|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2005 > Home sized generators??????????
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Home sized generators??????????
|
|
| Johnny 2005-12-11, 1:21 pm |
| Just looking around to see if there are any biomass generators for home use.
Looking into the costs, etc.
| |
| The Alien 2005-12-11, 3:21 pm |
| X-No-archive: yes On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:22:30 -0500, "Johnny" <.com>
used recycled pixels to say:
>Just looking around to see if there are any biomass generators for home use.
>Looking into the costs, etc.
>
I'd like to expand your question and ask how to size up a generator
for the home?
------------------------------------------------
Autobot This Spammers!
<A HREF="mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]"></A>
mailto:postmaster@127.0.0.1
(to reply to actual address, dispense the dots before
and after sirname.
| |
| Tom Horne, Electrician 2005-12-11, 3:21 pm |
| The Alien wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:22:30 -0500, "Johnny" <.com>
> used recycled pixels to say:
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to expand your question and ask how to size up a generator
> for the home?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Autobot This Spammers!
> <A HREF="mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]"></A>
> mailto:postmaster@127.0.0.1
> (to reply to actual address, dispense the dots before
> and after sirname.
You need to take an inventory of the loads that the generator will need
to carry. Add up the number of watts that each thing needs to run.
Were the label does not give watts you must multiply the voltage times
the amps to get watts. Take the largest motor load you wish to run and
multiply by three prior to adding it into the total. That is the
smallest wattage generator that will run those loads based on it's
continuous output wattage. A generator twice that size will last a lot
longer.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
| |
|
|
"Tom Horne, Electrician" <hornetd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0E_mf.3193$Dd2.2964@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
..
> --
> Tom Horne
>
> "This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
> for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
He tried to prove it by employing a certain Dr. Brown, who was fond of
electrocuting household pets in public to "prove" how dangerous AC current
was. He selected the cutest and most adorable dogs and cats for the maximum
psychological effect. At one point he electrocuted an adult elephant in
public.
He was also the first to facilitate using AC current to electrocute
condemned criminals. By all accounts by the witnesses present, this first
attempt was like slow-roasting a person to death. He was still alive,
half-burnt and writhing in agony after 20 minutes. Edison is said to have
been pleased with the results, perhaps proving once and for all that AC
current was a dangerous and undesirable form of power, compared to his own
commercial product, DC power.
| |
| The Alien 2005-12-11, 9:21 pm |
| X-No-archive: yes On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:57:00 GMT, "Tom Horne,
Electrician" <hd@mindspring.com> used recycled pixels to say:
>The Alien wrote:
>
>You need to take an inventory of the loads that the generator will need
>to carry. Add up the number of watts that each thing needs to run.
>Were the label does not give watts you must multiply the voltage times
>the amps to get watts. Take the largest motor load you wish to run and
>multiply by three prior to adding it into the total. That is the
>smallest wattage generator that will run those loads based on it's
>continuous output wattage. A generator twice that size will last a lot
>longer.
Thank you! 
------------------------------------------------
Autobot This Spammers!
<A HREF="mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]"></A>
mailto:postmaster@127.0.0.1
(to reply to actual address, dispense the dots before
and after sirname.
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-12, 9:21 am |
| The Alien <Someone@Someplace.Com> wrote:
>I'd like to expand your question and ask how to size up a generator
>for the home?
In general, somewhere between 5 and 10 KW will run most homes, though
there will always be exceptions. Unless you've got a giant or tiny
house, or {all,no}-electric appliances, anything in the 7.5-10KW range
is probably fine.
You probably want to invest in a clamp-on ammeter, so you can measure
the actual load in your actual home. Nameplate numbers tend to be
higher than actual, and you don't want to run everything at the same
time, and starting loads aren't always specified or easily calculated.
For instance, my 8.2KW generator can't start my _smallest_ AC unit,
though it starts and runs the other two just fine.
