[EE] Concrete Battery

[RussellMc]

Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.


https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).

________________________________

A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.

A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.

Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"

1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...



Russell

[Chris Roper]

Similar to the ARES project featured by BBC World a few months back:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-44549962/surplus-energy-rides-the-gravity-train

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Denny Esterline]

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of 85%
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but even
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.


Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Sean Breheny]

My experience is that it is possible to get almost 80% electrical return
from regenerative braking (these were mobile robots with a very high mass
of about 1000kg, moderately slow speed of about 1.5 m/s, hard tires on flat
smooth concrete so very low rolling friction - if you just let them roll
starting at 1.5m/s they would travel around 15 to 20 meters before
stopping). The data recorded the total energy output of the battery during
accelerations and compared it to the total energy input to the battery
during decelerations, so it doesn't include internal losses in the battery
during charging and discharging.

I do think that it is possible - though challenging - to get 85% round-trip
efficiency from the mass-lifting system mentioned here.

Post by Denny Esterline
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of 85%
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but even
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.
Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Post by RussellMc
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom

to

Post by RussellMc
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David C Brown]

Better done with water than solids. Mature technology and 80/100 efficient

Post by Denny Esterline
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of 85%
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but even
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.
Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Post by RussellMc
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom

to

Post by RussellMc
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

Post by David C Brown
Better done with water than solids. Mature technology and 80/100 efficient
The arguments for concrete included higher density, being made from waste

products (with lower cement content than usual).
A track based system employs different technology to water based systems.
Both have pros and cons.

Very high head systems do not need the equivalent of the high pressures
that water uses.
eg a 1000 foot (metre) altitude gain system only exposes the vehicle to
stresses proportional to the mass of the payload regardless of where it is
on the track.

In NZ we have numerous large water based systems where the water is
returned to the reservoirs using open-air solar-powered vapour-phase based
transfer.

Russell

[Allen Mulvey]

8-)

Allen

In NZ we have numerous large water based systems where the
water is
returned to the reservoirs using open-air solar-powered
vapour-phase based
transfer.

Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list
archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

The article points out why using solids could be an advance: it works
regardless of geography. Water only works when you have the terrain to
build an upper and lower reservior to pump in between. In addition water
requires acres and acres of land mass for both reservior to contain the
potential energy. Also as Russell pointed out you have to account for
nature in terms of evaporation and rainfall.

The real competion is batteries. I'm trying to figure out why the cost/kWh
of storage is so high on the concrete. At $10-20 USD per kWh it's a winner.
At $150-200, it's not as it's cheaper to build and deliver batteries in
large scales at that price point.

But just the stability of the storage and the fact that it can be
co-located with renewable plants anywhere makes it worth taking a look.

BAJ

Post by David C Brown
Better done with water than solids. Mature technology and 80/100 efficient

Post by Denny Esterline
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of 85%
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but even
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.
Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Post by RussellMc
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom

to

Post by RussellMc
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
Byron A. Jeff
Associate Professor: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff

[David C Brown]

Having worked with Dinorwic in North Wales I may be a little biased, but
we had excellent results using it as spinning reserve.

That system, like Festoniog, use existing lakes so there is no land cost.
And lack of rainfall will never be a problem on the Welsh mountains 😀

Post by Byron Jeff
The article points out why using solids could be an advance: it works
regardless of geography. Water only works when you have the terrain to
build an upper and lower reservior to pump in between. In addition water
requires acres and acres of land mass for both reservior to contain the
potential energy. Also as Russell pointed out you have to account for
nature in terms of evaporation and rainfall.
The real competion is batteries. I'm trying to figure out why the cost/kWh
of storage is so high on the concrete. At $10-20 USD per kWh it's a winner.
At $150-200, it's not as it's cheaper to build and deliver batteries in
large scales at that price point.
But just the stability of the storage and the fact that it can be
co-located with renewable plants anywhere makes it worth taking a look.
BAJ

Post by David C Brown
Better done with water than solids. Mature technology and 80/100

efficient

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of

85%

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but

even

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.
Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide

output.

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive

with

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
other storage technologies.

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on

methods

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may

allow

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to

non-vertical

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and

bottom

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
to

Post by RussellMc
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up

or to

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
Byron A. Jeff
Associate Professor: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

But that's exactly my point. There aren't lakes everywhere. There isn't
hilly terrain everywhere. The article pointed out that hydro storage has
only been implemented in a few opportune places.

This system can be built anywhere and everywhere without geographic
limitations. Essentially anywhere you can put a parking lot, this storage
system can be deployed.

The best land for large scale solar installations is desert. Where exactly
can one find a couple of well placed lakes in the desert?

BAJ

Post by David C Brown
Having worked with Dinorwic in North Wales I may be a little biased, but
we had excellent results using it as spinning reserve.
That system, like Festoniog, use existing lakes so there is no land cost.
And lack of rainfall will never be a problem on the Welsh mountains ????

