Electric Car Batteries as Storage For Solar and Wind Energy Production

Two problems, an electric car battery doesn't last very long anyway, and batteries are extremely expensive.

Storage batteries are already being used for small-scale photovoltaic systems. However, as Bondi111 noted, they're not very longlasting or cheap. Perhaps an alternative would be to store the energy as heat, and then the heat energy converted back to electricity when required.

The problem with heat storage is that an efficient cycle for recovery requires high temperature differences (Carnot cycles for instance), at same time high temperatures are correlated to high losses which will reduce the efficiency (overall). In order to obtain from solar energy high temperatures it is necessary to use concentrators for a higher density (w/m²) which is related to higher investment costs. Today the highest temperatures are for some solar power stations around 200 °C but not -as far as I know- with accumulators.

A more manageable approach, already in developpment, is the compressed air. The different economical analysis tend to show an advange.

Good point . I think the best way would be to use the excess energy to pump a large volume of water up to a great height, and then use the stored water to turn a hydroelectric turbine when required . I don't know just how efficient a Tesla turbine really is : unfortunately , as with everything associated with Tesla's name, the over-unity crowd has exaggerated everything to such an extent that it's almost impossible to tell what's fact from what's fiction . Still, if it's anywhere as good as it is claimed to be, it would be a viable turbine to use for this system : since it functions on the fluid boundary layer adhesion forces as opposed to the impulse or reaction force of conventional turbines, it requires a lower volumetric flow rate of water to operate , meaning that the same volume of stored water can be used for a longer period of time .

I made an analysis of the Tesla turbine and it is not as it is claimed to be.

I shall try to explain, if I am not clear enough please ask I will do my best to make it understandable.

The discs are moved by the shear forces between the fluid flow and the wall (disc). A shear appears ONLY if there is a relative movement i.e. the flow has to move faster than the disc. This means that there is a "core" of the flow with not used energy! And this core has a higher speed than the disc so that a lot of the fluid kinetic energy goes through the turbine without being used. An other aspect is that the input is at the periphery and the outlet near to the shaft which means that the active radius decreeases aong the flow path and also the torque.

Since the transfer of energy is via shear forces the fluid should have either very high velocities or quite high viscosity since the shear stress is proportional to the viscosity (dynamic) and the velocity gradient at the wall. Or of course both.

Water has a VERY low viscosity so that it could be used only with very high speeds. The reservoir should be very far on the vertical from the turbine which leads to high cost. The over all efficiency would be very low.

From this point of view are the compressed air reservoirs (underground) even if all losses are considered more efficient. This is one of the reasons such reservoirs are now connected (experimentaly still) to wind generators and to turbines or pneumatic motors to move electro-generators.

Okay, thanks. So what happens if we use high viscosity oil as the working fluid instead?

Of course with oil it will work better but in ALL cases the core energy is NOT used which leads to very low efficiencies. If you consider the flow as laminar since for a high density of power the discs have to be near to each other the velocity profile is parabolic. The gradient is proportional to highest relative velocity (core to wall) divided by distance between walls. The transmitted power is the product torque x wall velocity. The shear is proportional to the relative velocity so that the power is zero for wall velocity =0 even if the torque is maximal and also =0 for wall velocity = fluid velocity since shear is=0. The flow has a spiral path from outside diameter to outlet near to shaft all those factors combined indicate that even if the principle is attractive and of course very ingenious the results are not what is usually claimed. There is a popular word which says that paper has a lot of patience!

I would like to mention that of course the wheel will turn but this is NOT the target at which we aim.

Okay, thanks. So I guess I'll stick to regular reaction or impulse turbines then. I'm trying to determine what sort of system is suitable for a Third World village.

You are confronted with a difficult problem since there are several conditions to be fulfilled at low cost and they can be only with a quite high level technology.

How high do you set the power requirements in kW/person?

The solution will very much depend on the value. Small generators which ever the type are not very efficient and it could be as well a problem of maintenance and MTTF / MTBF.

A possible approach could be:

-for wind as power source

The wind mill with a generator and a compressor which can be coupled or uncoupled according to energy demand and energy availability + a reservoir for compressed air and the possibility to move same generator with a pneumatic motor when the demand is more important than the available wind power. I have the feeling -I did not make any analysis in the depth- that for such an application a piston pneumatic engine will be more adapted than a turbine. It is a less demanding technology and many parts which can be used are manufactured in big series at an affordable price.

