|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why Can't I?
OK, I have a calculater and it does some pretty smart sums (it even sometimes helps me work out %'s!!!) so I guess it uses some power, cos when I try and work out the same sums in my head I need to sit down from the excursion...
Anyway, my calculator is about 10 years old, and has a 4 cell solar panel on it, which keeps it running fine, pretty much whenever I need it.
That solar panel works at night, so it works from lamp light... so... why can't we make lamps that run off the same type of cells? Surely there is a a way... and yes, I know there would need to be some form or battery needed to "jump start" the lamp so that it can generate enough light to power itself, but where is there a problem in that?
And, I have tested my calculater in front of the TV with no lamps on, and it does the same thing....
Is science and the electricity companies and government hiding something from us, or have I been thinking about this way too much??
Oh and, anyone that does go and invent something like this, I want one free please for suggesting it... and about 30% of any profits or I will sue your a$$
Thanks science freaks... I love you all...
Anyway, my calculator is about 10 years old, and has a 4 cell solar panel on it, which keeps it running fine, pretty much whenever I need it.
That solar panel works at night, so it works from lamp light... so... why can't we make lamps that run off the same type of cells? Surely there is a a way... and yes, I know there would need to be some form or battery needed to "jump start" the lamp so that it can generate enough light to power itself, but where is there a problem in that?
And, I have tested my calculater in front of the TV with no lamps on, and it does the same thing....
Is science and the electricity companies and government hiding something from us, or have I been thinking about this way too much??
Oh and, anyone that does go and invent something like this, I want one free please for suggesting it... and about 30% of any profits or I will sue your a$$
Thanks science freaks... I love you all...
| greenwoodmonkey wrote: |
| OK, I have a calculater and it does some pretty smart sums (it even sometimes helps me work out %'s!!!) so I guess it uses some power, cos when I try and work out the same sums in my head I need to sit down from the excursion...
Anyway, my calculator is about 10 years old, and has a 4 cell solar panel on it, which keeps it running fine, pretty much whenever I need it. ..... |
Basic problem is power consumption. Your calc will be drawing a few tens of milliwatts in total power. This would, for example, last up to 20 hours with a couple of hearing aid batteries. The calc normally also uses a 'pulse' system which means the power is not on all the time.
Now, a lightbulb needs much more power. Even a smallish bulb will draw 40-60 watts (hundreds or even thousands of times more), depending on the exact specs. Clearly the solar panel is not going to do the trick for this application - it has to be bigger.
The 'intelligence' of the calculator is not really much of an indicator of it's power consumption nowadays since other factors (circuit design, chip type and so on will be more important.
Regards
Chris
If I understand your point, you'd like to create lights that get back their energy with solar pannels?
I'm sorry, but there is a law with energy: no matter how you work your thing out, there is always a loss in heat somewhere. So you'd get back a little less energy, and your lamp would lose strenght until it wouldn't be working anymore.
The same principle would be true with a fan and a wind power station in front of it, powering the fan. Let's say you boost all with energy at the beggining: the fan runs the wind power station, which runs the fan. But over time, your fan will slow down, so will the wind power station. In the end, all will stop.
And yes, a calculator must be one of the things that uses the less energy in energy-consumpting items... Working a small digit screen is really easy for energy.
The only way you could work this out would be energy "recycling":
-Place wind power stations next to highways to recuperate part of the wind caused by traffic
-Place solar pannels in heavily lighted aeras
-Etc...
The problem in those cases is the costs.
That's always it...
I'm sorry, but there is a law with energy: no matter how you work your thing out, there is always a loss in heat somewhere. So you'd get back a little less energy, and your lamp would lose strenght until it wouldn't be working anymore.
The same principle would be true with a fan and a wind power station in front of it, powering the fan. Let's say you boost all with energy at the beggining: the fan runs the wind power station, which runs the fan. But over time, your fan will slow down, so will the wind power station. In the end, all will stop.
