Use 2000w to produce 4000w....

[HempKat]

It does have failures. Please tell me, are you talking from intuition or have you actually researched this.
Not only does it fail on non-linear components (diodes, semiconductors etc) it fails elsewhere.
You should read this.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20025897?seq=2

Have you read it? I mean basically from what the first several pages say alot of people believed and sought to prove Ohm's law was faulty with little success and using alot of questional supposition. I imagine if you decide something is a certain way and then set out to prove it and arbitrarily set the conditions as to what is and isn't proof then you could probably prove most anything faulty.

Lol ok buddy. How am I supposed to know what a typo is and isn't? They offer that in a BA if you didn't know. And if you said BA why am I supposed to assume it was BS.

Well gosh you got me stumped as to what your problem is then? I mean if they offer it as a BA or a BS then why the questioning of it earlier? A degree in electronic technology is a degree in electronic technology. At the school I went to it was only offered as a Bachelor of Science. So to be honest no, I didn't realize they offered it as a BA Degree and my use of BA Degree was a typo. You just seemed to be surprised I said BA Degree as if you were expecting it should be BS Degree. So to me, not knowing they offer it as a BA at some schools, it seemed to me the more logical conclusion to jump to would be that it was a typo. I mean especially with this being a canna site and most people are usually stoned while they're here. In case you hadn't noticed typo's are quite common here.

Clearly though you are not interested in discussing the topic and I'm getting board with your psuedo intellectual act.

 

[ixnay007]

Who said it was free though? I don't recall anyone here saying wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, etc are free. I have heard people in favor of these things incorrectly imply they were free but not in this thread. Therefore it seems as if you and Frozenguy are just itching to jump on any discussion of such energies assuming that because some people who favor these things thought wrong that everyone who favors these energies must also share the same incorrect understanding of them.

I doubt anyone though really thinks they're totally and truely free but rather in comparrison to petroleum they seem like they are. Such as Solar is free in that it doesn't have to be mined or drilled for and that nobody can control the sun to control the supply and demand of solar energy. People that make that point aren't including the costs of building and maintaining the equipment needed to make use of solar energy. Of course when people talk about drilling for oil how often do you hear people factor in the costs of all the extraction equipment or the cost of the refineries to convert crude into a more useable form.

Page 13 (for example, I've got nothing against rives):

I don't understand where you are coming from with your "it's not free" argument. Sunshine is free. Wind is free. Ocean currents are free. The equipment to capture and direct the energy certainly will have a cost, but the energy is free. If you grow in a greenhouse, there is a capital outlay for the structure, but the energy is free. Are you referring to the associated infrastructure and maintenance costs?

Most of the costs wrt refineries transport etc, are already paid for, so that cost isn't usually considered.

Anyhow, I'm not here to argue, I just get itchy when I see people say things like free energy.

 

[HempKat]

Page 13 (for example, I've got nothing against rives):



Most of the costs wrt refineries transport etc, are already paid for, so that cost isn't usually considered.

Anyhow, I'm not here to argue, I just get itchy when I see people say things like free energy.

Yeah well like I said, free in comparrisson to oil because nobody owns the sun, wind, oceans to be able to control them and how much energy you can collect from them. That doesn't seem to be the same kind of free as when one is discussing the cost to environment or the cost to install the equipment. The cost of installing equipment would be like the refineries in comparrisson as they all turn the raw energy into a more usable form. So if it's fair to consider the refineries bought and paid for and not part of the equation then it's fair to not count the solar panels or wind turbines in the costs of solar and wind energy.

 

[Buju09]

Just read every fucking line of this masterpiece. Frozen Guy, Anti and Rives I have limited knowledge regarding electrical engineering, physics thermodynamics any of the major topic, but you guys have made an argument in terms that I seem to understand.