- similar for other "fluid prime power sources"

- for solar energy a first approach already used is the heating of a special oil as a heat transmitter in a primary loop and after it a classical water / vapour loop + transmission and generator. The pneumatic accumulator could be coupled or un coupled according to demand. The electrical accumulator as batteries or super capacitors is -I think- not optimal neither from cost nor from efficiency point of view and requires as well a continuous replacement of the batteries.

Hi, this is PentaPower and in the near future I will have turbines that will be able to used for different needs with forced fluids. Right now forced air is the focus for use on any moving vehicle. It can also be adapted for use on a house or out in the fields. Check out www.pentapowerturbines.com. I just started the site and will add things when they come up. I'm just finishing getting the testing done, so fairly soon. Keep in touch. Thanks. PentaPower.

Plug-in rechargeable cars will likely recharge at night when electricity demand is at a minimum; this requires a minimum of extra investment in new generating capacity, and in fact makes more profit for the electric utility, which can sell more electricity with the same investment in capital. Considering that even now electric power is cheaper than gasoline power, this is a win-win; however the cost of the batteries has to be taken into account as mentioned by others, and that technology needs a lot of work at the present time.

batteries and storage system a few sites you may find interesting.

Regards JD.

One thing I have read about that has been proposed for some time now is the global expansion of lower power and micro power generation. That is having millions of independent but still integrated power generation systems spread out.
Not just large corporate owned multi gigawatt stations. The US is currently in a way working to wards the capability of it by allowing the average person to legally co-generate and get paid for it too.

Given a more world wide approval to small scale generation would encourage many people and communities to become "system storage silos too" That is they may have a locally viable ability to store energy as a personal resource. They are not a producer or a large scale user. They are just a capacitor or battery in the larger system.

You will aways have some places that will never be able to produce what they use, and you will always have places that can produce far more than they ever will use and you will always have places that cant produce or use what they are capable of storing.
Farmer, grain storage elevator, end customer. Three symbiotic systems that beat out food shortage problems decades ago!
Micro generator, micro storage, end customer. Why not beat down energy shortages that way.

No wait, This solution wont leave room for corporate profiteering and false shortages used to push those profits higher and could ultimately lead to cheaper more stable electricity for the masses to be able to develop with.

Given that at any point in time there is enough wind, or sun occurring anywhere in the world the global energy needs have a viable source of clean and renewable power that is far greater than what we can possibly use but it has a bad stumbling block to over come thats not even technical in nature. The human factor. We like new things but fear change. Until enough people do it on a smaller scale and show it to be profitable and a realistic undertaking to do people will not readily go for it.

There are people like me that would jump at the chance to do small scale energy storage for off peak to peak load balancing! But until someone shows me how I get $400K to build the storage and pump/generator system I cant do it.
I have looked into energy research grants and things like that but there seems to be a catch 22 on getting them. If you have never gotten one they are unwilling to give you one. If you have gotten one then they will give you more! It's like dealing with at bank for a big loan. You need the money but they wont give you any money because you don't have any. If you have enough money then they want to give you more money even though you don't need it anymore!

But the issue of power storage is probably the biggest challenge the overall world electrical systems are facing when going to cleaner renewable power sources. I would personally like to see far more development of privately owned storage media. The pumped water hydro method is by far the cheapest and lowest set up and operating cost method I know of. Its environmentally neutral and with a larger sized systems it has recreational and public use benefits too! Being the pumping and hydroelectric return systems are all electric and based on century old and well proven system designs it is a very solid and low maintenance storage system.
Its viable any place there is enough elevation change to run the generators. If I am remembering the numbers correctly 200 feet or more is the practical working elevation change needed for small and medium scale systems, 10 -1000 MWh capacity, to work efficiently.

Even us flat land prairie dwellers can come up with a 200 ft elevation change In a short distance!

It's a question of finding the correct compromise between price and performance.

• Car batteries are not ideal as solar storage, as they are more suited to high currents for a short period of time, i.e. for starting motor vehicles.
• Deep-cycle batteries as used for marine-domestic applications do a better job in solar storage, as they are intended for a steady current for a longer period of time.

Hi PWS,

The OP is referring to electric cars which use deep cycle batts comparable to marine sets. His header was a bit misleading though as it looked like he was referring to starter batts.

Chas

GA from emc_c. Truer words never spoken!

