Download the datasheet of the IC CD4047 and manipulate the "Variable Resistor" connected between pin 2 and 3, this will help you get desired frequency.
5 Ways to Harness Free Energy
- Thread starter Amlan Panigrahi
- Start date
The operating frequency was set to 50Hz.
Thank you, Mr. Cappels.
I think we use 50-60Hz frequencies in our homes. So this CD4047 based inverter has got many applications. See the NE555 based inverter circuit will work the same but the connection for 555 timer IC is more complex. I was concerned more about keeping the circuit as precise as possible so that any one can prototype it. By the way, an SG3524/SG3525 IC is used now a days in inverters. These IC's gives a modified sine wave. To get a pure sine wave from SG3524/SG3525 IC based inverter circuit NE555 timer is coupled and feed-backed.
Lestraveled
- Joined May 19, 2014
- 1,946
Is that onion compatible with USB 3?
About FREE solar energy: The last time I did the math, it would take 12 years for a solar collector to pay for itself by removing cost paid to the local utility company, but the Mean Time Between Failure for the collector panels was 7 years. It is my opinion that paying more for the equipment which collects the FREE energy than you would pay to buy the energy makes it, "not free". 
That was probably close to 20 years ago. I hope the quality and cost of solar panels has improved since then. When collecting FREE solar energy is actually cheaper than burning carbon, you will see solar collectors arriving on roof tops near you.
That was probably close to 20 years ago. I hope the quality and cost of solar panels has improved since then. When collecting FREE solar energy is actually cheaper than burning carbon, you will see solar collectors arriving on roof tops near you.
They were all over the place in Spain. I guess energy costs a lot there. Solar electric panels and solar water heaters on almost every roof.About FREE solar energy: The last time I did the math, it would take 12 years for a solar collector to pay for itself by removing cost paid to the local utility company, but the Mean Time Between Failure for the collector panels was 7 years. It is my opinion that paying more for the equipment which collects the FREE energy than you would pay to buy the energy makes it, "not free".
That was probably close to 20 years ago. I hope the quality and cost of solar panels has improved since then. When collecting FREE solar energy is actually cheaper than burning carbon, you will see solar collectors arriving on roof tops near you.
We may get "there," here, but I think it will be a long time. Cost of ownership has gone down since 20 yrs ago and longevity has gone up. Throw in .gov subsidy and it might actually make sense already here.
panic mode
- Joined Oct 10, 2011
- 2,761
ok guys, I had chuckle too but - don't just joke, or hijack thread - please stay on topic and least point out mistakes, recommend improvements or things to learn...
@Amlan,
welcome to "magical" world of electronics... things may look hard at first but stick around and you should learn few things.
first of all, you need to edit your article and schematics. 'free energy' is a BAD name that will only land you in a hot water (honestly, you should try to remove that from your vocabulary). this would be much better received if you called it something like 'home made battery' and 'i made my own inverter'.
you claim that each cell produces 1.3-1.8V and can hold some 300mA current. without estimating size of electrodes, concentration, etc, I will just call it plausible and be ok with it... but the very next sentence claims that 10 such cells produce some 13V AND(!) 3-6A current. well... NOT... thats not how things work...
if the cells are connected in series, then combined voltage will rise but current limit will still be same (such as 300 mA).
if the cells are connected in parallel, then supplied current limit will be increased (such as 3A), but voltage will remain low (1.3 - 1.8V)
you CANNOT get both at the same time if using only N cells.
you CAN get both by using N^2 cells which is in this case 10*10=100 cells (that is 90 cells more than shown, a huge difference if you aks me).
next thing is that there is supposed to be "5 ways to harness energy" but I only see one (home-made battery). did I miscount? (I confess, i barely skimmed it - it hurts me to read it)
in your schematic for inverter, there is a resistor R2=330 Ohm... This will pretty much kill any hope of usable performance of this circuit. even if the circuit still operates despite such large resistor, its output will be in the range of few mW. are you sure that your resistor is not 0.330 Ohm?
