively, but this is the factor that is
dealt with here as having the most potential for improvement. It is assumed
that progress in the other factors -- dielectric strength, dielectric
composition, etc., will continue, and will accommodate the supposition of
surface area increase made here.
HYPOTHESIS:
- The surface area of a trench capacitor plate can be greatly increased without
increasing the perimeter, or the space required to store the capacitor.
- Etching a groove on the plate surface will do this, to a small degree, and it
is done, to some extent, today. What is surmised, here, is that, as the
technology allows, many cross-grooves could be etched *within* the first
groove. Then, with increasing precision, these cross-grooves could, in turn, be
cross-grooved. And, then those cross-grooves cross-grooved. Each successive
cross-grooving would be progressively smaller - magnitudes smaller. This could
be repeated until the molecular level was reached -- each time increasing the
surface area of the plate, and thus the capacitance. An inexact estimate of the
number of times it could be repeated is 26. It is surmised that each groove,
cross-groove, and, etc., would be matched by a ridge, a cross-ridge, and, etc.,
on the opposite plate, with corresponding shapes for the dielectric. The
resulting configuration would yield a perfectly matching set of plates
(sandwiching an appropriately shaped, and expectedly advanced dielectric). Such
a configuration and material composition may not be possible at this time, but
the direction of efforts in their respective technologies may lead to their
development in the very near future. This concept is put forth in
*anticipation* of those developments.
- In theory, each successive etching would substantially increase the area of
the plates, and thus the capacitance *without increasing their size*, their
perimeter, or the volume of space needed for them. Again, the only barrier
seems to be at reaching the molecular level, after each groove is re-grooved,
perpendicularly, and then THAT groove is re-grooved, etc. This would take
advantage of all the "inner space" available between the plate surface, and the
molecular level. (Understand that in place of "etching," Scanning Tunneling
Microscope Technology might be applied -- or even nanotechnology, if that ever
becomes reality. The point is to configure the grooves -- by whatever method.)
BENEFITS:
- An almost endless storage system for electricity.
- A way to store electricity from *any* source, from renewables to a wall
socket.
- A possible solution to the search for a better power plant for electric
vehicles.
- A structure within which to make the conversion from fossil fuels to
renewables.
- A way to accumulate the "trickle" of the many forms of renewable energy, and
combine and store them in a practical way; a way that could give strength to
the many "weak" and diffuse renewable energy sources.
An attempt to generally suggest HOW to accomplish EER will be made; this will
be based on the feedback received so far on this concept. For the most part,
feedback has come from various forums in CompuServe. All major objections will
be mentioned, and a way around each one will be suggested.
ENERGY DENSITY - This appears to be the leading objection to EER. In the
strongest terms, it is postulated, here, that there is no sacred or permanent
universal limit to energy density -- there are only hurdles. There *are* limits
to present materials and there *are* limits to a given geometry, but no
universal scientific boundary that would stand forever and always. There are
certainly physical limits to the materials *now* being used, but, this concept
of EER does, indeed, depend upon progress in this area -- improvements in
materials are bound to happen. Unless human progress is at its maximum, there
is reason for such an expectation. Especially since -- many say -- technology
is doubling every day with computer technology, and since many of the best
resources in the world are focused on this type of science. (If anything like
this concept of EER ever happens, it will be as a natural development of such
materials -- and NOT a result of this effort; that is quite thoroughly
understood.)
It is suggest here that even without improvements in dieletrics, there may be
opportunity to vastly improve their capability with the one factor -- geography
of the plates.
Just as computers changed everything about information, some form of EER may
change the way energy is dealt with. The suggestion, above, regarding etching
grooves in trench capacitor plates, and then etching those grooves, etc., is
offered as a possible way to provide the structure that would enable a
monumentally higher energy density, than has ever been achieved. If the
geometry of the plates is configured as suggested here, and they are
identically wrinkled, it is expected that a very high energy density could be
achieved by taking advantage of the inner space. The accumulation of a massive
repelling force between plates is a problem for which no answer will be
attempted here. But, mechanics aside, it appears that developing technology
will, indeed, provide the tools necessary to configure the plates.
CAPACITOR LEAKAGE - Two points here: 1) Leakage in trench capacitors is not
nearly as big a problem as it was a few short years ago -- holding a charge for
an electric vehicle, for example, would be well within the cycle of usage. In
other words, an EV would be expected to be used often enough to use the charges
before they have time to leak. 2) The percentage of loss due to leakage could
logically be offset by overloading the capacitor bank by a like percentage.
