www.robowars.org

RoboWars Australia Forum Index -> Off-Topic

Future transport solutions
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Post new topic   Reply to topic
  Author    Thread
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin


Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia


 Reply with quote  

Timing info on lightning here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Sounds like the bulk of the power occurs in about 100 microseconds. (.0001 seconds for the non techies).

While that is fast, it doesnt seem to be beyond the bounds of possibility to develop a capacitor bank capable of absorbing it.

Sure, its not going to be something you buy down at dick smith, but you dont buy power station 500 megawatt turbo alternators there either.

Any capacitor bank that can soak up a lightning bolt is going to be a forest of glass insulators, copper bus bars meters across and a lot of square meters of real estate. But doesnt that sound like most of the machinery in a power station anyway ? you dont play with megawatts without some serious hardware to control it.

The ancient leyden-jar design might be just the thing. IIRC they can store a respectable wallop of power, are easy to make as big as you like, and dont need any exotic electrolytes. Just a lot of glass (cheap as), and metal plating.

The Tesla coil guys would be the ones to ask about this.. they're familair with high watt capacitors and still nutty enough to consider whether something that hasnt been done yet might be doable.

hmmmmm. Idea
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:13 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Valen
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney


 Reply with quote  

re lightning
i dont think there would be that much energy in it (in the grand scheme of things)
the thunderstorm itself has a bucketload of energy but how much of that comes out as lightning i dont know

cool place to work though.

if you "caught" one
you would then want to switch over to chargning another bank then run the charge stored in the first bank into something more "storablle"
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:42 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin


Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia


 Reply with quote  

quote from Wikipedia..

"An average bolt of positive lightning carries a current of 300 kiloamperes, transfers a charge of up to 300 coulombs, has a potential difference up to 1 gigavolt (a thousand million volts), dissipates enough energy to light a 100 watt lightbulb for up to 95 years, and lasts for tens or hundreds of milliseconds."

not much energy ?? Razz
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:50 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
DumHed
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 1219
Location: Sydney


 Reply with quote  

they also say that positive lightning makes up less than 5% of all lightning, and by the sounds of it it'd be harder to predict and / or catch.

Even then, a 100W light bulb for 95 years is only 95 100W light bulbs for a year.
There are a lot of 100W light bulbs out there you know!

Also, all of these storage ideas result in very high voltage DC.
Converting that efficiently into lower voltage AC to be compatible with existing technology is not a simple matter.
_________________
The Engine Whisperer - fixer of things

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:59 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin


Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia


 Reply with quote  

True.. if it was easy it would have already been done..

The positive lightning would be an issue if we were sitting around waiting for random lightning bolts to strike. but with a laser-triggered pre-ionised discharge path from the cloud, I expect the energy transfer would be of the "positive" lighting type.

The high voltage DC is difficult to deal with, might need to develop something like an electrostatic voltage powered motor rather than a magnetic current powered one, but as I said it doesnt seem out of the realms of possibility.

The technology to deal with stored lightning power may not exist on the shelf at this moment, but I'm reasonably confident it could be developed without too much effort.. we're not talking about discovering new principles here, just re-engineering existing electrical technology to deal with a different type of electrical power.

Think about the amount of massive machinery that goes into scraping coal out of holes in the ground. One mine's worth of machinery cost would easily afford the development of the systems I imagine would be required.

Maybe I'm getting over-excited, but it seems to me a naturally powered renewable source of electrical energy snapping away in our faces should have some effort put into being utilised..

It would be just like humans to keep digging away with their heads in the sand looking for dangerous polluting energy sources while it crackles all around them for free Rolling Eyes
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:10 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Valen
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney


 Reply with quote  

you would probbly be better off with a bigass wind turbine running in the storm.

Fusion is the only real answer.
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:31 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Knightrous
Site Admin


Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 8511
Location: NSW


 Reply with quote  

Fusion is a very good answer, it's been running our universe for a few hundred billion years...

Now all we need is someone to come up with some clever inventions like the Flux Capacitor and Mr Fusion that sell at the price of a house hold toaster.

OT: Has anyone played the game, Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising ? It has a very interesting technology in it called "Nano Assemblers" which is basically a micro robot that build things from scratch on a atomic level. In the game you collect scrap and use the scrap to build things out of the collected atoms.

