I generally dislike the term “colonialism” to describe modern political and economic relationships, but I do observe a “colonial” relationship between the urban centers of Boston and suburbs and the rural community of Greenfield and surrounding forests, around the proposed Greenfield bio-mass plant.

The bio-mass plan proposal is to build a 40+megawatt electrical generating plant using timbering waste and “unuseable” forest bio-mass as fuel. Bio-mass is defined in Washington and in Boston as a renewable energy source and is therefore eligible for federal and state tax credits that make what would be an economically infeasible plant into a feasible one.

The tax credits are transferrable between entities, meaning that the plant can sell the tax credits on an “open” market, and realize cash from the credits immediately, even if the plant itself can’t take advantage of the credits on their own returns. If the plant fails and never earns the credits, after being sold (perhaps multiple times), it is a difficult trail to track whether the those credits can be recouped.

The plant itself is estimated to realize around 20% efficiency in conversion of the energy in the bio-mass into electricity, then as the local region is self-sufficient in electricity generation from extensive hydro power, the electricity will be exported in effect, primarily to serve Boston and suburbs (which seek electricity). There is then additional line loss, perhaps 50%, netting a realizable 10% of original biomass energy.

Most of the energy will be exhausted into the atmosphere in the form of heat. (There were considerations about operating a heating plant from the heat released, but the plant is too remote from residences or industry to be relevant.)

Estimates of the consumption of forest land required to feed the plant range from 1 1/2 sq miles of deforestation per year up to 6 was the highest that I heard. (I would assume that that was exagerated.)

The original assertion was that the biomass plant would be fueled by waste from other natural timbering operations, but domestic timber operations are in a near-permanent depression, largely resulting from ruthless international competition, most importantly Russian export, but also Southeast Asian.

So, if the fuel is not from waste timber, then it has to come either from original clear-cutting, or from other waste (which is often painted or otherwise treated with highly toxic materials which are extremely damaging to the public health to release airborne.)

To compound the inefficiency of the generation and delivery, is the likely inefficiency of use, say for electric heating into poorly insulated buildings, or inefficient lighting, or background household load. (As I referred in a previous post, the motivation for energy efficiency is much less in the more expensive Boston suburbs as the operating costs comprise a much lower percentage of the cost of living in a house than where I live.)

So, that creates a dysfunctional structure of negligence from Boston and suburban residents, creating the need to clear-cut Western Massachusetts forests.

From the state perspective, driven by a definition of present and prospective democracy of one-person one-vote, the urban populations’ needs supercede the rural. There is likely to be greater demand for electricity in the future, as transportation shifts in any material proportion to electric drive.

The problem is that the political dynamics of the plant indicate the really substantive divide between rural and urban centers, and might suggest some state secession (from Massachusetts, not the US) or becoming part of Vermont, with more common interests.

There are positives to an increasingly impoverished region, which is jobs (even if low-paying and dangerous – tree-cutting has an 18% workers’ comp rate), and property tax revenues to the town.

The opponents of the plant have their exposed NIMBY contradictions as well, as many do use wood heat with its particulate exhausts, and can’t really claim to be holier than thou. Also, the contracts between forest property owners selling their wood to the plant would be consented contracts between property owners. The right to a view is not legally binding. I don’t know what happens if deforestation reaches a status where other forest services (water purification, etc.) can’t function.

There are legitimate concerns about the effects on local aquifers as the plant will use an enormous amount of water, and certainly air quality affects will be significant. (In the Connecticut River Valley, bad air is funneled up the valley, concentrated.)

My assessment of the absurdity of the plant relates to the negligence to create incentives to conserve energy in space heating and transportation in Boston and suburbs (either in the form of deep tax credits for achieving targeted and audited results, or in much higher taxation of all energy in all forms).

I personally corresponded with the president of the company constructing the plant, requesting that he organize the investment of 1/35th of the capital investment in the plant, into direct investments in energy conservation. He responded that the capital was raised for the limited purpose of the plant, and even as he regarded conservation as meritorious and even profitable, he was not able to do so.

Polite. I don’t know if it is accurate.

In an environment in which all the even remotely economically justifiable energy conservation measures are undertaken, then I would say that a forest bio-mass plant could be a desirable next layer of renewable electricity generation, better than coal certainly.

But, that environment does not exist, and is not seriously contemplated. We will instead incentivize the deforestation of New England and the US, our last natural capital resource, our home.

I’m not an engineer. The purpose of this blog is not to propose or even comment in an informed way on the state of sustainable engineering.