This is somewhat of a built-in inefficiency, but in time, wouldn't the leakage
problem be expected to continue to improve?
ARCHING - The concern about electrical arching between the extremely small
dimensions created by the etching and re-etching can only be explained away by
a layman in this way: the extremely small dimensions would occur between parts
of the same plate - and *not* between the opposing plates. The surfaces of the
two plates would remain equidistant over the entire area. It is expected that
the extremely small dimensions would mainly occur between points on the same
plate, at the same potential -- and, thus, no arching would be anticipated.
ATOMIC LEVEL - In a pretty thorough analysis in the LEAP forum, it was
indicated that "the whole idea of a capacitor thus breaks down as we approach
atomic dimensions." (The following assumes abilities predicted by some as to
etching, Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology, atomic force microscope,
lithography, or other methods.) If you make one groove (G1) in a capacitor
plate, that certainly does not approach atomic dimensions, yet it does increase
the surface area of the plate (without increasing its perimeter). Then, if you
go back and make another groove (G2) WITHIN G1's SURFACE, you are closer -- but
still not near the atomic level. Then if the surface of G2 is etched (or STM'd)
with G3, you are closer yet; closer -- but still a long way from the atomic
level. How far? Well, the number 26 seems to hold up as the number of times
you could re-etch grooves, before you hit bottom.
(Each successive etching step would be, say, a hundred times smaller than the
previous one. G3 is a hundred times smaller than G2. G2 is a hundred times
smaller than G1, and etc. G26 would be the smallest, and would begin to enter
atomic dimensions.)
Now, backing up, let's say you made a hundred tiny grooves on the surface of
the original plate -- so you have 100 G1's. Within each G1, you etch 100 much
smaller G2's. Within each G2 you etch 100 G3's, which are yet, again, much
smaller. This is a million grooves at the 3rd of 26 steps. If you could
continue on in this way for 26 re-groovings of the grooves, how many grooves
would you have at the 26th step? And, by how much would you have increased the
surface area of that plate? And how much more dipole moment effect would now
take place? And how much more ability to hold charge would you have? If the
number 26 makes you cranky, stop at 20, or 12.
The point is this: there is a tremendous amount of "inner space" available
*before* you reach atomic level. Perhaps an optimum number could be safely
reached. Even 12 would seem to provide a monumental increase in charge storage
ability. Subject to mathematicians' scrutiny, there may be 10^24 grooves, when
you are only halfway down to atomic level, and free of the terrible things that
happen there. At the halfway point, you have monumentally increased the surface
area, without threatening stability. Assuming that the dielectric follows the
shape of the plate exactly, have you not vastly increased the number of
molecules subject to polar realignment in the electric field? Could it be said
that, even though the individual dipole moments would stay at the same in
magnitude, there is an opportunity to create a tremendously larger number of
them, by taking advantage of the inner space available?
MASS PRODUCTION - Some of these techniques to reform very small structures are
very slow and very expensive. Some question was raised as to their adaptability
to a mass production situation. As with any change in technology, first efforts
are not usually efficient. But there seems to be enough advantages to EER so
that the forces of supply and demand would push the costs down. Once in the
competitive market, improvements in technique could be expected.
GROOVES TOO SMALL? - A statement made in one of the forums was, "There is a
limit to how small the grooves can be before they don't work any more." As this
was from a good source, it is taken seriously. If some of the logic, above,
doesn't account for this, there may be difficulty, here.
DISCHARGE TIME - Capacitors normally discharge very quickly, so wouldn't they
make a rather bad storage device? No detailed answer will be attempted, here,
but can't this be controlled with a very low discharge current, with a high
resistance?
Electricity is -- or can be -- the common denominator for all energy sources,
from solar to hydro. It is for exactly this reason that EER could employ each
and every energy source. All the new renewable technology could be "fed" into
EER - without exception. Yet, at the same time, conventional sources could
contribute to it -- every drop of oil and every lump of coal on this planet
could be used, purposely. Could this captured energy not then be put to use, as
needed, and when needed, by controlling the energy bursts to simulate
conventional electricity flow?
