PDA

View Full Version : best way to get from wind -> refrigeration


Alan Horowitz
July 8th 03, 01:51 AM
I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
people spend their hard-earned money to store.

I further put forth the proposition that all
refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
greyhair-genic.

Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
hydro harvestable flowpower.

Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
mention design principles.

Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
principles.

Pike
July 8th 03, 04:05 AM
Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
"ben williams" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> > and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> > is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> > and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> > people spend their hard-earned money to store.
> >
> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> > greyhair-genic.
> >
> > Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> > hydro harvestable flowpower.
> >
> > Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> > mention design principles.
> >
> > Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> > to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> > principles.
>
> Why not just go solar and use absorbtion cycle ?
> ben
>
>

Pike
July 8th 03, 04:05 AM
Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
"ben williams" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> > and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> > is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> > and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> > people spend their hard-earned money to store.
> >
> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> > greyhair-genic.
> >
> > Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> > hydro harvestable flowpower.
> >
> > Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> > mention design principles.
> >
> > Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> > to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> > principles.
>
> Why not just go solar and use absorbtion cycle ?
> ben
>
>

Andy in Fink
July 8th 03, 03:21 PM
"Bob Adkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:05:37 -0400, "Pike" >
wrote:
>
> >Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
>
> I've got a feeling I'm going to like this guy. This stuffy old news group
> (alt.energy.homepower) needs more humor. Canadians with humor are quite
> rare, so we need to appreciate Pike. :-)
>
> Bob


Canadians have a knack for gadgetry. Just watch The Red Green Show on
your local PBS and enjoy his inventions........

Andy in Fink

PS and remember. Tommy Chong is a Canadian !!!!!!

Andy in Fink
July 8th 03, 03:21 PM
"Bob Adkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:05:37 -0400, "Pike" >
wrote:
>
> >Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
>
> I've got a feeling I'm going to like this guy. This stuffy old news group
> (alt.energy.homepower) needs more humor. Canadians with humor are quite
> rare, so we need to appreciate Pike. :-)
>
> Bob


Canadians have a knack for gadgetry. Just watch The Red Green Show on
your local PBS and enjoy his inventions........

Andy in Fink

PS and remember. Tommy Chong is a Canadian !!!!!!

Nick Pine
July 8th 03, 04:15 PM
Alan Horowitz > wrote:

>I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
>and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
>is to produce coolth and dryth...

Good idea. Especially dryth, which can be stored forever with no loss
of energy in a sealed desiccant tank and converted to heath or coolth.
A 1000 gallon tank might store 8x500x1000 = 4 million Btu, ie 1200 kWh.

Lots of possibilities. Evaporate water with plentiful summer sun and
warm outdoor air and then dry veggies at harvest time. And so on...

Nick

Nick Pine
July 8th 03, 04:15 PM
Alan Horowitz > wrote:

>I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
>and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
>is to produce coolth and dryth...

Good idea. Especially dryth, which can be stored forever with no loss
of energy in a sealed desiccant tank and converted to heath or coolth.
A 1000 gallon tank might store 8x500x1000 = 4 million Btu, ie 1200 kWh.

Lots of possibilities. Evaporate water with plentiful summer sun and
warm outdoor air and then dry veggies at harvest time. And so on...

Nick

Deadend
July 8th 03, 08:11 PM
(Alan Horowitz) wrote in message >...
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. <snip>

"Coolth and dryth?"

Well, I think there are better newsgroups to check out for this info.
I think that there's an alt.homepower or something that would be the
most beneficial for you. Lots of experts on this type of thing over
there.

One project that interested me one time was an experiemental solar
powered icemaker using salts and ammonia. It goes through a daytime
cycle (charging) and a nighttime cycle (respiration?) where it makes
ice. Not your typical system, but if you were rural, homesteading, and
wanted something absoulutely frugal, then I guess this would be it.

Regards,

Deadend

Deadend
July 8th 03, 08:11 PM
(Alan Horowitz) wrote in message >...
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. <snip>

"Coolth and dryth?"

Well, I think there are better newsgroups to check out for this info.
I think that there's an alt.homepower or something that would be the
most beneficial for you. Lots of experts on this type of thing over
there.

One project that interested me one time was an experiemental solar
powered icemaker using salts and ammonia. It goes through a daytime
cycle (charging) and a nighttime cycle (respiration?) where it makes
ice. Not your typical system, but if you were rural, homesteading, and
wanted something absoulutely frugal, then I guess this would be it.

Regards,

Deadend

Don Ocean
July 9th 03, 04:56 AM
Bob Adkins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:05:37 -0400, "Pike" > wrote:
>
> >Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
>
> I've got a feeling I'm going to like this guy. This stuffy old news group
> (alt.energy.homepower) needs more humor. Canadians with humor are quite
> rare, so we need to appreciate Pike. :-)
>
> Bob
Whats scary is he might be serious.. ;-)

Don Ocean
July 9th 03, 04:56 AM
Bob Adkins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:05:37 -0400, "Pike" > wrote:
>
> >Why not go Harry Potter and use dragon breath?
>
> I've got a feeling I'm going to like this guy. This stuffy old news group
> (alt.energy.homepower) needs more humor. Canadians with humor are quite
> rare, so we need to appreciate Pike. :-)
>
> Bob
Whats scary is he might be serious.. ;-)

jair
July 10th 03, 12:12 PM
I to have thought of this and would like to try some things. google this
and see if you can see my point. "vortex tube"

Alan Horowitz wrote:
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> people spend their hard-earned money to store.
>
> I further put forth the proposition that all
> refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> greyhair-genic.
>
> Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> hydro harvestable flowpower.
>
> Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> mention design principles.
>
> Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> principles.

jair
July 10th 03, 12:12 PM
I to have thought of this and would like to try some things. google this
and see if you can see my point. "vortex tube"

Alan Horowitz wrote:
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> people spend their hard-earned money to store.
>
> I further put forth the proposition that all
> refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> greyhair-genic.
>
> Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> hydro harvestable flowpower.
>
> Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> mention design principles.
>
> Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> principles.

Nick Pine
July 10th 03, 12:23 PM
CM > wrote:

>> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of
>> the USA and of the world, the best useage for any available
>> alternate power, is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do
>> consume those directly, and it's cheaper to store those two
>> than plenty of energyforms that people spend their hard-earned
>> money to store.
>
>Coolth? Dryth? Why not say "Cooling" and "Drying"?

IMO, coolth and dryth are storable forms of energy. Cooling and drying
are processes, as in "I'm drying my hair now."

>High voltage electricity is used for long distance transport of power...

Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.

Nick

Nick Pine
July 10th 03, 12:23 PM
CM > wrote:

>> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of
>> the USA and of the world, the best useage for any available
>> alternate power, is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do
>> consume those directly, and it's cheaper to store those two
>> than plenty of energyforms that people spend their hard-earned
>> money to store.
>
>Coolth? Dryth? Why not say "Cooling" and "Drying"?

IMO, coolth and dryth are storable forms of energy. Cooling and drying
are processes, as in "I'm drying my hair now."

>High voltage electricity is used for long distance transport of power...

Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.

