Energy @ MindSay 
oil
You must have heard of how magnets work because they have this strong attractive capability that brings two magnets together like magic. When you carefully study this entire field you will realize that magnets have poles where the energy is concentrated. And this entire process can now help you to generate electricity for powering your home appliances, thus saving you a whole lot of money on your electrical expenses.
A magnetic generator is very interesting as it uses the foundation pillars of science which says that energy can never be created or destroyed but can only be transformed from one form to another. This is exactly what happens in a magnetic generator as the force field that generates this whole lot of energy is converted to electricity that can be consumed by the end user.
Isn't this concept just wonderful? It shows how much of science is being included in our complete life and the magnetic power generator is all that we could ask for. You could get this set up built in your home. There are resources available online along with many facts and data of this proven technology. Learn how to build a magnetic generator today!
There are thousands of successful magnetic power generators being built around the world, which is a proof that this technology truly works. It is also predicted that in the near future, this technology will spread throughout the world and become the energy of the future.
This generator does not produce any harmful byproducts or gases, and there isn't any hazard concerning the generator itself. For those who are curious of how the magnetic power generator works, basically, it's simply using a scientific process called "Perpetual Motion". Perpetual motion is when a a device continues to move without stopping. It all depends on the size of the house and the size of the generator.
...Breaking NEWS! ...
Video links "jump site" !!!! (Over 4000 views to date, 11/01/2009)
See this whole story UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with Tina and Amanda!!
... An authors note...
To me, this unfolding story is not about Solar and Renewable Energy, as such. It is about our world today and the way it functions. It is about the momentum of arrogance, power and money within corporations, organizations and other such entities. It is about resistance to visibility and acceptance of truth, atonement to accountability and how difficult it is to get a heavy mass to change course. It is about the ten's of thousands of events and situations that pass under our noises every day, yet go largely unnoticed by the masses, but felt very deeply by the individuals involved....
Background:
The SRCC, Solar Ratings and Certification Corporation, is an organization that third party contracts certified testing facilities, for the certification of solar thermal collectors and their related systems. Such standard testing certifications include the OG-100 and OG-300 designators. OG-100 attempts to certify the solar collector only, OG-300 attempts to certify the entire solar collection system. Pass/Fail tests as well as thermal performance tests are carried out on the perspective models/systems, and performance values are assigned. Currently the only certified testing facility in the USA is the FSEC, Florida Solar Energy Center.
Significance, Financial:
Millions of dollars in sales are leveraged toward system purchases from customers, for collectors and their related systems that hold these certifications. Preference is given to collectors and systems holding these certifications due to the millions of dollars of tax credits offered by the federal government and state governments to the purchasers of these certified systems. These tax credits range from 30% of cost per system ($2000 cap removed) from the federal government and varying amounts from state governments when offered. The credits from the federal government were recently renewed out through 2015, as part of the $700 Billion bailout package. More and more states are starting to offer solar and renewable energy tax credits and all of these states only give tax credits to SRCC certified thermal collectors/systems.
Significance, Other:
Standard performance ratings attempt to offer to the perspective buyer, “apples to apples” thermal performance data. Additionally, due to the initial multi thousand dollar cost and on going costs of these certifications to the holder, it attempts to inhibit “junk” and fly by night products from getting into the consumers hands, by simply using money as a filtering system. To put it simply, you are not able to afford these certifications unless you have at least some financial clout.
Certification Expectations:
At the top of the list I would put the Federal and State governments. They have the expectation that the certifications they are putting their money on (tax payer money) are going to be accurate, correct and non-discriminatory. The business applicants certainty have the right to have their products tested correctly and accurately. After all, they are paying thousands up front for the certification “nod”. If a collector or system fails the certification tests, that result had better be correct. When a collector or system passes the tests, the performance numbers should be accurate. The potential customer be it home owner or business, should be able to have faith in the embodiment of the certification. They most likely are paying more for products that carry the certification than products that do not.
