Over the year's,it seems to me that we have only figured out how to produce !half! of the electrical power we should be able to produce for a given amount of work done.
What i mean to say is--we know how to get electrons moving through a circuit/conductor,and create the flow of a given value of current for a given amount of work. We know how to induce a voltage of a given magnitude. But, i think we are missing the !other! half of this energy we should have.
The electron travel's through a circuit and enter's the load,where it go's to work,and dose work on that load ,so as the load can perform work. But what dose the electron meet in that load?. As the load is a resistance to the flow of electron's,it means that the electrons are simply hitting slower electrons.
So now let's talk about the positron.
The positron is of course the same as the electron,but with a positive charge,where as the electron has a negative charge.So let's talk about DC here for a moment--let's say a 12 volt battery is our source. The electron flow is from the negative to the positive of the battery,where as(if we can find a way to generate them)the positron would flow from the positive to the negative.
Now lets think about this.
What would be the outcome of positrons flowing from the positive of our battery,and electrons flowing from the negative of our battery,and both meet at the load ?.
The way i see it ATM,we have 1 car going slow in one direction,and another car going faster traveling in the same direction,and just hitting the slower car up the rear end. What we need is two car's going the same speed,but in opposite direction's,and then colliding,where the collision takes place within the load.
Sorry for my rambling's,but i had to get it off my chest.
It just seems to me that we are so stuck with the electron,for no other reason other than !it came along first!,that we are totally missing or ignoring the equal and opposite to that electron that should also exist,and be able to be generated-just like the electron flow.
So how do we make a positive version of the electron ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 14:00:28
The electron travel's through a circuit and enter's the load,where it go's to work,and dose work on that load ,so as the load can perform work. But what dose the electron meet in that load?. As the load is a resistance to the flow of electron's,it means that the electrons are simply hitting slower electrons.
That is not the accepted view. Electrons are jiggling about at Fermi velocity so there is not really "slow" electrons. And they don't hit each other because the Coulomb repulsion prevents that. The electrons do hit the positive ions. Hit is perhaps the wrong word to use since it is more like an interaction like an absorption. Those positive ions are more or less stationary, their jiggling movement is much less than that of the free electrons. But that interaction with the moving electrons that form the current is where they give up energy to the lattice ions to make them jiggle more, and that jiggling is heat. Hotter means greater jiggle, or put the other way more jiggle means hotter.
QuoteIt just seems to me that we are so stuck with the electron,for no other reason other than !it came along first!,that we are totally missing or ignoring the equal and opposite to that electron that should also exist,and be able to be generated-just like the electron flow.
If you had positrons they would not last very long within our conventional conductors. To do what you suggest requires conductors made from anti-matter, that is atoms made not with positive protons but with negative protons.
Smudge
You need a better method of inducing a current.
The attached chapter is what later became a large book on a new theory.
This chapter explains what electrons are doing in a generator.
You can apply the principles to other forms of induction, provided you have the necessary forces. One such force is gravity, which appeared in the book but was not evident when this chapter was written several years ago.
The author developed the theory into a complete unified theory, and is able to derive anything from something else.
If you see the gravity connection, you'll understand why there are "unknown factions" who want to keep this secret.
Thanks Grumpy! Interesting reading.
Having a 3D printer makes things very easy to build,like coil formers of all kinds of shapes and sizes.
So maybe this thread could be for those !crazy! idea's--the one's you always wanted to try,but it was just to hard to put together.
I have one such crazy idea,and the former's and carrier are printing up now.
So it go's like this--
We have two coils on there own formers facing each other with a small gap between them.
So we send a current through coil A,which creates a magnetic field. This magnetic field will then induce a current flow in coil B(which has a load placed across it of course). The load is reflected back onto coil A due to coil B developing it's own magnetic field which apposes that which created it-coil A. But what if the magnetic field of coil B was blocked,and stopped from reacting with the magnetic field from coil A ? We know that they have achieved this mechanically,but can we do it electrically only?. If so,would coil B produce power without coil A also !feeling! the load that is placed on coil B ?. I guess my question is-->can we eliminate the CEMF acting upon coil A ?.