Nick

[email protected]_my_sig_for_address.com
July 10th 03, 12:50 PM
On 10 Jul 2003 06:23:59 -0400, (Nick Pine)
wrote:

>CM > wrote:
>
>>> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of
>>> the USA and of the world, the best useage for any available
>>> alternate power, is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do
>>> consume those directly, and it's cheaper to store those two
>>> than plenty of energyforms that people spend their hard-earned
>>> money to store.
>>
>>Coolth? Dryth? Why not say "Cooling" and "Drying"?
>
>IMO, coolth and dryth are storable forms of energy.

If they were actual words, which they are not, they would be a
reference to the heat energy in a substance ( in proportions that we
consider to be relatively small and large, respectively ), and that is
all they would be. We already have lexicon to describe this, and do
not need to make up nonsense words for it.

> Cooling and drying
>are processes, as in "I'm drying my hair now."

OK.

>>High voltage electricity is used for long distance transport of power...
>
>Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.

Voltage is a potential, not a flow, created by work. When
that potential is created at one place, and reconverted to work at
some other place, that power has been transported.

Anything that is couched in a syntax of mystery always makes
me nervous. Speak plainly for credibility's sake, and when simple
words suffice, use simple words.

Real ones :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~

Coming soon - PMTherm version 2.0 !! http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm.htm
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
My personal site is at http://www.pmilligan.net ,
featuring free HVAC, psychrometric, stock market, and other software
http://helpthecritters.com/ is my domain for helping critters

[email protected]_my_sig_for_address.com
July 10th 03, 12:50 PM
On 10 Jul 2003 06:23:59 -0400, (Nick Pine)
wrote:

>CM > wrote:
>
>>> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of
>>> the USA and of the world, the best useage for any available
>>> alternate power, is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do
>>> consume those directly, and it's cheaper to store those two
>>> than plenty of energyforms that people spend their hard-earned
>>> money to store.
>>
>>Coolth? Dryth? Why not say "Cooling" and "Drying"?
>
>IMO, coolth and dryth are storable forms of energy.

If they were actual words, which they are not, they would be a
reference to the heat energy in a substance ( in proportions that we
consider to be relatively small and large, respectively ), and that is
all they would be. We already have lexicon to describe this, and do
not need to make up nonsense words for it.

> Cooling and drying
>are processes, as in "I'm drying my hair now."

OK.

>>High voltage electricity is used for long distance transport of power...
>
>Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.

Voltage is a potential, not a flow, created by work. When
that potential is created at one place, and reconverted to work at
some other place, that power has been transported.

Anything that is couched in a syntax of mystery always makes
me nervous. Speak plainly for credibility's sake, and when simple
words suffice, use simple words.

Real ones :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~

Coming soon - PMTherm version 2.0 !! http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm.htm
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
My personal site is at http://www.pmilligan.net ,
featuring free HVAC, psychrometric, stock market, and other software
http://helpthecritters.com/ is my domain for helping critters

lpogoda
July 12th 03, 04:19 AM
daestrom wrote in message >...
>
>
>Speak plainly and use the terms as they are commonly defined, not
>colloquially.

Um, "colloquial" -is- common or conversational usage. Colloquial usage may
be unacceptably informal in a technical discussion, but most people would
regard terms like "the electric company" and "the power company" or
"electrical energy" and "electrical power" as essentially equivalent, and
even among those who wouldn't I doubt that many would mistake the meaning of
the original sentence.

If you insist that only technical definitions of words are acceptable, I'd
guess that you never speak of "work" when talking about whatever you do for
your livelihood - after all, a unit of work is the foot-pound (equal to one
pound of force acting over a distance of one foot in the direction of the
force).

lpogoda
July 12th 03, 04:19 AM
daestrom wrote in message >...
>
>
>Speak plainly and use the terms as they are commonly defined, not
>colloquially.

Um, "colloquial" -is- common or conversational usage. Colloquial usage may
be unacceptably informal in a technical discussion, but most people would
regard terms like "the electric company" and "the power company" or
"electrical energy" and "electrical power" as essentially equivalent, and
even among those who wouldn't I doubt that many would mistake the meaning of
the original sentence.

If you insist that only technical definitions of words are acceptable, I'd
guess that you never speak of "work" when talking about whatever you do for
your livelihood - after all, a unit of work is the foot-pound (equal to one
pound of force acting over a distance of one foot in the direction of the
force).

Steve Spence
July 13th 03, 08:13 PM
One would think that mechanically spinning a compressor would work if you
were able to get the gearing correct. Takes quite a bit of torque and rpm's
to spin an auto type compressor. Will need some electric for the cooling fan
as well. Going all electric eliminates the mechanical complexity.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
om...
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> people spend their hard-earned money to store.
>
> I further put forth the proposition that all
> refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> greyhair-genic.
>
> Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> hydro harvestable flowpower.
>
> Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> mention design principles.
>
> Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> principles.

Steve Spence
July 13th 03, 08:13 PM
One would think that mechanically spinning a compressor would work if you
were able to get the gearing correct. Takes quite a bit of torque and rpm's
to spin an auto type compressor. Will need some electric for the cooling fan
as well. Going all electric eliminates the mechanical complexity.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
om...
> I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> people spend their hard-earned money to store.
>
> I further put forth the proposition that all
> refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> greyhair-genic.
>
> Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> hydro harvestable flowpower.
>
> Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> mention design principles.
>
> Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> principles.

Andy in Fink
July 15th 03, 01:05 AM
"Nick Pine" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.
>
> Nick
>

How about Air Force One ? :>))))

Andy

Andy in Fink
July 15th 03, 01:05 AM
"Nick Pine" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Being merely a _rate_ of energy flow, power cannot be transported.
>
> Nick
>

How about Air Force One ? :>))))

Andy

Mark Mcmillan
October 6th 03, 09:33 PM
I would add that using mechanical energy to produce heat would have problems
unless your using an alternator to run a heater.
If you have enough torque to run a compressor then I would add a generator
of some kind (after all you want a light in the refrigerator don't you).
An alternator will likely produce enough power to run a camper type
refrigerator, in addition won't leak and as said below eliminates the
mechanical complexity.
the other advantage to electricity it can be transmitted to the point of use
with wire not hoses, tubes or turning shafts (not that I mind tip toeing
through the night to the dam or windmill to get a cold beer).
Consider the problem of maintenance if the compressor or some other part of
the cooler breaks the equipment required to restore the system will likely
need electricity to work.
If the alternator dies you pick up another at the junk yard (or the
neighbors car ) and install it


Steve Spence > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> One would think that mechanically spinning a compressor would work if you
> were able to get the gearing correct. Takes quite a bit of torque and
rpm's
> to spin an auto type compressor. Will need some electric for the cooling
fan
> as well. Going all electric eliminates the mechanical complexity.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> www.green-trust.org
> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> > and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> > is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> > and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> > people spend their hard-earned money to store.
> >
> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> > greyhair-genic.
> >
> > Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> > hydro harvestable flowpower.
> >
> > Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> > mention design principles.
> >
> > Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> > to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> > principles.
>
>

Mark Mcmillan
October 6th 03, 09:33 PM
I would add that using mechanical energy to produce heat would have problems
unless your using an alternator to run a heater.
If you have enough torque to run a compressor then I would add a generator
of some kind (after all you want a light in the refrigerator don't you).
An alternator will likely produce enough power to run a camper type
refrigerator, in addition won't leak and as said below eliminates the
mechanical complexity.
the other advantage to electricity it can be transmitted to the point of use
with wire not hoses, tubes or turning shafts (not that I mind tip toeing
through the night to the dam or windmill to get a cold beer).
Consider the problem of maintenance if the compressor or some other part of
the cooler breaks the equipment required to restore the system will likely
need electricity to work.
If the alternator dies you pick up another at the junk yard (or the
neighbors car ) and install it