I do want to give a great deal of credit to the innovative engineers that have worked for multiple decades to convince other engineers, architects, planners of the relevance of a whole systems orientation in design of technologies, buildings, communities, human eco-systems (economies).

The proof is in the pudding, and there are many things that can make, or spoil, a “pudding”.

In Greenfield, MA, a local low-income rural housing authority, RDI (Rural Development Inc.) is making a pudding. It has constructed (in process) a solar village comprised of 20+ affordable net zero or near net-zero energy homes, all in a single neighborhood.

The buildings are built to 1 1/2 times the insulation requirements of the new quite rigorous energy components of the Massachusetts state building code (too often ignored sadly in inspection process). They are tight, and because of that require “extra” water vapor exhaust (fans) and internal atmospheric and micro-climate monitoring and fans to maintain safe conditions.

They contain features that allow in a maximum of diffuse natural lighting in a manner that minimally exposes the building to uninsulated skylights.

They also all contain building integrated photovoltaics on the south face of the roof of all the homes, that provides a significant portion of the average typical electrical draw of a small family. To get to actual zero-net, private families must install highly energy efficient appliances, which not every family likely will.

Its possible that some of the households will be net energy income houses.

In Massachusetts form of net-metering, homeowners may sell back electricity to the grid (up to the level of monthly consumption) at retail rates. That is not the case everywhere.

One factor that made it possible to realize a zero-net energy development was the siting. The neighborhood is on the top of a small plateau in town with no obstructions to sunlight (but also some exposure to wind). There are trees planted mostly on the north faces of homes, that also provides a shade when outside, but does not shade the photovoltaic units.

Things can change over time, as families privately plant trees.

It really is possible to reduce and/or eliminate net energy consumption. Its NOT rocket science. The most rocket science is in new recycled materials (better than wood in many cases), sensor controlled indoor climate controls (when fans turn on to refresh air, or to exhaust moisture, or to automatically draw down window blankets). But, those are NOT rocket science but simple computer programs.

They are moderate capital projects as well as behaviors, and both the projects and the behaviors must be designed carefully.

New life-skills will emerge in the modern sustainable world, which is how to enjoy and manage the “technologies”.

“Know thyself” will be important, as design is for a purpose. So, if you don’t know what you need as a family, the design won’t match the need.

Needs change as well. A family with two or three children might need a 1500 sq ft house, while a couple might comfortably need only 1000 sq ft of living space. We either design the homes and communities to be modular in some way, or we move if we are to match need to solution (a definition of efficiency).

http://www.wbdg.org/resources/bipv.php

又是由年幼到現在也想不通的科學問題，小學時自然科學教導我們閃電是由於空氣在受熱澎漲而急速上升時，因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子，累積在雲中，當遇到相反電荷的或當電動勢超過一定量就可以令不遠的物件產生相反的電場，因而放電，多餘電子重新來到欠缺電子的原子。只是我有兩個問題一直解決不了:

1. 因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份已經不可以稱為水份子，化學性質應有所不同;

2. 因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份子本身已有了靜電場，當然最直接的就是吸引空氣中帶相反電荷的離子而放電中和一番，何以非要累積在不帶電的雲不可?

3. 一雲如果是中和的被因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份子吸附也算合理，但是隨箸依附的帶電水份子愈來愈多，則其他的帶電水份子要依附在這片雲所需的動能愈來愈高，它的動能來自哪裏?

4. 另外，隨箸依附在雲中的帶電水份子愈來愈多，靜電力的同性相斥作用力怎不會比靠氫鍵來接合的不帶電水份子的結合力更強，何以雲能夠累積如此多的帶電水份子而不被撕裂成一小片?

小學時人人都學過什麼叫摩擦生電，理論是當劇烈摩擦時，其中一方的原子的電子被撞離了軌道，於是形成了兩方都是電子和質子數量不相等，結果產生靜電。我一直以來不明白的是，如果真的是一方把另外一方的電子撞離軌道，除非它被空氣中的原子吸收，否則這粒脫軌電子最方便的去處就是另一方的表面，所以理論上應是一方的電子比質子數量多，而另一方就自然電子比質子數量小，由此推導出一方應是正極而另一方是負極，因而兩物件相互吸引。但是我的印象告訴我，似乎實驗出來的結果就是兩物件相互排斥，即兩方面都是同時電子比質子數量小或電子比質子數量多，這麼多餘的電子豈不是無中生有或者無端端消失了嗎?

