EER

F

FEerguy9

Guest
Electronic Electricity Repository



Just an idea from a novice about energy .......

It seems that the near-infinite energy all around the earth is mostly going to
waste, while we are still drilling for oil. Oil stores energy from the sun.
It is obvious to me that this same solar energy can now be captured as
electrical charge. As can wind, thermal, wave, tidal, stream, and several
more.

But how do we store that captured charge? That is, if we do not store it in
oil, as has been done for a long, long time, how DO we store it? How, for
instance, would we store it in an electric vehicle, in order to operate that
vehicle?

I suggest capacitance - of sorts. Before you laugh, please read on. (And,
please remember that I am not an electrical engineer - I am a retired IE, so I
do - at least - have a few of the EE basics.)

The big problem with this is capacitor plate size. There are others, but that
is the big one. If we wanted to put up with huge capacitor plates on top of
our vehicles, this would be EASY. But, that would never fly.

So, I suggest using STM technology to form exactly matching configured plates
to hold the charge. It is my understanding that STM technology is capable of
configuring on a molecular level.

Such configuration could maximize the matching flat plate area by "digging"
into innerspace with STM, and forming those plates there - in innerspace.

I believe that we could pack enough electrical charge in those plates to
operate an electrical vehicle. Remember that there are about 15, or so,
natural sources of that charge, so it is not just solar. And a continuous
imput of these various sources would assure an ongoing energy supply, stored -
as needed - from whatever selection of energy collection devices happens to be
used. And, that may vary, according to cost, need and location. That is, a
very sunny area may be inclined to invest in solar panels, a windy area might
invest in wind equipment.

I would guess that we could approach the energy density of coal or oil in the
storage suggested here, if it were done right. It just seems to me that oil -
in particular - is an ongoing problem in many ways, and that this might be the
way to get away from it as a vital necessity. Not to mention that this would
fit in nicely with the advent of electric vehicles.
 
FEerguy9 wrote:
Electronic Electricity Repository

Just an idea from a novice about energy .......

It seems that the near-infinite energy all around the earth is mostly --------------
You wouldn't have any idea how to do half of what you blather about.
And less grasp that much of it is not even possible, let alone
feasible.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040515213826.09103.00000539@mb-m17.news.cs.com...
So, I suggest using STM technology to form exactly matching configured
plates
to hold the charge. It is my understanding that STM technology is capable
of
configuring on a molecular level.

Such configuration could maximize the matching flat plate area by
"digging"
into innerspace with STM, and forming those plates there - in innerspace.
Ah, there it is. That's all we need are innerspace capacitors. That's only
one step from Warp 1, you know.

About the only material I could suggest for the substrate would be
dilithium.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
On 16 May 2004 01:38:26 GMT, feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote:


<SNIP>
So, I suggest using STM technology to form exactly matching configured plates
to hold the charge. It is my understanding that STM technology is capable of
configuring on a molecular level.
STM technology can be used to manipulate individual molecules,
although it would be *very* slow to build a capacitor with a large
surface area. But it doesn't address a fundamental problem, in
that as you make the dielectric thinner (down to single atoms with
STM, say), you make the dielectric breakdown voltage lower.
So the STM capacitor might have a whopping capacitance,
but would only work with very low voltages. I don't know if you
would get an appreciable increase in energy density, but even
if you did you would probably waste a lot of the energy in
conversion up to a useable voltage.

Just a thought....




Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
 
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040515213826.09103.00000539@mb-m17.news.cs.com...
Electronic Electricity Repository

Just an idea from a novice about energy .......
Actually, just a tired, way-too-often repeated crackpot notion
from someone who isn't just a novice - he refuses to learn
even the first thing about the field in question. And it still
does not and cannot possibly work as claimed. Ho-hum.


I suggest capacitance - of sorts. Before you laugh, please read on.
(And,
please remember that I am not an electrical engineer - I am a retired IE,
so I
do - at least - have a few of the EE basics.)
If you ARE an IE, then how did you manage THAT without
having math at least to a level that you claim not to understand
at all?

The big problem with this is capacitor plate size. There are others, but
that
is the big one. If we wanted to put up with huge capacitor plates on top
of
our vehicles, this would be EASY. But, that would never fly.
No, it's not plate size; it's the dielectric constant and dielectric
strength, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Plate size
is a relatively trivial concern in comparison. This comes DIRECTLY
from the fact that the energy storage in a capacitor is proportionate
to the SQUARE of the voltage at which the charge is stored, but
only linearly with the capacitance. Addressing plate size while
ignoring voltage is going after the wrong problem.


So, I suggest using STM technology to form exactly matching configured
plates
to hold the charge. It is my understanding that STM technology is capable
of
configuring on a molecular level.
Which is in no way going to address your primary concern.