Steve Spence > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> One would think that mechanically spinning a compressor would work if you
> were able to get the gearing correct. Takes quite a bit of torque and
rpm's
> to spin an auto type compressor. Will need some electric for the cooling
fan
> as well. Going all electric eliminates the mechanical complexity.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> www.green-trust.org
> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I put forth the proposition that, in many, many, many areas of the USA
> > and of the world, the best useage for any available alternate power,
> > is to produce coolth and dryth. Most of us do consume those directly,
> > and it's cheaper to store those two than plenty of energyforms that
> > people spend their hard-earned money to store.
> >
> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> > greyhair-genic.
> >
> > Now, let us assume that we have a moderate-sized resource of wind or
> > hydro harvestable flowpower.
> >
> > Should we hook the windmill directly to a compressor? If so, please
> > mention design principles.
> >
> > Should we use the rotating shaft to generate heat, and use that heat
> > to fire an absorbtoin-cycle system? If so, please mention design
> > principles.
>
>

lpogoda
October 7th 03, 02:29 AM
>> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > I further put forth the proposition that all
>> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
>> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
>> > greyhair-genic.
>> >
Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool. Because
the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
must be used.

Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.

I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.

lpogoda
October 7th 03, 02:29 AM
>> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > I further put forth the proposition that all
>> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
>> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
>> > greyhair-genic.
>> >
Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool. Because
the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
must be used.

Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.

I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.

Solar Guppy
October 7th 03, 02:53 AM
Well , This is Nick Pines Domain ,

but I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

That makes the Energy Efficent rating about 1.06 , where the cheapy 199.00
AC's put out 10X the cooling (a EER of 10)

http://www.atrendyhome.com/go80btuwiair.html

So , consuming 10X the power should answer your question as to why except
for nitch applications they are not used




"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> >> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> >> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> >> > greyhair-genic.
> >> >
> Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
> cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
> dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
> direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool.
Because
> the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
> must be used.
>
> Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
> need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
> Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
> through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
> are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.
>
> I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
> ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
> handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.
>
>
>

Solar Guppy
October 7th 03, 02:53 AM
Well , This is Nick Pines Domain ,

but I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

That makes the Energy Efficent rating about 1.06 , where the cheapy 199.00
AC's put out 10X the cooling (a EER of 10)

http://www.atrendyhome.com/go80btuwiair.html

So , consuming 10X the power should answer your question as to why except
for nitch applications they are not used




"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > I further put forth the proposition that all
> >> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
> >> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
> >> > greyhair-genic.
> >> >
> Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
> cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
> dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
> direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool.
Because
> the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
> must be used.
>
> Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
> need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
> Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
> through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
> are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.
>
> I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
> ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
> handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.
>
>
>

William P.N. Smith
October 7th 03, 01:48 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote:
>The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
>cooling.

It's also horrendously inefficient compared to mechanical AC.

>I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
>ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
>handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.

It's also more expensive to produce. For niche apps it's OK, and it's
less expensive for small volumes (drink coolers, CPU coolers, etc),
but nothing beats gas expansion for cooling.

--
William Smith
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com

William P.N. Smith
October 7th 03, 01:48 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote:
>The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
>cooling.

It's also horrendously inefficient compared to mechanical AC.

>I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
>ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
>handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.

It's also more expensive to produce. For niche apps it's OK, and it's
less expensive for small volumes (drink coolers, CPU coolers, etc),
but nothing beats gas expansion for cooling.

--
William Smith
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com

Caleb Hess
October 7th 03, 05:58 PM
In article >,
lpogoda > wrote:
>
>>> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > I further put forth the proposition that all
>>> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
>>> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
>>> > greyhair-genic.
>>> >
>Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
>cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
>dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
>direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool. Because
>the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
>must be used.
>
>Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
>need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
>Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
>through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
>are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.
>
>I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
>ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
>handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.
>
Peltier effect devices are subject to Ohm's Law, in particular the part
that says that current flowing through a resistance produces heat (in
fact, the equation is P=I^2 x R, so heat produced increases as the square
of current). When used to cool below ambient temp, the Peltier device has
to get rid of both the heat it is transferring and the heat it is producing.
Makes for low efficiency and poor scalability.

And that's ignoring the problem of thermal conduction between the hot and
cold layers of the device.



--
Caleb Hess

Caleb Hess
October 7th 03, 05:58 PM
In article >,
lpogoda > wrote:
>
>>> "Alan Horowitz" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > I further put forth the proposition that all
>>> > refrigeration/dehumidification is fundamentally a mechanical process,
>>> > and that using electricity as an intermediary is wasteful and
>>> > greyhair-genic.
>>> >
>Not so. You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>process. The Peltier Effect, discovered in 1834, can be used to provide
>cooling. In the Peltier Effect an electric current applied across two
>dissimilar material causes a temperature differential. Depending on the
>direction of current flow, the effect can be used to heat or cool. Because
>the result depends on the direction of current flow, DC and not AC current
>must be used.
>
>Such devices are completely solid state, no liquid or gaseous refrigerants
>need to be pumped around. Indeed, no refrigerants are needed at all.
>Because there's no pumping, they're as noiseless as a current flowing
>through a wire. At least one manufacturer (Kryotherm) claims such devices
>are as good as compressor or absorber based refrigerators.
>
>I don't know why devices based on this technology aren't more widespread.
>ThermoElectricCoolingAmerica Corporation's largest unit, for instance,
>handles 1,500 BTU/hr, which is a pretty small air conditioner.
>
Peltier effect devices are subject to Ohm's Law, in particular the part
that says that current flowing through a resistance produces heat (in
fact, the equation is P=I^2 x R, so heat produced increases as the square
of current). When used to cool below ambient temp, the Peltier device has
to get rid of both the heat it is transferring and the heat it is producing.
Makes for low efficiency and poor scalability.

And that's ignoring the problem of thermal conduction between the hot and
cold layers of the device.



--
Caleb Hess

Alan Horowitz
October 8th 03, 01:53 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> process.


You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
things' inner movements/vibrations.

what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

Alan Horowitz
October 8th 03, 01:53 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> process.


You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
things' inner movements/vibrations.

what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

Nick Pine
October 8th 03, 03:05 AM
Solar Guppy > wrote:

>...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

Nonono. Btu/h and watts. Please learn the difference between power and energy,
and look up "power factor."

Nick

Nick Pine
October 8th 03, 03:05 AM
Solar Guppy > wrote:

>...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

Nonono. Btu/h and watts. Please learn the difference between power and energy,
and look up "power factor."

Nick

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:43 AM
Alan Horowitz wrote in message
>...
>"lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
>> You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>> process.
>
>
> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
>fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
>Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
>things' inner movements/vibrations.
>
>what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

That's beyond the pale, in my estimation. In a thermodynamic sense,
temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules or atoms
comprising a substance. The greater this energy, the faster the particles
are moving, and the higher the reading some instrument like a thermometer
will register. In that sense, temperature has a "mechanical" basis.

But in normal everyday parlance, current flowing along a wire, or through
various components of a circuit, is characterized as "electric" or
"electronic", not "mechanical". Even though electric current is made up of
electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on the
order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a "mechanical" basis.

