Searching \ for '[OT][WOT] Path to freedom' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: '[WOT] Path to freedom'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT][WOT] Path to freedom'
2006\08\06@112351 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Tony Smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I looked into compressed air as well, for storing household energy. The
pressures must be incredibly
high before compressed air becomes useful, but once the pressures are
high, air works wonders. For
example, it is the ONLY way to start large diesels (as in marine
vessels). But to be useful in the
storage of energy, it seems to generate a lot of useless heat when
compressing, and cold when
decompressing (sounds like old Volkswagen air conditioner, doesn't it..?).

Years ago, as a young engineer from TI, I was sent to monitor some TI
seismic equipment on board
seaborne seismic vessels. The schemes used a method of generating
explosions called an "AIR GUN".
It was a high-pressure air cable attached to a gadget that was capable
of releasing a HUGE bubble
of air quickly, which caused a shock wave that hammered the rock in the
ocean floor. These high
pressures were generated by stout three-stage , water-cooled air
compressors on board the seismic
boat. The amount of energy released  with the bubble was remarkable;
fish within 200' were killed
by the shock wave.

For me in 2002, the idea was to build a house in the western desert of
the US, self-sufficient, with wind generator
and batteries for light storage, and use compressed air for long-term
storage. For safety, the compressed
air tanks had to be buried deeply underground. The reason is that in the
US Western desert, wind speeds
are high for several months of the year, then low for several months,
and excess wind power would run
compressors to store excess power. I think it is feasible for a house,
but NOT feasible for a vehicle, because
(1) an accident could result in a disastrous explosion, and (2) extra
weight would be needed to make the tanks
strong enough to withstand 2000psi+..

It was a failure because there is almost NO available western lands to
buy; US Indian tribes own all the land.

--Bob

2006\08\06@115902 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Compressed air has a lot of power but not much energy, high volts but low
amps, you might say.

Can you claim the fishing method as environmentally friendly?

They is/was a company making flywheels to store energy for houses, you dug a
hole & dropped it in there.  They were targetting them at businesses to use
as back up power, replacing petrol generators & UPS batteries.

Fairly safe, if the flywheel exploded, well, it's in a hole in the ground.
They were in a low pressure (maybe a vacuum) container with magnetic
bearing, so 'self discharge' was low.  Not a bad idea if you can get it to
work.  Would last a long time too, not much to wear out.

Tony

2006\08\06@181123 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> It was a failure because there is almost NO available western lands to
> buy; US Indian tribes own all the land.

Are you sure? Last I checked there were huge amounts of land owned by the
federal (and possibly state) governments, plus a lot of private property
owned by individuals, not US Indian tribes. (I'm not sure, but I think
James is one of those non-tribal owners :)

I tried to find a number of how much is actually owned by Indian tribes,
but couldn't find one. Does someone know? My forays into the south-western
USA didn't leave me with the impression that most of it was tribal owned,
much less all of it.

Gerhard

2006\08\06@195241 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Bob Axtell wrote:
>
>  
>> It was a failure because there is almost NO available western lands to
>> buy; US Indian tribes own all the land.
>>    
>
> Are you sure? Last I checked there were huge amounts of land owned by the
> federal (and possibly state) governments, plus a lot of private property
> owned by individuals, not US Indian tribes. (I'm not sure, but I think
> James is one of those non-tribal owners :)
>
>  
Its not that there is NO land, its just that there is little AFFORDABLE
land.

> I tried to find a number of how much is actually owned by Indian tribes,
> but couldn't find one. Does someone know? My forays into the south-western
> USA didn't leave me with the impression that most of it was tribal owned,
> much less all of it.
>  
The state of Arizona (where I live) is a good example. 3/4 of the land
is owned by Indian Tribes or
Federal facilities. For example, soldiers come to Arizona to become
acclimatized before shipping out
to Iraq. A huge facility near Yuma is kept  to train US military pilots
how to make aerial attacks, etc.

Since 3/4 of the land cannot be taxed by AZ, the remaining land is
heavily taxed, so even arid desert
becomes expensive..

New Mexico does have some cheaper land, as the amount of Indian land is
much less by percentage.
Many people are self-sufficient in NM, some accomplishing it by pooling
their meager resources for
wind energy and well facilities, etc.

--Bob

> Gerhard
>
>  

2006\08\06@202446 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

> The state of Arizona (where I live) is a good example. 3/4 of
> the land is owned by Indian Tribes or Federal facilities.

www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/states/arizona.html
says that 46% of the land is owned by the federal government.
(The percentage is similar in California, BTW.)  If your 75%
figure is correct, that means that the Indian tribes and
"everyone else" own similar amounts of land.  Doesn't sound
so bad.  In particular, I don't think you can blame the indians
for the lack of purchasable land; complain to the Fed instead.

Also:
    www.indianaffairs.state.az.us/tribes/map.html
(does indeed look like about 25%...)

BillW

2006\08\07@073714 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> Its not that there is NO land, its just that there is little AFFORDABLE
> land.

Blame that on the price hikes after those Europeans came over. Taxes were
less before, too :)

Gerhard

2006\08\08@111841 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi,

> I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local
> SAE chapter meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy
> as compressed air achieves up to 70% efficiency, compared to
> only 20% for batteries. I do not recall the reason why
> hybrids are still using batteries. Safety? Difficult to
> achieve smooth acceleration?

There is a car built in South Africa to run on compressed air - 4,000+ PSI.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car1.htm

The company web site - but the site says it was last updated in 2002.

http://www.e.volution.co.za/home.htm

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...