Post by Byron Jeff
The article points out why using solids could be an advance: it works
regardless of geography. Water only works when you have the terrain to
build an upper and lower reservior to pump in between. In addition water
requires acres and acres of land mass for both reservior to contain the
potential energy. Also as Russell pointed out you have to account for
nature in terms of evaporation and rainfall.
The real competion is batteries. I'm trying to figure out why the cost/kWh
of storage is so high on the concrete. At $10-20 USD per kWh it's a winner.
At $150-200, it's not as it's cheaper to build and deliver batteries in
large scales at that price point.
But just the stability of the storage and the fact that it can be
co-located with renewable plants anywhere makes it worth taking a look.
BAJ

Post by David C Brown
Better done with water than solids. Mature technology and 80/100

efficient

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Really choking on the idea of

85%

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
round-trip efficiency.
Electricity in -> control losses -> motor losses -> gearing losses ->
winch/cable/pulley losses -> mass lifted.
Mass lowered-> winch/cable/pulley losses -> gearing losses -> generator
losses -> grid tie conversion losses.
Not to mention all the things the system has to do when it's not
raising/lowering mass, e.g. empty hook return.
Feel free to apply your own numbers for any of those loss points, but

even

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
optimistic numbers
quickly exceed the claimed numbers.
Still an interesting idea though. :-)

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide

output.

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive

with

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
other storage technologies.

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on

methods

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may

allow

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to

non-vertical

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and

bottom

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline
to

Post by RussellMc
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up

or to

Post by David C Brown

Post by Denny Esterline

Post by RussellMc
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
Byron A. Jeff
Associate Professor: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
Byron A. Jeff
Associate Professor: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff

[Isaac M. Bavaresco]

Post by Byron Jeff
But that's exactly my point. There aren't lakes everywhere. There isn't
hilly terrain everywhere. The article pointed out that hydro storage has
only been implemented in a few opportune places.
This system can be built anywhere and everywhere without geographic
limitations. Essentially anywhere you can put a parking lot, this storage
system can be deployed.
The best land for large scale solar installations is desert. Where exactly
can one find a couple of well placed lakes in the desert?

But then you would not use that energy in the desert, you need to
transmit it to where it will be consumed. So you could build your
storage system there, or somewhere in the way, where it may be more
practical.

Cheers,
Isaac


---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[AB Pearce - UKRI STFC]

Post by Byron Jeff
The best land for large scale solar installations is desert. Where
exactly can one find a couple of well placed lakes in the desert?

But then you would not use that energy in the desert, you need to transmit it to where
it will be consumed. So you could build your storage system there, or somewhere in the
way, where it may be more practical.

This is only the case if all the energy from that source of generation is being used in one place (aluminium smelter anyone?) or the load point has high peak consumption (tokamak ring?). By doing this then lighter weight transmission lines could be used.

If the power is being distributed to multiple places then having the battery at the source point may well be the better solution.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I haven't been following the thread closely, so my comments may be
obviously wrong.

As I understand this, energy is being put into a solid mass by lifting it,
then getting the energy back as it comes back down. If you're going to
build something that can hold a solid mass up, could that not also hold a
tank of water at the same height? Are pump/turbine efficiencies worse than
motors and a bunch of pulleys?

On the need for utility sized energy storage for non-steady sources like
solar and wind, if you average out the power available on a continent-wide
basis, is it fairly steady (except for the lack of solar at night)? It
SEEMS that this would average out since a lack of wind somewhere can
probably be compensated for by the presence of wind somewhere else. This
would require transmission from generation points to loads, and there may
be inefficiencies in that.

On location of solar generation, it appears that a typical rooftop solar
installation generates more energy than used by that house (anyone have
numbers?). If so, it seems that this is an ideal location for solar power
since the space is available (energy being wasted heating up a roof) and
the source is close to the load reducing transmission costs. But, I
suspect installation costs are higher for these small scale solar plants
as compared to utility sized plants in the desert.

So, how does continent-wide solar/wind generation capability compare with
load on an hour-by-hour basis? How many percent of building roofs would we
have to install solar panels on to meet daytime energy requirements on a
continent-wide basis?

Harold

[AB Pearce - UKRI STFC]

This system can be built anywhere and everywhere without geographic limitations.
Essentially anywhere you can put a parking lot, this storage system can be deployed.
The best land for large scale solar installations is desert.
Where exactly can one find a couple of well placed lakes in the desert?

My thinking was that it sounds like a good project to have out among the wind farms they are building in the sea all around the UK coast. You already have a large number of high towers with the turbines on top, so why not have these interspersed with concrete batteries to absorb off peak generation ...

At the end of the day absolute efficiency becomes one of the last worries. If there is a method of storing a significant proportion of the off peak over generation and it can be stored to help peak time consumption then let's build it. Using hard core waste to make the blocks only adds to the useful utility of it.

[Justin Richards]

With much pondering my calculations (often wrong) minus losses would imply
that there is enough energy in 250ml of diesel to lift a 360 tonne block of
chocolate 1m.

Is that ball park?

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Isaac M. Bavaresco]

Are you estimating the losses at 63.44 % ?

Cheers,

Isaac

Post by Justin Richards
With much pondering my calculations (often wrong) minus losses would imply
that there is enough energy in 250ml of diesel to lift a 360 tonne block of
chocolate 1m.
Is that ball park?

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RussellMc]

Post by Justin Richards
With much pondering my calculations (often wrong) minus losses would imply
that there is enough energy in 250ml of diesel to lift a 360 tonne block of
chocolate 1m.
Is that ball park?