If we can do this,then we are home and hosed O0
Like i said,we are missing something here,and we need to find what that something is.
So let's get all those crazy idea's out there,and build the thing's,and see what happens.
No good just having all those crazy idea's ,we need to see if they work.
I for one am happy to print up any idea some one may want to try,that dose not have a printer of there own.
Like the Wright brother's said--it's time to fly :)
Brad
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.29, 19:07:57
That is not the accepted view. Electrons are jiggling about at Fermi velocity so there is not really "slow" electrons. And they don't hit each other because the Coulomb repulsion prevents that. The electrons do hit the positive ions. Hit is perhaps the wrong word to use since it is more like an interaction like an absorption. Those positive ions are more or less stationary, their jiggling movement is much less than that of the free electrons. But that interaction with the moving electrons that form the current is where they give up energy to the lattice ions to make them jiggle more, and that jiggling is heat. Hotter means greater jiggle, or put the other way more jiggle means hotter.
If you had positrons they would not last very long within our conventional conductors. To do what you suggest requires conductors made from anti-matter, that is atoms made not with positive protons but with negative protons.
Smudge
Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.
If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?
Brad
the 3D printers really are amazing gizzmo's....
in the hands of the curious and experienced , the skys the limit.
Jimboot
you have a link to Grumpy's vid ?
Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.07.30, 11:03:14
Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.
If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?
The same as water can flow through pipe without pressure.
When the flow of water meets a resistance,a pressure will build,and the pipe will expand.
When the flow of electrons meets a resistance,a current form's,which creates the magnetic field.
Brad
Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.07.30, 11:03:14
Did anyone else watch the video posted by Grumpy that demonstrated electron flow does not induce a mag field ? I can't remember anyone addressing that experiment here.
If electrons are flowing but there is no mag field, then how can their flow be the cause of current?
I don't remember that video, but I will point out that metallic compass needles will respond to an electric field.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.07.29, 21:54:39
You need a better method of inducing a current.
The attached chapter is what later became a large book on a new theory.
This chapter explains what electrons are doing in a generator.
You can apply the principles to other forms of induction, provided you have the necessary forces. One such force is gravity, which appeared in the book but was not evident when this chapter was written several years ago.
The author developed the theory into a complete unified theory, and is able to derive anything from something else.
If you see the gravity connection, you'll understand why there are "unknown factions" who want to keep this secret.
I've looked into that paper before and I don't follow his arguments. His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there. He makes no reference to the e/m ratio of the electron which makes his centripedal forces insignificant compared to the electomagnetic ones. And like many people he thinks the Faraday disc homopolar generator is anomalous because it gives the same result if the magnet rotates with the disc because he hasn't grasped the fact that is is not the relative motion between the magnet and the disc that is important, it is the relative motion between the conduction electrons in the disc and the spinning/orbiting electrons in the magnet. That relative motion is not affected by the magnet itself rotating at trivial speed compared to those internal spin and orbital speeds. IMO the anomaly doesn't need to be explained by his nonsensical arguments.
Smudge
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.30, 16:49:20
His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there.
Are the magnetic fields negated?
Two opposing magnetic fields, one free to move away.
If I place two opposing magnets near each other, they try to push each other away. If one is free to move then it will move away.
I don't see how the B-field of the electrons is "negated".
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.30, 16:49:20
I've looked into that paper before and I don't follow his arguments. His talk of active and passive electrons is nonsense, he completely ignores the positive ions that are rotating with his "active" electrons and thus his B field from those "active" electrons is negated, it is not there. He makes no reference to the e/m ratio of the electron which makes his centripedal forces insignificant compared to the electomagnetic ones. And like many people he thinks the Faraday disc homopolar generator is anomalous because it gives the same result if the magnet rotates with the disc because he hasn't grasped the fact that is is not the relative motion between the magnet and the disc that is important, it is the relative motion between the conduction electrons in the disc and the spinning/orbiting electrons in the magnet. That relative motion is not affected by the magnet itself rotating at trivial speed compared to those internal spin and orbital speeds. IMO the anomaly doesn't need to be explained by his nonsensical arguments.