所以﹐我提議用科學實驗去分辦兩個假說，就是到底兩物件劇烈摩擦生產/毀滅電子而產生靜電現象，還是兩物件劇烈摩擦時的電子被空氣原子吸收而產生靜電現象。我想到的方法是用吸塵機遲遲抽掉一玻璃箱之空氣，在不同的氣壓把兩物件用相同的力量摩擦，看看產生出來的靜電有沒有什麼不同﹐理論上，如果我的假說有根據﹐則隨箸真空的程度愈高﹐靜電量愈來愈少。

Good for changing the world!

eulerscore2claim

我的更佳主意

上上上上星期陪爸媽到荃灣逛街,無聊時去了圖書館,赫然發現類似自己以前的發明/主意竟然被用了出來,例如汽車把避震器改裝成發電機,因此以後為了環保不要說平坦的路最好走;更令我驚震的是德國及以色列打算把此原理大量用在高速公路上,前者大慨可以由守規則的德國司機分一批批來乘車,用來增加車身重量對高速公路地面做成的起伏,後者則要詳加考慮如何像分配土地一樣公平分配分別由巴勒斯坦司機及猶太司機所駕車子產生的能量。

其實是有更好的辦法:　我以前嘗試過一個思想實驗,如果把磁石沿垂直軌道掉到電磁線圈會發生什麼事?後來經一輪艱辛的運算,得出了原來它的反應模式和磁石重量及電磁線圈可發的最高電壓有關的結論。再 想深一層,發覺可以略作修改把它變成由地心吸力抽取能量的裝置,關鍵是找一適當重量的磁石及可發電最高電壓的電磁線圈,以及電磁線圈改成只可單向發電,並 由IC精細的控制電磁線圈可通電的時間。理論上可以令磁石被發電時產生的電磁斥力反彈,然後再在令磁石下墮的地心吸力場抽取能量,如此可不斷重複提取地球 重力場的能量,人類便有用之不竭的能量。

有沒有人想試一下它可不可行?

Maybe last last last last weekend when I chatted with a forigener from USA, I am shocked to find out that an invention that is in the same genre of mine had been adopted by an US car manufacturer. The basic idea is to turn the vibration created by the bumpiness of road into electrical energy via the only principle of electrical generation. Then when I verify it in the library, I heard that Germany and Israel is planning  to adopt that idea in large scale at highways. For the sake of increasing the difference of level of vertical expansion and contact of the highway when a vehicle is passed or when nothing is on top, the orderly German may travel in group. As for Israelites, would the bridge capable of identify Palestinian vehicle from Jewish one so to divide the energy fairly just like how they handle the land of paradise?

Of course I am writing here because I think my invention is way ahead of this(so it is much more difficult to build). My invention coming from my thought experiment of dropping a magnet to an electromagnetic coil in a tunnel. After a series of painstaking calculation I discover the reaction depending on the ratio of mass of magnet to Max. Resistance/Voltage  affordable by the  electromagnetic coil. Then I am wondering if it is possible in theory for the magnet to rebound then fall again when a suitable ratio is chosen plus the electromagnetic coil is only permitted to generate electricity in a single direction with very precise timing control. The calculation had show it is possible, therefore in theory we can harvest gravitational energy indefinitely through my invention.

Anyone like to try their hand on this idea?

Jeffrey M. Sanders

East Kentucky Power Cooperative (“EKPC”) is a generating and transmission cooperative utility with 16 member distribution co-ops, serving customers in 87 Kentucky counties, which plans to build and operate a new 287-megawatt coal-fired power plant called Smith #1 in Clark County, Kentucky.   Many are questioning the economic impact of EKPC attempting to building more coal-fired utility plants in the current economic environment.

Recently, three organizations – Cumberland Chapter of the Sierra Club, Kentucky Environmental Foundation and Kentuckians For The Commonwealth – released an in depth analysis that finds that EKPC should avoid the high capital costs of a new coal fired power plant, or its already weak financial position will worsen.  The full report, executive summary, and power point presentation are available at:
http://kentucky.sierraclub.org/resources/environmental_research.asp

Now, Kentucky’s Public Service Commission (www.psc.ky.gov) has issued a request for proposal for an intensive audit of the management and operations of EKPC.  The request for proposal is at:  http://psc.ky.gov/agencies/psc/M_audit/ekp/EKPC%20RFP%20FINAL%2003-9-09.pdf.

The Public Service Commission just approved a rate increase for EKPC customers to recover costs associated with a new plant in Maysville, Kentucky.  The increase which was effective on April 1, 2009 raises residential electric rates 6% and the average residential bill will increase about $6.75 per month.  

We will be watching these developments very closely in the coming months. The PSC’s experience with a similiar financial situation invloving Big Rivers Utilities occurred in the 1990s. Big Rivers eventually declared bankruptcy and wound up leasing their power plants to LG&E on a long term contract.

