Solar system upgrades

DC,
You are one of few people I know that can make my brain hurt by slamming me with a bolt of knowledge. ;-)

It's rarely my intent to make anyone hurt...I'm saving that for the (soon to be - in VA you have to wait) ex, and in that case, it's just payback.

heres the link i was looking for to demonstrate Zotlotterer's vortex generator -

http://www.green-trust.org/wordpress/2012/04/16/gravitation-water-vortex-power-plant/

A multi bladed rotor on this one which seems a better way to capture the 'face' of the vortex which i guess is the most energetic zone.

Interesting capture of energy that would be otherwise wasted. Probably hard to gunk that up too (huge advantage from my own experience) - but a real turbine will get a lot more out of that much water with that much head - far, far more. Next time I get to the library room my turbine book is in, I can calculate what that would be for ya. .7 m^3/sec * five feet is a heck of a lot of energy flow.

Lessee, a cu meter is a million grams of water, so .7 is 700k grams. Call that 1542 lbs of water, times 5 feet, is 7709 foot pounds. They spec that .7 cu meter as per second, so we have foot pounds per second here. From wiki:
Mechanical horsepower
hp(I) ≡ 33,000 ft-lbf/min = 550 ft·lbf/s
= 745.699872 W


7709/550 = 14 hp (almost exactly). Times 745 watts, the water has a theoretic energy of: 10452.202643172 watts, or about 10kw.


That would work out to right around 250.85 kw/hr a day. They are claiming under half that. Over 50% of the available energy isn't extracted by this design.


A decent turbine (not fancy, just a single stage one) easily gets you 80% of the theory energy (including the generator losses of about 8%), which would be a ton better; right around 200.6 kwh a day. So, modern engineering gets 200 where they get 120, and it doesn't even cost much more. That's 80kwh a day they're wasting with this design. At the current cost of electricity (average is about 12c a kwh) that's almost $10 a day worth not extracted, or $3500 a year worth of "lost income" if you were selling it - so a real turbine would pay for itself in under one year! Pretty good ROI, if you ask me.


Funny how those dramatic claims of super-efficiency fall apart when you do the math. This turbine design is the same as an old centrifugal pump with loose clearances (people have been known to use those with success for this BTW), and without the advantage of hydro-dynamically curved and shaped blades, and the results are in line with that - it's less well engineered and produces less than regular off the shelf tech...no surprise there.

Really, the topic of getting energy is studied hard by very smart people all the time - it's a trillion dollar enterprise - It's quite unlikely that anyone will come up with something they haven't looked into already. Possible, but...you'd see these all over the planet in pro installations if there was even a tiny benefit over the way it's already done - bean counters insist.

Its rare for any micro hydro system to get better than 50% of the theoretical energy. Even more so at low head sites, which these vortex devices seem best suited to.

They are relatively simple to build and do not need an expensive state of the art turbine. They do not seem to suffer with getting blocked by brash are no threat to fish.

I would build one today if i wasnt in deep with the regulating authorities regarding the site that sits beside the stream.


Dumb question probably but does a centrifugal pump create a vortex ?
....... or is it more like the hydrobrake and adds heat ?

Water pumps to create a vortex and work about like this thing you describe in efficiency, just that you can buy one very cheap, so some small users choose them.

The turbine I'd suggest is dirt cheap, home made, gets 80%+ no matter the size of the installation, but sadly, I would have to scan and publish about 20 pages of a book to show it to you decently. I'll see if I can find one picture that shows the concept well. It's made from two endplates and some pipe sliced lengthwise to get the curved blades, and a special nozzle shape that causes water to go through the blades at the top, fall through the middle, then go through the blades again at the bottom (horizontal axis). It's scalable from a trickle to huge flows, you can adjust the RPM by changing numbers in the design equation, and designed specifically for low heads like this. For higher heads, other designs work better.
Here's one link to the design, without the info you'd need to actually make one, which I've got elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine

DC,
Could you post a link to the turbine you mention in your response? This is quite an interesting thread, and I want to see if the same principles could be used at the entry orifice of a spring on my buddies property. "Dave" has a spring fed pond of about two acres on his property. The overflow goes in to a small brook about four feet across and maybe six to ten inches deep. The flow is constant and never stops.......even in drought. The water temp is pretty cold as well, indicating that it is deep water. We dove the spring a couple of years ago and found the entry point in about thirty five feet of water, and it is a nearly triangular hole in a limestone cap-rock formation. I wander if we could capture some of the energy from this constant flow of water. We have discussed using a water ram to transport fresh water to his small hunting cabin about five hundred yards away, but until now, I had never considered capturing any of the energy.

