www.greenpowerscience.com This is my steam engine and how I got it to work of of the sun
25 Responses
-
Wildatheart73 Says:
@klattimer You have to use very dark bottle to absorb heat. The darker the better
-
robertsulley Says:
@klattimer he’s using Infrared light, not UV
-
jmar1371 Says:
Nice demonstration. Nicer lens.
-
Mclaren1O Says:
If ur gonna do that test again get a spare mamod steam boiler. It goes upto about 30psi but if you change the spiring (which isnt reccomended) you can get twice that.
-
TheStubbleking Says:
Use a black matte copper boiler. Much more efficient and much safer.
-
sunspots Says:
brown bottles produce more steam/quicker because they retain the heat better. thats why if you see solar water heaters (look for the video by green power science) you’ll notice they use black hose,black pipes everything back. Ive even seen painted bottles on one side with reflective paint that had a black backing to reflect light but not let it pass out of the bottle as easily
-
Danzarr Says:
congratulations, you may have just ruined a meat themometer, awesome vid though
-
walter0bz Says:
am very interested in this sort of thing…
-
Sirmau Says:
That was at least 550F…
-
GREENPOWERSCIENCE Says:
Clear does not boil at all. In fact clear glass and water will only reach 140 f . Brow (or any dark material) absorbs the light. The only way you can use clear is like this:
watch?v=8bubFtRK6F8
-
klattimer Says:
Dude your failure points are;
* brown bottle – beer bottles are brown or green generally because UV light kills the flavour, use a clear bottle and it’ll boil faster
* the leak sucks!!!AWESOME experiment though, found it while considering building a test myself
-
jeremusic Says:
10/10 for showing the idea. Properly engineered it would work well and easily power generators for african village for example.
-
MikeBBJJ Says:
Grenn power science is awesome. Where do you get a “steam engine” like this one from?
-
knot2man Says:
Dams fill with silt, deprive downstream environments.
-
sfenodonte Says:
Devi aumentare il calore
sei alle prime prove!!!
-
phorbin Says:
The true cost involves displacing 1.5 or more (I’ve seen up to 4) million people, destruction of endangered species habitat, flooding 1300 known archaeological sites, sewage and industrial pollutant backup, the Yangtze silt issue which requires more dams upstream, 1 of which is in an earthquake risk area…
3 Gorges power is more costly, far dirtier and more dangerous than it looks.
-
ReisendeEuropa Says:
“nuke”.. yes.. not funny.. think Chernobyl. As for the displacement and loss of land, I was just making a comparison of the actual construction cost to power generated. The environmental impact of displacement is a smaller area than that of a coal or oil plant, and much less than that of a possible nuclear leak. With a very large resivior you can reduce flooding downstream and slightly increase rainfall downwind. Two good things in a place with dry summers and monsoon winters.
-
phorbin Says:
Do your figures on the 3 Gorges Dam account for the displacement of people, the loss of land, and the loss of habitat?
I bet they don’t…
And forgive me for noting that a “nuke” is a bomb. There is a kind of dark humour to be found in your use of it but it probably isn’t funny.
-
cocacola443 Says:
Actually, many thermal plants are along rivers, not necessarily reservoirs.
The cool thing about hydro is it’s basically stored indirect solar energy (the sun evaporates water and it rises in into clouds, then rains), and you’re right..once you’ve built the dam, there’s not much else to do except minor maintenance, and dams are much simpler devices than a thermal power plant.
-
cocacola443 Says:
The other nice thing about hydro is that output can be adjusted to demand, within reason (except, like you said, if there’s a drought) more so than solar or wind. Wind is probably pretty reliable near the coast, and solar is good in places the American southwest which get almost no cloud cover, but solar doesn’t produce anything at night (electrical demand is generally lower at night, though).
I didn’t realize building dams was so cheap.
-
cocacola443 Says:
Hey,no need to apologize. I like your style, and the fact that you back up what you say with facts. Good work.
I can agree with you on renewables being cheaper in the long run. It’s just a shame so much is invested in oil infrastructure. When crude prices get high enough, though, the world will be forced to switch to alternative energy.
-
cocacola443 Says:
Ahh good call. I forgot about cooling water for a thermal power plant.
-
ReisendeEuropa Says:
You originally said oil was cheaper because we already have the infrastructure, the engines, the refineries, and the knowledge. If half the people in the world switched to electric cars and charged them from renewable sources there would be a higher demand for that. Higher demand, and hence higher production, leads to improved technology. Oil is already losing out. The rest of the technology has already gained momentum. My apologies for the long winded comment-
-
ReisendeEuropa Says:
As for nuclear power startup cost vs hydro vs vs solar. A new 966MW nuke in North Carolina cost $10B. The 22,500MW Three Gorges Dam in China cost $15.5B. You would need 23 Nukes to match this one dam. That is about $230B. A 64MW Solar plant in NV cost $262M. You would need 351 of these to match the dam at a cost of $92.1B. Hydro is still cheapest and has no major operating cost. Solar has a higher initial cost but isn’t affected by drought and also has very lost operating costs.
-
ReisendeEuropa Says:
You can’t simply build a power plant anywhere. Most power plants use a resivoir for cooling water. If you can build a dam to create a lake, then you can just skip the nuke or coal burner and stick some generators in the dam. I’m fortunate to live in a country where 99% of the power is hydroelectric. The other 1% is offshore wind power. You dont need to build the Hoover dam for every place that you want to use hydro power. Most dams here are only 5-10 meters high with lakes of a few acres.