Here is the site I first found out about the Dynamic Tower in Dubai:

http://amazing-maststuff.blogspot.com/2008/03/worlds-first-rotating-architecture.html

Here is a YouTube video showing the movement of the Dynamic Tower in Moscow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0Uuyf8Xhw&feature=related

Here is a site of the Dynamic Tower (the rotating tower):

http://www.dynamicarchitecture.net/home.html

While I was originally researching the effectiveness of different colours on solar panels, I came across a very interesting electrical generator; a rotating building. This building, called a Dynamic Tower, does not just power itself, but can also give power to other buildings effectively reducing the amount of energy needed from water dams and other such harmful electricity creating devices.

Each for is attached to a wing turbine which catches the wind and turn the entire floor. The rotation of the floor turns a generator in the middle of the building which creates electricity. The amount of electricity generated by just one of these buildings is worth nearly 7 million dollars.

With all this electricity, the tower itself is fully sustainable and can give it’s extra energy to surrounding buildings:

“As average annual power consumption of a family is estimated to be 24,000 kilowatt-hour, each turbine can supply energy for about 50 families. The Dynamic Architecture tower in Dubai will be having 200 apartments and hence four turbines can take care of their energy needs. The surplus clean energy produced by the remaining 44 turbines can light up the neighborhood of the building.” – http://amazing-maststuff.blogspot.com/2008/03/worlds-first-rotating-architecture.html

Winnipeg could benefit from such a building as we have quite a few windy days in the year. The only problem with this building being built in Winnipeg is the possibility of snow getting trapped in the wind turbines and slowing them down to a halt. Some design issues would have to be solved if we were to bring such a building to Winnipeg.

A while back, I commented on the text-message generation. But this story caught my attention.

I have long understood that the cell phone/text message iteration of our culture is more broadly implemented in places other than our United States….indeed, countries like Japan and the European collection generally have more phone technology and use that phone technology more widely than we Americans do.

Examples (from the link above):

If you live in the United States it can be difficult to understand the role mobile phone technology plays across the globe. Here, you may use your phone for calls and messaging, perhaps for some computing lite, but likely little more. In Senegal, however, farmers are using phones to track crop prices, in Japan, writers are SMSing whole novels, and in Sweden, they’re texting to apply for instant loans. An app that lets you kill time on the subway, this is not.

Within a year and a half, half the world will use cellphones, predict analysts, and with the bulk of new users emerging from developing nations, the question of what phones can do for their owners has never before had such potentially world-changing answers.

…

Enter Nokia and Dean Kamen.

…

Kamen has recently completed a field test of two inventions that he hopes will change the world. Both are based on Stirling engine technology: one is a water purifier, the other an electrical generator. “Cancer, diabetes, all those diseases, that’s 50 percent,” says Kamen. “The other 50 percent of all disease is caused by bad water. Getting clean water to people would knock out 50 percent of all disease.”

Each purifier and generator provides enough power and water for a village; but, with one million villages in India alone, deployment is a challenge. In the past, Kamen has worked with multinational companies to launch his inventions, but the top-down approach of a big company doesn’t mesh well with the million-village scale of this project.

The developing world has a high number of cell phones per capita — the counterpoint to having very little in the way of landlines — and the idea is that software running on Nokia’s platform could be used to network and control a village’s small-scale power and water supply.

Hence the contest. Kamen is hoping to tap the expertise of mobile software developers — for instance, the three million of them enrolled in Nokia’s “Forum Nokia” community — to provide the infrastructural glue that will help get his inventions to the people who need them. Like Tim O’Reilly, Kamen hopes that developers, properly motivated, will pour some of their efforts into projects that help the world instead of endless widget toys and games.

It’s an inspiring idea.

Then there’s the revelation (already understood by pollsters) that 12% of the US population is available only through their cell phone, and that number is going to continue to go up.

Imagine a culture where everyone is available through their mobile phone/device/pda, and that important personal activities are able to accomplished via text-messaging (or whatever it evolves into), as the first link states. Mortgage applications, loan applications, voting, shopping, school, all processes and institutions that require a physical presence, a physical location, block and mortar. A truly mobile society, connected to each other not by roads and physical addresses but by ip addresses. Available all the time, from anywhere in the world.

Could it be?