For the moment, see the wiki link. I have the full design equations for this to make whatever you want with dirt-cheap parts, but as I said above - it's 20 pages and would subject someone to copyright issues if posted right up top here. I'll have to scan them in. The one I have is a slight variation on the wiki one, easier to build. I have built a couple here, just fooling around and to check the design equations, they work.

Yup Banki is the choice of most for these kinds of flow but im a sucker for wanting to play with anything that involves a vortex .........

and look at how those blades are hardly touching that vortexing water, yet its still producing 50% efficiency.

Imagine what could be captured from a series of rotors working at different diameters in that water and all rotating at different speeds ............

Ancona, have you seen these simple spiral pumps -


easy to make and might suit your friends location

Try it. As you capture more the vortex will be disrupted and go away at the limit.
Then you are back to a plain old centrifugal water pump working backwards.

Yes its a fine line introducing too much resistance and potentially collapsing the vortex.
That would be most unsatisfactory ( for me )
And rather complex to hook up variable speed drives

Just observing how little contact there is with Zotlotterers rotor and how much with the Banki.
Does this not indicate there is more energy capture for the contact areas ?

A naturally forming vortex seems to give us a temperature drop, whereas an induced vortex from a centrifugal pump or hydrobrake creates a temperature rise ..........
So Im inclined to try and capture the additional potential offered within a naturally forming vortex.

All the waste energy becomes heat at some point. With the vortex, a lot of the loss is where the water rubs the housing, so the temperature will tend to go up there, but calorimetry for this is something I've not seen - and as the cold fusion guys have discovered, is pretty error-prone.

Capture per rotor area contact isn't a very good metric of anything, I think. Capture vs losses would be a better one.

A large part of the loss in a low speed (vortex or water wheel) turbine is in the gearing of it up to drive a regular generator at high rpm. One huge advantage of the banki is that you can control the RPM of it in the design and get it going faster for the same other conditions, which eliminates a lot of that loss. Nowadays, there is another way, which is to use a "many pole" perm magnet generator that can be efficient going slow - but I've not seen those on the market yet. Shades of Alexanderson! (I met and did contract work for his son at one point.).

this just posted by a Boeing engineer on the yahoo micro hydro list -


I am intrigued by this vortex method, but from what I've been able to gather so far that it's efficiency can only reach around 80% (73% actual), compared to a 90% efficiency of for the Kaplan turbine which can operate within the same head & water volume conditions. Here's what I see as comparative between the two types of turbines:


* The Kaplan touts that fish can also pass through it just like the vortex, but my guess is that the vortex would be "easier" on fish than the Kaplan

* The Vortex should be much less costly than the Kaplan even with the unique vortex concrete structure design

* A site owner with a little insight and knowhow could probably "rig-up" a Vortex system with their own impeller design which would probably give efficiencies not too far off of store-bought systems (I'm not impressed with the existing impeller designs I've seen so far), the Kaplan turbine would have to be purchased.

* The Kaplan allows optional impeller adjustments which can help optimize overall efficiency with changing water flow conditions, the Vortex could perhaps do this, but I haven't seen this offered yet

* The Kaplan is a closed turbine system, less likely to cause safety issues to a non-attended site, the Vortex should probably at a minimum have a chain link fence with a bob wire top, or grate over entire vortex.

- J. Lee Brady (structural engineer)

My old Rodale "make your own power" book shows this guy too, but points out that you can build the Banki with nothing but a welder and common materials anywhere on the earth. Interestingly, they even have plans to make your own windmill rotor, but not for this one.

Remember, with any propeller, the pitch has to change between the hub and the tip for best efficiency, and rotating the entire blade only gets you a little improvement over something that doesn't need that for best efficiency.

Since the banki is "all tip" that's not an issue for that design. Aero and hydrodynamics share a lot - other than the fact that air is compressible and water not so much, which affects what the best design parameters are going to be, even though most of the principles are the same.

