Maybe an idea

mart1n said:

I know that solar power wind power is probably the future. The draw back seems to be storing the energy when you have a surplus. At this moment batteries are what is being use and most people know the life expectance is poor. I know I?m no genius but has anyone considered storing energy mechanically like lifting a large weigh or tightening a spring. I know that some of the new electric car when you break it charges the battery.
Just airing this idea to see if a genius can make it work.

Click to expand...

Idea excist already with large water tanks etc. But the amount of space needed makes it to expencive.

Greetings

Johan

mart1n said:

I know that solar power wind power is probably the future. The draw back seems to be storing the energy when you have a surplus. At this moment batteries are what is being use and most people know the life expectance is poor. I know I?m no genius but has anyone considered storing energy mechanically like lifting a large weigh or tightening a spring. I know that some of the new electric car when you break it charges the battery.
Just airing this idea to see if a genius can make it work.

Click to expand...

Battery life expectancy isn't as short as you think, that coupled witht he fact that there is usually demand on the system within a short period of time - after all the energy stored isn't for use on a rainy day but as a typical substitute for energy.

As far as the conversion to mechanical potential the problems are going to be in the inefficiency of converting the solar/wind power from electrical to mechanical becuase there is no real logistical way as of yet to have it directly converted into mechanical potential, therefore there really is not point in doing it.

mart1n said:

I have lived off batteries for the last 12 years the first was on a sailboat the other was living here using invertors. I was just looking for an alterative. Maybe splitting water or using some mechanical way of storing energy. We use mechanical energy to produce energy why can?t we store it. I?ll bet that Edison and Bell also were told it could not be done.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that it can't be done that the methods that I'm aware of would present great logistical problems to overcome in order to make it happen. The honest truth is mechanical systems by their very nature are inefficient because mainly of friction and heat loss, etc.

FYI belive me when I tell you that there are many universtities pursuing all types of ways of garnering, storing and converting energy. These are the types of projects that thousands of electrical and mechanical engineers work on everyday in the US. I'm an engineer and went to some graduate school so I'm aware of the process.

Finally, one could easily get the impression from the news that there are many "secret" and undisclosed energy methods, but that the government or big businees(such as the auto industry) doesn't want the general public to find out for some reason but that really is just a bunch of bs propagated by conspiracy thoerists.

Let me give you some facts. There are at current count over 9000 colleges and universities in this country. Let's just assume that only 5% have ME and EE graduate programs with an average of 10 graduate students per program. Therefore, there are conservatively speaking over 4000 graduate students trying to discover the next holy grail of energy - something they have probably been dreaming about as a boy after reading countless Populary Mechanics. Not only that they and the Universities are paid in the millions by research grants to do just that. So as far as I'm concerned if, with all of the computer modeling technology and material science as it is if they haven't come up with a way to do it yet it: 1. can't be done at this point 2. hasn't been refined enough to be better that the existing systems/methods in place.

I hope this answers your question.

mart1n said:

And use the power for something. Now we have wind generators etc. and when the batteries get full they watch the wind generator turn and no use for all the energy being made.

Click to expand...

That's simply a matter of economics, not an engineering impossiblity - they can always install more batteries.

It got my curiosity why not use it to split water for example and make hydrogen and oxygen.

Click to expand...

Why don't the power companies implement a plant that can work to split water when the batteries are full right? This is again a question of economics. When the engineers/plant owners/gov't do the cost analysis there is always a bottom line figure - always ie. they will never choose the more costly alternative if there is a cheaper way.

I know scientist have proved that a bumble bee can?t fly because it is to heavy but I?m glad they haven?t told the bumble bee

Click to expand...

This type of statement in todays day and age was certainly taken out of context or done cleverly to pique student interest in the subject. More that likey it's just another "urban myth" that floats around but quite never disappears. Just because scientist can't mathematically explain a natural process/phenomenom doesn't mean that they think that they can "prove" that an obviously functioning natural process is breaking the laws of physics. Still, if this statement is true I'm certain it has been more that 50 years old before systems were available to adequately study aerodynamics.

Let me step back a minute - the "modus operandi" if you will of science is to understand and predict natural processes(nature) and unnatural. It all comes down to numbers and formulas.

Processes can be described by two types of formulas, derived and empirical. The "derived" formulas are all done mathematically and you can basically blame Newton for that for he invented derivative calculus. The "empirical" formulas are used when the scientist does not know enough about the process so he has to study the process over time to try to come up with a mathematical model that can predict the process adequately.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are lots of "natural processes" that aren't understood completely enough to do a derivative model only a empirical model and therefore this shows that scientist do not have to understand a process completerly in order to be able to model and predict for the sole purpose of obtaining useful information.

So therefore I seriously doubt this statement if it is true is relevant to current technology.

In summary, I undstand where you are coming from and I can assure you when the economics or other type of factor(such as terrorism becasue of dependency on oil) come into the mix it will then be economically "attractive" to pursue alternatives.