*******************
The technology that would be needed for EER *seems* to be within sight - with
some faith required, perhaps, for the materials. Basically, it is the ability
to sculpt materials at the molecular level which brought about this revised
approach to EER. I have never seen the etching process, nor STM; this whole
concept of extremely small sculpting to obtain extremely high surface area is
drawn from my imagination -- and the little I have read about these processes.
I am motivated by the extreme advantages that would come about, and the
apparent ability to accomplish this; if not on a production basis, then at
least on a prototype basis, to start. I'm certain there are still technical
errors in this effort -- it is hoped that the general idea was communicated
with some adequacy. This *seems* possible - or within reach - to me, and it
*seems* as though it would bring about profound benefits, and it *seems* to me
that it is a logical way to approach energy at this point in time.
But, I defer to the experts.
**************************************************************************
**************************
I have no patent on this idea. My motivation is not monetary.
I understand that this could not be done today, because of limits on existing
dieletrics, and perhaps other items. My position is that EER is not impossible,
given advances in some technologies.
Please respond by Email
or call at (248) 288-3459
Feerguy9@cs.com
Frank Lincoln
Please keep in mind that EER would allow energy from any and all sources to be
stored and combined in such a way that an electric vehicle could, at some later
time, be powered by it.
Separating a steel sample using a tensile tester could be useful in EER.
The jagged edges could be cut off, just past their breakpoint. Call these two
pieces of jagged metal our capacitor plates. The broken pieces are matched
molecular for molecule. If a dielectric is molded between the two jagged ends,
the fit could not be better. "d" is maintained. The area of the matching jagged
edges is much, much more than the cross section of the steel sample. We then
have matching capacitor plates without using STM to configure all the surfaces.
Note: EER may not solve all energy problems, but in my opinion, it could
certainly power personal vehicles.
Anyone who receives this is free to publish.
Feerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
21 Aug 2004 03:01:37 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
.... a broken record.
[rest snipped]
For the computations regarding a theoretical 2-atom-thick
apacitative device (that probably won't work anyway) go to
http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer/calculations.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer
Then go to, say, Radio Shack (or any other store that sells C-cells,
either by the seashore or inland) and get a more efficient device
than this so-called "electronic energy repository".
If one wants real power, of course, buy a gasoline or
diesel engine. (Nuclear plants are not portable and
probably have way too much paperwork. Hydrogen cars
aren't available yet.)
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
21 Aug 2004 06:53:13 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
21 Aug 2004 07:10:20 PM |
|
|
In article <4127e069$0$65908$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
19 May 2005 10:10:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <4127e069$0$65908$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Why can't we pay some catalyst (organic or inorganic)
to string them together for us ? Are fossil fuels that hard
to re-engineer ?
--
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
19 May 2005 11:40:12 PM |
|
|
In article <118ql8fn6bj4g10@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4127e069$0$65908$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Why can't we pay some catalyst (organic or inorganic)
to string them together for us ? Are fossil fuels that hard
to re-engineer ?
My, oh my, you're responding to a post which is few years old. How
did this happen.
Anyway, it is not just a matter of catalyst. You've to provide the
energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 09:20:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <118ql8fn6bj4g10@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
wrote:
In article <4127e069$0$65908$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Why can't we pay some catalyst (organic or inorganic)
to string them together for us ? Are fossil fuels that hard
to re-engineer ?
My, oh my, you're responding to a post which is few years old. How
did this happen.
Fossil fuel for thought.
Anyway, it is not just a matter of catalyst. You've to provide the
energy.
Thanks, Isee now: millions of years of solar energy.
I guess that's alot better than a barrel full of chain smoking e-eels.
--
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 03:39:36 PM |
|
|
In article <118rsgsrckoepf9@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <118ql8fn6bj4g10@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4127e069$0$65908$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, FEerguy9
<feerguy9@cs.com>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2004 09:03:47 GMT
<20040818050347.04299.00003394@mb-m15.news.cs.com>:
Electronic electricity repository is
... a broken record.
<snip>
Gasoline can store 45 MJ per kilogram, approximately.
Batteries can only store a fraction of that amount,
and a capacitor facility capable of storing 1-2 megajoule
might be the size of a small house or other such building,
last I looked.
Look again.
The best capacitors are now better than a couple of orders of magnitude
worse than batteries.
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Why can't we pay some catalyst (organic or inorganic)
to string them together for us ? Are fossil fuels that hard
to re-engineer ?
