Capacitor to store lightning?

[phlogistician]

A great illustration of this is the early 1900s patent for an airplane with plano-convex cylindrical lens wings made of glass to be used on sunny days to fly over WWI's enemy trenches and at least blind, if not set on fire, the enemy troops.

See, that's a perfect illustration of someone being in love with their impractical idea. I mean, it was hard enough to make aircraft fly back then anyway, let alone setting extra engineering tasks of oddly shaped wings, or heavy glass construction, then add the restriction that it would only work during the day, in sunshine.

I mean, if someone is going to run the risk of flying over enemy lines in broad daylight, simply dropping incendiary devices would be far more practical.

 

[BennyF]

You still never explained why in the hell you would want to "multiply" the voltage of an already unusably high DC voltage to an even higher, more unusable voltage. You can't do anything with a million volts until you bring that voltage level down...what possible reason could you want to INCREASE that voltage? Please explain.

Hello, MacGyver. I'm back after a mini-vacaton, and I've decided, for now anyway, to keep contributing to the board without divulging any specific circuit details that would endanger my patent application. I still may leave this thread on short notice and spend my time finishing my application(s), but I happen to like the give-and-take I've seen here, which is infinitely more important to me, as a socially-minded human being, than any temporary and selfish inflations of my ego.

MacGyver, regarding your specific question regarding the multiplication of the voltage, you're half-right and half-wrong. I have no use for a series of HV caps, all totaling a hundred billion volts of potential.

In theory, however, a large-scale bank of capacitors, with thousands of current branches and thousands of 200KV caps in each branch, would have millions of caps in the bank, and if you (theoretically) charged up a bank like this with hundreds of millions of DC volts, you could (theoretically) remove all the caps from the bank, connect them in series, and produce a 100-billion-volt series. This isn't even higher math, it's arithmetic. You just have to get used to doing simple calculations whose numbers have a lot of zeros in them.

My statements regarding a 100GV string of caps was never intended to say that I was going to put them to any practical use. I simply wanted to show that by applying Ohm's Law to a large-scale cap bank, charged by electricity whose voltage and current were comparable to lightning's, you could in theory end up with a lot of stored DC electricity, as measured by the voltage.

As for my actual plans, I've said this before, and I'm willing to say it again. Assuming that I receive the patent I'm about to apply for, the caps would be divided into two groups. One group would be dedicated to providing DC electricity to go through a supply of purified water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen. The gases would then be stored and sold separately. The other group of HV caps would also be discharged one at a time, but this group would be converted into 120v AC via a high-wattage inverter and sent to my company office. These plans are, of course, dependent on my ability to earn a U.S. Patent. If neither of my applications is good enough to pass muster, then these plans will be shelved.

If you wish to measure electricity using Joules, that's fine, too. Every HV cap will have a maximum joule capacity, and the approximate number of Joules in a typical lightning bolt has been announced by one of our national labs. All I have to do is to divide that number by the Joule capacity of a HV cap and come up with a minimum number of HV caps to put into my large-scale cap bank.

What I've just written is, as far as I'm concerned, a workable plan for storing a large amount of DC electricity, should you wish to do so. I do wish to do so, which makes my goals somewhat different than the goals of electric utility companies. In contrast to the relatively simple method of storing large amounts of DC, however, collecting this amount of electricity requires as much attention to detail as simply storing it.

Some posters on this board have mentioned the need for a low-inductance collection point, which a simple cap bank can't provide. I have some circuitry in mind, which I haven't mentioned, and which I will NOT mention here or anywhere else, because the patent office might decide that my application has been divulged by publication (on this thread) and deny me the patent I would've had if I had not published the details here.

Benny, still in pursuit of my two goals.

1. Patent
2. Profit

 

[phlogistician]

Some posters on this board have mentioned the need for a low-inductance collection point, which a simple cap bank can't provide.

You are confusing the terminology. You need a low impedance collector, surrounded by inductors. That's the only way to get energy out of a lightning strike, and that approach is being used already.

 

[phlogistician]

Benny, still in pursuit of my two goals.

1. Patent
2. Profit

Benny, you could probably get a patent on using a surfboard as a doorstop. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And profit, and the fact you won't make any, has already been explained to you.

 

[BennyF]

The standard device for that during the last 50 years is called a Zener Diode. They have gotten better in 5 decades, but still can not handle much energy dumped in them.

