I think most of you have it wrong. Apple intends to get electricity from wind energy as well. They just want to increase that efficiency by using the heat it produces as well. Don't underestimate a company that has an incredible track record of engineering.
I think most of you have it wrong. Apple intends to get electricity from wind energy as well. They just want to increase that efficiency by using the heat it produces as well. Don't underestimate a company that has an incredible track record of engineering.
As said obviously both energies are being used. Probably a 40% increase good ideal of Apple using mechanical and geothermal energy in one device.
They should harness the wind energy, the heat it puts off, cover the surface of the blades with solar panels, and make the foundation of the windmill out of a geothermal line.
Oh, and cover the body of the windmill with gasoline-producing algae.
"It makes me worry that Apple is unsophisticated enough to chase the myths of green energy. All such concepts produce at least ten times the release of heat into the environment as that of simply burning fuel at the wheels. Please check where the wall plugs are in these magical schemes."
Releasing heat into the environment isn't the problem, it's the release of greenhouse gases. Also, cleantech comes from renewable energy sources rather than finite, and lessens US dependence on foreign oil. There's no magic about it: there are midwestern states that now get more than 20% of their energy from wind. There's real money to be made.
The wall plugs are in your house and office, where they've always been. Electrons sent to those plugs from wind work just as well as those from coal-burning plants.
windmills are best suited for farms and The Whole Earth Catalog hippies in Oregon. Cheap and effective. This system is expensive and would need engineering and mechanical contractors to install.
First, there is prior art to that (ie store energy in some form of potential/kinetic state) like for instance storing energy by building pressure in a gas, by storing it in high speed coils, ...
Second, this is just an application of turning kinetic energy into potential energy. Nothing new about that.
I would imagine that conventional wind turbines give off a fair bit of heat anyway (friction from moving parts). If that waste heat could be captured and stored for later use it would increase the overall efficiency of wind turbines while also reducing the variability of supply.
I wonder if there's any aspect of what Apple is doing here that would support a combined system like that...
No, because the heat production correlates almost perfectly with the wind turbine moving.
Exactly -- heat is kinetic energy. And patenting what James Watt did to measure power & energy by stirring water is absurd. How dumb does AppleInsider think its readers are?
Well, a new low in wasted energy & inefficiency!
Winds are driven inefficiently by solar input. Windmills are driven inefficiently by winds. Fluids are heated by stirring them with a windmill. Heated fluids drive an engine with less than Carnot efficiency (<50%). And finally, an electric generator is turned, which itself is the only efficient piece of the whole schmere -- >90% efficient.
So, put 20% solar panels on the roof and save the $ and huge waste of energy in this absurd idea, which isn't even new -- James Watt measured heat energy exaclty by stirring a pot of liquid.
This, like the patent on a laser pointer to amuse cats, evidences the intellectual poverty of our Patent Service. I don't know what it evidences about Apple's staff.
Wind has a capacity factor of about 30% (meaning you get about a third of its rated capacity, allowing that peak demand may not coincide with windy weather). So storing energy a relatively inefficient way may make sense for wind. What's missing in the patent is any indication of efficiency, and generally, conversion between rotational energy and thermal energy is pretty inefficient. This only makes any kind of sense if you only generate the heat when the wind is blowing and there's no demand for electricity, so you will still need a generator powered directly from the turbine. I would be surprised if you recover much more than 10% of the energy that would otherwise go to waste, so this could increase the capacity factor of your wind farm from 30% to almost 40%. A win, but i'm not convinced that you'd do this rather than pumped storage "pump water uphill when you have excess capacity, then use it to drive a hydro plant when you have excess demand, which has about 70% efficiency. Or you can use excess capacity to create hydrogen, also not a super-efficient energy store, but transportable to some extent.
It makes me worry that Apple is unsophisticated enough to chase the myths of green energy. All such concepts produce at least ten times the release of heat into the environment as that of simply burning fuel at the wheels. Please check where the wall plugs are in these magical schemes.
Where does this stuff come from? Most clean energy sources involve very little heat, and the heat released into the environment even by dirty, inefficient and highly heat-intensive energy sources like coal is negligible compared with the total thermal energy of the planet. Total energy burnt worldwide in a year generating electricity is about 60 EJ. Total incoming solar energy in a year is 3,850,000 EJ, more than 60,000 times as much.
Show me a machine that burns fuel "at the wheels".