You will want to do some manual load management while running on your
generator anyway, for instance don't run the clothes dryer while using
the electric stove, turn off the AC while microwaving dinner, etc.
| |
| m Ransley 2005-12-12, 10:21 am |
| Honda and others have sites for figuring loads, but best is your own
audit. Motors take 2.5-9x times Surge and need to be figured in run load
of gen. Not Surge load. So a 300w motor easily needs 1000 watts, but
old equipment can need much more. Also dont strain the unit running
25-50% power will give many times longer life. Just because a gen is
rated 5000w doesnt with cheap units mean it gives 5000w. Consumer Repots
tested a Generac 4000Exl a 900$ unit that failed load tests.
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-12, 11:21 am |
|
"William P.N. Smith" <news05@compusmiths.com> wrote in message
news:noqqp1hi1sifibki0hu3nocj204at0nkg9@4ax.com...
> The Alien <Someone@Someplace.Com> wrote:
>
> In general, somewhere between 5 and 10 KW will run most homes, though
> there will always be exceptions. Unless you've got a giant or tiny
> house, or {all,no}-electric appliances, anything in the 7.5-10KW range
> is probably fine.
>
> You probably want to invest in a clamp-on ammeter, so you can measure
> the actual load in your actual home. Nameplate numbers tend to be
> higher than actual, and you don't want to run everything at the same
> time, and starting loads aren't always specified or easily calculated.
>
> For instance, my 8.2KW generator can't start my _smallest_ AC unit,
> though it starts and runs the other two just fine.
>
> You will want to do some manual load management while running on your
> generator anyway, for instance don't run the clothes dryer while using
> the electric stove, turn off the AC while microwaving dinner, etc.
All these years I have been relying on voltage drop and engine sound to
determine load. I guess I was wrong.
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-12, 11:21 am |
|
"m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27112-439D7F11-91@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
> Honda and others have sites for figuring loads, but best is your own
> audit. Motors take 2.5-9x times Surge and need to be figured in run load
> of gen. Not Surge load. So a 300w motor easily needs 1000 watts, but
> old equipment can need much more. Also dont strain the unit running
> 25-50% power will give many times longer life. Just because a gen is
> rated 5000w doesnt with cheap units mean it gives 5000w. Consumer Repots
> tested a Generac 4000Exl a 900$ unit that failed load tests.
>
About 20 years ago, our camp was having trouble with our water pump causing
the generator to trip out every time it started up. I fixed the problem by
taking the centrifugal switch apart in the pump motor. I stretched the coil
springs so that the centrifugal weights on the starter circuit switched off
the started circuit much sooner and at a lower speed while starting up.
This had no negative effect because the pump was a centrifugal type and
started under virtually no load anyway. It worked perfectly after that.
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-12, 1:21 pm |
| "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>All these years I have been relying on voltage drop and engine sound to
>determine load. I guess I was wrong.
Why, what's wrong with that? The initial sizing might want to be a
bit more scientific, or just a swag at 7.5-10KW, but for load
management that's fine. I can't hear my generator most of the time,
but I can watch the lights dim...
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-12, 1:21 pm |
| m Ransley <ransley@webtv.net> wrote:
>...Motors take 2.5-9x times Surge and need to be figured in run load
>of gen. Not Surge load. So a 300w motor easily needs 1000 watts...
.... for a few seconds, but I've read that should be in the surge vs run load,
that we only need to handle the run load plus the largest single surge load.
Nick
| |
| andre_54005@yahoo.com 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
|
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> m Ransley <ransley@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>
> ... for a few seconds, but I've read that should be in the surge vs run load,
> that we only need to handle the run load plus the largest single surge load.
>
> Nick
It depends a lot on generator. A 6 HP generator that weighs 150 lbs
will not be a able to handle as large a surge for as long a time as a 6
HP generator that weighs 1500 lbs. But they will have the same
continuous output, if the HP of both engines are honestly measured.
_____________
Andre' B.
| |
| m Ransley 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
| No Nick you read wrong because there is then over loading potential ,
and possible damage to the gen if continued. Manufactures of cheap home
units specify this, even Honda. Commercial equipment may be different,
it made better
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-13, 4:21 am |
| m Ransley <ransley@webtv.net> errs again:
>No Nick you read wrong...
