Timeline for Can Genesys' solar amplifier generate 40kW of power from a 200W solar panel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 17:16 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/1006948455359696896 | ||
| Jun 13, 2018 at 14:24 | comment | added | T. Sar | I managed to read their articles to the end, and it smacked too close to a few hobby science projects I saw in the past, and I figured what they are doing. The "RET" system is a boiler-based solution that uses both the energy from the sun plus the energy of the solar panel to heat water, produce steam use that steam to produce energy and break the part of the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Of course, once you do the proper math it doesn't even come close to being able to match their numbers, | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 21:02 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @MartinJames I'm well aware. But confusing Watts and Watt hours is extremely common. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 12:40 | history | edited | Don Branson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix typo
|
| Jun 11, 2018 at 10:22 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @TafT: You're correct. CPV modules are rated differently though, so 200Wp shouldn't be called 200Wp anymore. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 9:29 | comment | added | TafT | If something is using lenses or mirrors to direct ~ x100 the area of light onto the panel a 200 W panel (rate for typical direct daylight) could have more light hitting it and generate much more power output. That would be assuming that nothing in the panel will fry operating at that much higher rate. Solar concentrators work in just this way. Now if the described system uses something like that and some clever form or storage maybe it would work but a lot of it sounds like magic. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 9:03 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @MartinJames: What HopelesssN00b was saying is that a constant 40kW output isn't possible from a constant 200W input. It's possible to store those 200W and deliver 40kW 0.5% of the time, though. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 8:59 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @psmith: You've forgotten 3 orders of magnitude. 1.6GW is the output of one or two nuke reactors. The global yearly consumption is around 20000TWh, for an average of 2280GW. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 8:30 | comment | added | Sanchises | @JBentley Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Don't underestimate the convictions held by crackpots. | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 8:23 | comment | added | JBentley | @Sanchises Something tells me it is unlikely it involved any kind of mistake! | |
| Jun 11, 2018 at 7:49 | comment | added | Sanchises | Page 17 of this PDF tells it all: the 'inventor' does not know the difference between instantaneous power and continuous power, and seems to have based an entire company on the mistaken belief that you can generate more power if you divide the incoming energy in shorter pulses. | |
| Jun 10, 2018 at 3:31 | comment | added | psmith | They say one device can amplify 200W to 40kW. With 200 more devices you could amplify that 40kW to 8MW. With 40000 more devices you could have 8MW => 1.6GW, which is almost the world's total electricity consumption. All that from 200W solar panel? Totally plausible. | |
| Jun 10, 2018 at 1:20 | comment | added | Black Swan | I believe, based on the patent, that the solar panel is not used as a conventional solar panel (pass thru device). The solar panel is only used as a voltage source. | |
| Jun 10, 2018 at 0:10 | comment | added | JBentley | @Kevin Yes I realise that, but in the case of a solar panel that outputs 200W, it is at least theoretical conceivable that a device could improve the efficiency of the panel in some way. Whereas if the solar panel receives an input of 200W (i.e. the maximum total power of sunlight that can hit the panel is 200W) then there is nothing even conceivable that can increase that. Obviously that doesn't in any way make this claim plausible. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 23:23 | comment | added | Brythan | @MartinJames I think the suggestion is that it is meant to be at kilowatt hour, not a kilowatt. A kilowatt hour is a common term in the US, as it is how electricity is billed. So the numbers might be correct but the units wrong. And kilowatt hours have the same base units as energy. However, reading the source doesn't support that interpretation. They are claiming that their device added to a 200 watt solar panel produces 20 kW or more. So it would produce 20 kilowatt hours every hour. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 23:20 | comment | added | Arsenal | @Oddthinking yeah that sounds pretty much like it. I have to say it is written in a way that you can catch somebody off guard. That page probably popped up because the patent was granted at 29th May 2018. Sounds like the main power source is not the solar panel but the interaction of "the sun or something" with the electron beam (which is generated with the power from the solar panel). I'm not saying it sounds plausible to do what is described... | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 20:25 | comment | added | Kevin | @JBentley Output of the solar panel (conventional technology) = input to the rest of the system (magic box). | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 14:54 | answer | added | Eric Duminil | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 13:03 | comment | added | Martin James | @HopelessN00b no - the elapsed time does not matter. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 10:45 | vote | accept | Don Branson | ||
| Jun 9, 2018 at 10:45 | history | edited | Don Branson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jun 9, 2018 at 4:38 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | Could the answer be "wait a couple weeks"? (200W*200 hours of sunlight) Granted, the claims are absurd technobabble and that would be confusing watts and watt-hours, but I've heard stupider things coming out of any number of marketing departments... Maybe it's 40KWh of stored electricity from a 200W solar panel that's gotten 200 hours of sunlight. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 4:28 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | I used California Business Search to find a manager in charge of Genesys, LLC called Ronny Bar-Gadda. (No link, because it contains personal details and is too close to doxxing.) I looked him up on Linked In, and found he claims to be the CEO. I looked up patents with him as an inventor granted this year, and found US9985299B1 - Simultaneous generation of electricity and chemicals using a renewable primary energy source. I can't be 100% sure, but I assume that's the one they are talking about. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 4:03 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Put claim in title. Quoted more. Protected against link rot. Removed call for one-sided answers.
|
| Jun 9, 2018 at 2:36 | comment | added | JBentley | @kevin Your point is valid, but technically 200w would be the output of the solar panel, not the input. | |
| Jun 9, 2018 at 0:31 | answer | added | cpcodes | timeline score: 52 | |
| Jun 8, 2018 at 23:58 | answer | added | fred_dot_u | timeline score: 22 | |
| Jun 8, 2018 at 22:53 | comment | added | Don Branson | @Kevin - so, my thought, too, but it's not my field. If you want to offer up an answer for voting, I'd appreciate that. | |
| Jun 8, 2018 at 22:45 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 13, 2018 at 3:07 | |||||
| Jun 8, 2018 at 22:43 | comment | added | Kevin | Red flags? Conservation of energy. If there's only 200W in and 20kW out, where did the extra 19.8kW come from? | |
| Jun 8, 2018 at 22:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 9, 2018 at 0:03 | |||||
| Jun 8, 2018 at 22:23 | history | asked | Don Branson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |