Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

    Originally posted by Jam
    Wrong. Let's see just how wrong. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, the average solar radiation is
    1,366 W/m^2 (watts per square meter)
    Yes, but the average solar radiation on the surface of the planet is much lower. The same wiki article notes:

    Ignoring clouds, the average insolation for the Earth is approximately 250 watts per square meter (6 (kW·h/m2)/day), taking into account the lower radiation intensity in early morning and evening, and its near-absence at night.
    Of course then you have to multiply through the efficiency of solar panels = 15%? 20%? gives you actual harvestable electricity of 0.9 to 1.2 kwh per hour. That's before other losses like conversion to household VDC, transmission losses, etc etc.

    Originally posted by lektrode
    in any case, my 2 x 130w PV panels put out upwards of 230watts/hour at 13.0vdc, esp on the kinda cloudy days we get so frequently out this way = the 'edge of cloud effect' and have watched em krank out better than 18amps, when theres just a bit of rain blowing off the mountains, to cool off the glass a bit, they really perk up
    None of the other numbers matter except the 230 watts/hour. If the panels are generating 8 hours a day at this level, then you're getting a total of 1.84 Kwh per day.

    While I remember your personal electricity usage is quite low, the average American household requires 30 Kwh per day.

    Even for me - my monthly 160 to 190 Kwh usage comes out to 5.25 to 6.25 Kwh per day.
    Last edited by c1ue; July 18, 2011, 07:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

      Steve, instead of repeating over and over again the same bs about bird droppings and pine needles, please check your math, and your units.
      Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
      and I end-up with 86 square metres of solar panels required per kwh.
      First, your units here appear to be off. Please read the beautiful explanation of power, energy kW, kWh, J, etc., provided by dcarrigg in this very thread. If I assume that the kWh is a typo, and in fact should be kW, your result is still in direct contradiction with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, which indicate that you need 1/1.366 = 0.732 square meters of panels per kW.

      The following might help. Here is the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere in various units. Pick your weapon.

      1.366 kW/m^2 (kilowatts per square meter)
      1,366 W/m^2 (watts per square meter)
      81,960 Wh/min/m^2 (watt-hours per minute per square meter)
      82 kWh/min/m^2 (kilowatt-hours per minute per square meter)
      1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter
      1.96 Ly/min (langleys (Ly) per minute)
      126.9 W/ft^2 (watts per square foot)
      0.88 W/in^2 (watts per square inch)
      325 cal/s/m^2 (calories per second per square meter)
      19,514 cal/min/m^2 (calories per minute per square meter)
      1,170,957 cal/h/m^2 (calories per hour per suqare meter)
      30.2 cal/s/ft^2 (calories per second per square foot)
      1,813 cal/min/ft^2 (calories per minute per square foot)
      108,773 cal/h/ft^2 (calories per hour per square foot)

      If you math leads you to a result that is not within a factor of 2 of these numbers (accounting for atmospheric losses), then you made a mistake in your math. (unless someone else points an error in my math )

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        Yes, but the average solar radiation on the surface of the planet is much lower. The same wiki article notes:
        Ignoring clouds, the average insolation for the Earth is approximately 250 watts per square meter (6 (kW·h/m2)/day), taking into account the lower radiation intensity in early morning and evening, and its near-absence at night.
        Of course then you have to multiply through the efficiency of solar panels = 15%? 20%? gives you actual harvestable electricity of 0.9 to 1.2 kwh per hour. That's before other losses like conversion to household VDC, transmission losses, etc etc.
        I'm assuming that you meant 0.9 to 1.2 kWh/m^2/day.
        I absolutely agree with your assessment. The issue was a factor ~500,000 resulting from an obvious error in Steve's calculations, not a factor of ~20 that comes from real-world considerations.
        For the record, I am not advocating for or against solar. Just cannot pass by someone posting numbers that are in clear contradiction with what we know about the world.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

          Originally posted by c1ue View Post
          Yes, but the average solar radiation on the surface of the planet is much lower. The same wiki article notes:



          Of course then you have to multiply through the efficiency of solar panels = 15%? 20%? gives you actual harvestable electricity of 0.9 to 1.2 kwh per hour. That's before other losses like conversion to household VDC, transmission losses, etc etc.



          None of the other numbers matter except the 230 watts/hour. If the panels are generating 8 hours a day at this level, then you're getting a total of 1.84 Kwh per day.

          While I remember your personal electricity usage is quite low, the average American household requires 30 Kwh per day.

          Even for me - my monthly 160 to 190 Kwh usage comes out to 5.25 to 6.25 Kwh per day.
          We have that units problem again with Watts/Hour.