An Unexpected Reality:
When I received a collector failure letter and report on one of the models I have in the certification pipe line, I was of course very disappointed, yet eager to examine the failure of the unit from an engineering perspective. When you can carefully examine why a system fails, you can then come up with a course of action to correct the problem and in the process make the product better and more reliable. The failure report was specific. On two different days, to reduce the probability of user error or equipment malfunction, the manifold was tested at 160 PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) and lost 17 PSI in 10 minutes time. I designed and built my own water based pressure testing station, and test every solar collector manifold to140 PSI for 10 minutes before I ship it. I knew their reported loss rate was small, yet should be easily reproducible, enabling me to locate the failure point or points. When I received it back from FSEC, I first tested it at 140 PSI in the exact condition I received it. No pressure loss, no leaks. This was puzzling. I raised the pressure on my pump to 160 PSI just to make it apples to apples, though I pretty much knew that anything that leaks at 160 PSI would also leak at 140 PSI, just a bit slower. I then ripped the manifold apart down to its copper core which is a destructive and non reversible process to the product (FSEC does not do this). At this point all pressurized surfaces are visible. I then brought it up to 160 PSI and let it sit for 1 hour. No pressure loss, no leaks. I just could not believe this result. I must be missing something? I then with the manifold at 160 PSI, took a blow torch and heated the manifold until the pressure rose to 235 PSI. This was extreme pressure plus spot thermal stress heating. This surly would cause a weak spot or micro fracture to open up if such a thing existed? No pressure loss, no leaks. I was astounded, then one minute after that I got extremely angry. These three tests, 140 PSI, 160 PSI and 235 PSI were videoed without interruption within each test for documentation purposes. Copies are already in the hands of the collector manufacturer.
Here is the direct link to the video that shows a real pressure test of manifold #00318, the first random pick. The video shoot lasted 4-1/2 hours. The manifold stayed at the starting pressure of 160PSI through the entire video shoot.
The Reaction:
I composed an email with return receipt and high priority to Joe Walters at the FSEC. I had communicated with him several times through email and phone, starting on December 16th, 2008 when I received the report and letter of failure. Among other things at that time, I was trying to put together a plan of action regarding the failed unit. Initially FSEC wanted me to send a new header first along with $1500 more dollars, before sending me back the old manifold. I convinced Joe that it was important for me to inspect the old manifold first, so I could determine the cause of failure, then select the proper action to go forward with. We worked out the details which required me to send them packaging to put the collector manifold in, with pre-paid postage. Then came merry Christmas and happy new year, yada,yada… I received the manifold back as explained above, etc.. After three days and six toned down revisions, I finally sent the email containing my results on Friday, January 16th 2009. Receipt of opening came back within the hour.
A response email came on January 20th, 2009. Basically he stated they were surprised… yada, yada.. then touted their status, and I quote, ”.. As an A2LA accredited testing facility we do not just throw these tests together and blindly report the findings. When a failure occurs, as in this case, we re-tested several times and went beyond the testing criteria to ensure our observations were consistent.”… yada, yada..
He stated he did not know why my result was different then theirs and that I should simply send them another manifold to do it over. In short, no acknowledgement that they made, or even might have made a mistake, and no offer to compensate for all the expenses I had to go through because of their blowing the tests. In fact his verbiage indicated that they stood behind their results. In short, not an equitable reaction, but not unexpected either.
The Resistance:
On January 25th, 2009, I shot a fourth uninterrupted video of a pressure test at 160 PSI for 15 minutes plus, no pressure loss, no leaks. I sent the video, letter and accompanying invoice express mail to Joe on January 26th, 2009 with all the costs I incurred and would incur do to their testing error. The invoice totaled $1,140.50. The invoice included shipping costs, packaging, product loss, etc. and 5 hours of my time which was actually a conservative rendering. In reality it was double the hours, but I was not trying to gouge them, just recover my real expenses. Additionally, that evening I sent an email to the A2LA Organization Quality Manager explaining the situation, since Joe said they were accredited by them. Inherent in situations like this, is a slow response pace. It is just something that comes with dealing with bureaucratic entities. Things take awhile to work through their pipe lines, so you have to have a good deal of patience. Responses may not come for several days or even a week or two.
