h a l f b a k e r yNaturally, seismology provides the answer.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When water (ect.) evaporates, it cools both the surface and the air. Thermocouples use temperature differences to generate electricity (cool and ambient).
Details: there are 2 possible configurations (that I can think of):
Big, flat, thermocouple (one side covered with MOIST cloth, one covered
with (optional) radiators (spikes, metal "fur"?)
Swamp cooler configuration- cool air inside (with radiators) warm air outside (radiators). Fan *needed*.
Cloth should be thin, could even be paper! Mostly for western USA, Sahara,... use (evaporative cooling works best in dry climates)
How thermocouples work
http://www.nphheate...l/thermo_letter.htm
[SystemAdmin, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Um, Worldgineer, how do you think thermocouples measure temperature...? Don't be dumber than the idea you're criticizing.
my-nep: given that thermocouples generate only mV of DC electricity, and you've got all that sunlight in the desert, this device really doesn't cut it against, say, an array of solar panels. |
|
| |
California has arrays of windmills to help suppliment the solar panels too ... if, for some reason the sun wasn't cutting it. |
|
| |
The problem with this idea is that, although you need a temperature differential to generate power, you need a fairly large differential to make it worthwhile. |
|
| |
In your example we may be able to generate a 20C differential which (correct me if I’m wrong someone) works out to about 5% theoretical maximum efficiency. Out of that 5% efficiency, a thermocouple is about 5% efficient (perhaps newer ones are better).
That means you only extract 5% of 5% of the energy available. Considering the cost to build a thermocouple, it may not be worth it. |
|
| |
Much cheaper to build for the energy returned would be a solar concentrator. There are many example of these worldwide. |
|
| |
Now I really wonder what [World] had to say, so I could chortle tee-hee that it got called dumb. Oh well. |
|
| |
I am trying to think of a situation where the thermocouple generator would have any advantages. The only one I can think of would be a station at a "black smoker" deep sea vent - you have adjacent very hot and very cold temperatures to tap, and if I recall, thermocouples have no moving parts which would be a plus for undersea saltwater operation. If thermocouples are actually crammed with gears and gewgaws, [Curry] can put me in my place. |
|
| |
Don't talk to me - I'm busy hiding my head in the sand from saying somthing like "Thermocouples don't generate electicity, they measure temperature". |
|
| |
[bungston]:
I was going to use that exact example!! I suppose the problem would be the destruction of a unique habitat. |
|
| |
You wouldn't need to destroy anything. You would just position your generator over one smokehole (OK, it might be a bit rough on it). But then you could power your research station without cumbersome cables etc and study the rest of what is down there. |
|
| |
Could work, if can get the price of thermo-couples down and make them from environmentally safe material. |
|
| |
I thought thermocouples changed resistivity with temperature. Oh, wait, that's a thermistor. |
|
| |
I belive you CAN make them from copper and steel.
( not sure ) |
|
| |
Thermocouples measure temperature by measureing the slight electrical current between two different metals when one is heated with respect to the other. |
|
| |
So it's true that thermocouples measure temperature but they also generate small currents to do that. |
|
| |