"There is no reliable solution for storage", titi-the-rabbit, CR4 contributor, 2009

"Everything that can be invented has already been invented.", Charles

H. Duell, director of the U.S. Patent Office, 1899

What is Matter then, if not a stable and reliable method of energy storage? Does E=MC² ring a bell?

Chris

Chris, I was refering to the practical aspect of it. I live in the present.

What does E=mc2 in this particular case? Please don't aberrate.

First, I apologize, I didn't mean to sound nasty. bad day I guess.

I did agree with you on your second point.

My point is that such statements might tend to stifle creative thinking about energy storage, as we are simply not done with energy storage. I don't believe that we as humans have put a lot of thought or money into looking for storage solutions, electrical or otherwise. If I took you out of context, I apologize for that. The einstein equation is an expression of atomic energy stored in matter, and there may yet be methods of unlocking that energy and using it to drive vehicles. (not fusion or fission, but the reverse of the the process that stored the energy in matter in the first place.)

Chris

Actually, Nature has given us the best energy storage system for solar energy available today- high density, stored for millions of years in relatively easily accessed reservoirs, easily transportable- but we call this hydrocarbons, and it is very unlikely that we will come up with an alternative that meets the performance of this storage medium any time soon. Nuclear energy is also a form of stored energy, the source of which dates from at least 4 billion years ago, but it is not nearly so portable as hydrocarbons...

No need to apologize, it's all right. The only thing is, I would like to stick with the particular case presented. The thread was about storing electricity from wind and solar. We have this bad habit of theoretizing beyond anything that pertains to the subject and I think that is what stiffles creativity. Einstein eq. is a general theoretical equation and does not bring anything to this table. Anybody can claim anything with it (and people tend to do that quite a lot). We turned it into some sort of universal panaceum, just because is about Einstein (who, by the way, spent most of his later life career blundering around, because he was not able to understand what he discovered).

It's applicable to nuclear energy, which works by destroying a small mass of matter (M)to unleash vast amounts of energy (E) .

You left out geothermal power generation from your list. Also hydrothermal energy recovery. Why? Does the engineering community not really think that geothermal and hydrothermal energy is worth considering?

Although the initial capital costs for these systems MAY be at issue, the operating costs for power must be low because the energy is being extracted and not generated. These sources also should eliminate the "green" issues, although I am quite sure that those opposed to change will get media attention for their cause.

I use geothermal at home, so I know about it. There are few places where it can be the source of energy. In most cases, it is used as an energy "boosting" method. It still needs about 30% of the power from another electrical source.

I chosed geothermal for my home as the surplus investment was small and it cuts my energy bill by 2/3. The system paid for itself within 4-5 years. Reliability is good and nobody can tell that I have this (no visible structure = full use of my yard).

This is the type of technology that will reduce the demand but it is not going to be a major energy producer unless you live on top of a volcano.

The best method for storing energy from Wind, Solar, Tidal, hydroelectric, etc is not in batteries but by electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen. These gasses can be stored either as compressed gas or super cooled liquids. They can be 'transported' via pipelines, by trucks or even by ships and train tank cars. In vehicles they can be stored either as compressed gasses or as metal hydrides. They produce almost no pollution The formula if 2 H20+ energy <--> 2 H2 + O2 ( the double arrow indicates the reaction is reversible going either way.). However if you must use batteries, check out http://www.advancedbatteryfactory.com/. they produce LiFeP04 Batteries as high as 1000 amps. ( Since you have to buy a large amt of batteries in order to get a decent price, I suggest getting the 100 Amp 3.2 V 'cells' and hooking them up to produce the voltage and wattage you need. 100 Amp cells in quantities of 100 are 150 dollars each if you purchase 5000 they go down to 110 dollars each FOB china. NOTE I do not work for n or do I own stock in ABF. I have purchased LiPolymer batteries from them and got good service. But batteries are expensive. and as I said, the ultimate method is to use Hydrogen. HLG

This integration is the solution that everybody is looking for.

This is one of those blanket statements that is impossible to agree with. This might be a possible solution that some people are looking for.

Now, and for the foreseeable future, the batteries in electric cars are either incredibly heavy (lead-acid), expensive, and have a life of 300 complete cycles, or are only moderately heavy (LiFePo), have a life of 2000 complete cycles, and are hideously expensive (with more than half of the $100,000 Tesla's price going to batteries). The cost per mile is somewhat lower (typically) with the second class of batteries, but I cannot imagine wanting to plug in my car at work to have the batteries depleted, adding to the number of cycles on them, causing them to wear out faster. In old tech and new tech EV's, the cost of battery replacement is much greater than the cost of energy used to charge them.