Nonono. YOU are wrong!
>... there is then over loading potential and possible damage to the gen
>if continued. Manufactures of cheap home units specify this, even Honda.
.... who recommend the sizing method I suggested, with a 1600 W continuous
load, derated from 2 kW for 30 minutes, for an EU2000.
Nick
| |
| m Ransley 2005-12-13, 7:21 am |
| Your an idiot nick ol senile ol boy, a baffoon. Talk of Honda, go read
their site since you refer to Honda , you moron.
| |
|
| m Ransley wrote:
> Your an idiot nick ol senile ol boy, a baffoon. Talk of Honda, go read
> their site since you refer to Honda , you moron.
Sorry man - Nick is spot on.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-13, 3:21 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:13:48 -0500, JohnH <johnharlow@gmail.com> wrote:
> m Ransley wrote:
>
> Sorry man - Nick is spot on.
Yeah, he usually is.
| |
| philkryder 2005-12-13, 6:21 pm |
| Could one of you provide a link to the Honda page that states the
method to use?
Thanks
Phil
| |
|
|
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-14, 6:21 am |
| philkryder <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
>Could one of you provide a link to the Honda page that states the
>method to use?
Sure.
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/genwat.asp
You’ll also need to consider the maximum and rated power...
This is important depending on what items you want to run off of your
generator. Items such as toaster, lamps, and coffee makers are resistive, or
constant loads and their total load can be calculated at amps x 1. Items
such as saws and drills are reactive loads and while the running load may be
small, the starting load should be calculated at running amps x 3. Remember,
after the intial start less power is required for actual operation.
Always remember that simple power management will allow a smaller generator
to do a big job. Very seldom are all tools or appliances operating
simultaneously. When calculating power requirements, consider the starting
requirements are only for the initial start and then additional tools may be
operated in addition.
~~~
As an industry, we should find some way to come together -- not simply to
talk, but to act -- working together toward new solutions for our planet.
Honda President Nobuhiko Kawamoto
Nick
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-14, 10:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> Usually, anyone who disagrees with Nick fell asleep during science class.
yeah, but Nick may have been teaching the class. Once I work it out, he's
usually right, but getting there can be tedious.
--
derek
| |
|
| In article <46edne8iGvDvgALeRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.com> wrote:
> m Ransley wrote:
>
> Sorry man - Nick is spot on.
>
>
Nick usually is, but then again consider the source of the critisism
here.... WebTv isn't really where the Scientifically Compitant hang
out......
Me
| |
| philkryder 2005-12-14, 4:21 pm |
| Nick thank you.
As I interpret it, Honda is using 3x for starting "reactive" loads.
As I interpret your guidance, one should find the largest reactive
load, multiply it by 3 and add it to the base load.
As I interpret that method, it assumes that only ONE load will be
starting at a time.
And, to cater for a "worst case", the largest reactive load is chosen.
In our installation however, there are several motors, any of which can
start independently and randomly.
Is there any form of protection we can apply to prevent overload if we
have the "perfect storm" of multiple, simultaneous reactive load
starts?
Also, I note that some loads such as Compressors and Fridges seem to
use a 4x rather than 3x start figure.
Is it possible or even likely that some new higher efficiency fridges
need even more than the 4x?
Thanks for your help!
I'll try not to sleep through the answer.
Phil
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-12-14, 4:21 pm |
| philkryder <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
>Nick thank you.
You are welcome.
>As I interpret it, Honda is using 3x for starting "reactive" loads.
I recall fuzzy language like that, but I'd go by their table. Unlike
motors, reactive loads don't neceessarily need long surge currents.
>As I interpret your guidance, one should find the largest reactive
>load, multiply it by 3 and add it to the base load.
I'd use the Honda site table.
>... it assumes that only ONE load will be starting at a time.
That's why they mentioned "simple power management." With random startups,
you might add up all the surge currents and make sure that's less than
the surge load or the rated load. Or use a fraction of that based on the
Gaussian distribution and the square root of the sum of the surge minus
load currents squared and the probability of blowing a breaker, like
adjusted worst-case propagation delays in computer hardware design. As the
number of independent items increases, the load approaches the average
vs the worst-case sum of surge loads.