And yes, a calculator must be one of the things that uses the less energy in energy-consumpting items... Working a small digit screen is really easy for energy.
The only way you could work this out would be energy "recycling":
-Place wind power stations next to highways to recuperate part of the wind caused by traffic
-Place solar pannels in heavily lighted aeras
-Etc...
The problem in those cases is the costs.
That's always it...Ok, Chris I want to take this a step further.....
1 : My understanding of solar panels is very limited, but I saw once that they managed to get a car across Australia powered only by the sun, and that was a few years ago.. is this true, and if so that obviously used a large solar panel, have we not moved on since then and managed to scale them down enough?
Am I right in thinking that S.P's are made of "Cells".. are the number of cells relative to the power out? Has the technology not moved enough to give us better power output per cell? Can there ever be a time when we can generate enough from a relatively small S.P to power such items as a lamp or is it simply never going to be possible given the power output to input ratio (i.e more power being used than can be generated from the same item)
Oh and , I know that a power consumption should be no indicator of the actual processing power of a calculator.... I don't want to (I think this is the right term) "Flame" you but I have to smile at your oh-so typically science based response, and complete disregard for my attempt at (not so funny, granted) humor..... I should have realised I was in the wrong room for bad jokes.... thanks so far for your vote and your comments, Chris, keep 'em coming... in the mean time I am going to brush up on my puns.....
1 : My understanding of solar panels is very limited, but I saw once that they managed to get a car across Australia powered only by the sun, and that was a few years ago.. is this true, and if so that obviously used a large solar panel, have we not moved on since then and managed to scale them down enough?
Am I right in thinking that S.P's are made of "Cells".. are the number of cells relative to the power out? Has the technology not moved enough to give us better power output per cell? Can there ever be a time when we can generate enough from a relatively small S.P to power such items as a lamp or is it simply never going to be possible given the power output to input ratio (i.e more power being used than can be generated from the same item)
Oh and , I know that a power consumption should be no indicator of the actual processing power of a calculator.... I don't want to (I think this is the right term) "Flame" you but I have to smile at your oh-so typically science based response, and complete disregard for my attempt at (not so funny, granted) humor..... I should have realised I was in the wrong room for bad jokes.... thanks so far for your vote and your comments, Chris, keep 'em coming... in the mean time I am going to brush up on my puns.....
How about sticking the lamp on the window sill all day to store energy, that way as it uses and reduces it will have enough in store as well?
Or is that stupid too?
Or is that stupid too?
| greenwoodmonkey wrote: |
| How about sticking the lamp on the window sill all day to store energy, that way as it uses and reduces it will have enough in store as well?
Or is that stupid too? |
On humour - you might like to read my last posting on the philosophy forum thread 'sticky' GOD. That is my feeble attempt at humour
Storage is different to power conversion. The solar cell converts rather than stores energy so you also need a battery system.
Solar panels are (I think) about 10-15% efficient mac and have an output of something like 30 watts per square metre so that would mean 2 square metres per 60 Watt bulb. You could store the energy and save it up in storage batteries - a battery can be up to 80-85% efficient but even so that means you loose some of the valuable energy. Most solar systems use the energy at once by heating water (I think)...
Chris
Correction: I have worked a lot with solar pannels. Top of the best stuff gives out up to 150 W/m². That's a 15% output, as the sun approximately generates 1000 W/m² on the Earth. And altering the size will not change much things, as the energy output is based on the surface covered and orientation compared to the sun rays.
In fact, the only way to make better solar pannels would be to create new alloys, glasses or overall system. Currently, 2 types of SP exist. They both have qualities and problems.
