From: ham789@netzero.net
On 11/27/2012 4:50 PM, j wrote:
>
>>
>> You wanna nit-pick. OK, bring it.
>> We have a vaguely described setup.
>> We have vaguely described numbers from the utility bill.
>> The "experiment" is undocumented and uncontrolled.
>>
>> And the result is that it transcends conservation of energy.
>
> I'm inclined to take this at face value.
Given that there's no definition of what you mean by "this" or "face
value", that statement has little communicative value.
>
> So what do you know about pumps?
Turns out that you don't have to know anything about pumps.
Using some round numbers so as not to hurt anybody's brain.
$60/month will buy about 600kWH of energy (around here anyway).
Divide that by the 720 hours in a month. That gives 833W.
1.5hp represents just over a kilowatt. That leaves MINUS 200watts
or so for the rest of the domicile.
OK, so the motor really isn't running at maximum output. But it's
not 100% efficient. No matter what numbers you pick, the OP's
statements are PREPOSTEROUS.
I don't know whether there was any intent to deceive or just
wishful thinking. But the end result is the same.
After all the back-pedaling, we still have zero information
related to energy or homepower or inverters. We're left with
endless questions, three by my count, and considerable indignation.
Dontchajustlovetheinternet?
I know a little, enough to know that a
> water pump with no load draws almost as power as one that is loaded.
> I've measured my pond pumps and that is what mine do.
>
> Water pumps are rated in flow and in head. It is the ability to deliver
> head (ie pressure) that requires high power draw at even low demand.
> Conversely, low head pumps draw little power.
>
> So what we apparently have is a sand filter that could require quite a
> bit of head pressure, hence a lot of power draw and an oversized pump.
> Whatever excess head is not needed would normally be wasted. What the OP
> has done is recover much of that. In an elaborate method that requires
> daily tweaking, but it does work.
Converting electricity to water pressure then back to electricity is
always less efficient than using the original electricity.
>
> Now, I could argue that lower head pumps could have been used (with
> their own series of tweaks), but doubtless there would be times they
> would not work (sand filter clogging). I think the OP has optimized his
> filter pumping in a convoluted way, but it does not void the laws of
> physics.
Well, there's physics and there's wishful thinking.
Flowing water represents energy. If you take energy out, for
electricity generation or any other purpose, you reduce the energy
content of the flowing water. The most common result is a
reduction in flow or pressure or both. If you're extracting energy
from a waterfall, you can argue "use it or lose it". If you have to
pay for head, that argument is impotent.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>>
>> That's a "result" worthy of a Nobel Prize, patents worth zillions
>> of and at least 70 virgins.
>>
>> Yet "endless questions" go unanswered.
>>
>> You turn off everything in the house except the pool pump.
>> You watch the dial on the utility meter go around to calculate
>> power consumed.
>>
>> You hook a hot-plate to the generator output and see how long
>> it takes to boil away a pint of water. A little math later
>> and you've real data that's easy to replicate experimentally for
>> your Nobel Prize submission.
>>
>> You drive your water-powered-car down to the patent office
>> and file a patent.
>>
>> The pool filter industry would explode overnight, so you'd want
>> to buy a lot of stock first.
>>
>> It's not rocket surgery.
>> It's merely a new branch of physics.
>> Let's do this!!
>> I'll bring the hot-plate and the stopwatch and the patent
>> application and the 70 virgins. He's already got the water.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
