Flux Marine Outboard Engines . . .

[Scott Danforth]

. . "and they so easily get stuck in the mud"

there was a picture of my Great Grandfather from 1910 or 1911 pulling a Ford out of the ditch with a team of plow horses in Raymond South Dakota.

He was 100 at the time and could not remember the exact year.

Probably similar conversations were happening 120 years ago

so close to the 120 years ago

 

[rolmops]

I do sense a little of mistrust of new and potentially better systems of energy creation.
Let's not forget that the only way to get alternatives to what we know is an energy source that pollutes and poisons is trial and error.
I think that in 20 or 30 years from now, gasoline engines on boats with their prohibitive price tag, will be on the way out and electric or otherwise fueled alternatives will be the popular thing.
I hope to live and see the day that my grand kids will take me out on their non polluting boats.
As for "coal powered" those power stations have been closing shop or been converted to natural gas and then closed, for years now. Like it or not, but solar and wind energy get bigger all the time while coal gets smaller. Conservative has to do with conservation so lets work on that.

 

[racerone]

Battery packs are dangerous enuff in cars.----Can you imagine the stress on a battery pack if boat is pounding through a 1 or 2 foot chop.----No thanks for me.

 

[kd4pbs]

Facts are not political. Well, at least when we're talking about scientific facts.
Solar and wind is a non-starter simply because of the short life cycle and vast amount of fossil fuels required to build them. They're a great example of hypocritical technology accelerated and promoted only by those who benefit from their proliferation. Nuclear power and hydroelectric power is the only path forward in an all-electric world, but fossil fuels are the least impactful and longest-lasting resource to bridge that gap. And even then, that's assuming a viable form of energy storage technology is discovered in the future, as there are none out there today.
I used to be one that believed in the "green" movement, and that those naysayers about "green" tech were just zealots. Then I used logic, common sense, and an open mind to discover the truth. I guess it was an epiphany I had as a result of realizing how the movement was about power and politics as opposed to science brought to light to me by the fact that there were a couple of key and popular useful idiots in that movement that were 100% wrong in their predictions about what would happen in years that have since come and gone without incident. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
If you don't wish to do the same, that's your prerogative, and I respect your opinion. And if you show me that you believe your opinion outweighs established facts, I appreciate it; it's good to weed out the noise from the truth - just like all those who have been tricked into believing that CO2 is a bad thing, and that it's the #1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

 

[Pmt133]

Everything poses an entirely different environmental impact depending on technology. As technology evolves so does our knowledge. Science is Science, facts are facts and the technology is out there and now we have to deal with it as it evolves.

I hope I'm dead long before I have to deal with the problems we've created in the last 20 years.

 

[kd4pbs]

Indeed. However minor, humans have an impact on the Earth by simply existing. So do the animals, trees, weather, and literally the Earth.
The line really should be drawn in front of those who wish to "Save the Earth" (as if it is a human or a living, sentient being) at the cost of humanity. If they want to live off-grid in a shack, I support their right to do so 100%. The problem is they want to force that on others. They would diminish the standards of living for everyone to fulfill their ideals. That's not science, that's just a mental health disease.
And yes - there is a line on the other side which should not be crossed as well. If you think it's a good thing to dump your hazardous waste down the storm drain, then you're a jerk and deserve prison time and fines commensurate with the cost of the cleanup.

 

[racerone]

You do not pay for electrify as you use it.----The bill comes in at the end of the month.----Most folks know little about electricity.-----I say to random people that you can go to the local hardware store and buy a 5 HP generator.----You can make electricity by burning gasoline , lots of it for the power you get.-------Then I ask the question about the local powerplant.----I ask how much power it takes to turn the generator there. -----Most common guess is 10,000 HP.-----Fact is it takes over 1,000,000 HP.-----It simply boggles the mind of these people.

 

[cyclops222]

How do the GREEN people supply power during storms, night time and no wind?
Why is green power so expensive ?
Who / what is going to make up the lost power from low water levels at the largest power dams ?

 

[kd4pbs]

You do not pay for electrify as you use it.----The bill comes in at the end of the month.----Most folks know little about electricity.-----I say to random people that you can go to the local hardware store and buy a 5 HP generator.----You can make electricity by burning gasoline , lots of it for the power you get.-------Then I ask the question about the local powerplant.----I ask how much power it takes to turn the generator there. -----Most common guess is 10,000 HP.-----Fact is it takes over 1,000,000 HP.-----It simply boggles the mind of these people.

It's real easy to figure it out.
1KW = ~1.34 HP, plus whatever loss in conversion efficiency there is, which can vary greatly. It takes very little power to turn that generator, especially once up to speed. A little econobox car engine could likely do it. Now, turning it with the normal load on it... that's a different story.
What's really frustrating is that the power companies are fooling all of us and just reselling us the same electrons as they've sold us an unimaginable amount of time before.

 

[racerone]

Nonsense.-----It takes a lot of power to turn that generator.----But your post clearly indicates the lack of knowledge of what electricity is all about.

 

[kd4pbs]

Nonsense.-----It takes a lot of power to turn that generator.----But your post clearly indicates the lack of knowledge of what electricity is all about.

Yeah, you're right. We electrical engineers rarely know anything about electricity, so please enlighten us.
I guess you don't realize there is a ginormous difference between the amount of power required to turn a loaded alternator and an unloaded one? Turning it unloaded with the field winding de-energized is simple. Turning it while supplying power to the grid is a different animal altogether, just as I wrote before. And guess what? The power required to do that varies greatly depending on it's designed capacity and the amount of load on it, so stating some absolute amount of power required to turn that alternator (it's not a generator) will quickly show one's ignorance about electrical power generation.
Fun facts: None of the alternators at the Hoover dam hydroelectric plant take anywhere near 1,000,000 Shaft Horsepower to turn, fully loaded even. Even the largest nuclear power generating plant falls short of 1,000,000 SHP to turn it's largest alternator (but comes close).

 

[cyclops222]

How are the AC alternators cooled at N L and full load ? What percent of full load efficiency are you talking about ?

 

[tpenfield]

Time to close this thread up. 'nuff has been said.