Temporary Announcement:
I'll be moving at the end of Nov. Regular postings may be suspended at the time, for an indefinite period of time.
This is for mine and everyone's future reference and can be commented on by Members:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10851.0
Here's the 'Web address of the YouTube video by itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcUZMKGWQR8
In a subsequent post to the initial one, the post author suggested that a capacitor replace the battery. Additionally, different sources of light could be used instead of an LED(fluorescent lamp, for example).
I'd say using this concept with other threads in this 'Bench' Forum could also be possible.
Also, more than one solar panel and also different colored LED's can be used.
NOTE:
In that regard, I tried to use Super-Glue on the small, brittle Radio Shack 2cm X 4cm solar cell (stock #276-124, $4.99/ea. and had such a hard time getting the thing to stay on at all that I gave up on that type of solar power source.
The encapsulated 6VDC, 15-50mA solar panel (stock #277-1205, $14.99/ea.) will have to do. I have 4 now. I measured one and determined that six panels placed next to each other in a 2ea. rows wide; 3ea. columns high arrangement, should ideally give one watt and have a square-shaped table footprint, with sides touching, of about 7 5/8" inches high and wide. These things waste a lot of space internally, so that one sq. yd. would give 25-28 Watts output. Given that a sq.meter of Death Valley receives about 1000 watts in the Summer noonday sun, this is pretty poor.
I have a selection of LEDs to begin experimentation with. The colors are red and blue, mostly, so that usually 2 in series and maybe 3-5 in parallel at once might be okay for starters.
Rather than solder something like an LED lead, I can try to wire wrap them together. I don't use my kitchen oven for anything, so it's dark enough inside with the door closed to be usable and it's also grounded to the wall outlet as well. I'll get started on arranging the parts for a circuit later in this week. If necessary, I can try to borrow a solderless breadboard from a friend.
Here's a similar concept; all that's needed extra is one or more LED's to shine their light on the solar cells in a light-sealed enclosure...here: (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://solorb.com/elect/solarcirc/aacharge/aachrgr.jpg&imgrefurl=http://technoblogin.blogspot.com/2009/02/aa-battery-solar-charger.html&usg=__lG3wf6vFiiNWsWKlU3cVuK_NbFw=&h=373&w=463&sz=26&hl=en&start=184&zoom=1&tbnid=Aqre7RVFsV95XM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=161&ei=l_33TZ37K4ausAOJ_tT4DA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dperpetual%2Bsolar%2Bpanel%2BLED%2Bcharges%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D991%26bih%3D587%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=233&vpy=252&dur=3532&hovh=201&hovw=250&tx=86&ty=99&page=13&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:184&biw=991&bih=587)
--Lee
Reedit, 15 Jun '11: Added descriptive sentence to possible test conditions above; with slightly rearranged text.
Reedit, 22 Jun '11: Complete descriptive text. This thread is temporarily inactive in regards to my editing efforts.
Reedit, 5 Jul '11: Added additional text describing future testing to be carried out and project parts descriptions; as well as several text punctuation corrections.
Reedit, 19 Nov '11: Reworded the 'temporary announcement' at the top of the post. Linked the 'Web address to the modifiable solar cell circuit to shorten the text.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.15, 00:39:54
This is for mine and everyone's future reference and can be commented on by Members:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10851.0
Here's the 'Web address of the YouTube video by itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcUZMKGWQR8
Here's additional threads on the same subject:
http://overunity.com/index.php?topic=10817.0, Reply#3, by nievesoliveras, Pg. 1
http://overunity.com/index.php?topic=10693.0
The question really is: Are the light source(s) actually efficient enough to overcome any other inefficiencies in the rest of the circuit? And do so inexpensively? And reliably?
This is a source of future investigative efforts.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.15, 18:00:31
The question really is: Are the light source(s) actually efficient enough to overcome any other inefficiencies in the rest of the circuit? And do so inexpensively? And reliably?
To begin answering the questions above, I referred to the Radio Shack and Wikipedia sites for LED diodes and AA batteries.
A) I'll assume the Radio Shack red LED has a nominal forward voltage drop of 1.3 VDC and draws (worse case scenario) 20mA of current.
B) The small, high efficiency solar cell gives out .3 A and .55 VDC in the noonday sun.
C) So, 6ea. cells (Radio Shack #276-124, ~=$30.00) in series give 3.9 VDC @ .3A
and 3 LED's in series should require 3.9 VDC @ ~20 mA. 5 strings of 3ea. (15 total ~=$14.00 + tax) in parallel should require .3A @ 3.9 VDC.
The solar cells should be driven to their power limits by the LED's.
And, the LED's, placed close to the cells, should irradiate them pretty brightly, assuming the cells can accept red light wavelengths efficiently.
D) Another way to do this is: Take one of the encapsulated solar cells (Radio Shack #277-1205, ~=$15.00) and power two red LED's (=$1.70) with it.
This is less money, but makes for a lower-powered circuit as well.
The power requirements of the batter(ies) and its dedicated cell(s) will be addressed in due course.
Okay, here we go:
Industry standard NiCd batteries will be considered because they're designed to be recharged; it's just that without a trickle charge to maintain them, they'll lose about 1% voltage/day.
The usual power rating for 'AA's is either 600 mAh or 700 mAh per battery. Assume, by independent reports from users, tat the Radio Shack 6 VDC encapsulated solar cell give about 20 mA of current under a light bulb, then _ think one solar panel will charge 5 'aa's in series but take at least 6 days to charge 3Ah batteries at .02 mA of direct current. By its Ah rating (50mA), it would take a little over 2 days.
That's assuming the batteries were downright dead flat to begin with.
To prove at least a COP=1.0, the batteries might be fully charged and then be maintained at a float, trickle rate by the solar panel. One could always add more LED's to that part of the circuit in order to increase power level by panel luminous irradiation, thus allowing an extra load to be applied to that part of the circuit.
Okay, the descriptions should be done with. I have a very good place in my apartment to experiment in, since I don't use my stove oven for anything to cook in. It's also light sealed from the door's inside surface and it's grounded, in case I ever need that.
Parts shouldn't be terribly expensive and are widely available. I get paid at the first of next month, but a medical bill is looming on the calendar horizon. The circuit I'd use would be substantially like the one in the YouTube video at the top of this page.
Questions? Comments? Append them to the end of this thread by posting them, as usual.
--Lee
Reedit, 26 Sept '11: Spell check.
What's your goal with this thread Lee?
