Maker Pro
Maker Pro

It's Time To Replace 60 Hz 110V Electricity

D

Duane C. Johnson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Dark.
Hey, dumbfuck... yes you... Billy boy... I said the gasses ARE
isolated from the motor, and they are.

The gasses are not isolated from the motor windings.
See copeland products.
This picture clearly shows the motor cooled by the
refrigerant gasses. I have one of these. The gasses
and oil bath the motor.
http://www.redrok.com/engine.htm#copeland

Duane
The cooling system is a closed loop, and the motor windings are NOT
in that loop, dipshit.

You're the asswipe that doesn't matter. I do more in a week to make
the world a better place than your lame ass will accomplish in your
entire life.

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
[email protected] (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
 
T

The Enlightenment

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Vajk said:
Ahem. Perhaps this will lend better understanding:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=DarkMatter&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en


You're absolutely right. I didn't think my brief post lacked
clarity, nor does it. Unwarranted conclusions are in the mind
of the beholder. I neither drew, nor implied, any causal
relationship between the two mutually exclusive ideas. The
point I made is that there is no free lunch. We believe we
reduce ozone depletion which we exchange for a sturdy
greenhouse gas. I had thought this group astute enough
to grasp the conclusion without spelling out each and
every word. I continue to make that assumption regarding
most of the readers and won't dumb down my posts in future.

In the meanwhile we keep peddling chlorine bleach by the ton.


I believe Chlorine Bleach degrades as follows:

NaOCl -> NaCl + 1/2O2

The chances of a NaCl molecule making it to the ozone layer must be pretty low.
 
T

The Ghost In The Machine

Jan 1, 1970
0
In sci.physics, N. Thornton
<[email protected]>
wrote
Hi

Dc to dc conversion is possible with 1890s technology. Pass dc thru
commutator, put thru transformer, and put thru commutator.

Ew. Brushes.
It was
quite common in the 30s and 40s, now we have the switching technology
to make it work better.

Now for a 1MV line... that would be one large comutator or vibrating
switch!

I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether it would be beneficial
to reduce arcing by enclosing the vibrator in a vacuum. In
air, of course, one would be subject to arcing.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Another Proposal
----------------


I would also like to see a change in lec supply, but nothing yet
proposed here. I'd like to see houses wired with a local 12v 1A system
for running small appliances. It would eliminate
- transformers
- power supplies
- big mains plugs
- need to worry about many safety standards
from lots of little items around the house. It wouls thus make them
smaller, lighter and cheaper.

One 12v PSU could serve a given amount of wall distance, so youd
probably have 2 or more per house. Each outlet would be 1A rated, and
the plug in connectors would be very small and light.


Regards, NT
It seems smart, but it would create BIG earth loop problems.
This (small appliances) would be used for say video equipment, audio equipment?
In such a case, if they all have ground at -12 V (0V), then there would be all sorts
of earth current.
Anyways 1 A would be far to little, so 10 amps...
The lossess, thick cables...
No not for me, and I work a lot with that stuff.
I am not sure but I think I have the local record AC / DC adapters ;-)
These are extremely handy, and good ones have low losses and provide that
nice total separation, great for video and test equipment.
JP
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
The Ghost In The Machine said:
I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether it would be beneficial
to reduce arcing by enclosing the vibrator in a vacuum. In
air, of course, one would be subject to arcing.

I'm not sure a vacuum would stop arcing. Heavy currents could vaporize
enough of the contact material to sustain an arc. And the burning/pitting
would be just as bad.

daestrom
 
N

N. Thornton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
It seems smart, but it would create BIG earth loop problems.
This (small appliances) would be used for say video equipment, audio equipment?
In such a case, if they all have ground at -12 V (0V), then there would be all sorts
of earth current.
Anyways 1 A would be far to little, so 10 amps...
The lossess, thick cables...
No not for me, and I work a lot with that stuff.
I am not sure but I think I have the local record AC / DC adapters ;-)
These are extremely handy, and good ones have low losses and provide that
nice total separation, great for video and test equipment.
JP


Hi jan

It sounds you only half got the idea. Lemme explain.