Absolutely flabbergasted by this. Anybody who knows some thermodynamics would be shocked that mechanical energy is converted to thermal energy to be later converted to electricity. Converting mechanical energy into thermal, downgrades it although this can be theoretically done with 100% efficiency. However, when converting back to mechanical/electrical energy one is limited THEORETICALLY by what is called Carnot's efficiency. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is unfortunately there, it is that law that governs energy conversion.
I am not much impressed by this patent, unless I am missing something.
However, when converting back to mechanical/electrical energy one is limited THEORETICALLY by what is called Carnot's efficiency. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is unfortunately there, it is that law that governs energy conversion.
I always thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics is you don't talk about thermodynamics¡
WHAT? My local electrician built one exactly the same (with water) back in 82, AND its EXACT principle is described in several books from the seventies. So now you can RE-patent inventions in the States?? And how about gigantic underground containments of mercury...hmm..yummy :-)
Comments
As said obviously both energies are being used. Probably a 40% increase good ideal of Apple using mechanical and geothermal energy in one device.
They should harness the wind energy, the heat it puts off, cover the surface of the blades with solar panels, and make the foundation of the windmill out of a geothermal line.
Oh, and cover the body of the windmill with gasoline-producing algae.
Releasing heat into the environment isn't the problem, it's the release of greenhouse gases. Also, cleantech comes from renewable energy sources rather than finite, and lessens US dependence on foreign oil. There's no magic about it: there are midwestern states that now get more than 20% of their energy from wind. There's real money to be made.
The wall plugs are in your house and office, where they've always been. Electrons sent to those plugs from wind work just as well as those from coal-burning plants.
So the question is, what's your real agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharliePotatoes
All such concepts produce at least ten times the release of heat into the environment as that of simply burning fuel at the wheels.
Please tell me you did not just write that. Please tell me you did not graduate from any school (at least yet). Please.
First, there is prior art to that (ie store energy in some form of potential/kinetic state) like for instance storing energy by building pressure in a gas, by storing it in high speed coils, ...
Second, this is just an application of turning kinetic energy into potential energy. Nothing new about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I would imagine that conventional wind turbines give off a fair bit of heat anyway (friction from moving parts). If that waste heat could be captured and stored for later use it would increase the overall efficiency of wind turbines while also reducing the variability of supply.
I wonder if there's any aspect of what Apple is doing here that would support a combined system like that...
No, because the heat production correlates almost perfectly with the wind turbine moving.
What we need is near perfect anticorrelation.
Looks like Apple wants to copy Samsung and go into alternative energy.
http://www.shi.samsung.co.kr/Eng/product/wind_overview.aspx
Exactly -- heat is kinetic energy. And patenting what James Watt did to measure power & energy by stirring water is absurd. How dumb does AppleInsider think its readers are?
Well, a new low in wasted energy & inefficiency!
Winds are driven inefficiently by solar input. Windmills are driven inefficiently by winds. Fluids are heated by stirring them with a windmill. Heated fluids drive an engine with less than Carnot efficiency (<50%). And finally, an electric generator is turned, which itself is the only efficient piece of the whole schmere -- >90% efficient.
So, put 20% solar panels on the roof and save the $ and huge waste of energy in this absurd idea, which isn't even new -- James Watt measured heat energy exaclty by stirring a pot of liquid.
This, like the patent on a laser pointer to amuse cats, evidences the intellectual poverty of our Patent Service. I don't know what it evidences about Apple's staff.
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharliePotatoes
It makes me worry that Apple is unsophisticated enough to chase the myths of green energy. All such concepts produce at least ten times the release of heat into the environment as that of simply burning fuel at the wheels. Please check where the wall plugs are in these magical schemes.
Where does this stuff come from? Most clean energy sources involve very little heat, and the heat released into the environment even by dirty, inefficient and highly heat-intensive energy sources like coal is negligible compared with the total thermal energy of the planet. Total energy burnt worldwide in a year generating electricity is about 60 EJ. Total incoming solar energy in a year is 3,850,000 EJ, more than 60,000 times as much.
Show me a machine that burns fuel "at the wheels".
Read this before you post again.
I am not much impressed by this patent, unless I am missing something.
I always thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics is you don't talk about thermodynamics¡
When is the Samsung version coming out?
And how about gigantic underground containments of mercury...hmm..yummy :-)