You've got a lot of interesting stuff, but not sure of the objective here. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.21, 23:15:07
What's your goal with this thread Lee?
You've got a lot of interesting stuff, but not sure of the objective here. ;)
.99
Well, as with (possibly) some of the other threads, I'm illustrating a plan of experimentation in some cases, with the intention of following through later with actual experiments, time and finances permitting.
In this exact case, I'm describing what'll be used and hopefully provide Internet references to set forth circuit diagrams wherever possible. In this case, 'Web site drawings are few and far between for this subject. Windows Word 2007 is a pain in the butt to try and draw qwerty ascii circuits with.
To be precise, this thread will try and offer experimental results to try and prove or disprove the subject of whether or not an LED and a solar cell can endless recharge a 'AA' battery. :)
--Lee
In a sort of looped fashion?
If I understand correctly, I suppose this should work...why not?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.21, 23:59:01
In a sort of looped fashion?
If I understand correctly, I suppose this should work...why not?
.99
Very good; thank you. That's a way to do it; at least the original inventor of the YouTube video envisioned it that way. He may have had different parts than are available to me, so I have to get by with whatever Radio Shack offers. There are no surplus electronics suppliers in the city limits of San Francisco.
I'll finish my descriptions of the battery setups later. Time's about up on this computer.
--Lee
I think this is a great project when considering all the debate concerning measurement errors and such. A simple open loop circuit which can easily provide a means to electrically isolate the input and output and reduce the issue of efficiency to a single voltage reading. Either the input capacitor voltage rises due to excess energy generated from the circuit-LED's-solar panel by whatever means are available or it does not. Simplicity is good ;)
Regards
AC
With respect to posted reply #7, this thread,
Yes, splitting the circuits and separating them would give obvious results in efficiency. For my very low income and heavy bill-paying approach (read: I'm forced to be cheap---who isn't, nowadays?), I thought of possibly wiring a high efficiency, high current cell and also a high voltage cell in series for a combination power effect.
One of each in series would give 6.55 VDC @ ~.57A ~= 3.75 W (the math says 3.73 W) for a cost of ~$20.00 US. Two each in series and two strings in parallel gives 13.1 VDC @ ~1.14A (14.93 W for ~$80.00 US).
All of that is without load at open circuit. But it's fairly informative. I don't know it until I did the math.
But, I digress.
So, with one one of each kind of cell in series, then 5 red LED's would soak up 6.5 VDC @ .1 A, and 5 strings in parallel would draw ~.5 A (8 packages of 2ea. Radio Shack red LED's would cost ~$13.50 US.)
I haven't seriously thought of putting Mobius coils, Rodin coils, Caduceus coils, etc. in a circuit, so I sure don't know how they would affect a circuit.
--Lee
For a larger system, here's a functional set of components in order:
Batter(ies) ------> Inverter -----> Floodlight -----> Solar cells/ -----+
^ (ideally LED) panels |
| |
|________________________________________________________|
This might do for a large installation, but the solar units would need to be bought in a large volume purchase. Large, but may have commercial applications.
NOTE:
LED's routinely consume about 1/3 the power of incandescent light bulbs, given they're equally bright.
--Lee
Reedit, 6 Jul '11: Text editing for clarity on ascii drawing and further explanation on the NOTE:
Reedit, 21 Jul '11: Straightened out the appearance of the drawing for greater visual clarity
Reedit, 26 Sept '11: Final qwerty ascii drawing editing with the 'Save' function.
I have a CFL lamp on the nightstand next to my bed that shines an industry standard 15 W, screw-in fluorescent bulb. With my borrowed VOM, I achieved these power outputs from that light as well as additional selective sources to augment the original source:
NOTE:These are all done with the VOM test leads at open circuit...
VDC
1. Sitting on the tabletop next to the lamp: .5
2. Add a 4" incandescent bulb flashlight set on right atop the panel over one the two solar cells in the panel: 1.8
3. To that, add a slightly smaller incandescent flashlight sitting next to the first and shining on the same cell: 2.4
4. To that, add an LED flashlight with 7ea. LED's, sitting atop 1/2 of the other cell (there are two in the panel): 2.5
Current readings on the VOM: mA
5. Add a 10K resistor to the circuit with clip-on leads to the VOM; all the flashlights shining as they were: .5
6. " " 150 ohm resistor; as before 0.0
Voltage readings in sunlight; on a sunny day in July, in San Francisco, at 11 AM local time (Pacific zone): VDC
7. On the floor, 2' from the windowsill 5.25
8. On the windowsill, 3" from the window: 5.8
Lastly, I've found 3ea, small light bulbs that used to work, totalling 130 watts, and also 3 screw-in sockets I bought awhile ago at a hardware store. Since incandescent bulbs are WAAAAAYYYY too hot to touch, In have to rig a means to mount these and conduct experiments thereafter.
Stay around for that.
(I'll be appending the test results to this post as 'Modified' text.)
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.15, 18:00:31
The question really is: Are the light source(s) actually efficient enough to overcome any other inefficiencies in the rest of the circuit? And do so inexpensively? And reliably?
This is a source of future investigative efforts.
Okay to begin, I have 4ea. Radio Shack sealed solar modules (the small solar cells were too fragile for use, IMO); in the noonday sun, they give nearly 6 VDC to the leads of an analog VOM.
Starting with all four paralleled: eight ea.( 8 ) mini-flashlights---5 of them were LED---powered by 'AAA' batteries, shining directly on all but one of the panels, gave 4 VDC.
Then with a 40 Watt flood light, about 6" above all four, I got 5 VDC.
With the floodlight shining, I wired two(2) red LEDs in series(about 4.8 VDC total draw in forward voltage) and connected them to the + & - sides of the panels. They glowed, but not very bright.
RESULT: It took 40 Watts to make 2 LEDs glow only fairly bright. And those LEDs were laying on top of a panel with nothing else on it. This probably isn't going to work the way the inventor above ran his demonstration. I need more current for more LEDs, but then that would increase overall panel area considerably. Both the panels and LEDs are too inefficient to be practical as I've set up the experiment.
So, as an alternative, I can try to charge up 4ea. NiCd batteries and with this power available---and with more LEDs to generate more light, the whole thing will generate more power,
and hopefully, have a surplus of power.
I need more LEDs and a battery charger. "Skema Rangkaian" has a solar powered Internet circuit to do the job. I would upload the web address, but this computer is filtered against that as a copy to the address bar function. I can do it later at a different computer with more time. Radio Shack sells a LM317T for a voltage regulator for $2.69/ea., I believe.