Right now, this second, the phone is ringing. It is identified by my caller ID as a call from Florida, the FSEC. One moment please......
I am back from the phone call. It was Joe Walters. He wanted to tell me that he had not noticed the enclosed letter or invoice, only the DVD, until after he sent the email (Just described above). He wanted to talk to me personally so that this did not become an "email war", to paraphrase a bit. He stated that he needed to talk with Jim Huggins regarding these additional requests but that he did not no if this would change their position at all. The call lasted about 10 minutes and there was some rather "intense" dialog, particularly from me, though all parties remained in control I would say.
I just sent Joe an email thanking him for the phone call and that I would wait for an email response regarding the additional information he discovered in my package.
As of noon Tuesday February 3rd, 2009, I had not received a response from FSEC. Several email’s had gone back and forth between myself and A2LA over the past few days regarding “raw” documentation from FSEC and myself. Additionally, I sent them videos and all reference materials express mail on Friday January 31st, 2009, which are in their possession.
The Ridiculous:
I normally would not cut and paste an entire email into this “story” but given the content, I just have to. I did not intend this story to be such a click by click reality offering, but it just seems to be working out that way. Here is his exact response in italics;
“Bill,
Sorry for the delay getting back to you. We have throughly tested our test rig for failed components. We have run other collectors through the same test after yours and have not observed failures.
After review of the log file it came to light we had to perform some adaptation to the fitting you sent with the collector to get a good seal prior to exposure. We had to physically expand the smooth pipe on the header to allow your supplied fitting to be soldered to it. We had to use excessive Teflon tape on the threads to get it to seal to the standard 3/4 NPT fitting we use. The only part of the assembly you did not test at your facility was the thread fitting to our Swagelok quick disconnect.
Remember it passed pre-expsoure but not post exposure. It's possible the failure was at that seal once it had undergone exposure. Our soap bubble test did not expose it at the time.
Joe”
Here is a video link to the engineering video completely refuting the claims made in the above email, and the one received on 2/10/2009. In short it shows them (FSEC) to be liars, pure and simple.
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/whfiii2000/video/x9euu0_srcc-certifications-an-unexpected-r_news
Now, there are so many things wrong with the above presentation (not counting spelling) I hardly know where to begin, but I will as always, try to approach it logically.
1. The first action a good lab would do, if there is any problem with materials supplied by the customer that is noticed prior to testing, is notify the customer. This is why good lab protocol, calls for a detailed inspection of the materials “in the box” so you are not caught trying to “jerry rig” once you have started. No emails, letters or phone calls of any kind came to me or my company during this testing period when the above supposedly occurred.
2. Under no circumstances would a good lab EVER subject a test target to any severe stresses, like trying to expand a copper tube, that were not explicitly called for by the test specification. Such severe physical stresses could easily damage the test target and completely corrupt the test. (As a side note, when I read that the first time, my eyes just about “bugged” out.)
3. The following is a web link to the quick connect page of the mfg. they say they are using for “quick connect fittings”:
http://www.swagelok.com/search/find_products_home.aspx?SEARCH=/id-10000236/type-1
He claims that excessive Teflon tape was used because of the fittings I sent them. The fittings I sent, as requested by them, were standard 3/4” NPT (National Pipe Thread) virgin copper fittings, brand new and unused. They are produced by the millions and are available at any plumbing supply house or your local Lowe’s, Home Depot etc.. The idea that they were some how slightly small, is well, I will let you decide on that. For you guy’s in the trade’s who work with this stuff everyday, try not to fall off your chair as you read this. Remember, they are certified as an A2LA accredited lab. I would say they are acting more like “Daryl and the other Daryl’s” plumbing contractor, but I don’t think they would even have this problem. By the way, I sent them six fittings in total for all the collectors they are suppose to be testing for me, so I guess all six were somehow “small threaded”.