Most cooling devices operate by compressing and expanding some working
fluid, often with a couple of phase changes thrown in for good measure.
They require pumps and pistons and valves and piping. They are mechanical
in the same way a steam locomotive is mechanical, regardless of the power
source that drives the machinery.

Regardless of whether or not all this moving machinery and sloshing fluids
this is the best (most economical in terms of energy and resource
consumption) way of space cooling, it is not _fundamentally_ necessary -
cooling can be accomplished by passing an electric current across the
junction of two dissimilar materials.

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:43 AM
Alan Horowitz wrote in message
>...
>"lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
>> You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>> delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>> process.
>
>
> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
>fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
>Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
>things' inner movements/vibrations.
>
>what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

That's beyond the pale, in my estimation. In a thermodynamic sense,
temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules or atoms
comprising a substance. The greater this energy, the faster the particles
are moving, and the higher the reading some instrument like a thermometer
will register. In that sense, temperature has a "mechanical" basis.

But in normal everyday parlance, current flowing along a wire, or through
various components of a circuit, is characterized as "electric" or
"electronic", not "mechanical". Even though electric current is made up of
electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on the
order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a "mechanical" basis.

Most cooling devices operate by compressing and expanding some working
fluid, often with a couple of phase changes thrown in for good measure.
They require pumps and pistons and valves and piping. They are mechanical
in the same way a steam locomotive is mechanical, regardless of the power
source that drives the machinery.

Regardless of whether or not all this moving machinery and sloshing fluids
this is the best (most economical in terms of energy and resource
consumption) way of space cooling, it is not _fundamentally_ necessary -
cooling can be accomplished by passing an electric current across the
junction of two dissimilar materials.

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:46 AM
Solar Guppy wrote in message ...
>Well , This is Nick Pines Domain ,
>
>but I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)
>
>That makes the Energy Efficent rating about 1.06 , where the cheapy 199.00
>AC's put out 10X the cooling (a EER of 10)
>
>http://www.atrendyhome.com/go80btuwiair.html
>
>So , consuming 10X the power should answer your question as to why except
>for nitch applications they are not used
>
Sure would. Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical
constraints or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped
technology?

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:46 AM
Solar Guppy wrote in message ...
>Well , This is Nick Pines Domain ,
>
>but I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)
>
>That makes the Energy Efficent rating about 1.06 , where the cheapy 199.00
>AC's put out 10X the cooling (a EER of 10)
>
>http://www.atrendyhome.com/go80btuwiair.html
>
>So , consuming 10X the power should answer your question as to why except
>for nitch applications they are not used
>
Sure would. Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical
constraints or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped
technology?

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:48 AM
William P.N. Smith > wrote in message ...
>
>It's also more expensive to produce. For niche apps it's OK, and it's
>less expensive for small volumes (drink coolers, CPU coolers, etc),
>but nothing beats gas expansion for cooling.
>
I can't tell if you mean the devices are more expensive to produce, or the
"coolth" is more expensive in terms of energy consumption when produced this
way. If it's the first, how much of the additional cost could be eliminated
by mass production?

lpogoda
October 8th 03, 03:48 AM
William P.N. Smith > wrote in message ...
>
>It's also more expensive to produce. For niche apps it's OK, and it's
>less expensive for small volumes (drink coolers, CPU coolers, etc),
>but nothing beats gas expansion for cooling.
>
I can't tell if you mean the devices are more expensive to produce, or the
"coolth" is more expensive in terms of energy consumption when produced this
way. If it's the first, how much of the additional cost could be eliminated
by mass production?

Nick Pine
October 8th 03, 04:10 AM
lpogoda > wrote:

>Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical constraints
>or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped technology?

Current thermoelectric devices have a low ratio of thermal to electrical
resistance, on the order of 1:1. The low thermal resistance allows heat to
flow easily from the hot side to the cold side. A thicker device would reduce
this heat flow, but that would increase the electrical resistance and the
required electrical power. In 10-20 years, we might see devices using better
materials (Skutterites) with a 20:1 ratio, according to NRL researchers...

Nick

Nick Pine
October 8th 03, 04:10 AM
lpogoda > wrote:

>Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical constraints
>or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped technology?

Current thermoelectric devices have a low ratio of thermal to electrical
resistance, on the order of 1:1. The low thermal resistance allows heat to
flow easily from the hot side to the cold side. A thicker device would reduce
this heat flow, but that would increase the electrical resistance and the
required electrical power. In 10-20 years, we might see devices using better
materials (Skutterites) with a 20:1 ratio, according to NRL researchers...

Nick

Albert Wagner
October 8th 03, 04:16 AM
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
"lpogoda" > wrote:
<snip>
> Even though electric current is made up of
> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> "mechanical" basis.
<snip>

Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 8th 03, 04:16 AM
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
"lpogoda" > wrote:
<snip>
> Even though electric current is made up of
> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> "mechanical" basis.
<snip>

Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

William P.N. Smith
October 8th 03, 04:29 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote:
>I can't tell if you mean the devices are more expensive to produce, or the
>"coolth" is more expensive in terms of energy consumption when produced this
>way. If it's the first, how much of the additional cost could be eliminated
>by mass production?

It's both. Mass production isn't likely to happen, as demand is low
for inefficient coolers.

--
William Smith
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com

William P.N. Smith
October 8th 03, 04:29 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote:
>I can't tell if you mean the devices are more expensive to produce, or the
>"coolth" is more expensive in terms of energy consumption when produced this
>way. If it's the first, how much of the additional cost could be eliminated
>by mass production?

It's both. Mass production isn't likely to happen, as demand is low
for inefficient coolers.

--
William Smith
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com

Peter Swinson
October 8th 03, 04:41 AM
I used to live on Bon Secour River in Alabama and a friend had a sailboat
that he used to take to the Yucatan once or twice a year. And he didn't want
to run the diesel just for the freezer so he homebuilt a freezer out of
styrofoam, about 3 inches thick, and put in a 12 volt refrigeration unit.
The evaporator was a cold plate. The power was from a wind generator mounted
on the back of the boat and on the bimini top he had two solar panels
connected to three or four batteries. Big ones. This thing stayed tied to
dock most of the time and we kept beer in it. It wasn't tied to shore power
and it stayed cold all the time. The freezer was about 2 feet wide, a foot
the other way and a foot and a half deep. It worked pretty good, it was a
hermetic compressor and I think we put it on R134a or R409.
"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> "lpogoda" > wrote:
> <snip>
> > Even though electric current is made up of
> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> > "mechanical" basis.
> <snip>
>
> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
> --
> Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
> Universe.
> --Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Peter Swinson
October 8th 03, 04:41 AM
I used to live on Bon Secour River in Alabama and a friend had a sailboat
that he used to take to the Yucatan once or twice a year. And he didn't want
to run the diesel just for the freezer so he homebuilt a freezer out of
styrofoam, about 3 inches thick, and put in a 12 volt refrigeration unit.
The evaporator was a cold plate. The power was from a wind generator mounted
on the back of the boat and on the bimini top he had two solar panels
connected to three or four batteries. Big ones. This thing stayed tied to
dock most of the time and we kept beer in it. It wasn't tied to shore power
and it stayed cold all the time. The freezer was about 2 feet wide, a foot
the other way and a foot and a half deep. It worked pretty good, it was a
hermetic compressor and I think we put it on R134a or R409.
"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> "lpogoda" > wrote:
> <snip>
> > Even though electric current is made up of
> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> > "mechanical" basis.
> <snip>
>
> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
> --
> Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
> Universe.
> --Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 8th 03, 04:57 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:41:47 GMT
"Peter Swinson" > wrote:
<snip>
I think you meant to reply to someone else.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 8th 03, 04:57 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:41:47 GMT
"Peter Swinson" > wrote:
<snip>
I think you meant to reply to someone else.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Duane C. Johnson
October 8th 03, 04:58 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "lpogoda" > wrote:

> > Even though electric current is made up of electrons
> > moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a
> > speed on the order of inches an hour and so could be
> > said to have a "mechanical" basis.

> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.

I concur. This is about correct.
Although, I remember the bulk electron velocity is
around 1/2 cm per hour, maybe this was the velocity
in silicon.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

Duane C. Johnson
October 8th 03, 04:58 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "lpogoda" > wrote:

> > Even though electric current is made up of electrons
> > moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a
> > speed on the order of inches an hour and so could be
> > said to have a "mechanical" basis.

> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.

I concur. This is about correct.
Although, I remember the bulk electron velocity is
around 1/2 cm per hour, maybe this was the velocity
in silicon.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

bill
October 8th 03, 05:42 AM
In article >,
(Alan Horowitz) wrote:

> "lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
> > You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> > delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> > process.
>
>
> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
> fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
> Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
> things' inner movements/vibrations.
>
> what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
first STAR TREK.
Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.

bill
October 8th 03, 05:42 AM
In article >,
(Alan Horowitz) wrote:

> "lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
> > You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
> > delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
> > process.
>
>
> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
> fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
> Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
> things' inner movements/vibrations.
>
> what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?

He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
first STAR TREK.
Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.

Solar Guppy
October 8th 03, 10:55 PM
Hi Nick,

I know what power factor is ... Glad to see your back to your grumpy self

The PF wasn't listed on the website for the window AC unit, I was attempting
to give a quick answer to the original poster and the 10x difference using
VA is a good ball part number. There are more and less efficient AC units
to make the comparison with and if you have the PF data , you are most
welcome to respond with the proper equations showing down to the 3rd decimal
place the difference

By the way , what ever happened to the solar garage and the 100.00 PV
cooling system ?


"Nick Pine" > wrote in message
...
> Solar Guppy > wrote:
>
> >...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
> >watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)
>
> Nonono. Btu/h and watts. Please learn the difference between power and
energy,
> and look up "power factor."
>
> Nick
>
>

Solar Guppy
October 8th 03, 10:55 PM
Hi Nick,

I know what power factor is ... Glad to see your back to your grumpy self

The PF wasn't listed on the website for the window AC unit, I was attempting
to give a quick answer to the original poster and the 10x difference using
VA is a good ball part number. There are more and less efficient AC units
to make the comparison with and if you have the PF data , you are most
welcome to respond with the proper equations showing down to the 3rd decimal
place the difference

By the way , what ever happened to the solar garage and the 100.00 PV
cooling system ?


"Nick Pine" > wrote in message
...
> Solar Guppy > wrote:
>
> >...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
> >watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)
>
> Nonono. Btu/h and watts. Please learn the difference between power and
energy,
> and look up "power factor."
>
> Nick
>
>

daestrom
October 8th 03, 11:37 PM
"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> "lpogoda" > wrote:
> <snip>
> > Even though electric current is made up of
> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> > "mechanical" basis.
> <snip>
>
> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.

Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the speed
of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and heaters heat),
is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.

daestrom

daestrom
October 8th 03, 11:37 PM
"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> "lpogoda" > wrote:
> <snip>
> > Even though electric current is made up of
> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> > "mechanical" basis.
> <snip>
>
> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.

Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the speed
of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and heaters heat),
is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.

daestrom

Nick Pine
October 9th 03, 12:15 AM
Solar Guppy > wrote:

>> >...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>> >watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

Please learn the difference between power and energy...

Nick

Nick Pine
October 9th 03, 12:15 AM
Solar Guppy > wrote:

>> >...I looked up the specs on there 1600 btu but job , and it consumes 1500
>> >watt/hours (120 VAC @ 12.5 amps)

Please learn the difference between power and energy...

Nick

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 03:07 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
"daestrom" > wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
> misunderstood that point.

I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
point me to a layman's explanation.

--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 03:07 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
"daestrom" > wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
> misunderstood that point.

I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
point me to a layman's explanation.

--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Duane C. Johnson
October 9th 03, 03:48 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "daestrom" > wrote:

> > Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far
> > off. But the speed of the electric 'field' (which is
> > what makes lights lit and heaters heat), is nearly the
> > speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.

> I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only
> misunderstood but I still do not understand. I have
> googled for 'bulk electron movement' with no success.
> I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
> then what little I learned about such things is decades
> old. Please point me to a layman's explanation.

Think of it this way.
Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
Lets say a million grains of sand.
Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
Anyway the average movement was very slow.

OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
and melt.

It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
(Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
A very small number.

Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.

For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
(1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13

So if you want to move all the electrons through
the wire you need to push:
1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
much current in the wire.

Of course there are a lot of other factors but you
see the idea. The average electron speed is very slow
even with very high practical currents.

Hope that helps.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

Duane C. Johnson
October 9th 03, 03:48 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "daestrom" > wrote:

> > Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far
> > off. But the speed of the electric 'field' (which is
> > what makes lights lit and heaters heat), is nearly the
> > speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.

> I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only
> misunderstood but I still do not understand. I have
> googled for 'bulk electron movement' with no success.
> I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
> then what little I learned about such things is decades
> old. Please point me to a layman's explanation.

Think of it this way.
Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
Lets say a million grains of sand.
Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
Anyway the average movement was very slow.

OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
and melt.

It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
(Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
A very small number.

Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.

For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
(1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13

So if you want to move all the electrons through
the wire you need to push:
1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
much current in the wire.

Of course there are a lot of other factors but you
see the idea. The average electron speed is very slow
even with very high practical currents.

Hope that helps.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 04:16 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:48:04 -0500
"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:
<snip>
> Think of it this way.
> Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
> Lets say a million grains of sand.
> Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
> One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
> and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
> Anyway the average movement was very slow.
>
> OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
> But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
> If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
> and melt.
>
> It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
> is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
> in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
> I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
> (Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
> A very small number.
>
> Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.
>
> For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
> (1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13
>
> So if you want to move all the electrons through
> the wire you need to push:
> 1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
> That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
> much current in the wire.
>
> Of course there are a lot of other factors but you
> see the idea. The average electron speed is very slow
> even with very high practical currents.
>
> Hope that helps.

Sorry, but no. My mind is still stuck with the classical view I learned
years ago. I still see electrons flowing through a conductor at near
light speed. I have no idea what it is that is moving at only 1cm/hr.
You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit around the conductor
atoms with the free electons moving through the conductor. From your
perspective that is probably a stupid thing to say, but just think of it
as feedback as to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 04:16 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:48:04 -0500
"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:
<snip>
> Think of it this way.
> Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
> Lets say a million grains of sand.
> Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
> One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
> and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
> Anyway the average movement was very slow.
>
> OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
> But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
> If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
> and melt.
>
> It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
> is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
> in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
> I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
> (Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
> A very small number.
>
> Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.
>
> For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
> (1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13
>
> So if you want to move all the electrons through
> the wire you need to push:
> 1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
> That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
> much current in the wire.
>
> Of course there are a lot of other factors but you
> see the idea. The average electron speed is very slow
> even with very high practical currents.
>
> Hope that helps.