LATER REEDIT:I'm concerned that the original YouTube video had the single LED and battery being recharged by two solar modules totalling more than one Watt of power. This is more current that a single LED can tolerate and that's more voltage than one 'AA' battery was designed to be recharged with.
My thought is that, theoretically, his setup wouldn't work as seen on the video unless he "rigged" the test somehow? One more thing: Infrared light is less than suitable for solar cells in general. They're designed for sunlight on purpose. (A science teacher in high school about 40 years ago told my class that the terrarium at the back of the classroom had a light bulb and a fluorescent tube because both types of light---combined---gave a very close approximation of sunlight. Based on my experimentation, he's pretty much right.)
I don't see how the video up-loader can make the claim he does unless he adds LEDs until he loads the solar module to its maximum. That's how I'll proceed. More LEDs in series and/or parallel. The single solar module that I'll reserve for battery charging will drive five(5) 'AA' rechargable NiCd's in series.
I'll update this later. You can look occasionally, or make comments any time, if you want. Most of the threads on this bench get viewers every day.
--Lee
Reedit:, 22 Jul '11: Added explanatory paragraphs to end of post, with other minor text editing.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.30, 17:12:15
For a larger system, here's a functional set of components in order:
Batter(ies) ------> Inverter -----> Floodlight -----> Solar cells/ -----+
^ (ideally LED) panels |
| |
|__________________________________________________|
This might do for a large installation, but the solar units would need to be bought in a large volume purchase. Large, but may have commercial applications.
For testing this application, I have envisioned the following procedure:
1) With the bottom of an empty cardboard fruit case, this one having 3 ventilation holes in about the center of the bottom, being 15" X 20" in dimensions on the floor;
2) I can wire a cheap incandescent 7.5 Watt 120 VAC bulb to the wall power outlet without grounding it;
3) Buy more Radio Shack solar panel modules (2.75 X 3.5 inch, 6VDC @ ~50mA max);
4) set the panels on the floor, overlapping the edges by a 20% reduction in area, and wire them for 6V;
5) Connect the wire leads to rechargeable batterie(s), each being a nominal 6V each;
6) Finally, running the battery leads to to an analog VOM for initial testing.
I estimate a maximum of 12 VDC and .375 A for 35ea. overlapped solar modules on the floor, covered by the fruit box while the light bulb is on.
If aluminum foil covers the walls and inside top of the box, more power should be generated, depending on the reflectivity of the aluminum foil.
The four inside walls of the box and the inside top can also be covered in solar modules, thus increasing the power output considerably---up to 3 times the original optput.
Depending on which light bulb I use (I have both white frosted glass and clear glass showing the filament) the power output may be greater than unity, especially with as many modules as possible used on the inside of the box.
The analogy I might use for this setup is Barbat's Patent application in which radiant light photo-reacts with sensitive materials on the inside of a light-sealed container; to hopefully generate more power than it consumes.
I'll see if I can get a few more solar modules to begin with next month. (Sept.)
--Lee
With respect to Reply #8, (previous post on this thread, immediately above) I've got most of the components to begin the following:
A cardboard box, 10"L X 12"W X 8"H
11ea. Radio Shack solar modules
2ea. 120VAC, 7.5W incandescent night light bulbs from hardware store
2ea. circular ceramic lamp bases to hold light bulbs from hardware store
1ea. common, 18ga., 2-wire lamp cord from hardware store
20ea. 'AA' Radio Shack rechargable NiCd batteries
5ea. 4-place Radio Shack holders for batteries
Optional 150W car cigarette lighter inverter from hardware store
" Radio Shack plug-in adapter to give positive/negative wires out
Optional Radio Shack LM317T voltage regulator with user-value-selectable voltage control resistor
1 ) Begin with: Add wires to the original module leads to extend them out of the box
2 ) Now, the idea would be to tape or glue, edge-overlapped modules to the bottom of the box (a total of 14ea. will fit)
3 ) Wire the leads paralleled for 6V to the battery holders, also paralleled
4 ) Optionally wire the light bulbs in series or parallel
5 ) Since they're rather heavy, turn the box over with the modules on the inside top, the battery holders and batteries on top of that (outside), and light bulb/lamp bases on the box's bottom.
6 ) By experiment, measure output of the modules with one or two bulbs; series or parallel.
(At the very least, I have a ready supply of batteries for more experiments.)
7 ) As desired, the output of the batteries can be fed into the inverter, to backfeed a regenerative process to self-recharge the batteries.
8 ) Repeat #6 for whole setup
I'm still setting this up in my spare time. I do have most of the parts ready to go. Will return with more progress later.
--Lee
Reedit, 12 Aug 11: Continued with descriptions of experimental conditions and components.
Reedit, 9 Sept '11: Took out the 'smiley face' in Sentence #7.
Concerning posted Reply #13,
This weekend, I'll take the time to rewire what I did in Post #13 and attempt to get 6 VAC out of several paralleled solar modules so as to recharge my 4 Radio Shack gell cells, paralleled to their 6V maximum. (I have 10 modules to work with now.)
If that's successful, I'll try and see if the car cigarette lighter inverter(150W) I have can maintain the charge from: 3ea. 7W night lights in parallel to light the panels in a cardboard box.
(A thread contributor on OU.com told me he charged NiCd's with a solar panel being illuminated by a 75W light bulb. I'm using only 3 bulbs paralleled to 120 VAC from the wall receptacle. It worked for him and it should for me, albeit probably more slowly with less bulb wattage---and I have 24 VA on the batteries to charge at once. We'll see.)
Preliminary tests:
I put 3ea., 40 W, 110-120 VAC incandescent bulbs in my illumination setup, in parallel, and then wired 5ea. encapsulated Radio Shack solar panels (stock #277-1205) in series. When I switched on the power the voltage on an analog VOM was 24VDC. That's with 120W of light and no load, situated about 3" above the modules. With the exception of the meter's analog internal electrical hardware as a possible loading factor, that was as far as my measurement were personally considered by me.
Adding the modules in series to the gell cells gives the basic battery voltage as a short between all the batteries' plates. That's all I did; as I left the work there and continued with my regular day.
Next, I think about taking two light bulbs out to conserve power, or add more modules as a power efficiency augmentor, and only then will I try and use my inverter for a self-sustaining system.
