Searching \ for '[OT] 300kW free-energy generator @ 25000 Euro' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=300kw+free+energy
Search entire site for: '300kW free-energy generator @ 25000 Euro'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] 300kW free-energy generator @ 25000 Euro'
2006\09\04@143413 by Mark Jordan

flavicon
face

http://www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page780.htm



2006\09\04@151129 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
"Powered by EMM" <grin> 300Kwh with no fuel.

---
James.



{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\04@151812 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

>
> http://www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page780.htm
>


"The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 300kw per hour
constantly." What are kw per hour? Some kind of energy accelerations (k *
joules/(hour^2))?

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\09\04@153710 by Steven Howes

picon face
part 1 342 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded quoted-printable)

> "The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 300kw per hour
> constantly." What are kw per hour? Some kind of energy accelerations (k *
> joules/(hour^2))?

I believe its the same as jigawatts... you need them for time travel. Normal watts dont work on flux capacitors.


part 2 2575 bytes content-type:application/ms-tnef; (decode)

part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2006\09\04@175810 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Maybe the radio station next to it will not that happy :-) I have seen a
windings that produced 'free' energy next to a few kilowatt RH antenna...

Tamas


On 04/09/06, Steven Howes <.....steveKILLspamspam.....poundbury.com> wrote:
>
> > "The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 300kw per hour
> > constantly." What are kw per hour? Some kind of energy accelerations (k
> *
> > joules/(hour^2))?
>
> I believe its the same as jigawatts... you need them for time travel.
> Normal watts dont work on flux capacitors.
>
> -

2006\09\04@180938 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 9/4/06, Steven Howes <EraseMEstevespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpoundbury.com> wrote:
>
> > "The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 300kw per hour
> > constantly." What are kw per hour? Some kind of energy accelerations (k
> *
> > joules/(hour^2))?
>
> I believe its the same as jigawatts... you need them for time travel.
> Normal watts dont work on flux capacitors.


I was shocked when I discovered that this is actually the correct way to
pronounce "gigawatts".  :)   Apparently the scriptwriters looked it up.

2006\09\04@190800 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 18:09 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:
> > I believe its the same as jigawatts... you need them for time travel.
> > Normal watts dont work on flux capacitors.
>
>
> I was shocked when I discovered that this is actually the correct way to
> pronounce "gigawatts".  :)   Apparently the scriptwriters looked it up.

I'm curious, where have you found that "jigawatt" is the correct
pronunciation?

Anybody who would say GB as "jigabytes" where I work would probably get
some laughs.

Just curious. TTYL

2006\09\04@200147 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> I'm curious, where have you found that "jigawatt" is the correct
> pronunciation?
>
> Anybody who would say GB as "jigabytes" where I work would probably get
> some laughs.


Looked it up in the dictionary.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/G0122400.html

This one lists both pronunciations, but I looked it up right after seeing
the movie, whenever that was.

2006\09\04@212501 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 20:01 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm curious, where have you found that "jigawatt" is the correct
> > pronunciation?
> >
> > Anybody who would say GB as "jigabytes" where I work would probably get
> > some laughs.
>
>
> Looked it up in the dictionary.
>
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/G0122400.html
>
> This one lists both pronunciations, but I looked it up right after seeing
> the movie, whenever that was.

Interesting. All I'd have to say is they are no longer up to date. I
have NEVER heard the metric prefix "giga" pronounced as "jiga", and this
is going back at least 20 years.

>From Wiki:
In the movie, the power required is pronounced "one point twenty-one
jigawatts". Although this pronunciation of "gigawatt" was once
considered the correct one, it is no longer the most common.

I'm even more curious now, does anyone on the list regularly pronounce
that word these days as "jigawatt" (or more commonly perhaps jigabyte)?

TTYL

2006\09\04@221332 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
A kW/h = 277.77r Watt/second e&oe
fwiw
(= J/s/s as suggested)


   R

>> www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page780.htm
>>
>
>
> "The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 300kw per hour
> constantly." What are kw per hour? Some kind of energy accelerations
> (k *
> joules/(hour^2))?

2006\09\04@221332 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> "Powered by EMM" <grin> 300Kwh with no fuel.

I couldn't see what they hoped to gain from such utter bunkum, till I
saw this page.

       http://www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page626.htm

Under the "300kw output per hour, designed for constant running.
400volt 3 phase 75amp per phase" [[do the sums]] whic is designed to
convince the little guys of the enormous capabilities of the company
you then find the health rings, water treatment and noise filters that
will be their stock in trade. Nobody even tries to buy their top shelf
products but their "existence" helps to gull the credulous


They even have a tracking solar panel water distiller, they say.
I'd have thought it more economical to power this from an EMM source.

       http://www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page1280.htm


These are not deluded cranks, these are just grasping greedy lying
exploiters with no concerns about the downside of their actions.
They should be selling nuclear power ! ;-)



           RM

2006\09\04@222959 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I worked for 16 years (70s, 80s 90s)at a microwave products company and
about 2/3 of the engineers pronounced it "jigawatts".  These guys were
from the likes of MIT (Radiation Labs), Harvard, Cal Tech and had worked
with folks that invented/developed microwaves & especially radar.  Bunch
of old farts!!!

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officerys
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*careyfisherspamspam_OUTncsradio.com <@spam@careyfisherKILLspamspamncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\09\05@004158 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/4/06, Mark Jordan <KILLspamenkiKILLspamspamcpovo.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.perendev-power.com/index_files/Page780.htm

With 30.000 euro you may buy your own solar generator with complete
internet automation in a solar field complex. 20 years guarantee for
the solar panel.

Someone interested ?

Vasile

2006\09\05@010013 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> They should be selling nuclear power ! ;-)


Hey! I resemble that remark...