Piping 12v 10A round would be expensive, and defeat the whole point of
the exercise, which is to make things cheaper and more convenient.
Bear in mind that to get 4x 10A outlets you'd need a power unit of at
least 20A.

12v 1A is plenty for lots of small items, and is cheap to do. It would
run small radios, alarm clocks, radio alarms, night lights, smoke
alarms, and numerous other small gadgets. It would make the whole
setup cheaper in the end for the householder. Because gadgets would
drop in price the range of them available and practical would
increase.

The removal of several small loads off the current mains ring would
increase the number of items one could have plugged ni, but without
the significant cost of additional mains wiring. The 12v 1A plugs
could cost a few pence each instead of 50p each, be 7mm wide instead
of nearer 50mm, 10 way sockets would cost 30p instead of 2 way sockets
costing over £1, the wiring in the wall would be 7p/m speaker wire
instead of 2.5mm^2 T&E @ 30p/m, the plugs would be tiny and no
multiway adaptors needed, and so on.


The idea of using 12v 10A for interconnected equipment is, as you say,
not so workable/attractive. There are no earth loop issues with small
gadgets since they aren't inteconnected.

And in fact, if one did start using the 1A for small interconnected
audio items the earth impedance could be got round by using a
differential input, at a small fraction of the cost of a mains
transformer and the various issues that come along with that. So even
on interconnecteds you atill win.


Regards, NT
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi jan

It sounds you only half got the idea. Lemme explain.

Piping 12v 10A round would be expensive, and defeat the whole point of
the exercise, which is to make things cheaper and more convenient.
Bear in mind that to get 4x 10A outlets you'd need a power unit of at
least 20A.

12v 1A is plenty for lots of small items, and is cheap to do. It would
run small radios, alarm clocks, radio alarms, night lights, smoke
alarms, and numerous other small gadgets. It would make the whole
setup cheaper in the end for the householder. Because gadgets would
drop in price the range of them available and practical would
increase.

The removal of several small loads off the current mains ring would
increase the number of items one could have plugged ni, but without
the significant cost of additional mains wiring. The 12v 1A plugs
could cost a few pence each instead of 50p each, be 7mm wide instead
of nearer 50mm, 10 way sockets would cost 30p instead of 2 way sockets
costing over £1, the wiring in the wall would be 7p/m speaker wire
instead of 2.5mm^2 T&E @ 30p/m, the plugs would be tiny and no
multiway adaptors needed, and so on.


The idea of using 12v 10A for interconnected equipment is, as you say,
not so workable/attractive. There are no earth loop issues with small
gadgets since they aren't inteconnected.

And in fact, if one did start using the 1A for small interconnected
audio items the earth impedance could be got round by using a
differential input, at a small fraction of the cost of a mains
transformer and the various issues that come along with that. So even
on interconnecteds you atill win.


Regards, NT
OK, I think I see you point., do you mean use 1 DC to DC converter,
with separate windings and rectifiers for each outlet?
That could be done,
The 12 V 1 A is only 12 W however, substract some 80 % efficiency,
for an audio amp that would result is 9.6 W (so 4.8 W / channell, or
1.6 W if 5.1 surround, not enough for the big speakers).
For a DVD player or VHS you will need more then that too likely
(my DVD player has a switch mode and it does consume a lot).
Also these 'appliances' you refer too usually need different
voltages, in this DVD player I have -27 (why?) +12, -12, +5, 1.6
(oh I see why, display).
Most modern audio amps use symetric supply +- 40 V or more
(for 8 Ohm speakers).
So you will then need an OTHER switch mode and transformer.
I see the good intentions, and for sure If I also had 12 V outlets
(DC) I would use these too ;-)
I did start on an in house system with 8 pole sockets that also had
i2c data, 12 V, but it ended up in some box.
This 240V 50 Hz we have here is real easy ........
Voltage drop after a few meters were a problem in the 12 V system.
It ment you would have to stabilize again at each drop point,
either with low drop reguators to 9, or a 7805 to 5 V, or use some
expensive switchmode chip..
Nice to run a LCD display on the frontdoor, but bad for any higher power stuff.
JP
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi jan

It sounds you only half got the idea. Lemme explain.