The bad thing was "Nano Dissemblers " which in the game destroyed anything that had an atomic structure... Twisted Evil
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:34 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message
Totaly_Recycled
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1346


 Reply with quote  

lol this is a good topic i always enjoy discussing .

Aaron posted a couple of the idea's ive had and some ive tried. I have run a mower on hydrogen which was produced form an alternator drivceen by the i/c engine when i was much younger .
My main objective was to disperse the belief of a few people that it would blow up like a hydrogen bomb .My findings were that it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than it produces , That a totaly unmodified motor ( except for the fuel delivery system ) can run on it .

Some of my later idea's arent about getting free energy but more so to prolong and make more use of the existing energy for cars namely petrol .
Most i/c motors are around 16-18 percent efficiant (some newer motors might be better ),that meens that 16 percent gets turned into motion the rest is wasted as heat.
One of my idea's is to capture as much of the waste heat and turn it into steam or some other useful type of medium that energy can be re introduced back into the drive train .Steam produced from a heat exchanger on the exaust and pre heated water from the engines cooling system could be sent through a turbine or rotary type vane engine thats coupled to the I/C's crank shaft thus taping some of the wasted fuel energy back into the drive train .This would meen that the i/c component doesnt have to work as hard and can be run at a leaner setting and use less fuel to do the same job .

My other idea of tapping the exaust heat and kinetic energy through a heat exchanger and turbine -alternator- hydrogen convertor set up this could produce a small amount to hydrogen that could be added to the i/c engines air fuel mix thus extending the run time of a tank of petrol .

As for captureing lightning bolts.. well i like Bret think that it could be possible with the right hardware ..huge leaden jars were also my thoughs lol .. tapping it off after capture im not sure about unles it could be transformed into a lower d/c voltage to charge large battery banks that could be taped off with a/c invertors to feed into a grid system

i have a few other energy idea's but most wouldnt be able to be used in cars but could be viable for home energy systems.

Post Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:02 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message
Daniel
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 2729
Location: Gold Coast


 Reply with quote  

Well here is something I've been looking into over the last few years

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/

http://www.besslerwheel.com/

http://aa.1asphost.com/tonyart/tonyt/Applets/Wheel/Bessler2.html

my computer models, both in Solidworks and in Matlab, don't seem to get over unity, but the therory is there. I havn't tried building anything yet.

Post Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:55 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Totaly_Recycled
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1346


 Reply with quote  

Hi Daniel .
I looked t your links .
I also built a device about 6 years ago to harnes gravity .
it consisted of two interconected balanced radial wheels (not exactly wheels).The first primary wheel was slightle smaller diametor from the second.
The second (wheel)was made from bike spokes and didnt have an outer rim a series of weights of the same mass and size were mounted on the outer ends of the spokes. the axel of the second wheel was on a slightly higer horizantal plane than the first. .The center of the second wheel was set closer to one outer edge of the first wheel.
The spokes of the second wheel slid through rounded holes on the rim of first wheel.
The idea was as the first wheel turned the weighted spokes of the second wheel rested on the outer rim of the first. Because the second was off set to the first the spokes and weights protruded a long distance out of the rim .where as the spokes on the oposite side were very close to the rim .This in theory put much more weight on the extended side of the first wheel so that in looking at it it should have been very off ballance .the spokes were deshined to slide in and out of the rim .when turned the first whel rin revolved in a complete circular orbit , whilts the outer ends of the second (wheel) rotated in an eliptical orbit. So from the top on one side the weights extended a long distance and since their weight was directly imposed on the rim of the first they should have had more force o the rim than the wights on the oposide side .so in looking at the machine it should have started rotateing by its self . But it didnt .I blamed component firiction for some of the failure but on a more closer examination and disection of various parts i found that even though it loked outof balance it was inded ballenced .because of the eliptaal orbit. the weight distribution was over a longer distance but looking on the vertical plane because of the way the spokes protruded out of the rim being conected to a central axis there were always more weiths on the up side than the down side of the vertical line .i had an idea to use a cam type system to corect the angles so that there were more on the longer side and retain the unbalance but i think that the xtra friction would also be its undoing . I think that its not totaly imposible to harnes gravity but my thinking is that any machine would have to be huge and heavy with very low friction parts .
I also have had a secondary idea that i havent tried on a large scale yet .it also involves gravity im sure this idea would work if it could actualy be built .
it involves useing the same properties of capilary action of a gravitation force that tres and plants harnes to get water to the top against gravity .
the machine would be simply a huge capilary pipe work systtem capable of lifting a substantial amount of water to a substantial height then useing a very simple water wheel to harnes the energy ..