Just think about it... To get 1A (which is what 7812 potentially can handle), through 330 Ohm resistor, you would need voltage V=I*R = 1A * 330 Ohm = 330V.
Your circuit is powered from 12V, 0.7V is dropped by diode so you only get 11.3V. Even if entire remaining circuit did not exist (if it was a short circuit), power dissipated would be only P=V^2 / R = (11.3V)^2/330 Ohm = 0.387W and exactly 0% of that would go towards usable output.
Then there is a claim that diode 4148 is a Zener (and it may well be, but when i see 4148, i assume 1N4148 which is NOT a zener).
then there is a mention of producing more output power by paralleling mosfets and using higher supply voltage (12-24VDC). in general such statement would be true but in this case there are some issues:
it is not going to help if the circuit is assembled on breadboard as the traces are barely able to survive 3A or so. another issue is that linear regulator such as 7812 on it's best behavior can produce up to 1A. paralleling mosfets without paralleling 7812 makes for no improvement as surrent limit is still set by this voltage regulator. besides IRFZ44 handles tens of amps (you need to red datasheets), which is WAAAY more than 7812 can endure or these batteries can manage (even if you use 100 of them instead of 10...). the fact is, adding more mosfets will only increase load capacitance and choke already overstrained circuit that drives the mosfets.
finally using 24V (or 35V) to power something that has 7812 would be a terrible choice. fraction of energy dissipated as heat would be way too great.
suppose you choose to use input power of 35V and suppose your collection of batteries could handle 1A (that would be some 60+ cells). then total consumed power would be Ptotal = 35V*1A=35W
your circuit would get 12V, 1A. Assuming 70% efficiency (just an example) that would mean usable output of P=n*V*I = 70% * 12V * 1A = 8.4W. remaining power is lost to heat in the circuit itself. so we started with 35W and got 8.4W out. this means that entire circuit has efficiency of
n = 8.4W/35W = 24%. the biggest problem is that (35V-12V)*1A=23W is heat that 7812 would need to dissipate as heat in order to provide 12V 1A output.
if the supply was only 15V then 7812 would only burn (15-12)V * 1A = 3W. large supply voltage is a killer for linear regulators.
i hope this helps you understand the initial comments in this thread... people that replied are just much more knowledgeable. in just one split-second glance at circuit design and claims, pretty much everyone knew that this is only a fairy tale by someone young, enthusiastic and - inexperienced...
@Amlan,
welcome to "magical" world of electronics... things may look hard at first but stick around and you should learn few things.
first of all, you need to edit your article and schematics. 'free energy' is a BAD name that will only land you in a hot water (honestly, you should try to remove that from your vocabulary). this would be much better received if you called it something like 'home made battery' and 'i made my own inverter'.
you claim that each cell produces 1.3-1.8V and can hold some 300mA current. without estimating size of electrodes, concentration, etc, I will just call it plausible and be ok with it... but the very next sentence claims that 10 such cells produce some 13V AND(!) 3-6A current. well... NOT... thats not how things work...
if the cells are connected in series, then combined voltage will rise but current limit will still be same (such as 300 mA).
if the cells are connected in parallel, then supplied current limit will be increased (such as 3A), but voltage will remain low (1.3 - 1.8V)
you CANNOT get both at the same time if using only N cells.
you CAN get both by using N^2 cells which is in this case 10*10=100 cells (that is 90 cells more than shown, a huge difference if you aks me).
next thing is that there is supposed to be "5 ways to harness energy" but I only see one (home-made battery). did I miscount? (I confess, i barely skimmed it - it hurts me to read it)
in your schematic for inverter, there is a resistor R2=330 Ohm... This will pretty much kill any hope of usable performance of this circuit. even if the circuit still operates despite such large resistor, its output will be in the range of few mW. are you sure that your resistor is not 0.330 Ohm?
Just think about it... To get 1A (which is what 7812 potentially can handle), through 330 Ohm resistor, you would need voltage V=I*R = 1A * 330 Ohm = 330V.