Storing energy is not actually a problem for low-consumption items. A 60W lamp would be correctly powered by a 1 m² SP with an output of 60W. If I get it right, an average of one hour of sunlight would provide the energy for an hour of power for the lamp. Then again, to ameliorate the process, you'd need good batteries. Most won't store enough energy and will waste a part of it. Supraconductors would be the ideal solution, except you have to lower the temperature slightly
So, in short, that'd be a lot better idea. But you have to pay the price
In fact, the only way to make better solar pannels would be to create new alloys, glasses or overall system. Currently, 2 types of SP exist. They both have qualities and problems.
Storing energy is not actually a problem for low-consumption items. A 60W lamp would be correctly powered by a 1 m² SP with an output of 60W. If I get it right, an average of one hour of sunlight would provide the energy for an hour of power for the lamp. Then again, to ameliorate the process, you'd need good batteries. Most won't store enough energy and will waste a part of it. Supraconductors would be the ideal solution, except you have to lower the temperature slightly
So, in short, that'd be a lot better idea. But you have to pay the price
| Soltair wrote: |
| Correction: I have worked a lot with solar pannels. Top of the best stuff gives out up to 150 W/m². |
Correction happily accepted and acknowledged - I'm way out of my field here so I'm glad someone with more expertise stepped in
Chris
| greenwoodmonkey wrote: |
| it can generate enough light to power itself, but where is there a problem in that? |
The law of conservation of mass-energy.
It's hypothetically possible. That is, if you have a 100% conversion from electricity to light at the lamp, and from light to electricity at the photovoltaic cell.
But there's a problem even with this hypothetical model.
For it to be 100% efficient, no energy must be drawn away from the model at any stage, not even the light needed by a human eye to "see".
Which makes this "self-powered lamp" kind of useless.
That's all hypothetical, by the way. You might be surprised to find out the efficiencies of real-life lamps and photovoltaic cells.
| mOrpheuS wrote: | ||
The law of conservation of mass-energy. It's hypothetically possible. That is, if you have a 100% conversion from electricity to light at the lamp, and from light to electricity at the photovoltaic cell. |
True, but, of course, as the electrons flow down the wire they bump and rub around - this resistance (a bit like friction when you slide on the ground) converts some of their energy into heat and whammo - energy loss. Even in a superconductor you loose infinitesimal energy. In normal copper wire the loss is significant.
| Quote: |
|
But there's a problem even with this hypothetical model. For it to be 100% efficient, no energy must be drawn away from the model at any stage, not even the light needed by a human eye to "see". Which makes this "self-powered lamp" kind of useless. |
Good and very telling point :-)
That's all hypothetical, by the way. You might be surprised to find out the efficiencies of real-life lamps and photovoltaic cells. :lol:[/quote]
And that's the killer blow...
Chris
For a while they have had those spiral fluorescent bulbs that use like 1/4 the wattage that a regular bulb uses. Maybe it can't run itself, but if lamps *were* made with solar cells (even in the lampshades), they could conceivable draw even *less* electricity from that supplied to the house and in combination with spiral fluorescent bulbs cut down on power usage dramatically.
Your idea is a good one, but just 'cause we can't create a useful perpetual light machine doesn't mean we can't go halfway!
Your idea is a good one, but just 'cause we can't create a useful perpetual light machine doesn't mean we can't go halfway!
| benjmd wrote: |
| For a while they have had those spiral fluorescent bulbs that use like 1/4 the wattage that a regular bulb uses. Maybe it can't run itself, but if lamps *were* made with solar cells (even in the lampshades), they could conceivable draw even *less* electricity from that supplied to the house and in combination with spiral fluorescent bulbs cut down on power usage dramatically.
Your idea is a good one, but just 'cause we can't create a useful perpetual light machine doesn't mean we can't go halfway! |
I absolutely agree with that. My 'negative' stance is purely knocking the 'perpetual motion' bit on the head. There is every reason why we should indeed aspire to perpetural motion as an ideal whilst realising at the same time that, like all ideals, it is not real. To say to yourself - 'well, I can run 100% efficient so I'll not bother at all' - is both irresponsible and self-defeating.
Regards
Chris
 |