crazy energy project??

Discussion in 'General Electronics Chat' started by kd7ura, May 4, 2010.

  1. kd7ura

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 12, 2010
    27
    1
    been thinking about these new florecent high output bulbs!
    they say 500 watt equivelent uses 65 watts
    if i took two say 235watt solar panels and placed them facing each other and bonded them with a small gap between and built a florecent bulb with the same gasses inside would the 500 watts equiv of light created be converted to electricity, and would it be more than the original 65 watts used to create the light?? any ideas ? the lights produce 6500 kelvin at i think about 5000 lumens. close to natural sun light.
    if the spectrum was modified by the diference in gasses to work better with the panels would the output be higher?

    some food for thought1
     
  2. mik3

    Senior Member

    Feb 4, 2008
    4,846
    63
    They mean that the new fluorescent lights consume 65W and they produce the same light intensity as an old technology light bulb which consumes 500W. This means the new fluorescent lights are more efficient in producing light.
     
  3. ShockBoy

    Active Member

    Oct 27, 2009
    186
    0
    That's some good food. I think your concept is more along the lines of perpetual motion type machines. You would have to encorporate the sun's power during the day to make up for the 65 watts used to create the light, compounded by the time used at night. It is possible the energy would be better spent on removing the hidious power lines and transmitting the electricity through the air, such as wireless internet. The technology is there but 'Old Dogs' and such. It would cost a pretty penny, though financial benefits would need to be there. Think Free energy and combine it to get what works.
     
  4. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    You are thinking that solar panels are 100% efficient.

    They are not. They are usually around 15%

    So if you "Shine" a 100 watt bulb on it, you would be lucky to get 15 watts out of the panel.

    You will only ever get about 15-17% of the energy that hits the panel out if it.

    No free energy yet.
     
  5. hgmjr

    Moderator

    Jan 28, 2005
    9,030
    214
    Sadly, the problem is that the statement by the flourescent light manufacturer is misleading. The claim should be that the output light intensity of the 65W flourescent light source is equivalent to the output light intensity of a 500W standard light bulb. What is not clearly stated is what wavelengths are being considered in this assessment. You can bet that the flourescent light manufacture carefully selected those light wavelengths where it lamp is at its most efficient and where the incandescent light bulb is least efficient.

    Critical thinking - It is not what is said rather it is what is not said that makes the message.

    hgmjr
     
  6. ShockBoy

    Active Member

    Oct 27, 2009
    186
    0
    Huh?:eek:

    15% from 100%.....Why does ANYONE have solar panels then?

    I think your calculations are slightly incorrect. Sgt. Wookie I believe has more accurate percentages on this.
     
  7. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    Nope sorry. I am right on.

    From:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_array

    look under performance

     
  8. ShockBoy

    Active Member

    Oct 27, 2009
    186
    0
    what is your 15% based on?
     
  9. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    The panels I OWN.

    Dude, google is your friend.
    Spend 15 seconds on ebay looking at solar cells, the datasheets have the efficiency in them.
     
  10. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    From
    http://www.solarexpert.com/pvbasics2.html

    [ed]
    Just to let you know about cheap, the Harbor Freight popular solar panel is 45w at 1m/sq

    Thats only 4.5 % efficient.
    The reason people do it is ITS FREE.
    Eventually the power will pay for the panel, and you get FREE energy.

    The sunlight on most of eastern america is rated at 1000 watts per square meter.

    If we could make 100% panels, we would be getting a kilowatt for every square meter of panel.

    That Harbor Freight model would be 1000w rather than 45w.

    Even so, they still sell out regularly.
    [/ed]
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  11. kd7ura

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 12, 2010
    27
    1
    its definatly close to 12% they operat in a spicific wave length of light.
    the new thin film panels operat in a dif spectrum of light and will produce more power on a cloudy day than a standard silicon panel. as for the bulbs they produce the light at 6500 kelvin 5000 lumens thats spectrum and output kind of like candle power.
    ive looked at bulbs that are 1000 watt equiv at 85 watts consumed "home depote"
    info is on the boxes ive experimented with the 500 watt bulds on a 300 gallon aquarium growing plants they work better than the halogen and mercury vapor without the heat. 4 of the high output lights is almost blinding id come home and stare at the aquarium with sunglasses

    so if we are at 12% return 500 watts into 2- 235 watt pannels (470) would give us 28 watts each for 56 watts return for the 65 watt input..
    second question was what about the spectrum change to get the pannels to operate at a higher efficency? and would the pannels act similar to a lasing tube and reflect a Certain amount of light back and forth untill it was pumped to a level that would cause it to penitrate the surface of the panel and increase the output??
    light is funny!!
     