Piping 12v 10A round would be expensive, and defeat the whole point of
the exercise, which is to make things cheaper and more convenient.
Bear in mind that to get 4x 10A outlets you'd need a power unit of at
least 20A.

12v 1A is plenty for lots of small items, and is cheap to do. It would
run small radios, alarm clocks, radio alarms, night lights, smoke
alarms, and numerous other small gadgets. It would make the whole
setup cheaper in the end for the householder. Because gadgets would
drop in price the range of them available and practical would
increase.

Yes, and 10 12V 1A items is 12V 10A, so what do you gain? Install
huge fat wire in the walls and a whole bunch of little expensive
12V outlets? Or a separate set of 1A wire from your PSU to each of
the outlets?

Here in the US, they've discovered a thing called the "transformer."
One of those magical gadgets lets you run your 12V equipment right
off the mains! Or, you could move your rectifeer/filter to the basement,
and drive all your devices off the same supply, necessitating additional
isolation.

I might use 24 or 28 or 48VDC when I build my solar house, but for
now, mains is cheap enough.

Cheers!
Rich
 
N

N. Thornton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, and 10 12V 1A items is 12V 10A, so what do you gain?

already explained. Dont forget diversity.

Install
huge fat wire in the walls and a whole bunch of little expensive
12V outlets? Or a separate set of 1A wire from your PSU to each of
the outlets?

Neither. Runs will be limited length. One 4A supply will cover a given
wall distance. A 4A supply will supply say 10 outlets.

speaker wire 2.5A 7.9p - 9.3p/m
1mm^2 T&E 12A 17.5 - 19p/m
24/0.2 wire 4.5A 6.1p - 7.2p/m

those are from a company selling regulation mains 2.5T&E for 29.5p/m.

Outlet costs, lets see... straight boxed headers, 20 pin, 23p to 39p.
Thats not much for a 10 way power socket, and its just over an inch
long.
The plugs for the leads cost much less and are tiny.

Its small and neat as well as way cheaper.

Here in the US, they've discovered a thing called the "transformer."
One of those magical gadgets lets you run your 12V equipment right
off the mains!

ok, now what does being silly prove?

Or, you could move your rectifeer/filter to the basement,
and drive all your devices off the same supply, necessitating additional
isolation.

no, that would entail thick wires, loads more wiring, and a fused
distribution system. Think.

I might use 24 or 28 or 48VDC when I build my solar house, but for
now, mains is cheap enough.

Advantages covered already.


Regards, NT

 
F

feklar

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, as an upper limit, DC-to-DC is less efficient than AC-to-AC by
the losses involved in DC-to-AC and AC-to-DC.

The only time DC makes sense is when you are doing very long
distance transmission. Here, very long is defined as large
compared to 1/4 wavelength at 60 Hz. Or when you don't need
to transmit it at all, such as when you are dealing with a
vehicle, or with used-on-generation-location power.

60 Hz is a fair compromise between what transformers want and
what transmission lines want. Transmission lines want lower
frequencies to limit radiation. Transformers would like a bit
higher to be more efficient and smaller.
Socks

Actually, I suspect the most efficient method of electricity
transmission, for either long distance or direct feed into homes, will
eventually end up being seperate oxygen and hydrogen pipelines. Zero
line resistance loss, no transformer issues. Made out of cheap, high
strength glass, with pipe sections being self sealing in case of
instantaneous pressure drop.


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
 
S

Steve Spence

Jan 1, 1970
0
and how will the hydrogen be made? you just introduced a whole nuther layer
of inefficiency .......

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
feklar said:
[snip]
The DC is switched to AC via electronics, then transformed, then
rectified.

So, as an upper limit, DC-to-DC is less efficient than AC-to-AC by
the losses involved in DC-to-AC and AC-to-DC.

The only time DC makes sense is when you are doing very long
distance transmission. Here, very long is defined as large
compared to 1/4 wavelength at 60 Hz. Or when you don't need
to transmit it at all, such as when you are dealing with a
vehicle, or with used-on-generation-location power.