Smudge
Smudge
Smudge
What physical body is pushing against the rotating conductor to cause the backtorque when a load is placed across the homopolar generator ?.
Brad
Warning robot voice narration. Claiming current is not caused by the flow of electrons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHrOn2at8Ec
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.07.30, 18:33:20
Are the magnetic fields negated?
Two opposing magnetic fields, one free to move away.
If I place two opposing magnets near each other, they try to push each other away. If one is free to move then it will move away.
I don't see how the B-field of the electrons is "negated".
His active electrons going round his green loop, being within the conductor that is going round the green loop, have the positive ions also going with them around that loop. Thus they don't create his B field that he claims is at 90 degrees to the B field from the current flow.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.30, 22:20:25
Smudge
What physical body is pushing against the rotating conductor to cause the backtorque when a load is placed across the homopolar generator ?.
Brad
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion. Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself. Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor. Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not. If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.31, 11:58:34
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion. Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself. Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor. Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not. If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge
But the magnet is spinning with the disc.
What i want to know is,what physical body supports the back torque.
To have back torque,there must be a physical body which anchors this back torque.
For example--with a normal generator,the back torques physical anchor is the generators housing itself,which is also fixed to the frame to which the prime mover is bolted. With the Homopolar generator,the only physical part touching the disc that is anchored to the devices body is the outer and inner brushes.
The shaft,disc,and magnet all rotate together--one cannot lift one's self up of the ground by pulling on one's own bootlaces.
Brad
Ok,so i have just finished printing up the 3 former's and base for the blocking coil(magnetic diode) experiment.
Coil's all wound and ready to go.
Tomorrow night we hit the workbench for some testing.
Loving these new fluro filament's,and they print very good as well O0
Brad
Ok,so i couldn't wait ;D
Just finished some quick testing,and it looks very promising O0
This was at very low power,where my driver coil was powered only by the FG,but i still got the result's i was hoping for. It seems from early testing that we can indeed make a solid state magnetic field diode O0.
Tomorrow night i will set up the higher input power setup and re-test. But if tonight's results are anything to go by,we may have a winner here.
I have made the former wall to thick,but they will do for primary testing.
I will shoot a quick video tomorrow night,so as you can all follow what i'm doing here.
Brad.
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.07.31, 11:58:34
The radial current creates its own magnetic field and that field acts on all the tiny atomic magnetic dipoles (think of them as tiny magnets) to try to pull them in a circular motion. Since they are bound within the magnet that back torque then applies to the magnet itself. Drive radial current though the disc and the magnet will rotate, you have a homopolar motor. Doesn't matter whether the disc is attached to the magnet or not. If a generator can work as a motor it won't be OU.
Smudge
Are you referring to figure 26d?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.07.31, 14:07:26
Are you referring to figure 26d?
No, it is 26c. He shows the hand cranked electrons going around the green loop, but it is the conductor that is hand cranked so the lattice ions also go round that green loop. So his green B field doesn't exist. Yes the conduction electrons are hand cranked to follow a circular path and if the generator is loaded then they must also move (at trivial drift velocity) parallel to the x axis so they actually follow a spiral path. That is not precession. So I find the his whole notion of precession motion to be complete nonsense.
Smudge
Whe I re-read the description that goes with figure 26c, it sounds like he is saying that the electrons have a spiral motion as they travel around the conductor. This is shown as the B-field (green) flipping directions as it moves around the loop, and the B-field (blue) always points inward:
If we were to ride along with any of the active electrons we would find that in the zy current loop the B field (green) is always at right angles to the B field (blue).
Are you are saying that this B-field (green) is negated?
The definition of precession:
the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope.
(This pdf of the chapter is very old and may have changed in the printed book. I'll have to compare the two and see.)
