On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:57:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
Basically just to water livestock. They pumped it up into the tank
when wind was available and watered the livestock from the tank when
it wasn't. They did not use it's return to earth as an energy source.
with an efficiency loss
with an efficiency loss
with an efficiency loss
Get those pesky losses under control and you have a perpetual motion
machine that goes and goes but has no useful output. Wonderful. Write
it up and send it to 0bama.
Pumped storage has been used for at least 70 years. They use excess
energy from the grid when it's available rather than build a whole
parallel infrastructure to run the pumps. It's not efficient but it
does conserve water and stores some energy that would otherwise be
"The only way to store a significant amount of energy is by having a
large body of water located on a hill relatively near, but as high as
possible above, a second body of water."
However, in many cases, the cost of pumping the water to the higher
source is usually higher than any savings from the flow back into the
lower source. But, yes, it will store it. ;)
One of the buildings I worked in in California had the top floor as a
large water reservoir. If the electricity got interrupted, the water on
the upper floor could be drained through the sprinkler system for fire
I hope NOT.... I think I was saying that more energy in and you get
more energy out. To get what might be enough for a typical useful
energy supply. It looked like you were telling me that a battery would
charge and do the same as the size I was suggesting so I was upping the
amount of energy and thinking 2 or 3 batteries would be closer to being
useful and to do that you need to maybe increase the speed of the cycle
or the number of gallons. To do that you have to pump more water and
that takes more solar and wind. The lifted water is only storage of
energy it never created any energy.... So I'm replacing the batteries
with the elevated water, is all. The batteries have a short life and are
toxic waste with the lead/acid and they don't store all that much energy
and yet neither did the elevated water(not as much as I had been
guessing) but there are ways to increase the waters stored energy, and
you can do it without buying more batteries and dealing with more lead
and acid and throw away batteries that last only 4 or 5 years.
Not that water lifted is the best option but it's an option and given
all the eco-socialist pet peeves, we need to examine all the options.
I still like it and I don't think its the best for all situations but I
think the elevated water is NOT bad.
The solar would be storing the energy by lifting the water. to use that
energy the gravity turned a generator. It only needs to generate when
there isn't enough sun or wind to supply the electric you are drawing.
You'd only need enough solar/wind capacity to keep one tank always
full. And being on the grid would make the whole concept redundant,
it's for storage and a link to the grid makes the need for storage a
The place where I was wrong is that more than one rotation per day would
mean you need to pump water at night and then you're back to what if
there is NO wind.
The way to make it a more stable energy source is to make the water
The better idea rather than moving the tank with gravity is to move the
water and use a water driven turbine to turn the generator. The tank
atop a multi-story building or up a hill and the turbine at the base
only make it turn the generator while you use electric and when the load
drops the water stops. But then that's back to pumped storage like you
can do large scale with an upper and lower dam.
1 cycle every 2 days means that you need 2 days of no wind or sun for it
to run down.... so it would require more water or more elevation or a
combination to get the 2 day cycle. The idea being to make it more
stable than batteries where you may need a lot of expensive batteries
over 30 years and yet the water being pumped to store the energy for a 2
day storage capacity may be cheaper over the long haul of 30 years of
maintaining enough batteries to do the same thing. Batteries are cheap
enough today but what will they cost in 15 years after the EPA is done
The big question is will something fantastically cheap and easy come
along and make this water/solar engine useless and make it a waste of
money or more hassle than it's worth?
So basically now you're talking 100 to 150 tons of mass.
What is going to be your structural support? How much will it cost in
materials and fabrication? How will you insure safety not only for the
operation but from children getting into the works?
Do you suppose they would allow this in your average suburban neighborhood?
Increasing the speed of the cycle doesn't increase your overall power. It
just means you're having more charge/discharge cycles.
Well, we're already at over 1,500 gallons simple to replace 2 golf chart
batteries that cost about $120.
How much do you plan to spend on your water tower, and do you suppose your
neighbors would complain?
Yep, so now your generating plant has become larger and more expensive......
Yep, and you've got to pump a lot of water and/or pump it very high to make
the energy storage really significant.
How much do you suppose all this would cost?
Great, less storage for more expense and less suitable for people to use.
About 8 years, longer if you don't subject them to as many deep discharge
More than your 10 ton block, or an equal amount of water....or do you plan
to put up a 200 foot tower in your backyard?