          Regardless, in the last 18 months I've swung between 107 and 301kWh. Most months are about in your range C1ue. Does my family actually use less than a fifth of what the average is? It sounds like it might be possible, but there are a lot of low income folks too...I've use the 730kWh rule-of-thumb on average per month. Don't take my word for it: Turns out Maine's at about 18kWh/day and Louisiana's at about 44kWh/day.

          I'd imagine the usage goes up in the south with the prevalence of A/C.

          Here's my usage:



          There is also an easy-to-use rule-of-thumb for PV. That is 1100*system capacity = annual kWh yield for PV (in Southern New England or New York with a well set-up system and optimal conditions given 4.4 hours of production etc). So a 5kW system would produce approximately 5,500kWh. That's an expensive system that will not offset the average electrical usage (8,760kWh by my calculations based on 730kWh/mo rule of thumb). You'll come up to about 8,800 in Nevada, but the average usage is more because it's hot and people run A/C. PV is not hyper-efficient or economical. During the stimulus it was probably possible to come close to breaking even, but then oh, you have to buy a $15k inverter halfway through the life of the panels.

          There's a good-ol'-common sense approach to it. I hope that this clears up some of the confusion around the matter without referring to Langleys or space irradiance or any other nonsense of little consequence to matter-of-fact economics of PV today. It's like Bill Gates said, it's a nice thing to do if you have the money. Most people don't. It certainly will generate electricity that is more substantial than nothing. Would it be that electricity rates tripled, it'd start looking better and better. One could think of it as a 20 year hedge against extreme upside risk of some crazy unforeseen coal or natural gas supply disruption if one had the money and were so inclined.
          Last edited by dcarrigg; July 18, 2011, 08:13 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

            Originally posted by lektrode View Post
            thanks dc, as usual, you bring perspective to the discussion, while mr steve brings...
            well... he does keep things entertaining, even as the jousts tween santafe & mr c1ue heat up

            in any case, my 2 x 130w PV panels put out upwards of 230watts/hour at 13.0vdc, esp on the kinda cloudy days we get so frequently out this way = the 'edge of cloud effect' and have watched em krank out better than 18amps, when theres just a bit of rain blowing off the mountains, to cool off the glass a bit, they really perk up
            Thanks lektrode. You're right on the cool part. People don't realize that the most efficient moment of a PV cell's life is the first -20 degree day with a clear sky in February after it is installed.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

              Originally posted by ASH View Post
              So, the solar constant (before atmospheric losses, etc.) is about 1.96 Langleys per minute... not per square meter. (From the link, scroll down to the entry from the McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia.)
              The way that I read the Wikipedia is that 11.622 watt-hours per square metre takes into account the fact that one-hour has 60 minutes or 60 X 1 Langley of energy per hour per square metre at the SURFACE of the Earth. In space, I would use double this amount of radiation, for the solar constant.

              If you were correct, then solar energy would be a way to get rich--- or at least less poor. Multiply 60 x 5.6 cents per hour per square metre, and one has $3.36 per square metre of energy deposited from the Sun each hour. That is fishy. Four decent hours of solar radiation @ $3 per hour, and one takes $12 per day in energy from each square metre of the solar panel system.

              I only wish life were that easy.

              A watt-hour is a watt in one-hour. End of story. You get 11.622 watt-hours of solar radiation on a square metre of solar panel in one-hour. You get about four decent hours of solar radiation in summer if everything goes right: clear sky, low humidity, no trees, no buildings, no birds, etc. So that means about 46 watt-hours per day per square metre, give or take.... You do the math. That would mean under 0.05 kwh per day per square metre.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                The way that I read the Wikipedia is that 11.622 watt-hours per square metre takes into account the fact that one-hour has 60 minutes or 60 X 1 Langley of energy per hour per square metre at the SURFACE of the Earth. In space, I would use double this amount of radiation, for the solar constant.
                If you like Wikipedia, just go read its entry on the Solar Constant:
                The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²). The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited, 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.
                That's not at the earth's surface, but that is 1.366 kWh / m2 in an hour -- not 11.622 Wh/m2. If you want to multiply by minutes, then 60 minutes / hour * 1.96 langleys / minute * 11.633 Wh/m2 / langley = 1.366 kWh / m2 per hour.

                Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                If you were correct, then solar energy would be a way to get rich--- or at least less poor.
                Well, I am correct. It seems to me like you may be basing a very strong personal belief upon a misrecollection about the significance of the unit langley, and are conflating it with the solar constant times an hour.

                Also, you can check out Wikipedia's entry on earth's insolation to see that the average insolation at earth's surface, without clouds, is 6 kWh / m2 per day. And it's considerably less in East Sooke for most of the year, as per the calculator I linked earlier.
                Last edited by ASH; July 18, 2011, 09:43 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                  Let's look at this from a different perspective: In one-hour of operation, an electric-stove oven uses 2kwh of electricity @ 350F.
                  So, do you, Ash, mean to tell me that one square metre of solar panels out in the sun for one hour near solar noon would provide enough energy at 100% efficiency to run an electric oven for an hour at 350F?