...But part of the reason why I'm trying to "sell" nuke power is just to get
people started thinking about the /relative/ downsides of all the power
sources. Especially fossil fuels. It isn't that nuke power has no downside,
it is just that fossil fuel has many downsides that are being totally
ignored.

Now, these 300kW free energy people are failing to report a major down side
of their power source: Breaking the laws of physics is a MAJOR no-no. Right
up there with ****ing with the time space continuum.

<grin>

---
James.


2006\09\05@011900 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
>
> I'm even more curious now, does anyone on the list regularly pronounce
> that word these days as "jigawatt" (or more commonly perhaps jigabyte)?
>

Have always and will always pronounce it "jiga", as most I know of do.

I also say "shilo" instead of "kilo".

/Ruben

==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
RemoveMErubenTakeThisOuTspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2006\09\05@015445 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> > I'm curious, where have you found that "jigawatt" is the correct
>> > pronunciation?

>> > Anybody who would say GB as "jigabytes" where I work would
>> > probably get
>> > some laughs.

Consider

   gigantic  = jigantic and possibly even jijantic but not

           gye gan tic or gigg an tic.


If you used either of the latter it would be considered strange.
Usages obviously diverge.
As we know :-)


       Russell



2006\09\05@030456 by Luis.Moreira

picon face
Hi Herbert,
In Portuguese you pronounce it as "jiga" because a "g" followed by a
vole (except u) always reds as "J".
Best regards
               Luis


{Original Message removed}

2006\09\05@043241 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Herbert,

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:24:59 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:

>...
> I'm even more curious now, does anyone on the list regularly pronounce
> that word these days as "jigawatt" (or more commonly perhaps jigabyte)?

Certainly not!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@050849 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:24:59 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > I'm even more curious now, does anyone on the list regularly pronounce
> > that word these days as "jigawatt" (or more commonly perhaps jigabyte)?
>
> Certainly not!

Howard, thank you.

I learned the metric prefixes back in the days when integrated circuits
were a new thing, and the pronounciation has always been "giga" with
both hard g's.

Frankly I thought when the movie character was refering to "jigawatts" that
they were creating a nonsense term for "lots and lots of power".
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spamBeGonejayspamBeGonespamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\09\05@055734 by Steven Howes

picon face
> Frankly I thought when the movie character was refering to "jigawatts"
> that
> they were creating a nonsense term for "lots and lots of power".

*is starting to wish he had never made the joke*

2006\09\05@062455 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Steven,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:57:21 +0100, Steven Howes wrote:

> > Frankly I thought when the movie character was refering to "jigawatts"
> > that
> > they were creating a nonsense term for "lots and lots of power".
>
> *is starting to wish he had never made the joke*

That's the thing about the Internet - a throwaway line never gets thrown away!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@065121 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 17:53 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> >> > I'm curious, where have you found that "jigawatt" is the correct
> >> > pronunciation?
>
> >> > Anybody who would say GB as "jigabytes" where I work would
> >> > probably get
> >> > some laughs.
>
> Consider
>
>     gigantic  = jigantic and possibly even jijantic but not
>
>             gye gan tic or gigg an tic.
>
>
> If you used either of the latter it would be considered strange.
> Usages obviously diverge.
> As we know :-)

Well "giggantic" is something I have heard, it wouldn't be THAT strange
to my ears.

I guess this is just another example of WHY the english language is so
horrible to learn, the exact same letters can have vastly different
pronunciation that even differs depending on WHAT part of the english
world you come from.

Up until this point I thought "jigawatts" WAS a joke! :) I'm glad to
have been corrected. TTYL

2006\09\05@065555 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 22:00 -0700, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> > They should be selling nuclear power ! ;-)
>
>
> Hey! I resemble that remark...
>
> ...But part of the reason why I'm trying to "sell" nuke power is just to get
> people started thinking about the /relative/ downsides of all the power
> sources. Especially fossil fuels. It isn't that nuke power has no downside,
> it is just that fossil fuel has many downsides that are being totally
> ignored.
>
> Now, these 300kW free energy people are failing to report a major down side
> of their power source: Breaking the laws of physics is a MAJOR no-no. Right
> up there with ****ing with the time space continuum.

I'd have to disagree there. The "laws of physics" are NOT "laws", they
are simply a set of rules humans have made up that so far correspond
with the reality we perceive. There is nothing in them that guarantees
they are always correct. Hundreds of years ago there were other "laws"
which we now consider completely wrong (earth centric universe, flat
earth, etc.) and I'm certain that in a few hundred years at least a part
of our "laws of physics" will appear foolish.

TTYL

2006\09\05@065746 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:04 +0100, Luis Moreira wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
> In Portuguese you pronounce it as "jiga" because a "g" followed by a
> vole (except u) always reds as "J".
> Best regards
>                Luis

Hmm, interesting, thank you. What about people from the english world,
anybody from the english world regularly pronounce it as "jiga"?

This is neat! Up until this point I had NEVER heard it pronounced as
"jiga", except for the movie of course. TTYL

2006\09\05@073730 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:00:09PM -0700, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> > They should be selling nuclear power ! ;-)
>
> Hey! I resemble that remark...
>
> ...But part of the reason why I'm trying to "sell" nuke power is just to get
> people started thinking about the /relative/ downsides of all the power
> sources. Especially fossil fuels. It isn't that nuke power has no downside,
> it is just that fossil fuel has many downsides that are being totally
> ignored.

I'm not sure ignored is the correct idea here. It's more like "Riding the
wave of infrastructure and cheapness." Nuclear never got to cost breakeven
because of regulation. Overbearing regulation has continued because of a
combination of fear and Three Mile Island, which fueled it.

Two reports I remember reading includes the fact that there hasn't been new
nuclear construction in the US in over 20 years and that France has over
80 percent of the electricity generation via nuclear.