4. I heated and wiped off the excess solder from the manifold ends, I.E., FSEC internal test manifold number 00318. I then took a micrometer, outside calipers and tee square and inspected the header tubing ends for any sign of physical expansion. There is no evidence of any such expansion (See two photos below). The tubing is smooth, straight and the exact outside diameter of standard 3/4” copper tubing. As another side note, I have personally pressure tested hundreds of these manifolds as well as using them on solar installs where you connect fittings of all types to your solar collector arrays, and never have I encountered any such anomaly as described in his response. From a probability perspective, the above is on par with Alien abductions and little green men. And, if I ever do encounter anything like this in production run materials, I can assure you, pipe expansion will not be on the list of cure’s. This inspection was of course videoed as number five in the series.
In conclusion to his response, it appears that they realize they can not fault my videoed pressure tests so they looked for something that I could not test, yet still try to say it was some how my fault. In fabricating such, they have admitted to bad lab practices, poor protocols, failed inter-departmental communications and lord knows what else…
The FSEC receives large sums of money from the state of Florida, directly or indirectly and other funding sources, to the tune of millions of dollars:
https://argis.research.ucf.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.view_proposal_detail&rec_id=1048385&rec_type=research
http://www.energyinthepublicinterest.com/EnergyInThePublicInterest.pdf
http://www.southface.org/
So, I guess I would ask the following sophisticated and academically correct question if I were one of the funding sources:
“What the Hell is going on down there?”
I hope this can be the end of this section...
Well, I had hoped.
On 2/10/2009, an email came from Joe saying that the header pipes where not within spec, and they measured them at .820". I of course went and measured them with a micrometer and took high res photos very close up, so you could see the readings. I took measurements at many spots over their 5" length. All measurements were between .870" and .873", well within spec.. It is so funny because the solar collector mfg does not mfg the standard 3/4" header end pipes. The pipe is produced by a large pipe mfg.. See the bottom 3 photos... It is unbelievable that either such lies are being put forth or such incompetence is being practiced. At this point I don't know which is worse.
The Resolution:
As of February 9th, 2009, A2LA is formally investigating this matter. FSEC has an A2LA review coming up shortly as it turns out. I have formally asked A2LA to pull their accreditation. I am not asking this because they made a mistake. Anyone or anything on this planet can do that, including me. I ask it for the following reasons: One, there is overwhelming evidence that they made a mistake and the collector they failed is perfectly fine. Two, they have failed to own up to that mistake. Three, they have failed to reimburse me for all the costs I incurred because of their mistake. Four, on two different occasions, they have continued to ask for MORE money to the tune of $1500. Five, they have not satisfied the first three reasons and dropped the fourth, along with presenting an equitable solution to move forward with.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you subsidize a market in this manor. The entities (Like SRCC/FSEC) have a guaranteed customer base and therefore demand payment in full upfront, which greatly reduces the leverage a customer has regarding their failures. There is no immediate impetuous or accountability because they already have your money. Their wait time is two years for these certifications (Last time I checked) so it greatly amplifies an already bad situation.
Subsidies for all renewable energy systems should be paid based on the performance of the installed system alone, not for certifications. This would generate motivation through the entire market from mfg to installer to create good quality, high performance systems. This way the money would flow into the systems themselves (engineering quality) not into the pockets of some certification entity or organization.
I would urge all political representatives when considering Renewable Energy legislation, to make incentives based on real installed system performance. Electronic monitoring equipment does exist to do this task fairly easily. It would be tax payer money far better spent.