>Is there any form of protection we can apply to prevent overload if we
>have the "perfect storm" of multiple, simultaneous reactive load starts?
You might work out an X-10 micro-load management system that senses start
requests at wall sockets and delays application of power to individual
sockets based on a priority scheme. Turn off the electric oven or the
fridge while the well pump runs for a few seconds, and so on.
>I'll try not to sleep through the answer.
That's best, to avoid ruler-whacks.
Nick
| |
| daestrom 2005-12-14, 6:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:vhk573-sh9.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
> yeah, but Nick may have been teaching the class. Once I work it out, he's
> usually right, but getting there can be tedious.
> --
(if only he didn't leave out all the units from all his numbers, and maybe
take a few extra seconds to type in where they sometimes come from ;-)
daestrom
> derek
| |
| SolarFlare 2005-12-14, 8:21 pm |
| This all depends on what you consider a surge.
An incandescent lamp (cold) can be shown on a scope (I
have photos) to produce currents as high as ten times
the steady state current, for one cycle.
Motors have surge currents that can last for several
seconds as the motor comes up to speed and the starting
winding kicks off.
This depends on who is measuring, how it is averaged
over time, and what effect they are trying to sell....I
mean demonstrate.
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dnpttb$nut@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> philkryder <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
"reactive" loads.[color=darkred]
>
> I recall fuzzy language like that, but I'd go by
their table. Unlike
> motors, reactive loads don't neceessarily need long
surge currents.
>
largest reactive[color=darkred]
>
> I'd use the Honda site table.
>
at a time.[color=darkred]
>
> That's why they mentioned "simple power management."
With random startups,
> you might add up all the surge currents and make sure
that's less than
> the surge load or the rated load. Or use a fraction
of that based on the
> Gaussian distribution and the square root of the sum
of the surge minus
> load currents squared and the probability of blowing
a breaker, like
> adjusted worst-case propagation delays in computer
hardware design. As the
> number of independent items increases, the load
approaches the average
> vs the worst-case sum of surge loads.
>
prevent overload if we[color=darkred]
reactive load starts?[color=darkred]
>
> You might work out an X-10 micro-load management
system that senses start
> requests at wall sockets and delays application of
power to individual
> sockets based on a priority scheme. Turn off the
electric oven or the
> fridge while the well pump runs for a few seconds,
and so on.
>
>
> That's best, to avoid ruler-whacks.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| philkryder 2005-12-14, 9:21 pm |
| "....I'd use the Honda site table. "
Unfortunately, our devices aren't listed.
I'll try a meter on them.
". Unlike motors, reactive loads don't neceessarily need long surge
currents. "
I must have slept through something - I thought motors WERE reactive
loads...Are they not?
Thus all (most?) motors are reactive, but not all reactive loads are
motors...
"...As the number of independent items increases, the load approaches
the average
vs the worst-case sum of surge loads...."
Excellent!!! I think that this will save us...
As our load increases to approach max continuous capacity of the
generator, the number of independently starting reactive devices
(motors) exceeds 10.
Does anyone have any data on how well the Generacs actually meet their
surge ratings?
Our unit says 7500 continuous and 13500 surge - 180% of continuous.
How close will they come to actually meeting that?
THanks again
Phil
| |
| JohnH 2005-12-14, 11:21 pm |
|
> I recall fuzzy language like that, but I'd go by their table. Unlike
> motors, reactive loads don't neceessarily need long surge currents.
make that "resistive" loads ;)
| |
|
| In article <1134588862.156920.207190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
> Nick thank you.
>
> As I interpret it, Honda is using 3x for starting "reactive" loads.
>
> As I interpret your guidance, one should find the largest reactive
> load, multiply it by 3 and add it to the base load.
>
> As I interpret that method, it assumes that only ONE load will be
> starting at a time.
> And, to cater for a "worst case", the largest reactive load is chosen.