I don't see how people won't just agree with the simplicity that, no matter what with the op's product find, you are using power from the wall, even with line conditioning, the used power is extracted from some conventional source that has carried a cost of refining and delivering it. The 1hr rest per 8hr seems like a sign that it probably isn't instantly doubling the value of you're input but trying to store enough energy and possibly never let the batteries get so low as to risk the system failing to recharge or something along those lines. ( perhaps anti was right about the black hole )

Regarding the electric motor and alternator with deep cycle batteris, even if you use batteries to store energy, in that theorized 200w 4000rpm motor idea that refused to take in to account the clear statement at the higher power consumption on the alternator it would require more torque to turn resulting in probably much higher rpm requirements burning out this motor. Even though it was chosen cause it was twice the rpm of a idle motor, does that take in to account the horsepower output from the gas motor in the car that was being burned to power the alternator rotation. Again the need to be constantly feeding energy that has been transferred at a cost involving losses, that probably won't be made up by the alternators efficiency, which some how would be keeping the batteries at a charge the could maintain some high enough constant load to power lets say 1000w hps. Which would be what, the 200w motor creating 5 times the power input, it be great. I think the wattage of the motor would have to Representative of a 4k watt gas generator to produce the needed torque on alternator, as the rpm of each type of motors may play differently it the output of energy.

Even with limited understanding I think its hard to believe 11000w were coming out at constant load or even at peak load on his friends tricked out car or w/e sorry if I misread something there, either way that energy is being sustained heavily by a gas motor, IMO.

Regarding the wind energy, specifically the wind turbines, I am sure the turbines are designed aerodynamically cause if they weren't the wind and its power that I agree we do siphon off of, would rip them the fuck out of the earth and has destroyed them before.

The blades have to be somewhat aerodynamic to spin, and so is direct loss in transfer of energy right of the bat in my opinion from what I've grasped through the theories here. Also I would assume the fluid dynamics would mean that the wind will move to a path of least resistance or something along those lines which would tie to drag and lift on the blades which is probably an added efficiency, that we could add back into the wind starting to turn our blade and sustain it with our added efficiency.

However the wind will probably do what it does to many things that try to block it fully, and that is destroy them, move them, and shape them examples are tornadoes, or prevailing winds that effect currents, just forms of the energy transferring, the wind itself generated by another system of energy transfer and all probably at loss from its inital fuel source ( the sun, magnetic waves, heats given off from the core w/e it may be). The earth is even eroded via the wind, shaping the mountains, and those cliff faces etc, energy being transferred again or even siphon'd directly out of the wind itself by the earths resistance the same ideas that would stack up in the mass fields of turbines relating to the effects they could have on wind patterns which probably like ocean temperatures have a tipping point in which once hitting a certain threshold starts major changes.

Either way, Energy creation requires fuel, or a fuel source, the sun, plutonium, and most fuels require refining, all need a method of delivery whether it be off the grid or not. Energy can't be had for free, because it required technology, all which was made in part by using less energy efficient methods of power creation that developed the populations who discovered such technologies and its applications. You could say before cars we were storing energy in horses, growing food that was siphon'd or processed by plants via photosynthesis that fed those horses, who plowed the fields and brought produce to markets.

I can't even say for sure its more efficient to use giant machines to plow fields etc energy wise, but its is efficient on a corporate model and maximizing you're profits.

Perhaps you could say the quicker you want to transfer that energy the less efficient its going to be, I wonder how efficient a plants photosynthesis is compared to the energy produced as we metabolize carbs. My guess would be the plants absorb the energy from the sun more efficiently then we can metabolize the carbs, would this be another direct example of energy being less from one conversion to another.

Or simply put the energy input > output

I guess I'm sorry to rant, and if you disagree with what I've assumed upon read you're posts Anti, Frozen and Rives, do object as its 9 am and I've been reading stoned for hrs lol.

It just seems pretty black and white, to me that you guys have never even being dismissive in you're reasoning's, just trying to clarify clear misconceptions about the science behind things people are saying in this thread like their facts.

 

[Buju09]

Yeah well like I said, free in comparrisson to oil because nobody owns the sun, wind, oceans to be able to control them and how much energy you can collect from them. That doesn't seem to be the same kind of free as when one is discussing the cost to environment or the cost to install the equipment. The cost of installing equipment would be like the refineries in comparrisson as they all turn the raw energy into a more usable form. So if it's fair to consider the refineries bought and paid for and not part of the equation then it's fair to not count the solar panels or wind turbines in the costs of solar and wind energy.