60 Hz is a fair compromise between what transformers want and
what transmission lines want. Transmission lines want lower
frequencies to limit radiation. Transformers would like a bit
higher to be more efficient and smaller.
Socks

Actually, I suspect the most efficient method of electricity
transmission, for either long distance or direct feed into homes, will
eventually end up being seperate oxygen and hydrogen pipelines. Zero
line resistance loss, no transformer issues. Made out of cheap, high
strength glass, with pipe sections being self sealing in case of
instantaneous pressure drop.


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
 
N

N. Thornton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually, I suspect the most efficient method of electricity
transmission, for either long distance or direct feed into homes, will
eventually end up being seperate oxygen and hydrogen pipelines.

i.e. you dont know.
Zero
line resistance loss,

gas flowing thru pipes needs a pressure drop to make it flow, so there
is energy loss. There is also gas leakage in real world piped systems.
no transformer issues.

no issues? OK, how do you convert H2 to electrons at 100% efficiency
cheaply and safely?
Made out of cheap, high
strength glass,

which just happens to be rather pricey.
with pipe sections being self sealing in case of
instantaneous pressure drop.

more cost


NT
 
F

feklar

Jan 1, 1970
0
i.e. you dont know.

Someone on USENET who actually understood something someone else tried
to posit or point out. This has to be a first. Someone save this
post for posterity. This is truly amazing.
gas flowing thru pipes needs a pressure drop to make it flow, so there
is energy loss. There is also gas leakage in real world piped systems.

In other words, you mean it takes energy to pressurize the system.
This is true.
no issues? OK, how do you convert H2 to electrons at 100% efficiency
cheaply and safely?

Who says you need to? Say you used nuke plants fueled via a breeder
reactor to perform the electrolysis. Not the most efficient setup
possible, not even remotely close, but cost-wise that would still be
cost-efficient, if it were not for the huges costs of the lawsuits the
oil companies bankroll to keep such plants form being built.

Actually, the means of oxygen and hydrogen production I was referring
to was some future very large scale solar electrolysis design.

The only real downside of any inefficiency in that case is very
wasteful land use, but this can be tolerated as long as enough land is
available and as long as the sale of the power produced will pay for
the cost of the land expansion. Later, when more efficient designs
are found, the pre-existing land used can be redone with the new, more
efficient designs.

Or, if no one can produce a more efficient design than the existing
designs, at least you have something that works, and regardless of the
inefficiency, the only real question is the return on investment,
whether it will pay for itself in a reasonable period of time with the
sale of the generated electricity and/or oxygen and hydrogen.
which just happens to be rather pricey.

It may be pricey now, but this is going to change drastically. Trust
me, I have insider information.
more cost

Nothing is free. Shite worth having always costs something. Even
most shite not worth having will still cost you an arm and a leg.


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
 
B

Bill Vajk

Jan 1, 1970
0
feklar said:
Actually, the means of oxygen and hydrogen production I was referring
to was some future very large scale solar electrolysis design.

Please take this sort of discussion to scifi writers groups,
this is the sci heirarchy.
 
F

feklar

Jan 1, 1970
0
Please take this sort of discussion to scifi writers groups,
this is the sci heirarchy.

Hey thanks for the great advice. I hadn't thought of that. You're
right, most of the really impressive scientific advances,
geosynchronous satellites for example, were thought up by sci-fi
writers, not scientists. Then scientists read the sci-fi, found it
fascinating, and pursured the new ideas to fruition.

I appreciate that excellent advice.


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
 
N

N. Thornton

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 23 Sep 2003 12:23:53 -0700, [email protected] (N. Thornton) wrote:
Hi
Who says you need to?

Well my stereo doesn't have an input for hydrogen and oxygen, nor does
the monitor. So once you've delivered to the house you need to
convert. With 240v ac (or 110) it is done cheaply safely and
efficiently by a small transformer. Where is the cheap safe efficient
convertor for your proposal? AFAIK there isn't one: could be a bit of
an issue.
Say you used nuke plants fueled via a breeder
reactor to perform the electrolysis. Not the most efficient setup
possible, not even remotely close, but cost-wise that would still be
cost-efficient, if it were not for the huges costs of the lawsuits the
oil companies bankroll to keep such plants form being built.