> In our installation however, there are several motors, any of which can
> start independently and randomly.
>
> Is there any form of protection we can apply to prevent overload if we
> have the "perfect storm" of multiple, simultaneous reactive load
> starts?
>
> Also, I note that some loads such as Compressors and Fridges seem to
> use a 4x rather than 3x start figure.
> Is it possible or even likely that some new higher efficiency fridges
> need even more than the 4x?
>
>
> Thanks for your help!
> I'll try not to sleep through the answer.
> Phil
>
In that case, why are you trying to "cheap Out" on the genset? If you
want Prime Power, why not buy yourself a Prime Power Generator? The
simple reason that Hondas, and most all 3600 Rpm Gensets, aren't
considered Prime Power gensets is they really don't have the rotating
mass nessesary to sustain inductive starting loads. They depend on
their internal governer/throttle to pickup the loads as they come online,
because they are designed to be light duty mechanisms. This is nothing
more than a design tradeoff that your system just can't deal with, so
either redesign your loads so that only one inductive load can come
online at a time, or buy a Prime Power Genset, and be done with it.
Me
| |
| philkryder 2005-12-15, 4:21 pm |
| "..., or buy a Prime Power Genset, and be done with it. "
Why would a Prime Power unit have a higher surge capacity?
I understand that they will have a much longer rated life, but the ones
we looked at (Onan GNAB) had very little extra surge capacity.
The surge and Prime were within about 10% of each other verus the 80%
higher rated value of the Generac...
"The
simple reason that Hondas, and most all 3600 Rpm Gensets, aren't
considered Prime Power gensets is they really don't have the rotating
mass nessesary to sustain inductive starting loads...."
Again, I thought Prime power was the ability to run for extend periods
and not a measure of surge capacity.
| |
|
| In article <1134674678.220925.304540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
> "..., or buy a Prime Power Genset, and be done with it. "
>
> Why would a Prime Power unit have a higher surge capacity?
> I understand that they will have a much longer rated life, but the ones
> we looked at (Onan GNAB) had very little extra surge capacity.
> The surge and Prime were within about 10% of each other verus the 80%
> higher rated value of the Generac...
>
> "The
> simple reason that Hondas, and most all 3600 Rpm Gensets, aren't
> considered Prime Power gensets is they really don't have the rotating
> mass nessesary to sustain inductive starting loads...."
>
> Again, I thought Prime power was the ability to run for extend periods
> and not a measure of surge capacity.
>
A Prime Power Genset will have significantly more rotating mass,
and therefor significantly more enertia which will mitigate the
surge loads that are of short duration. (big flywheels and more poles
on the rotor)
Me
| |
| philkryder 2005-12-16, 5:21 pm |
| I see.
I agree that they (the slower running generators) have more mass.
But, while energy is dependent on the mass of the object in motion, it
is also dependent on the SQUARE of the speed.
Do you agree?
If so, then an 1800 rpm generator would need to have 4 times the
rotating mass to have the same rotating energy as a 3600 rpm generator.
Do you agree?
It could very well happen that an 1800 rpm does have more rotational
energy than a 3600.
But how significant is it?
And
How much of that extra energy can be "tapped" to provide surge capacity
while still staying within the voltage and cycle limits?
How much do you mean when you say "significantly?"
| |
| m Ransley 2005-12-16, 6:21 pm |
| I cant answer your question but one thing I find interesting is total
weight of a Cummings unit, it is apx double that of a generac. Not all
that weight is the cooling system, as there are no cooling fins on water
cooled and the frame is not that heavy, you have just bigger, heavier
components of the motor and likely generator. Perhaps a better engine
govenor as well.
| |
|
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:50:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>yeah, but Nick may have been teaching the class. Once I work it out, he's
>usually right, but getting there can be tedious.
But have you ever noticed that the first thing a person who can't
make their point, or is proven wrong does, is switch into insult mode?
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-16, 11:21 pm |
| Texan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:50:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But have you ever noticed that the first thing a person who can't
> make their point, or is proven wrong does, is switch into insult mode?