Hydrocarbon fuels ~~~~ 10 kWh/kg
Diesel higher than petrol.
Density < 1.
Say 0.85 (guess, could have looked up)
250 ml x 0.85 ~~= 0.213 kg
~~= 2.13 kWh

360 tonne x 1m ~= 360,000 x 1 x 10 (mascon present so g=10)
= 1 kWh

Efficiency of conversion ~= 21%

Actual conversion energy for modern IC engines is in 30-35% range from
memory.
So,ballpark, yes.

E&OE.

Above can be refined by accessing real figures.

R

[Jason White]

What would an "obtainable" efficiency be for these concrete weights? 40-50%
?

Post by RussellMc

Post by Justin Richards
With much pondering my calculations (often wrong) minus losses would

imply

Post by Justin Richards
that there is enough energy in 250ml of diesel to lift a 360 tonne block

of

Post by Justin Richards
chocolate 1m.
Is that ball park?

Hydrocarbon fuels ~~~~ 10 kWh/kg
Diesel higher than petrol.
Density < 1.
Say 0.85 (guess, could have looked up)
250 ml x 0.85 ~~= 0.213 kg
~~= 2.13 kWh
360 tonne x 1m ~= 360,000 x 1 x 10 (mascon present so g=10)
= 1 kWh
Efficiency of conversion ~= 21%
Actual conversion energy for modern IC engines is in 30-35% range from
memory.
So,ballpark, yes.
E&OE.
Above can be refined by accessing real figures.
R
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Justin Richards]

Some real figures for 2 x Cat Diesel Generators based on fuel used and kWh
produced in 24 hours

approx
237ml/kWh
270ml/kWh

Assuming the fuel and energy readings are accurate.

Justin

Post by RussellMc

Post by Justin Richards
With much pondering my calculations (often wrong) minus losses would

imply

Post by Justin Richards
that there is enough energy in 250ml of diesel to lift a 360 tonne block

of

Post by Justin Richards
chocolate 1m.
Is that ball park?

Hydrocarbon fuels ~~~~ 10 kWh/kg
Diesel higher than petrol.
Density < 1.
Say 0.85 (guess, could have looked up)
250 ml x 0.85 ~~= 0.213 kg
~~= 2.13 kWh
360 tonne x 1m ~= 360,000 x 1 x 10 (mascon present so g=10)
= 1 kWh
Efficiency of conversion ~= 21%
Actual conversion energy for modern IC engines is in 30-35% range from
memory.
So,ballpark, yes.
E&OE.
Above can be refined by accessing real figures.
R
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Ferrell]

https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock2.htm

Don't bother with a patent.

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[John Gardner]

:)

Post by John Ferrell
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock2.htm
Don't bother with a patent.

Post by RussellMc
Concrete weights stacked to store energy and destacked to provide output.
It works (of course) but will have difficulty being cost competitive with
other storage technologies.
https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/
Claimed end to end efficiency is around 85%.
LiIon efficiency said to be around 90%. (Actual figure depends on methods
of charge/discharge).
________________________________
A "train" (or multiple units) on a track with cable connection may allow
improved ease of charge/discharge.
Energy storable per mass is less per distance moved due to non-vertical
track, but can make use of long slopes.
The excessively enthused could move 'wagons' sideways at top and bottom to
increase capacity.
A single looped cable would allow multiple 'wagons' to be pulled up or to
descend using existing chair-lift type coupling/decoupling.
Masses & heights involved are "somewhat daunting"
1 kWh = 3,600,000 watt-seconds
~= 360,000 kg.m (100% efficiency) = eg
360 tonne x 1m
36 t x 10m
3.6t x 100m
360 kg x 100 x 10m
36 kg x 1000 x 10m
...
Russell

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

Post by John Ferrell
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock2.htm
Don't bother with a patent.
Patents are "a bit more nuanced than that" - for better or worse.

In the early 1900's there were English homes that used weights in the tons
range that were cranked up by household staff and used to power the new
fangle electric lighting systems.
Any patents would be well over 100 years old.

A single energy-input-person can typically deliver ~~= 50 Watts essentially
continually and ~~= 100 Watts for say an hour and need a sit-down and a
nice hot cup of tea or few thereafter.
To get useful lighting levels even in the drawing room they'd probably have
need a number of people supplying the energy OR precharge the system.
With say 1 ton/tonne at 3 metres they'd have 3 x 1000 kg x g (~=10) = 30
kJ ~= 8 Watt hours = not much for the desired use.
Wind up time, one person, 100 Watts, 100% efficiency assumed.
= 30,000 J/100W = 300 seconds = 5 minutes. Say 10 minutes at 50% overall
efficiency.

100 tons would be more useful ! :-(.

Russell

[Harold Hallikainen]

Post by RussellMc

Post by John Ferrell
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock2.htm
Don't bother with a patent.
Patents are "a bit more nuanced than that" - for better or worse.

In the early 1900's there were English homes that used weights in the tons
range that were cranked up by household staff and used to power the new
fangle electric lighting systems.
Any patents would be well over 100 years old.
A single energy-input-person can typically deliver ~~= 50 Watts essentially
continually and ~~= 100 Watts for say an hour and need a sit-down and a
nice hot cup of tea or few thereafter.
To get useful lighting levels even in the drawing room they'd probably have
need a number of people supplying the energy OR precharge the system.
With say 1 ton/tonne at 3 metres they'd have 3 x 1000 kg x g (~=10) = 30
kJ ~= 8 Watt hours = not much for the desired use.
Wind up time, one person, 100 Watts, 100% efficiency assumed.
= 30,000 J/100W = 300 seconds = 5 minutes. Say 10 minutes at 50% overall
efficiency.
100 tons would be more useful ! :-(.
Russell

How do you suppose they dealt with varying loads? As load power increased,
the weight would have to fall faster to provide the power. Ideally when
load was removed, the weight would stop falling. Did they do anything like
that?