If its not even remoetly close then its a non-runner from the
financial perspective.
Actually, the means of oxygen and hydrogen production I was referring
to was some future very large scale solar electrolysis design.

Complete non runner, the costs are staggering.
The only real downside of any inefficiency in that case is very
wasteful land use,

hardly. There's the small facts that
1. no end user will buy the power
2. no-one will finance the setup
3. no competent busines person will get involved in the project
etc
but this can be tolerated as long as enough land is
available and as long as the sale of the power produced will pay for
the cost of the land expansion.

Land is the least issue. Land is cheap in the desert.
Later, when more efficient designs
are found, the pre-existing land used can be redone with the new, more
efficient designs.
Or, if no one can produce a more efficient design than the existing
designs, at least you have something that works,

need way more than that!
and regardless of the
inefficiency, the only real question is the return on investment,
whether it will pay for itself in a reasonable period of time with the
sale of the generated electricity and/or oxygen and hydrogen.

clearly it never will, that's what hopelesssly inefficient and
ridiculously priced means.
It may be pricey now, but this is going to change drastically. Trust
me, I have insider information.

I dont.
Nothing is free. Shite worth having always costs something. Even
most shite not worth having will still cost you an arm and a leg.

That's not much justification for your monstrously expensive proposal.


Regards, NT
 
Hey thanks for the great advice. I hadn't thought of that. You're
right, most of the really impressive scientific advances,
geosynchronous satellites for example, were thought up by sci-fi
writers, not scientists. Then scientists read the sci-fi, found it
fascinating, and pursured the new ideas to fruition.

I appreciate that excellent advice.


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg


That's one hell of a tool bar you got there.
 
F

feklar

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well my stereo doesn't have an input for hydrogen and oxygen, nor does
the monitor. So once you've delivered to the house you need to
convert. With 240v ac (or 110) it is done cheaply safely and
efficiently by a small transformer. Where is the cheap safe efficient
convertor for your proposal? AFAIK there isn't one: could be a bit of
an issue.

Either a thermal or combustion power generator or maybe quasiturbine
at each house, or at nearby power company substations. If the latter,
how many and where is up to them, it might only be used for long
distance power transmission.
If its not even remoetly close then its a non-runner from the
financial perspective.

Nuke plants as they exist to day in the USA are not even remotely
close to being energy efficient, yet they are cost efficient and turn
a profit. But from the power conversion standpoint, Its highly
inefficient without even considering the fact that fuel is not getting
reprocessed, and the breeder reactors are not being utilized to fuel
the light water reactors. If what you said was true then all nuke
plants would have to be closed down, or would never have been built in
the first place.
Complete non runner, the costs are staggering.

You have no idea what the economics are, obviously. If you did, you
would know that the costs are not any real issue. Unless they are so
expensive that not even governments or oil companies can afford to
build them, then the only real determining factor is how long until
return on the investment. If power output can be built up quickly for
a low or moderate or even high initial cost, and the power gets sold
to generate income, and the income pays for the land, equipment,
labor, and materials used in the construction in a reasonably short
period of time are the only considerations.
hardly. There's the small facts that
1. no end user will buy the power
Perhaps, perhaps not, it depends on what the power company finds most
efficient.
2. no-one will finance the setup
Only a fool passes up a business opportunity. There are stll
investors left, if good enough workable ideas can be produced.
3. no competent busines person will get involved in the project
etc
Without knowing the details of the project, thats a little premature.
Hopefully you aren't always like that.
Land is the least issue. Land is cheap in the desert.



need way more than that!

Like what
clearly it never will, that's what hopelesssly inefficient and
ridiculously priced means.

Same as for nuclear power, when the plants were built they were
ridiculously priced and hopelessly inefficient. But they had a
reasonable return on investment, nevertheless. Same goes for deep
undersea oil rigs.
I dont.



That's not much justification for your monstrously expensive proposal.