Thanks for the suggestion. I already plan to use a low-voltage Zener in my cap-discharging circuitry. The charging circuitry will use a different technology.

Also note Benny there are no patents on the wheel, fire used for cooking, etc.

Billy, are you sitting down? I sure hope so, because YOU'RE WRONG. Somebody DID patent the wheel.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

Old inventions in common use can not be patented. Most zener diode patents probably expired three or more decades ago.

Thanks again for the suggestion. As I said, I won't be using any Zeners, except for the discharge process. Water electrolysis requires a regulated DC voltage, and Zeners are well-suited for this purpose.

 

[BennyF]

You are confusing the terminology. You need a low impedance collector, surrounded by inductors. That's the only way to get energy out of a lightning strike, and that approach is being used already.

You're right, Phil. I did say "inductance" when I meant to say "impedance".

You're wrong, however, if you think that every possible low-impedance collection system is in use now. There's one that's not in use, and that's the method that will show up in my patent application.

Benny

 

[BennyF]

How many times do we have to say this, getting a patent does not prove your idea is valid, or would work in practice.

Factually incorrect. Anybody who receives a patent has already demonstrated to the satisfaction of an expert in the relevant field that his invention WOULD work in practice. After a patent has been approved, it's up to federal, state, and local government bodies to approve the physical installation of any equipment, but a patent IS proof of workability.

You claim to have some qalification it electronics. Let's see it.

My qualifications have been stated. I have no need to prove them to you because you're not in a position to approve my patent application or to do any other favor that I might be interested in.

 

[phlogistician]

Factually incorrect. Anybody who receives a patent has already demonstrated to the satisfaction of an expert in the relevant field that his invention WOULD work in practice.

Clearly you missed the post about the patent on the glass aeroplane.

My qualifications have been stated. I have no need to prove them to you because you're not in a position to approve my patent application or to do any other favor that I might be interested in.

Yes you do, because time and time again you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the subject, and got basic facts WRONG, so really, I'm quite interested in seeing what qualification you allegedly achieved.

 

[phlogistician]

You're wrong, however, if you think that every possible low-impedance collection system is in use now. There's one that's not in use, and that's the method that will show up in my patent application.

Benny

And you think that the specifics of your method, if valid, aren't covered by the broad brush strokes of an existing patent.

See, if your method hasn't been patented by now, I think that should tell you something.

 

[Billy T]

... Billy, are you sitting down? I sure hope so, because YOU'RE WRONG. Somebody DID patent the wheel.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel

No he did not get a patent on the wheel. You don’t understand your link.

Australia has introduced a new system, much like the USPTO had some years ago. (I used it several times, paying only $10 to have the USPTO accept and register my unexamined ideas. Just like the new Australian system does without any inspection by their patent office.)

My ideas were just described by me in a letter. The USPTO did assign a registration number to them and saved them for a year. After I had that registration number, I did contact some potential buyers of my idea but they were not interested. So I decided not to file a full patent application. Australia is doing essential the same thing as USPTO did a few years ago. Australia HAS NOT GRANTED a patent on the wheel. Among your other faults, you just don’t read well.

From you link:

“ …The man, a freelance patent lawyer, was issued with an Innovation Patent {not same as a regular patent} for a "circular transportation facilitation device. John Keogh wanted to prove the {newly created} innovation patent system was flawed because submissions could be prepared without professional help and did not need to be examined by the Australian patent office.

The name should be changed to "Registered Innovation" to avoid confusion with standard patents, Keogh says. {I.e. “Registered Inovations” are NOT patents.} "…”All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on it," the paper quoted Keogh as saying. … Commissioner of Patents Vivienne Thom argued small business had benefited from lower costs {of Registered Inovations} because a lawyer did not have to be retained {and no patent officer examined these applications}.

"To obtain the patent for a wheel would require a false claim, which is a very serious matter and would certainly invalidate the patent as well as amounting to a misrepresentation on the part of the applicant and unprofessional conduct by any professional advisor," she said. …”

Your link is from CNN. They tend to distort a little, when they can, to make the story more attractive.

PS Benny: You are also wrong about a patent being "proof of workability" - It is probably proof of originality and fact that it does not obviously violate any laws of physics.

 

[BennyF]

I'm quite interested in seeing what qualification you allegedly achieved.

I'm sure you are, but you are still not in any position to grant me any favors, so beat it.