The average person just wants cheap energy without having to build an
entirely new infrastructure to get it. Solar and nuclear will only become
options when oil is too expensive to maintain. I agree that collapse is
going to be ugly.

BAJ

2006\09\05@081840 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Now, these 300kW free energy people are failing to report a major
>> down side
>> of their power source: Breaking the laws of physics is a MAJOR
>> no-no.

> I'd have to disagree there. The "laws of physics" are NOT "laws",
> they
> are simply a set of rules humans have made up that so far correspond
> with the reality we perceive.

Indeed.
And these people are breaking them.
There are no perceived realities associated with their claims.

They are liars and charlatans purporting to peddle wonder technology
pitched far above the reach or care of the average citizen so they can
wow them into buying their (no doubt not so) cheap junk magnetic
'healing baubles' and the like. They pray on the credulous and ill
informed. They are conmen of the most despicable sort (ie conmen :-) )
who know completely that what they are pedalling is complete and utter
rubbish. Even if some of it coincidentally works they know it's
rubbish :-).


       Russell

2006\09\05@081925 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Luis Moreira wrote:

> In Portuguese you pronounce it as "jiga" because a "g" followed by a
> vole (except u) always reds as "J".

Except a, o, u? (Which leaves e and i for the "j" pronunciation :)


FWIW, it seems that the Greek original used something closer to the "g"
sound. TakeThisOuTusmaEraseMEspamspam_OUTcolostate.edu/msg23248.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/RemoveMEusmaspamTakeThisOuTcolostate.edu/msg23248.html

OTOH, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga says "As giga is a greek word and
greek is a phonetic language it is pronounced with a soft G as in jiggle."
Not sure what the spelling of "greek" says about the factual quality of the
phrase.

I don't know Greek, so I can't say who is right (about Greek). The Greek
Wictionary entry is not of much help to me
http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B3%CE%B1%CF%82 :)

Gerhard

2006\09\05@091111 by Dave Lag

picon face

> With 30.000 euro you may buy your own solar generator with complete
> internet automation in a solar field complex. 20 years guarantee for
> the solar panel.
>
> Someone interested ?
>
> Vasile

Thats well within the practical lifespan of a solar panel- is it not?
D

2006\09\05@091204 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Now, these 300kW free energy people are failing to report a
> major down
> > side of their power source: Breaking the laws of physics is a MAJOR
> > no-no. Right up there with ****ing with the time space continuum.
>
> I'd have to disagree there. The "laws of physics" are NOT
> "laws", they are simply a set of rules humans have made up
> that so far correspond with the reality we perceive. There is
> nothing in them that guarantees they are always correct.
> Hundreds of years ago there were other "laws"
> which we now consider completely wrong (earth centric
> universe, flat earth, etc.) and I'm certain that in a few
> hundred years at least a part of our "laws of physics" will
> appear foolish.


But keep your hand on your wallet when the http://www.steorn.com folk drop around
for a chat about these laws.

Even better, claim that you're broke!

Tony

2006\09\05@102959 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>20 years guarantee for the solar panel.

> Thats well within the practical lifespan of a solar panel- is it
> not?

I'd have thought that was a fairly enthusiastic guarantee but may be
doable. Actual lifetimes can be far in excess of that for
polycrystalline cells but at 20 years your implementation has to be
spot on or you get failures for secondary reasons.

The amorphous silicon cells die far far more quickly than that - a few
years to marked light induced degradation. This is the subject of
ongoing research.


       Russell



2006\09\05@113146 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
BAJ,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 07:37:11 -0400, Byron A Jeff wrote:

>...
> The average person just wants cheap energy without having to build an
> entirely new infrastructure to get it.

I don't know about "cheap" - I'd just like to pay the same this year as last!  (But then I've never been average...)

As a point of reference, my last bill was as follows (I think it's gone up again since then!)

All per kWh, including VAT at 5% (energy is the only thing that isn't 17.5% VAT).  
It's billed quarterly in arrears, and I pay by Direct Debit (these things alter the rate):

 16.18p for the first 225kwH used during peak times in a quarter
  9.975p for anything beyond the above used during peak times
  4.331p for anything used during off-peak time

"Off-peak" time is nominally 01:00 to 08:00 (mine is controlled by a timeswitch which has drifted!)

To convert those to USCents:  30.257 / 18.695 / 7.893

The annoying thing (*one of* the annoying things...) is that because the first swathe of usage is at the higher rate, any savings by cutting down
consumption happen at the lower rate, unless I can cut my consumption by about 85%!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@114442 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

Some people have "night storage" heating to take advantage of the cheaper off-peak rates, but I was just wondering if off-peak charging of batteries and using an inverter during peak hours would be viable?  Initial costs would be pretty high I guess.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\05@121334 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Some people have "night storage" heating to take advantage of
> the cheaper off-peak rates, but I was just wondering if
> off-peak charging of batteries and using an inverter during
> peak hours would be viable?  Initial costs would be pretty
> high I guess.

Reality check: if this were feasible, would you think all other people /
companies (especially the power companies) would not know this (and
act)?

I don't know the English term, but "piek schering" is one of the major
problems of electric power companies. If you solve this some alternative
energy sources, particularly wind, suddenly become much more attractive.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\05@122907 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 05 September 2006 17:13
>To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
>Subject: RE: [OT] 300kW free-energy generator @ 25000 Euro
>
>
>> Some people have "night storage" heating to take advantage of
>> the cheaper off-peak rates, but I was just wondering if
>> off-peak charging of batteries and using an inverter during
>> peak hours would be viable?  Initial costs would be pretty
>> high I guess.
>
>Reality check: if this were feasible, would you think all
>other people / companies (especially the power companies)
>would not know this (and act)?
>

Clearly it's feasable, but I guess not economicaly viable.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\05@130912 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
It should definitely be pronounced with a hard G if you use Attic or
Koine Greek (two of the most common ancient Greek dialects). The
section in the Wikipedia article is ambiguous. It says that "jiga" is
"a correct pronouncation" but then two sentences later it refers to
"giga" with a hard G as the correct pronounciation.