Perhaps precession is not the correct term, he goes on to state that: Juxtaposition of these two transverse currents (the green loop and the red loop)obligatorily sets the electrons into precession. (referring to the red and green current loops in the diagrams.
Hi Brad,
I am listening and curious how it goes.
Gyula
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.31, 13:52:02
...
Just finished some quick testing,and it looks very promising O0
This was at very low power,where my driver coil was powered only by the FG,but i still got the result's i was hoping for. It seems from early testing that we can indeed make a solid state magnetic field diode O0.
...
Quote from: gyula on 2019.07.31, 21:30:46
Hi Brad,
I am listening and curious how it goes.
Gyula
Well Gyula,im done replicating everyone elses failures,and will just experimenting with my own crazy ideas from now on.
No more wasted time on things like Rick Fs ballony,as I'd much rather waste my time on the un-tried.
It would seem that if we can stop the CEMF from the secondary of a transformer,then the primary will not see the load placed on the secondary. So, to achieve this,we need a magnetic field diode O0
Brad
Okay Brad, I understand and agree.
Gyula
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.07.31, 20:46:58
Whe I re-read the description that goes with figure 26c, it sounds like he is saying that the electrons have a spiral motion as they travel around the conductor. This is shown as the B-field (green) flipping directions as it moves around the loop, and the B-field (blue) always points inward:
If you have electrons travelling round a circle they do indeed create a B field. That happens in a solenoid. But (a) the B field does not emanate from the electron path as depicted in his 26c and (b) it does not flip direction. There would be a B field passing through that loop in a direction determined by which way the electrons travel, CW or CCW (but not in this case because that green circle is the neutral (equal numbers of positive and negative charges) conductor moving through space). So his green B field is a figment of his incorrect perception of how a moving electron creates a B field.
Quote
If we were to ride along with any of the active electrons we would find that in the zy current loop the B field (green) is always at right angles to the B field (blue).
His blue B field is also wrong he has it radial from the electron path. That is utter nonsense
QuoteAre you are saying that this B-field (green) is negated?
I am saying it doesn't exist
QuoteThe definition of precession:
the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope.
I am well aware of precessional motion
QuotePerhaps precession is not the correct term, he goes on to state that: Juxtaposition of these two transverse currents (the green loop and the red loop)obligatorily sets the electrons into precession. (referring to the red and green current loops in the diagrams.
The green loop is not a current, it is just the circular motion of the conductor. If you trace out the movement of the conduction electrons moving along the conductor they follow a spiral path through space. Electrons have spin, and they do precess in the presence of a magnetic field at the Larmor frequency, and if you can get them all to precess in phase it is called Electron Spin Resonance (ESR). But this is not what the guy is talking about.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.08.01, 16:58:20
If you trace out the movement of the conduction electrons moving along the conductor they follow a spiral path through space.
Why?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.08.01, 23:16:09
Why?
Hard to understand how they know what interaction the electron has with the magnetic field,when they dont know what the magnetic field-or force is.
There could be so much more going on than we know-->what are we missing here?.I'll tell you what we're missing here--the ability to think for our selves. Where also missing the funding we should be getting for our research. For example-those well funded people at the likes of MIT,and those that came up with there useless magnetic field diode--the one with the two coils inside the U shaped rotating copper drum. These !so called! experts seem to have no idea as to why they are seeing this magnetic field diode effect--and they get paid to know what there doing C.C.
Sometimes i am at a loss as to how some of these !expert's! made it past highschool--most of us could achieve better in our self funded workshops.
Brad
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.08.01, 23:16:09
Why?
Because they are moving along the conductor parallel to the x axis while at the same time that conductor is translating in a circular motion around that x axis.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.08.02, 03:44:53
Hard to understand how they know what interaction the electron has with the magnetic field,when they dont know what the magnetic field-or force is.