--Lee
Considering how many hits there are on this thread compared to the others, I've decided to try and set my observational insights straight in written format as to the apparent (to me) lack of efficiency that this conceptual setup (I say) inherently has. According, my thought experiment is set forth below:
Concerning Reply #14,
I found that all the solar modules I had in parallel gave about 5 VDC and that's with 120 Watts of incandescent bulbs shining 3" above them while the modules lay on the bottom of a cardboard box.
The size of the modules allowed for 3 strings of 5ea long, to be placed without edge overlap on the box bottom. (A total dimension of 8.25" X 16.15".)
Now, assuming that the amount of current is proportional to the voltage, I'll assume that that of 6VDC/5VDC X 50 mA is a little more than 40 mA.
If the modules are wired 3 strings of 5ea, and the 5 are in series, they theoretically would give 15 VDC @ .15 A.
Okay, if I put my gell-cell batteries: 2 in series and 2 in parallel, I get 12 VDC for 8 Ah. For simplicity's sake, 53 hrs would be needed to completely recharge 4 ea. absolutely dead batteries. In the meantime, 1 A of AC is being used for 120 VAC to light the modules. For 53 hrs, that's 6.36 kWa of electricity. Using 1ea. light bulb means 1/3 of that=2.12 kWa.
All the while, the modules produce: 15VDC X .15A X 53 hrs= 119.25 watt-hrs. (Theoretically unloaded circuit. A battery would look like a dead short to solar module.) Covering the top of the box and allowing light to shine upward as the bulbs dangled from their screw-in base connection wires, would double module power to 239 watt-hrs. Wow. Covering the sides with three string sets of 3ea on both sides, would give an additional 15 VDC at .12 A. 95.4 watt-hrs(15VDC X .04 A X 3ea. X 53 hrs). A total of 333.4 watt hrs. Big wow.
To replace the power consumed by one bulb, I'll need 6.3 times the total module area. To overlap the wasted space edges, I'd get a 20% increase in power. About 225% the box dimensions in internal area(overlapped modules). 250% without overlapping; just letting the modules lay flat with glue to hold them in place.
That's to achieve "break even" in terms of power consumption. Not even OU. For a 120 VAC inverter to return power to the batteries, assume adding 10% more module area for the inverter's electronic overhead. The box is certainly large now, and you still can't do anything with it.
Where does the original inventor of this concept get his efficiency from? 1 ea. LED to illuminate 1 watt of solar modules? The solar modules are, say, 6-10% and the incandescent bulbs are 5-10(?)% in efficiency. LED's are about 3 times that for light production. He still needs about 60-70 times the area in modules or 60-70 LED's and the power to light them.
This doesn't look like it's going to work the way he says. His components aren't efficient enough, IMO.
--Lee
the_big_m_in_ok said:
Quote
This doesn't look like it's going to work the way he says. His components aren't efficient enough, IMO.
With respect to Reply #15, this thread,
I uploaded a post to OU.com---which is itself offline as I write this on 15 Nov, at 12:15 American Pacific Time, a descriptive post to illustrate that for 100 Watts net to be captured and stored by an LED-based & solar module system, 113 Watts of power would be needed. That many self-sealed Radio Shack solar modules to generate 113W would be 377 individual units in series for 5 volts of NiCd batteries in series and parallel. This was assuming 5VAC will have been available from incandescent bulbs shining on the modules. It's waaaayyy more than I can afford. And the lightproof containment enclosure would be more than merely "large".
I'll try and update this post with a link to the page and posts on the OU.com's Perpetual Battery Recharge thread. OU.com is offline for maintenance now.
Reedit later:http://www.overunity.com/11686/perpetual-solar-self-sustainer/ (Reply #5, pg. 1)
--Lee
I'm rarely one to be a naysayer and to be honest I haven't read the whole thread here either BUT.... If the idea is to endlessly charge (i.e. perpetual charge or OU? ) with this setup I would ask this question. Where do you think the excess energy could come from? And to even maintain an even charge on a battery you would need excess energy due to inherent losses (however small) in the circuit. I don't see anything that can possibly be tapping zero point energy or any other outside souce of energy here. I think the only thing steve has done is make an efficient circuit with a very low drain load. I've got LED circuits (in special flashlights) that can run continuously for months and one can run 24/7 for over a year on a small battery. It would be easy to think in the short term that I have an OU flashlight by checking the battery voltage which even after weeks or months might not drop if only measured to hundredths or tenths of a volt. Unless you have a good idea of where the energy might come from this seems like a pipe dream. If there was a spark gap, some special caps, unique coils (Caduceus?) or something that might pull in radiant energy I could see this being possible but I don't believe that is part of the design. IIRC I think this idea is from stevensrd1 (sp?) isn't it? I was more fascinated with his battery charging from a small motor which I actually tried because it has some similarity to the Tesla switch.
Quote from: e2matrix on 2011.11.17, 16:58:11
I'm rarely one to be a naysayer and to be honest I haven't read the whole thread here either BUT.... If the idea is to endlessly charge (i.e. perpetual charge or OU? ) with this setup I would ask this question. Where do you think the excess energy could come from?
...
If there was a spark gap, some special caps, unique coils (Caduceus?) or something that might pull in radiant energy I could see this being possible but I don't believe that is part of the design.
Your second sentence above would have led into my answer. Toroids, Mobius and Caduceus coils as well as CEMF/BEMF (some say this last one would be so ineffective as to be inconsequential). But to answer your question, the likes of what the electrical engineering geniuses of the 20's and 30's were looking for in, say, 'etheric/aetheric' energy is where the excess energy might be coming from.
Quote
... And to even maintain an even charge on a battery you would need excess energy due to inherent losses (however small) in the circuit.
Yes, true. The average lead-acid battery needs 30-35% more energy than is available in the battery to fully recharge it. The
lack of OU potential of that part of the circuit has to be dealt with.
Quote
I don't see anything that can possibly be tapping zero point energy or any other outside souce of energy here. I think the only thing steve has done is make an efficient circuit with a very low drain load. I've got LED circuits (in special flashlights) that can run continuously for months and one can run 24/7 for over a year on a small battery. It would be easy to think in the short term that I have an OU flashlight by checking the battery voltage which even after weeks or months might not drop if only measured to hundredths or tenths of a volt. Unless you have a good idea of where the energy might come from this seems like a pipe dream.
Well, some are trying the theoretical approach...