On 9/5/06, Gerhard Fiedler <RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\05@131256 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 00:17 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

There is NO doubt in my mind, that in this particular case they are
complete scam artists. My point is that just because somebody claims
something that "breaks the laws of physics", it does NOT prove that they
are scam artists. Yes, in EVERY case I've seen they have been scams, but
that doesn't mean anything.

There is also no doubt in my mind that at least ONE of the "laws of
physics" currently subscribed to by human kind will be "broken" this
century. Quantum mechanics ended up breaking numerous "laws of physics",
causing tons of redefinitions. TTYL

2006\09\05@140714 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>   16.18p for the first 225kwH used during peak times in a quarter
>    9.975p for anything beyond the above used during peak times

So basically, the more you use, the cheaper (on average) your energy is.
Hm...

Gerhard

2006\09\05@144312 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Mike,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:44:08 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> Some people have "night storage" heating to take advantage of the cheaper off-peak rates,

Yes, my house has one night storage heater, which is probably why Economy 7 was installed by the previous owners.  When I did use it, the heater
didn't do much more than stop the window above it freezing over, so it's been switched off for several years.  But I heat water with an immersion
heater, which operates on off-peak juice, and the tank stays hot enough through the day.  Over the last quarter my peak : off peak usage has been
about 2.1 : 1 - it would be nice if it was the other way round, the bill would have been 25% lower.

> but I was just wondering if off-peak charging of batteries and using an inverter during peak hours would be viable?  Initial costs would be pretty
high I guess.

They are!  :-)  I've been trying to get a scheme like this going for some time (with a bit of solar to help out), but the charger/inverter seems to have
arrived with a fault (from Taiwan, so I can't just post it back) and I'm swapping emails/photos/videos with them, trying to sort out the problem.  I'll let
you know how it goes!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@144953 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:13:27 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > Some people have "night storage" heating to take advantage of
> > the cheaper off-peak rates, but I was just wondering if
> > off-peak charging of batteries and using an inverter during
> > peak hours would be viable?  Initial costs would be pretty
> > high I guess.
>
> Reality check: if this were feasible, would you think all other people /
> companies (especially the power companies) would not know this (and
> act)?

Well storing the amount of energy that would be needed at the generating-company level would need a *huge* amount of batteries, and wouldn't be
feasible because of the scale.  But I'll report back how feasible it is on a one-house scale.

> I don't know the English term, but "piek schering" is one of the major
> problems of electric power companies. If you solve this some alternative
> energy sources, particularly wind, suddenly become much more attractive.

Peak spreading?  It's one of the reasons that "Economy 7" was introduced, along with storage heaters (they are heated up during 7 hours overnight
when there is low demand, and the electricity is charged at a lower rate, and give off the heat through the day).

Some generators (the companies, not the equipment) do some storage of energy when they can - there's a tidal generating site in France which uses
the tidal flow of water through a dam (in both directions) to generate electricity, and if there is low demand when the tide turns, the turbines are
electrically driven to push more water in or out, to store the energy for use later.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@145402 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gerhard,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:06:41 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Howard Winter wrote:
>
> >   16.18p for the first 225kwH used during peak times in a quarter
> >    9.975p for anything beyond the above used during peak times
>
> So basically, the more you use, the cheaper (on average) your energy is.
> Hm...

Well the cheaper per kWh, yes, but it still costs more the more you use!

Actually I didn't tell the whole story - there is a point where it gets more expensive again, but I don't have the figures for that (it's way above an
average house's usage and I've never triggered it).

As a matter of interest, what are peoples' average consumption figures?  Mine over the Summer was 850 kWh per month.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\05@160127 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 06/09/06, Howard Winter <HDRWSTOPspamspamspam_OUTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I'm just looking at last months bill -  21399 units for the year  or
1783/month.  2428 units for August- but it's winter time here. This is
for 2 adults & 2 teenagers & 100% electric hot water & heating.

RP

2006\09\05@185922 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> As a matter of interest, what are peoples' average consumption figures?
> Mine over the Summer was 850 kWh per month.

Around 500 kWh/month, for 2 adults and 2 ... hm... make that 4+ adults :)

Gerhard

2006\09\05@212842 by Aaron

picon face

Howard Winter wrote:

> As a matter of interest, what are peoples' average consumption
> figures?  Mine over the Summer was 850 kWh per month.
>  
>

Just got my bill today... previous year's usuage averages 1692 kWh.
High of 2260kWh last Janruary.  We have electric heat upstairs.
Low of 1377 kWh last September.
Electric water heater and clothes dryer.
2 adults and 2 young kids.
No central air, but a couple of window units in key rooms.
Average price is 9 to 10 cents per kWh.

Aaron

2006\09\05@214616 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I don't know the English term, but "piek schering" is one of the
> major
> problems of electric power companies. If you solve this some
> alternative
> energy sources, particularly wind, suddenly become much more
> attractive.

I've long thought that a home "gasometer" system should be viable -
miniature version of those used here for coal gas in days of yore. .
Electrolyse water to Hydrogen and store enough for a few days heating
demand. Oxygen a bonus. Done well any inefficiencies turn up as heat.
Some dangers storing Hydrogen like this but should be manageable. No
great pressures involved.


       Russell

2006\09\05@214616 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> As a matter of interest, what are peoples' average consumption
>> figures?
>> Mine over the Summer was 850 kWh per month.