  12. kd7ura

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 12, 2010
    27
    1
    another question related to the lighting part.
    i read as a kid about building a laser power supply , the frequency of the output had to be set to cas the fluid in the tube to vibrate at a certain rate to cause the tube to lase otherwise it would be just another lightbulb, would we be able to modify the power supply to the pannel/bulb to cause it to work more in tandum with the pannels.
    a 1% increase in power output from the panels input would mean a success in the experiment we are looking for 66Wats of power compared to 65 watts input.

    aslo isnt watts a measure heat produced? been a long time for me
     
  13. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    The solution is to constantly change the gradient of the glass over the active surface so no light gets reflected. Running the panels at elevated temps helps with electron mobility.

    You might want to look up some information on the photoelectric effect.
     
  14. kd7ura

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 12, 2010
    27
    1
    the silicon solar panels become less eficient at higher temps.
    the thin film panels are not affected as much but i believe there is a drop power above 150*
    i need twice the panels in phoenix than i use where i live. about 150 miles north and 5600 ft elevation. the florecent bulbs produce almost no heat directly but the power supply board produces quite a bit of heat chilling the pannels will bump the output quite a bit, a frosty sunny day will push the amperage output from the panels to the max a neighbor of mine has a rated max amper of 38 amps with all panels
    and if its bright out in spring and a cloud passes over and the panels cool off enough they will blow a 40 amp fuse as soon as the cloud pass and the sun hits the array .
    output is better when colder.

    the surface of the panels is designed to absorb as much light as possible the factory glass is like covered with tiny lenses to direct the light to the crystals below.

    any body know how to build a florecent bulb?
     
  15. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    I never, ever made any statements about the efficiency of solar cells/solar panels/solar arrays.

    In the early days of silicon semiconductors (about 60 years ago), engineers were ecstatic when they achieved 6% efficiency from such solar cells. It's taken a long time to make very slow progress in improving their output.

    What you get nowadays may very widely; anywhere from 10% to around 18% efficiency.

    The thing is - once you obtain the cells, the energy from the sun can be harvested. The cells don't have an indefinite lifespan, but between installation and replacement there is comparatively little upkeep.
     
  16. kd7ura

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 12, 2010
    27
    1
    Ive read somewhere that some of the original crystals produced are still producing 96% of what they started at. over a 60 year span thats better than any other energy product ever made. the warranties have gone up to 25 years on some models now. any ideas on how to build a power supply for the lighting part that we could vary the frequency of the output to experiment with.
    ive got a few pannels trying to sell some property to geta bit of cash for a pair of big pannels to play with that my wife wont miss ;)

    we need optimum spectrum of light for max input to panels
    minimal power consumption on power supply

    im going to see what a single bulb 1000 watt equiv 85 watt input will do to a kC120 with a milar blanket acting as a reflector over the two.
    ill let you know soon ive got 12 panels that need a new rack next week
     
  17. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    People have been trying to explain it to you - attempting to generate electricity by shining light on the panels that are powered by the panels' own output will result in no current output from the panel and a dark lamp.

    Even if you supply external power, you'll still have a net 85% loss, even if the lamp is 100% efficient at turning electrical energy into light, which is of course not possible.
     
  18. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    What you are referring to is overunity, and there are laws against it. Laws of physics that is. We get a lot of people with various schemes how to beat Mother Nature, not one has succeeded yet.
     
  19. Markd77

    Senior Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,803
    594
    Just thought I'd clear a couple of things up.
    Incandesent light bulbs (filament) are about 2-3% efficient in producing light. The rest goes as heat. A 100W light bulb produces about 3W of visible light.
    Fluorescent light bulbs are a little more efficient at up to 15%
    So while you can say that a 65W fluorescent can produce as much light as a 500W incandesent and not get sued, it doesen't produce 500W of light, probably about 15W.
    Your solar panel is probably about 10% efficient so you will get about 1.5W out for 65W input.
    Considerably under-unity.
     
  20. rjenkins

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 6, 2005
    1,015
    69
    You also have to remember that the energy of full, direct sunlight reaching the ground on a clear day can be up to 1500W per square metre. (It peaks over 1000 even here in England).
     
Loading...