I don't mean to state this like a fact but I believe, the price of barrel of oil, will cover its production costs, and pay for refineries and transportation. These companies make money no matter how inefficient the transportation to its end use is, they make you pay to cover the difference always they ain't selling at a loss very often unless they plan to go bankrupt fast. So of course the costs of buying, setting up, maintaining, running and connecting the power lines form the batteries (also another cost sometimes) to you're house. Doing all of this made it possible for you to harness the free source, not free of cost energy. Not sure if that has been discussed did see it get covered by Frozen, and another fellow. But because it's a free source, doesn't mean you could harness it for free. If anything you can now start to earn back you're investment made by how much electricity you produce creating savings for yourself and then possibly even make money on selling back to a grid.

People who have claimed they know people who create energy, that fucking great....that they've decided to not pay a corporation to harness energy they understood how to harness themselves. But they didn't create any of it for free, when they pay all of the investments of and maintain a production that covers maintenance of their system there now harness it for a profit, forget free cost. This also would follow the loss of energy as the sun can only give us so much energy from the distance it has to send it, to how efficient the batteries the store it as it captured and stored to batteries, giving us again a greater input then the output of energy

 

[lost in a sea]

I don't see were you're providing anything more so what makes you think you're in control?

in control ? lol,, im not here to educate you and everything frozenguy said still makes sense to me ,,

​

 

[Bluenote]

ii just think for that much money, the size, wieght, and just the look of it, it has to do something...i mean i dont know too many ppl who drop the same amount for a hyundai for a grow room ornament

Hhmmmm I dunno about that one , I'm old enough to remember the phototron or whatever it was , but then that's a Yugo comparison ( how to double the value of your Yugo................fill the fuel tank)....and we probably have all spent some money at one time or another for a gadget that turned out to be useless.

Package an old scam in a new "important" looking cabinet , tack on some new sensationalistic rhetoric and a hell of a price tag.......no different really from all the " magic bullet in a bottle" trend in the nute end of the industry.

 

[Bluenote]

I'm pretty sure hydro just needs 80' of drop to do the trick.

lw

Way , way too simplistic , define " drop" , and keep in mind that 80 foot of drop at 1 degree of angle gives you no velocity , you don't generate diddly with "still water" , unless of course you're pumping it to and through the hydro unit which brings us back to that circle again.

 

[HempKat]

I don't mean to state this like a fact but I believe, the price of barrel of oil, will cover its production costs, and pay for refineries and transportation. These companies make money no matter how inefficient the transportation to its end use is, they make you pay to cover the difference always they ain't selling at a loss very often unless they plan to go bankrupt fast. So of course the costs of buying, setting up, maintaining, running and connecting the power lines form the batteries (also another cost sometimes) to you're house. Doing all of this made it possible for you to harness the free source, not free of cost energy. Not sure if that has been discussed did see it get covered by Frozen, and another fellow. But because it's a free source, doesn't mean you could harness it for free. If anything you can now start to earn back you're investment made by how much electricity you produce creating savings for yourself and then possibly even make money on selling back to a grid.

People who have claimed they know people who create energy, that fucking great....that they've decided to not pay a corporation to harness energy they understood how to harness themselves. But they didn't create any of it for free, when they pay all of the investments of and maintain a production that covers maintenance of their system there now harness it for a profit, forget free cost. This also would follow the loss of energy as the sun can only give us so much energy from the distance it has to send it, to how efficient the batteries the store it as it captured and stored to batteries, giving us again a greater input then the output of energy

Like I'm trying to explain to others, when the people were saying free, they were talking in the sense that nobody can charge you for the sun or wind they weren't saying it was totally free with no costs anywhere. If that were true everyone would be using those energy sources. The biggest thing holding most folks back from going with solar or wind power is the high cost of getting the equipment set up to use it. So nobody here from what I can tell is under the delusion that it's free. However most of the arguments saying it's not free was in terms of the environmental impact. Such as putting up too many windmills or solar panels would change weather patterns. News flash people virtually everything man does to accomodate our species does and has done that. Ever wonder why cities with all their asphault and concrete buildings are typically hotter then the more rural areas on thier outskirts? As I've pointed out several times nobody anywhere is planning on building enough windmills in one spot to make an appreciable or measurable difference in weather patterns.