The latest from Joe Walters at the FSEC (02/12/2009) is that they are willing to drop the $1500 re-test fee, but they still want to retest with a new manifold, beat up the evacuated tubes for 30 more days, admit no wrong, reimburse zero dollars… basically dropping reason number four above regarding accreditation removal.
A2LA's current findings as of Feb 25th, 2009 are as follows:
Quote #1
"In examining all records from FSEC related to this testing and in interviewing all FSEC personnel involved, we did not note any technical shortcoming or lack of technical competence on their part. They followed appropriate testing procedure."
Quote #2
"In examining your videos and written testimonials, it does appear that you also performed correct testing of the item."
There are other paragraphs to the "findings" email from A2LA. To sum them all up, they are giving them a slap on the wrist for other assorted reasons.
To realize the absurdity and contradictory nature of the two paragraphs above, I will put them in plain English. A2LA states that FSEC was correct in saying the manifold leaks and followed all procedures. A2LA states that I was correct in finding that the manifold did not leak. Everybody seems to have done their jobs correctly. There is only one small problem. It is a physical impossibility for both to be true. It either leaks or it doesn’t. A person is either dead and stiff or they are alive and walking around. They can not be dead and stiff in Florida and up and walking around in Pennsylvania after wards. The “show stopper” purpose of the SRCC exposure test in the case of an evac tube collector is to see if any of the vacuum tubes loose their vacuum and to see if the header manifold “springs” a leak after 30 days of hard stagnation and cold fills. Period. The rest is smoke and mirrors. These two major testing inquiries keeps with common sense and reasonable engineering expectations. The tubes did fine leaving only the manifold. They say it leaked. I can prove to anyone on any day that the manifold is good and does not leak at all. I can do a pressure test right in front of them and show them in person the validity of my statements and every single fact I have stated in this story.
So what is going on here. The FSEC is a paying customer to A2LA. I contacted at random three companies that hold A2LA accreditation. I got the names from the list out on the A2LA website. As near as I can tell, to hold a decent amount of accreditations with complexity in the environment you are doing as a company, you could spend anywhere from 10K to 15K dollars yearly to hold on to these bells and whistles. So, find in favor of my complaint and loose possibly 10K to 15K dollars of reoccurring yearly income or ….…..not. Its sound to me like we have the fox watching the hen house. As long as no one else cares or raises any questions that brings pressure and visibility to the situation, they can get away with it. Nepotism type actions are not exactly a new thing in our bureaucracies and political structures either. In fact rampant is probably a fitting adjective, not to mention pure financial gain in this case.
As of 04/01/2009, both my state representatives with dealings in the state and federal levels are aware of this situation and are looking in to it. Sooner or later the curtain WILL be pulled back and I hope for Teresa and her A2LA organization, they are not found standing next to the Wizard, considering their inappropriate response to FSEC...
Political Reps. Update: 07/02/2009
In keeping with the "no holes bared" nature of this article, here is an update regarding the progress made through my political reps.. Paul Kanjorskies Office has produced nothing. Anton his aid, said the last action was turning the "issue" over to DOE. Well, to me, that's like throwing a single peanut to an elephant that already has two million peanuts in front of him. In short, not even seen. My local reps were more judicious in learning and reading about the incident, but their last thoughts were, they don't know what can be done about it or how to resolve it. So, as time ticks by, the options are quickly narrowing down to the only one left.
Political Reps. Update: 08/26/2009
It would appear that in the case of the elephant, if the peanut is presented by a congressman it does not go unnoticed. A dialog has begun between myself, DOE, SRCC and FSEC with the goal of finding a fair and balanced resolution to this situation. Specific names will be left out along with specific details of the coming resolution, possibly. Updates to the ending of this whole situation may be presented shortly....
Political / DOE Update: 09/09/2009
The initial contact with DOE was on 07/24/2009. No final call has taken place with a proposed resolution. I have returned to pursuing my last recourse in this matter.