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Davis_STAIF06.pdf
...and sometimes someone can
apparently do the impossible like Daniel Pomerleau---and I wonder if he knows where his coil circuits get their energy from? IMHO.
Quote
IIRC I think this idea is from stevensrd1 (sp?) isn't it? I was more fascinated with his battery charging from a small motor which I actually tried because it has some similarity to the Tesla switch.
The motor might be doing a waveform action to increase BEMF to coils nearby? I'd have to see his other video or otherwise ask him personally.
--Lee
The museum of unworkable devices is full of this kind of "concepts" which is a perpetual motion of the first kind.
In the same way, we have the "concept" of a windmill on the top of a car and connected to an alternator that powers the motor that runs the car and creates the relative wind. ;D
We have this one of a watermill whose the energy is used to raise the water that will fall again and run the mill.
You could also connect a battery charger to an inverter connected to the battery.
Why not an electric motor that rotates an alternator that powers the motor?
What is the idea in such a concept? I don't see a single one.
Such a concept always fails because it involves neither new physics nor hidden or external energy source. Therefore, as the conventional physics applies and the system is closed and can be described by a lagrangian, the energy conservation applies, no extra energy is provided. Pure waste of time.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.11.19, 11:59:10
The museum of unworkable devices is full of this kind of "concepts" which is a perpetual motion of the first kind.
In the same way, we have the "concept" of a windmill on the top of a car and connected to an alternator that powers the motor that runs the car and creates the relative wind. ;D
That always was a gimmick to me. It's mechanical and to go twice as fast, takes 4 times the power from the engine by the law(s) of kinetic energy, right? Gimmick. A mechanical one at that.
Quote
We have this one of a watermill whose the energy is used to raise the water that will fall again and run the mill.
I didn't see that one. Is there a YouTube video of this in action? BTW, there's also a rolling ball affair that rolls in a circle down, and at the bottom, the weight of the ball raises the next one to repeat the process. Physical processes suffer from friction as well as kinetic energy losses. They're only nice to look at, but not very useful.
Quote
You could also connect a battery charger to an inverter connected to the battery.
Wattsup has already done that...here. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=wattsup+inverter+battery+charger&hl=en&safe=active&sa=G&biw=853&bih=573&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=usK1KaTffR_XKM:&imgrefurl=http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php%3Ftopic%3D984.0&docid=86vuW0vxeRouGM&imgurl=http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups%2527%252520stuff/inverter%252520games/inverterfreeenergy.jpg&w=800&h=600&ei=4wjITriFNoOMigLL2qDtDw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=449&sig=101116310510459186736&page=1&tbnh=110&tbnw=147&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=60&ty=67) My thread is there as an archive. I don't have the freedom living in a
really small apartment or money for an in-depth investigation. Wattsup already did invent the system; I merely tried to improve on it with a potential OU system that I haven't tried yet, so I have no experience to go by yet.
Quote
Why not an electric motor that rotates an alternator that powers the motor?
Rotoverter. Look at...http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Raivo
Here's the circuit diagram for another version...here (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=rotoverter&start=36&num=10&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&biw=853&bih=573&tbm=isch&tbnid=jl1FVmlk0MtzpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/1507-roto-verter-4.html&docid=BdheDPQ1y3JlkM&imgurl=http://scene.org/~esa/merlib/rv/SNAG-219.gif&w=957&h=683&ei=-grITuSGOcWUiQKa3rCcDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=552&vpy=189&dur=3543&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=138&ty=131&sig=101116310510459186736&sqi=2&page=6&tbnh=153&tbnw=215&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:36) This can be explained.
Quote
What is the idea in such a concept? I don't see a single one.
Overunity "free energy" should be the idea around here at OUR.com. Research into those 'ideas' should be why we're here.
Quote
Such a concept always fails because it involves neither new physics nor hidden or external energy source. Therefore, as the conventional physics applies and the system is closed and can be described by a lagrangian, the energy conservation applies, no extra energy is provided. Pure waste of time.
Well, okay.
J. Naudin, the French researcher, has at least one single wire experiment that (I believe) takes electrons from the environment to augment the power output of a particular circuit. That's one case.
Daniel Pomerleau is able to tune his coils like no one else can. And they work. Just plain coils. Can you explain that yourself?
You don't have your own Bench, but you do some electronic builds or experimentation. Do you have anything in the way of a schematic of an original project? I'm saying,
"What are you doing?"--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.15, 21:29:22
...I'll try and update this post with a link to the page and posts on the OU.com's Perpetual Battery Recharge thread.
I've revised the "radiant water plasma BEMF circuit" so that it has only one relay and then I added a battery. What makes it significant for this thread is that that I'll further add a fluorescent tube to the circuit so it becomes a stand-alone UPS. With additional solar modules, it becomes a power generator and a UPS as well.
Something you might rely on, if you have one, when the electricity goes out in a thunderstorm. (For that application, the top can be opened up to shine light on the ceiling of a room to illuminate it. In normal use, cover the top with a lid that is also covered inside with solar modules to maximize power output.)
I think I may have invented something? :) I've never seen anything like what I've personally described. I don't mind discussing it further
in this Forum, since I'm not going to patent it. Who has the money to apply, anyway? Is there actually a commercial market for this?
--Lee
Hi Lee, Have you tried out this circuit? A couple questions - what is the thing in the upper left of the diagram with the diagonal lines? Is the idea of this circuit to output 120VAC? Is the purpose of the relay to provide 60 cycle per second to the transformer?
Quote from: e2matrix on 2011.11.22, 16:22:45
Hi Lee, Have you tried out this circuit?...
e2matrix: Hi,
No, it's a theoretical circuit. I have, or did have, all the parts at one time, but since I'm about to leave my apartment, future physical experimentation will necessarily be put on hold.
Quote
...A couple questions - what is the thing in the upper left of the diagram with the diagonal lines?
A sparkplug. I have 4ea. to work with that I found---and they're all in good condition, so they should work okay.
Here's the drawing that inspired the 'revised' drawing of mine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2242-water-sparkplug.html (Reply #12, 1st pg., posted by Aaron)
Quote
...Is the idea of this circuit to output 120VAC? Is the purpose of the relay to provide 60 cycle per second to the transformer?
No, it's a battery charger. It'll output high voltage to a large-turns-ratio transformer, and then voltage spikes greater than 13 VDC are fed back to the positive side of the battery by the Zener which will act on 12+ volt voltage spikes.