While I was studying those designs here, I discover there are fatal technicalities that the inventor may have overlooked. Namely, that we can NOT directly connect electromagnetic coil from the magnet of lower layer, otherwise there will be situations which the Back EMF from one layer cancel the EMF produced by retardation effect of coil wired on magnet, therefore create an unnecessary constraint on the timing of rotation of layer. My suggestion is to use capacitor and electrical circuit as a buffer to store the electrical energy produce by retardation of magnet of lower layer, and then it would only magnetize the upper layer’s electromagnetic oil at suitable time.

Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

實驗:
比較: 1.單邊Magnet+線圈 和 2.兩邊磁石+coil
似乎明白點解了。
和我的宋添發設計又有點相似—原理一樣?
宋添發用相似的原理?

1. One-sided mutual depreciation
2. Total mutual depreciation

1. As the coil vibrate in the magnetic field with the magnet, the coil would vibrate in a resonance frequency eventually. If we place a coiled-magnet, the coil in magnet would reduce the magnetic field in the magnet, setting up a mutual-destructive interference in one direction of movement, the other direction of movement is not affected.

2. Now we have both magnet having the same presumably mutual-destructive interference, the effect in 1 would be multiplied? Or something different?

Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM

外圍定子由定距磁石組成,轉子是由至少一對共四線圈組成,
四線圈共分前後兩組均是固定不變地以極面對磁石的磁極,
前組可作一範圍之前後在棒上的前方作直線移動,後組是固定不變;
兩組均是附着公轉軸延伸出來的直棒,四線圈及磁石對稱分佈;
有特別設計之公轉軸,目的在於可以由軸發力轉動,

Euler’s Generator.

Consider a standard Euler’s Coil technology with 4 independent electromagnetic coils. What happen if the electromagnetic coils is connected as 2 pairs? i.e. When A,B,C,D is arranged in a square, A and C act as a pair while B and D act as another pair? Since we are connecting the electromagnetic coil in series, the result would be different from when all of them are independent. Moreover, what if we switch the connection of the electromagnetic coil from parallel to series in the middle of experiment according to the states of electromagnetic coils?

This article refer to this design, there is a slight mistake, so the correct design for N-2 should be like this:

Be careful with 6 things:

1. The arrangement of magnets, you can guess it is N-S-N-S; the top magnet and bottom magnet should be the same polarity(N-N,S-S…)

2. If the volume of the IRON core within electromagnetic coil is 1, then the one in the middle should be 4.(That is the most critical part, all effect depend on this part)

3. That would be some tricks to do with rotating the rotor. Since there is iron and magnet, the rotation would NOT be smooth, it would be jerky. That would shorten the motor’s life cycle.
Do NOT use a motor DIRECTLY on the rotor, otherwise you can NOT see the Overunity effect. You need something like those in the bicycle so Motor can accelerate the rotor , but the rotor can move freely on its own.
i.e. The Rotor can move FASTER than the motor.
(If you don’t understand, say so and I will try to fetch a picture from the Internet. It is a very common device seen on bicycle so it move forward without human pedaling)

4. The longer the distance between the middle iron bar and two magnets, the weaker the Overunity effect. So it should be as close as possible.

5. Try with resistance-type loading first, induction-type later. I done many experiments with these, it usually work better on the former.

6. For testing, you can try with load connect to coils or close the circuit. The expected result should be higher than load, and the Overunity effect get BETTER. (i.e. The loading is on while the rotor is running faster and faster) Therefore if you doesn’t see a good effect with the small loading, then try with close the circuit.

Sorry, I done wrong calculation in the original proposal, I forgot that the coils would react to two magnets, i.e. the upper coil would be drag by lower magnet, and vice versa.
Because of the distance, assume it is 20%. So total drag force in N-2=2.4

also that the middle iron would interact with 2 magnet, producing net propelling force.
So total positive drag force=-4*.6*2=4.8

The net force forward=4.8-2.4=2.4
Amplification ratio= 2
(Notice that the Amplification ratio is fixed regardless of the efficiency which K.E. of magnet is ‘converted ‘to electrical energy of electromagnetic coil. I disagree with the name convert.)

Assume 8 magnet per round, and initial RPM=1,
The RPM at the last magnet of first circle= 256(if not exceed the Physical limit of Rotor)

C.O.P= Maximum physical output/initial input

With these 6 taken care of of we are good to go!!!

We call this design M-2(since there are two pair of magnet, and M refer to the name of builder.) Since the building of M-2, I am already dreaming of M-2*2 which has amplification of 16, even combining the idea from this one(Haven’t know how yet…).

We can even design a car base on this, all we need is just a energy banks on the way to deposit the excessive electrical energy produced.

taichidesign

medfgviii

medfgvii

medfgvi

medfgv

原本由這個主意出發,

stfill121706

stfdesignderivated