> Around 500 kWh/month, for 2 adults and 2 ... hm... make that 4+
> adults :)

About 16,000 kWh pa = 1250 kWh / month

Daily for 2 month breaks starting at July last year are

44 40 38 38 41 58 66 kWh / day

That's with 4 adults at end and 3 at start of period.
All electric house & my stuff.
Energy saving bulbs throughout - but lots of lights always on.
4 PC's minimum typically on.

Current 66 kWh/day = 2.75 kW AVERAGE.
Too high.
Summer will reduce that.
Magic solar heating more so :-)


       Russell





2006\09\05@223735 by John Chung

picon face
Russel,
 4 PC's on? Downloading or playing games ? :)

John

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\09\05@232023 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>  4 PC's on? Downloading or playing games ? :)

'On'.

Office / work machine doing whatever including most of my email.
Family machine - general use and backup server.
My son's room - more heaviliy into games and recreational downloads),
Basement main workshop.

Other PCs (usually one of 4 laptops) as required. Sometimes other
desktops as well.



       Russell



>> Current 66 kWh/day = 2.75 kW AVERAGE.
>> Too high.

2006\09\05@235825 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>> what are peoples' average consumption
>> figures?  Mine over the Summer was 850 kWh per month.
>> '

2147 kWh; similar amount "this month last year"

Two adults, three kids.   Five computers, two of which are on
all the time.  Electric oven, washer dryer, pool pumps, and hot
tub.  (heat (which is off), water heaters, pool heater, and
half the stove are gas.)  On the plus side, almost all of
the lighting is fluorescent these days. A good thing, since
the lights tend to be on past 2am most nights.  Too many TVs
and VCRs and things.

The bill says "baseline usage" is 345 kWh.  (wow.)  We pay
per kWh on a sliding scale the goes up depending on how much
above "baseline" we use; the energy over 300% of baseline
usage (the top tier) is about 3x the cost of the baseline energy.

IIRC, our winter usage stays reasonably similar; the house heat
goes on but the pool heat goes off and the pump runs less.

BillW

2006\09\06@083013 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> I've long thought that a home "gasometer" system should be viable -
> miniature version of those used here for coal gas in days of yore. .
> Electrolyse water to Hydrogen and store enough for a few days heating
> demand. Oxygen a bonus.

Not really a "bonus", isn't it? Pretty much the same amount it generates it
also consumes when burning the hydrogen.

Gerhard

2006\09\06@094427 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I've long thought that a home "gasometer" system should be viable -
>> miniature version of those used here for coal gas in days of yore.
>> .
>> Electrolyse water to Hydrogen and store enough for a few days
>> heating
>> demand. Oxygen a bonus.

> Not really a "bonus", isn't it? Pretty much the same amount it
> generates it
> also consumes when burning the hydrogen.

No.
It can happily burn atmospheric Oxygen with no cost or great problems
and you can save the pure gaseous Oxygen for some other purpose if you
value it. The main difference is that using pure O2 you have no
emissions problems whereas with atmospheric Oxygen you get some
Nitrogen products - but not vast amount at near atmospheric operation.

Ideal for driving a Whispergen :-)

The following calculations (E&OE) suggest that a 2m tall x 2m diameter
tank (6 m^3) will store about 20 kWh of Hydrogen at essentially zero
pressure.
That's $NZ2-$NZ3 worth at present.  If you halved power costs due to
night store supply and cycled this daily thats an annual 'saving' of
around $NZ500 per year. You'd have to have economies of scale to make
that worthwhile - would probably support a $2500 - $4000 range price
tag all up. Done on  a very large scale this would help delay power
line upgrades and would thus have further economic benefits.

Quick calculation for use as a home peak-shifter.
Hydrogen combustion energy is about 39 kWh/kg.
1 kg = 500 mol =~ 11 m^3 at STP.
Hmm - a bit voluminous.
About 0.3 m^3/kWh at STP.
Compress that to 1 atmosphere above ambient and halve it.
To get say 20 kWh which is a useful heating load for 1 day for most
houses requires 6 m^3 at atmospheric, 3 m^3 at 1 atmosphere.

Even a 6 m^3 tank is "only" a 1.8 m per side cube or a 2m high by 2m
diameter tank - not overly large compared to many water tanks here.

You could store hydrogen over water with  floating tank with no bottom
or pump water in and out (lots of water) - maybe to a second tank or
use a bladder or bag. The latter is doable but liable to have a
shorter lifetime and Hydrogen diffusion is liable to be an issue.

Storage in metal hydrides would get volume down but add to cost and
other issues.


       Russell.. .

2006\09\06@101046 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:42:34 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
>...
> You could store hydrogen over water with  floating tank with no bottom
> or pump water in and out (lots of water) - maybe to a second tank or
> use a bladder or bag. The latter is doable but liable to have a
> shorter lifetime and Hydrogen diffusion is liable to be an issue.

Would the Hydrogen tend to dissolve in the water?  What would be a suitable material to stop the Hydrogen making its way through the tank itself?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@101912 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

Glass springs to mind, though I belive Hydrogen can leak through almost anything.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\06@120431 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> You could store hydrogen over water with  floating tank with no
>> bottom
>> or pump water in and out (lots of water) - maybe to a second tank
>> or
>> use a bladder or bag. The latter is doable but liable to have a
>> shorter lifetime and Hydrogen diffusion is liable to be an issue.

> Would the Hydrogen tend to dissolve in the water?

Not to any significant extent.

> What would be a suitable material to stop the Hydrogen making its
> way through the tank itself?