Sorry, but no. My mind is still stuck with the classical view I learned
years ago. I still see electrons flowing through a conductor at near
light speed. I have no idea what it is that is moving at only 1cm/hr.
You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit around the conductor
atoms with the free electons moving through the conductor. From your
perspective that is probably a stupid thing to say, but just think of it
as feedback as to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.
--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Duane C. Johnson
October 9th 03, 04:55 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:
> > Think of it this way.
> > Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
> > Lets say a million grains of sand.
> > Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
> > One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
> > and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
> > Anyway the average movement was very slow.

> > OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
> > But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
> > If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
> > and melt.

> > It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
> > is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
> > in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
> > I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
> > (Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
> > A very small number.

> > Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.

> > For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
> > (1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13

> > So if you want to move all the electrons through
> > the wire you need to push:
> > 1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
> > That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
> > much current in the wire.

> > Of course there are a lot of other factors but
> > you see the idea. The average electron speed is
> > very slow even with very high practical currents.

> > Hope that helps.

> Sorry, but no. My mind is still stuck with the
> classical view I learned years ago.

OK.

> I still see electrons flowing through a conductor
> at near light speed.

That may me true. But where do they go?
They can't all be going from one end of the wire to
the other. They do move around in random motions but
not far.

> I have no idea what it is that is moving at only
> 1cm/hr.

This is the average velocity in a given direction.
I understand it's near the limit that current
flow before destruction of the conductor.

> You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit
> around the conductor atoms with the free electons
> moving through the conductor.

Yes. If no current is flowing then the average
velocity is also zero. While the electron's
velocity is high, the motions are random with no
net flow.

Remember, there are a lot of electrons with only
a tiny quantity on average that can pass through
the wire.

Don't get me wrong. Even though the average velocity
is slow one might think that a single electron you
put in one end of the conductor is the same one
that comes out the other end. Not so.

The energy carried by that electron is the transferred
down the wire through countless electrons as a wave
to come out the other end at nearly the speed of
light.

It's this wave that moves the average electron
down the wire.

> From your perspective that is probably a stupid
> thing to say, but just think of it as feedback as
> to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.

Not a problem. Sometimes every day things are in
reality quite different from the perceived common
sense.

Here is another that has similar effects.
The light we see that takes about eight minutes to
get here from the sun had it's origin in the center
of the sun 100,000 years ago. (Others say 1 million
years ago.) Even though the light is moving at about
the speed of light the distance it can move before
hitting an ion is short. Then it is redirected in
a new random direction.

Some say that the average distance to escape is
100,000 light years of distance.

Another way to look at it is the sun is filled with
100,000 years worth of photons and at any one time
a few escape to warm us.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

Duane C. Johnson
October 9th 03, 04:55 AM
Hi Albert;

Albert Wagner > wrote:
> "Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:
> > Think of it this way.
> > Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
> > Lets say a million grains of sand.
> > Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
> > One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
> > and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
> > Anyway the average movement was very slow.

> > OK, you might say lets take the grains out faster.
> > But there is a limit to the rate of grain removal.
> > If you take them out to fast the sand will get hot
> > and melt.

> > It turns out that the rate of electron flow on conductors
> > is very low per second compared to the number of electrons
> > in the cross section of the wire. Very, very low.
> > I suppose we could make an estimate at the ratio of:
> > (Bulk Electron Velocity)/(Speed of light)
> > A very small number.

> > Lets say the speed is 1cm/hr.

> > For a wire with a cross sectional area of 1cm^2.
> > (1cm/hr)/(300,000,000m/s * 3600s/hr)=9.25e-13

> > So if you want to move all the electrons through
> > the wire you need to push:
> > 1/9.25e-13 = 1.08e12 amps.
> > That's 1 trillion amps. Clearly you can't have that
> > much current in the wire.

> > Of course there are a lot of other factors but
> > you see the idea. The average electron speed is
> > very slow even with very high practical currents.

> > Hope that helps.

> Sorry, but no. My mind is still stuck with the
> classical view I learned years ago.

OK.

> I still see electrons flowing through a conductor
> at near light speed.

That may me true. But where do they go?
They can't all be going from one end of the wire to
the other. They do move around in random motions but
not far.

> I have no idea what it is that is moving at only
> 1cm/hr.

This is the average velocity in a given direction.
I understand it's near the limit that current
flow before destruction of the conductor.

> You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit
> around the conductor atoms with the free electons
> moving through the conductor.

Yes. If no current is flowing then the average
velocity is also zero. While the electron's
velocity is high, the motions are random with no
net flow.

Remember, there are a lot of electrons with only
a tiny quantity on average that can pass through
the wire.

Don't get me wrong. Even though the average velocity
is slow one might think that a single electron you
put in one end of the conductor is the same one
that comes out the other end. Not so.

The energy carried by that electron is the transferred
down the wire through countless electrons as a wave
to come out the other end at nearly the speed of
light.

It's this wave that moves the average electron
down the wire.

> From your perspective that is probably a stupid
> thing to say, but just think of it as feedback as
> to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.

Not a problem. Sometimes every day things are in
reality quite different from the perceived common
sense.

Here is another that has similar effects.
The light we see that takes about eight minutes to
get here from the sun had it's origin in the center
of the sun 100,000 years ago. (Others say 1 million
years ago.) Even though the light is moving at about
the speed of light the distance it can move before
hitting an ion is short. Then it is redirected in
a new random direction.

Some say that the average distance to escape is
100,000 light years of distance.

Another way to look at it is the sun is filled with
100,000 years worth of photons and at any one time
a few escape to warm us.

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

Tom Quackenbush
October 9th 03, 12:28 PM
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:07:45 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
>"daestrom" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
>> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
>> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
>> misunderstood that point.
>
>I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
>still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
>with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
>then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
>point me to a layman's explanation.

The analogy that I learned went like this:

Imagine a tube filled with ping pong balls, corresponding to a wire
"filled" with electrons. You push on a ping ball ball on one end of
the tube (turn on the light switch) and almost instantly a ball pops
out of the other end of the tube (light bulb lights). The bulb you
pushed has only travelled a fraction of an inch.

It's a crude analogy; don't try to read too much into it.

Not to cloud the issue, but when we're using alternating current,
the electrons aren't really getting anywhere, just going back and
forth on their own little piece of wire. Poor guys. <g>

You might try this link:
http://www.radioelectronicschool.com/downloads/howfast.pdf

R,
Tom Q.

Tom Quackenbush
October 9th 03, 12:28 PM
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:07:45 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
>"daestrom" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
>> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
>> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
>> misunderstood that point.
>
>I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
>still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
>with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
>then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
>point me to a layman's explanation.

The analogy that I learned went like this:

Imagine a tube filled with ping pong balls, corresponding to a wire
"filled" with electrons. You push on a ping ball ball on one end of
the tube (turn on the light switch) and almost instantly a ball pops
out of the other end of the tube (light bulb lights). The bulb you
pushed has only travelled a fraction of an inch.

It's a crude analogy; don't try to read too much into it.