Harold

[John Gardner]

Given the centuries of effort that've gone into constant-rate

escapements, variable-rate escapements may not be too.

difficult ? "8)

Post by Harold Hallikainen

Post by RussellMc

Post by John Ferrell
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock2.htm
Don't bother with a patent.
Patents are "a bit more nuanced than that" - for better or worse.

In the early 1900's there were English homes that used weights in the tons
range that were cranked up by household staff and used to power the new
fangle electric lighting systems.
Any patents would be well over 100 years old.
A single energy-input-person can typically deliver ~~= 50 Watts essentially
continually and ~~= 100 Watts for say an hour and need a sit-down and a
nice hot cup of tea or few thereafter.
To get useful lighting levels even in the drawing room they'd probably have
need a number of people supplying the energy OR precharge the system.
With say 1 ton/tonne at 3 metres they'd have 3 x 1000 kg x g (~=10) = 30
kJ ~= 8 Watt hours = not much for the desired use.
Wind up time, one person, 100 Watts, 100% efficiency assumed.
= 30,000 J/100W = 300 seconds = 5 minutes. Say 10 minutes at 50% overall
efficiency.
100 tons would be more useful ! :-(.
Russell

How do you suppose they dealt with varying loads? As load power increased,
the weight would have to fall faster to provide the power. Ideally when
load was removed, the weight would stop falling. Did they do anything like
that?
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com
Not sent from an iPhone.
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Harold Hallikainen]

Post by John Gardner
Given the centuries of effort that've gone into constant-rate
escapements, variable-rate escapements may not be too.
difficult ? "8)

Thinking about this some more, there could be a flywheel driving the
generator. The weight would pulse the flywheel (giving it a push) if the
flywheel speed fell below a certain point. Ideally the generator would
draw zero power from the flywheel when there's no electrical load. With no
electrical load, the weight would pulse the flywheel now and then to
maintain speed making up for various losses. With an electrical load, it
would just pulse the flywheel more often. It's a mechanical buck
converter.

Harold

[John Gardner]

Nice, Harold - I like it...

Post by Harold Hallikainen

Post by John Gardner
Given the centuries of effort that've gone into constant-rate
escapements, variable-rate escapements may not be too.
difficult ? "8)

Thinking about this some more, there could be a flywheel driving the
generator. The weight would pulse the flywheel (giving it a push) if the
flywheel speed fell below a certain point. Ideally the generator would
draw zero power from the flywheel when there's no electrical load. With no
electrical load, the weight would pulse the flywheel now and then to
maintain speed making up for various losses. With an electrical load, it
would just pulse the flywheel more often. It's a mechanical buck
converter.
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com
Not sent from an iPhone.
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Ferrell]

Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.

Post by John Gardner
Nice, Harold - I like it...

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[John Gardner]

...Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.

Indeed. I once restored an 1898 Hercules one-banger

irrigation pump engine someone recovered from the

Sonoran desert - Started on Petrol, ran on Paraffin

once it warmed up. Paraffin was a lot cheaper, 120

years ago...

That's gasoline & kerosene for you Gringos...

The flywheel-mounted centrifigal governor turned spark

on @ ~ 250 RPM, and off @ ~ 325 RPM.

Boop-boop-boop-boop-boop-boop.... "8)

...

Post by John Ferrell
Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.

Post by John Gardner
Nice, Harold - I like it...

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Ferrell]

That sir, is the Real Heavy Metal Music!

Post by John Gardner
...Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.
Indeed. I once restored an 1898 Hercules one-banger
irrigation pump engine someone recovered from the
Sonoran desert - Started on Petrol, ran on Paraffin
once it warmed up. Paraffin was a lot cheaper, 120
years ago...
That's gasoline & kerosene for you Gringos...
The flywheel-mounted centrifigal governor turned spark
Boop-boop-boop-boop-boop-boop.... "8)
...

Post by John Ferrell
Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.

Post by John Gardner
Nice, Harold - I like it...

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[John Gardner]

It was music, John. Took a little getting used to the carburetor;

a can of fuel with a hole in it that dripped into the manifold...

It was also what turned out to be my last hurrah at poured

(babbit) bearings, ~ 25 years ago now..

I still have the tooling...

Post by John Ferrell
That sir, is the Real Heavy Metal Music!

Post by John Gardner
...Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.
Indeed. I once restored an 1898 Hercules one-banger
irrigation pump engine someone recovered from the
Sonoran desert - Started on Petrol, ran on Paraffin
once it warmed up. Paraffin was a lot cheaper, 120
years ago...
That's gasoline & kerosene for you Gringos...
The flywheel-mounted centrifigal governor turned spark
Boop-boop-boop-boop-boop-boop.... "8)
...

Post by John Ferrell
Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.

Post by John Gardner
Nice, Harold - I like it...

