Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Unpreparedness

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Unpreparedness
  • Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:22:38 -0800

EarthNSky wrote:

Bill Jones wrote:


Never mind, I had it right the first time. Sorry. Nowadays I would be one of those special "dyslexic" kids with an excuse for failing.

Bill



Dang Bill...methinks you need some sleep, too!

Bev

I was really rushing before going out to get lunch. It's also the sort of sentence you could easily reword in the opposite way..."if the pump is below ground...," etc.

Anyway, there's one other source of inefficiency I haven't considered: the electric generator. If our choices for creating "action at a distance" (way down in the well) are between electricity and compressed air, then a generator is required to do it electrically (starting from a source of rotary motion). It's only fair to evaluate all the energy losses. The generator is analogous to the compressor, in that it also converts rotary motion (from a windmill presumably) to "portable power". The pneumatic pump itself is 100% efficient; push 1 liter of cooled compressed air into it, and 1 liter of water emerges. Nearly all the losses occur in the compressor itself, or in the connecting air tube.

By contrast, the generator and the pump motor are both less than 50% efficient. Although they tried to make it as abstruse as possible, you can calculate the efficiency of my electric well pump right from the label; it's about 35%. If the generator's efficiency is similar, that takes us down to about 15% efficiency. To illustrate this, you may have wondered why there's no product being sold to consumers where you turn a crank to run a generator, and the resulting electricity runs a motor: not even so much as a doorbell. That's because you could then tell how much energy is wasted. This morning I thought of one exception. Have you ever used an old hand crank telephone? You turned a generator handle, and it powered a ringer somewhere else. Fairly furious cranking was required to get the ringer hammer to move even a little, but fortunately only a small tap rings the bell audibly.

I'd honestly estimate the overall efficiency of my pneumatic system, from the turning shaft to the water leaving, at around 40% (for a slow trickle into a storage tank). If I run it on a compressor whose motor is similar to the well pump's, the whole system will definitely be less efficient than the existing well pump. But electricity is still very cheap for us; I never noticed any bump in the bill due to water use. The point is that we'll have a system that _we_ control, one that can be easily modified.

More broadly, I think the advantages of a pneumatic system lie not in efficiency (which will nevertheless surpass the generator-motor combination for harnessing wind power), but in the fact that it really puts power back in the hands of the people, almost any of whom could make one even more easily than I. I'm also partial to the _durability_ of the hardware involved.

Bill
S. Oregon coast






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page