My, oh my, you're responding to a post which is few years old. How
did this happen.
Fossil fuel for thought.
Anyway, it is not just a matter of catalyst. You've to provide the
energy.
Thanks, Isee now: millions of years of solar energy.
Aye, exactly. That's what it is.
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
I guess that's alot better than a barrel full of chain smoking e-eels.
:-) I like the image.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 05:12:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
We're always going to be foraging for old reserves instead of gliding along ?
It might be easier to build a methane pipeline to Europa.
--
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
21 May 2005 01:42:12 PM |
|
|
"nemo" <nemo@z.net> wrote in message
news:118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com...
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
Bio-diesel is a possible.
http://www.biodiesel.org/
Make it yourself,,,
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
22 May 2005 07:39:45 AM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
"nemo" <nemo@z.net> wrote in message
news:118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com...
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
Bio-diesel is a possible.
http://www.biodiesel.org/
Make it yourself,,,
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
It is interesting as a way of recycling used oil,
but I don't think this would meet future global energy needs.
There probably isn't enough land to farm vegatable oil
in enough quantity to suit both global energy and food needs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 05:54:21 PM |
|
|
In article <118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
Yes.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
With decent conversion efficiency, they could. Of course, right now
it is anywhere decent.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
What full energy cycle? We're talking open cycle, not closed one.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
22 May 2005 06:56:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
Yes.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
With decent conversion efficiency, they could. Of course, right now
it is anywhere decent.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
What full energy cycle? We're talking open cycle, not closed one.
Isn't the role of hydrocarbons just capacitive and it's
the solar energy that gets converted to kinetic energy ?
Can an energy cycle be open with respect to solar energy,
but closed with respect to raw materials ? I'm thinking ideal capacitors
don't wear out raw materials, but I suspect I'm missing something
important here about "peak usage" or something like that.
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Wouldn't it still require building large solar "farms" out in space
to be useful for global needs even with efficiency ? I'll guess that
global needs will always need to increase. Something modular and
scaleable would be needed, maybe even "organic" in the sense
that it grows and fasts by itself according to needs (not autonomously
though).
Are there better ways to store energy than hydrocarbons ?
Without knowing much about the Kreb's Cycle, it doesn't
seem good enough for much more than Cheetah-like energy use.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 May 2005 03:03:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1190sqj5e19eva4@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
Yes.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
With decent conversion efficiency, they could. Of course, right now
it is anywhere decent.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
What full energy cycle? We're talking open cycle, not closed one.
Isn't the role of hydrocarbons just capacitive and it's
the solar energy that gets converted to kinetic energy ?
That's a tad simplified, but will do for the moment.
Can an energy cycle be open with respect to solar energy,
but closed with respect to raw materials ?
Yes, why not.
I'm thinking ideal capacitors don't wear out raw materials
The atoms don't get "worn out" so no problem.
, but I suspect I'm missing something
important here about "peak usage" or something like that.
"Peak usage" is an issue for systems which generate energy but have no
ability (or very limited ability) to store it. It is not an issue for
our hypothetical "solar to hydrocarbons" system.
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2. Over a yea (circa 3*10^7 s) this amounts
to 6*10^9 J/m^2. So, lets assume that we can store about 10% of it in
the form of hydrocarbons (I'm throwing a number of the cuff here, you
have to understand that we've nothin close to it at hand). So, how
much oil it is?
Well, the proverbial oil barrel is 42 gallons, i.e about 150 liters.
In terms of mass that's about 120 kg, and counting (rounding up) 50 MJ
per kg, your barrel is the equivalent of 6*10^j J. So, our imaginary
solar plant can generate 0.1 barrel per m^2, per year. or, if you
prefer, 100,000 barrels per km^2, per year. Since the US consumption
is close to 20 million barrels/day (about 7*10^9 per year), you'll
require an area of about 70,000 km^2 to provide this. All, of course,
assumint this magical net 10% conversion efficiency.
Wouldn't it still require building large solar "farms" out in space
to be useful for global needs even with efficiency ?
Perish the thought, no. On Earth, the raw materials are readily
available. IN space, you'll have to ship them out, then bring the
product in. A losing proposition.
I'll guess that
global needs will always need to increase. Something modular and
scaleable would be needed, maybe even "organic" in the sense
that it grows and fasts by itself according to needs (not autonomously
though).
Are there better ways to store energy than hydrocarbons ?
Can't think of much better ways. In terms of a combination of energy
density (be it mass or volume density) and relatively benign
disposition (can be stored at room temperature and pressure, using
mundane materials), hydrocarbons are not easy to beat.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 May 2005 01:22:03 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:17gke.1$25.813@news.uchicago.edu...
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2.
That got me thinking about the direct use if that energy....
I believe a pure electric car would need a battery with a 100KWH capacity to
give a typical range of 400 miles a day. Assuming most people average 15,000
a year or thats about 40 miles a day or 10% of the capacity = 10KWH.
So you would need about 500 square meters of cells per car at 10%
efficiency.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nemo" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 May 2005 10:37:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1190sqj5e19eva4@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
wrote:
In article <118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
Yes.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
With decent conversion efficiency, they could. Of course, right now
it is anywhere decent.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
What full energy cycle? We're talking open cycle, not closed one.
Isn't the role of hydrocarbons just capacitive and it's
the solar energy that gets converted to kinetic energy ?
That's a tad simplified, but will do for the moment.
Can an energy cycle be open with respect to solar energy,
but closed with respect to raw materials ?
Yes, why not.
This would not be called a "full" energy cycle ?
I'm thinking ideal capacitors don't wear out raw materials
The atoms don't get "worn out" so no problem.
Is there an irretrievable loss of raw materials using hydrocarbons
for storage ? If so, can it be reduced or eliminated ? ...
, but I suspect I'm missing something
important here about "peak usage" or something like that.
"Peak usage" is an issue for systems which generate energy but have no
ability (or very limited ability) to store it. It is not an issue for
our hypothetical "solar to hydrocarbons" system.
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2. Over a year (circa 3*10^7 s) this amounts
to 6*10^9 J/m^2.
So, lets assume that we can store about 10% of it in
the form of hydrocarbons (I'm throwing a number of the cuff here, you
have to understand that we've nothin close to it at hand). So, how
much oil it is?
Well, the proverbial oil barrel is 42 gallons, i.e about 150 liters.
In terms of mass that's about 120 kg, and counting (rounding up)
50 MJ per kg, your barrel is the equivalent of 6*10^9 J.
So, our imaginary solar plant can generate 0.1 barrel per m^2, per year.
or, if you prefer, 100,000 barrels per km^2, per year.
Since the US consumption is close to 20 million barrels/day
(about 7*10^9 per year), you'll require an area of about 70,000 km^2
to provide this.
All, of course, assuming this magical net 10% conversion efficiency.
200 W/m^2 per day = 73 W/km^2 per year
73 W/km^2 (solar) * 70000 km^2 = 5 MW per year conversion energy to get
7E9 barrels/year ? Did I make a mistake ? That seems very low.
Are there better ways to store energy than hydrocarbons ?
Can't think of much better ways. In terms of a combination of energy
density (be it mass or volume density) and relatively benign
disposition (can be stored at room temperature and pressure, using
mundane materials), hydrocarbons are not easy to beat.
Relatively easy to control, use and distribute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 May 2005 05:05:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1193u57iemc0oa3@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1190sqj5e19eva4@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <118so66a2m8275a@corp.supernews.com>, nemo <nemo@z.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
So, in principle, you would want a system which uses easily accessible
raw materials (like CO2 and water) plus solar energy input, to produce
hydrocarbons. In principle, plants do it (well, not all the way to
hydrocarbons but close enough), but their efficiency is less than
spectacular. Here the catalyst you suggest (assuming such is
possible) could help.
People seem to go alot faster than nature does.
Yes.
I don't see how fossil fuels could be made faster than they get used.
With decent conversion efficiency, they could. Of course, right now
it is anywhere decent.
Besides, cars don't seem to produce enough CO2 and water through their
catalytic converters to recycle in a full energy cycle engine.
What full energy cycle? We're talking open cycle, not closed one.
Isn't the role of hydrocarbons just capacitive and it's
the solar energy that gets converted to kinetic energy ?
That's a tad simplified, but will do for the moment.
Can an energy cycle be open with respect to solar energy,
but closed with respect to raw materials ?
Yes, why not.
This would not be called a "full" energy cycle ?
Sigh. You *cannot* have a closed cycle. Isn't this clear?
I'm thinking ideal capacitors don't wear out raw materials
The atoms don't get "worn out" so no problem.