Not to cloud the issue, but when we're using alternating current,
the electrons aren't really getting anywhere, just going back and
forth on their own little piece of wire. Poor guys. <g>

You might try this link:
http://www.radioelectronicschool.com/downloads/howfast.pdf

R,
Tom Q.

Nick Pine
October 9th 03, 01:27 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote:

>"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:

>> Think of it this way.
>> Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
>> Lets say a million grains of sand.
>> Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
>> One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
>> and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
>> Anyway the average movement was very slow.

>...My mind is still stuck with the classical view I learned years ago.

But this is the classical view.

>I still see electrons flowing through a conductor at near light speed.

"Light" flows that way, but an individual electron in a wire (vs "electrical
current") flows very slowly. You can calculate the speed from the current
and the electron density in the wire.

Nick

Nick Pine
October 9th 03, 01:27 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote:

>"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:

>> Think of it this way.
>> Fill a vertical pipe with sand.
>> Lets say a million grains of sand.
>> Now take 1 grain out the bottom.
>> One grain appears to me missing from the top of the pipe
>> and it happens at "the speed of sand". (I had to do it.)
>> Anyway the average movement was very slow.

>...My mind is still stuck with the classical view I learned years ago.

But this is the classical view.

>I still see electrons flowing through a conductor at near light speed.

"Light" flows that way, but an individual electron in a wire (vs "electrical
current") flows very slowly. You can calculate the speed from the current
and the electron density in the wire.

Nick

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 03:53 PM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0500
"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote:
<snip>
> > I still see electrons flowing through a conductor
> > at near light speed.
>
> That may me true. But where do they go?
> They can't all be going from one end of the wire to
> the other. They do move around in random motions but
> not far.

Yes, I remember that. The number of electrons exiting roughly equals the
number of electrons entering the conductor; a given entering electron is
highly unlikely to be leaving at near light speed later.

<snip>
> > You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit
> > around the conductor atoms with the free electons
> > moving through the conductor.
>
> Yes. If no current is flowing then the average
> velocity is also zero. While the electron's
> velocity is high, the motions are random with no
> net flow.
<snip>
> > From your perspective that is probably a stupid
> > thing to say, but just think of it as feedback as
> > to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.
>
> Not a problem. Sometimes every day things are in
> reality quite different from the perceived common
> sense.
<snip>

OK. Thank you for your patience. As for the term "bulk" electron
movement: it doesn't seem to effect my visualization of events and I now
understand, at least superficially, what is meant. I assume that such a
concept has some utility when designing super- and semi- conductors, but
is not really needed to deal with day-to-day electrical problems. Is
that true?

--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

Albert Wagner
October 9th 03, 03:53 PM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0500
"Duane C. Johnson" > wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote:
<snip>
> > I still see electrons flowing through a conductor
> > at near light speed.
>
> That may me true. But where do they go?
> They can't all be going from one end of the wire to
> the other. They do move around in random motions but
> not far.

Yes, I remember that. The number of electrons exiting roughly equals the
number of electrons entering the conductor; a given entering electron is
highly unlikely to be leaving at near light speed later.

<snip>
> > You seem to be averaging the electrons in orbit
> > around the conductor atoms with the free electons
> > moving through the conductor.
>
> Yes. If no current is flowing then the average
> velocity is also zero. While the electron's
> velocity is high, the motions are random with no
> net flow.
<snip>
> > From your perspective that is probably a stupid
> > thing to say, but just think of it as feedback as
> > to how much I am grasping of what you are saying.
>
> Not a problem. Sometimes every day things are in
> reality quite different from the perceived common
> sense.
<snip>

OK. Thank you for your patience. As for the term "bulk" electron
movement: it doesn't seem to effect my visualization of events and I now
understand, at least superficially, what is meant. I assume that such a
concept has some utility when designing super- and semi- conductors, but
is not really needed to deal with day-to-day electrical problems. Is
that true?

--
Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the
Universe.
--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:36 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
>"lpogoda" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Even though electric current is made up of
>> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
>> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
>> "mechanical" basis.
><snip>
>
>Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
>--
It's not - look it up. You might start at
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923595421.Ph.r.html where the
electron drift velocity is calculated to be 0.00255 cm/s, or here
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html where using somewhat different
parameters the velocity works out to 8.4 cm/hr, roughly 3.6 inches/hr and
3.3 inches/hr respectively.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:36 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
>"lpogoda" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Even though electric current is made up of
>> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
>> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
>> "mechanical" basis.
><snip>
>
>Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
>--
It's not - look it up. You might start at
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923595421.Ph.r.html where the
electron drift velocity is calculated to be 0.00255 cm/s, or here
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html where using somewhat different
parameters the velocity works out to 8.4 cm/hr, roughly 3.6 inches/hr and
3.3 inches/hr respectively.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:42 AM
daestrom wrote in message ...
>
>"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
>> "lpogoda" > wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Even though electric current is made up of
>> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
>> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
>> > "mechanical" basis.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
>
>Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
speed
>of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and heaters heat),
>is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.
>
Right. If you push an electron into one end of a conductor one pops out of
the far end after a time delay equivalent to the time it takes light to
travel the length of the conductor. But the electrons themselves move
pretty slowly.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:42 AM
daestrom wrote in message ...
>
>"Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
>> "lpogoda" > wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Even though electric current is made up of
>> > electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
>> > the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
>> > "mechanical" basis.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
>
>Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
speed
>of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and heaters heat),
>is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you misunderstood that point.
>
Right. If you push an electron into one end of a conductor one pops out of
the far end after a time delay equivalent to the time it takes light to
travel the length of the conductor. But the electrons themselves move
pretty slowly.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:51 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
>"daestrom" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
>> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
>> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
>> misunderstood that point.
>
>I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
>still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
>with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
>then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
>point me to a layman's explanation.
>
I've posted a couple of references in another reply, but it might help to
think of it this way. Take a pipe that's filled with water. Pump an
additional teaspoon of water in at the near end. A teaspoon of water will
spill out the far end after a delay that represents the time it takes a
pressure wave to travel along the water in the pipe (the pressure wave
travels at the speed of sound in water). You don't have to wait for a
teaspoon's worth of water molecules to travel the length of the pipe before
water comes out the far end, just for the pressure wave to make the trip.

The "pipe" for an electric current is a wire, and it's already "full" of
electrons. Push another one in at the near end and one will pop out at the
far end. You don't have to wait for the electron to travel the length of
the wire, just for the "pressure wave" (which in this case travels along the
wire at the speed of light) to do so.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:51 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:37:22 GMT
>"daestrom" > wrote:
><snip>
>> Actually, for the 'bulk' electron movement, it's not far off. But the
>> speed of the electric 'field' (which is what makes lights lit and
>> heaters heat), is nearly the speed of light. Perhaps you
>> misunderstood that point.
>
>I'm embarassed to admit it, but yes; I not only misunderstood but I
>still do not understand. I have googled for 'bulk electron movement'
>with no success. I have never heard of 'bulk electron movement', but
>then what little I learned about such things is decades old. Please
>point me to a layman's explanation.
>
I've posted a couple of references in another reply, but it might help to
think of it this way. Take a pipe that's filled with water. Pump an
additional teaspoon of water in at the near end. A teaspoon of water will
spill out the far end after a delay that represents the time it takes a
pressure wave to travel along the water in the pipe (the pressure wave
travels at the speed of sound in water). You don't have to wait for a
teaspoon's worth of water molecules to travel the length of the pipe before
water comes out the far end, just for the pressure wave to make the trip.