Has any one ever had similar thoughts . it would involve two gravitationl systems one to lift the ewater and one to capture the power of the falling weight of the water ..this would probaly be the closets thing to pepetual mtion iff it could be built .just an extra edit
i have tried this theory by simply totaly encloseing the upper leaves and branches of a fairly large schrub with a big plastic bag and then let the captured condentate that formed drip on to a very small wheel made from paddle pop sticks with small plastic cups glued the the ends .not much power but it ran contioniously dureing daylight hours .

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:04 am 
 View user's profile Send private message
Totaly_Recycled
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1346


 Reply with quote  

Also an other idea i had along the same lines would be to build some big solar concentrators to evaporate water which could be chaneled up a huge insulated columb to something like a big ferris wheel and then be condensed at the top and ru back down inbig containers .ot mabee a huge tower with a storage tank at the top and a turbne down the bottom .i think more energe could be harnesed by a wheel than a turbie though . Any thoughts on these idea's

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:22 am 
 View user's profile Send private message
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin


Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia


 Reply with quote  

Not according to the laws of Thermodynamics, No.

As Jake said, according to out current theories, any closed system will eventually run down into a general dispersion of heat. It would be nice to find an exception to this rule, but I dont know that it has been done yet.

The key to "free" energy without violating the laws of thermodynamics is to source your energy from "outside" the closed system you're working in.

IE. Waterfall powered generators look like free energy, but in actual fact, the energy is indirectly coming from the sun, which evaporates the water from the sea (where it has a low gravitational energy content), moves it up to the highlands (adding to its potential gravitational energy) where it rains, and flows downhill again, so we can keep extracting energy from it.

Turn off the sun, and (ignoring the other minor inconveniences of your actions) eventually niagra falls wont fall anymore..

Ultimately, most "natural" energy sources can be traced back to being sun-powered. Solar, Photosynthesis, Life, Wind etc. Even fossil fuels are the accumulated residue of millions of years of sun-powered life.

Some other major sources of natural energy lying around are nuclear/radioactives, angular/kinetic/rotational (planets spinning), gravitational (tides, waves), Thermal (Planet Core heat). Theres an awful lot of hydrogen over on Jupiter that would be cool to have access to, but its *two* major gravity-wells away from us, which makes it difficult to scoop up.

Radioactives look tempting, but given the known effects of radioactivity on our form of life, until we can figure out a feasible long-term disposal solution to the waste products (Firing them into the sun would be good if we could manage it), then I'm not sure its a great way to go just yet. When we get fusion working I might change my mind. Fission just looks too messy from what I know of it.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:07 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Philip
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane


 Reply with quote  

Radioactive material could always be buried where it was mined.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:26 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message
Totaly_Recycled
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1346


 Reply with quote  

yes i agree that a closed loop system takeing energy out with out putting any back in wont work i found that out with my wheel thingy ..my last examples were useing external energy to lift water vapour then recondense it to do work useing (free) solar energy

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:10 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message
Valen
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney


 Reply with quote  

fission can be pretty messy but if you plan it from the start you can get the cycle pretty clean.
you take your uranium refine it and make power + waste, nifty ;->
you take the waste which contains high and low level stuff, you put it into a breeder reactor with some more uranium and you get plutonium and some more waste (but you wind up with alot more stuff what can make loads of energy so its worth doing) and you wind up with lower level waste.

you then take your medium and high level waste, IE stuff wot is a bit too nasty to bury in the ground and have it be less radio active than were you got it. and blast it with a particle accelerator making your stuff with half lives of 10 000 years into massivly radio active stuff with a half life of minutes.

End result is you wind up with an assload of power, and if you are keen some slightly less radioactive dirt.
i'd rather have to deal with nuclear waste which is a problem we can solve *with* nuclear power, than try to deal with making better use of oil. because it dosent matter how well you use it, there aint gonna be no more of it in any decent time frame.
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Post Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:29 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
  Display posts from previous:      

Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Last Thread | Next Thread  >
Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
millenniumFalcon Template By Vereor.