Wind & Solar Charge Controler one battery bank

bill von novak

Lumisol said:

Ever have to autorotate a helicopter? No?

Have to?  No.  Done it?  Yes - and it is a very freaky feeling.  (Of course, I'm primarily a fixed wing pilot, and just slowing down below 40kts on final is freaky for me.)

The A/C is built with a very large margin of efficiency and it will not loose enough to even be worth mentioning.

Quite possible.  The efficiency loss may be low; of course, in that case harvested energy will be low as well.

Like putting a hand out the car widow at 55 mph will reduce efficiency of the car.

An excellent example!  It will reduce the efficiency a tiny bit because your hand is small.  Now, if you mount a wind turbine on the top of an EV, and try to use that to charge the car's battery, you will ALWAYS lose more to drag than you gain in power.   Same principle.

Lumisol

bill von novak said:

Lumisol said:

Ever have to autorotate a helicopter? No?

Have to?  No.  Done it?  Yes - and it is a very freaky feeling.  (Of course, I'm primarily a fixed wing pilot, and just slowing down below 40kts on final is freaky for me.)

I suppose you can prove your claims? Without proof, it never happened.

Like putting a hand out the car widow at 55 mph will reduce efficiency of the car.

An excellent example!  It will reduce the efficiency a tiny bit because your hand is small.  Now, if you mount a wind turbine on the top of an EV, and try to use that to charge the car's battery, you will ALWAYS lose more to drag than you gain in power.   Same principle.
It's not even close, the A/C does not move down the road at 55 mph. If it does, jump!

Lumisol

Hmmm... does this forum have an 'ignore' button for those we wish to ignore?

BB.

Oh come-on... We have a product that does not have any energy recovery claims other than a blinking LED on a small GT inverter.

And you did ask about our experiences and you had two pilots (one w/ helicopter experience and one fixed wing) and at least one engineer (me) replying to your questions.

Anybody has actual/claimed energy recovery for a "typical" installation of this device? Then we don't have to guess/estimate/scale from other data sources.

Here is paper using HAWT and combination of computer+measurements from Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya:

Design and Experimental Analysis of an Exhaust Air Energy Recovery ...

For the actual size of a cooling tower with a 2.4 m outlet diameter
and powered by a 7.5 kW fan motor, it was estimated that a system with two VAWTs
(side-by-side) can generate 1 kW of power which is equivalent to 13% of energy recovery.

A quick read through the paper is a bit confusing... There are no actual power "results" just Cp (efficiency?) that indicate 5% to 13% recovery...

It is interesting that the exhaust fan had (on average) a small reduction in electrical consumption and an increase in air flow through the condenser--That is counter intuitive--A centrifugal fan generally decreases energy usage when the mass of air through the fan is reduced.

Anyway, another source that ~10% exhaust fan energy recovery is possible... Not a lot more than that though.

-Bill

mcgivor

Honestly I can't think why such a trivial subject has become a serious debate, I could add by asking why  competitive swimmers shave their bodies, because each hair adds to frictional loss? But why? Send an email to the producer of this product and ask for some hard data, my thinking is there is none, but they will gladly take your $599 or whatever it costs, not even interested in looking up the price, snake oil comes to mind....However I digress.     

Lumisol

mcgivor said:

Honestly I can't think why such a trivial subject has become a serious debate, I could add by asking why  competitive swimmers shave their bodies, because each hair adds to frictional loss? But why? Send an email to the producer of this product and ask for some hard data, my thinking is there is none, but they will gladly take your $599 or whatever it costs, not even interested in looking up the price, snake oil comes to mind....However I digress.     

Exactly, Why not let a person try something they saw on youtube if they want to and have the time, money and inclination to do so?
I cannot imagine why anyone would want to talk a person out of something they want to try for fun.

Lumisol

BB. said:

Oh come-on... We have a product that does not have any energy recovery claims other than a blinking LED on a small GT inverter.

And you did ask about our experiences and you had two pilots (one w/ helicopter experience and one fixed wing) and at least one engineer (me) replying to your questions.

Anybody has actual/claimed energy recovery for a "typical" installation of this device? Then we don't have to guess/estimate/scale from other data sources.

Here is paper using HAWT and combination of computer+measurements from Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya:

Design and Experimental Analysis of an Exhaust Air Energy Recovery ...

For the actual size of a cooling tower with a 2.4 m outlet diameter
and powered by a 7.5 kW fan motor, it was estimated that a system with two VAWTs
(side-by-side) can generate 1 kW of power which is equivalent to 13% of energy recovery.

A quick read through the paper is a bit confusing... There are no actual power "results" just Cp (efficiency?) that indicate 5% to 13% recovery...

It is interesting that the exhaust fan had (on average) a small reduction in electrical consumption and an increase in air flow through the condenser--That is counter intuitive--A centrifugal fan generally decreases energy usage when the mass of air through the fan is reduced.

Anyway, another source that ~10% exhaust fan energy recovery is possible... Not a lot more than that though.

-Bill

Why would it matter if they recover 1/10 of a cent over a 50 year period, if they want to play around and learn in the process, let them.
Saying it isn't worth it is not up to you or me, it's whether it's worth it to them that counts.

Estragon

Personally, I find the theoretical discussion interesting. If the person goes ahead and tries it, I'd also be interested in whatever empirical data they might be able to share, whether it works or not.

I've actually considered creating a "failed" trial database because databases tend to be populated only by successful trials. I probably learn more from failures than successes.

littleharbor2

Lumisol said:

Hmmm... does this forum have an 'ignore' button for those we wish to ignore?

That would be nice. I know where I'd start.

Lumisol

Yep, same here.

BB.

Well, because this is a $599 product with no specifications that is being advertised as an energy saving device--Seen too many of those (and ones that violate the laws of thermodynamics) to be anything else other than wary of the product.

I never said don't try it or don't experiment. I just asked how much energy it would recover and researched others who have done similar projects and reported their results--As well as estimating where the major losses could be.

-Bill

bill von novak

Lumisol said:

Why would it matter if they recover 1/10 of a cent over a 50 year period, if they want to play around and learn in the process, let them.
Saying it isn't worth it is not up to you or me, it's whether it's worth it to them that counts.

Sure, people have stranger hobbies.  Lots of people have fun trying to build "magnet motors" and the like.