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Harold Hallikainen]

Post by John Gardner
...Kind of like the old hit & miss engines.
Indeed. I once restored an 1898 Hercules one-banger
irrigation pump engine someone recovered from the
Sonoran desert - Started on Petrol, ran on Paraffin
once it warmed up. Paraffin was a lot cheaper, 120
years ago...
That's gasoline & kerosene for you Gringos...
The flywheel-mounted centrifigal governor turned spark
Boop-boop-boop-boop-boop-boop.... "8)

I saw one of these agricultural engines last summer running an ice cream
maker at a local festival (in Denver CO). This also reminded me of the
Hicks marine engines on the Monterey fishing boats I remember hearing in
the San Francisco bay as a kid (see
https://www.nps.gov/safr/learn/historyculture/hicksengine.htm ).

Harold

[John Ferrell]

I have had no success searching for the acetylene gas industry that was
popular in this area (Mid North Carolina). Gas generators were buried

and Calcium Carbide was mined in the mountains. The entire Calcium
Carbide industry seems to have disappeared.

Post by RussellMc
In the early 1900's there were English homes that used weights in the tons
range that were cranked up by household staff and used to power the new
fangle electric lighting systems.
Any patents would be well over 100 years old.
A single energy-input-person can typically deliver ~~= 50 Watts essentially
continually

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[RussellMc]

alcium carbide is produced industrially in an electric arc furnace
<https://wiki2.org/en/Electric_arc_furnace> from a mixture of lime
<https://wiki2.org/en/Lime_(mineral)> and coke
<https://wiki2.org/en/Coke_(fuel)> at approximately 2200 °C. This method
has not changed since its invention in 1892:
CaO + 3 C → CaC2 + CO

The high temperature required for this reaction is not practically
achievable by traditional combustion, so the reaction is performed in an
electric arc furnace with graphite <https://wiki2.org/en/Graphite> electrodes.
The carbide product produced generally contains around 80% calcium carbide
by weight. The carbide is crushed to produce small lumps that can range
from a few mm up to 50 mm. The impurities are concentrated in the finer
fractions. The CaC2 content of the product is assayed by measuring the
amount of acetylene produced on hydrolysis. As an example, the British and
German standards for the content of the coarser fractions are 295 L/kg and
300 L/kg respectively (at 101 kPa pressure and 20 °C temperature).
Impurities present in the carbide include phosphide, which produces
phosphine <https://wiki2.org/en/Phosphine> when hydrolysed.

This reaction was an important part of the industrial revolution
<https://wiki2.org/en/Industrial_revolution> in chemistry, and was made
possible in the USA as a result of massive amounts of inexpensive hydroelectric
power <https://wiki2.org/en/Hydroelectricity> produced at Niagara Falls
<https://wiki2.org/en/Niagara_Falls> before the turn of the 20th century.

The method for the production in an electric arc furnace
<https://wiki2.org/en/Electric_arc_furnace> was discovered in 1892 by T. L
Willson <https://wiki2.org/en/Thomas_Willson> and independently by H.
Moissan <https://wiki2.org/en/Henri_Moissan> in the same year.

Post by John Ferrell
I have had no success searching for the acetylene gas industry that was
popular in this area (Mid North Carolina). Gas generators were buried and
Calcium Carbide was mined in the mountains. The entire Calcium
Carbide industry seems to have disappeared.

CaC would be (very) unstable in nature.
The production process usually uses lime (Calcium Oxide) and Coke.
Lime in turn is probably made from lime stone (Calcium Carbonate) reduced
in a furnace to CaO.
I'd guess your local mines provides CaCO3.


R

From https://wiki2.org/en/Calcium_carbide+Brights

The lack of a CaC industry would probably be explained by 1. below:

1. Today acetylene is mainly manufactured by the partial combustion of
methane or appears as a side product in the ethylene stream from cracking
of hydrocarbons. Approximately 400,000 tonnes are produced this way
annually (see Acetylene Preparation
<https://wiki2.org/en/Acetylene#Preparation>). *Today acetylene is mainly
manufactured by the partial combustion of methane or appears as a side
product in the ethylene stream from cracking of hydrocarbons*.
Approximately 400,000 tonnes are produced this way annually (see Acetylene
Preparation).

2. *Calcium carbide *is produced industrially in an electric arc
furnace from a mixture of lime and coke at approximately 2200 °C. This
method has not changed since its invention in 1892:

CaO + 3 C → CaC2 + CO
The high temperature required for this reaction is not practically
achievable by traditional combustion, so the reaction is performed in an
electric arc furnace with graphite electrodes. The carbide product produced
generally contains around 80% calcium carbide by weight. The carbide is
crushed to produce small lumps that can range from a few mm up to 50 mm.
The impurities are concentrated in the finer fractions. The CaC2 content of
the product is assayed by measuring the amount of acetylene produced on
hydrolysis. As an example, the British and German standards for the content
of the coarser fractions are 295 L/kg and 300 L/kg respectively (at 101 kPa
pressure and 20 °C temperature). Impurities present in the carbide include
phosphide, which produces phosphine when hydrolysed.

This reaction was an important part of the industrial revolution in
chemistry, and was made possible in the USA as a result of massive amounts
of inexpensive hydroelectric power produced at Niagara Falls before the
turn of the 20th century.

The method for the production in an electric arc furnace was discovered in
1892 by T. L Willson and independently by H. Moissan in the same year.

