Connect with us


Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by SPOLIK, Dec 24, 2003.

Scroll to continue with content

    SPOLIK Guest

    hello I`ve been thinking of a way to have minimal power supply in my woods
    20 acres
    I`m making a shed in the middle and would like to have little power for
    skill saw and table saw.
    so what I thought of is taking a 12v battery (poss. marine battery) hooking
    up a power inverter to have 120v power , then with a power bar 3plugs, have
    one for skill saw, one for table saw and one for a battery charger to charge
    up the battery that the inverter hooked to!
    I`m I way off or will this work?????
    I have not used inverter before and don`t know how fast they drain battery
    any other suggestion would be great.
    ps I think I found a new forum fav.
    I love homemade things!!!!!!
  2. (SPOLIK) wrote in
    Sure, it will work great at running down the battery.
    Look. You can't take power out of the battery, run it
    through an inverter, then a charger, and then put it back
    where it came from. The inverter is not 100% effecient,
    the charger is not 100% efficent, the battery is not 100%
    efficent while recharging.

    Better idea:
    Buy a generator.

    Another idea.
    Use the battery and inverter. That will let you run things
    for a short time. For longer run times hook the battery
    to your car battery (with jumper cables) and run the engine.
    For more power consider replacing your car's alternator with
    a heavy duty alternator.
  3. Dennis Davis

    Dennis Davis Guest

    use battery, inverter, and at least 1 source of power to replenish
    batteries. This can a solar panel, a small wind turbine, a generator.
    I use an old tiller motor(3hp) to drive a car alterator, both are mounted on
    a length of 2x12 about 3' long. You can even put the battery and inverter
    on the same board, with some hardware store wheels and a handle its very
    portable. Sams club sells the batteries and inverters. The golf cart type
    are the best choice, but you'll need 2 as they're 6v. As for the inverter,
    get one thats at least 1750 watts, I've found the 2500 watt units to be
    perfect, it'll even run my 220v well pump through a 110 to 220 transformer.
    Anything less than 1750watts and you'll get cheap junk only good for
    powering tv's and small loads, but could damage even a small microwave
    oven(600 watt oven).
  4. Bob Peterson

    Bob Peterson Guest

    I am just curious. Why are so many people here so opposed to the simplest
    solutions? Why not just suggest as a solution to his problem a nice
    generator? Can be purchased at Sam's or Home Depot for very little and you
    don't have to worry about batteries, or an inverter, or cobbling up
    something from a junk yard. is the simplest and easiest solution not
    generally the best?
  5. Andy Hunt

    Andy Hunt Guest

    I must admit the thought when I turn on the gas fire that innocent people
    have died so that I can get warm isn't a nice thought. I'm busy saving for
    my solar thermal, wind turbine . . . and I'll be getting a solid fuel fire.
    At least I can burn carbon-neutral wood then.

  6. Steve Young

    Steve Young Guest

    uhm, that's a fairly ignorant reply / argument

    Fossil fuel is carbon, sequestered in the earth's crust. Burning it releases the
    carbon above ground

    Green trees become deadfall and then insects and bacteria set about to return
    the carbon to the atmosphere. Very, very few trees get captured and preserved
    within the earth, as is fossil fuel before it's burned.

    Steve Young
  7. Steve Young

    Steve Young Guest

    You must not live in the frigid north ;)
    It doesn't matter, they are different. What if our atmosphere was 98% carbon
    dioxide and hundreds of millions of years buried it into the earth, replacing it
    with oxygen? So now we have a higher total percent of oxygen, and we can

    Fossil fuels are not renewable in anyone's lifetime,.or even ten
    thousand consecutive lifetimes. Few trees exceed a human lifespan.
    Then earth will have more oxygen, (with the sequestered carbon ;)

    Show me proof that something different occurs
    (The cycle is to the tune of 100% efficienct).

    The only difference is, by burning wood, you make it heat, rather than bugs
    getting to eat. (That's the only difference, outside of a few particulates of
    ash and products of creosote, if by chance, it's poorly or improperly burned).
    They both contain equal carbon release, one just happens faster than the
    Well, it's what I gleaned from Andy's post

    PS Honestly, I believe it's livestock flatulence that's causing all the trouble
  8. Hi Mr. Jahnke;

    I am using a 63 amp alternater from a (I am told) mid 70's Impla attached to
    a stationary bicicle (to augment my solar system). All I can manage to pedal
    for is 1 1/2 minits twice a day. The alternater is obviously too big, but
    what size should I have bought, or should I stick with the one that I have
    and practice until I can pedal for longer periods of time? I am using 2
    batteries, an auto battery and a deep cycle 75 ah battery.

    Keep smilin'
  9. Bob Peterson

    Bob Peterson Guest

    since few people can generate more than 100W for any length of time, your
    alternator seems to be oversize by a factor of about 10.
  10. Steve Young

    Steve Young Guest

    Ahh, in comparison, pendulums don't swing on wood, splitting mauls do ;)
    OK, then how bout a few thousand years or so? Would that get me closer?

    Don't you see what I've patiently shown? It's the problem with your 2 time
    lines Growth and usage / decomposition of wood occurs similtaniously. Yet 100s
    of millions of years of fossil fuel production can get tossed into the air in
    several hundred years. See the difference?
    So how do you know this? And would this be reason not to conserve in your
    (Or even the formation of fossil fuel)
    So you're finally catching on?
    And so what if we all sleep with tailpipes stuck up our noses?

    Ya know, I asked you to cite proofs and all you do is ramble on with your 'know
    it all' bull shit
    Does fossil fuel even come close to this time comparison?
    Clue, which life cycle is closer to understanding?
    which life cycle has give-and-take, all within a few days? (relatively speaking)
    It's a good thing I had you to teach me :(
    Course you never realized I was 2 steps ahead of you all along
    Does starting their cars count?

    I'd even give ya a couple hundred life spans head start on carbon neutral coal
    Are we close yet?

    so what's the *code* maan!?
  11. Andy Hunt

    Andy Hunt Guest

    Of course every combustible carbon compound on the planet is "carbon

    The problem is that the human species has, over a very short period of time,
    burned a lot of combustible carbon resources which has in turn released a
    lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The presence of this CO2 stops
    the sun's heat from being reflected back into space, which in turn results
    in the planet heating up.

    This means that if we want to control the planet's climate, we have to be in
    control of the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Now if the changes in climate were very small, and it would take thousands
    of years to become a problem, then continuing to burn fossil fuels wouldn't
    cause a problem. But because we only really have maybe a couple of hundred
    years at most to sort out the problem, we need to look at things within that
    timescale, don't we.

    So that means that the long-term view of "carbon neutrality", although
    technically perfectly valid, is completely useless to us in terms of
    resolving the short-term problem that we have created for ourselves by
    suddenly burning all this fossil fuel. We have to look short-term because in
    the long-term the human race is history unless we sort out the problem.

    Follow so far?

    If I put a log on my fire, then I am releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
    However, if a tree was planted to replace the tree that I have burned, then
    that new tree will re-absorb the CO2 which I have released into the
    atmosphere by burning its predecessor. Therefore, I have not increased the
    amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning that tree. Therefore, the tree I
    have burned is CARBON NEUTRAL.

    Carbon neutral wood comes only from managed forests, for the reason given
    above. The trees must be replaced for the forest to be carbon-neutral wood.

    It seems quite straightforward to me . . . ! And it seems to me that it
    seems quite straightforward to you as well, Steve!

    Best wishes,

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day