Yup, have to admit 'buildability' is probably the biggest factor when deciding.

Now for you thats a Banki, due to your skillset and resources

and for me its a digger and some precast concrete manhole rings that inexorably draw me to the vortex.

If it wasnt so important, we could dick around trying different ideas for ever but as we generally only do these things once, it makes sense to copy the success of others.

I found an excellent article, with drawings and calculations for a Banki set-up. It is in PDF, and so can be easily downloaded. I did not see copyright claims, so it appears to be a public information document, and as such could be downloaded and legally distributed or used. Apparently, I could use the simple flow of the creek to run one of these things and they are cheap to build. I already have the welder and a pile of metal stock.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAP285.pdf

Thanks a bundle ancona! This is very close to what I had, though now I might go ahead and scan the one page of design equations. I've made one only about the size of two CD's spaced 3/8" apart to get high rpm off a low flow - and it worked great (but clogged easily).

Yes, makeability is a big deal, and getting as good a bootstrap as possible also, though I've found it a good idea to plan on the first one not working...you learn.
My own site has quite an emphasis on "just go and do it" as the BS content gets really high otherwise, and nothing gets done - which in general means nothing gets learned.

DCFusor said:

That would work out to right around 250.85 kw/hr a day. They are claiming under half that. Over 50% of the available energy isn't extracted by this design.

Click to expand...

Hi Fusor,

I've scanned quickly through that PDF provided by Ancona (thanks man, BTW!), re: Banki turbine, and they said there that one should expect net energy delivered (conservative, though) as roughly 50% of available "gross" water energy. Seems to be on par with what you have calculated for that vertex one above, or am I missing something??

And I must agree that most of the experimental vertex ones I've seen demoed here & there on the internet seems to be put together very roughly. I wonder how they would benefit (if at all) from the blade/rotor designs, following the ones of Shauberger. These are quite tough to build, though, complex shapes, and very little info on them, actually.. But maybe even regular, hydrodynamic ones, would do better, than these ubiquitous "paddles"

regads

bushi said:

And I must agree that most of the experimental vortex ones I've seen demoed here & there on the internet seems to be put together very roughly. I wonder how they would benefit (if at all) from the blade/rotor designs, following the ones of Schauberger. These are quite tough to build, though, complex shapes, and very little info on them, actually.. But maybe even regular, hydrodynamic ones, would do better, than these ubiquitous "paddles"

Click to expand...

Ha bushi

that is exactly what i thought .....
but im not sure you need to build a vortex shaped paddle to capture a vortex shaped flow, as your paddle is rotating to try and best fit that flow.

However it doesnt 'feel' right
(special hyper engineering term that has evolved to confuse the boffs) ffftt:

Various papers give various numbers on the Banki. I used a PM dc generator with mine, and did the rotor math to make it spin fast enough to make losses low there, and got in the 80's.

What's really special about the Banki - pointed out over at wiki, is that you can make it adapt to varying flows trivially easily - and it's better than most even if you do nothing. Which is a real bear with most other types. Most small hydro has this issue in spades, and that's the best design for that (which is why Rodale and USAID are pushing it, while mentioning the others just barely). If nothing else, you can have multiple nozzles narrower than the wheel, and just turn some on and off as the flow varies, which can be totally automatic by having little steps the water must be higher than to feed each one - That's where I was heading, as I have more than 10::1 volume change from drought to flash flood.

The vortex ones all seem to use straight blades, and just kind of "sample" some torque out of the middle. One of the "issues" with the vortex is a varying water speed with radius, and if I'm looking at it right, there's actually no way to put a shape on the blade such that it's higher rpm in the middle than the edges - real bummer that, the geometry is working directly against you there - a single rotor can only go a single rpm.

Further, any design that has water going a bunch of different velocities in it has water rubbing on water - yes, there's friction in that...which is always going to be loss.

I suppose you could do concentric rotors all driving their own generator. Pfff...I'm too much the engineer who has to build his own designs to even think seriously about that kind of thing.