Range has been, and will continue to be, the central issue for the rejection of EV's by the marketplace. Reducing range, by dumping costly and hard-won charge into the grid, seems unlikely to be appealing to the average EV customer. Using the lead-acid batteries common in the typical EV conversion of today, the cost per mile of the batteries alone (let alone the cost of energy used to charge them) is about the same as the cost per mile of fuel. A simple comparison: 300 full cycles at 33 miles per cycle is 10,000 miles. (Sadly, this is about all the range one can expect from lead acid, which you can verify by poking around some of the EV enthusiast sites.) If you were very lucky, and if this were a very small car (a Geo Metro conversion) the batteries would cost $2000. The same car, pre conversion, would get better than 33 mpg, for 300 gallons of fuel @ $2.00 = $600.

For grid storage, perhaps a better alternative would be storage devices that are intended to stand still, rather than devices which are intended to move. Flywheels, pumped storage, lifting huge weights, or perhaps the heavy, purpose-built lead acid batteries used for backup power in telephone installations?

It would make more "sense" to implement this bidirectional charging scheme with cell phones, which are infinitely more ubiquitous than electric cars, and which remain charged far longer (in other words they routinely have "excess" charge beyond that required for a day's usage) Plug your cell phone in at work, and have it discharged for you in time for your trip home. Unappealing as that may be, it is less unappealing to arrive home with your car depleted, only to find that your wife is going into labor, or that you need to make any of the unplanned trips that people make in their cars. A car that doesn't function is a major inconvenience. A cell phone with a dead battery is a minor inconvenience -- and a cell phone is restored to operation seconds after plugging it in, unlike an EV.

Or how about this: force every citizen to buy $10,000 worth of LiFePo cells to serve as a home UPS and as a battery for the grid. That would spread the storage burden out over the whole population, rather than punishing only EV owners. In deep-cycle use these might last 5 years (60 months) so the typical user's electric bill might go from $50 per month to ($10,000/60 + $50) $216 per month.

cost of elec batteries for an electric car. Allowing that an electric motor is about 2 times as efficient as a gasoline engine, and assuming we're working with a light car like the Citroen 2CV or Citroen Mehari which had a 33 HP 2 cylinder engine, we would need approx a 20 HP electric motor which converts at 750 Watts/HP (OK it's only 746 but i'm rounding off for convenience ) and if we wanted to run for 2 hours, we would need 750 x 2 x 20 or 30,000 WHrs of Battery power. Since a 3.2V x 100 Amp LiFePO4 'cell' costs approx 120 in quantities, that comes out to $0.375/Watt or 11,250 dollars for just the batteries alone. Hmm not very cost affective, I'll stick to gasoline for now and wait for the H2 fuel cells. HLG

It looks like plugable hybrid autos will be in huge use within a few years. The IEEE has proposed that all garages be set up with the ability to export power to the grid while they are sitting there doing nothing. That will ease the need for fossil fuel use at the power plants. Think about how many cars are just sitting in the garage ! (two of mine are out there right now, and one is dissipating a lot of heat from my morning run to the grocer; I should design a heat exchanger to use that wasted engine heat to pre-heat my hot water!).

Check out Chapter 26, pages 194 - 198 of David J C Mackay's Sustainable Energy - "Without the Hot Air" for a good objective discussion and lots of credible numbers. ............ Web site for the book (the entire book in HTML or as a free pdf for download). http://www.withouthotair.com/ ........Chapter 26. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_186.shtml ........Page 194, "Demand management using electric vehicles". http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_194.shtml .......... (Note: scroll down to the bottom of the page for links to the next pages.....Thick headed me took a while to figure that out....) ..........David JC Mackay's home page is. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ ............Good book. Stuff for engineers who actually think in terms of numbers written in a very understandable way. Lots of very iinteresting graphs. The text and the graphs (only some of the photos) are relatively free of copyright encumbrances so anyone can use them. ........Sorry for the terrible formatting with no paragraphs separating the links and such. This is something new that I haven't figured out how to fix yet. .............Ed Weldon

You cannot order more wind or sun at peak demand hours.

Want to call up some wind whenever you want it? First, do you want to lay a little wager on it? Check this out before you take that wager: http://www.generalcompression.com/

Marine type batteries are apparently superior to car sorts for storage.