Let me guess, you are a green.
Regards, NT


The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
 
D

DarkMatter

Jan 1, 1970
0
Either a thermal or combustion power generator or maybe quasiturbine
at each house, or at nearby power company substations. If the latter,
how many and where is up to them, it might only be used for long
distance power transmission.


Right. Equip every house with a generator unit that costs more than
most houses.

You're an idiot.
 
N

N. Thornton

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 24 Sep 2003 00:15:05 -0700, [email protected] (N. Thornton) wrote:
Either a thermal or combustion power generator or maybe quasiturbine
at each house, or at nearby power company substations.

Which? Which are you saying is
available
cheap
reliable
safe
and maintenance free? I get the disctinct impression you dont know,
but am happy to listen.

If the latter,
how many and where is up to them,

tell us your plan
it might only be used for long
distance power transmission.

whats your plan?
Nuke plants as they exist to day in the USA are not even remotely
close to being energy efficient, yet they are cost efficient and turn
a profit. But from the power conversion standpoint, Its highly
inefficient without even considering the fact that fuel is not getting
reprocessed, and the breeder reactors are not being utilized to fuel
the light water reactors. If what you said was true then all nuke
plants would have to be closed down, or would never have been built in
the first place.

2 separate issues.

1. When nukes were built they were built to produce war fuel, and the
cost was justified by that return. The first plant actually consumed
more leccy than it generated.

2. Nuke plants today pay, and your scheme doesnt, by miles.

You have no idea what the economics are, obviously.

I have done the numbers for it, and its comically unfeasible. - Unless
you can pull a _very_ clever rabbit out the hat to make it work. Given
your lack of knowledge I find that unlikely.

If you did, you
would know that the costs are not any real issue.

They are THE issue. That's usually the way in business.
Unless they are so
expensive that not even governments or oil companies can afford to
build them,

With nukes the govt had a reason to build them, so as you say cost was
secondary. With your scheme there is no reason other than power
output, governments have no other interest in this idea. They dont pay
so they wont be financing them. That leaves it down to businesses
banks and investors. But if it doesnt pay, no go.
then the only real determining factor is how long until
return on the investment.

Your plan could never even pay 10% of its cost back in its lifetime.
Its financially dead duck like.

If power output can be built up quickly for
a low or moderate or even high initial cost, and the power gets sold
to generate income, and the income pays for the land, equipment,
labor, and materials used in the construction in a reasonably short
period of time are the only considerations.

It doesn't, and never does. Do the numbers if you want to claim it
does, show us.

Perhaps, perhaps not, it depends on what the power company finds most
efficient.

No, it depends on the sale price of the power. No-one will buy power
at over a dollar a watt, full stop.

Only a fool passes up a business opportunity. There are stll
investors left, if good enough workable ideas can be produced.

If, yes, but this isn't.
Without knowing the details of the project, thats a little premature.

You've told me all I need to know. You have a proposal thats been
looked at by many and always proven extremely impractical, and you
have nothing more thana vague idea, no numbers, no concrete design.
Hopefully you aren't always like that.

With dud ideas, yes. If you're capable you can learn the problems with
this one and come up with something beter, then something better, etc.
If you stick with this, you're going nowhere. Just learn how to
evaluate and where the problems are.

And understand this is one area where even the leading experts cant be
expected to come up with much. Its a very very tough field.

Like what

Your idea produces intermittent power. It is neither baseline nor
peaking plant: you will thus get a low price for the power at best.

The idea needs to pay.

It needs numbers on it to see how much land, how much money, how much
investment, return, run costs, any other issues...
and finally it needs a real concrete design.
Same as for nuclear power, when the plants were built they were
ridiculously priced and hopelessly inefficient. But they had a
reasonable return on investment, nevertheless.

their return was war fuel, not electricity.
Same goes for deep
undersea oil rigs.

they have a so many percent success rate, with huge return on the
successful ones. They pay.

Let me guess, you are a green.

Address the issue. Don't wander off into personalities. If you want to
get somewhere.

The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.

Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg

That doesn't do your cred any favours either.


Regards, NT
 
Top