I could be that I have a bit of a bias against concrete in creeks. I do. Every time I've done something down there with 'crete, it's failed, and it's a real bear to clean up that mess, especially if you reinforced it. The concrete itself doesn't have to fail for there to be issues. Salamanders etc make little cheat-paths for the water around it, and then it leaks and then washes out. Stuff like that. And now you have this mass of crete in the way preventing you from re-doing it right (if there is such a thing on the smaller scales). Sure, if you're making the hoover dam, you can have stuff big and heavy enough to eliminate most of that - and a few thousands gallons of leaks don't hurt. But that's not where we are with this stuff.

Cant argue with you DCF. Your case for the Banki is exactly the same as all the experts at the Yahoo micro hydro site.
And none of them are interested in the vortex generator or the inverse temp gradient either.

The problem of trying to make water go where you want it to go and forcing it with concrete, is one we all seem to have to learn the hard way.

Studying Viktor Schaubergers early work with river flows, has shown me and many others, how to understand the dynamics of natural flows and to work with the water.

I used the principles to position a couple of large boulders strategically against the stream banks to see a perfect gravel bank develop over my water intake. Still cant believe how effective it is and that the stream is actively maintaining my primary filter for me.

Heres a great attempt at putting the thinking together. Its a Masters Thesis called 'HANDLING WATER' an approach to holistic river rehabilitation design. By
Niels Werdenberg.

abstract here - http://merlib.org/node/5656

and i can pm a PDF of the whole thesis if anyone is interested.

He lost me when he says "water doesn't always follow scientific rules" - that's baloney, pure and simple. Yes, it does, and it always does, just that the real rules are past the comprehension of some (most) people - they are indeed very complex, and like the three body problem, there's no closed form of the hydrodynamic equations that is predictive in the presence of turbulence. You have to use perturbative simulation, and most people can't do that with calculus in their heads.

The science guys are still waiting on the math guys for solutions to this problem-set.

I very much - no make that extremely, no, would bet my life - that there is no temp drop in the presence of energy being dissipated by friction (water-water or water-solid) - that isn't more than compensated by a rise elsewhere and the net loss of energy in the water. Someone just didn't measure it accurately - or someone has just found the key to perpetual motion and has the most world saving ground breaking discovery in all of recorded history. Probability very low on that - look how all the other claims of that have turned out, historically. Not impossible, I'm working on a thing myself that *seems* to cheat 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the assumptions it makes might not be right for all conditions (and I can prove that one). But it's more like a curiosity - it'll be darned hard to measure the exception.

Yes, I use water to do some of the work. But it's hard to say "do it this way" in all cases - every river is different, and you can't step into the same one twice, perhaps accounting for why many leaders have a fascination with them. When you can, yes, it's better to work with nature (and not just this case). But like everything, "it depends".

If I had what we call the little river around here in my backyard, all I'd need is an old fan blade and a generator, tethered to a tethered float - done. Plenty water, and not so huge a drought-flood ratio. A simple weir dropped into that to narrow the flow is all you'd need, it'd never wash out and leaks don't matter when there's plenty to spare.

My creek is another story entirely.... from worst case lows of <5 gal per minute (ten whole watts theoretical with the best drop I can get, about 10 feet) to a roaring flood 12 feet wide and 6 feet deep going 35 mph...

I have a spring I can get 80 feet of drop on - but...it's drip-drip-drip, I couldn't probably make a pelton wheel tiny enough.

Which is why I'm solar - that's how the "it depends" turned out here. I do get some wind, but not many good days for that, and putting a big grounded tower in the sky is a great way to attract lightning. I'd do water, but it's better in other locations than here.

DCFusor said:

He lost me when he says "water doesn't always follow scientific rules" - that's baloney, pure and simple. Yes, it does, and it always does, just that the real rules are past the comprehension of some (most) people - they are indeed very complex, and like the three body problem, there's no closed form of the hydrodynamic equations that is predictive in the presence of turbulence. You have to use perturbative simulation, and most people can't do that with calculus in their heads.


I very much - no make that extremely, no, would bet my life - that there is no temp drop in the presence of energy being dissipated by friction (water-water or water-solid) - that isn't more than compensated by a rise elsewhere and the net loss of energy in the water. Someone just didn't measure it accurately - or someone has just found the key to perpetual motion and has the most world saving ground breaking discovery in all of recorded history. QUOTE]

Click to expand...