:Though I like to think that batteries in cars to run them exactly as we expect of cars that run from gasoline, or diesel fuel can be done, many experts, dispute this as cost effective for the average man.

This is even disputed when the price per gallon of gasoline is in the 4 to 5 dollar range.

The systems based on battery renting at points, where you pull in and simply have the battery changed as you would with your drill gun that has two batteries, has promise, to my mind.

Hybrid batteries have promise to my mind as well.

Certainly Fuel Cells make a great deal of sense, though the infrastructure is a good ways off.

I keep wondering if the best way to go is to create an electric road, so simply getting your electric motored car to the transportation power grid integrate what is possible, and most cost effective.

Chrisg288 did some interesting drawings of what such an electric road might look like.

Anonymous Hero is a good one to consult with as far as automobiles in general are concerned.

John Loz series examining the history of Trolleys is a good read along with pointing out how in our past infrastructure for electromotive has been used effectively.

My study of trains and railroads and the superhighway and interstates does lead me to believe some of our problem is that no real clear decision is made, or likely to be made, so it is nearly as if too much invention is required, for there is no real standard to go to.

The advantage of an electric road would be to me the multiplicity of inputs possible.

A place to look for some precedents is at airports, and Disneyland.

I agree with the OP that, if we are going to have electric cars, there's no reason that they can't be used to level out electricity demand. Simply charging them at night with "off peak" power will help. Plugging them in while parked at the destination would help also.

I disagree that storing energy as heat is impractical. Using solar energy to heat water at 100 C (212 F) will store 2257 kj per kg of water (or 980 btu per pound.) Increase the pressure, and you can raise the temperature.

Using a low temperature heat recovery system similar to that currently being used for low-temperature geothermal power would allow hot water to be converted into mechanical energy, and in turn into electricity. No, not 100% efficient, but with "free" energy such as solar, wind and even the waste heat from an air conditioning system, the total cost per KWH would be entirely reasonable.

Probably the best method I can think of to dispose of large quantites of unwanted electricty, and then reclaim them later, would be reversible fuel cells. The problem then is reduced to storing hydrogen (and possibly the oxygen as well.) Fuel cell powered cars would fit the bill here nicely. And just think of the energy savings in using the same reversible fuel cells for regenerative dynamic braking on heavy trucks and trains?

Hi, this is PentaPower and at present I am developing a turbine that will be able to be used to charge batteries on any moving vehicle with little or no drag. These batteries that will be charged can then be used at future battery depots to put back on the grid or keep the electric car running with hardly ever having to charge. The testing of the torque on the shaft and the RPM's at different speeds of the vehcile are going to be avaliable soon. It seems that some people are open to change and others are not. I have a web site at www.pentapowerturbines.com where you can get a glimps. I'm not an engineer but am told that this should work well in many different applications. I started a thread looking for a little help in finding the torque on the shaft and have gotten lots of feedback. Things are coming into place for the electric era. We can all work together and make it work. Thanks. PentaPower.

Dear Pentapower,

The fact that you claim a 90% usage of wind energy is coherent with your non-engineering approach. As you look at the problem you will have a VERY great result of about 10 to 14% of the wind energy converted at turbine level. If you further on consider the losses in the generator then the final result will be even less.

It is good to believe but it is better if the crunched numbers lead to good results.

Thanks for your reply. I've put a couple of small DC motors with my turbine and find that they don't slow the turbine down too much and are putting out some high numbers on the multimeter I just got. I don't really know what all the numbers mean just yet, but I'm bringing them to someone who does. I tried a suggestion of using a string attached to the shaft(with a weight of 1.5 kgs) and it rose the weight about 12 cm to find torque on the shaft. Then without the weight, the air that was from a shop vac, made it turn about 15,000 RPMs and the turbine support didn't even budge. If I had used a three blade turbine of the same size, it would caused a fair bit of damage. I don't understand why some people have a hard time thinking that something new is possible. If we all used our thoughts constructively, imagine what we could come up with. Thanks. PentaPower.

I shall try to explain some thing although I TOTALLY doubt that you will either accept or understand.

You may know that there is a science named "physics" and this is a science which determines the laws which guide the general behaviour in our world (not human it is not possible to analyse and define since humans are unpredictable).

Within the limits of those laws any new idea is WELCOME and I am the last to say anything about new ideas since from the start of my professional life I tried to develop new products and have several patents.