The "pipe" for an electric current is a wire, and it's already "full" of
electrons. Push another one in at the near end and one will pop out at the
far end. You don't have to wait for the electron to travel the length of
the wire, just for the "pressure wave" (which in this case travels along the
wire at the speed of light) to do so.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:56 AM
Nick Pine wrote in message ...
>lpogoda > wrote:
>
>>Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical constraints
>>or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped technology?
>
>Current thermoelectric devices have a low ratio of thermal to electrical
>resistance, on the order of 1:1. The low thermal resistance allows heat to
>flow easily from the hot side to the cold side. A thicker device would
reduce
>this heat flow, but that would increase the electrical resistance and the
>required electrical power. In 10-20 years, we might see devices using
better
>materials (Skutterites) with a 20:1 ratio, according to NRL researchers...
>
OK. So the present low efficiency isn't due to "natural limits" but merely
to a relatively undeveloped technology.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 03:56 AM
Nick Pine wrote in message ...
>lpogoda > wrote:
>
>>Would you know if the power consumption is due to theoretical constraints
>>or does it merely reflect a relatively underdeveloped technology?
>
>Current thermoelectric devices have a low ratio of thermal to electrical
>resistance, on the order of 1:1. The low thermal resistance allows heat to
>flow easily from the hot side to the cold side. A thicker device would
reduce
>this heat flow, but that would increase the electrical resistance and the
>required electrical power. In 10-20 years, we might see devices using
better
>materials (Skutterites) with a 20:1 ratio, according to NRL researchers...
>
OK. So the present low efficiency isn't due to "natural limits" but merely
to a relatively undeveloped technology.

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 04:02 AM
bill wrote in message ...
>In article >,
(Alan Horowitz) wrote:
>
>> "lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
>> > You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>> > delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>> > process.
>>
>>
>> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
>> fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
>> Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
>> things' inner movements/vibrations.
>>
>> what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?
>
>He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
>first STAR TREK.
>Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.

Nonsense. When the only "moving part" of a machine is electrons flowing in
a wire, we don't call it a "mechanical" device, we call it an "electronic"
device. It's been doable since the 1830's. It might not be economically
practical today, it might never be economically practical, but that has
nothing to do with the principal.

BTW, it's "the Next Generation".

lpogoda
October 10th 03, 04:02 AM
bill wrote in message ...
>In article >,
(Alan Horowitz) wrote:
>
>> "lpogoda" > wrote in message
>...
>> > You're letting common practice and the current state of the art
>> > delude you into believing that cooling is *fundamentally* a mechanical
>> > process.
>>
>>
>> You're letting your ignorance of physics show. temperature is
>> fundamentally a question of how fast certain things are moving.
>> Videlicet, cooling things down means decreasing the speed of those
>> things' inner movements/vibrations.
>>
>> what part of "mechanical" don't you understand?
>
>He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
>first STAR TREK.
>Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.

Nonsense. When the only "moving part" of a machine is electrons flowing in
a wire, we don't call it a "mechanical" device, we call it an "electronic"
device. It's been doable since the 1830's. It might not be economically
practical today, it might never be economically practical, but that has
nothing to do with the principal.

BTW, it's "the Next Generation".

bill
October 10th 03, 04:17 AM
In article >, "lpogoda"
> wrote:

> >He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
> >first STAR TREK.
> >Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.
>
> Nonsense. When the only "moving part" of a machine is electrons flowing in
> a wire, we don't call it a "mechanical" device, we call it an "electronic"
> device. It's been doable since the 1830's. It might not be economically
> practical today, it might never be economically practical, but that has
> nothing to do with the principal.
>
> BTW, it's "the Next Generation".

Thanks for proving my point. :-)

bill
October 10th 03, 04:17 AM
In article >, "lpogoda"
> wrote:

> >He isn't concerned with science. He knows it's doable. Has been since the
> >first STAR TREK.
> >Think STAR TREK the New Generation and you'll be able to talk to this guy.
>
> Nonsense. When the only "moving part" of a machine is electrons flowing in
> a wire, we don't call it a "mechanical" device, we call it an "electronic"
> device. It's been doable since the 1830's. It might not be economically
> practical today, it might never be economically practical, but that has
> nothing to do with the principal.
>
> BTW, it's "the Next Generation".

Thanks for proving my point. :-)

Fred B. McGalliard
October 10th 03, 04:07 PM
Carrier drift velocities in semiconductors are a bit higher than that, but
still way sub light.

"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Albert Wagner wrote in message
> >...
> >On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> >"lpogoda" > wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Even though electric current is made up of
> >> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> >> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> >> "mechanical" basis.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
> >--
> It's not - look it up. You might start at
> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923595421.Ph.r.html where the
> electron drift velocity is calculated to be 0.00255 cm/s, or here
> http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html where using somewhat different
> parameters the velocity works out to 8.4 cm/hr, roughly 3.6 inches/hr and
> 3.3 inches/hr respectively.
>
>

Fred B. McGalliard
October 10th 03, 04:07 PM
Carrier drift velocities in semiconductors are a bit higher than that, but
still way sub light.

"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> Albert Wagner wrote in message
> >...
> >On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:45 -0400
> >"lpogoda" > wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Even though electric current is made up of
> >> electrons moving along a conductor (or a semiconductor) at a speed on
> >> the order of inches an hour and so could be said to have a
> >> "mechanical" basis.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Inches per hour? I hope that's a typo.
> >--
> It's not - look it up. You might start at
> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923595421.Ph.r.html where the
> electron drift velocity is calculated to be 0.00255 cm/s, or here
> http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html where using somewhat different
> parameters the velocity works out to 8.4 cm/hr, roughly 3.6 inches/hr and
> 3.3 inches/hr respectively.
>
>

Fred B. McGalliard
October 10th 03, 04:11 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
....
> OK. So the present low efficiency isn't due to "natural limits" but
merely
> to a relatively undeveloped technology.

That may be too strongly stated. Heat conduction can be carried by
electrons, which ties the heat conductivity and electrical conductivity
together at some point. I do not know if this is a practical limit though,
just a thought to check on.

Fred B. McGalliard
October 10th 03, 04:11 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
....
> OK. So the present low efficiency isn't due to "natural limits" but
merely
> to a relatively undeveloped technology.

That may be too strongly stated. Heat conduction can be carried by
electrons, which ties the heat conductivity and electrical conductivity
together at some point. I do not know if this is a practical limit though,
just a thought to check on.

lpogoda
October 11th 03, 03:00 AM
bill wrote in message ...
>
>Thanks for proving my point. :-)

And, of course, you've totally missed mine.

lpogoda
October 11th 03, 03:00 AM
bill wrote in message ...
>
>Thanks for proving my point. :-)

And, of course, you've totally missed mine.

bill
October 11th 03, 02:19 PM
In article >, "lpogoda"
> wrote:

> bill wrote in message ...
> >
> >Thanks for proving my point. :-)
>
> And, of course, you've totally missed mine.

No, you just like to think that. Feel better now?

bill
October 11th 03, 02:19 PM
In article >, "lpogoda"
> wrote:

> bill wrote in message ...
> >
> >Thanks for proving my point. :-)
>
> And, of course, you've totally missed mine.

No, you just like to think that. Feel better now?

Google