DCFusor said:

Dont write off the practical knowledge of water flow management just because of this statement. Sure it follows rules, just too complex for Mr Werdenberg ( and me )

Well im not placing or taking bets but theres a reason why Schauberger got pressganged into the Third Reich's 'skunkworks' and why the Russians and the Allies moved fast to secure all his work at the end of WW2.

Got to be careful not to get caught up in the myths and disinfo though .......

Click to expand...

Back to solar for a second:
The 4 strand rope hoist failed us - too much friction on the ropes even with the flashing guides I stapled up there, so I got this cool green thing. Fun ahead!

More here (my own thread documenting all this)
http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=563&p=3690#p3690

That looks like a fun tool to play with. Probably dangerous in the hands of Ancona's neighbors.

Some of my neighbors too...I'd let them play with it just to get the movies if I weren't liable for the thing, I hear they aren't cheap.

I figure this is better - and cheaper - than hospital bills or busted panels, though. We are really going to fully tile/tesselate that roof, top (past the peak) and front (out past the gutter). Call each half-rack (like those with 3 panels) about 600w (the new ones are 240w/panel). So 12*600 = 7.2kw, time 4.5 mean sun hours a day * 365 is 11,826 kilowatt hours/year.

Where I live that's about 13c/kwh, so around $1537/year - not counting any of the other junk that doubles most people's electric bill (fees, taxes, "stuff") over the power charges alone.

The new Schott panels are $352 each for 240w...it pays off fairly quick even failing to count that I get to have that building taxed as a barn instead of a home - and it easily runs my Volt as well - even as it is, laying on the ground.

I'll get some roof shade in the summer, with a convection path under the panels, which I can block off in winter to keep the house warmer. Win-win-win.

For me personally, this is huge. I'm sure many here have had to live such that they never had quite enough of something (usually money) - and spent way too much time and effort dealing with that. We all know that if you're spending a little more than you bring in, you are poor, despite how big (or small!) the numbers might be.

A little more than you use, you're rich. This takes me over that hurdle in spades!

For me, it's more about the other kind of power - the power never to have to work for "the man" ever again, freedom over my time and my life. Green just rides along, and oh yeah, it's kind of prepping too, except I don't have to wait (or hope) for the world to end to get the benefit.

bout time 'someone' developed interlocking panels that ARE the roof

although i can see plenty of issues that need to be addressed in that bland armchair statement .......

Just annoys me to see a perfectly good 'roof' over the panel itself and to attach it, you beef up the structure of your roof, then drill lots of holes in it !

A standard modular approach that allows any faulty panel to be replaced quickly and easily.

I can almost feel the 'betamax ' version developing (-;

theyve done this for heating air and water -

http://inhabitat.com/heat-your-home-with-soltech-energys-beautiful-glass-roof-tiles/

http://www.solexenergy.co.uk/

A couple of the more or less ridiculous student projects in "sustainable housing" have done that one. Every year there's a competition on that between universities in the US, I get to see the local one (usually one of the better designs, from VA Tech).

It's funny how the kids worry about the wrong stuff, and ignore existing successes in their designs. I generally offer my help, like I do with their fusion projects, but they tend to decline, considering it "boring" or "cheating".

Some have tried some of the same things I'm doing, but too small to work. For example, here I get enough rain on the roof to be all the water I need. This house is trying to be as self-sufficient as is reasonably possible, a little spaceship, and doing pretty well so far. It and the garden would fit easily on most suburban lots. Lead by examle!


This will certainly stiffen my roof, without too many holes (at least, new holes). Gooping up the existing roof brackets with silicone 1 was enough that they never leaked.

Right now, the push is really on - I have that piece of gear for a week at about $100/day, so...boy am I ever tired (and sunburned and a little cut up), but have to push on if I want to get this done by the time I have to give it back. I don't think I could do this job with a digger, but the crane sure is helpful, though I might wind up needing to borrow a real tractor to get it moved around this week (and out of here to take back at the end). I'm posting most of this up on my own site to avoid making too much mess here.

A lot of this is design on the fly, so there's still a couple of hurdles - first "front" half rack hopefully goes on today, so we learn how to do that with the outrigger supports to get them at a decent angle for the sun - one problem with just using these for roof is needing that angle that kind of matches your latitude.