Charge is NOT energy, and simply packing more charge in
a given volume is irrelevant.


Bob M.
 
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20040515213826.09103.00000539@mb-m17.news.cs.com>...

It is obvious to me that this same solar energy can now be captured as
electrical charge. As can wind, thermal, wave, tidal, stream, and several
more.

But how do we store that captured charge?

I suggest capacitance - of sorts.

The big problem with this is capacitor plate size. There are others, but that
is the big one.
Why is that a problem?

You want to store charge with the highest energy density, right?
To do that, you need a SMALLER capacitance with LESS plate surface
area, not the other way around.

If you put 1 coulomb of charge into a 1 farad capacitor, the voltage
will be 1 volt (q= cv =1) and the energy is 0.5 CE^2 = 0.5J (1/2 joule)

Now, if you put the same charge (1 coulomb) into a 0.5 farad capacitor
(A SMALLER CAPACITANCE WITH LESS SURFACE AREA), the voltage will be
v= q/c = 1/0.5 = 2 volts, and the energy is
0.5 ce^2 = .5 * .5 *4 = 1 joule which is twice as much as before.

So, it is obvious that increasing surface area using your STM ideas
or whatever will increase capacitance at the EXPENSE of net
ENERGY storage for a given charge. Not a very sellable idea.

But you already know this, you just don't want to give up
your ideas about massive plate surface area, because that
would break the heart of eer.

-Bill
 
"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0405171245.5c911b0@posting.google.com...

The big problem with this is capacitor plate size. There are others,
but that
is the big one.

Why is that a problem?

You want to store charge with the highest energy density, right?
To do that, you need a SMALLER capacitance with LESS plate surface
area, not the other way around.

If you put 1 coulomb of charge into a 1 farad capacitor, the voltage
will be 1 volt (q= cv =1) and the energy is 0.5 CE^2 = 0.5J (1/2 joule)

Now, if you put the same charge (1 coulomb) into a 0.5 farad capacitor
(A SMALLER CAPACITANCE WITH LESS SURFACE AREA), the voltage will be
v= q/c = 1/0.5 = 2 volts, and the energy is
0.5 ce^2 = .5 * .5 *4 = 1 joule which is twice as much as before.
So, a 1 microfarad charged to 1,000,000 volts stores a million joules?

Better be about 10 miles away when it discharges - and watch for gamma
rays!

Cool!
Rich
 
On 17 May 2004 13:45:41 -0700, wrongaddress@att.net (Bill Bowden)
wrote:

You want to store charge with the highest energy density, right?
To do that, you need a SMALLER capacitance with LESS plate surface
area, not the other way around.

If you put 1 coulomb of charge into a 1 farad capacitor, the voltage
will be 1 volt (q= cv =1) and the energy is 0.5 CE^2 = 0.5J (1/2 joule)

Now, if you put the same charge (1 coulomb) into a 0.5 farad capacitor
(A SMALLER CAPACITANCE WITH LESS SURFACE AREA), the voltage will be
v= q/c = 1/0.5 = 2 volts, and the energy is
0.5 ce^2 = .5 * .5 *4 = 1 joule which is twice as much as before.
Why would it have less surface area? Presumably you charge a cap to
all the voltage it can stand, so your "SMALLER CAPACITANCE" must have
a thicker dielectric to stand the extra voltage, so it needs more
surface area to make up for the smaller unit-area capacitance.

You are apparently arguing that smaller capacitors store more energy
than big ones.

The thing that stores energy is volume of dielectric. And a given
dielectric is limited by its allowable electric field gradient.

John
 
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in message news:<kmtia0djt3tmjph3bl95qqgjkgcumhlbij@4ax.com>...
Why would it have less surface area? Presumably you charge a cap to
all the voltage it can stand, so your "SMALLER CAPACITANCE" must have
a thicker dielectric to stand the extra voltage, so it needs more
surface area to make up for the smaller unit-area capacitance.

You are apparently arguing that smaller capacitors store more energy
than big ones.
For a given charge, yes.

The thing that stores energy is volume of dielectric. And a given
dielectric is limited by its allowable electric field gradient.

John
Yes, but Frank doesn't understand that. He can only equate
more surface area, to more charge, to more energy in a
smaller space. And small details such as limits on electric
field can easily be overcome with a stronger dielectric.

-Bill
 
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<INdqc.136693$G_.85789@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...

v= q/c = 1/0.5 = 2 volts, and the energy is
0.5 ce^2 = .5 * .5 *4 = 1 joule which is twice as much as before.

So, a 1 microfarad charged to 1,000,000 volts stores a million joules?
Actually, it's 500,000. You have to divide by 2 or multiply by 0.5.

Better be about 10 miles away when it discharges - and watch for gamma
rays!