Sure, you can increase the height. Do you suppose the neighbors would object
to you building a 200 foot water tower in your backyard, assuming you can
get the permit to do it?
Only if you're subjecting the batteries to a continuous series of deep
discharge cycles. If you limit it to 50% or less, you can easily get 8 years
And for what your project would cost they could buy replacement batteries
for the rest of their lives and still have money left over.
It's been examined and for the small scale being considered....not worthy of
Then you go right ahead and start building that water tower in your
backyard. How many 10s of thousands of dollars do you suppose that will cost
Except you can't be assured that you will always have the sun out or the
wind blowing. As such, you can't insure that one tank will always be full.
Oh, and if you've got enough capacity to pump enough water all the time to
run the generator....why don't you just use the power from the solar panels
and hook your generator directly to your windmill?
What advantage to you seen in introducing additional loses into the system,
if you're not using it purely for energy storage?
Unless the grid is down, when means you're down anytime the sun is down and
the wind isn't blowing.
Maybe we need some sort of energy storage to handle those sorts of events?
Doesn't matter if you spin it like a freaking ferris wheel. You are not
going to generate any more power than your solar/wind generation capacity
will provide. The ONLY purpose of your 'wheel' is as an energy storage
device, and it's storage capacity is limited by the potential energy of the
mass at some elevation. Once that mass reaches the lowest
How does slowing it down alter the stability of your solar/wind generation
Sure, everyone lives next to a multi-story building that will let you put a
big tank that when full is going to weigh many tons on their roof, and of
course if you don't live there then naturally you have a big hill right next
to you and no one is going to mind that you run a pipe through their
property and put a big water tank at the top.
Meanwhile, back in reality......
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:31:28 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
If you have solar energy at the moment, just use it. Skip all the
extra steps; they just cost you efficiency.
That was my point. One solar cycle per day is all you get. Anything
else is foot shuffling. If you bye more solar, you have more energy,
as you say. But you can't run multiple solar cycles per day.
Realistically most work is done in the day time, so direct consumption
would be the rule.
A little lighting, some security, and maybe some sort of domestic
water would be all you would need and that's small stuff. A pressure
tank on the latter will take that out of the picture with reasonable
Electronic loads are small stuff compared to heating or doing
mechanical work. You can even have some TV.
Science is not about consensus. Consensus has never been a part of
science. It's just stupid for idiots to go around saying "9 out of 10
scientists" blah blah. So what?
The science loop is something like
Where is the consensus???
Since no theory can be proven, only disproven, how can it be anything
but a consensus? The basic premise says we can never know "for
Two scientists may "hypothesize" differently. They may "analyze"
differently. Which gets more weight - factor A or factor B?
Why "share" if you are not open to disagreement?
In the hard sciences a theory is sufficiently "proven" if it explains
all observations and experimental results and its predictions are
correct. Newton's Law of Gravity is a good example even though we have
to make relativistic corrections near the speed of light.
The soft sciences haven't mastered precise measurement and fall back
on a faith-based consensus to establish "truth".
Mar 2014 11:24:11 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
For some reason, people seem to believe that all it takes is one
little bullet (okay, a not so little bullet in the case of a 50 BMG)
and - ka-bloowie! Too many movies. Even shooting a tank truck
full of gasoline with tracer rounds isn't going to get that to happen.
But tracer, or incendiary, or Rofus rounds into the proper fuel
air mixture - that can be spectacular. Heck, put a lighter flint in
the hollow of a twenty two long rifle, and strike metal ....
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
That would be contrary to everything I've read so far. And it is not the
conclusion of the article you reference. Over half the zeppilins were
destroyed. and they stopped coming. By any measure seems pretty succesful to
In any case the real problem was getting to the zepps. Climb to altitude was
long, performance suffered at altitude adn pilots suffered from oxygen
depravation the higher they got.
Plenty of zepps and observation ballons burned under fire.
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
"Any one of these bullets was only marginally effective when fired at
a zeppelin, but when mixed, they formed a lethal combination. The
explosive rounds blew holes in the zeppelin's gas cells, allowing the
hydrogen to escape and mix with the oxygen outside, forming an
explosive mixture. The incendiary bullets then ignited the mixed
gases! This new "mixed ammo" sequence was to become Britain's wonder
weapon against airships."
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.