Post by John Ferrell

Post by RussellMc
In the early 1900's there were English homes that used weights in the

tons

Post by RussellMc
range that were cranked up by household staff and used to power the new
fangle electric lighting systems.
Any patents would be well over 100 years old.
A single energy-input-person can typically deliver ~~= 50 Watts

essentially

Post by RussellMc
continually

--
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.

... unless your direction is far worse again.

[RussellMc]

Post by RussellMc
alcium carbide is produced industrially in an electric arc furnace
<https://wiki2.org/en/Electric_arc_furnace> from a mixture of lime
<https://wiki2.org/en/Lime_(mineral)> and coke
<https://wiki2.org/en/Coke_(fuel)> at approximately 2200 °C. This method
CaO + 3 C → CaC2 + CO
The high temperature required for this reaction is not practically
achievable by traditional combustion, so the reaction is performed in an
electric arc furnace with graphite <https://wiki2.org/en/Graphite> electrodes.
The carbide product produced generally contains around 80% calcium carbide
by weight. The carbide is crushed to produce small lumps that can range
from a few mm up to 50 mm. The impurities are concentrated in the finer
fractions. The CaC2 content of the product is assayed by measuring the
amount of acetylene produced on hydrolysis. As an example, the British and
German standards for the content of the coarser fractions are 295 L/kg and
300 L/kg respectively (at 101 kPa pressure and 20 °C temperature).
Impurities present in the carbide include phosphide, which produces
phosphine <https://wiki2.org/en/Phosphine> when hydrolysed.
This reaction was an important part of the industrial revolution
<https://wiki2.org/en/Industrial_revolution> in chemistry, and was made
possible in the USA as a result of massive amounts of inexpensive hydroelectric
power <https://wiki2.org/en/Hydroelectricity> produced at Niagara Falls
<https://wiki2.org/en/Niagara_Falls> before the turn of the 20th century.
The method for the production in an electric arc furnace
<https://wiki2.org/en/Electric_arc_furnace> was discovered in 1892 by T.
L Willson <https://wiki2.org/en/Thomas_Willson> and independently by H.
Moissan <https://wiki2.org/en/Henri_Moissan> in the same year.
The production process usually uses lime (Calcium Oxide) and Coke.
Lime in turn is probably made from lime stone (Calcium Carbonate) reduced
in a furnace to CaO.
I'd guess your local mines provides CaCO3.
Memory hadn't kicked in fully.

They use CaCO3 + Coke in an arc furnace and miss out the intermediate CaO
step.

Byproduct is CO / Carbon monoxide gas which can be useful but which is also
lethally dangerous.


https://www.rexarc.com/blog/calcium-carbide-for-acetylene-production/


Russell

[Sean Breheny]

I've bought CaC recently for chemistry experiment / demonstration purposes.
It has quite a foul odor even before you react it with water and the gas
produced upon reaction with water has a strong garlic odor - somewhat less
so after you burn it. From what I've read, pure acetylene is odorless and
the garlic odor is from substituted phosphines (PH2X where X is some other
group - probably containing sulfur). Unfortunately these impurities are
rather poisonous so I've had to limit the demos (if done indoors) to only a
couple of grams of impure CaC at a time.

It does make a very bright yet sooty flame.

[RussellMc]

Post by Sean Breheny
I've bought CaC recently for chemistry experiment / demonstration purposes.
It has quite a foul odor even before you react it with water and the gas
produced upon reaction with water has a strong garlic odor - somewhat less
so after you burn it. From what I've read, pure acetylene is odorless and
the garlic odor is from substituted phosphines (PH2X where X is some other
group - probably containing sulfur). Unfortunately these impurities are
rather poisonous so I've had to limit the demos (if done indoors) to only a
couple of grams of impure CaC at a time.
I never noticed any ill effects from the by products.

But, then .... :-).

Post by Sean Breheny
It does make a very bright yet sooty flame.

Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home
YMMV / Your mileage may vary:

If a Facebook account holder
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=874402359299927&set=a.332312240175611&type=3&theater

If not:
Loading Image...


Russell

Text on FB page:

Photo: Rev Royce Luck.
Muppets Swedish Chef aka yours truly.
"Tenderised Licorice Cricket Flambe"
- Pot lid is the flat shape at right above pot and heading right and up.
Add carbide to water in pot. Set lid slightly offset to leave small gap.
Carbide in water in bottle lit from candle stage left off. Wave bottle
variously with squeezes for flame gouts with Swedish Chef patter. When pot
deemed ready squeeze flame gout over opening, and ... . Fireball is as or
more impressive for Chef as for audience.
Boom boom!
Lack of death or even injury probably fortuitous.

[John Ferrell]

I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did with
it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[Sean Breheny]

A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene and
oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and light it at a
distance. As ge was trying to close it off by gathering up the neck of the
bag, a static spark set it off. He was very lucky - his only injuries were
a burst eardrum and large areas of petechia (bleeding under the skin due to
many ruptured capilaries) on his thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did
manage to have kids himself later on :)

On Oct 14, 2018 3:31 PM, "John Ferrell" <***@triad.rr.com> wrote:

I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did with
it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant

[Justin Richards]

Younger me filled a small beachball with a similar mix and after scary
ignition vowed to never and have never repeated the experiment.