But we do know a lot about what creates that field (moving charge) and that there is a connection with the electric field from the moving charge that somehow brings in the factor v/c, so relativity is involved. They also don't know what the electric field is. I have my own views on this that involves "empty" space being full of particles like neutrinos arriving at velocity c from all directions where matter particles continually absorb and emit those neutrinos. At both absorption and emission the matter particle gets a force impulse. All forces such as gravity, inertia, electric and magnetic come from these interactions with those neutrinos.
Smudge
It is a topic of considerable research.
A very interesting brief article about a surprising new discovery. (https://physicsworld.com/a/electrons-in-magnetic-field-reveal-surprises/)
Well now:
QuoteElectrons are swirling around a common centre similar to air molecules in a tornado.
Same above as below. Why should it be any different? Look at this from the opposite side of the farm and one can see the swirling in the tornado is due to a magnetic swirl.
And they produced this with a helical antenna. Well, well, well, well, well... Who would have thunk it?
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.08.02, 09:12:54
Because they are moving along the conductor parallel to the x axis while at the same time that conductor is translating in a circular motion around that x axis.
Smudge
Electric current was known to spiral along a wire back in the mod 1800's. I have not been able to find the origin of this observation, but I did find a reference around 1846 that mentions this spiral motion:
Page 124, second paragraph:
https://books.google.com/books?id=FRZAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=current+spiral+motion+wire&source=bl&ots=-QvS30ntxi&sig=ACfU3U3xbC-FCynrI32APVQoVy8M4iO-lA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDg-jZ7-fjAhWHnp4KHdzLDdIQ6AEwH3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=current%20spiral%20motion%20wire&f=false
Based on the date, I doubt translation of the conductor was a factor.
Back in these days, there was a lot of discussion about whether electric current was one fluid or two.
In paragraph 3, the author provides their explanation of why the current spirals along the wire. He attributes this to the mechanical forces present, which are orthogonal, one axial, and the other radial. I'll assume the wire in question was connected to a battery.
It would seem that the translation of the wire in the generator provides the same forces that cause the current to spiral around the wire.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.08.05, 14:29:12
Electric current was known to spiral along a wire back in the mod 1800's. I have not been able to find the origin of this observation, but I did find a reference around 1846 that mentions this spiral motion:
Page 124, second paragraph:
https://books.google.com/books?id=FRZAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=current+spiral+motion+wire&source=bl&ots=-QvS30ntxi&sig=ACfU3U3xbC-FCynrI32APVQoVy8M4iO-lA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDg-jZ7-fjAhWHnp4KHdzLDdIQ6AEwH3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=current%20spiral%20motion%20wire&f=false
Based on the date, I doubt translation of the conductor was a factor.
Back in these days, there was a lot of discussion about whether electric current was one fluid or two.
In paragraph 3, the author provides their explanation of why the current spirals along the wire. He attributes this to the mechanical forces present, which are orthogonal, one axial, and the other radial. I'll assume the wire in question was connected to a battery.
It would seem that the translation of the wire in the generator provides the same forces that cause the current to spiral around the wire.
Interesting that they called this "fluid" pyrogen? Current flowing in a wire will create a circular magnetic field around it
and within it. Inductance comes from both the external and internal fields. In thin Cu wire (thin compared to the length) the internal field creates negligible inductance, but in Fe wire that internal field often cannot be ignored. And the internal field will create the radial force necessary for the electrons to spiral. But electrons spiraling inside the wire is not the same as electrons moving axially while the wire translates in a circle. Different spirals.
Smudge
I would like you all to think about this--and think hard.
Those who are into welding-e.g,arc and tig,would have seen this for them self.
When arc welding with S/S rod's,you have to use a positive ground.
Doing this shows no problem at all.
!But!,if you swap the polarity around to a negative ground,and while maintaining the same current,you will note that the S/S welding rod will glow red hot. The only way the rod can glow red hot is if more current is flowing through it-->but we never change the current value on the welder :o
The same applies to DC tig welding,where(depending on what kind of steel you are welding)inverting the polarities around will also result in your tungsten tip glowing red hot-->why?
From what i was told by those well versed in the welding game,the cause for the rods getting red hot when using the wrong polarity is due to electrons being drawn from the material being welded,and flowing into the welding rod,where as the right polarity the electrons flow from the rod and into the material being welded.