                  60 minutes X 0.05 (kwh/sq. metre)/ minute = 3 kwh produced in one sq. metre in 60 minutes. So I could operate an oven for one-hour at 350F and have 1kwh of power left over to run one or more burners on top of the stove as well?

                  Come on, intuitively, that doesn't even make sense. You can not get more energy out than you put in..... As I said, I only wish life were that easy. If I were to lay in the sun for one hour and cover one square metre of gross area, do you mean to tell me that I would absorb enough solar energy to be equivalent to that used by an electric stove running for one hour and with the oven on at 350F?

                  Maybe next time I lay-out on the beach near solar noon in summer and cover one sq. metre of area on a clear day, I might roast at 350F for one-hour and have enough heat left over to maybe cook rice in a pot up on top of my backside?

                  Or think about a car's interior with the windows-up at mid-day. That's an oven. How hot does it get? There is about 1 or 2 square metres in a car's interior. Certainly it does not get to 350F for one-hour in the sun. Maybe the car gets up to 130F and can hold that temperature steady at mid-day. That is no-where near what an electric stove oven can do. It takes 2kwh to run the stove oven for one hour at 350F. The inference is that the car absorbed only a tiny fraction of this amount of energy in one-hour while sitting, windows-up, in the clear sunshine during mid-day in summer. The sun does not have the power (the 2kwh of energy) required to run a stove oven for one-hour at 350F..... Therefore, your calculation about the power potential of one square metre of solar panels was no-where near correct.
                  Last edited by Starving Steve; July 18, 2011, 10:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                    Were Ash to question my math, I would rethink what I had written. I have great respect for his grasp of the physical world. As such, I'd recommend to cease bothering to talk sense to fanatics. Reasonable common sense and math will never win an argument with an emotionally driven person. That's a part of rational actor theory that the Chicago School censored from Max Weber's original concept.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                      Originally posted by ASH View Post
                      If you like Wikipedia, just go read its entry on the Solar Constant:
                      The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²). The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited, 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.
                      That's not at the earth's surface, but that is 1.366 kWh / m2 in an hour -- not 11.622 Wh/m2. If you want to multiply by minutes, then 60 minutes / hour * 1.96 langleys / minute * 11.633 Wh/m2 / langley = 1.366 kWh / m2 per hour.



                      Well, I am correct. It seems to me like you may be basing a very strong personal belief upon a misrecollection about the significance of the unit langley, and are conflating it with the solar constant times an hour.

                      Also, you can check out Wikipedia's entry on earth's insolation to see that the average insolation at earth's surface, without clouds, is 6 kWh / m2 per day. And it's considerably less in East Sooke for most of the year, as per the calculator I linked earlier.
                      Looking again at the math, the 1.366 kwh/m^2 in an hour is OUTSIDE of the Earth's atmosphere. At the surface, the amount is half of that at mid-day, and well under half of that by afternoon or in the morning. This we observed first-hand at the Univ. of Minnesota in St. Paul.

                      Let's say, I take 4 hours of 0.683 kwh/m^2 /hour = 2.732 kwh/m^2 in total. I then take 4 hours from 2PM solar time to 6PM solar at 1/4 of the 1.366 kwh/m^2 per hour. I take another 4 hours from 6AM to 10AM solar time at 1/4 of the 1.366 kwh/m^2 per hour. Then I pick-up 8 hours x 0.3415 kwh/m^2 per hour. That yields 2.732 kwh/m^2. for those 8 hours in total. So, therefore, my day is approximately 2.732 ( eight low-sun hours) + 2.732 ( four mid-day hours) + either side of zero for the evening and dawn hours. The total is approximately 5.46 kwh/m^2 per day, so I would accept the official measurement of 6 kwh/m^2 per day on the Earth's surface.

                      6 kwh/m^2 per day is two moose-quarters worth of power at 8cents per kwh with the solar panels generating at 100% efficiency. Real life is maybe what? 20% efficient? So that would mean 10cents per day with the solar panels for each square metre. So, if I have 72% of my roof covered with panels, then I would have 922 sq. feet of solar panels. That means I would have about 30feet X 31feet in solar panels. That means my area is 9.14m X 9.45m = 86.37 square metres. That means I would get 86 dimes per day for my solar-energy system--- when the sun is out, the sky is clear, no birds, no branches, no pine needles, dry weather, early summer or late spring, and everything is working fine.