Post by Sean Breheny
A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene and
oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and light it at a
distance. As ge was trying to close it off by gathering up the neck of the
bag, a static spark set it off. He was very lucky - his only injuries were
a burst eardrum and large areas of petechia (bleeding under the skin due to
many ruptured capilaries) on his thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did
manage to have kids himself later on :)
I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did with
it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner]

Welding instructor at Leeward Community College (Hawaii)

touched off a balloon filled with oxy-acetylene to demonstrate

the hazardous nature of flammable gases; blew the windows

out of the classroom, sent a few spectators to hospital with

fortunately minor injuries, and caused an evacuation of the

campus, because part of modern life is the daily bomb threat...


...

Post by Justin Richards
Younger me filled a small beachball with a similar mix and after scary
ignition vowed to never and have never repeated the experiment.

Post by Sean Breheny
A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene and
oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and light it at a
distance. As ge was trying to close it off by gathering up the neck of the
bag, a static spark set it off. He was very lucky - his only injuries were
a burst eardrum and large areas of petechia (bleeding under the skin due to
many ruptured capilaries) on his thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did
manage to have kids himself later on :)
I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did with
it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Harold Hallikainen]

When I was in elementary school, my farther brought home some calcium
carbide. I don't remember the details, but somehow he put it under an old
coffee can and lit it off. The coffee can flew pretty high. Impressive for
a kid!

Harold

[David Van Horn]

😊 I went to LCC in 77 and 78.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-***@mit.edu <piclist-***@mit.edu> On Behalf Of John Gardner
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <***@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [EE] Concrete Battery

Welding instructor at Leeward Community College (Hawaii)

touched off a balloon filled with oxy-acetylene to demonstrate

the hazardous nature of flammable gases; blew the windows

out of the classroom, sent a few spectators to hospital with

fortunately minor injuries, and caused an evacuation of the

campus, because part of modern life is the daily bomb threat...


...

Post by Justin Richards
Younger me filled a small beachball with a similar mix and after scary
ignition vowed to never and have never repeated the experiment.

Post by Sean Breheny
A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene
and oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and light
it at a distance. As ge was trying to close it off by gathering up
the neck of the bag, a static spark set it off. He was very lucky -
his only injuries were a burst eardrum and large areas of petechia
(bleeding under the skin due to many ruptured capilaries) on his
thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did manage to have kids
himself later on :)
I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did
with it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner]

That was '81, IIRC. I'd signed up for the class, but work was a

bit frantic that day (the 1st class meeting) & I decided to skip the

dog & pony show... Turned out it was the last class meeting too -

They fired the instructor...

Post by David Van Horn
😊 I went to LCC in 77 and 78.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Concrete Battery
Welding instructor at Leeward Community College (Hawaii)
touched off a balloon filled with oxy-acetylene to demonstrate
the hazardous nature of flammable gases; blew the windows
out of the classroom, sent a few spectators to hospital with
fortunately minor injuries, and caused an evacuation of the
campus, because part of modern life is the daily bomb threat...
...

Post by Justin Richards
Younger me filled a small beachball with a similar mix and after scary
ignition vowed to never and have never repeated the experiment.

Post by Sean Breheny
A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene
and oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and light
it at a distance. As ge was trying to close it off by gathering up
the neck of the bag, a static spark set it off. He was very lucky -
his only injuries were a burst eardrum and large areas of petechia
(bleeding under the skin due to many ruptured capilaries) on his
thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did manage to have kids
himself later on :)
I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did
with it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change
your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David Van Horn]

Dean Ing wrote a couple of books, "Pulling Through" and "The Rackham files" which have Harve Rackham as the main character. In the second one, Harve creates a pretty effective IED with Acetylene. I recommend both books.

Pulling Through is a fun read, but also a serious how-to for improvised fallout shelters, including making your own radiation meter out of junk you probably have laying around.


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-***@mit.edu <piclist-***@mit.edu> On Behalf Of John Gardner
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <***@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [EE] Concrete Battery

That was '81, IIRC. I'd signed up for the class, but work was a

bit frantic that day (the 1st class meeting) & I decided to skip the

dog & pony show... Turned out it was the last class meeting too -

They fired the instructor...

Post by David Van Horn
😊 I went to LCC in 77 and 78.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Concrete Battery
Welding instructor at Leeward Community College (Hawaii)
touched off a balloon filled with oxy-acetylene to demonstrate
the hazardous nature of flammable gases; blew the windows
out of the classroom, sent a few spectators to hospital with
fortunately minor injuries, and caused an evacuation of the
campus, because part of modern life is the daily bomb threat...
...

Post by Justin Richards
Younger me filled a small beachball with a similar mix and after
scary ignition vowed to never and have never repeated the experiment.