Anything with a decent density that's not chemically reactive with
Hydrogen would do. Thin or semiporous low density materials allow
Hydrogen diffusion at a distressing rate at low pressures. Normal
party balloons will lose an appreciable amount of Hydrogen through the
rubber in 12 hours. A balloon that floats in the evening will often be
on the floor by morning. Helium is not as bad and the balloons sold
for Helium use have less permeable rubber. A bit hard to make Helium
by electrolysis though and it doesn't burn very well in most gases :-)

Seams and joins are an issue for Hydrogen permeation - it treats
almost anything as an open doorway. A well built tank of quite
lightweight metal would do well enough over the time spans liable to
be relevant. There are almost certainly plastics that would be
suitable at a reasonable price. One thing to be watched is reverse
diffusion of Oxygen!. Much slower but it happens. This is something
the Hydrogen airship people tended to keep a watch on. Understandably.

A floating metal or plastic shell gasometer in water would do a good
job. It needs to be twice as tall as required capacity or to have
folding skirts or to have a "slot" for the storage float to fit into
when empty. Weighting the float could provide pressure if desired, but
it's probably better to build it to work at minimum pressure and pump
the gas.

Gasometer description here

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasometer

or operating principle only picture here

       http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Gasometer.png

       from the above page.

Nice big one (larger version of one on above page)

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gasometer_in_East_London.jpg

Gasometers at the oval - large picture

       http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Gasholders_at_the_Oval.JPG

I had no idea where "The Oval" was geographically until I saw the
famed Millenium Wheel in the background.






2006\09\06@124938 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:44:57 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

>...
> > What would be a suitable material to stop the Hydrogen making its
> > way through the tank itself?
>
> Anything with a decent density that's not chemically reactive with
> Hydrogen would do. Thin or semiporous low density materials allow
> Hydrogen diffusion at a distressing rate at low pressures.

Would plastic-coating the inside help, or are plastics a bit Hydrogen-porous?  What about enamelling (basically glass-coating) ?

> Normal
> party balloons will lose an appreciable amount of Hydrogen through the
> rubber in 12 hours. A balloon that floats in the evening will often be
> on the floor by morning. Helium is not as bad and the balloons sold
> for Helium use have less permeable rubber.

Over here Helium ballons seem to be made of metalised poyester these days.  Don't know if they're less permeable, but they are much easier to print
onto, and more decorative when they are.

> A bit hard to make Helium
> by electrolysis though and it doesn't burn very well in most gases :-)

Indeed - but then *I* didn't mention Helium!  :-)

> Seams and joins are an issue for Hydrogen permeation - it treats
> almost anything as an open doorway. A well built tank of quite
> lightweight metal would do well enough over the time spans liable to
> be relevant. There are almost certainly plastics that would be
> suitable at a reasonable price. One thing to be watched is reverse
> diffusion of Oxygen!. Much slower but it happens. This is something
> the Hydrogen airship people tended to keep a watch on. Understandably.

Quite.  In our case it would be useful to some extent, as long as the ratio didn't get too high and they were reasonably mixed, as it would help
combustion a bit.  You could have a fan to help the mixing, but you might end up with an Apollo 13 problem...


> A floating metal or plastic shell gasometer in water would do a good
> job. It needs to be twice as tall as required capacity or to have
> folding skirts or to have a "slot" for the storage float to fit into
> when empty. Weighting the float could provide pressure if desired, but
> it's probably better to build it to work at minimum pressure and pump
> the gas.

Well the float will have some weight, so you will get some pressure whether you like it or not (unless the hydrogen-in-air  buoyancy contributes
enough lift, which I doubt).  One thing you wouldn't do is have telescoping multiple-ring floats, like quite a few commercial gasometers do (see your
East London reference - the railings about half way up mark the join of two units).  Because these need seals between the rings, and I'm sure
Hydrogen would love that as an excape route.

> Gasometer description here
>
>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasometer
>
> or operating principle only picture here
>
>         upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Gasometer.png
>
>         from the above page.

I'm sure some others won't know what a gasometer is, but I've known them all my life.  At one time every town had its own gasworks, making "town
gas" from coal, with the attendant dreadful smell, and had a collection of gasometers to store the stuff.  When Natural Gas came in the gasworks
were dismantled, and some of the gasometers too, but about 25% of them remain in situ to form local storage of gas and act as "capacitors" to
smooth the supply/demand imbalance.  There are two only a couple of miles from here.  If you want some photos of those just ask and I'll take my
camera next time I go to the supermarket that's next to them!

{Quote hidden}

It's in Kennington, South London - second-most famous English cricket ground, after Lords, I'd say.  Scene of many an England Batting Collapse, but
also of the stuff... valiant defeat of Australia, resulting in our regaining The Ashes  :-)  The gasometers are always visible in TV coverage of matches
played there, as they are only a few feet from the fence.  Interesting to see how the gas/tank levels vary over time.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@163049 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:42:34AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> >> I've long thought that a home "gasometer" system should be viable -
> >> miniature version of those used here for coal gas in days of yore.
> >> .
> >> Electrolyse water to Hydrogen and store enough for a few days
> >> heating demand.

Interesting idea. It's little more that a couple of electrodes in water.
Any ideas what kind of loss you get in doing the conversion back and forth?

> The following calculations (E&OE) suggest that a 2m tall x 2m diameter
> tank (6 m^3) will store about 20 kWh of Hydrogen at essentially zero
> pressure.
> That's $NZ2-$NZ3 worth at present.  If you halved power costs due to
> night store supply and cycled this daily thats an annual 'saving' of
> around $NZ500 per year.

Now you're talking! I'm on a peak time of use plan. Cheaper in the winter.
Cheaper in the summer during off peak. Expensive (20 cents USD/kWh) during
peak time. Close the 2.5x the off peak price. Considered time shifting with
batteries, but it's an expensive proposition.