                      OK. $8.60 per day for maybe 40 days per year of perfect conditions in B.C. So that is something like $344 per year for my solar electric system. Is it worth it in terms of capital outlay? I guess that would depend upon the grants and how long the zero interest rate policy continues for savers. As for birds, branches and pine-needles, those would gradually cut the efficiency of my system. Also, the trees around my house would cut the efficiency of my system, right from the day the system is installed. But let's say, $344 per year is the optimistic forecast for the system.
                      Last edited by Starving Steve; July 19, 2011, 12:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                        Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post

                        Come on, intuitively, that doesn't even make sense.
                        Therefore your intuition is wrong.

                        Here's something else that will challenge your terribly flawed intuition: the temperature of the filament in a 100 W light bulb exceeds 3600F -- much hotter than your oven. Yet each hour such a light bulb consumes just 1/20th the energy of your oven.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                          Here is my fantasy:

                          Perhaps you can finance the purchase of one of these fine systems at a very low interest rate. For example, you get one of the Canadian-equivalent Obamabuck loans. Then, after installation get some Obamabucks solar rebates, use them to pay off your initial down-payment, pocket $1000 cash, and let the machine pay itself off over the next 10 years. Inflation will take 50% off the long term costs. Electricity will double in price.

                          The math MAY work.

                          And remember, you will be helping to feed a Chinese extended family of 12 living in the finest 2-bedroom Beijing apartment. (you pay the kids' salaries at the PV plant)


                          -----
                          More seriously:

                          They are not very economical at present. And for that reason, I think you can get some really good deals on used equipment. If not now, then in a couple of years, after the next "crash". At bankruptcy liquidation sales, I bet you will be able to buy a system for 10 cents on the dollar.

                          PV is hugely expensive and no company watching their bottom line would purchase them. I think the companies that have nice PV systems will be the first to go bankrupt. Then "they" will get them for pennies on the dollar. Work out the cost/benefit analysis on that one!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                            Originally posted by Jam
                            I'm assuming that you meant 0.9 to 1.2 kWh/m^2/day.
                            Yah...

                            Originally posted by lektrode
                            Regardless, in the last 18 months I've swung between 107 and 301kWh. Most months are about in your range C1ue. Does my family actually use less than a fifth of what the average is? It sounds like it might be possible, but there are a lot of low income folks too...I've use the 730kWh rule-of-thumb on average per month. Don't take my word for it: Turns out Maine's at about 18kWh/day and Louisiana's at about 44kWh/day.
                            I've never looked closely at the number (900 kwh/month average per household), but it originally came from the DOE. According to this link, the number right now is 920 kwh/month

                            http://www.oe.energy.gov/information...r/faq.htm#sys4

                            Originally posted by lektrode
                            It's like Bill Gates said, it's a nice thing to do if you have the money. Most people don't. It certainly will generate electricity that is more substantial than nothing. Would it be that electricity rates tripled, it'd start looking better and better. One could think of it as a 20 year hedge against extreme upside risk of some crazy unforeseen coal or natural gas supply disruption if one had the money and were so inclined.
                            The problem is, Bill Gates can easily afford it if his gigantic solar investment goes sour.

                            The same is not true if the average person puts a big chunk of nest egg into a today's technology solar PV system. Throw in financing and it just gets ugly.

                            As I noted, the problem with individual solar systems is the long time frame: it is a classical long maturity but cash up front investment.

                            Lots of things can change: you can move, the panels may break/get broken/stolen, the panels may deteriorate in efficiency faster than expected, electricity prices may fall due to fusion power or a real Rossi device, etc etc.

                            Of all of these, the moving part is the most likely, and the most likely to hurt you. Because if you do move in 7 years (the residential average in the US), then your used solar system is going to get evaluated vs. a new solar installation in terms of equity value.

                            This is why I caution those who think throwing a big pile of money into a solar system is in any way a necessarily good investment.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              The problem is, Bill Gates can easily afford it if his gigantic solar investment goes sour.

                              The same is not true if the average person puts a big chunk of nest egg into a today's technology solar PV system. Throw in financing and it just gets ugly.

                              As I noted, the problem with individual solar systems is the long time frame: it is a classical long maturity but cash up front investment.

                              Lots of things can change: you can move, the panels may break/get broken/stolen, the panels may deteriorate in efficiency faster than expected, electricity prices may fall due to fusion power or a real Rossi device, etc etc.

                              Of all of these, the moving part is the most likely, and the most likely to hurt you. Because if you do move in 7 years (the residential average in the US), then your used solar system is going to get evaluated vs. a new solar installation in terms of equity value.

                              This is why I caution those who think throwing a big pile of money into a solar system is in any way a necessarily good investment.
                              I'm in total agreement. If you don't have the expendable cash, don't do it. Certainly financing is not a great idea (same as financing a car).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

                                Great stuff. Here is the calculation that I think is important. Given a calorie requirement of 3000 calories per day how many people can the earth sustain if all the solar energy hitting the surface became usable to keep humans alive? Then throw in conditioning a 1000 square foot living space to 72 degrees. This seems to me to give you some boundary on THE issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X