Is there an irretrievable loss of raw materials using hydrocarbons
for storage ? If so, can it be reduced or eliminated ? ...
Didn't I just say that the atoms don't get worn out.
, but I suspect I'm missing something
important here about "peak usage" or something like that.
"Peak usage" is an issue for systems which generate energy but have no
ability (or very limited ability) to store it. It is not an issue for
our hypothetical "solar to hydrocarbons" system.
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2. Over a year (circa 3*10^7 s) this amounts
to 6*10^9 J/m^2.
So, lets assume that we can store about 10% of it in
the form of hydrocarbons (I'm throwing a number of the cuff here, you
have to understand that we've nothin close to it at hand). So, how
much oil it is?
Well, the proverbial oil barrel is 42 gallons, i.e about 150 liters.
In terms of mass that's about 120 kg, and counting (rounding up)
50 MJ per kg, your barrel is the equivalent of 6*10^9 J.
So, our imaginary solar plant can generate 0.1 barrel per m^2, per year.
or, if you prefer, 100,000 barrels per km^2, per year.
Since the US consumption is close to 20 million barrels/day
(about 7*10^9 per year), you'll require an area of about 70,000 km^2
to provide this.
All, of course, assuming this magical net 10% conversion efficiency.
200 W/m^2 per day = 73 W/km^2 per year
what?
73 W/km^2 (solar) * 70000 km^2 = 5 MW per year conversion energy to get
7E9 barrels/year ? Did I make a mistake ? That seems very low.
Already your first line makes no sense. Don't even know what you
meant there.
Are there better ways to store energy than hydrocarbons ?
Can't think of much better ways. In terms of a combination of energy
density (be it mass or volume density) and relatively benign
disposition (can be stored at room temperature and pressure, using
mundane materials), hydrocarbons are not easy to beat.
Relatively easy to control, use and distribute.
Yes, right.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 May 2005 05:32:40 PM |
|
|
In article <fbpke.99271$lm1.5685352@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:17gke.1$25.813@news.uchicago.edu...
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2.
That got me thinking about the direct use if that energy....
I believe a pure electric car would need a battery with a 100KWH capacity to
give a typical range of 400 miles a day. Assuming most people average 15,000
a year or thats about 40 miles a day or 10% of the capacity = 10KWH.
OK.
So you would need about 500 square meters of cells per car at 10%
efficiency.
No, not quite that bad. At 10% efficiency you get 20 W/m^2, i.e. you
get 10 kWh within one hour. Running the cells around the clock (note
that we already took into account the day/night cycle etc.) you'll
just need circa 20 square meters per car. Of course, this doesn't
address what happens when you've a rainy week:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
24 May 2005 02:10:43 AM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:cSske.10$25.2146@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <fbpke.99271$lm1.5685352@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes:
No, not quite that bad. At 10% efficiency you get 20 W/m^2, i.e. you
get 10 kWh within one hour.
Oh Yes I missed time out of the calculation.
Running the cells around the clock (note
that we already took into account the day/night cycle etc.) you'll
just need circa 20 square meters per car. Of course, this doesn't
address what happens when you've a rainy week:-)
20 sqm is much better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
24 May 2005 02:28:13 AM |
|
|
In article <TrAke.99650$NW3.5877794@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:cSske.10$25.2146@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <fbpke.99271$lm1.5685352@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes:
No, not quite that bad. At 10% efficiency you get 20 W/m^2, i.e. you
get 10 kWh within one hour.
Oh Yes I missed time out of the calculation.
Running the cells around the clock (note
that we already took into account the day/night cycle etc.) you'll
just need circa 20 square meters per car. Of course, this doesn't
address what happens when you've a rainy week:-)
20 sqm is much better.
Certainly.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
24 May 2005 05:52:09 AM |
|
|
In article <cSske.10$25.2146@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <fbpke.99271$lm1.5685352@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> writes:
< > wrote in message
news:17gke.1$25.813@news.uchicago.edu...
How ideally fast can hydrocarbons be synthesized from solar energy ?
Well, lets try to put some numbers on it.
Lets pick a location not to far from the equator, The peak delivered
solar power is about 1 kW/m^2, averaging over the 24 hour cycle you
get 250 W/m^2. Taking off some 20% for clouds and the like you get an
average of about 200 W/m^2.
That got me thinking about the direct use if that energy....