 

[HempKat]

in control ? lol,, im not here to educate you and everything frozenguy said still makes sense to me ,,

​

Didn't say you were trying to educate anyone either. I pointed out that you were just giving opinions like everyone else and therefore have no room to crticize others for doing the same or trying to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.

dont get bitchy now,, your not providing much apart from your opinion so be respectful,,

seems like simple science to me,,

As for who you believe, why is it you think I give a rat's ass who you believe? Believe or don't believe whoever you want, it doesn't change a damn thing other then how you feel.

 

[HempKat]

Way , way too simplistic , define " drop" , and keep in mind that 80 foot of drop at 1 degree of angle gives you no velocity , you don't generate diddly with "still water" , unless of course you're pumping it to and through the hydro unit which brings us back to that circle again.

I think it's fairly safe to assume he meant a drop straight down directly below from a height 80' up in the air, like most people's image of a waterfall. I assume his point was to suggest most people don't have the space and/or landscape to accomodate such a drop to make it viable.

 

[ixnay007]

Yeah well like I said, free in comparrisson to oil because nobody owns the sun, wind, oceans to be able to control them and how much energy you can collect from them. That doesn't seem to be the same kind of free as when one is discussing the cost to environment or the cost to install the equipment. The cost of installing equipment would be like the refineries in comparrisson as they all turn the raw energy into a more usable form. So if it's fair to consider the refineries bought and paid for and not part of the equation then it's fair to not count the solar panels or wind turbines in the costs of solar and wind energy.

I'm saying that any definition of free is wrong.

There is a cost, because the energy in wind, water and sunlight are not wasted, they serve a purpose, and nature makes use of that energy. It's an incredibly complex system, and predicting the actual costs is beyond me for sure, but I am sure it's not free.

I think the sources mentioned probably the best source of non polluting energy available, and much better than hydrocarbons in the short and long term, but anyone thinking that subtracting energy in any form from the environment is "free" needs to re-read their physics textbooks.

 

[foomar]

Small and micro hydro generators can work well on as little as a metre of head , if stream is large enougth it needs no head at all.

The PDF from this site is really worth reading if considering solar , but have water on the land , found under links.

www.cleanenergysolutions.co.uk

Seems a realistic apraisal of what is possible , lower payback time than solar and more DIY freindly.

Would have been a pretty useless post if they really required eighty feet of head , suggest you research the topic before dismissing it.

The energy of moveing water is a thousand times more than the same volume of air due to its mass , a cubic metre weighs a metric tonne and has high potential energy over as little as a metre head , to run modern turbines that are specifically designed for this application.

A small stream will do 4 - 6 kw on a metre head , if you create a small dam and fishing lake you could pull 10 kwh at the turn off a switch in winter , when the sun is poor for solar and needs no expensive battery bank.

If a real flowing river is on your property there are commercial systems that drop in from the riverbank , like undershoot mill wheels , that are efficient.


Chinese built systems are being used all over India to good effect , check ali baba for a huge range , quality is acceptable on the ones i have seen installed and they can be serviced and repaired in the field with basic tools and skills.

 

[HempKat]

I'm saying that any definition of free is wrong.

There is a cost, because the energy in wind, water and sunlight are not wasted, they serve a purpose, and nature makes use of that energy. It's an incredibly complex system, and predicting the actual costs is beyond me for sure, but I am sure it's not free.

I think the sources mentioned probably the best source of non polluting energy available, and much better than hydrocarbons in the short and long term, but anyone thinking that subtracting energy in any form from the environment is "free" needs to re-read their physics textbooks.

In a technical discussion of the word "Free" I'm inclined to agree with the points you're making. Again though the way it was used Free works because the point is being made in the sense of do you have to pay on a per use basis for the energy being used? Since the source of energy is there already (sun, wind) and not ownable by anyone to control access and charge on a per use basis, then in that context it is free, once you move beyond the cost of the equipment needed to harness such energy.

 

[gazine]

GreenÉKonum 4000w on kijiji montreal (kit hydroponique)really good

 

[el dub]

I'm pretty sure the 80' head referenced above (according to a friend) is what is needed for a small hydroelectric unit utilizing water pumped from a well and run down the side of a hill. Probably only good for those of us living in the mountains.

lw