There is also video's on youtube showing power meters running backwards when arc welding.
I only point this out as it would seem that a higher current can be delivered to the welding rod from the material being welded than the welder it self is delivering to the material being welded-->when the polarity of the welder is set incorrect for that material. Why else would the rod get red hot in one polarity and not in the other,when the !apparent! current flow is the same?
Is there some way we can draw the electrons out of a material in a similar manor,but at much less power levels than those used in welding ?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcPKz7uEq-8
Brad
The current would be the same in both cases, regardless if one causes the welding rod to glow and the other not.
It is to do with electron migration. Look into sacrificial anodes and cathodic protection. It is about electron migration, and in the cases of cathodic protection, it is about reversing the process so that the sacrificial element degrades, not the structure that is to be protected.
With welding and the huge currents involved, this process would be magnified and accelerated, and when performed with the wrong polarity, manifests in the phenomenon you described. It may be that the resistivity of the rod increases as it acquires more electrons, not sure. Someone with a physics or chemistry background can probably explain it.
Brad said:
QuoteIs there some way we can draw the electrons out of a material in a similar manor, but at much less power levels than those used in welding ?.
This is explained with electrostatic cooling. Cup your hand and hold it near the positive of a HV supply and you will feel you palm getting colder (be careful)
Heat a metal plate to red hot then bring a pos HV electrode close to the metal surface, a dark cool spot will appear.
This is an interesting effect worthy of exploration, and also is found in "cold cathode" vacuum tubes and some new experimental refrigeration systems.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770005386
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjspe1933/42/495/42_495_286/_article
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PhDT........63H
Regards
Just going to throw this in here for Chet.
I found that system developed by CSIRO Australia i was talking about the other night on the phone.
It is called BlueGen.
https://www.solidpower.com/en/bluegen/
Quote: BlueGEN is powered by the fully integrated fuel cell module, which, by using solid oxide ceramic fuel cells, ranks among the most efficient energy conversion systems currently available on the market. The waste heat of BlueGEN produced by the process of generating electricity can optionally be used to heat water. About the size of a washing machine, BlueGEN can be installed right there where the electricity is needed. Natural gas or biomethane is used as the source of energy.The system supplies around 13,000 kWh (kilowatt hours) of low-emission electricity per year and thus can meet your electricity needs either completely or in part. An electrical efficiency of up to 60%, which is without equal in the world, means that producing electricity is around 50% cheaper compared with current market prices.The excess heat produced during the energy conversion process can then be used to heat both water and home. This brings the total efficiency of the system up into the 90% range.
Brad
Thx Brad
Will read when I get my PC
Back online later
They are stopping the use of gas in the UK soon, everyone will need to move to electric heating as gas boilers as we call them are fazed out in the next 5 years, this device probably explains why LOL
Same here in The Netherlands, but the 5 year period is already stretched to 2030 due to protests.
Many people however are already switching to heatpumps or other no gas heating appliances.
Due to my 6kW solarsystem, i already am cooking on induction which is great and recently we installed
2 infrared heating panels (1kW and 700W) in the livingroom for heating.
This reduced my gas intake in half, but due to the late start (februari this year) i expect it to be
even more reduced to a total of 1/3th.
This means from about 1400M³ gas to 450M³ (1M³ costs about 0.90€) per year.
Itsu
Perhaps the thread title has some relevance to the latest posts?
" What are we missing here? "
Here in the UK we have a grid network of gas mains covering almost the whole of the mainland. Are our governments sitting on some " new " electricity generation methods that can suddenly replace the gas infrastructure?
It makes me wonder?
Itsu, I'd like to talk to you about " induction cooking " sometime.
Cheers Graham.
https://www.igu.org/natural-gas-efficient
A nice little pictorial summary of what smells like a gigantic energy scam justified by "climate change" mind control conditioning..
Electricity is charged at 4 times more expensive per unit heat delivered to the customer...