Another is they don't work well when hot, and insulating beneath them means they get far too hot to live - semiconductors don't like heat, the dopants migrate. And like anything more or less black left in the sun - they get pretty hot, so this design incorporates a convection channel beneath them to keep them and my real roof cooler. One good thing - the roof now lasts a lot longer since no sun or water gets on it.

More here:
http://www.coultersmithing.com/foru...91&sid=ec8e5366247e96215051b0208b591504#p3691

So if I'm quieter than normal here - it's because I'm out there working on this, or trying to rest. More or less out of the markets for this week, for better or worse.


And man, it's hot - high 80's today - do we need a "man, it's hot" thread?

DCFusor said:

I don't think I could do this job with a digger,
............And man, it's hot - high 80's today - do we need a "man, it's hot" thread?

Click to expand...

I have cobbled up a system that takes a 20ft ( 6m) youngman board and attaches it to a digger bucket. This allows me to have a moving access platform that will travel along and create a sloping walkway up the roof, from gutter to ridge. I rest it lightly on the ridge before loading with self and roof repairing materials. A ladder is required to get me up to this platform.
As you can imagine, this doesnt tick too many boxes on the H&S check list but it works just fine for me.
I also have a 'scaffold sledge' that once assembled, can be slid along the walls. I have had some issues with cornering though .......


Reckon the 'man, its hot' thread is yours for the taking DCF
we may struggle to stay 'on thread' though

Don't get me wrong - I've seen some really amazing things done with diggers (have done so myself, but I do better with simpler stuff - Bobcats/Lynxes/loaders). You'd have a LMAO moment if you saw my first attempt with a backhoe (old tech, about 12 hydraulic levers to figure out). I was able to make quite a mess...

But even this tiny thing reaches out 34' both horizontally and vertically...that's a pretty decent range of motion without having to move the machine - I just worked on the back of my roof from the front of the place with it. This one's electric, which I preferred, because with whatever help I have, trying to shout over an engine "look out, you're about to do harm" - doesn't work. I've been running this off my house power, even though about half of the panels are offline at the moment.
Which is kind of cool in its own right - just bragging rights, but hey - bootstrapping is cool no matter what.

Some of the cooler things I've seen from diggers - the guy who had this nice little one to bury my pipe from the spring did things like grab small trees between the bucket and boom, twist them off, and toss them aside. He then dug the pipe trench right under the house without so much as nicking the skirting - a few feet indoors.
He could pick your nose for you at 20' with it and you wouldn't even feel it happening. For him, it was like having a very long and powerful arm attached to his own body, only with more joints and degrees of motion available.

Edit: I think the "man it's hot" thread should be started by one of my more southern neighbors here. I'm about to get all whiney about having to work at 88 deg in 75% humidity, after all. I hear that's cool for them.

88F and 75% humidity is just fine for me. Much better than 97F and 100% humidity.

You've got till Sunday to come on up and help!

All this solar energy talk has me remembering when I was a kid and I did a solar powered motor for a science fair. I think it was 5th or 6th grade.

Well.. I remember getting these solar cells that cost about $20 and learning how to use a soldering iron etc. I spent probably about 4-5 hours working on it (which was an eternity to kid that age) and I decided to test it out. I went outside in the Texas heat the damn solar panel melted within 20 minutes.

:rotflmbo:

I know it was the plastic I was using but still... I have that association with it.

And yes.. I know technology is much better and more durable than it was back then.

heh. When I was a teenager and 5.25" floppy disks were king, a friend of mine left a disk on the dashboard of his car one summer afternoon. It looked like a waffle after the Texas heat melted the outer jacket around the criss-cross of support strings. We were amazed that his hard drive could still read it.

/cool story bro
/off topic

Yup, the new stuff is a lot better than what gyp-mund scientific used to sell. My hot car story was the death of my favorite guitar - melted the neck glue on an ovation, and believe me, the left handed ones are really hard to find...so we took the strings off, put it back in the car, waited, and slid the neck back down flush with the body - couldn't save the hardcase though.