Cool!
Rich

-Bill
 
Well what about a capacitor like the one on this website......
http://www.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datasheets/BCAP0350.pdf
 
"Irish LaidE" <irishlaide@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e06e0d1.0405181355.7623eb5c@posting.google.com...
Well what about a capacitor like the one on this website......
http://www.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datasheets/BCAP0350.pdf
OK, what about it? Frank likes to point to the Maxwell
technology as "evidence" that his EER notions AREN'T really
the silly, crackpot things they appear to be, but the two aren't
at all comparable. Maxwell's "Ultracapacitors," while certainly
impressive devices, are still orders of magnitude away from
the sort of thing that Frank is raving about, and even Maxwell
doesn't even come close to claiming that they could be used
as battery replacements in high-power applications. (Note
that their use in EVs is NOT to replace the primary battery.)

Bob M.
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:zx7qc.1679$Wc.198@news.cpqcorp.net...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040515213826.09103.00000539@mb-m17.news.cs.com...
Electronic Electricity Repository

Just an idea from a novice about energy .......

Actually, just a tired, way-too-often repeated crackpot notion
from someone who isn't just a novice - he refuses to learn
even the first thing about the field in question. And it still
does not and cannot possibly work as claimed. Ho-hum.


I suggest capacitance - of sorts. Before you laugh, please read on.
(And,
please remember that I am not an electrical engineer - I am a retired
IE,
so I
do - at least - have a few of the EE basics.)

If you ARE an IE, then how did you manage THAT without
having math at least to a level that you claim not to understand
at all?

The big problem with this is capacitor plate size. There are others,
but
that
is the big one. If we wanted to put up with huge capacitor plates on
top
of
our vehicles, this would be EASY. But, that would never fly.

No, it's not plate size; it's the dielectric constant and dielectric
strength, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Plate size
is a relatively trivial concern in comparison. This comes DIRECTLY
from the fact that the energy storage in a capacitor is proportionate
to the SQUARE of the voltage at which the charge is stored, but
only linearly with the capacitance. Addressing plate size while
ignoring voltage is going after the wrong problem.


So, I suggest using STM technology to form exactly matching configured
plates
to hold the charge. It is my understanding that STM technology is
capable
of
configuring on a molecular level.

Which is in no way going to address your primary concern.

Charge is NOT energy, and simply packing more charge in
a given volume is irrelevant.


Bob M.

There is no use explaining things to eerguy. It has all been done before-
repeatedly- and he still repeats the same old nonsense. Facts get in his
way.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message news:<S3xqc.1820$hK1.578@news.cpqcorp.net>...
"Irish LaidE" <irishlaide@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e06e0d1.0405181355.7623eb5c@posting.google.com...
Well what about a capacitor like the one on this website......
http://www.maxwell.com/pdf/uc/datasheets/BCAP0350.pdf

OK, what about it? Frank likes to point to the Maxwell
technology as "evidence" that his EER notions AREN'T really
the silly, crackpot things they appear to be, but the two aren't
at all comparable. Maxwell's "Ultracapacitors," while certainly
impressive devices, are still orders of magnitude away from
the sort of thing that Frank is raving about, and even Maxwell
doesn't even come close to claiming that they could be used
as battery replacements in high-power applications. (Note
that their use in EVs is NOT to replace the primary battery.)

Bob M.

Well, right now these capacitors are being applied in instantly
rechargeable toy cars that zip across your living room, and that is
about their limit. That is about the limit in propulsion use right
now, but it sure is a fun toy. You just can't get the energy you need
to run a car out of a capacitor.
 
"Irish LaidE" <irishlaide@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e06e0d1.0405210938.5fc383a4@posting.google.com...
Well, right now these capacitors are being applied in instantly
rechargeable toy cars that zip across your living room, and that is
about their limit. That is about the limit in propulsion use right
now, but it sure is a fun toy. You just can't get the energy you need
to run a car out of a capacitor.
Exactly. It's also fun to leave a charged high-voltage
cap in the chair of an unsuspecting co-worker, and that
has just about as much relevance to Frank's silly EER
notions as anything else...:)

Bob M.
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:10:27 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

"Irish LaidE" <irishlaide@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e06e0d1.0405210938.5fc383a4@posting.google.com...
Well, right now these capacitors are being applied in instantly
rechargeable toy cars that zip across your living room, and that is
about their limit. That is about the limit in propulsion use right
now, but it sure is a fun toy. You just can't get the energy you need
to run a car out of a capacitor.

Exactly. It's also fun to leave a charged high-voltage
cap in the chair of an unsuspecting co-worker, and that
has just about as much relevance to Frank's silly EER
notions as anything else...:)

Bob M.
We used to work with a guy that would pick up anything on his desk and
chew on it. Most annoying. We gave him an electrolytic one day. Fun!

John
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top