Disgruntled Inventor?

My conflict with DBK started when I did what corporations encouraged me to do which was shop on the internet for stuff I need. Unfortunately, when I find something I need, the advertising vendor refuses to sell it.

DBK refuses to sell me any panels but they do give away solar panels as charity in foreign countries according to their web site.

DBK claims to make a 3000 watt solar panel and has a questionable claim for a patent on this device although anyone who can make or buy "thin film" photo-voltaic material can get similar results. DBK also claims to have invented the concept of an integrated circuit because they constructed an integrated circuit with "thin film" PV material.

"Thin film" PV material is another one of those products that don't get sold to people that want to do anything useful with it. But retarding the advancement of technology makes a lot more money than legitimate business.

The geniuses at DBK noticed something interesting. "Thin film" PV material is translucent. Or maybe some electrician stacked two panels on top of each other and noticed that sunlight passes through the first panel and still has enough energy left to produce electric current in the bottom panel.

I think DBK also added DC amplifiers inside multiple layers of thin film to construct a better panel.

Building a bank of ideal DC power supplies is not really an original idea but when I tried to respect the abstract rights of DBK to own intellectual property, they refused to sell me any equipment. So despite the fact that they hand taxpayers the bill for their research and development, and their pollution, they can simply refuse to sell me equipment based on spite and greed. They are willing to sell "franchises" that are likely to lose money in my opinion.

DBK has a whole marketing scheme already designed for the franchise owner that promises to rip off taxpayers for the cost of electronic equipment installed in the homes of the wealthy. In return for the taxpayer's investment in the equipment, the wealthy homeowners promise to reduce fuel consumption for so called "energy producers" by using the electronics to put excess power back into the local power distribution system.

The intention of the tax scheme is to reduce emissions produced by electric energy producers.

In reality, you will have to reach a threshold amount of homeowner supplied power before any emissions reduction will take place.

It is quite possible that the scheme will produce zero emissions reduction and I will attempt to explain why.

Before I explain why, I also have to call attention to this fact. If any emissions reductions happen because of the proliferation of solar panels on homes then the reduction would actually be larger without the tax incentives especially if the homeowner chooses to store their excess electricity for future use rather than "sell" it back to the energy producer.

In my particular case, because of the storage battery type I have, I could actually charge batteries with any excess power and simultaneously collect hydrogen gas from the charging battery. Fuel actually comes out of the battery when I charge it up.

Now this is why you probably will not achieve any emissions reduction because of homeowner's solar panels:

Energy producers connected to the power grid are of various types. Some common examples would be coal burners, natural gas burners, nuclear fission, solar, wind, and hydroelectric.

If a large number of homeowner's solar panels begin to supply some of the demand for power, one or more of the common examples given can reduce output.

The last four examples can quickly reduce output power but create no emissions of great concern.

The first example, coal burners, can reduce output power quickly, but they have already burned coal to make steam that will be wasted if demand suddenly goes down.

Natural gas burners are in the same boat unless they use the gas directly rather than driving generators with steam turbines.

WHO WILL REDUCE OUTPUT POWER? Without attempting to control who reduces output power first, then the closest energy producer to the solar panels will have to reduce output power first, which can then be increased when all the other ones catch up to the decrease in demand.

If you intentionally control which energy producer reduces output power then you have to turn down the heat on giant boilers that may suddenly be needed when demand goes back up.

How suddenly? How fast can the weather change? One airplane crash could cut off a substantial number of homeowner solar panels instantly. Now what? Brown outs. Black outs. These problems also waste fuel. Tornados, earthquakes and floods can cause similar problems.

So as far as air pollution is concerned, homeowners with solar panels will have cleaner air if they don't sell their power back to energy producers. They should use it to power boats, cars, washing machines, and stuff like that.

Another problem with the tax incentives is that homeowners will very likely convert DC current to AC current and then use it for devices that actually require DC current like a computer. A double inefficiency. Other examples include clocks, modern TV sets, lights, fans, air conditioners, and audio equipment, all of which could use DC or require DC current to operate.

Modular Energy has a better excuse for not selling their products than DBK, but the excuse seems like a blatant lie. They want to sell Lithium-ion battery banks which, according to Modular Energy, weigh less than the batteries I want to use for general purposes like yachts, cars, and trucks either powered or assisted by electric motors.