The relay is charged by the 120 VAC power input from the wall plug mains. From 0 volts, the voltage rises on the parallel capacitors until the cut-
in voltage is reached by the relay coil. The relay engages, cuts the power to the half-wave bridge, and at the same time, discharges the stored voltage to the sparkplug spark gap. BEMF is harvested by the Zener. When the voltage falls enough to the cut-
out voltage of the falls to re-connect the rectifiers and disconnect the spark plug. Over and over, of course.
The relays from Radio Shack, if they're wired to oscillate by the spring action of the coil contacts, cycle so fast, they hum audibly. More capacitors can be added, but the current going through the system can load the whole thing and stress it, especially the relay.
I'll try and redraw the circuit to add a short 6-8 Watt fluorescent tube. It'll also work as a current limiter. Type of batteries in the drawing are user's choice.
All are welcome to comment.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.19, 20:53:41
That always was a gimmick to me. It's mechanical and to go twice as fast, takes 4 times the power from the engine by the law(s) of kinetic energy, right?
Not right. 1st Newton's law. You don't need energy to go at any speed. You need energy to change your speed or to fight resistance (friction by air resistance or miscellaneous losses...). So what are you talking about?
Quote
A mechanical one at that.I didn't see that one. Is there a YouTube video of this in action?
I doubt that Georg Andreas Böckler could have put a video of his "invention" on youtube in the 17th century! :). To not knowing the history of perpetual motions condemns everyone to endlessly repeat the errors of the past.
All legends should be true?! Do you believe in every article put on the web or in every video on youtube? To connect a battery charger to an inverter connected to the battery doesn't work. The rotoverter doesn't work. Do you have one? Where can we find independent measurements? Does anyone here have one to power his house instead of being connected to the electrical grid?
Quote
...
J. Naudin, the French researcher, has at least one single wire experiment that (I believe) takes electrons from the environment to augment the power output of a particular circuit. That's one case.
It is not one case. It is a conventional but misinterpreted device without overunity. I have experimented the single wire transmission. It works but it consumes current. I have measured the imput/output power ratio. The power drawn from an ac voltage source at the primary of a transformer depends on the power consumed by the load at the end of the wire connected to only one terminal of the secondary, and is more than the consumed power.
At the end of a single wire, the load represents a certain capacity (some pF) that loops the circuit. A "single wire" is not an open circuit. In real life any conducteur has a capacity, it is capacitively coupled to the environment, generally to the ground or to the cases of devices or other object in the surrunding. Even a simple voltmeter connected to the load increases the capacity and changes the functioning, especially when the wire is connected to a resonant circuit. You can perfectly modelize the single wire transmission with any electronics software like LTspice, by looping the circuit with a capacitor that represents the terminal capacity of the load. The energy is therefore conserved.
Quote
Daniel Pomerleau is able to tune his coils like no one else can.
...
Daniel Pomerleau's effect is a phenomenon very different from the other devices that we are talking about. Nobody can duplicate the effects. The effects have not been measured (what signal frequency? what current?...) and are reputed to occur with Pomerleau only. So we have not a solid matter with which we could work, but only shaky testimonies. A fact obtained from witnesses only is not necessarily a fact (See: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2915354/Top-ten-April-Fools-hoaxes.html?offset=3).
Quote
You don't have your own Bench, but you do some electronic builds or experimentation. Do you have anything in the way of a schematic of an original project? I'm saying, "What are you doing?"
I think to theoretical concepts, I check them by calculus when not too much complicated, and I experimentally verify the most interesting ones. This is work. When I will have some promising ideas leading me to anomalous experimental results that I willl be able to check and certify, I will inform the group.
May be I'm atypical, because I see so many absurd ideas, inconsistent projects, or outdated matter that I feel that most of people in the free energy field seem to prefer dream, play with coils or magnet without understanding, and strut on the web instead of studying and working.
Daniel Pomerleau may have the ability
to "tap into" the true source of the very
strange and powerful phenomena which
have been documented for hundreds (if
not thousands) of years.
It is exceedingly elusive because only a few
have demonstrated that ability. It seems not
at all dependent upon the device or circuit
seemingly producing the effects.
Those who have actually observed what are
known as "ufos" have seen it as well.
In the not too distant future more will be revealed
to the entire world.
Quote from: exnihiloest
...
Daniel Pomerleau's effect is a phenomenon very different from the other devices that we are talking about. Nobody can duplicate the effects. The effects have not been measured (what signal frequency? what current?...) and are reputed to occur with Pomerleau only. So we have not a solid matter with which we could work, but only shaky testimonies. A fact obtained from witnesses only is not necessarily a fact[.]
...
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.11.23, 23:29:05
Daniel Pomerleau may have the ability
to "tap into" the true source of the very
strange and powerful phenomena which
have been documented for hundreds (if
not thousands) of years.
It is exceedingly elusive because only a few
have demonstrated that ability. It seems not
at all dependent upon the device or circuit
seemingly producing the effects. ...
Right, very good. I agree with you on this. I'm a Native American having had distant shamanistic Ancestors. I knew a shaman from one of my ancestral tribes. With that associative experience, I can say from my personal experience, you have a point in your assertion. Whatever Daniel Pomerlou/Pomerlou(
apparently more than one spelling in French) does, it's because he was born with the ability to do it and his being autistic may have given him a way to look into the way his coils work that I'm unfamiliar with.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Daniel_Pomerleau_Free_Energy_Coils
http://www.rexresearch.com/pomerleau/pomerleau.htm
I've come into contact with a different tradition than his, but I nevertheless feel something in my mind the at least partially understands. I realize I may be criticized to some extent for this opinion, but I'm not criticizing you on this point. I do see your point.
Quote
...Those who have actually observed what are
known as "ufos" have seen it as well.
In the not too distant future more will be revealed
to the entire world.
I can't say I've seen a 'ufo', so I have no experience. Whether or not you're correct will wait for time to pass to be more definite. I have no opinion now. As a Native American, I won't rule out the possibility, however. Petroglyphs on certain mountain cliffsides in the Western States show things that have been interpreted by some to be extraterrestial beings. I'll still at least keep an open mind.
--Lee
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.11.23, 23:29:05
...
Those who have actually observed what are
known as "ufos" have seen it as well.
In the not too distant future more will be revealed
to the entire world.
...
If modern Nostradamus say it, sure it will be. But some other Nostradamus say that 2012 will be the end of the world.
So I beg all the neo-Nostradamus to meet in a symposium to adopt a common position.