> You'd have to have economies of scale to make
> that worthwhile - would probably support a $2500 - $4000 range price
> tag all up. Done on  a very large scale this would help delay power
> line upgrades and would thus have further economic benefits.

Let's talk about one offs. The objective is cooling. So I see the cycle as:

1. Convert off peak power to hydrogen and store.
2. In peak time, burn the hydrogen either to produce electricity for cooling
or use the heat to drive a ammonia or Einstein cooling system.

Obviously all of this can be supplemented with solar heat/electricity. The
hydrogen can act as a buffer on the vagaries of solar.

Now if one off is the objective, how would one accompish these tasks? Here's
a bunch of questions.

1) Can hydrogen be stored in a water heater tank?
2) Can water pressure be used to push hydrogen around for burning?
3) Can somewhat higher pressures be safely used to store more hydrogen in
a somewhat smaller space? I know that's vague, but I'm just learning.
4) What parameters drives the speed of electrolysis? I've only done science
fair types with a dry cell and a couple of test tubes. I just read the
high temp hydrogen production page in the wikipedia. Won't work for simple
home generation.

Snippage.

BAJ

2006\09\07@035000 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I'll try and answer key points very rapidly (hard for me) as most
urgent work summons. May get back to a longer answer.

>> >> Electrolyse water to Hydrogen and store enough for a few days
>> >> heating demand.

> Any ideas what kind of loss you get in doing the conversion back and
> forth?

Electrolysis cells has voltage drop above the actual electropotential.
Depending on design I imagine this could be as little as 10%. Gargoyle
probably knows. This can be regained as heat from the water/gas. Even
if worse the 2.5:1 $ ratio makes moderate losses quite acceptable.

For cooling it MAY be worth trying to find a suitable chemical process
that can be driven one way by heat and cools in the other direction.

Burning can be close to 100% efficient - say over 90% - see eg UK
condensing boilers.


> Let's talk about one offs. The objective is cooling. So I see the
> cycle as:

> 1) Can hydrogen be stored in a water heater tank?

Yes.

> 2) Can water pressure be used to push hydrogen around for burning?

Yes

> 3) Can somewhat higher pressures be safely used to store more
> hydrogen in
> a somewhat smaller space? I know that's vague, but I'm just
> learning.

Yes
Watch diffusion.

**** In all cases watch air in the H2. Fatality easy ****

Hydrogen combustible mixes also flash back really well. There are
flametraps that work but normal ones may not. Not needed IF you keep
O2 out but assume always needed.

Some people make gas welders with fully mixed H2/O2 mix and superb
flsh back traps :-).


> 4) What parameters drives the speed of electrolysis? I've only done
> science
> fair types with a dry cell and a couple of test tubes. I just read
> the
> high temp hydrogen production page in the wikipedia. Won't work for
> simple
> home generation.

Liquid conductivity (additives used).
Electrode area.
Electrode resistance (probably not usually significant).
Potential.
Electrode masking by bubbles.
Available power.
Other ... .

I can refere anyone serious to a man who will provide plans for a much
faster than usual entry level elctrolyser, once he knows you are
competent enough to not kill yourself at least initially. (US
professor fwiw). But there will be lots on web re eletrolysers. Not
rocket science but some practical tricks - he designed his to power
rockets ;-).



       Russell.


2006\09\07@042043 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>1) Can hydrogen be stored in a water heater tank?

I think I would be tempted to try and pump it into an old propane tank. It
would need drying first though, but then a small pump like the ones you can
get for pumping up car tyres, that operate off the car cigarette lighter,
claim to be able to reach quite reasonable pressures.

2006\09\07@042932 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>**** In all cases watch air in the H2. Fatality easy ****
>
>Hydrogen combustible mixes also flash back really well. There
>are flametraps that work but normal ones may not. Not needed
>IF you keep O2 out but assume always needed.
>
>Some people make gas welders with fully mixed H2/O2 mix
>and superb flsh back traps :-).

I remember the episode of Rough Science where they were attempting to make
rockets out of soft drink bottles. The H2O2 mix flashed back inside the
bottle and melted it.

2006\09\07@050415 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:49 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Gargoyle probably knows.

Is "gargoyle" something new, or are you just making fun of Google?
("gargoyle.com" appears un-owned; maybe you should snap it up!)

BillW

2006\09\07@072525 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:20:38AM +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >1) Can hydrogen be stored in a water heater tank?
>
> I think I would be tempted to try and pump it into an old propane tank. It
> would need drying first though, but then a small pump like the ones you can
> get for pumping up car tyres, that operate off the car cigarette lighter,
> claim to be able to reach quite reasonable pressures.

Pressure and air are definite issues. The real problem with hydrogen storage
is how to safely store it in a KISS fashion. It seems at first glance that
storing hydrogen on top of water would be the cheapest and simplest way to
manage both keeping air out and pressure reasonable.

BAJ

2006\09\07@081010 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I remember the episode of Rough Science where they were attempting
> to make
> rockets out of soft drink bottles. The H2O2 mix flashed back inside
> the
> bottle and melted it.

It can be done if you don't try and overdo the energy levels.
Dr Dean Wheeler is your friend :-)

       Russell

2006\09\07@081010 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Gargoyle probably knows.

> Is "gargoyle" something new, or are you just making fun of Google?
> ("gargoyle.com" appears un-owned; maybe you should snap it up!)

A whimsical or cynical or ??? comment on the recent discussions re
Google not wishing one to use their name except in a form of their
choosing. I don't think they have any great claim to Gargoyling and it
would be fun if it caught on. Just remember where you heard it first
:-)


       Russell


2006\09\07@081011 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Pressure and air are definite issues. The real problem with hydrogen
> storage
> is how to safely store it in a KISS fashion. It seems at first
> glance that
> storing hydrogen on top of water would be the cheapest and simplest
> way to
> manage both keeping air out and pressure reasonable.