I believe a pure electric car would need a battery with a 100KWH capacity
to
give a typical range of 400 miles a day. Assuming most people average
15,000
a year or thats about 40 miles a day or 10% of the capacity = 10KWH.
OK.
So you would need about 500 square meters of cells per car at 10%
efficiency.
No, not quite that bad. At 10% efficiency you get 20 W/m^2, i.e. you
get 10 kWh within one hour. Running the cells around the clock (note
that we already took into account the day/night cycle etc.) you'll
just need circa 20 square meters per car. Of course, this doesn't
address what happens when you've a rainy week:-)
Well, that would be a good excuse for these drivers who already
take their half out of the middle of the road.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 01:51:19 AM |
|
|
Don't waste time on feerguy. He's been trolling newsgroups with this "eer"
idea for years. Essentially his big "idea" is to make some kind of super
energy storage device (but he is never able to explain exactly how that
might be achieved) and charge it with energy from a multitude of "free"
emergy sources. For example I think he once proposed putting windmills on
electric cars to recharge this new "battery" while on the move - which gives
you some idea of his level of knowledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baugh" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 11:33:02 PM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
Don't waste time on feerguy. He's been trolling newsgroups with this "eer"
idea for years. Essentially his big "idea" is to make some kind of super
energy storage device (but he is never able to explain exactly how that
might be achieved) and charge it with energy from a multitude of "free"
emergy sources. For example I think he once proposed putting windmills on
electric cars to recharge this new "battery" while on the move - which gives
you some idea of his level of knowledge.
I had a long discussion with him some years ago on the compuserve forum.
His basic misunderstanding at that time was a confusion between total
charge stored in a capacitor and total energy. I almost had him
straightened out by patiently taking him through the calculations for
the total energy you can store in a capacitor given a fixed dielectric
strength of the insulating material. I showed him that no matter the
internal configuration the max total energy was a function only of
volume, and dielectric strength, and the dielectric constant.
Folding or increasing the surface area has no effect on this max energy.
It simply trades max voltage for capacitance. He almost understood
but having invested so much emotional capital and time in his
"discovery" he balked. I'm saddened but not suprised to see he's still
at it.
--
Regards,
James Baugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
20 May 2005 10:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, CWatters
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be>
wrote
on Fri, 20 May 2005 06:51:19 GMT
<HNfje.95958$xE4.5566584@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
Don't waste time on feerguy. He's been trolling newsgroups with this "eer"
idea for years. Essentially his big "idea" is to make some kind of super
energy storage device (but he is never able to explain exactly how that
might be achieved) and charge it with energy from a multitude of "free"
emergy sources. For example I think he once proposed putting windmills on
electric cars to recharge this new "battery" while on the move - which gives
you some idea of his level of knowledge.
<toot mode=blatant>
http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/eer/
</toot>
is a theoretical (and probably non-working) capacitor
consisting of slices of atomic or twice-atomic thickness.
It's about the size of a standard D-cell, and, as it turns
out, it holds about the energy of a standard D-cell, if
one fudges lots of factors.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
21 Aug 2004 07:17:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
If Saddam Hussein had threatened the world supply of capacitors would we
have gone to war in Iraq?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "FEerguy9" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 Aug 2004 11:57:10 PM |
|
|
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
So far!
If Saddam Hussein had threatened the world supply of capacitors would we
have gone to war in Iraq?
Hahaha. Good point.
But, then, we are not using eer yet.
Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
24 Aug 2004 04:18:35 AM |
|
|
In article <20040824005710.05710.00003674@mb-m14.news.cs.com>, (FEerguy9) writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
So far!
No, not so far. Forever. When you examine the mechanisms involved,
you see that this is inevitable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
24 Aug 2004 09:20:04 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<LJDWc.60$45.10909@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <20040824005710.05710.00003674@mb-m14.news.cs.com>, (FEerguy9) writes:
wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
So far!
No, not so far. Forever. When you examine the mechanisms involved,
you see that this is inevitable.
Ok... that's very interesting!
The "energy" stored in all three of these devices amounts to the
potential of electrons to move around from less thermodynamically to
more thermodynamically favored sites (the obnoxious shudder quotes are
supposed to call attention to the academic preferability of "ability
to perform work", since it's really entropy changes which drive
reactions, and the energy involved may come from the environment).
So why are some ways of storing non-equilibrium electrons better than
others?