Benny F (an admirer of Mr. Franklin)

QUALIFICATIONS
Graduation from 7-month electronics course in 1980
Self-taught in HV electricity, meteorology, and chemistry since 2006 inspirational idea concerning lightning

 

[BennyF]

See, if your method hasn't been patented by now, I think that should tell you something.

Yeah, it tells me that I haven't sent in my application yet.

You missed the post where I told everyone that I had searched the patent office website, found the numbered class (and subclass) for charging a capacitor, and read the text of each and every issued patent, with the exception of any that require a U.S. Government security clearance to view them.

 

[BennyF]

PS Benny: You are also wrong about a patent being "proof of workability" - It is probably proof of originality and fact that it does not obviously violate any laws of physics.

Originality is required for any patent application, but so is scientific viability. This is why perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected. They all violate a well-established law of physics. Whether the applications are well-written or not, none of these ideas are workable, and THAT'S why they're always rejected.

 

[Billy T]

{post 393}Originality is required for any patent application, but so is scientific viability. This is why perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected. They all violate a well-established law of physics. Whether the applications are well-written or not, none of these ideas are workable, and THAT'S why they're always rejected.

No, the USPTO does not check scientific or economic viability. This post concludes with an example showing why they CANNOT.
The part of your post above, which is true is only restating the PS of my post:

{390} PS Benny: You are also wrong about a patent being "proof of workability" - It is probably proof of originality and fact that it does not obviously violate any laws of physics.

Also your post above is no defense of your statement that a patent certifies that device will work in practice.

You not only are full of errors and erroneous information but can not even think clearly enough to support your statement with reasoned discussion!

{post 387} Anybody who receives a patent has already demonstrated to the satisfaction of an expert in the relevant field that his invention WOULD work in practice. ...

To show that this statement of yours is false and almost as silly and impractical as your capture and store lighting energy at high voltages ideas, consider my just written process patent for making hydrogen and drinking alcohol from two cheap ingredients (water carbon and methane) with my special catalyst in a high temperature (>1100 C) and high pressure (900 atmospheres) reactor. I.e. consider:

2CH4 + H2O ---> C2H6O + 2H2 (ethanol and hydrogen gas)

Here is part of the secrete of my invention: The concentration of H2 in the reactor is nearly zero as it leaks thru tube of hot palladium* so effectively three molecules are combined into only one. That is why 900 atmospheres are needed to make it work. The high temperature and my catalyst cause the H2O to thermally disassociate into H+ H+ O on the surface of my catalyst, which I cannot describe now as it is the other main secrete of my process invention. Unfortunately, it costs about $10,000 a ounce to make this catalyst, but This is a onetime cost as the catalyst only vacillates the reaction and is not consumed in it.

---------------------
*Very few know that H2 will diffuse thru a hot palladium barrier almost as quickly as it were not there. The patent inspector will know as this “palladium hydrogen leak” was patented a long time ago. This will show a lot of technical knowledge on my part – increase my creditability with him. I happen to know this little known fact as I used one to make spectroscopic grade pure H2 from cheap commercial grade tank of H2 as a graduate student.

Now for the USPTO to certify that this actually does produce drinking alcohol and hydrogen from two very cheap ingredients they must spend $10,000 and buy or rent a reaction chamber that will hold 900 atmospheres pressure at greater than1100C. I.e. more than $20,000 to know if my invention works or not.

Unlike your invention that confuses voltage with energy, neglects air arcs, repels lightning as capacitor charges, etc. there is no obvious flaw in my above invention. In fact it uses some well know chemical facts. (High pressure facilities reactions which reduce the number of molecules, surface reaction on catalysts that are not possible in the gas phase can occur, and the little know fact about palladium hydrogen leaks.

The examiner will grant my patent as it is very unlikely any one like this exist** and certainly none with my special catalyst. He has no reason to reject it. However, he will NOT be certifying that it works to produce ethanol and hydrogen gas from water and methane. - Testing that would cost the USPTO more than $20,000 and they do not ever certify that inventions will work so there is need not spend that money.