Generating it en situ in an old water filled Propane tank would allow
it to self pressurise. Mount tank vertically. Initially allow water to
expel out bottom vent as a gas head builds. Then close valve and allow
pressure to build to target maximum. Then incrementally release water
as gas increases to maintain required pressure. Pressure will drop
when you use gas but you will likely want exit gas at not much above
atmospheric for burning. Getting more water into tank will require
pumping against gas head unless you are prepared to allow tank to
depressurise to below mains water pressure and then use that to refill
the tank with water. You could use a header tank and use some gas
pressure each time to vent water to the header tank and thereby have
some local filling pressure. Not much though.

A CNG (compressed natural gas) tank or Aqualung tank will be rated to
far higher pressures. A CO2 tank is good for around 800 psi working.

*******BUT********** at high pressures beware Hydrogen embrittlement
of metals - this occurs as the H2 diffuses through the metal.

A gasometer has its disadvantages but may be less dangerous overall.

Re the idea of folding seams - coal gas can have substantial Hydrogen
content so gasometers have to be rated for Hydrogen. When air is blown
over coke you get CO (too much and you get CO2). This is exothermic
and bed heats up nicely. You then blow in water (steam) and this is
cracked to H2 and O2 The O2 makes more CO and the H2 joins the output
too. Output gas calorific value rises due to H2 but this process is
endothermic (no surprise) and bed cools until another air cycle is
needed.




       Russell



2006\09\07@160247 by Richard Prosser

picon face
I was thinking more of a gasometer type of thing made from a 44gallon
(220L) drum - or two.
I'm not sure what pressure it would be OK for but I'd imagine it would
be fine in the gasometer type situation.
1. invert drum
2. seal bottom with lid - this only needs to be watertight
3. arrange a water pipe from the bottom of the drum tto another one,
water filled & slightly elevated - open to atmosphere at its top.
4. Prime the lower drum by opening the gas feed pipe at its top (Allow
to fill with water from the top drum)
5 feed & retreive the hydrogen into the top space of the lower drum

By adjusting the height of the upper drum the pressure could be
increased (or by sealing its top the trapped air would balance the
hydrogen pressure and allow higher pressure operation - otherwise 10
metres of height would be required for every atmosphere of pressure..
I don't thisng a 44gallon drum would withstand too much pressure
anyway.
Might have fun getting a good seal in the first place?

RP

On 08/09/06, Russell McMahon <EraseMEapptechspamEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\07@215842 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> the tank with water. You could use a header tank and use some gas
>> pressure each time to vent water to the header tank and thereby
>> have
>> some local filling pressure. Not much though.

> 3. arrange a water pipe from the bottom of the drum tto another one,
> water filled & slightly elevated - open to atmosphere at its top.

That's exactly what I meant.
And the bottom drum can be completely sealed by whatever means are
desired except for bottom water pipe and top Hydrogen pipe. Existing
drums with brazed or welded fittings would work well.

This sort of gasometer would make a better bomb than some if things
went wrong.
They shouldn't go wrong as there needs be no direct air access to the
Hydrogen space. However, Murphy is, amongst other things, an arsonist.

Having a loose fitting bottom lid would allow the gasometer to become
a water rocket if the need arose.

220l of Hydrogen at 1 atmosphere is about 10 Mol or 20 gram or about
2500 Joule stoichiometrically combusted - which it wouldn't be. Say
you managed 1000 Joule, which would be bad management.

1000 Joule = 1000 Watt second = ~ 100 kg.m.

100 kg 1m in the air or
30kg 3m in the air or
10 kg 10m in the air or ... .

Maybe bottom venting isn't such a good idea :-).
An eg 15 kg gasometer barrel lifting to 6m would be 'interesting'.

Now, at stoichiometric ratio ...
How long to Guy Fawkes Day?
Where's my electrolyser ? ....



           Russell


2006\09\07@232343 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Reminds me of when I was (very) much younger.
A flatmete had a gas welding (oxy-acetylene) plant. He'd get a nice
neutral flame & then knock it out without changing the settings. Then
use the torch to blow up large rubber  ballons he aquired. The result
was about a 1/2 cubic metre of stoichiometrically mixed oxygen and
acetylene at just above atmospheric pressure. A newspaper would be
attached to the ballon & carefully lir by a match. We would then
retire to a reasonable distance and wait. The noise was truly
impressive. The first time was in Glen Innes and it onlt took about 5
mins for the cops to arrive. No-one knew anything of course!
Later trials were carried out at more remote locations but still
generally managed to stir the locals up a bit. Echos from distant
hills could last many seconds.
Guy Fawkes night was similarly enhanced.
I was always a bit wary about sitting in a car next to one of these
things in it's primed state - especially as some of my mates smoked at
the time.

One idea never put into practice was to fill one ballon with hydrogen
and use it to lift a noisemaker for an air-burst somewhere over
Auckland. Could have created quite a disturbance!

RP

On 08/09/06, Russell McMahon <@spam@apptech@spam@spamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\07@233358 by Jinx

face picon face
> One idea never put into practice was to fill one ballon with
> hydrogen and use it to lift a noisemaker for an air-burst
> somewhere over Auckland. Could have created quite a
> disturbance!

A fantasy I've had, only more along the lines of a UFO. Add
a micro and a few bright LEDs, let 'er rip in the dead of night

Some clown (not me that time) got the sack from the lab I
worked in when he filled a whole lot of black rubbish bags with
hydrogen, attached a saltpetre fuse, and let them float over
Otahuhu (mixed industrial/residential) in South Auckland. Almost
all of them caught fire in mid-air some distance away, but one
was blown onto Pacific Steel's enormous pile of sulphur. They
were not amused


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...