Political / DOE Update: 11/01/2009
No action has resulted from the DOE contact. Nothing further has come from the DOE.
To Be Continued....
The Recommendation: (W.I.P.)
Without hesitation I would put at the top of the list, a warning to applicants. If your “unit” whatever it is, fails any test, be sure to pay to have it returned to you so you can inspect it yourself. Do not take the testing agency’s word regarding the failure. Do as much pre-testing as possible to duplicate in advance the tests they are going to do to your product. This way you can compare their results to yours.
Do not be intimidated by the credentials of the testing agency, especially if you are a small business or individual.
At the end of the day, knowledge and truth stands independent of credentials and recognition. However, it may take a lot of perseverance, creative thinking and even money to be able to make the flame hot enough, to push them to that reality.
This particular “current state of affairs” with the solar thermal tax credits is very nasty because it appears that the only entity that cares what they do down there is A2LA and they have a vested interest in keeping their customers (FSEC) for revenue reasons. So, if your order a medium steak and they serve you a bowl full of maggots, there is very little you can do about it other than maybe send a team of lawyers down there to make their life miserable. That cost would far surpass the testing expense but may be less than the damages caused by there failing your units, based on expected revenue increases for your business, once the certifications are acquired. This makes the later a more plausible action the longer the situation drags on without an equitable outcome.
The truly sad part is none of this would exist, if the incentives were paid on installed system output over time, regardless of certification. Such a system of incentives is far superior to the current legislation on all levels, for all parties involved. This of course would bring the nice cozy little party to an end.
Unfortunately we have crossed the line in this country, and maybe in the whole world, where credentials and how many letters follow a name, be it personal or business, lends more relevance to an opinion, process or result then knowledge or simple truth itself. It appears as though the functioning reason for credentials and certifications, directly aside from money, is so the holder can hide behind them in the presence of contrary facts, opinions and adversity, shielding them from accountability, monetary loss and ethical behavior.
As long as this event goes unresolved, allowing lies to support the findings of a lab on behalf of the SRCC, those four letters mean nothing and have no credibility. This is truly a sad day for the renewable energy industry and all those corporations and companies who have paid to have those letters appear on their products. There can be no faith in the embodiment of the certification....
If you wish to have a copy of video #3, #4, or #5, you can send an email to:
fcfcfc@prolog.net
They are $10 ea. to cover DVD, priority shipping and handling costs.....
Thank you for you interest.
To Be Continued....
160 PSI Test:
This is a frame capture from one of the videos shot of the pressure testing on January 25th, 2009.
I replaced the other two photos with these. They are clearer and I gave an end view so you could see the "roundness" of the pipe as well.
The first of two photos showing the micrometer readings of the standard 3/4" header pipe. The header end pipes are mfg by a large pipe mfg, not the collector mfg.. and are the same size as all standard 3/4" copper pipe, type "L". The third photo shows the micrometer set at .820". You can see if you look closely, it does not even come close to fitting around the pipe.
Generally, a wind power generator uses the concept of 3 rotating blades placed on a supporting tower. They should be placed in locations where there is consistent flow of wind. This is why most of the time you will see wind power generators being placed near coastal areas.
Wind Resource Assessment makes it possible to predict the value of energy the particular turbine will produce. The Wind Power Density (WPD) is often used as a yardstick of measuring good locations to place wind power generators. It calculates the effective force of wind at that location and expresses it in terms of the elevation above ground level, over a period of time.
A DIY solar panel is simply a collection of solar cells that are also known as photovoltaic cells. It is these cells that create the electricity by interacting with the sunlight, and once you can wire up these cells you are creating a DIY solar panel. Once you have made one, the next one will be so much easier. In the beginning, you will want to start small; in a day you could make a small panel that would be enough to power some of the smaller appliances in the house. Once you have the knowledge under your belt, you could increase the number of panels until your entire electrical power requirements are met from solar power.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