There is a little bit of apples and oranges thing going on between
hydrocarbons and batteries: energy release from burning fuel depends
on external oxygen, which we may or may not want to include in the
package when calculating "efficiency", depending on our goals. Also,
more of the energy output of a battery is available to do work, since
a quantity of charge available to flow through a certain potential
drop essentially is pure ability to work, whereas heat from burning
fuel is subject to Carnot cycle restrictions.
Which said, an air-sucking fuel burning fossil eater can still
apparently outperform the best battery powered car in existence in
just about every category simultaneously! At least I haven't seen any
battery powered muscle cars yet ... :-)
I set out to ask a question, but veered into an essay: but my question
was going to be, how can we see on the back of an envelope that
cramming a lot of strange electrons together on a metal plate is
inherently a lower density storage mechanism than allowing them to
remain in the bosom of their molecules until the day comes when they
must pack up their spins and migrate to some other molecules?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
25 Aug 2004 01:47:23 AM |
|
|
In article <eca320d0.0408241820.2ed97119@posting.google.com>, (Edward Green) writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<LJDWc.60$45.10909@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <20040824005710.05710.00003674@mb-m14.news.cs.com>, (FEerguy9) writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
So far!
No, not so far. Forever. When you examine the mechanisms involved,
you see that this is inevitable.
Ok... that's very interesting!
The "energy" stored in all three of these devices amounts to the
potential of electrons to move around from less thermodynamically to
more thermodynamically favored sites (the obnoxious shudder quotes are
supposed to call attention to the academic preferability of "ability
to perform work", since it's really entropy changes which drive
reactions, and the energy involved may come from the environment).
So why are some ways of storing non-equilibrium electrons better than
others?
There is a little bit of apples and oranges thing going on between
hydrocarbons and batteries: energy release from burning fuel depends
on external oxygen, which we may or may not want to include in the
package when calculating "efficiency", depending on our goals.
Yes, that's true. Still, since we're dealing here with practicality,
not pure academic consideration, I would say that when the external
oxygen is freely available at no extra effort, it is not part of the
mass that needs to be dragged around. Under special situations when
it is not available (as an ex-submariner, I'm sure you're familiar
with such), then it is an another story.
Also, more of the energy output of a battery is available to do work, since
a quantity of charge available to flow through a certain potential
drop essentially is pure ability to work, whereas heat from burning
fuel is subject to Carnot cycle restrictions.
Yes.
Which said, an air-sucking fuel burning fossil eater can still
apparently outperform the best battery powered car in existence in
just about every category simultaneously! At least I haven't seen any
battery powered muscle cars yet ... :-)
Batteires utilize chamical reactions with quite shallow potential
wells, such as can be easily activated under ambient conditions.
Convenient, but not much energy there.
I set out to ask a question, but veered into an essay: but my question
was going to be, how can we see on the back of an envelope that
cramming a lot of strange electrons together on a metal plate is
inherently a lower density storage mechanism than allowing them to
remain in the bosom of their molecules until the day comes when they
must pack up their spins and migrate to some other molecules?
Well, consider the capacitor as a device characterized by total stored
energy (positive) and total binding energy (negative). Once the
balance of the above is positive, there is an overwhelming tendency to
exchange said balance for kinetic energy, with explosive results. So,
at best, the amount of stored energy cannot exceed the chemical
binding energy. But, since local imbalance suffices for an explosive
disassembly and since the materials used are never perfect single
crystals, you cannot store more than a small fraction of the total
binding energ before the thing goes to pieces.
Same argument works for kinetic energy storage (flywheels). There,
again, the best you could do (for a perfect, single crystal flywheel)
is store an amount comparable to the total binding energy, and in
practice you end up about two orders of magnitude lower.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: eer |
23 Aug 2004 11:01:45 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Robert J. Kolker
<robert_kolker@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:17:06 GMT
<2CRVc.165074$8_6.112995@attbi_s04>:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Which, in turn, are couple of orders of magnitude worse than
hydrocarbons.
I'd have to look but U235 or plutonium is probably the best
in current technology; I'm not sure if we'll get better
energy density from fusion although there's far more fuel.
Yup. On a per kilogram basis energy stored in oil and lumps of coal beat
storage batteries and capacitors.
If Saddam Hussein had threatened the world supply of capacitors would we
have gone to war in Iraq?
How precious *is* vanadium? :-)
Bob Kolker
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