>
That may be true of some folks, but Nick is rarely wrong, and never
insults someone when he is. He admits his mistake, and posts a
correction. He tends however, to not suffer fools gladly.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
| In article <1134767026.435148.291000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
> I see.
>
> I agree that they (the slower running generators) have more mass.
>
> But, while energy is dependent on the mass of the object in motion, it
> is also dependent on the SQUARE of the speed.
> Do you agree?
> If so, then an 1800 rpm generator would need to have 4 times the
> rotating mass to have the same rotating energy as a 3600 rpm generator.
> Do you agree?
>
> It could very well happen that an 1800 rpm does have more rotational
> energy than a 3600.
> But how significant is it?
> And
> How much of that extra energy can be "tapped" to provide surge capacity
> while still staying within the voltage and cycle limits?
>
> How much do you mean when you say "significantly?"
>
it is the rotating mass that needs to be evaluated. Think Cranksaft,
Geartrain, Pistons, Connecting Rods, Generator Rotor, Ect. Now
look at both units. Which has more more rotating mass, and which
is made of Aluminum and which is CastIron? Which has 2 poles, and which
has 4 poles, with the associated copper for each pole. That 3600 Rpm
engine is going to have a short stroke crank, compared to the 1800 Rpm
engine, which will have a much smaller mass than it's slower counterpart.
If the load surge is just for a cycle or two the governer systems don't
even come into play, because none of them can react that fast to any
preceived load change. If the load surge is of longer duration, then
governer action does come into play. Now there are a whole bunch of
different things that need to be evaluyated when looking for surge
capacity. How close is the 3600 Rpm engine to it's topend throttle
position before the load hits, as compared to the 1800 rpm engine.
What is the Governers Feedback Loop Reaction Time for both systems?
Basically, this all boils down to: Lightweight 3600 Rpm Gensets are
design compromised to have more droop, and less surge capability
than the heavier 1800 Rpm Gensets. You pay for the Iron and Copper,
and the more you buy, the better the capability. Diesels will have
better surge than gas powered engines, and HP/Watt ratios are ALWAYS
a good indicator of how a genset will preform on surge and overload.
Me
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-17, 11:21 pm |
| Texan <texasoilfinder@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But have you ever noticed that the first thing a person who can't
>make their point, or is proven wrong does, is switch into insult mode?
Of course we have, you fricking moron!
[Sorry, couldn't resist...] 8*)
| |
| WinXP 2005-12-19, 12:21 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:22:30 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>Just looking around to see if there are any biomass generators for home use.
>Looking into the costs, etc.
>
hi.
Consult this Italian Patent by FIAT, named TOTEM - Total Energy Module
- designed in late 1970-80s, during oil lake, to run by biogas to
power a small Farm with at least fifteen animals cattle.
Engine was a modified 950-1050 cc (Fiat 127) with fixed speed
(governor) and biogas fuel (Methane or LPG style Carb) from Cattle
.....
Full patent freely available from USPTO.
Bye,
WinXP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 4,226,214
Palazzetti * October 7, 1980
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparatus for the combined production of electrical energy and heat
Abstract
Apparatus for the combined production of heat and electrical energy
comprising an internal combustion engine driving an electricity
generator and enclosed in a thermally insulated housing with heat
exchangers for extracting heat from the engine coolant, the engine
oil, the exhaust gases from the engine and from the electricity
generator, and for transferring this heat to an external heating
circuit, in which all the components are carried by a rectangular or
cubic supporting framework to which the thermal and acoustic
insulation panels are attached by quick-release fastenings, the engine
and generator being connected together to form a rigid unit which is
suspended from the framework while the ignition equipment of the
engine is housed externally of the framework and cooled by the
incoming air being drawn into the engine flowing through a housing in
which it is supported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Palazzetti; Mario (Avigliana, IT)
Assignee: Fiat Auto S.p.A. (Turin, IT)
[*] Notice: The portion of the term of this patent subsequent to
August 14, 1996 has been disclaimed.
Appl. No.: 923272
Filed: July 10, 1978
omnes feriunt... ultima necat.
|
|
|
|
|