Yeah, OT. Got one full rack (1440w) up and wired today, finally. Road rash from sliding almost off the roof, tired, sweaty, opening a beer, whew. Now that we've done one of each type and have all the tricks and measurements, the rest will hopefully go quicker, and I'll be able to document on my site all the little tricks we learned along the way, for the next guy. Maybe transplant the fully on-topic thread back here after some compression (under another title) if PMBug wants it for BSTS and some tips on how to get it right the first time, rather than how we're doing it.

Interesting thread. Links / vids all good.

Good that you refugees are finding some of the old treasure here


Doug Coulter aka DC Fusor is (was?) something of a genius who was working with ideas that allowed 'wriggle room' in the maths regarding inputs and outputs with small scale fusion ideas.
His last reports before he went silent had him getting a x10 increase in output over what he was expecting and somewhat irradiating himself.
He knew he would be in danger as an individual if he was able to demonstrate overunity and was working with a largish group with full exchange of results and 'open source' all the way. He reckoned the only way to get this kind of stuff out and stay alive was to give it to everyone and make some dollar by doing the world tour splaining how it happened.

I have often wondered how he was doing . I last had confirmation that he was still breathing, from a neighbour of his who was a regular ZH contributor that I occasionally had email exchange with, probably 10 years ago now......


bloody ell he's gone -

Doug Coulter​

Sat May 08, 2021 11:34 am​

It is with great sorrow I announce the passing of Doug Coulter in the wee hours of Thurday May the 6th. As you know Doug had been battling Non small cell lung cancer. None of us thought Doug would leave us this soon. He had unbearable pain in his bones as the cancer had metastasized, but he somehow managed to carry on. I will write more later. I intend to keeping Coultersmithing.com running as long as I can, but his provider may shut it down due to an outdated version of PHP. I am trying to figure out how to make a complete copy of the site. I suggest that if you have a particular subject from the board that you are interested in, that you try to make a copy of that part for yourself. Of particular interest is Doug's tutorial on making high voltage feed throughs. Many of Dougs videos are still available on youtube under Dcfusor. If you have paid a youtube premium you can download them for safe keeping. I intend to reach out to another board member for his help with the site. I also have possesion of Doug's fusor and intend to run it with another board member and try a few things maybe Doug did not. We are also going to try to recreate Doug's accidental exposure run, but at a safe distance. Doug automated the fusor so we could run it from a control room many feet away. Grown men don't cry, but I did. Doug has been a great friend for close to 14 years. Thank You. -Bill Fain

Oh damn. Thanks for sharing that @rblong2us . I really enjoyed talking about all manner of topics with DCF. That's a real kick in the nuts.

The next few vids are from a towboat captain I follow on u tube. Not a how to - just something I know very little about but find interesting. The vids are from 10 years ago.

3.9 KW Off Grid PV System Part 1(Sight selection)​

This is the first in my series on installing an off grid PV system. I use three different calculators to help find the best place, angle and azimuth to mount the panels.

15:50

3.9 KW Off Grid PV System Part 2 (Loads & System Balance)​

Part 2 of my series on installing a 3.9 KW Off Grid PV System. It's all about how much you use/need. Then we look to see how much PV you need, and how big a battery bank to store what you harvest. Thank you for watching.

12:46

3.9 KW Off Grid PV System Part 3 (The Plan)​

Part 3 of my series on installing a 3.9 KW PV System in Michigan. In this episode I show you some of my crude drawings of how we plan the system out. Thanks for watching, and please subscribe.

17:22

From the comments (8 years ago)


@TimBatSea
8 years ago
So sorry for taking so long to get back to you. (I've been at sea). I won't be able to put up a new video in this series for a bit, but until then; I had a few issues during the install mostly to do with a lack of manpower. (The client had promised an army of help, but it that never came to be). I was on a limited time schedule and had to do most everything myself starting at sun up and finishing late in the evening. Because of this I didn't get much video shot except for the last few minutes before I left to fly home. But the good news is that all the math and the prior planning paid off and according to the client, all of my predictions (kwh/month of production) came in exactly on the money! The client was having to adjust to the off grid mindset and as a result, moved back to home and the grid last spring. He was still tickled pink about the system and wanted to have me help him with a grid tie sysyem, however health problems have put that project on hold for him. Please email me if you have any questions and I can send you some pictures and a couple short videos of that system. (I'd love to help in any way I can with your system) Tim B. Tim@riboeh.com