Modular Energy claims that they only sell the advertised battery banks to telecoms and testing labs because the banks are "experimental".

According to Tesla Motor Cars, a fairly new electric car company, they use battery packs they got from Modular Energy.

Tesla may change their story tommorrow but they also refused to sell me a battery bank.

The first time I tried to buy a battery bank from Modular Energy they wanted a one half million dollar minimum order which discouraged me a bit. The second time they just refused to sell anything.

Those grapes are kind of sour anyway because the batteries themselves are considered class 9 hazardous cargo and are more of a fire hazard than I need to deal with.

I have heavier, safer, and more reliable batteries that I intend to use instead of Lithium-ion packs. Unlike most batteries, these have been deemed to be generally non-hazardous as far as the DOT is concerned.

Another huge problem with using Lithium-ion battery banks is the dependencies required by the manufacturers. They want total control over what happens to the bank after you buy it. There are some good reasons for that but it leaves me in a vulnerable position as an electric car assembler or an owner.

This is also true of the Tesla electric car, Japanese hybrids, and anything with such a battery bank in it including portable computers.

The number one reason I want to own my own electric car, (I already have one small electric boat and am planning to rig out a larger one) is because of the uninsured motorist that failed to yield in front of my Ford pickup. Number two is high gas prices which I happen to prefer over low gas prices. Common sense concerning a precious commodity.

While I was writing this I became rather disturbed and angry at yet another neo-liberal attempt to kill my small business by KPFT radio in Houston who is promoting a book called "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?". The book is being promoted by Democracy Now, and THE PROGRESSIVE FORUM which is produced by a volunteer at KPFT as far as I know.

THE PROGRESSIVE FORUM hosted the author herself and I really don't want to buy her book. Americans are always happy to sell useless things, entertainment, and books that lack useful information. Useful things are always in short supply.

The author claims that the "technology" needed to build an electric car has existed for a decade. I have the civilian version of a book published by order of a US Navy Admiral in 1951 that teaches almost all of the electrical technology needed to build an electric car.

To actually construct a frame for an automobile that is safe and would meet current standards is more challenging than the electric aspects. I intend to use a 3 phase induction motor, battery bank, and a mechanical multivibrator to provide electric assist or primary power on some other mother's frame.

Using an induction motor rather than a DC motor or a synchronous motor reduces the cost of the motor by thousands of dollars. The reason for the lower cost is the same as it was in 1951. The induction motor is more reliable and common than any other type of large motor.

The mechanical multivibrator I intend to use cancels out the reason why the induction motor is more reliable (an induction motor is brushless) but should cost less and be more efficient than a 3 phase electronic multivibrator.

I think eventually I will get my electric car running. The biggest challenge I can see for my electric car concept is heating and air conditioning. Having a good heater and defroster is critical for cars and will take a lot of electricity.

To promote the book the author seems to pretend that she can't understand why factory reject electric cars were recycled while crude oil was selling for about 25 bucks a barrel. I can think of at least ten good reasons why an insurance company would want to witness the cars being recycled rather than marketed as surplus.

What these west coast whiners really want, and what some of them got, was a parking space where you can charge up an electric car. These perks for the elite made the market for small electric cars better for a short period of time, and only in locations where these things are practical.

Another thing the author fails to point about Tesla cars and any car with Lithium-Ion batteries is that the owner doesn't actually own the power plant. One half of the power plant is the battery bank. The owner has to agree to return the battery bank to Tesla motors when it needs to be replaced. You pay for it and Tesla owns it.

The battery bank is just like Microsoft Windows or Adobe Photo Shop. The consumer doesn't actually buy these computer programs. You have to pay Microsoft just to use Windows while Microsoft reserves the right to break into your computer at will. Then even though the program is written on your electronic memory, Microsoft claims to own it.

If I buy a copyrighted book, I own the book. The publisher retains no right to break into my house and start reading my book. Nor can the publisher prevent me from reselling my copy of the book or cancel the sale of a book I already bought.

Dave Barnett
SCHEMING SPRINGS ENTERPRISES
copyright 2007, all rights reserved.