** If it did mankind would not be making ethanol and hydrogen gas from expensive corn and electricity, but cheap water and methane. (No fuel is required as a small part of the hydrogen produced is burned to maintain the 1100 C in the well-insulated reaction chamber)

 

[BennyF]

To show that your statement is false and almost as silly and impractical as your capture and store lighting energy at high voltages ideas, consider my just written process patent for making hydrogen and drinking alcohol from two cheap ingredients (water carbon and methane) with my special catalyst in a high temperature (>1100 C) and high pressure (900 atmospheres) reactor. I.e. consider:

2CH4 + H2O ---> C2H6O +H2 (ethanol and hydrogen gas)

I'm an amateur chemist, and yet, I'm better at chemistry than you are. Your equation isn't balanced. You're missing two hydrogen atoms on the right side.

As for the rest of your post, the patent office doesn't need to spend large amounts of money to set up a high-pressure reactor. Any patent application in the chemical field will be examined by an expert in the chemical field. For the same reason, any patent application in the field of electricity will be examined by an expert in electricity, who will know what a cap bank is and what it does.

 

[Billy T]

I'm an amateur chemist, and yet, I'm better at chemistry than you are. Your equation isn't balanced. You're missing two hydrogen atoms on the right side.

As for the rest of your post, the patent office doesn't need to spend large amounts of money to set up a high-pressure reactor. Any patent application in the chemical field will be examined by an expert in the chemical field. For the same reason, any patent application in the field of electricity will be examined by an expert in electricity, who will know what a cap bank is and what it does.

It is balanced. I was still correcting typos like that missing 2 when you posted. You may be a better typist than me. I have already told you that I am a little dyslexic so typically need to spend 5 minutes or so correcting typing errors which I do not initially see. (I often see what should be there, not what is typed.)

You are still just hand waving - making unsupported assertions many of which are false.
Try to find some proof or reason why a patent is a certificate that the device will work.

I gave, in post 380, an earlier example of a patent granted that would not work. Again, as this example PROVES, the USPTO does NOT certify invention will work. That example was the airplane with glass wings made like cylindrical lenses for burning enemy troops in WWI trenches on sunny days. - It would not even fly with the poor lift capacity of a cylindrical shaped (in cross section) glass lens wing. I.e. the lift of each meter of wing would be less than the weight of the glass in that meter. Certainly it could not the serve patents claim as a practical weapon even if it could fly as one bullet thru the wing crashes the plane.

I gave, in post 394, an example of the reason why the USPTO CANNOT pass judgment on whether or not and invention will actually work (except in those case that obviously violate physical laws.)

Thus, as proof that you are again wrong, I have given both a counter example to your claim and the logical reason why it is false.
You have given only false hand waving claims.

 

[Billy T]

... patent office doesn't need to spend large amounts of money to set up a high-pressure reactor. Any patent application in the chemical field will be examined by an expert in the chemical field...

More evidence of your ignorance (or lack of clear thinking capacity). If chemical experts could accurately predict which reactions with catalysts will work and which will not, then there would be no need for experimental chemical labs. To know if my invention of post 394 will actually work or not, it must be tested, not just evaluated by a "chemistry expert." It is, however , true that a chemical process application will be examined by a chemical expert, BUT he is mainly trying to see if it is original (not just a trivial modification to the prior art.)

He will NOT certify it will work as described in the application. That would be impossible without a laboratory test in 99.9% of the cases as the invention is novel process and chemistry is very much an experimental science, especially its novel (never before suggested) processes using a catalyst.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Benny.
Get this thing patented soon, so we can have a look and ridic... I mean discuss, your circuit diagrams.

 

[Billy T]

Benny.
Get this thing patented soon, so we can have a look and ridic... I mean discuss, your circuit diagrams.

Oh no - don't encourage him to do that. Then he will cease posting and what will we do for laughs?

I suggested many page back that this whole thread really belongs in the "jokes and funny stories" thread as it is more entertainingly funny than most of what is found there. I have already thanked Benny for this fun a few pages back.

BTW, Captain: I am testing the HLL catcher (of post 320) now. It seems to be working fine - so well in fact that I doubt I will have time to file my patent on it - it is keeping me quite busy, (and very tired).

 

[phlogistician]

I'm sure you are, but you are still not in any position to grant me any favors, so beat it.



Benny F (an admirer of Mr. Franklin)

QUALIFICATIONS
Graduation from 7-month electronics course in 1980
Self-taught in HV electricity, meteorology, and chemistry since 2006 inspirational idea concerning lightning

Sorry Benny, even after I showed you a picture of my certificate, you still called me a fraud. Merely alleging you have some qualification without proof is less than the standards you judged me by, which makes you a hypocrite, unless you show your credentials too at least.