;D
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.11.24, 09:16:29
If modern Nostradamus say it, sure it will be. But some other Nostradamus say that 2012 will be the end of the world.
So I beg all the neo-Nostradamus to meet in a symposium to adopt a common position.
;D
@exhiloest & all
I saw on an American NatGeo or Discovery cable TV documentary awhile ago: The Mayans predicted there would be a societal-changing Grand/Great Cycle ending as well as a subcycle ending at the same time in 2012. However, for the survivors, the following subcycle after the last one would predict: Half the people would eat well and the other half would have "difficulties". Secdondly, The whole population would come together for resolution of a common problem or rally around a common cause.
I alluded to this on OU.com: The economy will fail for reasons outlined in the following thread: http://www.overunity.com/8010/i-see-an-economic-diasater-coming/
After the economy collapses, the extremist Muslims will probably, IMO, become emboldened and really get into the mood for WWIII, which I consider started with 9/11. Thus the necessity for coming together for a common goal. It'll be us against them.
On topic:My revised drawing with respect to this subject: http://www.overunity.com/11686/perpetual-solar-self-sustainer/ (Initial post, top of pg.)
...and...
http://overunity.com/index.php?topic=10817.0, (Reply#3, by nievesoliveras, Pg. 1)
...and especially...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2242-water-sparkplug.html (posted reply #12, 1st pg.)
...is ready for uploading.
The new diagram differs from the last on the list in that it makes provision for a fluorescent light tube or incandescent bulb, with battery storage. I need to go to the library to render the drawing into the .PDF format and upload it here---and only here. That'll probably be tomorrow.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.25, 20:50:39
After the economy collapses, the extremist Muslims will probably, IMO, become emboldened and really get into the mood for WWIII, which I consider started with 9/11. Thus the necessity for coming together for a common goal. It'll be us against them.
I couldn't agree with you more, but your speaking to the wrong people here. It seems the only people left here are those foolish enough to believe that America perpetrated 911 on itself and that Islam is a Religion of Peace! Maybe I could sell them a bridge too?
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.25, 20:50:39
...
The Mayans predicted there would be a societal-changing Grand/Great Cycle ending as well as a subcycle ending at the same time in 2012.
...
Not significant. The same as Nostradamus "predictions": it is not a prediction, but an ad hoc interpretation after the events have occurred (it is clear that the world economic situation is already carrying the premises of a change). There are always changes in the world therefore one can make to coincide any of them with any Mayans writings.
With respect to posted Reply # 21,
Drawing at bottom of pg.
Will try and be back later for personal explanation.
(BTW, it runs as it should from this borrowed computer.)
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.12.09, 23:51:10
With respect to posted Reply # 21,
Drawing at bottom of pg.
Will try and be back later for personal explanation.
(BTW, it runs as it should from this borrowed computer.)
--Lee
@all
Take a look at this:
http://www.treehugger.com/interior-design/luxim-plasma-light-bulb-kicks-some-serious-led-butt.html
I've been on the streets until a couple of weeks ago. I'm drawing schematics and will try to upload .PDF's of these as my time permits.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.30, 17:12:15
For a larger system, here's a functional set of components in order:
Batter(ies) ------> Inverter -----> Floodlight -----> Solar cells/ -----+
^ (ideally LED) panels |
| |
|________________________________________________________|
This might do for a large installation, but the solar units would need to be bought in a large volume purchase. Large, but may have commercial applications.
NOTE:
LED's routinely consume about 1/3 the power of incandescent light bulbs, given they're equally bright.
To further demonstrate this concept, in my one bedroom apartment, the living room floor is completely bare at the moment. Overhead, there are 3 moveable CFL lamp fixtures that slide on tracks arranged in an 'L' configuration on the ceiling.
I was thinking, someone with the money might lay solar panels that were designed for roof mounting on the floor, wire them for the desired voltage, and then lay wiring somewhere else to wherever the batteries, inverter(s) and charge controller(s) are stored.
So long as the living room---or den or garage, if you like---isn't being used for anything else.
Turning the lights on charges the batteries. The inverter's output can be synchronized with your municipal mains wall power, as well, to help pay your electric bill each month.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.06.30, 17:12:15
For a larger system, here's a functional set of components in order:
Batter(ies) ------> Inverter -----> Floodlight -----> Solar cells/ -----+
^ (ideally LED) panels |
| |
|________________________________________________________|
I'm returning to this experiment with a setup similar to this, but without the inverter.
Here it is:
Batteries--------> Incandescent bulb(s)--------> Solar panels------|<--+
/\ |
|___________________________________________________|
Back later.
Reedit:
I have 8ea. NiMH 'AA' batteries being charged up originally by 2ea. 6-VDC Radio Shack 1.5W solar panels next to a shuttered kitchen window. A blocking diode prevents discharge at night. At open circuit, the panels give 10-VDC, about 8" from a window facing South with closed slat louver blinds for privacy from neighbors next door.
In San Francisco on a sunny, windy "global warming" day at noon. The NiMH 'AA's are in an 8-place Radio Shack battery holder with snap-on leads. 1.2-VDC and 2.5 Ah each; industry standard batteries. Solar panels give 35mA, which should equal ~C/70 for one battery alone. They're advertised to give 130-150 mA, apparently under a light load or no load.
Will return with preliminary voltage test results and future plans for the experiment.
Comments are welcome, if any are posted.
--Lee
Solar panels are at best only 14% efficient,so it will never work.And why would you put solar panels indoors to be powered by a CFL,when they could be outdoors being powered by the sun-for a far higher power return. LED's are no good to use with a solar panel(unless infrared) and CFL's arnt much better.
The losses in your system-the solar panels,the CFL and LED's and the inverter.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.06.23, 07:45:13
...
...And why would you put solar panels indoors to be powered by a CFL,when they could be outdoors being powered by the sun-for a far higher power return.
Solar panels were designed for sunlight, true, but they do exist on house rooftops in many, many communities. I'm looking for the greatest efficiency indoors.
This was going to be a part of a preliminary low budget prototype system that starts out small and is expandable. I don't have the money or freedom to go with expensive items like an inverter.
Quote
LED's are no good to use with a solar panel(unless infrared) and CFL's arnt much better.
Incandescents give more voltage than fluorescents, but use at least twice the power. LEDs use 1/3 the power of filament bulbs, but are small and expensive and can't take much in the way of power surges or spikes.
I needed something easy and can be set up in my apartment on a budget.