I insist any new idea which respects the physics.

One of those laws is the "conservation of energy" so that you cannot get more from less or get some thing from nothing.

If you get from a wind - as you claim- 90% of its cinetic energy how the air will move further?

One of the problems with uneducated people is that they consider ALL educated ones as stupid and conservative.

I did not say that your idea is wrong I only said that numbers should be OK as you may have heard engineering is a precise stuff and an idea is Ok only if it works.

Good luck and I hope you will find a lot of "believers" but be aware that if it does not work and you sold it you may have to pay back!

Thanks for your reply. The one thing I would like to add is that no human on this earth is GOD! Why are we able to make laws and rules when we do not know the entire truth? Only man made these laws in physics and the sciences. All us mortals are to follow these laws without asking? If we did so, we would not be where we are today. I think it is time for us to continue our journey by learning and teaching. Yes, we teach what we know, but we also teach to be open and inquisitive. If there is a GOD, does he believe in all the laws of physics? I think that he is able to use many talents that we are trying to learn. We use how much of our brain? Some people can do things that others can not as some parts may be more developed. When we set our minds to figure something out, we are able to do these things we think of. Look how far we have come in the last while. We can even create clones. There are a lot of hidden things that have not been shared with us regular people. As you may remember when we first got the cell phones in the 80's. They were actually around since the 60's. Watching the Jetsons, we saw them talking to each other on the TV screens and those devices were out at that time, but did we get to use them? I could go on forever but I won't argue anymore. Just open your minds and use the intelligence that was given to mankind. Maybe my turbines will not work as I have planned. But someone may add to mine and make it even better. That is what you call innovation and that is why we are as advanced as we are today. Thanks. PentaPower.

I was right you neither understand nor accept.

Full stop to this discussion you are as I thought it is not worth while discussing.

Why do you not try to find a "perpetuum mobile" ? May be you will succeed

Thanks for your reply. I understand completely and I do not believe in any human GOD who made the laws of physics. The air that is forced upon a vehicle in motion causes drag and all I am doing is capturing the drag without causing much more and turning it into useful energy. Maybe I do not have the best made object, but it is possible to do so if we use our minds. Whoever made these laws had a closed mind and it needs to be reopened. Anything that the human mind has thought of is possible as we have at our disposal all of the elements to use to create. We will, eventually, have a vehicle that will be perpetual!!! Don't give up and close your mind. Everything is possible! Just think of satellites. They use ion propulsion to travel through space. Correct? This is using battery power to continue the orbits. If a turbine could be used, spinning, as the void is filled behind the craft, it will have much longer life in space. Maybe I am dreaming, but it takes dreamers to think of and change things. If we all put our minds to things, imagine the 'power' that would be created!!! Thanks. PentaPower.

Your posts keep repeating the same things over and over -- it looks like spam. In this thread, they have little to do with the topic, "cars batteries as storage..."

When you have test results for your turbine report those. Then you will have something meaningful to say.

The air that is forced upon a vehicle in motion causes drag and all I am doing is capturing the drag without causing much more and turning it into useful energy.

You have this completely backwards. You are not "capturing the drag." By adding any type of windmill to a vehicle, you are increasing the drag, just as you would increase the drag by towing a trailer equipped with a generator driven by the trailer wheels. (The trailer scheme would be about twice as efficient as a good turbine -- and perhaps four times as efficient as the one you are promoting -- but would still operate at a net loss.)

I think you would find Peswiki far more responsive to your unsupported claims that strike us as outlandish -- they thrive on "over unity, perpetual motion, etc., and take a completely uncritical, unscientific view of things, in which, (as you keep repeating) "anything is possible". Here, we tend to have open and educated minds, and realize that there is more to science and engineering than wishing and fantasy. At Peswiki, you may find people to who will help with your project, because they are far less likely to be grounded in what we think of as reality.

Check out Peswiki. Later, when you have real test results and good experimental design, then stop back here and describe the experiment and the results.

Thanks for your reply. I like to respond to others that reply to mine. You people have not seen this kind of turbine in action, so I will not bother your feeble minds until you get to see it in action. No further contact from me until it is all finished. I just thought that someone out there would come to reality and see that the old laws are going to be broken. Maybe not by myself, but with the opening of minds, we can accomplish plenty. Thanks. PentaPower. (Say what you want, I can't waste my time anymore! Time is a ticking!)