Post by Sean Breheny
A former coworker of mine, when he was a kid, once used his father's
oxy-acetylene rig to fill a plastic garbage bag with both acetylene
and oxygen - in his basement. He planned to take it outside and
light it at a distance. As ge was trying to close it off by
gathering up the neck of the bag, a static spark set it off. He was
very lucky - his only injuries were a burst eardrum and large areas
of petechia (bleeding under the skin due to many ruptured
capilaries) on his thighs. The blast ripped his pants. He did manage
to have kids himself later on :)
I would be banned for life if I told you what 10 year old boys did
with it in 1950,

Post by RussellMc
Deep-ends how much air is mixed with it.
"SOME" air included here.
Stoichiometric mix utterly not recommended.
Don't try this at home

--
John Ferrell W8CCW
Julian NC 27283
It is better to walk alone,
than with a crowd going the wrong direction.
--Diane Grant
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan]

As a kid, I saw a carbide lamp as a generating chamber with an orifice, simple eh? So I put some carbide and water into a peanut butter jar (or such) with a small hole in the lid. Presto, carbide lamp, right? Waited a seemly length of time for the air to be expelled and put a match to the opening. Very loud blam ensued, lid hit and bruised my thumb on its way to high in the sky. Now comes the big surprise, I should have had glass embedded in much of me including probably my eyes, but no! All of the glass had laid itself down in a very neat circle with a radius of the bottom of the jar plus the height of the jar. This was one of many many demonstrations to me that I had a guardian angel (a real one)!
Of course, I don’t believe in such things....unless forced!

Looking forward,
Al Shinn (Tinker)

[John Gardner]

Russell's the man to talk to about things that go BANG!

He should have been in the Maquis... "8)

...

Post by Alan
As a kid, I saw a carbide lamp as a generating chamber with an orifice,
simple eh? So I put some carbide and water into a peanut butter jar (or
such) with a small hole in the lid. Presto, carbide lamp, right? Waited a
seemly length of time for the air to be expelled and put a match to the
opening. Very loud blam ensued, lid hit and bruised my thumb on its way to
high in the sky. Now comes the big surprise, I should have had glass
embedded in much of me including probably my eyes, but no! All of the glass
had laid itself down in a very neat circle with a radius of the bottom of
the jar plus the height of the jar. This was one of many many demonstrations
to me that I had a guardian angel (a real one)!
Of course, I don’t believe in such things....unless forced!
Looking forward,
Al Shinn (Tinker)
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

Post by Alan
As a kid, I saw a carbide lamp as a generating chamber with an orifice,
simple eh? So I put some carbide and water into a peanut butter jar (or
such) with a small hole in the lid. Presto, carbide lamp, right? Waited a
seemly length of time for the air to be expelled and put a match to the
opening. Very loud blam ensued, lid hit and bruised my thumb on its way to
high in the sky. Now comes the big surprise, I should have had glass
embedded in much of me including probably my eyes, but no! All of the glass
had laid itself down in a very neat circle with a radius of the bottom of
the jar plus the height of the jar. This was one of many many
demonstrations to me that I had a guardian angel (a real one)!
Of course, I don’t believe in such things....unless forced!
I've concluded that I'm followed by a large 'man' with similar powers

and also a large flaming sword and that on occasions others can see 'him'
but, try as I may, I never can.
I've been forced a few two many times and do try these days not to put
things to the test quite so much.

I never had your impressive expanding sphere shaped charge demonstration -
but did (very stupidly) have a carbide pressurised glass bottle explode at
just beyond my fingers at extended arms length as I threw it - the brief
included delay was a little too brief. Not a scratch. (Bottle
disintegration may have worked solely on generated pressure rather than
acetylene decomposition).

I usually try not to be too specific about things-dangerous. In this case
it seems a good idea:

Acetylene is uniquely dangerous in its abilities to self decompose, ignite
from static electricity generated by it's discharge from an eg welding tip,
and propagate explosive waves at pressures well below the pressure at which
it will deflagrate. It is trivially easy to generate or obtain and to 'play
with' and able to kill or maim the experimenter or those nearby with ease.
[In a recent fatal attempt at mixed gas welding by a man living a few miles
from here we heard the explosion but a friend of the deceased standing
nearby said that 'it wasn't a large explosion' - presumably his eardrums
were pinned against the stops :-( ).

Minimum ignition energy in air - 17 microjoules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Oxygen - 0.2 microjoules.
While welding gauges are normally NEVER set to above 15 psig (about 115 kPa
gauge) explosive decomposition can occur at atmospheric pressure (0 psig)
and well below with enough ignition energy and at higher but low pressures
with no obvious initiation source. DTTAH DTTAH DTTAH DTTAH DTTAH ! YMMNV
:-(.

Hazards / good practice:

Good:

https://arlweb.msha.gov/alerts/hazardsofacetylene.htm

https://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/company/safetygram-13.pdf

Cautionary / salutary / sobering:
http://cranes101.com/crane-blog/general/hazards-of-acetylene-gas/

Useful: https://wiki2.org/en/Acetylene+Brights

Interesting/relevant:
https://www.icheme.org/communities/subject_groups/safety%20and%20loss%20prevention/resources/hazards%20archive/~/media/Documents/Subject%20Groups/Safety_Loss_Prevention/Hazards%20Archive/IV/IV-Paper-08.pdf



Russell

[smplx]

Post by RussellMc
Acetylene is uniquely dangerous in its abilities to self decompose, ignite
from static electricity generated by it's discharge from an eg welding tip,
and propagate explosive waves at pressures well below the pressure at which
it will deflagrate.

To be stressed: acetylene does not need oxygen or air to explode.
Acetylene has a triple carbon-carbon bond which is NOT very stable. It
will detonate given a resonably small mechanical shock. The term "self
decompose" does not do the reaction justice - think more along the lines
of nitro! The only saving grace in all these "experiments" has been the
small mass of acetylene involved.

Regards
Sergio