Quote
The losses in your system-the solar panels,the CFL and LED's and the inverter.
(Look at the first part of this post; I know this but solar arrays are in use, anyway.)
I was going to add other types of input power and then try to interface the voltage/current/frequency differences in order to research the feasibility of an integrated system. But that's a ways down the road.
Reedit, 25 Jun '13: Further described my assertions and spell checked the text.
--Lee
Quote from: tinman on 2013.06.23, 07:45:13
Solar panels are at best only 14% efficient,so it will never work.And why would you put solar panels indoors to be powered by a CFL,when they could be outdoors being powered by the sun-for a far higher power return.
I thought about the question more and have an alternative answer:
I live in an apartment in suburban San Francisco. No room but indoors on unused sections of flooring in front of windows. Unfortunately, the views I do have are north and south only. And the south view is part of my building's internal 'light-well' that's blocked by the apartment on the other side of the building. The north view has a church across the street which is painted cream and white for the most part and this reflects light into my living room.
I have the room in either the bedroom or living room to hide power generating solar panels from the authorities.
However, to answer
"Why" do this indoors? My landlady might object to my placing large solar panels around her family's property
and after Occupy S.F.'s demise, I don't trust any legal or law enforcement authority. I was present the morning the cops tore down the camp. I think I have reason enough to be distrustful.
--Lee
With respest to Reply #34, this thread and this page:
Experimentation to this point has obviously shown me the following...
1a) If I use a convienient place on my kitchen counter next to a window,
1b) ...and I get an average of 4 volts @ 35 milliamps from a 6 VDC, 1.5 W Radio Shack solar panel and also 2.5 VDC @ ~30 milliamps from a 4.4 VDC, 1 W solar panel...
1c) ...I and try to charge 12ea. NiMH 'AA' and 'AAA' batteries in series with a rated combined voltage of 14.4 VDC
1d) ...then 3ea. 6 VDC and 1ea. 4.5 VDC panels in series give ~14.5 VDC.
This is enough to charge all the batteries in about a day, but won't run a 12 VDC computer chassis cooling fan from the panels alone because the average output amperage is about 1/5 the current required by the motor. I would need 3ea. sets, in series, and at least 5 of these sets in parallel, (15ea. panels) to run the motor.
However, the battery bank, fully charged, runs the motor with more voltage than the motor is rated for---14.5 VDC for 11ea. NiMH bateries compared to 12 VDC for the motor.
I fully realize this is inefficient, but the simplicity of this system and the potential for survival application(s) are the main reasons I'm investigating this overall kind of power generation.
Another point as an explanation of my intentions.
--Lee
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.21, 23:15:07
What's your goal with this thread Lee?
You've got a lot of interesting stuff, but not sure of the objective here. ;)
.99
.99,
It's been awhile, but I finally figured out how to make the system I'm describing ,'overunity'. If you start with an industry-standard 13-Watt CFL, and use it to irradiate
at least 13 ea., one Watt solar Modules, then, theoretically, your modules' output should be equal to what the CFL is drawing in power from a battery bank.
Right? Theoretically? More batteries can be added at will, in any amount, to make the system overunity with respect to the 13-Watt CFL.
Does anyone have a comment?
BTW,
I have a friend with a job like mine and a security clearance like mine---but has the spare time and enough money to test the theory. she said it works as I envision it.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2017.06.11, 22:22:20
.99,
It's been awhile, but I finally figured out how to make the system I'm describing ,'overunity'. If you start with an industry-standard 13-Watt CFL, and use it to irradiate at least 13 ea., one Watt solar Modules, then, theoretically, your modules' output should be equal to what the CFL is drawing in power from a battery bank.
Right? Theoretically? More batteries can be added at will, in any amount, to make the system overunity with respect to the 13-Watt CFL.
Does anyone have a comment?
BTW,
I have a friend with a job like mine and a security clearance like mine---but has the spare time and enough money to test the theory. she said it works as I envision it.
--Lee
Your CFL is about 85% efficient at best--thats 85% light,and 15% heat. The dissipated energy(both heat and light) will equal the input energy to the bulb.
Your solar panels would be between 10 and 18% efficient.
So thats 85%(light output from the CFL) x (lets say) the 18% efficiency of the solar cells.
13 watts x 85% x 18% =1.989 watts output from the solar panels
Efficiency =15.3% :(
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.06.12, 10:54:17
"Your CFL is about 85% efficient at best--thats 85% light,and 15% heat. The dissipated energy(both heat and light) will equal the input energy to the bulb."
TinMan,
I'll assume you're correct, since I didn't know right off the bat.
"Your solar panels would be between 10 and 18% efficient."
I did read that about solar panels years ago. Newer types made recently may be more efficient than what we both know of.
"So thats 85%(light output from the CFL) x (lets say) the 18% efficiency of the solar cells."
Well, okay. For this 'back of the envelope' class of theoretical, numerical demonstration, Ill agree with your statement, immediately above.
13 watts x 85% x 18% =1.989 watts output from the solar panels
Efficiency =15.3% :(
Now, I'll try and further explain what I meant by my original post to the thread on this immediate subject:
I only implied that 13 watts drawn from a CFL would also equal 13 Watts from a set of solar modules/panel(s).
At that time, I knew the operating efficiencies were a lot less than 100% in either case (both cases).
I assume for the CFL power drawn may equal: 120 VAC/13 Watts. 120VAC / 13 Watts ><=(approximately equal) .108 Amps
For a solar panel, 12VDC / 1 Watt ><= 1/12 Amp. (.0833... Amps)
BTW,
The solar module output, above, should literally be that, actual current value.
Now, I know AC and DC are different kinds of electricity and are figured differently, mathematically. This was only meant to be a simple thought experiment.
I also didn't figure in losses from the inverter, which is a variable, depending on the type used. I'll let that go, as well as a blocking diode for night discharge of the system.
I can see now, 13ea., 1 W solar modules, would theoretically give: .0833 x 13 = .9163 Amps
At 12 VDC x .9163 Amps = 1.0196 Watts
Obviously, a 13 Watt solar panel would be needed to maintain the charge on a battery (of set of batteries). That's because the CFL is drawing 13 Watts, from the 120 VAC inverter, that's also a little more than that from the batterie(s), since the inverter efficiency is less than 100%.
Well, okay, got to go now. You, the reader, can see what I've done above, and determine what you think. I see now, without the math above, at least I've decided, now, to correct myself and admit I needed more solar panels than from the first subject post.
--Lee