Your circuit is powered from 12V, 0.7V is dropped by diode so you only get 11.3V. Even if entire remaining circuit did not exist (if it was a short circuit), power dissipated would be only P=V^2 / R = (11.3V)^2/330 Ohm = 0.387W and exactly 0% of that would go towards usable output.
Then there is a claim that diode 4148 is a Zener (and it may well be, but when i see 4148, i assume 1N4148 which is NOT a zener).
then there is a mention of producing more output power by paralleling mosfets and using higher supply voltage (12-24VDC). in general such statement would be true but in this case there are some issues:
it is not going to help if the circuit is assembled on breadboard as the traces are barely able to survive 3A or so. another issue is that linear regulator such as 7812 on it's best behavior can produce up to 1A. paralleling mosfets without paralleling 7812 makes for no improvement as surrent limit is still set by this voltage regulator. besides IRFZ44 handles tens of amps (you need to red datasheets), which is WAAAY more than 7812 can endure or these batteries can manage (even if you use 100 of them instead of 10...). the fact is, adding more mosfets will only increase load capacitance and choke already overstrained circuit that drives the mosfets.
finally using 24V (or 35V) to power something that has 7812 would be a terrible choice. fraction of energy dissipated as heat would be way too great.
suppose you choose to use input power of 35V and suppose your collection of batteries could handle 1A (that would be some 60+ cells). then total consumed power would be Ptotal = 35V*1A=35W
your circuit would get 12V, 1A. Assuming 70% efficiency (just an example) that would mean usable output of P=n*V*I = 70% * 12V * 1A = 8.4W. remaining power is lost to heat in the circuit itself. so we started with 35W and got 8.4W out. this means that entire circuit has efficiency of
n = 8.4W/35W = 24%. the biggest problem is that (35V-12V)*1A=23W is heat that 7812 would need to dissipate as heat in order to provide 12V 1A output.
if the supply was only 15V then 7812 would only burn (15-12)V * 1A = 3W. large supply voltage is a killer for linear regulators.
i hope this helps you understand the initial comments in this thread... people that replied are just much more knowledgeable. in just one split-second glance at circuit design and claims, pretty much everyone knew that this is only a fairy tale by someone young, enthusiastic and - inexperienced...
Things have improved and the gap is closing. Installed solar is at ~$1 per watt this year and still dropping. (I think the chart shows the national average of installed capacity, not what you would pay today.)About FREE solar energy: The last time I did the math, it would take 12 years for a solar collector to pay for itself by removing cost paid to the local utility company, but the Mean Time Between Failure for the collector panels was 7 years. It is my opinion that paying more for the equipment which collects the FREE energy than you would pay to buy the energy makes it, "not free".
That was probably close to 20 years ago. I hope the quality and cost of solar panels has improved since then. When collecting FREE solar energy is actually cheaper than burning carbon, you will see solar collectors arriving on roof tops near you.
Even $1 per watt doesn't make sense at my house yet, but there are places where it makes very good sense.
The low price of electron flow in the US makes solar tough to justify. Easier to justify in Europe. So much solar + wind in the German grid that they have to pay Poland to off-load their grid on sunny, windy days... While they subsidize the power generated by the solar and wind turbine owners. All that spending as they loan money to other countries. What an economy!
Hypatia's Protege
- Joined Mar 1, 2015
- 3,228
Although you may 'squeak by' without it at 60Hz -- Please be advised that good design will actively drive the gates...
Best regards
HP
Hypatia's Protege
- Joined Mar 1, 2015
- 3,228
Addendum:
If, as your diagram indicates, you are indeed applying 24v (i.e. +12V[Pos rail] and -12V[Gnd rail]) to the circuit --- be aware that, as with most 4000 series CMOS devices, the 4047 is specified at an absolute maximum VDD of 18V...
Best regards
HP
It's a mess. I read a very good summary of just how bad it is here (the answer from Ryan Carlyle). A classic case study in good intentions versus unintended consequences.
Not to go Chicken Little on you guys (ok, maybe a little), but there are serious vulnerabilities to our power grid which could be exploited to leave us all powerless for a long, long time. Energy bill savings aren't the only motivator to go solar.
